Bad Review Tame Impala – The Slow Rush

The main reason I write this blog is to review albums to help me appreciate the music I like even more.  Trying to figure out why I like something deepens my understanding of that thing.  A bonus is when someone trusts my opinion enough to actually listen to something they might not have otherwise tried.

I started writing this blog in the fall of 2011 and I can’t think of a post that was a “bad review.”  My theory has been that I don’t want to waste my energy on something I don’t like or shine a light on something I don’t think is worthy of attention.  But I think I need to reconsider that.

I was recently listening to an episode of the New York Times Popcast (check out the pod at about the 42-minute mark) and was hooked by a conversation between NYT’s pop critics Jon Pareles (JP) and Jon Caramanica (JC).  They were answering a listener’s request for advice on how to be a pop critic and they shared some great insights:

• There is a difference between an enthusiast and a critic.  An enthusiast, per JP, is someone who jumps up and down and points at something they care about.  A critic is not just pointing out what they like, they are, per JC, trying to tell the story of the artist/album/record/performance. They are trying to give it context (that is, where does it fit in the broader context of pop music), trying to figure out if it hits you on a primal level or an intellectual level, wondering how people will respond to it.  Determining what kind of audience is the music trying to attract.
• A critic can really dislike something but can understand it in a broader context. If you want to learn to be a critic, you need to write about something you hate.  Figure out why it works for some, but not you.  Who it is speaking to, why you think it is pernicious or lame, why it seems cliched or last year’s trick (JP).

In light of that conversation and my desire to be more than a mere enthusiast, I present to you my first bad review.

It took me a while to think of an album to give a bad review. I wanted it to be something current and something that had some cultural relevance. I heard all the hype about Tame Impala’s 2015 album Currents and tried several times to catch the wave. It had the right label to catch my attention: neo-psychedelic pop. But it failed to catch my interest.  It was clearly catnip for critics, but I was not the right animal. So I thought I would try again with The Slow Rush. I gave it a listen and Bingo!

My short review is The Slow Rush is vapid. I will try to elaborate.

The music is not offensive or annoying, it is just not engaging. It shimmers and it sparkles. It reminds me of a generic teen exploitation movie: B actors are slow dancing under a disco ball at a high school dance – a tired image.  If you were flipping channels you wouldn’t stop for this movie, you would keep flipping. I was listening to the album in the car and I was not sure if a song was on repeat or not – the album is monotonous drivel.

I don’t hate it, it just doesn’t leave an impression. I listened to it at least five times and I can’t recall a single song. If you played me a cut I am not sure I would even find it familiar, let alone identify the band.

Just out of curiosity I went over to Pitchfork to see what they think. They gave it a great score – an 8.0.  WTF?  What am I missing?  So I read Jillian Mapes’ review and there was nothing she said that made me question my opinion. In fact, she validated my thoughts:

“The repetition of phrases pairs well with the dubby, trance-like aspects of the music. Think of it as psychedelia for people with meditation apps and vape pens: Instead of opening your mind, you’re just trying to silence it.”

I guess I am looking for music to excite my mind, not tame it. I like art on my walls, not wallpaper. The best I can say about Tame Impala is that it’s neutral musical wallpaper.