Did you know that Lana Del Rey likes exceptionally long titles BY: Ian Sherry 4/23/23 On March 24, Lana Del Rey released Did you know that there’s a tunnel under Ocean Boulevard. Lana is one of the strangest figures in music today. She made waves upon entry into the market and sparked backlash over her apparent status as an industry plant. While this rubs some people the wrong way, her fans are some of the most dedicated in all of music. They feed into her ever-changing and intentionally unique persona - and vice versa. The result is a catalog mix of inconsistencies, originality and creativity. For me, this is an overall positive characteristic, but it does complicate any quality-based judgments of her work. I generally believe that in cases like this (where the artist is weird outside the music, but not necessarily in it), it’s best to separate their public personas from the music to avoid over or under-crediting them based on personal bias. To be clear, her personality enhances the tone of the album, something that many artists struggle with. However, I don’t often find a significant alteration to the music itself. Yes, she has evolved as an artist, but the stylistic shifts from album to album have never been groundbreaking to me. Did you know that there’s a tunnel under Ocean Boulevard is easily better than her previous two releases, and while it isn’t a huge creative step forward, it innovates enough to please her hungry audience, and it includes some of her cleanest, well-rounded tracks to date. Lana’s atmosphere of choice on Did you know that there’s a tunnel under Ocean Boulevard is one of melancholy and nostalgia from the perspective of a woman intent on letting her emotional trauma fester through 77 minutes of painful memories. Her storytelling is, in short, unique. She carefully constructs emotionally raw narratives that the listener can feel. They’re often conversational, a dialogue between her and another person, sometimes an old friend, family member, or romantic partner, sometimes herself, and sometimes nobody at all. Lana’s storytelling, combined with her polished voice and attitude of comfortable familiarity, paints blurry images that must be clear to somebody - but we are not somebody. This atmosphere Lana constructed is present on all of her best songs on the record. I believe “Sweet”, “Kintsugi”, and “Fingertips” are some of the best examples, but excluding a select few, you can feel it in every song. In the past, Lana has struggled to lock into one really strong sound. On Did you know that there’s a tunnel under Ocean Boulevard , she does. However, her ability to mix things up without departing from her theme or comfort zone is what elevates this album. On “A&W”, the lengthiest song of the album at 7:13, Lana recounts short memories of past experiences, how they’ve soured her outlook on love and herself, and how she’s now a less worthy romantic acquisition. It’s a dark look into the troubled mind of someone lacking self-esteem and their subsequent inability to deal with emotions or even basic facts in a positive way. However, this outstanding narrative aside, what stands out the most to me is Lana sounding like Lorde. The first 4 minutes are a steady instrumental performance from a piano and acoustic guitar fronted by Lana’s meandering vocals, but the last three minutes break into something entirely different: the production suddenly switches to electronic, with base hits and a drum machine coming into play along with a buzzy finish on Lana’s up-pace vocals. It is very reminiscent of Lorde’s 2013 hit album Pure Heroine . From the building up and stripping down of the production to Lana’s repetitive lyrics and layered vocals, the finish to “A&W” is a shocking and well-executed finish to an emotionally raw song. This isn’t the only instance of Lana dipping into outside influences on her 2023 project. For instance, “Grandfather please stand on the shoulders of my father while he’s deep-sea fishing”, yes that’s the title, reminds me of Kate Bush in a way. But what impressed me, even more than her incorporation of different sounds, was her use of features. Jon Batiste’s feature on “Candy Necklace” is the album’s first. I love Batiste, so I was excited to see how they would come together on this song. At first I was disappointed, as he only plays piano behind her fairly repetitive vocals. But by my third listen I changed my mind. Batiste is a genius with his hands on a piano, and his performance provides a unique backing to a straightforward, but enjoyable performance. They don’t always blend seamlessly, but there are successful moments when Lana changes pace or volume in unison with Batiste’s piano runs, which adds a very unique quality to the song. “Paris, Texas” feat. SYML, “Let The Light In” feat. Father John Misty, and “Margaret” feat. Bleachers are three of the strongest songs on the album. “Paris, Texas” features a simple instrumental accompaniment from SYML. His feature doesn’t add to the song as noticeably as the Batiste feature does, but it is one of the most well-done songs in Lana’s discography and might be my favorite on the album. “Let The Light In” is the most traditional feature on the album. Lana and Father John Misty duet on the chorus, adding to the fullness of a touching song while still allowing Lana to carry the personal and nostalgic narrative on her own. “Margaret” is similar to “Let The Light In”, but with a more dynamic performance from Lana. Bleachers plays a very similar role to Father John Misty, helping on the chorus and providing a point of return in the chorus for Lana to take the verses to different places. She shows more range on this one song than the rest of the entire album, and the instrumental is much more upfront in certain parts of the mix, elevating the song above the surrounding tracks. Without Bleachers holding down the chorus and providing a more mellow vibe, the exceptional contrast of “Margaret” wouldn’t have been possible. Lana Del Rey was clearly in a creative place for this album. While her creativity manifests itself in the album's best moments, it’s also evident in what I consider to be her biggest mistakes. The first shortcoming, “Judah Smith Interlude”, is an instrumentally backed rant that forces the listener to analyze it for any possible meaning before inevitably giving up before the 4:37 is up. I don’t know what she was getting at here, but I do know it doesn’t fit. Just two tracks later the “Jon Batiste Interlude” is a much better version. His piano backs up a distorted recording of his voice with some Lana vocals in the background. It feels like much more of an instrumental interlude than “Judah Smith Interlude”, and it’s a welcome addition to the flow of the album, unlike its predecessor. The second shortcoming comes in the last three songs. To be fair, I like Lana’s decision to shift from a mostly live recorded instrumental album to a more electronically produced finish starting on “Fishtail”. There are great moments of vocal distortion and sonic layering, but “Peppers” is simply out of place. As the second-to-last track on the album, it has a completely different vibe in the wrong way. In a different context it is a good song, which is why I wish she had released it as a sort of red herring single. It has a catchy chorus and some classic late 2000s vocals, which is exactly why it makes no sense here. Although I like “Peppers” on its own, I am baffled by its inclusion on Lana’s otherwise cohesive and focused 2023 project. A final minor critique: Lana’s verses don’t alway distinguish themselves from one another or the chorus because of the understated delivery. But, this is more of a preference issue on my part and a stylistic choice on hers. This album, in my mind, is an anomaly. Lana is overly-focused on a singular theme, something that has hurt, even delegitimized, some of her previous work. But, this time it is done perfectly. Did you know that there’s a tunnel under Ocean Boulevard combines some of Lana’s best songs with her most beautiful moments ever. Without “Judah Smith Interlude '' and “Peppers”, this album really flirts with perfection. Ironically, Lana Del Rey, who is often considered a semi-niche artist, has delivered an album I would genuinely recommend to nearly any audience. A simple rating can’t encapsulate how much I like this album. Did you know that there’s a tunnel under Ocean Boulevard is an 8.75/10.

