MountainGerbil

Well, it's a silly article anyway because it starts with the following premise:

But it’s the kind of record a lot of fans praise not by pointing out powerful songs or grand ideas but by spotlighting the musicians themselves—some imaginative, molten-metal guitar leads from Nels Cline here, some nimble and inventive drumming from Glenn Kotche there. It turns out that Tweedy and his basement “meh”-sayers are both right: Wilco has packed some first-rate musicianship into an album that feels a bit like sitting on a Chicago back deck watching a particularly uneventful baseball game.

And, well, where does this premise come from? It's a straw man: fans of Wilco don't really like the songs on the album, they only like the musicianship! See, the songs must be dull! People are complacent! This must end!

That's pure conjecture. I've not heard such a claim. Wilco is not Phish; "The Whole Love" is not "Billy Breathes." The focus is still on the songwriting (note that he dismisses the ones that most people here talk about, "The Art of Almost" and "One Sunday Morning..." as "ones you might describe as experiments" and then just ignores them because they contradict his stance that the songs are ordinary and dull).

And then there's this:

One good indicator of this norm’s normalness? The main criticism you hear about this kind of record—even outweighing references to Starbucks and/or the bourgeoisie—is that it is just too dull to even bother producing any more complex indictment of it.

Uh...I'm not aware of any critique of "The Whole Love", aside from the author's own, that claims the album is "too dull to bother with."

This is a classic case of a guy writing with an angle already in mind, and twisting the facts to make his case. He offers no support (how hard would it be to cite some actual fan comments on the lack of interesting songs, or actual record reviews citing the album as chronically dull?). For people who don't like Wilco, and my guess is that this guy doesn't, it's speaking to the choir.

That's all.

"They're old!" or "You like them? You must be old!" are the most cliche critiques of music ever. This is just a gussied up version of the latter.

wayne needs to mix up the set list...

And the schtick. I've seen them 5 times since 2003 and the general gist of the experience is almost exactly the same. I mean, it's really fun and I recommend it to everyone, but aside from substituting 4 or 5 songs per tour, it's the same show each time (confetti, giant gerbil ball, hypnotic imagery, some naked dancing chicks on the screen, people dressed as aliens/santa/construction workers on the stage, camera view up Wayne's nose...).

Here's Bad from that D.C. show that I am pleased to have on DVD. It's a bit dark (hopefully due to being traded & dubbed on VHS amongst the U2 fanbase) and filmed a bit weird.

It's dark because shows that get filmed for wide-release are given extra lighting (or else they appear like this). For instance, in the Sydney DVD, and there are lights everywhere at all times. Especially 20 years ago, the video cameras simply couldn't pick up a good enough image unless there were added lights.

If you were actually at this show, there would have been the spotlight on Bono, some low purple lighting from the overheads, and aside from some stuff on the video screens, that's about all. Filmed for a wide release, there would be 50% lighting across the whole stage.

I mean, compare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=115b_xOjLpY&feature=related

One thing that's always frustrated me about U2 is their unwillingness to release a comprehensive live album once in a while. I remember getting my hands on the "Outside Broadcast" disk that someone posted above (I can't get the new links to work, unfortunately) and being blown away by the energetic renditions of songs like "Mysterious Ways" and "Until the End of the World." Likewise, as someone who likes "POP" and enjoyed the Popmart tour, I always thought live versions of "Gone", "Please", and "Last Night on Earth" exceed the recorded versions.

I'm aware that it's possible to scrape together live songs through single B-sides and the like, but it floors me that they did not put together a "Live Best of 1990-2000" or something, at least (back when they were releasing their Greatest Hits comps). Or, failing that, put out an official Zoo TV Live cd that chooses the best versions of a typical setlist from 1993 or something.

Instead, we get these fanclub only things that are well and good, but...I dunno. For one they are hard to get ahold of (anyone have the files for "Hasta La Vista Baby"?

Mystifying.

Most of Wilco's catalogue traverse mid-tempo rock. Even Tweedy proudly declares it in several concerts. What the writer is saying is that Feist and Wilco don't bring extremes to the forefront. It's not like Feist nor Wilco made a metal or disco album titled Wilco II: Electric Boogaloo. We have yet to see Wilco stray so far away from rock or country. They are firmly in place. They're somewhat mid-tempo and approachable. If anything, this article is trying to dispel the "meh" and "dull" tags from this mid-tempo country.

