Prince and the Revolution – Parade (1986)

(MUSIC FROM THE MOTION PICTURE UNDER THE CHERRY MOON)

Prince!

So I listened to this tonight, and am hoping that I can just knock this review out without it having to become a long, drawn-out review of attrition; a battle between my desire for perfection (that should probably read ‘competence’) and my total lack of a killer instinct when it comes to this kind of thing.

At the moment I am embroiled in a poll over at one of the message boards I frequent. It is a poll about the albums of the years 1985-94 inclusive, and therefore I decided it was time to revisit some of my favourite Prince albums. This one had been my favourite, but a listen the other day to the excellent Around The World In A Day raised questions as to which was top.

This album, much like the later Lovesexy, is less a collection of songs than a single song-suite, just divided into twelve different movements; I love that method of album construction. Quick question: when was that first done? The earliest I can think of off-hand is What’s Going On?

As with the previous year’s Around The World In A Day, the opening track here is a strange mishmash wherein Mr. Nelson just throws a ton of sounds into a pot for a few minutes and sees what happens. But while ‘Around The World In A Day’ was an intro for the big-hitting (in terms of quality, rather than commerce) likes of ‘Paisley Park’ and ‘Condition Of The Heart’, this album’s ‘Christopher Tracy’s Parade’ is the beginning of a trio of tracks that last a total of just over six minutes.

In that time, we get all kinds of sounds, never settling in until the fourth part of the album, ‘Under The Cherry Moon’ (the title of the film that this album is apparently a soundtrack to. I haven’t seen it because I suck). A slightly off-kilter ballad, it sums up Prince’s approach to pop music: very memorable melodies that are very strange yet still catchy, accompanied by some very individual arrangements.

‘Under The Cherry Moon’ plays like some opiated sex lullaby, and I love it – what else sounded like this in 1986? As good as it was XTC’s Skylarking has nothing on this for pop-psychedelia. The songs are definitely meatier from here on, though each still leads directly onto the next with nary a pause for breath.

Both ‘Girls & Boys’ and ‘Life Can be So Nice’ are the first real tastes of ‘traditional’ Prince (if, indeed, there can be such a term for his mid-80s output), as he goes straight for the romantic in terms of his lyric, and to the hips musically. The former uses the French language to very effective ends, it has to be said. A fine batch of energetic pop with that Prince edge – of course, Blur were miles wide of the mark when they penned a tune on the same topic, nearly a decade later…

From here, the album goes into full-on crazy mode, as hinted by the previous album. ‘Venus de Milo’ is an absolutely gorgeous sub-two-minute interlude that sounds both of its time (the lead melody could be from a sleazy late-night soap opera), yet also something that no pop star should really be doing.

It both acts as an intro to the next stage of the album, but also as something of a breather, in which the listener can unwind between bouts of layered pop orchestration and, Prince himself can stretch his legs before heading back on the road.

The ‘road’ would be the lush pop of ‘Mountains’, continuing the textured not-quite-normality of the two songs just prior to the interval. The strangeness continues with what is, on paper, a familiarly yearning ode to the lover who can’t fully be trusted (‘When I lie awake in my boudoir I think of u dear / Do u think of me, or do u lie, do u lie?’).

Musically, though, it is another story entirely. The vocal melody is as another off-kilter lullaby; paranoia as condescension, perhaps? Maybe Prince is under the impression that kid gloves are the best strategy for unearthing the truth as to what is going on inside the head of his lover. The music, similarly, is almost jaunty in its breezy naïveté.

The faux-innocence is dropped as the album reaches its best-known single, ‘Kiss’. Fortunately, the intervening years seem to have blown the sands of time into just enough of a dune to obscure Tom Jones’ ridiculous cover of the song, so this absolute gem of a stripped-down single is left free from besmirchment (I seem to have just invented that word).

Pretty much the definition of what Funk should be in the mid 80s, ‘Kiss’ is a thrilling deconstruction of the genre, as the skeletal essence of the funk is both sexually charged and unstoppable for the duration of the song.

