Erik Ritland

What would constitute a "sympathetic, mature response"? "Aw man, that's cool. You just haven't had the time or inclination to listen. I totally get it, man." People expecting you to listen to the album before you comment isn't immature or unsympathetic--it's reasonable.

I didn't comment on it, you see - I commented on the general consensus after reading the thread about it, and how it was similar to my expectations. That's it and that's all (

What I meant by "sympathetic, mature response" was understanding that context. That I wasn't commenting on the album itself.

Maybe I'm just not clear.

I hate anonymous web drive-bys, so sorry for wrecking your day a little, Erik. You just happened to touch on one of my pet peeves there. The "oh Wilco is in such decline" crowd. As someone who knew nothing about the band until a couple years ago, and so got exposed to their back catalogue very quickly, one after the other -- I just don't hear it. I won't shanghai your thread by comparing AGIB and SBS to some of those acknowledged masterworks that precede it, other than to repeat that I believe they hold up very well. Just my opinion, but it gets tiresome listening to that refrain. So when I hear someone touching on it, and including in evidence an album they haven't even listened to...sorry, it touched a nerve.

 

And, yes, just for the record, I do believe (TA) is a step down from my favorites. But I don't believe that has to say anything about Wilco or where they're heading. I just don't like it as much as several of the others. But that's also true of Summerteeth, so there you are. Personal preferences, who can account for them? I just don't think we should confuse our subjective tastes with Wilco's objective reality.

 

And that cycles back to your larger question, which I think you know the answer to. It is all subjective, and even if we all agreed on which albums were great, and which were poor, it doesn't make it fact.

Thank you. I can understand all that. I need to be put up to speed about the stuff around here. Keeping up best I can for rolling back

 

 

BTW I also think A.M. is one of the best Wilco albums, so I'm sure that makes my opinions suspect to most people on this forum.

Adds credence to me!

I love this band! My brother introduced me to their music growing up and I never lost my attachment. As far as fun, solid rock n' roll goes - lyrics be damned, via Chuch Berry or any early rockers (it's about the feeling, man!) - KISS had it going in the '70s like no other. There was punk,there was dinosaur rock, and there was KISS. Of the three I prefer KISS!

Alive, Destroyer, and Love Gun are iconic albums. The studio side of Alive II is underrated...but I don't dig much of their stuff after the classic lineup. Maybe I should brush up on it though.

I think it's funny the way you characterize A.M. It was Jeff's first album "on his own" - all of his own songs (sans IJTS, of course), his band. Arguably, that's the one that probably pushed his envelope the most, as far as his own comfort was concerned.

 

I'll agree, Jeff having an album on his own did wish his personal envelope. Thus, it finds him dipping into different sounds and feels on it. I like that album a lot and didn't mean to sound critical of it. On the whole it comes off (in my subjective opinion ) as a bit amateurish.

I disagree strongly with your basic premise. AGIB is an incredible album, a trivial dropoff from the album of the decade. SBS is superb...perhaps not quite so creative as the two masterpieces that preceded it, but chock-full of that feeling / soul you seem to be looking for. (TA)...well, let's wait until you've done your homework to talk about that one.

I figured I'd be up front about not listening to TA because I'd get a sympathetic, mature response. But seeing as I got somewhat childishly jabbed twice for it, I know better for next time. I admitted the flaw of not listening to it in my first post. My comments were solely in context to the reaction to the album on the previous thread. I didn't "judge" it on my own merits...oboviously...I haven't heardit. There's no need to be snarky.

I'm very glad to get opinons about my post though...that's why I posted it, because it interests me, and I think it's cool to hear what other people think. So thanks.

From the getgo, W(TF) has been my favorite display name since I've re-joined. Had to share that.

Second, I do like SBS. I just think it's not great, and it definitely wasn't good enough to keep me on the edge of my seat for what came next.

Lastly, I admit that I haven't heard W(TA), but my suspicions were that it would be like a lesser SBS. Which, by what a lot of people said on the W(TA) thread, seemed to be the case. I never meant to say I knew about W(TA), just that, by what others have said, it seems to continue the trend. I could be wrong, and I wouldn't mind being told that I am.

Another thing I meant to say is that, since reactions to W(TA) were so all over the board, it has compelled me to purchase it, which I will.

Am I an idiot? I'm sorry. I know my post was all over the place.

