Derek Webb - Stockholm Syndrome

[bloop]

"Freddie, Please" has me intrigued, mostly because I was trying to figure out who "Freddie" was. Now I'm starting to think it's probably Fred Phelps, a.k.a. the most hateful American preacher currently alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_phelps

Gah!  Just what he needed - a little more attention. 

[murlough23]

Gah!  Just what he needed - a little more attention. 

I don't know. I'm rather amused by the thought of Phelps catching wind of it, and chartering a flight to Nashville to spew self-righteous profanities outside of one of Webb's concerts.

[Aaron]

"Freddie, Please" has me intrigued, mostly because I was trying to figure out who "Freddie" was. Now I'm starting to think it's probably Fred Phelps, a.k.a. the most hateful American preacher currently alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_phelps

It is indeed about Phelps.

[chrisnu]

I don't know. I'm rather amused by the thought of Phelps catching wind of it, and chartering a flight to Nashville to spew self-righteous profanities outside of one of Webb's concerts.

Hehe. I read on-line that someone who lives near the WBC compound dropped off a CD with that song on it.

[bloop]

Yeah, it's cool and it isn't at the same time.  Webb speaks the truth here, but Phelps feeds on publicity of any sort.

[murlough23]

Yeah, it's cool and it isn't at the same time.  Webb speaks the truth here, but Phelps feeds on publicity of any sort.

It's subtle, though. You have to already know who Phelps is to make the connection that the song is about him. Otherwise, the reference is a bit oblique (since I don't think the guy actually goes by "Freddy". Truth be told, first person I thought of was Freddie Mercury, but obviously that didn't make any sense whatsoever beyond the line about him being "queer".)

[murlough23]

OK, I think I've digested it enough now. I really see no choice but to give Stockholm Syndrome an A. I love the music - and not just for superficial, beat-driven reasons (though that helps) - it's more due to the synthesis of Derek's newfound fascination with trip-hop electronica and the staple folk elements that bubble up from underneath. (I'm sure somebody like Beck has done this before. It doesn't have to be a wholly original fusion of styles in order to be done extremely well.) But the real kicker here is the lyrics, and those have almost always been solid and packed with food for thought on Webb's recordings, so really all that's changed is that lyrics which demands attention are now paired with music that helps to direct attention to it. (Unless you're one of those types who find the beat and the glitchy electronic stuff distracting. In which case, you're no fun.)

And that's not meant to diss the Americana style Webb explored on She Must and Shall Go Free, or even the back-to-basics rock and roll on The Ringing Bell - I liked that stuff, but those albums weren't consistently exciting on a musical level all the way through. (And his other two albums, on a musical level, actually got quite tedious.) This might be a style preference on my part because I am more of a pop guy who likes a good beat, but a good beat and a catchy hook can only do so much to cover up lazy songwriting or a lack of artistic talent, so if that was all there was to this record, I wouldn't be nearly as excited. But since Webb writes with such wit and conviction, it feels like these songs needed a little extra "zing" to drive a lot of the points home, so the abrupt change in musical style actually serves the message well. My favorite albums are the kind where the musical style complements the lyrical focus in addition to just plain being addictive, so for me, this is Derek's most satisfying album by a long shot.

I've given it a straight "A" and bumped it up to #2 in my Music Journal. Message-wise, it's the most important album I've heard all year, but I can't quite give it the #1 slot due to a couple songs that drag just a teeny bit and the fact that Derek's voice, while appropriately ragged at times given the subject matter, is just never going to be as delectable to my ears as Vienna's. (Oh, and the opening track? Can you say "Airbag"?)

[bloop]

I'm having a hard time deciding on a grade for the album.  Everyone knows I like glitchy electronica quite a bit, but I don't think that he's as strong as the artists I typically like in this area.  Then I remember the lyrics are up to Webb's typical level of excellence, even if they might be a bit preachy, and feel it deserves a pretty high grade given all it's doing right, added to his willingness to branch out musically.  I'll probably go somewhere around B+ to A-, but I feel it needs a least another listen to sink in with me.

