Turn on the Bright Lights is one of the top 50 albums of this young century. None of the rest of Interpol's albums even come close. TOTBL doesn't do anything except get better and better at the end. That being said, I can forgive anyone who passes Interpol off as a one-album band. Unless you are one of those/these folks who just love the band, they really haven't lived up to the promise.
But that is no reason to add snarky criticism where it doesn't belong.
Not sure that I am willing to criticize him all that much. Don't want to play armchair psychoanalyst for Andre, but sounds like he's experiencing some depression, maybe a bit of mid-life crisis. Did Andre, as a young man, envision becoming a character? A person, wealthy or not, is entitled to feel disenchantment.
My tendency is to criticize the people who rush to be the first one to hear an album, or see a reunion show, or even watch a new movie (midnight matinee!). Maybe temper the haste a bit and reflect on the actual merit of an experience rather than instantly becoming an expert and critic. Taking for instance the premature evaluation, I have already been told what an album is and whether it is "good". I would rather wait two weeks after release and see what metadata is available. Rather than rushing to see an old, old act (by industry standards) on reunion at Coachella, I might think about why I valued their music in the first place. Whether they put on a great show or not, most of the crowd was there to be able to say that they had been there (which will be the enduring quality of the event, rather than Andre's disengagement). I for one have no interest in attending a show with the expectation that artists are going to run through songs that were popular twenty years ago for the sake of nostalgia. When you have arrived there, my friends, you have stopped moving forward. Have to agree with Andre on this one; if the experience does not drive you, it may not be worth all that much.
Hip hop is better in the car for so many reasons, but here are a just a few. . .
1.) the sound kind of surrounds and envelops you and allows for a visceral experience that the home/headphone experience doesn't allow
2.) the need to actually focus on driving distracts from the god awful lyrics (in many cases)
3.) you can mean-mug small children and old ladies, even if you're white (especially if you're white). . .
I just want to introduce the notion, rj, after having watched the video, which clearly borrows heavily from Kung Fu Hustle, that the thesis of this one line manifesto is to engage thy neighbor (who might otherwise encourage you to "turn it down", or even convince the police to encourage you to "turn it down"), thereby tearing down the societal walls that separate us and uniting the masses under the flag of twerk, or whatever the kids are calling it now. Especially if you happen to be wearing sweatpants.
I would like to say that it was not my idea to include Sylvan Esso in the 'Gum reader's comment thread, but I would make a strong argument for Hey Mami as a second to Seasons Change.
Also, I would like to believe that the reason for choosing 9/10 of the songs in the survey was to ensure that Seasons Change was the winner (as was mentioned above).
However, that might be giving Stereogum a bit too much credit.
It may be that you haven't heard a lot of these songs because the only people who have listened to all of these songs have been subjected to them rather than choosing to listen to them (i.e., they're shit).
I'll take a shot, but you are asking two different questions:
1.) Songs that encapsulate what the band is about
-Misunderstood (live version, if possible)
-via Chicago
-Art of Almost or Spiders/Kidsmoke
2.) Surefire winners (while simultaneously having no idea what you are into)
-Jesus, etc.
-A Shot in the Arm
-Theologians or Hate it Here (can't go wrong with Impossible Germany, either
That should also give you a good range of albums.
I agree about Sky Blue Sky, carson. Very good album. I think that it only suffers from following Summerteeth, YHF, and A Ghost is Born. For me, as much as Jeff Tweedy's songwriting centers on melody and poetry, he also embraces a certain level "I don't care what you think". That cognitive dissonance created, for me, an uncomfortable moment (or moments) on each of the albums that I would consider "great". I came to love those moments, but Sky Blue Sky doesn't really have that feature. There are a couple of great moments that rival anything that they ever did (sonically). Perhaps the entire album is a statement in contrarianism, and I think that your description is apt. Sky Blue Sky is very nice to listen to, and I am a huge fan of "dad rock" (apparently). Just isn't at the same level for me.
I disconnected with Wilco after Sky Blue Sky because it feels like Tweedy has gone too far down his own path of contrarian doodling. With few exceptions, the songwriting has constrained one of the best drummers and one of the best lead guitarists working right now. The lineup is great if you have the opportunity to see the band live, but that doesn't really translate to LP.
