From: larry@csccat.cs.com (Larry Spence)
Newsgroups: rec.music.misc
Subject: Re: REVIEW: Sonic Youth _Dirty_ and live July 4th (LONG)
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:57:22 GMT
Organization: Computer Support Corporation,  Dallas,Texas

In article <1992Jul23.154812.28575@msc.cornell.edu> rob@msc.cornell.edu (Rob Vaughn) writes:
>
>In whole, the album is pretty much a straight-forward GRUNGE ROCK slab,
>Sonic Youth style.  Regardless of Moore's claims to the contrary, they're
>more of a "grunge" band on this album than anything else, with little or
>no sign of their earlier art-school sound.  I consider it their version
>of _Bug_, and I'll expound on that theory later.

Little or no sign?  I don't know, I still hear a lot of strange guitar
stuff going on, plenty of sounds that would make a lot of "alternative
grunge" fans go, "man, they oughta tune their guitars once in a while." %)

>The first single has been out for a little under a month now, and so far
>reviews have been mixed.  Spastic SY fans like it without question.  Crusty,
>diehard fans long for a return to the old days.

Some diehard fans like the old stuff _and_ the new stuff (e.g., moi).  Any-
one who's looking for a return to pre-1985 should have given up by now.
Since _Bad Moon Rising_, then _Sister_ and _EVOL_, SY has been into actual
rock songs to some extent.  The days of twenty-minute drones are long gone.

>Secondly, [100%] sounds rather uneventful once MTV or your local FM station
>has compressed the hell out of it, but give it a listen with headphones and
>you'll realize that there's some pretty whacky guitar stuff going on there,
>both highly derivative and noisy/chaotic, with Lee playing a simple melody
>line while Thurston pulls all sorts of weird stunts, none of which sound
>anything like what you'd normally hear from any other guitar band, nor what
>I'd stoop to calling typical A&R stuff.

Exactly!  I think _Dirty_ does a really good job of mixing apparently
accessible songs with typically twisted SY guitar bits.  As we were 
listening to it the first time, after a while my wife and I figured out
that if one part was catchy and "commercial," it was a sure thing that
within five minutes something really cool would kick in.  Very clever...
they've done a good job of drawing in the alternative/grunge fans and
then exposing them to something different.

>Theresa's Sound-world - Slower powerful soundscape with Thrustin' on vocals.
>This one would sound right at home on _Daydream Nation_, ebbing and flowing
>from the main melody and verse to some powerful Sonic noisefills.  Steve's
>manic drumming powers through this piece, driving it along during the strong
>parts while Thurston whispers his way through the softer parts.  It sends
>shivers up my spine.

Yep, this and certain other tracks are really, really good IMHO.  I can
live with (or skip over) the more generic tracks for stuff like this.

>JC - another Kim ramble, similar to "Shoot", there's some pretty nice
>atonal stuff going on, each guitar following it's own path, coming
>together and then moving apart.  It all comes apart in a grating mess at
>the end, and finally putters out.

This is probably my favorite song on the album.  "You walked right 
through my heart again / Don't forget to close the door."  Where's the
signup sheet for the Kim Fan Club?  Please don't OD or destroy your
liver, Kim!

>On the down side, the drums are mixed too far back in places, and the
>vocals are way too upfront for my tastes, so Andy Wallace comes out looking
>like the weak end of the link. 

He did what he was told (by Butch Vig and SY), I imagine.  The upfront
vocals are perhaps my biggest gripe.  SY doesn't usually sound like that
live.

>Shelley's drumming is as good as always, but he doesn't
>seem to move in and out of the songs like he used to.

I thought the drums sounded a bit too clean and simple a lot of the time.

>To the contrary,
>unlike _Goo_, which was recorded on some state-of-the-art gee-whiz studio,
>_Dirty_ was done with low-production in mind; old equipment, lots of analog,
>lots of one-takes, few overdubs. 

But if _Goo_ was high-tech, it was high-tech _dirt_.  Someone who hadn't
heard it might think it was a Pearl Jam album or something, from your
description.  There's nothing on _Dirty_ that's as sick-sounding as
"Mildred Pierce" from _Goo_.  More good instrumental guitar jams on _Goo_,
too.  I think _Goo_ was more consistent -- I like every single track on
_Goo_, but not on _Dirty_.  But the best tracks on _Dirty_ are wonderful.

>In the end, [Goo] was their most high-tech, polished album
>to date, 

"Mil-dred-Pieeeeeeeeeeerce!!  Mil-dred-Pieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerce!!!
 AAAAaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuugggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!"  %)

>and didn't push the buttons they were looking for. 

I liked _Goo_ just fine.  The bass sounds are a lot gutsier and nastier
than on _Dirty_.  Parts of _Dirty_ are just plain murkier than _Goo_.
That, to me, does not automatically make it better.  Of course, I have
no idea which turned out closer to what SY wanted.  Have they said any-
thing in interviews about being unhappy with _Goo_?

>Although I like _Dirty_ quite a bit, I
>don't see much of a future for the band if they continue down this path,
>no matter how much of a Sonic devotee I am.

I guess I agree with you there.  It's hard to imagine them doing experi-
mental stuff on DGC, though.  Look at what happened to Peter Gabriel on 
Geffen (mainstream bland-ola)...

Good reviews!

-- 
Larry Spence
larry@cs.com
uunet!csccat!larry or sun!texsun!csccat!larry
Newsgroups: rec.music.misc