Wilco - A Ghost Is Born

[Josh]

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsartic...e.asp?nid=19344

Wilco's fifth album will be titled A Ghost Is Born and released on June 8th on Nonesuch.
The group spent two weeks working on the bulk of the album last fall in New York City before returning to Chicago to wrap up production. Among the thirteen songs on the record is "Handshake Drugs," which was previously issued on an Australian EP that the group eventually placed on its Web site for free download.

Wilco co-produced the effort with Jim O'Rourke, who engineered the group's last release, 2002's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. Ghost features original Wilco members Jeff Tweedy and bassist John Stirratt, along with drummer Glenn Kotche (who joined for Foxtrot), keyboardist/laptop twiddler Mikael Jorgensen, who had previously only toured with the band, and keyboardist Leroy Bach, who left the band last month.

No tour has been lined up yet behind Ghost, though Wilco are committed to a pair of summer festivals: the Coachella Music and Arts Festival in Indio, California, on May 1st, and the Bonnaroo Festival in Manchester, Tennessee, on June 11th.

A Ghost Is Born track list:

At Least That's What You Said
Hell Is
Chrome
Spiders (kidsmoke)
Muzzle of Bees
Hummingbird
Handshake Drugs
Company in My Back
I'm a Wheel
Wishful Thinking
Late Greats
Theologians
Less Than You Think

 

[bloop]

Yeah, everyone would know I'm looking forward to this one.  I like the way Pitchfork put things:

The record is currently scheduled for a June 8th release on Nonesuch Records (though, in Wilcospeak, that translates to "an August 24th, 2006 release on Aftermath Records").

[Escuchame]

Aftermath is a rap label.  I don't get it.

Nonesuch is the same label behind the masterful Buena Vista Social Club album.  Cuban music (a.k.a. salsa) at its finest.

I might upload some of this stuff in the future.

[bloop]

They used "Aftermath" as just a piece in the punchline.  It's in reference to YHF's original release date that wasn't met and subsequent, much later release on a different label (although Nonesuch isn't a stretch for Wilco's kind of music and Aftermath is).  Those events are often cited to show that their former label (and major labels in general) wouldn't know good music if it bit them, but it makes the case for a certain ineptness and mismanagement at a time of change for the label better than that.

[murlough23]

DOWN WITH WILCO!

Just kidding. This oughta be an interesting record. My curiosity largely stems from the "Where do they go from here?" factor.

[Josh]

DOWN WITH WILCO!

I actually listen to that album more than I do Wilco's...

[Guest]

I still haven't listened to the Minus 5 record, but it'd be hard to outdo the likes of YHF and Summerteeth with me.

[murlough23]

I heard that the new Wilco album had been leaked, so I did what any curious music reviewer would do, and I downloaded and listened to it the other day. All I can say is that it's going to take approximately 20 listens to figure out how I feel about this one, much like it did with Yankee Hotel Foxtor. Actually, the album feels a lot like a logical follow-up to YHF, so I predict existing Wilco fans will enjoy being perplexed by it.

I'm anxious to hear bloop's and Josh's thoughts on this one, even if that means waiting until the album actually releases (and for all I know, the mp3's I have may be unmastered - but we saw that this didn't make a heck of a lot of difference with Hail to thei Thief last year).

[DvChWi]

Merged with an older thread on the same thing.  Finally, I actually moderated something! Hah!  Fear me now!

[murlough23]

Merged with an older thread on the same thing.  Finally, I actually moderated something! Hah!  Fear me now!

I don't know why I was unable to find that other thread. Thanks, Dv.

[murlough23]

Hmm... listened to the album, and I'm starting to think my complaints are going to be similar to my complaints about YHF, except that I can't tell if the mp3's I have are decent enough quality to judge by.

My review likely won't be a scathingly negative one, and I still need about eight more listens before I'd even attempt to write one, however, it's likely that I'll end up saying "I don't get this, but if this sort of thing is your fancy, then go for it", and of course detailing the thing sthat struck me as odd, appealing, annoying, whatever about the individual songs. But I'm faced with a quandary regarding whether I should review it at all. It could be like Radiohead last year, and the non-mastered versions might not be much different at all from the final versions. And reviewing it would generate oodles of hits for me on Epinions (and here, if it was posted here). But it might spark the same furor that reviewing Radiohead early did last year.

Thoughts?

