jff

The condescending part of what you said is implying that everyone must surely share your opinion about how boring classic rock is.  You could have just spoken for yourself and not been indirectly dismissive of people who happen to not share your opinion.  "Is anybody NOT bored by a group of white guys playing guitar, guitar, bass, drums, vocals in a slightly shouty, distorted, boozy manner?  I sure as hell am."

 

It really doesn't take much effort to be considerate in discussions of opinion about art and aesthetics and its kinder to do so.

Then perhaps that quote is what you should have directly responded to, rather than a long post where I was saying something totally different.

Was my initial comment a ridiculous overstatement?  Of course, but so what?  (In my opinion) Your feelings are not hurt, you're just giving me shit because I'm a safer target than Jeff Tweedy.  I don't mind taking shit, so fire away. 

I fucking love classic rock.  The idea that you don't get that (after I've made hundreds of posts on classic rock threads on this forum for over a decade) means you aren't paying attention to the entire point of this thread (which is, what drives someone to create new work?) or anything I ever post here except that which you disagree with.  Everything I've said in this topic falls under the umbrella of what Tweedy likely meant in his statement (something along the lines of classic rock isn't where I go for inspiration anymore).  That's a lot different than the face value meaning.  I've used myself and my personal taste in new music as an example to illustrate how it's possible to say something that appears wide ranging, but actually means something much narrower, which is exactly what I believe Tweedy did. 

I'm not just making a bunch of random statements here that are independent from that context, but I'm being critiqued as if I am.

Your tastes are your tastes and there is nothing wrong with that.  But when you make a sweeping condescending generalization about new iterations of classic rock, it seems you are trying to justify your own opinion by stating that everybody else surely must think as you do, when clearly not everyone does.  I like classic rock and I like new iterations of it, so I guess that makes me a "nobody"in your view.  i don't like punk or goth or most art rock or most indie rock.  I don't think those band have done much to master the craft of playing roots-based music.  I get that they purposely don't want to do that, nothing wrong with that.  Some find it fresh and inspiring, others like me find it unenjoyable, uncompelling. I find Marcus King to be fresh and inspiring for exactly the reasons you find him tired and uninspiring.   He's a fucking genius virtuoso playing with passion and intensity and coming from an authentic and hard-earned understanding of classic idioms of American musical traditions. you say his just doing the Allmans as a derogatory mark while I saw he's doing the Allmans as high praise.  He's doing something that very few bands are doing today and doing it an exceptional level, at least in my opinion.  My point is that you don't really have to undermine some one else's opinion to make yours legitimate, its legitimate on its own.  Treating people who like classic rock as less than you is just plain arrogance.

I don't think I should have to put "in my opinion" or "to me" at the end of every sentence I say when it couldn't be more obvious I'm talking about nothing but my own personal tastes.  

What would be condescending is if I did say that because I assumed you or others on this board needed me to.  

Before I saw your post I was watching some Marcus King videos. The guy can sing and play great, without question, and the songs were quite nice.  I wish I could play guitar as good as he can.  He also seems like a great guy.  But if you understand the context of what I was (in my opinion, quite obviously) saying, his music isn't really giving me anything I haven't already received countless times over a very long period of time from others, including the Allmans. (I've participated extensively on the Allmans thread on this forum if you're looking for me to prove I like the Allmans and/or classic rock.)

So, tying this all back into what Tweedy said: 

If I were a music star who just put out a new album, and I was talking to the music press about the challenges of finding fresh ways to create and record music (which is ALWAYS the context of music magazine interviews with Tweedy when new Wilco albums come out, at least since Summerteeth), I also may have said something easily misinterpreted like "rock music is boring."  When what he really (and in my opinion, obviously) meant is not so much that rock music is boring, but that it isn't where he's finding the inspiration he needs in order to create fresh music.  

