Astonishing.
Full review to come.
You are currently browsing the archive for the Music category.
I almost want to write two reviews for Clem Snide‘s Hungry Bird: a review for those who haven’t heard of Clem Snide, and one for those listeners who have. Taken as a stand-alone object, Hungry Bird is easily likable, frequently catchy, and often memorable. Taken in context of Clem Snide’s history, assessments of the album’s quality gets a little more difficult.
Clem Snide’s sound is an extremely accessible mix of slick, guitar-based indie-pop and wide-eyed, slightly twangy alt-country. The sounds don’t co-exist; they are combined cohesively into one unit. Eef Barzelay’s weary voice is the reason this is possible; his voice is just as adept at creaking out weary complaints as it is delivering pointed missives. Barzelay’s voice gives the album direction; as the tone of voice goes, so does the song. Tracks like “The Endless Endings” and “Hum” are dependent on Barzelay’s vocal performance to give the track a mood, as the accompaniment is almost mood-neutral.
This is not to say that the songs are bland. The songs are excellently well-written; they allow Barzelay to take center stage. There are tracks that let the instrumentals go before Barzelay (“Pray,” “Burn the Light”), but the musicians are well aware of what they are doing. They do not go blindly anywhere. The band is fine-tuned and producing music at top form. Tracks like “Pray” stick with the listener for much time afterwards, as the track builds upon itself musically and upon one major lyrical theme for three seconds short of eight minutes.
There are catchy songs (“With All My Heart,” “Our Time Will Come”), artsy songs (“Pray,” “The Endless Endings”) and even a spoken-word piece with the band accompanying (“Encounter at 3AM”). It’s a diverse set of songs, yet it retains a mellow feel throughout that isn’t broken up, even with occasional distorted guitars. It’s easy to listen to, and easy to like. If you’re a fan of mellow music, indie-pop, alt-country, or acoustic guitars in general, Hungry Bird is for you.
If you’re a fan of Clem Snide, though, you may think a bit, depending on whether or not you liked End of Love. Hungry Bird is really End of Love, part II; there are some tracks that can be directly correlated to their End of Love predecessor (“Born a Man” is to “God Answers Back,” “Hum” is to “Something Beautiful,” etc), and the entire album feels like a continuation of what was happening on End of Love. I am personally fond of this; I loved End of Love. But if you had qualms with it for some reason, I couldn’t in good conscience recommend you Hungry Bird. The biggest differences are subtle; in fact, one of them is subtlety. One track from End of Love that doesn’t have a comparison is “Weird;” the straight-forward, two-shuffle-four-shuffle drumbeats and twangy guitar pop has no match on the new album.
Barzelay has become much more subtle in his songwriting moods, which translates to a more cohesive album. This does mean that although this is End of Love part II, part II is better than its predecessor in terms of continuity and its albumness.
The second theme explored is a little bit of experimental instrumental contribution. The songwriting isn’t as tight this time, as songs stretch out over five, six and even seven minutes. It’s looser, but it feels confident anyway, and there are few places that it drags. “Pray” is the best example, as the song probably would have been cut at 5:00 on End of Love. But it soldiers on for almost three more minutes in a much more subdued style. “Burn the Light” lets the bassist lead, and he does so for six minutes. It’s neat.
I was excited by Hungry Bird. Despite the occasional deja vu, Eef Barzelay and company have not disappointed. Hungry Bird is beautiful, accessible, pleasing indie-pop that retains a uniquely satisfying songwriting quality.
There are two general schools of criticism: elitism and populism. Elitism is the school that wants art to be as creative as it can be, even at the expense of enjoyment. Populism is the school that wants art to be as enjoyable as it can be, even at the expense of creativity.
When elitists say that something could have been better, they mean that it could have been more creative, had more depth, addressed heavier issues, and generally been “better for you.” When populists say something could have been better, they generally mean it wasn’t very entertaining.
