Grizzly Bear - Veckatimest

[Josh]

There's been a mention or two of this record in other threads, so maybe it needs its own.

I'm not going to say much about it right now, partly because I may use it for Second-guess the Critic, but also because I'm still not totally sure what I think. I will, however, say that I honestly didn't think there would be another record to come along this year and challenge Animal Collective for the top slot on the Pitchfork year-end list, but this one might do it. Predicted score: 12.4.

[bloop]

Even if it isn't the highest on their list in terms of its numerical score, I think it'll be a threat.  They have a history with not necessarily giving the big award to the highest rated album.

[Josh]

Yeah, that technically happened last year... unless you add the scores of those two Fleet Foxes record TOGETHER...

[Ian]

This album is really good, but I don't think it's even close to MPP.  I do think it might give me a better look at Yellow House though, which I never got into that much.

[murlough23]

Yeah, that technically happened last year... unless you add the scores of those two Fleet Foxes record TOGETHER...

That cracked me up. Way to bend the rules just to make sure the thing you wanted to name as your favorite actually comes out ahead in the stats. (Their lists, their rules, of course. And the songs were all from the same sessions - I wouldn't have minded all 16 songs being a unified album, but that'd be too long for some short-attention-span types, I guess.)

I know this sounds weird, but FF doesn't seem like the kind of band that really should be at the top of Pitchfork's charts. High-ranking, sure, but #1? I mean, they were my number one, but I look for different things in music than the Pitchforky types do.

Anyway, back on topic, it amuses me greatly that Grizzly Bear and Panda Bear might get to duke it out for this year's #1 honor.

[bloop]

I know this sounds weird, but FF doesn't seem like the kind of band that really should be at the top of Pitchfork's charts. High-ranking, sure, but #1? I mean, they were my number one, but I look for different things in music than the Pitchforky types do.

Maybe you're more alike than you think.

Anyway, back on topic, it amuses me greatly that Grizzly Bear and Panda Bear might get to duke it out for this year's #1 honor.

What a match that'll be!

[murlough23]

Maybe you're more alike than you think.

Nah. I just liked 'em 'cause the music was pretty.

What a match that'll be!

They should put 'em in a big cage with one of the Dharma polar bears.

[bloop]

Nah. I just liked 'em 'cause the music was pretty.

Actually, I don't think Pitchfork's reasoning was much different.  Is there some other reason to like them that I'm not thinking of?  (I mean, their main draw is that their music is strikingly beautiful)

[murlough23]

Actually, I don't think Pitchfork's reasoning was much different.  Is there some other reason to like them that I'm not thinking of?  (I mean, their main draw is that their music is strikingly beautiful)

That usually doesn't seem to be the kind of thing that Pitchfork cares for (or, if they do, it's vastly outweighed by concerns about how challenging/inventive the artist is, whether the lyrics are predictable, etc.)

I'm not complaining, I'm just saying I'm surprised at the almost fanboy-ish level of gushing for a band that doesn't sound very "Pitchforky" to my ears.

[Vlad!]

I'm intrigued by this album now...could someone put a representative track on the Pub?

[bloop]

Are you asking for Fleet Foxes or Grizzly Bear?  I just put up some Grizzly Bear. 

m4a, though.

[murlough23]

Are you asking for Fleet Foxes or Grizzly Bear?

Are you asking for music, or for the special of the day at Roadkill Cafe?

NP: "Here I Am", Downhere

[bloop]

If Fleet Foxes, some videos

He Doesn't Know Why

Mykonos

White Winter Hymnal

[murlough23]

If Fleet Foxes, some videos

He Doesn't Know Why

Mykonos

White Winter Hymnal

Poor Grizzly Bear. Fleet Foxes are hijacking his thread.

I had no idea the Foxes had done this many music videos. I had seen "White Winter Hymnal" before and thought it was genius. "Mykonos" is also brilliant - they totally pwned my rudimentary origami skills with that one. "He Doesn't Know Why" was like That 70's Show taking place in a barn. I'm not sure if these guys want to have the image of being holed up with a bunch of goats for a bit too long, but maybe there was some intentional subtle humor in that.

[Vlad!]

Are you asking for Fleet Foxes or Grizzly Bear? 