NP: "Mofo", U2

[bloop]

Oh, just review it anyway.  I thought your complaints about YHF were weak (basically, deductions for being the kind of music it is - to your credit, you at least admit when it may be you that is just missing something), but there's no great reason not to review it.  Just as the Radiohead leak was mostly identical to the finished product, I think this one might be moreso seeing as the band hasn't come out and said they are unfinished tracks.

I've listened to about half of it once and I need to listen a bit more as well.  On first listen, I can see what they meant when they said that they are trying to mix YHF's more lo-fi white noise with a more rootsy organic sound like that in Summerteeth, and it seems to be leaning more toward the latter.  I can also say now that there are individual songs that I know are excellent already, but others are more challenging and require a bit more of me than a quick listen before I leave on vacation.

The jury that is bloop says, tentatively, that it's going to be a fine record, but I'm not jumping onto any bandwagon right now.  I need to at least hear the whole thing from beginning to end to say anything definitive.

[murlough23]

Oh, just review it anyway.  I thought your complaints about YHF were weak (basically, deductions for being the kind of music it is - to your credit, you at least admit when it may be you that is just missing something), but there's no great reason not to review it.

That's not entirely true, because I liked some of their use of odd sounds and white noise. (And I've enjoyed some other bands' use of these elements... Trail of Dead did it even more, and for them I think it worked a lot better.) I'll admit I'm not the best judge of when a band is doing this well, nor do I think a band has to be universally appealing to be good, but honestly, it's not like I came out and claimed YHF was crap, either. I gave it three stars and recommended it, as was appropriate given my mixed feelings.

If you don't understand my complaints about noise, just wait 'til you get to "Less than You Think". Hoo boy!

In any event, I'm still missing "The Late Greats", so I don't have a completed album to review. It's not in the Epinions database yet, anyway.

[bloop]

I'll admit I'm not the best judge of when a band is doing this well, nor do I think a band has to be universally appealing to be good, but honestly, it's not like I came out and claimed YHF was crap, either.

Well, we've been over what I thought was weak about the review a few times (a comparison with Trail of Dead's album just seems comical to me to be honest - it seemed to come from a place of limited experience with that type of music, I'll leave it at that).

If you don't understand my complaints about noise, just wait 'til you get to "Less than You Think". Hoo boy!

Got to it this morning.  Not a directed purposeful use of noise, so I anticipate agreeing with you on that one.  Putting it second to last is pretty infuriating . . . maybe I'm missing the point of it, too (or, I should say, missing the point of the length of it) but I don't see myself embracing that particular song.

*edit*
During my regular music news perusal, two interesting bits of news and details:

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/news/04-04/05.shtml
http://pitchforkmedia.com/news/04-04/01.shtml

I might want to wait until it's on shelves to weigh in after all.

[Josh]

The cover:

[bloop]

Neat.  I love it when bands use inequality symbols on their album covers.  Is Wilco less than or equal to?  Any guesses?

[Skrappybiskit]

That's a great cover.

[DvChWi]

Is Wilco less than or equal to?  Any guesses?

I'd have to hear the album first to be able to tell you.  

[murlough23]

Maybe they think this album is greater than or equal to anything they've ever done.

[Guest]

I like my Wilco scrambled.

[murlough23]

I like my Wilco scrambled.

Lowci.

[murlough23]

Alright, I've finally managed to gather my thoughts on this one. Pick up your stones and go over here:

http://www.epinions.com/content_144493678212

[Josh]

Paste likes it.

[bloop]

Alright, I've finally managed to gather my thoughts on this one. Pick up your stones and go over here:

http://www.epinions.com/content_144493678212

No stones, but I'd say you should just stop trying to get them.  You aren't doing much but showing your limitations (a completely separate issue from those of Wilco).  It isn't as poor as the YHF review in that you didn't make so many improper assumptions, but it still betrays much less knowledge about their approach than, say, that Paste review.  

Oh no!  Dynamics!

[murlough23]

No stones, but I'd say you should just stop trying to get them.  You aren't doing much but showing your limitations (a completely separate issue from those of Wilco).  It isn't as poor as the YHF review in that you didn't make so many improper assumptions, but it still betrays much less knowledge about their approach than, say, that Paste review.  

Oh no!  Dynamics!

First of all, you told me to review this thing. I asked if I should bother, and you said go ahead and do it.

Second of all, the only comment on my review so far is from a Wilco fan who loved YHF and agrees with me on this album.

