Jars of Clay - The Long Fall Back to Earth

[murlough23]

I saw this comment in Danny's music journal and figured he was right - this album deserves its own discussion thread since most of our musical tastes seem to intersect at Jars of Clay.

Jars of Clay - The Long Fall Back to Earth (surprised I've seen no discussion of this here yet)

I'm probably the biggest Jars of Clay fanboy here, so it should come as no surprise that I like the album and will probably give it a high grade. That said, I can tell after two listens that it isn't Jars of Clay's best. I like the stylistic shift toward electronica while maintaining the "quirky semi-acoustic pop" base that has been the band's trademark over the years. But this is definitely not a rock album. I don't think it's supposed to be, but there are times when I feel like a few of the tracks need a bit more of a rhythmic anchor or just a little more punch in general. It's also a bit long. I never thought I'd complain about a 14-track album from Jars of Clay, but it opens up memory holes into which lesser songs can fall. They probably could have dropped a bit of dead weight - an overly repetitive chorus here or a slow song surrounded by too many other slow songs there.

As for album highlights, I already knew that I really liked "Closer" (now with punchy intro!) and that "Safe to Land" was one of the group's best songs of all time. Brand new tracks that I'm in love with include "Headphones" (ouch, those are my toes you just stepped on), "The Scenic Route" (love their little defense of their right as artists to explore and experiment), and "Hero" (yeah, it's the obvious punchy single, so sue me). I'll definitely need more listens for other tracks to stand out - that's how it is with every Jars album. Only a few like The Eleventh Hour and Good Monsters have revealed most of their good stuff to me pretty much right away. The rest generally take patience.

Anyone else heard it yet? What do you think?

[danny316]

I gave up and started my own darn thread, just to find this thread and immediately delete mine. Here's the streaming link, in case anyone hasn't heard this yet:

http://www.newreleasetuesday.com/albumpreview1.php?p_r_url=album_prev1

...obviously the sound quality will be better on the real thing, but I'm not sure that'll change my thoughts on it much (although the opening to "Closer", in particular, works better on the live footage that's gotten out recently - it became that much more interesting to me when I realized it was a distorted guitar and not just repetitive blipping).

I think this is the first Jars of Clay album where the influences have been very obvious. I share enough of their musical tastes to recognize some subtle similarities to other groups on the self-titled and Much Afraid, but I think they actually want us to be reminded of some newer groups (The Killers in particular stand out, but there are others that are easy to spot too) this time around. If this were a band I weren't a fan of, I'd probably look at it more cynically, but I'm actually happy to hear them trying new directions that get them away from the things I didn't like in Good Monsters (just to check - am I the only one here who didn't like that album much?)

[murlough23]

...but I'm actually happy to hear them trying new directions that get them away from the things I didn't like in Good Monsters (just to check - am I the only one here who didn't like that album much?)

Out of the folks who actually like Jars of Clay... yeah, I think so.

[dgp11776]

I ordered this on vinyl yesterday.  I'll probably download a higher quality leak once it's out there, because my record probably won't get here until the end of next week at the earliest.  I'm looking forward to it.

[bloop]

From what I've heard, the vinyl may be a bit expensive for what I get.  I'll probably just go with the CD (Super Furry Animals are my release of the week).

[murlough23]

Why would Jars of Clay want to sound like The Killers, anyway? The Killers are a far inferior band. I know everyone who dares to use a synthesizer nowadays reminds people of The Killers, but come on. It's a superficial similarity at best.

[Aaron]

Out of the folks who actually like Jars of Clay... yeah, I think so.

Yeah, Danny you might be the only one...besides the nutcases that are still blindly loyal to the first album and think everything else sucks. LOL.  Good Monsters was a solid album.  I haven't listened to the new one yet but will hopefully enjoy it when I do.

[murlough23]

Yeah, Danny you might be the only one...besides the nutcases that are still blindly loyal to the first album and think everything else sucks. LOL.

