Wilco album party! (TONIGHT!)

[Josh Powell]

10 p.m. CST, Saturday, March 3 (11 eastern, 8 pacific..)

http://smartley3.wilcoworld.net/sbs/

The full album is going to be streamed. Woohoo.

[-Rough Draft-]

Thanks for the heads-up!

*waiting*

[bloop]

I missed the party (I had other obligations, and my connection sucks anyway), but maybe this means a leak is forthcoming!

[Josh Powell]

A webrip of it is on demonoid.. but it's a lossy transcode. I have the original streaming MOV file and am trying to figure out how to extract the AAC audio from it.

[bloop]

I wonder if, theoretically, the audio from your mov file would meet Oink's quality control standards.  If not, I'd still want to hear it somehow.  ysi?

[Josh Powell]

I was wondering the same thing..

I think I'd have to get in the proper format though, and can't figure out how to do that without transcoding. I dunno.

I'll zshare it eventually. (having some computer troubles... my fault this time )

[Josh Powell]

Alright, here's someones transcode of it.. mp3:
http://www.sendspace.com/file/0zm3vp

Enjoy. And hurry before it gets deleted.

[murlough23]

The more I listen to Sky Blue Sky, the more I enjoy it, even though I was initially very bored with it. It's a mellow and rather light-hearted album, and you can tell the band was in a fairly relaxed mood when making it. None of these songs hit you full in the face, and none are as strikingly weird as some of the standout tracks on their last two "experimental" albums, but many of them develop into lovely musical passages when you give them a little time and patience. There are only a few tracks that seem stilted or otherwise awkward to the point where I have difficulty getting into them. But there's nothing anywhere near as irriating as the white noise tangents that both of the previous albums would go off on. Thankfully Wilco has progressed beyond making weird noises to show how artsy they are, and engaging in the more subtle, but more satisfying art of simply making delightful music.

I give it a B- for now, but it could go higher.

[bloop]

I preferred them when they were artfully mixing "weird noise" with the delightful music (and they were - this feels comparatively like a retreat rather than the kind of album that results from the cumulative effect of all that came before, with a twist of course), but this is a solid album.  I still need longer with it, and that bodes well (read:  it doesn't bore me).

[murlough23]

I preferred them when they were artfully mixing "weird noise" with the delightful music

Mixing them was one thing. Letting the "noise" just hang out for a minute or two (or ten!) before/after the commencement/conclusion of a song is another thing entirely. When the noise is part of the background of a song, it can produce an interesting ambience. But I definitely don't miss it.

NP: "Phantom Limb", The Shins

[bloop]

I hear a certain musicality in much of that so-called noise.  In one (1) song in particular, I do not. 

You're entitled to not miss it, but I do.  I would rather them not rewrite Summerteeth for the rest of their musical careers.  I don't want to say that this quite describes the sound here, but it's not as far off as a description as I might like it to be.  Ideally, I would like a kind of thesis-antithesis-synthesis approach to music.  ABCD . . .  as opposed to ABAB.

[murlough23]

I hear a certain musicality in much of that so-called noise.  In one (1) song in particular, I do not.

I know that the one song is "Less than You Think", but aside from this, could you please explain?

You're entitled to not miss it, but I do.  I would rather them not rewrite Summerteeth for the rest of their musical careers.  I don't want to say that this quite describes the sound here, but it's not as far off as a description as I might like it to be.

Summerteeth had some more up-tempo cuts, some darker lyrical themes, and a little more synth/keyboard influence, if I recall correctly, than Sky Blue Sky. I don't think SBS is some huge artistic accomplishment or anything, but I definitely think it's an improvement, and not in a way that dumbs down their music to make it easily accessible (because it was still a tough album for me to get into and I still have my complaints about it being too relaxed at times). I guess I'm surprised that they'd go in such an un-cynical and un-ironic direction and turn out with music that is, to me, more interesting than what I've heard from them before, at least on an instrumental level. (Though I will say there's nothing here that I enjoy as much as "I Will Break Your Heart", "I'm the Man Who Loves You", or "Muzzle of Bees". That may change. We'll see.)

