archive : A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z sdtk comp
Cover Art Blue Rags
Eat at Joe's
[Sub Pop]
Rating: 4.8

We've talked about her before. I usually refer to her as the "hippie chick." Few people know that my particular hippie chick is also a bluegrass, American roots music aficionado, and it's for this reason (and also because I'm lazy) that I plugged in this here Eat at Joe's while we played Parcheesi the other night. In between conversations regarding such wide- ranging topics as Y2K, Jerry's missing finger, and the benefits of yoga, Hippie would occasionally turn to the speaker and wrinkle her nose as if smelling some elusive fart. Our conversation eventually rolled around to the music, and we realized that we'd both reached a consensus.

Rag-N-Roll, the Rags' previous album, was vibrant and energetic, fueled in no small part by their inclusion of a number of classic, traditional songs. I described it as "unabashed retro- energy without a hint of irony," but, alas, neither I nor the hippie were so impressed by Eat at Joe's. The Blue Rags write all their own material this time around, and a few real dogs seriously mar its quality. "My Life" is a pitiable excursion into the tolerability of nasal vocals, "American Man" ponders along lyrically with the grace of a three- legged dog, "Baby Back" is pure velveeta that's been done a million times before, and "Hard Times" sounds like a cheap soundtrack for a b-movie.

Another weak feature is that frontman Scott Sharpe's vocals seem to be delivered under the impression that "abrasive" is synonymous with "authentic." I, of course, disagree offering "irritating" as a more appropriate alternative. Few of the songs introduce anything spectacular in the way of energy or originality, which begs the question: if the 'Rags are going to have a record released on Sub Pop, where someone is bound to hear it, why wouldn't they take the opportunity to do something original?

Eat at Joe's is a disappointment in view of Rag-N-Roll; the potential for something really great seemed to be there, but the band just couldn't deliver. In fact, it completely fucked up my Parcheesi game and gave me a case of the moosebumps. It's not completely hideous, but I advise Rag-N-Roll over it any day.

-James P. Wisdom

TODAY'S REVIEWS

DAILY NEWS

RATING KEY
10.0: Indispensable, classic
9.5-9.9: Spectacular
9.0-9.4: Amazing
8.5-8.9: Exceptional; will likely rank among writer's top ten albums of the year
8.0-8.4: Very good
7.5-7.9: Above average; enjoyable
7.0-7.4: Not brilliant, but nice enough
6.0-6.9: Has its moments, but isn't strong
5.0-5.9: Mediocre; not good, but not awful
4.0-4.9: Just below average; bad outweighs good by just a little bit
3.0-3.9: Definitely below average, but a few redeeming qualities
2.0-2.9: Heard worse, but still pretty bad
1.0-1.9: Awful; not a single pleasant track
0.0-0.9: Breaks new ground for terrible
OTHER RECENT REVIEWS

All material is copyright
2001, Pitchforkmedia.com.