The Year in Music, vol. 3 — My Top Ten

This is my 2015 Top Ten. I don’t pretend that these were the best records issued in 2015; my only claim is that these are the ones I liked best of the admittedly small percentage of albums issued during the year. Let the debate continue.

1. Courtney Barnett, Sometimes I Sit and Think, Sometimes I Just Sit

2. Kendrick Lamar, To Pimp a Butterfly
3. Sleater-Kinney, No Cities to Love
4. Kamasi Washington, The Epic
5. Leon Bridges, Coming Home
6. Wilco, Star Wars
7. Shamir, Ratchet
8. Blackalicious, Imani, Vol. 1
9. The Decemberists, What a Terrible World, What a Beautiful World
10. Barrence Whitfield and the Savages, Under the Savage Sky

There are other records that could have made the list — and might have were my mood different on the day I write this, which is the beauty of moods and our response to art. Five records, however, did come really close to making this list and are worth mentioning as Honorable Mentions: Titus Andronicus, The Most Lamentable Tragedy; Mikail Cronin, MCIII; Chris Stapleton, Traveller; Death Cab for Cutie, Kintsago; Steve Earle, Terraplane Blues.

The Year in Music, vol. 2

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.

Jazz: Kamasi Washington, The Epic
Country: Chris Stapleton, Traveller
Hip-Hop: Kendrick Lamar, To Pimp a Butterfly
Rock: Courtney Barnett, Sometimes I Sit and Think, and Sometimes I Just Sit
Soul: Leon Bridges, Coming Home
N.J. Band: Screaming Females, Rose Mountain
Duet: Emmylou Harris and Rodney Crowell, The Traveling Kind
Soundtrack: Selma
Blues: Steve Earle, Terraplane Blues
Pop: Shamir, Ratchet
Still to come: My top ten, my favorite debuts, and my favorite compilations.

Debating ‘Judeo-Christian’

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:

Anyone else have a problem w/the term Judeo-Christian?

Posted by Hank Kalet on Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Send me an e-mail.

The Year in Music, vol. 1

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.

I want to be clear up front: These are not necessarily albums I disliked. They are albums that under-performed when compared to earlier work by these artists. In that way, they stand as disappointments.
One other caveat: I only included records that I bought — so that leaves a lot of music on the floor.
The list:
1. Neil Young, The Monsanto Years. I love Neil’s music, but this one is a real dog — in a long line of recent dogs. Musically, The Monsanto Years rocks. It is Crazy Horse muscular and full of distortion. But the lyrics are pedantic and unimaginative, overtly political without being poetic or inspiring.
2. Adele, 25. The most apt way to describe what may have been the most-hyped record of the year is meh. See my review here.
3. Father John Misty, I Love You, Honeybear. I liked this on first listen, but found that it faded and couldn’t withstand repeated hearings, going from intriguing to pedestrian quickly.
4. Best Coast, California Nights. I like this album, but it feels flat when compared to the band’s much more creative earlier work.
5. Kacey Musgraves, Pageant Material. Another album I liked on my first few passes, it ends up sounding like too much contemporary country — which is unfortunate, given the excellence of her debut.

Notes on ‘The Force Awakens’

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.