Too Much Bull!
Is it me or is there to much of the "merely average" being touted as truly memorable these day?
Forgive an old grouch a little rant, but there have been a few lauded releases recently with which I take issue - I know that music, especially R&B; is an emotional and subjective topic but, even so, a bit of perspective please :-)
If I can use one, no doubt highly controversial example - Ian Siegal's "Swagger". I've heard the man touted as the next big thing and the album as one of 2007's finest. Mojo hailing him as "the cleverest writer and most magnetic performer of blues working in the UK", other commentators describing the man's "vocal range as strong as ever covering the the various blues styles with ease and finesse". Another reviewer says "He has unique phrasing, a huge variety of tone and a natural feel for the blues, soul, gospel, you name it, that marks him out as the finest singer of these styles singing today". Really? What everyone seems to want to know is why Siegal hasn't made the major league breakthrough?
In the end I suppose it all comes doem to taste and I wouldn't want to imply that I think this is a downright bad album - in absolute terms, it's just not as good as these accolades imply. The musicianship is fine, especially from the likes of Matt Scofield, but too often it's trying far too hard to please. The songwriting isn't that good frankly. Interesting subject matter, but fairly uninspired melodically - IMO, the two best "songs" are covers. In theend, despite the subject matter, the album is simply a little dull.
Siegal is clearly a talented performer, and he has an interesting take on the blues, but it doesn't necessarily make him the truly modern bluesman some might think he is. For a genuinely modern take on the blues, and with a real feel for the soul of the music and a voice that's lived it, try Dion's "Son Of Skip James". Sure, it's much more understated but, paradoxically, all the more real because of it.
In may ways I know the argument is deeply flawed simply because I've applied the singular to make a more general point - but I do find it a little disconcerting that genuinely fine albums can slip under the radar whilst the 'hip to like' artists are overhyped. Sometimes the breakthrough genuinely doesn't come because what's been hyped just isn't good enough.
See, told you it was a grumpy old rant!
I'm considered a bona fide grumpy old man so, accepting this is a huge generalisation, I can't help but agree with you.
As you say, clearly this is an incredibly subjective debate and to a degree some would say it's almost immaterial. But then that would put an end to any kind of critical appraisal in virtually any domain. One of the ways the Shades site gets round this is to only publicly review those CDs/DVDs etc. that are genuinely liked - that's why reviews on the site are nearly always extremely positive. It's not that we don't review work that is mediocre or just plain poor, we just don't choose to publicise it. The site was initially set up as a Primer to promote the music, so there's very little point in showcasing CDs or DVDs that don't do that.
Can't comment on your example, haven't heard it, but we do get submissions for review that are often excessively hyped, often with extremely strong critical acclaim already in tow, and yet we frequently remain unmoved by them - too often they are simply ordinary; in such cases we don't put the review on the site, although they may well appear elsewhere. Sometimes we feel the push is justified (e.g. James Hunter)and sometimes not, but much that isn't pushed then gets sadly overlooked.
And you're right, Dion's "Son Of Skip James" is excellent and it's a bit of an indictment that it hasn't featured on Shades. At least he did get to put an appearance on Jools Holland's Later, but I've seen very little else in the press (Uncut magazine rated it favourably, but little or no mainstream airplay)