Wilco-- Kicking Television

[bloop]

Yeah, sorry about that.  I was at the in-laws, and they don't have the internet (I guess I could have went to the local Panera Bread with my laptop or something).

Concerning the Wilco live album, it is strong as far as live albums go (that I've heard anyway).  It isn't unfortunately truncated like Radiohead's, nor does it outlast its welcome.  Personally, I have a hard time listening to the entire album at once, but I generally prefer to listen to a single artist for no more than an hour at a time.  The songs themselves suggest that this isn't a band to box up into eras, but that at the core of Wilco is a consistent sort of songcraft through the albums.  Even I've made the mistake of trying to unnaturally dissect the band into their acoustic, and more noise-oriented eras when there's always been that underlying thread through all their music.  The songs also tend to be more suited to live performance, and less meandering, so I think murlough might like this more than any of their studio albums other than maybe Summerteeth, but all that is Wilco (including, very often, rather noisy outros) is still present.  I know this is predictable, but sometimes, as mur said, things are predictable precisely because they are so called for.  This is a solid A, if not an A+ - 5 stars.  I can't justify any less to get ahead in the game.

Next round, let's do Peter, Paul, & Mary's self-titled debut album (I have it on vinyl).

[murlough23]

I know this is predictable, but sometimes, as mur said, things are predictable precisely because they are so called for.  This is a solid A, if not an A+ - 5 stars.

Ironic that I said that and then changed my guess, eh? I was going to change it anyway, the "knee-jerk" 5 was an attempt to mislead.  

Anyway, judging from the clips, the only thing that's really going to change for Wilco in a live setting is the percussion, which was one of my annoyances with the album (it's so muted and far back there half the time), and maybe the vocals will be a little more upfront, but let's be honest, I never liked Tweedy's vocals in the first place. I tend to like live albums less than studio albums for most bands, so while the live elements here may reduce some of the elements that bugged me on their records, I just don't think the discs would hold my interest. I'll hold out for another studio album and see if things improve. If not, I'll just have to assume that Wilco is something I don't get, and move on.

[bloop]

Well, there's more than that that changes (after all, extra short guitar licks and slightly different timings are changes), both subtle and obvious.  One of the more obvious changes is that many of the live versions of the songs that are rather long in their album versions are notably shorter and tighter, and I remember you saying that some of that meandering put you off (I think I remember that with "Spiders (Kidsmoke)".  It's not as present on the live album as it is on, say A Ghost is Born.

I disagree that the drums are really back in the mix in the studio albums.  They're definitely produced differently than your average pop rock album, but they are hardly anywhere near barely audible.  If anything, the drums are front and center in all their "tin can"-sounding glory - they clearly wanted them to be heard even if they are a more atypical element in their music.  

Here's to hoping they don't "improve".  I wouldn't mind them changing a bit, even to something more easily accessible, but the last thing I want them to be is just another pop/rock band.  The world has enough of them, and bloop needs a band, too.

If I really wanted to get ahead in this game, I'd go with 1 star.

[murlough23]

[bloop]

I wouldn't want that, either. I think they can remain unique without being a pain in the ass to listen to.

What can I say?  My favorite Wilco is pain-in-the-ass Wilco, which is why I considered the live album not necessarily better than the studio albums.

(my favorite version of "Kamera" was on their free Australian EP, but the album version is rather good and not quite completely typical pop/rock - really.  The closest to that might be "Heavy Metal Drummer", which is just fun.)

[murlough23]

My favorite Wilco is pain-in-the-ass Wilco

You could put almost any name of a band you like in place of Wilco and that'd be true.  

The closest to that might be "Heavy Metal Drummer", which is just fun.

That song would be a blast if not for the lyrics about getting stoned and stuff. A lot of their other songs are the opposite - I like the lyrics, and maybe even the melody, but the execution just drags.

[bloop]

That song would be a blast if not for the lyrics about getting stoned and stuff.