The latter. m4a is fine so long as it's not copy protected.

[murlough23]

We've discussed this album a bit in another thread, but I figured we might as well bring the conversation back around to the actual Grizzly Bear thread.

I've digested this to the point where I feel comfortable grading it. I've already confessed my love of the first two songs. While it's a bit unfair to praise "the singles" and then say the rest of the record is boring, I will say that the record feels extremely unbalanced due to the expectation set up by those first two songs. Nothing on the rest of the record is anything like those first two. I can get into some of the slower, more exploratory tracks farther in, but having so many of them bunched together with little variance in tempo or density makes it a chore to get through the entire album. I really have to force myself to pay attention in the back half.

The most maddening thing is that I can hear some honestly beautiful melodies buried within all of the sparse slowness. Many of these songs feel like their melodies were lifted from soundtracks to black-and-white films or something. They sound old-timey, in a good sort of way. It's an interesting contrast to the obviously modern and indie production values. This means that there are a handful of good songs beyond those first two tracks that just take their time to get going. Some of this might just be me and my tendency to get annoyed when vocals and instruments and pretty much everything are pushed into the background, necessitating adjustment of the volume dial to pick up everything that's going on. But sheesh, this record is too damn quiet at times.

There are no bad musical ideas here - each of these songs could be important and meaningful if they weren't all taken back to back, and if there were more tracks like the first two that provided variance in the tempo and the amount of sonic layering going on. But because of the tedious manner in which this record drags on toward the end, I can't give it anything higher than a C+.

[bloop]

and, with that, we have the YHF of 2009.  

Maybe it'll grow on you more (the consensus seems to be that the album outright requires a lot of listens).  I never noticed a volume problem, but I do most of my listening with headphones (where details are most discernable), and the rest on my record player, which I generally play fairly loudly on all the tracks.

[murlough23]

and, with that, we have the YHF of 2009.   

I aim to please. And for the record, YHF hasn't grown on me much beyond the grade I gave it at the time. If anything, Sky Blue Sky has only served to make me appreciate YHF slightly less.

Maybe it'll grow on you more.  I never noticed a volume problem, but I do most of my listening with headphones, and the rest on my record player, which I generally play fairly loudly on all the tracks.

I'm almost always listening on headphones. Even when I can audibly detect everything that's going on, it still bugs me when pretty much everything is shoved into the background. If you want to play stuff that sounds like background music, then you can't blame me if it ends up only registering in the background of my consciousness.

NP: "Ragged Wood", Fleet Foxes

[bloop]

I aim to please. And for the record, YHF hasn't grown on me much beyond the grade I gave it at the time. If anything, Sky Blue Sky has only served to make me appreciate YHF slightly less.

I don't feel the need to justify myself much here, as we've hashed this one out to death.  YHF is widely considered the greater album, so I know it's not just me.  

The contrast of our opinions on this album and YHF, and several others, are interesting to me anyway.  It seems we have one of these every year.

I'm almost always listening on headphones. Even when I can audibly detect everything that's going on, it still bugs me when pretty much everything is shoved into the background. If you want to play stuff that sounds like background music, then you can't blame me if it ends up only registering in the background of my consciousness.

I like picking out what I want to bring to the foreground in my consciousness.  This album leaves me quite a few options.  

It is easy listening if I let it be, but I don't regard it as background music.  I'm not thinking that's a bad way to listen to it, either - kind of similar to Stars of the Lid's album from last year in a rather superficial "paying attention is optional, but you'll get more out of it if you do" sort of way.  

Again, though, I don't think the album has a mastering/volume issue - it's just more subtle than indie rock is typically known to be.  That might be its jazz influence coming through.

I'm glad you somewhat like it.  I never expect to bat a 1.000.

[murlough23]

I don't feel the need to justify myself much here, as we've hashed this one out to death.  YHF is widely considered the greater album, so I know it's not just me.

I know that it is just me. And I'm perfectly comfortable with that.

I like picking out what I want to bring to the foreground in my consciousness.  This album leaves me quite a few options.

You listen for different things, I think. In some of the songs the main elements are sparse electric guitar and a single, plainspoken voice. Neither of those do that much for me, at least not the way they're performed here. When the vocals or instruments are layered - such as when they bring in the choir or when certain songs reach their climactic moments - it does more for me.

