Camper Van Beethoven: New Roman Times
October 29, 2004 // No Comments
 |
Camper Van Beethoven New Roman Times 7.5 of a possible 10 Key Tracks: 51-7, New Roman Times, Might Makes Right |
<
Camper Van Beethoven was one of my favorite bands when I was in college, which I suppose dates both of us. Their skewed sense of humor, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink instrumentation and refusal to take themselves too seriously appealed to me then as it does now.
As I graduated, CVB lost their original violinist but added a new one and released Key Lime Pie, a solid album but a bit darker than their previous efforts. This was to be their last, as leader David Lowery went on to form the more commercial but still 0ff-center Cracker. I enjoyed the Cracker albums (which also became a bit darker as the years progressed) but it just wasn’t the same- the carefree goofiness and mock ethnic melodies of CVB were missing, a memory of college days gone by.
A couple of years ago, I was surprised to find a new Camper Van Beethoven album on the shelves- but it really wasn’t new at all, it was a cover of the entire Fleetwood Mac Tusk album recorded years earlier. A tour followed, but Cracker remained active and Camper Van’s resurgence seemd like a one-off, "for old times sake" affair. A box set of earlier albums and a previously unavailable live cd (the brilliantly-titled Greatest Hits Played Faster) was released, along with another tour. Just when I thought that was the last I had heard of CVB, I heard that a new album was coming out in the fall of 2004. It was like finding out you get to go back to hang out at school for a weekend with all of your buddies there, no responsibities and no studying. I bristled with anticipation.
Needless to say, no album could live up to the expectation of bringing me back to my carefree collegiate ways, but New Roman Times certainly does not embarass itself. In fact, when it’s on, it matches up with some of the band’s best work. And that this is accomplished after 15 years since the orignial line-up played together is really no mean feat. Oh yeah, did I also mention that this is a concept album?
Ah, yes- the concept album. Where rock musicians put on their stroytelling hats and try to create an epic work which over the course of an hour or so will tell a great tale which will change the world. Even at their best (The Wall, Tommy, Quadrophenia), the concept album ultimately is fighting a losing battle- trying to take the disposable format of a rock album and elevate it to high art. The best concept albums have always included more filler than their non-thematic bretheren, and most crumble under the weight of their own ambition.
New Roman Times suceeds where many concept albums have failed as the newly-reformed Campers thankfully remembered what made their group work in the first place- an off-kilter approach to the established rock format and an out and out refusal to take themselves too seriously. The concept is explained as one line under each song in the liner notes, and draws a certain paralell to recent world events- a catastrophic attack occurs, a young Texan joins the military, the soldier has doubts, the soldier rebels against the ideals he once revered. Oh sure, I left out the bits on the fascist regime in California, narcotic flowers and the like- but never does the concept overpower the songs. The concept itself is loose, and the songs stand well enough on their own. The political messages are from the far left, and this comes across without the narrative in the cd booklet. The themes aren’t that different from what was surfacing on Key Lime Pie and follow along the same anti-right lines as most rock music. CVB’s humor and their unique sound keeps everything in check.
Yeah, the sound. I’m glad they played their old songs for a couple of years before heading back into the studio, as the ethnic-folk-in-a-blender of their earliest albums comes shining through on the fake Eastern European "R n’ R Uzbekistan", the giddy hoedown "Militia Song" and the fake ska of "Might Makes Right", among others. The band also paid attention to their more commercial past- "New Roman Times" is a country lament to rival Key Lime Pie’s "Sweetehearts", and "51-7" is as catchy and as rocking as anything they’ve recorded (with the possible exception of "Take the Skinheads Bowling," of course.) Not every track is a winner, but the percentage is higher than most albums, concept or not.
Fans of CVB- like me- will be happy to have an old friend back around, and it’s as close to old times as one might expect. Neophytes are better off exploring one of their first three albums instead- open-minded music fans who don’t mind a little humor or a lot of slightly-off violin will enjoy those and probably wind up here eventually.
