This is an interesting issue, especially in light of file sharing, mp3’s etc. When I write a review I invariably draw out individual tracks as examples of the plusses or minuses to a disc as a whole. Some cuts work better than others & rare is the album that’s stocked totally with winners. Often only one or a few tunes completely seduce my ears (ie. “Biciclo” on HOPE IS BRIGHT GREEN UP NORTH, “Sunday Morning Church” on SCRAPBOOK, etc.).

The parsing is out of necessity, but in a way so are the synopsizing buzz phrases that arise out of it- “this disc comes feverishly recommended,” to dubiously quote my man Glenn Astarita for instance. Considering that most jazz/improv cuts are not available as ‘singles’ it makes sense to recommend an album as a discrete entity, since that’s the way most listeners are going to acquire/approach it. Calling an entire album exemplary doesn’t make much of sense if the component tracks aren’t up to snuff, unless there’s some kind of gestalt operating. Seems to me the tack of singing the praises of individual tracks is more practical with pop, rock & other genres that better lend themselves to short, readily available slices of music. Pitchfork Media even has an entire review section devoted to singles.

----"...rare is the album that's stocked totally with winners."----

This is my point. If it's not a "winner" all the way through then the record shouldn't be deemed as such on the whole. But you know as well as I that current practice, especially in reviewing improv, does not accept that as a rule. Just curious, why are those buzz phrases a necessity?

On the rare occasion that someone says an advance has been made in music through a particular recording, is it more common that credit is given to the entire record, or to the individual tracks that got their attention in the first place?

----"Calling an entire album exemplary doesn’t make much of sense if the component tracks aren’t up to snuff..."----

I rather think that one should call an entire album examplary only under the circumstance that all of the components stand up. But then there are those other things too (and you can blame my pop mentality for this, but it applies for me nonetheless):

-sequencing
-cohesion
-balance

Ah, it's all relative, but still... Some call Oliver Nelson's The Blues and the Abstract Truth one of the greatest of all time. Yet I don't think I've ever made it through (not past) "Hoe-down", a sequencing travesty, if that tune was really necessary at all. Yet no serious jazz collector should admit to that.

Got your point. I guess I just feel like there are plenty of examples of individual track commentary as a basis for formed opinion. I can’t think of very many reviews that don’t delve into an album by describing the attributes of specific songs/compositions as a basis for thumbs up or thumbs down.

Not sure I agree about the hazard in classifying an album a winner if not all of the cuts achieve the same standard either. To use one of my favorite in toto album examples: EXILE ON MAINSTREET has a few cuts that are of significantly lesser quality than the rest IMO, but I still consider the record in sum a winner.

Re: the buzz phrases. I didn’t phrase that very well. I didn’t mean to imply that I personally feel they’re a necessity. But instead that I think a lot of reviewers rely on them as a cheap & easy way of summarizing opinions.

what tracks on Exile are you talking about, Derek?

if he says "Casino Boogie" or "Loving Cup" we're not friends anymore.

Better send the dissolution papers, Al. And here I thought I was gonna be buying you beers in a matter of hours ;)

Their remake of “Shake Your Hips” has nothing on Slim Harpo’s original & comes across as pretty thin in the bargain. "Casino Boogie" and “Turd on the Run” don't work nearly as well as the other cuts on the album either IMO. But like Al said, it’s all relative. I’d still take all three over most of what passes as ‘cutting edge’ rock & roll these days.

Oh, Derek, you couldn't be more wrong. If I had to give up the whole rest of the Stones' catalog, I'd keep "Casino Boogie."

you've put me in a hard spot, Taylor.

I'm in deep shit now.

next thing you'll be telling me that "You Got the Silver" and "Love in Vain" are overcooked and uninspired, respectively.

Fuck it, perhaps an intervention is in order.

Nope, I dig “Love in Vain,” though again the source outguns the cover & “You Got the Silver” is damn fine. I’m gonna pull EXILE when I get home in hopes that my mental gramophone has a faulty needle. I still don’t get Phil’s sweeping hyperbolic comment though. I’d be hard pressed trade any one cut on EXILE for the entire Stones oeuvre, SOME GIRLS especially.

I'm not that big a Stones fan. (Not at all; the only RS disc I own is Exile.) So it would be easy for me to trade "CB," which is my favorite cut on that album, for their whole catalog.

You want some real heresy? I like Grand Funk Railroad's version of "Gimme Shelter" better.

I like 'Hoe-Down,' Al!

In my realm. . .that would equate to Crispell's A. Peacock two-fer, disc 1, last selection. Were I appraising that album, I would omit this track entirely.

There's a rockcrit term for tracks that ruin otherwise great albums...they're called "speed bumps." One of the most egregious ones of recent years is the song "Electioneering" on Radiohead's OK Computer. Good song, but totally at odds with the mood of the rest of the disc.

"I’d be hard pressed trade any one cut on EXILE for the entire Stones oeuvre, SOME GIRLS especially."

You're just fucking with us now. Actually, I don't find anything sweeping about Phil's comment. "Casino Boogie" is one of my very, very favorite Stones tunes and it stands well at the top in the great string of albums that include BEGGAR'S BANQUET through EXILE. Keith's intro on that tune? Come on!

We're straying here and talking about some shit-hot records through and through. Is there anyone that like's Nelson's "Hoe-down"?

If "Electioneering" is a bump then "Hoe-down" is a pothole! No offense, Herr Michael. Any other speed bumps?

Interesting. Back when I was buying all the new Mual Abrams and AEOC releases as they came out, I aways expected to have to skip at least one tune on each album and was almost never pleasantly surprised. Lot of filler around in jazz--just like in pop and classical.

Okay, just revisited “CB” & revised my appraisal a bit, though I figure Al’s still gonna bust my chops. I dig the twangy sludge of the guitars (which, frankly, is all over much of the album) & Richards’ bass has a nice pregnant wobble to it. But the rest of the track doesn’t hit me that hard, particularly Keys’ sax which sounds like a generic Junior Walker rip-off. “Turd on the Run” isn’t as flawed as I remember it either. But “I Just Want to See His Face” seems kinda murky & pointless to me. I’m gonna stop slinging slights since my points are moot anyway- as Al said, EXILE is shit-hot.

(going back to the original question) Actually, when I write reviews I much prefer working from my memory of the sound of a disc, the lingering impression it makes. What you carry around in yuor head afterwards matters a lot, rather than track-by-track rundowns.

The other thing is that many jazz & improv albums have a greater stylistic consistency than your average pop album--for instance, they are likely recorded over one or two days, with minimal interference from producers, second thoughts, overdubbing, remixes, &c. So they may have a more of-a-piece feel to them, rather than a carefully articulated architecture.

I like Hoe Down as well, although I'm not sure how much that has to do with watching "Who's Line is it Anyway" for several years (age 11-16, if not longer) before hearing the Nelson record. Don't have that record though, so I guess I can't like it that much.