Even some of the critics were saying GM was the best thing since their debut... which in my view is wrong (Much Afraid remains the best thing before or after their debut in my slanted view of the world), but at least someone with authority was back to giving Jars of Clay a chance rather than assuming they were still off on some career-long experimental bender.

[bloop]

They got a bit experimental, but I don't know where the attitude came from at all.  Jars of Clay never went to an extremely ambitious sound collage or any kind of mindfuckery designed from the ground up to alienate their fanbase.

(I still think Who We Are Instead is their best album)

[dgp11776]

(I still think Who We Are Instead is their best album)

Yes.

[murlough23]

They got a bit experimental, but I don't know where the attitude came from at all.  Jars of Clay never went to an extremely ambitious sound collage or any kind of mindfuckery designed from the ground up to alienate their fanbase.

Indeed. The "experimentation" for this band happens in smaller degrees - adding little quirks to the production or throwing in the occasional unexpected instrument, or doing something unexpected with the melody of a song, etc. Really, I think people were thrown for a loop because they liked the more easily identifiable as "Christian" songwriting of the first album and/or found the combo of acoustic guitars, a string section, and programmed beats innovative (which was different for Christian music at the time, but two out of three of those things weren't provided by actual members of the band). So basically their next few albums were less rock-oriented and focused more on the musical talents of the core band members, and this established a precedent of changing up the sound every album, which people who loved the first disc didn't expect or want.

(I still think Who We Are Instead is their best album)

That's one of a handful of albums that I'd have no problem with someone declaring as their best. I personally prefer MA, but IILTZ, WWAI, and GM are all right up there for me. WWAI, to me, is where they started to seem the most comfortable with themselves, because they shed the need to be accepted as a fun rockin' band for the youth group, and they explored their folk and country influences more, not caring if it wasn't trendy to do this. Lyrically, it's probably their deepest album. As much as I love MA and IILTZ, there are things on both of those albums that I figure probably came about as a result of producer pressure, which ultimately didn't really fit the band even though it was interesting to take the detour and they probably learned something from it.

[spacebrat311]

I'll third the Who We Are Instead vote.

Have yet to hear Long Fall. I'll chime in when I do.

[danny316]

Indeed. The "experimentation" for this band happens in smaller degrees - adding little quirks to the production or throwing in the occasional unexpected instrument, or doing something unexpected with the melody of a song, etc.

I'm really not getting that. To me, they've had a few rather lengthy periods of getting stuck in a particular direction (not overly experimental but certainly an "experiment" in terms of where they've been). MA and IILTZ were an "experiment" in working with outside producers (personally, my favorite era of the band). T11H opened the era of them producing themselves. Furthermore opened a new back-to-roots acoustic era, which was quickly followed by (overlapping a bit on WWAI) a hefty hymnsong influence. Good Monsters still had the hymn-y influence for better and worse, but also started them back towards music that I'd really consider rock (I'd consider most of their catalog to fall under pop or folk instead of rock).

...which brings us to TLFBtE, which I can't help but think of a transitional record into something else I can't put my finger on yet. It's not really trendy or retro, but I definitely hear some stereotypical "indie" and "80s" sounds in there.

Sorry if the Killers comparison sounds off, but the generic-ness of The Killers' sound makes them my go-to comparison when something has that "post-punk" sound. Frankly, if they're getting that influence from a more distinctive source, I'm not spotting it (possibly because I don't share some of their recent interests in 80's rock - I wouldn't have known INXS was a recent influence if I hadn't read that JoC played an INXS song regularly on the Good Monsters tour).

[Aaron]

I don't think the Killers are anywhere close to being "post-punk".  "Post-punk" is more akin to the newer Rise Against stuff.

[murlough23]

I'm really not getting that. To me, they've had a few rather lengthy periods of getting stuck in a particular direction (not overly experimental but certainly an "experiment" in terms of where they've been).

