Album Titles - Overall Direction

[junior five]

Considering that three of the last four album titles have been (the album), Star Wars and Schmilco, is it becoming sorta hard to take the band seriously. I should note that I am a lifelong fan, dating back to UT. I've seen Wilco probably about 75x, I've been to two Solid Sounds and I've loved every record up until SW, which I thought was mediocre at best. I've heard the first few tracks on the new one and I'm left scratching my head. They sound, similar to SW, uninspired and going through the motions.

 

Again, I am about as big of a Wilco fan as there is, but......I'm just starting to wonder.....

[uncool2pillow]

It's hard to take your premise seriously. Album names is how you're going to judge a band?

[Boss_Tweedy]

For me Wilco now receives the same treatment which I accorded to R.E.M.: I'll pre-order every record they release till they call it a day without having to hear a single note in advance. They've earned it in my book. However, I miss Jay Bennett terribly and keep hoping for another release more similar in sound to "Being There." It may be due to a matter of personal taste, but save for a song or two on each album I don't return much to anything after AGIB. As for the names they choose for their albums, I honestly don't care.

[junior five]

It's hard to take your premise seriously. Album names is how you're going to judge a band?

 

Also the content. Star Wars is a clunker and Schmilco, which I have a difficult time even typing, is not off to a good start.

[uncool2pillow]

I loved Star Wars. W(TA) is the only clunker in their catalog, IMO. But if you're disappointed with the material, not just the album names, I can understand that.

[jbray]

Also the content. Star Wars is a clunker and Schmilco, which I have a difficult time even typing, is not off to a good start.

 

You might just not like the current direction, that happens if it's outside your taste. I will say, and I said this in the Schmilco thread, Wilco has a track record of goofy album names pre-dating Star Wars. A reference to one of their influences with Schmilco is no different to me than Summerteeth (a joke punchline), Being There (a movie title), Star Wars (A movie title), or something plain-jane like A.M. I really don't think a title matters nearly as much as the music. Led Zeppelin didn't title their first four, The Beatles have a handful of stupid album names like Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, and, on the American side, Yesterday... And Today. We judge those records by the music therein and now see them as different degrees of indispensable because the music made the title become iconic or not. In many ways, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot or A Ghost is Born could have been seen like that had they been different records. 

 

I loved Star Wars. W(TA) is the only clunker in their catalog, IMO. But if you're disappointed with the material, not just the album names, I can understand that.

I would agree with this to a degree, W(TA) is the weakest for sure. I still think One Wing is one of the best they ever made.

[theashtraysays]

Considering that three of the last four album titles have been (the album), Star Wars and Schmilco, is it becoming sorta hard to take the band seriously.

 

 

It's hard to take your premise seriously. Album names is how you're going to judge a band?

 

I totally get the premise.  My first reaction to the album title was a groan.  It's like they're looking for names for novelty records, a la Weird Al or something.  For SW, we were able to hear the music at the same time we heard the title, so there wasn't much time to react solely to the title.  And I love the music on SW.  And the first two songs we have from this one sound great too.  But yeah, the titles are off-putting for me.  Not indicative of the music at all.

I get that the band isn't taking itself so seriously, so that's great.  But it sure seems like they're going a little over the top to find album names to prove their point on that notion.  I thought having W(TA) as an album name would have done that already.  SW should have cemented it. 

Here's hoping for (and fully expecting) another fabulous group of songs under that unfortunate nomenclature...

[Vacant Horizon]

It used to really bother me when my favorite bands had questionable artwork/titles.  Now I could give two shits.  I hated the cover for WTA, especially after the beautiful SBS cover.  But I ended up loving the album (except Sonny Feeling :-)

 

As far as the band doing a more alt. country album again...maybe.  They're definitely in a more 'rough around the edges' period.  I get it.  After 20 years, you just want to write new tunes and play them.  Titles and album covers become less important.

[uncool2pillow]

I think Star Wars was a great album name a la the Replacements Let it Be.

[chisoxjtrain]

Considering that three of the last four album titles have been (the album), Star Wars and Schmilco, is it becoming sorta hard to take the band seriously. I should note that I am a lifelong fan, dating back to UT. I've seen Wilco probably about 75x, I've been to two Solid Sounds and I've loved every record up until SW, which I thought was mediocre at best. I've heard the first few tracks on the new one and I'm left scratching my head. They sound, similar to SW, uninspired and going through the motions.

 

Again, I am about as big of a Wilco fan as there is, but......I'm just starting to wonder.....

 

 

Also the content. Star Wars is a clunker and Schmilco, which I have a difficult time even typing, is not off to a good start.

 

[tinnitus photography]

the cover art of Schmilco is awesome.

[sonicshoulder]

I really "like" Star Wars...I really "love" most Wilco albums...actually all of them except Star Wars and possibly Whole Love(although I may love that album too). I think WTA is aging really well and live the WTA songs all shine which tells me they are really, really good songs. Locator sounds like a Star Wars B-side to me, If I Ever Was A Child has me really excited and sounds more like the Wilco material I gravitate towards personally. We've had this discussion before around here. Bands are damned if they do and damned if they don't change. I am just grateful my favorite band is putting out an album every couple of years, touring like they are in their 20's still and making their music available in so many different ways. 