It is easy listening if I let it be, but I don't regard it as background music.  I'm not thinking that's a bad way to listen to it, either - kind of similar to Stars of the Lid's album from last year in a rather superficial "paying attention is optional, but you'll get more out of it if you do" sort of way.

It's not "easy listening" in the sense that it's designed to be inoffensive music to be played while grocery shopping or riding in an elevator. I didn't mean it that way. I'm just saying that my attention is prone to wander when there's no primary element in the foreground. At least bring something up to a reasonable volume to match the "big" part of the song, even if the rest of the song is quiet and/or hazy.

I'm fine with regarding that as a personal insistence of mine, though - I've never been a "lo-fi" kind of guy and I realize that this sort of thing isn't a problem for everyone. It just frustrates me when an artist makes something beautifully and then intentionally obfuscates it. If it's a physical/technical/financial limitation that the artist just has to live with, that's one thing. But intentionally making something sound more low-tech than it really is will almost always irritate me.

Again, though, I don't think the album has a mastering/volume issue - it's just more subtle than indie rock is typically known to be.  That might be its jazz influence coming through.

Whatever's there was done intentionally, I'm sure. It just isn't the way I prefer for things to be done.

I hear indie critics bitching and moaning all the time about records that are too dense or layered. Personally, I don't see what the problem is with that most of the time. So I figure turnabout is fair play and I can gripe about the stuff that could stand to be a little more layered.

NP: "Club Thing", Yoav

[bloop]

I hear indie critics bitching and moaning all the time about records that are too dense or layered. Personally, I don't see what the problem is with that most of the time. So I figure turnabout is fair play and I can gripe about the stuff that could stand to be a little more layered.

I straddle the fence very well on that.  Whatever serves the artist's intent, really - I'm not committed to either side of that debate.

I'm not catching anything particularly lo-fi about the recording, though, so I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from.

[murlough23]

I straddle the fence very well on that.  Whatever serves the artist's intent, really - I'm not committed to either side of that debate.

I think the artist has the right to do whatever they want. But that doesn't mean I'm required to share their aesthetic preferences. (Otherwise I'd be forced to give pretty much everyone an A as long as I could tell they made the record they wanted to make, and that would cause my year-end lists to be predictable, tedious, ass-kissing, and all-around boring.) Especially when an artist proves they can do "layered" well, it drives me nuts that they spend most of the record subverting that skill. I'm not expecting everything to be upbeat and "catchy" or whatever. I don't want to dilute the artistic process. I'd just like the beautiful music being made to be more proudly displayed.

NP: "No One Really Wins", Copeland

[bloop]

I genuinely like the variety that artists from the OCD Fiery Furnaces, to the more thoughtful lyric-centered singer-songwriters like Joe Henry provide.

(I do a search for Joe Henry's new album every day almost)

[murlough23]

I genuinely like the variety that artists from the OCD Fiery Furnaces, to the more thoughtful lyric-centered singer-songwriters like Joe Henry provide.

I like a lot of variety, too, but I don't like absolutely everything on the spectrum. I like certain albums (and dislike others) by both of the artists you mentioned above. Neither really has anything to do with the "lo-fi" debate.

NP: "Safe to Land", Jars of Clay

[bloop]

I don't see Grizzly Bear leading very effectively into a lo-fi debate, because that's not what it is to the best of my genre-discerning ability.

I enjoyed both Joe Henry albums that I've heard.  The Fiery Furnaces have been more hit and miss (OCD will do that).

[murlough23]

I don't see Grizzly Bear leading very effectively into a lo-fi debate, because that's not what it is to the best of my genre-discerning ability.

I must not have a good understanding of what "lo-fi" is. Whatever that thing is where things are intentionally made to sound more quiet than they are, either because they were mic'd from far away, or the sound levels were reduced in post, or whatever they did to it, that's what I don't like. It strikes me as an unnatural and contrived way to make things sound "less produced", but really it's just an indier-than-thou form of overproduction. If it's a background element and there are things going on in the foreground, I can live with it, so long as the thing being shoved into the background isn't the main thrust of the vocals or some other lead instrument for the entire song.

