|
I can't write, damn meds. But I will try.
Goo is a lot like Dirty. I never noticed this because it came into my collection in 1995, after Dirty. I am one of the Dirty-era fans. I was born in '77, so I was too young to get on board the SY-mobile before that really. Though, of coourse there are probably fans who were a lot more precocious than I was. My entrance to alternative rock came through Blood Sugar Sex Magik by the Red Hot Chili Peppers. But this isn't a personal history.
And yet there is no other way to describe an aesthetic experience than the personal way. Am I wrong? Maybe you could go historical. Or technical. OK, come to think of it there are a lot of ways to describe aesthetic experiences.
But this post is about Goo. Goo came out in 1990. It is now 2009. ZEROpumpkins says the production hasn't aged well. Isn't there a story there? What is old about it? I am not doubting you ZEROpumpkins, just pushing for a more detailed explanation. Is it just the way it sounds, and that's all there is to say? maybe.
It's hard for me to talk about Goo!
I was going to do a tracklisting with comments but decided that would cut up the experience of the album too much.
I came of age under the spell of Lou Reed's advisory re New York (his album of that name) that it should be listened to like a book. Am I fucked? Has Lou Reed fucked me up?
Goo is a good "book", a book I would wear around my neck or keep under my tunic if I wore a tunic.
|