Tabs On Tigers: Atop The American 5/9/2025 BY: IAN SHERRY On May 2, 2025, the Tigers released Kenta Maeda. The Tigers are the best team in the American League, and they are beginning to act like it. Tabs On Tigers Vol. 3 For a long time, I’ve dreamt that the Tigers would see success with rising prospects and, with the intention of taking themselves seriously, cut Javier Baez to free themselves of his $28 million-mid-career crisis and a roster spot. This is that moment. However, in the undeniably turbulent developments of the last year-plus, it was the Japanese legend Kenta Maeda’s $14 million contract that needed to be shed. Meanwhile, Javier Baez is, for the moment, the Detroit Tigers’ everyday centerfielder. The former all-star shortstop’s infamous struggles at the plate lost him his position to Dodgers’ system acquisition and frequenter of Anaheim’s short porch Trey Sweeney. Forced into a utility role, Baez took on the role enthusiastically, according to manager AJ Hinch on 97.1 FM’s pregame AJ Hinch Show. In that same interview, Hinch added that he’d continue to play Baez because “he’s a winning player” – a compliment that resonated with me. Weeks later, Hinch remained true to that insistence, and Baez has responded accordingly. On top of playing a smooth, instinctive center field Javy is looking like himself consistently at the plate. The hitter that can adjust to pitches and drive balls, who’s only shown up in flashes for Detroit, mostly with runners in scoring position, is showing up on a more consistent basis this season. He’s bumped his average to a perfect .313 over the recent Tigers offensive explosions and is sitting at a 1.6 WAR. In other words, he’s a winning player. As for those prospects, one in particular is starting to act his age. Spencer Torkelson looked like a new man in Spring Training. His stance is more athletic and upright, centered on his right leg. So far, the adjustments he’s retained have allowed for a simpler path to the ball, most notable in his compact homerun swings, of which he’s already had 10 (2 shy of Judge and Raleigh for the most in the AL). Torkelson’s .254 batting average is encouraging, though it fluctuates, and the theoretical benefits of power hitter status may lead to more on-base appearances anyhow. Tork’s success has complicated life for sophomore Colt Keith. His rookie season was ultimately a success at the plate after a slow start, which he’s mirrored so far this season. However, the ball is starting to leave the ballpark for the Tigers system product (and I don’t want to hear about the ‘Coors effect’ because 450 ft is 450 ft). Still sitting at just a .207 AVG and 4 homers, Keith is tasked with recreating last season’s offensive ramp-up while establishing himself in the field (the DH position has Kerry Carpenter’s name written all over it for the foreseeable future). One more Tiger prospect has made pleasantly surprising strides on both sides of the ball. With the injury to starting catcher Jake Rogers, Dillon Dingler was pushed into the everyday starting lineup, and he’s proved ready for the moment. So far, Dingler is batting .290, which is second best among catchers. A strong-hitting catcher in an age where putrid offense is tolerated at the defensive-minded position is no small advantage. Dingler is an athletic young player with a great arm, room to improve behind the plate, and the ability to whack the ball out of the park – who wouldn’t like to imagine a long career for him as Detroit’s backstop? Injury Update I imagined Parker Meadows (nerve) might return early in the year, but that proved a pipe dream when the Tigers signed Manuel Margot to a one-year deal. Since then, Meadows was placed on the 60-Day IL and Margot himself went to the 10-day with a knee injury from which he’s rehabbing now. In good news, Matt Vierling (shoulder) homered in a Toledo win on May 6th in his rehab assignment. Things have been quiet regarding Alex Cobb (back) lately, but he tracks to be rehabbing soon assuming no hangups. Jake Rogers (oblique) has begun throwing but is not immediately close to returning. John Brebbia (triceps) and Sawyer Gibson-Long (elbow/hip) have also resumed throwing. The Tigers have a top 3 pitching staff in the MLB, which was a possibility headed into the year, and a top 5 offense, which was not. We’ll see if the bats stay hot, but they are right now (even McKinstry!) and the Tigers are taking advantage. Do not take it for granted.

Tabs On Tigers 2/18/2025 BY: IAN SHERRY Forward: The Issue of Immediacy Greetings sports fans. You’ve heard about the Luka Doncic trade. The 25-year-old Slovenian star, formerly of the Dallas Mavericks, was traded to the Lakers within the first 24 hours of February for Hall of Fame Swiss cheese slice Anthony Davis and some change. Within those same 24 hours, like clockwork, Shams Charania’s early-bird tip was broadcasted to Americans nationwide via ESPN alert. The result, then, was a media-fueled and interpersonally experienced hellstorm of unkempt sporting enthusiasm and perplexed fandom that has yet to fully cease. The bone I’d like to briefly pick with the phenomenon above doesn’t concern the aforementioned hellstorm nor the reliability of the American sporting news system. It’s the pace. Mainstream sports journalism, because of its constant active, proactive, and reactive content stream, tends to skew in an emotional, argumentative direction that intertwines with fandom and biases to the point that the coverage becomes lost in the sport itself. With media being as conclusive and invasive as it is in today’s age, the lines between your couch at home and an pro locker room are more blurred than ever. While there certainly are benefits of this arrangement, I’ve been more aware of the dangers recently. I think it suffices to say, and this reflects across most genres of journalism to an extent, that the competitive rush to be lead opinion on a subject you’re passionate about can be blinding, and its tangible in the mosaic of bad takes that we’re meant to recognize as authority in today’s reportorial landscape. Resistance to that is The Culture Gyre’s angle indiscriminately. Now please join me in embarking on coverage of a subject I was born to discuss: Tigers Baseball. Tabs On Tigers Vol. 1 Alex Bregman’s 3-year 120-million-dollar contract became official Thursday, February 13th. In that moment he became the third highest annually paid position player, behind just Ohtani and Soto and tied with Judge, and in that same moment, a bullet was dodged in southeast Michigan. That came following the Tigers’ months-long pursuit of the veteran third baseman. General manager Scott Harris and the majority of the fanbase felt that Bregman would be a concrete solution for a currently uncertain foundation at the hot corner. Harris went as far as to offer a 5-year 170-million-dollar contract that most closely resembled the 7-year 200-million-dollar deal Bregman thought he was worth, but that was not to be. Now, the discussion surrounding Tigers team improvement has shifted to the trade market, but we’d like to offer a more complete synopsis of the most recent developments and current condition of this 2025 Tigers team. The most pressing concern of fans headed into free agency was the left side of the infield. While the starting pitching staff was alarmingly thin on paper last year, it’s hard to argue with the hodge-podged late-season results, plus having the reigning Cy Young offers a certain level of security. Harris addressed it anyhow with the thrifty signing of the veteran (and already inured) Alex Cobb, who’s quietly carried a sub-4 ERA for four consecutive years, and the recent readdition of the flourishing Jack Flaherty. Add a pair of bullpen arms, (one great and one solid) in Tommy Kahnle and John Brebbia, and an assortment of sub-30-year-old starting pitchers – plus Kenta Maeda - competing for a spot at the end of our rotation (2 until Cobb returns) and suddenly this pitching staff feels legit. But still, no signings on the left side. The left side of the infield – the carrot on a stick. Gleyber Torres used to play there, but not since the arrival of better fielding prospects on the Yankees infield. From there, the former 38-homerun all-star’s relationship with his former team began to wash away, and as the impact of that process began to show itself on the field over the past couple seasons, the stream carried him to Detroit. The Tigers front office locked him up for a season at $15k, just half the yearly offering we placed on Alex Bregman’s table. While Torres will have to earn his play in a platoon-heavy infield like he got tired of doing in New York and his overall game doesn’t compare to Boston’s most recent overspend, his offensive upside is that of a player with equivalent homerun power to Bregman. He is admittedly a notch below in most other offensive categories, but just one notch, and the optimist in you might expect a jump in plate discipline given his more veteran role on this team as well as an increase in RBI production assuming he finds himself more central in the Tigers lineup, which still boasts zero established major league left-side infielders. The Torres addition, of course, means a move for the Tigers’ long-term commitment Kolt Keith, but not to third base, his former position. Instead, Spencer Torkelson drew the short end of the stick this winter. The former number-one pick has had obvious struggles at the major league level, showing flashes at times on both sides of the ball, but ultimately scraping his way to replacement level over his first three seasons. With Jace Jung and Trey Sweeney being a part of the miracle Mudhen formula that propelled the Tigers to last year’s post-season and Matt Vierling working in at third, it seems Scott Harris decided the direst situation on the infield was at first base. At least, it was the most easily solvable. The fact is, problems remain unsolved headed into Spring Training, but Baez, McKinstry, Maeda, Hinch’s musical chairs batting order, the hitting coaches, and the away uniforms are for another day. For today, we have a minor leaguer, Trey Sweeney, attempting to prove himself a pro at shortstop. We have an ultra-scrappy yet questionable three-man platoon at third base among the switch-hitting Jung, versatile and athletic Vierling, and lefty-killer Ibanez. That goes with a right side manned by Torres and Keith (perhaps Torkelson against a lefty) to round out a blatantly poor defensive infield. Luckily, they’re backed up by what could prove to be an excellent outfield with premium left fielder Riley Greene, thoroughbred center fielder Parker Meadows, and the looming power threat, Kerry Carpenter, in right field. We also have a rotation book-ended by the lefty Cy Young Tarik Skubal and the potential of a Hinch chaosball platoon in the 5th slot, which will, in theory, allow Cobb to rehab and settle into the middle while Flaherty picks up where he left off and Reese Olsen continues to grow into one of the leagues most underrated young arms. We have a full bullpen and a decision to make at closer. We have a coach with the team’s faith. We have an active front office led by a diplomatic and measured GM with at least some of the owner’s attention and a willingness to trade. We have a lot to look forward to.

