May 012024
  May 1, 2024

Genesis started with 4 artsy, well-heeled students (I’ll ignore drummers for now), all of whom thought of themselves as writers, not performers. I don’t think that’s the best way to label them. Tony Banks was The Writer, but I’d call Peter Gabriel The Artist (with a capital “A”) and Anthony Phillips The (Musical) Talent. And Mike Rutherford was there too.

After their attempt at pop failed, they picked up on the trend for more complex rock with shades of classical and folk that was sweeping over England and they got it right in one, becoming a foundational band of progressive rock. Problematically, they then lost The Talent, but lucked out in replacing him with an even great Talent, Steve Hackett. They’d also gone through multiple drummers, and now stabilized on a skilled one with Phil Collins, who brought with him a touch of jazz. He could also sing, doing a reasonable impersonation of Gabriel… Gee, I wonder if that will be important later.

This five-piece version of the band was nearing on perfect: Art, Talent, Writing, and Skill all at their peak. Plus Rutherford. And they created some of the greatest rock albums of all time.

Of course it couldn’t last. It never does. Friction between members, particularly Banks and Rutherford being dicks to Gabriel and Gabriel going all in on being THE Artist, caused Gabriel to go solo. The loss of The Artist hurt, but his spirit was still there, and they all envisioned themselves to be artists. They had The Writer, who could still pen smart, complicated works for The Talent and the skilled drummer. Oh, and Rutherford was there too. After numerous auditions, Collins reluctantly took over as front-man (his idea had been to become a purely instrumental band), and he wasn’t bad.

But after two albums, friction hit again, this time with Banks and Rutherford being dicks to Hackett while Hackett just wanted to do something. It’s weird to think that Collins was the one that got along with everyone.

Now, any sane group who found themselves losing their Talent—who was also the guitarist—would find another talented guitarist. But they didn’t. Instead, Rutherford, a mid-tier bassist, took on the role of guitarist, following a master, while still playing bass. To say he wasn’t up to the task is being polite. And Banks now had to write to the level of talent left in the group. At least Collins was a good drummer, except he didn’t drum when he sang, and he was starting to get interested in drum machines because, sure, why not strip away one area where the band could still excel. They managed two albums before the loss of talent and the possibility of big money with simple pop tunes pulled them to the dark side.

So, time to rank the albums of Genesis. It’s not too tricky. After a bump, Genesis’s output can be divided into 4 eras: Classic/Prog, Transition 1, Transition 2, and Pop. And each era is less than the one that came before. So, starting with #15

 

#15 Calling All Stations  

Ug. This is a terrible album, dull, lifeless, and dim. I can’t find anyone who thinks this was a good idea. Collins had finally quit due to a combination of his successful solo career and fading health, and Banks and Rutherford wanted some of that sweet, sweet Genesis money. But, being dicks, they wouldn’t let their stage musicians, who’d been playing with them for years, in as official members. But they knew they needed a singer. Ray Wilson’s voice doesn’t fit what they are doing (David Longdon, later of Big Big Train, auditioned and would have been a much better fit), but he isn’t the problem. It’s the songs. The hooks are missing for pop music, and the complexity is missing for anything more. And while Genesis lyrics have been weak since the ’70s, these are atrocious. There’s nothing good here
Least Bad: The Dividing Line
Worst: Congo, Shipwrecked, Not About Us

 

#14 We Can’t Dance  

With the ’90s, Genesis tried to once again do something of value. They didn’t try very hard, but there are more long tracks, and a few with what counts as complexity for late Genesis. But the band can’t do it. Driving the Last Spike and Fading Lights are attempts at the epics they’d managed 15 years earlier, but the skill is lacking. If you can’t do it, it’s probably better not to try. And there’s still the lame ’80s-ish ballads and synth disasters. The longer runtime just gave them more chances to fail.
Least Bad: Jesus He Knows Me
Worst: I Can’t Dance, Never A Time, Tell Me Why, Hold On My Heart, Since I Lost You

 

#13 Invisible Touch  

’80s Genesis has a very ’80s sound, and that’s not a good thing. With The Artist and Talent of the group long gone by ’86, the remainders are smartly not even trying to do anything worthwhile. This is lowest common denominator pop, and it hardly works as that. And let’s not dwell on the lyrics. Domino had potential to be something more, but those ’80s synths and drum machines kill it.
Least Bad: Invisible Touch, Tonight, Tonight, Tonight
Worst: In Too Deep, Anything She Does

 

#12 From Genesis to Revolation  

The first album, written when the members were still teenagers and planning on being writers of pop tunes. Their producer was even keener on pop, wanting them to sound like The Beach Boys. Once you get past the intrusive strings (if you can; I can’t), you end up with an OK psychedelic pop album. There’s potential, although it isn’t clear potential for what. In the Beginning and The Serpent remind me of The Animals, in a good way. In The Wilderness has a few suggestions of what was to come. But nothing is memorable.
Best: In the Beginning, The Serpent, The Conqueror
Worst: Fireside Song, In Hiding, Window

 

#11 ABACAB  

With ABACAB, Genesis tossed off the last pretense that they were a great band and embraced mediocrity and money. Gotta love the laziness of the title track, where they didn’t even bother finding lyrics, but just sing the structure of the song, but not even the final structure. Well, as pure pop, it could be worse; it would be worse. I am thrown that they cut the best song from this recording session, Paperlate. If for some reason you want 80’s cheese, this isn’t a bad place to go for it.
Best: Keep It Dark, Man On The Corner
Worst: Who Dunnit?, Like it Or Not, Another Record

 

#10 Genesis  

Why do bands self-title albums in the middle of their career? Oh well. This is the height of pop-Genesis, mainly because they stray a bit. It’s all pretty simple, with repetitive drum machine bangs, lackluster keyboards, and barely-there guitars. But it has its moments, and those moments are almost entirely in the two Home By the Seas. The album also never sinks to the lows of other pop-era Genesis, so it wins on both ends.
Best: Home By the Sea/Second Home By the Sea
Worst: Illegal Alien, Just a Job To Do

 

#9 Duke  

The last album (chronologically) I call good, and the end of their second transitional period. The old Genesis was being buried, but there was still some life left. I always found Duke to have a touch of jazz, which gives it character. I’d have been OK with the new band staying like this. The loss of Hackett is felt strongly, but Collins does a particularly nice job on the drums and Banks still has a few tunes in him.
The Best: Behind the Lines, Duke’s Travels/End
The Worst: Alone Tonight, Please Don’t Ask

 

#8 And Then There Were Three  

The first record of the second transitional era, The Talent had left, leaving a huge hole. The trio was having a hard time figuring out what it was now. There’s lots of prog here, though not much I’d call art rock. It’s so much simpler than what came before, but still complex for a rock album. It’s hard to say what this album is, except that it holds together surprisingly well. They found their answer in the final song: Follow You Follow Me is terrible prog rock, but it’s great pop.
The Best Burning Rope, Follow You Follow Me
The Worst: Say It’s Alright Joe

 

#7 The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway  

This is where I’ll get in trouble with most old-school Genesis fans. When I got into Genesis in the later ’70s, it was a biblical truth that this was the pinnacle of the band, but it’s never clicked for me. Oh, there’s greatness here, but there’s also problems, and it’s easy to see the band splitting apart in the music. I love Gabriel, but this was too much Gabriel for a band. He got lost in the story (that he insisted only he could write) and it isn’t much of a story. The rest of the band was pissed, and it feels like it. There isn’t enough interesting music or compelling melodies for a double album, but Gabriel had more lyrics he wanted shoved in somewhere. Yes, this is a good album, but not the Holy Grail it was made out to be, and it rarely tops rankings any more.
The Best: Most of the 1st disk
The Worst: Most of the 2nd disk

 

#6 A Trick of the Tail  

So Gabriel had left, apparently to the relief of both the remaining members and Gabriel. The loss of The Artist hurt, but The Writer had ideas and had The Talent and a skilled drummer to pull them off. And Rutherford was there too. Collins took over singing, and while he wasn’t the best singer around, neither was Gabriel, and there was enough similarity that the band didn’t have to adjust too much. They set out to prove the band could still work without Gabriel, and they pretty much did. The album lacks the absolute classic songs of earlier albums, but it has no significant weaknesses. This is a reasonable entrance album into Genesis for non-prog folks.
Best: Dance on A Volcano, Los Endos
Least Best: Entangled, Robbery Assault And Battery

 

#5 Wind & Wuthering  

I’ve always found it odd that the 4-man band improved on their second time out. This is a great album, keeping the overall solid level of A Trick of the Tail, but adding in a few top notch songs. It’s generally described as “autumnal.”
Best: Eleventh Earl of Mar, Unquiet Slumbers For the Sleepers/In that Quiet Earth/Afterglow
Least Best: Your Own Special Way

 

#4 Trespass  

Their second album, this is when Genesis became Genesis. There’s multiple epics with a good deal of theatrics. It has a slightly darker tone than other Genesis albums. Trespass gets far less attention than it deserves—I suspect because it predates Collins and Hackett, so it doesn’t technically have the “Classic Lineup,” though I group it in the Classic Era. It’s a fantastic album, nearly equal to the next two on this list.
The Best: The Knife, Stagnation
Least Best: Dusk

 

#3 Nursery Cryme  

Oddly, a lot of critics claim their was a fundamental change between Trespass and Nursery Cryme, but I disagree. What changed was the personnel. This is Trespass, with a better guitarist and a better drummer. Considering the crap Collins would do later, it’s sometimes easy to gloss over that he was a damn fine drummer. The melodies are a touch stronger and the whole thing is a slight bit crazier.
Best: The Musical Box, The Fountain of Salmacis
Least Best: Seven Stones, Harlequin

 

#2 Selling England By the Pound  

I guess I’m not going out on a limb with my final rankings as this more often than not ends up in one of the top two slots of any Genesis ranking. And for good reason. It very much fits with Trespass and Nursery Cryme, but now not only better, but perfected.
Best: Dancing With the Moonlight Knight, Firth of Fifth, The Cinema Show
Least Best: More Fool Me

 

#1 Foxtrot  

The record company owner heard this and said, “this is the one that makes their career.” Who knew execs had taste? Everything was working for the band. Hell, they even were getting along. It’s the best Genesis album with the best Genesis song. Supper’s Ready is the best thing Genesis ever did, and very few bands have done anything near this level. So with it taking up half the album, Foxtrot is going to be on top. It helps that the other side is good too, on par with the previous (and next) albums, but it’s Supper’s Ready that grabs the ring.
Best: Supper’s Ready, Can-Utility and the Coastliners
Lest Best: none

Nov 152023
  November 15, 2023

As I am now being inundated by awards speculation, I find it time to say something about one of the biggest films of the year. Oppenheimer is a good film. It’s a very good film. The acting is excellent across the board. I could go on praising it, and I would, except it has been greatly over-praised by too many, and there is non-stop talk of it taking Best Picture and Best Director at the Academy Awards, which it does not deserve.

It’s good.

It’s not great, and it is nowhere near a masterpiece. I am bothered by these claims of masterpiece. It is competent filmmaking and excels in some areas. John Grisham is a good writer, but he isn’t Shakespeare. The Pelican Brief isn’t Macbeth. I think most reasonably literate people would agree. So I find it depressing that people reasonably literate in film can’t tell the difference between this and greatness.