[murlough23]

Everyone knows I like glitchy electronica quite a bit, but I don't think that he's as strong as the artists I typically like in this area.

There are a couple songs where I feel like he just took his usual folk song structure and added beats to it. That's not a bad thing, but it also means that the entire album isn't necessarily as daring as the songs that are all electronic or that mix and match the electronic and folk elements in funky ways.

Then I remember the lyrics are up to Webb's typical level of excellence, even if they might be a bit preachy

I'm OK with preaching to those within the Church if the intent is to shape them up concerning an issue where they're being real assholes. (Myself included.)

[bloop]

Well, as I said, I like the album - any qualms I have are relatively minor.  It reminds me of artists I never expected him to remind me of (Portishead, Beck, Radiohead, etc), and that's a good thing.  I'm just not sure he's quite as developed as these artists at doing what they do, musically, but it comes into its own by marrying those elements with his own more direct lyrical approach.  All of this leaves me a little puzzled as to what to do with it.

[murlough23]

All of this leaves me a little puzzled as to what to do with it.

I like it when you are puzzled. Makes me feel vindicated. 

[bloop]

I like it when I'm a little puzzled, too.  Please, artists, make me work a little.

[murlough23]

I like it when I'm a little puzzled, too.  Please, artists, make me work a little.

Fully agreed. I think Derek's got a good balance here between the "obvious message" stuff and the stuff you have to work a bit to understand. Of course, since the "obvious" stuff all makes adherents to typical church subculture uncomfortable, and having to work to get the meaning of anything makes those same people uncomfortable, precisely 0% of the record is likely to get played on Christian radio. (Which I'm perfectly OK with.)

[chrisnu]

After reading the lyrics (or what sound like the lyrics) to "Cobra Con", I think I got it entirely wrong. Oh well. It still rocks.

[chrisnu]

Been thinking about the "language and tradition" line in "What Matters More" a bit more. I'm not sure this is even referring to what people believe the Bible says. I think it may be referring to gender roles and how people are expected to act and behave, and people being debased when they don't meet those expectations. I'm talking about men not acting masculine enough, or women not acting feminine enough. This kind of stuff still happens. I haven't experienced it, but my brother had to deal with being ostracized for the way he acted - by people in the church - for most of his childhood. Remember that street preacher of whom I posted a video previously? He has another one on YouTube called "That Effeminate Guy". It's insinuated that the person whom he's interviewing is homosexual, simply because of how he acts, even after he admitted to lusting after women. (Not to mention the keywords used to try to draw attention to the video.) Not only can you harden people's hearts by judging them based on how they appear to you, you are providing incentive for them to behave the way that you expect them to behave.

[murlough23]

I figured the "language and tradition" was probably the whole debate about what language is considered filthy/unwholesome/etc., which nicely sets up the "don't give a shit" line.

[murlough23]

I was just reading a Christianity Today article on a conversation between authors Don Miller and David Dark about how social justice can be turned into a passing fad if we're not careful. This quote from Miller struck me as incredibly astute:

"the flip side [of social justice being cool] is that caring about justice became a great way to attract the opposite sex. The problem with fashion is fashion changes. So the problem with justice being a fashionable issue, or the problem with Africa being an issue that can attract the opposite sex, is that it can go away for those who just found a new way to get laid."

Why am I posting this in the Derek Webb thread? Because that's what I think "Jena & Jimmy" is essentially about.

Here's the full article: http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/news/2009/donaldmiller-jul09.html

[chrisnu]

I agree entirely that that's what "Jena and Jimmy" is about.

This reminds me, I should check out Dark's book The Sacredness of Questioning Everything.

[Josh]

For anyone who's interested, my take:

http://www.stereosubversion.com/reviews/album-reviews/derek-webb-stockholm-syndrome-08-14-2009/

[murlough23]

For anyone who's interested, my take:

http://www.stereosubversion.com/reviews/album-reviews/derek-webb-stockholm-syndrome-08-14-2009/

I'm interested. I disagree quite strongly with your assumption that music took a back seat to message here, or that it's overly preachy. But it was an interesting read.

