I dispute your entire theory. I think if anything, Peter Gabriel has simply been forgotten by all but the most hardcore proggers. I still stand by everything through the big commercial breakthrough (although I may be alone in considering the first solo album my favorite of the lot), but I couldn't name you a single song of his after that, and I'm not certain I've ever heard any of them.

I give him props for probably doing more than any single rocker after Geore Harrison to introduce the western rock audience to non-western music, but personally, if I want to listen to someone conflate the two, I'd rather listen to the Sun City Girls.

Also, when did homebody start being a dead ringer for Alexei Sayle?

If there aren’t any other bad reviews of Up, I guess the only song I heard from it – “The Barry Williams Show” – wasn’t an indication of what was going on there. I saw the video when it came out and was actually embarrassed for Gabriel, despite never really caring much about him either way, because it was such a profoundly out-of-date, lunkheaded piece of work. I eagerly await his scathing takedowns of MySpace in 2010 and American Idol in 2015.

I'm very fond of Gabriel's post-Genesis work, especially the Fripp-produced second solo album. Of course those records sound 'dated,' i.e., of their time. Duh. You guys are just jealous that he had a years-long fling with Rosanna Arquette. Or is this the source of the 'free ride' Mr. Mod senses?

More about this later, and I'll admit the one thing I scanned for was the bold-face typed name, Phil Collins. All he had to do was not be that guy, or the rest of Genesis, and he was halfway there. And leaving his big prog project at its arguable peak, to come out with more concise, yet alt, music, gave him a veneer of OK-ness. His worldy music cred and political hype have helped him avoid the music world's ire over the critical Chapman Stick question.

As I hear it, most quality rock criticks are shiveringly afraid that upon having heard a discouraging word, Gabriel will return and haunt their very dreams in his 'Lumpy Chanchre' costume - you know from that character he played. I think maybe it was a sitcom with Jerry Van Dyke...

Slocum nails it. Compared to Phil-led Genesis, PG's solo work was worldly, smart, innovative, un-bloated (de-bloated?). I actually liked Gabriel a lot when I was in high school, and he was my first concert, 1992 at the Spectrum. I still have a soft spot for the third album, which is the one with the most new wave cred, thanks to cameos from Weller, Bush and Dave Gregory. Solo Gabriel used the tools of '80s prog -- Chapman Sticks, Fairlight synths, Robert Fripp -- while avoiding the heavy wankery and tunelessness of prog at its most unbearable (to me).

Can I just refer anybody who questions my questioning of Bob Dylan and the Velvet Underground to this finely penned screed of yours? I mean, the specific content may not apply, but you've got my teeth-gnashing, the-emperor-has-no-clothes sense of frustration down COLD.

Thanks to all of you, so far. Hrrundi, certainly what I've written comes from a similar spot from which you have written on said artists. Surely we can disagree over which artist deserves this charge yet learn from each other's rhetorical devices.

BigSteve, I had not factored in the jealousy I once felt regarding Arquette, but wouldn't that be all the more reason to find fault with the guy.

Slocum, his Phil Collins Shield is an astute observation. I'm suprised more artists than Eric Clapton did not think of calling in Collins to cover for their own deficiencies. Maybe that's why Phil got the call for those Live Aid performances by Led Zeppelin.

By the way, just to test out my theory, I DARE YA to take a shot at Peter Gabriel, any album, any song, excluding "Sledgehammer". In fact, I DOUBLE DARE YA!

That long clip of Gabriel demonstrating paleo-technology was fascinating. The capabilities of that roomful of equipment can now be handled by a low-end laptop without breaking a sweat.

I was also thinking that Gabriel has pretty much avoided being accused of cultural imperialism as David Byrne and Paul Simon have. Retiring from view after achieving success is probably a good career move.

Can't his m.o. be described as making prog safe for people who like songs? Making the right video at the right time helped, of course, but boiling prog down into 4- or 5-minute tracks is what put him over.