I could start with the real flaws of the film. The music, for instance, is far too noticeable, far too on the nose, far too distracting, to be so uninteresting. You want to draw that much attention, then do what John Williams or Erich Wolfgang Korngold did. If you can’t do that, then be subtle. There’s also the editing – not terrible – but too many shots were held for a moment too long, and too many scenes lasted longer than needed. And of course, there’s the sound mix, but then it is Christopher Nolan, and honestly, for Nolan, the sound mix wasn’t that bad. I’m kinda proud of our boy for realizing this time that people should understand spoken words.

But the issue isn’t what’s wrong, because this isn’t a bad film. It’s a good film. The issue is what isn’t good enough for this to be a masterpiece. To be clear, there is no reason it should be one. Masterpieces are hard to come by. If people would quit drooling all over themselves, I’d be content to call it good and that’s a nice thing for a film to be. But, since that’s not the case, then it is time to bring up the obvious issue: Masterpieces are made by masters. Nolan isn’t one. He’s a skilled professional. He’s meticulous and knows how to make a film. But that’s it. He’s no Hitchcock, no Murnau, no Hawks, no Gance, no Huston, no Powel, no Curtiz, no Lean, no Kubrick, no Wilder, no Coppola, no Scott. Not even a Tarantino.

Going through his works I find Nolan’s shots are consistently fine. They do the job. They do what’s needed for the plot. They do nothing interesting, nothing of great artistic merit or brilliance. They are sufficient.

His mise-en-scène, that is the look of the frame, is competent. If a lab should look well used, then it does. If there should be papers strewn about, then there are. Anything extraordinary? No.

His use of color and lighting? Good enough. He doesn’t tell the story through those, or define characters, the way Powel or Huston or Lean did time after time. Instead, things look more or less natural and everything is visible, which is…fine.

Then he has his Nolan-isms. He still thinks it is clever just to tell a story out of order. And it occasionally is, particularly if you don’t keep doing it. He is well known for his…narrowness of focus… in that his world is nearly devoid of women. And he doesn’t have humans speaking to each other in his films, rather, at each other. Everyone just makes speeches all the time. That’s not necessarily a problem, though after two hours, I do long for something approaching a conversation instead of dueling lectures.

So that’s Nolan, and Oppenheimer is a very Nolan film. In it he does what he always does. I’d say he does it better, but still very Nolan. If anything is unusual, it is how simple and straightforward the story is. No one should be confused by anything here. I prefer a more complex tale, but I do appreciate that he kept relatively close to the facts. Grading on a curve of truthfulness of biopics, this is a real winner. His spoon feeding with the (very) occasional hallucinatory image was treating the audience like juveniles, but he didn’t do it often.

Which means this is one of Nolan’s better films. Perhaps his best, though I’m only saying perhaps. It is a competent piece of filmmaking. A fine work of edutainment. I’d even recommend it to people who aren’t in a hurry. But best film of the year? There is real artistry out there, works of imagination and depth, works that should be acclaimed, works that are masterpieces.

Oppenheimer is good.

Mar 112023
  March 11, 2023

[I’m not covering the shorts or documentaries, and I never do sound as I don’t trust my viewing environments. I’ve seen everything I’m voting on except Avatar: The Way of Water (so I’m going to treat it as Avatar I) and Andrea Riseborough in Leslie, but then that’s been the story of this award season; nobody has]

 

CINEMATOGRAPHY

ELVIS (Mandy Walker)

[I wouldn’t have called ELVIS the best of the year (why isn’t Babylon here?), but it is best of the nominees. BARDO: FALSE CHRONICLE OF A HANDFUL OF TRUTHS has some wonderful moments, but many others where I’d call the cinematography good, but nothing special. TÁR comes in third, doing all that is needed for the story, but nothing more. I think EMPIRE OF LIGHT is only here to note Roger Deakins’ lifetime work. And ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT was very good, but for what they were doing, it needed to be better still].

 

VISUAL EFFECTS

AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER

[OK, completely unfair, but as the original would win in this category by a mile, I’m confident in giving it to this sequel.]

 

COSTUME DESIGN

BABYLON (Mary Zophres)

[Huh. A category with a whole lot of deserving nominees. That’s weird this year. BABYLON was not a great movie, but it was a beautiful one, and part of that was the never ending string of amazing costumes. Still, this is a close call with BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA FOREVER, and I wouldn’t be upset if that won. Both ELVIS and EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE have costumes that advance the plot, and the plot kinda is the costumes for MRS. HARRIS GOES TO PARIS, though I did find that the weakest nominee.]

 

PRODUCTION DESIGN

BABYLON (Florencia Martin; Anthony Carlino)

[Again, BABYLON is a great looking one. ELVIS’s design is good, but BABYLON just tops it.]

 

MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING

BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA FOREVER (Camille Friend and Joel Harlow)

[Some good choices here, with both THE WHALE and THE BATMAN as standouts in makeup. And the work in ELVIS and ALL QUIET is good too, but the variety of ingenious work in WAKANDA FOREVER takes the award.]

 

FILM EDITING

EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE (Paul Rogers)

[This one is easy. Editing this, with worlds changing many times in a scene, must have been insane. The editing in THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN, ELVIS, and TÁR varied between fair and poor, leaving only MAVERICK as competition, and while it’s editing is good (anything being good in that film is a rarity), it is a distant second.]

 

MUSIC (ORIGINAL SCORE)

BABYLON (Justin Hurwitz)

[This was a lightweight year for scores. BABYLON’s does the most to define the picture. The others, with one exception, were OK, though none had that magic I look for in a great score. The exception is ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, where the score was poorly conceived and is distracting.]

 

MUSIC (ORIGINAL SONG)

NAATU NAATU (from RRR; M.M. Keeravaani/Chandrabose)

[It’s a shame that just the song is nominated. It’s the dance that is overwhelming, but the song is good, and is part of an amazing scene. And all of the other nominees are terrible, songs I never want to hear again.]

 

ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

GUILLERMO DEL TORO’S PINOCCHIO

[The stop-motion animation here must be rewarded. This is absolute masterwork in animation. Most of the rest is good enough (the songs are a weak spot) not to detract from that animation. THE SEA BEAST is a strong second, with excellent animation, and even better script and voice work. PUSS IN BOOTS: THE LAST WISH is also worthy, making this one of the better categories. The final two aren’t in the running, TURNING RED is generally poorer and condescending, while MARCEL THE SHELL WITH SHOES ON is as if the goal was to make the MOST Indie film ever, with every indie film trope turned up to 11.]

 

WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY)

LIVING (Kazuo Ishiguro)

[Not a great category, but LIVING hits the right notes when needed. GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY has a reasonable number of clever lines, so slips into second. For the rest: TOP GUN: MAVERICK’s script is absolute trash and its nomination is absurd; WOMEN TALKING has the screenplay of a stageplay, and not a good one, with far too many repetitions; ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT is a particularly poor adaptation of the novel.]

 

WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)

EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE (The Daniels)

[A better category than adapted screenplay. The winner takes it due to wit and twists. Of the rest, TRIANGLE OF SADNESS’s screenplay has some issues, but the others show a skilled hand.]

 

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

KE HUY QUAN (Everything Everywhere All at Once)

[This is considered a lock, and I agree it should be. BRENDAN GLEESON is good enough in The Banshees of Inisherin while I found BARRY KEOGHAN annoying in the same film. JUDD HIRSCH wouldn’t make my top 2 for supporting actor in The Fabelmans. BRIAN HENRY (Causeway) is my 2nd place choice, but he doesn’t have a chance.]

 

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

JAMIE LEE CURTIS (Everything Everywhere All at Once)

[A category with no embarrassing choices. None are better than CURTIS, so I’ll let my desire for her to get an Oscar decide it. HONG CHAU (The Whale) would be an equally good choice. KERRY CONDON (The Banshees of Inisherin) gives the best performance of that film, and ANGELA BASSETT (Black Panther: Wakanda Forever) is always good and she only lags behind because she seems less her character and more just ANGELA BASSETT. STEPHANIE HSU (Everything Everywhere All at Once) would be my last choice.]

 

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

AUSTIN BUTLER (Elvis)

[This is a three-way for me, between BUTLER, BRENDAN FRASER (The Whale), and BILL NIGHY (Living). FRASER is just turned up a notch higher than I’d like, and BUTLER has more to do than NIGHY, but all three are reasonable choices. COLIN FARRELL’s role is a bit too easy, and PAUL MESCAL’s performance seems to be more about the editing. All that said, I hope FRASER wins.]

 

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

MICHELLE YEOH (Everything Everywhere All at Once)

[This is a two way race, YEOH or CATE BLANCHETT (Tár), and both are excellent, but Yeoh does more. ANA DE ARMAS (Blonde) and MICHELLE WILLIAMS (The Fabelmans) are both quite good, but they’re footnotes.]

 

DIRECTING

EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE (Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert

[This is rough, choosing between The Daniels and Steven Spielberg for THE FABELMANS, but when it’s hard to choose, I’ve got to go with the better result. The directing for THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN and TÁR is fine, and that of TRIANGLE OF SADNESS is a little less than fine.]

 

BEST PICTURE

EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE

[Nothing else is close. Nothing else would be in my top 10 for the year. THE FABELMANS is the most skillfully made film of the year, so it’s not an embarrassment as a nomination. ELVIS, TÁR, ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT,

WOMEN TALKING, and TRIANGLE OF SADNESS are need reedits, and the last two need radical rewrites. THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN is OK, and TOP GUN: MAVERICK is garbage (and it is a complete embarrassment to our country that this thing is in the same list as ALL QUIET – makes Americans look like war-mongering assholes). And it is just so stupid.]

Overall, not a great year or a great group of nominees, but the right winners could make this a feel good year.

Mar 102023
  March 10, 2023

Why must artists create autobiographies? They put themselves into all their work. Why must they be so literal about it? I knew everything I ever wanted to know about Steven Spielberg from Jurassic Park and Close Encounters and Raiders. I don’t need to see him, or any artist, masturbating. [Note: I’d also appreciate it if novelists would quite writing about novelists and filmmakers would quite making films about filmmaking.]

So, is THE FABELMANS well directed? Yes. Of course it is. I knew that before I watched it. Yes, there are moments of emotional impact. Yes, it looks great. The acting is excellent. The colors are rich and help tell the story, and yes, yes, all of that and more I knew before I watched it. He’s Goddamned Steven Spielberg. And if I was Goddamned Steven Spielberg, I’d really try and make something that wasn’t two and a half hours of yelling “Hey everyone, look at me. ME! ME! ME!” Firstly, because everyone would already be looking at me.

I suppose you don’t get to be this great a filmmaker without being arrogant. (Erase “I suppose” – there’s no supposing here.) That arrogance is on display in his many better films. And that’s OK. It’s more than OK. I just want it turned down enough that a great director can focus on stories that needed to be told, or it would be nice if they were told, or anything other than “Now you will all see where my greatness came from.”

