#19 - On Possibly the World's Only Remaining Steven Seagal Fan

This man has a problem. It is ignorance perhaps. Perhaps it is merely awful taste. He is a nice man. The conversation starts very simply. He approaches with the question: "What's with these new Steven Seagal movies?" The conversation runs like this:
"What's with these new Steven Seagal movies?"
"What do you mean?"
"I mean I see all these new movies... around 4 of them in the last few years... I see them on DVD but they never came out in the theater."
"Oh, they are just direct-to-DVD movies."
"Why aren't they in the theaters?"
"Well.. he's just not popular enough to carry 'real' movies so they put out these direct-to-DVD movies because they are cheaper to make."
The man seems flabbergasted by this. His face betrays the sadness in his heart. His disbelief that perhaps Senor Seagal's popularity has waned since the early 90's. I comment that it's just like what happened to Jean Claude Van Damme.
His hands wave around as if his voice alone could not convey how wrong this is: "Naw! Steven Seagal was WAY more popular than Van Damme though."
I explain that those two actors took the same basic career trajectory. He disagreed, stating that Steven Seagal was one of the biggest stars in the universe compared to Van Damme. This is fine with me. I resist the urge to compare an argument over Van Damme and Seagal to arguing over which $1 bowl of gruel tastes better. But then the man let's this little doozy slip out of his mouth:
"I mean, Seagal is at least way better than Jet Li or Jackie Chan."
My co-worker notes that Jackie Chan is one of the biggest stars in the world. The man's reply is "Yeah, but not in the US."
My coworker points out that Rush Hour and Shanghai Noon were huge franchises, way larger than any Seagal movie. The man says "Nawww... not bigger than 'Out For Justice' or 'Fire Down Below'. And besides, look at who was in those movies with Jackie Chan... no wonder they were big."
Again, my astute coworker says: "Chris Tucker? Oh yeah... 'Money Talks'... that was REAL big. Half of the draw was Jackie Chan."
The man disagrees. We point out that Jackie Chan and Jet Li were both big from almost BEFORE either Van Damme and Seagal. The man argues that you're not even actually big unless you're making it in the US. We mention "Drunken Master" as an old movie that was big. He says "Well I ain't ever heard of that. And all those movies are real old and made in Japan or whatever."
Then he says "I mean... even that dude from The Transporter is a better martial artist than Jet Li. Jet Li is all fake and shit."
We point out that Statham's better movies were ones where he DOESNT fight. This conversation goes on for a while, but the man is pretty amicable, despite his sometimes offensive comments. Everyone came out slightly confused, but no worse for wear.
So this is where I consider the grade this man would receive. He was indeed a great fan of Steven Seagal's, to which he would probably get an A. The problem was that he was not really aware of the story behind Seagal's later work, meaning his "fandom" had obviously slipped since the man's fall from grace. Also he was oblivious to enough facts to make strong cases, or at least to wave away the facts. This brings up the question: once he is made to believe the facts that Jet Li is a great martial artist, and Jackie Chan was popular worldwide and this counts for something... would he still be so adamant about the greatness of Steven Seagal? Was it true love that he had for the works of the squinty eyed, elbow throwing, pony-tailed action dinosaur that made him remain a fan of his work? Or just ignorance? Will the man fail this test of fandom? I do not want to be there when the walls of his Seagal worship crumble before his eyes. It will either be a sad affair, or the rising of an even stupider phoenix borne out of the ashes of ignorance and fueled by the fires of simple bad taste. S since we do not know the outcome and can only judge this Seagal fan on his actual ignorance of Seagal's post popularity career (and the fact that he did not even seem aware the the actor was no longer popular) I'll have to give him a...
Grade: C
Low marks for ignorance of actor, high marks for still being his fan.

#18 - On the album "She's the Dutchess, He's the Duke" by The Dutchess & The Duke

The recent (by which I mean last... six or so years) revitalization of the 60's style pop/rock song as art form is a double edged whammy. It has given us some great bands: The Clientele, Belle & Sebastian. Some okay bands: The Minders, Apples In Stereo. And some downright awful bands: I can only think of that awful "Delilah" song by whoever does it. People have slowly caught on that guitars plus melody minus total rockage equals "quality" or at least the perception of "quality". The main problem is that more often than not the actual songwriting, lyrically and, more importantly, melocially falters and the crap floats to the top as it is usually written by people far prettier who are merely following the trends 30 seconds later than the real deal and 30 seconds earlier than the rest of the world.
The Dutchess & The Duke, a band comprising of basically three people, using only acoustic guitars, a little electric and hand percussion, sound like the Rolling Stones. The important fact of this is that they do not sound like they are trying to sound like the Rolling Stones. They just do. The attitude and voicing of this music could easily fall apart as phony or weak but instead it's a major strength of it. It lacks the funky swagger of half of the Stones material, but retains the dark folk sexy danger of some of their best material, coming off like an alternate version of The Stones' album "Aftermath".
Lyrically this come on equally sexy/dangerous in that 60's rock and roll way. This is not meant as a diss as they pull it off, but the main pull of the album is a) the super lo-fi production which only accentuates the pure hooks in these songs and the amazing natural harmonies that tend to blossom in each chorus.
Is it a flawless album? No. It tends to drag on a bit in the latter half and as such it can be top heavy, but the top is so heavy that it doesn't matter. The strength of the first half of the album largely overshadows the second half which isn't so much bad as it is just not as good as what came before. Will they become big? The sound of the group is almost too authentic to get that way, but there is a modern bent to their sound and the structure of the songs that makes them more than just a "retro" act. So in response to will they become big: Who cares?
Grade: B+