 

What that means: go read it again.

I disagree. The author equates Wilco and Feist's music with the established "meh" music of the 1970s, which led dissatisfied youths to embark on the Punk movement. He uses the names of new bands (the Pissed Jeans, etc) as a sign that there are signs of dissatisfaction with the "contemporary" music of today. However, because the music scene is so diverse and fragmented right now, people that would have upended the current "meh" music of Wilco and Feist in days gonebye can just ignore it and it will continue to exist.

This is not a complimentary piece on Wilco. Nor is it outright anti-Wilco. It's just agreeing that Wilco is "meh".

 

Even after hearing it 20 times the bones in a shrine verse sends chills up my spine.

As they do mine, every time. Those rhymes be fine.

Well I'll be dang-gummed.

I've resigned myself to the idea that, with SBS, Wilco entered their "Mars Hotel"/ "Steal Your Face" / "Terrapin Station"/ etc... era. That is, they put out albums that fans will either really like or merely find acceptable (depending on taste), but there will be no more grand statements, and each release will inevitably harken back to the foundation established during the golden years. Meanwhile, the live shows will steam on, always being very good.

It could be a lot worse. And I like the last few albums. Bands just inevitably get older and lose a certain restless energy that makes them sound fresh in their earlier years. Wilco's still good, they merely aren't breathtaking anymore.

Good is good enough.*

*Especially given the tumult this band faced between 2000 and 2006, it's incredible that Tweedy et. al. found a way to remain this good in 2011. It's quite amazing, actually, that he and/or the band didn't self-destruct entirely.

It comes in so loud and good after Capitol City. It gets a lot of comparisons to I'm a Wheel, but I think it's more pop than that. Especially with that organ that reminds me of "96 Tears." I don't consider it a throwaway either...I actually like the lyrics.

Wait...I don't think "Standing O" has an organ part. "I Might" has the "96 Tears"-esque riff. Are you thinking of that?

 

That's like the opposite of "Shake it Off."

I really like "Shake it Off" until it gets to the actual "shake it off...[drr-r-rrr, Galoomp-gloomp] shake it off...[drr-r rrr, galoomp, gloomp] part.*

*Speaking of alka-setzer.

Re: being 17.

As others have noted, some of us were "obsessed" with various bands, albums, songs, etc... when we were younger. For me it was Neil Young and the Rolling Stones. There was no way I would fail to take umbrage if someone knocked Mick Jagger, or said that Neil had a funny voice. It was like someone had just kicked my dog. And while that sounds ridiculous now, at least to anyone who didn't experience devotional fandom, I can also attest that it was pretty amazing, too, to be able to be blown away so much by a song that I'd heard a thousand times already (often literally).

But, that's just the way things are when you are 17: life is full of incredible ups and downs. It's dizzying. And when you like something, you REALLY FUCKING LIKE it. And things that are beautiful are moreso, and things that are ugly are even worse. I'm sure we can all remember how nuts we all went over some girl/guy that we barely even talked to.

Well, now consider how your 17 year old feels about who is, I gather, one of his favorite bands. Even an album that may not be so great (not saying SBS isn't) is the soundtrack to the most topsy/turvy, love/hate, black/white period of his life. It falls in the "Good" zone, which means it's not just good: it's IMPORTANT.

I recall having similar feelings about "Voodoo Lounge" and "Broken Arrow". I listened to those albums to death, because they came out during my time. I "understood" them better than most people. They were mine. Hence: they were fucking incredible.

16 years later, I can look back and realize that, while those albums will in some sense have a special place in my heart, they are objectively mediocre (at best).

My guess is, in 16 years, your son will look back and feel similarly about "Wilco (The Album)." He'll probably feel a little silly and embarrassed for being so passionate about a decent, not great, album. He shouldn't. I'd give almost anything to be able to feel that passionately about music, or almost anything really, again.

Tell him to remember how it feels to truly adore something; as you get older, it gets harder and harder to remember.

