(raises hand)

I am. I think Rouse keeps getting better and better with each album he puts out. This one comes out on Tuesday. Here's a good review:


Josh Rouse “Nashville” (Rykodisc 2005)
Review by Mark Whitfield

Josh Rouse leaves Nashville but records the record of his life just before he does. The fury that surrounds awarding a 10 out of 10 to a record actually supercedes that surrounding the 1 out of 10s that occasionally (or this month perhaps a little more than occasionally) adorn these pages, and brings with it claims ala GCSE results-day of slipping standards and quotas, but having spent the best part of the last two months with the record, it’s no understatement to say that the new album from Mr Rouse is indeed nothing less than a monster. Marking his departure from the city of Nashville after a decade’s residency (in order to head for the relatively sunnier climes of Spain), it’s a record that consolidates all that’s good about Rouse’s music while perfecting his strengths throughout. The fact that he’s leaving Nashville is obviously something that’s significant for Rouse, and perhaps significantly sad in its own way, and this partly comes through from the fact that despite the press release attesting to the album highlighting the variety of musical styles that you can find in modern Nashville, it’s without a doubt the most alt-country leaning record he’s ever produced, with echoes of Dylan, Springsteen and even Parsons. “It’s the Nighttime,” the album opener, is layered with lapsteel and all manner of instrumentation of the genre that Rouse has consciously set himself against in recent years, but you have to wonder why when you hear how well the whole thing hangs together – it feels far more cohesive and less forced than anything he’s ever done, including the acclaimed “1972.” Rouse’s reasons for leaving Nashville and indeed the US could be due to any number of things, but the vibe of the second track, the lead single from the record “Winter in the Hamptons” with its harrying against governments led by liars can’t, you imagine, be entirely co-incidental. Elsewhere on the record, there are real treasures to be found, including the Jeff Lynne-esque and staggeringly beautifully orchestrated “Streelights,” the Beach Boys harmonies of “Carolina” and the luxuriously emotional “Sad Eyes,” complete with strings that build and a chorus that rises higher and higher into sentiments that become almost overwhelming in their strength. That Rouse has always been supremely talented is not really in question, but it still comes as a surprise that he’s managed to make a record that feels so instantly essential and rewarding. 2005’s first contender then for album of the year, and one that would take some beating in any year – Rouse has firmly found himself and, however hackneyed it sounds, created a genuine instant classic.


Anyone got any mp3 links?

Okay, here's one:

http://www.sarajevo-x.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10305

Scroll down and find the listing for the track Flair that can be downloaded as an mp3. An old one of his but a classic.

I actually have already heard the whole album, and its probably the best one he's made so far.

I read a rave review of this in this week's Entertainment Weekly. Obviously, I don't take what EW says as gospel, but I'm a Rouse fan and that's certainly a good sign.

I got a copy of the album several weeks ago (I thought it was out already). It is by far the best album he has put out and I am a very big fan.

Allow me to say, yay! I'm excited.

Okay, let's see if I'm getting this right - you don't like the Replacements nor the Clash, but Josh Rouse gets you excited?

I will be buying this tomorrow morning.

That is one of the most poorly written reviews. I got lost in all the adjectives and parenthesis.

I don't own any of his stuff right now but I'll likely be buying this one.

I was going to ask who the fuck Josh Rouse was, but I remember him as having a track on the Vanilla Sky soundtrack. This is a hijack telling you I dug your Westerberg concert review. I missed him as I was out of town, so the review almost got me over that.

'Tis true.

i've never heard anything of his other than 1972, but i liked that one well enough to be interested in hearing this one.

maybe it will get me motivated to check out his older releases.

Although they are different in style as compared to the great 1972; Under Cold Stars, The Chester EP, and Dressed Up Like Nebraska are all highly recommended.

uh, what's your point?

Radcliffe,


A non-confrontational question. Do you think that Josh Rouse owes anything to the Clash or The Replacements musically???

Example: When I hear the mellow song "All Shook Down" I don't hear Americana or alt-country that Rouse is known for.

i'll make sure to check these out soon...thanks!

no, but i think that he owes something to the smiths for "winter in the hamptons." or am i the only one who hears it?

Wha-huh? I barely know where to begin with that question, mostly because I think the question is dodging the real issue. Oh well, this is gonna take too much effort and inevitably won't be worth it, but here goes...

Rouse probably owes more to James Taylor than either the Clash or the Replacements (and hey, I like Josh Rouse, but c'mon, he's a modestly talented singer/songwriter), but an argument could be made that Rouse certainly owes a great deal to Paul Westerberg's solo career, which in turn owes everything to what he learned and did in the Replacements, who probably wouldn't have existed without the mid '70s punk movement (and, therefore, the Clash), and on and on. So it's all a continuum - and here we come round to the real issue: it's a continuum in which the Clash and the Replacements are major players and Josh Rouse is barely worthy of a footnote.

Personal opinions be damned. Some absolutes exist in art and culture.

Sorry, but this is bullshit pure and simple.

Your major players are my minor ones. Now, if I had grown up ten years earlier however I might be agreeing with your observations here but you see how subjective this is? It's all a matter of opinion, taste and perhaps what era you've grown up in. Surely you have learned that by now? Different strokes for different folks, baby... otherwise we might as well debate which ice-cream flavor is more superior, Vanilla or Chocolate based on which one came first.

But don't tell me The New York Dolls for example are better than any glam-rock outfit that came afterwards simply because they started a movement and they're what you heard and glommed onto first thirty years ago. For me, it really gets tiring to listen to older people who musical tastes seem to be stuck in the past and discredit nearly everything new that comes along.

No absolutes.

Uhh, The New York Dolls ARE better than any glam-rock outfit that came after them. Have you heard their first album?

You're basically arguing that the skirmish you got into in grade 5 means more than World War II simply because it's your nose that was bleeding.

I stated it's all a continuum, so it's obviously not about who came first. It's about who played a larger role in that timeline - and the fact that we (and, ahem, you) are still discussing the Clash and the Replacements a couple decades down the line sorta suggests they both played a fairly major role, doesn't it?

Anyway, I felt like replying and talking about this album because I just listened to it.

But fuck that.