Sigh. Yeah, this thing should not have been made. It is a waste of talent. Yet it is still one of the best nominees this year. As far as applied skill, it might be the best. TRIANGLE OF SADNESS, WOMEN TALKING, TÁR, and particularly TOP GUN: MAVERICK look like they were made by hacks or first year film school students by comparison. TÁR is more interesting, but it doesn’t display the mastery of the art form. But I think being interesting matters, and THE FABELMANS is not interesting.

I just wish I had his talent.

Mar 102023
  March 10, 2023

Or is it? I generally ignore the source material and closeness of adaptation, but in this case it’s hard. I thought the first German adaptation of a German book in a setting of vital importance to Germany would be closer to the novel then a 1930s American version. But this is hardly All Quiet On the Western Front. I’d call it inspired by the novel, but I might as well say inspired by World War I.

The changes start with almost all characterization. In the book, Paul was a person, with plans and desires. Here is a blank slate, an everyman. This film also is missing what I consider to be the two most important sections of the book – the boys’ indoctrination and Paul’s return to his hometown. Those were the heart of the story. Changed too is Paul’s death (OK, all the deaths are changed), now being used to make a statement about the evils yet to come instead of one of the pointlessness of it all. And then there is the addition, a subplot of the signing of the armistice, which feels out of place and harmed the tone and pacing. Well, the director was concerned about looking ahead to a time the book knew nothing about.

Alright, so as an adaptation of All Quiet On The Western Front, I didn’t think much of it. How is it as a movie? It’s not bad. It is successful in painting the bleakness of war, and all of the battle scenes are powerful. But without characters, it’s hard to feel anything except depression. And since it’s not saying anything new or unexpected, two and a half hours are unnecessary. Add in the subplot and the music that draws attention to itself, instead of to the story (the nomination for score is ridiculous) and we end up with a film that makes its point, but which I’ll never go back to. And yeah, Paul’s death here isn’t just different, it’s horrible.

No, this one shouldn’t win Best Picture.

Also, why is the default on Netflix the English dub. At least they had the original, but I’d have made that the default and had people switch away from it if they so desired.

Mar 082023
  March 8, 2023

Currently the film with the third best odds to win Best Picture, Tár is an interesting film, constructed to be unsatisfying for everyone. It’s precisely (at times delicately) made, with superb performances, particularly by Blanchett, but I can’t say I enjoyed it and have a hard time figuring why anyone would.

And the one line descriptions, of “justice comes to an abusive lesbian director” are completely off the mark.

Lydia Tár is a prickly character, who might be—probably is—very cruel and manipulative. Or maybe not. Those around her might be victims, or might not be, and certainly are not acting out of the best of motives more often than not. What happens to Tár is partly her fault, but partly isn’t, and nothing that happens to anyone is fair. Plot-wise, enough happens for about 30 minutes. This film is about character in service of theme. It does fine with character (though it intentionally obscures a great deal), but theme is where things get rocky. I felt like I was in the middle of the worst kind of Twitter argument, with people using the film to support diametrically opposed ideas: It’s been called the ultimate anti-woke movie and a powerful #metoo statement and yes, it’s easy to take it to be either, but harder to take it as both. With such lack of clarity, and so little satisfaction, I’d have liked to have spent less than two and a half hours with these people.

I suppose I’ll rank it as one of the better nominees, but also as one of the least enjoyable.

Mar 052023
  March 5, 2023

And today it is another of the Academy Awards Best Picture nominees. 2022 was the year of the “Eat the Rich” combined with “modern culture is empty” satires, and strangely also of surrounding them with water. The other two films that spring immediately to mind are Glass Onion and The Menu. None of them have any concept of subtlety, which isn’t necessarily a problem. Not necessarily… Triangle of Sadness stands out as the one that has no concept of editing.

There’s enough here to make a good movie, but only if you started post-production from scratch. The first hour should be no longer than 20 minutes and the first two sections need a completely different construction. Since I don’t like anyone, and everything being said is not only clear, but hammered over and over, Triangle of Sadness becomes tedious rapidly.

Sure, this is a better film than Maverick, but I got more enjoyment from watching, and making fun of, that silly film.

Mar 042023
  March 4, 2023

Have some Oscar nominations to catch up on, and tonight’s was Elvis, or as it should be titled, “Baz Luhrmann’s Elvis,” as he Baz Luhrmann’s all over it. The thing is, that’s why I like it. The more Luhrmann it is, the better, and it’s very Luhrmann. I couldn’t care less about the real Elvis Presley. He’s not on my list of the top 1000 subjects of bio pics I want to see, should I ever make such a list, which is fine as Luhrmann isn’t all that interested in the real Presley either. And that lack of accuracy (including not focusing on important elements of the man’s life) isn’t a problem since, unlike the lying Bohemian Rhapsody which had little connection to Freddie Mercury but was presented as the truth, Elvis is presented as the ravings and twisted statements of Col Parker, who is clearly an unreliable narrator.

So, we’ve got a skillfully directed (depending on what we count as the job of the director), beautifully filmed, and wonderfully acted picture. Austin Butler deservers his Best Lead Actor nomination just as Mandy Walker’s cinematography nom is reasonable. And I wouldn’t have been upset if Luhrmann got a directing nom (he did not). But it shouldn’t have landed a Best Pictures nomination. OK, in a world where Maverick got one, sure, as it is vastly superior to that, but setting a more reasonable bar, it’s just not great. Good, but not great. Script and editing are the weak spots, and they’re pretty weak. There’s whole sections that should have been rewritten, and hundreds of minor nips and tucks would have helped, along with some major slices, and probably a few additions.

Well, “good” isn’t a bad place for a movie to land.

Dec 022020
  December 2, 2020

Just released, a collection of my 109 reviews of 1930s horror films.

A collection of my 109 reviews of 1930s horror films.


Here you’ll find a complete guide to the horror films of the 1930s. There are 109 surviving horror movies from the decade and this book examines each one. It discusses the good and bad, and places them within the three legs of Hollywood horror: Classic Horror, Poverty Row, and Old Dark House films, before switching to Britain for Quota Quickies and then investigating what Germany, Mexico, China, and the rest of the world had to offer.

The Birth of Monsters covers the social changes, people, and important events that influenced the creation of horror cinema. It discusses how Universal and Carl Laemmle Jr. led the way, and the rest of the Big 5 and Little 3 studios followed grudgingly. And then Joseph Breen brought it all tumbling down. It’s filled with details and stories that make the movies even more enjoyable and places them in the context of the times. Which film was a scam? Which promoted quack science? Which picture got around the Production Code, and what was the first movie made from the work of a Black playwright?

But this isn’t a history book. The Birth of Monsters is about the films themselves: the themes, plots, and characters. Which films are masterpieces that changed popular culture and which are best forgotten? It is a book of reviews, 109 of them. If you want to know which Golden Age, horror films to seek out, The Birth of Monsters will point the way.

Come join Frankenstein, Dracula, The Mummy, The Invisible Man, Hjalmar Poelzig, Ewin Drood, Richard III, Ygor, Svengali, King Kong, Fu Manchu, Dr. Jekyll, Count Zaroff, The Bat, Dr. Moreau, Alraune, The Golem, Murder Legendre and his zombies, Death, Sherlock Holmes, and Sweeney Todd, as well as Boris Karloff, Dwight Frye, Fay Wray, Tod Browning, Vincent Price, James Whale, Myrna Loy, Humprey Bogart, Ginger Rogers, Cantinflas, Basil Rathbone, Charles Laughton, Claude Rains, Max Steiner, Gloria Stuart, and Bela Lugosi.

Aug 282020
  August 28, 2020

I ranked the Bond title sequences, and this is an addendum to that. I grant myself some knowledge of film so that ranking has some minimal meaning. This is just how much I like the songs. I claim nothing more than that.

I’m ranking only the main title themes from both the EON and non-EON films (with my comments repeated from the title sequence ranking). Honorable mentions to The Look of Love from Casino Royale (1967) which isn’t a theme song but is really good, James Bond is Back from From Russia With Love which is more of a snippet than a song, and 007 Theme originally from From Russia With Love and then in many Bond films but it’s never an individual film’s main theme; if it were I’d rank it quite high.

If you want to hear the songs, bounce back to my title sequence ranking as I’ve embedded all the songs there, except for the newest (no title sequence yet as the film hasn’t been released due to Covid), which I’ll embed here.

Starting with my least favorite:

#27 Another Way to Die

Quantum of Solace (2008)
Performed by Jack White & Alicia Keys; Composed by Jack White
This song exists only to make Die Another Day sound less terrible. Black and Keyes’s voices tear at each other, making fingernails on a blackboard pleasant by comparison. They just yell at each other. Black was never going to fit but Keyes could have pulled off a Bond theme, but she doesn’t sing here; she yelps. The song is one half alternative and one have commercial rock, and all overproduced. It is unpleasant to listen to. The worst song in Bond history, which is saying something.

#26 Writing’s on the Wall

Spectre (2015)
Performed by Sam Smith; Composed by Sam Smith & Jimmy Napes
I hate this song so much. No one will remember it in a year. It’s slow and depressing, which is the opposite of “Yay action film!” An unpleasant falsetto (because nothing says Bond like falsetto) plunges into a slow, string-filled disaster. Is it sexy? No. Dangerous? No. Exciting or action-oriented? No. Moody, whiny, and barely moving? Yes. This song says: The next two hours will be not just slow, but depressing. Enjoy.

#25 Never Say Never Again

Never Say Never Again (1983)
Performed by Lani Hall; Composed by Michel Legrand
Horrible TV ‘80s pop. If anything condemned this film, it was the music, which was bad throughout, but the theme was a special level of bad.

#24 Die Another Day

Die Another Day (2002)
Performed by Madonna; Composed by Madonna & Mirwais AhmadzaĂŻ
I looked it up in the Universal Dictionary of Songs and yes, this is technically a song. Autotuning replaces singing. Who thinks Bond and techno goes together? This is a poor dance song I probably wouldn’t object to (more than others) if I was at a rave, but would never listen to and would put real effort into turning off if I heard it anywhere else. On the positive side, it is not low-power and dull, which is the biggest sin for an action movie theme. Perhaps without the robo-voice it might climb a few notches.

#23 All Time High

Octopussy (1983)
Performed by Rita Coolidge; Composed by John Barry & Tim Rice & Stephen Short
Since adult contemporary ballads never fit Bond, and are rarely good, why did they keep using them? This song sucks the life out of the film, your speakers, and anything it is near. It will fit nicely as the second to the last dance song at your uncle’s third wedding reception or for a made-for-TV, ’80s, romantic dramady.

#22 A View to a Kill

A View to a Kill (1985)
Performed by Duran Duran; Composed by John Barry & Duran Duran
Bad boppsy ‘80s pop, I suppose this explains why they’d stuck with terrible adult contemporary songs for so long. When they tried to get with it it got ugly. This is the worst excesses of cheese. Duran Duran has no connection with Bond. At least it has energy, but the energy of a twelve-year-old girl’s sleepover. I will grant that “a view to a kill” is not a phrase that slides nicely into a song lyric.

#21 Moonraker

Moonraker (1979)
Performed by Shirley Bassey; Composed by John Barry & Hal David
Another adult contemporary, which in this case means Muzak. The wonderful Bassey can’t save it. Still, it would have been worse with anyone else singing it, and she gives it the slightest tinge of Bond.