WALK WITH ME 8/13/2023 BY: IAN SHERRY Walk with me for a moment. Or rather, jump, with me, into a world where music is nonverbal. There are no vocals. Conversations discussing the greatest musicians of all time don’t include Prince or Aretha Franklin. Instead they focus on the giants of the ‘classical’ music era or the pioneers of Jazz. Genres like rock and roll or hip hop, genres which rely on a balance between instrumental and vocal rhythm, don’t exist. At least they don’t exist as we know them. Celine Dion works at a coffee shop, Marvin Gaye has recently taken a step back from his lengthy yet local career as an activist for civil liberties in the greater Washington D.C. area. You’ve n ever heard of Elvis Presley and you don’t need to have an opinion on him. Rodriguez was able to retire just a few years earlier from his factory job on Detroit’s west side and Marshall Mathers’ relationship with his mother withered to an uneventful conclusion at the hands of bitter yet mild-mannered and mutual avoidance. I could go on. You love music, as you should. It may be at the center of your life. You might listen to it every night with your family over dinner, or as you work through your days. Maybe it puts you to sleep every night or wakes you every morning. It might perfectly encapsulate a feeling you can’t otherwise explain, or make you feel ways nothing else does. You might even go as far as to say it's the most important thing in your life, that if you couldn’t hear you couldn’t go on. And that may be true. But even then, you would have no idea what you’re missing. It’s a crazy thought right? Vocals are an intrinsic part of what we know as music. Not all of it, but at this point, to me, it’s more noticeable when a track doesn’t have vocals than the reverse. There’s no point in attempting to pinpoint the invention of ‘singing’ as we know it. Instead, I offer the assumption that it can be traced back to before the human race reached its current genetic resting place. It’s inseparable from the human experience. Lyrics are responsible for the basis of much of the world’s shared culture, and the entirety of old-school educators’ beloved Classics Department. (I’m a fan too, don't get me wrong). Lyrics are not only a musical luxury, they are a mankind essential. They tell stories, plural. They have their own message (ideally), but beneath that they tell the story of whichever world and worldview birthed them. Whether it be a world of po litical turmoil, a world of prosperity, a world of famine or economic depression, a world of emotional depression, or a world seen through the eyes of love. This world is delivered through the filtered consciousness of the writer on paper, then again through the voice of the performer. Whether it be the same person or not, there are several stops on the road to the audience’s ears, but all trace back to their perception. Their point of view. Instrumental arrangements can deliver excitement, composure, emotion, and co untless other equally important feelings. But, one thing they simply cannot deliver is a point of view. This makes the most important job of the vocalist to deliver that exactly. A point of view. Otherwise, you’re doing nothing a powerful bassline or horn solo couldn’t deliver in its own right. Otherwise your voice is no more than an instrument, one with organic flaws and inconsistencies that Robert Cray’s guitar and Dizzy Gillespie’s trumpet don’t possess. Those flaws are less justifiable when the innately human component, that is perspective, is absent. This brings me to my daily union-supplied diss: Mac DeMarco. Believe it or not, I value my time on God’s greenish Earth, yet I still decided to listen to 9 hours and 30 minutes of Mac DeMarco. I did so with the intent of writing a review on his lengthy 2023 album, but a day later I was so severely mentally and emotionally beaten I withdrew in an attempt to salvage faith in mankind. Could I have written a lengthy Applebee’s Yelp-style revi ew? Yes. Could I turn this into that in an instant? Yes. But, because this is a sort of love letter to music, like that text you send your friend at 3:00 that is unintentionally received as concerning instead of wholesome, I’ll be prompt. Mac DeMarco barely says words, and when he does, they add nothing lyrically and little to nothing rhythmically. It’s neither helpful nor welcome in my book. No thank you Mac. However, it does make me appreciate real vocalists. Take D’Angelo, and I’m thinking Voodoo specifically. His best album, in my opinion, might as well be an instructional manual for what Mac DeMarco attempted to assemble without unboxing the directions. In the year 2000, aided by Questlove on Drums and a long list of heavy-hitting studio artists across hip hop, jazz, and r&B, D’Angelo headed the production for his brand new atypical r&b sound. Voodoo focuses almost exclusively on finding and holding grooves. Much of the time, the vocals come across as a sonic afterthought, there to decorate the sound. (“Untitled (How Does It Feel)” is the exception). However, the lyrics don’t get a break just because they aren’t at the musical forefront. There is no better example than “Devil’s Pie” which I believe to be one of the best songs of this young century. Instead of attempting to go in depth at the risk of failing to do D’Angelo justice, I’ll opt to encourage you to, please, listen for yourself. While you’re listening, if unpacking lyrics isn’t your jam (music pun), you could imagine D’Angelo is the first person you’ve ever heard sing over what you previously knew as music. Imagine how you’d feel as the worlds of poetry and music collide. Imagine the weight this new combination might carry. You could even compare it to any track of Mac DeMarco’s musical boot camp or perhaps your favorite instrumental tracks. The difference is palpable, because good vocals add something that no other instrument can: a point of view. Thanks . P.S. Here is a short, semi-random, list of songs I consider to have perfect vocal performances. “Hope She’ll Be Happier” , Bill Withers “Change” , Big Thief “Pink Matter” , Frank Ocean feat. Andre 3000 “Save The Children” , Marvin Gaye “Nude” , Radiohead “Never Dreamed You’d Leave In Summer” . Stevie Wonder “Heaven - Live” , Talking Heads “That Feeling” , Durand Jones

30 Years of Definitely Maybe 9/16/2024 BY: IAN SHERRY On August 30th, 1994, Oasis released their debut album Definitely Maybe . 30 years later, sometime in the days approaching the anniversary of their flagship LP, the Gallaghers let news of their reunion trickle out. That makes this the perfect time to review this deluxe reinstallment of their debut. It’s the very nature of the reunion that peaked my interest. As I journalistically searched for the date of their announcement, it became clear that the news was largely the result of the pop culture rumor mill, with eventual confirmation from the formerly feuding Gallagher brothers. This brand of brit-pop shenanigans is reminiscent of another time. Who doesn’t look back fondly on those massive crowds that surrounded The Beatles , or the tabloid culture of prime American rock & roll? I love Oasis playing into the insatiable passion that humans have for both gossip and music, because it harkens back to that perfect balance between those passions and the pure obsession that fueled rock music in its prime. In fact, Oasis’ talent for retooling British Invasion era music and culture is responsible for much of their notoriety and critical acclaim. Often recognized as a beacon of real rock in a transitional era, it’s fitting that the first track on their debut record is titled “Rock ‘n’ Roll Star” . Staking their claim perhaps? In that very first song you can find a lot of album-spanning tropes, most notably the pace. They immediately establish themselves as a high-octane rock band, with wailing guitars that often act as the secondary focus, boldly supporting the lead vocals. Liam Gallagher mostly sits atop their wall-of-sound style instrumentation, occasionally stepping aside for older brother Noel on guitar, setting a clear pattern for most of the record. Their beefy sound falls just short of relentless, which, depending on the audience, can either capture the listener’s ear or prevent them from resonating with any one part of the song. Therefore, to make their music more digestible, it’s essential to create space within the song structure and the sound itself. Given that Definitely Maybe was a debut record, I’d say all in all Oasis does a solid job of creating breathing room, employing slight differences in pace between vocalist and the band, allowing brief instrumental interjections within the verses, and making the small yet consequential choices needed to customize individual songs. The Beatles-like backing vocals on “Shakermaker” and “Supersonic” are subtle, but by singing a single rising note, they change the landscape of the sound. The vocal filter and flourishing drums on “Bring It On Down” help separate the different elements of the song. Even the extended reverb on “Cigarettes & Alcohol” , which creates just a moment of space before jumping back into the sonically packed second verse, goes a long way towards avoiding the pitfalls of repetition, a tool they use routinely. That kind of attention to detail is what elevates this debut record above those of their talented counterparts. Oasis was indeed a talented band. Unrelenting guitar performances by the Gallaghers litter every song, Tony McCarroll serves as a strong, yet tame presence on drums, and the group’s ability to systematically assemble a complete product is evidenced constantly. For example they build the instrumental backing for “Shakemaker” one piece at a time, rumbling from the tapping of drum sticks to a heavy rock sound in an instant, a la Led Zeppelin . I am truly a sucker for a good instrumental build, however Oasis’ best band-work on this record lies in their breakdowns. On any given song you can hear them prioritize one element of the chorus, either instrumental or vocal, as they begin to subtract other components. The results can vary from rhythmically atypical, like “Rock ‘n’ Roll Star”, to catchy and repetitive like “Columbia” , with most tracks giving way to Noel Gallagher’s always-sturdy guitar. Their ability to start and finish songs effectively gives the record a tangible flow from one track to another, adding to the collective experience. While their instrumental palette on this record is limited in comparison to their later work, and that does put an undeniable limit on the versatility of the sound, their points of emphasis in the structure of the instrumentation make for a cohesive listening experience they’ll never quite replicate. Familiarity. In my 19 years of life I’ve come to understand if there’s one thing people like, it's what they already know. No wonder Oasis triumphed so immediately in the states. In the UK (I’d imagine) there were plenty of bands trying to strike the balance Oasis came initially equipped with, but in the US of A, they weren’t such a common breed. The evidence of punk rock’s unavoidable influence, which may have been overly familiar across the pond, could in theory, have gone unnoticed or felt more exotic here. In practice, a song like “Live Forever” certainly benefits. The most popular song on the record holds that title because of its familiar American Rock influences - hard to miss especially in the guitar solo. With this familiar instrumental foundation, the pure Brit vocal performance blends in seamlessly and Liam Gallagher comes across as an approachably quirky frontman, instead of tardy British invader. Familiarity can be a curse as well, one Oasis will become all too familiar with in the following years via the commercial excesses of “Wonderwall” and they had to wrestle with on this record as well. They establish their MO so immediately on the first 2 tracks that equally strong songs of a similar hue like “Columbia” or “Slide Away” can lose their luster. It’s a demon Oasis battles on this record and every release that follows, driving their development as a band, and in part fueling the heated disagreements that eventually got the best of them. Reviewing Definitely Maybe - 30th Anniversary Deluxe Edition retrospectively - and it really is a retrospective review of the original since the deluxe edition offers nothing more than cleaner mixes and instrumentally thinner versions of the same songs - it's impossible to ignore the evidence of Oasis’ final form. More tender and nostalgic songs like “Digsy’s Diner” and “Married With Children” get more popular in the post alt-rock era, and the band joins that trend with some of their biggest hits not long after. The slightly softened Oasis didn’t come without skillful advancements, with elements such as the piano on “Digsy’s Diner” emerging as strengths within their evolving sound in the late 90’s / early 2000’s. Like many debuts before and after them, Oasis would never be the same band they were in 1994. They’d never be more punk, more Manchester, than they were on Definitely Maybe ; just like Nirvana would never be more raw, more Seattle than they were on Bleach , and Led Zeppelin would never be more blues, more London than they were on Led Zeppelin I . It’s not as much of an issue as it is a reality, but this anniversary provided an opportunity to live in a different reality, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Definitely Maybe is an 8.7. Definitely Maybe - 30th Anniversary Deluxe Edition isn’t worth scoring separately.