Slocum, his Phil Collins Shield is an astute observation. I'm suprised more artists than Eric Clapton did not think of calling in Collins to cover for their own deficiencies. Maybe that's why Phil got the call for those Live Aid performances by Led Zeppelin.

I'm not sure that's what we're talking about here. The cheesier Collins got throughout the '80s, the cooler it made Gabriel seem. By the end of the '80s, they occupied completely different musical spectrums, and it was pretty hard to believe they'd ever been in a band together.

And that goes double for Mike and the Mechanics.

I don't know, Oats. I think your spectral analysis may be accurate in the rock nerd universe, but in the real world where everybody else lives Gabriel, Collins, and the Mechanics were just guys that had hits at around the same time. A VJ or a pop-up might have clued them in that these guys were once in a band together, but for most people that's just trivia.

And I do understand that Mr Mod framed the question as being about reputations in the parallel universe where we live. I'm just suggesting that maybe our categories aren't that helpful.

I think PG's 3rd and 4th records were admirable attempts to take all the new technology at the time (Linn drum, Synclavier, etc.) and make humanistic pop music. At his best, he reminds me of a more linear thinking Brian Eno.

What I did like about him was he made highly intelligent music and still managed to get airplay.

BigSteve, I get a sense you're doing the hard work I've asked of folks regarding Peter Gabriel. I'm still waiting for evidence to the contrary that he's one of rock's Untouchables. Come on, none of you hear that "In Your Eyes" song and want to flush all his good deeds, best intentions, and half dozen good songs down the toilet, if only for the time that song's endless chorus drags out?

BigSteve, I get a sense you're doing the hard work I've asked of folks regarding Peter Gabriel. I'm still waiting for evidence to the contrary that he's one of rock's Untouchables.

Do you have evidence that he is? You cite a lack of overwhelming negative reviews, but I don't see a surplus of overwhelming positive ones either. I think Great48's largely correct -- he's mostly been forgotten, in no small part due to his own minimal output in the last 15-or-so years. If anything, I think he gets carried on a wave of goodwill nostalgia towards his '80s work, a warm feeling that many who grew up with MTV have towards him.

Come on, Oats. The evidence it all around us on yellowed newspapers and magazines we've held onto all these years. Flip through your pre-Internet stash of rock mags and see if you can find a negative word on Gabriel, beside something like, "Sometimes Peter is overwhelmed by his own ambitions." Get together with your rock friends and start cracking jokes on any other prog-rocker, even Fripp, and the gang will chime in. Then make one cut on Gabriel and you'll be met with dead silence. He's like the U.N. of rock. And I'm not sure you want to bring The Great 48 into this. As much as I respect and delight in the man and his comments, you know he's got tears streaming down his face when John Cusack hoists that boom box up on his shoulder in the pouring rain and cranks the sappy Gabriel song. Lloyd Dobbler (sp?) is wearing a Clash t-shirt the whole movie for this? I'm all for a good cry in a movie, but that scene almost ruined that movie for me, which I like, whatever it's called.

Mr Mod, when you dare us to "take a shot at" PG, you mean you want us to say something we don't like about him? And you think some folks here (like me) will rush to defend him?

I think all that happened was that there really was a critical consensus that he was one of the good ones. You may not have found evidence of it online, but there must have been some sniping when he got suddenly successful. And by basically disappearing he's avoided the backlash that hits those artists who have the gall to continue to make records long after their sell-by date.

Certainly Us, the follow-up to the hit So, was greeted with a collective shrug. And even a fan like me had forgotten that there was an album called Up that came out in 2002. When I get home, I'll have to see if I still have that one.

Is he the guy that does "Steak Fries"? If so, he's alright in my book. That one gets me pumpin' when I'm skatin' with my buddies at JAMZ.

Sincerely,
E. Pluribus

BigSteve asked:

Mr Mod, when you dare us to "take a shot at" PG, you mean you want us to say something we don't like about him? And you think some folks here (like me) will rush to defend him?

