Burlap to Cashmere - s/t

[RedcoatJones]

Album's out today, and their website has five songs from the album streaming as a preview: B2C Music Player.

On a quick listen, they don't seem to have dropped a beat from the late 90's. Good mix of upbeat, Mediterranean influenced songs with folk-tinged ballads. Will need to take time to see of the lyrics have matured, though. As much as I loved "Anybody Out There" as a teen, I listened to it recently and cringed at some of the obvious CCM-type lyrics.

[murlough23]

On a quick listen, they don't seem to have dropped a beat from the late 90's.

That was my impression upon seeing them live. I don't even need the streaming preview; I'm already sold and will be going to iTunes to get this momentarily.

[murlough23]

...and my first listen confirms it: This record is FREAKING AMAZING. Lots of intricate guitar solos and playing around in uncommon time, but beyond the flashy stuff, the lyrics are more literate (and yes, definitely less CCM-ey than Anybody Out There?, though to be fair, that was only isolated to a few specific tracks on that album to begin with), and the vocal harmonies are impeccable.

I'm quite surprised that they adapted "Seasons" as a full band track - that was my favorite of Steven's solo songs, and it comes through more or less intact here (minus some programming, plus some live band stuff, maybe a few other tweaks to the chord progression and so forth). In general, I feel like this album is a fusion of the stuff that worked best for B2C as a band, and the stuff that worked best for Steven as a solo performer. I get a lot of late 90's nostalgia listening to this, but also a heavy dose of the elated, otherworldly feelings I experience when Me Died Blue first started sinking in during the summer of '03.

Really, my only complaint here is the short runtime - and since a lot tends to happen within a short period of time in the average Burlap to Cashmere song, that's not really a major issue. I wouldn't have minded a song or two where they opened up a bit and just jammed for a few minutes (the longest track here is a mere 4 minutes), but I guess that's what seeing them live is for. (They're one of the few bands that I think sounds even better live than they already do on record, and that's saying a lot.)

Look out, Fleet Foxes. You've got some heavy competition for my #1 spot at the end of the year.

[RedcoatJones]

I'm with you on this one. I've just finished up my first spin through the whole album, and it is beautiful. If there's any justice in the music world, they'll be able to take advantage of the appetite for folk-based music out there right now and gain the audience they deserve.

Agree, too, that the lyrics and words are more poetic. Steven has really grown as a songwriter during his solo years. I also love how natural and organic the album feels. Just amazing guitar work, singing, some percussion and a smattering of piano/keyboards.

[ewok20t3]

I pre-ordered it from amazon. I really hope it gets here soon.

[Aaron]

I downloaded the Burlap album. I'd pay if I could!

[bloop]

It's on the Spotify, too, but I had issues streaming a few tracks. First impression is very favorable, and I don't see that changing much.

Is this really out on Jive records? Wow, how . . . incongruous. It's also quite short, which almost begs an argument to start by merely mentioning that, but the album is very good regardless.

[murlough23]

It's also quite short, which almost begs an argument to start by merely mentioning that, but the album is very good regardless.

I mentioned it as being a slight drawback. Sheer runtime is generally less of an issue for me than the number of distinct ideas present. I'm hearing a lot going on musically, and sometimes I do wish it would last longer (a few of these songs are fertile ground for Johnny Philippidis's ridiculous acoustic solos), but if they're gonna have three minute songs, I'm glad none of that time is getting wasted. They probably realized at what point they'd be starting to get redundant, and truncated the songs there to keep things fresh.

The best contrast is probably Eisley's newest, which has the same number of songs and about the same runtime, but is woefully short on distinct ideas or musical innovation, at least in comparison to what I thought of their first two records (and the second was already a slip from the quality of their first).

Burlap's first disc had twelve songs and several of them ran a bit longer, but the drawback on that record (other than the occasional CCM-ey lyrics) was that the pacing was off. Big fun jam, ballad, big fun jam, ballad, etc. It made me take a while to fully appreciate the ballads (I don't think it was until Me Died Blue that I went back and realized how much I loved "Chop Chop", "Eileen's Song", etc.)

[bloop]

I can be consistent here and say this is an album, and not a "glorified EP", even though we "waited" 13 years(!) for 37 minutes (almost on the nose) of music, where one song that lasts nearly 4 minutes of its runtime isn't even new, mostly because I know what an EP is. 

