![]() Now, I’ve been playing Get Hurt constantly for the past several days. Why? Because it’s different maybe? That actually makes perfect sense so long as I don’t think about it for even a second. (My heart would like to add that the song “High Lonesome” makes me want to drive real, real fast.) The overwrought Handwritten, meanwhile, was less about a mythical idea of New Jersey than just a straight-up evocation of New Jersey.Īnd yet, in spite of retaining Handwritten’s lobotomized arena-rock durrness, I find myself enjoying Get Hurt more. The thinky part of me could get behind that. ![]() It was a record composed of rock clichés that also seemed to be about rock clichés. On my favorite Gaslight Anthem record, 2008’s The ’59 Sound, Fallon’s distance from his heroes gave the album a heart-rending subtext - he sounds like a guy trying to will himself into the fantasy world of classic-rock lyrics. I hated Fallon’s vocals - it sounded like he overdubbed throat gurgles over his already mannered, self-consciously craggy bark. GLA’s previous release, 2012’s Handwritten, was the band’s first LP that even my ignorant heart couldn’t endorse. But I understand what Fallon is getting at. In my experience “different” is an adjective used by middle-aged Midwesterners to gently dismiss anything that’s culturally interesting. As far as I know, “different” does not have a sound. In interviews promoting Get Hurt, Fallon has frequently used the word “different” to describe the album’s sound. In reality, GLA is to Springsteen what Muse is to Radiohead - an exaggerated reflection as seen through a fun house mirror. Fallon naturally hates being compared to Springsteen, with some justification. The Gaslight Anthem is frequently compared to Bruce Springsteen, for reasons that are superficial (they’re both from Jersey) and substantive (GLA’s singer-songwriter Brian Fallon is clearly aping a Boss-like gruffness in his vocals). The Gaslight Anthem is a rock band from New Jersey. But in the case of the Gaslight Anthem’s new LP, Get Hurt, I feel compelled to not go with my brain. At this point, I’m faced with a professional/personal dilemma: Do I serve my brain or my emotional pleasure center? Because I’ve got mouths to feed, I’m required by professional obligation to go with my brain most of the time. Occasionally, I’ll come across something I enjoy that I know will not withstand even a modicum of critical thought. Take me, a professional critic working on the Internet. But that isn’t true, for the reader or for anybody. And the reader wants to believe that everything he likes is also good. ![]() The answer, of course, is that the reader wants the critic to reenforce what he already believes. In other words: If a reader doesn’t want critical analysis, why read something that is clearly presenting itself as criticism? Imagine working as a waiter in a restaurant, taking an order from a customer, delivering to the customer exactly what the customer ordered, and then hearing the customer reply, “I dispute the legitimacy of this food’s existence.” That’s what this sort of comment amounts to. ![]() It should just be enjoyed, in a strictly unthinking manner, which is a principle that I understand far better than this supposedly intelligent smarty-pants writer.”įor a professional critic working on the Internet, this sort of comment is obviously frustrating. Anytime a piece of entertainment that’s perceived to be populist is analyzed by a professional critic on the Internet, someone will inevitably post a comment at the end of the article more or less stating the following: “This piece of entertainment that I, the commenter, perceive to be populist should not be analyzed critically.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |