2003 revised/Evanescence Debate

[murlough23]

I don't remember if we discussed this back when I posted the retroactive "2003 Music Journals" thread, but I've been realizing more and more that my list of favorites from '03 has undergone a major overhaul from where it stood at the end of last year. It's partially due to discovering a lot of favorites that I just didn't get to in time last year, and developing more (or less) appreciation for certain albums as time wore on. I'm realizing that I do tend to choose catchy favorites that make for good driving music over some of the more ponderous but ultimately more compelling albums when I first make these lists, so it takes a year or two of hindsight to get them a little more settled.

My current opinion of 2003:

1. Sufjan Stevens, Greetings from Michigan, the Great Lakes State A+
2. Switchfoot, The Beautiful Letdown A
3. Steven Delopoulos, Me Died Blue A
4. Evanescence, Fallen A-
5. Jars of Clay, Who We Are Instead A-
6. Skillet, Collide A-
7. Sleeping at Last, Ghosts A-
8. The Juliana Theory, Love A-
9. Chris Rice, Run the Earth, Watch the Sky A-
10. Anberlin, Blueprints for the Black Market A-
11. David Crowder Band, Illuminate A-
12. Eastmountainsouth, Eastmountainsouth B+
13. The Echoing Green, The Winter of Our Discontent B+
14. Dream Theater, Train of Thought B+
15. Linkin Park, Meteora B
16. Over the Rhine, Ohio B
17. Relient K, Two Lefts Don't Make a Right... But Three Do B
18. Big Dismal, Believe B-
19. Dakona, Perfect Change B-
20. Christine Dente, Becoming B-

NP: "Stars", David Crowder Band

[bloop]

[murlough23]

[Josh]

(Ohio lower than Meteora?  Radiohead unlisted?  Perish the thoughts!)

Well, the biggest flaw is the complete absence of Joe Henry's album, which was far and away the best album released last year.

 

[Josh]

By the way, here's my 2K3 list, edited after a year to reflect on it:

1. Joe Henry-- Tiny Voices
2. Over the Rhine-- Ohio
3. Daniel Lanois-- Shine
4. The Innocence Mission-- Befriended
5. Sufjan Stevens-- Michigan
6. Radiohead-- Hail to the Thief
7. Emmylou Harris-- Stumble Into Grace
8. Derek Webb-- She Must and Shall Go Free
9. Beth Gibbons-- Out of Season
10. Elvis Costello-- North
11. Lucinda Williams-- World Without Tears
12. Jars of Clay-- Who We Are Instead
13. Crossing Jordan soundtrack

[bloop]

I never got around to ranking Joe Henry at all.  It completely blindsided me...it's among the best certainly.

I disagree considerably with the opinion of Ohio being condensed.  For one, the thing cost only slightly more than a single disc album, and I would still defend it as one of the best (if overlooked) double albums I've heard.  Although, as a Smashing Pumpkins fan, I have to admit that I cut my teeth on listening to long-winded artists and appreciating the best they have.  In Ohio's case, however, I think we're dealing with a consistent, if somewhat rootsy and slow, project.

As for HTTT, I've argued with you enough on that.  You know where I stand (basically, anything Radiohead after and including The Bends ] anything Linkin Park has ever put out and probably will put out given popularity's pull to stay in relative stasis).

*edit*
What the heck.  A revised list, for me.  Sufjan has moved up in the world (I didn't give him a good listen until this year).  Top 6 is very close - I could have put those in almost any order.

Best of 2K3
1  Sufjan Stevens - Michigan
2  The Wrens - The Meadowlands
3  Over the Rhine - Ohio
4  The Shins - Chutes Too Narrow
5  Radiohead - Hail to the Thief
6  Joe Henry - Tiny Voices
7  OutKast - Speakerboxxx/The Love Below
8  Steven Delopoulos - Me Died Blue
9  Sleeping At Last - Ghosts
10 Jars of Clay - Who We Are Instead
11 Cat Power - You Are Free
12  Guided By Voices - Earthquake Glue
13 British Sea Power - The Decline of British Sea Power
14 The Mars Volta - De-Loused in the Comatorium
15 Blur - Think Tank
16 Death Cab for Cutie - Transatlanticism
17 Starflyer 59 - Old
18 The Innocence Mission - Befriended
19 Super Furry Animals - Phantom Power
20 The Decemberists - Her Majesty
21 The White Stripes - Elephant
22 Jay-Z - The Black Album
23 Spiritualized - Amazing Grace
24 Derek Webb - She Must and Shall Go Free
25 Switchfoot - The Beautiful Letdown
26 Dave Matthews - Some Devil
27 Fountains of Wayne - Welcome Interstate Managers
28 Zwan - Mary, Star of the Sea
29 Jonny Greenwood - Bodysong

[Escuchame]

Fallen still has replayability value to you, David?