I like this one a lot, too, though, and I'll be the last person you'll hear dogging it for that. I rather like this version of "Seasons".

[bloop]

Sheer runtime is generally less of an issue for me than the number of distinct ideas present.

Just wondering, do you know the work of Wire?

^good album, btw. 21 songs in 37 minutes! This is the very model of concise record-making.

[murlough23]

I can be consistent here and say this is an album, and not a "glorified EP", even though we "waited" 13 years(!) for 37 minutes (almost on the nose) of music, where one song that lasts nearly 4 minutes of its runtime isn't even new, mostly because I know what an EP is. 

If you don't want to start the argument again, then stop the baiting.

I rather like this version of "Seasons".

I prefer the original, actually.

[bloop]

If you don't want to start the argument again, then stop the baiting.

The argument makes me think about my own criteria at the same time as I'm still thinking about where others fall.

I prefer the original, actually.

IDK, I kind of like the more varied vocal inflection on this one, but I haven't listened to the original in a while. If this is the case with you, though, I don't see how this could possibly challenge Fleet Foxes at the top.

[murlough23]

The argument makes me think about my own criteria at the same time as I'm still thinking about where others fall.

Yeah, the raspberry smiley and the fact that you regurgitated every single point made during that discussion made this really obvious. 

You can have a ton of songs or a really long album and still have it be crap, of course. Having more gives you some leeway to still have a really good album if a few of the songs fail to connect; having less puts more pressure on each song (each movement, whatever components the music is broken down into) to really prove itself worthy of being there. Is it certainly possible to go the other way and have your album be bloated and long-winded to the point of utter tedium, and I understand why a lot of bands try to trim the fat to avoid this. In terms of how I tend to respond as a listener, I'm generally more forgiving when there are a lot of good songs to pull from a longer list even if some of the rest of 'em stink, than when the list is short and what's there isn't even all that consistent. I like the thought than upon listening more deeply to some of that stuff buried farther in that maybe I started to tune out before I got to it the first few times, there's the potential to still discover some hidden gems.

If this is the case with you, though, I don't see how this could possibly challenge Fleet Foxes at the top.

It's a matter of small degrees. Since it's my absolute favorite Delopoulos solo song, I'll admit I have some attachment to the arrangement. Only slight tweaks were made, so it's really not a big deal. I'm glad the song will get exposure to a wider audience either way. Which version is objectively better isn't really worth quibbling over. It's an excellent song in either set of clothes. They'd have to try really hard to make it suck.

As good as the Foxes album is, it has one or two songs that I'm sort of "meh" about (more forgivable when it's two out of twelve rather than two out of ten); I can't say that about any of the B2C songs thus far, but we'll see if future listens change that at all.

[bloop]

Yeah, the raspberry smiley and the fact that you regurgitated every single point made during that discussion made this really obvious.  

Yeah, because all my thoughts are being communicated or even can come across on a message board.  

I probably was more forgiving of a more bloated approach (the Smashing Pumpkins were my first real "favorite band" after all), but I may now be more appreciative of concise musical statements. It seems that's what a fair number of artists seem to be trending toward. Heck, even the Smashing Pumpkins have been going with a series of EPs (none of which are too great, but what can you do?) The idea of an album slowly unfolding for the listener is intriguing to me, however many songs it has.

I started appreciating this particular album a great deal the first time I listened to it, so I could probably grade it and add it right now if I wanted to and it wouldn't change much - it probably doesn't have a lot of growing to do. Others seem almost willfully difficult, but reveal themselves as winners over time. Yeah, I probably generally prefer the latter long-term.

I still don't really understand you beyond a very basic level, and I doubt I ever will, but I guess I don't have to in order to be fair to the artists and their work.

[murlough23]

Yeah, because all my thoughts are being communicated or even can come across on a message board.  

My point is that you were making a really lame excuse to cover for the very obvious and specific dredging up of an old argument that I've asked you on more than one occasion to stop dredging up, for the exact reason that you can't seem to discuss it without taking a sideswipe at me every chance you get. I don't know why you keep insisting on doing this; it strikes me as rather sociopathic, quite honestly. I called you on it, and now you're trying to cover your ass, and I'm not buying it.

That said, I'm fine with discussing the more general issue of album length, or even what constitutes an album in the first place, but let's not turn this into another argument about Radiohead. I'm done with that particular discussion.

