Grizzly Bear - Veckatimest

[bloop]

You may not equate them, "slow"/"subtle" -> "boring", but there's a pattern for what any of us are inclined toward.

[murlough23]

You may not equate them, "slow"/"subtle" -> "boring", but there's a pattern for what any of us are inclined toward.

If there's a pattern, I haven't figured it out yet. For every reason I could come up with to explain why a certain song bores me, I can think of other songs I like that do the same thing. It's not as simple as going, "Oh, this song starts out doing this thing that I don't like" and then tuning out because I assume it will be like all other songs in that vein that I already know I don't like. I'm much more open-minded than that. I honestly do try to listen for the little quirks that will help a song stand out to me - it's just that after a while of grasping at straws trying to find those little pieces of a song to like, I finally have to admin, "You know what, this one just isn't doing it for me." Especially if I have that same reaction when the song is taken by itself, or within the flow of the entire album.

[bloop]

Of course there are exceptions, but you are far more inclined to hooky, pop-oriented things than I am.  I am more inclined to like unorthodox, innovative (or flat weird, if you will) approaches to songs than many seem to be, etc.

[murlough23]

Of course there are exceptions, but you are far more inclined to hooky, pop-oriented things than I am.

Sure, but that's not all I like. That's a very easy way to reduce someone's musical tastes to a superficial summary that makes them sound rather unintelligent. Given all of the "weird shit" some of you guys have thrown at me and that I've been willing to try and often ended up liking, I think I deserve a little more credit than for my opinion to be written off as, "Oh, he just doesn't get it because it doesn't have an obvious hook and a catchy beat."

I am more inclined to like unorthodox, innovative (or flat weird, if you will) approaches to songs than many seem to be, etc.

At times, to the detriment of your ability to appreciate some very well-written and well-performed pop music. But whatever - I generally don't give you a hard time about not really being able to get into such things. I just know you have a different set of musical characteristics that tickle your ear.

[bloop]

Sure, but that's not all I like. That's a very easy way to reduce someone's musical tastes to a superficial summary that makes them sound rather unintelligent. Given all of the "weird shit" some of you guys have thrown at me and that I've been willing to try and often ended up liking, I think I deserve a little more credit than for my opinion to be written off as, "Oh, he just doesn't get it because it doesn't have an obvious hook and a catchy beat."

I never said it was - no need to get so defensive.  A statement about what a person tends toward is not taking it to anything close to this level.  It can help explain a person's reactions to things, but I'm not going so far as to pin it down and isolate it to anything in particular.

At times, to the detriment of your ability to appreciate some very well-written and well-performed pop music.

Like what?  I generally think you like good catchy music.

[murlough23]

I never said it was - no need to get so defensive.  A statement about what a person tends toward is not taking it to anything close to this level.  It can help explain a person's reactions to things, but I'm not going so far as to pin it down and isolate it to anything in particular.

I just feel a bit henpecked over this one - like I better like it or else face analysis of my musical preferences on a sub-atomic level so that we can figure out where my personal failings are. I should have known it was coming as soon as I dared to suggest that I had only mild reaction to this one. Maybe in the future I should just quietly grade stuff and keep my mouth shut about why I didn't like it so much. (Oh wait, keeping your mouth shut about music is not what this site is about.)

Like what?  I generally think you like good catchy music.

But you don't take that as a requirement that you must like that same music as much as I do, or else have your reasons for thinking it's "merely good" or "just OK" or whatever picked to death by way of analysis of your personal preferences. You put that OK, but not stellar, grade in your Music Journal for it and it just is what it is - your personal reaction. You're either not hearing what I'm hearing, or you're just not responding to it, but whatever. Nobody gives you a hard time about that. At least I don't.

But man, the minute I try to suggest that something a few of you guys got all excited over isn't all that from my standpoint, and suddenly I'm faced with the consensus of Metacritic types who can't possibly be wrong, as if to suggest to everyone else, "That's OK, murlough just doesn't get it."