I guess there are different levels of "experimental". There's the Radiohead-type stuff that bends the very definition of a genre or of music itself, and then there's working within different musical idioms in a way that is an unexpected change to your own style, but that is still recognizable as pop, rock, or folk music. I'd say everything they've done falls into one or more of those three categories. But you generally can't tell from one album what the next is going to sound like. (Perhaps from hints in things they've done between albums, which is how I'd describe Furthermore and the Closer EP, etc.)

MA and IILTZ were an "experiment" in working with outside producers (personally, my favorite era of the band).

Sure, and I think those producers might have pushed them beyond their comfort zones a bit, which can be helpful to a young band, but looking back I can tell that those album's aren't the band favorites. It seems like there's stuff there that they would have done differently if they were calling their own shots.

And I don't think you can characterize those two as being "stuck" in a single sound, either IILTZ is much more eccentric and playful that MA. The occasional song like "Famous Last Words" resembles MA a bit, but for the most part IILTZ has a rawer sound, and MA is very lush and delicate and cautious.

T11H opened the era of them producing themselves.

I tend to see that disc as collecting the sonic ideas that had worked for them on past albums and bringing them together within a single album. Which explains why it's one of their most immediately accessible - it's the Jars of Clay album where the fewest new tricks are tried.

Furthermore opened a new back-to-roots acoustic era, which was quickly followed by (overlapping a bit on WWAI) a hefty hymnsong influence.

Keep in mind that Furthermore was an attempt to redo old songs in their new acoustic-oriented style, and WWAI came out later the same year. RS definitely fits into that same "acoustic era", and aside from the fact that the band didn't write the songs (thereby making the lyrical approach markedly different), RS and WWAI are probably the closest any two Jars albums come to sounding like each other.

Good Monsters still had the hymn-y influence for better and worse

I must confess I'm not hearing that. I can see how "All My Tears" plays like a spiritual (and a more acoustic version of that one admittedly would have fit in just fine on RS, being a cover and all), and sure, "There Is a River" is kind of worship-y, but I'm not hearing much of anything "hymn-like" outside of that on GM. Most of that album's songs concern relationships and the need to overcome fear.

but also started them back towards music that I'd really consider rock (I'd consider most of their catalog to fall under pop or folk instead of rock).

Agreed. They can do the occasional rock song and they do it well, but for the most part, Jars of Clay is not a rock band. Their first album got them that tag, largely because "Flood" was such a big hit, but hello? The whole thing was acoustic. That's why, over the years, certain songs like "Crazy Times" and "Whatever She Wants" have seemed forced. It's like there's this expectation that each new Jars of Clay album will RAWK and a lot of disappointment when it doesnt'. (As much as I'm glad that GM seemed to bring some old fans back into the fold, I have to wonder if that's because of its content or because of a higher-than-average ratio of songs that RAWK.)

...which brings us to TLFBtE, which I can't help but think of a transitional record into something else I can't put my finger on yet. It's not really trendy or retro, but I definitely hear some stereotypical "indie" and "80s" sounds in there.

It's definitely not as "indie" as I'd expected for something entirely self-produced with the newfound freedom from an overbearing label. To be honest, I think parts of that album play it too safe. But I knew they were going to experiment a bit with synthesized elements that hearken back to the 80's, and I'm fine with that. Charlie Lowell hasn't really had a lot of time in the spotlight since If I Left the Zoo.

Sorry if the Killers comparison sounds off, but the generic-ness of The Killers' sound makes them my go-to comparison when something has that "post-punk" sound.

You and every critic who hears a rock band with some vague amount of 80's influence. Enough already.

Frankly, if they're getting that influence from a more distinctive source, I'm not spotting it (possibly because I don't share some of their recent interests in 80's rock - I wouldn't have known INXS was a recent influence if I hadn't read that JoC played an INXS song regularly on the Good Monsters tour).

