Radiohead begins work on new album!!!

[murlough23]

I'm not but so offended that you'd rate my favorite band's albums lower.  I'd rank Jimmy Eat World and Anberlin lower than you would, I'm pretty sure.  I think we're within some kind of reasonable range (i.e. an F for Kid A would be a bad joke), and at the very least, both of us at least try to give different kinds of artists a chance.

I'm wondering to what extent an artist's established position as one of our reigning "favorites" influences the rating, or the amount of patience we're willing to have before assigning a rating. I like Radiohead a lot, but I wouldn't consider them one of my "favorites" if I had to settle on a top-tier list of artists who best defined my musical tastes. Consequently, while I respect them and am willing to give anything of theirs a careful, patient listen, I don't feel bad if I end up having to give them a C or something in the end. It hurts more when I have to do something like that to someone like Jars of Clay... but I try not to let that stop me if I feel it's warranted.

I think we're never going to come to a concensus on what's the absolute best, but as long as we can find some common ground regarding artists who make "good music", I think that's a pretty good milestone. Bloop might give Radiohead an A-grade and Anberlin a B-grade, and vice versa for me, but we both agree that they made good albums. That's enough.

[bloop]

It's hard to rate an artist as if you don't know them at all with each album, especially when they have a fairly rich history like any of the bands you mentioned do.  I would even think it's impossible to do that. 

I have little doubt that I'm more likely to grant Radiohead an A-ish grade than most other artists (especially those that stick closer to a vanilla pop/rock script), but I would pin that more on their continued consistent quality output than the past I have with them.  They wouldn't be a favorite in the first place if they didn't establish that, so they've earned their place as far as I can tell.

Critical consensus seems to be very positive on this particular album.  That's not really proof that I'm right, but I think it at least makes a good case that I'm not unreasonable.

[murlough23]

It's hard to rate an artist as if you don't know them at all with each album, especially when they have a fairly rich history like any of the bands you mentioned do.  I would even think it's impossible to do that.

It can't be totally possible - you've got to have some sort of an opinion on a band when it's your introduction to them - it may not be as informed of an opinion, but I don't think it's fair to say that a new album done by an established band is made for existing fans only. It may do different things that cause the fanbase to grow (could be because they sold out, or it could be because they actually improved upon an existing good formula).

I have little doubt that I'm more likely to grant Radiohead an A-ish grade than most other artists (especially those that stick closer to a vanilla pop/rock script), but I would pin that more on their continued consistent quality output than the past I have with them.  They wouldn't be a favorite in the first place if they didn't establish that, so they've earned their place as far as I can tell.

Sure. It's natural to expect that a band whom you've given high grades before for doing things that you like will, most likely, continue to do things that you like. (Though hopefully not the exact same things, or that'd start to get old.)

Critical consensus seems to be very positive on this particular album.  That's not really proof that I'm right, but I think it at least makes a good case that I'm not unreasonable.

There's probably no definitive proof that any of us is "right" about anything, but there's certainly enough consensus here that I'm not going to argue with it. Those of us who have evaluated In Rainbows reasonably seem to think it's pretty good - we fall on different points on the scale in terms of how good, but that's a lesser issue.

[bloop]

Well, if we really wanted to get serious about it, we could do a little statistical analysis on the professional critics and figure out exactly where we fall in the distribution, but that's just way too much work, and not particularly useful.  I'm sure I'd be in the 4th quartile, and you would probably be in the 1st or 2nd in this case.  dgp would be the median.

Even though it is a relatively minor issue, as you said, I do think that a person can miss the mark, even calling a good album "good", relating to the how good.  Our arguments here are not usually "it sucks vs. it's good" (I can think of only one notable example for this), but more "it's good vs. it's excellent" (many, MANY, memorable arguments have happened on this front in the past and, um, presently).

(Though hopefully not the exact same things, or that'd start to get old.)

There's where this band excels.  Even here, where they are more accessible, who else in the world sounds much like them?

