Jars of Clay - Good Monsters

[starhawk]

I think this all the fault of the cynicism that has grown in recent years among some of that anything "Christian" which doesn't buck the system and go underground is therefore not worth your time because it's not gritty enough or whatever. This is the deepest album Jars of Clay has ever done. For people who liked most of their previous albums, I sure don't see what the problem should be.

So your response to someone else's criticism is to lay on a stereotype?  Or could it actually be that some people don't think these songs are so excellent and deep?  I like most of the material on GM, but there is a lot on the record too that just does not impress me at all.  I think I've already written about that it in previous posts though.

And what's wrong with desiring more stimulating art?  Sorry, but I'm genuinely not impressed by most of what I hear in popular CCM.  Yet I'd rank GM above some of the underground 'gritty' Christian releases I've heard this year even (MuteMath, Listening).

[danny316]

Yeesh...I didn't expect quite so strong a reaction. I don't think it's a bad CD at all, but it just doesn't click with me for some reason. I'm thinking maybe it's a preference thing - I really liked some of the folksy stuff they were doing on WWAI, and my favorite songs on this album are definitely the most WWAI-ish.

In any case, I've gotten to the point where Jars is seeming more hit-and-miss to me instead of seeming like an all-around great band. Sure, part of it is probably my fault (I fully deserve Murlough's snarky stereotype rant here, but I'd give Jars some "gritty underground" credit, actually), but I just don't care much for about half of the stuff they've put out now. The Eleventh Hour only has two songs that I really love, and Furthermore only has one (and even that was just a better version of a favorite from Much Afraid). WWAI was a bit of a "return to greatness" for me, just as it was for Josh. I didn't get into Redemption Songs as much - I really like two of the songs, I appreciate what they did with "They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love", and I somewhat like about half of that disc. Then there's this one...and it's not bad, really, but it just doesn't do much for me.

While I'm here, track by track thoughts:

Work: Some good lyrics here, and I love the way it ends. I keep getting small parts of this one stuck in my head, but for some reason it doesn't do much for me as a whole.

Dead Man: They get points for trying something completely foreign to them, but they lose them for making those new influences a bit too obvious. At first I thought the chorus was a little grating, but this is actually a pretty good song (which isn't a complaint - but it being "pretty good" doesn't exactly put it with the many Jars songs I'd consider to be "great").

All My Tears: Great song, solid performance. I prefer the iTunes Originals version of this that Jars recorded, but either way, I like the song, and I prefer either Jars recording of it to the original recording of the song. Again though, this is less "rock" and more of that gospel-tinged folk stuff they've proved themselves to be so good at. This is easily my favorite here, and it might appear near the bottom of a list of my favorite Jars songs.

Even Angels Cry: Actually, I don't even really have anything against this song either. I kind of like the way they throw the banjos and reverbed-guitar into there, and they develop some nice texture here. The lyrics don't do much for me, and Kate York (sp?) doesn't seem to add much to the track, but it's not a bad song at all.

There Is A River: This is a good song. Again, they're back on that hymn-influenced somewhat-folksy stuff they do so well. The lyrics and melody here stick with me pretty well, actually. This would be my second favorite, in spite of the "preachiness" of it - it's very well done. It's not as strong as some of their other contenders in this field if you ask me, but this is far from being something I'd really complain about.

Good Monsters: A rocker with a real guitar riff...which generally isn't a style I prefer, and it just doesn't do much of anything for me. I can't really find anything wrong with it, though, to be honest. It's got a catchy riff and a catchier melody. I like how they bring back a little bit of electronic effects in this one.

