That's the problem with concept albums. While they may work as a whole (and I'm not
sure this one does), it is extremely rare if individual songs hold up on their own.
To have to read liner notes and written material before I can understand how good a
record is or what a great concept
I'm dealing with is firthers my point. This is aural art, not literary genius. The
music is, or should be, the important thing. If it's not, then just write a book and
I'll trat it for what it is. I feel the same way about visual art as well. If it
doesn't grab me before I read
about the concept and what went into producing it, it's probably not "great" art. Tom
Russell has done some great pieces before and I respect him for even attempting this
song cycle but (IMHO), it just doesn't work all that well. Hell, name me 5 concept
albums that have worked out well
regardless of genre.
Iceman
Hanspeter Eggenberger wrote:
> Reply to: Re: Tom Russell's new one
> Slim wrote:
> >I think it's a great album. I would suggest listening a couple of times and
> >reading the extensive notes Russell includes. Projects like this are labors of
> >love, and I bet everyone on the list would agree that a talent like Russell
> >deserves more than a cursory spinthrough.
>
> I agree with the above. But I have the same problem with Tom Russell's new one as I
>have with most "concept albums": Some songs only work in context to the others but
>not as individual song. So you have to listen to the whole album from the first to
>the last track to get the picture.
>
> HP
>
> NP: Hank Shizzoe - "Walk"
