My Morning Jacket-- Evil Urges

[Josh]

Bloop and I have both given this one a 9.5 rating and put it at the top of our lists for this year, so it must be time for it to gets its own thread!

I've already written a long-ish review that will be posted some time closer to the album's release, but for now: It's a monster. It's absolutely killer. It's an astonishing and genuinely exciting statement of vision that attempts a lot and accomplishes it all amazingly well, and it launches MMJ to the very forefront of rock.

[murlough23]

I saw MMJ on SNL last night and was somewhat surprised, because I had no idea of their stylistic leanings before that. The country/Southern rock influence intrigues me. I'm not quite sure the high-pitched voice fits the style, but I'm flexible. I might check out the album when it releases.

[Josh]

I didn't see them on SNL, so I'm not sure how well Jim James pulls off the falsetto in a live setting, but, on record, it's flawless; in fact, he's one of the most distinctive and talented rock frontmen there is.

And country/Southern rock is pretty much the camp their earlier work falls under, but this new album is all over the place. There are still some Southern rock songs, to be sure, but also Prince- and Michael Jackson-styled whiteboy funk, steel-drenched country, singer/songwriter, James Taylor-style folk, and pulsing disco.

And it all works together so, so well.

[murlough23]

I didn't see them on SNL, so I'm not sure how well Jim James pulls off the falsetto in a live setting, but, on record, it's flawless; in fact, he's one of the most distinctive and talented rock frontmen there is.

I didn't think it sounded bad. It was just jarring when juxtaposed with the musical style. On some level, I respect the incongruity they're going for there. Besides, the usual gruff, half-talk-half-singing, "everyman" type approach common to the genre tends to not engage me as much anyway.

And country/Southern rock is pretty much the camp their earlier work falls under, but this new album is all over the place. There are still some Southern rock songs, to be sure, but also Prince- and Michael Jackson-styled whiteboy funk, steel-drenched country, singer/songwriter, James Taylor-style folk, and pulsing disco.

The vocal style may fit some of those other musical styles better, and I'm not one to criticize a band for experimenting with different genres, so this definitely sounds like a record worth checking out.

[Ian]

This record is pretty great.  It won't make my top 10 most likely, because the middle-end is a little weaker in spots, but it's still really great.  Maybe a top 25?

[bloop]

Looking over your list, I honestly don't know how you do it.  # of albums rated = # of days in the year so far, approximately?  Sheesh! 

Any specific songs you're thinking about here?  Is it just a stylistic thing?

[Aaron]

Looking over your list, I honestly don't know how you do it.  # of albums rated = # of days in the year so far, approximately?  Sheesh! 

Any specific songs you're thinking about here?  Is it just a stylistic thing?

He's not as bad as I am.  I haven't entered any in the past two weeks but I've listened to almost 70 in that time.   It's called only working 32-35 hours a week, being single, no kids, and not having any classes right now.

[murlough23]

He's not as bad as I am.  I haven't entered any in the past two weeks but I've listened to almost 70 in that time.   It's called only working 32-35 hours a week, being single, no kids, and not having any classes right now.

Don't most of us work 40? That's not much more than 32-35. But I suppose that extra hour or two per day makes a lot of difference. Personally, I do more of my "new" listening while at work (it actually helps me concentrate) than at home. I am married, but I have no kids and no class, so I guess I manage to fit in a good amount of listening time outside of work as well.

Still... we're nearly halfway through the year, and I have yet to listen to 25 albums from this year total, let alone have a "Top 25" (since I don't want to list anything C-grade or below as a "top" contender).

[bloop]

Don't forget the library from the heavens.

Still, listening to 70 albums in two weeks would enable me to digest about 0 of them well enough to speak halfway intelligently about them.  It's hard enough trying to get through 5 when I have so much I already know is great from previous years.   

I work a bit more, I'm married, have two kids, and teach class for a living, but I wouldn't say any of that is keeping me from listening to as much as I would be able to digest.   

Anyway, I'm with Josh on this one, so I'm curious to hear any specific complaints (not necessarily to shoot them down, I just want to know what I'm not hearing).

[Aaron]

Don't most of us work 40? That's not much more than 32-35. But I suppose that extra hour or two per day makes a lot of difference. Personally, I do more of my "new" listening while at work (it actually helps me concentrate) than at home. I am married, but I have no kids and no class, so I guess I manage to fit in a good amount of listening time outside of work as well.

Still... we're nearly halfway through the year, and I have yet to listen to 25 albums from this year total, let alone have a "Top 25" (since I don't want to list anything C-grade or below as a "top" contender).

You probably also spend a lot of time with other mediums of entertainment (movies, tv, etc.).  I don't go to the movies, don't watch much tv unless its a sporting event or a discovery channel show, and don't really have people I socialize with where I live.


