Andrew T. Kay wrote:
> lazuli777@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > The album turned a lot of his diehards off & was too esoteric for new
> > ones.In some ways he's never recovered.
>
> But GCW, KoA, and B&C all had been commercial disappointments too, well
> reviewed though the latter two were. SPIKE got a big push from his
> then-new label and had a modest hit single driving it in the first few
> months, but its strong sales seem an aberration in retrospect. MLAR, by
> my recollection, fit in with a general commercial trend that had been
> in effect throughout the preceding decade.
>
> Many critics and fans have tried to pin down what it is about MLAR that
> marks it as a particularly difficult one. One theory is that it's too
> thematically "dark"; I don't agree with this (it is dark, but not
> unusually so for him -- were B&C and TRUST rollicking good-time
> records?). Another is that some of the music is strange and/or harsh
> and dissonant ("Doomsday," "Broken"); but much else is the antithesis
> of that ("The Other Side Of Summer," "Georgie And Her Rival," "So Like
> Candy," "Sweet Pear"), and again -- B&C, anyone?
>
> I really think that the big stumbling block is something I personally
> love about it: that extreme richness and density of sound, with layer
> upon sonic layer like deep oils on a canvas. He'd made heavily produced
> records before, but his mainstream bids with Langer and Winstanley were
> more prefab affairs: the sounds were slick, conventional, and
> inevitably wedded to their times. On MLAR, he and his collaborators
> (Killen and Froom, wasn't it?) went for something really audacious and
> individual, conjuring up all manner of textures that are as vivid as
> colors: here strange and desolate ("Broken"), here lush and overripe
> ("All Grown Up"), here cool and spare ("After The Fall"), here suave
> and beautiful ("Sweet Pear"). Even on a straight-ahead rockabilly
> throwaway like "Playboy To A Man," they were going to the trouble of
> distorting the vocals and overdubbing three pianos; you may like or
> hate the song, but the *track* is unlikely to remind you of anything
> else. The album is a remarkable piece of work qua sound (it doesn't
> sound like other albums made in 1991, or other Elvis Costello albums,
> etc.; it just sounds like MIGHTY LIKE A ROSE), and the writing is of
> high quality too. But it's a lot for the ear to take in, and if one is
> inclined to prefer a simpler, less ornate sound palette -- as, frankly,
> not just EC fans but people who listen primarily to rock and pop in
> general are -- it's a tough sell.
>
> Todd K
That was wonderfully said, Todd, and I agree with just about all of it.
I have always really liked MLAR as well and couldn't really figure out
what exactly about it had turned off so many fans. I think you hit the
nail on the head, though. The album is definitely very dense and rich,
almost like a sonic triple chocolate cake. There's just something
decadent about the entire affair, but in an almost regal way.
-Jyqm
|
