I understand this CD. I understand the philosophy behind the making of this CD. I even appreciate what the musicians are trying to do on this CD. But I don?t like this CD, not a bit. Here?s what I believe the premise is: A bunch of middle aged men, all talented musicians, get together every couple of weeks to play music. They record this music, careful to be somewhat truthful to what has inspired them throughout the years: Can, Pink Floyd, Sun Ra, and The Grateful Dead. I don?t have a problem with any of that. I like Can, Pink Floyd, and Sun Ra, and have even gotten over the nihilism of my youth to the point where I can appreciate the Grateful Dead. I even think that, when I leave my youth behind, I might start to reminisce about the 1990s and go see a Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds 40 Anniversary Tour (knowing Nick Cave, it?ll be called a revival), remembering that time at Lollapalooza where they shared the stage with the Boredoms and a gaggle of Tibetan Monks. I might even start a band that sounds kind of like . . .
That?s what Random Touch has done over the 14 tracks of ?A True Man Wears a Conductor.? The music is, certainly, psychedelic, but in the way where you can tell it?s been awhile since any member last experienced psychedelics. The focus here is on the ambience of a long remembered trip, a nostalgic return to the late 1960s/early 1970s. It?s great because you can tell the musicians are getting out of it exactly their intent, namely they?re having a blast with this. Essential listening? No, but I will listen to Can?s ?Soon Over Babaluma? later this afternoon and wish that, like the quartet who comprise Random Touch, I had been born with the opportunity to hear that music when it was first released, had had the opportunity to see it performed.
?A True Conductor Wears a Man? seems like a retread, recycled right down to the fact that, when Random Touch plays live, they play before a multimedia display, sort of like Pink Floyd at the UFO, circa 1967. My problem with this record is that I love it because of what it loves, not because of what it is. 5/10 -- Neale Gay (19 December, 2007)