Pitchfork Media's reaction to the new record

[jakobnicholas]

Wilco (The Album) being rated a 7 out of 10 is probably about right.

 

Though I think the distance it is behind Summerteeth is HUGE. If Summerteeth is a 10, Wilco (The Album) doesn't deserve to be ranked no better than a 5 or 6.

 

The first half of W(TA) is very strong. But too much of the rest is forced, bland or corny....save for Solitaire, which is tremendous.

 

This album is hitting me like R.E.M.'s Reveal. I respect it and truly love a handful of tunes. But it's also sad 'cause I just feel like that special excitement of a great band is going away.

 

I can't explain it. It just sounds too safe and not unpredictable enough.

[cooperissup3r]

This new album has no soul, I guess there is no conflict left in JT's life. Treatment may have not changed the process, but it sure changed the substance.

 

there doesn't need to be conflict to have soul.

 

that said, i think the review is about spot on.

[choo-choo-charlie]

there doesn't need to be conflict to have soul.

 

that said, i think the review is about spot on.

 

there is a certain kind of beauty that can only be produced by struggle. there's also a lot of beauty in purity, comfort, and being at peace with oneself as an artist. are we trying to say that jeff's music is less interesting b/c of less conflict within the band? or because he's clean and sober? or is it both?

[Dude]

I think a lot of songs (Country Disappeared, Solitaire) are soulful. Soul is in the ear of the beholder.

[cooperissup3r]

there is a certain kind of beauty that can only be produced by struggle. there's also a lot of beauty in purity, comfort, and being at peace with oneself as an artist. are we trying to say that jeff's music is less interesting b/c of less conflict within the band? or because he's clean and sober? or is it both?

 

i think the new stuff is interesting. i think, for some people (myself included), i'm just more drawn to music like that on summerteeth and yhf, but i think the new album is quite great. it's all just a bunch of meaningless opinions anyway.

[JerseyMike]

The reviewer seems pretty sure that Tweedy used to consciously write to "challenge the listener." I'm not really sure that is what Tweeedy thought when he sat down to write any of those records: "Hey, let's challenge these folks, sweet. And how can I do that?" Hm...doubtful. Writers just write, there's no "pandering" or "subversion" to it, at least as far as I know.

 

I think Tweedy actually talks about wanting to challenge the audience is "learning to die", especially at the outset of the Being There tour. I think he also talked a lot about it in interviews the ramp up to "Ghost", notably about "less than you think". I could be wrong.

[newbornghost]

there is a certain kind of beauty that can only be produced by struggle. there's also a lot of beauty in purity, comfort, and being at peace with oneself as an artist. are we trying to say that jeff's music is less interesting b/c of less conflict within the band? or because he's clean and sober? or is it both?

 

I like it both ways, for sure. YHF and AGiB are still my favorites, but I like the current band more than I ever liked Wilco, and a lot of that has to do with the current stability.

 

I thought Pitchfork put it well in this review: "There is certainly more thrill to be found when the band is acting out but there is something rather pleasing about hearing a band sound so comfortable in their skin."

 

As a fan, I have to let the band evolve, and most of all, I want the band to be healthy so they can keep playing and playing. No one can say Wilco has ever been in more thriving health.

 

One final pt: I haven't heard the new album yet (w/ the exception of W(TS), You Never Know, and the Feist duet), but the thing I loved most about Sky Blue Sky is observed again by Pitchfork about this album: "Every song on Wilco (The Album) is written and performed with immaculate precision, though the subtleties in the work gradually reveal their charms upon repeated listening." Ah, that sounds nice.

[JerseyMike]

I like it both ways, for sure. YHF and AGiB are still my favorites, but I like the current band more than I ever liked Wilco, and a lot of that has to do with the current stability.

 

I thought Pitchfork put it well in this review: "There is certainly more thrill to be found when the band is acting out but there is something rather pleasing about hearing a band sound so comfortable in their skin."

 

As a fan, I have to let the band evolve, and most of all, I want the band to be healthy so they can keep playing and playing. No one can say Wilco has ever been in more thriving health.

 

One final pt: I haven't heard the new album yet (w/ the exception of W(TS), You Never Know, and the Feist duet), but the thing I loved most about Sky Blue Sky is observed again by Pitchfork about this album: "Every song on Wilco (The Album) is written and performed with immaculate precision, though the subtleties in the work gradually reveal their charms upon repeated listening." Ah, that sounds nice.

 

I agree with you 100%. When I wrote my quasi-review of SBS on here I noted that the first thing that took me was the fact that is was straight, clean and precise; a sort of reflection of Tweedy's personal life. I think the new album reflects that same sentiment, perhaps a more joyous one, and it seems to reflect upon the entire band and not just Tweedy. As a long time fan, I take a little comfort in knowing that Wilco are comfortable in their own skin and enjoying the benefits of all of their hard work and struggle, musically and otherwise. I may have to look elsewhere these days for music that will challenge me and blow my mind, but that's fine. In the end I know Wilco will always love me, baby!

[radiokills]

That review was spot on, to me.

 

[thermocaster]

I always wonder the same thing. You don't need specialized training to be a rock critic, they do the same thing we all do: sit a home and give a record a listen a few times and then they write about it. Their opinion is no more or less qualified than anybody else. On the other hand, I have been on the other side of that and when my first record came out

my very first review, which was quite favorable, had suggested that I resorted to a few "melodramatic cliches" and I nearly cried!

 

Eh, people want validation. They get wrapped up in rooting for a band the same way they'd root for a baseball team, and they look to people with public voices (i.e., critics) to validate their rooting interests. Rather than, you know, just enjoying the music because it's good music (to them).

 

It's stupid, honestly. I don't begrudge critics their opinions, but there's nothing that any of the people at Pitchfork or Rolling Stone know about music that makes me believe their opinion of albums or bands is somehow SUPERIOR to mine or yours, and that therefore I should follow their advice on what is good or bad. The whole field of critical commentary has always been a steaming pile of crap, whether it dealt with drama, books, music, or film. Very rarely will you ever find someone who TRULY is an expert at what they're reviewing, since most true experts understand that the concept of grading a performance or a recorded work on some idiotic 0-10 scale is about as useful as a mesh condom. And the hideously arrogant and hypocritical social clique of the "indie rock critic" is probably the worst of the lot, because they feel compelled to cast this vomitous aura of superiority over everything they write.

 

We're fortunate in that Wilco have been media darlings for a long time, but I'd have gotten into them (and enjoyed them immensely) even if every critic panned them as overblown and unoriginal --- which, incidentally, I suspect we'll read about in 2011 or so.