I'm not that into 80's rock either, but I kind of like the idea of synthesizers and other programmed elements being presented in more of a "DIY ethic" sort of atmosphere, rather than just being an evil corporate force pushed onto a band by record label suits. In other words, I like that bands are comfortable using electronic/sequenced/programmed elements as part of the authentic musicianship of the band.

And is that what that song was that they played on the GM tour? I had been wondering. It was completely unfamiliar to me.

[bloop]

Aw.  I really like INXS.

[murlough23]

Aw.  I really like INXS.

My wife saw that band name in a record store once and asked, "What kind of a band name is Inkses?"

[danny316]

I tend to see that disc as collecting the sonic ideas that had worked for them on past albums and bringing them together within a single album. Which explains why it's one of their most immediately accessible - it's the Jars of Clay album where the fewest new tricks are tried.

You've lost me. I don't hear a single well-placed accordion part on there.

I've chalked up the accessibility of that disk as due to the rawk factor.

I must confess I'm not hearing that. I can see how "All My Tears" plays like a spiritual (and a more acoustic version of that one admittedly would have fit in just fine on RS, being a cover and all), and sure, "There Is a River" is kind of worship-y, but I'm not hearing much of anything "hymn-like" outside of that on GM. Most of that album's songs concern relationships and the need to overcome fear.

On an album with roughly a dozen songs, I'd consider two songs in a certain vein to be enough to qualify as maintaining an influence as part of "their sound". The lousy hymn-y track I was referring to was "Take Me Higher" (which is not worthy of being mentioned in the same sentence as "There Is A River" or "All My Tears"). I also hear a little bit of that in "Light Gives Heat" and "Even Angels Cry", too.

That's why, over the years, certain songs like "Crazy Times" and "Whatever She Wants" have seemed forced.

I wouldn't go that far.

(As much as I'm glad that GM seemed to bring some old fans back into the fold, I have to wonder if that's because of its content or because of a higher-than-average ratio of songs that RAWK.)

I know where my money stands - rawk. It's a good thing most of those rockers were actually good songs, but it's not like anyone's going to buy that disc for "Surprise", "Even Angels Cry", or "Water Under the Bridge".

It's definitely not as "indie" as I'd expected for something entirely self-produced with the newfound freedom from an overbearing label.

I have no idea where you're going with that. I never expected them to go the played-in-a-tin-can route...

...and speaking of the label, how the heck did this Essential deal come back into being? I'm tempted to say Essential was desperate for a cash cow like Jars, but I'm not sure why Jars would go back to them (are the services Essential can offer as a label really that much better than they were getting through Nettwerk?)

To be honest, I think parts of that album play it too safe. But I knew they were going to experiment a bit with synthesized elements that hearken back to the 80's, and I'm fine with that. Charlie Lowell hasn't really had a lot of time in the spotlight since If I Left the Zoo.

I'm hearing a good balance of "safe" ideas mixed with slightly more complex arrangements. "Hero"'s rhythmic fun is a nice way of livening up a fairly "safe" lyric, and the atmospherics on "Boys (Lesson One)" were a pretty brilliant idea too. To be honest, I think they're playing it simple more than safe - "Heaven" just sounds annoying to me. I'd prefer for the shift towards more synthetic elements to not mean more repetitive keyboard and vocoder parts.

You and every critic who hears a rock band with some vague amount of 80's influence. Enough already.

I've actually been trying to avoid drawing comparisons here because pretty much any comparison point won't hold up well for long. There's much more variety on this album than we've heard from them in a while.

...I hope "Weapons" is the only song they ever record to remind me of Relient K. Too great tastes that sound silly together ("whoooa - ooo").

I'm not that into 80's rock either, but I kind of like the idea of synthesizers and other programmed elements being presented in more of a "DIY ethic" sort of atmosphere, rather than just being an evil corporate force pushed onto a band by record label suits. In other words, I like that bands are comfortable using electronic/sequenced/programmed elements as part of the authentic musicianship of the band.