[murlough23]

Well, if we really wanted to get serious about it, we could do a little statistical analysis on the professional critics and figure out exactly where we fall in the distribution, but that's just way too much work, and not particularly useful.  I'm sure I'd be in the 4th quartile, and you would probably be in the 1st or 2nd in this case.  dgp would be the median.

What's this about "quartiles"?

Even though it is a relatively minor issue, as you said, I do think that a person can miss the mark, even calling a good album "good", relating to the how good.  Our arguments here are not usually "it sucks vs. it's good" (I can think of only one notable example for this), but more "it's good vs. it's excellent" (many, MANY, memorable arguments have happened on this front in the past and, um, presently).

Yeah, which is why I'm starting to realize that I'd be better off letting a lot of those arguments go. It's fine as a discussion, but once it starts to phease into an argument, I have to step back and say, "Oh well, at least we both liked it." I know that a lot of the things which hit exactly all of the right buttons for me may not do so for others. I'm cool with that, as long as they don't totally disrespect the artist.

There's where this band excels.  Even here, where they are more accessible, who else in the world sounds much like them?

Well, lots of bands, actually - but pretty much none of them do it well. It's not their fault they have imitators.

I also think Radiohead tends to be very forthcoming about their influences, so it's not like they sound like no one - they just tend to resemble other artists in a non-ripoff way, and to not stick with that resemblance for more than the occasional song.

[bloop]

What's this about "quartiles"?

You never did a box-and-whisker plot?

Yeah, which is why I'm starting to realize that I'd be better off letting a lot of those arguments go. It's fine as a discussion, but once it starts to phease into an argument, I have to step back and say, "Oh well, at least we both liked it." I know that a lot of the things which hit exactly all of the right buttons for me may not do so for others. I'm cool with that, as long as they don't totally disrespect the artist.

Eh, ending everything with "agree to disagree" would get pretty boring, I think.  We're big enough that we can disagree without flaming.

Well, lots of bands, actually - but pretty much none of them do it well. It's not their fault they have imitators.

Sure, several try, but almost all fail. 

My point is, they excel at synthesizing their influences to create something uniquely theirs.  You can hear a bit of influence from The Pixies, Kraftwerk, The Smiths, U2, Aphex Twin, Sonic Youth, etc. through various periods of their work, but I would say that they offer a unique imprint whenever they try on another influence and end up sounding only like themselves, innovating in their own right like any great artist who specializes in synthesis as opposed to pure innovation.

[bloop]

OK, some fans really do go too far.

[murlough23]

OK, some fans really do go too far.

Heh. You should see some of the crazy crap Lost fans come up with.

[bloop]

I actually tried it.  Sure sounds like OK Computer and In Rainbows shuffled together to me.

[Josh]

I've reviewed the album over at my blog.

[bloop]

I'll start with the negative. Radiohead sounds so comfortable and convincing here that, initially, you don't realize what a major achievement that really is

This is really funny as a negative.   

Completely agree on the part about Selway.  It's the rhythm section's turn to shine, in general.

[murlough23]

This is really funny as a negative.

I think that's what my initial "disappointed" reaction has turned into as well - it's the first Radiohead album that didn't weird me out, so it took me a while to realize what was different and special about these songs.

I think I agree with everything in Josh's review, except for maybe the bit about Yorke's indecipherable vocals being a plus. (He sounds good, whatever the hell he's singing. But that really isn't a big issue for me on this record as it has been with a few of their past ones. And I understand why he does it, so we don't have to rehash the argument, but I still don't prefer it.)

Completely agree on the part about Selway.  It's the rhythm section's turn to shine, in general.

That's never a bad thing for me.

NP: "Taking Control", Eisley

[Josh]

Fwiw, I kinda meant that Yorke's vocals shine IN SPITE of being indecipherable, not really because they are indecipherable. But even that wouldn't be a big deal with me if I had, you know, a lyrics insert.

[bloop]

It's not exactly liner notes, but ateaseweb often has lyrics on their site that are pretty close to accurate.

[murlough23]

Fwiw, I kinda meant that Yorke's vocals shine IN SPITE of being indecipherable, not really because they are indecipherable.