Oh My God: Actually, my first reaction to this was an extreme "Christian rock is of the devil" one. I may be interpreting this one wrong - I've noticed that most of the reviews that mention this song refer to a "list of lamentations", but it sounds more to me like Dan is describing how people from all walks of life call out to God in times of need. That's actually a somewhat interesting concept, but it assumes that people don't use the Lord's name in vain, and that all these people are sincere in their comments, and frankly, that seems a bit off-base to me. After a few more listens, I've backed off a bit on that angle. The simplicity of the musical background can be a bit much sometimes, but it's not really bad (even if it does mean we don't really get to hear Steve and Matt play at the same time). I'll complain a little about the "Worlds Apart"-iness of the end of the song, but it works well here just like it did there.

Oh, and did they just say "whores" in the middle of this song? They get some gritty against-the-CCM-grain points for that.

Surprise: This song isn't bad, but it's also not all that memorable. I can see the musical idea they're getting at, and it is an interesting one, but it just doesn't seem to "work" like it should. They deserve points for trying either way, I guess.

Take Me Higher: The lyrics here are really bad, the music is somewhat tasty. I don't have much of a problem with this song, but I don't exactly find myself wanting to go back to it either. The guitar work is good enough to keep it from becoming skippable though.

Mirrors and Smoke: For the first 30 seconds or so, that guitar (bass?) that opens the song up intrigues me with that odd rhythm. After that, the song has a hard time keeping my attention. It's interesting how they go for a Dylan-ish feel with the arrangement while trying to conjure up a Cash-style duet, but it doesn't keep me coming back (frankly, what keeps me coming back to this album is the thought that this is one of my favorite bands, and maybe I'm just missing something that I'll hear next time I try to listen to it).

Light Gives Heat: This is very well done...it's very thought-provoking and honestly, it's a bit surprising coming from people involved with Blood:Water. Much like that Caedmon's Call album from a few years back, this makes it clear that they've put some real thought into just what they're doing when they try to minister to people in Africa. Frankly, I like this song more than anything on that Caedmon's album - this song is much more to-the-point, intelligently-written, and effective. Then there's that oh-so-moving choir - which is a nice touch, but it's a lot like the choir on the latest Neil Young album (it makes the song very affecting, but it's not particularly memorable and it doesn't exactly keep me coming back).

Water Under the Bridge: Well-executed, if a bit straightforward.

...so, all that is really just getting a bit more specific on the "hmm, this just doesn't seem to do it for me" front. It's not a bad album, it's just not one that seems to really be hitting me. It's a very consistent album, which is a welcome change from their other recent albums, but the lack of real low points is accompanied by a lack of songs I'd think of as "great" or "classic".

[murlough23]

So your response to someone else's criticism is to lay on a stereotype?

'Round these parts, it's an informed observation. You're being so defensive because you're probably afraid it's true.

Or could it actually be that some people don't think these songs are so excellent and deep?  I like most of the material on GM, but there is a lot on the record too that just does not impress me at all.  I think I've already written about that it in previous posts though.

I don't know how you've felt about past Jars projects. If they've never really done it for you, then fine, we have no real issue here. It's when someone's been a fan all along and suddenly can't handle this album that I'm a bit baffled. I thought that was the case with Danny, but he's revealed that he's only so-so on most of their records anyway, so, whatever.

And what's wrong with desiring more stimulating art?

Nothing. But there is something wrong with going in with the preconceived notion that just because it's CCM, it'll be less stimulating.

Sorry, but I'm genuinely not impressed by most of what I hear in popular CCM.  Yet I'd rank GM above some of the underground 'gritty' Christian releases I've heard this year even (MuteMath, Listening).

Being independent doesn't constitute what I meant by "gritty". Those are still fairly poppy and polished records, even if they are quite musically accomplished. Thre's a lot of bad CCM that the record labels hope people will get into because it's catchy and/or emotional, and they'll ignore the bad lyrics or ripped-off musicianship. Because a catchy riff or tune, or glossy production, are often used to cover up the lack of actual skill, we tend to shy away from those elements as if to assume that they always signify a lack of talent. That's what I think is happening here, now that Jars is back to playing more upbeat, catchy tunes, and not as much of the slow, reflective stuff.  I think it's an unfair, knee-jerk reaction due to the cynicism that many other CCM records have caused us to have.