NP: "Turn on Me", The Shins

[bloop]

I know that the one song is "Less than You Think", but aside from this, could you please explain?

I likely can't explain it well enough.  I'll just say that those few examples of noise I'm considering sounds well-blended and integrated with the music.  It is, at a fundamental level, still music in fact, dissonant as it can sometimes be.

I like "Less Than You Think", btw.  I just think the noise outro is overlong, but I wouldn't cut all of it out.  I think a shorter version would feel less tacky to me.

I don't think SBS is some huge artistic accomplishment or anything

Maybe that's where my complaint derives here.  I'm accustomed to hearing risky artistic statements with their music, at the very least.  I still enjoy the album.  Wilco's players never disappoint on a musicianship front.

I also share your enjoyment of the more relaxed themes.  The irony threatened to overshadow the music with A Ghost is Born, but didn't quite get there, so I think they needed to at least take that particular step back, and the lack of noisiness likely fits that lyrical shift well.  I'm really thinking through the album typing here, but I can definitely say that I don't want them to ever lose that progressive edge that has defined Tweedy's music since Uncle Tupelo.  While a step in a less radical direction may have been the best way to go here, I'm not sure it's a great idea in the long term for them.

"I Will Break Your Heart"

"I Am Trying to Break Your Heart"

[murlough23]

It is, at a fundamental level, still music in fact, dissonant as it can sometimes be.

On an academic level, I can agree with the concept of "white noise" (or it may be some other color of noise; I don't fully understand the technical specifications) as music in its own right. On a personal leve, I've tried and tried and when the noise is just hanging there on its own, without much of a rhythm or melody accompanying, or too long of a period of the noise being fairly unchanging in its character, it will bother me and I'll want the artist to just get on with it already.

Then again, I feel that way about some overly long "jam band" passages that are built on repeating some riff or phrase that I didn't think was all that interesting to begin with. And those are definitely music. So the fact that something's not "musical" to me may not be the issue here. You could say I'm impatient... but all of us, when we sit down and listen to an album, would rather listen to something we find interesting than sit through several minutes of something that isn't. It just differes between individuals in terms of what constitutes "interesting".

There's a lot of random noise going on underneath "I Am Trying to Break Your Heart", and I enjoy it except for when it gets a little overbearing at the end - but that's not too big of a deal. There's also that weird mic feedback or whatever it is that just barely registers in the background of "Reservations", and I think it adds a slight hint of detached insanity to an otherwise very "reserved" song. Those are two examples of "noise integrated with the song" that I don't mind.

I like "Less Than You Think", btw.  I just think the noise outro is overlong, but I wouldn't cut all of it out.  I think a shorter version would feel less tacky to me.

The song itself, even if it were to just fade to silence right at the last line of lyrics with no "noise" whatsoever, would still do nothing for me. I just don't think it's that interesting of a song.

Maybe that's where my complaint derives here.  I'm accustomed to hearing risky artistic statements with their music, at the very least.

I don't mind hearing a band take risks, but I also think that not all art is inherently risky. You should be able to make something that stands up well on its own as a creative piece of work without needing the notoriety of making something that you know will probably alienate a segment of your audience. If what you come up with in your fits of creative genius, that sounds good to you, just so happens to risk alienating the audience, then fine, go with that. But I don't think an artist should feel the need to take something that's already creative and push the envelope of what the audience can tolerate just for the sake of making in "artsier".

But that's where you and I differ - I think that making well-crafted pop songs that are well-thought-out and unique in their construction and delivery is an art form. Going to great lengths to ensure that radio won't want to play it shouldn't be a requirement.

I still enjoy the album.  Wilco's players never disappoint on a musicianship front.

The more I listen, the more I agree with that statement, though there are certainly some songs like "Kamera" where I don't think anybody's playing anything that's terribly fascinating.

While a step in a less radical direction may have been the best way to go here, I'm not sure it's a great idea in the long term for them.

I guess what you see as a step back, I see as a step sideways. I agree that they shouldn't continue to sound like this for every album from here on out, but given that this is Wilco, I highly doubt they'll continue to sound like any one thing for too long. They seem like a restlessly creative bunch, and I think on this album, they tried to not consciously imitate the style of the last two records (though some of the guitar-oriented "slow jams" - for lack of a better description - from Ghost seem to be echoed here).