__________________

I never said anyone was less than me, nor have I treated anyone that way. I can't let that go unchallenged. 

well 'rock music' is a pretty big descriptor, no? i guess with the 'normal' 2 gtr/bass/drums lineup i wasn't necessarily defaulting to Stones/'Mats sounds

 

 

You continue to focus on only half of the description I offered.   The other half ("vocals in a slightly shouty, distorted, boozy manner"), I thought, makes it pretty clear I was referring to the swaggery type of rock bands like the Stones/Replacements.  As far as I recall, we haven't seen any newer bands in that mold on Solid Sound or Sky Blue Sky lineups, or as opening acts for any of their regular shows probably since the '90s.   But we have seen them handpick rock bands who don't fit that description...like Ohmme, Cate Le Bon, Lithics, Courtney Barnett, older acts like Feelies, Yo La Tengo, Low, etc. 

So, while I don't want to put words in his mouth, I think those factors make it pretty easy to narrow down what Tweedy means when he says "Rock music has become boring to me."

Thanks for the recommendations.  I'll check those out.  

yes, and the frequency of the AC does make a different wrt to condenser hum, so state your continent.

 

 

i mean, if you're really bored w/ the classic rock group instrumentation i would assume you've moved onto other things. forgive me if i haven't checked the now playing thread for a while, but new recommendations are always welcome.

 

 

btw, here's a rock song that still has that vital spark of urgency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpD6faiW5Jc

Surely you understand that there's rock music that isn't in the Faces/Stones mold, or the Replacements mold, or isn't something people would point to and say "THAT is a prime example of rock and roll."

As I already said, look at the lineup for any year of Solid Sound. 

I love classic rock, but there's nobody doing that now whose records I would buy.  Not that there's nobody doing it well (for example, Marcus King Band seems pretty good.  They surely can play, but they're basically just the Allmans).  But it's tired and doesn't provide any fresh inspiration.  I got the inspiration that comes from that well a long time ago, and when I hear a band that are obviously huge Stones fans, sometimes I think it's good, but it's usually forgettable.    To be inspired now, I need a fresher take.

I find that in artists like Ohmme, Sam Evian, Cate Le Bon, Dungen, Omni, and lots of others.

This Born Stoned song is not bad by any means.   I wouldn't turn it off if I was listening to the radio.  But like Marcus King Band, it scratches an itch that's already been scratched.  This sounds like a mashup of Neil Young and Dire Straits.  

I guess what I want is music to scratch a new itch.  An itch I didn't even know I had. 

One of the things I love about Jeff is his downright reverence for the greats who have come Before Us.  It's exactly why Wilco could play a highly entertaining set of Stones-y rock. And I don't see any signs of Wilco not still enjoying rocking out live when they do.

 

But my read on these latest comments is...I don't think Jeff is saying he doesn't enjoy or respect playing Rock n' Roll, just that he's less inspired by it as a NEW direction of exploration for Wilco.   And that's what's so great about Wilco, their regular insistence on exploring new territory as a band.  

 

 

That's exactly what I was going for with my post.

I love stereotypical rock music like the Faces/'70s Stones/AC/DC, etc. as much as the next guy, but new bands who come along and try to inherit that territory aren't the types of bands that inspire me to pick up my guitar or make me want to write a song.  This is how I interpret Jeff's comment about being bored by rock and roll.  

so what are you listening to instead? the latest electro-clash banger? tuvan throat singers backed by a black metal accordion quintet? the hum from your refrigerator condenser?

Is that a serious question?  

I guess it depends what he means by rock and roll.  Is anybody NOT bored by a group of white guys playing guitar, guitar, bass, drums, vocals in a slightly shouty, distorted, boozy manner?  I sure as hell am.

But look at every Solid Sound lineup and the Mexico thing coming up.  They are predominately what one would describe as rock and roll.  Tweedy is one of the curators of these lineups.  He's not bored with these types of rock and roll acts. 

He told us in the film almost 20 years ago that two electric guitars (one of the main staples of "rock and roll") is obsolete.  He was wrong and it isn't.  But it seemed pretty obvious that he was trying to say that rock music needs to step outside of the old boxes.  

The latest issue of Guitar Player has Jeff and Nels on the cover.   Pretty good interview.  Sort of gear oriented.  One surprising piece of info from it:  That's Jeff playing the lead guitar hook on Love is Everywhere.  He said it was faster to just record it himself than it would be to teach it to Nels.  (Nels plays it on stage, and it sounds exactly the same.)

good to hear!