I enjoyed both Joe Henry albums that I've heard.  The Fiery Furnaces have been more hit and miss (OCD will do that).

Henry, despite being an astounding songwriter, lost his ability to hold my attention when he ditched the ramshackle jazz ensemble and decided he should do everything as slow and sparse as possible. He might get it back if the new album sounds like what Josh's report on it leads me to believe it sounds like.

The Fiery Furnaces lost me when they started jumping too quickly from one thought to another, completely unrelated thought within the same "song". I've always expected their melodies and tempos to jump around a bit, but on most of their albums preceding Widow City, they let you live with a hook or a groove for at least a little bit before they destroyed it and went on to something else. On Widow City, I just couldn't get my bearings no matter how many times I listened to it. It felt like there were 50 songs, all about a minute long or less, instead of 16. (With the exception of the first track, which was just plain tedious.)

Either way, whatever problems I've had with either Joe Henry or the Fiery Furnaces have had nothing to do with how their albums were produced. Every instrument played and every vocal sung seemed to be clearly audible - maybe a bit messy, or maybe sometimes even buried amidst other sounds in the case of the Furnaces, but I never got the impression that they intentionally tried to obfuscate anything. It had to do with the quality of the actual musical performance, which is a different issue.

[bloop]

I think of lo-fi as intentionally finding ways to make it sound like it was recorded on cheap equipment (or actually using cheap equipment), and I really don't get that out of this album (but I don't hear the issues with volume you do, either, which is weird.  I don't see volume being an issue using Audacity, either, but I'm not a technical sound expert.  I suppose that we can at least agree that the loudness war isn't at play here). 

There might be some hint of their D.I.Y. roots, but not much.

[murlough23]

I think of lo-fi as intentionally finding ways to make it sound like it was recorded on cheap equipment (or actually using cheap equipment), and I really don't get that out of this album (but I don't hear the issues with volume you do, either, which is weird.  I don't see volume being an issue using Audacity, either, but I'm not a technical sound expert.  I suppose that we can at least agree that the loudness war isn't at play here).

There's an outside chance that I got shitty quality mp3s. (But they're 224 kbps. Shouldn't be too bad. Plus "Southern Point" and "While You Wait for the Others" sound exactly like what I got from you.)

[Ian]

I don't really have a problem with the back half.  It seems tedious, but once you've familiarized yourself with the melodies, the songs begin to seperate.  Not as much as they could, but not as little as Murlough suggests either.  Foreground is as good as the first two songs.

[murlough23]

I don't really have a problem with the back half.  It seems tedious, but once you've familiarized yourself with the melodies, the songs begin to seperate.  Not as much as they could, but not as little as Murlough suggests either.  Foreground is as good as the first two songs.

I've familiarized myself with a lot of the melodies, to the point where I like that aspect of the songs, but I still think the pacing/production/whatever doesn't do an otherwise good melody any favors in most cases.

NP: "Days Go By", Lifehouse

[bloop]

I'm still puzzled about your complaints, because I usually know what you're talking about and disagree with these kinds of albums (i.e. we both acknowledge the noisy elements of YHF and have very different reactions).  It won't be the last time, I'm sure.

[murlough23]

I'm still puzzled about your complaints, because I usually know what you're talking about and disagree with these kinds of albums (i.e. we both acknowledge the noisy elements of YHF and have very different reactions).  It won't be the last time, I'm sure.

I think you understand what I'm complaining about - you're just not complaining about the same thing. Which is fine. I didn't expect everyone to share my gripes.

To quote Josh from the "What are you listening to?" thread:

Yeah, those two songs are KILLER. The rest? *shrug*

I wish he'd chime in here.

[bloop]

I think you understand what I'm complaining about

I had to read back in that thread because I didn't pay attention to that particular conversation.

When you're talking about the technical stuff (production/mastering/volume issues), then no, I'm just not hearing where the complaint is derived from at all.

When you're complaining about the pacing and tempo like Josh is, I understand, I can hear what you're talking about, and I think you're both nuts.  

But, then again, perhaps I'm benefiting a little from having 4 sides to switch, and I usually take a break between the two records - sometimes even going to the grocery store or something in between.  That's more compatible with my own attention span and life's schedules (and ability to assess what I just heard), I guess.  It's interesting what changing the "first track" will do.