OK. Then we're in total agreement here.

But even that wouldn't be a big deal with me if I had, you know, a lyrics insert.

I can look up lyrics; no biggie. I have to look 'em up sometimes even for artists who enunciate well (I can hear 'em when listening to the song, but recalling 'em later when I need to quote the song in a review or something is another matter). And everybody has their mondegreens. It's just annoying when everything's so mushed together that when you're reading the official, printed lyrics, it's a stretch to get from what you're hearing to the words you've got before your own two eyes.

NP: "Combinations", Eisley

[bloop]

I don't think the phrasing here is even close to as difficult on this album as on Kid A (which did work well for that album, but I digress).  I'd say for the most part, I'm understanding the words here, but maybe I'm just accustomed to his vocals.  *shrugs*

[murlough23]

I don't think the phrasing here is even close to as difficult on this album as on Kid A (which did work well for that album, but I digress).

Yeah, I think I indicated as much.

I'd say for the most part, I'm understanding the words here, but maybe I'm just accustomed to his vocals.  *shrugs*

I'm kind of wondering that, too. Am I just used to Radiohead's schtick by now, and therefore I'm able to pick out the details better?

*Listens to Amnesiac again*

Nope, no singing through an egg crate on In Rainbows.

[bloop]

Putting aside the songs more oriented toward vocal-production experimentation (i.e. "Pulk/Pull" or "Like Spinning Plates"), is there really that significant a difference from a "Pyramid Song" or "Knives Out" to this?

[murlough23]

Putting aside the songs more oriented toward vocal-production experimentation (i.e. "Pulk/Pull" or "Like Spinning Plates"), is there really that significant a difference from a "Pyramid Song" or "Knives Out" to this?

Not with the songs I liked, no.

[bloop]

   Those poor songs get an unfair beating so much that I just got tired of piling on.  Besides that, I learned to appreciate even the one I didn't care for.  I don't necessarily trust that, though, since familiarity can do strange things to perspective.

[murlough23]

  Those poor songs get an unfair beating so much that I just got tired of piling on.  Besides that, I learned to appreciate even the one I didn't care for.  I don't necessarily trust that, though, since familiarity can do strange things to perspective.

Yeah, there's a certain entertainment value that I get from hearing some of those songs again, and being amused at the "WTF?" reaction I had to them at first. I'm less annoyed with most of 'em now because I know how they go and I guess I've grown accustomed to them, so I'm not actively irritated with them any more, but I still don't get that much out of 'em musically, other than geeking out over how the songs were constructed in the studio (I think the fact that they attempted "Like Spinning Plates" is awesome and I appreciate all the work that went into it, but I still can't get much other than sheer novelty value out of actually listening to it). I suppose you could listen to anything repeatedly and grow familiar enough with it to have a sort of fondness for it, but that's not the same thing as actually liking it.

[bloop]

Well, I came to realize that it's laudable regardless of people's varying levels of enjoyment.  I can't bring myself to knock their audacity and, really, I'd rather be the guy that appreciates those kinds of moves than the one who tends to easily dismiss them based only on something as fleeting as feelings.  I came to the conclusion that whatever my present level of enjoyment (with is rather variable even in myself, let alone with larger populations), it's not that there's necessarily much of anything wrong with either what they were trying to achieve, how they achieved it.

[murlough23]

Well, I came to realize that it's laudable regardless of people's varying levels of enjoyment.  I can't bring myself to knock their audacity.  I came to the conclusion that whatever my present level of enjoyment, it's not that there's anything wrong there.

Yeah, but then you could say that about pretty much any musical composition that attempts to buck the rules. It gets to a point where anything that's different has to get a good grade by default.

[bloop]

There's a danger there, but all that is different (that I've experienced anyway) really requires more careful consideration than competent standard pop/rock generally would to start getting past hearing it to really listening.

[murlough23]

There's a danger there, but all that is different (that I've experienced anyway) really requires more careful consideration than competent standard pop/rock generally would to start getting past hearing it to really listening.