[bloop]

Sorry you feel this way.  I guess I don't see it as finding where your personal failings are so much as where the differences are in a bigger picture.  I tend to overanalyze in my own ways, maybe.  

But you don't take that as a requirement that you must like that same music as much as I do, or else have your reasons for thinking it's "merely good" or "just OK" or whatever picked to death by way of analysis of your personal preferences. You put that OK, but not stellar, grade in your Music Journal for it and it just is what it is - your personal reaction. You're either not hearing what I'm hearing, or you're just not responding to it, but whatever. Nobody gives you a hard time about that. At least I don't.

No, you were right the first time.  No one really does give me a hard time about things.  I listen, grade, listen more, grade differently sometimes, or not, and talk about individual albums as they come up if I feel strongly enough about them.  

Usually, "strongly enough" means that I really like them, though.  I don't talk about many of those "just OK" albums much, and I'm rarely challenged on them by anyone.  Looking over it, though, I think we're pretty compatible on our "just ok" albums this year, or they just aren't on the other's radar at all.

suddenly I'm faced with the consensus of Metacritic types who can't possibly be wrong

Didn't bring them up - I think it's in the 80s somewhere.  I tried to gain some insights into your opinion by finding someone similar, and Jim DeRogatis came closest (he even, still puzzling to me, referred to a lo-fi aesthetic).  Honestly, though, your review if it ever exists is likely to be much better-written than his.

[murlough23]

Sorry you feel this way.  I guess I don't see it as finding where your personal failings are so much as where the differences are in a bigger picture.  I tend to overanalyze in my own ways.

And I don't mind discussing those differences, but this insistence that there's something I'm just not hearing (with the implication - whether you intend it or not - that it's because I'm not paying attention) is driving me batty.

No, you were right the first time.  No one really does give me a hard time about things.

Why do you think that is?

Usually, "strongly enough" means that I really like them, though.  I don't talk about many of those "just OK" albums much, and I'm rarely challenged on them by anyone.

I understand that. I'm less inclined to review the "Just OK" albums, because of my insistence on being thorough, and because I often give stuff a "Just OK" grade when I find that it doesn't do much to distinguish the individual songs, so it becomes difficult or tedious to find something unique to say about each song (and I don't want to just hand-wave and write a bunch of them off as "all sounding alike" without explaining myself better than that.) I might talk about them in casual conversation - particularly if I'm frustrated with an album and want to find out what the hell has got other folks so excited about it. So to some degree, I accept that I'm opening that can of worms by choice. But when we start to go down the "Are we listening to the same album?" path, I start to feel like I'm being talked down to a bit.

Didn't bring them up - I think it's in the 80s somewhere.

You brought up a critical consensus for Wilco, not for Grizzly Bear, so that was my mistake. (Still, the implication there was that I must be nuts for not falling in line. So what about the dudes on Metacritic who didn't like, oh I don't know, Fleet Foxes?)

I tried to gain some insights into your opinion by finding someone similar, and Jim DeRogatis came closest (he even, still puzzling to me, referred to a lo-fi aesthetic).

If someone else brought this up, then maybe I'm not just talking out of my ass?

Honestly, though, your review if it ever exists is likely to be much better-written than his.

For reasons above, it's likely to never exist, but you'll probably see a nod to "Southern Point" when I list my favorite songs at the end of the year.

(Then again, I finally just reviewed last year's Sigur Ros album, so you never know.)

[bloop]

And I don't mind discussing those differences, but this insistence that there's something I'm just not hearing (with the implication - whether you intend it or not - that it's because I'm not paying attention) is driving me batty.

I'm not sure where you get that implication.

No, you were right the first time.  No one really does give me a hard time about things.

Why do you think that is?

I wish I knew.  Maybe because I don't open up much unless I feel very sure of myself.