#17 - On the album "Fur & Gold" by Bat for Lashes

Another free album I managed to procure, this one is also.. not very good. I caught onto this artist by way of her Youtube celebrity making video for her single "What's a Girl To Do?" The video, while cool, is cool in all of the most basic ways. Every signifier for "hipster" music is there. Animal masks ala Animal Collective/The Knife/everyone? Check. Bike riding ala The Cool Kids? Check. A spectacularly choreographed and seemingly low budget shot video encompassing one shot ala Feist? Check. It all works very well, but in an ultimately shallow way. One likes it and then feels guilty for liking it. Not in the guilty pleasure way that is obvious, but a far more insidious way that is slowly permeating pop's growing intermingling with underground/art culture.
It all makes sense then that it would be paired up with music equally hollow. On first listen, the single and much of the album is a near inventive (circa 1995) soundscape evoking basically... Bjork and trip hop of a lesser-than-Portishead caliber. Actually, on subsequent listens, these comparisons only sink in further. The songs are spooky and a bit pretty but ultimately sound like exercises in being Spooky and Pretty. Most of the quirkiness of this release seems manufactured, and while it is made well... it still seems... made. Had this come out years ago, I would just throw it in the bin with lesser trip hoppers like the Sneaker Pimps and Mono. Highbrow art for the middle to low brow crowd.
Grade: C+

#16 - On the album "Anywhere I Lay My Head" by Scarlett Johansson

Let me first note that I got this album for free. There.
Oh Scarjo. Why did you do this? That was my first reaction when I read that the buxom indie-nerd's-then-everyone's-then-some-people's wet dream announced that she would record an album chock full of songs by one of my favorite artists of all time: Tom Waits. The offenses went on: she managed to fanagle the skills of Dave Sitek from TV on the Radio. David Bowie was slated to guest sing on the album. Nick Zimmer from the Yeah Yeah Yeahs was to play guitar on it. My mind split on whether or not the album would be awful or at least cool sound and awful. In the end I am still not sure how I feel about all of this. Being an album I got for free, my first thought was "I kinda wish it had a hotter cover/liner notes art. She looks vaguely like Gwen Stefani (someone I do not like, to put mildly)" You know, cuz really... let's get real here. I wasn't even sure if I was going to actually listen to the album but I figured.. what the hell.
The production is beautiful. For one song. Then pretty sweet the next. Then it just gets more and more boring as it goes on. On some songs, the ethereal washes of guitar and near industrial noise.. basically TV On the Radio going all Slowdive (though not My Bloody Valentine because they are a different... less boring kind of shoegazer music). Then Scarjo begins to sing.
One thing I noticed that this album reinforces is the beauty of Tom Wait's songs. The strength of melody you have there. True, Waits does not a beautiful voice, but in a way it's unique enough to make you think it's all about the delivery and the wacked out lyrics when it comes to his songs.
Scarlett Johansson cannot sing. She is not awful though. And she sounds like she is honestly trying. Not hamming it up really, but really getting into the songs, and through this it all achieves a weird sort of beauty. I imagine if the songs were presented in a movie as sung by some everyday girl (who is really hot) as portrayed by Scarjo, they would be easier to stomach than on an album which is marketed as an album of songs interpreted by someone worthy of interpreting the material. It is not. But it's a nice little album of songs sung badly but heartfelt..ly by someone who had the money and connections to put it together. There's nothing wrong with that. In the end, oddly, the bad vocals make the album better than the nearly pedestrian (while being totally nonmainstream somehow) production, which sometimes hold it back. They attempt to hide the flaws in the delivery more than call attention to them, and I think that would have helped in selling the album as a real work, and less a vanity project (which it doesn't really feel like anyways.)
Still, it's not actually GOOD. Just better than bad. Which, given expectations, throws it somewhere in the realm of AMAZING... or not. So I probably won't put it in my mp3 library, and no hot cover? I'm selling this baby.
Grade: C+