"I Am Trying to Break Your Heart"

I am trying to drive myself looney by typing faster than I can think, apparently.

[bloop]

I don't mind hearing a band take risks, but I also think that not all art is inherently risky. You should be able to make something that stands up well on its own as a creative piece of work without needing the notoriety of making something that you know will probably alienate a segment of your audience.

The irony here is that a band like Wilco may alienate a segment of their audience by not being off-kilter.  It's a dashed expectation issue with me.  I enjoy the music on its own merits.

But that's where you and I differ - I think that making well-crafted pop songs that are well-thought-out and unique in their construction and delivery is an art form. Going to great lengths to ensure that radio won't want to play it shouldn't be a requirement.

Wherever did you get the idea that I don't consider that an art form?  Radio doesn't want to play anything the labels aren't paying them to play, so radio is a non-issue with me.  College and non-commercial radio are the way to go, but that's a side topic.

I guess what you see as a step back, I see as a step sideways. I agree that they shouldn't continue to sound like this for every album from here on out, but given that this is Wilco, I highly doubt they'll continue to sound like any one thing for too long. They seem like a restlessly creative bunch, and I think on this album, they tried to not consciously imitate the style of the last two records (though some of the guitar-oriented "slow jams" - for lack of a better description - from Ghost seem to be echoed here).

I'm not sure I do see it as a step backward - just a step back.  Reflective, I guess, and reminiscent of Being There (more than Summerteeth actually.  I don't know why I mentioned that album here).

Maybe I'm just pining for an Uncle Tupelo reunion.  If you're going to go back, go way back.

[murlough23]

The irony here is that a band like Wilco may alienate a segment of their audience by not being off-kilter.  It's a dashed expectation issue with me.  I enjoy the music on its own merits.

Sure, and it depends on why you (the generic "you", not bloop specifically) initially got into a band or why you liked their previous work. If they don't continue to deliver the elements you enjoyed, you might cease to be a fan, or at least be less of one. Definitely ironic, because it's the opposite of what I'm always dealing with when I talk to fans of various radio-friendly bands who tried to up the creative ante, such as Jars of Clay. Though your specific complaint seems to be less "It doesn't sound like YHF/Ghost" and more "it doesn't push their creative envelope". It's a fair criticism. I personally didn't think that their previous envelope-pushing had such consistent results, and I'm more about the end result than the process, so that's where we differ. There's how you grow as an artist, and how you apply it to the music you actually put out for public consumption, and while I'm interested to see the growth and experimentation, some examples of it are better left as B-sides or other hidden nuggets for especially curious fans, and not placed on an album as something we have to hear each time through. It's like taking a creative writing class - some "exercises" that you go through to broaden your horizons and increase your skill set won't necessarily fit into that great novel that you're going to write some day, even if they did help to change your outlook on the practice of writing.

Wherever did you get the idea that I don't consider that an art form?

Nowhere, but you do seem to have less respect for it.

Radio doesn't want to play anything the labels aren't paying them to play, so radio is a non-issue with me.  College and non-commercial radio are the way to go, but that's a side topic.

Totally a side topic, and on said topic, you and I are pretty much in agreement.

I'm not sure I do see it as a step backward - just a step back.  Reflective, I guess, and reminiscent of Being There (more than Summerteeth actually.  I don't know why I mentioned that album here).

I haven't heard Being There, so for all I know, this could just be "more of the same" that sounds new to a relatively more recent semi-fan of the band. But you know how you consider Hail to the Thief to be a retrospective for Radiohead, but still enjoy it, just not as much as Kid A? This sounds like a similar situation.

Whatever the case, I know that I enjoy what I'm hearing a little more than most of what I've heard from them in the past. Maybe that makes them "more accessible", but you know, there are worse musical crimes that one can commit.

[bloop]

I personally didn't think that their previous envelope-pushing had such consistent results

Another area where we differ, to be sure.

