As indulgent as this may seem, I am dedicating an entire page, written completely free form and, let's face it, a little drunk, to this absolute masterpiece of music and its subsequent misunderstanding and underrating.
First off, the praise. If you have made it to this page, you have read my initial review of the album, which goes out of its way to make a few very grandiose statements. This was intentional; partly because of the lukewarm —if not outright cold— critical response it initially received and partly because, well... it's that fucking good. The more I listen to it, the more I realize its genius. Most of the songs are in excess of 6 minutes in length, but they are so well written and performed that they (for the most part, there are a couple deep album cuts that would never make it to the radio, even in the most perfect of worlds) are totally accessible. It is obviously a concept album. The concept being that people are, emotionally, in an embryonic stage until they truly fall in love for the fist time. It is also a story album. The story being told is the one of dealing with the rush of emotions Max felt as he fell in love for the first time. If you listen, and truly pay attention to the words, you will realize that what he is saying is universal. He had the foresight to realize that his specific reactions were mostly natural and to articulate them in, say, "Matrimony" was also a natural move. Although, he uses metaphor quite a bit as well. The most obvious examples of this are "Submerge" and "Gravity", arguably the most "out" tracks on the album. But, as is especially the case on "Submerge", everything —words, music, idea— is in such perfect sync that the track's 'weirdness' is almost unnoticeable. As an obsessive music fan all my life and a child of the late 80's and early 90's, I have seen many disappointments with the growing corporatization of music. However, there have been a few releases in my life that I can honestly say continue the traditions of the great music of past generations that have embodied what I consider to be the purest essence of music: relating deeply personal expression in a way that anyone can appreciate it. So, with that being said, I can honestly say that Embrya is one of the (very few) most important albums released in my lifetime (I was born in 1981). Plus, it's totally great. And especially so, knowing the bittersweet twist of an album that was to follow it a few years later.
Now, why was it basically shit on when it was first released? Well, I have several theories. But, before I get too deeply into that, I'd just like to share a few examples. First of all, the white perspective: Rolling Stone Magazine's review is so racist, I can't even believe it made it to print (or maybe I'm just a litle too eager to believe, out of my own relentless cynicism). They, predictably, gave it three and one-half stars (has there been anything noteworthy that's gotten below three stars in that magazine since 1992?) and claimed the album to be all about sex. I'm surprised they didn't criticize "Hula" for not actually being about Hawaii. How much more wrong could they have been? It seems to me, the album didn't fit into the white preconceived niche of 'black music', so they forced it there and subsequently criticized it for not fitting in. I mean, Black people just make music for having sex to, right? Ridiculous. From there, it just went to distasteful. The Village Voice's review, embarassingly written by wannabe hipster Dream Hampton, is more about how Max's first album was just right in D'Angelo's aftermath (which is ironic, considering Urban Hang Suite was tracked and mastered in mid-1994, months before D'Angelo set foot in a recording studio). And Max's so-called 'image' is addressed. Has it ever occurred to Ms. Hampton (who was, it should be noted, in the middle of a fling with Mr. Brown Sugar when that piece was written, perhaps explaining why D is so quickly and arbitrarily brought up) that interviewers print what they choose and the quotes printed may or may not be representative of the actual person saying them? Five wordy, noodling paragraphs and only one is partially dedicated to the actual album. This is music journalism? Yikes. Both reviews mention Prince. A lot. This needs to stop as well. Sure, Max probably listened to as much Prince as any other kid growing up in the 80's, but common sense says that he spent a lot more time listening to Smokey and even more listening to Marvin, who Prince undoubtedly dedicated a good chunk of his free time to. Prince is obviously a genius to be celebrated, but within the right contexts. If you must mention Max's influences (and he does have them), mention all of them.
Finally, my own theories. First of all, I believe that, most of all, people were afraid to admit to liking this album because 1997/98 was the initial period when hipster posturing reared its ugliness into amerikkkan music journalism for the first time (though those British blokes had been doing it since punk first hit, but I digress). Suddenly, liking something was uncool. Especially when that something is as profound and risk-taking as Embrya. Despite how great it is, you can't actually say that, because you may be accused of idol worship. What, is Columbia and Maxwell in your pockets, dude? Bullshit. And furthermore, it would be even uncooler to admit to liking an album as intensely and confrontationally personal and emotional as Embrya ended up being. I mean, what are you, gay? (oh, the irony...)
I guess when you create a masterpiece of the sort that used to be commonplace in past generations and one that is unparralleled in its inefrior contemporaries, such ridiculous backlashes are to be understood, if not expected. What a sad state of affairs.
Back to the main Max review page.