MUSICAL MATCHMAKER VOL. 1 3/26/24 BY: IAN SHERRY On March 24, 2023, Danny Brown and JPEGMAFIA released SCARING THE HOES , and out of my newfound obsession with Danny Brown’s collaborative potential, a series is born. Allow me to speak on everyone’s behalf for a moment. We all have artists we’d like to see work together, or collaborations we believe would’ve changed the musical landscape as we know it today. Who wouldn’t want to see Kendrick Lamar put out an album with his little cousin Baby Keem , and who wouldn’t have wanted a full LP from David Bowie and Queen . This series is an opportunity for us to explore what we believe could be or should’ve been, and we’re starting with Danny Brown. Collaborative albums are one of the music industry’s greatest treats. Diversified groups of listeners get new material from their favorite artists while becoming more familiar with someone new. In the very best instances, both artists gain fans, fans gain good music from both artists, and a whole world of future collaborations, connections, and stylistic innovation reveals itself. From bands adding a key sound-altering member for a project, like Michael McDonald with Steely Dan , to established artists combining their unique sounds, like Danny Brown and JPEGMAFIA, the best artists find ways to make each other better. SCARING THE HOES was a project long-rumored on the internet and their combined fanbases. A crossover between two of the most prolific alternative hip-hop artists of this active generation is bound to receive attention, after all. Brown and Peggy didn’t disappoint. They each brought their signature senses of humor, unique rhyming styles, and studio skills. The result is one of the best produced, thematically strong, witty, and entertaining albums of last year. For me, it spawned a new interest: Danny Brown’s ability to collaborate. In all of my Danny Brown solo listening (and I’ve heard it all, to my knowledge), I never imagined that he could fully exist as himself outside of his own projects. While he delivers solid features on a yearly basis, he’s always felt strongest on beats catered to himself by himself, when he has complete creative control. However, on SCARING THE HOES, it's Brown who does most of the bending. While both MCs prefer to exist in sonic chaos, JPEGMAFIA relies on it. His rhythmically abnormal cadence doesn’t lend itself as kindly to more traditional hip-hop beats. Brown can go either way. As an artist who often buries or alters traditional beats underneath his more cluttered soundscapes, he can rap in any pocket without relying on, or being limited by, his production. So, what do I do when an artist has such obvious collaborative prowess, like Danny Brown? I dream up new collabs. Welcome to Musical Matchmaker Vol. 1. Recently, on a tip from a friend, I was listening to Bruiser Wolf , another artist involved in Danny Brown’s Detroit alt-hip-hop scene. He, unlike his pal Danny, sticks to pretty conventional production. It was in their scattered collaborations and work together in Bruiser Brigade , that finally pointed to what I really want from a Danny Brown collab: cleaner production. 1. Danny MF BROWN Well yeah, who wouldn’t go well with MF DOOM ? A fair point, and the answer is nobody (or maybe Elvis), but this is an intentional selection. Danny Brown, despite not solely producing his beats since early mixtapes, has developed an individually recognizable sound. His vocal expertise allows him to exist in a permanent state of semi-chaos, with projects like XXX and Atrocity Exhibition leading the charge, however even when his sound is less cluttered, orderliness isn’t his strong suit. MF DOOM is, genres aside, one of the greatest producers of all time. Few artists inject as much personality into their instrumentals as DOOM. In fact, it's his zany intro/outros and perfectly off-center sample-work that are responsible for his unprecedented notoriety as an artist in an alternative space. What draws me to DOOM in this particular instance, however, is one of the key ingredients Danny Brown has yet to fully incorporate into his own work: cleanliness. MF DOOM’s production, despite its abstract and cluttered nature on the surface, is just as clean and organized as today’s most prominent pop-rap producers. Let me take you under the hood. Given, DOOM’s catalog is expansive enough to nitpick until your nitpicking appetite is satisfied completely, he generally thrives in clean contrasts. Take “Doomsday” ; by sampling Sade’s “Kiss of Life” , he introduces the very essence of smooth, under which he layers a semi-complex drum hook that dictates a much quicker tempo than the original sample. In addition to the sharpness of the drums he interjects occasional record scratches, cuts, and a scattering of extremely brief samples. All of these choices come together to achieve a perfectly balanced texture, as well as a fairly neutral base to rap overtop. As far as I’m concerned, that level of production expertise is exactly what Danny Brown needs, because while he’s collaborated with plenty of top-tier producers, that solid base that DOOM creates is unrivaled. Not to mention, the lyrical collaboration between the two would be an absolute dream for any fan of unique deliveries and lyrics that toe the line between genius and nonsense. 2. Ol’ Dirty Brown Ol’ Dirty Bastard is one of the greatest performative rappers of all time. So is Danny Brown. See where I’m going with this? There are endless aspects to good performative rapping, and endless combinations in which either of these artists would thrive, but I believe their particular strengths overlap on the highest level. Firstly, ODB’s background with Wu Tang and the NYC posse rap scene is priceless when it comes to collaboration. Manufacturing verses that stand apart from anyone else on the song is a skill, and one that elevated ODB in his prime. When other members of the Wu Tang Clan’s styles had more of a tendency to blend together, especially his cousins RZA and GZA , Ol’ Dirty Bastard cultivated one of the most recognizable deliveries ever. His ability to exist as himself in a collective space is rivaled by very few, and Danny Brown is on that short list of competition. Listen to Brown’s verse on A$AP Rocky’s “1 Train” or Bruiser Wolf’s “2 Bad” (they’re the same sample), and notice how clearly he stands apart. Then compare that to ODB’s “Intoxicated” ”; you might notice a similar phenomenon. When these two MCs are turned loose on more simplistic beats and have room to deliver an uninhibited performance, they’re untouchable. The ability to work as individuals while finding a shared stylistic sweet spot has elevated legendary hip-hop duos like Outkast and Black Star . Ol’ Dirty Brown shares a lot of strengths with those legendary groups, from similar content and life experiences (street life and addiction) to similar performative styles. Their breath control and borderline cartoonish deliveries would work well together in my mind, which leaves just one question mark. What are they rapping on? As much as I’d love to hear ODB work into contemporary Danny Brown production, that doesn’t feel like a realistic adjustment for the 90s MC. Instead I’d look back to Brown’s earlier work. On Hot Soup especially, you can find more drum-forward production, reminiscent of the boom-bap sound, which ODB would’ve been much more accustomed to. From there, a knowledgeable producer would be wise to reconstruct Brown’s typical sample-work, which normally rides overtop or in stride with the verse. Dropping it in the mix so that the vocals take precedent would allow for the duo’s performative skills to dominate the audience. It would also loosen up the vocal pocket and allow the less frequent samples to take up a larger role in the structure of the song, marking transitions between consecutive verses or choruses. The result, theoretically, would be two of the strongest rappers in their given generations spitting on production that combines signature aspects of their own styles and eras. All of that combined with their ability to exaggerate syllables, which dictates pace regardless of the actual word quantity, Ol’ Dirty Brown would be the perfect lyrical storm, and one of the finest live shows in hip-hop history. Danny Brown has one of the most unique skill-sets in music today. His album with JPEGMAFIA was one of the highest quality releases of last year, but it was not his collaborative ceiling. He is the most versatile rapper in music right now, making him the ideal collaborator. His willingness to experiment is evidenced in his own work as well as his scattered features, from Euro-electronic producers like Paul White to genre-bending artists like Quadeca . Danny Brown will continue to innovate as long as he makes music, and while there may be no living artist with whom he can strike the perfect collaborative balance, if there is, he’ll find them.

