I’d heard of the band in the early '80s, but only in passing. Now I wish I’d followed up on them, as Sorrows were a great band. Their new/old album, Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow, proves it.
Arthur Alexander, the leader of the band, was kind enough to answer a few questions for me.
Andrea Weiss: Can you give us a brief history of the album and its re-release?
Arthur Alexander: Well, to start with, a slight correction to your question. Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow album is not a “re-release.” It never was an “album” till now. It was never released before, nor was it “lost” as some have assumed it was. The original tapes spent the last 40 years in my closet, except for a short trip to an oven, to be baked and preserved, because they were, literally, falling apart! Now, back to the story…
Upon Sorrows’ return from England, following a disastrous recording sessions with a “legendary” hack who “produced” our Love Too Late album, a follow-up to Teenage Heartbreak, we were in a state of war with our record label; feeling angry, betrayed, and generally speaking, “out for blood.” As a band, we felt we’ve been neutered, compromised, and felt the need to get back to being a band we were. So yeah, we had a giant rock & roll chip on our shoulder! At some point we reconnected with Mark Milchman, our producer on Teenage Hearbreak, who also got shafted by the label when it came time for the next album. Mark was not good enough, they wanted a “name guy.” Well, what they got was a massive flop. Anyway, Mark got us some studio time at the (actually really) legendary Mediasound Studio where we worked together on Teenage Heartbreak. We got in for one evening, on “studio downtime” (read: for free), the sole intention being to make some demos of new songs the band was working on at the time… and to exorcise our demons, beat the shit our of our instruments, and feel like a band again! As the night went on, song after song, as we listened to the playback, we started to realize: no, this ain’t no disco, and yes, it’s CBGB!... we were back to being a rock and roll band! Again! By the time we left the studio, the sun was up, and we knew we had a new album on our hands.
AW: All of these songs ape early rock and roll, which is great. Is that a favorite genre or yours, or did you just want to update that sound?
AA: Yes, rock & roll is the favorite genre of ours, and we just love aping it. Sorrows are deep students of music history and we couldn’t help but notice how people like Howlin’ Wolf, Muddy Waters, John Lee Hooker, Chuck Berry or Little Richard were aping the music of the slaves and early Delta blues men; and then, how some of our favorite bands, like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Kinks and The Yardbirds, were aping the music of the people I just mentioned. And all that aping brought them fame, money, women and booze. So it didn’t take a rocket scientist for us to figure of that, yeah man, aping is good! Especially, if you do it in your own way, like we did.
AW: I like the Stones cover “Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Standing In The Shadow?” Why did you choose that Stones song?
AA: Frankly, I can’t remember the exact circumstances how that came about, other than I always loved that Stones record. It’s got a pretty complex production and arrangement, including the horn section, etc. So it was a challenge (and we like challenge!) how to strip it down to its bare bones and give it a raw rock & roll power, driven just by our drums, guitars and voices… or what I like to call it - the Sorrows freight train! Also, it’s always been a Sorrows trademark when doing a cover of a song to put our own special twist and spin on it. We never did a cover, and we did quite a few, the way many bands do it, essentially trying to make it sound just like the original, only “better” (at least in their mind, anyway), whatever “better” means! I mean, what is even the point of doing it?... unless you actually are a tribute, or a Holiday Inn bar lounge band, then yes, it’s expected.
AW: I like how “Cricket Man” pays tribute to the Beatles. What was behind the homage?
AA: In broad terms, The Beatles and their impact permeates the music of every artist since then, whether they want to admit it or not, or even realize it. So I don’t feel any special need to pay tributes or give homage to them. We all already do that every time we write a song. And so, I hope I won’t disappoint you when I say that “Cricket Man” is neither a tribute nor an homage to The Beatles. It’s an elegy for one man, someone who had the most profound and lasting impact on my life as a man and an artist. What’s behind it? I started writing it after a sleepless night, in the morning hours of Dec. 9, 1980 and, in a strange twist of fate, finished it on Oct. 9, 1981. When Sorrows went into the studio to record all these songs, and as it turned out, what was to become this album, we had just barely started working on this one. We had no intention of recording it “for real”. We ran through it at the very end of the night, in one pass, thinking it was just gonna be a “quick and dirty” reference demo as we kept working on it. Instead, listening back to it, we realized this is IT. And IT, is the one and only take of the song. As Lennon famously once said: “Life’s what happens while you’re busy making other plans.”
AW: Did: you feel like you fit into what was going on in 1981 and punk?
AA: There’s no question that the whole New York punk/new wave scene we were a part of had its impact on us. We definitely assimilated and adopted the vibe, the sounds we were surround by. But when it came to our music we sure as hell never tried to “fit in”. We did our own “fitting in” - we played what we wanted to play and how we wanted to play it and let others follow, or not. We were never cool enough or hip enough to be part of the inner clique or media darlings of the local rock press, but we didn’t give a shit. Musically, we charted our own course. And it paid off… here you are, talking to me… and how many other bands from that time can you think of that are even so much as a historical footnote today?
AW: How do you feel about today’s indie rock? Do you think music in 1981 was better?
AA: It’s a whole different world today. Back then, unless you got the attention of major label and national press, no one ever heard about you, or hear your music, other than the people of whatever local scene they were a part of. Today, with Internet and all kinds of independent ways to get your music out there, the level of noise is deafening! You can spend a lifetime looking for something worth listening to in the sea of total dreck. Anyone with a computer and a credit card can become a musician, producer, and a record label in one short trip to the Guitar Center. I don’t know if the music was “better” back then than today. There was certainly a lot of good stuff, but there was also a lot of crap. The difference? There was a chance that if the stuff was good, people out there would get to hear it, but chances were almost none that anyone would get to hear the crap. Today, the good and the crap are vying for the same ears, and I only got two of them, and only so many hours in a day!
AW: Are there going to be an album of new original songs after this?
AA: I doubt it. Like life itself, things run their course and then come to an end. I’m just glad that after years and years of what looked like Sorrows music being destined for the dustbin of history, we’re back, stronger than ever, being recognized for our contributions; new generations of music fans discovering us for the first time, and that the legacy of Sorrows as a band will live on. That’s good enough for me.
AW: Are there any gigs planned?
AA: No…
Wait! How much are (they) paying?! LOL