There's how you grow as an artist, and how you apply it to the music you actually put out for public consumption, and while I'm interested to see the growth and experimentation, some examples of it are better left as B-sides or other hidden nuggets for especially curious fans, and not placed on an album as something we have to hear each time through. It's like taking a creative writing class - some "exercises" that you go through to broaden your horizons and increase your skill set won't necessarily fit into that great novel that you're going to write some day, even if they did help to change your outlook on the practice of writing.

Unlike a novel, albums generally don't have a focus on narrative, so I find a bad "chapter" far more forgivable than you do, especially if the artist is taking so many creative risks - some of them are bound to fail (the artist may not even be able to tell which those are - decisions to cut material are likely harder the closer you are to that material, I would imagine).  Anyway, I don't think this applies to Wilco in too many instances.

Nowhere, but you do seem to have less respect for it.

I do have less respect for music that doesn't push it creatively, everything else being equal, certainly.  It's important to me.

Maybe that makes them "more accessible", but you know, there are worse musical crimes that one can commit.

I think it's more accessible, sure,  but I never considered Wilco to be terribly obtuse except in a few scattered instances.

[murlough23]

Unlike a novel, albums generally don't have a focus on narrative, so I find a bad "chapter" far more forgivable than you do, especially if the artist is taking so many creative risks - some of them are bound to fail (the artist may not even be able to tell which those are - decisions to cut material are likely harder the closer you are to that material, I would imagine).  Anyway, I don't think this applies to Wilco in too many instances.

Yeah. I like to listen to albums straight through and it's a real bummer to me when an artist offers up a track that I find skippable - because that's actually a pretty rare thing. Thre are many lesser songs on albums that I think are just OK, or don't do anything for me, but I'll still listen to them 99% of the time. My focus has always been more album-oriented than song-oriented, even though I do expect a good individual song to hold up well on its own also.

I do have less respect for music that doesn't push it creatively, everything else being equal, certainly.  It's important to me.

I guess I don't see pushing the limits of what people can tolerate/are used to hearing as the same thing as pushing oneself artistically. For a who's used to doing weird, artsy stuff, making a solid, creative[/i] pop album would probably be an artistic challenge - depends on their reasons for it, but just wanting commercial success would probably presuppose a lack of creativity, so that's not really what I'm talking about (and in any event, Wilco made a more relaxed album, but it is by no mean's a pop album, so that's more of a hypothetical thing that I brought up for the sake of the discussion).

You can definitely push the limits of what I'm used to hearing or what I find enjoyable to hear, and if in the end I can learn to enjoy the sounds you're making, then I'll probably consider that an artistic risk worth taking. I'll admit that it's a bit subjective, but we all have our limits, and as long we're willing to push them, I see no reason why that should make us willing to accept absolutely any unusual-sounding that can be thrown at us as "good art". There has to be some sort of criteria so you don't just open up the floodgates for any and all irritating, meandering noise.

[bloop]

Yeah. I like to listen to albums straight through and it's a real bummer to me when an artist offers up a track that I find skippable - because that's actually a pretty rare thing. Thre are many lesser songs on albums that I think are just OK, or don't do anything for me, but I'll still listen to them 99% of the time. My focus has always been more album-oriented than song-oriented, even though I do expect a good individual song to hold up well on its own also.

I tend to be more album-oriented as well (I worried about the effect iTunes and the like would have on an already dwindling stable of album-oriented artists).  I just think I find a skippable a bit more forgivable.

I guess I don't see pushing the limits of what people can tolerate/are used to hearing as the same thing as pushing oneself artistically.

Well, I guess I can't honestly presume what an individual artist would find difficult, so I compare an artist to the run-of-the-mill vanilla music, the more creative pop art, as well as the bleeding edge state of the art, if you can put it that way.  The latter two can rate up to a 10 in my book.

if in the end I can learn to enjoy the sounds you're making, then I'll probably consider that an artistic risk worth taking. I'll admit that it's a bit subjective

It's clearly more than a bit subjective (it's subjective by the definition of "enjoy"), but it's hard, if not impossible, to get past that level of subjectivity.  I do the same - I just find myself enjoying the "weird" sounds more often, I suppose. 

