Jeff In Rolling Stone

[Preferred B]

No, I understand that. It's apparent that their personalities clashed. And I don't blame Jeff for getting irritated with Jay. I just have yet to read anything from Jeff where he gives Jay hardly any credit for the REMARKABLE stretch of music from Being There to Mermaid to Summerteeth to YHF. I think Jay had a LOT to do with Wilco's success.

 

“Jay was a really amazing musician and he really helped Wilco to grow as a band during the years he was with us. It was a tragic, sad end.”

Irish Times article

[jakobnicholas]

Thanks for posting this. It's interesting, but I don't believe a single word of it.

 

I don't know. It's an even-handed article. I don't sense he sides with Paul OR John:

 

Though Lennon is more commonly regarded as the Beatles' true genius (which is inarguable: he wrote the bulk of their masterpieces and until the last couple years of their career, wrote the best tracks on their albums), it is also fair to say that without McCartney, the Beatles would not have mattered in history with such ingenuity and durability. Also, unlike Lennon, McCartney understood that the Beatles' four members would never create so much wonder separately as they had collectively.

 

 

Paul had Allan Klein pegged. The article says Mick Jagger warned the Beatles to stay away from Klein, and Paul turned out to be wise to be the wise one.

[Sir Stewart]

It's an even-handed article. I don't sense he sides with Paul OR John:

Lennon...wrote the bulk of their masterpieces and until the last couple years of their career, wrote the best tracks on their albums

[Analogman]

I don't know. It's an even-handed article. I don't sense he sides with Paul OR John:

 

Though Lennon is more commonly regarded as the Beatles' true genius (which is inarguable: he wrote the bulk of their masterpieces and until the last couple years of their career, wrote the best tracks on their albums), it is also fair to say that without McCartney, the Beatles would not have mattered in history with such ingenuity and durability. Also, unlike Lennon, McCartney understood that the Beatles' four members would never create so much wonder separately as they had collectively.

 

 

Paul had Allan Klein pegged. The article says Mick Jagger warned the Beatles to stay away from Klein, and Paul turned out to be wise to be the wise one.

 

That is true. But, of course, John would not go for Eastman either. As a friend of mine use to say - it took all four of them to make the band. We all have our preferences, of course. I am not really a Paul fan, but in the context of The Beatles, he was needed to make the magic that they gave us.

[jakobnicholas]

“Jay was a really amazing musician and he really helped Wilco to grow as a band during the years he was with us. It was a tragic, sad end.”

Irish Times article

 

 

Oh darn. You got me.

 

 

That sounds like Jeff's released statement after hearing about his death. I think long-time Wilco fans think MUCH more of Jay than things I've read from Tweedy. I don't really blame Jeff. Jay clearly did things to piss him off.

 

I'm just a fan, and when I listen to the records with Jay's contributions, I can HEAR what he contributed. With Bennett, it was Wilco. After Bennett, it's been The Jeff Tweedy Band.

[Gobias Industries]

I don't know. It's an even-handed article. I don't sense he sides with Paul OR John:

 

Though Lennon is more commonly regarded as the Beatles' true genius (which is inarguable: he wrote the bulk of their masterpieces and until the last couple years of their career, wrote the best tracks on their albums), it is also fair to say that without McCartney, the Beatles would not have mattered in history with such ingenuity and durability. Also, unlike Lennon, McCartney understood that the Beatles' four members would never create so much wonder separately as they had collectively.

 

 

Paul had Allan Klein pegged. The article says Mick Jagger warned the Beatles to stay away from Klein, and Paul turned out to be wise to be the wise one.

 

Outside of that quote right there, the author basically says that John and George giving Paul a lot of shit was the cause of it, so I don't see how it's even-handed. I don't even want to know the truth as to the breakup so anything I really read is basically drivel, but there is some seriously manlove for Paul in this article. Not that I don't have manlove for the guy either, but still.

[Dude]

These are some good examples of why bands don't work as a democracy. Someone has to be in charge. But then, the rest of the dudes get tired of that - eventually.

 

Agreed, historically rock bands tend to be either dictionarships (one guy running the show, i.e. Townshend, Page) or limited partnerships (Jagger / Richards). The Beatles operated as a partnership between Paul and John, with George largely getting marginalized as far as songs and band direction. Occasionally they would throw George a bone to make him happy, but ultimately the Beatles failed as a band when John and Paul couldn't stand eachother. To underscore this, John openly talked about and seemed very comfortable with replacing George with Eric Clapton when George stormed out of the Let It Be sessions.