Great writeup, and thanks for it. This was the last great Wilco album, and I'll part ways with you at your last paragraph. I won't argue that A Ghost is Born is better than YHF, but the songwriting is sharper, the fog is foggier, and the sunshine is brighter. The album slumps a bit in places, but I would argue that all of Wilco's albums do, YHF included. I think Wilco have written more great songs than any band going right now (Radiohead might be a contender, speaking of), but this is the album that I go back to most frequently as an entire piece.
I'm not going to defend Death Grips' artistic integrity, because they aren't artists. In fact, very recently I referred to them as "atonal shit peddlers" on this very site. However, anyone who goes to a Death Grips show knowing what they are deserves to get whatever happens. I don't want to come off as trolling anyone, but all the whining and name calling is fairly Charlie Brownish. How many times does Lucy have to move that football before we start holding Charlie accountable?
Lookit, these guys are absolutely devoid of any redeeming musical talent. They have little recourse in terms of relevance except to continually pull bullshit stunts. I tend to side with the author here, because I think there needs to be some evaluation of what musical performance "is" if music critics are going to continue to pile acclaim onto hacks. Expect some pretty weird/awful/disappointing shit if you pay money to go and see these kinds of acts. If they could stand in front of an audience and essentially provide a display of their art, then they would. (Oh, and I get that they play "shows", but middle schools also have "shows" and have the audacity to describe them with the word "talent". Same concept.)
The only similarity between Death Grips and any of the bands mentioned above is the crowd disappointment. I think it's interesting that the line from the Smashing Pumpkins effrontery "and included at least 40 minutes of formless prog-metal dirges and artless, atonal drones.” could be used as a description of any number of concerts in 2013. Yet we're not so pissed at these acts.
And just one note for the author, I think that the best comparison, in terms of asshole stunts by an act, would be DOOM. Though I just love that sonofabitch, he consistently does some fairly childish and discourteous things to his adoring fan base.
WMP, I guess maybe I wasn't trying to be quite that cynical. Not everything is shit. I share the sentiment of your last statement, because that act of seeking is something that I value. The bottom line is that I am getting old in music years. I have limited time or patience for critical hyperbole (seriously, go back and see how many albums were deified with AOTY posts last year on Stereogum). Journalism as a whole, even straight journalism of the "news" variety, has suffered from the constant push for novelty. The cycle of "find interesting story, research, source information, revise, check sources, revise, publish" has been completely compromised. I will say that I find the knowledge base from the writers and posters on this site quite deep when compared to many media outlets, but vendors essentially have to shout as loud as they can into the wilderness in order to elicit clicks, views, likes, tweets, or whatever else is driving revenue. I get it, but I think that the lasting effect of this behavior is very extreme leaps followed by drastic over-corrections. I decided a few years ago that I could not trust any reviews of media from any site that I frequent (as far as metadata, Rotten Tomatoes does a serviceable job, though). There are albums that have taken six months to sink in. I'm supposed to just trust the "4.9" or "9.5" that got slapped on after someone spent a couple of days with an album? I respect Stereogum for the variety of the AOTW choices, but I rarely find myself going back to them after a few listens (for the most part). There is something lost when one vies to be the most current or interesting instead of the most sincere (speaking here of the artists, not the site).
K, In regards to the "in opposition to" dichotomy, I'm not sure that quite captures it. That's sort of like saying that I shouldn't make any commentary on McDonald's because my feeling is only an opinion. Further, I shouldn't distinguish between a person who eats McDonald's occasionally and one who eats McDonald's at every meal. Or further distinguish people who eat at restaurants that they know are going to be bad, eat it anyway, pretend it's good, then recommend it to their friends, all for the sake of the restaurant being philosophically aligned with their values; then go off to McDonald's and gorge themselves on Big Macs to wash the taste away. I can't say that I have never changed my opinion of someone based on the music that they listen to. It isn't the only measure of my personal opinions, but it is a strong indicator of whether or not you can see eye-to-eye with another person. Case-in-point, most people now claim to hate Riley Cooper (why they would have an opinion of him one way or the other is a mystery to me) because he shouted a racial slur and was recorded doing so. If instead, you had just told me that Riley Cooper went to a Kenny Chesney concert (to say nothing of the racial slur), I could have predicted that I probably wouldn't have too much in common with him.