Even More Gecs (10,000) BY: Ian Sherry 4/1 /23 On March 17, 2023, 100 Gecs released their sophomore album 10,000 Gecs. Following the release of their debut album 1,000 Gecs, the St. Louis native duo, Laura Les and Dylan Brady, has become one of the most polarizing and impactful groups of the last five years. Hyperpop is a genre born from a combination of internet culture, and the mistaken notion that music can’t progress beyond its current stylistic barriers. In many ways it is the Gen Z equivalent of the punk movement of the mid-70s that serves to demolish the assumption that there are no more musical worlds to conquer. The impact of 100 Gecs on their audience is immeasurable, and I suspect their influence will be felt more and more in the mainstream over decades to come because of their impact on the young, underground scene. Despite all of this, 100 Gecs has much to prove entering 2023. Like many of the albums I review, they face numerous questions, but, unlike other reviews, their questions include: Is this real music? Will they use real instruments? And most importantly, what is a gec? Because their first album often sounds like it was composed using a microwave, autotune, amber alerts, and a drum machine, these questions aren’t unreasonable. And while they don’t care much about answering anyone’s questions regarding stylistic choices, 100 Gecs did a good job of cementing themselves as the ambitiously creative musicians that their audience swears by. As a listener it’s easy to dismiss the chaos of 100 Gecs as accidental, but I can assure you it’s a choice. They have a plethora of influences which only became more obvious with this year's release. Being from St. Louis, midwest emo is a natural inspiration for them, but they do a great job of incorporating elements of punk, pop-punk, and ska on this record; and for a group that can be intentionally offensive to the ears on occasion, they incorporate their various influences tastefully and in different ways. For instance “Hollywood Baby” is a straightforward emo-pop song. They enter a genre which suffers from over-replication and put their own spin on it. It’s simple but enjoyable and it was received very well, making it a great choice for one of their leading singles. They also include “Billy Knows Jamie”, a grinding punk song with wailing guitars, a variety of equally intense vocal deliveries, and a death metal break (if death metal can be considered a break) at the end of the song. “Billy Knows Jamie” is a shift in mood and lyrical content as well as music and it showcases their ability to convey emotion even with their unconventional sound. One observation, if not critique, of their first album was their only two moods were ecstatic highs and lows that cried for help. Along with their music, the emotion infused in every song has become more diverse. “Dumbest Girl Alive”, the first song on the album, gives a taste of that emotion. It provides a window into the performer’s struggles with self worth and does so very matter-of-factly. “I'm smarter than I look, I'm the dumbest girl alive”. They aren’t asking for pity, they’re giving an honest assessment of their character, however concerning it may be. 100 Gecs not only makes music young people enjoy, they accurately represent a problem that many internet-era teens struggle with, and they do so on a catchy track. Maybe the catchiest track on the entire album is “Doritos & Fritos”. It is the first taste of the ska on the 2023 record, something they haven’t shown much before but are clearly comfortable executing. It has that signature upbeat baseline of the 90s genre along with verses that flow really well and choruses that are perfectly timed. The guitar solo bridge adds to an already enjoyable song by keeping the energy going while also providing a welcome pause in the vocal action. However, what makes this song great to me, is the attention to detail in the production. Their previous album certainly didn’t lack excitement, but it did fail to provide breathing room in a lot of the tracks. The mixes often blended together because of the countless minute soundbytes mashed into a beat. “Doritos & Fritos” does a great job of using lengthier instrumental clips and an added focus on layering within the mix, to create a really full sound while falling short of overwhelming the listener or spiraling into sonic disorder. This is encouraging as a fan because it shows not only an improvement in skill level, but a willingness to shift their style without conforming or losing their sound. In true 100 Gecs fashion, the most emotionally raw track is called “I Got My Tooth Removed”. It’s a silly fun little song that incorporates the best parts of “Dumbest Girl Alive” and “Doritos & Fritos”, with both masked and forefront emotions to go with an upbeat experimental ska sound. It starts with an emotional, instrumentally stripped down, vocal intro that establishes the conflict (tooth removal) before jumping into the loud ska jam. The pace is fantastic, and once again, their variety of vocal deliveries are essential, along with the horns of the chorus that keep it moving along without becoming repetitive. However, what I like most is the tooth removal narrative. It is a metaphor for the inevitable end to a toxic relationship and they don’t try to hide it. Their choice to design the song how they did reflects the attitude of someone who is hinting at something heavy, but choosing to bury it in favor of positivity. The metaphor is present throughout the song but 100 Gecs' rarely emphasizes their lyrics or vocals, so the narrative can be easily ignored, and that is exactly what they want. 10,000 Gecs is a definite improvement. Despite the success of their debut, they had lots to work on, and that’s what they did. They improved their vocal skill and diversified their deliveries. They employed more airy, smooth production and layering, which made for more palatable sonic highpoints. Their songwriting vastly improved. And, they spread their influences and inspirations over the course of entire songs, instead of a matter of seconds. 100 Gecs, as pioneers of a young genre in need of refining, had a lot of responsibility to deliver in 2023, and even with “Frog On The Floor” (a straight up dumb song) they did. And for those concerned they may have changed too much, allow me to point you in the direction of “757”, “One Million Dollars”, and “mememe”. If it’s not for you that’s understandable, but Gecs will always be Gecs, don’t worry. There’s still room for improvement, and when stacked up against other big-time releases their lack of seriousness on some tracks can hold them back. But their ceiling is higher than they get credit for and I think they proved that this year. 10,000 Gecs is a 7.75/10.

Stranger Things Season 5, Vol. 1 By Dawson Sarcona 12/5/2025 Stranger Things Season 5 Vol. 1 has officially dropped, and with it, the end of a decades-long franchise has begun. As someone who has been on the Stranger Things train since 2018, this franchise has been a crucial part of my development as a person. This is hands down one of my favorite TV shows of all time, so the fifth season had a lot of anticipatory weight to it. With this in mind, it's only fair to review this first volume (which only consists of four episodes) episode by episode. Season Five, Episode One: The Crawl A season opener is always a tough task. Especially following a one-year time jump, it can be difficult to write a cohesive first episode that lets the audience know what characters have been up to and simultaneously jump-starts the story for the rest of the season. That being said, this episode does a great job of balancing catching us up and building stories for the future. Dustin’s character arc provides some of the best moments of the season. This episode wavers in the quality of writing from the rest of the season - shaking off the rust. There are a few select scenes that probably could have been cut, as the writing stands out against the distinct tone of the series. Rather than setting up interactions and showing how characters are feeling, it felt like a lot more exposition dialogue rooted solely in just saying things that are happening. All in all, this re-entry into the world of Stranger Things takes its time setting up new character dynamics and leaves the audience with one of the best cliffhangers in the history of the show. This episode is an 8.5/10. Season Five, Episode Two: The vanishing of Holly Wheeler This episode follows the cliff hanger with the previous episode with a cold open that show creator calls the craziest they’ve ever done. With such a strong beginning of the episode, the rest pales in comparison. “The vanishing of Holly Wheeler” feels like the most ‘filler’ of the four this volume. It sets up some important mysteries and furthers the development of the new pairings for this season. Finn Wolfhard (Mike), Natalia Dyer (Nancy), and Nell Fisher (Holly) all deliver exceptional performances this episode. For Mike and Nancy, this feels like a return to leading forms we haven’t really seen since the end of season one. The two siblings working together, bouncing off each other, is something I’ve really missed and their strength is one of the best things to come out of these episodes. This season Mike also seems to fall back into his role as the leader of the party (Mike fans rejoice) For a new character, Holly is a great addition and does a great job fitting in with the environment of the show almost immediately. All that being said, this episode feels the most dragged out and at times feels boring. There’s also an increase in some of the iffy dialogue from the previous episode. Overall, episode two is a 7/10. Season Five, Episode Three: The Turnbow Trap Episode three immediately picks up from the slower pace of its successor. This episode introduces the other new breakout character from this season: Derek Turnbow. This kid is an immediate favorite of the internet - why? He is hilarious. Everything he says is delivered perfectly for the comedic relief needed to bring some light to what has so far been the darkest and most mature season. The addition of kids like Derek and Holly in this season is great because it brings the show back to its roots of being about young kids and monsters, while still being able to tell the stories of our original party and they grow up. Additionally, episode three pulls from “Home Alone” in one of the best sequences of the series. Scenes like that provide some of the volume’s best moments, where we get to see the classic Stranger Things teamwork moments - solving problems in unique and creative ways to defeat a monster. This episode is where the pieces of this story begin to fall into place, and the mystery starts to form. It sets up perfectly for episode four and is a great episode in itself. It’s a near-perfect 9/10 , and it fixes the majority previous episodes’ problems. Season Five, Episode Four: The Sorcerer Episode four is not only the culmination of the volume but, in some ways, a culmination of season 1-4. In this episode, we finally get to see Will Byers step into his own as a character. Since season one, we've been able to see nearly every character grow and develop, and it's felt like Will’s character has been left stagnant. All of Will's victimization and what some would call weak characterization build up to this episode, where we finally get the development we've been waiting for. In addition to this, we get some satisfying conclusions to the micro-mysteries set throughout the volume. The way this episode comes together is something marvelous. This episode defines what a great show is all about in showing perfect character growth, that creates a top 3 scene in the show hands down. To create an episode that tells its own story, bridges the gaps on the rest of the volume and sets up a really excellent arc for the rest of the show is not something that's easily accomplished. This episode does it flawlessly, a true 10/10 and the highest rated episode of the show to date. In conclusion, this season so far is a big success. It feels like a near-perfect continuation of the fourth season’s vibe and a proper upscaling for the concluding season of the series. This show is very important to me and has been for a lot of other people my age; we’ve grown up with it. While it's sad to see this show approach its conclusion, I’m very happy with with its swan song thus far. There are still some moments of iffy dialogue, things that just feel off, which is likely the product of the increased number gaps bridged in the writing this season. It seems with season 5 they may have hit their limit with how much one writer's room can handle while maintaining good quality writing. At this rate, season five definitely resides within the top three of the show! I’d give volume one an average rating of 8.5 out of 10. Given the end of the volume it's clear whatever “fifth-season-funk” may have plagued the writers for the first few episodes is gone, and they're ready to deliver more mysteries, scares, and emotional endings for our favorite characters in volume 2 and 3.