[MattZ]

Here is what happened. The Beatles were 4 different people who, notwithstanding most indications otherwise, were human. They all had different thoughts/ideas/opinions about what they wanted to do and where they wanted to go. As a result, there was no choice for them but to break up as a band.

 

Blaming it on any one of them is silly. All 4 of them were right, and all 4 of them were wrong. It's really that simple.

[MattZ]

Occasionally they would throw George a bone to make him happy, but ultimately the Beatles failed as a band when John and Paul couldn't stand eachother. To underscore this, John openly talked about and seemed very comfortable with replacing George with Eric Clapton when George stormed out of the Let It Be sessions.

 

You may be right that George got the scraps and never was appreciated by John or Paul as he should have been, but John, Paul and Eric Clapton would not have been the Beatles. So maybe we are splitting hairs here, but the Beatles as a band would have failed the instant George was no longer there. Or Ringo. (I am referencing what I bolded above).

 

Wilco is Wilco so long as Jeff is there. The Beatles would not have been The Beatles without any of the 4 of them.

[Sir Stewart]

The Beatles would not have been The Beatles without any of the 4 of them.

 

Testify!

[jakobnicholas]

That is true. But, of course, John would not go for Eastman either. As a friend of mine use to say - it took all four of them to make the band.

 

 

You're right. Maybe Eastman would have done just as bad. But Klein had a history of not being on the up-and-up.

 

For me, it's refreshing to read a Beatles article that gives Paul a little credit. Maybe he WAS a control-freak egomaniac. But maybe had he NOT been, Sgt. Pepper's and all the albums after that don't get made. The fact he put up with all the Yoko shit should be reason enough to like Paul.

 

 

I can understand Lennon not wanting to play on what he thought to be a silly Paul song (Obli-Dee, Obli-Da), but I don't blame Paul for trying to keep Revolution #9 off the White Album......I skip that fucking song EVERY time. I think Paul and John were like brothers, and they knew how to push each other's buttons.

[Analogman]

You're right. Maybe Eastman would have done just as bad. But Klein had a history of not being on the up-and-up.

 

For me, it's refreshing to read a Beatles article that gives Paul a little credit. Maybe he WAS a control-freak egomaniac. But maybe had he NOT been, Sgt. Pepper's and all the albums after that don't get made. The fact he put up with all the Yoko shit should be reason enough to like Paul.

 

I can understand Lennon not wanting to play on what he thought to be a silly Paul song (Obli-Dee, Obli-Da), but I don't blame Paul for trying to keep Revolution #9 off the White Album......I skip that fucking song EVERY time. I think Paul and John were like brothers, and they knew how to push each other's buttons.

 

It's not something I would sit down and listen to for fun, but it is part of the album.

 

The legal deal is a whole other trip.

 

Of course, they supposedly worked things out in the years prior to John being killed. I have read a lot of Beatles books also. The first one I read was in 1977 or 78. That is all we have to go on - the books, and the stories that get handed down over time.

[Sir Stewart]

Sometimes I listen to Revolution #9 twice in a row.

[Analogman]

Ever play it backwards?

 

Actually, I saw a deal on a blog the other day that had all The Beatles songs backwards.

[Sir Stewart]

I don't think I've ever listened to it backwards. There was that site a while ago that had all the elements separated out and you could build your own #9.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

I would take a look again at his actual quote, as he doesn't really mention leadership issues, more that Bennett would be somewhat two-faced, being Jeff's best buddy when he was in the room and trashing him behind his back when he wasn't there.

 

And we actually saw a bit of that in IATTBYH

[mpolak21]

For me, it's refreshing to read a Beatles article that gives Paul a little credit. Maybe he WAS a control-freak egomaniac. But maybe had he NOT been, Sgt. Pepper's and all the albums after that don't get made. The fact he put up with all the Yoko shit should be reason enough to like Paul.

 

Eccentric as Yoko may have been I think she has to get a little credit for some of those later albums. As she herself put it if she hadn't been going to the studio, John wouldn't have gone to studio either. Also The Ballad of John and Yoko is really cool.

 

Here is what happened. The Beatles were 4 different people who, notwithstanding most indications otherwise, were human. They all had different thoughts/ideas/opinions about what they wanted to do and where they wanted to go. As a result, there was no choice for them but to break up as a band.