[bloop]

...so, all that is really just getting a bit more specific on the "hmm, this just doesn't seem to do it for me" front. It's not a bad album, it's just not one that seems to really be hitting me. It's a very consistent album, which is a welcome change from their other recent albums, but the lack of real low points is accompanied by a lack of songs I'd think of as "great" or "classic".

This is a total cliche, but you touched on several good points about the album to the point that I just have to wonder if you just need a little longer with it.  I think at the very least, "Mirrors & Smoke" and "Light Gives Heat" qualify as "great", original Jars of Clay.

Nothing. But there is something wrong with going in with the preconceived notion that just because it's CCM, it'll be less stimulating.

While I agree with you that people should listen to things hoping to find something good there, CCM-proper has let me down enough that I do expect that a lot of times.  There are just a handful of bands where I expect more (Jars being one of them).

I was thinking more of Pedro the Lion for the "gritty and underground" thing.

[danny316]

This is a total cliche, but you touched on several good points about the album to the point that I just have to wonder if you just need a little longer with it. I think at the very least, "Mirrors & Smoke" and "Light Gives Heat" qualify as "great", original Jars of Clay.

That might help, although I'm not sure just how much more time I should put into it. I've passed on good CDs before - I'm sure some people here remember me having a hard time getting into last year's Sufjan Stevens disc because of his sound. Sometimes it's just time to acknowledge preferences and respect something instead of putting more time into it. It just stings a bit more here, since I do generally like Jars, and just a few years ago I was on my way to being an obsessive completist fan of them. With Sufjan, it was something I'd always had a hard time getting into, and even though I could see it as a huge improvement and his best yet, I still couldn't really get into Illinois.

While I agree with you that people should listen to things hoping to find something good there, CCM-proper has let me down enough that I do expect that a lot of times.  There are just a handful of bands where I expect more (Jars being one of them).

I agree there. Generally, I trust this board to be diverse enough and discerning enough to sort out the cream of the crop, but I am finding myself disagreeing with this crowd more and more often lately.

I was thinking more of Pedro the Lion for the "gritty and underground" thing.

To be honest, I'm not even that big on the gritty and underground aspect of Pedro the Lion. His more CCM-y songs are usually some of his best. Bazan seems spot-on when singing about his faith, but a bit hit-and-miss on other topics. Also, the raw feel of his early stuff is just a little too "raw" and "indie" for me sometimes. I'd believe you if you told me that It's Hard to Find A Friend was made without the use of a recording studio. I still enjoy his songs, but I'll take David Bazan in concert over a Pedro the Lion CD any day of the week.

Getting back on the topic of Jars, I'm actually surprising myself by being so so-so on them lately. I love their first three CDs, and I've counted myself as a fan of theirs for quite a while now. It's odd to look at their work now and realize that only about half of it is great stuff that I keep going back to.

I'm going to try to give this a few more tries. It'd be a real pity to write off a favorite band over a CD that doesn't really have much of anything wrong with it.

That said, how much have people been paying for this one? I haven't seen any good sales go by, but I know I've seen a few people mention regular coupons at Family Christian - perhaps if I could get a decent discount I'd be a little less hesitent about buying my own copy of this. (Of course, there's always Christmas - there's a really good chance that someone in my family will be shocked that Jars of Clay has a CD out that I don't have and buy it for me on the spot.)

[bloop]

I agree there. Generally, I trust this board to be diverse enough and discerning enough to sort out the cream of the crop, but I am finding myself disagreeing with this crowd more and more often lately.

I don't see a lot of strong disagreement here.  When you say that there is really little wrong with the album, but that you just can't get into it, what is there to disagree with, really?  We can't exactly argue that you actually feel something different.