The Return of The Stones 11/17/23 BY: IAN SHERRY On October 20, 2023, The Rolling Stones released their latest album, Hackney Diamonds . The legendary band continues to make history… And now for a real-life interaction from my history class lecture hall: Random Kid #1: “Dude, the Rolling Stones just put out a new album” Random Kid #2: “Who?!” Random Kid #1: “I know, right! It’s not like a greatest hits or anything, just a new album. They didn’t even say it’s their last one, they literally just announced a random album.” Random Kid #2: “No, I mean like actually who is that?” Kids these days. The Rolling Stones, in fact, are (one of) the greatest rock band(s) of all time, and despite their median age being something like 78, they just released their 31st studio album. This raised an abundance of questions amongst listeners, the most important one being: will it be any good? Well let’s talk about it. Hailing from London, The Rolling Stones were key blazers in the British Invasion and consequently, the formation of rock as we know it. Dabbling in everything from American Blues to British Pop, they set the standard for what a talented band could and should attempt to accomplish across genres and decades. Now, with legendary frontman Mick Jagger sitting at 80 years old, we have to wonder what version of the Stones we’ll see. Personally, I was hoping for some blues. The Expectations The Rolling Stones are a well oiled machine that has produced decades of success. They’ve long since mastered the finer points of instrumental production, songwriting, and album construction. They have their own sound - several in fact - to rely upon when developing new material. And they bring their vast discography, deep experience, and a hall of fame reputation. But it’s time to address the elder elephant in the room: a lead singer who’s 80 years old and a collective group who cannot possibly be completely in touch with today’s musical landscape. This is a clear barrier, but not an insurmountable one. Johnny Cash recorded his legendary cover “Hurt” at the age of 71 in poor health. Although his singing on “Hurt” isn’t bold and exuberant, his sense of emotion is so powerful that it registers as one of his greatest vocal performances ever. All that is to say, physical vocal capabilities are not the end all be all - not by a long shot. Johnny Cash collaborated with Rick R ubin on that album. The legendary producer helped him structure songs around his ability, bolstering the instrumentals at the perfect times and saving the best of Cash’s voice for the right moments. They worked with what they had, and they made beautiful music. Should this set the standard? Perhaps that bar is too high, considering Cash and Rubin are two of the greatest musical minds of all time. However, The Rolling Stones ought to be measured in such elite company. As a reviewer, I feel faced with the ultimate dilemma: delivering an objective critique of an album/a rtist in a context full of subjective contradictions. For instance, The Stone s are one of the greatest bands ever, yet as octogenarians, do I hold them to their career-long standard? (I don’t normally check album review ratings from other sources, but I checked Pit chfork out of curiosity and that’s what they decided to do). Or do I hold them to the standard I would use for an elderly member of the local volunteer church choir? This is tempting, but the reality is Mick Jagger isn’t just singing on Sundays, he’s in The Rolling Stones. Or, do I hold them to the standard of late-career Johnny Cash? They’re different artists, and they aren’t working with Rick Rubin, but they could have. And maybe that should have. So, just as I might rate a debut on the scale of all debuts, I’m going to rate Hackney Diamonds on the scale of Johnny Cash’s final album. The Genre As I mentioned, I was hoping for blues. While The Beatles first met resistance for impersonating the American artform that is rhythm & blues, The Rolling Stones were more easily welcomed. Why? Well, I think they were just better at it. So, several decades later, I wanted a return to that blues-driven sweet spot that Rolling Stones made their own. Shouldn’t their consistently pure, unique instrumentals and personality-filled vocals still be replicable in 2023? Nobody since the heyday version of the Rolling Stones has been able to capture that unique blues sound like they did, and unfortunately as I listened to Hackney Diamonds , that standard has yet to be met. The best blues moments are fleeting and scattered at best. Track 6, “Dreamy Skies” , track 10, “Tell Me Straight” , and track 12, “Rolling Stone Blues” give us a taste, and they’re some of my favorites on the album. But, that’s only 3/12 tracks. Instead, the Stones seem to have made a conscious choice for safe pop-rock. Aside from their brief blues departure later in the album and 2000s impression-rock track “Whole Wide World” (a bad song), they leaned into the 80s. Though this isn’t my favorite era of rock by any means, they were able to deliver a recognizable sound, albeit safe and far from unique. Flighty group vocal choruses, repetitive but consistent song structure, and the occasional guitar solo. After a few songs I knew exactly what to expect. “Angry” is the first song of the album, and it does a good job of setting the pop-rock tone. It may be the best example of their general aim for the album, though it’s hard to tell at times. Meanwhile “Bite My Head Off” (track 4), which supposedly features Sir Paul McCartney , is a perfect example of their formula falling flat. The Bridge Structure is not a bad thing. Though it often receives a negative connotation, it is a helpful tool for delivering a solid end product. I’ve had moments of frustration reviewing albums this year, as artists move further away from traditional pop structure - Verse, verse, bridge, verse - only to lose their way with underwhelming results. The Stones have it down. When I review albums, I take notes chronologically, adjusting my opinion on a song as it unfolds, usually finishing with ¾ lines of notes per track. In those notes I’m always sure to make a note of a good chorus, verse, or bridge. After marking down ‘BRIDGE’ for six of the first seven songs, I realized I should just mark it at the bottom of the page as its own category. Whether it be vocal, piano, guitar, or some combination of the three, the bridge is often the strongest stretch of a Hackney Diamonds song. This is entirely undervalued in music today, so I’m glad to see The Rolling Stones reviving it. No matter how good of a hook you have, no matter how good your verses are, no matter how engaging a song is, the audience may not want to hear it repeat itself 3-4 times with no interruption. Therefore, in order to venture over 2 verses or three minutes, a bridge is a necessity. “Mess It Up” for example, is redeemed, to an extent, by its bridge. Frankly, so is the album itself. The Vocals Can Mick J agger sing like he used to? I don’t know, he doesn’t really bother. For much of the album, the verses are straightforward, and the choruses are basic. While that does fit into their sound of choice much of the time, it was an unnecessary sacrifice of personality. There is a reason Jagger is one of the most famous frontmen/women of all time. He has a swagger as a vocalist and live performer, and his abilities are rarely topped. He’s comfortable, creative, and assertive on the microphone. The Rolling Stones are a historically cohesive, well-rehearsed unit of instrumentalists, but so were the Grateful Dead . What vaulted The Rolling Stones into superstardom was the man in the middle. I don’t expect him to wail on a track like he used to, but that swagger that gives them such an elite feel as a band was lacking this year. There is no real excuse for this. Johnny Cash, despite his comparatively limited vocal capabilities, actually elevated his performative repertoire on his final album. Jagger should’ve been able to at least replicate his own. Instead we have a vocally clean, yet flat album. That vocal cleanliness, in a vacuum, is no sin. However, there’s something fishy about it on Hackney Diamonds . It feels polished, literally, as though every single second of every song was doctored post-recording. And this wouldn’t surprise me. Autotune, aside from its obvious vocally altering capabilities, is also used to smooth out sl ight imperfections in performances. On My Next Guest Needs No Introduction with David Letterman , Billie Eilish explains the practice of vocal comping. This is the recording of multiple takes, and splicing them together to create one perfect vocal performance. Whether the Stones were using one of these methods or something else, I’m not sure. All I know is there are noticeably unnatural portions of vocals on this album. In comparison, once again, to Johnny Cash, who leaned into his imperfections and weaknesses out of vulnerability, Jagger seems to have tried to hide his, at the cost of his own persona on the microphone. I’d give examples, but you can find them on almost every song. Let’s shift to the positives instead. The Strengths One step The Rolling Stones took to modernize their sound, which I actually appreciated, was the inclusion of features. While McCartney’s presence on track 4 is inconsequential, the other two features resulted in the strongest songs on the album. The first is “Live By The Sword” , featuring Elton John . This raucous track came out firing. Elton John is very present on piano, the pace is great, and Jagger's vocals feel more prominent. For the first time on the whole album I felt my foot tap. It’s a fun, well-executed song in their own style, in contrast to a song like “Get Close” , which has a similar aim but sounds more like The J. Geils Band than the Stones. Meanwhile, the best song on the album is more than just a fun time. Track 11, “Sweet Sounds of Heaven” , featuring Lady Gaga , is a total success. A classic Jagger lead-in sets a tone that strikes a perfect balance between fresh and vintage, especially as the Gaga accompanying vocals come in. She quietly harmonizes in the background, providing a lighter, more feminine edge to Mick Jagger’s most bold performance on the album. They combine to build the energy to a high point, then bring it down for Lady Gaga to handle the bridge alongside the piano, before building it up one final time to the finish. While the final build is a bit messy, it brings a genuine energy to the track and album that was desperately needed. Once again Lady Gaga proves herself to be an elite collaborator, and The Rolling Stones deliver an authentic performance that reminds us who they can still be. If there’s one thing I did have absolute confidence in, it’s this: The Rolling Stones’ ability to make an album. The first and last tracks were great choices, the album flowed fairly well and with a generally uniform sound, and it wasn’t too long. Despite the fact I didn’t enjoy every track, they all felt worthy of inclusion, in the context of the whole. That really goes a long way in my opinion. If your album flows all the way through and stands on its own as one cohesive musical composition, you can better hold the attention of an audience, even one that isn’t fully captivated. So that’s where I leave this review: on a positive. The Rolling Stones are one of the greatest bands of all time. The way the English language works, ‘are’ is the correct word. Because they still exist, they ‘are’ one of the greatest bands of all time, however everyone knows that they are now a different version of the band they once were: something closer to The Stationary Stones. All things considered though, Hackney Diam onds isn’t a failure. The vocals, while audibly tolerable, don’t really find an identity, at least not until the end, and the instrumentation is fairly safe. But, they took a chance on the features and landed two thirds of the record. And Stones successfully constructed a cohesive album, giving us songs with actual replay value in the year 2023 - 58 years after they first topped the American charts. So, summing it up as briefly as I can: it’s a mixed bag. Johnny Cash’s American IV: The Man Comes Ar ound is a 10/10. By the standard Johnny Cash s et in 2002, Hackney Diamonds is a 5.7/10.