#20 Licence to Kill

Licence to Kill (1989)
Performed by Gladys Knight; Composed by Narada Michael Walden & Jeffrey Cohen & Walter Afanasieff
It’s old school Bond, just less memorable. It starts out bold, and sounds like Bond, and for a moment it seems like this will be a great one. But then it fades, sounding less jazz house, and more glitz and strings. In this instance, less clarity would help. “I Got a licence to kill, And you know I’m going straight for your heart” is not a line I want to remember, but it is drilled in to me.

#19 You Know My Name

Casino Royale (2006)
Performed by Chris Cornell; Composed by David Arnold & Chris Cornell
Please don’t make me listen to this thing again. It isn’t a song written by an artist, but one constructed by a machine. Insert generic ‘00s rock backing. It is overproduce to death. No one hums this song to themselves. That said, it again gets points for not be a soft ballad. It doesn’t drag down the movie, so, that’s something. Another singer may have been able to breath some life into it. Cornell badly dates the song and the film. 2006 isn’t all that long ago, but it sure sounds it.

#18 From Russia With Love

From Russia with Love (1963)
Performed by John Barry (title sequence)/Matt Monro (vocal version); Composed by Lionel Bart
Elevator music. This is perfect for your grandmother’s (or more likely, great grandmother’s) weekly canasta party. It is likely to fade from your mind as soon as it is done playing, which puts it above others. At least they used the drab instrumental version instead of the sickening vocal one by Matt Monro that infects the picture later. Still, there’s some painful organ work on this one. I am grading it based on its theme, not on the James Bond theme that brackets it and makes it come off much better. If I was counting Monro’s version, this would drop to 24th.

#17 The Man With the Golden Gun

The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)
Performed by Lulu; Composed by John Barry & Don Black
After the new of Live and Let Die, we go old school again. The Las Vegas vibe is updated a bit with some pointlessly grinding guitars. Lulu does her best Bassey imitation, and squeaks by. While the song is really, really Bond, the problem is that it isn’t very good. It is obviously modeled after earlier songs and it can’t keep up. It’s pretty much Thunderball 2.0.

#16 No Time to Die

No Time to Die (2020)
Performed by Billie Eilish; Composed by Billie Eilish & Finneas O’Connell
This one has grown on me, but my god people, cut it out. I know the Craig-era Bond films have been downers, but come on, these are still action pictures. This is yet another depressing song in a line of depressing songs and wow is it slow and bleak. It actually picks up some power (bleak power) at the 3-min mark, and that shows the problem with the song: it’s frustrating. It ends before it should. It starts with a power level of 1 and then builds to 5 at that 3-min mark, and it should then go on to maybe a 9, but it just pulls out instead. The song works surprisingly well as background music during the film.

#15 The World is Not Enough

The World Is Not Enough (1999)
Performed by Garbage; Composed by David Arnold & Don Black
I’ve forgotten it by the end of the sequence. Which means it isn’t so bad as to mess up anything, but not good enough to actually acknowledge it as music. The fact that being a blank puts it above a third of the themes is damning for Bond themes in general.

#14 You Only Live Twice

You Only Live Twice (1967)
Performed by Nancy Sinatra; Composed by John Barry & Leslie Bricusse
What happened? After brass and sass overload of Goldfinger and Thunderball the Bondness is sapped away with this slow, soft song. It isn’t terrible, just middling and silly.

#13 Tomorrow Never Dies

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
Performed by Sheryl Crow; Composed by Sheryl Crow & Mitchell Froom
Surprisingly good, considering Crow is a singer songwriter, not a nightclub performer. But her song works, even if only in the films titles. It could use 50% less screeching. It needed a non-indie rock singer with more range. Speaking of which, over the final credits runs the rejected theme, K. D. Lang’s Surrender. It is a better song, but it harkens too far back; it would have been a great song for Connery.

#12 Thunderball

Thunderball (1965)
Performed by Tom Jones; Composed by John Barry & Don Black
It’s a really dumb take on the previous song, Goldfinger. They saw how well that worked, and tried to do something like it, and as is often the case, couldn’t. It’s a bit too fluffy between its deeply stupid lyrics: He strikes like thunderball Really? And what kind of a strike is that? And yes, I know it is a military term for an atomic explosion. That doesn’t help. But it feels so very Bond and no one can fault Jones for giving it his all. The song is like the movie itself—dumb and showy without being exciting. I’d move it up a slot if it wasn’t so damn memorable. I really don’t want it to be.

#11 The Living Daylights

The Living Daylights (1987)
Performed by A-ha; Composed by John Barry & PĂĽl Waaktaar
Following the Duran Duran money-maker, the producers wanted to go with another trendy pop band, so they called in A-ha, masters of one hit (not like Duran Duran will be remembered for more than one) Well, it is better than Duran Duran’s attempt. Faint praise indeed. It’s ‘80s europop, which is not a music genre in any way related to Bond. If I have to have a Bond song in the wrong genre, I’m glad it is bouncy, and this is bouncy.

#10 Skyfall

Skyfall (2012)
Performed by Adele; Composed by Adele & Paul Epworth
The best of the Craig era, where the competition has been light. It tends to be overrated because it so outshines the Bond songs around it, and because Adele is a significantly better singer than the franchise had drafted for many years. But the melody just isn’t that strong and the lyrics should not be examined. But ignoring its too-great praise, it is a good song. It sounds like Bond, connecting back to the Rat Pack era Connery Bond themes, but updated. Perhaps it is more melancholy than a theme for an action film should be, but then it’s a melancholy movie.

#9 Goldeneye

GoldenEye (1995)
Performed by Tina Turner; Composed by Bono & The Edge
This is a weird one. On its own, I never want to hear it. I’d never pull out the album and have a listen. But as a theme, in those amazing titles (perhaps the best sequence of any film ever made), it works so perfectly. The lyrics cover everything about Bond’s world while not making a coherent whole: Sexy, smoky, dangerous, and nonsensical. This is Bond the way Goldfinger was, except that’s a song I can enjoy listening to on its own. Only Bassey managed to slip in more emotion than Turner does here.

#8 For Your Eyes Only

For Your Eyes Only (1981)
Performed by Sheena Easton; Composed by Bill Conti & Mick Leeson
Middling adult contemporary pop, it is at least a step up from Moonraker. It still isn’t a song for an action film. It gets points for it being exclusively about a girl stripping.

#7 On Her Majesty’s Secret Service

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969)
Performed by The John Barry Orchestra; Composed by John Barry & Hal David
It’s as if they forgot to write a theme and just laid some random background music over the titles. This is background music for a scene in the film, not an opening. It’s pretty good background music, and does work behind action and fast cars during the film, but as a theme it is a huge nothing. Empty air.

#6 Nobody Does It Better

The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)
Performed by Carly Simon; Composed by Marvin Hamlisch & Carole Bayer Sager
The first song titled other than the film. It is also the best in the long line of adult contemporary songs that were to follow.

#5 Live and Let Die

Live and Let Die (1973)
Performed by Paul McCartney & Wings; Composed by Paul & Linda McCartney
Excellent. One of the few post-Connery songs worth listening to on its own. The producers wanted someone else to sing, but McCartney said him or no song.

#4 Diamonds Are Forever

Diamonds Are Forever (1971)
Performed by Shirley Bassey; Composed by John Barry & Don Black
At some point they had to think, just have Shirley Bassey do all the songs. It’s a good thought. Again, she hits it perfectly. This is a deeply Bondian song. Loud and brassy, it is about betrayal and disillusionment, as well as hand jobs, because it is important to caress, touch, stroke, and undress your diamond. Co-producer Harry Saltzman thought the song too obscene.

#3 Goldfinger

Goldfinger (1964)
Composed by Leslie Bricusse & Anthony Newley & John Barry; Performed by Shirley Bassey
Wonderful. It screams out, dark, dangerous jazz club. It says sex and death and excitement and doom and explosions and cruelty and it is all good. No doubt the power comes from Bassey, who takes it to mythic levels. But even without her, it is a memorable tune. It is hummable.

#2 James Bond Theme

Dr. No (1962)
Performed by John Barry & Orchestra; Monty Norman; Composed by Monty Norman
James Bond Theme + a bit of calypso: Fantastic. Gets right to the heart of Bond, and is ‘60s action cool. It’s fun to hear and it gets your blood pumping. This is the iconic theme for an iconic character and you can’t get it out of your head. It’s all good.

#1 Casino Royal

Casino Royale (1967)
Performed by Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass; Composed by Burt Bacharach
This is the heart of ‘60s cool. It’s jazz with trumpets and it says Bond. It’s also energetic. Yeah, it’s of a time, but so is Bond and I love it. It’s repeated during the end credits with lyrics sung for humor, which may or may not work for you, depending on your mood. Of note, the film also supplied The Look of Love which also is a winner, mainly due to Dusty Springfield’s dirty sex now vocals. Actually, the entire score is excellent. Something had to be.

Jul 232020
  July 23, 2020

Once again, a musical list that no one asked for, but it was on my mind, so here it is.

Gabriel has been one of my favorite artists from before I had any idea on who he was. He was the mind behind the progressive band Genesis, and when he left it, so did most of the value. His solo career has been a strange combination of British prog-rock, New York art rock, world music, retro, political activism, and spiritualism.

I’ve seen him twice in concert, and the first was the finest show I’ve ever seen, with nothing close. That concert was recorded and is one of the sources for his live album, Plays Live (1983).

He’s always been an album artist. As such, choosing best songs of his is very odd. I don’t listen to individual songs, but to entire albums. And the quality of individual songs rarely equate to the quality of the albums they are on. Ranking his “normal” studio albums from best to least, I’d place them Security, Melt {Peter Gabriel 3}, Car {Peter Gabriel 1}, So, Scratches {Peter Gabriel 2}, Us, Up. But Security does very poorly on my list below, while So does markedly better than the others.

A few honorable mentions: Slowburn (Car), On the Air (Scratches), Family Snapshot (Melt), And Through the Wire (Melt), Games Without Frontiers (Melt), San Jacinto (Security), I Have the Touch (Security), Lay Your Hands on Me (Security), Wallflower (Security), Don’t Give Up (So), Blood of Eden (So).

 #10 That Voice Again (So)


 

#9 Come Talk to Me (Us)


 

#8 Secret World (Us)


 

#7 Modern Love (Car)


 

#6 The Rhythm of the Heat (Security)


 

#5 Here Comes the Flood (Car)


 

#4 Red Rain (So)


 

#3 Biko (Melt)


 

#2 Solsbury Hill (Car)


 

#1 In Your Eyes (So)

 

 

Jun 252020
  June 25, 2020

TieflingBardHere you’ll find an overview of the Bard Class, suggestions for DMs, and guidance in building a bard, and it won’t cost you your soul. Really.

Trust me.

Later parts will include feat selection, spell selection, dipping, and a ranking and review of the subclasses.

This is The Devil’s Typist, bringing you The Prince of Darkness’s thoughts on D&D 5e bards. The Devil loves bards. Not surprising as he is one. Sex, Drugs, and rock-n-roll. Charismatic speeches and enchanting smiles. Manipulating minds and entertaining the masses. That’s The Devil and that’s the bard.