[murlough23]

When you're talking about the technical stuff (production/mastering/volume issues), then no, I'm just not hearing where the complaint is derived from at all.

I don't really care if you hear it yourself, just that you understand what the thing is that bothers me.

When you're complaining about the pacing and tempo like Josh is, I understand, I can hear what you're talking about, and I think you're both nuts.  

That's fine, but at least I know I'm not alone on this one.

But, then again, perhaps I'm benefiting a little from having 4 sides to switch, and I usually take a break between the two records - sometimes even going to the grocery store or something in between.  That's more compatible with my own attention span and life's schedules (and ability to assess what I just heard), I guess.  It's interesting what changing the "first track" will do.

When I'm having trouble getting songs later in an album to register, I will often try playing it on random (which obviously destroys the pacing, but on this album there isn't any, so that won't be an issue), which will change the first track" even more than your suggested method. While I agree that a person is more likely to pay attention at first and tune out farther in, some of my favorite albums are very long ones - much longer than this - where I don't have problems with my attention faltering despite the length. That's not just a matter of tempo - it's a matter of variance in the musical approach and subject matter. (Sufjan Stevens' Michigan would be a great example. Most of that record is very slow, and some of it quite repetitive, but it took very few listens before I could easily recall pretty much every song on that one.)

The bottom line is that a single album that is 12 tracks an under an hour long shouldn't be a chore to listen to from beginning to end. If you're defending it by saying that I need to break it up into separate halves to make sense of it, I think that demonstrates a failing in terms of how the album is presented as a unified work.

[bloop]

I don't really care if you hear it yourself, just that you understand what the thing is that bothers me.

Of course I understand what a technical issue is, but it's not present here.  

I guess I'll just chalk it up to individuals having physically different hearing (not in terms of you being more deaf than me, or less - just different perception) and possible differences in equipment coloration of the sound.

If you're defending it by saying that I need to break it up into separate halves to make sense of it, I think that demonstrates a failing in terms of how the album is presented as a unified work.

I'm not saying you need to do that.  I'm saying that it sometimes helps me to digest whole albums (along with listening to them as a whole).  So, no, it doesn't demonstrate any particular failing on the part of this album (I split the likes of OK Computer and Illinois up at times, too) but, rather, the limitation that life happens and needs to take priority sometimes.  

(I don't really like shuffling any album that isn't just a compilation, but that would change it up quite a bit.  Not even doable with vinyl anyway.)

[murlough23]

Of course I understand what a technical issue is, but it's not present here.

Large stretches of this album are very quiet. The volume varies. I may not be properly pinning down the recording or production technique that was used to achieve this, but I'm assuming it was done intentionally. I suppose it's possible that you may be hearing it differently on vinyl. But I know you have the album in mp3 format due to the tracks you Pubbed.

Other than that, I don't know what to tell you. Am I supposed to pretend I'm not hearing what I'm hearing?

I'm not saying you need to do that.  I'm saying that it sometimes helps me to digest whole albums (along with listening to them as a whole).

And I'm saying, I have longer stretches of time to devote to sitting and listening to albums uninterrupted, so I don't generally need to split them up to appreciate them. If that tool works for you, fine. I have similar methods of making sure I'm not writing stuff off just because it's in the back half of an album. But I feel pretty assured that I can always pick out good tracks even if they're buried far back in an album, so this is generally not an issue for me. (I listened to all of Iron& Wine's Around the Well in a single straight shot, which was probably a mistake, but I was still able to pick out the second to last track of the entire collection as my favorite right away.)

So, no, it doesn't demonstrate any particular failing on the part of this album (I split the likes of OK Computer and Illinois up at times, too) but, rather, the limitation that life happens and needs to take priority sometimes.

What's I'm saying is that while it might be helpful to split an album up, it still needs to play well from front to back for me to give it high marks. Obviously I can make an exception for something that is split up into two discs and meant to be taken as two separate programs. That isn't the case here. OK Computer and Illinois might work just fine if you split them up due to time constraints, but when listened to as a whole (as the artists presumably intended in both cases), they are satisfying and don't get tedious. (Which is especially an accomplishment for Illinois, given its length.)

