The Flaming Lips - Embryonic

[bloop]

There wasn't anything wrong with their sound before The Soft Bulletin.  That album was something of a new direction musically, but their albums prior to it were critically very well-regarded as well, particularly Clouds Taste Metallic and Transmissions... (you have to go back to the 80s to find more of a "wth" general reaction).  Embryonic shares more kinship with their noisy early 90s records (and even some of those 80s albums) than their recent output, but that's not to say that they're taking a step backward, bringing nothing different to the table as well.  Those that compare it favorably with early Lips albums without acknowledging that are doing the work a bit of a disservice.  It's similar, but expanded and explored, which fits perfectly into what they've always done.

[murlough23]

Fair enough. It's probably reasonable to assume that I wouldn't have liked much of their work before Bulletin. I got into the band due to specific things I thought they did well when I checked out Yoshimi on a whim, and I don't expect that they should only do the things that I like about them, but since it is such a radical change to a side of the band's personality that I'm not used to, I think it's fair to say, "This isn't for me", and be honest about my response to it rather than softpedaling it to fall in step with the critical consensus. I'll get guff about how that response reveals my own personal limitations, but honestly, whatever.

[bloop]

I'll take an honest "It's not for me" over "It sucks!  Examine what in your childhood made you like this shit!" response any day.  You should probably give it another try, though, before even going with the former.

(guess which one of those responses is my wife, and which would be my students for extra credit)

[murlough23]

"It sucks!  Examine what in your childhood made you like this shit!"

When did I say anything even remotely resembling this? (I said it was God-awful. That probably sounded like an absolute judgment - I was really just trying to indicate the severity of my reaction.) I never crossed the line into insinuating that there was a problem with you or anyone else for liking it.

You should probably give it another try, though, before even going with the former.

The only time I ever assign anything a bad grade after only a single listen is when it's something like Kutless that hits all of the cliches so predictably that it's painful to listen to. If it's painful because it's beyond the boundaries of what I'm used to, I'll probably at least respect the band for having the balls to try it, and give it another go just to see if the displeasure remains after the initial shock wears off. So I'll stand by my right to express my initial impressions, but as I said from the outset, first impressions can often be wrong.

[bloop]

When did I say anything even remotely resembling this? (I said it was God-awful. That probably sounded like an absolute judgment - I was really just trying to indicate the severity of my reaction.) I never crossed the line into insinuating that there was a problem with you or anyone else for liking it.

You didn't.  I'm saying that I appreciate your approach much more than some others that I've experienced.  "It's God-awful" does sound a bit like an absolute judgment now that you mention it, but I wasn't thinking about that.

[murlough23]

I guess I'm prone to hyperbole at times, too. (I can't claim to know what God thinks is awful. According to the movie Dogma, the sound of God's voice would make my head a splode.)

[bloop]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LzW9O40OLw

Wow.

[NinjaRob17]

I'll take five!

[murlough23]

Listening to this again, I'm picking up a couple songs that do seem to have intriguing substance underneath the weirdness, and I can see myself becoming acclimated to it enough that I don't regard it as complete and utter crap, but I'll be honest, I don't see myself ever loving this record. There are still long segments of it that irritate the shit out of me. I don't dislike the weirdness on principle or anything (quite the opposite, actually - I like weirdness more in theory than in practice), but I need it anchored to some sense of having a point. Otherwise it just feels like goofing around in the studio, and that in and of itself has never been something that excites me. It makes for curious B-sides at best. (I realize that's exactly what makes this record exciting and different to others - we're just dealing with different axioms in terms of what we think music is supposed to accomplish, and that's fine.)

[bloop]

I see what you're saying, but I don't know that I agree in that I think it is anchored to a point.  A few themes emerge here as well as any other record of theirs, and the jazz influence is definitely welcome.

[murlough23]

I see what you're saying, but I don't know that I agree in that I think it is anchored to a point.  A few themes emerge here as well as any other record of theirs, and the jazz influence is definitely welcome.

I think the record as a whole has a point. A lot of the in-between tracks strike me as filler that goes nowhere, though - just an experiment for the sake of the experiment. Not that they didn't do this on previous records as well - that tendency just didn't run as rampant. ("The Wizard Turns On..." and "Approaching Pavonis Mons by Balloon" are good examples of pointless farting around on previous albums; I thought each could have been better, but still happen to enjoy those more on a musical level than most of the instrumental tracks here, or the vocal tracks that focus more on a repeating mantra than a complete set of lyrics.)

I'm not sure that I know how to pick out the jazz influence from the psychedelic weirdness. I suspect it's the latter that is where I think they're overdoing it. If I've got to go back and get a thorough education on the jazz greats just to enjoy this, though, then that's an awfully high entry point to set, even for a person who enjoyed their previous work. I'm not saying that it's a bad idea for me to explore that stuff, but it's a lot of work, and it would be somewhat elitist to say, "You have no place to assign a rating to this album until you've listened to the complete works of Miles Davis" or whatever. A genre exercise by a band not previously known for dabbling in that genre should still be able to be evaluated on its own merits without a heavy load of prerequisite courses - maybe some of the band's own previous work as a minimum reference point.

I mean, I didn't have to go back and listen to the Pixies to get Radiohead or anything.

[bloop]

Even their intermissions are leading somewhere (and give time to think about what came before as a bonus).  Thematically, it's a pretty heavy, even dark record.

I mean, I didn't have to go back and listen to the Pixies to get Radiohead or anything.