Pfft.  It's a blast partly because of those lyrics, and stuff (I would say it has lyrics about being stoned, but that's not really what the entire song is about.  It's just what's punctuated by those nifty electronics), but I'll admit I like it more based on the music than lyrics, easily.  I thought of that song immediately when you mentioned drumming, though, because, ironically (given the title), it sounds drum machine-like.  Anyway, the point was that the song is as close to a normal pop rock song as I can find from them on that album.

Your first statement is decidedly pretty true, though, with a few exceptions I'm sure.

That song would be a blast if not for the lyrics about getting stoned and stuff. A lot of their other songs are the opposite - I like the lyrics, and maybe even the melody, but the execution just drags.

I think the small differences in execution between two runs of the same chorus add up to enough to keep me interested most of the time.  On a handful of others, the "dragging" just seems to fit a mood, and is deliberately projected.  Ambiance seems to be high on their list of priorities, and they're definitely one of those bands that seems to me to make music for themselves, almost like therapy, and hope others come along for the ride.

[murlough23]

[bloop]

[murlough23]

[bloop]

[murlough23]

muffled obscurity is a part of life, and a valid way to show an emotional response

So is throwing a temper tantrum and sceraming like a 3-year-old who lost his favorite toy, I'd imagine, but just because it's a valid expression of emotion doesn't mean that it's interesting to listen to.

I can handle muffled obscurity as a motif for a song here and there, but as an overall way of life for an artist, it's really frustrating. If I "don't get" something, I at least want to feel compelled to go back and listen again and again so that I might "get" something more.

Well, that and the dangers of smoking on one's ability to sing properly.

I think you can se why I have a hard time respecting that. If their voices were just like that, I might see it differently... but wait, I hate Macy Gray, too.

NP: "I Won't Give Up", Everyday Sunday

[bloop]

So is throwing a temper tantrum and sceraming like a 3-year-old who lost his favorite toy, I'd imagine, but just because it's a valid expression of emotion doesn't mean that it's interesting to listen to.

It could be.  Example?

Oh yeah, there is Linkin Park.  Good point!

I can handle muffled obscurity as a motif for a song here and there, but as an overall way of life for an artist, it's really frustrating. If I "don't get" something, I at least want to feel compelled to go back and listen again and again so that I might "get" something more.

Either I have better ears than you do, or I just feel like I've caught everything that may be lyrically important there - that perhaps the trailing off in itself is supposed to show a certain reaction to what was sung more clearly before (I don't know - I'm not even thinking of any specific examples at the moment).  

Also, printed lyrics can help if you flip a little too much for that kind of thing.

I think you can se why I have a hard time respecting that. If their voices were just like that, I might see it differently... but wait, I hate Macy Gray, too.

I don't think your lack of love for their vocals has much to do with them being smokers, to be honest - again, it's really just a gut-level reaction to them.  Personally, I don't have any kind of real problem with smoking, other than I think it smells and costs too much.

The thing about Tweedy's vocals is that I can't even imagine what it would sound like otherwise, so he's kind of forced people to take it or leave it (for all we know, it would sound very similar if he never touched a cigarette - it's hard to prove that not true because we've really never heard any other).  

Contrasting with that, Dylan's voice has evolved over the years to what it is today (again, Nashville Skyline is surprisingly clear and even well-sung next to earlier or later records).  It doesn't have the clarity it once had, but it still suits what he's doing just fine.

(I find it kind of strange that Bono is a smoker.  You think you might be able to hear the effects of that sometimes, but usually, er, not really.  I would personally attribute most of any loss with him to age)

[murlough23]

Oh yeah, there is Linkin Park.  Good point!

Linkin Park and Creed are two examples of bands whose music I enjoy, but the vocals do get in the way sometimes. Chester's screaming is fine in limited doses, but aggravating when he overuses it. The guy has a good voice when he's singing, I think. Scott Stapp is similarly irritating when he overuses the growl or whatever the hell he's doing. His normal singing voice, I like.

My musical quibbles with both of those groups have more to do with repetition of ideas (I'm not as huge into either as I once was), but at least I can hear what's being played and sung and I don't have to fiddle with my volume all the time.