Inspecting Sabrina Carpenter By Ian Sherry 9/10/2025 On August 29th, 2025, Sabrina Carpenter released Man’s Best Friend. With her first record since reaching the pinnacle of pop stardom, Carpenter solidified an already-hardening opinion in the mind of this music fan. Sabrina Carpenter is the closest thing American pop music has to a real-life Powerpuff Girl. When most kids are still learning to tie their shoes at the age of 15 (or was that just me?) Carpenter was priming herself for a rise to fame. Her natural mix of sugar, spice, and espresso soon came into contact with the infamous Chemical X (Disney channel), and out burst the perfect pop star, a flawless celebrity figure. As far as I can tell, and Man’s Best Friend only made me more certain, there’s very little that makes Carpenter’s music special, aside from Carpenter herself. What I mean is this: her tendency towards generic pop-of-the-moment places her performative persona at the center of attention – and what a persona it is. Carpenter is reportedly a hard worker, and she’s been on a disciplined grind for some time now. Long before Sabrina gained serious notoriety as a singer, clips of her concerts had been surfacing on social media. All of them (speaking for my own algorithm here) showcased her personality via shenanigans, while featuring very few, if any musical moments. That is the Sabrina Carpenter experience. The product is the person performing the piece, not the piece itself. Let’s see what Sabrina is selling us this time around. First, the producer combination of John Ryan and (who else but) Jack Antonoff ensures a certain style of music. The pop-fitting formula featured by this chart-pounding-paring reliably features drum machine beats that punch up into the midrange, a slew of looped strings which harmonize below the vocals, and a variety of synths that build later in songs to amp up the energy, ornamentation, and sonic abundance (of which there’s never much). Rarely will these albums feature notable session musicians aside from the headlining artist or band members. That’s why it’s a noticeable gimmick when Carpenter welcomes a fleeting fiddle solo on track 1, “Manchild.” The nod to middle America is a fitting on a tune that begins the album-long painting of a particular brand of mama’s boy. Listen to the record all the way through and you’ll know what I mean. Here are some terms to keep in mind: physical and mental unavailability, weaponized incompetence, emotional immaturity, and resignation. Now let me give you a few of Sabrina Carpenter’s own: “You said your phone was broken, just forgot to charge it - Whole outfit you're wearing, God, I hope it's ironic - Did you just say you're finished? Didn't know we started - It's all just so familiar, baby, what do you call it? Stupid - Or is it slow? Maybe it's useless? But there's a cuter word for it, I know - Man-child .” And now the bridge, “Oh, I like my boys playing hard to get - And I like my men all incompetent - And I swear they choose me, I'm not choosing them .” Suffice to say, it was the lead single for a reason, and it’s not such a bad song either. Allow me to usher you along to track 5, “We Almost Broke Up Again Last Night.” A pop ballad straight from Swift and Antonoff’s shared California Closet, Carpenter gives us the next best glimpse at her mind in love. The legendary pop pairing's success over recent years has made Antonoff the top-of-mind landing spot for any pop star in search of a producer. Carpenter fits the Swift-formed mold perfectly, but where the two Pennsylvanian Antonoff collaborators differ is their perceivable attitudes ‘in love’. While Taylor Swift believers are often criticized for living in a feminist fantasy land of their mother’s making, Carpenter airs on the side of comedically exasperated realism. Swift has always brought an uplifting, rebellious, independent attitude to her music, even when the subject matter isn’t pleasant. Carpenter does some of those things, but contrasts with the industry titan in what I call her resignation to the bullshit. “Gave me his whole heart, then I gave him (noggin),” is a telling lyric to me. I doubt I’m the first and unfortunately, I won’t be the last to break this news: the average American male (but not just males) doesn’t digest and regurgitate their emotions in a fashion that is conducive to the relationship’s need for empathetic discourse, and the resulting dumping of pent-up emotion can clutter the Love Train’s tracks. Resignation to that, expecting nothing more from an entire gender of the world’s apex species, is a bit disappointing in my mind. But where are the parents?! That’s what Sabrina Carpenter demands to know on the following track. “Nobody’s Son” is a well-articulated, heartbroken rant that details being dumped by a guy who “discovered self-control this week.” The bridge digs even further into our previous subject matter as she turns the blame (which never seems to quite land on the son in question) onto his mother. “That boy is corrupt – Could you raise him to love me, maybe? He sure fucked me up – And, yes, I’m talkin’ bout your baby.” Maybe it's my sensitivity to the idea of my mom getting blamed for my nonsense, but I couldn’t stop finding issues with this song! I find the poppy orchestral chorus cheap (don’t make me think about Frozen) and the way she jams “emoshnally” into 4 syllables to fit the bar makes my skin crawl (I used a synonym for emotionally a few paragraphs ago - it can be done). The next track found redemption in my eyes, both in sentiment and sound. “Never Getting Laid” is refreshing; its greater bass presence and restraint with the myriad of strings, which are often uncharacteristically blaring on this record by Antonoff standards, allow for her vocals to float instead of cut through. The dreamy vibe is intentional as it pairs perfectly with the passive aggression Carpenter spitfires with lyrics like “Baby, I'm not angry - Love you just the same - I just hope you get agoraphobia someday - And all your days are sunny -From your windowpane - Wish you a lifetime full of happiness - And a forever of never getting laid .” It even has a sweet lil outro. At least anger is one of the stages of grief (blaming the mother isn’t even bargaining). “Never Getting Laid” for the win. “When Did You Get Hot?” is next in line. Carpenter goes for an Ariana Grande thing here, but I don’t need this song from anybody. “Go Go Juice” – not my cup of tea. “Don’t Worry I’ll Make You Worry” – a snooze. Luckily, the home stretch kicks off with “House Tour.” This throbbing pop-funk bop has the magic captured at times by late model Justin Timberlake but most prominently by Bruno Mars. Laced with clever wordplay, Carpenter flaunts her world’s best euphemism game as she prances atop the album’s top energy track. “Goodbye” is the perfect name for a last track! And that’s not the only reason Man’s Best Friend ends on a positive note. This spin on a breakup song features an empowered Carpenter pushing off. She soars atop a triumphant instrumental, nailing the ABBA sound before dipping shamelessly into Sgt. Pepper’s bag of tricks to find her last bridge. It builds, and Carpenter opens up her lungs surrounded by a chorus of herself to put a confident stamp on this final track. How does she sing that well with her tongue in her cheek? Sabrina Carpenter’s 2025 release is the typically mixed bag major pop labels have standardized over the last 20 years (bring back Brittney). I found her songwriting effective, the album’s narrative easy to follow, and the instrumentals largely underwhelming. I believe that Carpenter makes music to be performed live – it shows in her lyrical designs, the number of verses meant for speak-singing. She is a pop star. She is the product. She knows what she’s doing. But does she know what she’s doing? When Sabrina Carpenter showcases sonically bland music before the masses, does she consider that it will be her persona and way of being that is idolized? If Carpenter wanted to sound like ABBA, to pass along one of her beloved influences, she could. She passes along a character. Perfectly acceptable, she’s not the only one, and she’s not near the worst. But what does this character preach? I’ve danced around the edge of enough sensitive subjects; I’m glad to have saved this simple point to close my argument. If it hasn’t already occurred to you, glance at the album cover and think about what that name means. Sabrina Carpenter won’t be stained by a suggestive album cover, and its nothing in the piles of pseudo-smut the music industry has to offer. Years from now it’ll likely be the felicitous cover of the Bonus Track Edition people click most often. But legacy doesn’t fade. Sabrina Carpenter has control of hers, an opportunity so many women have gone without. With her chance, Betty Davis chose to be a “Nasty Gal,” Chaka Khan chose to be Every Woman, Brittney Spears chose to be “Toxic.” I hope Ms. Carpenter’s final choice is not to be- Man’s Best Friend is a 6.3.

