Top albums of 1992 (allegedly) - Part 01

 According to this list - https://www.radiox.co.uk/features/x-lists/best-albums-1992/ my challenge is to listen to each album in full. Spoiler alert - some albums I can't stomach so have done my best. Other's I could listen to again. Exciting stuff huh?

So let's take it from the top. The 'best albums of 1992' title is a little misleading as it's just a list of 25 big releases organised by release date. I've no idea who created it (or why). It also misses out some proper essential releases; but them's the breaks innit. I originally wrote this from No.25 down to No.01 but that doesn't make any sense, so I've rearranged it from No.01 through to No.25.

Starting from the beginning of 1992, aka 10th February we have this - 

*press play* 

No.01

Manic Street Preachers - Generation Terrorists: released 10th February 1992


Regular readers will no doubt be fully aware that I'm more than likely familiar with the name of the band but have no idea whatsoever as to what the music sounds like. Well dear reader, let me let you know that you're entirely correct in that assumption and this album is YET ANOTHER that fits that glove so immaculately. I've a feeling that the Manic Street Preachers or 'The Manics" if you're either an ardent fan or a radio 6 DJ are still a thing. I'm basing that almost exclusively on seeing their name on a poster for a music event somewhere in the last decade. Probably the last two decades. Which is still kind of current in the grand scheme of things isn't it?

This music conjures up images for me of someone in tight clothing with big hair wailing longingly into a microphone attached awkwardly to a pole-stand, wishing they had a girlfriend. It also suggests that the rest of the band have girlfriends or at least they talk about girls a lot and make the singer feel all angsty and damp and even more awkward than their microphone placement. (Obviously there's no way that the drummer would have a real girlfriend).

I can see this appealing as some kind of token-gesture to people who either don't like music, or people who like all types of music. I'm sure this would really be in its element on a big open-air stage with a bumper pack of strepsils and a double-pack of long-life bratwurst. 
    
No.02

James - Seven: released 17th February 1992


True to form I've heard of James. I assume they're a band. Beyond that I'm clueless. But it turns out I'm familiar with the first track and I like it! How I'm familiar with it I don't know. I think it probably sounds like something else and maybe that's what I'm familiar with? Who knows. There's a undercurrent of euphoric joy dancing through each track that ebbs and flows in weird quasi-anti-climactic crescendo's and feints before billowing back in a rapturous tooting cloud of kind-of-happiness. I'm a bit baffled by it and don't really know what to make of it. I can imagine this being really popular but I don't know who with? It doesn't seem to fit anywhere, yet also gives the impression that it'd be quite comfortable sat in anyone's music collection. Whether it'd ever get played or not is another question. I don't think I'd ever play it again, but it certainly wasn't bad at all. Just not really my cup of tea.

No.03

Shakespears Sister - Hormonally Yours: released17th February 1992


I'm quite proud of the fact that I was (and still am) a MASSIVE fan of Shakespears Sister's hit single, Stay.  I think it's bloody ace. And I still have the MASSIVE hots for one of the Sisters - but which one? OOOoooh, that'd be telling. Anyway, I've definitely heard this album, but unsurprisingly given my track record for music recollections, I can't recall anything about it. Is it gothy? Is it poppy? Is it rocky? I have no idea at all. 

Press play.

I'm also now doubting whether I have actually ever listened to this before. It's certainly not the kind of thing I'd ever consciously decide to listen to. My understanding is that the singer was in Bananarama but as I've no idea at all what sort of music that is other than 'pop' it's not really very helpful in guessing what the content of this album is. I suppose pop. I can imagine people listened to this on their walkman whilst going to the shops to buy some Benson and Hedges, a can of Quatro, and a corned beef sandwich during their school lunch break whilst reading 'position of the fortnight' in Mizz magazine.

I'm quite pleased with myself. I've lasted a few minutes. Maybe ten. I can honestly say that this isn't for me. It's good for what it is I guess, but what it is isn't what I like at all. And I can also honestly say that contrary to my statement that I'd listened to this album before, that's actually balderdash and I haven't. There's no way I'd have listened to this at all, ever in my life. Still fancy one of the sisters though.