I'm into that too, but I've heard enough music with those elements in it in a less poppy way that I have a hard time being impressed with the straightforward stuff lately. Back to what we were saying about the Killers not being that good - I primarily pull out that sort of music for nostalgia or fun and not to hear something particularly intelligent.

And is that what that song was that they played on the GM tour? I had been wondering. It was completely unfamiliar to me.

They had a few curveballs in there. I believe "Love Me" was an original b-side exclusive to iTunes, "Love is the Protest" was an original for some shoddy best-of, "Don't Stop" (which seems to have no relation to the new song on this album) was an INXS cover, and "Baker Street" was a cover of someone I'm forgetting at the moment. They didn't come anywhere near me on that tour, so I'm going by memory of things seen on Jarchives a while back. "Don't Stop" was the only one in that group of "new" songs that I remember being worth hearing.

Am I the only one finding the pacing of this album to be a bit off? Everything after "Hero" seems to have a hard time holding my attention.

"Headphones" is one song that's striking me as "odd" too. The first few listens, I thought it was an ode to record collectors, but on additional listens, it seems to be a rant about not talking to people. I suspect that they intentionally made the lyrics and music mildly ironic so that people would interpret it differently over time and be challenged by it. I'm also not sure if the female vocalist (who is that, anyway?) is supposed to represent the various tunes heard in the headphones or a second person who can't hear Jars at all (or both - after "Light Gives Heat", I've resigned myself to the idea that they're willing to switch "characters" in ways that make no sense to listeners).

One last crazy thought about the album: Is there some sort of space-travel-related concept here? The bit about "rockets" in "Closer" sounds a bit off, but in context with similar lines in "Safe to Land", I think their might be some sort of plot or theme here. Of course, mash that up with "Weapons" and my thoughts on "Headphones", they might be turning into Radiohead.

My source for this album seems to have been cut off. Is there still a way to hear this?

[murlough23]

You've lost me. I don't hear a single well-placed accordion part on there.

OK, so not every idea that worked for them in the past resurfaced on TEH. You got me there.

I've chalked up the accessibility of that disk as due to the rawk factor.

Up-tempo material tends to make music more easily accessible to your average radio listener. Especially on Christian radio, slow songs tend to not be hits unless they are big, weepy, string-drenched inspo ballads.

On an album with roughly a dozen songs, I'd consider two songs in a certain vein to be enough to qualify as maintaining an influence as part of "their sound". The lousy hymn-y track I was referring to was "Take Me Higher" (which is not worthy of being mentioned in the same sentence as "There Is A River" or "All My Tears"). I also hear a little bit of that in "Light Gives Heat" and "Even Angels Cry", too.

Wow, we must have really different definitions of what constitutes a hymn. "Take Me Higher" doesn't even come close to the type of language or composition that I'd associate with a hymn. I'm with you on the lyrics kind of sucking on that one (how can you be "higher than the sun"? "Up" is a relative term in space), but I still enjoy the song, mostly for Steve's guitar solo.

I know where my money stands - rawk. It's a good thing most of those rockers were actually good songs, but it's not like anyone's going to buy that disc for "Surprise", "Even Angels Cry", or "Water Under the Bridge".

I've talked to people at Jarchives who really enjoy those songs for their subtleties. ("Surprise" in particular strikes me as a very Much Afraid-esque song, though it is my least favorite on the album.) Undoubtedly they won't be the most popular tracks on an album with songs like "Dead Man" on it. That's a given. That doesn't mean they're terrible songs. ("Even Angels Cry" was a bit barf-inducing for me at first, but on a musical level, I really like it. Honestly, it'd be great if not for the line of lyrics that contains the title.)

I have no idea where you're going with that. I never expected them to go the played-in-a-tin-can route...

Is that what they did? I don't think going indie means you have to kill the production values. I just see it as more of a "creative freedom" type thing where you keep more of the production and musicianship and whatever bells and whistles you choose to use in-house.