What sounds like xylophone is added for some texture, but that is almost just a canvas on which Prince’s androgynous falsetto paints the picture that he’s not bothered what qualms or weaknesses you have; he just wants that kiss. And as the few minutes come to an end, he froths himself into quite the frenzy as he screams ‘Ain’t no particular sign I’m more compatible with / I just want your extra time and your… kiss’.

Obviously, the song is an aural metaphor for Prince’s sexual excitement. As he builds and builds in a linearly-increasing crescendo, he is repeating the aforementioned phrase of his desire, again and again, and louder and louder, until!

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

It’s suddenly over, and that equally familiar jaded Prince is back, in a flash. ‘Anotherloverholeinyohead’, aside from being a pain to type, is another compelling single on an album, which really is not a straight-up pop release. And as satisfied as Prince no doubt was all through the 80s, he articulates that dead-eyed, disappointed reaction to the end of a relationship that we are all familiar with:

I gave my love, I gave my life, I gave my body and mind
We were inseparable. I guess I gave u all of my time
And now u plead insanity and u don’t even know the score
Why can’t u learn 2 play the game?


Of course, Prince being Prince, he is never one to give up, and attempts to present the case for his being the only one this person would actually need:

Sure as there’s a sun,
I’m gonna be the 1 and if
u don’t understand face to face,
Baby I’ll tell u down on my knee, yeah.


It’s the way he tells ‘em. Anyway, the album (and I’m sure the film explains this) is book-ended by songs that concrn themselves with one Cristopher Tracy. Conspicuous though they seem, the content is beyond reproach.

The closer, ‘Sometimes it Snows in April’ is just a beautifully mellow piece. Sounds at the start of the song actually remind me of Sigur Rós (when they were good), in a Slaughterhouse 5 ‘all time is visible at once’ kinda way. The vocal perfoprmance is just magnificent, as it resonates with emotion while never straying over the top.

As the end of the album, it lacks the bombastic, ‘epic’, feel of a ‘Purple Rain’ or ‘Temptation’, but that’s for the best. This is a different kind of album, and it seems somehow fitting that the near-seven minute duration eases the listener out of the emotional intensity and back into the real world.

I say that, but today when the album finished, I just sat motionless for a few minutes, making the most of the serene mood that song had put me in. And, as I experienced one song lead right into the next (apparently, Prince wanted the album to just be one track, upon original release of the CD), it really felt like the end of a very satisfying, if tumultuous, journey.

Arrested Development, season 1

AD crew
ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT, (clockwise from center, bottom): Jason Bateman, Portia de Rossi, David Cross, Will Arnett, Jeffrey Tambor, Jessica Walter, Michael Cera, Tony Hale, Alia Shawkat, (Season 1), 2003-, photo: F. Scott Schafer / TM and Copyright © 20th Century Fox Film Corp. All rights reserved / Courtesy Everett Collection

So I just got done watching this on DVD. As with Lost, it was one I decided to just wait for on DVD. Also as with Lost, I had some trepidation about watching it, given how it was supposed to be The Greatest Comedy In Years etc. I saw bits of it, and it seemed funny, but I was a tad sceptical – especially seeing how brilliant Larry David’s Curb Your Enthusiasm has been for the four seasons I’ve seen it (can’t wait for season five to come out).

Seems I just needed to watch A.D. in less isolated fashion. Seinfeld was a comedy that really benefited from seeing wodges of; seeing just one episode here and there is not enough to get a feel for the characters or story arcs, and so it was here. In isolation, it seemed an unusually intelligent US sitcom, but without being especially funny.

Seeing what the characters are actually like, and how certain scenes play into the grand narrative, definitely opened my eyes to the true quality of this show. Hey, I did watch the whole season in essentially a day; and that was with watching the two extremely tense football matches (Brasil! Noooo!).

Err, anyway. I think the first really funny moment for me came about three episodes in. One of the brothers, GOB (Will Arnett, magician who rides an ever-present Segway scooter), had “rebelled” against main character Michael (Jason Bateman, son of George and father of George-Michael) by throwing a letter he’d been told to deliver into the sea. Episode ended when Michael and George-Michael (Michael Cera) did an insurance job on their banana stand.