Well, "really listening" generally helps with everything; it can also help some of the pop/rock to seem less "standard" than it does upon first glance.

In any event, when I've "really listened" enough to understand and appreciate the whys, and still don't find it to be enjoyable upon careful or casual listening, then I'm not going to let myself be forced to give something a high grade just because they tried really hard to make it different. And given that I've had six years to proces Amnesiac, I don't think failing to "really listen" is the issue here. (It may have been when I first reviewed the album.)

[bloop]

While it's true that you've listened extensively, I still don't think any particular shortcoming is Radiohead's here, nor do I think enjoyment is the end all in an approach to rating. 

I was, of course, speaking more generally anyway, though.  I referred specifically to competent pop/rock because I like that kind of thing, but it's still easier to process than more a experimental artist's work.

[murlough23]

While it's true that you've listened extensively, I still don't think any particular shortcoming is Radiohead's here

OK, well, you didn't give Amnesiac a perfect rating yourself, so clearly you must think that there are some shortcomings there. What makes them so? It feels like every time I true to argue that anything of theirs displays a shortcoming on their part, you have a reason why that's all just based on my own personal enjoyment (or lack thereof), and is therefore not valid.

nor do I think enjoyment is the end all in an approach to rating.

I'm not srue what the hell the point is of selling your music to other people if you don't expect that it will bring them some form of enjoyment. True, you shouldn't try to be all things to all people or expect that you can make something everyone enjoys. But I tend to think that you're not going to put an album out there and attempt to make a profit from selling it if you truly don't give a crap whether anyone else enjoys listening to it.

And I don't think I'm ever going to give out A's just for being an interesting topic to study.

I was, of course, speaking more generally anyway, though.  I referred specifically to competent pop/rock because I like that kind of thing, but it's still easier to process than more a experimental artist's work.

Easier to process, sure, but also easier to dismiss when you think you already know the drill.

[bloop]

I don't need to go around with this again, really, so I'll just speak for myself.  When I initially encounter a lot of the more challenging albums, there are often some songs or ideas I'm not enjoying at that stage. 

I generally go from there to being a little doubtful about my gut instinct.  Did they do anything wrong, or is it just some irrational hang-up I have?  Am I missing the forest for the trees?, and so forth like that.  I usually come out at least appreciating it, if not quite loving it (or, in rare instances, my personal investigation leads me to genuinely love the experiment in question).

So, maybe appreciation is closer to the bottom line for me than enjoyment would be, but the one does play into the other.  Idk, it makes sense to me, anyway.

I'll only address a few things specifically:

OK, well, you didn't give Amnesiac a perfect rating yourself, so clearly you must think that there are some shortcomings there.

"Morning Bell" was better on Kid A, but I need to add that "less than perfect" does not even necessarily mean that I think there are any particular things I would change about the album.  It just means I think it comes up short of what may be considered some of the greatest albums to ever grace our planet.  When you have that kind of competition, you can't expect me to put a whole lot of albums quite that high.  They may be highly accomplished, but that doesn't mean I'm putting them up with the absolute best of the best.

Easier to process, sure, but also easier to dismiss when you think you already know the drill.

It's not exactly hard to pick up that something sounds rather mainstream, with verse-chorus-verse structure, 4/4 (or other basic) time signatures throughout, the basic rock band instrumentation, etc.  However, I don't think my own record would justify an accusation that I dismiss rock music played straight on auto-pilot (if that is what you're going for - I'm not sure). 

The turnaround from being in my digesting pile to being somewhere in my music journal list is a little quicker for those things that are a bit more straight-forward, but it hasn't generally resulted in a low rating for those things.  Likely, most of those things are recommended by folks here and in other places, so I go in with expectations that are usually pretty realistic.

[murlough23]

I generally go from there to being a little doubtful about my gut instinct.  Did they do anything wrong, or is it just some irrational hang-up I have?  Am I missing the forest for the trees?, and so forth like that.  I usually come out at least appreciating it, if not quite loving it (or, in rare instances, my personal investigation leads me to genuinely love the experiment in question).

I get that, and I too have learned not to trust my first impressions most of the time.

