SOUNDGARDEN? REALLY? IN the light of Chris Cornellโs disastrous solo career, does anyone really have hope that the groupโs first album in over 15 years will be of any consequence? Come to think of it, after Badmotorfinger (1991), did they ever do anything good? Hang on a minute, isnโt it true that โJesus Christ Poseโ and โRusty Cageโ were the singular high points of their career, and that even the rest of that โseminalโ album pales by comparison?
Yes, those songs were mighty slabs of rage, although to these ears, they always sounded more metal than punk (read: grunge), and while they were anthems, there was a certain one-dimensionality to them, as well. In retrospect, itโs easy to see why Nirvanaโs Nevermind from the same year has retained a sense of life, because it felt real, while Cornellโs presentation was theatrical, and the band drilled in metal tropes.
Still, I was curious about King Animal. Would they, could they, conjure up anything that came anywhere near the majestic rage and fury of the their formative years?
The first few tracks sounds promising, and try hard to get a full head of steam, with Cornellโs rutting hairy boar of a voice doing what it does over the pneumatic sturm and drang.
But by the fourth track, theyโre already trying to add some spice with a sound thatโs close to โ60s raga-psych, while not quite pulling it off.
Itโs all okay, but thereโs something airbrushed about the whole thing, something not quite real, as though the fancier guitar parts (provided by Kim Thayil) were airlifted in after the fact to add colour and texture to the sound; and the drums sound so perfect that you wonder how much auto-correction went on after the fact. Itโs like the sweat and the wrinkles have been siphoned into a cryogenic sweatsuit.
Those great heavy riffs still come pounding down occasionally, but the sound as a whole lacks that big, brutal, brooding, slightly menacing atmosphere โ itโs like a modern, clean-skin version. That said, Cornell comes up with some nice lines, and the group are still unafraid of using a quiet/loud dynamic and the odd minor chord โ although both are redolent of Nirvana as well.
On the other hand, thereโs too much here that sounds exactly like hundreds of other ordinary American hard rock bands currently treading the boards. โHalfway Thereโ is a case in point: itโs a bit too soft-cock, too melodic for its own good, too conformist.
The freshest moments are saved until last. On โEyelidโs Motherโ, thereโs an almost call-and-response blues/gospel quality that really lifts it, and โRowingโ has a really earthy blues feel.
King Animal is that awkward beast: a record that doesnโt really justify its existence, and wonโt go down as anything more than a reasonably well aimed stab in the dark, but one that fans will probably relish, regardless. GARY STEEL
Sound = 3.5
Music = 3