Third, my not "getting" them is not why I'm downgrading them. There are bands that I enjoy (chief among them being Radiohead) even when I do not understand them. Sometimes it's because I do not understand them - it's that "deliriously crazy" thing I mentioned in the review. I like Tweedy's lyrics, for the most part. Not getting them, and not even knowing if there's anything to get, is part of the fun.

Fourth, the Paste review was long on technical knowledge and short on pretty much everything else. Knowing how the sounds might have been made (and they sound like they're speculating on most of it) generally won't make them sounds that I'm more likely to want to hear. Sure, Radiohead are geniuses for managing to record a song such as "Like Spinning Plates". I don't get much more than slight amusement out of listening to it, though - once the "gee whiz" factor wears off, there ain't much to keep me coming back.

Fifth and final, I say that I "don't get it" so much, because if I'm not enjoying the music, then one of two things must be happening - Wilco didn't do a very good job, or they did do a good job of creating a dish that doesn't work with my palette. I assumed the latter - I assumed the problem was me and not them. But since I know I'm fairly patient with these sorts of things, I know that it's also likely that other people will have similar trouble with it - hence my review is a caution. I think it's best suited for people who are already fans of the band - they won't be scared off by the things that bugged me. So yeah, I guess I have limitations. So do you.

There's just no pleasing some people. Oh wait, I wasn't trying to anyway.

[Josh]

AMG likes it, but also mentions a few complaints.

[murlough23]

[murlough23]

[Josh]

[bloop]

First of all, you told me to review this thing. I asked if I should bother, and you said go ahead and do it.

Contingent on you giving it a fair shot by doing a little homework to understand where the band is coming from, yes.  I disagree with parts of the Pitchfork review, but it's obviously coming from a person that understands that kind of music.  

(The best review I've read so far on this album is either Paste's or AMG's thus far)

Second of all, the only comment on my review so far is from a Wilco fan who loved YHF and agrees with me on this album.

I assume you mean the only formal comment through epinions.

Third, my not "getting" them is not why I'm downgrading them. There are bands that I enjoy (chief among them being Radiohead) even when I do not understand them. Sometimes it's because I do not understand them - it's that "deliriously crazy" thing I mentioned in the review. I like Tweedy's lyrics, for the most part. Not getting them, and not even knowing if there's anything to get, is part of the fun.

I wasn't talking about lyrics.  You essentially wrote the same review again without the ridiculous "they're just trying to be cool" assumptions.

Fourth, the Paste review was long on technical knowledge and short on pretty much everything else. Knowing how the sounds might have been made (and they sound like they're speculating on most of it) generally won't make them sounds that I'm more likely to want to hear.

Whether they have the actual instruments pinned down is irrelevant.  The Paste review described the way the music sounds quite well.

Sure, Radiohead are geniuses for managing to record a song such as "Like Spinning Plates". I don't get much more than slight amusement out of listening to it, though - once the "gee whiz" factor wears off, there ain't much to keep me coming back.

So what?  I don't care what the critic is amused by, bops his head to, or anything else like that.  I want an assessment of the art.  How the person relates to it or what not is irrelevant to how good it is at what it's accomplishing.  An accomplished song deserves respect for being what it is, not for affecting my life monumentally or some other more self-absorbed angle.

Fifth and final, I say that I "don't get it" so much, because if I'm not enjoying the music, then one of two things must be happening - Wilco didn't do a very good job, or they did do a good job of creating a dish that doesn't work with my palette.

The gut-level reaction doesn't make excellent criticism with me.  Anyone can do this kind of thing.  Perhaps it doesn't carry enough weight in most written professional reviews, but it carries entirely too much weight with amateur ones.

I assumed the latter - I assumed the problem was me and not them. But since I know I'm fairly patient with these sorts of things, I know that it's also likely that other people will have similar trouble with it - hence my review is a caution. I think it's best suited for people who are already fans of the band - they won't be scared off by the things that bugged me.

I think you have your target audience a bit off here.  It's probably more the mainstream rock fan that are getting interested in branching out.  In other words, it would probably appeal best to listeners that are a lot like you.

So yeah, I guess I have limitations. So do you.

Obviously - who doesn't.  I'm still trying to figure out what all of mine are.  I only know a few of them - I don't interpret lyrics well so they tend to matter less than they probably should with me.  I still think the way the properly musical elements (which include singing, but not lyrics) come together is the most important aspect, but lyrics matter (so I won't comment on AMG's assertion that AGIB isn't as emotionally affecting as YHF.  I wouldn't know - I very rarely relate to albums in that way).  