I can't listen to it any more.  I don't know why.  The sense of awe and wonder quickly went away.

[bloop]

I can't say I was ever awed by Fallen.  It's alright - but it's one case where band image is getting in the way of my fully enjoying it (in this case, that is the band's fault).

[dgp11776]

[Wildcatblue7]

I can still listen to Fallen, but the martyrish lyrics and the band's antics get in my way of enjoying it...

[Escuchame]

"Tourniquet" is my favorite song by them, and they didn't even write it.

[Wildcatblue7]

"Tourniquet" is my favorite song by them, and they didn't even write it.

haha.  I agree . . . that's the best thing they have ever done.

[murlough23]

RE: Joe Henry - I do like that one. I'd give it at least a solid B... perhaps with more listening, it might be able to crack that list, since the stuff at the bottom is all "B" grade. I just kind of got sidetracked from it as I got flooded with new things to listen to next year.

RE: Radiohead - bloop, you've even said yourself that this is more of a retrospective than something new for Radiohead. Since you like Radiohead more than I, yiou can understand why it wouldn't rank as high with me as OK Computer or Kid A - two albums which are Top 20, if not Top 10 material for their respective years, and would have definitely been Top 20 material if released in 2003.

RE: Sufjan Stevens - bloop and I have the same #1! Never thought that would happen in a million years.

RE: Fallen - For some reason, the band's antics haven't gotten in the way of my enjoying their music the way it has for some of you, but then again, some of you weren't huge fans of it before all the hoopla anyway, so that's fine. It's actually grown on me with time. I still think Ben Moody was the weak link and so I'm not terribly sad to see him go, but I always liked the lyrics and found them to be well-written for the vast majority of the album (something that even Josh, the lyrics connosieur, agreed to upon just reading them before the album even came out). That album's not a guilty pleasure for me, it's a proud pleasure, and I can see how some would link it to typical teen angst, but I think it tries harder than that, and I think they just friggin' sound awesome on that record. Period.

RE: Ohio - I'm not complaining about what I paid for it. I don't think the inclusion of any of the songs decreases the value of the record, save for perhaps "When You Say Love". I just think it would be a more solid listen if I could rearrange the songs a bit and leave out a few that I didn't really care for. I admire the ambition in making it a double album, but that doesn't mean I'm required to like all of the songs. It's kind of like Rattle and Hum - there are so many classics, and I'd love to have more of those classics strung together instead of being distributed in between other stuff that's merely decent.

[bloop]

Even old hat for Radiohead would be a highly ambitious sound for your average modern rock act, like, say, oh I won't say it.  I also maintain that the songs on Ohio are up to snuff in the vast majority.  I think it just requires a lot of patience and isn't gimmicky enough for most people but, whatever.  I'm just about ready for 2004 lists anyway.

Also, where did I even imply that HTTT is an OK Computer or Kid A.  Forget top 10 for the latter two - try top 1, unless there's something out there that I just haven't heard yet that would surpass the scope of those two records.

[murlough23]

Ambition in and of itself will only get you to a maximum rating of "above average" with me. You still have to have an album that I consistently enjoy listening to to get an A. (That doesn't mean it has to be "accessible" - you know me, I'm a very close and patient listener.)

[bloop]

Well, I very consistently enjoy ambitious projects.  On the merits, the greater risk that pays off is worth more than the satisfyingly safe record.  IMO, riskier kinds of records simply deserve more praise, especially with a band as mainstream as that - they risked a heck of a lot to make a follow-up to OK Computer that sounded the way it did.  I'd argue it was a more dangerous move than making OK Computer, which was a highly evolved and refined record, but not a quite a reinvention.

