The Album Club: "Jordan: the Comeback" by Prefab Sprout
 

https://yankeedoodlesoc.files.wordpr...inute-hate.jpg
Take your places, book your seat now! It's time for another Trollheart album!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_Comeback.jpg
Vote, review, discuss, rate, comment, trash and destroy here.

Where’s the one I missed due to Fascist Frowny?

I remember the NME ****ing all over their pages about this band. I never bought any of their records but I had a fair amount of their material hidden on poorly marked mix tapes I would make when visiting anybody with a stereo and a record collection back then. I recognized a few of these songs. I think the critics thought this might be a guiding force through the 90’s but instead it’s more of a culmination of 80s pop culture. Honestly, this record is really subtle and would take more time than I’m willing to invest to appreciate. I didn’t really get it the first time either. I voted liked it. I know it’s good but I never really developed an appreciation for it so that’s on me.

Prefab Sprout occupy territory similar to that of Scritti Politti: high concept minded, emphasis on clever lyrics, state-of-the-art (for the time) production and led by wunderkinds with singular visions (in this case, priest-turned-popstar Paddy McAloon). Jordan: The Comback is uneven, but a lot of fun at its best moments.

I'm pretty familiar with this album, having revisited it periodically over the years, and despite McAloon's at times Brian Wilson-esque grasp of pop genius, this isn't a super accessible record either. Thomas Dolby's synths and approach to the tonal feel overall has a clinical, impersonal emphasis, but his meticulous approach elevates the best songs ('Looking For Atlantis', the title track, 'Machine Gun Ibiza', 'The Ice Maiden') and makes even the cloyest romanticism tolerable ('All The World Loves Lovers', 'One Of The Broken'). That said, the production is a love it or hate it affair (sampled horn synths in all their glory).

This is one of those albums where some trimming would have benefited things, but when you want to explore a mutltitude of different ideas (such as American identity, the nature of celebrity and religion, etc) you are bound to meander a bit. And it's not a bad thing at all.

8.5 out of 10

Great review Ant

I looked up this band and apparently they're sort of poppy prog, or sort of proggy pop. This album seems quite well liked in some circles, but I can't say I've ever heard any mention of neither the album, not the band.

After a couple listens, I'm afraid that what characterizes this album first and foremost to me, is how sweet, soft and sentimental it is. It's got absolutely all edges filed off entirely and comes off as saccarine and naive as an Enya record. In particular the vocalist strengthens this expression, with his soft, breaty crooning - as if he's perpetually stuck in lullaby mode.

There's some musical variety on this album for sure, but I can't help but be reminded of several bands that I don't like. Genesis, Steely Dan, Phil Collins... There's this smoothed out sophistication to everything, where it's so overly determined to be pleasant and soothing that there's hardly any expressive power to these songs. I feel like the album is trying to put me to sleep, all the will slowly waving it's hand as if to assure me that it means no harm.

The ballads are where the album fares the worst, with "We Let the Stars Go" in particular being just too much syrup for one pancake.

"Carnival 2000" has a more fun musical arrangement than any other song on the album, but it's still got this quality to it where it's just all a bit too starry eyed. The singer pretty much ensures that I would never be able to fully get on board with any of these songs.

Everything is super nicely recorded and performed, but I don't think I'll be able to listen to this again without a pack of 10 insulin injection pens at hand.

I voted "disliked it".

So sorry Troll, I really tried.

MicShaz, no problem. I'm used to people crapping on my albums now. I am a little surprised you thought it was all so poppy and nice, as from what I know of them, Prefab weren't seen that way, though in fairness their singles were all pretty much vacuous and poppy on the surface (remember "The King of Rock and Roll"? No? Here's a reminder. Who could forget a video where lifesize hot dogs dance with frogs beside a pool? :laughing:)

But there's a lot of political intent in McAloon's lyrics, if you listen. I'll elaborate on this in my own review later. But not to worry: I didn't like your last rec and anyway, we're all putting our albums out here with the understanding that they may be trashed. Two people have liked this one so far, so that's better than I could have hoped for, even if everyone else ends up hating it.

