Wilco's relevance.

[jdmel]

Lets be completely critical here folks... I was listening to Spoon's gagagagaga and although the bands name and album could have both been written by a baby, the lofi experimental sound reminded me of what music could be the way Yankee Hotel Foxtrot once did. I love Sky Blue Sky I think "You Are My Face" may be one of the most well crafted songs of all time, completely brilliant record... but its a breezy 70s record. I understand theres more to it than that but it will forever by the Wilco album I put on in a relaxing mixed company enviornment, not the throw you off with buzzs and whirrs I love this band for... but is Wilco a band that left their stamp on the music community with Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, for a band that always is changing direction theyve seemed to lost a certain amount of excitement... In the sense only that maybe SBS would have fit better before YHF... the evolution process went, not awry, not elsewhere, but somehwat flatlined... I always thought the great thing about that record is what it represented as far as where Wilco COULD go, its a masterpiece of potential and I feel like a lot of other bands in a sense stole the reins (not the sound) of the direction wilco was perhaps leading music. Sorry thats a bit of rambling but if anyone can discern the point im trying to make and respond to it, go for it.

[giraffo]

most groups are even lucky to make a mark like YHF and A Ghost Is Born, let alone have such impressive back catalogs as BT ST and then SBS. After Dylan did Highway 61 and Blonde on Blonde, he's made virtually only 2 albums [blood on the Tracks and Desire] that even compare. Most bands usually make 1 or 2 or 3 noticable records, the only exception is The Beatles, for the most part.

[Hi my name is Lee]

In one word, no.

 

Considering popularity, I think with the progress of technology, especially the internet, there won't be "epic" bands anymore. Music taste has become much more stratified than it has 30, even 20 years ago. Tastes are coming in and out of the spectrum; trends are going in and out so fast nobody can cling onto them long enough for something "substantial" to be salvaged.

 

Considering musical ingenuity, the "buzzes and whirrs" you speak of have long been since introduced into pop music, I can think of handfuls from the 90s, twice as much from the 80s. When people 30-50 years from now think of who has done it the best out of the 90s-00s era, I think the nod will eventually go to one of Radiohead's albums, or Sonic Youth, considering their fan base within the media.

 

Wilco's chance for "leaving their mark" is, I think, if we see an emergence of a dominating alt-country force in the indie/pop music scene, whose influences could hypothetically be traced back to Tupelo or Wilco. Regardless how true it is, I have already seen countless articles hailing Tupelo as the father figure of the alt-country genre.

 

Wilco certainly won't be remembered for being an experimental band. I think anyone who believes that is diluting themselves.

 

I love Wilco, don't get me wrong. They are my favorite band by far. You just asked for a critical response.

[mfwahl]

I would say wait and see what's next. I was actually thinking how different the music scene (that I know of) is more like SBS. Music that I hear nowadays seems likes it's trying to go for a stripped down sound and straightforward lyrics. But maybe thtat's just because I' m outta the loop.

[Wilco LP #7]

I think that Tweedy's songwriting legacy is much more influential than what the band does in any technical realm.

[radiokills]

I think that Tweedy's songwriting legacy is much more influential than what the band does in any technical realm.

 

false

[cmackey34]

First of all, who cares how "relevant" or "influential" Wilco's music is right now. Second, I'm sure the idea behind each album was never to be important, it was to make a great album in spite of the rest of the pop world. You surely can't convince me that AM is or has ever been relevant or influential. YHF just happened to come out in the right musical climate and was aided by the incredible back-story to the album's release.

For my money SBS is Wilco's most important (if not relevant) album because it shows that a group can still sit down and, in the words of Tweedy, "sing some motherfucking songs." None of those tracks NEED buzzes and whirs and electronics or long droning passages (not that those things are bad). So much music today hides behind technology and Wilco managed to totally free themselves of that for SBS. That's pretty damn relevant, if you ask me.

[ction]

You surely can't convince me that AM is or has ever been relevant or influential.

 

AM was definitely relevant in 1995...and don't call me Shirley.

[MattZ]

Who gives a shit about influencing the music world. They influence my music world. That's all I care about.

[you ever seen a ghost?]

>After Dylan did Highway 61 and Blonde on Blonde, he's made virtually only 2 albums [blood on the Tracks and Desire] that even compare.

 

not true at all. "Love & Theft" and Modern Times are both groundbreaking. yeah, you see the overwhelmingly positive reviews, but few people have touched on the real brilliance of these albums. years down the road people will though. also, besides discounting those (which to me is the real crime), you've dismissed The Basement Tapes, John Wesley Harding, etc.

 

to the original poster: Wilco will get their due eventually. kinda like The Velvet Underground or someone like that who had a great cult following and eventually get reissued, studied and regarded as hugely important. it remains to be seen how Sky Blue Sky will fit in, but i don't think it is detrimental to their stature in any way.

 

-justin

[ction]

"Love & Theft" and Modern Times are both groundbreaking. yeah, you see the overwhelmingly positive reviews, but few people have touched on the real brilliance of these albums. years down the road people will though.

 

I don't think I've heard Love and Theft, but I've listened to Modern Times a bunch. What new ground is being broken with that album?

[caliber66]

Singing old mumbly guy who's not Johnny Cash?

[Sir Stewart]

I don't think I've heard Love and Theft, but I've listened to Modern Times a bunch. What new ground is being broken with that album?

It's the first album Dylan has ever released that didn't have to worry about bad reviews no matter what it sounded like.

[quarter23cd]

I've never understood the need to think so hard about a band's legacy and their "place in history"--especially one that is still active. When people ask how Wilco will be remembered in 20 years, I think about most people I know and I think the answer is "Not at all. Except by me." Which is really the only thing that matters to me. If I'm still digging the music years down the line, that's fantastic. But I can't think of anything more pointless than worrying about whether other people think that the music I like is important.

