Campbell: Tuned In: Goo Goo Dolls, Jimmy Gnecco, 'Laya Project'

Photo with no caption

Goo Goo Dolls’ ‘Something’ isn’t something for everyone

“SOMETHING FOR THE REST OF US,” Goo Goo Dolls (Warner Bros.)

Girls are typically the ones who play with dolls, and perhaps it takes someone with that second X chromosome to understand the enduring appeal of the Goo Goo Dolls. There’s no obvious reason for the band from Buffalo, N.Y., to still be knocking out releases more than 20 years after formation, no logical explanation for the millions of records sold, the Grammy nominations, the endless gigs, etc.

GGD’s new “Something for the Rest of Us” offers no enlightenment. The band’s three men, all in their mid-40s, are still acting like lovesick boys: Lead vocalist/guitarist John Rzeznik actually sings lines like, “It’s all because you take me as I am” on the enervating “As I Am” and, “You’re the only one I want” on a “Hey Ya” that unfortunately isn’t a cover of the OutKast hit.

This release quickly drains away all positive expectations with the anonymous jangle in the would-be romanticism of “One Night,” the crushing inanity of the distractingly dull title track (seems Rzeznik was rescued by love or something) and the timelessness and colorlessness of “Home.”

The group’s most insidious weapon isn’t even the shlocky lyrics and predictable hooks, however. It’s the numbing buzz of lifeless guitars that anesthetizes the brain so it can endure such blatant, artless formula.

Listeners might well go on a scavenger hunt for redeeming qualities, Perhaps they’ll take solace in the quasi-apocalyptic break from structure of “Now I Hear” or the serviceable grace of the relationship-mending “Notbroken.” Plus opener “Sweetest Lie” is, apt for the title, nonrepresentative of the rest of the release as a blazing jolt of plaintive sound buoys Rzeznik’s best lines, including, “You made me feel electric every moment that we shared/But the light went out when I realized you never even cared.”

Rzeznik probably deserves similar apathy from the rest of us.

Rating (five possible): 2

Photo with no caption

Jimmy Gnecco’s ‘Heart’ beats with irregular intensity

“THE HEART,” Jimmy Gnecco (Bright Antenna)

It’s the kind of person we must all endure, the co-worker/friend/relative who is a time-bandit drama queen foisting upon us endless tales of ordeals from their hellish lives as if their very existence depends on it. But we care, so we cope.

Jimmy Gnecco’s solo debut “The Heart” is the music version of this type, testing the limits of his audience’s sympathy with tragedies that alternate from bewitching to off-putting, sucking in listeners, giving them slack to escape, and then sucking them in again.

The frontman for the band Ours concocts voodoo early on — the all-important first hook — singing in unearthly falsetto on an opening “Rest Your Soul” that flows seamlessly into the subsequent “Light on the Grave.” The first track sets a weighty lyrical tone with lines such as, “You know that all is lost, so now rest your soul,” however his wordless wails have just as much impact.

Yet Gnecco only fitfully conjures magic, evidenced by the third track “Mystery,” where he indulges in lugubrious ache until he becomes ridiculously whiny. He sounds too earnest in his drive to create something important on “Gravity” (“Love is everywhere, but no one seems aware”), and “These Are My Hands” is an overwrought folk song. Then “The Heart” peters out with a spate of misfires including the drudging “Darling,” a “Patiently Waiting” that hinges on gratuitous agonized shouts and a morose “Talk to Me” that opens with an affectedly breathy, “crushed again” and then goes downhill.

On the other hand, the New Jersey native captivates when he channels his torment on the title track, his urgent despair a match for the flickering rhythm. He also helps the meandering “Take a Chance” find focus and escalate in tension, and he effectively taps into his falsetto again, supported by acoustic guitar, on the lullaby-like “I Heard Your Singing.”

Gnecco plays all of the instruments, and the arrangements are subtle so as not to distract listeners as they work through the maze that is his pain. There’s reward in getting to the end, but no one can be blamed for seeking an early exit.

Rating: 3

Photo with no caption

‘Laya’ team discovers art in disaster zone

“LAYA PROJECT,” various (White Swan)

It’s a cliche that cynics can’t get their heads around, but the human spirit is amazingly resilient.

That fact is exemplified by “Laya Project,” a two-disc compilation of field music collected and enhanced by a team led by Patrick Sebag and Yotam Agam. The group ventured into the region devastated by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake/tsunami — Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, India, the Maldives and Myanmar — where more than 200,000 are estimated to have died. Sebag, Yotam, et al recorded the folk music of “average” people from the area (who presumably didn’t have much even before the disaster), and their poignant songs are uplifting.

The passionate vocals and instrumentation are tethered to (generally) discrete programming, strings and the like, but still preserved with respect to their indigenous nature. Tablas, flutes, Buddhist chants, keyboards and bass coexist peacefully with several forms of regional instruments, plentiful percussion and a rotating cast of lead vocalists.