Well, you don't need the Pixies to appreciate Radiohead, but they are definitely of such a quality that they are worth listening to in their own right.  Same with Miles Davis.  I wouldn't recommend listening to anything if the only goal and expectation is to understand something current.

[murlough23]

Even their intermissions are leading somewhere (and give time to think about what came before as a bonus).

I have a pause button. I'll use that if I need time to think.

Thematically, it's a pretty heavy, even dark record.

I don't have a problem with that. They're always pondering existential quandaries and the possible heat death of the universe and whatever, so it's not like I'm not used to that sort of thing.

Well, you don't need the Pixies to appreciate Radiohead, but they are definitely of such a quality that they are worth listening to in their own right.  Same with Miles Davis.  I wouldn't recommend listening to anything if the only goal and expectation is to understand something current.

I guess I brought this up because I was expecting something like, "Well, idiot, it's clearly influenced by all of this cool classic music that you've never heard, so maybe if you go back and listen to that, you'll know what you're talking about."

If that's not a requirement to get The Flaming Lips, that's cool, but it seems to me that a lot of folks are praising the band for referencing certain jazz influences, which implies that their response is somewhat subjective to people who happen to like jazz. I don't dislike jazz, but I've never really gotten into the genre.

[bloop]

I have a pause button. I'll use that if I need time to think.

Ugh.  No thanks.

If that's not a requirement to get The Flaming Lips, that's cool, but it seems to me that a lot of folks are praising the band for referencing certain jazz influences, which implies that their response is somewhat subjective to people who happen to like jazz. I don't dislike jazz, but I've never really gotten into the genre.

Well, it is, after all, based on a pretty controversial movement in jazz.  Not even every jazz connoisseur recognizes the brilliance that is Bitches Brew, either (not saying that Embryonic is quite that good, but still).

[murlough23]

Ugh.  No thanks.

I'm just trying to say that a band doesn't need to waste time with background music that is intended to make me think about another piece of music that came before it. I can take an album at the pace I need to take it without their hand-holding. I can play it all the way through in one sitting, I can listen to one disc at a time, or even a few tracks at a time, etc. I'm not an idiot. There has to be a better explanation for the interludes than "It's there to justify some other piece of music that you obviously didn't understand and now need to think about more deeply." It doesn't even strike me as intended to be background music or just a throwaway or whatever. It just seems to me to be the result of various experiments that never got fully fleshed out beyond, "Hey, that jam session was fun, let's throw some extra layers of noise at it and then put it on the record."

But then there are a fair share of full-length tracks that also strike me as not really going much of anywhere.

Well, it is, after all, based on a pretty controversial movement in jazz.  Not even every jazz connoisseur recognizes the brilliance that is Bitches Brew, either (not saying that Embryonic is quite that good, but still).

And I'm not saying I'm informed enough to consider myself a "connoisseur", either, but since it's clear that you can dislike said Miles Davis classic and still be considered one, it stands to reason that there are logical reasons to dislike Embryonic.

NP: "All Our Memories", Edison Glass

[bloop]

"It's there to justify some other piece of music that you obviously didn't understand and now need to think about more deeply."

As I said, they make sense where they are driving at something in themselves, and they conjure certain images that fit well with the theme for me.  No, I haven't taken up LSD.

And I'm not saying I'm informed enough to consider myself a "connoisseur", either, but since it's clear that you can dislike said Miles Davis classic and still be considered one, it stands to reason that there are logical reasons to dislike Embryonic.

I said nothing of these people being logical.   

[murlough23]

As I said, they make sense where they are driving at something in themselves, and they conjure certain images that fit well with the theme for me.  No, I haven't taken up LSD.

The band probably has. 

But I know what you're saying. Music can induce vivid flights of imagination without needing to have any drugs involved. I often love the more creative artists in my collection for exactly this reason. But this is a very subjective reaction. The same song that makes me imagine a snowy day on an exotic beach on Mars might just put the next guy to sleep.

I said nothing of these people being logical.   

At the very least, it means that if I'm crazy, I'm not the only one.

[bloop]

I think they intended to conjure images without spelling out what those images should be specifically.  I think any number of them would share some traits in common, though.

It is common knowledge that the Lips experimented with drugs, btw.  I think they quit at some point, but I'm not entirely sure - they may have toned it down without quitting.

[murlough23]

I think they intended to conjure images without spelling out what those images should be specifically.  I think any number of them would share some traits in common, though.

And while the ability of a band to provoke such imagery in the listener's mind is commendable, it's still subjective to the way the listener's mind works. Some people just don't approach music visually.

It is common knowledge that the Lips experimented with drugs, btw.  I think they quit at some point, but I'm not entirely sure - they may have toned it down without quitting.

I figured that wasn't some sort of major revelation. But such a thing will generally push me one step farther away from being able to relate.

[bloop]

And while the ability of a band to provoke such imagery in the listener's mind is commendable, it's still subjective to the way the listener's mind works. Some people just don't approach music visually.

I don't know how one can reasonably blame the band for the limitations of some individuals.

[murlough23]

I don't know how one can reasonably blame the band for the limitations of some individuals.

I'm not blaming the band. I'm explaining why the reasons for my reactions are different from the reasons for yours. the band of course hopes we all react positively, and they could probably never hope to relate to everyone, but if I'm not relating and not enjoying the listening experience, I have to be honest about that.

[bloop]

I now have two Embryonic lithographs, one of them signed and/or scribbled on by the band (yes, possibly while high  ).