[caliber66]

But I can't think of anything more pointless than worrying about whether other people think that the music I like is important.

[MattZ]

The only thing I can think is that people believe that larger themes like "relevance" and "influence" help to validate their opinions of a band. The more influential or relevant a band is, the more that their subjective opinion is proven to be objectively correct.

 

Which is preposterous.

[dannygutters]

false

 

"how can it be bullshit to state an opinion?"

[Sir Stewart]

"how can it be bullshit to state an opinion?"

When 65days is reacting to it, that's how.

[BigWheeledWagon]

The Wilco/Spoon comparison really resonates with me. I'm a Sky Blue Sky defender, but when Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga came out, I got into it in a way that reminded me of first experiencing Being There, Summerteeth, or YHF (in fairness to Spoon, I have almost equally warm regards for pretty much all of their albums). This also made me realize that while I do enjoy Sky Blue Sky, it's not one of those essential albums for me. I don't think, however, that it signals some sort of decline for Wilco. It's a transitional album of a new line-up just enjoying playing together. It strikes me as an album made for the guys in the band. They were kind enough to share it with us.

[you ever seen a ghost?]

>I don't think I've heard Love and Theft, but I've listened to Modern Times a bunch. What new ground is being broken with that album?

 

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/fe....html?id=178703

 

please read the full article before making any further comments.

 

also, from the Rolling Stone review:

 

"There is no precedent in rock & roll for the territory Dylan is now opening with albums that stand alongside the accomplishments of his wild youth. Love and Theft, recorded when he'd turned sixty, was his toughest guitar rock since Blonde on Blonde in 1966, a combination of the mojo Muddy Waters had working at age sixty-two on Hard Again and the sweeping dystopic perspective Philip Roth brought to American Pastoral at sixty-three (with more than a touch of Groucho Marx on You Bet Your Life)."

 

-justin

[ction]

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/fe....html?id=178703

 

please read the full article before making any further comments.

 

also, from the Rolling Stone review:

 

"There is no precedent in rock & roll for the territory Dylan is now opening with albums that stand alongside the accomplishments of his wild youth. Love and Theft, recorded when he'd turned sixty, was his toughest guitar rock since Blonde on Blonde in 1966, a combination of the mojo Muddy Waters had working at age sixty-two on Hard Again and the sweeping dystopic perspective Philip Roth brought to American Pastoral at sixty-three (with more than a touch of Groucho Marx on You Bet Your Life)."

 

-justin

 

So it's groundbreaking because he borrowed lyrics and because Rolling Stone said it was?

 

P.S. I only skimmed through half of the article.

[MattZ]

justin would get along really well with TheMaker.

[you ever seen a ghost?]

>So it's groundbreaking because he borrowed lyrics and because Rolling Stone said it was?

 

>P.S. I only skimmed through half of the article.

 

hey, i wasn't trying to argue with you. as a matter of fact, i spent the time trying to find the Poetry article again so i could present you with a different viewpoint. i'm sorry if i came across the wrong way, but there really isn't any need to act that way towards me.

 

the article makes a point that his last two albums are post-modern collage. it also says that nobody has even written songs like these before...not even the man himself. it also claims he's breaking new ground in both music and literature...high praise coming from a poetry journal. "borrowed lyrics" doesn't do it justice as the sources are quite varied. it also makes the point that it's not simple either, as the different sources are quite disparate, but that they are brilliantly used and fit perfectly...and that's just the lyrics. the band is immaculate and vocally, he's in fine form. the nuances of his voice are obviously more in line with old blues singers, etc.

 

a list of just some of the allusions/outright quotes from the last two albums, since you just "skimmed" it: Henry Timrod, the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Samuel, John, and Luke, among others), Robert Johnson, Memphis Minnie, Kokomo Arnold, Muddy Waters, Sonny Boy Williamson, Blind Lemon Jefferson, the Stanley Brothers, Merle Haggard, Hoagy Carmichael, Cole Porter, Jerome Kern, and standards popularized by Jeanette MacDonald, Bing Crosby, and Frank Sinatra, as well as vintage folk songs such as

[ction]

So it's groundbreaking because a poetry journal said it was?

 

Sorry...Dylan could very well be doing lyrical things you and others find interesting. He may also be taking a completely original approach to writing lyrics which would be breaking new ground (although it is certainly possible other lyricists have done something similar and just haven't had the profile Bob Dylan has). I didn't get that, partially because I'm not all that smart and would never gotten the references, and partially because the actual music being played (including the vocal instrument) really kinda bored me.

 

I'll grant you the lyrical aspect may have broken new ground, but there's no way the music does.

[you ever seen a ghost?]

>So it's groundbreaking because a poetry journal said it was?

 

they're a damn good source and i wholeheartedly agreed with that sentiment before i read that article, the Rolling Stone review or the RS interview with Dylan. btw, it's definitely okay by me if you diss on Rolling Stone. i do too, but some of the essays, articles and interviews they do are still very relevant.

 

 

>I'll grant you the lyrical aspect may have broken new ground, but there's no way the music does.

 

i'd agree. i mean, it all sounds so old. but the lyrics are a part of the music as a whole. as you say, it may take a certain kind of person. i'm definitely into literature and old blues music, so what he's doing lyrically and vocally fascinates me. while the band itself might not be breaking any new ground, their playing is really something else.

 

an example of a brilliant line, taken directly from The Great Gatsby and dropped perfectly into "Summer Days":

 

"she said 'you can't repeat the past'. i said 'what do you mean you can't? of course you can!'" a line probably too long to fit, sung perfectly and followed by a W.C. Fields allusion. nice!

 

-justin