The Flaming Lips - Embryonic

[Ian]

You can stream the album here.

Album sounds fantastic, don't skip out.

[Aaron]

Never been a big fan.  They are good but not something I enjoy listening to that much other than a few choice songs.  Interesting album cover.

[Ian]

Never been a big fan.  They are good but not something I enjoy listening to that much other than a few choice songs.  Interesting album cover.

They've changed up their style quite a bit for this one.  And yeah, I'm quite a big fan of the cover as well.

I'm on my 5th listen of this in a row, and still hungry for more.  Like... I'm not going to bed tonight because I want to listen to this instead.

[Josh]

Who knew these guys were such Miles Davis fans? This thing is soooo rooted in jazz fusion.

[bloop]

Who knew these guys were such Miles Davis fans?

I didn't know, but, at the same time, I'm not surprised at this.

[Josh]

Well, no. Really, I'm not sure if one can be taken seriously as a musician if one does not like Miles Davis! 

[murlough23]

Well, no. Really, I'm not sure if one can be taken seriously as a musician if one does not like Miles Davis! 

That depends on who's doing the taking seriously. I'd have no expectations that a band from a very different genre would need to know or like Miles Davis's music. But judging from how I generally react with intrigue to jazz-influenced pop and rock music, I figure it can't be a bad thing if an artist previously not known for being "jazzy" starts to explore that influence. Even if I am a jazz ignoramus and don't always know how to recognize it.

[bloop]

I noticed something strange when I listened to this.  I didn't look at my watch even once - time just flew by.  That doesn't happen with even the very best double albums for me. 

It's only 70 minutes.  It's on two CDs why, exactly?

(Don't get me wrong, though, I absolutely love it, but it's a stretch to call it a double album except in a vinyl-era sense)

[Ian]

It's actually being sold on one disc.  For some reason though, the special edition is on 2 CDs plus the DVD.

But yeah.  Haven't been this excited about an album since MPP.  In fact, I now have Embryonic one place behind MPP, at #2.

[Josh]

As someone who has always admired the Flaming Lips but never quite loved any of their albums, this has immediately become my favorite of their work.

[murlough23]

At War with the Mystics is gonna be tough to beat for me, but then again, that wasn't a perfect album. I'll keep an open mind.

[valleycat]

At War with the Mystics is gonna be tough to beat for me, but then again, that wasn't a perfect album. I'll keep an open mind.

I never listened to that one but I've read it was a disappointment.  I have The Soft Bulletin and Yoshimi and I find both very enjoyable.  I am excited to hear the new one!

[bloop]

Most Flaming Lips fans I've talked to consider Mystics to be anywhere from a little disappointing to a steaming pile (depending on which fan we're talking about).  I enjoyed it, personally, but I'm happy they've made a turn for more esoteric goofy oddity, which is really where they excel.

[murlough23]

I never listened to that one but I've read it was a disappointment.

I'm not sure why folks were disappointed with it, but I only have The Soft Bulletin and Yoshimi, and nothing older from the Lips, to compare to. I know a lot of folks hated the things I enjoyed about that record, so when they heard obnoxious pop song, ill-advised funk send-up, long boring ballad, and another long boring ballad, I heard cacthy, fun and poppy political song, bad-ass tongue-in-cheek funk send-up, one of their most gorgeous ballads ever, another gorgeously textured ballad. Those first four songs just slay me. The rest is closer to "pretty good", but other than the lackluster final song and an overindulgent instrumental bit here and there, I can't really find anything to complain about. It's a lovely record, but not a non-stop in-your-face rock record as the singles might lead one to expect.

[spacebrat311]

I like At War With the Mystics a lot, but I wouldn't put it in their top tier.

[abrocks22]

They are so good

[bloop]

Yeah, I can't wait.  I might have to get the "super vinyl" set, too, just for good measure.

[Josh]

I was hoping for the two-disc version, but couldn't find it anywhere locally, so I just got the single-discer for 10 bucks. Looks and sounds great. This baby is all killer, no filler; in a Joe Henry-less year, this would be Album of the Year material for me.

[bloop]

The Pitchfork writer was very astute in observing that even the tracks that seem like "filler" are really just building to something else.

[murlough23]

I was hoping for the two-disc version, but couldn't find it anywhere locally, so I just got the single-discer for 10 bucks.

Is that only one half of the album, or did they cram the whole thing onto one disc? (And if so, what's the point of the 2-discer?)

[bloop]

The album fits completely on one CD, so it's kind of a mystery to me why it's split.  Maybe he's trying to separate it into "movements", but then, they're releasing it on four sides of vinyl later.