Hurry Up Tomorrow : Monday Is Looming By Ian Sherry 3/8/2025 The Weeknd released Hurry Up Tomorrow on January 31st, 2025. Abel Tesfaye searches for end-of-era-defining songs on what is rumored be the final album released under his present moniker. The Weeknd rose to prominence in the early stages of last decade when his trio of mixtapes, Trilogy , caught listeners’ ears with the shock-toxic club-pop he pioneered. Now, after releasing a decent debut, 2 consecutive smash hit records, and the first 2 records of his highly successful and allegedly final trilogy, the Toronto superstar entered this record evidently shorter on inspiration than he’s been in a long time. The reception of The Weeknd’s latest has been the increasingly typical mix of middling to high scores and mild to moderate enthusiasm. With the world’s top sound engineers at his disposal and having the knack for delivering sonically enticing soundscapes that he does, a certain level of critical success is all but guaranteed. The Weeknd will always provide a song like “Baptized In Fear” to scratch the hifi itch. But, if the repeated achievement of sonic standards is akin to success in your view, consider the remainder of this review a dissenting opinion. The Weeknd is out of gas. Fueled in his early days by the nightlife, Abel Tesfaye seemed to know his lifestyle wasn’t sustainable. So began his journey to pop stardom. His now 15-plus-year career has been marked time and time again by well-executed shifts in identity, ultimately bridging the gap between toxic trainwreck and cynical celebrity, but on Hurry Up Tomorrow he was too slow to pull the plug. The sound has reached its expiration date. The Weeknd’s identity, which was always a poignant feature of his artistry, is currently reduced almost singularly to his star status. The result is a hit-driven approach to the majority of tracks. With his mind perpetually set on the high point, the instrumentals have become electronic clouds of ambient ambiance. Take “Reflections Laughing.” The track begins with The Weeknd singing alongside a meek guitar playing no discernable melody, then with the help of a chipmunked sample hook and someone sitting on the bass button, he begins to build to the climax just 1 minute into the 4:51 song. He even drops an interlude into the middle of the song before a painfully lethargic Travis Scott feature accounts for the last 1:37. The song relies so heavily on audience buy-in that it is held together more by the robo-popstar personas of Tesfaye and Scott than any legitimate musical structure. “Wake Me Up” kicks off the album with artificially anthemic energy that is essentially typical for a record chock-full of musically hollow moments of sonic cinema. Because The Weeknd’s voice is so piercingly clear, it lacks texture. This can be positive when belting out pop choruses, clarity plays well to general audiences, but like any other form of delivery, there’s a time and a place. The wider variety of vocal stylings on his early mixtapes occasionally put The Weeknd in uncomfortable vocal pockets that were a more challenging match for his performative skillset. It was not uncommon to hear the strain in his delivery, but it only added to the already edgy sound. That edge is gone. “Timeless” is a jam and the perfect counter to last paragraph’s claim. Playboi Carti settles into the atmospheric Weeknd-style trap beat like he was born there and brings a couple flows along with him. The Weeknd steps up to the plate next and handles the later majority of the track like he can and should, effortlessly delivering multiple delivery styles, rhythms, and rhyme schemes. Unfortunately, while performances of that caliber aren’t singular to track 13 of the 22 total, the average vocal performance is much more pop formulaic - fine but nowhere near the displays of talent and skill he’s achieved. Instead, he gets outperformed by both Future and Lana Del Rey and milks a third of the songs for minutes longer than nature would’ve allowed. 22 songs is a somewhat ridiculous number, but exceptions can be made. That’s a status The Weeknd has certainly earned. Likewise, he’s earned a few electronic pop flops. Acts that categorically raise the bar in certain areas of evaluation can perhaps be allotted modified expectations in select areas that are less favorable given their skillset or style of undertaking. But this year, there were just too many lapses. I’d return to just 4 songs: the hifi success “Baptized In Fear” (7), the prompt, washy “Opening Night” (8), the aforementioned “Timeless” (8), and the a1 trap-pop “Niagara Falls” (10). There was a smattering of excellent transitions, and of course, the soundscapes were on point. Hurry Up Tomorrow is a 5.8 .

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.

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.

