In praise of the concept album

Further to my recentish celebration of Curved Air, I want to consider another of the great bands of the 1970s who I think haven't had the recognition they deserve - Supertramp. They are probably best known now for their excellent album of straightforward songs, Breakfast in America, but their masterpiece was the concept album Crime of the Century.

Of all the output of 70s bands, the thing that most often gets critics' upper lips curling is concept albums. It's strange when you think about it. A concept album is just an album where the songs have a running theme, or storyline. So it is, in comparison to a conventional album what a novel is to a collection of short stories. Or what a symphony is to a suite. Generally speaking, the novel and the symphony tends to be regarded as greater forms in their genre... but not so with concept albums. Now, admittedly, some prog rock bands did get very pretentious with their concept albums. But that doesn't mean the... well, concept... is a bad thing.

There's nothing overblown about Crime of the Century. It's just a collection of great songs that have an underlying backstory. It's never heavy handed, but it's always there. Oddly enough, two of my favourite moments in the album are both as a result of the use of sound effects, something that Pink Floyd would take to the extreme, but Supertramp used more sparingly. In the opening song, refering to the playground, there is a child's scream just before the music goes from a laid back intro to a driving beat that is absolutely electrifying. And towards the end, when the central character is 'on a train to nowhere' we hear the departure announcements at Paddington Station, which I find wonderfully evocative.

All together, one of the great albums of the 20th century - and demonstrating why 'concept' doesn't have to be a euphemism for 'crap.' As I write, Crime of the Century is a remarkable £3.99 at Amazon.co.uk

Here's a live version of one of the better-known songs from Crime of the Century, though it lacks the subtlety of the album:

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Search This Blog