To be honest, I'm not even that big on the gritty and underground aspect of Pedro the Lion. His more CCM-y songs are usually some of his best. Bazan seems spot-on when singing about his faith, but a bit hit-and-miss on other topics. Also, the raw feel of his early stuff is just a little too "raw" and "indie" for me sometimes. I'd believe you if you told me that It's Hard to Find A Friend was made without the use of a recording studio. I still enjoy his songs, but I'll take David Bazan in concert over a Pedro the Lion CD any day of the week.

I'm not sure I'd label much of what he does as CCM-y.  He has plenty about his faith, but the imagery is rather unique, not run over a billion and one times like so many of the metaphors in CCM land.  I like the raw honesty in his lyrics, whatever the topic.

[murlough23]

I was thinking more of Pedro the Lion for the "gritty and underground" thing.

He used the f-word, that makes him qualify 'round these parts.

[starhawk]

'Round these parts, it's an informed observation. You're being so defensive because you're probably afraid it's true.

No.  I had criticisms of the album and was frustrated of possibly being dumped into the stereotype, especially when I still actually like the record overall.  And there have been so many positive posts about this record, I don't see how you could draw such a strong stereotype from two or three people being unimpressed with the record. 

I don't know how you've felt about past Jars projects. If they've never really done it for you, then fine, we have no real issue here. It's when someone's been a fan all along and suddenly can't handle this album that I'm a bit baffled. I thought that was the case with Danny, but he's revealed that he's only so-so on most of their records anyway, so, whatever.

I'm impressed by a lot of Jars' work, but not all of it.  My reaction to the songs on GM is almost the same to all of Jars' releases - one or two songs I love, a few I like, some I'm so-so about, and some that I don't like. 

But there is something wrong with going in with the preconceived notion that just because it's CCM, it'll be less stimulating.

Well, yeah, of course.  It's wrong to immedietely write off any kind of music simply because of the market/circles it is released or known in.  But nonetheless, my expectatins for ccm music are low, based on past disappointments.

Being independent doesn't constitute what I meant by "gritty". Those are still fairly poppy and polished records, even if they are quite musically accomplished. Thre's a lot of bad CCM that the record labels hope people will get into because it's catchy and/or emotional, and they'll ignore the bad lyrics or ripped-off musicianship. Because a catchy riff or tune, or glossy production, are often used to cover up the lack of actual skill, we tend to shy away from those elements as if to assume that they always signify a lack of talent. That's what I think is happening here, now that Jars is back to playing more upbeat, catchy tunes, and not as much of the slow, reflective stuff.  I think it's an unfair, knee-jerk reaction due to the cynicism that many other CCM records have caused us to have.

You must be seeing this in other places, because all I've seen is nigh-endless (and a lot of it deserved, imo) praise of this release, even here.  Which is why your post irked me - it seemed the instant some criticism and unhappiness with the record emerged, you blanketed it with a stereotype.  What if some of the criticisms of and unhappiness with GM aren't so shallow?

[bloop]

He used the f-word, that makes him qualify 'round these parts.

I don't get the whole "round these parts" thing, though.  As starhawk said, the response in this thread and in the press has been almost uniformly positive, even from those of us who are generally turned off by CCM.  So as it turns out, the type isn't setting well 'round these parts.

But anyway, yeah, the mere use of the f-word is kind of enough to get you evicted from the CCM mainstream.  I doubt I'm going to be hearing a blanked out Bazan on AFR anytime soon (he doesn't seem to mind, though, so more power to him).

[danny316]

He used the f-word, that makes him qualify 'round these parts.

I was somewhat kidding when I made that "whores" reference. It's gritty subject matter, and it's said in a way that most CCM-folk would probably be annoyed by. It's not really that they're cool for "swearing" or anything else silly like that.

Actually, there's plenty of raw slowness and gritty subject matter on Good Monsters. "Light Gives Heat" certainly qualifies here.