Coverage Vol. I 12/2/23 BY: IAN SHERRY Cover songs are one of my favorite music industry phenomena. When done well, cover artists pay homage to the original song while offering their own spin or twist. Sometimes they see massive success, surpassing the original, such as Aretha Franklin’s “R espect” , Johnny Cash’s “Hurt” , Chaka Khan’s “I Feel For You” , and I could go on. One of my favorite exercises is digging through versions of a song that’s been covered over and over, and picking the best version. You can often find great performances by legendary artists that you didn’t even know existed. I always seem to find at least one. Would you like to try one with me? The Beatle s are one of the most covered artists of all time. For my first in a forthcoming series of articles, I felt it would be fitting to start with a Beatles original: “Got To Get You Into My Life” . One of the bigger songs off their culturally essential Revolver, this track has settled into an interesting niche, like much of the album. The cinematic instrumentals sit in back with a more restrained vocal in front that branches out on the chorus. I heard someone call it The Beatles’ Motown song. In short, it’s a song with great bones and lots of moving parts, making it an enticing candidate for covers. MENTIONS Chicago (Live in 75) - This is a fun live performance, and while it’s well done, they play it fairly straight. It doesn’t separate itself from any live Beatles or McCartney version. Joe Pesci- I only mentioned this because it’s crazy to hear such a prolific rapper branch out. There's lots of ‘ohs’ and ‘heys’ to be had here - if you’re into that kind of thing. Daniel Johnson- Johnston’s awkward low quality performances h ave touched many people. He thrives in a raw emotional space, but sometimes he can be grating, and unfortunately this cover is one of those instances. Blood Sweat & Tears- It pains me to rank this band within the ‘Mentions’ instead of slotting them above the Beatles original. Blood Sweat & Tears scratches a very specific big band/raw vocal itch for me. They often elevate songs with their arrangements and instrumentation, but this time they didn’t do quite enough to surpass the original for me to justify bumping them up into the Top Four. TOP FOUR I can’t explain why four is the right number, especially as a believer in the rule of three. Maybe I just want to be different. Lucky for me, this time around, the top four are a step above. NUMBER FOUR The Beatles, 1966 Yes it’s the original, and that certainly counts for something. In fact, if it weren’t the original it might have slipped out of the Top Four, which may happen at some point in this series. But not this time because th e original is a creative masterpiece. A massive song with room to get bigger, the Beatles really nailed it instrumentally. However, I have an issue with the vocal performance: the energy and tone feel a bit meek in comparison to their backing. McCartney elevates his vocals for the chorus, but it feels a bit sudden. While the initial surprise factor pays off the first time around, you only hear The Beatles for the first time once. Did they do anything wrong? Not necessarily. This is just the Revolver sound in a nutshell. It strikes a unique balance between all of what makes The Beatles great, but in a semi-chaotic way. That organized chaos is responsible for the large number of fans that choose Revolver as their top Beatles album. However, I’ve always preferred the cleanness of Abbey Road, and my next pick reflects that. But, I have a final note: The Beatles are so good, this song included, that I have to argue against them in order to justify them sitting anywhere but #1. NUMBER THREE Dave Koz And Friends Summer Horns, 2013 When you talk about covers, you want the artist to elevate the song and clean up some missteps the original artist may have taken, such as the Beatles safe vocals. I don’t listen to much instrumental music, and this isn’t the only instrumental cover out there, but this one really stands out. Although it’s difficult to strike a balance between the vocal arrangement and backing instrumentation on a purely instrumental song like this, Koz’s cover has a remedy that elevates the song: just add more horns! This same sentiment is shared by the group occupying the top slot, but the pure woodwind firepower on this track is unmatched. Instrumental music can be boring to some, but thi s energized cover couldn’t possibly bore anyone. Check it out. NUMBER TWO Ella Fitzgerald, 1969 Nobody claims songs like powerhouse Black female vocalists of a certain era. Nina Simone, Etta James, Aretha Franklin, and of course, Ella Fitzgerald. Incorporating many of the same elements as The Beatles, Fitzgerald plays it as close to the original as anyone on this list, but her subtle changes set this 1969 cover apart. Her version opens with a subdued and simplified instrumental approach, making it easier to execute her clean jazz sound above the slightly chaotic arrangement of the original version. The instrumentation dances through her verses throughout, keeping the song upbeat, simple and clean. Then Fitzgerald elevates vocally and the music follows suit, rising to a crescendo at the high point of the hook. She yells ‘Got to get you into my life’ as the horns and background vocalists swell in unison. After the high point, the elevated sound continues, as she vocally freestyles through the final fade. She takes full ownership of the song by redesigning the builds and adding her signature vocal flavor. I can’t ask for more than that. NUMBER ONE Earth Wind & Fire, 1978 I suspect this is the second best known version of the song (behind Joe Pesci, of course). This isn’t just the best version of this song, it’s one of their best tracks ever. Earth Wind & Fire is one of the greatest American bands of all time, so that says a lot. I heard this version when I was a kid and didn’t even realize it was the same song until years later because it is so far elevated. The horns are clean, their signature background vocals are perfect, the addition of the stand-alone electric guitar is genius, the bass is more present than any other version, even their swagger elevates the song. Maurice White also outsings everyone on this list with sustained superior vocal range, rising up with the instrumental instead of joining it for brief splashes on the chorus. This was a track waiting to be done perfectly, and nobody is better suited to rise to the specific demands presented than Earth Wind & Fire. I think you’ll agree.

THE POP SHOP BY: Ian Sherry 9/5/2023 If you came for Faygo I apologize. In the grand scheme of music creation and consumption, genres are completely trivial. However, they are one of my favorite things to noodle around. The most noodley of the bunch is pop. As music continually evolves, defining pop gets increasingly difficult. Michael Jackson is the ‘king of pop’, yet he falls under the same general mega-genre as Ethel Cain , The Beach Boys , and Shania Twain . Strange but true. The pop quandary is most evident, to me, in a record store. Most often, you’ll find a pop/rock section. Certainly that model was sensible at a time, especially in a stretch like the 80s through the 2010s. These days however, I’m not sure those two genres align as closely. With acts like Imagine Dragons and Fall Out Boy fading, the bridge between the two has narrowed in favor of the slow-motion collision of rap and pop. Therefore, everytime I see a pop/rock section, I’ve granted myself permission to chuckle at whatever dinosaur constructed it. As a freshman in college without a credit rating (or whatever you need to own a business), I have no chance of running a record shop anytime soon. Admittedly, my opinion is from the outside looking in, however my occasional frustration with genre organization is justified. So, because my writing this article is conveniently inconsequential, let’s organize my theoretical record shop: The Pop Shop. Here at the Pop Shop, we operate under the assumption that all of our customers are equally, if not more, opinionated as myself, especially regarding genre placement of their favorite artists. Now that I’m a shop owner, I suppose I’ll have to make compromises here and there to accommodate customers with diversified taste. As I touched on previously, pop is what holds most genres together. Pop is the key to a broad musical palette. Therefore as a record store owner with fairly diverse taste and an equally multi-interested customer base, my first order of business is to define pop. Is pop linear? Well, I’m not sure but I might be by the time this paragraph is done. My instinct is to say yes. One of my favorite music-listening activities is creating playlists that transverse eras. It’s very satisfying to look at dissimilar beginnings and endings to tracklists, wondering how they connect, and finding out somewhere in the middle. How did American popular music seamlessly evolve (or regress) from Frank Sinatra to Drake ? That’s an answer for another article, but it certainly did. The keyword to my previous claim is seamless. There is no definite instant in pop music history in which the definition itself suddenly changed. There have been game changing artists, releases, even songs, but mass artistic or stylistic change simply can’t happen over night. The result is a genre which is constantly mentioned but insufficiently defined. Concise or concrete definitions to abstract concepts are futile in nearly every case. That’s why I’m taking a whole article to unpack it, instead of a sign behind the Pop Shop’s front desk. So, after brief deliberation, pop is indeed linear. It’s not linear in a traditional sense though. It’s not a straight line. It’s a chain linked together by genre-bending or trailblazing artists. That chain looks drastically different at some points than others, but it’s all one piece. I’ll take it a step further: it's a gyre. Pop is a gyre If you don’t know what a gyre is, you haven’t explored our homepage enough. Go now . Welcome back. To summarize: a gyre is a linear pattern in which a vortex widens from a point until it reaches a breaking point of sorts, it then continues from a single point in the center of the widened end. The most important thing to understand about the pop gyre, is that it doesn’t stop at any point, which makes it linear, but it does have significant and traceable points of reshaping. These points are marked by collections of those aforementioned artists, projects, and songs. Whether it's Billie Holiday’s shedding the light of pop culture on the horrors of the south, the gay sensation that was Freddie Mercury , or one of David Bowie’s many genre-quaking phases, individual impacts on mainstream pop music have more significance in the real world than we could understand. That impact, if you want to fully understand pop, cannot be separated from the stylistic evolution of the genre. I have no problem with the general opinion that Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra are America’s first pop stars. That makes them ground zero for American music’s gyre. Highlighting an artist is a very useful tool for defining a genre, someone who encapsulates the sound and or attitude of a musical movement. Artists like The Beatles , David Bowie, Michael Jackson , Whitney Houston , Madonna , and Adele have all held that role. You’ll find all of those artists in the Pop Shop’s signature pop section. However, as they don’t currently define 2023’s pop sound, they can’t be at the center of our biggest section. We have to pick a new artist. 