"If I perform again with my brother, it will not be in a position of peace and harmony, because that's not a great situation for us... The fire and energy is the important thing. It's the thing that made us fight and punch our way into a career."Yeah, who needs friends? But the new album is called "See My Friends" — and you can buy it here.
२९ मे, २०११
Ray Davies...
... back, with friends. Listen to the 11-minute audio at the link. Lots of music on it. The one thing I definitely dislike is Ray singing with Bruce Springsteen. The notion that their voices blend together... ridiculous. Bring back Dave. There's a voice that goes with Ray's.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७ टिप्पण्या:
Sounds interesting, but I think I'll hold off buying it.
I agree about Springsteen. The man lost his way on the campaign trail for John Kerry. Once an artist delves so deeply and overtly into politics, it's hard for them to come clean (cf. Sean Penn). Bob Dylan is a much better example of an artist staying above the fray while staying committed to ideals.
I wish Ray Davies all the best in the future. His praise for Springsteen makes me want to ask though--do Europeans see him as a quintessential American artist?
We don't need another Kinks album.
I did play a Kinks tune I liked with one band. It's virtually unknown, Low Budget.
Definitely in tune with the times.
Yes, Springsteen needs to shut up about politics. He's so much better when he does. Played three Springsteen tunes with the band last Friday night. Tenth Avenue Freezeout is a big favorite in Jersey.
You gave me a shock there - I saw "Ray Davies" and shouted, "Oh, No!" because I thought he'd died.
Whew!
I never cared for Springsteen's voice, or his orchestration, so there's only a few songs I've really enjoyed. (I tried to find one, from his early days, that I particularly liked but I can't remember it's name,...) That said, he does have some O.K. tunes occasionally, and I genuinely respect what he's accomplished.
As far as his politics, I say we crucify him as the Democrat's Jesus, because (like Newt) that's the only way we'll ever get the adulterous bastard to stop telling the rest of us how to live and think, when he, clearly, hasn't figured it out himself. During the Iraq war he said “what’s true can be made to seem like a lie, and what’s lying can be made to seem true.” But he's never come out and admitted he got the war (or George Bush) wrong - that he was the liar - so how honest of a "voice of the common man" is he?
But he's never come out and admitted he got the war (or George Bush) wrong - that he was the liar - so how honest of a "voice of the common man" is he?
The "common man" that Springsteen represents is middle class suburban Jersey.
You ought to see the place. It's incredibly rich. Houses start at $400,000. Two cars, at least in every garage. Boat in the backyard. Harley, too.
I play a lot in Jersey, Crack. The "common man" there is pretty well heeled.
Some of the highest taxes in the country.
Only a couple of hellholes... Newark and Trenton.
He grew up in Freehold Borough, which neither was nor is "incredibly rich". He certainly lives in a rich neighborhood now, but then again... he's rich now. :)
Re Springsteen:
Does anyone's voice blend well with Springsteens? Maybe Tom Waits. Combine that gravel and you might even get something so gravelly as to be smooth. Maybe together they sound like the everly brothers.
Springsteen is a fraud. He, like many other artists, have found that common cause with the common man can equal big bucks if you're a musician, so they keep writing their odes to the working class all the way to their mansion on the hill. I figure, you only really get one legitimate stab at authenticity (unless you don't make it of course) until every follow up is simply a caricature of the life the artist no longer knows if they ever did.
I lump in John cougar Mellencamp in with the frauds. Gonna die in a small town indeed. He's just going to have the biggest house in that small town.
I don't mind the Springsteen duet, except that his new vocals don't add much to the previous version. As for his politics, let's be honest -- most of his stated positions aren't wildly unreasonable. There are honorable people who believe the Middle East wars are wrong, that we've gone too far in sacrificing some freedoms for more security, that rendition is immoral, that accused foreign terrorists should benefit from all of the protections of the U.S criminal justice system, and that our immigration policies are inhumane. I disagree with each and every one of these positions, but I also understand that I may be wrong and he may be right.
The problem with Springsteen’s positions is that he only takes them when they benefit the Democratic Party. While Bush was in office Bruce sang every night about bringing our soldiers home, and spoke at length about “illegal” government wiretaps, criticized rendition, and the policy of denying habeas corpus to suspected terrorists. In the three years since Obama was elected (with Springsteen’s considerable help) the new administration has adopted most of those same policies, and even ratcheted a few of them up to new levels. How has Springsteen reacted to this supposed lawlessness from his fellow Democrats? Complete and total silence, of course.
For eight years Springsteen stood on stage and pretended to his audience that he was taking moral positions and making moral judgments, when in fact he was taking political positions and making political judgments. For many of his fans that’s the lie that cannot be forgiven or forgotten. Even those fans who agree with everything he said now know at least on a subconscious level that the man is a fraud who will say anything to promote his own brand of politics. He and they might not care, but once you sell your principles they can never be bought back.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा