July 06, 2002

 
Earlier this evening, I watched an episode of Musicians on Bravo. The show is meant to be the musical equivalent of James Lipton's Inside The Actor's Studio program; but it lacks all of the charms of that show, and magnifies all of its weaknesses. It is hosted by Rolling Stone writer David Wild, who may very well be the ultimate personification of everything which has ever been wrong with Rolling Stone and their brand of music criticism. Wild is a total bore - when he's not brown-nosing his guests (in this case, Randy Newman) in such a shameless way that it would make even Lipton wince, he's tossing off lame personal anecdotes about how that guest's music effected his life. The guy's taste can best be described as full-on baby boomer whitebread canon-worshipping. He is exactly the kind of guy who really digs Randy Newman, so I don't for a moment doubt him when he gushes - the same goes for his interviews with Heart and Hall & Oates. Yes, this is a man who takes Hall & Oates seriously.

Watching the show, I was trying to figure out what I think of Randy Newman. I feel confused by it, mostly. I can understand the appeal of his lyrics - they are clever enough, I can certainly see how they appeal to aging boomers of a certain type. His voice is obviously an acquired taste, but something about it strikes me as being 'wrong' in a way that I can't seem to articulate. His piano playing is fairly inconsequential; his melodies are sometimes pretty good, though often it just seems like the melody and musical accompaniment are just something to frame the lyrics. To be less diplomatic - a lot of his songs just sound like he wrote something clever and decided to prop it up with some music. I would appreciate the guy a lot more if he were a poet, or an essayist. Never the less, something about Randy Newman seems off to me. It could be all of the things I mention, it could be something else I can't quite articulate, it could just be me. I'm sure some people might say I'm just too young to 'get it'...