As I just touched on in a thread in the Just a Fan forum, I find it interesting what people think of the "canons" of their favorite bands. What albums are overrated? Which underrated? Why?

There are a few glaring ones for me. The first one I list in the topic description: I like Dylan's Self Portrait better than Blood on the Tracks. SP, actually, is one of my favorite Dylan albums. Why? Because he's just doing what he wants to do, and I find that incredibly rock n' roll. He's covering way old folk tunes in a fun, laid back style ("Days of 49", "Copper Kettle", "Little Sadie"), covering whatever new songs he happens to dig (his rendition of "The Boxer" is especially riveting), he's covering country standards and old 50s rock songs and whatever the hell he wants! He's doing what HE wants to do, and I respect that a ton as an artistic statement. He's saying "here you go, here I am, I'm laying it all on the line", and I think it's great. It helps that I love all the music he covers, too.

BotT has always been overrated to me. Seems like Dylan is on autopilot. The lyrics are filled with very typical themes and rhymes imagery and the songs aren't exactly...I dunno, spectacular. Very ordinary. I prefer Oh Mercy, Street Legal, Modern Times, Desire...

Similarly, Dark Side of the Moon, while fairly groundbreaking as far as the direction it would take Pink Floyd in, is not their best, or their most interesting, album. There's a bit more to Wish You Were Here - a little more character, a little more something than talking about "Time" and "Money." It digs a little deeper into the human psyche, is a little more personal and just as groundbreaking musically. Animals is a twisted, magnificent, deep analogy, maybe not as friendly or easy to get in to on the surface, but certainly great, and the music is solid, catchy, and musically well done and experimental.

The Final Cut, though, is my favorite Pink Floyd album - so much emotion there! Like The Wall only compact and twice as scary and interesting. The dynamics are incredible - people say it's a Waters solo album, but the thunderous drums and some of Gilmour's best solos are a large part of why that album works so well. One of my favorite albums of all time. Check "The Gunner's Dream" if nothing else.

That's to say nothing of their experimental folk period between Syd Barrett's departure and DSotM. The incomparable Meddle is the best showing of this, but the Ummagumma live album is breathtaking too. They also had a handful of singles and songs from movie soundtracks in this era that are well written, interesting, and unique, like nothing they did before or after.

Lastly I'll touch on Neil Young. Never really cared too much for Harvest. It's a great Neil album (in a canon of many), but I think he's done a lot that compares to it. "Heart of Gold" and "Old Man" are good songs, I LOVE "Alabama", "Needle", and "Out on the Weekend", but the rest is somewhat fillerish.

I prefer an album that most feel is almost all fillerish - American Stars N' Bars. There are a couple raunchy country punk rock classic that are endlessly interesting to me, pure gold - "Saddle up the Palamino" and "Bite the Bullet", which will never get their due. "Old Country Waltz" and "Hold Back the Tears" are classic Neil country. "Homegrown" is classic Neil country/rock, and of course "Like a Hurricane" is one of his greatest songs. Sure, "Will to Love" is wretched, but isn't life sometimes, too? Solid album.

Also love Old Ways, Chrome Dreams II...

Let me make it known that i don't purposely like albums everybody else doesn't like and dislike albums that everyone likes. I hate people who are snobbish like that. I just look for different things in music I guess.

I'm excited to hear everybody else's blasphemous views! And I'm sorry if this thread has happened before...didn't exactly know how to do my homework on it...

I just got done browsing through the board's thoughts on W(TA). I find it very interesting how scattered a group of people can be - but also fascinating, and very telling. A song so many people think is obviously indispensable is seen by others as a throwaway. On person's "weak lyrics and melody" are another's "very solid track" (not using exact quotes from the thread, just making an overall generalization).

This was touched on in the thread, but it got me to thinking. What makes a band's songs/albums/etc. "great"? You can say it's all a matter of opinion, and I suppose it is, but it's all very interesting to me.

For example, I'd dare to say that many people think YHF is a classic album. But I'm sure there are at least a few who think it's convoluted, strange, boring, or whatever. Is it a classic then? Does a consensus matter? Is it just interesting? What does matter?

Haha, maybe I'm getting too philosophical here. My main point, I guess, is that I find it interesting the gamut of opinions on here, and of the body of work of any artist.

