DOOMSDAY AFTERNOON

Initially I posted a short 2-star review of this album, but it was removed so I'll try to go into more detail about why I don't like this album. This will be a mostly negative review-if you don't want to read a negative review of the album, stop now.

First off, I guess it goes without saying that I like progressive rock- the adventurousness, the musicianship, the artistic vision, and especially the musical complexity. But what I find even more intriguing is music that balances complexity and accessibility, without making any blatant sacrifices in either regard. That's what makes great "prog-rock" (my opinion anyway).

This is certainly not a complex album. There's usually one instrument carrying the melody, with all the instruments playing a very minor and supportive role. Drums and bass do basically nothing interesting over the entire 67-minute album. The main instrument is usually either keyboards or the vocals or occasionally guitar. Every once in a while, there's an orchestral instrument or two, but their parts just strike me as being added in for effect ("Look everybody, there's a trumpet! And here are some strings! Isn't this a big production!") rather than adding anything interesting other than timbre. Except the last song, every one is in 4/4 or 3/4 (or some in 6/4 if you want to be technical). They're all slow or mid-tempo. There are basically no moments you could call "intense" or even "fast." Maybe that's part of the design (a somber mood to mourn environmental decay), but it makes for some tediousness over 67 minutes.

Another off-putting quality is the singing. The guy's voice is ok when it's quiet, but when he tries to sing loud or high, it takes on this really nasal quality that just reminds me of a sick gremlin. And there are vocals all over this album. The female ones are ok most of the time. Vocalists are always tough to find though, and I can appreciate someone with a unique sound (even if it's not really "good") so this isn't a major problem for me most of the time.

I don't like cliches, and especially not in the songwriting department. This album is full of them. If you know anything about proggy chord sequences, than you'll know that, if you're in a minor key, a major IV chord can sound good. (for example, going from E minor to A major and back, or Em-D-A, sounds nice) And of course, then there's the Em-D-C-B, and the even less exciting, Em-D-C. These sequences (it doesn't really matter what key you start in) have been used in tons and tons of songs. They're old. They're nothing special anymore. There's nothing wrong with using them per se, but you ought to at least try to add something else to distinguish the song (a distinctive melody, a unique sound, a driving rhythm, an odd time signature, something) if they're going to be the main basis of all the music on an album. This album rarely does. There must be about 30 minutes of repetition of sequences like these on the album, with nothing but really quiet and subtle effects to distinguish them. Phideaux seems to think that just playing Dm-G-Dm-G over and over on standard instruments is enough to carry a song. Maybe for the alternative rock crowd (G-D-Em-C anyone?), that type of writing can be sufficient, but you sort of expect a little more from a "progressive" or even "Prog" album. It's a common complaint that 60-80 minute albums nowadays would be much better as 40-minute albums, and that's definitely the case here, for me anyway.

The first song is one of the longer ones. Although it's marred by probably the most nasal singing on the album, it manages to contain a few decent parts. But this is about as prog-by-numbers as can be. Yes, the song hops along from one part to another, but none of them are all that good and definitely not anything unique. At least this song contains some changes of pace though.

Probably my favorite track on the album is "Crumble." It's based around a very nice 12-second chord sequence and melody. But that's it. All 3 minutes is pretty much just playing it quietly on piano, with some singing or strings too. And the same track is on the album twice! I was actually expecting it to be reprised at the end a la "Supper's Ready" but it was only reprised briefly and in a different arrangement. I guess they deserve credit for that though.

While we're on the topic of reprising themes, there are other instances of it on the album. Some reviewers have been impressed by this, but there's really no reason to be- since almost the whole album follows the same rhythms and patterns, it's not terribly difficult to play different themes, especially when they're as simple as the ones here. I, for one, would rather hear something *new* than the idea that had already bored me the first time around. For the record, the little 5-second piano riff that sounds like something Mozart (or anyone with a smattering of classical music) could have written as a toddler, which is reprised several times over the course of the ten songs, is nothing to write home about. But it's pretty much the basis for a big chunk of the album.