(I don't really like shuffling any album that isn't just a compilation, but that would change it up quite a bit.  Not even doable with vinyl anyway.)

I generally won't shuffle albums where the tracks bleed into each other or otherwise have very clever transitions from one to the next, because I find that sort of handoff between songs to be very satisfying. It's less of a problem for me on albums where there's a well-defined full stop and/or several seconds of silence between songs - the order may still matter in terms of the narrative, but it's not sonically jarring to jump around a bit. In any event, I always understand that I'm deviating from what the artist presented, so I generally won't shuffle an album (or skip tracks) until I've digested it reasonably well in its original order. The only point to doing this is (a) because a little variety is fun every now and then, and (b) because it draws my attention to tracks in an album's middle that I might have previously overlooked, especially if they sound very similar to surrounding tracks. (I'll bring up Iron & Wine again - obviously Around the Well isn't meant to be an "album" except in the loosest sense of the terms, so there's no expectation that its tracks are in any way related to one another or have any connecting thread other than the chronology of when they were recorded, but playing that one on random really helped me to pick a few gems out of the sagging middle sections of both discs.)

Veckatimest on random could be a good thing. At the very least, it's likely to place the first two tracks somewhere in the middle, and result in not so many slow and sparse tracks being strung together all at once. I've gotten to the point where I've found a lot to appreciate about tracks 3-5 as well, so if the tracks I don't care for so much are dispersed, maybe I'll find myself willing to be more patient with each one.

[bloop]

Large stretches of this album are very quiet. The volume varies.

Good.  I prefer actual dynamics to volume 11 messes that plagues all too much in modern production.  

Cheers for this more subtle kind of work.  Jeers to the loudness war.

I generally won't shuffle albums where the tracks bleed into each other or otherwise have very clever transitions from one to the next

For me, it's a lot simpler than that.  I'm just anally inclined to stick to the artist's intended order, even if I'm not always sticking to their intended time frame to listen.

What's I'm saying is that while it might be helpful to split an album up, it still needs to play well from front to back for me to give it high marks.

I require the same, actually.

I try to get long stretches to listen to whole albums, but it doesn't work out that way as much as I wish.  I'm trying to pay attention to something right now, and my son just hit his knee.

[murlough23]

I'm just anally inclined to stick to the artist's intended order

Almost always true for me as well. I used random a lot more in my younger days, just because I liked the unpredictability. But a lot of the albums I listened to back then were a few good singles and a lot of filler. So it didn't matter as much. Nowadays I'm anal about listening to every single track, and probably 95% of the time in order, but you know, every now and then I like to change it up.

even if I'm not always sticking to their intended time frame to listen.

Hey, life happens. I do most of my listening at work, and I might get interrupted by a co-worker who unwittingly drags me into a three-hour meeting while I've got iTunes paused in the middle of a song. That bugs the OCD part of me who likes to finish one thing before I start the next, but that's just how life goes. I obviously don't hold that against the artist, and I generally won't stick a grade on an album until I know what it's like to listen to the whole thing from beginning to end in different environments (in headphones at work, late at night at home for some of the slower/quieter stuff, in the car or while taking walks for a lot of the more rocky/up-tempo stuff). Obviously a good "headphones" album isn't always gonna work in the car, and vice versa. (Veckatimest would be terrible in the car!)

Hmmm... I've got Veckatimest on random right now, and it decided to start with "Hold Still", which is still boring, then "Southern Point" (sooner than I hoped it would come up), then "I Live with You", which is also boring, then "Two Weeks"... dammit! This whole "spread out the upbeat stuff" plan isn't working!

[bloop]

Those songs aren't boring, but I'll give you subtle and less upbeat. 

You tend to favor the singles, though, I do get that.

[murlough23]

Those songs aren't boring, but I'll give you subtle and less upbeat.

"Boring" is obviously a subjective descriptor. There has to be someone to be bored by it. The next person might not be bored by it. But that doesn't change my reaction. (Same goes for "exciting".)

I can do subtle and less upbeat. There's plenty of subtle and less upbeat music that I like, including a few tracks on this album. So I don't automatically equate those characteristics with "boring".