What's the consensus on Wilco (The Album)?

[foousic]

I can see comparing WTA to In Rainbows much more than to AWWTM.

 

However, In Rainbows is by far the superior record. I mean no offense to Wilco, but In Rainbows still blows me away every time.

 

This and the couple other ensuing comments thereafter bring up something that I've been talking with my friends about lately and it's that when one is a participant in this discussion of 'In Rainbows' vs. '(the album)' there needs to be a distinction made in the mind that there is an intrinsic difference between the two in that one (In Rainbows) is an album of ambition, emotion (and to be frank) more primitive artistic intuitions than a discussion of self awareness which is of course the grounding framework for '(the album)'. It is in this sort of critical dichotomy that I feel like anyone could gain a greater appreciation of '(the album)' than could ever be achieved in a listening of 'In Raibows'.

 

I actually have to run but I will try to finish this thought later...

[Sir Stewart]

in this discussion of 'In Rainbows' vs. '(the album)' there needs to be a distinction made in the mind that there is an intrinsic difference between the two in that one (In Rainbows) is an album of ambition, emotion and more primitive artistic intuitions than a discussion of self awareness which is of course the grounding framework for '(the album)'. It is in this sort of critical dichotomy that I feel like anyone could gain a greater appreciation of '(the album)' than could ever be achieved in a listening of 'In Raibows'.

So, if one looks at the differences between these two albums in a certain way - i.e., In Rainbows as primitively artistic and Wilco the Album as a discussion of self awareness...one will clearly appreciate Wilco the Album more?

 

I actually have to run but I will try to finish this thought later...

 

Can you try to start it, too?

[Shakespeare In The Alley]

This and the couple other ensuing comments thereafter bring up something that I've been talking with my friends about lately and it's that when one is a participant in this discussion of 'In Rainbows' vs. '(the album)' there needs to be a distinction made in the mind that there is an intrinsic difference between the two in that one (In Rainbows) is an album of ambition, emotion (and to be frank) more primitive artistic intuitions than a discussion of self awareness which is of course the grounding framework for '(the album)'. It is in this sort of critical dichotomy that I feel like anyone could gain a greater appreciation of '(the album)' than could ever be achieved in a listening of 'In Raibows'.

 

I actually have to run but I will try to finish this thought later...

So...I see you're trying to use big words to cover the fact that you don't really have a cohesive point to make.

 

I'd advise not doing that. I honestly have no clue what the hell you're saying, or even which album you're trying to indicate a preference for.

[foousic]

So...I see you're trying to use big words to cover the fact that you don't really have a cohesive point to make.

 

I'd advise not doing that. I honestly have no clue what the hell you're saying, or even which album you're trying to indicate a preference for.

 

Ok, so I didn't expect such a rude response, but if that's how you wanna handle yourself on a fan forum then by all means go right ahead. I guess I might as well try and finish what I was trying to get out earlier. I apologize for not finishing, it couldn't be helped. Either way I guess I should start from a point that I think we all can meet and agree on, which is that I am a Wilco fan (I should think that everyone on here is too). Now with that statement I am admitting that I of course may have some bias in my artistic critiquing and criticism of their work. Now I wrote that previous post not in a effort to bring some sort of high browed intellectual babel opinion into the fold, but rather to honestly express why I feel Wilco (the album) is a great piece of art and that any comparison of it to an album like In Rainbows is arguably incorrect and probably unfair for another band like Radiohead. You see I do have a cohesive point and it is that Wilco (the album) is arguably the most subtle and on point statement from Jeff Tweedy on who he is as an artist, and what Wilco is as an American band today. From this point I personally believe that it is a great album, ahead of it's time, and incomparable to In Rainbows. It's self reflective, parodying, and empowering. It is a statement I think not yet completely understood and certainly not accepted within mainstream music. It is an album about a band, and by a band that has collectively stepped outside of their own inner narrative and commented upon it in such a tasteful and mature way that most listeners I think have missed it completely.

