King's X - King's X

Perhaps King's X most undersung masterpiece, this self-titled LP from the Texas trio presents a set of well written and meticulously crafted material that sees the band baring its' darker side for the first time

When a band transitions between styles, the gap between has always fascinated me: the difference between Haken's Aquarius and The Mountain, Opeth's metamorphosis from Still Life/Blackwater Park into Heritage/Pale Communion. What made them decide to move from one style to the next? Boredom? Ambition? Notions of artistic integrity or "being true to themselves"? Regardless of the motivations, a band emerging from the warm cocoon of a familiar style into some kind of uncharted territory can be just what's needed to progress their output to the next level.

King's X is one of the more interesting examples of this type of change (and one of the more interesting alternative rock bands in general), starting with a chunky blend of prog-laced rhythms and evocative harmonies before taking a leap of faith into the grunge movement that overtook popular music in the 90's with legendary success, delivering a stunning magnum opus in their 1994 album Dogman. Before Dogman, however, came the band's only self-titled record, which is coincidentally one of the less talked-about King's X records and the album that is responsible for bridging the gap between the cheerful, peppy releases that gained them notoriety in their early years and the alternative, darker, and more groove-minded discs that characterized their later years.

The self-titled album is perhaps rock music's best paradox: a record intended to distill a band's entire sound into one 45 minute package, hopefully equally appetizing to longtime devotees and new fans. While these goals are realistically one and the same for self-titled debut albums, bands that choose to wait before offering up an eponymous release face a bigger challenge: how do you capture a band's trademark "sound" after several albums (and oftentimes several years) of recording, touring, and general life that happens? It certainly seems like a tough task, and it seems like the only thing you can do is present your sound as you think it is at that point in time.

As a "pure" snapshot of a band's "trademark sound", King's X is probably not a great example -- it features relatively little of the unconventional compositions that marked their earlier albums, while also featuring less than some may have expected of the band's heavy side. Instead, the album is a time capsule of a group figuring out where to go next after three albums of the music they liked to play. Older followers would (and hopefully still are) be have their prog thirst sated by numbers like "Lost in Germany" and introspective closer "Silent Wind", while tracks like "The Big Picture", "Dream in My Life" and "Chariot Song" should've secured at least a modest amount of radio play and/or newer listeners. And then you have groove-drenched cuts like "Black Flag", "What I Know About Love", and "Ooh Song", which give clear indications of the trio's increasing knack for conjuring up the best riffs in rock since Diamond Head. In fact, right from the uncharacteristically aggressive opening of "World Around Me" King's X show off their new leaning right off the bat, only letting things slow down with more traditional tunes like "Not Just For the Dead" and the intriguing "Prisoner".

Throughout the album the band is dropping hints as to their new direction, from the the chunky breakdown in "World Around Me", the dirty bass line in "What I Know About Love", to the driving force of "Ooh Song".Yet without the abandoning the thing that made them unique in the first place or adapting unnecessary pop sensibilities, they managed to deliver a remarkable synthesis of the two disparate halves of their career and music in King's X. Few other acts have managed or will manage to pull off a self-titled album with this much sophistication and accessibility while simultaneously exploring a new aspect of their sound.

Curation vs Criticism in the Streaming Era

Back when the only way to find out if you liked an album was to either buy it, listen to in the store (if they even let you) or hear a song on the radio, traditional music criticism served a purpose. It still had problems, and even if it was just some random newspaper's ignorant opinion it still had some weight to it, acting as a flimsy meatshield between the ocean of garbage music and your hard-won money.

Nowadays, though, none of us have to suffer those critics any longer. Regardless of the "score" the record gets you can just listen and decide for yourself, obviously making traditional reviews seem kind of superfluous. Unfortunately, the increased ease of both accessing and creating music has resulted in an increase of the amount of shitty music that exists -- and the shitty music is just as easy to find as the good stuff.

It'll be interesting to see if criticism shifts to more of a "curation" model, kind of a "if you like X, you'll love Y!" type of thing, or if the division of communities stay similar to how they are now as a bunch of walled gardens and the old "objective" standards of critical writing are continuously propagated.