I was surprised by the length of the "double album", too.  It's a double album's length in a very old school sense.

(the one I'm getting is two CDs and an Audio DVD).

[Josh]

They originally conceived of it as a double album, but yeah, the whole thing is about 70 minutes. I like the idea of the double album, though, because it emphasizes the sprawl of the thing, and also makes it easier to digest. But whatevs.

[murlough23]

They originally conceived of it as a double album, but yeah, the whole thing is about 70 minutes. I like the idea of the double album, though, because it emphasizes the sprawl of the thing, and also makes it easier to digest. But whatevs.

I think I'm smart enough to get the picture that it's meant to be divided into two halves without it actually having to come on two physical CDs. A single CD is going to be cheaper to mass produce. (And those who do the digital download thing will have to make themselves aware of the intended break between the two halves anyway.)

Shoot, Green Day released a 70+ minute album that had three distinct movements, but they didn't break it out into three separate EPs. I'm sure I could come up with other examples. People are smart enough to listen to a section of something and take a break without the physical medium forcing that break to happen.

NP: "God Almighty, None Compares", David Crowder Band

[bloop]

I think I'm smart enough to get the picture that it's meant to be divided into two halves without it actually having to come on two physical CDs. A single CD is going to be cheaper to mass produce. (And those who do the digital download thing will have to make themselves aware of the intended break between the two halves anyway.)

Shoot, Green Day released a 70+ minute album that had three distinct movements, but they didn't break it out into three separate EPs. I'm sure I could come up with other examples. People are smart enough to listen to a section of something and take a break without the physical medium forcing that break to happen.

NP: "God Almighty, None Compares", David Crowder Band

Some people like to physically change discs, I guess.  Vinyl absolutely requires that break (and that upcoming edition will require even more breaks). 

It's not something to ding the band over anyway, though, considering they did release it as a single disc.  As far as I know, the DVD Audio is one disc as well.

[murlough23]

Some people like to physically change discs, I guess.

Who are these people, and why would they prefer this?

I'm just thinking practically - I'm driving, and don't want to have to pull over or bug my wife to change the CD. (Less of an issue now that I have the iPod, but it will still stop at the end of a disc if it deems it to be a separate "album", so I have to tag things properly, which means manipulating it around beyond the way it got tagged when I originally ripped the two CDs.)

Vinyl absolutely requires that break (and that upcoming edition will require even more breaks).

Yeah, there's no getting around that with vinyl, it only fits 20-30 minutes per side, right?

It's not something to ding the band over anyway, though, considering they did release it as a single disc.  As far as I know, the DVD Audio is one disc as well.

It's nice to have the option, but why even bother providing the 2-discer if that's truly the only difference?

[bloop]

Ultimately, I don't really know why.  It's not the first time Wayne Coyne has been eccentric.  A single CD, single CD w/ DVD-A set, and vinyl makes perfect sense.  What we got is about 2 more sets that I didn't mention, one that is apparently meant to be kept as a pet.

[murlough23]

Well, I admire them for giving us all the options we could have wanted.

[Josh]

I'll throw my hand up for having to actually change the CD, because it encourages active listening; ultimately, though, I think it's a philosophical thing more than anything else. I think the band is emphasizing that they wanted to make a double album in the classic sense-- something along the lines of Sign o' the Times-- regardless of whether the running length technically demands it.

Old-fashioned? Sure, but then, so are CDs themselves. Most of the folks who object to the double-disc thing are probably going to buy it in MP3 form anyway, where the point will be moot.

Given that you can buy the album in basically any format you could ever want, though, I can't see how there's anything to grumble about. (Unless you're holding out for a casette tape revival or something.)

[murlough23]

I'll throw my hand up for having to actually change the CD, because it encourages active listening

I just don't think anyone who listens "inactively" is likely to have the Lips on their radar in the first place. They're not really background music material.

Personally, I try to always listen actively, and unless the music is bland enough to all blend together, I'm going to notice which tracks are which even if I don't have to change discs in between. This is how it's worked for every 2-disc collection I've ever listened to in digital format first.

NP: "Wide Awake", Cool Hand Luke

[bloop]

I don't even have my copy yet, but it's on two CDs and a DVD.  I don't think I have anything that'll play the hi res DVD audio, but I guess it's scalable for when I do (I still have Guero by Beck in that format, too).

[bloop]

I have my copy now.  I knew what I was getting, but I LOLed when I saw the furry package.  What the hell am I going to do with that?!  The sleeve of the special edition is pretty gross, though, so I'm glad there's something to cover that up.