I probably was more forgiving of a more bloated approach (the Smashing Pumpkins were my first real "favorite band" after all), but I may now be more appreciative of concise musical statements. It seems that's what a fair number of artists seem to be trending toward.

I've noticed this trend, too, but then I've noticed others going against the grain, not wanting to be constrained by what fits on a physical CD, and finding other ways around it (double albums, or even stuff that doesn't get a physical release). It seems like modern music in general, even the disposable pop singles whose companion albums are starting to seem more and more like afterthoughts, is questioning the standard notion of what makes "an album", or whether it's even necessary. Academically speaking, I think this is interesting, but the part of me that enjoys getting experienced in a good full-length listening experience is kind of bummed with having to cobble together various listening experiences in a piecemeal fashion to get the same amount of enjoyment from music.

Heck, even the Smashing Pumpkins have been going with a series of EPs (none of which are too great, but what can you do?)

I think I can forgive almost any length if the music is good, honestly. Bad EPs strung together (or more songs tacked on from the same sessions to meet some sort of length requirement for an LP) would still make a bad album. That's subjective, of course, but with something that's called an EP from the get-go, there's more of an expectation that it's just a loose collection of ideas with no intention of overall unity, so I can be a little more understanding when the material varies in quality. (Though even this isn't always the case - EPs have been released that hang together as a thematic hole, or that fit into a larger picture as part of a longer-term project.)

The idea of an album slowly unfolding for the listener is intriguing to me, however many songs it has.

I agree. I've been enjoying Sleeping at Last a great deal for that reason, as I enjoyed it with Future of Forestry (though originally, when all I knew was that the one Travel disc was coming out, I was royally pissed that it had only six songs and Eric was calling it "the new album").

Others seem almost willfully difficult, but reveal themselves as winners over time. Yeah, I probably generally prefer the latter long-term.

Sometimes the stuff that took me a lot longer to appreciate becomes my favorite stuff in the long run. This goes as far back as the first Jars of Clay album (loved it immediately, now I think it's mildly overrated) compared to their next two (reactions ranged from mildly intrigued to ready to revoke "favorite band" status at first, now those are two of my favorite records of all time).

I still don't really understand you beyond a very basic level, and I doubt I ever will

I am honestly trying the best I can to communicate what makes me tick without expecting that others should live by those same rules. I can live with being misunderstood, but being misrepresented honestly kind of pisses me off.

but I guess I don't have to in order to be fair to the artists and their work.

And I resent the implication that I'm being unfair.

[bloop]

My point is that you were making a really lame excuse to cover for the very obvious and specific dredging up of an old argument that I've asked you on more than one occasion to stop dredging up, for the exact reason that you can't seem to discuss it without taking a sideswipe at me every chance you get. I don't know why you keep insisting on doing this; it strikes me as rather sociopathic, quite honestly. I called you on it, and now you're trying to cover your ass, and I'm not buying it.

It's sort of the elephant in the room when something like this comes up, but I can see the length of the album being an issue some people have with it from a mile away, not even getting into the band from Oxford's offering.

That said, I'm fine with discussing the more general issue of album length, or even what constitutes an album in the first place, but let's not turn this into another argument about Radiohead. I'm done with that particular discussion.

Any general discussion would have specific implications.

I've noticed this trend, too, but then I've noticed others going against the grain, not wanting to be constrained by what fits on a physical CD, and finding other ways around it (double albums, or even stuff that doesn't get a physical release). It seems like modern music in general, even the disposable pop singles whose companion albums are starting to seem more and more like afterthoughts, is questioning the standard notion of what makes "an album", or whether it's even necessary. Academically speaking, I think this is interesting, but the part of me that enjoys getting experienced in a good full-length listening experience is kind of bummed with having to cobble together various listening experiences in a piecemeal fashion to get the same amount of enjoyment from music.

I miss prog, in general, but it may just not be where I am. Yes just came out with a new album, and it was just in complete stasis for me on first listen.

I think I can forgive almost any length if the music is good, honestly. Bad EPs strung together (or more songs tacked on from the same sessions to meet some sort of length requirement for an LP) would still make a bad album. That's subjective, of course, but with something that's called an EP from the get-go, there's more of an expectation that it's just a loose collection of ideas with no intention of overall unity, so I can be a little more understanding when the material varies in quality. (Though even this isn't always the case - EPs have been released that hang together as a thematic hole, or that fit into a larger picture as part of a longer-term project.)

