This album makes me wonder if we are collectively a bit more desensitized than the audience may have been in the late sixties, drugs notwithstanding. To me, I've kind of got two impressions going on at the same time:
If I really kind of go to a naive place, I understand the exoticism that the artistic direction of this album has. I think the cover is clever, and some pretty snazzy photography manipulation. It's not quite a composite, but rather a double exposure (maybe). Remember as a kid being kind of fascinated by those double exposure portraits? Okay maybe that was just me. But I do think the cover and the music are a bit "scary", but more in the "exotic" and "primal" sense for the average American audience. I would call it "lightly ritualistic", though that might have been just enough for the listener to be titillated but not turned off completely. I definitely imagine a throng of fans being SO into this.
On the other hand, Disney, Halloween, rated G, etc. comes to mind, being jaded and weathered as I am. I can give it a big meh because honestly it just doesn't "go there" for me. If Walt did a sort of n'awlins version of the Three Caballeros, which honestly was pretty psychedelic in its own right, this would be the soundtrack. And Croker Courtboullion would be the ambient track on the dark ride at Disneyland.
So here's my question. Dr. John is legit. I'm assuming there's no doubt about that. But, are there more legit, less popular artists that embody this vision more deeply? Is Dr. John a pop version of this type of music? Is he the Greta Van Fleet of New Orleans?
I'm also sorry but Cher will always be my guilded splinter walker.