 

I bought a Melvins LP from their merch table years ago (Nude With Boots) and they were cheap at $10 but with a giant BUYER BEWARE sign, as they were all warped... i took a chance on one that looked OK in the shrinkwrap, put it on at home the next day, and teh stylus got launched into outer space on the first revolution. total no-go.

 

but i had a bunch of 12"x12" floor tiles leftover from a kitchen project, and stacked about 6-8 on the LP and left it in the basement for ~6 months. plays fine now!

That's a good idea!   I have a couple hundred pounds worth of tiles in my shed.  I might try that.

I keep checking my local Barnes & Noble. As of Monday it still wasn't on the shelf.

Still not there.   Bummer, since I'm rarely near one of those stores.  I was really hoping to pick it up today while I was on the way home from the doctor.  I picked up the new Guitar Player with Jeff and Nels on the cover as a consolation prize.   

I was there.  I thought the band were terrific.   Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like they're using less gear on stage than ever before.  Massive guitar collection aside, they could haul their stage gear around in a van.  I like that they can cover so much sonic territory with a fairly small amount of equipment. 

A number of the songs seem to be pretty drastically rearranged since I last saw them (my last show was Star Wars tour, and before that was the An Evening With Wilco run).   The new arrangement of Reservations is gorgeous, for example, and there were some Glenn spotlight moments that seemed to be new additions. 

The new songs came across well on stage.  I think it's safe to say We Were Lucky is an instant classic concert staple.  

As for the venue....I like the setup.  It's comfortable and all the views are good.  The sound was surprisingly robust, which is not always the case here thanks to neighborhood restrictions.  But the crowd once again proved itself to be pretty awful.  The people directly next to and in front of me had loud, nonstop conversations for the entire show.  We had pretty good seats right behind the soundboard, but we relocated to a couple different areas hoping to find less chatter noise.  That was a failed mission.  Atlanta is already bad in that respect, but something about Chastain amplifies it (being in the middle of a wealthy neighborhood probably curses this venue with an audience with a sense of entitlement).  It's been this way at every show I've ever seen here. I've seen several performers comment on it from the stage.  I saw Neil Young abort a quiet song because the audience noise was distracting him.  

Jeff mentioned he remembered playing there before and someone said they opened for REM ---he kinda was definitely unsure about THAT or maybe it was the" opening act "  thing ----seems they played there twice in the late 90's    

They played their SBS show there with Low opening.  It poured rain the whole time.  I'm surprised he didn't remember that. 

WILCO!

sorry for the late reply here, but not allowing a return because a record is warped, skips, drilled off center etc is total bullshit. 

It is, and ultimately, they gave me the option of a refund or a replacement.   I took the refund and went to the record store a couple days later to buy it.  I told my friend at the record store about the warped record (and showed him the video I too  of it spinning on my turntable), and he said their shipment was recalled due to damage and that a lot of the are probably like that.  Maybe it had to do with the heatwave in the south that week, because everyone else seems to be getting good copies.  So a week later they finally got their shipment and I went back to get a pink copy.

So it worked out in the end.

There's a good new interview with Gorman that I'm working my way through on Dean Delray's podcast:  https://allthingscomedy.com/podcast/dean-delrays-let-there-be-talk

Yeah, it sounds like nobody has even been asked to participate.  But that hasn't stopped the music press from sniffing around asking people if they're in or out.

On a different note, how is Gorman's book?   Does he dig into Mr. Crows Garden at all?  I was close friends for a long time with the bass player of that band, and I've heard his side of the story fairly in-depth.  I'd love to hear about that from someone else who was there.  

Weren't Chris and Rich saying less than a year ago that they'd never speak to each other again?

And now they're about to get the band back together, but Steve Gorman is saying he'll never participate in what he describes as a money grubbing charade.

I'm placing pretty good odds on Gorman changing his mind the way the Robinson brothers apparently have.

I think I heard a few weeks ago a winner was already contacted

Wouldn't that have been before the album even came out?  They were still using the "pre-order for a chance to win a guitar" pitch less than two weeks ago.

When am I going to find out if I won the Tele or Jazzmaster in the pre-order raffle?

She's a pop star. 

 

Billie Holiday is in. Brenda Lee is in. Donna Summer is in. Dusty Springfield is in. Etta James, Aretha Franklin, Janet Jackson, Nina Simone...

