(Edited to remove YouTube video.)
The creative process of blogging can be an odd thing. Sometimes there will be stretches in which I’m bursting with subject ideas. And sometimes, like the last couple of days, I’ll sit down at my desk and find I’ve got nothin’. Fortunately, a few subjects have come to mind just in time to keep the drought from continuing, so here we go.
1. Chicago radio legend Larry Lujack was inducted into the National Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame last month at a ceremony in Las Vegas. He was introduced by a great tribute video . . . which the NAB has for some reason yanked from YouTube. You can see Lujack’s acceptance speech here, at least until the NAB yanks that.
2. On the subject of legends: Steve Winwood released his first solo album in nearly five years this week. Nine Lives was greeted by a hyperventilatingly positive review at Allmusic.com, but it’s deserved. The album is clearly not the work of a washed-up artist cashing in on his past reputation by going through the motions in the present. (He’s been through that phase already, actually.) And “Dirty City,” a collaboration with Eric Clapton, is even turning into what passes for a hit single nowadays.
3. On the subject of Winwood: Earlier this week, Popdose featured Traffic in another of its exhaustive Popdose Guides. It’s been a pretty interesting week at the ‘Dose, with a review of the new Al Green album and some fine and obscure 80s hits in the latest installment of Bottom Feeders. I’m proud to be a contributor over there, although I’m of the opinion that the site’s ambitions and its sheer volume of material leads to the most interesting and worthwhile stuff sometimes getting buried. Nevertheless, I find that wading in for a few minutes every day is usually rewarded.
4. On the subject of places where I contribute: I’ve got a new post up at WNEW.com about another of rock’s founding fathers, who died 25 years ago this week. I have at least one more in the can over there, so keep an eye on the site over the weekend, if you care.
5. On the subject of Allmusic: I use the site all the time, on this blog and on the radio, but there’s one thing I don’t understand: the star ratings. The Winwood album gets a rave from Thom Jurek, but only four stars out of five. There’s not a word in the review that indicates anything is lacking, or that there’s anything more or better or different Winwood should have done to get that fifth star. This isn’t the only time I’ve noticed a disconnect between the review and the star rating assigned. So what can the stars mean, exactly?
“Dirty City”/Steve Winwood with Eric Clapton (this will only be up through the weekend, so buy it here)
Filed under: Tracks
I really love the song, but I am old. “turning into what passes for a hit single nowadays.”? When was the last time a song over 7 minutes was a hit single? 1978? Although I have heard this on the radio. Now I have to pay attention to see if they are playing a shortened radio edit.
I did quite a bit of writing for AMG about 8-10 years ago and, at the time, the stars were supposed to be relative to the act’s catalog. Don’t know if it’s still the same or not, but I imagine it is.
Dan: By “turning into what passes for a hit single,” I mean only it’s getting some some radio airplay as a single, which is pretty rare for a classic-rock artist.
BAIFP: I get it, but as I look at the Winwood discography page, I’m not sure the stars provide any useful info. “Arc of a Diver” and “Back in the High Life” each get four and a half, but there’s no indication within the review as to why; “About Time,” which includes some lukewarm comments from the reviewer, gets 3 and a half, which is just a tick less than “Nine Lives,” which is worshipfully reviewed and given four. As you suggest, regarding the star system, the Allmusic FAQ says “we only compare a release to other releases by the same artist.” Reading the reviews alone without the stars would not give a reader the idea that “Diver” or “High Life” are superior to “Nine Lives.” So there’s a disconnect there, at the very least.
Well, I did some digging through my old files and found the guidelines I was sent when I started writing for them. This is their explanation (and may well be on the site – I haven’t looked)…
9 — Best of Genre. This is an album that represents one of the best recordings of a particular genre, or a historically important recording/album. It is something that every listener interested in the genre and its history should hear. It is a rating that is used sparingly — not every artist has a 9.
8 — Best of Artist. These represent the best albums the individual artist has to offer. These are landmark albums within their own catalog that every fan should hear.
6 — Good. While these records aren’t as fine as ones that are rated “Best of Artist,” they still are quite strong, and offer a fair number of worthwhile songs.
4 — OK. These records are generally failed experiments, bland genre exercises, botched compilations, records filled with uneven material — anything that doesn’t quite fit the artist’s normal quality standards. For dedicated fans, there are songs of interest, but other listeners shouldn’t bother.
1 — Poor. The poor rating is reserved for albums that are out-right disasters or rip-off collections. The poor rating is used almost as sparingly as the Best of Genre rating — in other words, it should only be used when an album is a complete waste of money, such as a collection or re-recordings that bills itself as a “Greatest Hits” compilation.
As i recall, I would submit a numeric rating which was then converted to stars. With acts with extensive catalogs, there definitely does seem to be a case of too many cooks in the kitchen.