In SP's case, they sort of just are. I need something more compelling out of them.

I agree. I've been enjoying Sleeping at Last a great deal for that reason, as I enjoyed it with Future of Forestry (though originally, when all I knew was that the one Travel disc was coming out, I was royally pissed that it had only six songs and Eric was calling it "the new album").

Just wondering, were they charging an EP's price for it?

I am honestly trying the best I can to communicate what makes me tick without expecting that others should live by those same rules. I can live with being misunderstood, but being misrepresented honestly kind of pisses me off.

Not the intention.

And I resent the implication that I'm being unfair.

From what I can tell, you're being a little inconsistent, or if you're being consistent, it's not in a way I understand, but that's not the implication I'm making. In other words, it may be beneficial on some level to understand your criteria (or anyone's), but whether or not I "get it" may be irrelevant in terms of continuing to make fair and personally honest judgments about the work of artists.

[murlough23]

It's sort of the elephant in the room when something like this comes up, but I can see the length of the album being the issue some people have with it from a mile away, not even getting into the band from Oxford's offering.

I knew it was going to come up as soon as I dared to heap praise on a relatively short album. I tried to head it off by acknowledging the length as a slight criticism so we wouldn't have to get into it, but it was to no avail.

Any general discussion would have specific inferences.

Perhaps, but it could be discussed without you having to enumerate each and every reason why you've previously mocked my views on the subject.

I miss prog, in general, but it may just not be where I am. Yes just came out with a new album, and it was just in complete stasis for me on first listen.

Prog is an interesting style, but prone to pitfalls due to the typically long song lengths - if there's a short song that you don't like, it's a minor blip on the radar, but a longer one you don't like (or that breaks from something you were enjoying to do something you enjoy considerably less for what seems like a long time - a common problem that I have with a lot of prog rock-type bands) can still take up a good chunk of the album, however long it is. See my criticism of the new Iona album. (You could probably compile the material I like into a trimmed-down "album" that is as long or longer than the standard-length album I'd expect from anyone else, but having that much weak material in between does dilute the effect a bit. But let's say they put out an album that was merely 40-45 minutes long to begin with, and only 50% of the material really did it for me? My criticism would be much harsher.)

Regardless of the style, no length guarantees a good album if the material just isn't there. And that's naturally going to vary from one listener to the next.

In SP's case, they sort of just are. I need something more compelling out of them.

That's be true on a full-length album as well, I suspect. And I'd feel the same.

I think the difference between us is that you're generally fine with a shorter presentation of a band doing what they do well - so long as you enjoy the songs (or the pieces of music or whatever you want to call them), you're not going to feel robbed of anything. I might, however, if I'm used to them doing well rather consistently over longer periods of time on past albums.

Just wondering, were they charging an EP's price for it?

I don't think I knew at the time what they were charging. It turned out to be about $6, or $1 per song, plus what you'd usually expect in tax/shipping, so it was reasonably priced. Still, if it had just been one EP and that was it after enough time in between to have come up with a full-length album, I would have felt like they were slacking off a bit. Since instead they planned to released roughly an album and a half worth of material in a year's time, I ended up realizing I was getting more than I expected from the band. (Though the third installment did come way later than expected, and was mildly disappointing compared to the first two. Still, given the strong content of the first two, they went above and beyond.)

Not the intention.

Just think before you regurgitate points that I've tried to make on the subject in the past, while tacking a mocking smiley onto them. What sort of response do you expect from that? If you kid about something once, and you honestly didn't know it was a sensitive issue for the person, and they explain it to you, then no harm, no foul, but if you know that boundary and continue to overstep it in the future, that's just plain uncool. I don't like having my own thoughts flung back at me, rephrased in such a way that makes them sound as stupid and nonsensical as you obviously seem to think they are.

From what I can tell, you're being a little inconsistent, or if you're being consistent, it's not in a way I understand, but that's not the implication I'm making.

Your usual implication - no wait, forget implication, it's what you usually actually say, is that I'm being "arbitrary". Basically, just changing my mind on a whim, thoughtlessly, just for the hell of it. You can't see how it's bothersome at all to be accused of that? It means that I'm putting little to no thought into the reasoning behind my likes and dislikes. If that were true, I wouldn't bother writing reviews, or having detailed discussions about music with the folks here, because I'd just be one of the mindless masses who fall back on "I just like what I like" without even being able to give it any deeper thought.