[murlough23]

But anyway, yeah, the mere use of the f-word is kind of enough to get you evicted from the CCM mainstream.

As will certian other things, which was kind of what I was half-jokingly getting at with the f-word comment. Jars of Clay is a band who is still entirely within the good graces of the "CCM mainstream". I can totally understand having low expectations for a new album by a group that is either a brand new CCM act being hyped by the press, or an existing act that has proven to be extremely CCM-ey (in the sense of fulfilling some of its bad stereotypes), but for a group with such a proven track record, I'm surprised that someone would let the whole CCM thing influence them. I enjoy rebelling against "the man", but I don't expect every artist to have embarked on such a rebellion in order for me to fully embrace what they do.

[bloop]

I don't disagree with anything you said.  Good music and lyrical imagery can happen without pushing the boundaries, but I will add that the boundaries can still be pushed in CCM without getting a person "evicted" (it's always a risk, though, of course.  See:  Derek Webb's "whore" debacle.)

[murlough23]

I don't disagree with anything you said.  Good music and lyrical imagery can happen without pushing the boundaries, but I will add that the boundaries can still be pushed in CCM without getting a person "evicted" (it's always a risk, though, of course.  See:  Derek Webb's "whore" debacle.)

Yeah, you just fade into obscurity over time. All the CCM critics seem to venerate Derek Webb, but given the amount of exposure the guy's had, his album sales are virtually nonexistent.

[plumb_fan]

Why are they skippable, in your opinion?

I can't point to any specific reason really.  There's just this constant thought of "when is this song going to end?"  I don't think it's because of some large change in their sound (i'd give that to WWAI, which I loved) or anything.  The lyrics are good, the music is good (even though i'm not too big on that style).  It just doesn't do anything for me.  I don't know, maybe i'm just destined to hate every 3rd studio album (not counting Furthermore and Redemption Songs).  I liked the self-titled, loved MA and couldn't stand Zoo (which I do like more than GM).  I liked 11th hour (has my favorite Jars song) and loved WWAI, but GM just seems so bland to me.  It's full of good ideas that never go beyond that.

Jars has always been a band whose music has made me think.  Such is not the case with this album.  Nothing on this album grabs me like songs from their previous efforts have.

[plumb_fan]

I think this all the fault of the cynicism that has grown in recent years among some of that anything "Christian" which doesn't buck the system and go underground is therefore not worth your time because it's not gritty enough or whatever. This is the deepest album Jars of Clay has ever done. For people who liked most of their previous albums, I sure don't see what the problem should be.

I certainly wouldn't think such is the case for me.  I'll admit i've gotten into some grittier music in the past year (which i'm loving b/c it's such a change from what i've listened to for years).  At the same time though, i'm found of stuff on the other end of the spectrum (when I think of Zoegirl or The Crabb Family, grit certainly doesn't come to mind).  As for GM being Jars deepest album, i'm going to respectfully disagree.  Jars is my favorite band, but I don't see why that means i'm supposed to love everything they put out.  A good band can make a crappy album (not saying GM is crap).

[murlough23]

As for GM being Jars deepest album, i'm going to respectfully disagree.  Jars is my favorite band, but I don't see why that means i'm supposed to love everything they put out.  A good band can make a crappy album (not saying GM is crap).

It's fine if you want to respectfully disagree, but you followed up your statement of disagreement with a non-sequitur where I was expecting an explanation of why you thought the album wasn't that deep. It also sounds like you're accusing me of loving it just because it's Jars. I don't do stuff like that. See my review of Furthermore.

[starhawk]

I don't know if I could call this Jars' deepest release, but it could be their broadest - death, salvation, disheartening and frightening racial and social issues, wakening from apathy/lethargy, and love.  I'd still call it a pretty accessable record, more so than a lot of their past work, but it certaintly isn't either blunt or dull.  Their cover of "All My Tears" and their original "Light Gives Heat" are some of the mose affecting stuff I've heard from them, or even from this year.

