Wilco-- live album in November!

[Josh]

For their first live album, Wilco makes it a double!

[murlough23]

That could be interesting. I think I'd like them better without the muted production and tape-loop weirdness.

[bloop]

That could be interesting. I think I'd like them better without the muted production and tape-loop weirdness.

The "tape-loop" weirdness will continue, thankfully (judging from a bootlegged show I have from the YHF-era).  The production itself will likely, naturally, be the biggest difference unless they pull some studio trickery on the live album (which I really hope they don't because a different kind of experience is what Wilco has always been about).

What I'm really excited about, however, is that a double album won't seem so cut back as some other band's live efforts (looking in your direction, Radiohead).

[murlough23]

The "tape-loop" weirdness will continue, thankfully (judging from a bootlegged show I have from the YHF-era).  The production itself will likely, naturally, be the biggest difference unless they pull some studio trickery on the live album (which I really hope they don't because a different kind of experience is what Wilco has always been about).

OK, but that stuff is less likely to drown out the instruments and vocals. I'll be more likely to actually hear what's going on. I don't mind the weird background sounds so much; I just don't want them to substitute for the music.

What I'm really excited about, however, is that a double album won't seem so cut back as some other band's live efforts (looking in your direction, Radiohead).

No argument there.

[bloop]

Well, they don't drown out the music of the studio albums either unless it's their intention to be awash in noise.  This doesn't happen much with Wilco in the studio, either, but the debate between us concerning them has always been one about balance I guess (although there are some great bands where what you're describing is the case more often - I like bringing up Loveless where things you tend to think about as weird background sounds or ambient noise is the music, and is shown very effectively to be musical as opposed to noisy).

[murlough23]

Well, they don't drown out the music of the studio albums either unless it's their intention to be awash in noise.

I have no doubt that they do what they do intentionally. But it still bugs me after several attempts to try and appreciate it.

[bloop]

I have no doubt that they do what they do intentionally. But it still bugs me after several attempts to try and appreciate it.

Well, yes, but the point is that it's not a shortcoming if those elements are present in the live album in much the same way as it isn't a shortcoming in their studio.  It's a subjective hangup or something similar, but not truly a qualitative problem.  

I think of it as an idiosyncracy, like Bob Dylan's voice.  Some people can get annoyed by it, and it might be "bad" in some kind of a very narrow, classical traditionalist sense, but quality in the broader more modern critical mindset ranges from unaffected to improved by the deviance.

All this is to say, there are good reasons people like this this noisy shiznit.

np:  Super Furry Animals - "Drygioni" from mwng

[murlough23]

Well, yes, but the point is that it's not a shortcoming if those elements are present in the live album in much the same way as it isn't a shortcoming in their studio. It's a subjective hangup or something similar, but not truly a qualitative problem.

I see it more as a quirk that I don't like. There's obviously a limit to which such things can be used - you and I just disagree on where that limit is. (We agree that "Less than You Think" takes it way too far, for example, but the shorter "noise" interludes elsewhere don't bug you.) In any event, any such sounds used in a live setting are going to be pre-recorded, most likely, and since live concerts ideally focus on the band members being present and playing their instruments and/or singing, I'm willing to bet the live record won't be as infautated with such things as their studio albums have been.

I think of it as an idiosyncracy, like Bob Dylan's voice. Some people can get annoyed by it, and it might be "bad" in some kind of a very narrow, classical traditionalist sense, but quality in the broader more modern critical mindset ranges from unaffected to improved by the deviance.

I don't know if that's an accurate analogy. Wilco can choose when to use white noise. Bob Dylan can't really help his voice. I don't really care for either, truth be told, but one was chosen by the artist, and the other was given to the artist (or perhaps influenced by not taking good care of his voice earlier in life - I honestly don't know if Dylan always sounded that way). I'm not the type to be immediately turned off by a sound that doesn't seem to be pleasing to my ears. To me it's about whether it helps the song. Sometimes a more hoarse, unrefined vocal adds a lot of feeling to a song. Sometimes a lot of white noise adds that value, too. But Bob Dylan's going to have that voice even on the songs that don't call for it. Wilco, on the other hand, doesn't have to add the noise to songs that aren't really helped by it. We could debate which songs those are, and I don't think it's always a bad thing - it just gets old after too many pauses to contemplate the sound of it.

Anyway, I don't mean to be such a downer on Wilco - I'm definitely curious to hear the live album in any event, even if the white noise stays, because it can be interesting to hear how bands that twiddle around a bit more in the studio translate the electronic/sampled elements to a live setting.

NP: "Hummingbird", Shaun Groves

[bloop]

I don't know if that's an accurate analogy. Wilco can choose when to use white noise. Bob Dylan can't really help his voice.

Listen to almost any album of his, then listen to Nashville Skyline.  While his vocals are short of pristine on NS, it's clear from that recording that he really can help it and chooses not to for the most part.  In terms of recent albums, I can imagine the comparison might fall apart as (and I'm just guessing) I think his voice has gotten rougher as a function of becoming old.

Just wondering, have you ever really sat down and listened any segment of Dylan's output?  For the pholks here that regularly go gaga over lyrics, Bob Dylan is pretty much the man.  For me, of course, it helps that he's also an accomplished musician.

At this point, Bob Dylan is pretty much vindicated and "critic-proof" while Wilco doesn't have quite that kind of history (a decent concensus, but not anything like Dylan's), so I don't mean to mix them up too much here.

[murlough23]

Just wondering, have you ever really sat down and listened any segment of Dylan's output? For the pholks here that regularly go gaga over lyrics, Bob Dylan is pretty much the man. For me, of course, it helps that he's also an accomplished musician.

No, not really. Josh had me listen to a few songs a couple years ago that were lyrically pretty good, from what I recall. I've heard random covers of his songs by other people, and again, generally good on the lyrics. (I'm mildly underwhelmed with "Tomorrow Is a Long Time", as covered on the latest Nickel Creek album.)

Anyway, I have a hard time adjusting to less-than-stellar vocalists, but I can usually make an allowance for this over time if the lyrics and musicianship are good. So I'm sure that such things can help make an artist "critic-proof" (though I don't think anyone is ever 100% "critic-proof", but when you've got a history of putting out good stuff, critics are usually willing to be patient with your new output and give you the benefit of the doubt because they know that more careful listening will likely pay off).

At this point, Bob Dylan is pretty much vindicated and "critic-proof" while Wilco doesn't have quite that kind of history (a decent concensus, but not anything like Dylan's), so I don't mean to mix them up too much here.

I'd imagine that the difference between me and most of Wilco's contingent comes down to a personal preference of things that we like to hear, or things that irk us, on a record. I recognize that certain sounds and production values have artistic purpose, but at the same time, that doesn't mean that they will always do something for me. I can try to appreciate what's happening from an academic perspective, but my ears will often still go, "OK, but so what?"

NP: "Measuring Cups", Andrew Bird

[bloop]

[murlough23]

[bloop]

I think you don't like "gut feeling" because it implies a lack of thought or attention to artistry. That's not the case with me.

No.  I just think I prefer the one to dominate the other when it comes down to a final rating.  In my estimation, it fosters consistency for myself, but I can see where it could also foster predictability if virtually everyone adopted those priorities, which would make life that much less exciting (and would likely be somewhat artificial with people rating things as they think they probably should - too much follow-the-leader isn't good for the critical community, either, so I can see the advantages to your way of thinking).

My gut doesn't exactly clash with my intellect much when it comes to music, either, so I suppose it's not such a difficult approach for me, truth be told.  If I reacted, on the gut level, strongly against certain things, it might be.