The Beat Patrol

Every once in awhile I’ll get lucky on an album by an unknown group that I find in a record store (yes kids, records used to be sold in places called record stores – go figure), that I’ll buy on a whim, based on abstract reasons, such as a cool cover, interesting song titles or the visual style of the artist. One such album I got lucky on last year was Psych Ward by a group that I had never heard of called The Urges, who originate from Dublin, Ireland.

The album, which originally came out in 2007 on the Screaming Apple label, was released on CD (with a different running order and cover) last year on former Soprano and garage rock aficionado Little Steven’s Wicked Cool imprint. The album, a rocking and high-energy tribute to the whole Nuggets ethos, is unoriginal and does nothing that hasn’t been done a million times before, but does it as well as it’s ever been done. These guys have clearly done their homework and pass with honors.     

Songs like “I Gotta Wait,” “It Ain’t Right” and “The Urges Theme” are clearly all cut from the same reverb-drenched, Farfisa’d, paisley cloth, tricked out with vintage ’66 analog production techniques. “I Gotta Wait,” in fact, could have been a hit back in the day. It definitely holds its own with some of the classics of the genre.  

I’m not sure, being that this band is dwelling in musical styles that are now forty years out of date, if they were influenced by the originators of this style – The Chocolate Watchband, The Standells and The Count Five – or whether they grew up listening to the children of those artists – The Chesterfield Kings, The Cynics and The Lyres – who were part of the early-80s neo-garage rock revival. Either way, The Urges, Sky Saxon’s spiritual grandchildren, are carrying on the tradition, in grand rocking style. This might not be original, by any means, but you could certainly do worse if you put this platter on at your next house party.

Rock on, as they used to say.

Jay Mucci

Even though I am shocked, as much as anyone, about Michael Jackson’s sudden passing yesterday (along with Farrah Fawcett), I can’t help but think that this is probably not as shocking as we would like to think. Considering the turmoil and scandal and strange behavior in Michael’s life all these years, is this really so shocking? Somehow, I think we all knew that Michael wasn’t destined to live a long life, just like we knew Elvis wouldn’t, or Marilyn Monroe. Somehow, we knew that this train, which had been heading off the tracks for over two decades now, was bound to eventually crash and end in tragedy. It seemed inevitable – it was just a matter of time.

We are in shock though, more because of what his music meant to millions of us as we were growing up – it was the soundtrack to our lives – than because of the man himself. He was such an omnipresent force on the radio and MTV during the late 1970s and 80s, that you simply could not avoid him or his music and videos. In some ways though, it seems like the man had already died many years ago. He seemed to be merely existing these past ten years or so, like he was already a walking ghost. I think the fame was something that he tired of, but I think it also must have been painfully hard for him to accept that he was no longer the most important musical force in the world. Poor sales of his last few efforts proved that his place at the top of the musical heap was over. Then came the long, slow decline, and with it, the increasingly strange and disturbing behavior.

With Michael’s lost innocence came our lost innocence. The world is a much darker, uglier place than it was when Off the Wall and Thriller ruled the airwaves. And never again will there be a superstar of Michael’s stature, whether you were a fan of his or not.

I admit I was not a huge fan of his. I found his later behavior and image to be creepy, weird and disturbing – not least because of the numerous child molestation charges that were brought against him. Also, most of his later songs left me very indifferent. But you cannot deny him his place in musical history. Like Frank Sinatra, Elvis and The Beatles before him, the world was forever altered because of his place in it, and not just in a musical sense. His fashions, his dance moves, his image, his videos – they influenced a generation, and will continue to do so for decades to come.

His early songs like “Off the Wall,” “Rock With You,” “Don’t Stop Till You Get Enough,” “Beat It’ and “Billie Jean” are the soundtrack to my pre-teen years, and I admit that those songs are timeless, effortless pop classics that I still enjoy. Just for those five songs alone, his place in history would be secure. He had so many more hits than that though – in his early years with The Jackson 5 and later on with his albums Bad and Dangerous. I think those early Jackson 5 hits, as well as the Off the Wall and Thriller albums had a certain timeless quality about them that his later albums did not possess. I believe he got too caught up with trying to duplicate Thriller and his music became too calculated and labored over because of it. He seemed to get caught in a time warp and couldn’t progress past those early efforts, just as he, himself, couldn’t seem to progress past his lost childhood. There was something tragic about this man-child, and he was too wrapped up in the fantasy world that he had created for himself to ever break free.