No class has as much style as the bard. The bard can take down an empire and stand upon the corpses of its enemies, and look good doing it. The bard receives the cheers of the massed throngs and deserves it. You want to be a dirty, grubby little killer? Look elsewhere. Bards will blind you with the reflection from their teeth.

The bard in 5e is generally taken as one of the more effective classes, along with the cleric, fighter, paladin, and wizard, and The Devil places The Bard on top as the very best. More than pure power, the bard is the best based on fabulousness!

But beyond the legendary groove, bard’s are his favorite because, while the class isn’t good at everything, it’s good at more things than any other, and for most of those, the bard is one of the best. That’s a big deal in 5e. A fun, effective, active character doesn’t need to be good at everything but does need to fit its jobs well (and more jobs are better than less). 5e is the second most strategic version of the game (after 4e) and that strategic angle pushes players not only to make interesting characters but ones who are successful at what they do. If you are less effective, you’ll find there is less for you to do, and that’s less fun. Additionally, because the bard is designed to help other characters do cool things, an effective bard makes it more fun for everyone. Any bard build should be good at the jobs that character was made to do, and the ones the party needs.

So what are those jobs? The bard is:

  • A buffer, and the very best (ahead of the cleric).
  • A charismatic, social “face” of the party and the best (ahead of the rogue).
  • A controller, and one of the two best (behind the wizard).
  • A healer, and the third best (behind the cleric and druid), though for most builds the bard is a secondary healer.
  • A utility caster — though he’s not strong here, he’s still the 3rd best, after Wizards and Tomelocks.

And while usually not, if the bard choses he can take on the roles of

  • scholar, and can be the best, (ahead of the artificer), though it will cost’m in other jobs.
  • backup burglar for when the rogue or artificer fails.

That’s most of what a party needs. No other class comes close to that kind of versatility. Most are lucky to be good at two things. The only areas missing are tanking/defending and striking/damaging, and for those it is lacking, which isn’t a problem. That’s why a bard adventures in a party. Pick up a barbarian, paladin, or fighter and those are covered.

Because of the flexibility of the bard, you can be anything and do anything, but due to learned spells, attribute requirements, and the default lower defenses, building a bard for one of the off jobs will cost you. You can make a martial warrior, but you’ll never be as good as a barbarian or fighter can be, and to do so, you’d have to give up being a top-flight controller and even a passable healer.

In The Devil’s words: You want to smash your enemies, crushing them in melee? Be a barbarian. You want to shoot them down? Be a ranger. You want to be an agile fencing-master? Be a rogue. If you want to be less than you can be, go ahead, but you don’t need my help.

Always keep in mind, the bard is a spellcaster, and that’s where you’ll find its power.

 


Ability Scores & Race

If you’re going to make a bard, you start with ability scores and race, and deciding what to choose is simple. Charisma is everything, so make choices that elevate it. You can live with the others in any particular order as long as charisma is high, though as they do make some difference, the Devil will put them in order of importance.

CHA: Bards are charisma-based casters and many of their features and skills are also based on that attribute. And your style comes from here. A bard can survive and prosper with low numbers in all five other stats if charisma is high. Get it to 20 as quickly as possible.

DEX: Dexterity is probably your second, but don’t worry too much if it isn’t. It determines your Initiative (probably where it is most important as you need to buff and set up controls before your enemy moves), your AC, your DEX saves (one of the most common), and some skills. If you ever use a weapon, it will use DEX, but that should be rare.

WIS: I’ll list this next, but swapping with CON is reasonable if you want more hit points, or swapping it with DEX as will be explained later in “Capstone and Dip.” You need it for Perception and for WIS saves—as the controller you can’t afford to fall into the enemy controller’s traps.

CON: Purely for defense, it gives you hit points and the frequent CON saves. It doesn’t need to be high, but don’t dump your hit points away.

INT: Beats out STR mainly due to failing INT saves being devastating while failing STR saves are unfortunate.

STR: You don’t need it, and if you don’t have it, it will keep you from making poor decisions later. Athletics gives you nothing you can’t do better with acrobatics.

As for your race, The Devil likes Teiflings.

A lot.

He sees little reason to play anything else. Well, they do make fine bards, but I pushed for him to evaluate a few others, and after a third drink, he agreed, as long as it’s understood that Teiflings Rule!

Any race can be a bard and you can have fun with any of them. But that’s not useful information, so The Devil will steer you toward the ones that stand out. Again, it’s simple: if a race gives you extra CHA, it’s better. Any other stat is of less importance or no importance. Then you also want something that will fit in with being a bard—a free cantrip or spell or a special ability, though spells that uses a dump or near-dump stat are less useful

Weak choices:
Aarakocra, Bugbear, Centaur, Dwarf (all), Elf (High, Wood, Sea, Shadar-kai), Firbolg, Gnome (all), Genasi (all), Gith, Goblin, Goliath, Halfling (Ghostwise, Lotusden, Stout), Half-Orc, Hobgoblin, Kenku, Kobold, Leonin, Loxodon, Lizard Folk, Minotaur, Orc, Shifter (all), Simic Hybrid, Tortle, Vedalken, Warforged.

Uninspiring:
Dragonborn: +1 CHA, breath weapon and a minor resistance.
Halfling-Lightfoot: +1 CHA, +2 DEX, Luck & Bravery.
Human: +1 all.
Kalashtar: +1 CHA, +2 WIS, mental defenses.
Tabaxi: +1 CHA, +2 DEX, Darkvision and mobility.
Triton: +1 CHA, spells, Darkvision. The clear choice for a water-based campaign.

Inspiring:
Aasimar: +2 CHA, Darkvision, minor resistance, healing, extra damage options.
Changeling: +2 CHA, +1 any. Shape-shifting, skills.
Elf-Drow: +1 CHA, +2 DEX, spells, Darkvision, charm defense.
Elf-Eladrin (MToF version):  +1 CHA, +2 DEX, teleport, Darkvision, charm defense.
Half-Elf: +2 CHA, +1 two others, Darkvision, charmed defense, skills.
Tiefling: +2 CHA, Darkvision, minor resistance, spells.
Variant Human: +1 CHA, feat.
Verdan: +2 CHA, Limited Telepathy, healing, advantage on CHA & WIS saves.

Spectacular:
Satyr: +2 CHA, +1 DEX. Magic Resistance. Bard-like skills, and a physical attack and movement. The attack and movement aren’t interesting, but the rest is perfect for a bard and magic resistance is one of the top characteristics you can get. They have to be related to devils.
Tiefling-Dispater: Adds +1 DEX and the spells are swapped for the more useful Thaumaturgy, Disguise Self, Detect Thoughts.
Tiefling-Fierna: The spells become Friends, Charm Person, Suggestion.
Tiefling-Glasya: Adds +1 DEX and the spells become Minor illusion, Disguise Self, Invisibility.
Yuan-Ti Pureblood: +2 CHA, Magic Resistance, poison immunity, spells, darkvison. If you’re building for effectiveness it’s hard to argue against taking a Yuan-Ti for every class. For a bard it’s fantastic. Magic Resistance will save you over and over, and the spells include Suggestion—one of your best spells for free.

 

Optional Rule (TCoE): Custom Origin & Custom Lineage

If you are using the optional Customizing Your Origin rules from Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, then there are no weak choices. Yes, even a goliath will make a good bard. With those rules, you are allowed to move the racial attribute bonus to whatever you wish, so for any race, move the +2 to CHA and any other pluses go to DEX, WIS, or CON. You can also swap skills if a race gives any skills, to get the ones you need. And you can change weapon proficiencies into tool proficiencies, so elves are suddenly going to be good with a lot of instruments. So, do any races still stand out? Yes, though less so. Spells, darkvision, resistances, and other defenses are the things to look for. Satyrs, Tieflings, and Yuan-Ti Purebloods are still in the top tier. But now joining them are:

Mountain Dwarf: Darkvision, Resistance to poison, tools, an additional point of ability increase, and proficiency in medium armor (decreasing the need for a multi-class dip or taking College of Valor).
Forest Gnome: Darkvision, Advantage on INT, WIS, CHA saves against magic. Cantrip
Githyanki: A skill, some weapons you can trade for tools, useful spells, and medium armor.

Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, also introduced Custom Lineage, where you can ignore the old races altogether and make your own (or say you are a gnome, but you just happen to be a tall, powerful one). While the Custom Linage will not give you as optimized a bard as you can get with The Devil’s spectacular choices, you can get close enough. You will be able to choose if your bard is small or medium (both are good–medium is better if you plan to use Dimension Door a lot, while small gives you some additional steed choices). Take whatever languages fit the campaign. For the choices that matter:

  • Take the +2 to CHA
  • Choose darkvision over a skill
  • Take a feat from those recommended below. If you are using the standard array, then choose a half feat with a +1 in CHA (Fey Touched is the best option), allowing an 18 CHA at level 1.

 

 


Feats

Before taking any feats, get that charisma up to 20 (unless it’s 19 or 17, then you could take a ½ feat that gives you a +1 CHA). Then look to feats as your other stats are probably fine as they are. But there’s no harm in a higher WIS or DEX or CON.

Figuring what feats you should take for a bard is relatively easy. If a feat is about hitting things, don’t take it. If it is about keeping you alive and making you the best spell caster, it’s worth a look. You’ll only be able to take a few feats so The Devil’s rankings are rather severe. The blue ones are the only ones to consider under normal circumstances. Take one of the green ones only if there is something specific about your campaign or play style that calls for it, and then think about it twice. Ignore the red. Feats from Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything are marked with [TCoE]. In order from best to worst:

  • Resilient: +1 WIS or CON and Save proficiency. Yes. This does more for your defense than any other feat. Build your character to fit this. WIS is the default choice, but take CON if you get hit often (to help your concentration saves).
  • Fey Touched: +1 CHA (or WIS or INT) and Misty Step + another spell. Take this if you have an odd CHA. Good enough to take with WIS (later) if your CHA is 20. [TCoE]
  • Lucky: Both useful and fitting, though strangely it does less for you than most other classes since you’ll make few attack rolls, have few made against you, and don’t need help with most ability checks. But 3 rerolls a day for failed saves is well worth it. Also usable on Initiative.
  • Ritual Caster: If you are the wizard substitute in your party, this could be very useful (take Wizard). Frees up a lot of your known spell slots, makes you more versatile, and gives you a familiar.
  • War Caster: Resilient is better, but if you went WIS with that, this can solve problems.
  • Shadow Touched: +1 CHA (or WIS or INT) and Invisibility + another spell. Fills the same role as Fey Touched, but weaker as most likely, both spells were already available to you.  [TCoE]
  • Inspiring Leader: Can give out a lot of temp hit points. Since those don’t stack, this is lower for glamour bards.
  • Alert: You need to buff your allies, debuff your enemies, and control the field before anyone else moves.
  • Magic Initiate: Normally not, but it has possibilities. If you really want an attack cantrip, go Warlock for Eldritch Blast and don’t waste a Magical Secret. Or if you are frustrated with too few spells known, take this as Bard (a bard spell taken with this feat counts as a known spell so then you can also cast it normally).
  • Telepathic: Another half feat for the mental abilities. Being able to communicate telepathically and gaining Detect Thoughts are both good, but it is hard to think of a situation where it wouldn’t have been better to take Fey Touched or Shadow Touched for the half feat. [TCoE]
  • Eldritch Adept: You get 1 warlock eldritch invocation, but only ones with no prerequisite. That’s not many. Casting Silent Image or Disguise Self as cantrips or seeing through magical darkness might fill a need. [TCoE]
  • Actor: +1 CHA and impersonation. Flavorful. Only if you have an odd CHA and have some reason not to choose one of the other half feats above.
  • Skill Expert: +1 to any ability plus a skill and expertise. Maybe if you have an odd DEX score…  [TCoE]
  • Moderately Armored: Better to take a level of cleric, but if you also have an uneven DEX, this can help. The real problem is this comes too late, though could work with a variant human. Not for valor bards.
  • Metamagic Adept: 2 sorcery points aren’t enough after level 3 or 4. [TCoE]
  • Tough: Some hit points are nice, but a +2 to CON would be more beneficial.
  • Observant: +1 WIS and boost to passive perception.
  • Chef: +1 WIS or CON and some mild buffs. You have other ways of giving out temp HP and there are better half feats.  [TCoE]
  • Telekinetic: Yet another half feat for CHA, WIS, & INT, plus a souped-up Mage Hand. It’s not bad, but the other half feats are better.  [TCoE]
  • Skilled: You already know the skills you care about and as you have ‘Jack of All Trades’ this is half-training.
  • Mounted Combatant: If Magical Secrets gave you Find Greater Steed, this will be mildly useful.
  • Medium Armor Master: If you took the dip (explained later) and have a 16 DEX, then this is… OKish.
  • Mobile: More movement won’t hurt you, or help you that much.
  • Skulker: Why play rogue when you are a bard?
  • Linguist: You have spells for this and they’re better.
  • Heavily Armored: A cleric domain dip gets you this with bells on.
  • Healer: You have spells for this and better things to do with your actions.
  • Artificer Initiate  Requires INT. If you want spells you can get them better with Magic Initiate. [TCoE]
  • Spell Sniper: A worse way to get an attack cantrip than Magic Initiate.
  • Dungeon Delver: So-so buffs for WIS and INT. Leave it to other party members.
  • Sharpshooter: Not so much bad as a waste.
  • Elemental Adept: This is for blasters. You are not a blaster.
  • Heavy Armor Master: Not horrible at 1st level. By 4th level it’s getting horrible.
  • Durable: This is not the ½ feat for CON you are looking for.
  • Shield Master: Just hold your shield in front of you like a normal adult.
  • Athlete: Don’t get knocked down and fly if you want to go up. Done.
  • Tavern Brawler: You perform at bars, not brawl in them.
  • Poisoner: You have better things to do with your bonus action and have better ways to debuff enemies. [TCoE]
  • Mage Slayer: You’re the mage.
  • Keen Mind: A terrible feat for everyone.
  • Weapon Master: You don’t need weapons, and this is no way to get them anyway.
  • Lightly Armored: You have light armor.
  • Defensive Duelist: No.
  • Crossbow Expert: If you insist on using a crossbow… This still isn’t any good.
  • Fighting Initiate: Gives you a fighting style, which you don’t need. Confused swords bards already get one. No other bard should care. [TCoE]
  • Martial Adept: You don’t do this, and even if you did, one die is not enough.
  • Gunner: If you shouldn’t be using a crossbow, then you shouldn’t be using a gun. [TCoE]
  • Dual Wielder: This will look pretty funny with a lute in your hand.
  • Slasher: You don’t slash. [TCoE]
  • Piercer: Or Pierce. [TCoE]
  • Great Weapon Master: Find something else great to master.
  • Polearm Master: What the hell are you doing with a polearm?
  • Sentinel: Or just be a barbarian and be done with it.
  • Grappler: Why would you do this? You are not the riff-raff.
  • Savage Attacker: This isn’t’ good for anyone, and this isn’t how you’re savage.
  • Charger: What? No…
  • Crusher: I don’t know where to begin on why this is wrong for you. [TCoE]

Racial Feats (grouped by race):

  • Dragon Fear (Dragonborn): +1 CHA and fear effect. Not bad. Only if your CHA is 19.
  • Dragon Hide (Dragonborn): +1 CHA and natural armor. A lesser choice.
  • Dwarven Fortitude (Dwarf): You shouldn’t need this.
  • Fey Teleportation (Elf-High): +1 CHA and Misty Step. Replaces Fey Touched if your get lots of short rests.
  • Drow High Magic (Elf-Drow): Detect magic as a cantrip, Levitate & Dispel Magic. Very helpful.
  • Wood Elf Magic (Elf-Wood): Cantrip, Longstrider, Pass Without Trace. Doesn’t solve any problem.
  • Elven Accuracy (Elf/Half-Elf): +1 CHA and super advantage. You don’t make attack rolls.
  • Bountiful Luck (Halfling): Absolutely. Saving your allies from “1”s is fantastic.
  • Second Chance (Halfling): +1 CHA (or DEX or CON) and Reroll an enemy attack.
  • Orcish Fury (Half-Orc): Bards control their fury.
  • Prodigy (Human/ Half-Orc/Half-Elf): Skills and expertise. Beats Skilled but less than Skill Expert.
  • Fade Away (Gnome): A little defense. OK.
  • Flames of Phlegethos (Tiefling): +1 CHA and fire play. There are better half feats.
  • Infernal Constitution (Tiefling): +1 CON and some resistances. There are better feats for CON
  • Squat Nimbleness (small races): Decent movement stuff but nothing that helpful.

 

 


Class Features

The Devil’s going to look at the basic class features before going to the subclasses (colleges). The first big takeaway is that the base class is one of the best, and therefore, the subclasses matter much less than for most other classes. That means even if you choose a terrible college (and there is a terrible college), you can still end up with a solid character—not something that happens with druids, rangers, and rogues.

The Basics

Hit Dice: D8 is standard for behind-the-line classes; only a wizard gets less. It supplies too few hits to get near melee (fighters get D10, barbarian D12), but good enough for anyone standing 15 feet behind the party tank.

Armor: Light. Less than you’d like but you can work with it as long as you are staying far away from your enemies.

Weapons: Simple weapons, hand crossbows, longswords, rapiers, shortswords. Those are fine since you won’t use them often. Rapiers look nice on the hip, so probably pick one up. When you do use a weapon, it’ll be a ranged one, and one that only takes up one hand (as a caster/musician you’ve got things to do with your hands), so a hand crossbow is your best bet.

Tools: 3 musical instruments. You can have such fun here. Work with your DM to bring in any instrument that you love. The Devil suggests against pianos. One of them should be playable with one hand, such as a hand drum or panpipe. As your instruments are magical focuses, you’ll want them even if you choose a less musical college. If you end up mainly making recitations, there’s nothing wrong with a drumbeat to keep you steady.

Saving Throws: DEX, CHR. Dexterity saves are very common though the result of failing isn’t as extreme as with WIS. Charisma is the best of the three rarer saves. Still, if you can get either WIS or CON trained later, jump at it.

 

Skills and Backgrounds

You will be a master of skills. The class gives you any three, and you’ll gain two to four more from your background and race. At level 2 you gain Jack of All Trades, which gives you half proficiency with all your non-proficient skills. Congratulations, you now know a little bit of everything. Additionally, at both 3rd level and 10th level you gain Expertise (double proficiency) with two skills. Congratulations, you now know a whole lot about multiple things. So what skills do you need? The Devil will rank them, best to least:

Persuasion (CHR) – Your key skill. Make everyone do what you wish.
Performance (CHR) – Chances are it’s your day job.
Deception (CHR) – When you’re not using pretty words you’re using lying one.
Perception (WIS) – Often considered the most important skill in the game. It isn’t in my game (that’s Arcana), and it won’t be for a bard (that’s Persuasion), but it is often used and valuable. And with expertise, you’ll be good at it. However, that value goes down the more characters that have it, so if there’s a Wisdom-based character in the party, drop this 3 or 4 places.
Stealth (DEX) – You draw all attention to yourself, but sometimes it’s good to hide.
Acrobatics (DEX) – Your physical skill.
Insight (WIS) – Very useful before you use persuasion/deception.
Intimidation (CHR) – Overlaps with Persuasion. One of these gets expertise.
Arcana (INT) – Someone needs it, but you’re not that bright.
Investigation (INT) – Would be nice if you were sharper.
Sleight of Hand (DEX) – Juggling, picking pockets. Take it if you’ve got a specific plan for it. Otherwise, no.
Animal Handling (WIS) – Jack of all Trades will do.
Survival (WIS) – Someone else can keep you alive in the woods.
History (INT) – Books are hard. You INT is too low. Look here only if you’re making an unusual build
Religion (INT) – Holy books are hard.
Nature (INT) – Biology books are hard. Leave it to rangers and druids.
Athletics (STR) – You Don’t need it and wouldn’t be any good with it.
Medicine (WIS) – You’ll have spells.

The top 4 are all good choices for Expertise. Stealth and Acrobatics are also good candidates, depending on your campaign.

You should choose a background that feels fun and fills out your character’s personality. Generally, Entertainer or Charlatan are thematic for a bard. Keep in mind that your background supplies you with several skills, and your race does as well, so it would be handy if your background filled in a missing desired skill.

Optional Feature (TCoE): Bardic Versatility  

A bard can change expertise from one skill to another at levels when the bard gets ability score improvements. This is an underwhelming feature from Tasha’s. There’s no harm to allowing it in the game. It’s only real use will be for new players who made mistakes early on, but that’s a pretty good reason to use this feature.

 

Spellcasting

This is what makes a bard so good. Unlike in previous editions, bards are full casters, gaining 9th level spells. Most everything that can be done can be done better with a spell. And Bards have the best Spell List in the game. Firstly, the list is a nice combination of the wizard’s list and the cleric’s list, with a few original spells to set bards apart. The wizard list is notoriously lacking in healing and is weak in buffs. The bard list takes the wizard control spells and fills in the missing healing and buffs from the cleric. And then it gets better. One of the key features of the bard class is Magical Secrets. At levels 10, 14, and 18, the bard may choose two spells from any list to add to its own. If one of the best spells in the game is not already on the bard list, it can be taken from the wizard list or cleric or druid or warlock or even the ranger and paladin list. This makes the bard list the undisputed best.

Though not everything is as good as it should be. The bard, like the sorcerer, is a “Spontaneous Spellcaster” (or known spellcaster)  instead of a prepared caster like the wizard, cleric, and druid. But unlike the sorcerer, this doesn’t fit with either the structural design of the class (i.e. what it is meant to do) nor with the flavor of the class—that is, bards develop their magic like a song, they do not know it instinctively. This means that although the bard is meant to be versatile and has many useful spells available, it doesn’t have space on its known list to fit them. It can’t take the situational spells but must focus on the spells that it needs.

The bard also has Ritual Casting, allowing it to cast a few marked spells by spending an additional ten minutes, and thus, not using a spell slot. But the bard casts rituals like the cleric, not the wizard, meaning it can only cast a spell as a ritual if it’s a known spell. So again, it does not gain versatility here, although The Devil is not troubled by that.

The strange end result of this is that the game is made so that every adventuring party must have a wizard to fulfill all roles, which is not true for any other class. If you lack a barbarian as a tank, a paladin, or fighter, or moon-druid can step in. But no one can replace the wizard as a utility caster—the bard is the one who could have, but it can’t take enough spells to do so.