 

Blaming it on any one of them is silly. All 4 of them were right, and all 4 of them were wrong. It's really that simple.

 

Rolling Stone should have just published this. Well said.

 

Wilco is Wilco so long as Jeff is there. The Beatles would not have been The Beatles without any of the 4 of them.

 

If John and or Glenn go at this point, I'd consider Wilco continuing almost as tough to take as The Who touring with Moon. And then there's the Jay Bennett issue...

 

No, I understand that. It's apparent that their personalities clashed. And I don't blame Jeff for getting irritated with Jay. I just have yet to read anything from Jeff where he gives Jay hardly any credit for the REMARKABLE stretch of music from Being There to Mermaid to Summerteeth to YHF. I think Jay had a LOT to do with Wilco's success.

 

I'm sure over time, Jeff will get less sour on Jay.

 

I was going to try to explain this, but then I realized I have no idea what the hell Jeff Tweedy thinks and probably shouldn't pretend to even try. I agree with you about Bennett's contributions, I think he was adequately replaced by O'Rourke during the Ghost sessions, but since then I do feel there's been a bit of quality drop off, and I think the lack of Bennett might have a lot to with that. I can't help but listen to something like My Country Has Disappeared and wonder what Jay could have done with the arrangements on it or the solo he could have laid down on Walken. Wilco may be Wilco as long Jeff is around, but without Jay part of me kind of feels it's like The Stones without Keith Richards.

 

--Mike

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

 

 

If John and or Glenn go at this point, I'd consider Wilco continuing almost as tough to take as The Who touring with Moon. And then there's the Jay Bennett issue...

 

 

 

I was going to try to explain this, but then I realized I have no idea what the hell Jeff Tweedy thinks and probably shouldn't pretend to even try. I agree with you about Bennett's contributions, I think he was adequately replaced by O'Rourke during the Ghost sessions, but since then I do feel there's been a bit of quality drop off, and I think the lack of Bennett might have a lot to with that. I can't help but listen to something like My Country Has Disappeared and wonder what Jay could have done with the arrangements on it or the solo he could have laid down on Walken. Wilco may be Wilco as long Jeff is around, but without Jay part of me kind of feels it's like The Stones without Keith Richards.

 

--Mike

 

But Jay Farrar is able to roll out an album with three guys named Stu and still call it Son Volt and have it recognized as such?

[Sir Stewart]

But Jay Farrar is able to roll out an album with three guys named Stu and still call it Son Volt and have it recognized as such?

 

I don't know much about Son Volt so I'm really wondering - was there ever another member of that group who was considered remotely integral?

[barbkm]

No, I understand that. It's apparent that their personalities clashed. And I don't blame Jeff for getting irritated with Jay. I just have yet to read anything from Jeff where he gives Jay hardly any credit for the REMARKABLE stretch of music from Being There to Mermaid to Summerteeth to YHF. I think Jay had a LOT to do with Wilco's success.

 

I'm sure over time, Jeff will get less sour on Jay.

 

Well, it it were me, and someone whom I greatly admired treated me like crap and backstabbed me, I would find it kind of hard to be glowing. He may even be resisting the urge to bad mouth him (which I would, cos I'm petty and sensitive). Maybe saying what little he says is best. It also may to a bit to personal, even though he's open about the whole rehab thing.

 

And on that -- let's stop beating that dead horse.

 

Two big news flashes -- Jeff Tweedy went to rehab and Michael jackson died.

 

Enough on both fronts!

[Atticus]

And on that -- let's stop beating that dead horse.

 

you're fairly new, aren't you?

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

I don't know much about Son Volt so I'm really wondering - was there ever another member of that group who was considered remotely integral?

 

I think that there is a certain sense being expressed in a subliminal fashion (not necessarily by you) that Jeff is somehow a lesser musician without Jay. In this context, Jeff NEEDS a collaborator...someone to make his wonderfully written lyrics into wonderful songs. Jay Farrar to Jay Bennett to Jim O'Rourke...any record done without these collaborators suffers. That is the subtext I am feeling around here. The records that draw the most complaints: AM, Sky Blue Sky and Wilco. Records without the said collaborators.

 

I disagree with this mindset. It's ALL Jeff's vision. It's HIS band. They're HIS songs. HE is the one on the record company contracts. I thought that after we all mourned Jay's sad ending and recognized his gifts that we could get beyond this subtext of hating on Jeff.