I'll admit, I haven't even listened to Wilco (The Album). AGIB was interesting, I thought SBS was a good record, but they didn't keep me glued to the Wilco scene. Maybe it's because there's too much time between records.

I think it's mostly because starting with AGIB, and continuing through to SBS and beyond, Wilco have gotten too comfortable to me. They know what they want to play, how they want to play it, what they want to do, and have no real obstacles. They have become comfortable, and this comfortability has effected their creativity.

People argue back and forth about drugs and issues that have to do with music, and if they help musicians or if that's just a bunch of bullshit. And I think that's an interesting question too. You don't necessarily have to be messing with drugs or dealing with demons to make great music. But I do think that there's an amount of truth to bands needing a push to be great. Pre-YHF Wilco was proving themselves. Aside from the post-Uncle Tupelo hangover of "A.M", their albums all pushed the envelope. They were forced to try really hard because they didn't know how much of a future they had.

After YHF, they had a solid fan base, they knew what they were looking for, etc. There were no tension, no boundaries. Jeff was so comfortable, in fact, that he kicked out any band member that messed with his comfort. And because of that things just haven't been there creatively for Wilco, culminating with the lackluster showings of SBS and, presumably, W(TA).

Despite this, musically Wilco is indeed the best they've ever been. The soul just isn't there anymore.

I know this touches on like 100 things. Maybe some of them have been discussed already. Just thought I'd throw this stuff out there.

1. YHF

2. Being There

3. Summerteeth

4. A.M.

5. A Ghost is Born

6. Sky Blue Sky

7. W(TA)

in general, in this man's opinion, Wilco grew every album from A.M. to YHF...and have kind of been on autopilot ever since. they seem to have "found themselves", which is nice, but not as interesting.

still great tunes though, and better live than ever, of course.

oh generalities.

No comments on the most recent episode?

 

 

For me, part of the strength of the original concept of the show, as it was carried out on the original British series, and in the first few seasons of the American version, was that no matter how much of an idiot David Brent/Michael Scott was, there was always something underneath that kept you from hating him. Some innate goodness or innocence or whatever. In this last episode, they finally gave up on that idea completely. Now Michael's just a total fucking prick.

 

As I've expressed previously, I've felt that this show has been in serious decline since sometime last season. There have been some decent moments this year, but the writers are no longer playing to their strengths, and trying too hard to break out of the confines of the office environment. It's not working. Even Jim and Pam are starting to wear thin, and the peripheral characters have now receded so completely into the background that they barely appear in most episodes. When's the last time we had a great Creed moment? What, if anything, do we get from Stanley these days, or Angela, or Meredith? These are good characters, but they've been virtually written out of the show as the plotlines have focused more narrowly on Michael, Jim, Pam, and to a lesser extent, Dwight (and sometimes Andy).

This is right on! The Michael character has been awful since last season. He's not as funny. He's become a caricature, something like every character on the Simpsons has been since like the 12th season or so. There was complexity to him. More than just a niceness, he was also smart when he had to be, he made brilliant decisions sometimes. There were many moments where you felt like he was a real person. You don't get that anymore. Now it's just playing off how stupid he is. Exactly like what happened to Homer Simpson...

The other characters have lost their appeal, too. Seasons 2 and 3 were prime, Season 4 very good. I think that they reached their high point in the Season 4 series finale - there was Jan's pregnancy, Jim trying to propose to Pam but Andy proposing to Angela instead, Dwight being heartbroken, Dwight and Angela having sex at the end. Brilliant! The characters were great, it was funny, the story was good. Now - once again, like the Simpsons! - there are good lines and scenes, but it's a sad shell of its former self. I couldn't watch after the first few episodes of last season, thankfully, and I'm glad my premonition has been reinforced here.

Kevan, how long have you been a Vikings fan? You can't possibly be predicting a Super Bowl win. The other shoe always drops for us. Predictions like this only jinx us!! Favre is 40, he's only half way through the season. Let's keep things in perspective. Were are the pre-2004 Red Sox of the NFL.

Oh man, you're right on with this. I suppose there are worse teams to cling to (the Cubs, perhaps?), but being a Vikings fan is incredibly nerve wracking. I'm not one to believe in Jinxing and cursing, but if there ever were arguments for it the Vikings would have to be part of it.

As a chick, I thoroughly enjoyed Catcher in the Rye but I think that has something to do with my being a bit of a self-absorbed, hypocritical, sad sack sometimes.