Since The Devil sees this as a problem both for the design of the class, the design of the game, and the design of the lore behind it, he naturally wishes to solve this problem. But he doesn’t need to, as WotC saw the problem and fixed it themselves by introducing Spell Versatility for the bard class. This allows the bard to swap out a single known spell for another on the bard list after a long rest. This doesn’t allow the complete rejiggering that the prepared classes can do, but is just enough to pull in those seldom used spells. It’s a rather elegant solution. However, it’s published in Unearthed Arcana, making it optional play material, so your DM has to choose to use it. Of course, all DMs should, but DMs can be funny sorts, and not all have. If you, as a DM, were unaware of Spell Versatility until now, The Devil is pleased to have been of service. Note, Spell Versatility from Unearthed Arcana is not the same as Bardic Versatility from Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything (which allows for changing expertise and a cantrip at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th levels). Adding Bardic Versatility into your game is fine, but trivial. Spell Versatility for Bards is needed.

 

Bardic Inspiration

This is the other key feature of the bard class: Using your overwhelming awesomeness, you inspire your allies to do better. You can give them an inspiration die that they can roll and add to an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw in the next 10 minutes. The die starts as a D6, goes to D8 at 5th level, D10 at 10th, and D12 at 15th. This is a nice boost for them and you can do it as often as your charisma modifier allows, which should be 5 as that charisma is going to be 20 as soon as it possibly can. These dice will also fuel some features in your bardic college.

At first level, you may need to be a little stingy, but at 5th level, the bard gains Font of Inspiration which allows the dice to renew on a short rest, so hand them out like candy. Don’t hold on to them or you’ll waste them.

The one problem with Inspiration is players tend to forget about them. So if you’re around a physical table, hand out actual dice.

Optional Feature (TCoE): Magical Inspiration

Your allies can add your inspiration to either the damage of a spell or the hit points cured by a spell. This is fine. Your inspirations can be used in better ways (as an addition to a saving throw should be the first choice), so adding this to the class doesn’t change things very much. It seems more like a filler than anything needed. Every class got something in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything. Some, like the ranger, really needed the new features, but the bard class was strong enough, so they just tossed it this. DMs should allow it (why not? There’s no harm in it) and bards should encourage those with their inspiration dice only to use them in this way in an emergency or when they clearly won’t be needed for something better.

 

Song of Rest

(2nd Lvl) Your soothing performance can add a few hit points when your allies self-heal during a short rest. This is a pretty minor ability that solidifies you as a second rate healer (which is better than most classes). But every ability doesn’t need to be great and this one is thematic. The healing die rolled increases as your Inspiration die, but not at the same level, for no good reason.

 

Coutercharm

(6th Lvl) This is another not particularly great feature which is, again, thematic, so The Devil likes it. You can grant advantage on saving throws against charm and fear. Mechanically it doesn’t work well as you have to be already playing the charm, with an action, and it only lasts till the end of your next turn, so chances are it won’t be up whenever it would have been needed. Still, it isn’t a bad ability and it’s fitting, and if all your features were as good as Magical Secrets, you’d be a god.

 

The Capstone & Dip

Capstone: At 20th level a bard has reached the pinnacle of its career and is ready to receive its reward, that breathtaking feature that it will use for but one brief level in the final battle. And what is that feature? Superior Inspiration: If the bard rolls initiative and has no bardic inspiration dice left, it gains one.

<Sad tuba sound>

Well, that’s anticlimactic. This final feature pales in comparison to taking a short rest. If it gave 5 dice like a short rest would, it would still be terrible. This is abysmal. Not that the bard class is the only one to fall down here. Several others are nearly as bad (the poor Monk can’t catch a break). But then we have the Barbarian, who has a fantastic capstone, gaining 4 points in both Con and Str, with the new maximums at 24. Fighters and druids also have it good.

The Devil’s preference would be for clever DMs to repair the weak capstone with a bit of homebrew (and to be fair, look after the monk and ranger—they need the love too). The Internet has many suggestions. The Devil’s favorite is adding a lesser wish spell/feature (give it a name like Music of Creation or Song of Reality) that would allow the Bard to cast any 5th level or below spell once per short rest (or long rest if you are feeling stingy, though if you are going to weaken it, The Devil suggests giving it a 1 minute casting time since it’s a song). Another less fun, but mechanically viable suggestion is that the bard regains one Inspiration die every round if it has none. Or you (the DM) could just use the barbarian as a model, but halving it as the barbarian’s capstone is so good: +4 to CHA with a new max of 24. That would keep characters in the class all the way.

The Dip: But, assuming the DM hasn’t fixed the capstone, the incentive to stick to single-classing is low, so is multiclassing the way to go? In short, yes. However, this is a review and guide for the bard class, not for a combo class that happens to include some bard in it, so he’s only looking at a replacement for that one weak level, a 1 level dip into another class early in the bard’s career. Additionally, he wants to take as little away from the bard class as possible, so the loss should be only in spell knowledge progression and the capstone—nothing else. In order to keep the spell slot progression, the dip needs to be into a full caster class: Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, or Wizard. Additionally, it needs to supply enough to make up for progressing one level behind. (And no, you don’t take the dip at your last level—anything you gain from dipping will be much more useful at lower levels).

The obvious choice is sorcerer since it is also a charisma caster, but it’s not The Devil’s favorite. The sorcerer class features offer little until higher levels, and it is, like the bard, a known spell class, so it only offers 2 additional spells. Dragonic Bloodline does make a bard less squishy, adding hit points and boosting AC—not as much as armor proficiency could, but it would help. It’s not terrible, but it isn’t enough to justify slowing the bard level progression.

While a level of wizard would help make the bard the utility caster it should be (so it can sub in for a wizard—Spell Versatility please), the cost is a bit too high (INT is a dump stat) and taking the ritual feat is nearly as useful at low levels, and more useful at high ones.

The Devil also discounts the druid since the cleric is similar, but offers more. Which leads to that best option: A one level dip into cleric. Cleric offers Guidance (and bards want Guidance since skills are its thing) plus 2 other cantrips (filling in some that couldn’t fit before like Light or Mending), and grants access to the entire 1st level spell list, because cleric is a prepared casting class. You can swap in Healing Word, Cure Wounds, and Detect Magic when you need them, saving your known bard slots. All of which is nice, but not enough to justify the dip. The tipping point is proficiency with medium armor and shields. You’ve just substantially improved your survivability. You’ll find that this eliminates any reason for choosing the College of Valor. Plus, clerics choose their domain at 1st level, which grant more spells, features and proficiencies. Choose a domain that grants heavy armor if you don’t mind the movement penalty and you may actually survive being surrounded. If you’re the Cleric-Substitute™, you might as well actually be a cleric; a one level dip into Life Cleric includes Disciple of Life making all your healing spells more effective. If you want to become the ultimate skill-monkey, choose the Knowledge domain and gain proficiency and then expertise in two more skills. Even though The Devil is a chaotic soul, he likes the Order Domain as giving your party members an attack fits the bard’s role.

That’s the basics, and with those characteristics, the bard can be powerful and a joy to play. And that’s before the subclasses.

 


Subclasses: The Bard Colleges

There are seven official Bard subclasses: Lore, Glamour, Eloquence, Creation, Valor, Swords, and Whispers, and The Devil groups them into three categories: The effective bards (the first 4), the martial experiments (the next 2), and the all-social oddball. Another way to say that is the first three are the helpful ones, giving the bard useful options and doubling down on all their best abilities, then two that could be a trap, offering less of what you want as a controller but not enough to make you a fighter, and Whispers is a bit weird, good for a certain kind of social campaign, but poor in most other ways.

 


College of Lore

This is the college that gave bard’s their superb reputation. While the Valor College drew little love, Lore was embraced by all, as well it should be, and the Devil considers this the standard bard against which others are measured.

Bonus Proficiencies (lvl 3): 3 skills. Nothing wrong with more skills, not that the bard needs any. Your basic bard already averaged 6 skills, four of those with Expertise, and all the rest semi-skilled, so this gives you less than you’d think. But if you do want to know everything, this is the way to do it.

Cutting Words (lvl 3): You can use your inspiration against your enemy’s attack roll, ability check, or damage roll. OK, this is excellent for two reasons: firstly it gives you versatility, and secondly, as you are using your inspirations now, you won’t forget them. Debuffing a big-bad’s Initiative roll can sway a battle (remember Initiative is an ability check). Mostly it will be their attack rolls you’ll nerf.

Additional Magical Secrets (lvl 6): This is what you came for—two more spells from any list, and this time, they don’t count against your spells known, which is a big deal for a Bard. Do just 2 more Magical Secrets matter when you’re already getting 6? Yes, they do. There is a point of diminishing returns, but as you’ll see when you get to The Devil’s suggestions for Magical Secrets, there are more “must-haves” than 6. Counterspell is the big get, with two or three other options that will be good for the rest of your career.

Peerless Skill (lvl 14): You can use your own inspiration dice, but only for ability checks. This is good, but not incredible and a bit of disappointment after the last two college features. It’s rare that you’ll need this for skill checks, so its main use will be raising your initiative. You can also use it with the Counterspell you picked up at lvl 6 and the occasional times you cast Dispel Magic.

Overall, a very solid college making a very solid bard.

 


College of Glamour

No one is fiercer or more fabulous. Lore bards like to control. Glamour bards like it more. The battlefield belongs to them, as does everyone’s heart and soul. Again, do you see why The Devil loves this college?

Mantle of Inspiration (lvl 3): Give your allies some temp hit point and then let them take an extra movement action. This is the perfect way to start a battle, then to rearrange one, and to escape if things look dark. It’s versatility. It may not make much difference for multiple combats in a row, but then you’ll find yourself in a battle where it changes everything.

Enthralling Performance (lvl 3): This IS the College of Glamour, and this will define your bard. You perform for 1 minute and you charm up to 5 of the listeners for the next hour with no one ever knowing you did it. Most guides give this a weak rating as it’s of no help in battle and as it takes a minute, it seems situational. But they’re failing to see that you make that situation happen constantly. You should never not do this. Go to town, charm people. Stop by the pub, charm people. Go shopping, charm people. Camp in the woods, charm your own party. Get captured by kobolds, charm them. Visit the dwarven royal court, charm them. This is how you become a wealthy performer. This is how you gain important information. This is how you eventually rule the world.

Mantle of Majesty (lvl 6): You can cast Command as a bonus action every round for a minute. That’s extremely helpful. Its only downside is that it uses your concentration which will decrease its usefulness at high levels, but expect this to be your go-to option for your big fight each day for quite a few levels.

Unbreakable Majesty (lvl 14): Firstly, you become permanently gorgeous. Tell me you don’t want that. Then, once per short rest, anyone attacking you must make a charisma save or they must choose a new target or waste their attack. If they actually manage to hit you, they are disadvantaged against your next spell. Well, isn’t that lovely. A great defense mixed with a great offense. It slips a little because this is a game and your DM knows what you’ve put up, so your DM is more likely not to have anyone ever try and attack you so not as many enemies will be losing their attack or being debuffed as they should. A DM may try not to act like that, but it’s tricky to ignore what you know.