I also wish I knew more music theory than I do.  I can get by - I usually understand where people talk about that (and they tend to be my favorite parts of reviews), but some reviews are well over my head.

There's just no pleasing some people. Oh wait, I wasn't trying to anyway.

In that case, maybe you should post it to the Wilco board again just to see what reactions you'll get (they probably won't be quite as confrontational with an album that isn't really going to be considered a defining moment, so I'm being sincere here).

[bloop]

[murlough23]

Contingent on you giving it a fair shot by doing a little homework to understand where the band is coming from, yes.  I disagree with parts of the Pitchfork review, but it's obviously coming from a person that understands that kind of music.

What the hell??!?!?! Was I supposed to go back and listen to every single freaking song that Wilco ever recorded. How about going through Uncle Tupelo's discography while I'm at it, so I'll be a veritable encyclopedia on the genius of Jeff Tweedy?

Most people approach albums without knowing the whole darn back-story. If I know some back-story and think it's immediately pertinent (i.e. it won't bore everyone more than a long review already runs the risk of doing), I'll mention it - e.g. the record labels woes that held up Yankee Hotel Foxtrot's release. But otherwise, I'm concerned with the actual sonic content of the album, and not much else.

I assume you mean the only formal comment through epinions.

Yes. But your reaction here has been the only other comment on it, period. One good, one bad.

I wasn't talking about lyrics.  You essentially wrote the same review again without the ridiculous "they're just trying to be cool" assumptions.

No, I didn't. I tried very hard to not make assumptions about anything and I think that set apart a good deal from my other review (which I went back and softened after taking into account your criticisms of my assumptions, by the way).

Whether they have the actual instruments pinned down is irrelevant.  The Paste review described the way the music sounds quite well.

Sure, I like knowing what something sounds like, but that's not the whole picture. The Paste review probably catered more to you as a listener, given your shortcoming - or shall I call it a limitation - when it comes to giving a damn about lyrics.

So what?  I don't care what the critic is amused by, bops his head to, or anything else like that.

But I do. I care about a lot of different things, because how one reacts to the music helps to describe the overall mood of the music. It does matter. It's not just pointless self-absorbed wanking. It doesn't matter to you, but honestly, the way you approach music is rather clinical and cold. I'm not interested in evaluating music in that way.

I want an assessment of the art.  How the person relates to it or what not is irrelevant to how good it is at what it's accomplishing.  An accomplished song deserves respect for being what it is, not for affecting my life monumentally or some other more self-absorbed angle.

Funny, when I do indicate that some aspect of a song is, in my estimation, well-done, but say that in some other way I can't really get into it, you seem to only see the "but" part.

The gut-level reaction doesn't make excellent criticism with me.  Anyone can do this kind of thing. Perhaps it doesn't carry enough weight in most written professional reviews, but it carries entirely too much weight with amateur ones.

Then don't read my reviews if you're so damned enlightened.

The fact is, you have a gut-level reaction to art, more so than most of the rest of us. You try to pass it off as an intellectual thing, but the fact is, those things engage your brain. And that's fine, but we're not all the same, and since I react to a lot of different things in different ways, I try to document that because I figure that matters.

I think you have your target audience a bit off here.  It's probably more the mainstream rock fan that are getting interested in branching out.  In other words, it would probably appeal best to listeners that are a lot like you.

I'm sorry, should I write in a way that's not true to my personality? Hmmm... how about I decide to forego personality altogether, and just be heartless and occasionally snarky? That seems like it'd work for you.

I still think the way the properly musical elements (which include singing, but not lyrics) come together is the most important aspect, but lyrics matter (so I won't comment on AMG's assertion that AGIB isn't as emotionally affecting as YHF.  I wouldn't know - I very rarely relate to albums in that way).

As I've explained many times, I see the symbiosis of lyrics and music as being key (unless the music is instrumental, obviously), and I tend to write about that when I notice it working well. Just because you prioritize music above lyrics doesn't mean it's inherently true that one is more important than the other.

In that case, maybe you should post it to the Wilco board again just to see what reactions you'll get (they probably won't be quite as confrontational with an album that isn't really going to be considered a defining moment, so I'm being sincere here).

Yeah, so you can watch me get reamed again? I think I've learned my lesson.

[bloop]

[murlough23]

[bloop]

Just because one can't exist without the other, that doesn't automatically make it less important. Sure, the lyrics are dependent on the music. If the music was wholly uninteresting and uninspired, I probably wouldn't be as compelled to care about the lyrics one way or another, even if I did recognize the lyrical ability.

