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 Church
Magician Among the Spirits Plus Some
[Thirsty Ear]
Rating: 3.5

Although the Church enjoyed time in the alterna-pop spotlight in the late eighties and early nineties, their story begins much earlier than that. This reviewer remembers 1983's Séance bolstering him against the Who's (first) breakup, and at that point, they'd been at it long enough to release two prior major label albums. Despite their longevity and relative success, the band was dropped by long time label, Arista, just prior to the scheduled release of Magician Among the Spirits in 1996. The band was forced to release the album on the White label, leaving it virtually unheard. Three years later, having found a new home on Thirsty Ear Records, the Church has given Magician its proper release, along with four bonus tracks (hence the Plus Some), as is the custom these days.

Magician Among the Spirits Plus Some reminds me of a musical fact I often selectively forget: some people actually like Pink Floyd. Replete with Floyd's signature airy melodies and lush strings that emerge from pointless, narcissistic jams, this album seems almost a tribute to the bloated excess of those original psychedelic rockers. Unfortunately, instead of recalling Pink Floyd's heyday, the Church's Magician conjures up the vapid stadium rock of Floyd's swan songs. Muddling through this album's nearly eighty minutes in search of the sharp songwriting that earmarks the band's best work is a chore-- and nearly a fruitless one at that. When the band isn't attempting to resurrect Syd Barrett's sound, they feebly horse around with production gimmicks put to better use on '70s- era Peter Gabriel albums. The proceedings here are summed up by the album's meandering, 14- minute paean of a title track that starts on shaky ground before plummeting into what can only be described as a waste of silicon. When Kilby let out a knowing laugh to end the song's sixth minute, I was left wondering if the joke was on me. Apparently so.

Which brings me to the question of the day: Why? Is there anyone out there unable to find the original release of this middling album or whose life will be changed by four more tracks of plodding, ephemeral crap? Dear reader, if you are such a consumer leading said life, I suggest you lay off the barbiturates and cease typing that seething hate mail immediately. I'm not going to read it anyway. We all know the Church is capable of better work than this. Why must we be tortured by it... again?

-Neil Lieberman

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.