I've Got a Bone to Pick...
-
Artist:
-
Album:
-
Track:
With the Associated Press. First, Music Editor Nekesha Moody, in her video discussing newly released music, refers to the latest release from The Derek Trucks Band as "Almost Free." Well, Ms. Moody, you were almost right, but the album's title is Already Free. If you're not even going to bother to get the album title right, then don't bother at all.
Second, someone should inform AP's Ron Harris that a music critic is obligated to actually listen to an album before rendering an opinion on the value of the work. Oh, I'm quite certain that Mr. Harris threw the CD into his CD player and allowed the sound waves to caress his eardrums, but the active process of actually listening to the music clearly stopped there only to encounter an impenetrable barrier of critical expectations for which no justification has been given (indeed for which no reasonable justification is possible). Harris' criticism of the album? Trucks' "guitars[sic] solos" are too "sparse".
O. M. G.
I've uploaded Down Don't Bother Me. You be the judge. Tell me if the crescendo at the end of that song isn't as searing and soaring as a blues guitar solo needs to be.
Better yet, will someone please tell me precisely why we should need yet another album from a virtuoso artist where the purpose of the album is to provide a vehicle to showcase that virtuosity rather than having an album where the virtuosity is channeled into expressing a variety of unique and interesting musical ideas? The musical world is replete with examples of the former, leaving a dearth of the latter.
I could spend hours discussing the musical ideas in this album. Indeed, since I've had the music in my possession for less than 12 hours, you'd be rightly justified in questioning my ability to do them justice. But, I can give you a taste of an idea that I hadn't tumbled upon until about my third or fourth listen through.
The 11th cut on the album features Trucks' wife, Susan Tedeschi. It's an ambling, back-country ode, entitled Back Where I Started, that was co-written by Trucks and Allman Brothers band mate, Warren Haynes. The main rhythm comes from Trucks playing a straight acoustic guitar, but he backs the song with some dobro slide work that has a distinctly east-indian flavor--a blending of musical styles we've come to expect from Trucks. (And so deftly is this accomplished that AMG"s Thom Jurek mistakenly identifies it as an actual Indian sarod).
But the idea doesn't stop there. The segue from Back Where I Started into the next song, a rousing cover of Big Maybelle's R&B shout I know, starts with an actual sarod providing a droning grace-note for Trucks' ambling intro. It provides a bridge, and completes the transition from the laid-back feel of Back Where I Started to the up-beat, 3/4 blues waltz romp of I Know.
Musically, this is shear brilliance. It's the kind of thing that makes you ask what kind of sick mind even came up with that idea in the first place, let alone had the foresight to realize that it would work as well as it does?
There is so much more to discuss about this album, not the least of which would be the flourishing of the other members of the band and the extent to which this work is clearly a collective effort both on the part of the band itself and in conjunction with the guest musicians who appear, but I'll leave that to other people to discuss. I'll just close by saying that I agree with Jurek's overall assessment that this album has a broad vibe and feel that's been missing from the majority of albums recored over the past 30 years (and I'm old enough to be able to agree). It affirms my belief that Derek Trucks is a very special musical talent whose sensibilities, artistry and skill as an overall musician merit keeping a very close eye on his career.
Comments (8)
I'm with you.
Mr. Schaut,
I'm writing to thank you for correcting MY mistake in identifying Derek Truxck's dobro as a sarod--as you know he does play one and I belive does on either the preceding or proceeding track. I don;t have the record in front of me to know. I'd corrected it when I saw the review posted yesterday--along with a couple of grammatical errors to be fully accountable (It should posty today or tomorrow when the database updates itself). All of which aggreive me., Why? Because I could have written THOUSANDS of words about this album because I cannot stop playing it. I know that it is thus far the crowning studio achievement from a STELLAR band who has so much to offer; The feel and musical and spiritual accomplishment displayed on it is light years away from anything that's happening out there these days--like you, I am indeed old enough to remember 30 years ago.
I really appreciated and enjoyed your post, and I ALWAYS welcome the opportunity to get things right when I mess up.
Keep on spreading this gospel.
Thom Jurek
DMDM,
Thanks for showing up, but I have to ask, should I put the emphasis on the "with" or the "you" in your comment, and would your answer be the, "Yes," with which my wife often answers these either-or questions?
Thom,
My parenthetical comment about your mistake was not intended as a knock on either you or your capacity as a music critic. It's far more a testament to Trucks' skills as a musician, and I think it takes a very trained and practiced ear to recognize that rather distinctive "buzz" that comes from a dobro.
Indeed, I'm honored that you would deign to comment. I have always respected your abilities as a critic, and yours are the first reviews I seek out in order to ensure that my own opinions are grounded in some form of reality. And I have often quoted, with attribution, your absolutely wonderful turn of phrase regarding "aimless guitar wankery" from your review of the Allman Brothers' 2003 release, One Way Out. That is one of the best lines written in a music review in, well, the last 30 years.
And, yes, I share your frustration regarding my own inability to find words that adequately express what I think of this album. I'm likely to drive my co-workers crazy over the next several weeks as I keep playing through this stuff over and over again. There are just too many fascinating and wonderful musical ideas in this album for me to simply set it aside.
We're two weeks into 2009, and I have no reticence in predicting that we aren't going to hear a better album produced this year.
Wow, that's the second writer to come on MOG to talk about a review of their review in the last week or so. Love it..Good on both of ya.
http://www.blender.com/guide/reviews.aspx?id=5429
Check out this clueless review. I have a hard time believing that this critic really listened to the album. "25-minute guitar solo"????
Fritz,
I'd read Ben Ratliff's review last night, and while I'm disappointed by his review, I can't call him clueless. Ben's a rather well-respected jazz critic for the New York Times. He writes for that audience, and he's well aware of Derek's abilities. Given both Ben's point of view and his audience, I can cut him some slack.
In comparison, there's just no excuse for Ron Harris' review. It's indefensible from any reasonable point of view--a phone-in job of a review if there ever was one.
You don't find the review lazy and cheap? The visine and pot smoke comments?? Basically called the album hippy-dippy jamband noodling. I don't care who he or his audience is.
Do I think Ratliff's review is lazy and cheap? No, though it's certainly terse. I'm not going to get all excited about a reviewer's turn of phrase (i.e. the Visine and pot remarks) as long as the point of view and expectations are defensible. And, in Ratliff's case, I think his point of view is defensible. There's not a whole lot for jazz aficionados sink their teeth into in this album.
That doesn't mean I agree with his broader conclusion, and I'd have hoped to see him be more explicit about his point of view. I think there's no small amount of prejudice in Ratliff's review about the artistic merits of a work that seeks to speak to a broader audience, and I think a truly fair review would assess a work against what the artist is trying to achieve.
I just won't go so far as to say that Ratliff is clueless. Biased, yes. Unfair, quite likely. But, not clueless.