 

If a band has the luck to make a string of interesting albums I find it fascinating to look at the body of work as a sort of inner narrative to the songwriters and architects of the band. The narrative in almost any example doesn't change very drastically. It probably really started with The Beatles, so I guess that's as best a place to start as their is. The Beatles challenged their sound with Rubber Soul, expanded upon that concept with Revolver, and then blew it up with bold indulgent artistic statements like Sgt. Peppers and The White Album to then bring it all back down to earth with simplistic recording and songwriting on Let It Be. Radiohead and Wilco both could fit into this rough Beatles mold. Both bands introduced themselves onto their respective rock scenes with early music that was very listenable and enjoyable if not still lacking a challenging edge to each of their scenes and sub genres of Rock n' Roll. In short both Tom Yorke and Jeff Tweedy were talented but not true revolutionary artists. Again sharing a commonality they both recorded and released follow up albums that seriously challenged public opinion of what they each were capable of and had in them as young emerging rockers. Being There offered a reflective view of the Big Star American rock landscape while The Bends gave the average 90's Top 40 listener a truly beautiful single and album by which they might challenge what the ever growing major corporations like Clear Channel and Ticketmaster were artificially serving up at the time. From this point both bands in very similar fashion continued down this Beatles-esque path to record albums that reshaped what rock in the mainstream listeners ears was at the time. Fast forwarding to A Ghost is Born and Hail To The Thief both Wilco and Radiohead found themselves at a crossroads; continue down their respective artistic paths and risk their mainstream status, or sober up their sound up and record collections that pulled back their sounds and retained what they as groups had been.

 

Now I normally don't like the Radiohead/Wilco comparison, not because I disagree of course by more so because I rarely get the feeling that the voice making it at any certain time has really fleshed out the comparison to this point. I don't really get the sometimes comparison of (the album) to In Rainbows. Clearly (at least in my mind) In Rainbows' comparative selcetion from the Wilco catalogue would be Sky Blue Sky, and a comparison of skill between those two albums is of course completely warranted since they both were each still working within their own narrative dialogues(also I'd pick In Rainbows in that instance). What has changed is that Wilco has followed up Sky Blue Sky with (the album) and Radiohead has released a few very nice little singles. Wilco has stepped outside of it's own persona and commented upon it and in turn they have commented upon us as a culture since we for so many years have held them up as "A Great American Band" At one point or another Wilco began to embody more than just itself and became a self reflective entity upon which I personally as an American could see myself and who I wanted to be with this country. I really do reject the idea that I'm the only one who had this sort of experience with this band, especially since I know people personally who have shared them same exact sentiments with me.

 

Now I'm sorry to say that I again have to run out (class). I hope this entry might have gotten through to some but if not it really doesn't matter anyways. If you read to this point then thanks and I hope you get what I'm talking about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you try to start it, too?

 

Thanks I hope I did...

[Guest Alan]

[Shakespeare In The Alley]

Ok, so I didn't expect such a rude response, but if that's how you wanna handle yourself on a fan forum then by all means go right ahead. I guess I might as well try and finish what I was trying to get out earlier. I apologize for not finishing, it couldn't be helped. Either way I guess I should start from a point that I think we all can meet and agree on, which is that I am a Wilco fan (I should think that everyone on here is too). Now with that statement I am admitting that I of course may have some bias in my artistic critiquing and criticism of their work. Now I wrote that previous post not in a effort to bring some sort of high browed intellectual babel opinion into the fold, but rather to honestly express why I feel Wilco (the album) is a great piece of art and that any comparison of it to an album like In Rainbows is arguably incorrect and probably unfair for another band like Radiohead. You see I do have a cohesive point and it is that Wilco (the album) is arguably the most subtle and on point statement from Jeff Tweedy on who he is as an artist, and what Wilco is as an American band today. From this point I personally believe that it is a great album, ahead of it's time, and incomparable to In Rainbows. It's self reflective, parodying, and empowering. It is a statement I think not yet completely understood and certainly not accepted within mainstream music. It is an album about a band, and by a band that has collectively stepped outside of their own inner narrative and commented upon it in such a tasteful and mature way that most listeners I think have missed it completely.

 

If a band has the luck to make a string of interesting albums I find it fascinating to look at the body of work as a sort of inner narrative to the songwriters and architects of the band. The narrative in almost any example doesn't change very drastically. It probably really started with The Beatles, so I guess that's as best a place to start as their is. The Beatles challenged their sound with Rubber Soul, expanded upon that concept with Revolver, and then blew it up with bold indulgent artistic statements like Sgt. Peppers and The White Album to then bring it all back down to earth with simplistic recording and songwriting on Let It Be. Radiohead and Wilco both could fit into this rough Beatles mold. Both bands introduced themselves onto their respective rock scenes with early music that was very listenable and enjoyable if not still lacking a challenging edge to each of their scenes and sub genres of Rock n' Roll. In short both Tom Yorke and Jeff Tweedy were talented but not true revolutionary artists. Again sharing a commonality they both recorded and released follow up albums that seriously challenged public opinion of what they each were capable of and had in them as young emerging rockers. Being There offered a reflective view of the Big Star American rock landscape while The Bends gave the average 90's Top 40 listener a truly beautiful single and album by which they might challenge what the ever growing major corporations like Clear Channel and Ticketmaster were artificially serving up at the time. From this point both bands in very similar fashion continued down this Beatles-esque path to record albums that reshaped what rock in the mainstream listeners ears was at the time. Fast forwarding to A Ghost is Born and Hail To The Thief both Wilco and Radiohead found themselves at a crossroads; continue down their respective artistic paths and risk their mainstream status, or sober up their sound up and record collections that pulled back their sounds and retained what they as groups had been.

