jff

My library is bringing in Cohen's book in for me today - which should be a nice easy read while visiting the in-laws over the Thanksgiving weekend.

 

I guess it's entirely possible that the band were in their hotels by 9 pm -- I know the wanted to wait for the sun to go down before they played and since the show was in December I guessing the sun set by 5 pm or so. 

The WP article said they were on stage at 6:30. (Not necessarily that that's when they went on stage.)   So, even if that's when they started, they played 15 songs, plus several breaks for outbursts of violence.  So if they were on stage for 90 minutes, that still leaves them an hour to get from the stage to the hotel.

I guess I had never given it much thought, but I would have assumed the concert was much later at night than that.

I'd love to see Nels in a show like this.  Usually when I get to see Nels outside of WIlco, it's formless noise imrpovs.  I like that kind of thing, but I also like seeing Nels play more structured music.  I haven't seen him do that since the tour for the first Nels Cline Singers album.  I think this show will probably be a good balance of free and structured (or at least anchored to a groove) playing, based on what I've heard from Billy Martin and John Medeski.  

Are the Hell's Angels the Scientology of '6os/'70s rock stars?  I don't know why else there would still so much "God Bless the Hell's Angels" coming from that generation of music stars when the Hell's Angels is demonstrably infested with rabid scumbags. 

You all are debating this like they'll get in. I don't see it happening. They aren't popular enough. There is not a single artist in the HOF who hasn't had an arena tour.

Not sure if your'e serious, but this is not true.

When did Booker T and the MGs do an arena tour?  Or Elvis Costello?  Or Leadbelly? Or the Velvet Underground?  Or many, many others?

I would agree they probably wont get in, at least not for a while.  But it's not because of their audience size.  It's more due to them showing how useless the traditional record business is.

Tough question.  Just about everyone I keep up with put out one or more record this year. So...

Kinks?

Nels Cline Singers?

I think I've read that the colored vinyl's are more likely to sound less than stellar. There's lots of discussions about this (and everything music and audio related over on the Hoffman forum. 

I find translucent colors to be consistently worse than solid colors.  The clear ones often have a fizzy sound, almost like the needle is scraping its way through the grooves.

I guess I'm of two minds on this one.  I still feel that this is an innocent use of technology.  The nature of prerecorded parts is that they are locked into a tempo, so Glenn has to use a click track on that one song, which is harmless.   

On the other hand, it seems the only backing track is some strings and string-like sounds during the first half of the song. IMO, the song would come across just as well in concert without those. Alternatively, I'm sure they could figure out a way to compensate for the loss of those sounds...for example, as far as I can tell, Jeff has two free hands during the part of the song with the tapes...he could maybe create something like those sounds using a guitar and effects, or trigger those exact recordings using MIDI.  So, while I generally prefer a band not to rely on backing tapes, I think this is perhaps the most minor offense of backing tape use possible.   

It’s the string sounding synth loop stuff that’s taped.

Here's another performance.    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6du9Lg5Mjk

If your'e referring to the string section that comes it at around :45, and then again around 3:25, that seems more like a sound sample that someone in the band pushes a button or key to generate, so while it is a pre-recorded sound, it is being "played" by a band member.  Which is exactly how mellotrons work.

I don't see any kind of Ashley Simpson-esque sins being committed here.  It's not like there's a tape running throughout that they're using as a crutch.  The strings could go away entirely and the song would be fine.

If they had to play to tape with it then they should never play it. Completely inexcusable for a band of Wilco's skill to admit that. Surely the SIX of them can pull off that song to a decent enough degree without going Memorex on us.

I don't know what the "tape" is, but it could be a loop of some sort that Glen or Mikael trigger.  It's really common for drummers to do that these days with electronic drums, and isn't really the same as playing to a tape.  It's more similar to some of the things guitarists do with some of their pedals, or what a lot of synths do.  But that's just a guess, and I'd be curious to know exactly what that means. 

Here it is from Letterman:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpe_AYaIDSc

I don't see or hear anything in this performance that suggests they're playing to a tape, but I hear a number of loops and/or repeating synth passages (I don't know the correct synth terminology), particularly during the first couple of minutes.

I wouldn't say I missed it, but it's absence was noticed.

This tour sort of strikes me as a minimalistic production, and Art of Almost seems like a pretty maximalist, hi-tech piece of music.  Maybe that doesn't make any sense to anyone but me.  But, for example, there's no stage decoration at all this tour except for a screen.  There seems to be less equipment on stage than they typically have.  Most of the new music is very sparse and low-tech (maybe deceptively so).  I can see how they might feel Art of Almost doesn't fit in with what they're trying to present on this tour.  Rhythmically, at least, it is the exact opposite of what they were going for with Ode to Joy.

I like how you can sort of date when they taped this by Jeff's facial hair growth. Not quite carbon dating, but still...

 

(If I had to guess, they did it Oct. 14 — the day after the Brooklyn Steel show — though that seems like an awful long time for the Late Night show to sit on it. I just don't see when else they would have taped it unless it was the actual day of one of the NYC shows.)

Isn't the typical late night tv show format to tape a complete show in the afternoon and then air it that same night?

Is the Seth Myers show pre-taping music performances and piecing together shows from different dates?  So the only thing you can be sure is current on his show is the monologue?

I've listened to the first half so far, and really enjoyed it.  (Somehow it's really difficult for me to listen to a whole cd these days.)  I need to pick it back up, starting with Impossible Germany. 

So far I've enjoyed it all except for the Parquet Courts.  Kudos to them for doing something totally different with their contribution, but I think I'll skip that one when I listen to this cd in the future. 

Winners for me so far are Whitney and Kurt Vile.  I thought the Whitney take on Far Far Away really played up one of Jeff's best melodies in a really nice way.   I'm not really a fan of Kurt's solo material, but his voice is perfect on Passenger Side. If you didn't know anything about Wilco or Kurt Vile, it'd be easy to think this is the original version of the song.    

Tweedy's full quote regarding rock music being boring from the article (the whole paragraph):

He found some inspiration in unlikely places - namely, hip-hop records.  Not that Ode to Joy sounds much like Chance the Rapper.  Rather, it was the spirit of that music that moved Tweedy:  "Hip-hop records are almost uniformly invigorating for me.  There's a mindset in the way people go about making those albums. If you're doing something that was done four months ago, you're a loser. They're not concerned with legacy or status quo. On the other hand, rock music has become almost universally boring to me.  It's becoming similar to older music like jazz or blues, where it's really far away from self-invention and promoting some idea of the future.  It's not liberating.  It's preserving. And when you're trying to preserve something, to me that's rooted in fear of losing it."

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.