It's all in the way they sound. The textures of everything come off as so soft, bright, cute and sunny that I've got a hard time appreciating it. I recognize that the songwriting is generally very well done, but the sonic experience of the album as a whole really does rub me the wrong way.

I don't remember if I've literally trashed every pick of yours so far, but it's possible. No wait, I did like that Nick Cave album! I just remembered that.
But I disliked the Divine Comedy. Win some, lose some :laughing:

I had pretty much the same reaction to this album as I did to "The Blurred Crusade" by The Church, so I'll re-post my review for that one (with a couple of edits.)

OK I found the album on YT and was somewhat relieved I that it was available. I click play and upon hearing "Looking for Atlantis" the very first thought I had was: Is this Scientology music? Was this song written by L Ron Hubbard? Then I start wondering did this album come with a free copy of Dianetics?

The guys voice is too subdued and whispery. And the music is like New Wave slow down to half speed and put through a deflavoring machine. However that holds true to a lot of music at this time, and it has to do with the synths available at the time, namely FM. Not that I hate FM synthesizers. But what marked the down fall of 80s music was the switch from analog to FM synthesizers. They were thin sounding. They didn't have the depth and warmth of analogy. I'm not knocking FM, you can coax some interesting sounds. I only mention that cause that is my problem with any music from this era. Whatever they used, there are parts on this album where it sounds like they were using a toy synthesizer on it.

Combine the placid music tone and the whispery lounge singer's voice and Scientology and/or Mormon themed lyrics only made it a slightly unnerving and uncomfortable experience when listening to this album.

... and if you any of you think this album equal to or is better than Blurred Crusade, I laugh at you!
http://wsny-fm.sagacom.com/wp-conten...Untitled-6.gif

I never thought about that. Do you have a few album suggestions that would really illustrate the difference to me?

I guess take any band that spanned switch. Prog bands are a good examples like Yes, Genesis and Rush.

Close to the Edge or Big Generator
Selling England by the Pound or We Can't Dance
Moving Pictures or Power Windows

But rock bands don’t usually age well no matter what they do.

Eno and legion of imitators on the other hand used FM Synthesizers correctly.

PS Blurred Crusade is better fwiw

You're entitled to your opinion, Nea, but I'm confused about the Scientology reference? Explain?

Oh, and what a surprise that you'd choose your album (which you've been bleating over ever since you believe I didn't give it a fair review) over mine. Now if you had said, I don't know, maybe Swing Out Sister or something, maybe I'd have given your opinion more credibility.

Seriously?

I didn't initially notice a possible Scientology connection but now that you mention it... :laughing:

And Blurred Crusade had at least 3 songs that I found catchy enough to listen to a second time, so I have to say it was the better album.

Seriously what? That he'd tout his album over mine, or that I don't see the Scientology reference?
I still don't get it. What are you guys talking about?

Probably the part where you took Neapy's taste personally and dictated that he should have touted an album apart from one that he's already made clear that he's a fan of.

What? He says "your album sucks, I prefer mine" and I'm supposed to be surprised at that? I don't care that he did it, I just find it totally predictable. My question was, and is, still about the Scientology thing. Anyone want to enlighten me here?
:confused:

He mentioned it because the was brought up earlier in the thread. Quit taking everything so personally. It's too predictable at this point.

Scientology is a body of religious beliefs and practices launched in May 1952 by American author L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86). Hubbard initially developed a program of ideas called Dianetics, which was distributed through the Dianetics Foundation. The foundation soon entered bankruptcy, and Hubbard lost the rights to his seminal publication Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health in 1952. He then recharacterized the subject as a religion and renamed it Scientology, retaining the terminology, doctrines, the E-meter, and the practice of auditing. Within a year, he regained the rights to Dianetics and retained both subjects under the umbrella of the Church of Scientology.

Hubbard describes the etymology of the word Scientology as coming from the Latin word "scio", meaning know or distinguish, and the Greek word “logos”, meaning “the word or outward form by which the inward thought is expressed and made known”. Hubbard writes, “thus, Scientology means knowing about knowing, or science of knowledge”.

