Great Artist. Bad Record.

 

There are so many days and nights when I just hit a wall. No topics jump out.

Often, I get an assist from my writing muse. Susan rides in on her white keyboard with suggestions.

She texted me a Rolling Stone story the other night that I certainly found interesting. When I was talking with her the next day about this little ol' slice of internet hell, she suggested I write about the very story that she texted me.

She helped me talk it out a bit. It was a great idea.

And so, here we are.

The topic of the Rolling Stone story was to rank 50 Genuinely Horrible Albums by Brilliant Artists. As with everything R.S. does, it's utterly and completely flawed but still interesting. The text, written by Andy Greene, includes this passage:

There’s also no U2 record because we like them all, even Songs of Experience and October. Those are fighting words to some, and we’re sure many readers will have problems with this list. True suckiness — like true greatness — is a subjective quality.

Good lord. Considering it said "brilliant artists" and includes Kiss also adds to have just flawed the thinking is, but we can digress.

(Incidentally, the story did rank 50 albums, and number one was Ye by Kanye West.)

Since this is all subjective and it's my list, I'm going to just throw what are not great albums by artists I genuinely enjoy. And, yeah, U2 will likely show up in this. There's no great methodology here, and I don't intend to spend hours on this.

Well, let's just start with The Beatles. Now, if you know me, you know that on Babe Ruth's green earth there is no way I will tell you that there are any bad records of theirs. However, Beatles for Sale isn't my favorite. I will say that Let it Be has grown on me, thanks to the 2021 Get Back documentary. Magical Mystery Tour is a bit unfocused but has brilliance on it. Thus the answer has to be Yellow Submarine only because six Beatles songs followed by a collection of George Martin instrumentals.

Obviously, it's not dreck but I tried to find flaws.

Billy Joel, while revered, is a little easier. I never liked The Bridge but that can't be my answer. Hell, he barely cared about The Bridge and, well, it shows. Still, it does have "A Matter of Trust" and that counts for something.

But River of Dreams is just awful. Of course, it's awful by Billy Joel standards but when compared to, say, The Stranger in his canon, you realize it is terrible. I remember cranking the CD open right after it came out in 1993 and seeing that Color Me Badd sang backup on a song and realizing this was not good.

I mean, look, it still has some decent songs but, well, no.

Paul McCartney is easy to narrow down. Just go to the 80s. Critics and fans have come to recognize his 70s output (solo and with Wings) was much better than we ever gave credit for, mostly because it was being compared to that band he used to be in. By the 80s, things are much more unfocused as Paul clearly missed John Lennon following his death. Then he did the absolute train wreck that was "Ebony and Ivory" with Stevie Wonder and do we need to get into the Michael Jackson duets?

Sir Paul needed the end of the decade and Elvis Costello to discover his mojo (and his Hofner violin bass) again on Flowers in the Dirt. But while many mock his 1984 soundtrack to Give My Regards to Broad Street (he remade Beatles songs for the love of Lennon), Press to Play is not good. Classic rock artists didn't have the easiest time around 1986 and Macca was no exception. While I personally like "Spies Like Us" (from the same era but not on this album), his music at this time was dripping in gooey 80s production values.

No. 

I wanted to pick a truly awful Beach Boys album but I truly felt there was only one way to do this correctly.

Take virtually every non-Brian Wilson album. Bingo. You have an answer. Also, anything with "Kokomo." No, I'm not kidding. The Beach Boys played the Greenwich Town Party a few years ago and while it was a pleasure to take a few minutes to watch them, Sean and I were thankfully gone before they sullied things by playing "Kokomo."

How does one suggest a bad Elton John album? Well, let's see, we could go to his late-70s selections or anything after "I Guess That's Why They Call it The Blues." Leather Jackets, his 1986 album (again, classic rock and 1986) has got to be the right answer. It's truly amazing that Elton John and Bernie Taupin can come up with anything this bad.

Genesis. Oh, Genesis. Of course, they're a band who have a simple dividing line: the Peter Gabriel years and the non-Peter Gabriel years. Snobs like me see where the Gabriel stuff is great and non (read: Phil Collins) isn't. 

But that's not true. Duke is great and Abacab is very good and the Perfection pieces self-titled album is also terrific. Invisible Touch is fine and then there is We Can't Dance.

Glub.

Look, the Collins and Genesis-less Congo is insufferable but given Collins, Tony Banks, and Mike Rutherford are on We Can't Dance, well, that wins. The problem with that album is that we're into the cutesie-I-Make-Movies Phil Collins years. He's lost that loving charm by that time and, while there are a few OK songs on it, we've reached the border of the Phil Collins Disney years.

Make it stop.

Now how do I address Huey Lewis and the News? I mean, their early work was blah blah blah.

No, I revere their early work. I don't care it was a little too "new wave." The first four albums (self-titled, Picture This, Sports, and Fore) are sacred to me. Small World changed the game and Hard at Play was an attempt to remain pop-driven. 

But Soulsville is the album that I haven't listened to enough. Is it a bad album? No, not at all. In fact, I saw them touring in support of that album and the collection of soul covers on the album are solid. But, keep in mind, this was their second album of covers following the wonderful Four Chords and Several Years Ago.

Let's finish with U2 since Rolling Stone could never see any wrong with the four Irish boys.

They'd be definitively wrong.

Pop is a strange album but one in which they tried to embrace the electronica of the era. But they came back from that. Beginning with No Line on the Horizon, the game was over.

But Songs of Innocence was the end. Look, this was the album that the band and Apple forced on all of us. As I'm one to like free music, I was into the idea. But then I listened to it.

Sadly, whatever good I have to about U2 was over and done with.

So, no, Rolling Stone, I don't like them all.

What about you? What are the albums in the acts that you love that just aren't up to the standards you want? What Taylor Swift miscue makes you cringe? 

I'll leave any analysis of The Monkees to my writing muse.

Susan, it's all yours.