 

I think we are all still somewhat influenced by the image of what a band is and what it should be that was laid down by the Beatles. I remember watching the movie HELP! and actually believing that they all lived in the same house...kind of like the MONKEES. (Cut me some slack here...I was all of 5 or 6 the first time I saw it). For better or worse, bands are a mixture of a glorified gang and a corporation. Group dynamics, Maslow's hierarchy of needs...all this shit comes around again.

 

There is a story behind Jay's dismissal from Wilco. A story that really only Jay and Jeff know. Just like the story of the breakup of the Beatles. We have ideas, theories, based on allusions and cryptic statements; but WE were not privy and will never be privy to the truth of the details.

[Analogman]

I think that there is a certain sense being expressed in a subliminal fashion (not necessarily by you) that Jeff is somehow a lesser musician without Jay. In this context, Jeff NEEDS a collaborator...someone to make his wonderfully written lyrics into wonderful songs. Jay Farrar to Jay Bennett to Jim O'Rourke...any record done without these collaborators suffers. That is the subtext I am feeling around here. The records that draw the most complaints: AM, Sky Blue Sky and Wilco. Records without the said collaborators.

 

I disagree with this mindset. It's ALL Jeff's vision. It's HIS band. They're HIS songs. HE is the one on the record company contracts. I thought that after we all mourned Jay's sad ending and recognized his gifts that we could get beyond this subtext of hating on Jeff.

 

I think we are all still somewhat influenced by the image of what a band is and what it should be that was laid down by the Beatles. I remember watching the movie HELP! and actually believing that they all lived in the same house...kind of like the MONKEES. (Cut me some slack here...I was all of 5 or 6 the first time I saw it). For better or worse, bands are a mixture of a glorified gang and a corporation. Group dynamics, Maslow's hierarchy of needs...all this shit comes around again.

 

There is a story behind Jay's dismissal from Wilco. A story that really only Jay and Jeff know. Just like the story of the breakup of the Beatles. We have ideas, theories, based on allusions and cryptic statements; but WE were not privy and will never be privy to the truth of the details.

 

That's good point. I still feel that way. And - The whole ider of The Monkees comes from The Beatle movies.

[Analogman]

I don't think I've ever listened to it backwards. There was that site a while ago that had all the elements separated out and you could build your own #9.

 

Revolution #9 backwards

 

Turn me on, dead man.

[mpolak21]

But Jay Farrar is able to roll out an album with three guys named Stu and still call it Son Volt and have it recognized as such?

 

Farrar's never really had an identifiable wingman in Son Volt though. Aside from the original drummer from Uncle Tupelo (1), I doubt even casual fans of Son Volt could identify anyone else besides Farrar in that band. Not that casual fans of Wilco are going to know everyone in the band, but at least Nels, John, Jay and Glenn will get the occasional graph in your "from the ashes of Uncle Tupelo" Wilco feature.

 

(1). Who is occasionally also known as Mike Heidhorn.

 

I think that there is a certain sense being expressed in a subliminal fashion (not necessarily by you) that Jeff is somehow a lesser musician without Jay. In this context, Jeff NEEDS a collaborator...someone to make his wonderfully written lyrics into wonderful songs. Jay Farrar to Jay Bennett to Jim O'Rourke...any record done without these collaborators suffers. That is the subtext I am feeling around here. The records that draw the most complaints: AM, Sky Blue Sky and Wilco. Records without the said collaborators.

 

Yeah, I am kind of guilty of promoting that idea myself. The truth of the matter is none of really have any idea how Wilco is actually working, and just reach for whatever narrative-- "this album sucks because Jim O'Rourke didn't produce it" "no Jay Bennett mellotrons, no interest," etc, we want to convey that best expresses the way we feel about the band.

 

Yours happens to be that's it's Jeff band, Jeff's vision, etc. And while I'd say certainly the Michael Jordan, without a Pippen I don't think he couldn't get past the Celtics or Pistons in the playoffs or write Jesus, etc.

 

But anyway, it could just as easily be that those three records (AM, SBS, WTA) aren't as good because there's too much collaboration or because Glenn lost all of those cool things that make those clicking noises in a house fire. No one really has any idea or to say it more eloquently...

 

We have ideas, theories, based on allusions and cryptic statements; but WE were not privy and will never be privy to the truth of the details.