[murlough23]

Well, I very consistently enjoy ambitious projects.  On the merits, the greater risk that pays off is worth more than the satisfyingly safe record.  IMO, riskier kinds of records simply deserve more praise, especially with a band as mainstream as that - they risked a heck of a lot to make a follow-up to OK Computer that sounded the way it did.  I'd argue it was a more dangerous move than making OK Computer, which was a highly evolved and refined record, but not a quite a reinvention.

Key words: "That pays off".

[bloop]

[murlough23]

[bloop]

So, what you're saying is that pure subjective enjoyment is still king, if we're realists.  You're probably right, but I don't think that's the ideal way to look at music.  Try as I might, I can't excise that factor completely (in the name of fairness) myself either, but I feel compelled to try.  

I do believe a person can not really enjoy an album much and still grant it a very high grade only based on what it is.  You know, a "look, this isn't my thing, but it's still phenomenal" - at least if there's a way to separate "best" from "favorite", then this must be true theoretically.  Conversely, a "this doesn't do anything terribly interesting, but I like it tremendously anyway" followed by a C-ish grade would be possible.  In that way, one could arrive at "I like A much more than B, but on the objective merits and more obvious judgement calls that can be invoked, B slays A", essentially.  

The pitfall to trying to be this way is obvious - it can tend to be best guesswork at some only theoretically objective critical perspective because it is so self-consciously cut off from the self, but I suppose what it could be at best is equally obvious.

(on another note, that would be pretty cool to rate albums head-to-head with different poker hands, royal flush, full house, etc.)

[murlough23]

So, what you're saying is that pure subjective enjoyment is still king, if we're realists.  You're probably right, but I don't think that's the ideal way to look at music.  Try as I might, I can't excise that factor completely (in the name of fairness) myself either, but I feel compelled to try.

It's a factor. I don't think I'm making it an altogether larger factor that always trumps the more objective "Is is darving/experimental/innovative?" factor, but I'll admit that I weight it a little differently than you do. If we were going for absolute, pure, completely un-personal ranking based only on what standards we could objectively measure (and even that is pushing it - it's not like we can quantify exactly how much more experimental Radiohead is than, say, Evanescence), I'd probably rank things differently. There have been cases where critically, I'd actually give something a pretty high grade, but then I wouldn't feel really compelled to put it on my Top 10 list because as much of an accomplishment as it may have been, it just didn't do the trick for me. If you want to see that as my limitation, that's fine. I honestly don't care.

Look, if we truly had a universally agreed-upon objective standard for weighing all these things, we'd all have to have the exact same Top 10 lists. If I had heard your #1 album, I would be forced to rate it #1 simply because that was what the objective standard dictated, and so on with #2, #3, etc. - the only difference would be in the albums from your list that I hadn't heard, and vice versa. And that would be no fun.

(OK, so in this case I was forced to choose the same #1 album as you... but that's because it's just a damn good album and I can't get around that no matter how hard I try!)

[Wildcatblue7]

Subjective, sometimes arbitrary enjoyment trumps everything for me.    

[bloop]

It's a factor. I don't think I'm making it an altogether larger factor that always trumps the more objective "Is is daring/experimental/innovative?" factor, but I'll admit that I weight it a little differently than you do.

Well, the "daring/experimental/innovative" factor would only be one semi-objective factor (and you're right in that it's only semi-objective in that we can say A is more experimental than B, but it's nigh impossible to quantify that).  Musicianship and difficulty would be another factor, for example, which would also be important (also not quantifiable, but easy to do by simple comparison), and people's opinions would vary depending on the weights they grant each.

There have been cases where critically, I'd actually give something a pretty high grade, but then I wouldn't feel really compelled to put it on my Top 10 list because as much of an accomplishment as it may have been, it just didn't do the trick for me. If you want to see that as my limitation, that's fine. I honestly don't care.

No, that specifically isn't a limitation as you recognize which one the better album probably is even if you don't go for that one.

Look, if we truly had a universally agreed-upon objective standard for weighing all these things, we'd all have to have the exact same Top 10 lists. If I had heard your #1 album, I would be forced to rate it #1 simply because that was what the objective standard dictated, and so on with #2, #3, etc. - the only difference would be in the albums from your list that I hadn't heard, and vice versa. And that would be no fun.

I'm not so sure I'd want that either, but again, that's assuming we weighed the different "objective" standards the same way.  Individual preference for one objective standard over another would still come into play even in that system, allowing at least for different possibilities.