I was granting the rock community immunity for the length of this thread. If you've been harboring ill thoughts about one of his albums, such as Peter Gabriel, Peter Gabriel, or Peter Gabriel, now is your chance to step forward and get it off your chest. I've called off The Cool Patrol. Once you leave the Halls of Rock, you're on your own. Come to think of it, I hope Oats didn't take my suggestion that he crack wise about Gabriel with his other rock friends seriously. Next time we see him he'll have a black eye, the result of a "fall" he took in his bathroom. Right.

And who was it that said something like, "Of course his old albums sound dated; they were made in the past..."? The classic Eno albums don't sound half as dated, for comparison, and most were made years before Gabriel went solo. His productions, if another artist's name were on the cover, would otherwise be ripped apart by much of Coolsville, no?

I can think of "shots" to take at Peter Gabriel. His keyboard-heavy ponderousness, the lack of memorable guitar work, his dorky sidemen (though I feel Tony Levin deserves a Critical Upgrade), the PC rhythms of the prom ballad staple "In Your Eyes." But, in the end, none of these are the more damning than the fact that there's really not a whole lot to say about Peter Gabriel, at this point. This gets to maybe a fundamental difference between our approaches, Mr. Moderator. To you, people like Bono and Morrissey are require calling-out for their Rock Crimes. I think they deserve Rock Props. You know why? Because they are Targets of Substance. They get out there, they do their thing and they rub many, many people the wrong way and that, I think, is beautiful. Peter Gabriel, on the other hand, is not a Target of Substance. Neither is Phil Collins, because while he may be a punch-line, he's also kinda boring. But back to Gabriel, he does his thing, and it's a thing I responded to once when I was young and naive. But now he's on the outskirts -- and he seems okay with it -- doin' his thing, and it just doesn't require a reaction from me, which again I think is a more caustic commentary than Manu Katche one-liners.

But if it's one-liners you ask for, here's one!

http://www.citypaper.net/earshot/earshot.1197/worst.rob.shtml

I stand by my haggissy brother on this one. Mr. Mod, I'm afraid that the sad fact is that you're the only one here who gives enough of a shit about Peter Gabriel to want to talk good OR ill about him!

And I'll come right out and say it: SAY ANYTHING is crap. Lili Taylor was the only good thing about that movie, and that's because I've wanted to nail her ever since MYSTIC PIZZA. But as a movie? Utter crap. Not least for the way that about two-thirds of the way through it becomes a movie about the chick's dad. I mean, who the fuck cares?

Mod, I'm going to pass on the free, "E"-class Gabriel-bashing ticket you're offering. I prefer to take the high road of RTH entertainment by stating publicly that I actually like that "In Your Eyes" song, from its opening note through the entire Lloyd Dobbler sobfest finale. Great song!

I like many of his hits, and appreciate his world music kaka as well. I suppose I like his work best when it aims low.

Hey, Gergs, thanks for the boss poll choices. What I want to know is: how did *you* vote?

Your biggest fan,

HVB

Here's something negative about Peter Gabriel -- he made me listen to Kate Bush's voice (though nothing could make me listen to her albums).

I'm the one who made the comment about the supposed datedness of Gabriel's music. First of all, some of Eno's music certainly does sound dated, but that doesn't make it less enjoyable to me.

The whole dated thing is something I almost always question, because I think it's a red herring. Bessie Smith's records sound dated. Gene Vincent's records sound dated. Satisfaction sounds dated. We've just decided we like those dated sounds. The "dated" criticism is almost exclusively applied to music of the 80s. What was wrong with the 80s? I mean, other than the fact that it was a miserable time to be alive.

Boss poll choices? How did I vote? What the HELL are you talking about?

Whatever!!!!! And screw this Gabriel shit! Who cares!

