Hank Kalet

Earlier today I offered what I view not so much as the bad records from 2015, but as the disappointments. In part 2, I offer the good — my favorite records by genre.

I posed a question on Twitter yesterday, which has mushroomed into what I think is a vibrant and worthwhile debate over the phrase “Judeo-Christian.” For those who might be interested, I’m embedding it here:

Send me an e-mail.

I’m trying something a bit different this year. Rather than an alphabet soup offering my take on the year just passed, I’ll be rolling out several short lists — starting today with the five biggest disappointments of 2015.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens Trailer (Official) on Disney Video

Star Wars: The Force Awakens is out nearly two weeks now and, as could be predicted after the release-week hype, we are witnessing a critical and fan backlash of sorts.

A friend posts that The Force Awakens is the worst movie to gross more than a billion dollars in its first weekend. Others are calling it derivative, going so far as to call it a form of plagiarism. The acting has been derided, the storytelling questioned, and on and on.

On the other side is the full-bore defense, with point-by-point rebutted.

I can see both sides of this: The Force Awakens is a thrilling ride, well paced and compelling, helping to erase the stench of the three prequels. It also is derivative and was over-hyped.

I saw the movie this week, for the second time, which gave me a chance to temper my initial enthusiasm and let the hype recede. My judgment remains essentially the same: The Force Awakens re-energizes the Star Wars franchise, recapturing the feel of the originals. But I have to admit the film is flawed, but only because the entire franchise is also flawed: It’s really nothing more than a glorified cowboys-and-Indians saga layered with Eastern and Christian mysticism.

I think much of the hype on both sides owes to Star Wars’ place in our imagination. It is generational, and it means we remember the film as being a better cinematic product than it actually is. As I said, the original hits on all of the problem spots: cliches? Got ’em. A overly simple storyline? Yep. Less-than-stellar acting? Got that too.

The new movie is plagued by all of these things, as well, plus it is weighed down by the nearly 40 years of memories that few films have to carry. Even the longest-tenured franchises — James Bond, for instance — have less emotional baggage to carry.

So, what do we make of this latest awakening?

1. It is, as I said, a rebirth of sorts. My friend Vince called it a reboot without the rebooting, and I think that is accurate. It carries all of the old tropes without getting bogged down. It retreads much of the same thematic territory — birth of the hero, good. v. evil, the need to balance the “force” — without tripping over itself.

2. It is derivative and an excuse to sell toys. But we can say that about the previous four films (Empire Strikes Back remains the most complete and fleshed out of the series, while the three “prequels” are just eye candy).

3. The acting is universally mediocre, but consistent with the B-movie-meets-blockbuster sensibility that buttresses the entire franchise.

4. It is great to see Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher, along with Chewbacca, but Ford hasn’t turned in a good performance in years. As Vince said after we saw it earlier this week, Ford just mugs his way through this.

5. The decision to have a woman be the newest Jedi savior is genius. After years of essentially reinforcing gender stereotypes, we have a female character who not only breaks the mold, but needs no help from anyone. Ray makes this film work.

6. Finn gets to play a variant of the Han Solo arc — struggling within himself over whether to join the resistance. It is a story as old as stories and serves this movie well.

7. The good-v.-evil storyline has less of a Reagan “Morning in America” feel than the earlier films did and more of a sense of liberty v. tyranny. Leia is no longer a princess, but a general in a rebel army, allowing the film to move away from an endorsement of rightful heirs and monarchical bloodlines.

8. Whatever else can be said about this movie, it moves. Its pacing is, with a few exceptions, exceptional. I found that I couldn’t fully sit back, even on second viewing, even as when I knew what has going to happen.

We went to see a friend’s band on Sunday — a pickup band featuring guys playing their favorite classic rock. It was a loose affair, but the harmonies were tight and it made for a nice respite from grading and the craziness of the season.

It was an interesting mix of songs, but one jumped out — “I’ll Feel a Whole Lot Better” by The Byrds. The guys did a nice job with a song that, while sounding simple, is one that helped remake rock ‘n’ roll. Critics credit The Byrds with creating a new genre, folk rock — a hybrid of Dylan folk and Beatles rock. That’s probably too simple — 1965 was also the year Dylan went electric and released both Bringing It All Back Home and Highway 61 Revisited and The Beatles issued Rubber Soul.

But The Byrds added something to the mix — a California feel, perhaps, or a softer sound infused with a kinetic charge that made it feel revolutionary.

“I’ll Feel a Whole Lot Better” appears on Mr. Tambourine Man, which came out in the summer of 1965. A second Byrds album, Turn! Turn! Turn!, arrived in December of that year — making this year that is closing the 50th anniversary of the band. (It also is the 50th anniversary of what may be the single most significant year in rock history, but that’s another discussion.)

What strikes me is that The Byrds are sometimes overlooked, that when we tick off the list of important and influential rock acts, The Byrds do not always make the list, though there is no question they belong.

1. 12-string guitars: The Byrds were not the first to use the 12-string, but the band’s reliance on the instrument created a signature sound that many have tried to emulate. The jangling sound has influenced many, most notably early Tom Petty and the power pop movement led by Big Star.

2. Roger — or is it Jim — McGuinn: McGuinn was a transformative guitar player. Rolling Stone ranked him 95th (I’d rank him higher) and had this to say about him:

Roger McGuinn’s sparkling, chordal 12-string Rickenbacker riffs on the Byrds‘ early hits were the sonic bridge between folk and rock – and an irreplaceable color in rock’s palette: Every indie band who’s more interested in beatific strumming than screaming solos owes him a debt (the striking break in “Bells of Rhymney” could be on a Smiths record). McGuinn could do a lot more than chime, however, as demonstrated by his still-astonishing psychedelic-raga-Coltrane licks on “Eight Miles High.”

3. Gram Parsons and the creation of alt-country: Four words (an album title) — Sweetheart of the Rodeo. Simply a breathtaking work, it is Americana or alt-country years before we recognized those genres.

4. Those harmonies: In early rock, only The Beatles’ use of harmonies was as divine.

5. “Eight Miles High”: Listen to McGuinn’s guitar. Just listen. No one was doing that in rock at the time, and few have done it as impressively since.

6. “So You Want to be a Rock ‘n’ Roll Star”: A parody of the the industry, the song flat out rocks — and features among the greatest trumpet work (by the legendary Hugh Masekela) on a rock record you will ever hear.

7. Aside from, maybe, Jimi Hendrix — and this a big maybe — no one covers Dylan like Roger McGuinn and company. From their debut record, Mr. Tambourine Man through the early ’70s, the band in its many incarnations turned out one great cover after another of the rock bard’s songs. (They were eventually collected on a single record long after the band split.)