I'll grant that I'm probably not being 100% consistent, but I'd argue that none of us are. I think it's possible to be reasonably consistent about our reasons for what we like/dislike, while still leaving some room for the music to challenge us in heavy ways, and make us question why we're responding unfavorably to something we'd normally expect to like (or vice versa).

On this particular issue, though, I think I'm being reasonably consistent. I tend to judge on a song-by-song basis (or whatever you want to call a piece of music that may not be described well by the word "song"). I will take into account the bigger picture, but the higher-concept stuff isn't going to do much for me if I'm not enjoying, say, half of the listening experience.

If there's any apparent inconsistency there, it may have more to do with what makes me like/dislike a particular song when I've claimed elsewhere to have the opposite reaction to something much like it. As this applies to the aforementioned Oxford band, if I loved all eight of the songs, I'd probably still find the length to be a bit of a head-scratcher, but I'd get over it much more easily. I think that'd be true of anyone who released a new album (especially after a long hiatus) that had less content than was normal for them, if the performance wasn't top-notch throughout. If you catch me being inconsistent under those circumstances, feel free to call me on it.

Looking at it mathematically, 3 or 4 songs that I'm so-so about, out of 12, is roughly a third of the listening experience. If I like the rest, that could still be a solid B. But 3 or 4 out of 8 is closer to half of the listening experience. So if that much fails to connect with me, it's gonna be closer to a C. Part of me's gonna wonder, if it's a short listen, why there couldn't be more material to maybe help increase those odds. I'll want to find the reason why they chose to put all of their eggs in fewer baskets, so to speak - usually I figure it's because they had extraordinary confidence in those particular songs.

Maybe you don't break things down song-by-song the way I do. That would certainly be consistent with other discussions we've had, where I've generally focused in on specific favorite songs and you've talked more about the body of work as a whole. That's fine. We're just different that way.

In other words, it may be beneficial on some level to understand your criteria (or anyone's)

I will acknowledge that for any pattern that I think shapes my enjoyment of music, there are going to be aberrations - things that, according to my own "rules", I probably shouldn't like, but like anyway. I don't think this is all that uncommon for any of us, honestly. These aren't strict rules that I follow - just patterns that I notice after the fact and cite when trying to explain my reaction to something. If nothing else, I try to explain it with the hopes that you'll look down on me less. I'm honestly not trying to make you fit those same patterns.

but whether or not I "get it" may be unnecessary for me to make fair judgments about the work of artists.

Whoever said it was? How should I expect my subjective reaction to something to change your view of it? It's possible that it might, if the dialogue about it brings to mind something you hadn't previously considered, but I don't expect that to be a necessary outcome of the discussion, nor is it even really what I'm trying for. I just want to be sure that I'm understood, because if I can't explain myself, then it can look to you like I'm willfully choosing to dislike something that means a lot to you, and for no particular reason.

[bloop]

So if that much fails to connect with me, it's gonna be closer to a C.

I'm just not the type that thinks it needs to basically be nearly all about that as it is pretty arbitrary to me in that it can't even be debated or discussed. You didn't like x, y, and z. OK . . . ?

But, hey, this isn't a zero-sum game. I don't need anyone's band to fail for another band to succeed, and I suspect we agree on the album in the subject line at least.

[murlough23]

I'm just not the type that thinks it needs to basically be nearly all about that as it is pretty arbitrary to me in that it can't even be debated or discussed. You didn't like x, y, and z. OK . . . ?

How is anyone else any different? If you listen to music, and you don't like the majority of what you hear, you're not gonna give it a glowing recommendation. I don't see how this is unreasonable, so long as you're putting some patience and willingness to give the artist the benefit of the doubt into it.

[bloop]

How is anyone else any different? If you listen to music, and you don't like the majority of what you hear, you're not gonna give it a glowing recommendation. I don't see how this is unreasonable, so long as you're putting some patience and willingness to give the artist the benefit of the doubt into it.