GNX : LA's Latest Victory Lap By Ian Sherry 12/10/2024 On 11/22/2024, Kendrick Lamar released his 6th studio album, GNX . Kendrick has been a very busy man. In the months leading up to the release of GNX Lamar returned to the public eye, challenged and disposed of Drake, held a historic concert showcasing unity in LA’s Hip-Hop scene, and was named the halftime performer for Super Bowl LXI. Riding that wave, he dropped this record. More than any other record this year, GNX is impossible to separate from its context. It is and always will be the record that came after the Drake feud. While Lamar tastefully refrained from including any of the diss tracks, he brought the most important spoils of his mudslinging war to this record: the sound that took “Not Like Us” to no. 1 and the local scene he stood up for. Neither was guaranteed, but in the end they accounted for his most spirited top-to-bottom performance since TPAB . The stylistic discoveries Lamar made following Mr. Morale & The Big Steppers have completely reinvigorated my enthusiasm for his music. His 2022 record hit the right critical spots and had a passable share of highlights, but the stylistic persona he put forth in his return from a 5 year absence felt safe, as if that time away left him tight and self-limiting. GNX is anything but. “wacced out murals” , while it's a bit lengthy for an intro track does a great job of introducing Kendrick Lamar’s latest vocal persona. Using audible restraint to create breathier cadences, Lamar is able to build tension and excitement with his words without expending a lot of energy. It’s a skill that Pusha T enlists so that his audience hangs on every word and his lyrics cut deep. Now Lamar can do the same, but with the added advantage that he has more in the musical tank. Here’s what I mean track 6, “reincarnated” , is the album’s most intense track. Lamar’s most conceptual exercise of the record attempts to place him in the shoes of his past lives in order to critique the choices they made and the extent to which they used their gifts. A demanding undertaking like that requires performative chops and an energy level he’d yet to exert through 5 songs, so when he screamed ‘REINCARNATED’, the track popped the way he clearly intended it to. Energy isn’t the only performative improvement Lamar made on this record, his package of flows and cadences has gotten as strong as ever. Evidenced by his recent feature work, take Beyonce’s “AMERICA HAS A PROBLEM” or Baby Keem’s “family ties” , Kendrick has been expanding his bag of flows and that process was only accelerated by the creative flurry that Drake brought upon himself. At this point it feels safe to say Lamar’s days of somewhat regularly defaulting to well-worded but averagely-performed verses are over (RIP 2017-2022). Look at “hey now” , Lamar hops on one of the two Mustard beats on the record and dominates with career-best confidence and charisma fueling a generous display of the many entertaining flows he’s accumulated. While "tv off" and "peekaboo" are the next best displays of pure spitting, nearly every track on this LP brings something vocally fresh to the table, and the impact that consistently entertaining performances have on an assorted album like this is invaluable. In addition to the variety of vocal projection Kendrick Lamar brought to GNX , his production has been retooled as well. In his departure from Top Dawg Entertainment production personnel was bound to change to an extent, but what I didn’t expect was to see Jack Antanoff’s name on every track. The current king of pop production is a fellow Grammy darling, and his influence on GNX is clearest in the cleanliness and atmospheric aspects of the record. My initial reaction was my usual anti-mainstream gag reflex, but upon listening I can see how Antanoff’s capabilities could contribute to the gloomy feel that makes “reincarnated” and “heart pt. 6” effective and the pop factor needed to elevate "Luther" to one of the album's most popular songs. Given, Antanoff also contributed to some of the pop-sensible misses like “men at the garden” (which sounds like DAMN and Mr. Morale had a really ugly baby), the boring “dodger blue” , and the chivalrous but misplaced last track “gloria” , his versatility will still go down as a positive influence on this record because ultimately it allowed for Lamar’s successful plunge back into the west coast. As his career progresses, Lamar feels increasingly calculated in who he chooses to associate with, but not since 2016 have I heard Lamar thrive in the West Coast bounce like he does on GNX . He made a point of it. He filled his feature list with newer names from the greater LA/Compton scene (Dody6 , Lefty Gunplay , Wallie the Sensei , Siete7x , AzChike , Hitta J3 , YoungThreat , Peysoh , even Roddy Rich ), and the pop-star cleanliness Lamar lent to his raw but hungry guest artists left them in their best form. Combine that with the long-time collaborator Sounwave’s presence on every track and you’ve got a musically holistic homecoming for Lamar (with SZA in tow). While there are moments throughout the record that carry that West Coast aroma - take the Eminem /D12 -like chorus on “hey now” or constant remnants of Black Hippy in his music - I really knew LA was present the moment “squabble up” began. The unique blend of 2000s club-tinged g-funk is ridiculously catchy. Imagine a YG song with the sonic layering and atmospheric control Lamar fans are accustomed to, plus the synth performance of a true techno madman. It's the kind of song I wasn’t sure Lamar could make after his last project - the kind of song that makes you wonder what else he could possibly do. I saw criticisms of Lamar as a person in regards to this record - complaints that his narrative has become too self-indulgent since his feud with Drake making this braggadocious record difficult to swallow. Personally I disagree. While it can be enticing to think of an artist as someone you know based on the extensive material they’ve presented, the truth is you really don’t. The introspective Kendrick Lamar persona we know has been as much of a product as his music. It makes sense that the public persona of the artist would change in tandem with their newest product. Therefore, it also makes sense that following the most substantially publicized victory of his career he would release a sort of victory lap record. It is not a reflection of his character or ego as much as it is the logical next step in an increasingly lengthy career that has rightfully resulted in his superstardom. This record is not his best, nor is it his worst. A smaller undertaking than Kendrick’s all-time great concept albums of the 2010s, GNX had a lower ceiling to begin with, however, he still packed the record with a variety of new creative angles. Aside from creating the ever-elusive flawless tracklist, cultivating a variously entertaining and passably cohesive group of songs is the ultimate goal of any record that focuses on the collection of songs rather than a core concept. By that measure GNX is a success. It’s also a success as it exists in the world. The album’s reception can be just as important as its content, and the exposure he brought not only to his features but to that g-funk sound might be what I love most about the record. GNX is a 8.6.

Coverage Vol. 2 1/25/24 BY: IAN SHERRY I shouldn’t have done this one, it's too hard. One challenge of any cover is to maintain everything that makes the original great. This can be difficult considering you have to put your own twist on it and inject your own stylings, while attempting to replicate the personality and strengths of the original artist can interfere with that process. It’s a delicate balance, and that’s why covers are one of my favorite music industry phenomena. Today the point of emphasis is feel, and few artists benefit more from the feel of their music than T he Doors . Let’s talk about one of their best. Jim Morrison’s band charted its first #1 hit in 1967 with “Light My Fire” . It was clear from the very beginning of the legendary LA band’s discography that they had something sp ecial. Relying on keys and rolling guitars on top of steady drums, they were able to captivate a certain easily distinguishable sound, capable of bridging the gap between legendary groups like The Zombies and Grateful Dead . 1967 was a big year for music, with The Beatles changing direction on Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Band , Eric Burdon taking control of The Animals , and Motown and Frank Sinatra sharing the top of the charts. Perhaps most significantly, some of the most influential acts of the next decade began to emerge including Jimi Hendrix , Pink Floyd , The Velvet Underground , and of course, The Doors. The latter announced themselves in a historically and contemporarily unprecedented fashion. The 60s was a decade in which the average length of a hit song was just 2:59 , yet somehow, Jim Morrison and co. took over the number one slot with a song just over 7 minutes in length (and a decade later people thought “Bohemian Rhapsody” was long at 2 minutes above average). It was a new era in music, and The Doors arrived right on time. Naturally, other artists took notice. A hit song with its own feel, simple arrangement, instrumental solo, and a runtime waiting to be shortened, sounds like a challenge. Sounds like the perfect opportunity for a cover. Welcome to Coverage Vol. 2 Honorable Mentions Shirley Bas sey The Goldfinger Singer took the big band approach in her 1970 cover. While the vocal performance is strong and the band is impressive, it lacks the meticulous groove of the original and falls short of replicating or otherwise matching The Doors' signature feel. Stevie Wonder I’m stunned, dumbfounded, floored, flabbergasted to see Stevie Wonder sitting in the honorable mentions, but here we are. Stevie performs it like he does any other song of his late 60s era, and drops a harmonica solo in place of the original keyboard. To me, although he is the king of that instrument, it is too thin in comparison to the show of force by Ray Manzarek on the original. It’s as good as any other Stevie song from that time, and that’s a strong category, just not as strong as this particular competition I’ve thrust him into. Jackie Wilson While he supplied the most energetic vocal performance and perhaps the cleanest instrumentals, Wilson was overshadowed in other categories. The horn solo is great, but other forthcoming artists took an equally aggressive angle on the horns. On top of that, he misses the intended vibe of the song without inserting a formidable alternative. However, this is a fantastic rendition that narrowly missed out on a top four mention. You can’t go wrong on this list, I promise. NUMBER FOUR JOSé FELICIAN O On a list where cultivating your own feel is essential, Feliciano will always excel. I’d qualify his rendition as the anti-Doorsian approach. While his methodical delivery and gradual song structu re are most similar to the original, Feliciano conveys a level of warmth strong enough to rival that legendary Morrison brooding. That’s very hard to do. His performance is laid back for much of the song, as he paints it with nimble and complimentary play on his guitar. It is a pleasant invitation with just the right amount of emotion and an exciting freestyle finish. His choice to build performative energy more gradually than any other version of “Light My Fire” really reflects the message of the song. As his excitement and passion for the fire-lighter picks up the warmth and positivity is infectious, yet his original mellow vibe remains present. It's simple, but intentional, and perfectly executed. NUMBER THREE AL GREEN My favorite vocal performance on this list, Al Green’s swagger is undeniable. While you can argue amongst any of the covers yet to be named, he may have done the best job of making it h is own. Green’s legendary career is partially owed to his unwavering status as the smoothest vocalist around, but what makes his 19 71 record unique is its rough edges. Gets Next To You saw hits like “I Can’t Get Next To You” , “Tired of Being Alone” and “I’m a Ram” , all of which have sharp drums and horns. At times, Green doubles down on that ever-so-slightly abrasive sound by matching it with some of his raspiest performances ever, while still providing a healthy dose of his signature smoothness, to create an incredibly satisfying contrast. Sitting perfectly between upbeat blues and soul, it's my pick for the strongest album in his catalog, and he masterfully pulls “Light My Fire” into that fold. By speaking the first few lines, he opens a dialogue with his audience, pulls us in by delicately delivering the initial hook, and maintains total control as his intensity, volume, and confidence grow throughout the track. Once you’re hooked, Green doesn’t let you off the mat, but you wouldn’t want to get up anyway. NUMBER TWO The Doors The original “Light My Fire” is one of the greatest coming-out-parties in all of music. The Doors introduce themselves to the charts with un wavering pace, seven minutes of it. As I mentioned brie fly, the length was unprecedented, to say the least. So, in order to captiv ate this endurance deprived audience f or the entirety of their chart-topper, they had to do something special. I think the key to The Doors’ chart-topping accomplishment is the balance they struck. It pushed the envelope in more ways than length; a relentless keyboard solo and dynamic yet restrained vocal performance set it apart from its contemporary hits. It isn’t the best version but it h as by far the greatest le gacy. “Light My Fire” is one of the most important songs of its era, because it stretched a formulaic performance to its stylistic capacity and opened the charts up to the fast-moving, incredibly impactful, and ultimately self-destructive force of nature that was Jim Morrison. NUMBER ONE ETTA jAM ES Every other artist that covered “Light My Fire” avoided The Doors' murkiness in favor of their own sound and vibe. Their decisions are likely all based on the fact that beating a band like that at their own sonic game is risky to say the least. Etta James was not, could not have been, intimidated. So, she leads in with a heavy bass guitar that pushes the limit of the lower portion of the mix. To balance it out, she stays in the upper half of her vocal range, providing a clear and clean balance. The drums hold pace and the occasional guitar painted overtop fills out the sound. It’s simple and slow, like the original, but by cutting the instrumental solo, which every other artist attempted to replicate in some way, she brought it completely into her wheelhouse. Much like Aretha’s “Resp ect ” , her revision is hardly recognizable, and that is due to one crucial factor: Etta James herself. Yes, the instrumental adjustments are masterful, and cutting the solo does have an impact, but her vocal delivery is the biggest gamechanger. She pours every bit of swagger available into this song, much like Al Green, but her intentionally measured cadence shift makes a massive, albeit subtle, difference. She improvises her way through the song, delivering all of the written lyrics in quicker succession than the original. James’ slight alteration of every single line is largely responsible for over four minutes of difference, as she yanks the song back into contemporary song-length standards. The moral of the story: Etta James is untouchable, and if she covers your song, kiss it goodbye.