Just between you and me, I gotta fess up to something that's gonna make your stomach turn. Every so often, I gotta mosey on down to the basement to chop up cardboard, to make record mailers. Truth be told, that's about the only time I bother to listen to music anymore. In one of my flea market LP boxes, I found a copy of "I'm the Man" by Joe Jackson. Gotta tell ya, it's STILL a pretty good spin. Yeah, some of the lines make me wince, but it holds up pretty well. I know Joe Jackson's indeed the poor man's Costello, but I'm standin' behind his first two platters (he got bad real quick). They're still pretty entertaining.

And I miss you, brother! Hope all is well. I'm told your workin' for the man again. If so, in what capacity? Feel free to buzz me on the matter privately.

Hopefully I'll be talkin' to ya soon,
E. Pluribus

A couple of things...

Oats, I'm all for giving props to artists of substance. I don't like Morrissey's music with The Smiths, but not because he tried to do something of substance. I just don't like it. I've never been a U2 hater; they're just fun to poke fun at. With Gabriel, maybe he is simply devoid of substance, as you put it, and therefore is deservedly untouchable. I simply find it funny that few in our demographic seem to love him yet he avoids reaction on almost any level. Name another artist who's so untouchable in the RTH community.

As for the Great One's charge that I'm the only one who wants to talk about Gabriel, I was able to muster some discussion and feedback. Someone beside me must feel better. Hell, even EPG resurfaced to tout I'm the Man. To everything...

Jimbo,

I know you're all pissed off at me and stuff because of all the crap I gave you about the outline of the next possible RTH live show. Do yourself a favor. Let it go. . .but also let go of the clipboard and the Ed Wood monkey that's forever hanging around your neck, and focus on what the people want, at least for the RTH show -beer, eats, and convo.

You wanna show a movie? Fine. Have it shown in the background while people are up and about gabbing, eating, and boozing. You want entertainment for the crowd? Sit me in a chair front and center stage and yell at me for 15 minutes about what a dick I am because I won't go along with any of your Plan 9 ideas. I grant that that might be entertaining for a short period.

Now that's that's over, what's your take on those first two Joe Jackson LPs? I wanna know what went through high school Jimbo's head when he was first introduced to those platters. Granted, I knew, even back then, that Jackson wasn't on the same tier as Costello, The Jam, or The Specials, but I feel that the man's first two efforts are worthy of discussion.

Fuck Gabriel. Like I said, who cares? You and I both know that your initial post is nothing but a poor excuse for you to rant and rave about what a bozo he is. Case closed. I agree with you. Jackson is another issue. What aspects concerning the man made you and your buddies steer clear of the guy? There's been numerous occasions when I've tried to pick your brain about this issue, and you've routinely made unpleasant facial expressions, grimaces if you will, that immediately stifle any sort of analysis.

Deliver the goods just this once, and I swear I'll never bring it up again. I know it's not cool to like the guy, but you REALLY don't like him! What gives?

Hope to hear from you soon,
E. Pluribus

And I know what's goin' on with all that subliminal picture nonsense in the upper right hand corner of the home page. Big Star, Teddy Roosevelt, that Japanese no-talent that Hrundi went on and on about. . .

I am waiting. . . .I am waiting. . .
E. Pluribus

Gabriel never did much for me. But I'll tell you, back when he was big, he was one of those rock artists that the ladies really really dug, like Psychedelic Furs, a band I like much better than Gabriel. I think the cardboard-cutting, pit-sniffing crew we've got on this list may be blind to those characteristics that make for rock bands the ladies like, and I count myself among the blind here. I never met any guy significantly into Gabriel, but at the time the quality of the women who dug him was impressive. He was perceived, perhaps, as as the next Bowie? It could be, by the way, that this characteristic is part of what makes him difficult to criticize. It's like admitting you don't brush your teeth.

E.,

First of all, let's cut the crap with any notion that I'm upset with you about having different feelings regarding a possible live RTH event. Disappointed? A bit. Embarrassed by having to have even felt it was a possible "issue"? Certainly. Pissed? Not really. I respectfully think you're an idiot sometimes, just as I'm sure you rightfully think the same of me.

