Search - Joe Jackson :: Symphony No.1

New Joe Jackson records are never what they seem...

Brenton Boswell | LONDON | 07/07/2000

(5 out of 5 stars)

"A normal rule of Amazon.com reviews is to avoid commenting on other reviews.I wish I could stick to that this time, but I can't. (If you're reading this, however, I suppose Amazon has done the right thing and let mine through...)You see, the official Amazon review is SOOOO predictable. Joe Jackson has been getting press just like it for 20 years. Probably only two albums in his entire career were embraced universally by the "critics" (Look Sharp! and Night And Day).Much more often, he gets what he's got from Amazon: glib and vicious nonsense about the music "fail[ing] miserably". Just think about that for a second: Steve Vai, Terence Blanchard, all the other acclaimed musicians, the producers and engineers, the Sony Classical executives - they all knew deep in their hearts that this music was rubbish but nobody told Joe...Hardly likely, is it? And if it's not, then our Amazon reviewer understands this record better than all those who made it (not to mention most of the other reviewers who've posted at this site).The simple facts are these:(1) Every record Joe Jackson makes is *completely* different from the last (except, perhaps for the three records of 1979-80);(2) This record is no exception.And, yes, there IS a warning to be had with Symphony No 1: it is easily the subtlest record he has ever made.If you give a damn about music, don't let the first listen deceive you. (Professional critics thrive on first listens: that is the very nature of their job.)I'm both a pop song junkie and a well educated "classical" listener, and I still found this record strange at first. To my ears, it sounded too smooth (prominent saxophone, groovy electric guitar, lots of keyboards, strong 60s/70s jazz influence etc.), maybe almost muzak-like...Heaven help us!But it's nothing like that. It's beautiful, subtle, highly complex, and thoroughly satisfying. It is a very strong composition, and it rewards patient listeners (and ONLY them). The percussion alone is astonishingly clever, but I doubt the averge professional critic has time to even hear it.So what is a "symphony", anyway? A good definition is a (lengthy) piece of music that takes you on a journey; and that journey must feel truly ORGANIC and somehow INEVITABLE (not to be confused with 'predictable'). I'm not making this up, I'm paraphrasing from Robert Layton (ed.)'s highly acclaimed book "A Guide To The Symphony"."Symphony No 1" is easily the most organic music Joe Jackson has ever written. The journey is incredibly satisfying, and when you finally 'get it', it's quite profound too. But it takes patience - the sort of patience that all genuinely NEW music requires.And yes, this IS new music. The classical avant garde might happily ignore it, and I'm not saying that it has the stunning complexity and virtuosity of, say, Thomas Ades' works, but that's not what Jackson is trying to be. Nor is he trying to be a pop star. Nor a "crossover artist". Nor a "chameleon". He's just being himself, and that has always been, first and foremost, a musician.PS: Read his book, "A Cure For Gravity" and you'll know what I mean. (Among other things, there's a hilarious comparison in it of two completely opposite reviews of the very same concert.)PPS: The short, poor quality Real Player excerpts available on this site are quite worthless in assessing this record. If anything, they misrepresent the music quite badly."

Can't stop listening to this

Jerry Kindall | Seattle, WA USA | 05/06/2001

(5 out of 5 stars)

"Lots of people won't like this disc. On the one hand, you have people who aren't used to listening to long, challenging works, people who don't know what to hang onto when there are no obvious hooks. On the other hand, you have the classical purists who will insist that Jackson is engaging in pretense by playing at classical composer. (He's not entirely posturing, of course; he studied at the Royal Academy of music.) But, like so many albums that sound like just so much noise at first, Symphony No. 1 rewards repeated listening. I find that to begin to appreciate a long, complex work, I have to have established the overall contour of the piece in my mind to provide context for the individual musical ideas. It takes me half a dozen listens, or more, to begin to establish this mental map of the music. But if you pay attention, eventually you'll be able to pick out the themes and variations thereof, you'll learn how the various moments in the piece relate to one another and appreciate how one builds tension in rising to the next and how the tension is eventually released. After I started grokking this album a couple months ago, I spent a couple weeks with it on repeat in my car, enjoying it more each time. I still put it in once a week or so and appreciate it anew each time. If you are a pop listener who doesn't have this kind of patience, then this album will probably frustrate you. If you have some experience with classical but grew up listening to pop, rock, and jazz, though, you might like this as much as I do."

Would call it prog 20 years ago, will call it 'prog' now!

Eric Barker | Fairbanks, Alaska USA | 12/27/1999

(5 out of 5 stars)

"Well, as some of the other posts imply, this album is deffenetly not for everyone. In fact, most great music and art will, in fact, be hated by over 75% of the population because it dares to challange it's audience. And this disc is no exception! If your in it for the 3 minute songs with cetchy vocal melodies, this is not for you. In fact, it's a 40 minute instrumental work that combines 20th century classical, jazz, and some progressive rock into an exquisite piece of color and imagery. The arrangement is incredible, especially considering the odd array of instruments. The best way of describing this work is by taking some early 20th century classical, a twist of Paul Winter, and a dose of Yes and Emerson Lake & Palmer. An amaizingly ground-breaking album!"