2023’s centerpiece of pop ‘Finally some specifics’, says any reader more interested in facts than conceptual rambling. 2023’s pop music landscape is broader than ever. As music continues to evolve, despite the gyre resets, the scale of pop will continue to broaden. That only makes sense. Generally, anything that charts on the billboard is somehow pop-adjacent. Nowadays that means pop directly overlaps with rap, r&b, country, indie, and rock, among others. When Kendrick Lamar was charting with To Pimp A Butterfly , pop had a link with jazz. When The Weeknd and Dua Lipa started stylistically dipping into 80s tropes, pop had a link to a different decade. When Lil Uzi Vert charted with “Just Wanna Rock” , pop had a link to New Jersey club. That’s all to say a diverse landscape makes it hard to pinpoint a centerpiece, but I have a pick: SZA . Although pop is the common ground for any mainstream genre, it always has a definable sound. This sound is constantly shifting, and with rap and r&b packing the charts, it has begun to shift that direction. The more palatable, even inoffensive, approach that a Taylor Swift or Harry Styles brings to the table is no longer the solution. The ideal pop star has to incorporate their own sound, have an interesting persona, a splash of sexuality, but most of all, the ability to collaborate. I don’t just mean Dua Lipa adding Dababy to her song that’s already charting, I mean real sound-altering collaboration. SZA has all of that. SZA has been a fixture in modern r&b since her hit album Ctrl , but her 2022 release SOS launched her into the center of today’s music scene. The hit single “Kill Bill”, which was accompanied by quite the music video, captured a huge audience. Her variety of moods accommodated brand new audiences. Her attitude and personality thrilled her long-time fans. And, her well-executed and occasionally unexpected features further proved her ability to bring together the best in music. Try “Kill Bill” , “Seek & Destroy” , “Snooze” , “Ghost in the Machine” , and “Open Arms” . Though it leans towards r&b, SOS embodies pop. It will be listened to, referenced, and imitated for the rest of this decade. So, when you enter the Pop Shop looking to buy SOS , check smack in the middle of the store. Nitpicking Now that we’ve established the center of pop, we have to do the dirty work: marking borders. I think the best course of action is one mega-pop section subdivided into the various genres of influence and today’s popular sound. The outer walls will be lined with the following non-pop-adjacent genres: blues, punk, metal, folk/bluegrass, hip-hop, soul, jazz, house/techno, reggae, and classical. The border of the mega-pop section will be made up of the following pop-adjacent genres: rock, r&b, rap, indie, country, and latin. Each of those will connect to the mega-pop section like this: genre/pop. Here’s two defining artists for each, but the Pop Shop has everything. rock/pop Elton John Portugal. The Man r&b/pop Whitney Houston Ella Mai rap/pop Nelly Doja Cat indie/pop The Smiths Wet Leg country/pop Dolly Parton Chris Stapleton latin/pop Selena ROSALIA Prince gets his own section. Isn’t this fun? Closing for the night I find it interesting that pop seems to glean a negative connotation. For example, if you tell someone their favorite Canadian rapper, who they might consider a hip-hop icon, is more of a pop artist, they might take offense. In fact, I’ve found it's a good way to immediately turn a conversation into a confrontation. Try it some time. Then, remind them of that elite crop I just listed. Remind them that pop is the confluence of everything that is hot in music today. Remind them that it's a perfect gauge of just how much this divided country has in common. Remind them that ultimately genre has no relation to merit. If they’re still stuck on their anti-pop attitude, send them to my shop. I’ll be waiting.

THE ODYSSEY 8/5/2026 - Dawson Sarcona - Ian Thomas Sherry The following is a transcribed and edited conversation between CG reviewers Ian and Dawson about Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey DAWSON: Just starting off, Ian, I know you've read The Odyssey before. Were you a fan of the casting and the performances? Do you think they kind of held up to Homer’s version? IAN: Yeah, well, starting with the story. First of all, you had to tell me the bard was Travis Scott, but I thought that was fantastic, the way that they included that, 'cause that's the way it was told for so long. They hit all the points, obviously. And I thought that the plot moved along pretty well for such a long thing to adapt. You know, I just watched O Brother, Where Art Thou. It's so loose to call it an adaptation of the Odyssey - I mean, I get it's a comedy, but this (Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey) is right on point and moves along. And yeah, with the casting, I had some favorites for sure, but I'm gonna kick that back to you. Were there any favorite castings or performances for you? DAWSON: I mean, there's a lot of performances getting gassed up from this movie, and I feel like rightfully so. Anne Hathaway did a really good job (as Penelope). And I like the direction Nolan took her character too. But my favorite, and this is the basic answer, 'cause it's the main character, I really like Matt Damon's performance. Really enjoyed just the energy he brought to it. I've seen him in a lot of other action movies like the Jason Bourne films, and they're really boring to me, so this kind of solidified to me like - oh, he actually knows how to do this stuff, because I found his performance very captivating and I like the complexity that he brought to the character. Though Nolan has a bit of… I wouldn't say an issue, but he does this thing with all his characters where he kind of.. makes them extremely noble and tries to make them the most, you know, complex ‘I'm gonna take accountability for everything’ characters. When from what I've heard, in the original Odyssey Odysseus is kind of just like a trickster and is kind of a little bit just like… IAN: -He’s not so apologetic.- DAWSON: Yeah, so I think that that was a good change and I think that Damon portrayed that well. And I also really thought Robert Pattinson shined in his role. I would have liked to see more of his character just being a douchebag because he was good at it. IAN: He is. I went with my sister, and she was raving about how good he was as a villain. And yeah, I totally agree. And like Dawson said, Anne Hathaway was great; she was strong in her performance, you know, that's important in this day and age… So what did you think of Tom Holland’s Telemicus? DAWSON: So, Tom Holland was... Well, he didn't have a bad performance by any means, but I would like to see that they gave him more to do. I am a fan of him as an actor, and I feel like - I say this wearing a Spider-Man hoodie, but I still think No Way Home was one of his best performances, and I would have loved to see him allowed to bring that emotion in this movie. It just wasn't necessary for the character, so like I get it, but it (the performance) was kind of middle of the road for me. IAN: I think part of that is the character, like he's limited; he never even gets to step into the throne room in any aspect, leadership-wise, and his main function in this film was to move the plot along with the cutting back and forth. And I thought that was pretty easy to understand, given I already knew the story, but still it flowed pretty well, so I thought he did well. I enjoyed his performance. DAWSON: We’re there any castings that were distracting for you? IAN: Charlize Theron as Calypso, that was a little strange. Only because I didn't feel like it was well enough introduced, but that situation was eventually explained. It's supposed to be mysterious to an extent, but I also don't know how accurate it is, her living washed up on the beach. That's not how I interpreted reading it. - What about yourself? DAWSON: Yeah, I can agree with that. She just kind of felt like an empty character, just kind of a plot device. And I know that she has more acting chops in her, so maybe it's just more of a writing issue. But yeah, her and Benny Safdie, as Agamemnon, I felt very like he stood out most specifically, probably. With the helmet off, he just kind of gives off, for lack of a better term, dorky energy. IAN: He did. DAWSON: - They spent so many of his shots in the movie, framing him as, like, very imposing and cinematic and a guy that you don't want to mess with. Then like, they have Odysseus speak to him, and he's very soft-spoken and kind of friendly with Odysseus, which I’m not sure if that's how it was in the book, but I would assume that maybe it was not. IAN: I would have expected the character to be, furious, you know, and to have some sort of facial wound from being killed - a crazed warlord that sacrificed so much, and was caught up in his own home, I think, he would probably be more bitter and angry. But we're kind of splitting hairs here, I think, overall, that (oracle scene) was pretty great. DAWSON: This is probably his (Nolan’s) biggest accomplishment. I mean, I think that's fair to say. It's the first movie ever filmed completely on IMAX, which means it was also filmed completely on film, like traditional film, which is not something you see a lot nowadays. And watching it, seeing all the love and care put into it; it's just very clear. Especially when it comes to the practical stuff that they do with the Cersei scene in the pig transformation and in the Cyclops stuff. For perspective, there was a guy in full Cyclops makeup, and then for other scenes they had a full 60-foot Cyclops puppet that they built for the characters to interact with. So it’s stuff like that could have just been blue-screened and CGI-ed, but instead they took the time and really actually made it to the best they could, that is a testament to how much not only Christopher Nolan cares about movies, but how important that stuff still is to making a great movie - and you can really tell when you're in that theater, especially the IMAX theater. IAN: I thought the way that the Cyclops moved was really awesome; it was otherworldly, and