...and speaking of the label, how the heck did this Essential deal come back into being? I'm tempted to say Essential was desperate for a cash cow like Jars, but I'm not sure why Jars would go back to them (are the services Essential can offer as a label really that much better than they were getting through Nettwerk?)

Essential's distributing the album. They did not fund it or produce it (or meddle with its content, as far as I knew - they came back into the game after the album was already recorded). Clearly they saw a good thing getting away and decided they wanted to partner with the band in some fashion. The band, for their part, probably realized it wouldn't hurt to have the assistance with distribution, and so long as Essential doesn't get to interfere in the creative process on future albums, I'm fine with this working relationship.

They had a few curveballs in there. I believe "Love Me" was an original b-side exclusive to iTunes, "Love is the Protest" was an original for some shoddy best-of, "Don't Stop" (which seems to have no relation to the new song on this album) was an INXS cover, and "Baker Street" was a cover of someone I'm forgetting at the moment. They didn't come anywhere near me on that tour, so I'm going by memory of things seen on Jarchives a while back. "Don't Stop" was the only one in that group of "new" songs that I remember being worth hearing.

"Baker Street" was the one I heard live, and that apparently was not the INXS cover, so never mind. They also played "Love Me", but I already knew that was a B-side. They actually played GM in its entirety, aside from "Water Under the Bridge", which I thought was a good move.

I will respond to your comments on the new album later.

NP: "Go and Sin No More", Rebecca St. James

[danny316]

Wow, we must have really different definitions of what constitutes a hymn.

Frankly, I'm not even sure that that term is that useful to me anymore. There are some hymns worth saving (and I haven't spent enough time seeking them out - good hymn recordings aren't exactly promoted the way other albums are), but I've heard hymns that are pretty terrible too.

Generally speaking, the hymns I prefer are theologically meaningful (read: "Last Month of the Year" sucks) and not written in the third person (read: "Amazing Grace" and "O Come and Mourn with Me Awhile (Jesus Our Lord is Crucified)" suck).

I also think that vocal delivery in a recording of a hymn is important to factor in. The deeper, slightly more gravely, and more soulful way of singing works well here. I heard a bit of that in Jars in the past, to the point where I just assumed they wanted that in their sound and were adding more of it as Dan's vocal abilities grew. TLFBTE makes Dan sound younger and less world-weary in a way that I don't like. Going by the idea that the more soulful vocals were part of how Dan was growing as a vocalist, most of this album sounds like it was recorded shortly after the self-titled. Am I going crazy, or do the vocals really sound pretty different on this album?

("Even Angels Cry" was a bit barf-inducing for me at first, but on a musical level, I really like it. Honestly, it'd be great if not for the line of lyrics that contains the title.)

Barf-inducing? Why go back to it, then?

I find it passable on a musical level, but I really wish it would go somewhere else. Once you've heard the first few bits of banjo and guitar, it doesn't actually do much else musically. I'd like it much better if they just arbitrarily made it shorter.

[murlough23]

Frankly, I'm not even sure that that term is that useful to me anymore. There are some hymns worth saving (and I haven't spent enough time seeking them out - good hymn recordings aren't exactly promoted the way other albums are), but I've heard hymns that are pretty terrible too.

Generally speaking, the hymns I prefer are theologically meaningful (read: "Last Month of the Year" sucks) and not written in the third person (read: "Amazing Grace" and "O Come and Mourn with Me Awhile (Jesus Our Lord is Crucified)" suck).

I also think that vocal delivery in a recording of a hymn is important to factor in. The deeper, slightly more gravely, and more soulful way of singing works well here. I heard a bit of that in Jars in the past, to the point where I just assumed they wanted that in their sound and were adding more of it as Dan's vocal abilities grew. TLFBTE makes Dan sound younger and less world-weary in a way that I don't like. Going by the idea that the more soulful vocals were part of how Dan was growing as a vocalist, most of this album sounds like it was recorded shortly after the self-titled. Am I going crazy, or do the vocals really sound pretty different on this album?

