|   Twelve Dreams of Dr. Sardonicus vs. All Is Dream | Davey
Feb 27, 2003 12:07 PM | | Spirit vs. Mercury Rev.
1970 vs. 2001.
I have a feeling this is gonna be an odd post so be forewarned - there's still time to move on :-) Yesterday I listened to Mercury Rev's <i>All Is Dream</i> which is an album that I have really grown to love over the last couple years (or however long it's been). It's got a dreamlike quality that I enjoy immensely, full of gauzy images that seem to be conceptually tied together, floating from one song to the next. The search for something that isn't there. The gradual sense that in the end, love is all there is. Very personal and appealing. Almost childlike at times, so simple is the concept. Feels almost like a classic to me. <i>A year is just a drop in time, It cannot touch her female form in my head / She was just a friend of mine, In the dark she knew the touch of my hand ...</i>
So after listening a couple times, I thought why not pull out Spirits's <i>Twelve Dreams of Dr. Sardonicus</i> and see how it compares. Another concept album, at least from what I'm told. I only picked up this one a couple years ago, it's one of Sony's Legacy SBM remasters done in 1996 with 4 worthless bonus tracks. One of those Best Buy deals that I picked up at Tower for $7.99 I think. Anyway, I never heard this one back in it's day, except for a couple of the big singles. Of course everyone is probably sick of the main single, Nature's Way, since it became a staple of FM rock stations, but it's still a very good song. And Animal Zoo got a lot of play, but I don't recall hearing any of the others until I bought this CD. I've gotta be honest, if it didn't say that it was a concept album I would probably never have guessed it. Maybe I'm just missing something as I haven't read enough about it to understand what ties the songs together (other than the title of the album) so feel free to point it out even at the risk of embarrassing me in public :-) I've listened to it a few times over the last couple years and twice yesterday but still don't really understand why this is considered a classic album. Not bad certainly, but I'm left with the feeling that <i>All Is Dream</i> is the real classic. Do we judge records so differently nowadays? I remember Mark, aka maf, aka Ex-Lion Tamer (he's worse than me with the moniker changes!) bringing up a similar point in regard to the last Dandy Warhols album (at least I think it was that one). Would Dr. Sardonicus even get a hint of recognition in 2001? How would All Is Dream fare in 1970?
I'd really be interested to hear opinions on Dr. Sardonicus and how you feel it fits into the history of rock music, if at all. And All Is Dream, especially in comparison the Deserter's Songs, and how these albums will be rememberd in twenty years, if at all. |
| I loved 12 Dreams and heard it plenty back in the day... | Swish
Feb 27, 2003 1:46 PM | | but I never thought it was a "concept" album, in the same sense that you mention. It's certainly a classic in my opinion, although he can sound a tad stale today. I can't say the same for All is Dream, but I haven't listened to it enough to give a viable opinion.
BTW, I have a disc you'll want to check out. It a bootleg off a soundboard. It features all Gram Parsons songs with a bunch of outstanding musicians playing them. More on that later... |
| Twelve Dreams of Dr. Sardonicus | tentoze
Feb 27, 2003 3:39 PM | | Not sure if I would call Sardonicus a "concept" album either. Mebbe got tagged that way due to the songs fading into each other? Haven't listened to it in a while, but I sure played the bejeezus out of the vinyl back in the day. My CD is not in Vegas with me, but I'm pretty sure it's a MFSL version and it sounds fine, as I recall. Spirit was always a favorite group for me- watching Randy California play was a treat (before the fall from the horse- afterward, he never found the muse, IMO). Dark-Eyed Woman from the "Clear" album still gets spun LOUDLY when the mood strikes me for some vintage rock n' roll.
Can't comment on the other album, as I have never heard it. |
| 12 dreams, remasters & Zappa | jack70
Feb 28, 2003 6:25 AM | | I agree with swish & tentoze that it's not true concept album. Whether they were actually trying to make it that (the band), or whether Epic "sort-of" marketed it that way, is another question I'm not aware of. I agree it can sound "a tad stale" today... but you need to put on headphones and listen to the whole thing to get the full force of the album. As much as I loved their earlier work, this album was much more consistently solid [cut-to-cut], with great songwriting.
Davey: "<i>...but still don't really understand why this is considered a classic album.</i>"
Why do some consider it a classic? When it came out, it sounded as stunning as Revolver, or King Crimson's first, or Electric Ladyland, etc. It's VERY hard to hear "older" things today and put yourself in the historical frame of reference of when they came out. You could criticise Hitchcock's films today for many reasons compared to certain modern films, but when you consider what came before, they're stunning. Simply put, if you got rid of every album released in the years since '70, you'd have a pretty bare selection. It's harder to see it's impact, unless you lived through it.
I too have the MFL CD issue. I'm not so sure it's that great though... the problem is the masters were already 20 years old when that was issued, and we know today that such older masters (tapes) often need tweaking and editing by loving artists to make the sound the absolute best. Partly, it's getting the exact same tape decks for proper reproduction, and getting the digital end done right, something even few professional engineers care about. MFL's claim to fame was doing NONE of that... crap in, crap out. Zappa is just one of many who spent big bucks to digitalize his early material (tapes); the problem (with some of that) is that Zappa started adding tracks and "remaking" some of the "original" stuff (understanable), but it was disconcerting for longtime fans familiar with the original mixes. Zappa did respond to the backlash, and went back and restored the stuff to a more cleaned up, yet "original" generation. But it's all time-consuming, labor intensive, and expensive. Labels and music companies aren't going to do it, only artists are, and most don't have the money, or expertise, or even care.
I think Ed Cassidy has been doing much the same (as Zappa) with the Spirit material... digitalizing and re-releasing it, but I could be wrong. Maybe some one here knows more about that. As much as I hate seeing a dozen "re-releases" of the same album as technology changes, I think it's important to preserve what's still avavilable in the best way. |
| |