But do you ever run across cases where the problem does not turn out to be an irrational hang-up? If so, what are those cases like?

So, maybe appreciation is closer to the bottom line for me than enjoyment would be, but the one does play into the other.  Idk, it makes sense to me, anyway.

I'll give a better grade to something like Amnesiac, where I can appreciate the effort and intent, than to something that just flat out didn't make an attempt. But I'll give better grades still to the recordings where the intent and effort are admirable and they got me to react in the way that they wanted me to react to it.

"Morning Bell" was better on Kid A, but I need to add that "less than perfect" does not even necessarily mean that I think there are any particular things I would change about the album.  It just means I think it comes up short of what may be considered some of the greatest albums to ever grace our planet.  When you have that kind of competition, you can't expect me to put a whole lot of albums quite that high.  They may be highly accomplished, but that doesn't mean I'm putting them up with the absolute best of the best.

Fair enough, and I agree with you that "Morning Bell" was better on Kid A, just to go with your example. But what makes it better? And would we know this if the Kid A version didn't exist? Do we both just have some sort of an "irrational hang-up" that is causing us to not appreciate the Amnesiac version as much, or is there legitimate reason there?

It's not exactly hard to pick up that something sounds rather mainstream, with verse-chorus-verse structure, 4/4 (or other basic) time signatures throughout, the basic rock band instrumentation, etc.  However, I don't think my own record would justify an accusation that I dismiss rock music played straight on auto-pilot (if that is what you're going for - I'm not sure).

Not what I was going for at all, trust me. I was speaking more from my own experience of hearing a lot of pop/rock records to the point where I have to back away from some of 'em for a while and come back when I'm not listening to so many at once, and then try to pick out what (if anything) makes one particular record unique. The more experimental artists obviously make the uniqueness stand out a bit more. But since we both agree that accomplished pop/rock records do exist, I'm wondering if you discover this to be true with such records right away or if they have to "grow on you", if the musical nuances that make them more accomplished take time to fully realize, etc.

The turnaround from being in my digesting pile to being somewhere in my music journal list is a little quicker for those things that are a bit more straight-forward, but it hasn't generally resulted in a low rating for those things.  Likely, most of those things are recommended by folks here and in other places, so I go in with expectations that are usually pretty realistic.

The turnaround tends to be longer for me lately on those sorts of things, but that's probably just a sign that I'm taking on too much at once and a lot of it isn't standing out very well. Sometimes I have to isolate one or two and leave the others alone for a while, you know?

[bloop]

I get that, and I too have learned not to trust my first impressions most of the time.

But do you ever run across cases where the problem does not turn out to be an irrational hang-up? If so, what are those cases like?

Well, if I still think something creative is going on there, I admit that I hesitantly hang it up and select-sort it into my list based largely on enjoyment (although I'm not likely to rate it very low anyway, and I might rank it a little higher than some albums I enjoyed listening to more).

I'll give a better grade to something like Amnesiac, where I can appreciate the effort and intent, than to something that just flat out didn't make an attempt. But I'll give better grades still to the recordings where the intent and effort are admirable and they got me to react in the way that they wanted me to react to it.

But, of course, you see the possibility that some albums are trying to make you uncomfortable or confused in much the same way that any good thriller or surreal adventure film would?  I know that I like music that explored the psychological possibilities.

Fair enough, and I agree with you that "Morning Bell" was better on Kid A, just to go with your example. But what makes it better? And would we know this if the Kid A version didn't exist? Do we both just have some sort of an "irrational hang-up" that is causing us to not appreciate the Amnesiac version as much, or is there legitimate reason there?

It's hard to take it out of the context of being after Kid A's version.  I like the song, so I still like it on Amnesiac, so I guess to me, it is only a comparative thing.  I think the drumming makes the song a lot more urgent where Amnesiac's version sounds more resigned and dispassionate by comparison.  The outro on Kid A's "Morning Bell" just nails it - no further version is necessary after that.