I look at it this way.  If you made two lists for the year, a critical favorites and a personal favorites list, they would be different from each other, yes?  And the list you currently have is some kind of bastard child of the two, if that makes sense (if I'm interpreting you correctly).  But say you tried to make those two separate lists and I did the same.  Our critical lists would likely be similar, but not the same depending on our own ranking of importance of those critical standards.  Our favorites lists may very well be radically different.

Now, for my limitation.  I don't know if I could attempt a pure favorites list.  My own critical standards have gone so far to the core of what I'm willing to enjoy that it would be very difficult for me to think (or, more precisely, to give my brain a rest) to give strictly a gut-level reaction.

(OK, so in this case I was forced to choose the same #1 album as you... but that's because it's just a damn good album and I can't get around that no matter how hard I try!)

Well, I was somewhat arbitrary there.  Anything in my top 6 could have been #1, but, in the end, I had to grant it to just 1.  But, still, yeah it's cool that we can agree on that.   8-)

Subjective, sometimes arbitrary enjoyment trumps everything for me. 

That was my point:  it does for most everyone.  Unless a person self-conciously avoids that, it absolutely makes a HUGE impact.  There's probably nothing "wrong" with that per se, but it does artificially prop up some awfully mediocre music sometimes, IMO.

(last statement isn't a commend on your music, Wildcat.  I would usually just avoid judging harder music myself, not because I don't like it but because I don't know why I do entirely)

[Wildcatblue7]

That was my point:  it does for most everyone.  Unless a person self-conciously avoids that, it absolutely makes a HUGE impact.  There's probably nothing "wrong" with that per se, but it does artificially prop up some awfully mediocre music sometimes, IMO.

(last statement isn't a commend on your music, Wildcat.  I would usually just avoid judging harder music myself, not because I don't like it but because I don't know why I do entirely)

Oh, I know.  It certainly does bring a lot of crap in.  I've experienced that myself.   ...too many times.

[murlough23]

[bloop]

Evanescence is probably the chief one you'd complain about, but I think there's more invention to that album than you and a lot of folks give it credit for (even if the guitars are a bit of a predictable hindrance).

Yeah, good post.

Concerning Evanescence.  I don't think they're anything groundbreaking, because they aren't (Lacuna Coil remixed, really), but if you remember, my primary reason for staying away from them is their antics.  I can only take so much before I see some mature lyrical ability mixing very strangely with childish real life behavior.  On just the music, I think they were pretty good, though.

[DvChWi]

My biggest  gripe with Evanescence is their mind numbingly generic guitar work.  Amy has a great voice, and is a decent songwriter, and some of the atmospherics they bring to their songs are pretty cool.  However, the canned guitar riffs kill any enjoyment I get out of their music.  Maybe with Ben Moody gone, they will pick up a more talented guitarists and take off from there.

I'm not going to attempt a new best of '03 list for the time being, simply because there were so many great albums that, due to their differences, are extremely hard to compare with each other.  The same thing still applies for this year, so don't take my actual rankings too seriously.

[murlough23]

Concerning Evanescence.  I don't think they're anything groundbreaking, because they aren't (Lacuna Coil remixed, really)

I listened to Lacuna Coil, and frankly I thought their lyrics were much worse, and I really wanted to strangle the male singer. I can definitely see that they were an influence on Evanescence, but I don't think it's quite to the point of being a ripoff.

but if you remember, my primary reason for staying away from them is their antics. I can only take so much before I see some mature lyrical ability mixing very strangely with childish real life behavior.

So the antics became a lens for you to interpret the songs, I guess? I'm confused as to how the antics are causing you to devalue the songs here.

On just the music, I think they were pretty good, though.

As did I, and when you put that together with the lyrics (which I tend to really like), and just the relatively rare occurrence of having a very good female singer in such a band, you can see why I'd rate them so highly.

I really do think they were more creative on Origin, though - wider variety of song styles and I think they thought out of the box a little more in terms of which elements went into which songs, rather than using mostly the same ingredients for a standard rock song glazed over with goth-isms. I like the sound of standard rock glazed over with goth-isms, mind you, but I liked the diveristy of Origin a little more, and I would actually think that was a better album if it had been better produced.