Hand me a new album from Justin Bieber, and I'll know at the outset that I'm just not the intended market, but I'll try to meet it on its terms, and assess what I'm hearing in terms of creativity, musicianship, vocal talent, and youthful energy (emphasis probably placed on the latter two, in other words, the things that would make it appealing to the relevant audience). I say this knowing I'm not going to do this perfectly (in Bieber's case, not even close), but I also believe there is a reality that can be discussed, understood, even generally agreed upon.

In other words, my ideal critic gets to the meat of what he's critiquing rather than just enumerating a laundry list of praises/grievances that are really just personal preferences/hangups. After reading a truly great review, I feel I know what the critic feels about the album, sure, but I also feel that I know the album better than I did before reading it.

I'm really tired, so I'm sorry beforehand if I'm not communicating my semi-neo-Platonist philosophy clearly enough.

[murlough23]

Hand me a new album from Justin Bieber, and I'll know at the outset that I'm just not the intended market, but I'll try to meet it on its terms, and assess what I'm hearing in terms of creativity, musicianship, and vocal talent, and and youthful energy (in other words, the things that would make it appealing to the relevant audience). I say this knowing I'm not going to do this perfectly (in Bieber's case, not even close), but I also believe there is a reality that can be discussed, understood, even generally agreed upon.

I'd say previous fans of a band's work would qualify as part of the target audience in most cases. Your reasoning here is irrelevant. It might be relevant if I were critiquing someone like Jay-Z.

I think it's entirely fair to compare an artist's work to past performance. That's all I generally do in such cases where an artist I previously really enjoyed disappoints me in some way. I'm not expecting them to be someone else or to play for a different audience, especially when I came to like them without them ever having to cater to my particular whims in the first place. You want there to be as much quality as past efforts showed, while also growing the artist in some way. If you feel that's not happening, it's understandable to rate the work lower.

And yeah, I said "feel". I don't have any shame in saying that my response to music is based on how I feel about it - at least, not when that feeling is based on trying to get inside it intellectually, understand others' responses to it, have some patience with the things that aren't clicking at first, try to understand why things were done differently than how I might have done them. I honestly try my best to do that in every situation, perhaps save for those horrific cases where the music is so banal that it warrants no deeper investigation (and TKOL isn't one of those by a long shot).

In other words, my ideal critic gets to the meat of what he's critiquing rather than just enumerating a laundry list of praises/grievances that are really just personal preferences/hangups.

You're kidding yourself if you think this can be done 100% impersonally. Otherwise every critic you respect would always agree with each other, and with you (assuming you think this highly of yourself, anyway). We'd all be drones, required to like something - or else, consider what we like and feel to be completely irrelevant, but to heap praise upon it regardless - just because someone else whose logic is respected says so.

And really, you'd just chalk your (presumably) negative reaction to Bieber's music up to personal hangups just because you're not part of the target audience? Doesn't the target audience deserve better in that case? (I don't even know that all of the criteria you cited typically matter to the target audience that makes this stuff so inexplicably popular.)

[Aaron]

album = awesome

[bloop]

I'd say previous fans of a band's work would qualify as part of the target audience in most cases. Your reasoning here is irrelevant. It might be relevant if I were critiquing someone like Jay-Z.

When a band changes subtly to radically as some tend to do, I don't know that it is. While I do have some specific beefs with some of your assertions in your reviews, to the point that I just don't read them as much, we're getting off on a philosophy of art tangent that isn't terribly relevant to the topic, and obviously isn't of interest to anyone but me.

And really, you'd just chalk your (presumably) negative reaction to Bieber's music up to personal hangups just because you're not part of the target audience? Doesn't the target audience deserve better in that case?

There are personal hangups and legitimate criticisms: things that can be pointed to as wrong or inferior and things that I can point to and make no stronger point than it doesn't sit well with me. We must have a thread about about philosophy of art somewhere here.

I don't know that my reaction would be all that negative, btw.

[bloop]

album = awesome

See, we can come to a consensus. 

[murlough23]

When a band changes subtly to radically as some tend to do, I don't know that it is.

Nice try. It wasn't even that radical of a change, and that was actually a factor in some folks' disappointment with it.

While I do have some specific beefs with some of your assertions in your reviews, to the point that I just don't read them as much

If I've made statements of fact that turn out to be incorrect, you're welcome to correct those in the appropriate forum. But if it's just gonna be the same old argument that basically amounts to me not being allowed to feel, then I suppose you're doing the right thing by just skimming on by.

we're getting off on a philosophy of art tangent that isn't terribly relevant to the topic, and obviously isn't of interest to anyone but me.