 

I would think that all of those performers have set enough of a precedent of the types of musical acts that get in that Whitney Houston wouldn't seem unusual. 

I don't remember what Brenda Lee or Janet Jackson's music is like, but I could draw a straight line from most of those artists to something important that happened in rock and roll. 

Billy Holiday and Nina Simone:  protest and civil rights music

Donna Summer:  disco/electronic music is still a major element of rock and roll

Aretha and Etta James:  R&B, gospel, and doo-wop are some of styles rock descends from

Dusty Springfield is maybe the closest parallel to Whitney out of that bunch.  I like some of their music (Wishin' and Hopin' and Son of a Preacher Man are among my favorite music performances in any genre), but I don't know what connects any of it to rock and roll.  

I would assume that the amount of money generated by any music act would be a substantial factor into getting into the R&RHOF. 

I just don't see a connection between what she does and what rock and roll is, even in the widest definition.   

EDIT:  To be fair to her, I have not listened to all of her music. Maybe she's done some rock music I'm unaware of.

Yes also.. agree with almost everything you said but I think Soundgarden will get in too

I think I intended to put them on my list, but cut them off somehow.   They should be in, for sure.   

The following should all get in.

Kraftwerk 
MC5 
Motörhead 
Todd Rundgren 
T.Rex 
 

I don't see why Whitney Houston would get in ever, but she'll get in this year.  100%.

Dave Matthews shouldn't get in yet, but will eventually.  I agree Phish should get in first, but this is still basically Rolling Stone Magazine presents the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame more than it is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

I was more joking than being serious, I don't really think he was slighting the Dead or they need more credit.  I don't know of any other rock band or a touring band of any other kind of music before the Dead that pioneered setlist variety more than they did. It wasn't til the early 80s really, that the no repeats in three nights pattern started with the Dead but it certainly made people consider a three night run in a given city something where you didn't think twice about going all three nights.  The expectation was so set in stone that some Heads would complain if a single song was repeated in a three night stand!  "they played Black Peter on night one, I can't believe they did it again on night three!"

 

I think with all the songs Wilco can pull out after long periods unplayed and then freaking nail it, they have more than enough skill and talent to do no repeats, as they have demonstrated on some of these no repeat runs in the past.  I also get that some fans won't like it, the more casual ones, likely, if they don't get to hear their fave song at the one show they go see.  But the Dead just did what they wanted to do and their fans got used to it.  Everyone knew you probably wouldn't hear Truckin' unless you went to three shows in a row, stuff like that.  I think it was a win-win for the band and their dedicated fans. 

I hope my post didn't come across as argumentative.  That wasn't my intent, but I was in a mood this morning, so there might be some aggro tone there that was unwarranted.

Anyway, I agree with you about setlist variation.  I like being surprised. They've generally done a pretty good job of changing up the setlist at the shows I've seen (I usually only see one show per tour), but there are still a lot of songs I've never see them play, and a number of songs they've almost always played. 

I noticed he said like Phish, not the Grateful Dead.  C'mon John, give credit to the pioneers of setlist variety, at least.  I guess the Dead are still probably anathema to many from an art-rock, punk-rock indie-rock background.  Really I don't care who is the model for setlist variety but how great would it be if they would play no repeats for three shows in a row all the time?  One might even start to miss Jesus Etc ( or insert whatever overplayed warhorse you are tired of hearing) if you didn't hear it every time you saw them live!  You might actually get to hear a song like Kingpin once in awhile or not have to go years without getting Monday or Ashes of American Flags.  And diehards would likely attend more shows, too.

It could be that he was consciously using a contemporary reference for the sake of modern audiences, many of whom weren't alive to see the Dead.   There's no chance whatsoever that John is unaware the Dead came before Phish, or was slighting them in any way.  Wilco did a tour with Bob Weir and played Grateful Dead songs on sage with him.  The Dead don't need to be buffed up any more than they already are. 

Also, do we know for sure that the Dead are the pioneers of setlist variety?  Or have they simply been marketed that way?   There were probably countless long-forgotten folk artists that knew thousands of songs and could do ten times more shows with no repeats than the Dead.