Apparently, the hi res plays, but it plays at 48 khz rather than 96 on my equipment (vinyl is still truly the most economical path to high resolution audio).  It's still nice to be able to play it all at once, though.

[murlough23]

So I really, really don't like this album. I know that's like, some sort of a crime or something, but well, there it is. At first I thought I could tolerate it, figuring, "It's an experiment, not really my thing, but maybe it'll come together after more listens", but the first listen was such a chore to get through that I still haven't gotten around to the second. I know it's not good to judge things after one listen, which is why I haven't rated it yet, but I'm feeling really unmotivated. This thing just feels like a bad dream that drags on forever.

[Ian]

The first time I listened to it was the most exciting album go-through I've experienced since MPP.

[murlough23]

The first time I listened to it was the most exciting album go-through I've experienced since MPP.

It's fascinating how we can perceive the same sounds so differently. (Honestly, despite our quest for objectivity, I keep discovering bizarre cases like this where my response is radically different from the next guy's, and that's been one of the most interesting aspects of Phorum membership.)

Even before I heard the album myself, I had seen highly polarized reviews, not really anything in between.

[bloop]

Even before I heard the album myself, I had seen highly polarized reviews, not really anything in between.

Hmm.  I've only seen critics that love it or are in-between, with no one very low.  So, if it's polarizing, it isn't very.

I have noticed, with a few exceptions, that the indies are stacked near the top, and the mainstream media near the bottom (which is really middle ground 50s, 60s, one 40 - I haven't seen anyone that would go so far as "God awful").  Perhaps not coincidentally, and not at all surprisingly, the critics and publications I tend to respect more are the ones near the top.

This thing just feels like a bad dream that drags on forever.

It's supposed to be dream-like in parts, I think, but I'm not sure it's supposed to necessarily be a nightmare.  It'd be interesting to explore that as a theme, though.

[murlough23]

The critics are there to point out things that I might be missing, not to force me to concur. This would hardly be the first time I've departed from critical consensus.

[bloop]

I'm not saying that they are.  My students would probably agree with you if I ever played it for them.  It's not my wife's thing, either.  You're all just a little to a lot more pop than this.  

However, I find that it's more dispositional than a meaningful commentary on the quality of the music in the case of those I know in real life.  I can't imagine this would be much different.

[murlough23]

I'm not saying that they are.  My students would probably agree with you if I ever played it for them.  It's not my wife's thing, either.  You're all just a little to a lot more pop than this.

Sure, but I think you know me well enough to know that I have a reasonably high tolerance for "not-radio-friendly". This isn't just "Oh boo, where did my catchy beats and singable melodies go?"

However, I find that it's more dispositional than a meaningful commentary on the quality of the music in the case of those I know in real life.  I can't imagine this would be much different.

I offered a one-sentence opinion in a casual context where I thought we were free to share such things. I didn't write a review. I didn't criticize anyone else for seeing it differently.

[bloop]

Sure, but I think you know me well enough to know that I have a reasonably high tolerance for "not-radio-friendly". This isn't just "Oh boo, where did my catchy beats and singable melodies go?"

Define "reasonably high tolerance".   

Seriously, though, I can't name a time that you've gone wild over anything that I would consider very difficult.  You're more out of the popville than my students, to be sure, and my wife would just rather listen to metal and classical, but there is a similarity in reaction.

[murlough23]

Define "reasonably high tolerance".   

Any artist I could name as evidence of this still has some sense of melody, and generally records actual songs, so I'm probably just going to shoot myself in the foot by citing specifics here.

Seriously, though, I can't name a time that you've gone wild over anything that I would consider very difficult.  You're more out of the popville than my students, to be sure, and my wife would just rather listen to metal and classical, but there is a similarity in reaction.

I would hope that my responses are more carefully considered than those of your students. I think it's worth keeping in mind here that I've admitted that what I said about this Lips album was a first impression, and I do plan to go back and get a second (again, I just need to gather up the courage). Also, I have listened to four of the band's albums before this (fine, only really three sicne the mix-down of Zaireeka doesn't really count), so it's not like I'm coming in out of nowhere and saying what an artist should/shouldn't be doing when I am completely new to that artist and have no context at all to speak from. The Lips' most critically acclaimed work before this one was The Soft Bulletin, and I understood that stance and also liked the album even if it wasn't my personal favorite. Embryonic is so far afield from the style I've heard the band develop over several albums now; it may have more in common with their old days, for all I know, but I thought the critics were excited to have seen them graduate from that mindset, so all of this is really catching me off-guard. I don't think they're wrong; I just don't share their excitement. It feels to me like a HUGE step backwards.

NP: "Communication", Mae