Archive | Music RSS feed for this section

Music Review: ‘The 2nd Law’ by Muse

The 6th studio album by British rock band Muse, The 2nd Law, (their first in three years since the hit record The Resistance), is a crisp production of 13 songs that marks a departure from the band’s hard rock opera sound. An operatic feel remains, and the carefully orchestrated album features horns and strings, and Muse still has something to say, as they did on the hit “Uprising”, an anthem for 21st century rebellion. But what Muse gains in clarity, they lose in potency. Electronica weakens the music. I’ve listened to The 2nd Law, named for the second law of thermodynamics, a few times. It’s OK.

The booming “Supremacy” opens things up, followed by the most radio-friendly song on the CD, the ballad “Madness.” Then, the album’s energized “Panic Station” gets going and feels derivative of something else. “Survival” and “Follow Me” are both good, and the most affecting song, “Animals,” is an unmitigated attack on capitalism for the Occupy Wall Street mob (“Amortise/Downsize/Lay off/Kill yourself/Come on and do us all a favour”). Tunes about death (“Explorers”) and recovery from alcoholism (“Save Me”) take over and you realize there’s not much to rally around. Muse is experimental, a fact in plain evidence here, dabbling in rock styles and evoking Queen, David Bowie, Bono’s vocals, and Michael Nyman (Gattaca soundtrack) while singing about vengeance and whatnot. Tunes have a generic quality, as if Muse doesn’t mean it. Their sense of detachment is matched by a blended electronic/orchestral musical approach that makes a musically interesting, though thematically bland, record.

The 2nd Law does entertain with sporadically dramatic rock-n-roll melodies. Music is neatly arranged, produced and delivered. But listening to a bestselling rock band – signed to Warner Bros. – composed of rich people denouncing capitalism like a bunch of anarchists and urging Wall Street traders toward suicide hardly feels like rebellious rock-n-roll. In fact, at times, Muse is downright corporate in the worst sense. On their first album since breaking out in 2009, Muse partially succeeds and ultimately lacks spirit.

Music Review: Alanis Morissette’s ‘Havoc and Bright Lights’

The latest album by Alanis Morissette, Havoc and Bright Lights, which I’ve listened to a few times, is neither as universal as her smashing mid-1990s’ debut, Jagged Little Pill, nor as disjointed and uneven as her previous efforts. She always writes and sings from her own personal perspective and this 12-song collection is no exception. These tunes, mostly ballads, are happier and sunnier and she expresses herself just as capably in the glow of marriage and motherhood as she did on other albums while looking back in anger. On “Guardian” Alanis sings of serving her love as the greatest honor of all. She worships her man or child on other self-improvement-laced love songs, such as “Til You,” “Empathy,” and “Spiral,” in which she recognizes being saved from unearned shame by a benevolent voice. Yet she’s anchored in reality, singing in more forceful rockers about misogyny and celebrity and, in a tune called “Lens”, about conflict in romantic love. Keeping herself sober takes effort, as Alanis admits on “Havoc”, and she makes time for her own needs, the subject of a song called “Receive”, though a standout tune, “Win & Win,” tips the balance with an upward appraisal of her newfound happiness: “We are win and win/we are equal to each other/we are flames of twin”. Musically, as on Flavors of Entanglement and Former Supposed Infatuation Junkie, Alanis Morissette favors a distorted rock sound on occasion, but the light synth is toned down and piano and simpler arrangements are back up front. Her voice sounds the same, though her vocals are somehow less intimate than on the last album, and Havoc and Bright Lights, as with nearly everything else that she does, is an acquired taste that grows on you. While her style and approach remain essentially the same, there are no stream of consciousness anthems such as “Hand in My Pocket” or “Thank U” or her underappreciated “In Praise of the Vulnerable Man”. There is lightness, balance and love in what I think is an important transitional album for a singer whose youthful anger fueled her adult happiness, confounding those who thought she wouldn’t last. Lucky for us, she did.