it made the whole scene a lot better. That's one of the more famous scenes I was wondering how they were gonna execute it, what it was gonna look like, you know, and it was like a mutant child type-thing, which makes perfect sense because I believe it's a giant and Poseidon’s offspring, so it was pretty wild, and it was the same with Cersei. They could have had her wave a wand and poof them (Odysseus’ men) into pigs, and nobody would have batted an eye, but the idea to kind of go the horror direction, that ended up being one of the more memorable scenes in the whole film to me. DAWSON: I learned the other day that Ithaca, the island that they used for that, is a real island and that's a real castle, and they got permission to film there, but they weren't allowed to build anything, so like they couldn't build a road to get their film supplies up there. So they had to literally airlift and then, by hand, carry like thousands of dollars of equipment up this hill every day to film there. And I think that's just another cool example of the people who worked on this movie really putting in the effort, and I think it shows in volumes when you see it. IAN: This is interesting because it looks really genuine, the castle, and it looks pretty untouched and like weathered. I also thought the plucking of the bow- that was a great moment. They planted that seed early on, and it was pretty cinematic when it did it in the end, so I thought that was pretty cool, and I'm not sure I remember that from the book; I think the book is moreso about being able to execute the challenge, just stringing it and shooting, so I think that was pretty cool. DAWSON: Yeah, and I noticed a few things about that on my rewatch too of like how much that is woven into the story, and it's stealthily. There's a lot of stuff, Nolanisms, just a lot of really interesting details that are just sprinkled in there. Like, for example, a few that I can remember are: there's a song on the score called "Sirens," and it's the song that plays when Odysseus hears the sirens' song, and he's strapped to the, you know, pull in the ship and is listening to it. - IAN: - And it's at the same time; it's just the song on the score that we hear while he's listening to them. - DAWSON: - Right, yes, exactly, thank you. But that song is titled that, but it's technically like him and Penelope's theme in the movie because the only other times we hear it are when he and his wife are together. And so when he talks about the siren song being like “a song of like everything you've ever wanted and everything you ever wanted was something you had and lost,” I think that's just a really cool way to musically tie it into, like, when he hears that song, he's hearing something about Penelope and Telemicus. And going back to Telemicus, another thing is, any time they are viewing his flashbacks of his family, Telemicus is not facing the camera. It shows like a kid facing away from the camera, which is something Nolan does in like all of his movies. IAN: Now I'd like to get to my last big question if you don't have anything else. DAWSON: No, I don't think I have anything else. IAN: So The Culture Gyre is based on a concept, the gyre, which is a shape. Imagine two funnels facing into each other so at one end you would have an open circle and then a point in the center which would be the point of the other funnel going the opposite direction; would you consider this movie to be closer to “the point,” the thing that everybody in film is driving at, or would you say it's pushing an edge in the grand scheme of the film? DAWSON: I think it's interesting with Nolan because he is something - he's someone that all filmmakers kind of strive to be like; he is kind of anointed, almost anointed himself as like filmmaker royalty because he is, I believe, the president of the filmmakers' guild. So a lot of people, they kind of view him as like the one above all, and to be honest with you, he still has duds, he still has movies that fall through, so going into this movie I was excited, but I was not 100% certain, kind of like you are saying. I think the concept for this movie is kind of on that outer circle; it's something that you know a lot of people can do, and a lot of people have made adaptations of the Odyssey, right, and it's a general idea a lot of people have, but it's not necessarily always executed properly. There are so many ways that it can be done, and I think what's great about Nolan is he can kind of bring it into that inner focal point, like that thing that everyone's striving towards, because of the way he's able to direct things. And I think a lot of this comes down to the people going to the movies now who are so much more invested in cinema. I think just because of the nature of social media and how it's heightened everybody's opinions on things you're either going to the movie because you love this movie or you hate this movie, right? Like, there's rarely ever an instance now where someone's like ‘I have no thoughts on this’ and that's compounded by social media with people sharing those opinions. So he's kind of being built up and built up, and I think the fact that Nolan keeps pushing forward shows he's not the type of person who's building up this reputation for himself and just kind of going with the flow. He hasn't plateaued yet. He keeps pushing the bar farther for himself, and you don’t know what his next movie is going to be or when it's going to be, but he's been pushing out movies every three years. Which is a crazy production turnaround, especially considering the scale of stuff he's making. So my long-winded answer to your question is, yes, I think that this movie, especially in Nolan's way of approaching film, is pushing for the center of the gyre. I think the future of film has to be like this; it has to be more people who care, people who are doing things practically and who are trying new things with reliable stories, even if just because there's only so many stories that can be told. I would say the same about Obsession this year by Curry Barker, right? The one wish willow. The monkey paw- that is a story that has been told countless times by countless people, but he sat down, and he found a way to make it fresh, and he put a lot of love and practicality into it, and it was probably the second biggest movie of the year so far in terms of box office success. So yeah, I think right now the future of film, the focal point from that poem is this notion of bringing more originality to movies, and we need to do it out of love and care and not for the purpose of making money for a studio. And it's in the details, but careful detail. IAN: I agree. DAWSON: Yeah, and you know, obviously studios care about money, but I think people - I think studios right now are kind of finding that if they prioritize originality, it benefits them more in the long term.

Eilish & Cameron in 3D BY: DAWSON SARCONA feat. ITS, 5/6/2026 Billie Eilish – Hit Me Hard and Soft: The Tour (Live in 3D) is the latest concert film/documentary from a cross-generational collaboration between Billie Eilish and directing legend James Cameron. While this movie falls into some of the concert movie genre’s formulaic pitfalls, it stands out as one of the most immersive and visually pleasing cinematized performances I've ever seen. Let’s begin with perhaps the most technically difficult portion of this movie, the cinematography. Coming into a world tour, months in, with the goal of branding new 3D camera technology is a tall task. Even more so when you consider that these cameras must be placed in functional areas that don't restrict the actual onstage performance but capture usable, visually pleasing footage. That being said, Cameron, Eilish, and their teams executed flawlessly. There are endless shots in this movie that felt like pieces of artwork. Further, what really impressed me was the ability to capture scale and immerse the audience. The mix of wide-angle, high-definition cameras with new “Lightstorm Vision” 3D technology made the concert feel physically impactful in theaters, and the clarity of the pictures captured via 3D was astounding to me. I have never once felt more immersed in a concert film, and at times, I forgot about the spectacle of watching “a 3D movie” as it rather tricked my brain into a more holistic concert viewing experience. All of the great visual direction and setups aside, there are some issues I have with this movie. I will say flatly, I am not typically a big fan of concert movies. They’re just not really my type of film and they often struggle to grab my attention. This movie follows the stereotypical format of all films in this genre, cutting between concert performance footage and behind-the-scenes documentary-style clips. My biggest issue is the way the behind-the-scenes footage was cut together. There seemed to be almost no pattern to it, and there were scenes intercut into the middle of the film that would have done much better setting the stage earlier in the movie (rather than an actual time lapse of stage set-up to begin the film). I also would have loved to get into the weeds of how this tour functions from the crew side. The crew has feelings too. As for the music, as a casual fan of Billie Eilish and her overall sound, I had a lot of fun seeing the hits performed in cool ways and learning some of her songs I hadn't heard before. I can say that I came out of this movie more of a fan of Eilish (and Cameron). That being said, my reviews mostly focus on movies, so I'll briefly hand you over to a writer with larger ears, Ian Sherry. ~~~ Billie Eilish’s minimal bandstand matched her minimalist pop sound. A large rectangle with two dugouts near center-stage housed a bassist, guitarist, drummer, and a pair of backup singing sisters. That, plus an omnipresent backtrack and a loop pedal for “when the party’s over,” was all Eilish needed to move her audience to screaming tears. She was vocally tight, physically fit, swagger-laced, and on a scripted mission to provide the audience with the ultimate “Billie Eilish” experience. - ITS ~~~ Overall, I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. I had a lot of fun with it, aside from some confusing editing choices that might have hindered some of the momentum. For a concert movie, I thought it was one of the best I’d come across, and I know this will be a smash hit for all die-hard Billie Eilish fans. I’d give this movie a 6 out of 10 on the scale of regular movies. But, with a film genre like this, that's so vastly different from the story-based films I'm used to reviewing, I feel like a different scale is more suitable for this venture. So that being said, when compared to the other films from the concert movie category, my final review for this movie is a 9 out of 10, and I would highly recommend it to fans of Eilish, Cameron, and the genre at large.

