I just got through listening to Protection by Massive Attack. What a let down. It’s not half as good as Mezzanine. First of all, the female vocalist they got for this album does not appear to be the same as that on Mezzanine, and she treats her vocal tracks as second-rate opera pieces. It really sounds sappy and contrived. I felt like I was listening to adult contemporary top-40 nonsense. The male singers did a worse job than on Mezzanine as well. For some reason, they got the idea that it was their vocals that made Massive Attack what it is and should therefore placed them higher in the mix. Bad idea. The tracks suffered as their mediocre voices dominated. The melodies and rhythms weren’t as catchy either. All in all, the album didn’t jump out at me like Mezzanine did. Maybe I need to give it time, but for now, the album is getting shelved, or in this case, returned to Chris. Sorry man. I think we have a dud here.
And to further the lameness, they close with a superbly pointless and laughable live version of Light My Fire. Whenever I think of Doors covers, I think of Nirvana butchering The End in an attempt to make a joke. Whether or not it’s funny is up for debate, but one thing’s for sure, Doors covers do not belong on albums, especially as the closing track.
Comments (10)
I was searching for a suitably awful band and it was either matchbox 23 or creed.
Posted by skorloff | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
URL:
i don't mind being lumped with green day, but i resent the matchbox comment. that was uncalled for...
Posted by p-man | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
URL:
Actually, whether or not i'm in a position to understand how great it is is debatable. I know when i'm listening to good ideas and when i'm listening to not so good ideas. That album has a lot of not so good ideas. Furthermore, it's quality in a time context is irrelevent when there is no quality to begin with.
Posted by p-man | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
URL:
whether the album is actually of lower quality is debatable. what's clear is that you aren't yet in a position too understand how great a record it is. you've made an important step in the right direction, but one day when you grow out of your green day and matchbox 23 records you'll understand that while it was four years younger than mezzanine it was actually way ahead of its time.
Posted by skorloff | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
URL:
get back on the soapbax... I knew i had gone too far in a comparison with Nirvana. However, i did no only to illustrate how 4 years between albums is not enough of a reason to make the first of such lower quality. i'm all hopped up on decongentsants and nose spray, so apologies if this sounds like garble.
Posted by p-man | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, it seems unnecessary to compare massive attack to nirvana. sure, most of us will agree that nirvana was great, but their greatness certainly does not need to be a mode of measurement for other great groups who have to musically evolve in their own way. getting down from the soapbox now.
Posted by tarfia | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
URL:
boo hoo. cry me a river. the album was lame. ok, so it was made in '94, a full 4 years before Mezzanine. big deal. Bleach was made 4 years before In Utero, but it still rocks. there are no excuses for releasing lameness to the public.
Posted by p-man | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
URL:
now i'm afraid to lend him anymore records.
Posted by skorloff | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
music snob. boob.
Posted by tarfia | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
you should take a look at the chronology involved with those records.
Posted by skorloff | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15