... (Scorpions with the woman on her knees next to the Doberman, which MUST have inspired Smell the Glove)?

I was always under the impression that the bru-ha-ha surrounding the Rolling Stones' Sunset Strip billboard to promote "Black and Blue" was the inspiration for "Smell the Glove", but you may be right.

In June, Atlantic Records put up a billboard on Sunset Strip to push the Rolling Stones album Black and Blue; it showed a bound woman saying, "I'm 'Black and Blue' from the Rolling Stones —and I love it!" A new organization, called Women Against Violence Against Women (WAVAW), protested to Atlantic, which took down the billboard. Now WAVAW is demanding that Atlantic, Warner Brothers and Elektra clean up their album covers, but the companies are stonewalling. Says Warner Bros. Publicity Director Bob Merlis: "If a group wants a gorilla on the cover, they get a gorilla on the cover, unless it's illegal or there's a marketing reason why gorillas aren't a good idea."

[/left]

Perhaps. But in my experience there are far more Radiohead fans that fit that description.

I don't think it's ever been as "cool" to be a Wilco fan as it was/is to be a Radiohead fan. This was true especially in the late 1990s, after "OK Computer" came out. Wilco has never had an album that huge, and Radiohead has a much larger fanbase than Wilco.

There are a lot of people who listen to Radiohead and aren't otherwise into music, because of what listening to Radiohead "says" about them (i.e. "I am a serious person with serious tastes."). I just haven't encountered that with Wilco.

This probably has a lot to do with the fact that for their first 3 albums, Wilco was not seen as particularly "important" or "progressive." They were simply a good, folk-rock, American-roots band that had some rock and some twang. Radiohead, from "The Bends" on, sounded like they were "the next big thing."

One of the comments hit on something that I agree with:

I have been turned off of Radiohead, in large part, due to the humorless nature of A) their music, and B ) Their fanbase.

I realize that an artist doesn't really have any say in what kind of fans they attract, but even people whom I respect, people whom I like to talk music with, are insufferable when it comes to Radiohead. It's like there's a Radiohead album, and then there's everything else. "The only band that matters" and all that shit.

I gave up years ago when I argued that, as great as Radiohead was (and I certainly respect them), they, like all other bands, owed a debt to other bands that came before them, notably (this was in the late 1990), U2 (principally The Edge's guitar work and Eno's production), and Pink Floyd (the moody introspection). This was typically met with eye rolls and "can you believe this guy doesn't get Radiohead?" type sighs. "Yea, like a band as cool as Radiohead would listen to those shitty, old fart, bands."

I'm over-generalizing, but there is a pervasive superiority complex among a large percentage of Radiohead fans. They can keep it.

As for why I don't like Radiohead itself more than I do, it's because I've never felt an emotional connection with them. I prefer music that either makes me feel good, or that I feel is coming from the same place I am at a particular moment. Wilco tends to do that. I can have a few beers or go driving or be heartbroken with Wilco. Radiohead is more like hanging out with the brilliant kid who doesn't know how to maintain a normal conversation for more than 10 minutes.

Please. There are scores of worse album covers than most of the ones listed. This guy didn't try hard enough.

Also, he's being willfully obtuse or plain ignorant regarding "Magical Mystery Tour." That album was the epitome of psychedelia, and that is clearly the motivation for that album cover. And appealing to little children is not the same as appealing to teeny-boppers.

I also refuse to take a guy seriously if he refuses to listen to, and apparently had never heard of, Creedence Clearwater Revival simply because the album was not in a pretty cover.

As for the A.M. cover: the alt-country aesthetic was pretty minimalist. There is no way any of those bands (Wilco, Son Volt, the Jayhawks, etc...) would have a flashy cover. It would have seemed ridiculous and completely alienated their fanbase.

Does anyone know where I can get/download most of these? I am missing almost all of them, and don't see them on iTunes.

Thanks!

^ In the liner notes it says that Glenn did the Field Recordings, but obviously a location wasn't given. Glenn also plays a siren on Dawned On Me which I knew I heard but thought that it was Mikael.

Sounds like they must have been done for Long Island Railroad, perhaps inside Penn Station.