11/3/2023 BY IAN SHERRY THREE PIECE VOL. II On October 13: Westside Gunn released And Then You Pray For Me . MIKE released Burning Desire . Troye Sivan released Something To Give Each Other . Westside Gunn embodies a very special lane in contemporary hip-hop. His unique, adlib-heavy committee rap combines with semi-organic instrumentals for a truly recognizable sound. He combines Buffalo NY pride with themes of grandeur like high-society fashion, which thrusts him further into his niche. He is the one of the key faces of an off-center breed of hip-hop artists that includes Action Bronson , Freddie Gibbs , or Gunn’s longtime collaborators Benny The Butcher and Conway The Machine . It’s hard to understand Westside Gunn’s world from the outside. Luckily, he invests his time and talent time fleshing it out for the benefit of his audience. One listen through Pray For Paris or Hitler Wears Hermes 7 should do the trick, as will a listen through And Then You Pray For Me . Because Gunn has settled so specifically on a sound, it’s reasonable to assume you know what’s coming stylistically. He’s consistent, and if you enjoy his style, chances are you’ll come away with at least a few favorite tracks from every album. What really makes a Westside Gunn album at this stage in his career is the thematic exploits and the collaborations. He delivered in both categories in 2023. Artists flaunting their lifestyle is absolutely nothing new, however, it’s cool when he does it. With consistent references to Paris Fashion Week and a variety of globetrotting ventures, Gunn displays himself as a man of international intrigue and his world as something straight out of the movies. The addition of DJ Drama , who recently brought Tyler The Creator into a similar realm, sets that tone early on, reenforcing Gunn's ability to construct an album. Composing cohesive albums and replicating his creative, yet formulaic sound are certainly accomplishments, however, the strongest moments of this new release involve new faces. Aside from the usual suspects, several artists supplied great features: JID , Rick Ross , and Denzel Curry to name a few. All three of them excel in featured verses, and Westside Gunn excels at accommodating them, especially Curry. The best, most unexpected success is “Chloe” featuring Ty Dolla $ign . To be clear, Ty is quite possibly my favorite feature artist, but I didn’t envision him here. His mark on track 12 is immediately clear. He harmonizes with Gunn throughout his verse, then gives his own bars. The atmosphere of the song is different than anything else on this record, and the sonic smoothness, which Ty Dolla $ign always brings, takes it to another level. That’s just one song though. The biggest contributor on this album deserves his own review: Stove God Cooks . I’ve seldom seen someone so underground make such a big impact on a big name record, a la Mr. Fantastik . He raps like an expert in different styles and cadences, doing whatever the song needs on all five of his features. “KITCHEN LIGHT” and “1989” are my favorite, but if you listen to this album and see Stove God Cooks’ name under the next song, just know it'll be good. On Then You Pray For Me, Westside Gunn put emphasis on his belief that music is more than its face value, it's art. He backs that up. Granted, it’s not a perfect album, there are misses. But, this is how you construct a 21 song album. It moves along nicely with both diversity and consistency, while delivering surprising successes. I’m very pleased, and while there’s nothing too innovative to boost its score, it’s my favorite rap record of the year thus far. Am I biased? Yes, but consumption without preference is impossible. Westside Gunn makes music to please his audience, and as a member of that audience, I’m more than satisfied. That makes this a success for me. I’ll leave you with a Stove God Cooks lyric, “Then West turned me from a rapper to an artpiece” (“Babylon Bis”). Then You Pray For Me is a 8/10. MIKE is making a push to join the next generation of influential rappers from New York. Much like the other Bandcamp success stories, his influences are rangy. Bandcamp is a music listening alternative to the typical streaming model, meant to more directly support the artists. Artists like Bjork and Radiohead re-released their music there, industry legends like Waajeed reside there, and other musical acts like Car Seat Headrest , Quadeca , and now MIKE have seen growth through the platform. It is a pro-artist attitude that draws musicians to the site. That attitude is responsible for a wide variety of creative results, levels of success, and quality. Variety can certainly be found on Burning Desire , and the record’s high points should secure MIKE the respect and standing within hip-hop he’s pursuing. MIKE is a sort of studio do-it-all, but he has one area that needs improvement. He can rap, but the best performances don’t take place until the end of the record. I recommend “Golden Hour” and “Let’s Have a Ball” , and I’d like to highlight the latter. The last song on the album, track 24 is built on a spacy instrumental that places MIKE’s rapping in center focus. He lays down a clear and patient verse, feeling more comfortable on the mic here than anywhere previously on the album, and sticking to the same cadence but allowing himself subtle pauses. He raps with a laid-back swagger that gives the audience the choice of where to focus their attention, without fading into obscurity behind the instrumental. Unfortunately, and this is my biggest issue with MIKE: his vocals often disappear on this record. MIKE is a production machine, using heavy samplework and audio filters to create impressive soundscapes, but his rapping can’t always keep up. He feels like he’s just trying to hold pace, other times his energy doesn’t match the beat. On top of that, his flows often are unchanged for the length of songs. With production as creative as his, there’s pressure on the performance to be equally entertaining. That’s where JPEGMAFIA or Danny Brown excels; I eat up their verses. While he isn’t a bad lyricist, I can’t digest MIKE’s lyrical content on an empty stomach. To be fair, the majority of his rapping isn’t horrible, but the discrepancy between production and vocal performative ability stands out. This doesn’t kill the album by any means, but it puts a ceiling on an artist that feels like he shouldn’t have one. I’m confident he’ll improve, the flashes are potent. Album construction is very important to me. I review albums subjectively and score albums holistically, and MIKE has given me a lot to work with. This album, despite its flaws, has such highs that it could’ve been an album of the year candidate. Unfortunately, it’s 24 songs long. If it was 35 minutes instead of 50 this is a different conversation. He does a good job of keeping songs at reasonable lengths, but it is still a dense listen. Density, in this context, means there’s no time to come up for air. The audience is forced to take in every second of every song for the entire 24. Density in itself isn’t bad, in fact, Marvin Gaye ’s What’s Going On (the greatest album of all time), is extremely dense. However, Marvin’s masterpiece is 9 songs over 35 minutes with zero wasted space, zero misses. This ain’t that. Aside from the length though, MIKE seems to know what he’s doing. The introductory and final tracks masterfully guide the audience in and out of the album, the sole interlude is on point, the majority of the features are fantastic, and the song placement and transitions are well-executed. This is the work of a veteran, but after a quick google search you’d see, like I did, that MIKE is 25 years young. I was very critical in reviewing this album. That’s because it deserved it. Burning Desire is the best produced album of the year, bar none. It’s so good that I couldn’t do it justice through description; you need to hear it for yourself. Music I can’t pretend to properly describe is rare, and for that alone it deserves mentions in the end-of-year conversation. It has its weaknesses that limit it in ways comparably successful albums aren’t limited, but, its high points are undeniable. Burning Desire is a 8.5/10. Prior to this Troye Sivan album, I only knew one of his songs, and