Comments { 0 }

Music Review: ‘The Truth About Love’ by Pink

I like Pink, whose overproduced records tend to cover a range of emotions with confessional candor. She rocks more than she glides, in slick songs that are alternately foul-mouthed and amplified or pared down, introspective and hurting. Though there’s nothing as undaunted as “Raise Your Glass” or as poignant as “F****n’ Perfect” on The Truth Above Love, which features a vulgar cover shot of shorty Pink squatting in pumps (and girlie pics of her posing in sleazy lingerie on the inside), the 13-tune album is an extended play bad mood or pure energy release indulgence. Beneath the overproduced power pop, which is the truth about what she does, and she strains too hard for raunchy rhyme here, is an honest songwriter who, at her best, cleverly taps how we sometimes love to hate and hate to love. Top tunes include the irresistible title track, catchy “Blow Me (One Last Kiss)”, “Try”, which echoes Pink’s self-affirming themes, and a propelling plea for life, and rejection of anti-life, “The Great Escape.” Jaded Pink’s been around the block, and the punk Mae West persona feels like it’s played out and should fade to make way for fresher insights, but RCA’s little Pink raunchette rocks another record that angrily expresses at least some degrees of truth about aching, bitter and conflicted love. The Truth About Love is too polished to fully convey its convictions, but Pink still does plain old rebelliousness right.

Comments { 0 }

Movie Review: Sparkle

Set in the 1960s, Sparkle (a remake of the 1976 version of the same name) tells the tale of three sisters who strive to become recording artists in the Motown era and struggle to remain a family amid the toxic magnification of fame. It is Whitney Houston‘s final film.

Don’t see it just for that reason, though she shows one last glimpse of her larger than life talent in an oversimplified secondary role as the girls’ strict, religious mother. In fact, Whitney, who is credited as an executive producer and reportedly fought to get this movie made, portrays a character very similar to her own mother, Cissy Houston, a former backup singer for Elvis (another luminous star who died tragically – in his case 35 years ago today) who became a Bible-thumping Christian. One can almost feel Whitney putting her own spin on this role, updating, improving, pulling it back and calibrating her performance. She transforms a two-dimensional Bible mother into someone who’s probably better than I imagine her own mother to be. That counts for something.

Unfortunately, Whitney and everybody else doesn’t get much to work with in obvious characterizations and meandering plotlines. See Sparkle (and only if you want to) for the music, the showmanship and the soap opera, but know going in that it’s more soap than opera. Sparkle is not, however, a vehicle for any star, Whitney or anyone else. As the title character (Sparkle’s her name), TV talent show alumni Jordin Sparks is sufficiently fresh-faced (my filmmaker guest liked her more than I did), playing the ingenue who becomes a mature woman amid the wrenching female family saga that encompasses race, sex, drugs, money and religion. Sparkle learns to put some sizzle into God’s gospel and that’s what the story amounts to, which turns out to be anti-climactic and that’s not because I’m not religious. Her big solo number is a repetitious bust, to be frank, but the end credits song is better. It should have been in the movie.

So much should have been in (and left out of) this movie. Mother and children live what looks like an easily upper middle class existence but everyone talks as if they’re struggling in the middle class. Mother has a dress shop – she apparently built her business herself (insert Barack “you didn’t build that” Obama joke here) – yet we do not see enough of what makes Mama make money and pay for her daughters’ pricey bedroom interiors. Nor do we see enough of how middle child Sister (red hot Carmen Ejogo) goes from mother love-deprived sex kitten to drug addict and battered woman or why Sparkle’s boyfriend Stix (Derek Luke) puts business above his honey or why he switches back or why Dolores (known as just “D” and you’ll see why and played by Tika Sumpter), my favorite character, wants to become a doctor when not many black women from Detroit, where Sparkle takes place, sought admission to medical schools. Too much story and not enough cutting and editing, leaving gaps where there should be transitions, is a problem. One gap is an interesting character named Levi (Omari Hardwick), who gets jettisoned from the story and then reappears in an out-of-character way.