Singer Shaheema brings preternatural soul to the traditional Maldives song “Farihi,” and Shwe Shwe Khine and Khine Zin Shwe deliver eerily moving vocals to the lushly produced traditional Myanmar song “Glorious Sun” (also offered as “Glorious Sun Remix”). Other striking voices intertwine with arrangements that are either mysteriously hypnotic of energetically otherworldly.

Meanwhile, the synthetic Western flourishes are rarely out of bounds, instead providing droning cushions that add weight to the bare field samples.

Some of the more extended, meditative cuts are a bit draining, and the catch-all closer “Laya Mantra,” clocking in at nearly 17 minutes, demands too much effort to follow it to a satisfying end. Yet overall, these indomitable singers and musicians are treated deferentially and prove themselves to be anything but ordinary.

Rating: 4

© 2010 Knoxville.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Comments » 9

Jro93 writes:

Your Goo Goo Dolls review reads like someone self-indulging in juvenile word-play (e.g., “‘Something’ isn’t something for everyone,” and “Girls are typically the ones who play with dolls." WTH? Were you hoping to ensnare your reader with smatterings of pseudo-intellectual jargon to mask the fact that your review (unlike the lyrics in “Something for the Rest of Us”) contains no real substance? Like you, my husband of 18 years does not possess a second x chromosome. He does not, nor did he ever “play with dolls”-- too busy playing Division 1 baseball in college and doing other manly things, I guess. However, unlike you, he does understand the GGD’s enduring appeal, the appeal of three refreshingly down-to-earth guys (including Johnny Rzeznik, who is one of the most vocally-talented musicians of our time), putting out music with substance over the course of decades and, according to my own personal experience and every review I’ve ever read, leaving fans awe-struck at every live performance. I know this review merely reflects your opinion, to which you are entitled, of course, as I am to mine. My husband and I look eagerly forward to the release of "Something for the Rest of Us!"

Jro93 writes:

Your Goo Goo Dolls review reads like someone self-indulging in juvenile word-play (e.g., “‘Something’ isn’t something for everyone,” and “Girls are typically the ones who play with dolls.? WTH? Were you hoping to ensnare your reader with smatterings of pseudo-intellectual jargon to mask the fact that your review (unlike the lyrics in “Something for the Rest of Us”) contains no real substance? Like you, my husband of 18 years does not possess a second x chromosome. He does not, nor did he ever “play with dolls”-- too busy playing Division 1 baseball in college and doing other manly things, I guess. However, unlike you, he does understand the GGD’s enduring appeal, the appeal of three refreshingly down-to-earth guys (including Johnny Rzeznik, who is one of the most vocally-talented musicians of our time), putting out music with substance over the course of decades and, according to my own personal experience and every review I’ve ever read, leaving fans awe-struck at every live performance. I know this review merely reflects your opinion, to which you are entitled, of course, as I am to mine. My husband and I look forward eagerly to the release of “Something for the Rest of Us!”

Kassie writes:

After reading this convoluted "music review", I'm almost at a loss as to where to begin. Almost.

Let's start with the obvious-the reviewer was more interested in giving his dictionary a workout than in constructing a readable, informative music review.
Enervating? Inanity? Shlocky? Quasi-Apocalyptic? How about a review stripped of the literary eye candy? One comprised of some critical thought and substance? This review had neither. Lacking any substantive basis for making derogatory statements about the band's new album, the reviewer reaches for something-anything-to 'prove' The Goo Goo Dolls are not worthy of the millions of albums sold, the nominations, or the thousands of fans who flock to their 'endless gigs'. And what the reviewer comes up with is: Age?

"All men in their 40's"? Gasp. Shocker. Men in their 40's can still rock? The writer shows his own musical and personal immaturity here by dismissing a band based on age. I guess there goes The Stones, U2, Springsteen, and any enduring, relevant, successful musician over the age of 40.

Now to what is particularly distasteful about this 'review'. "Girls are typically the ones who play with dolls... it takes someone with that second X chromosome to understand the enduring appeal of the Goo Goo Dolls."
The reviewer may be male, but he's no man. His condescending statements, above, are an insult to women. And by the way, that's WOMEN, Mr. Campbell. Not GIRLS.

In his quest to dismiss a band he has no working knowledge of, he denigrates women by implying that a band gains legitimacy only when that band has a higher proportion of male fans vs. female fans.
And on the flip side of THIS insult is the one to the men who go to Goo Goo Dolls shows. The band's music appeals to both genders, and all ages. Something the reviewer would have noticed had he bothered to attend a show. There are plenty of shows to choose from. The band is playing all over the country while a number of others struggle to fill a half house arena and cancel shows left and right. Maybe because they're doing something right. Make that a number of things right. From the lyrics- the depth, the thought, the feelings behind the words, to the live shows where the energy is infectious, The Goo Goo Dolls are a success story.