Bloop, I understand where you're coming from in regards to digesting a large number of albums.  There are some that need no digestion, especially if they are so bad I know right away where they stand, or if they are so good (same thing).  Sometimes I'll go back a couple of weeks later and listen even more and change the grade if need be.

[Josh]

I sorta like the "mid to end" section of the album best of all-- the album highlights, for me, are "Librarian" and "Smoking and Shooting."

[Ian]

Looking over your list, I honestly don't know how you do it.  # of albums rated = # of days in the year so far, approximately?  Sheesh! 

If I'm not socializing, at work, in class, or asleep, I'm listening to music.  I listen to music for at least 5+ hours a day, so I'm usually able to rate an album or two a day, unless I really feel uncomfortable rating it after a day of listening (MMJ took 3 days of frequent listening, and I've changed its rating since then).  So yeah... it's basically because I don't have that much to do. :/  I've been taking a break from new music lately though, just because it's gotten exausting (sp?) listening to a new CD every day.

About Evil Urges though.  Everything from Evil Urges to Sec Walkin ranges from quite good to great, 9 out of 10 material to be sure.  After that it's more hit and miss.  Librarian and Smokin from Shootin are great, but the others are forgetable for me (not bad, just not as impactful as the rest), so I knocked the score down another half point.  Maybe as I'll listen more I'll get into those later tracks though.

[murlough23]

If I'm not socializing, at work, in class, or asleep, I'm listening to music.  I listen to music for at least 5+ hours a day, so I'm usually able to rate an album or two a day, unless I really feel uncomfortable rating it after a day of listening (MMJ took 3 days of frequent listening, and I've changed its rating since then).

Ah, that's it. When I listen to new stuff, I rarely, if ever, listen to it more than once within the same day. Especially not twice in a row. It has to do with my lack of tolerance for repetition. When I finish a CD, I need to put in a different one after that point. So it can take several days to digest music, and that's assuming it's something I'm fairly intrigued by or excited about right away - if it's something that I'm not really feeling at first, it could take me weeks or even months to come back to it and make up my mind about a rating. I still have stuff I first listened to in 2007 that I haven't rated yet, because I keep forgetting that it was on the old digesting pile. But sometimes that long process can result in a change of perspective when I step away from something a while, and come back with the resolve to try it again, this time with my preconceived notions (that were already dashed) in check. A few of my favorite albums from past years have been "extreme slow growers".

NP: "A Song for Milly Michaelson", Thrice

[Ian]

There are a few albums like that for me... I have still haven't brought myself to listen more than 4 tracks through Drive By Truckers. :/

[murlough23]

There are a few albums like that for me... I have still haven't brought myself to listen more than 4 tracks through Drive By Truckers. :/

That one's a monster to get all the way through, particularly if the vocals aren't your style. I actually think it's weird that (a) I wasn't significantly annoyed by any of it the first time through, (b) I didn't get impatient with the long tracklisting the first time through, and (c) there are few, if any, songs on the album that feel like "filler" tracks that don't stand out at all. (That doesn't mean I love every song, but I don't get most of them confused with one another.)

At the very least, you should give a closer listen to "That Man I Shot" and "The Purgatory Line". Those are two powerful songs, especially considering the way one follows the other despite them being almost polar opposites.

NP: "Daedalus", Thrice

[bloop]

I think the album takes a turn for a more comfortable sound for the band around there, but it's also some of the most assured material on the album (and might be a little stronger for it).  The beginning is more reckless, experimental, and almost has no right to work as well as it does - I mean, seriously, "peanut butter Pulitzer prize" (ok, extreme example to be sure)?

One way I know an album deserves the top tier is if I feel it wears well on multiple listens in a short period of time.  The MMJ album set others on my digestion pile back a week or so, because it quickly became the go-to, and it still hasn't worn out it welcome.

[Josh]

Bloop, I though that lyric was "peanut butter pudding surprise." (And now I'm being reminded of the pullet surprise pun in OtR's "Don't Wait for Tom"...)

[bloop]

Yeah, that's accurate actually, but "wtf?" either way.  The whole song makes me laugh, but in a good way.

[murlough23]

(And now I'm being reminded of the pullet surprise pun in OtR's "Don't Wait for Tom"...)

Dang. You beat me to it.

[Aaron]

Finally got the album and listened to it today.  Hell to the yes. So good. Retro feel brought to modern day.  Jim James owns you.

[dgp11776]

This album is really good. 

But no love for "Look At You?"  That's a great song.

[Josh]

This album is really good. 

But no love for "Look At You?"  That's a great song.

My favorite, actually!