I just finished writing up on it, and went ahead and gave it a 4.5/5.  Which makes it the highest rated CCM release so far this year from me, beating out the closest runners Starflyer 59 and The Listening by...quite a bit, actually.  "Even Angels Cry" still hasn't quite won me over, "There Is a River" and "Take Me Higher" bore me, and I just can't seem to warm up to "Oh My God" no matter how much I struggle with it, but I like and/or love the rest of this disc.  I'd catagorize it as one of those "better than the sum of its parts" releases.  It definitely has a shot at being the best CCM release this year; I'm far less cynical of CCM's early call now than I was previously.

[murlough23]

I'm far less cynical of CCM's early call now than I was previously.

I was never cynical about the possibility that it could turn out to be the best record to come from CCM this year; I was just annoyed that they would make such a definitive call before it was a reasonable time to make it. If it were one person's opinion, that'd be fine, but it was posed as the magazine's opinion, and that's just poor journalism. Nobody can predict the future, even if in all likelihood, they will turn out to have been right.

[murlough23]

So I was discussing the song "Even Angels Cry" with some folks at Jarchives, and a lot of us like it except for having problems with that one line about the angels crying. Some folks are trying to fanwank on exactly how angels could cry, but even if we find some sort of basis proving it to be true that angels do cry, it seems that Jars of Clay hasn't really done the work here to show how that's a helpful bit of comfort. Angels aren't humans; end of story.

But someone over there pointed out that they could have said "Even Jesus cried" and it would have meant roughly the same thing. And I was like, whoa, if they had said, "Baby, even Jesus cried", the song would have been like ten times more powerful. Because we know this to be true, and we're not distracted by the thoughts of "Huh? Says who?"

[dgp11776]

That's a really good point.  I guess "Jesus" doesn't flow as well as "angels" in the song.

[T-Bone]

I liked "Even Angels Cry" the first few times through, but its become my least favorite on the CD now.  I agree with most of the stuff murlough said about it, and I just think its a lot less interesting than their softer songs normally are (though that's true for Good Monsters as a whole, with the exception of "Oh My God"). 

[murlough23]

That's a really good point.  I guess "Jesus" doesn't flow as well as "angels" in the song.

Maybe. I don't think that's a good enough reason for throwing a much-less-logical lyrics in there, though. Melodies, rhythm, and delivery of words can be reworked to accomodate lyrics that actually, you know, make sense.

Anyway, the song has grown on me quite a bit despite all of this - it was beautiful in concert, especially with the "Sweet Dreams" ending (yes, that "Sweet Dreams", by the Eurythmics, which means JoC now shares a cover song with Marilyn Manson). I think the reason it's so jarring for people might be its positioning after "All My Tears", which really needs a better song to transition into after its sweet ending. It's more of a subtle song that you'd expect to see on the back half of an album.

"Surprise" is still my least favorite on this album. You have to go through "Take Me Higher", "There Is a River", and "Water Under the Bridge" before you reach "Even Angels Cry" on my list of least favorites.

[glatisant]

I'm reminded of something Thom Jurek said about How to Dismantle an Atomatic Bomb when it comes to this album... There seems to be a lack of musical center. It's much more topically driven than their previous works, which is not necessarily a bad thing, though I think the musical themes don't mesh as well, as compared to, say, The Eleventh Hour, to use the most closely related musical example.  I would rate TEH above GM, actually, for cohesiveness and thematic depth (though the comment about thematic breadth is a good one).  Both have their share of weaker songs ("Fly" and "Whatever She Wants" for the former, "Take Me Higher" and "Even Angels Cry" for the latter), but TEH stands out to me more as an album, rather than for the strength of individual songs.

It may be that I'm used to more interiority than topicality from them.  The opening trio and the ending three songs are very strong.  I love "Work," probably because I can relate to it so much.