When Michael asked GOB if he’d sent off the insurance application, he was met with silence, and the great visual gag of GOB slyly reversing out of picture on the Segway. That seemed to be some sort of comic (not “comedic”, for I hate that word as much as “envision”. It’s “envisage”!) opening of floodgates, as the next nineteen or so episodes had me variously cackling and howling throughout.

I’ve just got season 2, and had promised myself I’d finish this post before I started watching it, but it was too tempting. Anyway, it’s interesting to see where comedies go these days in terms of taboo. Society being the way it is at the moment, there’s not much scope for offending people, or even for testing what is good or bad taste.

Extras managed to push things pretty well in its most toe-curling episode (the one with Les Dennis in it); there was a very strange relationship between closeted choreographer Bunny and his daughter that peaked with their rendition of Bucks Fizz’s ‘Making Your Mind Up’ on her birthday, complete with skirt-ripping. It was a very awkward episode, though not particularly offensive.

Headless doll 1
Larry David flew the flag well with his excellent Curb Your Enthusiasm. Highlights there included a convoluted storyline that ended in a young girl running from the toilet shouting that there’s a man in the bathroom with a bulge in his pants. The ‘bulge’ is actually a doll’s head, but… that’s not really much more wholesome anyway.

Headless doll 2
There was also the episode where Larry accompanied an old friend to an incest survivors’ help group. Not wanting to mention to those present that he was just there with a friend, he then made something up about his uncle. This being Curb, the uncle and the old friend ended up crossing paths, with grim results.

The point of this is that one of my favourite elements of Arrested Development is the inordinately awkward comedy that emanates from George-Michael and his love for cousin Mae ‘Maeby’ Fünke (Alia Shawkat). Thrilled when she suggests they make out to show their parents that the family gets together so little that they don’t recognise each other, George-Michael is a disturbing boy in love from the kiss onwards.

Maeby GM
What’s funniest is the way he deals with this forbidden love. Whenever father Michael suggests they ditch the rest of the Bluths and move away, George-Michael will mention how he loves his ‘family’, or wants to do things with ‘the family’; of course it’s all just code for Maeby.

There was a moment on a similar tack that plays into my next point on the programme. See, Arrested Development is much like Frasier, in that it is a very slick, sophisticated take on a very old-school comedy format. While Frasier was a very traditional sitcom, the quality came in the writing, in just how good the one-liners and especially comic timing were.

A.D. is very similar in that, for all the plaudits about how original it’s supposed to be, the key to most of the jokes lies in the comedy of misunderstanding. It seems as though almost every event stems from someone overhearing someone else say something out of context, or someone missing a phone call that offers crucial information etc. Of course, it’s handled in an expert manner, but it is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

A prime example of this in the first season is when George-Michael falls in love with his teacher. Michael misunderstands and thinks GM wants a new mother figure, and that Michael should go out with her. Michael tells this to sister (George-Michael’s aunt, Portia de Rossi) Lindsay, who gets the hump that she’s not valued as a mother figure.

Lindsay GM
So she has a chat with George-Michael about how she can fill the void that he was thinking of filling with his teacher. Of course, the programme is so well written that her dialogue just makes this misunderstanding that much worse, and George-Michael gets very scared.

In fact, I’ve been watching the second season (perhaps too much – started watching it yesterday afternoon and I’m on the last disc), and I’m quite amazed at how they have managed to stretch this system out. Amazed not because the system is especially stretched at this point, but precisely because it doesn’t seem stretched.

Of course, the system is somewhat masked by the generous heaps of surrealism in the show. Often not really story points, these surrealist moments are decoration, and really help to add depth to both the comedy as a whole and the characters themselves.

Let’s see if I can think of a example off-hand. Right, there is one episode (‘Pier Pressure’) that features numerous flashbacks to when George Sr. (Jeffrey Tambor) would play tricks on his sons, utilising his associate, one J. Walter Weatherman. Weatherman only had one arm, and these tricks were increasingly convoluted scenarios in which Weatherman would pretend to be someone else, and ‘accidentally’ ‘lose’ his ‘arm’ in an accident ostensibly triggered by the sons.