Hubbard's groups have encountered considerable opposition and controversy. In January 1951, the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners brought proceedings against Dianetics Foundation on the charge of teaching medicine without a license. Hubbard's followers engaged in a program of criminal infiltration of the U.S. government.

Hubbard-inspired organizations and their classification are often a point of contention. Germany classifies Scientology groups as an "anti-constitutional sect". In France, they have been classified as a dangerous cult by some parliamentary reports.

Your responses are getting so predictable. You really need to up your game.
Yeah, real smart. Nice copy-and-paste definition, Chula. :rolleyes: I know what it is. I asked how you guys believe the album references it. I love that album and I've never noticed any reference to that quasi-religion in it.

Winner winner chicken dinner

Unsurprisingly, I'm going to be raving about this album. Well, do any of us suggest albums we think are crap? Funny thing is, I was (and still am) not really ever a Prefab Sprout fan. I knew their singles - “Cars and Girls”, “Appetite”, “When Love Breaks Down”, “The King of Rock and Roll” - and while I liked some of them, I was never that interested that I wanted to buy their albums. I still don't know why I bought this one. Maybe it was mentioned in a magazine I was reading at the time, maybe I heard a song on the radio (though I don't think so), maybe someone recommended it to me. I don't know. What I do know is that from the moment it began I loved it. For me, it has everything: memories sweet (“We Let the Stars Go”) and sad (“Doo-Wop in Harlem”), songs about a fear of commitment (“The Wedding March”), even vague misogyny (“The Ice Maiden”), and namechecks such luminaries as Elvis and Moondog, even giving a guest role to God himself!
1. What were your VERY FIRST impressions on listening to the album, say from the first five minutes in?
Oh man I love this!
2. What did you think of the opening track?
A great, powerful, upbeat and energetic start, and I hoped the rest of the album would live up to the promise of this track. I needn't have worried.
3. What did you think of the next track?
I wasn't so wild (sorry) about this one but it was okay. The singing here on “wild” (with the sort of upward inflection) bugged me a little.
4. Did you like the vocalist? Hate him/her? Any impressions? (see note 1)
Yeah I like Paddy McAloon. He has a sort of Irish inflection to his voice and I like how he sings.
5. Did the music (only) generally appeal to you, or not? (see note 2)
Pretty much all of it, yes. Maybe not so much on “Michael”, but otherwise yeah.
6. Did the album get better or worse as you listened to it (first time)?
n/a
7. What did you think of the lyrical content?
I love the breadth of themes. Using Jesse James as subject matter is pure genius, imo, and then he tops that by taking the persona of God (ego problem here, Paddy?) but there's plenty of room for simple love songs and some social commentary.
8. Did you like the instrumental parts? (see note 3)
n/a
9. What did you think of the production?
Pass as ever
10. Did you know of this artiste prior to listening to the album, and if so, did that foreknowledge colour your perception of this album?
Yes, as per the introduction and kind of yes; I wasn't sure this would be for me. But I was pleasantly surprised.
11. Is this, generally, the kind of music you listen to or not?
Yeah I'd say it is. I'm not the biggest fan of pop but I can listen to it, and I like some/most pop-rock.
12. Assuming you listened to the album more than once, on repeated listens, did you find you liked the album more, or less?
n/a
13. What would you class as your favourite track(s), if you have any?
I like pretty much everything here, but would single out the title, “Jesse James Bolero/Symphony”, “We Let the Stars Go”, “Doo-Wop in Harlem”, “Moondog”, “Paris Smith”, “The Wedding March” and “One of the Broken” as favourites.
14. And the one(s) you liked least?
Nothing really, but if I was forced to choose it would be “Michael” and “Machine Gun Ibiza”, maybe add “Wild Horses”
15. If the album in question is a debut, did that fact allow it, in your mind, any leeway, and if so, was that decision justified or vindicated? (see note 4)
n/a
16. Are you now looking forward to hearing more from this artiste, if you have not heard any of their other material?
I intend to listen to more, yes
17. Were you surprised by your reaction - positive or negative - to the album?
n/a
18. Did the album end well?
Yes, there's a beautiful bittersweet ballad to end a fantastic album

19. Do you see any way the album could have been improved?
No
20. Do you think the album hung together well, ie was a fully cohesive unit, or was it a bit hit-and-miss?
I think it hung together well on certain themes, but perhaps went a little askew here and there.

