ARGENT: IN DEEP (1973)
1) God Gave Rock And Roll To
You; 2) It's Only Money (part 1); 3) It's Only Money (part 2); 4) Losing Hold;
5) Be Glad; 6) Christmas For The Free; 7) Candles On The River; 8) Rosie.
Strange album cover, if you ask me. Of course,
it's Hipgnosis and all, but I know what is my
first reaction: «Oh, hello, Mr. Argent. Going... down?» And indeed, the figure on the front sleeve is captured in a
fairly uncomfortable position — matching the music, which, by now, is also
beginning to feel somewhat strained. Or, perhaps, not so much «strained» as
«misplaced» — just as the band was finally getting a grip on the progressive
stylistics, the stylistics itself was slowly getting on the nerves of the
musical community. In Deep never
went as deep as the notorious prog-rockers were going in 1973, and thus, was
doubly doomed: too lightweight, primitive, and even «regressive» for defenders
of the faith, yet too pompous, long-winded, and unfocused for the modest,
undemanding pop consumers.
It charted, at least. But at what cost? Since
their previous hit record was ʽHold Your Head Upʼ, it was assumed that the
follow-up should also be anthemic — and ʽGod Gave Rock And Roll To Youʼ becomes
the most blatantly Bick-flicking power vehicle in the band's career.
Admittedly, it is nowhere near as cheesy as the KISS cover two decades later,
because it wasn't really conceived or executed in the «glam» idiom. It's got
plenty of tasteful organ work, an elegant bass line, a pretty baroque
chime-filled interlude, and bits of genuinely beautiful harmony arrangements.
Still, most people will not fall for all these flourishes — they'll go straight
ahead to the Monster Riff and the tribal incantation of "GOD GAVE
ROCK'N'ROLL TO YOU, PUT IT IN THE SOUL OF EVERYONE!" At this point, I'd
rather save my tears (and lighter fuel) for a different purpose — I always
thought it was Chuck Berry who gave me rock'n'roll, and I do not exactly
recollect seeing a holy aureole around it when it was given. Honestly, I
rarely take this crap from Freddie Mercury — why should I take it from Russ
Ballard?
There is far more grit and actual rock'n'roll
in the two-part blues-rock suite ʽIt's Only Moneyʼ, occupying the bulk of Side
A and giving the impression that Ballard is now dominating all the songwriting.
The first part in particular is quite heavy, riff-based, slightly funky,
pierced with flashy bullying guitar and organ solos, whereas the second is a
little more laid back, veering towards rowdy, but well-meaning pub-rock. But
there is a standard problem — Argent is not
a hard rock band, and its «brutal» mode simply cannot stand competition even
with the likes of contemporary Budgie, let alone the mega-popular heavy metal
monsters.
The bad news is that the Argent/White team is
also starting to lose steam. Of the two contributed ballads, ʽLosing Holdʼ is a
rather sterile power thing that tries to get by on the strength of a «massive»
coda, in which a tiny recorder painfully tries to outsing a simplistic, but
loud wall-of-sound — nice, but a better mix couldn't hurt. ʽChristmas For The
Freeʼ is relatively more listenable and beautifully sung, yet it is such a
blatant take on the «McCartney piano ballad» style that it is almost
impossible not to throw it on the same shelf with ʽLet It Beʼ and ʽMaybe I'm
Amazedʼ — which it conveniently misses, landing instead on the same shelf with
second-rate Elton John compositions. (But the vocals are gorgeous, I guarantee).
Then there are the two complex epics — ʽBe
Gladʼ and ʽCandles On The Riverʼ. They are probably the main reason to care
about the album at all, although ʽCandlesʼ also suffers from excessive
heaviness and too much pathos in the vocals; I place most of my personal trust
in the piano-dominated ʽBe Gladʼ, with its merry martial rhythms,
classical/boogie piano interludes where Argent keeps switching from Mozart to
Fats Domino as naturally as if the two were graduates of the same music
college. This is a genuinely inspiring piece, fully deserving an eight-minute
running time. But there is no explaining why nothing else on the album really
sounds like it — probably the misguided result of trying to get a more
«commercial» gloss.
Unlike most listeners, I think that the barroom
rock of Ballard's ʽRosieʼ forms a suitably «deflating» conclusion to the album
— if one takes it that way, as a light, relaxating slide from the stuffiness of
ʽCandlesʼ, rather than one more of the band's questionable «sure we can
rock'n'roll with the simple people» statements. But it certainly does not
remedy the general feeling: flashes of brilliance aside, In Deep generally feels lost in space (or, rather, in deep waters).
I would still award it an ever weakening thumbs up, since there is only one significant
lapse of taste, and the actual songs range from incidental greatness (ʽBe Gladʼ)
to listenable above-mediocrity (most of the rest). But the curve is clearly
past its peak, and descending at an alarming rate.
Check "In Deep" (MP3) on Amazon
Be glad is my favourite Argent song thus far, though I haven't heard everything. It shows that a band can kick a considerable amount of ass without imitating Deep Purple. I like the dissonants and also the mellow part in the middle.
ReplyDeleteHa, if only Ritchie Blackmore instead of going commercial with Russ Ballard had teamed up with Rod Argent ..... he certainly is better than Tony Carey and David Stone.
Speaking of Deep Purple - one of the variations of the riff in the first part is very, very similar to the one on which the solo of Child in Time is based. As for the second part - I suspect that same Blackmore and Gillan would have turned it into an unstoppable hardrock monster indeed.
Doesn't the Lalala part at the end remind you of another favourite band of yours, Uriah Heep? Specifically Dreammare and Tears in my Eyes?