But since we both agree that accomplished pop/rock records do exist, I'm wondering if you discover this to be true with such records right away or if they have to "grow on you", if the musical nuances that make them more accomplished take time to fully realize, etc.

I think they grow like anything else.  A lot of the music in that vein is quite densely layered, so there's something new to notice with more listens.  The point is, where the artist is trying to be more accessible, they often are.  The more accomplished ones are doing something to earn their place, though, whether it has to do with having something important to say, or multi-tracking, or the production (I think, like you, that I'm particularly impressed with well-produced drum sounds).

[murlough23]

Well, if I still think something creative is going on there, I admit that I hesitantly hang it up and select-sort it into my list based largely on enjoyment (although I'm not likely to rate it very low anyway, and I might rank it a little higher than some albums I enjoyed listening to more).

Which is basically what I do; we just get "hung up" on different things. I'm not sure getting rif of as many "hang-ups" as we possibly can is necessarily the solution to this, though.

And I took it as a given that we were talking only about the subset of songs where we can clearly see that something creative is going on there. Paint-by-numbers songs might sometimes strike a chord with me by pure chance, but I'll tend to acknowledge that the enjoyment's more superficial there and generally not give the highest ratings for such things.

But, of course, you see the possibility that some albums are trying to make you uncomfortable or confused in much the same way that any good thriller or surreal adventure film would?  I know that I like music that explored the psychological possibilities.

Sure. I don't have to understand everything to enjoy it, and something it's that response of being puzzled that brings me back (particularly with lyrics that are more impressionistic than direct, but also sometimes with the way the music was recorded). The difference is that the thriller/adventure film will usually reveal its reasons for keeping you in the dark by the time the credits roll, and you'll marvel at how they kept you in suspense, etc. With music, I'm sitting there in suspense waiting for something to happen or something to come along and make sense of it, and it never happened, because it's not necessarily a story being told with some sort of climax/resolution at the end.

I mean, imagine an entire episode of Lost where everyone talked backwards, the cameras were out of focus, and no attempt was made to shed light on any of the events of that episode throughout the rest of the series. That'd be a lot different than an episode where one person talks backwards, certain details are hinted at but not shown to you, and they take until two seasons later to explain what the hell was going on (which is actually what does really happen on that show)

It's hard to take it out of the context of being after Kid A's version.  I like the song, so I still like it on Amnesiac, so I guess to me, it is only a comparative thing.  I think the drumming makes the song a lot more urgent where Amnesiac's version sounds more resigned and dispassionate by comparison.  The outro on Kid A's "Morning Bell" just nails it - no further version is necessary after that.

So do we have a hang-up or bias involving the lack drums, then? Or common time as opposed to the non-standard time signature of the Kid A version?

[bloop]

Which is basically what I do; we just get "hung up" on different things. I'm not sure getting rif of as many "hang-ups" as we possibly can is necessarily the solution to this, though.

If they aren't rational, I don't know why we'd want to keep them.

Sure. I don't have to understand everything to enjoy it, and something it's that response of being puzzled that brings me back (particularly with lyrics that are more impressionistic than direct, but also sometimes with the way the music was recorded). The difference is that the thriller/adventure film will usually reveal its reasons for keeping you in the dark by the time the credits roll, and you'll marvel at how they kept you in suspense, etc. With music, I'm sitting there in suspense waiting for something to happen or something to come along and make sense of it, and it never happened, because it's not necessarily a story being told with some sort of climax/resolution at the end.

If a story is being told with an album, it's told very differently, that's for sure.  I was just saying that the journey, even through someone's personal psychological hell, can be interesting to me.  Too much Bergman, I guess.

I mean, imagine an entire episode of Lost where everyone talked backwards, the cameras were out of focus, and no attempt was made to shed light on any of the events of that episode throughout the rest of the series. That'd be a lot different than an episode where one person talks backwards, certain details are hinted at but not shown to you, and they take until two seasons later to explain what the hell was going on (which is actually what does really happen on that show)

Lost as directed by David Lynch.  I'm intrigued.

So do we have a hang-up or bias involving the lack drums, then? Or common time as opposed to the non-standard time signature of the Kid A version?