A pure 10/10 for me.

Scientology, New Age, whatever fits, it was said tongue in cheek but you want to rationalize a wry observation and thus dismantling it of its humor. I hate to say it, but you are playing Spock to my Captain Kirk end of episode cheeky banter.

You're not really a Prefab Sprout fan. [see quote below] So I am surprised that you even took offense over something rather benign, not being a hardcore fan and whatnot. It so obvious it's silly to even point out, but nowhere in my post I said that "your album sucks, I prefer mine." It's seems you throwing your toy out the pram cause I preferred Blurred Crusade over it. Still, if you only stuck to the original phrasing and not made up your own, it would leave your album plenty of room for being somewhat moderate good to almost very good, but not very good to extremely good which is the category Blurred Crusades falls in. And not the "totally sucks" like you interpreted it. You could have easily taken another route and said "Wow Neo, you really didn't hate the album, that's awesome!" But no, you rather rage on like Dr. McCoy in a crisis.

Star Trek?

No "Bones" about it.

Does that character have anger issues?

Well when under pressure to perform he does have an quick emotional outburst and that'll give rise to him saying something like "Dammit Jim, I am a doctor not a brick-layer." That is how his character is suppose to be. Bones' character is suppose to represent strong human emotions and that is to contast Spock who represents logic and rationality. I'm surprise you don't already know this stuff. Was Star Trek banned in the South?

Bones accidentally injects himself with cordrazine.

I never liked it. The sets are ugly.

I read a lot of sci-fi but I don’t watch it very often.

I thought that what brought it charm. I thought was midway between theater and movie. So of the planet scenes were cheesy enough it looked like props on a stage, but then it had some special effects that weren't present in most TV series (for its time). Most movies and series toady are mainly driven by a continuous stream of special effects (mainly CGI) but back then a show like Star Trek the story was driven by dialogue and acting.

I hate CGI.

I don’t claim to know much or have good taste when it comes to TV and film.

**** the sets: what drove Star Trek was its humour and the interaction between the characters. Up to then, all of sci-fi had been desperately serious; nobody would even dare make a joke ("In space, nobody can hear you laugh") but Roddenberry (and especially Shatner and Kelley) turned that on its head. Watch the original pilot, the one without Shatner. It's good but my god is the acting forced, and there's not a trace of humour anywhere, not even a sign of humanity. Then watch the first episode with Shatner in it. The difference is amazing.

The stories on Star Trek were generally ok, but the way the main cast bonded together almost as a family is, I think, what brought people back to watch week after week, year after year. You actually cared about the characters, and for a long time in TV this had not been the case. Star Trek set the bar for every drama and sci-fi (and even comedy) show that followed. It was a trailblazer, the kind of event that comes along once in a lifetime.

I listened to the first track and a bit of the second. I don't have time for these white mother****ers. Terrible.

Nice, considering I always made it a point to finish everyone's album no matter how much I hated it. Silly me, huh?

Have a gold star. I'm sure I'd give you **** for bailing too. This record is ****ing garbage and I'll not have it in my house. I can't believe that people take this music seriously.

Why don't you join full time? It would be amusing to see you **** on absolutely everything.

Now you are talking like "a person who is hostile or indifferent to culture and the arts." If there was only a word for that ... a word that didn't throw an ancient people under the bus ... if only there were buses back in the ancient times where that analogy could make sense ...

Jordan:the Comeback is not an album you can dismiss with one listen. You need to really get into it. Listen to it a minimum of twice a day every day for the next maybe six months. You have to force yourself, and each time you'll hate it less and eventually grow to like and then love it, and finally you'll wonder how you ever lived without JTC. And if you don't end up getting it, then that's on you, cos JTC is one of the best albums ever written, and you're stupid for not being able to appreciate its majesty and wonder.

Explain what's so great about it that you think I missed.