I have been listening to the chatter at this coctail party for a few weeks now and, to use Burke's metaphor, am ready to join the conversation.
First, thanks for inviting me (Eric Larson, for anyone I haven't met before). I wasn't having debates in convo with you guys because I'm too old; However, I also desperately miss the conversations I had with my own cronies for literally hours over chicken patty sandwiches and coffee back in the pre-pasta bar era.
This will be undeveloped rapid-fire. Respond or ignore as you deem appropriate.
-I liked _Revenge of the Sith_, by which I mean I was excited to see it, enjoyed the hell out of it, and spent the next several days secretly trying to use the force on people who were annoying me (with limited success). Admittedly juvenile, but there it is. Part of my enjoyment could be a psychological coping mechanism, though. Having tried so hard (and failed) to convince myself that Episode II was decent, maybe I simply couldn't bear to live in a world wherein my childhood dream of more _Star Wars_ episodes came true, but in a nightmarishly inferior form. I will say I watched _ROTS_ while carefully compartmentalizing the trauma of _AOTC_. I pretended we were kind of starting over. I have now tried to settle into a world view that includes 4 1/2 films and some silly mistakes.
-It's funny Kris said what he did about the death of the album. I have been saying that for a few years. After the commentary from everyone, I see my own definition could use some refinement. "Album" as I mean it does imply unity and coherence (different things), but it's hard to say what makes it coherent and unified. In a way it is stylistic, but the ubiquitous manufactured albums on which every song sounds the same don't satisfy me as albums. It can't be thematic (or at least it doesn't have to be); plenty of landmark recordings that are clearly "albums" aren't so unified (_Rubber Soul_ and _Led Zeppelin II_). Clearly, concept albums are a different animal. Leaving this definitional problem for now, I will say this: I cannot find much (any) new music I can really get behind. It may be arrogance or nostalgia, as HolyThunderforce suggests. However, no matter how enthusiastically I try out some new band, the best I can say is "not great, but not bad." I'm sick of saying that. I want to react the way I reacted the first time I listened to _Abbey Road_. The bad news is for "rock," though. I also listen to jazz and "classical" (whatever that woefully overworked term means) voraciously, which are inexhaustibly deep mines of musical riches; rather than lament too much, I more and more frequently switch genres.
-Suggested listening: Sadly, most of these are old. You guys are correct with old Bowie. _Ziggy_ is fantastic, as are _Space Oddity_ and _Hunky Dory_. I haven't seen them mentioned here, but Queen's early albums were really something, especially _Queen II_, _A Night at the Opera_, _Sheer Heart Attack_, and _A Day at the Races_ (in that order). For some newer stuff, Robert Randolph and the Family Band is good (blues/rock). And even though they are found on the jazz shelf, Medeski, Martin and Wood kick so much ass (start with _Last Chance to Dance Trance_, but you might try _Friday Afternoon in the Universe_).
Thanks for reading all this.