You brought up a critical consensus for Wilco, not for Grizzly Bear, so that was my mistake. (Still, the implication there was that I must be nuts for not falling in line. So what about the dudes on Metacritic who didn't like, oh I don't know, Fleet Foxes?)

Nuts?  Nah, I was just playing with that one.  You're just an outlier.  We all get to be from time to time.

If someone else brought this up, then maybe I'm not just talking out of my ass?

No, but I actually think he's talking out of his ass if you read the review.  It's just plain not lo-fi, so I don't think either of you really got the term right when you used it.  No one else I saw referred to the album's production in this way, and almost all of them referred to the production one way or another.

Here is his review capsule if you care to read it.

(Then again, I finally just reviewed last year's Sigur Ros album, so you never know.)

Ah - perfect example of an album where I was the outlier.

[murlough23]

I'm not sure where you get that implication.

Stuff like, "Oh, maybe you should start with a different track" and so forth. Come on. I'm listening carefully to the whole thing. Honestly.

I wish I knew.  Maybe because I don't open up much unless I feel very sure of myself.

I think I open up sometimes because I'm unsure - not that I'm looking for people to validate my feelings or anything, but because it's nice to know when you're not the only one who is confused regarding what's so great about a particular album.

Nuts?  Nah, I was just playing with that one.  You're just an outlier.  We all get to be from time to time.

I'm fine with being that, though I suppose that isn't so much the case with Grizzly Bear. An 80% implies that there are some middling reviews to offset the ones that gave it high marks.

No, but I actually think he's talking out of his ass if you read the review.  It's just plain not lo-fi, so I don't think either of you really got the term right when you used it.  No one else I saw referred to the album's production in this way, and almost all of them referred to the production one way or another.

I'm fine with not calling it "lo-fi" (but please do enlighten me on what qualifies as "lo-fi" - all I can come up with at the moment is something recorded on outdated or otherwise limited equipment that, by definition, doesn't capture the full fidelity of the sounds being recorded, such as Iron & Wine's early stuff). I don't know what I should call it, but there's that "distant haze" to it that feels like either the volume of instruments and vocals were reduced in certain places, or the source was at a distance from the mic, or something was done on a computer to make the sound more "blurry".

And I think I'm finally on to something in determining what sort of sounds I like and what sort of sounds I don't. I like sounds that have "sharp edges", so to speak - they're not necessarily loud or shrill, but they have a defined crispness to them. That's why I like acoustic guitar more than electric (at least, in the case where it's the lone instrument - electric guitar by itself and not run through any sort of distortion pedal is often very boring to me unless there's some fancy fingerwork in play), and why I have similar preferences regarding the piano (as noted in my review of Vienna Teng's latest album). I like a lot of rock music which is obviously heavy on the electric stuff, but there's a full band at work and most of those bands generally aren't pushing any of the layers back into the haze. So what sounds crisp and clear and delightfully layered to me, probably sounds overproduced and clinical and boring to a person who prefers things more sparse, I guess.

Ah - perfect example of an album where I was the outlier.

I noted your high rating for Sigur Ros last year, but didn't realize you were the odd man out. I thought I was.

[bloop]

Stuff like, "Oh, maybe you should start with a different track" and so forth.

I didn't say you should do that.  I said I've done that a few times.

I'm fine with being that, though I suppose that isn't so much the case with Grizzly Bear. An 80% implies that there are some middling reviews to offset the ones that gave it high marks.

You would be on the lower end with Grizzly Bear, as they average 86% (which is "universal acclaim by their site's definition - it's very rare that no one included in their rating is lower.)  It's probably good enough for a top ten finish there.

I'm fine with not calling it "lo-fi" (but please do enlighten me on what qualifies as "lo-fi" - all I can come up with at the moment is something recorded on outdated or otherwise limited equipment that, by definition, doesn't capture the full fidelity of the sounds being recorded, such as Iron & Wine's early stuff).