[bloop]

I don't know that it is my absolute favorite song on the album, but it is definitely a stand-out.  With those kinds of surroundings, that's a pretty high compliment.

[dgp11776]

Okay - I was starting to get a little worried since nobody had mentioned it and it is in the aforementioned back half.  And, speaking of that, the 1-2 punch of "Librarian" and "Look At You" is the stuff of legends.

[bloop]

Pitchfork's review might just squander what little goodwill we here at the phorum have for them.

(although I do like their review of the Fleet Foxes album)

[Josh]

Okay - I was starting to get a little worried since nobody had mentioned it and it is in the aforementioned back half.  And, speaking of that, the 1-2 punch of "Librarian" and "Look At You" is the stuff of legends.

YES.

Btw, my review. (Much better than P4k's if I do say so myself!)

[Aaron]

(Much better than P4k's if I do say so myself!)

Well, I don't think you set out to be a pretentious ass like pitchfork does most of the time.

[murlough23]

Both Pitchfork's review and Josh's review make me want to listen to the album. The problem with Pitchfork's is that this wasn't their intent.

NP: "Paper Shoes", Incubus

[bloop]

Normally, this is where I would try to step in and defend Pitchfork's writers in some way, but I've got nothing.

That's a nice Fleet Foxes review over there.  Yeah.

[murlough23]

On the subject of the Fleet Foxes review:

All that's missing are the crackles and hisses of an old LP. (Fortunately, Sub Pop is issuing it on vinyl.)

Sheesh. People intentionally want this?

Other than that, though, they make it sound like a pretty darned interesting record.

NP: "I'm Yours", Jason Mraz

[spacebrat311]

Sheesh. People intentionally want this?

I know a few. I for one only buy vinyl, for a host of reasons.

[murlough23]

I know a few. I for one only buy vinyl, for a host of reasons.

I understand why some people want vinyl; I'm talking about specifically wanting the pops and hisses. Really? Throughout an entire record? That, to me, is like saying, "I want the picture on my TV to constantly be a little fuzzy, as if the rabbit ears were out of place."

[bloop]

I think there's just a certain nostalgia that people associate with those pops and hisses, which is then associated with certain kinds of music (which is where the Fleet Foxes come in).  They aren't going to be that significant on a new LP anyway, though.

I love vinyl personally, but I generally get CDs just for the ease of getting it on my iPod, not to mention being more readily available (I ordered this one on CD already).  I wish I could have my entire collection in SACD hybrids.

[dgp11776]

I became reacquainted with vinyl late last year.  I sort of like a few pops and hisses here and there on old records.  But I don't really want to hear them on my Paramore, Switchfoot, or Over the Rhine records, you know?

[bloop]

I can see Paramore or Switchfoot since they have this certain sheen that I don't think would lend itself well to vinyl, but I think it's a pretty charming sound for an OtR record.  I would imagine it would work very well for the My Morning Jacket album, and definitely the Fleet Foxes.

[dgp11776]

Yeah, I guess OtR was probably a bad example.  But, yeah, My Morning Jacket would sound great on vinyl.

[dgp11776]

9.5 here, too.  I've only heard two better albums all year - Deepspace5, and Katie Herzig.  And Katie Herzig is the same grade, so I guess it's technically a tie!

[murlough23]

I can see Paramore or Switchfoot since they have this certain sheen that I don't think would lend itself well to vinyl, but I think it's a pretty charming sound for an OtR record.

Making stuff sound like it was recorded with much older technology than it really was is cute for a song or two, but honestly, beyond that, it's really a bit of a hipster cliche.

[spacebrat311]

The thing people don't seem to understand is that new vinyl sounds clearer than CD by definition. It ages, unlike a CD, but the vinyl trend among audiophiles has more to do with wanting the highest possible sound quality than nostalgia. If a new record has hisses and pops, than it means you have a crappy needle more likely than it means you have a crappy record.

[murlough23]

The thing people don't seem to understand is that new vinyl sounds clearer than CD by definition. It ages, unlike a CD, but the vinyl trend among audiophiles has more to do with wanting the highest possible sound quality than nostalgia. If a new record has hisses and pops, than it means you have a crappy needle more likely than it means you have a crappy record.

I was talking about intentionally putting the pops and clicks and "imperfections" into something in which the flaws were not an inherent part of the recording process. If modern vinyl recordings don't have those imperfections, that's awesome. I was assuming the sound quality must have been pretty good or else those audiophiles wouldn't go to so much trouble to hunt them down. Personally, I'll stick with CDs and downloaded mp3s and just deal with the loss because it's more convenient and cheaper. But I won't begrudge someone else for preferring a different format. I just don't know why anyone would prefer an intentional sabotage of a recording's sound quality, such as adding pops and clicks to a recording that didn't already have them.