I'm not sure if you do, but I thought for that particular song, the drums served the urgent nature of the album, and the themes of the song, a little better.  Amnesiac's version of the song was a different perspective, I guess - maybe even a larger, more dispassionate perspective of being outside of a situation, but I'm not sure that worked as well when so much of the album placed the listener in the middle of it.

Again, though, I do like the song.  It just seemed a strange way to revisit a highlight on the previous album, but they clearly planned it that way and I'm still not sure why.  There were b-sides from that era that I thought were better as songs than the album cut of "Morning Bell".

[murlough23]

If they aren't rational, I don't know why we'd want to keep them.

Well, part of the exercise is identifying what's rational and what's not.

But I don't know that it's so irrational to say, "I respect this about their music, but don't really get much personally from listening to it."

[bloop]

Well, part of the exercise is identifying what's rational and what's not.

But I don't know that it's so irrational to say, "I respect this about their music, but don't really get much personally from listening to it."

No, I suppose it's not all that irrational, but it reveals more about the listener than about the music, and it doesn't really get at the "why" much.  If it's possible, I prefer to use these moments as an opportunity to shed some of my own limitations rather than to just leave it at owning up to them.

Still, that's a pretty humble way of saying it.  It's far more troublesome when the person writes a similar statement, but ups the snark factor, implying that no one should be getting much personally from listening to [insert "weird" album here], criticizing listeners for getting as much as they claim to be getting, pejoratively pointing out the "flaws" as one sees it (that aren't flaws, but rather, just a way the listener isn't accustomed to hearing), or, worse, presumptuously claiming to know the artist's motivation. 

I think that kind of disclaimer you wrote certainly comes off a lot better than a lot of what I see from those putting themselves up to criticizing the artier side of music in general.  That's been you in the past, but I think you have improved on your approach greatly since then.  I just believe my own way of doing things better approximates my ideals. 

I mean, the kid that doesn't like the literature one is typically forced to read is just being honest, but does his not liking it really change the reality that what the teacher is assigning is well-written and important in a larger sense?  Wouldn't it be better for him and his education if he learned appreciation for it, whether or not that leads to an actual taste for it? 

Related to that, I recently read this essay by Flannery O'Connor.  The last part is just golden.  I guess, in some sense, I see myself as a student in music who can and does learn appreciation.  I just think stopping at "I don't like it" is selling oneself short.

[murlough23]

No, I suppose it's not all that irrational, but it reveals more about the listener than about the music, and it doesn't really get at the "why" much.  If it's possible, I prefer to use these moments as an opportunity to shed some of my own limitations rather than to just leave it at owning up to them.

I enjoy shedding limitations, too. I just don't think that every single limitation that I have is one that can or should be shed - if it were possible to shed them all, then I'd pretty much be forced to give high grades to every piece of music out there that resulted from a genuine attempt to be creative.

Still, that's a pretty humble way of saying it.  It's far more troublesome when the person writes a similar statement, but ups the snark factor, implying that no one should be getting much personally from listening to [insert "weird" album here], criticizing listeners for getting as much as they claim to be getting, pejoratively pointing out the "flaws" as one sees it (that aren't flaws, but rather, just a way the listener isn't accustomed to hearing), or, worse, presumptuously claiming to know the artist's motivation.

I realize that there are times where we don't know the artist's motivation, or where we misunderstand it. A part of that motivation may be to discomfort us, for all I know, but the fact still remains that unless you're recording an album just as a gag, you probably want to be making something that people will feel compelled to listen to again and again. So if I've given it more than a fair shake, and after I've fully digested and evaluated it, I still find that I have little desire to listen to it, then in terms of how the artist is reaching me as a consumer or potential fan (or even an existing fan), they've failed, even if they've succeeded with other fans. And maybe they've succeeded with the type of fans they intended to succeed with, so that's fine, but I still have to be able to say, "This didn't work for me." I don't necessarily mean for that to imply that they were required to make it "work" for me, but I can certainly offer the opinion that I'd have liked it better if they tried X or Y.