No.04

The Sugarcubes - Stick Around For Joy: released 18th February 1992


Bjork's Debut is one of my all-time favourite albums (writing this having not listened to it in a long time, mind), but whenever I've heard Sugarcubes tracks I've backed away and done my best to fast-forward them or turn them off. So I'm engaging with this album with a rather large whisper of trepidation. Let's see shall we? 

It reminds me of the B52's. I don't really like the B52's. Actually, it just reminds me of "Love Shack" which I think is by the B52's. I'm glad Bjork went on to make Debut, but this is bloody awful. Luckily track 2 has come along to save the day as I was going to have to skip the whole album, so I'm glad I hung around, though I'm regretting writing that almost instantly as there appears to be a B52esque 'rap' brutalising the middle of the track which is making my skin crawl.

Righty - I'm conceding defeat. There's definitely some beautiful elements here, specifically Bjorks unique singing style, but I can't handle the raps. I'm out. I would like to lock 99% of this album in a vault and pour concrete over it.

No.05

Ride - Going Blank Again: released 9th March 1992


I really should know this album. Growing up in Oxford in the early 90's and going specifically to the venues (particularly one named 'The Venue') to see Indie and Rock bands, I probably saw this lot on numerous occasions. However, I recall next to nothing about them bar a hint of a distant and muted sing-a-long chorus of "leaaaave them alllllll behhhhhhhhhhhind". I probably did a stage-dive to them, though that's doubtlessly bigging myself up far more than necessary. 

I do like the album artwork, great colours.

And press PLAY! And.... zzzzzz.... dreary. If that was the soundtrack to a collective life, then I'd be first to put my hand up and plead to be one of those left behind. It sounds like several different musicians (obvs) all playing together, but all playing different songs.

Anyway, track two, now that's better - some proper accomplished song-writing here, I really like this. A complete contrast to Leave Them All Behind. And the rest of the album's the same; really good, really listenable, most enjoyable and nothing like their most famous track at all. Weird. I'd definitely listen to track 2 onward again.

No.06

Curve - Doppleganger: released 9th March 1992


I can go so far as to say I recognise the album cover, but I know nothing about the band bar the fact that I think I had a record of theirs once as it contained an Aphex Twin remix on the B side. I recall nothing about that remix, and it's unlikely to have sounded anything like the original anyway so it's kind of an irrelevant point. But what it does show is that I have an awareness of their existence and that's gotta count for something, surely? The list describes them as shoegazer so I've got an idea of what I suspect their sound may be like, but then again, I've got a fairly solid track record of neither knowing the artist in any capacity, nor being able to guess what on earth they sound like. (Well, I can guess, but it's been a pretty solid collection of wide-misses at best). At least with this I can judge what the aesthetic will potentially be like, shoegaze is a 'thing' after all. But will I be right? 

Qu'ell suprise I'm entirely wrong and this sounds absolutely nothing like I was anticipating. I thought it would be a suffocating blanket of reverbed guitars pressing down on me until my soul shattered. I guess this means that I also have no idea what shoegazer actually sounds like. If these are they show-stoppers in the genre then I've got the entire ouvre wrong in my head. This has a bit of an underlying industrial sound to it, with a solid, punishing rhythm and wrath-like vocals circling over the top narrating a conversation like malevolent vultures. I'm fairly surprised by how much I like this. I think it'd be excellent driving music if you wanted to tour massive industrial estates without a map at 3 in the morning. Of all the albums on this list, I reckon this one is the one that I've been most surprised by and taken with.

No.07

The Charlatans - Between 10th and 11th: released 23rd March 1992


There's something about the lingeringly optimistic sound of The Charlatans guitars coupled with the laconic drone of the vocals that I've always rather enjoyed. Have I heard this before? Goodness knows. I've a feeling they must have released about 40 albums, so it's entirely possible that I'm familiar with the intricacies of this particular one, but if not, the one thing The Charlatans have to their enduring advantage is that they always sound like The Charlatans. Press play and BOOM! Yes! They sound exactly like The Charlatans!