[chrisnu]

I would agree with the message becoming more important than the music if Mockingbird was just released. However, I thought The Ringing Bell was very enjoyable to listen to, and I think this album is, by far, his most musically interesting, if not his most fun. Of course, my taste in his music is probably inverse to a lot of fans. If I were to rank his albums, I'd go like this:

1) Stockholm Syndrome
2) I See Things Upside Down
3) The Ringing Bell
4) She Must And Shall Go Free
5) Mockingbird

I'm not against preachiness if I end up feeling that the pretenses are deserved. In this case, I think they are, for the most part, and the only songs I'd consider directly preachy are "What Matters More" and "The State". Maybe "Cobra Con", but it's so fun to listen to that I don't care. The others are open to quite a bit of interpretation, I think.

[murlough23]

Of course, my taste in his music is probably inverse to a lot of fans.

That's the issue that I think is going to be a thorny one for some of Webb's previous fans who really liked the folk/Americana approach. I didn't dislike that style at all, but the songs Webb constructed in that style were sometimes melodically rich ("Beloved", "Rich Young Ruler") and sometimes extremely basic and bland in the melody department (a couple dead spots on his first two albums and most of Mockingbird). The Ringing Bell punched things up a bit in that department, but it was too short of an album overall. I'm finding a treasure trove of memorable melodies on Stockholm Syndrome - it's not just the beats that get me excited about that one. I can certainly see that a few songs are more about rhythm than melody (most notably "Black Eye", which is a bit jarring at first), but for the most part I think this is Derek's catchiest album.

As for music vs. message, I think the message is always going to be the most important thing in Derek's mind, but I think he's finally learned that this doesn't make the music not important. One thing can be more important than the other, while the other is still important in its own right. It's not mutually exclusive. I think he could just as easily apply that lesson to a folk/Americana style (which I see some of on his first album - it's not like it was all dour lessons and no fun back in those days) as he has here with more of a beat-driven style. But there's always going to be a point to get across, and these days he doesn't seem worried about whether that point will get buried amidst the catchy beats and glitchy sounds. I also think some of these songs take a bit of "massaging" before you figure out exactly what he's getting at. He goes for the gut when he feels really strongly about it, but I don't think a song like "Black Eye" or "Jena & Jimmy" or "Heaven" is necessarily one that you can immediately unravel. Unless you're just really good at the interpretation thing, but then that doesn't make it much of a sermon if you have to translate it.

[dgp11776]

My biggest problem with the album lines up along Josh's line - I find the music rather boring.  I listened to it about 9-10 times, and the only things that stick in my head are parts of the songs that annoy me.  That can't be good. 

[murlough23]

My biggest problem with the album lines up along Josh's line - I find the music rather boring.  I listened to it about 9-10 times, and the only things that stick in my head are parts of the songs that annoy me.  That can't be good. 

One man's catchy melody is another man's annoying one. I'm sure this is a matter of preference and not an artistic failing on Derek's part.

[ajyouthguy]

here is an interesting interview with Christianity Today's music people...

http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/interviews/2009/derekwebb-aug09.html?start=1

[murlough23]

Good article - and I think Derek should have every right to switch styles rather than being forced into the box of a style he's gotten bored with. I think he realized that ran the risk of losing some fans, and he accepted that risk because he wanted to be true to his interests. (Whether it's just copying other artists in his current music library is a question I'll have to leave for folks who actually listen to Portishead, Beck, etc.)

One major gripe - this music is not "hip-hop" just because it has electronic beats. "Trip-hop" might accurately describe some aspects of it. But "Hip-hop" implies to me that there's rapping, which obviously there isn't. It also isn't 100% anti-acoustic, as there are bits of folk instrumentation still embedded in there (sometimes acoustic guitars or other "folksy" instruments are sampled as part of the beat, sometimes Derek just overlayed a beat on what would otherwise be one of his simpler acoustic guitar or piano-based tunes). The best I can do is label it as a cross between folk and electronica. I just worry that people will be misled into thinking Webb pulled a Joaquin Phoenix with this one.