 

Now I normally don't like the Radiohead/Wilco comparison, not because I disagree of course by more so because I rarely get the feeling that the voice making it at any certain time has really fleshed out the comparison to this point. I don't really get the sometimes comparison of (the album) to In Rainbows. Clearly (at least in my mind) In Rainbows' comparative selcetion from the Wilco catalogue would be Sky Blue Sky, and a comparison of skill between those two albums is of course completely warranted since they both were each still working within their own narrative dialogues(also I'd pick In Rainbows in that instance). What has changed is that Wilco has followed up Sky Blue Sky with (the album) and Radiohead has released a few very nice little singles. Wilco has stepped outside of it's own persona and commented upon it and in turn they have commented upon us as a culture since we for so many years have held them up as "A Great American Band" At one point or another Wilco began to embody more than just itself and became a self reflective entity upon which I personally as an American could see myself and who I wanted to be with this country. I really do reject the idea that I'm the only one who had this sort of experience with this band, especially since I know people personally who have shared them same exact sentiments with me.

 

Now I'm sorry to say that I again have to run out (class). I hope this entry might have gotten through to some but if not it really doesn't matter anyways. If you read to this point then thanks and I hope you get what I'm talking about.

 

 

 

Thanks I hope I did...

Wow...

 

As I said, I love both albums. But In Rainbows, to me, is a much better album than WTA. The only reason I compare them mentally is that they each feature the band at their most relaxed. Compare Thom's lyrics on IR to his lyrics on Kid A, and there's a huge difference. Same with Jeff. Beyond that, the comparison pretty much ends to me, because there's really no point furthering it.

 

While I love W(TA) very much, I'm not going to argue that it's all the things you said it is. It's a great collection of songs that don't push boundaries, but show a band comfortable being who they are. To me, it's a pleasant album of well written and performed songs, that don't try to break ground, or make grand artistic statements. That's it.

 

Whereas IR has that same kind of relaxed vibe, but it's better music, in my opinion. However, it's one of the best albums I've ever heard, so take that into consideration.

 

I've never been a fan of the Wilco/Radiohead comparisons before. But obviously they're valid, and it's no disrespect to either. They're each among the absolute top tier of critically AND commercially successful bands, so it's a good thing to be compared to either.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Now I beleive I do understand what you're saying, which is not to say I agree with it.

 

I think it is tremendously shortsighted to say that a band needs to be self-reflective to make a "subtle and on-point statement" on who they are as a band, or who the songwriter is or where anyone is at. I also think that to make a self-reflexive record is not "ahead of its time," nor is it necessarily cuturally, musically or critically important for an artist or band to be self-reflective or step outside of its own narrative in the first place.

 

Wilco has stepped outside of it's own persona and commented upon it and in turn they have commented upon us as a culture since we for so many years have held them up as "A Great American Band" At one point or another Wilco began to embody more than just itself and became a self reflective entity upon which I personally as an American could see myself and who I wanted to be with this country.

 

I think it's great that you got that out of this album, but I think that every album a band makes is a comment on its own persona, regardless of whether it is overtly self-reflective. I think it's unfair, though, to say that it's a comment on "our culture" - rather, all the album can be is a statement on the songwriter's perception and (as is more often the case) the songwriter's rendering of an opinion or view of culture. Again, it doesn't even matter if an album is overtly a cultural critique, because any one person's statement about their outside world is, in essence, a cultural critique.

 

Honestly, I think the fundamental (and only important) difference between In Rainbows and W(TA) is that Radiohead made In Rainbows, and Wilco made W(TA).

[jakobnicholas]

My opinion is In Rainbows is the better album...by far.

