harry Wrote:
Review genre of tracing roots and "sounds likes" is always interesting to me.
I never understood the love for Van Lear Rose... seemed like a forced collaboration with very uneven results.
Oriented, not orientated.
I do not really agree with your position. Not sure what seems forced about it? Jack White is a fan of Lynn and I think that shines through on his production.
But what makes Van Lear Rose stand out to me is when you look at in comparision to the critically praised Rubin/Cash albums. On those albums, Rubin recasts Cash, and shows other sides of Cash. Rubin is almost saying with his production/collaboration, "hey kids, you'd like this guy because he's cool once you remove all that country stuff from him."
In contrast, White doesn't hide or recast what Loretta is. He boils down what she's always been. The hillbilly, bluegrass, country, coal-miner is still there, and, in fact, quite up in front. Sure, he adds a little modern rock edge to it, but it's still undeniably there.
Moreover, the vocal performances are an interesting comparison. Cash in the Rubin albums sounds regretfull. Almost broken. His rich bass is still there, but it's less confident. Definitely less "fuck you" then when he was singing San Quentin at San Quentin.
In contrast, Loretta Lynn is just as vibrant and strong as she always been. The years only added more passion to those vocals. She sounds every bit as much the tough hillbilly coal miner's daughter in 2001 as she did in 1964. Not mention that the material is as personal as it gets. And that pain of her husband's infidelity is still there, and she's still handling it as strong as she always has. She's still letting you know that she's a titantic that is still unbroken after all these years.
I've waxed unpoetic enough. I apologize to Darrin for entering my terrible rock criticisms into the same thread as his.