If we are to believe Amy, she wanted to think outside of the box a little more, but Ben was the tightwad when it came to that sort of stuff, wanting to wrtie to a formula in order to gaina ccessibility and popularity. If the group moves away from the formula a little bit and returns to the more creative atmosphere of Origin, but with a better production budget, I think we could see something pretty awesome on their next album. However, Amy's antics and immaturity could surface in the songs now that she's had the chance to be in the spotlight and be a bit of a brat, so it could amount to a lot of pretentious backlashing against critics and whoever else, much like Creed started to become later on. And we really, really don't want that.

[bloop]

I'm not devalueing the songs.  I'm devalueing the band.  I see their lives as incongruous with what they are writing which is irksome to me.  Compound that with the fact that I just fail to see what's so interesting musically about them and you can understand my lack of excitement.

[murlough23]

 

I'm not devalueing the songs.  I'm devalueing the band.  I see their lives as incongruous with what they are writing which is irksome to me.

You mean you see their lives as incongruous with what they wrote. That irks me too, but it's not the songs' fault.

Compound that with the fact that I just fail to see what's so interesting musically about them and you can understand my lack of excitement.

You jsut said, "On just the music, I think they were pretty good, though". Make up your mind!

[bloop]

You jsut said, "On just the music, I think they were pretty good, though". Make up your mind!

I did make up my mind.  They're nothing outstanding, nor are they great musicians, but I heard some pretty likeable things in their music hence "pretty good".  "Pretty good" =/= mindblowingly original.  To sum it up, the music's usually solid but lacks the ambition to be spectacular.

[murlough23]

I did make up my mind.  They're nothing outstanding, nor are they great musicians, but I heard some pretty likeable things in their music hence "pretty good".  "Pretty good" =/= mindblowingly original.  To sum it up, the music's usually solid but lacks the ambition to be spectacular.

Fair enough. I guess I was surprised to even get "pretty good" out of you, which is why I was thrown for a loop.

Anyway, I feel pretty strongly that the lack of ambition was Ben's fault. He seemed to be a by-the-numbers kind of guy. Him being gone gives Amy more room to do whatever it is that she wants to do - however, if the immaturity of her antics does start to creep into her lyrics (she has mentioned wanting to make things darker, which is interesting in principle, but could easily get too melodramatic for its own good, and covering Korn on their live CD isn't exactly a good sort of foreshadowing), we may well have replaced an old problem with a new one.

[dgp11776]

You can also look at it this way.  Two options:

1)  Make a handful of critics happy - stay poor.
2)  Make everybody else happy - sell millions of albums, get rich.

I guess it's hard to blame them for picking #2.

[murlough23]

You can also look at it this way.  Two options:

1)  Make a handful of critics happy - stay poor.
2)  Make everybody else happy - sell millions of albums, get rich.

I guess it's hard to blame them for picking #2.

This just illustrates the kind of problems you face when you base your idea of success on how many other people you make happy. Make yourself happy. Make God happy (if you're a Christian, anyway). As long as you remember to be creative and not plagiarize in the process of doing that, I think you'll come up with something a lot more genuine.

[dgp11776]

Hey, I'm not arguing here.  I'm just pointing out the fact that it would be hard to turn it down.  Not only does the first approach all but assure them of not making as much money, it's a much more difficult process (i.e.; you have to be really good at what you do).  The second approach is actually the easy way out, and they become millionaires by doing it.  

[murlough23]

Hey, I'm not arguing here.  I'm just pointing out the fact that it would be hard to turn it down.  Not only does the first approach all but assure them of not making as much money, it's a much more difficult process (i.e.; you have to be really good at what you do).  The second approach is actually the easy way out, and they become millionaires by doing it.

Right, and I don't mean to be argumentative, since we both know that what makes the most money is not necessarily what's right (on the other hand, if it is truly your area of expertise/enjoyment and it happens to be a popular money-making genre, I can't fault you for that). Sure, it's a difficult process and you have to be really good at what you do. Sounds like great criteria for whether or not to sign a band, doesn't it?

[Wildcatblue7]

The fact that the new guitarist played in the incredibly bland Cold before doesn't make things look very bright...he dumbed down a lot of the solos too.  

Ben is really a pretty sucky guitarist (play more than five chords, please) . . . if Fallen had more differentiation between songs, I would enjoy it a lot more than I do.

I rather like the revamped version of Missing, despite the incredibly whiny and pathetic lyrics.