[Guest Alan]

My opinion is In Rainbows is the better album...by far.

leaps and bounds

[Sir Stewart]

I'm endlessly fascinated by peoples' need to pit Radiohead and Wilco against each other. I just don't get it.

[Shakespeare In The Alley]

I'm endlessly fascinated by peoples' need to pit Radiohead and Wilco against each other. I just don't get it.

The fact that both bands got bigger as they got more experimental probably has a lot to do with it. Not a particularly common occurrence.

 

Frustrating as it may be, I don't see how it can be a bad thing for either band. I believe I've read Jeff give props to Radiohead (obviously by covering Fake Plastic Trees). I haven't read anything, but I assume someone in Radiohead likes Wilco. They've both got praise poured over them from every possible direction, so I'd consider a comparison to be an honor.

 

That being said, people that continually reference each Wilco move as "their *insert Radiohead moment*" are annoying.

[rwilson580]

It's way overstated. Wilco had a couple albums where they seemed kind of interested in the sonic experiments that Radiohead does routinely. That's not a shot at Wilco -- I think they could "do" Radiohead as good as anybody if that's the band they were interested in being. In a way, they're actually more experimental than Radiohead, in that they didn't latch onto that "outre" sound and stick with it album after album. Their albums have been as varied as anybody's, and some of those variations just happen to be pretty conventional. (TA) certainly fits into that mold.

[Guest Speed Racer]

In a way, they're actually more experimental than Radiohead, in that they didn't latch onto that "outre" sound and stick with it album after album.

 

Exactly. "Experimental" doesn't mean "trying adventerous things in the studio" to a lot of people so much as it means, "Dude, that sounds kinda like Kid A!"

[bjorn_skurj]

To be honest, "In Rainbows" didn't do a thing for me.

[lamradio]

To be honest, "In Rainbows" didn't do a thing for me.

 

Same here.. In fact, Radio Head doesn't really do a thing for me.

[Guest Alan]

Bodysnatchers and 15 Step are two of the best songs of the decade.

[bjorn_skurj]

I like Radiohead fine - thought "OK Computer" was maybe the best album of that decade. It might be that I am just not in the mood to appreciate "In Rainbows," soured, perhaps, by the underwhelming "Hail to the Thief."

[Livin' in New Orleans]

I can see comparing WTA to In Rainbows much more than to AWWTM.

 

However, In Rainbows is by far the superior record. I mean no offense to Wilco, but In Rainbows still blows me away every time.

 

I gotta agree here.. I do enjoy W(TA) but In Rainbows is a definite chill inducer

[GLHawk]

In Rainbows is a better album than W(TA), but that's not much of a knock on W(TA). We're comparing top-tier Radiohead to 2nd-tier Wilco.

 

I'd take W(TA) over a number of Radiohead releases, for what it's worth, including Pablo Honey, Amnesiac and Hail To The Thief. And I don't dislike those records by any means.

[Shakespeare In The Alley]

In Rainbows is a better album than W(TA), but that's not much of a knock on W(TA). We're comparing top-tier Radiohead to 2nd-tier Wilco.

 

I'd take W(TA) over a number of Radiohead releases, for what it's worth, including Pablo Honey, Amnesiac and Hail To The Thief. And I don't dislike those records by any means.

If I may further digress into a Radiohead opinion...HTTT has some absolutely killer tracks. Then it has some non-killer tracks. If it had been trimmed down to a 10 or so track album...it would be a classic, in my opinion.

[choo-choo-charlie]

In Rainbows has some good bits, but to me, the story of the sales/marketing strategy behind it overshadowed the music in some areas...

 

******

 

Exactly. "Experimental" doesn't mean "trying adventerous things in the studio" to a lot of people so much as it means, "Dude, that sounds kinda like Kid A!"

 

******

 

Agreed. I am tired of revisiting the "experimental" concept/definition/clarification over and over again. I've just accepted that people have already made up their minds on what "experimental" means to them and that's that...

[lamradio]

Why does Radio Head always make it into threads about Wilco?

[Guest Speed Racer]

Why does Radio Head always make it into threads about Wilco?

 

Thank you. In my head, these two bands have nothing artistic worth comparing. I would sooner compare Wilco to strawberry ice cream than a Radiohead record.

[bleedorange]

Why does Radio Head always make it into threads about Wilco?

 

Two of the best bands of the past decade and a lot of people's favorites on this board. I don't think it has much to do with a comparison of their sound as much as a comparison of their career arcs and how they relate.

[bjorn_skurj]

Yeah, for a while they paralleled as the best bands in their respective countries.