NP: "Wind Off the Lake", Iona

[murlough23]

My review, finally.

http://www.epinions.com/content_484250324612

[ajyouthguy]

thought some of us might find this interesting...

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/whole-life/features/18139-watch-your-mouth

[murlough23]

Hmmm... I'm not 100% convinced that cussing blows our witness. I see how it could if done around non-Christians who aren't comfortable with cussing... but then so could sexist language that doesn't involve cusswords said around a non-Christian woman. I still think content and context matter more than word choice here.

[bloop]

thought some of us might find this interesting...

Honestly, no, not really interesting.

“What ever happened to the good little Christians who always said darn and dang and butt and shoot? I kind of miss them.”

Better off without, IMO.

[ajyouthguy]

re: Murlough...maybe it's my career position, and maybe it's where i live, but i disagree with what you said and see it play out like that fairly frequently.

re: Bloop...all i can do to that is 

[murlough23]

re: Murlough...maybe it's my career position, and maybe it's where i live

This would seem to support my argument that context is key.

but i disagree with what you said and see it play out like that fairly frequently.

More often than not, I see non-Christians who would never want to be Christians because they think we're too uptight (and sometimes because they see us draw attention to the fact that we have "cleaner" language, as if saying "heck" or "darn" or "butt" didn't have the same meaning). I'm not saying that we should see this as license to swear like sailors all the time, or that this is necessary to win people over. Too much swearing can come across like a too-obvious attempt to prove something about yourself. But as long as it is not hurtful or demeaning to anyone, I say feel the freedom to adapt to the context you're in. If I flew out to Arkansas and hung out with your youth group, I would likely tone down my language a bit from the way I talk with my co-workers.

re: Bloop...all i can do to that is 

He never misses an opportunity to show disdain toward socially conservative Christians. You should have known this by now.

[bloop]

My issue isn't with social conservatism.  

(Relevant tends socially moderate, btw.  The reason I said I don't find it all that interesting is because I've heard the argument before, many times, and found it wanting.)

[Aaron]

Basically, if you're not going to cuss, don't use "tame" euphemisms like darn, dang, butt, shoot, etc., and say that's acceptable when your intent is the same as just saying the actual words.

[bloop]

Basically, if you're not going to cuss, don't use "tame" euphemisms like darn, dang, butt, shoot, etc., and say that's acceptable when your intent is the same as just saying the actual words.

Think on that and you're one step closer to realizing that, often, the intent isn't wrong, either.

[murlough23]

My issue isn't with social conservatism.

Well, then with whatever quirks of Christian sub-culture where you deviate from the norm. (And I honestly often agree with your complaints - sometimes I just think you run 'em into the ground a bit.)

Relevant tends socially moderate, btw.

I figured as much. They at least allowed for the occasional appropriateness of a well-timed swear word in a song.

The reason I said I don't find it all that interesting is because I've heard the argument before, many times, and found it wanting.

I don't think they supported their point all that well, either. They took a case that does happen some percentage of the time (our cussing turning off non-believers who expect us to be goodie-two-shoes) and treated it like that was always the case.

The non-Christian I typically interact with seem to usually be put off by the goodie-two-shoes act, because it's really quite a superficial form of good (I say "heck" and "butt", but I still talk about my fellow human beings with great disdain and disrespect; I don't say "shit, but I demonstrate through my actions that I don't really give a shit about anybody). I don't think they necessarily want to see us misbehaving (though they probably enjoy the schadenfreude when we do), but they'd probably appreciate it if we were more true to our real personalities and if we spent less time trying to appear well-behaved and more time trying to do actual good for them in way that doesn't show it off. If that means our language has a bit of "color" to it, so long as it's not offensive to the people you're around, I say use the vernacular that's most comfortable for you.