Yeah, lo-fi is generally recorded on cheaper equipment, the instruments are cheaper, or it is made to sound like it was made on cheaper equipment.  Neutral Milk Hotel is the most cited example I can think of, but it applies to anyone you can name recording in their basement with a tape recorder. 

You know that if it was lo-fi, I'm one of the last people to dismiss the album based on that, so it's not as if I'm trying to avoid labeling it with a negative descriptor.

I don't know what I should call it, but there's that "distant haze" to it that feels like either the volume of instruments and vocals were reduced in certain places, or the source was at a distance from the mic, or something was done on a computer to make the sound more "blurry".

I'm not sure what you'd call that.  "Spacious", "cavernous", "distant" maybe?  I can hear that aspect of it, sure.

I noted your high rating for Sigur Ros last year, but didn't realize you were the odd man out. I thought I was.

I recall dgp going along with you, and literally being alone on the matter here. 

Comparing myself to where the professionals were, I'd be very near the top.

[bloop]

But when we start to go down the "Are we listening to the same album?"

In the age of rickrolling, this is actually a valid question.  

(I was rickrolled for the last track on the Mastodon album, but I figured they didn't hardcore-ize Rick Astley as their closer)

[murlough23]

OK. After a few more listens, I've nudged Veckatimest up to a B minus. I'm still annoyed with certain songs, but it's not so much an issue with tempo or volume as an issue of momentum - not being able to get into the "light groove" of certain songs because they seem to proceed from one passage to the next at uneven intervals. It's hard to describe this specifically, but I've gotten to the point where I can see the art happening in most of the tracks, so I figured, "It should get a better than average grade for that".

NP: "Shake Me Like a Monkey", Dave Matthews Band

[bloop]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcQAOfa__ro

Great performance here.  One of the better ones I've seen on the late night shows.

[murlough23]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcQAOfa__ro

Great performance here.  One of the better ones I've seen on the late night shows.

Wow, their live sound has a lot more energy to it even though the song is essentially the same as it was on the album. That was already becoming one of my favorite songs on the album, and I'm impressed that they pulled it off even with the handicap of being on TV (which usually turns songs I like into total suck).

Now I'm gonna see if I can dig up a live version of "Southern Point".

[bloop]

I don't know that it does have a lot more energy, but I think it helps some to see exactly what's going on with the different sounds they make on record.  They're a subtle act either way you take them, I think.

This must be a pretty early performance of "Two Weeks", given that he's holding up their previous album.

[murlough23]

I don't know that it does have a lot more energy, but I think it helps some to see exactly what's going on with the different sounds they make on record.

It feels less stifled than the album version. I'm not expecting them to rock out or anything.

They're a subtle act either way you take them, I think.

Sure. And there's nothing wrong with that. But I like that more elements of the song stand out in a live setting.

I did some searching on YouTube and found what appears to be a full concert playlist from the Troubador about a month ago. I'm listening to and half-watching it now.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=89CA767E04B1F7EE

[bloop]

Listening to both side by side on the same equipment, I think they did some processing on his voice on a part of the song that isn't as present in the live performance (a bit more reverb), and the electronics are a tad more emphasized on the album, the strings come out more live, but those are the major differences far as I can tell.

[murlough23]

Listening to both side by side on the same equipment, I think they did some processing on his voice on a part of the song that isn't as present in the live performance (a bit more reverb), and the electronics are a tad more emphasized on the album, the strings come out more live, but those are the major differences far as I can tell.

The electronics were the one thing I missed in the live version (the omnichord was there as a sort of substitute, I suppose), but then I like hearing how things which are done electronically, sampled, etc. in the studio get re-imagined in a live setting. I didn't realize there were strings on the album version at all.

In any event, these guys sound like a really good live band.

[murlough23]

Why is it that I find myself listening to Veckatimest more often than I listen to several relatively new albums that I claim to like more than it? This thing is insidious, man.