Yet it’s not a bad movie and Sparkle has a shine. Burrowed between cuts and fragmentary scenes is a strong thread – stronger in certain ways than in the original and certainly better than was executed in Dreamgirls – about siblings and what it means to be a sister. Sparkle, the spirited songwriter, is the young pup in love. D is the protective, responsible older sibling who has no time for anything but her goals. Sister is the troubled sparrow, who mistakes her virtue for a ticket to ride, and when she gets derailed she recognizes her own limits and pays her sisters back. It all could have been quite moving, really, and at times it comes close or evokes an emotion, but cardboard characterizations such as the heavy Satin (Mike Epps), dim the lights and trivialize real issues such as race-based self-hate, toxic infatuation which is not love, physical abuse and, in what should have been the most compelling part of the story, self-centered opportunism, which many mistake for 100 percent perfectly selfish ambition. All this rests on the musical performances of the early 60s’ girl group, which are nearly worth the price of admission. The first few numbers are excellent, impeccably costumed by Ruth Carter, staged and filmed and with audience reaction shots so that you remember that it’s a story, not a music video. The tunes and numbers are often elegant, sultry and wonderfully accessible. If you love the Motown pop sound, you’ll love the musical scenes.

Religion is played as the cultural black church version – a more positive, jubilant and less fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible in which God rejoices in seeing “happy, good-looking black folks” in his house – and when the girls are boppin’ in their babydoll dresses to pave the way for their future, their success is celebrated, not denigrated. Director Salim Akil (TV’s The Game) teases us with thought-provoking lines about never being sorry for telling the truth and about people who ought to be helping themselves being too busy prayin’ with preachers who are awfully quick to take the money in the basket. But the topically relevant director falls back on odd shots that sugarcoat men hitting women and he doesn’t develop the plot to match the tunes. Along the way, we lose track of what begins with an excellent sense of time and place, complete with civil rights clips, and end up with a production number that feels like 1995. But Whitney Houston makes an impression in a movie, from The Bodyguard to The Preacher’s Wife, and Sparkle shows us a peek at what might have been part of a redemptive comeback wrapped in a cautionary tale about discovering why what’s held sacred is what shines the brightest.

Comments { 0 }

Sparkling Dreamgirls

Though I love the early 1960s girl group Motown music, I was never drawn into the Dreamgirls Broadway phenomenon. I’d had friends who raved about the production, but they never seemed to express a theme or find a song that captured my interest. In 2004, when the film version came out (after Chicago had won Best Picture), I reviewed the movie and found it glitzy but forgettable. Still do. But in anticipation of Whitney Houston‘s similarly themed last movie, Sparkle, I’m adding the Dreamgirls movie and DVD review to the archives. Many do not know that the first version of the story of three black girls rising to music fame appeared in 1976. It’s also entertaining but vacuous and available on DVD. I wrote about the film, also titled Sparkle, in one of my columns in 2004:

With a movie version of the musical Dreamgirls finally out in theaters, Warner Bros. released Sparkle this week on DVD, with the picture’s three gorgeous singers decked in blue dresses they never wear in the 1976 movie. The picture’s not awful, though it lacks cohesion, and it features early work by the talented Irene Cara (Coco Hernandez in Fame), writer Joel Schumacher and a stick-thin, pre-Miami Vice Philip Michael Thomas—his character’s name is Sticks—in the best performance, a nicer cousin to the Jamie Foxx role in Dreamgirls. The 98-minute movie appears with a trailer on the disc—a second disc is a mini-album with the movie’s songs performed by Aretha Franklin—and fans of harmonious Nineties group En Vogue will recognize a scorching version of “Givin’ Him Somethin’ He Can Feel.” Sparkle, which refers to the Cara character’s name (nine years before Cara wrote and sang “Flashdance…What a Feeling”), is as thin as Dreamgirls. The trio are sisters from Harlem—not unrelated Detroit girls—whose mother, Effie (angelic Tony Award-winner Mary Alice), watches over her daughters’ troubled rise to success. Compared to glitzy Dreamgirls, it’s downright gritty.

Comments { 0 }