There is a point where something is so out of the ordinary that I'm thrown for a loop, and honestly don't know what to do with it.  I forget the guy's name last year, but he made some truly bizarre, creepy music.  Scott Walker sounds right, but I'm not sure, because I really can't go back to that album.

[murlough23]

I tend to be more album-oriented as well (I worried about the effect iTunes and the like would have on an already dwindling stable of album-oriented artists).  I just think I find a skippable a bit more forgivable.

Well, it's not like I'm giving an album an F because it has one "bad song". Having several songs that I strongly dislike will take its toll, though. Think about how much of the last Tool album I disliked - and I gave that one a C.

What's even more frustrating to me is individual songs where I really want to listen to part of the song again and again, but there's a portion of the song that I wish I could skip.

And I agree about the iTunes thing, though we already lived in a fairly singles-oriented culture to begin with, so I don't see it as making us any worse for the wear now that it's been around a couple years, mainstream radio is being proven to be more and more irrelevant, and at least people have a means of actually buying music when they like a single and honestly don't want to have to buy an album full of crap just to get said single. It's not something I'd use, but I don't see it as the enemy any longer, either.

Well, I guess I can't honestly presume what an individual artist would find difficult, so I compare an artist to the run-of-the-mill vanilla music, the more creative pop art, as well as the bleeding edge state of the art, if you can put it that way.  The latter two can rate up to a 10 in my book.

I think that 10 is equally hard to achieve in both of the latter categories. Creative pop art, because you're trying to do something that gets people's attention in a genre they're already fairly accustomed to and complacent with - it might be easy to get yourself an above average ratring there, but really hard to totally blow them away. Bleeding edge art, on the other hand, inspires much more polarized criticism much of the time - something's either really awesome or it fails quite miserably.

It's clearly more than a bit subjective (it's subjective by the definition of "enjoy"), but it's hard, if not impossible, to get past that level of subjectivity.  I do the same - I just find myself enjoying the "weird" sounds more often, I suppose.

That's what I'm trying to figure out, and maybe we get down to a level of granularity with this where it's just plain impossible to explain (like how I can't explain why certain melodies appeal to me, they just do) - is there something about those sounds that actually tickles your ear, or is it just the knowledge that, "Hey, they did something weird and daring?"

There is a point where something is so out of the ordinary that I'm thrown for a loop, and honestly don't know what to do with it.  I forget the guy's name last year, but he made some truly bizarre, creepy music.  Scott Walker sounds right, but I'm not sure, because I really can't go back to that album.

We all have our limits. I honestly feel bad giving low ratings to the "don't know what to do with it" stuff - if something sounds very unusual to the point of being off-putting, I'll try to return to it when I'm in a more open-minded mood, or at different times of day when I'm doing different things while listening to the music. Eventually, if I still can't get into it, I'll have to rate based on the consistency of the elements that I did like, though. But more often than not I settle on an average to slightly positive grade in those cases, like I've done with past Wilco albums, because I can see a lot of positives, just with a lot of cumbersome obstacles to navigate around. Compare that to something where I'm fairly comfortable with the genre, but the artist is just doing what I think is a really poor or unclassy job within that genre - the recent Joseph Arthur/Lonely Astronauts album comes to mind. That's not an issue of being ignorant of the genre - it's an issue of hey, I liked this guy and his style of music before, and wow, he really didn't think this one through!

[murlough23]

OK, so I've been listening to the album some more and I'm realizing that it's a struggle to pick a favorite track here. Usually I have the standouts identified after a few listens, but here, most of the front half is competing for that honor. (I'm not as smitten with the back half just yet).

So far, the frontrunners are "Impossible Germany" and "You Are My Face". I like the guitar jams in both, even if the songs make no sense to me (par for the course with Wilco, and no, that's not a bad thing).

Anyone else have any definite favorites from Sky Blue Sky yet?

NP: "Side with the Seeds", Wilco

[Aaron]

I like Impossible Germany and Please Be Patient With Me

[murlough23]

Reviving a dying thread because I reviewed the album.

http://www.epinions.com/content_399675002500