Vocal delivery has zip to do with hymns in my mind. I've heard hymns sung in traditional fashion with pipe organs, as rock songs, as Gospel songs, as country songs, etc. I think we can move on.

Barf-inducing? Why go back to it, then?

Well, you know that passage in Proverbs about a dog returning to its own vomit...

Just kidding. I thought "Show You Love" was barf-worthy at first, but not everything that initially strikes me as cheesy continues to strike me that way. My first impressions of a lot of things often prove to be inaccurate in the long run.

Also, I tend to not skip songs. This factors heavily into my opinion of an album - one bad song can be the make-or-break factor that keeps an album from getting an A. I believe albums are made to be listened to front-to-back. I will occasionally skip something if it's really obnoxious, but it's more likely that an album I enjoy enough to listen to frequently will not have any songs that are that aurally offensive.

I still speak up about why I think "It Is Well" was a bad idea, but I still listen to it and have learned to live with it. I've come to enjoy "Even Angels Cry" and "Take Me Higher". Both songs even made their way onto mix CDs that I made for myself back in 2007. (As much as I make fun of "Take me higher than the sun", it sort of gained significance to me in a personal way when I got to visit Alaska in the summer. In a sense, you are "higher than the sun" when you're up there at that time of year. That's obviously not what the song was written to mean, but it's inextricably linked to my memory of that trip now.)

NP: "Where the Sun Never Dies", Blindside

[murlough23]

D00d! Listen to the BGV's at the end of "Headphones". They are eerily similar to Future of Forestry's "Twilight".

[Aaron]

Liking it so far..

[murlough23]

OK, so I'm going with a B+ for this album for now. I like it. But I'm not jump-up-and-down excited about it, beyond a few songs. There's nothing bad here (perhaps "There Might Be a Light" comes close), but a lot that is average by Jars of Clay standards, which is a bit unnerving.

[ajyouthguy]

i've listened to it twice today since i got it, and i like it, but it hasn't completely captivated me like i had hoped...which is eerily similar to the new U2 album as well. 

[murlough23]

i've listened to it twice today since i got it, and i like it, but it hasn't completely captivated me like i had hoped...which is eerily similar to the new U2 album as well. 

I'd say I enjoy TLFBTE a teeny bit more than NLOTH, but then you have to consider my obvious bias.

[NewDimension]

I'd say I enjoy TLFBTE a teeny bit more than NLOTH, but then you have to consider my obvious bias.

I liked NLOTH more than I liked TLFBTE; but neither album was extremely outstanding for me, except for several songs on each album.   

[dgp11776]

I ordered this on vinyl yesterday.  I'll probably download a higher quality leak once it's out there, because my record probably won't get here until the end of next week at the earliest.  I'm looking forward to it.

Canceled my Amazon order today.  It appears that the double vinyl thing was only available from JoC directly, and only if you paid $75 for some pre-order thingee which included a bunch of other stuff.  So, I guess I'll be getting the CD at some point this week.

[murlough23]

There's been much debate about this album on the Jarchives boards. On the one hand, it's nice to see that even among the ardent fanboys, people are having to stop and consider why the band changed their sound and whether they like it automatically or need to give it time, etc. On the other hand, getting involved in the debate just provides a myriad of new ways for me to piss people off.

[valleycat]

I agree completely with murlough's comment regarding several songs not being "heavy" enough.  I think that is my biggest problem with the album so far. It sort of gives the album a dull edge/contemporary pop feel in many spots that I dislike. 

But there is a lot I really like about this album too.  Other than the lack of heavier guitars, I think this is one jars album that I like the production, especially the sound of the vocals. I've always really liked jars' particular vocal harmonies,  and never felt like they used them quite enough.  Here they really seem to stand out though. 

I also like how immaculate the whole thing sounds.  I can accept the lack of edginess in some spots with how perfect and enjoyable the good songs are - the ones that work fine with just the electronics and steadier melodies.  In fact I think there's a chance that with several more listens the musically softer spots will blend in better and the whole album will work great for me.