[murlough23]

P.S. Every now and then I like to throw in a bowdlerized swear word substitute that is over-the-top enough to be funny because it catches people off guard. It's the same reason why I sometimes like to use outdated slang in a sarcastic manner. it's the Napoleon Dynamite effect, where "flip" is actually more amusing than the alternative, because honestly, who the hell says "flip"?

[bloop]

Well, then with whatever quirks of Christian sub-culture where you deviate from the norm.

Not so much where they deviate from me, but where they create arbitrary rules.  It strikes me as Pharisaical.

(And I honestly often agree with your complaints - sometimes I just think you run 'em into the ground a bit.)

Yeah, probably true.

They took a case that does happen some percentage of the time (our cussing turning off non-believers who expect us to be goodie-two-shoes) and treated it like that was always the case.

The non-Christian I typically interact with seem to usually be put off by the goodie-two-shoes act, because it's really quite a superficial form of good (I say "heck" and "butt", but I still talk about my fellow human beings with great disdain and disrespect; I don't say "shit, but I demonstrate through my actions that I don't really give a shit about anybody). I don't think they necessarily want to see us misbehaving (though they probably enjoy the schadenfreude when we do), but they'd probably appreciate it if we were more true to our real personalities and if we spent less time trying to appear well-behaved and more time trying to do actual good for them in way that doesn't show it off. If that means our language has a bit of "color" to it, so long as it's not offensive to the people you're around, I say use the vernacular that's most comfortable for you.

I think the entire "non-believer who expects us to be goodie-two-shoes" scenario is contrived.  It doesn't jive with any of my experience with non-believers.  I agree that we should be sensitive to audience, though.  There may be a few good reasons to be purposely inflammatory, but in most situations there's no reason to be.

Every now and then I like to throw in a bowdlerized swear word substitute that is over-the-top enough to be funny because it catches people off guard. It's the same reason why I sometimes like to use outdated slang in a sarcastic manner. it's the Napoleon Dynamite effect, where "flip" is actually more amusing than the alternative, because honestly, who the hell says "flip"?

I say "flip" much more than I say any "naughty word".  It's funnier to me, too.   

[murlough23]

Not so much where they deviate from me, but where they create arbitrary rules.  It strikes me as Pharisaical.

And I'd assume you'd want to deviate from the norm, if you recognized the norm as Pharisaical in such a case.

Yeah, probably true.

just don't take that as too much of a criticism. For every  I might give you for pointing out the obvious, there's probably an  to make up fro it.

I think the entire "non-believer who expects us to be goodie-two-shoes" scenario is contrived.  It doesn't jive with any of my experience with non-believers.

Nor mine, for the most part, but I can imagine scenarios where it might happens, and as AJ suggested, I think geography might contribute to this. Christian subculture, and popular perception of it (however inaccurate it may be) is different depending on the locale. I'd love to bust the misconceptions where they exist, but the fact remains that I can't deny what others say they've experienced and they can't deny my experience. (We can just debate about how common it is or whether either experience was a fluke.)

I agree that we should be sensitive to audience, though.  There may be a few good reasons to be purposely inflammatory, but in most situations there's no reason to be.

It's a bit of a grey area. I'd say most people who swear a lot probably aren't trying to be inflammatory in most cases... they just feel it's the best way to indicate how emphatic they are about a particular situation. But when it's overdone, it kind of dulls the effect and makes them seem a bit lacking in vocabulary. Or it just makes them seem overly angry. (Which is a big part of my swearing at work, which I'm trying to curb, but the damn computer won't do what I mean!)

[bloop]

And I'd assume you'd want to deviate from the norm, if you recognized the norm as Pharisaical in such a case.

What kind of a Christian would I be if I didn't?

But, make no mistake.  A strict and showy adherence to Law, or adding rules that simply aren't Biblical and calling it "Law", is Pharisaical in fact.  It's not a matter of perspective.  It just is what it is.