One highlight is the end of the fifth song, "The Doctrine of Eternal Ice (part two)," which manages to work into a nice groove by the end. I still think it could have been more with some inventive composition, but it is nice for a minute or two there.

This album reminds me a lot of a watered-down Eloy. It has all the elements of progressive rock- a great album cover, lots of keyboards, decent production, an epic scope, etc., but it's just so bland and unexciting for me. The sixth track "Thank you for the Evil," is a perfect example. The first few minutes are nothing but a basic slow drumbeat and a couple of notes on acoustic guitar and synthesizer. It's all in 4/4, it's mostly just one chord, there are only two or three instruments, and it lasts two entire minutes. I was ready for something new after about twenty seconds. When the acoustic guitar finally starts playing something substantial, it's a very basic little riff (but it's in D minor, and they build up to a big G major chord!). This is pretty much the basis of the whole song. It lasts nine minutes.

The last song deserves some coverage too as it's obviously the "complex" one. After another two-minute opening where almost nothing happens, we get a surprise- alternating bars of 5/4 and 6/4! Apparently this was a big deal, so it makes up most of the next few minutes of the song. They even switch back and forth between 5/4 and 6/4, sometimes staying in 6/4 completely. Then the song ends with a rather bland 4-chord rock sequence in 4/4 and some preachy lyrics.

Now in spite of all my complaints, there are some good points on this album. First off, the artwork is downright stunning. It goes along nicely with the concept, which seems to be all about the decay of the environment. The production is pretty good. I wish it sounded like the musicians were excited about playing the material rather than sounding like they were reading music off a page, but generally the album sounds nice. There's an impressive array of guest musicians, but other than the orchestral instruments, I really don't see the point as virtually everything sounds written out, with actual band interplay virtually nowhere to be heard. This was probably one of those "everyone records their parts separately and few of the band members ever meet each other" kind of recordings. Nothing wrong with that I guess, but it can really lead to some musically vacant material if you don't try to spice things up somehow.

So, since this album is the #1 album for 2007 at progarchives, I really have to wonder if I'm missing something. Lots of people are giving it five-star reviews. Well, as I've said, it does have some strong points- the artwork, the concept, the sound, and about 5 or 10 minutes of music. My main qualm is with the actual songs. They're boring. They're full of cliches. Really, for me nothing else matters much. It's like a cake made with rotten eggs- it might look nice, and even taste ok at first, but ultimately it's just not a good product.

Within the world of prog-rock, this is a very very safe album. If you listen to it expecting to find problems or mistakes (things that stick out as being *bad*), you won't find many, other than maybe the vocals and the really boring parts. I think that's part of why it's getting positive reviews (I can imagine someone thinking "This album is a concept album with long songs, slick production, lots of guest musicians, lots of keyboards, great artwork (even a reference to "Supper's Ready")- it MUST be a great album!"). The way I listen to music though is quite the opposite- I expect the music to actually grab me and try to do things that haven't been done. Playing it safe is not the way to do this. In other words, whereas some folks start out giving an album 5 stars and then subtract points for anything they really DON'T like, I start out with 0 stars, and then I add points if there's stuff I DO like. Bland albums like this one will get 4 or 5 stars from people in the first category and much fewer stars from people like me. I guess I sound like a jerk for saying it that way, but that's how it is. I am a jerk. :)

But if a friend of mine handed me this CD and I listened to it, I'd probably be quite impressed. It is a big production for an independent musician. I really suspect that's what's going on here. Now don't get me wrong, I'll bet some of the five-star ratings are from people who don't know Phideaux or anyone else in the "band," but I wouldn't be surprised if many of them aren't. There's nothing wrong with an artist trying to promote himself fairly, but there's also nothing wrong with someone who doesn't like an album expressing his or her opinion. No offense to anyone personally. I gave this album several listens and have put a lot of effort into this review, so I hope the powers that be will allow other people to read it just like they can read all the other uber-positive reviews.