For some reason the lyrics really get me too.  "Two Hands" especially. That song tugs at my heart somehow when most other songs of its ilk turn me off.  I'm surprised by that....it's not the only song on this album that does, too.  "Boys (Lesson 1)", "Headphones", "Weapons"...I disliked Jars' move towards less abstract, more universal themes in the last album, but here they seem to work for me, or maybe I'm just more comfortable with Jars' going in that direction now.

In the very least I believe this album easily takes a slot amongst Jars' "good" albums (not that they have any bad ones, just a couple of stumblers).

[dgp11776]

OK, so I'm going with a B+ for this album for now. I like it. But I'm not jump-up-and-down excited about it, beyond a few songs. There's nothing bad here (perhaps "There Might Be a Light" comes close), but a lot that is average by Jars of Clay standards, which is a bit unnerving.

Well said.  This is right where I landed on this one.

[murlough23]

Here's my review:

http://www.epinions.com/content_468579487364

[Aaron]

Good review.

I bought this album twice - once yesterday on iTunes and once today at Walmart.  On iTunes, you get 2 bonus tracks plus a 9 minute video of "stories behind the songs"

[murlough23]

Good review.

I bought this album twice - once yesterday on iTunes and once today at Walmart.  On iTunes, you get 2 bonus tracks plus a 9 minute video of "stories behind the songs"

Can that video be viewed/purchased on its own?

[Aaron]

Legally through iTunes...no.  I bet it is somewhere on the internet for free though.

[murlough23]

Legally through iTunes...no.  I bet it is somewhere on the internet for free though.

I bet someone on Jarchives has seen it and can summarize.

[plvarona]

I've had a chance to listen to this album a few times, and I'm pretty much in the same boat as a lot of other people here: I like it, but it hasn't really wowed me like Jars' other albums have.  I don't think the issue is with the different sound either.  Picking up their Closer EP, and hearing their increased emphasis on electronic instrumentation in concert last year prepared me for that.  Rather, most of my beefs come with the lyrics, which seem to be "hit or miss" this time around - sometimes even "hit or miss" within the same song.  "Two Hands" is a notable example of the latter - the verses are quite thoughtful, but I found the chorus to be a little awkward.  Also, there are some songs where the lyrics don't seem as thought-out as we're used to from Jars (e.g. "Don't Stop", "Heart".)  Also, there don't seem to be as many standout tracks on this album compared to past albums.

On the plus side, by and large Jars did a pretty good job piecing together their instrumentation (as they always seem to do), and they especially did an excellent job building up their more mellow song, with "Headphones", "Safe to Land" and "Scenic Route" particularly standing out.  I also agree with Valleycat that the harmonies really stood out here.

So overall, I went with a "B+" on this album: pretty good, but not one of their better efforts.

[bloop]

Seems we're all landing around the same vicinity on this one.

I think I'm ready for the obligatory ranking of the Jars of Clay albums with acronyms:
1)  WWAI
2)  MA
3)  IILTZ
4)  RS
5)  GM
6)  TLFBTE
7)  CS
8)  T11H
9)  JOC

[danny316]

Looks like I forgot to post this earlier - if you (like me) are holding out on this one, you can hear most of it at http://www.hearitfirst.com/artist/discography.aspx?artist_id=1578&discog_item_id=1027752

I don't know how long it will be there, and "There Might Be A Light" is just a clip - but still, I'm not complaining.

[Josh]

I just listened to this for the first time, and after one listen, I have to say: I think it's easily the weakest album they've ever made, except perhaps for the Christmas one, which I've never heard. I think most of their albums are very very good, bordering on really great, and even the weakest ones are usually interesting and ambitious, in spite of their flaws. But this one is just a dreadful bore, at least to my ears-- the first Jars album I've ever heard and not particularly wanted to hear again.

But, this is Jars-- so I WILL listen again. They deserve more than a solitary listen.