I respected your opinion, and although I never felt it important to tell you this, I'm not doing one anytime soon without your involvement. If the day comes and someone offers me big bucks for my Plan 9 visions, maybe I'll ditch the loyalty/respect thing then and have a private chuckle over the windfall I've come into. We both know that's NOT going to happen, so rest assured that I know who you are and what you're about, and the stuff we disagree about - the important, deep-down stuff concerning our differing notions of scope over any number of "artistic" ventures - can't really matter to me as much as any of the stuff that's beyond the control of our respective sphincters. Most likely you'll go your way and I'll go mine regarding the stuff that makes our butts clench, but we'll continue to bump into each other along our respective routes and laugh our asses off about all the things that REALLY matter. If that stops I may have to kick your ass.

There's been only thing with you I've been slightly pissed about, which we can talk about man to man someday. I don't think it's anything major, believe me, but it relates to how I feel about you as I do family.

Now onto the less-important stuff that it is important we argue about: Joe Jackson's first two albums. I'll open up for you. When that first album hit and I used to hear it on the radio, I liked almost every one of those songs. A lot. They're explosive, they sound great, they do all the things great songs should do. Then the second album came out, and some of those songs were great too, but you know what was better? There was a King Biscuit Flour Hour show they used to play on WMMR from that second album's tour. I taped it. I don't know that I have it any longer, but I used to lay in my room with the lights out and play that live tape over and over. It was really fun - yes, fun, a pursuit I don't admit to that easily.

I don't know why, at first, I never got around to buying those two albums. I do recall that those snazzy, pointy shoes were a turn off. He had a "showman's" veneer that seemed to contradict what I took to be a more "sincere" angry stance of Costello and Graham Parker. Those guys weren't doing that British sleezy showman thing on their album covers, lilke they were Michael Caine or someone. So that was strike one.

Strike two may have been that, beside "Is She Really Going Out With Him" I don't recall getting anything out of his lyrics. You gotta look sharp and have no-o illusions...? One more time, say you're mine... They're the first bits of lyrics that come to mind when I think "Joe Jackson." Eh. If I wanted to listen to a lot of stuff like that I'd have listened to Paul Collins' Beat or The Romantics. At least those guys had better hair and wore cooler '60s-inspired clothes. Zoot suits and pointy shoes never held any appeal for me.

Strike three - the third and final strike - was easy to identify. He put out that third album, I believe, right before I went to college, Beat Crazy or something like that? I liked the sound of that one, but it was missing strong songs. Nevertheless, it has a good bass sound, and as I settled into my college-era buying rhythm, I might have picked up that album or one of the first two. Then he quickly put out an album with an Impulse-style "jazz" cover. Remember that one? In interviews he started saying that he'd moved beyond rock 'n roll, that his first few albums were all an act, meant to capitalize on a fad and get him a recording contract. At that moment, his ratty Fred Astaire Look came into focus. This really has nothing to do with Fred Astaire, but when I was a teenager, he gave me the creeps. I couldn't tune into his movies. The one part of Joe Jackson that wasn't an act was his Zoot Suiter routine. I was right to have been turned off by the stylin' pointy shoes. No offense to anyone checking in who digs pointy shoes, but to this day I will not wear them. They've got to be rounded or squared at the tip.

So that's where I stand with Joe Jackson, my friend. Those first two albums are in that weird category I have of albums I'd accept if a friend, under cover of the night, brought them to my house and placed them near my stereo. Even then, I'd probably require the motivation of pleasing my more fun-loving, less-hung-up wife to actually place the albums on my turntable. Stupid? Sure. But by this point in my tale you may have a better sense of why Plan 9 required an investigation of Peter Gabriel.

Say what you want about P.G. (I've still got his early vinyl around here somewhere) but he does write a memorable melody and the "dated" quality you allude is exactly the sound being milked by young hipster faves TV On The Radio these days.

