Panic! When Questionable Bands Make Good Albums (Part One.)

I didn't listen. Even as the critical and commercial success poured in. I refused to listen to, or give into the fact that Panic At The Disco's second album (Pretty. Odd.) was any good. I know t his has been touched on on RHT prior to this, but really...how could I? after a first album that I could barely get through, I was done with Panic, a band who I didn't see much in anyway. I cast them off as a cheap Fall Out Boy rip off. But, and given the current state of things, I have to take credit for this...I did say way back then: "You know, Ryan Ross could be a decent songwriter once he figures out where he's coming from". I felt like he didn't get it. Like there was no way he wanted to write lyrics like he was writing, and to melodies that were catchy, but nothing else. Everyone and their relatives are writing catchy stuff now, so playing the "catchy" card doesn't work anymore.

And now this....I didn't even listen after I heard the first single, "Nine In The Afternoon"...I just thought, 'hmmm...different for those guys', and moved on avoiding them. Even when I picked up my respected music mag of choice, Paste (a magazine run entirely by the snobbiest of snobs), and saw that they gave Pretty. Odd. 3.5/5 stars, I avoided it. (It breaks down to like a 4.5...the fact that the folks at Paste would even listen to a Panic record, and take the time to review it in their magazine next to like Tom Waits gives it an extra 1 point...) I avoided it until last week, when I heard the highly touted "That Green Gentleman". It was a horrible musical moment. You know what I mean, when you hear something that you can't deny is good, and you stop, and say 'what is that?????' and then you're told that it's like Michael Bolton or something.

That Green Gentleman is a throwback song in almost every sense of the word. I caved. I gave in, and borrowed the record from a friend of mine (who prior to the critical lovefest, wouldn't be caught dead listening to such music...), and knuckled down, telling myself that there was no way I would like it. It didn't work. I mean, for what it is, it's a good record. Ok, so Ryan Ross (not that there's not other members, but it's just one of those situations where you can see and hear where the talent balance lies in this band) is ripping off the Beatles with no remorse. From the cover art, to the videos, to the songs...he's pretty much trying to re-create some Sgt. Pepper melodies that 15 year old girls won't hate. But you know what? I dig that. I dig that he's not trying to hide the fact. And I dig that he would take on such a task in the first place. Rip off the greats, shoot for ripping off arguably the greatest album of all time, and if you fall short, you've still got a decent record, right? Sonically, it's a really fun, feel good album, and the titles aren't annoyingly long and ridiculous anymore. And the long ones are actually kind of cool. I'll take "The Piano Knows Something I Don't Know" over "There's a Good Reason These Tables Are Numbered Honey, You Just Haven't Thought of It Yet" any day.

It's like the younger bands are getting the point. Shamelessly rip off those before you. My Chemical Romance was in this same position just like last year. People wrote them off, and then they discovered A Night At The Opera, and decided to make The Black Parade (an album that also shocked critics, fans, and myself). It's the same formula, the same concept. So, what to make of this? I mean, lets face it...average to below average artists make good records a lot. But then what happens when it becomes socially acceptable to think an artist is actually good? It's like the reverse sophomore slump. I think we're so unused to seeing an artist actually get better as their career goes on. I like to call it the Justin Timberlake effect. Look, we all smiled and nodded at N'Sync as our girlfriends, nieces, wives, mistresses, etc. fell for them. We hated them, but kind of tolerated them at the same time, because they contributed to the happiness of things that we loved (Much like Ray Allen in the NBA playoffs for Celtics fans, but that's a different story), but then Justin goes solo. Puts out an album that's accepted by critics and shows some growth, but you still force yourself to hate him a little bit...just less. He puts out a second album that may (I don't think this is that bold of a statement, but work with me...) change the face of solo male pop music, and he commands respect now. It had to be what it was like when Michael Jackson put out Off The Wall.

Point being, you've got to respect artistic growth. Look, Panic could sell records. Sticking with the formula on their first album, they could sell records doing anything. But they didn't. Much like (fanboy alert) Lindsey Buckingham after Rumours, deciding that yeah, that was fun...but not daring. I always think it's funny when I read about how Tusk was a "failure" for "only" selling like 4 million copies. How warped was/is the music industry? Success is exciting, but only if it's playing by label rules? It took like 20 years for Tusk to get the appreciation it deserved, and fortunate for Panic at the Disco, people have caught on quicker. The face of popular music is shifting, and people are filling in their roles. Justin Timberlake has his eye on MJ's crown, John Mayer is trying to be Clapton these days, Timbaland is Phil Spector, and so on. So, what if, and bear with me here, what if Ryan Ross and his mates really are the closest thing we're going to have to the Beatles? Tricky comparison, and I don't totally stand behind it, I'm just trying to get the minds of the readers working. They're young (At 23, bassist Jon Walker is the oldest of the 4), they've got growing popularity, and they've got a young, learning songwriter with an ear for melody, and better lyrics than you would expect.

So, is this just one good album? Or is Panic at the Disco the future of pop music?

To Be Continued....