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...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

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...

Search This Blog