Tremelo song. I think this has to be one of my favourite tracks that I've listened to in this entire endeavour. It's like Nth degree meta Charlatans. Almost as though you're asking the Charlatans to make a song that sounds like a Charlatans song. Brilliant.

I enjoyed every part of this album. Well done The Charlatans!

No.08

PJ Harvey - Dry: released 30th March 1992


Personally I have a weird and utterly pathetic vendetta against fans of PJ Harvey purely based on the fact they refer to her (lovingly, oh so loving) as 'Polly' which is, of course, her name. But as she's referred to as 'PJ' in the music press and on her album covers it seems extremely pretentious to call her by her proper name as some kind of proof of your passionately breathless and unbridled fandom. Therefore by proxy I subconsciously have a beastly bias against her music that's completely irrational and nothing to do with her or her music whatsoever. My thoughts are that it's probably quite good and once I get off my fucking high-horse I should be able to get in to it. Unless it's like Pavement (see below), in which case I probably won't. 

I don't like it. She's often out of tune. Presumably that's 'passion' or something, but it doesn't do anything for me. The levels are all out too, so sometimes you can't hear her and then other times she's massively loud in the mix. And the guitars aspect of it is just a bit... well, a bit boring really. I'm disappointed as I thought this would be a deeply enticing affair, but for me it's just a bit lacklustre and I can't really tell what any of the storytelling aspect is about. I doubt I'll be joining the palpitating crush by referring to her as Polly any time soon. I think 'forgettable' is about the most I can muster up to describe this. Or rather it was until one of the last tracks brought in a spine-curling violin or cello or something and I had to shut the whole thing down. I will certainly do my best to never be in the same room as this album again. 

No.09 

Spiritualized - Lazer Guided Melodies: released 30th March 1992


I feel like I should know this album real good. I'm sure it's been played many times in my presence, but all I can think of it is that it probably sounds like fizzing beams of light firing off in a giant reverb chamber and honestly I don't think that can be correct; I'm just using the title for guidance, surely. So why do I think that? And why do I think it's incorrect? I've no idea on either account, so let's have a listen and see how right/wrong I am. 

No, this sounds nothing like what I thought. No surprise there then. But it is pretty attractive, with a cascading wash of layered sound peeling away from the body of the songs like floating duvets. I can imagine this would be the perfect accompaniment to lava lamps, oil projectors, large tassled floor cushions and a massive hubbly-bubbly water-pipe. In many respects it sounds as though the musical protagonists were more than likely in exactly that situation when they were writing and recording this. It has a feeling that it was recorded at 45 to be played at 33. I think that if you really, (like REALLY), enjoyed this music, you'd have to have a partner that did too, otherwise your chakras would get all discombobulated and you'd probably just end up very confused by everything they say. 

As a lasting assessment, I think this album is the audio equivalent of drifting off peacefully and dying in your sleep. 

No.10

L7 - Bricks Are Heavy: released 14th April 1992


I think L7 are grunge. Or a grunge band? Or grungers? I dunno what the term is - Grunge players? Musicians? Goodness knows. Hmm, the comments suggest this is a punk band and all the band members are female. I now know two things about L7 which is a start. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and presume that I'm not really going to like this as I generally find punk music fairly unlistenable. But you never know, I may be completely wrong, let's see. 

Turns out that whilst I'm not necessarily a massive fan, nor would I listen to this again out of choice, I actually quite like it. What's the chances? How wrong was I? Far superior (in my opinion) to Pavement which I had to cut short as it made my head hurt, though really that's an unfair comparison as they're not really the same sort of music. I guess this just appeals to me a lot more. Heavy, sludgy, solid repetition and distorted guitars with non-shrieky singing. All good - maybe I would listen again after all?


Comments

Post a Comment