I think that kind of disclaimer you wrote certainly comes off a lot better than a lot of what I see from those putting themselves up to criticizing the artier side of music in general.  That's been you in the past, but I think you have improved on your approach greatly since then.  I just believe my own way of doing things better approximates my ideals.

I'm probably just more of a pragmatist than an idealist in these matters. I guess that's why we need each other. I think you prefer to view the artist in a vacuum - if they made their creative ambitions come to life, that's usually good enough for you, but I have to consider the effect that it has on the listener, and I'm never going to be some other listener; I'm always going to be this one specific listener. That means that I have to acknowledge that I have very little room to make some sort of an absolute criticism, which is why I tend to focus more on my reaction, while acknoeldging (in cases where such things are knowable, anyway) what the artist's intent appears to have been and whether that might be communicated better to other types of listeners than it was to me.

I mean, the kid that doesn't like the literature one is typically forced to read is just being honest, but does his not liking it really change the reality that what the teacher is assigning is well-written and important in a larger sense?  Wouldn't it be better for him and his education if he learned appreciation for it, whether or not that leads to an actual taste for it?

Sure, but who decides that it's well-written and important? Are all works of literature where the author made an attempt to be creative worthy of that description? It's someone's reaction to it that brought to light the importance and quality of the work. Certainly those "someones" were in a position where they knew more about literature than the kid did, and could better assess the work, but there's still some degree to which the effect that the work has on the reader is important. It just means that there's a certain threshold below which one is not well-equipped to make that judgment.

I just think stopping at "I don't like it" is selling oneself short.

I think that over the years, I've gone from, "I don't like it, period" to "I don't like it, why is that?", and I've gone through a bit of a loop, trying to listen to things with different aspects in mind that I like/don't like several times, and finding that my opinion changes as I develop more and more familiarity with what I'm listening to. So you can trust that when I arrive at a final, "I don't like it", that this wasn't a decision that was made easily. (At least if it wasn't Limp Bizkit or something.) It means that I went back several times and did my best to confront my reasons for not liking something and ask if those reasons were really things that mattered to me.

And these discussions are part of that process of figuring out what matters to me and whether it should. I suppose I could get to the point where I ditch every unique thing that I personally enjoy about music and try to approach it from a completely academic perspective... but to be honest, then I'd be no different from the next individual trying to do the same thing. That sort of loss of individuality and subjectivity is not something that I want to attain, even if I do appreciate the collaborative effort of trying to learn from others who are very much not like me in terms of the things that make music matter to them. I don't want to be unteachable, but I don't want to be a follower, either.

NP: "Digital Sea", Thrice

[dgp11776]

Disc 2 of In Rainbows is all over the place now.

[bloop]

Yeah, I noticed that yesterday.  I look forward to hearing it (but, more importantly, hearing the album w/ better sound quality)

[spacebrat311]

Got it. I like it a lot, but I feel like a lot of the groove that was present in the live version of Bangers 'N' Mash is gone. Time will tell how this affects my ability to enjoy it.

[bloop]

I like how "MK1" just seems to pick up where "Videotape" left off.

[Vlad!]

No, I suppose it's not all that irrational, but it reveals more about the listener than about the music, and it doesn't really get at the "why" much.  If it's possible, I prefer to use these moments as an opportunity to shed some of my own limitations rather than to just leave it at owning up to them.

I object fairly strenuously to the use of the word "limitations" in this statement. About five years ago, Josh burned me copies of Kid A and OK Computer. I listened to both and didn't particularly like either. Then I had a friend who loved Radiohead, so I listened to them again just to see if maybe I missed something the first time. Nope, still not feeling it. I didn't spend a lot of time rationalizing it. When I touch something hot, I instinctively withdraw my hand. When I listen to music I dislike, I don't listen to it again.

I'm glad you like it. I'm also glad they decided to cut through the record industry's bullshit and try something new[1]. But please don't consider it to be a limitation on my part just because I don't like them.

[1] I respect them far more for this than for any musical accomplishment of theirs, which possibly shows my level of caring about music in general.