Sure, The Devil won’t argue that glamour bards are more effective than lore bards, though he will argue that it is close, however, he states unequivocally that glamour bards are better (and I’m not going to argue with him) based on…, well…, glamour.

 


College of Eloquence

This is the new Mythic Odyssey’s version, which is essentially the same as the Unearthed Arcana version, with some sifting around of what comes in at which level and some mechanical alterations. Overall, that was good and this may be better. The College of Eloquence is arguably the best bard subclass. It is unquestionably a very good one. It empowers the bard in two important ways: massively increasing its ability to inspire others and by weakening the defenses of enemies to the bard’s spells.

Silver Tongue (lvl 3): Your persuasion and deceptions skill check rolls can never be lower than 10—it’s a slimmed-down version of the Rogue’s Reliable Talent. That’s a fine benefit if you play in a campaign where you use those a lot.

Unsettling Words (lvl 3): You can now apply your bardic inspiration to an enemy’s next save. Well, this is lovely. This is THE feature. Forget other uses of your inspiration die as they’re all going here. If you can get your enemies to fail their saves against you, you can destroy them. Really, as powerful a bard feature as you could wish for. This is an absolute win.

Unfailing Inspiration (lvl 6): If an ally fails when using your inspiration die, it gets to keep the die. That’s nice. Less waste. This would be an excellent ability if you weren’t using all your inspiration on Unsettling Words, but it’s good.

Universal Speech (lvl 6): You can magically communicate with a number of creatures who don’t speak your language once per long rest. This saves you from taking the Tongues spell. It’s good, and probably as often as you’ll need it, though you can spend a spell slot to get it back early.

Infectious Inspiration (lvl 14): If an ally succeeds in a roll using your bardic inspiration, you use your reaction to gift the die to another ally. Well, combined with Unfailing Inspiration, your dice are going to be getting a lot more use (unless you use them all up with Unsettling Words). This is really nice, if perhaps one too many features focused on your inspiration dice.

The Devil is still a glamour bard fan first and always, but this College is amazing.

 


College of Creation

This is for bards who want to influence reality itself with the Song of Creation. Well, kinda. The college is less focused than it should be. It’s a little buffing, a little pet, and a little utility. It works, but The Devil would have liked if WoTC had worked with the theme a bit more, and smoothed out the mechanics. The Tasha’s version is a step up from the UA version, which was underpowered.

Mote of Potential (lvl 3): 3 additions to the effects of your bardic inspirations. When someone uses your bardic inspiration for an ability check, they roll twice and take the best, if they use it for an attack, it adds the die’s worth of damage in a 5 ft AOE, and if they use it for a saving throw, they gain some temporary hit points. Mechanically these are all nice, though not spectacular, and the style is off. First, the description has a little mote—a note or a star—floating around the character; I know kids like this game, but do features need to come off looking like a cartoon? These three features also lack consistency. The extra roll for the ability check fits with being inspired, and I suppose that the temp hits points kinda goes with being inspired, but how does the tiny grenade fit as “inspiration”? And what does any of this have to do with creation?

Performance of Creation (lvl 3): You can make a medium or smaller sized item of a limited value that exists for a few hours. The size and value rise with level. Well, this is better theme-wise. And it CAN be very useful. The feature points you to the equipment chapter of the Player’s Handbook for examples of what you can make, but doesn’t limit you to just those (if you DM interprets it as a limitation, this loses some luster). Need a weapon? Make one. Need a ladder? Make one. Need a wall for cover? Make one. Useful, but not that useful. Most of the time a bit of shopping will cover this. Doesn’t your rogue carry a thieves’ kit? (check with your DM on if a “kit” is a single item). Don’t you already have weapons? At higher levels suddenly being able to make a wagon to carry your loot may come in handy, but put this down as situational but for many situations.

[Note: Whatever you make is clearly a magical creation (it sparkles and plays music), so no throwing off pursuers by making a barrel to hide in, nor can you sell what you make. And previous rulings imply you won’t be able to use what you make as a spell component. Additionally, you cannot make a heavy object to drop on someone—your creation has to be on a surface. Also, like the Wizard Illusion subclass, this will let you make a cell to trap your enemies, but unless your DM is very kindly, it won’t hold them until higher levels (you’re limited by the gold cost of what you can make, so at low levels a plaster box is possible—iron bars are not.]

Animating Performance (lvl 6): You create a pet. Pet’s are useful. Rangers and druids have them, so why not bards? Of course, via magical secrets you could learn any number of summoning spells and get a better pet; Find Greater Steed is a standard choice for magical secrets and gives you a much better pet, but this is a few levels earlier. This is less a creation bard spell and more a Mickey Mouse as an enchanter spell, but mechanically it’s good.

Creative Crescendo (lvl 14): Now you can make a few extra small or tiny items and value is no longer a concern. So you can now trap your enemies in an iron cell (if you are within 10 feet of them); of course, now you have spells that do that better. Also, you can make a boat (assuming your DM counts that as a single item). This makes your Performance of Creation feature really good, though it is anticlimactic to get an improved version of an early feature as the college capstone. The Devil would have liked something more.

The Devil thinks this college is a lot of fun and could be a riot in the right game. Its features tend to be less than a bard could do with spells (but spells are a limited resource so alternatives are welcome), and it has a nice style that should have been better.

 

 


College of Valor

This is the first of the melee bard subclasses and everyone hated it for the obvious reason that if you build a melee bard with it, it’s not much good at melee, and nothing in the college alters that. Eventually, it becomes clear that swinging a sword is a waste when you can cast Hypnotic Pattern and win the battle in one move. But the College of Valor isn’t that bad. The problem was people listened to the ribbon. You can make a good bard with the College of Valor, just don’t make it a martial warrior. The college offers you some useful defense. Use that and then act like any other behind-the-lines bard.

So what does it give you?

Bonus Proficiences (lvl 3): Medium armor, shields, and martial weapons. Ignore the weapons, but bask in the loveliness of armor and shields and the higher AC they present (and all the more magical armors you can now use).

Combat Inspiration (lvl 3): Allies can use your inspiration die to increase their damage or AC. It’s nice to have options. Using Inspiration for damage is not the best way to go, but essentially allowing you to hand out 5 supped-up Shield spells every short rest is quite good. At this point, College of Valor is sweet.

Extra Attack (lvl 6): You can attack twice, a level after every melee class. This is a total waste. Just ignore it. You can afford one useless feature. People thinking this would work and then failing in combat is why everyone hated the subclass.

Battle Magic (lvl 14): You can make a weapon attack as a bonus action when you cast a spell. It’s OK. As a valor bard, you might actually have free bonus actions. Just don’t use it for a melee attack. It says weapon, so shoot your hand crossbow. The extra damage you can do is piddling next to the mayhem your spells are spreading, but it’s free, so take it.

So, the point of this college is the armor and shield, with a new way to use inspiration. If you’ve taken The Devil’s advice and plan for a 1 level dip into cleric, this college is supplying even less.

 


College of Swords

This subclass is a bit more successful in doing what it set out to do than Valor, which, paradoxically, makes it worse. You can do a bit more melee damage (just melee though—not ranged) so you might for a while be confused into thinking you’re good in melee. Your weak defenses will remedy that mistake quickly. This subclass is bad, and a swords bard will only be successful if it ignores it. There’s no reason to ever take it. OK, no reason The Devil is covering in this review because he’s looking at bards, and avoiding options that take away significant bard abilities, even if the tradeoff might be good. Of course, this is referring to multicasting. In brief, if you want to play a melee bard, this is the college to take, but you need to multiclass into warlock (hexblade). One level helps, but three or four is better. What you end up with is not a bard, but it will be able to swing a sword.

Bonus Proficiencies (lvl 3): Medium armor and the scimitar. No shields. And you can use your weapon as a spellcasting focus, which would be practical if your other hand was holding a shield. This isn’t bad on its own but is less than it needed to be.

Fighting Style (lvl 3): A paired down version of the fighter’s style, without bows. This is useless unless you are running into combat, where  you’ll be beaten to a pulp while doing minor damage, so it’s useless (unless you multiclass)

Blade Flourish (lvl 3): Your speed increases when you attack and you can spend your Inspiration die on yourself to increase your damage and either raise your AC, do tiny damage to a second target, or to push someone, though you can only do these 5 times. They’re all OK additions, but it’s just a little extra damage or a little extra defense, which isn’t enough (unless you multiclass).

Extra Attack (lvl 6): Worthless (unless you multiclass and don’t get Extra Attack from there).

Master’s Flourish (lvl 14): You can use D6 instead of your inspiration die, so you won’t run out so quickly, which would be handy if you multiclass, but otherwise, useless.

So this should be clear. As a bard, this college stinks. But as a Bardlock, or Hexbard or Warbardhexlock, it can be workable. A bard is still a better character, but you can have fun with a melee mutt.

 


College of Whispers

The Devil has made it clear that the best bard colleges build are ones that lean into the things the bard already excels at, but he meant control or combat leadership. For the College of Whispers, it’s social interaction, but only the scary side, so all deception and fear. Three of the four features are social, and the fourth increases melee combat damage.

Psychic Blades (lvl 3): The bard can add substantial additional dice of psychic damage to its weapon attacks. Well, unlike valor or swords bards, this is a big boost in damage output (though only for as long as its got inspiration dice to spend), but there’s nothing to make the bard better at hitting opponents nor anything to increase its defenses enough to make melee attacks a viable strategy. Its still no good in melee combat. The use for this seems to be in darting out of a shadow, attempting to assassinate someone, and then retreating. Well, situationally that could work. In the wrong situation, which will be most situations, that bard is going to have its head handed to it. This is the wrong feature for what seems to be a spy.

Word of Terror (lvl 3): This is the glamour bard’s Enthralling Performance feature, except there’s only one target and instead of charmed it is frightened. That has a lot fewer uses than charming someone. The image here is Wormtongue from Lord of the Rings, so if your bard wants to hang around the castle destabilizing the government, this will be handy. Otherwise…less.

Mantle of Whispers (lvl 6): You can wear a dead person’s shadow. OK…  This is a combination Disguise Self and Speak to the Dead, both spells that are useful on occasion, and both ones that The Devil has said (in part 3 of this guide) are not good enough to take. And this doesn’t work as well as those as you’ve got to be around when the person you’re impersonating dies. Why not take the Disguise Self spell instead? This is…awkward.

Shadow Lore (lvl 14) An 8 hour charm person where the victim is afraid you will embarrass them. Well, that’s not great.

Summing up those features, the only saving grace is that the base bard is pretty good so this can only mess it up so much, but there’s close to nothing gained here. It supplies damage you won’t be able to deliver and social features that can be done better and easier in other ways. Lore, glamour, eloquence, and even valor bards would crush this guy under their heels. However, The Devil still rates this higher than the College of Swords because it does have flavor and it could be fun. In the right kind of game, one with almost no combat but tons of court intrigue, a College of Whispers bard could be a riot.

Or you could just build a lore bard who takes a couple extra fear and necromantic spells and dress it in black and it’ll do this all better. With swords they were trying to build something, and failed. With Whispers, they seem to never have gotten out of the vague “feels” stage.

 

Continue on to Bard Spell Overview and Ranking