A record review manifesto
October 22, 2004 // No Comments
1. What does it sound like?
As simple as this should be to accomplish, I’m still amazed at how often I finish a review and find that I have no clue what the album is actually going to sound like. These are generally shorter, capsule-style reviews, which is even a bigger travesty- if you have a few words to describe a fire, you should be able to get across that it’s hot and dangerous, shouldn’t you? I’m not asking for a note-by-note description, but just a general idea of what’s going on, so that Point #2 below is easier to arrive at.
And I will add this- things like "imagine Pavement meeting Richard Hell at Mission of Burma’s house while Joey Ramone makes pizza" are somewhat useful, if only to:
a) let the reader quickly identify bands they like and dislike and then decide if it’s worth reading more of the review, or
b) none of the bands are familiar to me, the reader, so I’ll stop right there. When’s that new Huey Lewis comin’ out anyway?
That being said, these sorts of name-dropping metaphors should be considered frosting, not the whole cake. Use them within the context of other descriptions, don’t make them the focal point of the review. The reader may not have heard of anyone that you name-drop, but may still be interested once they read the rest of the review.
2. Will I, the reader, like it?
People read reviews for a reason- to see if they should check something out themselves. The mere fact that a reviewer likes it is not enough. The review should, again, give a good idea what the album sounds like. Paint a detailed enough picture to give the reader an idea of whether they may like it or not. There’s no way to guarantee success here, of course, but by attempting to answer the question, the writer is at least heading in the right direction.
3. The writer is not smarter than the reader.
Whoop-de-doo, you review records and you owned Bleach well before Nevermind came out, or any of a number of cooler-than-thou touchstones. That doesn’t make you smarter than anyone else. The record reviewer should feel as though he’s helping a buddy out, trying to get them to enjoy some of the great music out there, not looking down his nose at the uninformed public. That should be left to the independent record store clerks.
4. Not everything is good/not everything is bad.
Some music sucks, some music is great, and it’s all a matter of opinion. This should be remembered at all times. Don’t like or hate everything, say how you personally feel about it. As long as the first three points are remembered, this should come across just fine and will probably add to a better understanding of what it sounds like/will I like it.
5. Make the review worth reading.
It’s O.K. to be a smartass, or witty, or to go into great detail on why Brian Wilson is a genius. Make sure that somebody other than yourself will gain from this. Keep the writing interesting. You can describe an album perfectly, but if the review puts the reader to sleep, the reader will assume the same about the album.
That’s my basic guidelines for writing a good review. Please enjoy my future posts in which I inadvertently break these rules one by one.
And so it begins…
October 21, 2004 // No Comments
I should know- I’m in the latter category, trying to move into the former.
So here is my latest attempt to write regularly- this blog that appears before you.
I will try to write here on lunch hours, or whenever I can find the time. I’m bringing a lunch most days, thanks to the efforts of
my lovely wife Debbie. This not only saves on costs of my buying a lunch everyday, but also helps to keep me out of the CD stores and at my desk.Most of my writing will focus on music, but I’m already allowing myself room to ramble in whatever direction I please on any given day. I wouldn’t be surprised if I talk about food a fair amount, as I enjoy it a great deal- and after all, I will be writing mostly over lunch…
So let me get started- in the meantime, please enjoy some of the writing I’ve done in the past:
- The Timmy Awards- the self-proclaimed "one man’s answer to the Grammys." This page was actually featured in the Chicago Tribune in the Spring of 2004. Oddly enough, it was an article on blogs. It isn’t a blog, as the Tribune writer pointed out, but she met my sister the weekend before, and Eileen was kind enough to talk up the site.
- McSweeney’s Internet Tendency- in which yours truly is published in the web version of the great McSweeney’s Quarterly, the magazine that looks (and costs) like a book but eats like a meal. I appear on the Reviews of New Food page with my take on Altoids Apple Sours. If you use the find function of your browser and type in Altoids, by golly, you’ll jump right to it.