So, to use the degrees of hidden complexity paradigm, there are degrees of complexity to judgment that extend beyond a stark separation between" Love it/Hate it because I said so". A person who has devoted thousands of hours to playing an instrument is a better judge of performance than a person who plays infrequently. Experience lends itself to expertise. The more broad the experience base, the better qualified one is to judge value. Personally, I am a neophyte in terms of musical criticism. However, if I am riding in a car with my niece and all she wants to listen to is NOW That's What I Call Music, 47; I feel that I have some right to deem her musical tastes shallow. I'm not going to say that to her, and I'll appease her wishes, but the difference of our viewpoints has nothing to do with her "not being me". You can't legitimize every person's bullshit schema because they have the right to opinion.
But there is an even more important reason to have the conversation, which is the acultural syndrome in our society that results in WalMart, "polo" shirts, minivans, top 40 radio, and recycled-Hollywood-script-as-summer-blockbuster. You don't have to be an elitist to a) recognize the black hole of thoughtlessness these things represent; b) comment on it.
I don't know guys, I think maybe "indie" just means bands that are signed to independent record labels. I love how this author sort of glosses the fact by asserting that we all accepted the transition from "business model" to a descriptor of music. Maybe a majority of us accept this, but I'd place myself solidly in the minority. Once you just accept that "indie" is not a genre, it is simpler to recognize that there is no unifying sound or theme (and there needn't be). "Indie" as genre label is a completely deficient construct. The "gentrification" of independent music really does owe to MySpace, O.C., and whatever other media we were using to communicate preferences at the same time that "traditional" models for distributing music were disintegrating. I have a problem with the term "gentrification", though, because there is an implication (and explicit assertion) that the flag bearers of "indie" music have become more reasonable, classier folk:
{"that so much of what has been dismissed as guilty pleasure in the past happens to be genres dominated by women and minorities, that an embrace of such so-called guilty pleasures is an implicit rejection of racism, patriarchy and elitism. That’s a good thing!"}
That anyone should be considered elitist (not to mention misogynist and racist) for being discerning where music (or movies, food, drink, etc.) are concerned is childish. I have no idea what "poptimism" or "rockism" mean; I feel like our tendency to label, then sub label labels is an overcompensation. People who invest a tremendous amount of time in exploring any hobby should be allowed to consider themselves experts. I used to be one of those people, but I really don't have the time anymore.
More than time, though, there has been an uncomfortable shift toward posturing in place of substance with a lot of new music, as if a haircut or really shitty-looking shirt makes one viable. The trouble is really that the market (or the place where listener and "artist" intersect) has a serious lack of filtration. Whereas the casual consumer of music could, once upon a time, rely on some vetting prior to exposure, we are now bombarded by any number of freakishly atonal bands who are grasping desperately for notoriety. The result from music "critics" has been to embrace semblances of musical normality (radio-friendly drivel). While they still name-drop no talent shit peddlers (Cloud Nothings, Death Grips, and I'll stop before I offend all the 'gummers), at the end of the day, a lover of music needs something to grasp onto. As a result, it is now completely normal for alternative music media outlets to embrace the likes of Taylor Swift, Justin Timberlake, and perpetual buffoon, Kanye "Yeezus" West (I would argue that he was one of the first "pop" icons to benefit from this bipolar disease):
{"In the aughts, that pattern repeated to a certain extent, with some indie-rock refugees gravitating toward extreme, abrasive music like black metal and Yeezus-style aggro-EDM. But just as many have aligned themselves with pop superstars, the kind of performers once assumed to represent the antithesis of forward-thinking taste"}
As an aside, it is ironic that Kanye fits into both categories mentioned above (pop superstars and Yeezus-style aggro EDM)
So, yeah, I'll take dad rock and "retro" sounding "indie" acts if it means that I get to skip out on labeling every tendency that I have in some desperate act of "I've-really-got-to-figure-out-how-to-make-something that-I-have-to-say-legitimate-and-noticeable" narcissism.
