|
|
Post by eamus catuli on Jun 18, 2006 17:00:02 GMT -5
A strong review from AMG honcho Stephen Thomas Erlewine... but it woulda been nice to have seen Mark Deming's take. tinyurl.com/f28fp |
|
|
|
Post by tommy-gun(s) on Jun 19, 2006 12:22:02 GMT -5
Not to quibble...but I'm gonna....there are 6-7 songs on Mono that are easily as good as Message to the Boys and Pool and Dive.  |
|
|
|
Post by deebee76 on Jul 20, 2006 11:42:19 GMT -5
I always enjoy Erlewine's reviews, but I wonder why these reviews always seem to insist on dissing Paul's solo output at every turn? The worst part is, most of the comments sound like they're from people who haven't bothered to listen to the majority of his solo work...
|
|
Sam K
Second Class Scout
Posts: 30
|
Post by Sam K on Jul 20, 2006 14:29:16 GMT -5
.... but I wonder why these reviews always seem to insist on dissing Paul's solo output at every turn? The worst part is, most of the comments sound like they're from people who haven't bothered to listen to the majority of his solo work... So true. Paul's solo work seems to receive little respect simply because it's different from the good ol Mats stuff. Poor Paul just can't win. |
|
|
|
Post by GoddamnJob290 on Jul 20, 2006 15:24:51 GMT -5
To be fair, most people's solo work tends to get the shaft. Sure, there's a few exceptions (namely Lennon, McCartney, etc.), but mostly, no frontman-gone-solo ever really escapes those annoying comparasions to their old band.
|
|
|
|
Post by DaveinDK on Jul 20, 2006 16:04:38 GMT -5
Sting, Phil Collins, Rod Stewart, Peter Gabriel, Ozzy, Iggy Pop, Lou Reed, Neil Young, etc all managed to step away from bands and gain critical acclaim and success as solo artists.
|
|
|
|
Post by GoddamnJob290 on Jul 20, 2006 17:23:40 GMT -5
Sting, Phil Collins, Rod Stewart, Peter Gabriel, Ozzy, Iggy Pop, Lou Reed, Neil Young, etc all managed to step away from bands and gain critical acclaim and success as solo artists. True, but what's the most critically acclaimed work of Ozzy, Iggy Pop, and Lou Reed? Black Sabbath, The Stooges, and the Velvet Underground. I'm not saying that there hasn't been a large amount of success with going solo, just that the former band is always the measuring stick, even in the case of The Beatles. Plus you don't see too many people saying that Transformer is better than The Velvet Underground & Nico for instance or that Lust For Life stacks up to Fun House. Success certainly is possibly away from the old band, but the standard attitude just seems to be "solo stuff=inferior", no matter how good it is. That's not a creed of mine or anything, just an observation of rock criticism. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveinDK on Jul 22, 2006 9:17:10 GMT -5
No man, I see your point. However, there are a lot of people out there who don't even know that guys like Sting, Gabriel, Collins or Rod Stewart etc. were in bands before becoming somewhat lame solo artists. I'm willing to bet the same goes for a lot of Iggy and Ozzy fans who never really listened to the Stooges or Sabbath.
My point is that some artitsts have been able to reintroduce themselves to a whole new audience after going solo. Some of them have nearly reinvented themselves independent of their past bands. I don't know if Bon Jovi counts, but a lot of people that are into him now, don't even remember the original band, for example. How many people know Neil Young as a member of Buffalo Springfield, and compare his latest work to that?
Unfortunately, Paul's identity has been cast as a Replacement. He cannot "reinvent" himself at thsi point, and too many of his fans are old 'Mats heads. Serioulsy, how many new fans has Paul picked up as a solo artist? By that I mean, how many people have been drawn to him with little or no exposure to the Mats legend? Other artists have been able to achieve even greater celebrity and fame as solo artists, picking up new fans as they go.
I might also argue that in the cases of Ozzy and Iggy, neither Sabbath nor the Stooges were recieved by the mainstream critics with "acclaim" OK, today the rock critics love tthe stuff, but back in the day.... Also, Iggy and Reed have relaesed solo albums to great critical acclaim which i'm willing to bet rivals or even surpasses the reviews of their original bands. I mean, I'm betting that Lust for Life was recieved by the media to much greater acclaim than was Fun House. Am i wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by headlightbeams on Jul 22, 2006 10:14:45 GMT -5
Yeah, DaveinDK, if Westerberg had had a solo smash hit by now, we probably wouldn't be sweating this.
Ironically, it seems possible that Paul's solo career is itself largely responsible for sustaining the very Mats legend that overshadows it.
|
|
|
|
Post by DaveinDK on Jul 22, 2006 10:35:50 GMT -5
How so?
|
|
|
|
Post by headlightbeams on Jul 22, 2006 11:37:45 GMT -5
If he had simply retired after the Mats blow up, there would be no occasion to revive discussion of the Mats every time he has a solo release or a song on a soundtrack, or makes a remark about Ryan Adams' teeth, or whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by GoddamnJob290 on Jul 25, 2006 19:35:03 GMT -5
No man, I see your point. However, there are a lot of people out there who don't even know that guys like Sting, Gabriel, Collins or Rod Stewart etc. were in bands before becoming somewhat lame solo artists. I'm willing to bet the same goes for a lot of Iggy and Ozzy fans who never really listened to the Stooges or Sabbath. My point is that some artitsts have been able to reintroduce themselves to a whole new audience after going solo. Some of them have nearly reinvented themselves independent of their past bands. I don't know if Bon Jovi counts, but a lot of people that are into him now, don't even remember the original band, for example. How many people know Neil Young as a member of Buffalo Springfield, and compare his latest work to that? Unfortunately, Paul's identity has been cast as a Replacement. He cannot "reinvent" himself at thsi point, and too many of his fans are old 'Mats heads. Serioulsy, how many new fans has Paul picked up as a solo artist? By that I mean, how many people have been drawn to him with little or no exposure to the Mats legend? Other artists have been able to achieve even greater celebrity and fame as solo artists, picking up new fans as they go. I might also argue that in the cases of Ozzy and Iggy, neither Sabbath nor the Stooges were recieved by the mainstream critics with "acclaim" OK, today the rock critics love tthe stuff, but back in the day.... Also, Iggy and Reed have relaesed solo albums to great critical acclaim which i'm willing to bet rivals or even surpasses the reviews of their original bands. I mean, I'm betting that Lust for Life was recieved by the media to much greater acclaim than was Fun House. Am i wrong? Well, that's basically true. Reed and Iggy did go on to more acclaim and fame as solo artists (partly through their associations with David Bowie, who produced their breakthrough albums). The thing is that the Velvet Underground and the Stooges were absolutely panned by most critics back in the day, except for Lester Bangs and his ilk. Nowadays, everyone loves those two bands to the point where one would look foolish taking either to task. It's kind of getting inverted to the point where people would hear the Velvets and the Stooges before the solo stuff because of all the press and reissues there have been concerning them. Same with Paul. 14 Songs got more MTV exposure in it's time, but nowadays newcomers will listen to the Replacements stuff because that is what's getting the positive write ups now. |
|