[junior five]

I totally get the premise.  My first reaction to the album title was a groan.  It's like they're looking for names for novelty records, a la Weird Al or something.  For SW, we were able to hear the music at the same time we heard the title, so there wasn't much time to react solely to the title.  And I love the music on SW.  And the first two songs we have from this one sound great too.  But yeah, the titles are off-putting for me.  Not indicative of the music at all.

I get that the band isn't taking itself so seriously, so that's great.  But it sure seems like they're going a little over the top to find album names to prove their point on that notion.  I thought having W(TA) as an album name would have done that already.  SW should have cemented it. 

Here's hoping for (and fully expecting) another fabulous group of songs under that unfortunate nomenclature...

Well put!

[bböp]

Personally I don't get why so many people have such a strong reaction to the title of a record, or say that they can't "take the band seriously" because of a given title (or series of titles). What would you have them title it? "This album is a collection of songs and is meant to be taken seriously, thank you very much?"

 

Seriously, though, maybe it would help me understand if folks would cite some album titles that they do like/love...

[junior five]

Personally I don't get why so many people have such a strong reaction to the title of a record, or say that they can't "take the band seriously" because of a given title (or series of titles). What would you have them title it? "This album is a collection of songs and is meant to be taken seriously, thank you very much?"

 

Seriously, though, maybe it would help me understand if folks would cite some album titles that they do like/love...

 

It just seems silly to me and kind of damages the overall narrative. Is that me overthinking it? Perhaps, but it's just my take. In terms of musical content, here's how I'd rate their catalog on the Pitchfork scale:

 

AM 7.3

BT 9.3

ST 9.0

M1 8.9

M2 7.0

YHF 9.7

Ghost 8.5

SBS 8.0

Album 6.9

WL 8.7

SW 5.7

[lost highway]

I'm not sure what you're looking for here.... sorry you feel this way?

 

You're right they're on a downward spiral?

 

Shut up dude, it's awesome you're listening wrong?

 

But seriously, Star Wars rips, hard. If you're not into how that works it seems the next one is likely to please you as it resets the dial a few notches in the other direction (or at least that's what they said).

 

As for the title, a rose by any other name.... the way I see it now is that Tweedy and Co. have artistically liberated themselves. They already had their own studio, then they got their own label, and now they've shaken off all of the pretense of a "traditional album cycle + marketing". Their devil-may-care attitude means that they're joyously producing new music at an unprecedented rate and it could go in just about any direction. If they can keep this up, you might dislike one record and wait a year or two and get stoked on the next.  As a creative person I have a lot of respect for where they're at.... they've gotten out of their own way, it's like they're wide open now after 10 albums.

[Chronicpop]

Two albums in two years. One of them was offered free to fans. They can remake late-era Jefferson Starship albums at this point, for all I care. Well, maybe not late-era Starship, but maybe Styx. Speaking of Starship, Kantner once said ``fuck you, we do what we want.'' So in the best spirit of Neil Young or any artist following their own muse: they create, we listen. 

[rhino4evr]

a "5.7" for star wars is pretty harsh. Even Pitchfork gave it a higher rating!

 

I personally love or like just about everything they've put out. Wilco (TA) seemed like the creative low point to me. Some of the weakest songs/lyrics in the catalog. Even One Wing and BBN seem like lesser versions of Impossible Germany and Spiders.

 

Whole Love was incredible, and stands up with their best stuff. Probably one of their best produced records. You can tell they spent a long time shaping that record in the studio. It's a very layered production.

 

I find Star Wars to be short and sweet. It seems apparent to me that Tweedy had written a ton of new songs, and he just wanted to get them out there instead of tinker with them in the studio endlessly. It gives the album a more "live garage" sound. It's rough around the edges, but the songwriting is just as strong as ever.

 

and I guess that's why I still love them...Jeff's lyrics have only gotten more personal of late. Tweedy the album,  wasn't exactly an "exciting" record either, but it had a ton of heart.

 

I'm expecting the new album to feel like the "other side" of Star Wars. A little more focused, not as energetic, and more humble. I guess we shall see.

 

You can compare them to REM, but I don't think that's fair, because REM really turned into a completely different band in the end. Their sound evolved a lot from the 80s  - 90s - 00s. Wilco doesn't seem to be evolving in quite as drastically, but I wouldn't call any of their albums "similar"...except for Wilco (TA).

[rhino4evr]

I also want to add the obvious. Wilco tours ALOT. It's amazing they even have time to record new music. We should be thankful that we've been able to see them perform so often, and still get new music.

 

I'm thinking after Schmilco, it will be another 3-4 years before we hear something new again.

Oh, and I love the title and album art...

[jff]

The Beatles have a handful of stupid album names like Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, and, on the American side, Yesterday... And Today. 

 

 

 

None of those are stupid, and Yesterday...and Today is about as suitable a title for a compilation album that includes "Yesterday" as there could possibly be. What would be a better title for that?