I'm sure you hoped that bringing up LP would make for a good "Ohhhh! Burn!" moment; I've acknowledged in the past that nearly all of the criticisms you have about them are fair, the difference is simply that those particular weaknesses don't bug me as much as you.

Either I have better ears than you do, or I just feel like I've caught everything that may be lyrically important there - that perhaps the trailing off in itself is supposed to show a certain reaction to what was sung more clearly before (I don't know - I'm not even thinking of any specific examples at the moment).

Also, printed lyrics can help if you flip a little too much for that kind of thing.

I read printed lyrics for almost everything I listen to at one point or another, just to make sure they're saying what I'm singing when I sing along, or to more carefully study the apparent meaning of something, etc. So I can't quite put my finger on it - it's not that I have absolutely no access to understanding what's being said. Maybe I just don't like being mumbled at? Drives me nuts when people don't enunciate in real conversation, so maybe that's it. Either way, I've acknowledged that it's more of a personal beef than an artistic one.

I don't think your lack of love for their vocals has much to do with them being smokers, to be honest - again, it's really just a gut-level reaction to them.

I don't care if it came about as a result of smoking, genetics, or swallowing razor blades. It just doesn't sound pleasant or interesting to my ears. And it's interesting to note that that isn't true for all of Wilco's songs, either. Some of them sound a little more normal, vocally speaking ("I'm the Man Who Loves You", "Muzzle of Bees"), and some sound like he's just pissing and moaning, which irritates me ("Radio Cure").

Personally, I don't have any kind of real problem with smoking, other than I think it smells and costs too much.

And might seriously jack up your health? I suppose if you only did it every now and then, no biggie. But as a habit, I find it as detestable as drug addiction, alcoholism, or gluttony. I figure people have a certain responsibility to take care of their bodies.

(I find it kind of strange that Bono is a smoker.  You think you might be able to hear the effects of that sometimes, but usually, er, not really.  I would personally attribute most of any loss with him to age)

Then either he doesn't smoke much, or he's just plain lucky. I am hearing the effects of age, though, and it's not really his fault, but it does irritate me when he reaches for a note that he can't quite hit without cracking. I don't expect totally pristine vocals on a record that's supposed to be infused with human feeling, but all the same, it does bug me at times. He was vocally at his best in the late 80's, and we didn't notice the decline as much in the 90's because so much of what U2 was doing was heavily programmed and it was supposed to sound more strained (and yes, it bugged me a bit there, too).

Even when the singer has a perfectly pristine voice, Kevin Max for example, the "inaudibles" are still going to bug me. Kevin has a habit of muttering little inaudibles during the intros/outros/bridges of songs, and I finally realizes how much that annoys me, because it's like he wants to stick some extra meaning in there but decides to obscure it in such a way that I have to offer the most devoted and detailed attention just to decipher what's being said, which often turns out to be nothing of importance. As a stylistic choice every now and then, no biggie, but when it becomes a recurring idiosyncracy, it starts to feel a bit self-important.

NP: "Sullivan's Social Slub", The Fiery Furnaces

[bloop]

I'm sure you hoped that bringing up LP would make for a good "Ohhhh! Burn!" moment; I've acknowledged in the past that nearly all of the criticisms you have about them are fair

I think, technically, all of them have been fair, but I was just playing a little.  I think you know that.

I read printed lyrics for almost everything I listen to at one point or another, just to make sure they're saying what I'm singing when I sing along, or to more carefully study the apparent meaning of something, etc. So I can't quite put my finger on it - it's not that I have absolutely no access to understanding what's being said. Maybe I just don't like being mumbled at?

I do a bit of mumbling myself, sometimes, so I guess I have to be fine with it or be a hypocrite on the issue.

I don't care if it came about as a result of smoking, genetics, or swallowing razor blades. It just doesn't sound pleasant or interesting to my ears. And it's interesting to note that that isn't true for all of Wilco's songs, either. Some of them sound a little more normal, vocally speaking ("I'm the Man Who Loves You", "Muzzle of Bees"), and some sound like he's just pissing and moaning, which irritates me ("Radio Cure").