It’s a shame that a career that started off so brilliantly just skidded off the tracks at some point. But what is even more tragic is that a boy who appeared to be destined to a lifetime of endless greatness and happiness, and who possessed such effortless charisma, took such a sharp, tragic turn in direction, and his life went so horribly wrong. And he became such a parody and a joke over the past twenty years, that we forget just how important an artist he was at one time.

It just goes to show though that being in that rare upper echelon of stardom, where you are no longer simply famous, but superfamous, and where you can literally have anything your heart and money can buy, is ultimately not a good thing. Too many yes-men killed Elvis, and it killed Michael Jackson as well.

Still, his music will always be that soundtrack to an earlier, happier, more carefree time in our lives, and for that alone, he deserves to never be forgotten. Yesterday, the world lost a legend, and they just don’t make them like that anymore. For better and for worse, he was truly one of a kind.

Jay Mucci

I read a review of Prince’s new album Lotusflow3r today (I won’t mention the magazine or the reviewer), but it really upset me. Not because this person disliked the album, but because he reviewed it after admittedly listening to the album exactly once. That’s it. Now, how can any respected music critic write a review telling you that an album is bad (or good, even) after just one listen? I think this is irresponsible, lazy journalism and it seems to be a common practice these days. I am not going to trust any person’s opinion about an album if they have not listened to it at least three or four times. What about if they completely change their mind about the album by the third listen? Are they going to write another review letting you know they were wrong? Or are they going to allow people to continue to be influenced by that original review that they no longer stand by?

There are many artists, including Prince, U2, R.E.M., Neil Young (etc) whose albums I have to listen to several times before I can give an honest opinion about them. They don’t reveal their strengths and weaknesses so quickly and easily. Sometimes I dislike them off of one listen, but then by the third or fourth listen, I start to change my opinion. There have been albums I’ve listened to, that I did not like at all on first listen, but then months or years later, after hearing them again, I fell in love with them. Now, I am not saying that a reviewer should listen to an album a hundred times over the course of five years before writing about it. I realize there are deadline considerations to be taken into account. I realize an album you liked or disliked twenty years ago might be one that you simply feel differently about today. But they should really give an album more than just one listen before announcing to the world whether they like it or hate it. Remember, there are many people who base their decision on whether to buy something or not by what a certain reviewer might be telling them. They need to know that this critic’s opinion is something they can trust.

I realize that everyone’s opinions are different and are unique to them, and the reasons why they like an artist might be different than why I like that artist. Just because you are a so-called “music critic” does not mean your opinions are necessarily worth more than the next person. But I do hope that the critic who is writing the review knows something about their subject and has listened to the album enough times to write an informed, detailed review on it. I also hope that they have their facts straight. I read so many reviews of albums where the critic can’t even get the name of the song or album correct, that they are praising or denouncing. How can I trust this critic’s opinion when they can’t even get certain facts correct? Again, this is just lazy journalism, in my opinion. I wonder how many albums people buy or choose not to buy based on some critic’s misinformed opinion.

Another sad state of music journalism is how almost every review nowadays has to be no longer than two paragraphs. How do you properly convey to the public why an album is good or bad in fifty or a hundred words? Everything has to be a quick soundbite these days. Instead of giving a detailed review of ten albums, each magazine would rather write reviews of twenty albums that are so short as to be worthless. They simply tell you nothing of any substance. This has become a disturbing trend over the years. There are some online music webzines that are trying to reverse that trend though, and I think that is a good thing. I want to read a detailed review by someone who is an informed lover of music. Not someone who knows nothing about what they are writing about. It is one thing for someone to write a blog about something they like or dislike. If you are writing for a major magazine though, you need to do your homework before writing an article. Unfortunately, there are too many writers out there nowadays who can’t be bothered. It is a sad reflection of the “soundbite” world we now live in.

Jay Mucci