Recently a young guy at the coffee shop was flying the flag of the Police which made me think I should turn him on to the first two Joe Jackson records. I too loved them as a teenager, back when MMR cautiously let "New Wavers" like E.C., Graham Parker, The Cars and X.T.C. on to their playlists (along with the occasional Sinceros or Fabulous Poodles track).

Listening now the band still sounds punchy but the lyrics are pretty excruciatingly juvenile and there is no escaping them with J.J.'s vocals mixed way at the top. For nostalgia's sake I wanted to put something on the computer jukebox program I use but only "It's Different For Girls" seemed tolerable. I wonder if SQUEEZING OUT SPARKS would fare any better?

I did like BODY AND SOUL when it came out (and that is the Blue Note style he is copying there, not Impulse) but looking over the track list now I'm not penciling it in for a listen anytime soon. And you're forgetting his BEAT CRAZY ("And if the Russians ever come, They'll all be beating bongo drums") follow-up, that Louis Jordan tribute JUMPIN' JIVE? A disturbingly prophetic vision of that Neo Swing scare of the late nineties.

I'm quite sure that Matt will soon appear to defend Joe Jackson's honor.

I have a definite soft spot for I'm The Man. My old punk band, The Vague Machos, used to play the title song, but not very well, because I could not convince our bass player, Raw, to play that eighth-note bassline all downstroke, which is essential to the rhythmic feel of the song. I enjoyed playing that chordal lead middle section, and I liked the way JJ Band handled the three-piece sound better than when Joe added piano.

As far as lame lyrics, I also remember that a couple of songs on I'm the Man were labeled 'pop songs.' Kinda Cute is the one that comes to mind. I preferred those lyrics to the ones where he supposedly dissected the war between the sexes. There were a lot of writers like that around that time (EC, GP, Clive Gregson) who seemed to be more like warriors against women, taking out their various rejections on previous objects of their affections (see? I could have written new wave lyrics too) while they had the ear of the public.

Joe Jackson's secrte weapon was that his band had a great drummer. It helps immensely.

Jimbo,

You delivered the goods. 'Nuff said. And all that's fair. Wanna know what was probably thee biggest Jackson turnoff for me? His arrogance, which escalated to a frightening degree within a very short time. Like I said, even back then, I knew he wasn't a part of the pper tier, but he himself believed he was there and perhaps much more talented than those previously mentioned. Ever get stuck in a conversation with someone who talks about how brilliant they are? And how that brilliance needs to be recognized? Regarding those people, the brilliance is never there which is why it's never recognized. Unfortunately, Jackson's the poster boy for that category.

That said, I just wanna throw this into the pot. And I know I'm gonna get hit with the whole apples and oranges thing, but Jackson does have "Is She Really Going out with Him?" which is a hands down classic piece of pop. Never fails to get the goose bumps going. Gabriel has nothing even near that number.

And thank God for that one song. It allows me to forgive Jackson for his many sins, including his Cybermusic thang introduced to all during an appearance on Saturday Night Live. This was around the time when he was scrounging for new ideas after the whole Cole Porter thing went down the shitter.

The whole "I'm a genius" thing gives me the willies. Like you and I have said before, that should pretty much be reserved for those who do something up Salk and Einstein's
alley.

Thanks for getting back to me. Know that tearing you a new asshole has always served as a decent springboard springboard into more serious issues. Hopefully you can forgive me for my behavior.

Yours,
E. Pluribus

Thanks e for that classic example of what I was talking about recently -- psychoanalyzing someone you've never met and calling it musical analysis.

E's last post (and let me welcome you back E, you've been missed!) makes me wonder about genre-hopping. Isn't it about time RTH explores this in detail?

Is it ever okay? Does it depend on the genres? Dylan, Costello, Jackson, Paul Simon, McCartney. Who does it well? Anyone? Who's the worst at it? (My vote - without having heard it - is Billy Joel's classical excursion, but that's because I hate everything about Billy Joel!)