Tabs On Tigers: In Memorium 10/27/2025 BY: IAN SHERRY On October 10, the Detroit Tigers were eliminated from the MLB Postseason. Tabs On Tigers Vol. 5 Is anyone surprised? Something about the intensity of my Tigers fandom and the connectedness I feel with fellow fans makes me unrealistically confident that I can speak for everyone. So in regard to the question above, our answer is no. Last year, General Manager Scott Harris and Manager AJ Hinch enjoyed the spoils of public opinion as their squad’s late-season comeback placed them in rare postseason company, but this year brought a historically singular collapse. The story of the Tigers’ eventual demise is simple, and it began at the trade deadline. The specifics of Scott Harris’ acquisitions on July 31 spawned a million complaints and a few simple questions. ‘Why these guys?’ is a question that kept 97.1 phone lines hot for the duration of August and September, as the Tigers squandered a 15.5-game divisional lead. Following the righteous elimination of our wounded cats in Seattle, the collective’s questions are changing. The focus has shifted away from the forgettable acquisitions and onto the attitude of the front office. What were they thinking? Scott Harris’ actions were those of a middling team with reserved playoff ambitions, not the number 1 team in baseball. Kyle Finnegan and Raphael Montero made for intriguing projects down the stretch, and proved themselves roster-worthy come October, unlike Charlie Morton or Chris Paddock. However, roster worthiness is not the scale by which playoff-bound teams calculate their deadline moves. Where was the hunger? In the days of Dave Dombrowski, a strong Tigers team could expect an addition to the middle of the batting order or starting rotation. With Javier Baez signed to the single costly contract on a promising roster full of moderately talented players with shallow experience, D would not have hesitated to pounce on a $30 million player. Harris didn’t have to look far. Former division rivals Carlos Correa, Shane Bieber, and Josh Naylor should be familiar to Tigers fans, as should Eugenio Suarez and his career-high 49 homers. Did he know? The Tigers could have won the World Series. With Skubal and Mize, the playoff experienced Flaherty, and a legitimate edition to the rotation, the staff would have been perfectly suited for a 5-game series. The bullpen was not playoff-worthy, but it was just a dominant arm away from serviceable. The batting order far surpassed its offensive production of 2024, but you could feel the breeze of their bats from the upper deck during the cold stretches, the longest of which came with the changing weather. Yes, Scott Harris faced problems, but concrete solvable problems of endlessly greater simplicity than those faced by Al Avila, Harris’ scapegoated predecessor. Avila was all too aware of the difficulty of the ‘rebuilding’ task he inherited (to the point of paralysis). Harris on the other hand, seemed unfamiliar with the position he found himself in entering August – a competitive, yet incomplete team sitting gingerly atop the American League. It seems unlikely that Harris didn’t believe in the squad’s World Series potential, considering their record at the break. Yet it feels even less probable that he thought they were a sure-in. Did Scott Harris try but and fail to improve the Tigers roster amid the competitive inter-team market? Did he fail to earn he respect of other organizations? Did he lose his grip on the goal at hand – improving the team for a postseason run - while clinging to his prospects? Or did he just flat out fail to make a sincere effort? Scott Harris did not commit any philosophical misdeeds. He is not the only person to blame, just the easiest. Sure, AJ Hinch’s oddball bullpen management may have cost the Tigers a game or two in October, and Riley Greene’s acknowledgement of his strikeout problem confirms a fundamental issue at the top of the order. Furthermore, injuries to the rotation plague Detroit year in and year out, and the bullpen is undeniably mediocre. Yet, there they were in the postseason once again, poised to make a deeper run – if only… Even after taking the opposite path into the fall, the Tigers once again hit the road for the AL Wild Card Series to dispose of their opponents - this time a weakened Cleveland team – and again the Tigers, behind Cy Young winner Tarik Skubal, fell in game five of the ALDS to a division winner. In other words, a season that flaunted positive results of the faithful but tentative mindset of this Tigers regime managed to end where it began: second place in the division and ALDS losers. Déjà vu. Now, Scott Harris is reportedly reviving his pursuit of Alex Bregman, who unsurprisingly snubbed the Tigers for Boston, only to opt out of his 2-year $40 million deal in search of more money - (they should call him ‘Breadman’) - making his injury-riddled 2025 season a prove-it campaign devoid of proof. Will Harris really chase that dragon for another winter? Will you?

RAYE: The real deal BY: IAN THOMAS SHERRY, 5/4/2026 Raye dropped her smashing LP THIS MUSIC MAY CONTAIN HOPE. on March 27, and if you’re just now hearing of her, you’re late. It was Saturday Night Live (which is generally upholding the tradition of quality musical curation on variety shows, Arsenio, Chappelle, all the way back to Ed Sullivan) where I first discovered Raye. That was before her three Grammy nominations, and I was late then. Now, we’ve entered a new era of international pop. My 21st Century Blues (’23) was an ambitious foundational record, the product of Raye’s departure from Polydor Records. I listened to the debut in the wake of my stumbling upon Raye and knew she could do better. The sturdy collection of long-fermented music featured a variety of pop and r&b flavors plus flashes of her tone as a writer, yet despite its critical acclaim (especially across the pond) I found it musically thin and thematically broad. Not to worry, neither of those tropes are present on this 2026 LP. “Intro: Girl Under The Grey Cloud” is an excellent entrance into the most theatrical record I have ever listened to. The music of musical theater, especially when removed from the performance, makes my stomach turn. That is historically, but Raye’s sonic gravitas, worldbuilding, monologuing and all around-performative efforts can be described as nothing short of theatrical, so here I am at the breaking point of another personal precedent. The songstress stumbles from one stormy scene into another as (Track 2) “I Will Overcome” rumbles around. The true intro more-or-less continues the narrative: a drunk gal out on the town, far past anyone’s bed-time, searching for the answers to, well… everything. The focus narrows over the next four tracks. Time to more deeply address the sound I suppose. It’s a bright pacey pop, boosted by a 21st century studio and big band thunder, background vocals and a prancing matriarch at the center of it all. Raye preaches warnings on the (Track 3) “Beware.. The South London Lover Boy.” She tells a precautionary tail over a twirling keyboard/808 hook on (Track 4) “The WhatsApp Shakespeare.” Then there’s the theatrical masterpiece (Track 6) “Click Clack Symphony.” Raye revisits her well of 20-something depression and treats her vulnerability with girlpower. She assembles the gals, “send the call out, send the call out!,” and sets out on the town hoping to lose the inside thoughts outside, using the click-clacking heels as her beat. (Track 7) “I Know You’re Hurting.” must be the day after. This tune is the page-1 example of the triumphant music achievable at the peak of pop. When combined with the wholistically performative sensibilities of someone genuine, spirited and talented like Raye, a pop studio can create tear-jerking moments in the middle of Walmart. HUT. And now a brief advertisement for America’s second son, Jazz music baby. Well, ‘we’ brewed up this mystical instrumental gumbo with European instruments, so I guess it’s only fair that they get a take on it. Still, I often hesitate to consider the big blaring British bands I hear on 007 soundtracks to be jazz. I mean somewhere below “Gold Finger”s hollering horns Jimmy Page was just lurking, playing sheet music, a proper jazz band would’ve drawn that behemoth out, no? But still, the branches of British jazz bear undeniable fruit, Amy Winehouse at the very minimum. “This song is called ‘I Hate The Way I Look Today’,” says Raye. A statement of fact is followed by a beautifully bumbling brigade of similar thoughts as she raps and rambles, in true jazz style, a laundry list of complaints about her physical person. Comedic, relatable, listenable, Raye refuses not to check all the boxes, and this jazzy break at track 9 was a brilliant move to further flesh out her musical chops and back up a big claim from track 2: “And it’s funny, some people say I remind them of Amy.” Call me some people. (Track 10) “Goodbye Henry” begins with another cheekily dejected monologue, the kind Ms. Carpenter dreams to achieve, and I’m feeling frisky so I’ll share: “This is a sad song/ Though it feels happy / It is not happy at all, in fact / It makes me so, so sad to sing this song /But I will sing it for you anyway / This song is called "Goodbye Henry" / And I wrote it 'bout a boy / A very lovely boy/ And his name isn't even Henry/ But I'm just tryna be respectful / We don't talk anymore / He could be next-door and I wouldn't even know /In another life we could have made it /But in this one, well, we let go…” From there the bounding soul track wonderfully lives up to its billing. Raye rides horns, keys and drums like a tricycle and welcomes Al Green at the bridge, a treat for the ears as much as the heartstrings. (Track 11) “Nightingale Lane.” is yet another highlight, this time an Adele-style ballad. Over a pretty generically supportive score, Raye opens up those impressive vocal cords of hers, which she often opts to nimbly control, and wails a well-written chorus. She is comfortable at any pace, dancing through tracks all record long and adjusting with effortless swagger to the speed limit on “Nightingale Lane.” Did we mention that THIS MUSIC MAY CONTAIN HOPE? (Track 12) “Skin & Bones.” shocks the LP back to this decade’s pop pace for a number-1-worthy track. The equally catchy (Track 13) “Where Is My Husband!” stands as Raye’s top-charting song in the US, peaking at 11 on the Billboard. It’s curios that Raye’s exposure in the American media has yet to convert to top-10 radio play; the disconnection between fame and fortune has indeed sewn itself into modern media arenas. Her dime will come, never fear, so long as Raye continues to make songs like (Track 15) “Joy.” This late-album hit has the juice of certain 2010 smash hits as a big brass section jumps on top of a sleek afrobeat (which sticks around in the form of a rhythmic 808). The band’s sound and volume takes me back to Fifth Harmony’s prime, Jessie J, rooftop pop. (Track 16) “Happier Times Ahead.” Carries the same sentiment, sound and quality into the album’s conclusion, “Fin,” which functions as an audible credit-roll. Raye’s lyrics are good, the world she built excellent, her voice unique, vocal style unparallelled. She deserves to be praised in the same international pop circles as her British pop foremothers, Latin juggernauts and American stars. She deserves mentioning in the same conversations as young visionaries like Cameron Winter. And if she keeps up this pace, Raye will earn mentions in conversations about the all-time greats. THIS MUSIC MAY CONTAIN HOPE is a 9.1.