So there’s one where George Sr. wants his sons to stop ‘yelling’ at each other. He sets up a situation where said yelling results in a man’s cries going unheard and losing the arm. As the children freak out, Weatherman confronts them with the moral ‘and that is why you do not yell’. Obviously not as funny when written here on, err, indigo and rose? But trust me, it’s great.

Hot Cops
Especially so, when Michael deigns to teach his own son a lesson, in a method echoing that of his dad. God, this post is getting long. In short, George-Michael is getting some weed for Buster (Tony Hale) to give to his paramour Lucille II (played by the ever-unsettling Liza Minelli). Michael gets GOB’s stripper ex-colleagues (Hot Cops) to pretend to bust him on the deal, when real dealers turn up.

A gunfight ensues, the Bluths cower in fear, and a man loses an arm in the melee. Then he tells Michael – now terrified after his ‘lesson’ went so disastrously – ‘this is what happens when you teach your son a lesson’.

And that would seem to be as good a time to stop as any.

Ronaldo!


So he’s back. I know he’s not proper back, but the match the other night with Japan was such an immense relief to me. See, I’m not the biggest football fan, and I’m certainly not an expert. But when I get attached to a footballer, I really like them.

The strange tendency among football fans that I have noticed is that they are ever so slightly hypocritical. I know, we all are, but this is why football fans are hypocritical this time round.

Much is made in the football community about not being a “glory supporter”, and rightly so. Back in high school (the dark cultural days of the mid-1990s), many of my peers were Scum fans (sorry, “Manchester United”), and that was only because they won the Premier League constantly. Home being Leeds, the Scum Glory supporters were castigated, and with good reason.

Football fans are known for doggedly supporting their team til the bitter end, whether they be the best in the world (Barcelona), or the lowlier likes of Merthyr Tydfil. Such loyalty in this age of instant fix, celebrity and vicarious existence is refreshing.

However, I have noticed recently that such courtesy ends at the team; there appears to be widespread glory support when it comes to the players themselves.

The example I will use, and the reason for this preamble, is none other than that most frustrating of heroes, Ronaldo. And I mean the proper one, not the young Portuguese pretender to the throne.

A few years ago, Ronaldo was the talk of the town. The greatest player in the world, he could do no wrong. Then comes injury, followed by less inspired playing. Talk before the current world cup was about how much Ronaldo weighed. “He looks a little heavy to be leading Brazil to victory”, many mused.

Brazil head coach Carlos Alberto Parreira tried reassuring concerns, suggesting that Ronaldo is well aware of how important the tournament is, and he will lose the weight. Were this concern not enough, the hype machine was generating plenty of noise about those players younger and more exciting: Ronaldinho and Robinho. The former is arguable the world’s current greatest player, the latter apparently the icon of the future.

Our man Ronaldo was somewhat lost in the shuffle. I’ll stand by my favourite footballers, and like I have with Zidane, I got stick for supporting Ronaldo in the oh-six. Early world cup performances this year did the erstwhile Greatest no favours, especially when substitute Robinho did a lot to increase the pace of an overall disappointing Brazil side.

I was told that this was it for Ronaldo; that he was not going to start any more games as long as Robinho was on fire. Then came the Japan match.

Watching BBC just before the match, I saw Portugal (and ex-Brazil) coach Luiz Felipe Scolari being interviewed by Leonardo. Asked his opinion on the hot topic of the cup, Big Phil remarked that you should play Ronaldo, even if he is at 60% – he’s still better than most players.

I was surprised to see both Ronaldo and Robinho in the starting line-up, this past Thursday. Surprised and relieved that my favourite had another chance to shine. Yeah, he was mocked for his supposed lack of mobility by the likes of Alan Hansen, and he is far from the Ronaldo of old, but he performed.

There was a hunger to his performance I hadn’t seen from him in ages. He wanted to score, not just to confirm Brazil’s superiority of their group, but to send a message to all those who would doubt his skills.