I don’t like it. The judgment I passed following my brief introduction to Sivan was that of another perpetuator of the dying pop standard. The critical success of the whiny male vocalists, simple instrumentals, repetitive choruses, and predictable builds, that defined a generation of pop music, is coming to an end. The monetary success will be more stubborn, but that too will fade without the support of critical voices. It is the nature of cultural cycles; they turn over and new eras defined by new artists roll in. It seemed to me that Troye Sivan would be one of many swept out with the tide. While I can’t rule that out, his 2023 album Something To Give Each Other makes me think twice. Many artists lose sight of their vision when they overcomplicate things. Troye Sivan, on the other hand, must have complexity. Without it, he is like any other artist. Luckily, I learned he has the ability to set himself apart when he chooses. Vocally and lyrically, he is nothing unique, but when he alters his delivery he can set himself apart. “Rush” is the first example. The upbeat dance track thrives on simple and clear verses, however, what makes the song for me is the chorus. The washy group vocal creates an atmosphere and his solo refrain audibly pulsates, creating a sonically mesmerizing effect. It elevates an already catchy track, and that’s what pop music needs. Vocal effects can also save an otherwise nondescript song like “Silly” . There are various species of vocal tampering across the album. I’m no production expert, but pitch and volume changes, audio filters, and classic autotune are all noticeable additions. Autotune in particular is very polarizing. Many mainstream pop acts avoid it, especially if they fancy themselves pure singers. That’s why someone like Post Malone exists: he chose to embrace autotune and cultivated an audience who ‘doesn’t normally like rap’. The truth is Malone is nowhere near rap, but the association is there. Troye Sivan doesn’t shy away from an unconscious affiliation with hip-hop and I appreciate that, however, I need more. For every positive experiment on this record, Sivan has an equally negative failure to branch out. For example, he dips into EDM at times. That’s a genre that suffers from simplicity and repetition, but he is able to take it further on “Got Me Started” . By beginning with the Bag Raiders ’ “Shooting Stars” sample, he hooks the audience before laying down the classic EDM drum beat. From that point he keeps layering the instrumental and showing different looks vocally to keep it fresh. It’s a well executed song. But, he also visits the opposite end of that spectrum with a song like “Honey” . Aside from a very basic and lonely EDM beat, his vocals feel uninspired. He relies on the energy build, and while that aspect is executed to an extent, it falls flat if the audience isn’t hooked in the first place. Everyone is allowed a miss or two, but in Troye Sivan’s position it’s crucial that those misses don’t come at the hands of creative shortcomings. Something To Give Each Other has been very well received. I understand why. It is one of the cleaner records all year, and it still ventures into somewhat unexplored territory. However, in comparison to the album I reviewed just above, it’s beyond safe, more like secret service protected. I just cannot get on board with that. I’m not asking for the next musical renaissance, I’m asking for something I might not hear in the sock aisle at Target or the Starbucks bathroom. Sivan delivers at time, making it more perplexing and frustrating when he doesn’t. That said, even with the flat verses, uninspired production, and choruses I can sing before I hear them, there are strong moments on this record. I hope he keeps heading in the direction of tracks 1, 3, and 7. Those aren’t the only successes out of the ten, but those songs will set Troye Sivan apart and could earn him a spot in the new era I believe is approaching. I’d be happy to have him. Something To Give Each Other is a 5.5/10.

MAYHEM By Ian Sherry 3/31/2025 Lady Gaga released MAYHEM , her first studio album in five years, on March 7, 2025. With a collection of songs that meet the moment, Gaga has reasserted herself atop the charts. Lady Gaga is selling this project as inspired by a variety of 80s and 90s influences, but I’d describe it as a return to form. Her last studio album skewed too far into mall-music for my liking and, with the intrusion of movie soundtracks in her recent discography, it’s been since 2016 that we got a musically ambitious album from Lady Gaga and since 2013 that we’ve seen one of this quality. No song better fulfills this record’s sales pitch than “Zombieboy.” The chant-clap intro briefly sets the stage for the high-energy disco-electronic instrumental that drives the track. She rides the 80s revival wave and energetically fills out the musically encased vocal pockets for a sonically airtight product. The record feels contemporary, original, and unique to her well-established catalog. The MAYHEM sound’s X factor is the acid bass. The strobing electronic bass that flutters on songs throughout the record is reminiscent of Kendrick Lamar and his GNX production team’s “squabble up” . An album this fresh, however, is the result of more than just one new trick. All these years later, Lady Gaga is circularly collecting on her own influence in electronic music, and the results are inspiring. “Abracadabra” was a smash hit before the end of the first verse. It has the unmistakable, vintage feel of a Lady Gaga anthem. The bouncy electronic introduction is excellent. From there, she effortlessly builds energy before dropping an immediately iconic Gaga-talk chorus pumped full of that acid wobble on the low end. She commands the refrain with electrifying swagger, chanting in sync with the punchy dance beat for my personal high point of the album. Listening to Lady Gaga’s fervorous commitment to song concepts is as much fun 17 years in as it’s ever been. If it weren’t for her comfortability in her own sound and a willingness to work with fresher cross-industry influences, this album couldn’t compete in a trend-based genre like pop. “Killah” , for instance, is a ridiculous undertaking of influences that lands closer to corny than cool across the first couple verses, still it’s saved by a crisp chorus and a stellar instrumental feature from Gesaffelstein . Gesaffelstein was also MAYHEM ’s primary producer, which made him responsible for stylistically ushering Lady Gaga into the swing of this decade’s musical landscape. He generally delivered, bridging the gap between her vintage sound and today’s charts with notable chemistry and quality. The best songs featured filled-out instrumentals and ear-catching moments, while the small population of weaker songs suffered from thin backing undeserving of Gaga’s unrelenting vocal effort – the P!nk effect. Gaga sings like a dynamo, preventing any song from flopping - something that major pop releases are so prone to accepting. Her performances are potent, enough to elevate a song like “Blade Of Grass” to a touching ballad, and enough to somewhat salvage instrumentally empty duds like “Don’t Call Tonight” or “The Beast” . She shows veteran songwriting chops, only running long a few times on pop drags while manufacturing danceable songs, one after another, with timely shifts that allow her to choose from her full arsenal of sounds on any given song. Her lyrics are still the unmistakable mix of cheesy and genuine – the parody that results in goofs like “Perfect Celebrity” and number-1-worthy tracks like “Vanish Into You” – and I can’t imagine them any other way. At her best, Lady Gaga has a generationally distinct sound that can churn out 10/10 songs each time the pieces align (3 this year). The attention to detail throughout this record, which is quite contradictory to the title, pays dividends and is especially evident in the synchronicity between Gaga, the punches of the instrumental, and the infrequent but impactful backing vocals. This is music the product of a living icon, and this album may prove to be an essential member of that icon’s discography – a later-model success that further cements Lady Gaga’s legacy as an artist and musical innovator. MAYHEM is a 8.3 .