And can we safely say that no one whose genre hopping includes classical music does it well?

Is genre hopping a "jump the shark" moment?

Big Steve!

Good to hear from you too! And it's great to see that your lousy taste in music hasn't changed one iota!

More in a bit. Gotta go pick up my brats!

Sincerely,
E. Pluribus

The genre-hopping thing, Al, I don't know if it's ever worked, has it? There must be a better example than The Byrds' Sweetheart of the Rodeo, which may be among the best examples. It's one thing to incorporate new influences, but it's quite another to shift gears and put on a whole new set of clothes.

I think there are some instances where it has worked but I don't know if that's necessarily a good thing. I love Nashville Skyline, I think it's a great country album. Is it better than what Dylan could have produced if he followed John Wesley Harding with a more similar album. Who knows? Impossible to say except to say "But then he wouldn't be Dylan".

Dylan has genre hopped a lot and I think it generally works because his music has always been a stew of so many styles of music; to me it never seems like he's putting on a whole new set of clothes. Sometimes the recipe emphasizes some ingredients more than others, folk early, then blues, then country, then gospel and lately he's been mixing all those with crooning in a mixture that's been pureed such that it's hard to tell what's what. And my opinion should be obvious: Dylan's the best genre hopper around and has been successful at all those genres he's tried (and thank God there's been no classical attempts).

Sweethearts is successful. And I didn't mind Beat Crazy and liked Night & Day (was that the title of Jackson's Cole Porter one?). I haven't listened to Beat Crazy in decades but I listened to N&D not long ago and that one sure hasn't stood up well for me.

I think Costello & Bacharach's Painted From Memory was great as well. But I attribute that more to BB than EC since all of Elvis's other excursions seem too strained, too much a kid dressed up in grown-up clothes.

Of course, what's the alternative? Keep playing the angry young man? Then you end up with Graham Parker.

Maybe the better thing to explore are those artists who haven't genre hopped and yet continue to make vital music decades after they started (Ian Hunter) rather than poor retreads of the same old same old (Rolling Stones).

Big Steve,

I agree; songs like "Is She Really Going out with Him" are the rallying cry of the "nice guy," who blames the woman for his own passive-aggressive hangups.

See, I don't think of Dylan as a genre hopper. Even Nashville Skyline sounds like a Dylan album to me. He'd already worked in some "country" elements in his music.

I like Painted from Memory, but again, even though Costello is consciously trying to hop onto BB's genre, he'd already been doing that type of music. The album's production has a few touches that are alien to any Costello record, but it's not like he abandoned his strengths, the way he did on Almost Blue.

Maybe it's semantics but I do think Dylan is a genre hopper - he's just incredibly good at. And I agree that NS sounds like a Dylan album. But it's also a stone country album unlike any of his albums that preceded it (or came after for that matter). Saved sounds like a Dylan album but it's also nothing but a testifying gospel album. Dylan always sounds like Dylan.

I'm with you on Costello. Almost Blue has never worked for me and I have tried. And as far as Painted From Memory, I'm saying it works because of Bacharach whereas Elvis's exercises in that stuff pre-Bacharach didn't work nearly as well.

BigSteve,

Some people get crazy.

Some people get lazy.

Some people get hazy.

Some people get out.

Heavy shit indeed. I can't help but feel that Joe's muse had you in mind when it allowed him such a dynamic blast, if you will, of creative verbosity. Don't go there, but know that others, like Joe, feel the pain as well.

Your friend,
E. Pluribus

E, as is often the case I'm confused about where you're coming from now. I originally thought I was stepping forward to support you in your affection for the music on I'm The Man. Sorry if I used words of more than one syllable. Joe's shoes and personality issues just don't interest me. He was hardly the only one slumming by jumping on the punk(ish) bandwagon in the late 70s, but like others he made good music before (and some after) the wheels fell off.