Well, there's the rub.  If I can't understand the lyrics at all, whether that be because they're in another language (Sigur Ros), they're mumbled or heavily accented (Radiohead occassionally), or they're just a bit cryptic (Wilco at times), then I still have the music to listen to and engage.  If I have great spoken word poetry with an unlistenable musical backdrop, then I'm likely to just go to the next track.  One takes precedence simply because the one need to be in place for it to be engaging whereas the other doesn't necessarily have to be.

[murlough23]

Well, there's the rub.  If I can't understand the lyrics at all, whether that be because they're in another language (Sigur Ros), they're mumbled or heavily accented (Radiohead occassionally), or they're just a bit cryptic (Wilco at times), then I still have the music to listen to and engage.  If I have great spoken word poetry with an unlistenable musical backdrop, then I'm likely to just go to the next track.  One takes precedence simply because the one need to be in place for it to be engaging whereas the other doesn't necessarily have to be.

I can still listen to the music and engage as well. Remember, I like Sigur Ros, and nobody has any idea what they're mumbling about on ( ).

But I can enjoy spoken word poetry too - at least on a limited basis. I've enjoyed all of the poems that Kevin Max put on dc Talk albums and his own solo album (some people think he's a crappy poet - I couldn't tell you since all I know is what interests me), and while those all have interesting sonic backdrops, I could still enjoy the spoken word without the music.

So the music only takes precedence in your mind. I'm not about to run out and buy a CD of Jewel's poetry or anything, but I still don't see a basis to prioritize one over the other.

[bloop]

But I can enjoy spoken word poetry too - at least on a limited basis. I've enjoyed all of the poems that Kevin Max put on dc Talk albums and his own solo album (some people think he's a crappy poet - I couldn't tell you since all I know is what interests me), and while those all have interesting sonic backdrops, I could still enjoy the spoken word without the music.

but . . . argh (hello!) . . . it would cease to be music!  You would no longer be engaging and assessing MUSIC.  

I think I have a perfectly strong basis for prioritizing music over words.  It's what the medium itself demands, so it's a no-brainer.  I can't conceive of any good reason to put the two on the same level at all when we're dealing with music as a medium.  

I can understand assigning some importance to lyrics for those songs that have lyrics, but it's inconsistent with judging music as it is to prioritize it on the same level.  The simple fact is, you can evaluate the lyrics without ever having listened to the song - it makes no sense that it would be prioritized on the same level with a critic.

To answer this question:

Am I supposed to award 5 stars to something that I'm not excited enough about to listen to all that often?

Just speaking for me, if it were very creative and good enough at what it does, I might.  Exciting me personally doesn't separate greatness from the state of being merely ok.  To me, if I don't analyze things this way, I could potentially be shortchanging deserving albums just because they aren't my "cup o' tea".

I don't generally listen to a lot of classical music, I don't get heads-over-heels excited over it, but darned if I can find much that could be better with Mozart's "Requiem".  It'll get 5 stars because it deserves that.  (To bring it back to the topic at hand, AGIB is probably around 4 - 4.5, translating roughly to a B to an A)

[DvChWi]

I have given this album an A- , as can be seen in my updated music journal.  The minus is for the two sections of the album that I found rather pointless, namely the noodling during Spiders/Kidsmoke and the static in Less Than You Think.  The rest is quite sold, IMO, if not a major move from YHF.

[Josh]

I have listened to all of the album except for the last two songs, so I can't comment on those.

Based on the rest of the album, though, my first impression is similar to Dv's, although I think I might like it a bit better. In fact, I'm thinking the album deserves an A right now, but if I share Dv's frustration with "Less Than You Think" then I may end up tacking on a minus, as well.

Album highlights: "Hummingbird," "Wishful Thinking," "At Least That's What You Said," and "Muzzle of Bees."

Low points: "I'm a Wheel" and "Spiders."

Right now, I'll say that YHF is the better album, but this one might end up being my personal favorite.

[murlough23]

Based on the rest of the album, though, my first impression is similar to Dv's, although I think I might like it a bit better. In fact, I'm thinking the album deserves an A right now, but if I share Dv's frustration with "Less Than You Think" then I may end up tacking on a minus, as well.

If you can handle 12 minutes of headache inducing noise that even Jeff Tweedy figures 1% of listeners would actually like, then by all means, have at it.

I'm thinking you'll enjoy "The Late Greats" - it's a simple song, nothing musically complex, but you'll love what it has to say.