And Seth Cohen makes me hate white people. And I'm a white person.
I would never bash BTR, but I personally prefer Darkness. To me, BTR seems a bit contrived at times, especially with some of the production. If "contrived" is too harsh, then "fussed over". Darkness seems like an album that, while not unaware of the audience, is not as conscious of the implications of criticism. Also, I'm not sure that Bruce has written a better song than "Racing in the Streets". (Since there was a recent Townes list, his version of that song is even better than Bruce's.)
My age certainly has an influence over my appreciation of Bruce. I came to Springsteen from hearing his songs on the radio in the 80's. Listening to his albums from that perspective, I tend to enjoy Darkness & Nebraska a bit more as whole pieces. They don't necessarily have the "epic" tracks, but I don't find myself skipping around a lot, either. While I agree with the commentary below regarding the influence of Nebraska, I often notice a lot of Darkness in current indie tracks, as well.
As an aside, I would have put Greetings a bit higher.
Right, well, Perfect From Now On was released in 1997. If the consensus is that this was the best BTS album (which I tend to agree with), I don't think that I'm bemoaning the present to drastically. When Doug puts the project on hold because he ran out of songs to write, I don't think that it's too much of a stretch to argue that the past couple of albums don't measure up to the pinnacle of the band's performance.
I like the spectacle that is Brett Netson; I thoroughly enjoy his weird-ass musical tangents. What I do not enjoy is watching him repeatedly miss notes and play behind the rest of the band because he is too fucked up on whatever he happens to have taken for kicks. I don't think I mentioned their show being shit or anything. I'm saying they are not as good as they were at the height of their creative output.
Also, on another point, I don't think I implied that they were playing the same set for years on end. I do know that they repeat sets from night to night because I watched them on both of their past two tours at three different venues (each tour) along the way. They played identical sets in identical order down to the covers and encore. For You in Reverse they were playing Broken Chairs as an encore, which I have not complaint about seeing three times, and they did a great job of it.
The troll ratio in here is way above the mean.
I was unlucky enough to grow up a few miles from Athens and not hear of NMH until I moved away. I'm excited about having the opportunity to revisit something I missed the first time around. NMH at the 40 Watt is like taking a trip in a time machine.
And while I would give the band the benefit of the doubt, I suppose it's conceivable that the master plan is: "Wow, we're pretty hard-up for some cash. Instead of recording and selling what would probably be the most anticipated indie album of all time in the studio that we own for a cost of next to nothing and the potential revenue of millions virtually overnight, let's book five shows in the fall in three small venues and two foreign countries." These evil fucking commercial hipster-wannabe fucks.
Not sure about the tendency to leave off EP's, etc., but I would have to include The Normal Years. I also think this author has mischaracterized a serious decline in quality for BTS, even to the extent that the live shows began to be phoned in (Anyone who saw this band in the late 90's could not deny that they were one of the best live acts going. Fast forward to their tours supporting the last two albums, and they were still playing decent sets, but it was not even a comparison. They went from a band that consistently played completely different sets from night to night to being a band that played the same songs in the same order the same way [even the encore!]).
I also disagree with the commentary on Ultimate Alternative Wavers. While the production is definitely DIY, I think it contains much more Perfect From Now On-like jam structures than most of the recent albums (which makes it preferable for me).
My list would be more like:
1. Perfect From Now On
2. Keep It Like a Secret
3. Ultimate Alternative Wavers
4. (The Normal Years)
5. There's Nothing Wrong with Love
6. Ancient Melodies of the Future
7. There is No Enemy
8. You in Reverse
"A dud" is a much better description of this article and list. Oh, BTS is from Idaho? Oh, Doug is a great guitar player? Oh, Doug has kind of a nasaly voice? How insightful. What a great fan of the band this gentleman must be. I digress.
But I echo an appreciation for "The Weather". It is a lovely song, a bit of a novelty, but one of my favorites.
Comments