Before tackling another 'music review', I would suggest to the reviewer that he delve a lot deeper into a bands' history; listen to not only the back catalog, but to the new album to understand a band's musical evolution, and keep the insults to the band, women, men, and readers at large, out of the reviews.

If the reviewer had made a legitimate contribution to a critical musical discussion, the message would stand alone, above the insults that proliferated throughout the piece.
Unfortunately, that wasn't the case and this review has no standing. There simply wasn't anything of substance here for the rest of us.

Kassie writes:

After reading this convoluted "music review", I'm almost at a loss as to where to begin. Almost.

Let's start with the obvious-the reviewer was more interested in giving his dictionary a workout than in constructing a readable, informative music review.
Enervating? Inanity? Shlocky? Quasi-Apocalyptic? How about a review stripped of the literary eye candy? One comprised of some critical thought and substance? This review had neither.

Lacking any substantive basis for making derogatory statements about the band's new album, the reviewer reaches for something-anything-to 'prove' The Goo Goo Dolls are not worthy of the millions of albums sold, the nominations, or the thousands of fans who flock to their 'endless gigs'. And what the reviewer comes up with is: Age?

"All men in their 40's"? Gasp. Shocker. Men in their 40's can still rock? The writer shows his own musical and personal immaturity here by dismissing a band based on age. I guess there goes The Stones, U2, Springsteen, and any enduring, relevant, successful musician over the age of 40.

Now to what is particularly distasteful about this 'review'. "Girls are typically the ones who play with dolls... it takes someone with that second X chromosome to understand the enduring appeal of the Goo Goo Dolls."
The reviewer may be male, but he's no man. His condescending statements, above, are an insult to women. And by the way, that's WOMEN, Mr. Campbell. Not GIRLS.

In his quest to dismiss a band he has no working knowledge of, he denigrates women by implying that a band gains legitimacy only when that band has a higher proportion of male fans vs. female fans.
And on the flip side of THIS insult is the one to the men who go to Goo Goo Dolls shows. The band's music appeals to both genders, and all ages. Something the reviewer would have noticed had he bothered to attend a show. There are plenty of shows to choose from. The band is playing all over the country while a number of others struggle to fill a half house arena and cancel shows left and right. Maybe because they're doing something right. Make that a number of things right. From the lyrics- the depth, the thought, the feelings behind the words, to the live shows where the energy is infectious, The Goo Goo Dolls are a success story.

Before tackling another 'music review', I would suggest to the reviewer that he delve a lot deeper into a bands' history; listen to not only the back catalog, but to the new album to understand a band's musical evolution, and keep the insults to the band, women, men, and readers at large, out of the reviews.

If the reviewer had made a legitimate contribution to a critical musical discussion, the message would stand alone, above the insults that proliferated throughout the piece.
Unfortunately, that wasn't the case and this review has no standing. There simply wasn't anything of substance here for the rest of us.

theGUYwhoplaysguitar writes:

Bogas, I'm a dude and I just went to see The GGD show this month.

KimO writes:

Fortunately, intelligent people don't base their music purchases on critic's reviews. Do yourself a favor, Mr. Campbell, and see the Goo Goo Dolls live and then write your review. I can bet your 2 out of 5 rating may go up even if just by a tad. Hey we might even make a fan out of you yet.

desertgypsy writes:

Somehow I knew this review was written by some goober in a John Deere hat. Glad to see I wasn't too far off. Clearly this so called piece of journalism trying to pass for a review, was written by someone who has not attended one of the Goos shows or listened to their works. If you had attended one of the shows you would have seen a band that clearly knows how to rock and put on a great show. As far as your comments on the lyrics, I can only attribute that to a lack of awareness, and the inability to comprehend written imagery. There is a reason John Rzeznik won songwriter of the year, perhaps you can find someone to explain that to you, and some of the lyrics at the same time. Let's see, the Goo Goo Dolls have had a successful career for over twenty years, sold millions of records, put on excellent shows, and have die hard fans. And you have the audacity to call what you wrote a competent review? I suggest you go back to reviewing tractor pulls and monster truck shows.

chicgal2 writes:

God, it is so obvious when a writer who has been asked to review an album that he has already made his opinion up BEFORE he even listened to the music. And, that he has not even taken a moment to read up on the band before ripping it and this latest release apart. Mr. Campbell, I think you have completely missed the point of this album with your pre-conceived notion of the scope of the Goo's music. For example, Notbroken may be a love song, but it is not a typical "relationship-mending" song that you surmise, but instead it is a song of a wife wanting her war damaged husband to come home from the middle east because she loves him, no matter what. I wish you could step back, learn more about what the band is like, see them live at least once, and then try to start your review over. But, free speech is exactly what it is, and I simply disagree with your opinion.

Relentless1 writes:

I liked their first release, then everything thereafter has sounded exactly the same. I sold merch for them once and that was the final straw. They have a second guitar player that's not a member of the band, standing off to the side out of the lights. He plays all of the interesting guitar parts. All of them. It was just pathetic.

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.