Coverage Vol. 2 1/25/24 BY: IAN SHERRY I shouldn’t have done this one, it's too hard. One challenge of any cover is to maintain everything that makes the original great. This can be difficult considering you have to put your own twist on it and inject your own stylings, while attempting to replicate the personality and strengths of the original artist can interfere with that process. It’s a delicate balance, and that’s why covers are one of my favorite music industry phenomena. Today the point of emphasis is feel, and few artists benefit more from the feel of their music than T he Doors . Let’s talk about one of their best. Jim Morrison’s band charted its first #1 hit in 1967 with “Light My Fire” . It was clear from the very beginning of the legendary LA band’s discography that they had something sp ecial. Relying on keys and rolling guitars on top of steady drums, they were able to captivate a certain easily distinguishable sound, capable of bridging the gap between legendary groups like The Zombies and Grateful Dead . 1967 was a big year for music, with The Beatles changing direction on Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Band , Eric Burdon taking control of The Animals , and Motown and Frank Sinatra sharing the top of the charts. Perhaps most significantly, some of the most influential acts of the next decade began to emerge including Jimi Hendrix , Pink Floyd , The Velvet Underground , and of course, The Doors. The latter announced themselves in a historically and contemporarily unprecedented fashion. The 60s was a decade in which the average length of a hit song was just 2:59 , yet somehow, Jim Morrison and co. took over the number one slot with a song just over 7 minutes in length (and a decade later people thought “Bohemian Rhapsody” was long at 2 minutes above average). It was a new era in music, and The Doors arrived right on time. Naturally, other artists took notice. A hit song with its own feel, simple arrangement, instrumental solo, and a runtime waiting to be shortened, sounds like a challenge. Sounds like the perfect opportunity for a cover. Welcome to Coverage Vol. 2 Honorable Mentions Shirley Bas sey The Goldfinger Singer took the big band approach in her 1970 cover. While the vocal performance is strong and the band is impressive, it lacks the meticulous groove of the original and falls short of replicating or otherwise matching The Doors' signature feel. Stevie Wonder I’m stunned, dumbfounded, floored, flabbergasted to see Stevie Wonder sitting in the honorable mentions, but here we are. Stevie performs it like he does any other song of his late 60s era, and drops a harmonica solo in place of the original keyboard. To me, although he is the king of that instrument, it is too thin in comparison to the show of force by Ray Manzarek on the original. It’s as good as any other Stevie song from that time, and that’s a strong category, just not as strong as this particular competition I’ve thrust him into. Jackie Wilson While he supplied the most energetic vocal performance and perhaps the cleanest instrumentals, Wilson was overshadowed in other categories. The horn solo is great, but other forthcoming artists took an equally aggressive angle on the horns. On top of that, he misses the intended vibe of the song without inserting a formidable alternative. However, this is a fantastic rendition that narrowly missed out on a top four mention. You can’t go wrong on this list, I promise. NUMBER FOUR JOSé FELICIAN O On a list where cultivating your own feel is essential, Feliciano will always excel. I’d qualify his rendition as the anti-Doorsian approach. While his methodical delivery and gradual song structu re are most similar to the original, Feliciano conveys a level of warmth strong enough to rival that legendary Morrison brooding. That’s very hard to do. His performance is laid back for much of the song, as he paints it with nimble and complimentary play on his guitar. It is a pleasant invitation with just the right amount of emotion and an exciting freestyle finish. His choice to build performative energy more gradually than any other version of “Light My Fire” really reflects the message of the song. As his excitement and passion for the fire-lighter picks up the warmth and positivity is infectious, yet his original mellow vibe remains present. It's simple, but intentional, and perfectly executed. NUMBER THREE AL GREEN My favorite vocal performance on this list, Al Green’s swagger is undeniable. While you can argue amongst any of the covers yet to be named, he may have done the best job of making it h is own. Green’s legendary career is partially owed to his unwavering status as the smoothest vocalist around, but what makes his 19 71 record unique is its rough edges. Gets Next To You saw hits like “I Can’t Get Next To You” , “Tired of Being Alone” and “I’m a Ram” , all of which have sharp drums and horns. At times, Green doubles down on that ever-so-slightly abrasive sound by matching it with some of his raspiest performances ever, while still providing a healthy dose of his signature smoothness, to create an incredibly satisfying contrast. Sitting perfectly between upbeat blues and soul, it's my pick for the strongest album in his catalog, and he masterfully pulls “Light My Fire” into that fold. By speaking the first few lines, he opens a dialogue with his audience, pulls us in by delicately delivering the initial hook, and maintains total control as his intensity, volume, and confidence grow throughout the track. Once you’re hooked, Green doesn’t let you off the mat, but you wouldn’t want to get up anyway. NUMBER TWO The Doors The original “Light My Fire” is one of the greatest coming-out-parties in all of music. The Doors introduce themselves to the charts with un wavering pace, seven minutes of it. As I mentioned brie fly, the length was unprecedented, to say the least. So, in order to captiv ate this endurance deprived audience f or the entirety of their chart-topper, they had to do something special. I think the key to The Doors’ chart-topping accomplishment is the balance they struck. It pushed the envelope in more ways than length; a relentless keyboard solo and dynamic yet restrained vocal performance set it apart from its contemporary hits. It isn’t the best version but it h as by far the greatest le gacy. “Light My Fire” is one of the most important songs of its era, because it stretched a formulaic performance to its stylistic capacity and opened the charts up to the fast-moving, incredibly impactful, and ultimately self-destructive force of nature that was Jim Morrison. NUMBER ONE ETTA jAM ES Every other artist that covered “Light My Fire” avoided The Doors' murkiness in favor of their own sound and vibe. Their decisions are likely all based on the fact that beating a band like that at their own sonic game is risky to say the least. Etta James was not, could not have been, intimidated. So, she leads in with a heavy bass guitar that pushes the limit of the lower portion of the mix. To balance it out, she stays in the upper half of her vocal range, providing a clear and clean balance. The drums hold pace and the occasional guitar painted overtop fills out the sound. It’s simple and slow, like the original, but by cutting the instrumental solo, which every other artist attempted to replicate in some way, she brought it completely into her wheelhouse. Much like Aretha’s “Resp ect ” , her revision is hardly recognizable, and that is due to one crucial factor: Etta James herself. Yes, the instrumental adjustments are masterful, and cutting the solo does have an impact, but her vocal delivery is the biggest gamechanger. She pours every bit of swagger available into this song, much like Al Green, but her intentionally measured cadence shift makes a massive, albeit subtle, difference. She improvises her way through the song, delivering all of the written lyrics in quicker succession than the original. James’ slight alteration of every single line is largely responsible for over four minutes of difference, as she yanks the song back into contemporary song-length standards. The moral of the story: Etta James is untouchable, and if she covers your song, kiss it goodbye.