[jff]

My take on their album names:

 

A.M. = Morning.  A starting point, or a new start.  A little on the nose, but a suitable name for the first album by a band that intends to stick around for a while.

 

Being There = Named after a mostly forgotten movie. That works.

 

Summerteeth = The Punchline of a "maybe you had to be there for it to be funny" type of joke.  Is that their take on conceptual continuity?  You had to be(ing) there?

 

YHF = a reference to Tweedy's interest in ham radio.  Perfectly fine album name.

 

AGIB = No idea what, if anything, this references.  Sounds a bit mysterious, and that's good.

 

Sky Blue Sky = Fine name.  A little safe maybe, but safety seems to be what Tweedy was looking for in his life at that point.

 

W(TA) = Terrible title. Borderline insulting. But it's by far their worst album, so maybe it works.

 

The Whole Love = I don't think it's possible to have an opinion one way or the other about this title.

 

Star Wars = Like Being There, named after a movie. Unlike Being There, named after the most famous movie of all time. Opportunistic considering the timing.

 

Schmilco = Lazy.  

 

On another thread, I stated that I thought they were on a downward spiral of bad album names.  But looking at their whole career, it's unfair to say this is a new thing.  They've never had particularly good album names.  Ultimately it doesn't matter, but it is interesting that a band that prides itself on attention to detail in every other aspect of their career settles on such tossed-off titles.

[DiamondClaw]

While it is ultimately completely unimportant and unrelated to the quality and enjoyment of the music itself, I do have to admit a slight preference for album titles (and art) that have something to do with the collection of songs they represent. Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, A Ghost is Born, Sky Blue Sky, even The Whole Love all seem to capture those particular albums to me in some thematic way. Wilco the Album, Star Wars, Schmilco, yeah they're lazy or cutesy or whatever, but the main thing is they're not evocative to me in any way. (Though to reiterate, in the end it is the music that matters.)

[jff]

In a way, the subject of album titles is an interesting look into how Wilco operates.  They're a band that goes way above and beyond on things most other bands don't even bother with.  In addition to great music and (usually) great album packaging, they have their own label, their own festival, their own fully equipped and staffed studio and rehearsal space, they are always on the lookout for new and interesting equipment, they try their best to perform in the most beautiful venues in each city, and then promote them with frame-worthy posters, they change their setlists every night and often throw in cover songs that are thoughtful and relevant/timely, and on and on. But then they call their record Wilco (The Album) or Star Wars. Seems they don't put a lot of thought or care into that aspect of their product, which is totally fine.  Interesting, but fine.

[rhino4evr]

I think the name Wilco Schmilco is a much smarter album title then you guys are giving it credit for.

[jbray]

None of those are stupid, and Yesterday...and Today is about as suitable a title for a compilation album that includes "Yesterday" as there could possibly be. What would be a better title for that?

You're right, stupid was poor choice of a word. But my point was that the title was deemed appropriate for what the music represented. "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", I would argue, is not the most smooth or stylish album title. I would argue that the title has become respected and iconic due to how the music on the album united itself under it to varying degrees as well as the impact the album had on people's opinions of pop music and the Beatles themselves. I feel the same way about Magical Mystery Tour where the music is evocative of what the title suggests and you become more comfortable with it once you come to terms with it. Both are excellent examples of bizarre title choices that in hindsight make sense and that was more my point and I failed to complete that circuit. Yesterday... and Today should have been simply called Yesterday and Today plain and simple because the ellipses are there to push a new product for Capitol in a bad way. In a perfect world, that record wouldn't exist and the British discography would be all there was (Although I like the album of Magical Mystery Tour - it's a contradiction).

 

While it is ultimately completely unimportant and unrelated to the quality and enjoyment of the music itself, I do have to admit a slight preference for album titles (and art) that have something to do with the collection of songs they represent. Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, A Ghost is Born, Sky Blue Sky, even The Whole Love all seem to capture those particular albums to me in some thematic way. Wilco the Album, Star Wars, Schmilco, yeah they're lazy or cutesy or whatever, but the main thing is they're not evocative to me in any way. (Though to reiterate, in the end it is the music that matters.)

Wilco (The Album) had a theme and that was retreading the "Wilco" sound which it did to a fault. The name works in my opinion, the cover art is whatever.

 

I think the name Wilco Schmilco is a much smarter album title then you guys are giving it credit for.

 

Even One Wing and BBN seem like lesser versions of Impossible Germany and Spiders.

I would agree with Schmilco as a good album title from what Jeff has said about the topics at hand. If he's looking to poke fun at the Wilco spotlight it is pretty perfect. I also love the album art both separately and in the context of the record.

 

On the second note, you and I will have to agree to differ. I wouldn't compare IG to One WIng at all nor would I put IG ahead of One Wing in such a comparison. I can understand the latter comparison, although I do see that the lyrics of Spiders have little to no impact on the song and its structure while BBN relies heavily on its lyrical themes to influence its sound. Call it granny smith apples to macintosh apples.