Ahh, if I had any credibility I’d label the man a legend and reminisce fondly on those early Husker Du albums, and claim to have formed a band after listening to them. But I’ve no credibility, I was listening to metal in the 80s and only discovered Mould(y) things afterwards. Such is life. But, this is the latest album, and I’ve got it, so I’m going to review it. I can’t compare it favourably with ALL his previous works, so this is just going to have to be reviewed for what it is, instead of against the accusation of being a legend. Which is how things should be reviewed anyway.

New #1 sets things off, all acoustic rock. I know he’s a bit of a punky legend, but during this, and a few other tracks, I kept thinking that it was something that could’ve been done by say REM. Now that’s not necessarily a bad thing, that depends on your viewpoint. The point is, that people’s opinion sometimes get swayed and diluted by what they want to believe. If someone other than Bob Mould was doing this, would he get away with quite the acceptance and indeed praise? Or is it because of who he is?

Taking Everything is one of the better songs on the album, it somehow sounds more complete as a song. There are a few here which feel as if they've almost had the "band" element added as an afterthought, as though Mould initially meant for them to be solo. It's a solid album, but there's nothing that jumps out at me and slaps the face to gain my attention. And at the moment I need that. I've listened to a lot of music recently (my own fault), and I need something "more". Who Was Around? despite being a good song, nags at me again by whispering REM. Ultimately it's an album that doesn't swing one way or another for me. Doesn't turn me into a drooling Mould afficianado, or piss me off. Although it does end in a high note with Along The Way.