Yet you keep bringing it up, knowing it will derail any thread in which you put the bait out there. The only conclusion I can come to is that you get a kick out of starting arguments.

There are personal hangups and legitimate criticisms: things that can be pointed to as wrong or inferior and things that I can point to and make no stronger point than it doesn't sit well with me.

Who decides what makes a criticism "legitimate"? It sounds to me like the criticisms you get to make are, conveniently, the legitimate ones, and all else just gets written off as someone else's personal problem.

I don't know that my reaction would be all that negative, btw.

I find it rather amusing that your vaunted higher philosophy puts you in a position of having to admit you like find good logical reasons to critically applaud Justin Bieber.

[Aaron]

See, we can come to a consensus. 

My days of being a wordsmith are over. I used to write review after review in college. Now, I can barely be coherent about why I like certain albums.

[murlough23]

My days of being a wordsmith are over. I used to write review after review in college. Now, I can barely be coherent about why I like certain albums.

You might be better off. It's he who dares to explain, or really to even try to dialogue out loud about, his own reasons for these things who risks getting ridiculed by those who think they've got all the rules figured out.

[bloop]

Nice try. It wasn't even that radical of a change, and that was actually a factor in some folks' disappointment with it.

To say there was no change is false, but they do have their own topic, too.

If I've made statements of fact that turn out to be incorrect, you're welcome to correct those in the appropriate forum. But if it's just gonna be the same old argument that basically amounts to me not being allowed to feel, then I suppose you're doing the right thing by just skimming on by.

My argument has never been that you're not allowed to feel anything, but you probably shouldn't dismiss fan disagreement as a form of cognitive dissonance, either. Or ascribe uncharitable motives to a band or its fans (you may have deleted my example here - I remember I wasn't the only one that was put off by it) that may not be true.

Yet you keep bringing it up, knowing it will derail any thread in which you put the bait out there. The only conclusion I can come to is that you get a kick out of starting arguments.

I didn't see a possible way it wouldn't be brought up in the context of this album.

Who decides what makes a criticism "legitimate"? It sounds to me like the criticisms you get to make are, conveniently, the legitimate ones, and all else just gets written off as someone else's personal problem.

Reason. Think: Is this something that's wrong or just something I don't like?

I find it rather amusing that your vaunted higher philosophy puts you in a position of having to admit you like find good logical reasons to critically applaud Justin Bieber.

No, I haven't listened to any of his albums enough to say whether it's good or bad, but I think I have some concept of what he's going for, and I don't necessarily consider it illegitimate just because it skews younger than I am. I'm hesitant to write it off just because it's "teen pop".

My days of being a wordsmith are over. I used to write review after review in college. Now, I can barely be coherent about why I like certain albums.

I can imagine it could feel like a very reductionist, tiresome activity. I know just assigning a number to an album definitely does.

those who think they've got all the rules figured out.

I do?

[RedcoatJones]

album = awesome

Agree with this as well. I've been spinning it a lot while commuting today (and when the commute lasts almost two hours today, that's several spins through). I was very surprised to see that this was released on jive Jive Records (home of Bullet for My Valentine, Justin Timberlake, etc.). Really hoping they might get a good publicity push. With the success of bands like Avett Brothers and Mumford & Sons, I could see this getting play on AAA or similar stations.

[bloop]

I was very surprised to see that this was released on jive Jive Records (home of Bullet for My Valentine, Justin Timberlake, etc.).

I know, right?

Really hoping they might get a good publicity push.

The bright side!

[murlough23]

To say there was no change is false, but they do have their own topic, too.

The point is that I didn't criticize them for radical change. My statement that their previous fanbase was largely the target audience still stands.

My argument has never been that you're not allowed to feel anything, but you probably shouldn't dismiss fan disagreement as a form of cognitive dissonance, either.

Sorry, but the band has a lot of fanboys/girls who don't make the same effort you or I make to assess things more objectively. That annoys me. I'm not saying you're one of 'em, nor am I saying that fans of my particular favorite bands are exempt from this. (Ever posted on Jarchives? I don't get along well with those folks sometimes, despite all you'd think we have to agree on.)

Or ascribe uncharitable motives to a band or its fans (you may have deleted my example here - I remember I wasn't the only one that was put off by it) that may not be true.