Maybe, but only a little.  The rough edges are apparent in those songs as well.  He just maintains a constant, upfront loud volume in that song, whereas in "Radio Cure", it's a consistently hushed (again, though, I can tell what he's saying in that song well, and I'm not taking the song to be just "pissing and moaning" therapy either, but if I'm to be honest, I don't have a great interpretation for that song's lyrics - it does seem to be grounded in universal feelings, though).

And might seriously jack up your health? I suppose if you only did it every now and then, no biggie. But as a habit, I find it as detestable as drug addiction, alcoholism, or gluttony. I figure people have a certain responsibility to take care of their bodies.

I hate higher health costs associated with it as well, but on a daily basis - as something I can put my finger on - it doesn't bother anything other than my asthma, to be honest.

Even when the singer has a perfectly pristine voice, Kevin Max for example, the "inaudibles" are still going to bug me. Kevin has a habit of muttering little inaudibles during the intros/outros/bridges of songs, and I finally realizes how much that annoys me, because it's like he wants to stick some extra meaning in there but decides to obscure it in such a way that I have to offer the most devoted and detailed attention just to decipher what's being said, which often turns out to be nothing of importance. As a stylistic choice every now and then, no biggie, but when it becomes a recurring idiosyncracy, it starts to feel a bit self-important.

As long as you realize that the self-importance may be attributed rather than an overt behavior on the part of the artist.  I just keep my speakers loud enough that I can hear what's being said unless my kids are in the car.  In Wilco's case, I don't have to set my speakers any higher than I normally do, thus the problems you are noting are not really problems that I'm hearing.

[murlough23]

I think, technically, all of them have been fair, but I was just playing a little.  I think you know that.

Yeah, I know. I just think Linkin Park is becoming a sort of music critic equivalent of Godwin's Law around these parts.

I do a bit of mumbling myself, sometimes, so I guess I have to be fine with it or be a hypocrite on the issue.

And I do a bit of yelling. At least we understand each other!

Maybe, but only a little.  The rough edges are apparent in those songs as well.

Yeah, and it's not the existence of rough edges that bothers me so much. It's the muting of certain things that I'd expect to be more front and center.

He just maintains a constant, upfront loud volume in that song, whereas in "Radio Cure", it's a consistently hushed (again, though, I can tell what he's saying in that song well, and I'm not taking the song to be just "pissing and moaning" therapy either, but if I'm to be honest, I don't have a great interpretation for that song's lyrics - it does seem to be grounded in universal feelings, though).

His voice on that song does make him sound like he's pretty miserable. I remember when I mentioned to Josh way back when that I was fixing to listen to YHF - he warned me to be prepared from some hungover, puking-in-the-toilet type of vocals or something like that.

I hate higher health costs associated with it as well, but on a daily basis - as something I can put my finger on - it doesn't bother anything other than my asthma, to be honest.

Sucks to your assmar. (Sorry, I couldn't resist. Actually, I might have a really mild form of asthma, and it annoys the hell out of me, so I can appreciate what you must have to deal with there.)

So wait, you smoke?

As long as you realize that the self-importance may be attributed rather than an overt behavior on the part of the artist.  I just keep my speakers loud enough that I can hear what's being said unless my kids are in the car.  In Wilco's case, I don't have to set my speakers any higher than I normally do, thus the problems you are noting are not really problems that I'm hearing.

You must either listen really loud, or change the volume a lot, then. Or just have one of those really pristine cars where outside noise can't get in at all.

Still, Wilco is more of a "headphones" band, and I don't fault them for that in and of itself.

[Aaron]

heard the album.  Love it.

[Josh]

[bloop]

So wait, you smoke?

Just to be clear, no.  But, a side job I have involves teaching a girl at home whose family smokes, and that is a little hard on me.

I love your blurb, Josh.  I personally think of the live recordings as not so much superior, but merely better-suited to the live setting than their studio counterparts ("more immediate" is a good way to put it).

[Josh]

Have I mentioned here that I've got tickets to see Wilco at the Tennessee Theater on March 16?

Well I do. :guitar: