I came of age during a massive wave of generalized cultural nostalgia. I saw American Graffiti in the theater. I watched Happy Days and Sha Na Na. I listened to the Beach Boys’ Endless Summer and Spirit of America collections. I saw the first commercials on TV for mail order Golden Oldies records...The message radiating out from all this stuff was that things used to be so much cooler, so much more innocent, so much freer, and so much easier. This thinking must’ve seeped into my bloodstream because I’ve always had a powerful nostalgic streak in me. I didn’t know it then, but now I realize that the backwards looking tendency in culture at the time was a symptom of post-60s malaise. Cultural stagnation reflected not only economic stagnation but also a need for escape from the depressing aftermaths of Watergate, Viet Nam, and the fighting in the streets.All this being said, though, nostalgia is not uncomplicated, by which I mean that it’s not entirely negative. I say this somewhat defensively because I am a romantic at heart, and my cultural tastes are firmly planted in yesterday’s world. I’m a (mid) 20th century guy living in a 21st century world. For this reason, I have to believe that there’s good nostalgia – good simulation – that can be separated out from bad nostalgia.The pop revivalist movement that began in the early 70s was an example of good nostalgia because it was, in a sense, corrective.Rock had become so bloated and gassy, heavy and conceptual. But then along come the Raspberries, Blue Ash, Pezband, Liverpool Echo, the Pop, Shoes, Artful Dodger, the Rubinoos…and so on.Most of these bands didn't sell too many records, but at least they tried, with some success, to move music away from the three-record set, and back towards the three-minute pop song.It was a positive development even if it represented a form of conservative restoration...
And this is why I think the Byrds reunion album is almost uniformly awful.I like to tell people that it’s the Byrds playing the music, but they’re not playing Byrds music.It’s nostalgic in the sense that the original five are back together, but it’s otherwise stuck in the cultural quicksand of 1973.I don’t really understand what the thinking was here. David Crosby produced the record, so who knows how lucid he was at the time. But if you’re gonna get the original five back together again, why wouldn’t you try to make the music sound like a slightly updated edition of the kind of music for which you’re known?Do we really need two Neil Young covers, neither of which adds anything to the originals?Gene Clark was the only guy who came to the table with halfway decent material. The rest of the album sounds like slapdash corporate rock, conceived and executed for money and no other reason. McGuinn’s chiming 12-string goodness is almost entirely MIA.He doesn’t seem to have been invested in this project at all.Maybe the bitterness and resentments between the guys were so deep and hurtful that they couldn’t be bothered to do anything other than something entirely mercenary.The record opens with Clark’s Full Circle. It’s a nice enough song, but he’s fooling himself if he thinks the band has come back to where they started.He couldn’t be farther from the truth, and the Byrds couldn’t be farther from the brilliant band they were. It was only a few years earlier, really, but this record serves as a stark reminder that it was also several lifetimes ago...
I came of age during a massive wave of generalized cultural nostalgia. I saw American Graffiti in the theater. I watched Happy Days and Sha Na Na. I listened to the Beach Boys’ Endless Summer and Spirit of America collections. I saw the first commercials on TV for mail order Golden Oldies records... The message radiating out from all this stuff was that things used to be so much cooler, so much more innocent, so much freer, and so much easier. This thinking must’ve seeped into my bloodstream because I’ve always had a powerful nostalgic streak in me. I didn’t know it then, but now I realize that the backwards looking tendency in culture at the time was a symptom of post-60s malaise. Cultural stagnation reflected not only economic stagnation but also a need for escape from the depressing aftermaths of Watergate, Viet Nam, and the fighting in the streets. All this being said, though, nostalgia is not uncomplicated, by which I mean that it’s not entirely negative. I say this somewhat defensively because I am a romantic at heart, and my cultural tastes are firmly planted in yesterday’s world. I’m a (mid) 20th century guy living in a 21st century world. For this reason, I have to believe that there’s good nostalgia – good simulation – that can be separated out from bad nostalgia. The pop revivalist movement that began in the early 70s was an example of good nostalgia because it was, in a sense, corrective. Rock had become so bloated and gassy, heavy and conceptual. But then along come the Raspberries, Blue Ash, Pezband, Liverpool Echo, the Pop, Shoes, Artful Dodger, the Rubinoos…and so on. Most of these bands didn't sell too many records, but at least they tried, with some success, to move music away from the three-record set, and back towards the three-minute pop song. It was a positive development even if it represented a form of conservative restoration...
And this is why I think the Byrds reunion album is almost uniformly awful. I like to tell people that it’s the Byrds playing the music, but they’re not playing Byrds music. It’s nostalgic in the sense that the original five are back together, but it’s otherwise stuck in the cultural quicksand of 1973. I don’t really understand what the thinking was here. David Crosby produced the record, so who knows how lucid he was at the time. But if you’re gonna get the original five back together again, why wouldn’t you try to make the music sound like a slightly updated edition of the kind of music for which you’re known? Do we really need two Neil Young covers, neither of which adds anything to the originals? Gene Clark was the only guy who came to the table with halfway decent material. The rest of the album sounds like slapdash corporate rock, conceived and executed for money and no other reason. McGuinn’s chiming 12-string goodness is almost entirely MIA. He doesn’t seem to have been invested in this project at all. Maybe the bitterness and resentments between the guys were so deep and hurtful that they couldn’t be bothered to do anything other than something entirely mercenary. The record opens with Clark’s Full Circle. It’s a nice enough song, but he’s fooling himself if he thinks the band has come back to where they started. He couldn’t be farther from the truth, and the Byrds couldn’t be farther from the brilliant band they were. It was only a few years earlier, really, but this record serves as a stark reminder that it was also several lifetimes ago...
No comments:
Post a Comment