From early in the match, he fired off shots, and good shots at that. For a while, it seemed as though Ronaldo was destined to be denied by a combination of the fates and an excellent performance from Japanese keeper Kawaguchi.

Thankfully, the duck was broken right at the end of the first half. After a breakaway Japanese goal, Ronaldo was on the end of a Cicinho header, directing the ball goalward with his own cranium. Brazil had equalised, but far more important was that Ronaldo had sent a message to his detractors: he is still a danger.

Inspired by a first half performance that saw little in the way of running but some fine shots, his second half was even better. Great interplay with Ronaldinho was unfortunately denied, but in the eighty-first minute, Ronaldo found his way into the record books, equalling the most world cup goals scored by anyone with a wonderful strike.

In prime position for a cross, Ronaldo received a pass from the excellent Robinho, pivoted on the spot, and blasted the ball – with his head down and an almost sixth sense – straight past Kawaguchi.

And so the match ended, 4-1. Brazil were back to their artistic, dominating ways (though not yet at their best), and Ronaldo was back to scoring. Two goals in one game, and 14 in the world cup tournament as a whole (a feat only equalled by Gerd Muller).

Big Phil and his “60%” theory were right, the glory supporters wrong – for now. Overweight? Yep. Done? Not for a while…

Locust Star






So Blogger went a bit weird on me. I decided to re-size the font on my last entry, and when I clicked [submit], the whole thing deleted. Not a fan of that. Anyway, here is the video once more.

Again, it’s one of my favourite songs ever, and it blows my mind to think it was a single. In fact, I remember when I first heard it, and I wasn’t a fan at all. I was watching a Def Leppard Headbanger’s Ball special (they were just about to release the mediocre Slang), and this video just popped up halfway through.

Sadly, I saw that the video was some longhair sitting at a fire in the woods, and decided it was just some random Black Metal a la Ancient or Immortal (the latter are better than I gave them credit for all those years ago). Think that was the point I leaned on my good friend, the Fast Forward button. You had to do that a lot with that show; there would be the occasional gem (like ‘Holy Wars…’ or some Helmet), but the discerning viewer would always have to vigilant, lest Clawfinger found their way onto the screen.

Anyway, didn’t like them, and left it at that, til I actually bought the CD and loved it. Err, but that’s all here. This, instead of that understandably cheap clip, is an excellent live performance of the song, from Ozzfest 1996. God, that name reminds me of the time I got tickets for the UK Ozzfest show in 1998. Purely for Neurosis (in fact, Jon Clayden from Pitchshifter told me that was the only reason his band agreed to play, throughsilver says, namedropping. I stole beer off that dude back when I used to drink. He wouldn’t have cared; they had riders).

Then they announced they weren’t gonna bother playing, because they were in such an intense headspace while recording their new album that they couldn’t stop it just to play in the UK. Insult to injury was that the album (1999’s Times Of Grace) wasn’t that great. I mean, it was better than most bands out there – better than bloody Isis – but for them it was a tad too ‘normal’.

And the replacement? (hed)p.e. Great. I suppose the logic there was that each band had six members, because it sure was hell wasn’t a quality-for-quality trade. Still, there were great bands playing; you can’t really argue with Sabbath, Pantera (!),Slayer, Fear Factory, Entombed… and the odd sight of Life Of Agony playing with Whitfield Crane from early 90s slack-rockers Ugly Kid Joe! That was surprisingly good.

And nu-Metal bores Korn and Limp Bizkit dropped out, to be replaced by the far harder-rocking (especially on that day) Foo Fighters and Therapy? So it was all good. Granted, the utterly useless Coal Chamber played, but I was so knackered (I’d been to a club the night before and not slept) that I snoozed through them! sadly, said state meant I barely remember the one time I’ve seen the Foos, but as my lasting memories are Slayer, Sabbath and Pantera, I’ll live with that.

I did see Neurosis on two separate occasions, but that’s probably for another post. I just wanna get this on the board before Blogger decides to blow me up again. Anyway, enjoy!