For crying out loud, I wrote that eight years ago and you know my opinion has changed since then. I thought I'd already repented of that one. Good grief, you go back further in time with the admissible evidence in these arguments than my wife does.

I didn't see a possible way it wouldn't be brought up in the context of this album.

I had already brought it up, but without baiting the previous argument (and actually, in the hopes that you wouldn't have to bring it up specifically to ding me on that particular issue AGAIN).

Reason. Think: Is this something that's wrong or just something I don't like?

Wrong? What defines whether it's wrong? I haven't criticized the band in question on moral grounds, so we can't be talking about that kind of wrong. Wrong in the sense of not doing things conventionally, the way "everyone else" does them? That's their bread and butter. I'd never have liked them at all if I were going to criticize them on those grounds.

You really want to tell me that all the criticisms you can articulate, of any artists, are over things that are clearly wrong, rather than just stuff you don't like? I highly doubt that. I'm sure we can think of a few cases where, objectively, an artist just crossed a line they should never have crossed. Or at least they made a factually incorrect claim of some sort. But they'd probably get widespread derision for that, if it was really so obviously wrong. Beyond that, right and wrong are really just a matter of perspective.

No, I haven't listened to any of his albums enough to say whether it's good or bad, but I think I have some concept of what he's going for, and I don't necessarily consider it illegitimate just because it skews younger than I am. I'm hesitant to write it off just because it's "teen pop".

I write it off because the songwriting sucks even in comparison to other teen pop that I've heard. And I don't even think I've heard the cream of that crop. (There are also other issues, like the performance being grating now that he's finally hitting puberty and all, but that might just be me - after all, Hanson never got out of the scratchy phase and they're still going strong.)

I do?

At least enough to object and get very insistent when I don't fall in line with 'em. See the oh-so-vaguely defined criteria of wrongness mentioned above.

[RedcoatJones]

Not to be too snarky (or butt my way into a discussion I have no horse in), but is this a thread on B2C or RH?

We know the battle lines, so let's move on with thoughts, praise, critiques, etc. on an album we have all been upfront in saying we love.

 

[bloop]

^good call

re: Jive, on the other hand, look at all the obscure artists on Jive.

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

Also, while the album is rather immediate, I'd be surprised if it caught on big, but then, I'd be surprised a couple years ago if a band that sounds like Mumford & Sons caught on, too.

Burlap isn't there. I've never edited a wiki article before.

[murlough23]

Not to be too snarky (or butt my way into a discussion I have no horse in), but is this a thread on B2C or RH?

Radiohead is the asymptote that all other threads gradually approach as soon as bloop starts in with the thinly veiled mocking and objectivity B.S.

Please do continue to express your irritation at this. Maybe one day it will stop.

[bloop]

Radiohead is the asymptote that all other threads gradually approach as soon as bloop starts in with the thinly veiled mocking and objectivity B.S.

Please do continue to express your irritation at this. Maybe one day it will stop.

 

[bloop]

Wow - Jive seems to credit them with quite a bit.

But a decade after their split, the band that paved the way for The Avett Brothers and Mumford and Sons...

Is that really true? Have they ever been acknowledged by those two acts? I don't really know, but  there is good reason to hope for this to find a wider audience since the label is making the same connection you did, RCJ.

[RedcoatJones]

Wow - Jive seems to credit them with quite a bit.

Is that really true? Have they ever been acknowledged by those two acts? I don't really know, but  there is good reason to hope for this to find a wider audience since the label is making the same connection you did, RCJ.

Sounds like a PR person really trying to find a tie to two of today's hottest musical acts. (I should know - I am a PR person).

However, I can see fans of those bands liking B2C. I'm not sure if the album has a natural single, though. My guess would be "Seasons" or possible "Build the Wall."

[bloop]

Sounds like a PR person really trying to find a tie to two of today's hottest musical acts. (I should know - I am a PR person).

Yeah, I figured that was the most likely explanation.

Seasons would make the most sense for a single, I think.

[murlough23]

"Paved the way" is being extremely generous. More like "paved a similar road that these other artists neither took, nor knew existed, but that led to a similar destination". I mean, B2C was doing some pretty awesome stuff back in the day, but I don't think their sphere of influence was that wide.

[bloop]

So, basically what RcJ is saying is that he lies for a living.