Just announced on Facebook.

Glad the setlist is/was a little longer than in Boston. 23 songs, 2:10 seems to be the general running time for Wilco, and that's about perfect.

 

You can only charge what people are willing to pay. If people are willing to spend that much on tickets they might not have been able to purchase initially, then that's what the market dictates.

I suppose. That argument is, of course, mostly correct (I'd argue that the the market has some serious flaws because the ticket brokers overcharge with the understanding that not all of their tickets will get sold). But so what? Why should going to a rock concert be an exercise in capitalism?

Perhaps ticket brokers and scalpers are doing a service for some people. Not everyone is capable of jumping online at the exact time tickets go on sale. Offering these tickets in a secondary market allows those people the opportunity to buy tickets they might not have ordinarily been able to purchase.

But there are other ways than having to be online at a certain time. One can make arrangements with friends, or (if push really came to shove), someone who has a commitment at 10 A.M. on a wednesday (or whatnot) can ask/pay someone else to do it for them. Annoying? Sure. But again, if seeing Wilco is something that is a high priority, it shouldn't merit a second thought.

I agree that sometimes life does get in the way (meeting runs late, computer crashes, sudden bout of nausea/wife going into labor, etc...) and in that case the secondary market can be a benefit. But having life get in the way for, sometimes literally, 2 minutes shouldn't end up costing you $75 extra per ticket.

 

I would consider Atlanta a major market, and I don't think we've ever gotten more than one show per year. This year, we have two nights back to back, but that's because they're playing a smaller than normal venue, and not because their tour is hitting Atlanta twice.

 

What are the major markets that get 2-3 dates per year?

Maybe "per year" was inaccurate. "per tour" seems more appropriate. NYC almost always gets 2 shows (and Jersey sometimes gets 2 as well). Chicago usually gets 2 shows. In addition, in recent years, Toronto, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, Austin, D.C., New Orleans have seen multiple dates, and on their upcoming dates Minneapolis, Nashville, and Atlanta have 2 shows apiece.

I will say, however, I am surprised that there aren't more 2-3 date runs. Looking at WilcoBase, I expected to see a lot more then there have been over the past 4 years.

It's a zero sum game, so they can't please everyone.

Option A) Play small theaters, 2-3 dates per year in major markets, 1 date in select secondary/tertiary markets per year. Satisfies: most, not all, fans in major markets, and generally all fans in the other markets. Secondary benefit to die-hards who are willing to travel 2-3 hours to see band play in Duluth, or Worcester, or wherever. Disgruntles: A vocal minority of people in major markets not lucky enough to get a ticket or who can't afford one on Stubhub.

Option Play small theaters, focus on satisfying demand of the major markets (3-5 shows per year) and skip most secondary and all tertiary markets. Satisfies: all fans in major markets, die hards in other markets who are willing to travel into the big city. Disgruntles: all fans who don't live in major markets who can't take time off/afford to travel into the city to see show.

Option C) Play arenas (which, due to practical necessity, would only happen in major markets and/or large college towns). 1 show, probably, per geographic region in order to get the place to fill up. (e.g. 1 show in Boston, 1 show in MSG, 1 show in Philly, 1 show in Chicago, etc...). Satisfies: people who would not have been able to see them otherwise. Disgruntles: everyone else not sitting in the first 5 rows who swear that, had the band played Fox Theatre like last year, they would have gotten an awesome seat, forgetting the "Disgruntled" aspect of Option A.

It's like Abe Lincoln said.

One thing I am positive of: if seeing Wilco, or even getting a really good seat to do so, is one of your top priorities, there are ways to do it. Is there opportunity cost, in the form of being tied to the computer and/or shelling out 1.5-2.5x the face value of the ticket? Yes. But if you really want to go, it can be done.

I'm surprised nobody here has trotted out the old "You know, maybe if the 'die hards' only went to 1 one show, the rest of us would get a chance!" saw.

Bump for regular on-sale info.

Got row X (floor) for Wed. night.

Has anyone seen a show at the State Theatre?

 

Bowlegs 6 / 10

 

http://www.bowlegsmu...the-whole-love/

"Be more like Radiohead! Put out "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" again!"