You sound awesome!

I found myself relating to Holden a lot. Catcher sort of altered my mind set and how I see the world...or it poisoned my mind...or something. But I can see why it could be an unlikeable book. Holden isn't exactly a likable character.

I don't think I've hated any books that I've read. Had to read, even. I was pretty disappointed with Jonathan Lethem's "You Don't Love Me Yet", but I wouldn't say I hated it. It was just too cliche.

The album *seems* to be dying, as a popular form anyway, in popular culture. In general people just want to hear a couple songs that fit their fancy from whatever musicians they like. Put them on their iPod, only listen to it when it comes on shuffle. CDs by popular musicians haven't been an art form as "albums" used to be since basically the advent of the CD.

However, there has always been, and I hope always will be, a large amount of people who appreciate the album as an art form - as a cohesive whole, artwork, liner notes, feel of the album, as a unique expression of where a band is at. Fans of bands like Wilco, and of older bands, seem to find it appealing. In the Top 40 it isn't seen so much, as it used to be.

On this front, does anybody here like the My Chemical Romance album "The Black Parade"? It's one of the only seriously popular top 40 albums that I've seen come out in a long time with a distinctive and purposeful "album" feel. It also happened to be popular with kids, although I suppose those kids didn't care about the concept and just downloaded their two favorite songs and discarded the rest anyway. However, a popular band had the ambition to make an "album", and I find that to be a step in the right direction.

I think albums, on the whole, would have a better chance to survive if bands didn't pad their releases with 12, 14, or 16 songs, clocking in at 60, 70, 80 minutes long. It seems counter-intuitive to me that as people's attention spans have gotten worse the length of albums has increased. To listen to 8 songs from one artist is more than plenty, and is akin to how things were in say, the '70s, or late '60s. '60s albums had more songs, but they were shorter, so the listening experience was still palatable.

I'd also like a return to the Side A/Side B format. The smaller chunks of time you ask for from people the better! This is one of the subtle things about albums that made them work that people don't remember/realize. It's also fun with Sides to play around with one side being different from the other.

Personally I do think that the CD, and "albums", are dying. Nobody has the patience for them anymore. However, I'd love to see this change and I don't think they'll ever die completely. Fingers crossed.

I can never see the name Mason Jennings without thinking it's the Classical Gas guy.

 

I never realized until today that Bowie is the only guitarist credited on this album (with the exception of Alan Parker on one song).

Yeah. Bowie's guitar work on this album is phenomenal! Not in a guitar god kind of way, but in a moody type of way. Such a dark, sludgy album. In love with it!

Very glad to hear about this! Wilco at the Grammy's. What a trip.

Having had to listen to Josh Groban's Christmas CD on repeat at a chain bookstore for three months last year, I can attest to the fact that he's awful! Haha. If he's a fan, by all means have him there. Variety I suppose.

Down by the River would be my choice, but anything off of "Old Ways" with some pedal steel would be amazing!

Miles Davis: Complete On the Corner Sessions

Miles Davis: Complete Jack Johnson Sessions

Right on!!! Beautiful sounds.

I like seeing the Golden Smog records on there, but "Weird Tales", for how much I love it, is a bit high. Above Trace? One of the best alt-country statements of all time, in my sometimes humble opinion. Glad to hear some sticking up for the other Son Volt records...but the new era Son Volt I just haven't been able to dig.

The Brooklyn Side being left off is a gross oversight. And for a personal touch, I would have added Farrar's Terroir Blues, one of the most gentle, understated, beautiful, underrated albums of all time.

Not an awful list though.

I enjoy "Not for the Season" a lot. But "At Least That's What You've Said" is up there.

The early live versions of "I'm a Wheel" were really solid.

Also like "Kingpin" a lot, "Misunderstood" is always up there, "Poor Places" is groovy, can always get into "Radio Cure"..."Spiders"...

On a tour years ago Jeff used to do this awesome acoustic version of "Sunken Treasure" that was straight up Dylan circa 1965. It was sweet.

Wilco's version of "One Hundred Years" from the Summerteeth sessions is a significantly weird cover, because it is of one of his biggest country influences (Gram Parsons/Byrds) but done in a power pop style, another of their influences. Love it.

And let's not forget the impact Sesame Street has had on Jeff, as we know from "Outta Mind (Outta Site)"