This is interesting, because most art critics in this world are elitists, because many can no longer stand being populist after consuming volumes of bad art as part of their job. Most average people are populist; when they consume art, they do so because they want to be entertained.
This creates a disconnect between the reviews people read and the assessments people make of art. Many people don’t trust movie reviews, because the chasm between elitist critics and populist viewers has reached a breaking point: The Dark Knight, the second-most popular film in history, didn’t get any meaningful Oscar nods. Frost/Nixon, a movie no one saw, got a Best Picture nomination.
The only way to reconnect viewers with reviews is for the reviewer to assess art in a different light. Instead of being purely populist or purely elitist, I strive to review any piece of art on whether or not it accomplished its stated goals.
Dodgeball: a True Underdog Story is not going to be on any lists for greatest film ever. It’s pure, unadulterated camp. It is ridiculous to the nth degree. Yet, it is a great film, because it accomplishes all the goals it set out: it’s side-splittingly funny, thoroughly entertaining, and it made money. Is it a “good” movie in the sense that Hotel Rwanda is a good movie? No. Is it a good movie even in the way that more cerebral comedies like The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou are good? Definitely not. But it is seated squarely in the pantheon of stupid comedies. In addition to being funny, the movie keeps viewers in suspense. The ending is unexpected. The characters are great. The plot moves quickly without languishing in stupid asides. It’s a well-conceived and well-produced film. It’s good, because it accomplishes what it wanted to be. I’d give it an A.
The Science of Sleep is the most elitist film I could possibly imagine. The sets are bizarre, the characters are vague, the plot is nonexistent, and the entire movie may or may not have happened. It’s very pretty, and it’s very creative, in the sense that no one has done it before. But it fails as a piece of movie-making. Even though it is almost 100% creative from a pure creativity standpoint, it doesn’t connect with the viewer. The characters that I am supposed to empathize with fall flat and have no impact. The story, which is supposed to draw me in, left me cold and aloof. The movie, even though it was artsy and inventive, was absolutely terrible. I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.
Now, to a pure elitist, going and suffering through Science of Sleep would be favorable to sitting through Dodgeball. To a populist, there’s no reason to even acknowledge Science of Sleep, because it’s not entertaining.
While the populist’s view is right, it’s right for the wrong reasons. What a film, album, book or any other piece of art attempts to accomplish is the measuring stick by which we need to measure its success or failure. Its chosen genre cannot be measured; the artistic choice was made to place the film squarely in that genre (slasher, stupid comedy, courtroom drama, action flick, psychological thriller, oscar-attention-getter, whatever).
Iron Man can’t be compared as better or worse than School of Rock; they don’t have the same measuring stick. The Royal Tenenbaums and Big Fish can be compared as better or worse than each other; they set out very similar goals, and whether one accomplishes those goals better than the other is where debate and review comes in.
When a film or album accomplishes its goals, it should not be ridiculed for not living up to a standard that “should” be achieved. Garden State could have been a movie about familial reconciliation; Zach Braff’s character could have reconnected with his father and patched things up in a very dysfunctional relationship. But it didn’t. The writers chose it to be a peculiar love story. It is not very helpful to say it should have been a story of familial reconnection; it was not written to be that. I might as well say that America should have chosen John McCain.
Whether or not that would have been better, that is not what happened; I have to evaluate what I physically see with quantifiable systems (you will laugh in this movie, you will cry in this movie, you will think in this movie, you will cheer in this movie). I can not measure a real thing by an imaginary standard (you would have laughed more if this would have happened, you would have cried more if this would have happened).
This is not to say that the critic can not make suggestions of what the artist can do better next time; this is necessary. If a movie failed its goals, I must state why it did so and what the artist can do to make it better. But I can’t give suggestions to make a piece of art that the artist did not want to make. If a man bakes a fabulous cake, it is not helpful to say that he should have made a pie, then give him directions on how to turn his cake into a pie. Not only will the man not do it, it’s physically impossible to turn his cake into a pie at this point. The next thing he makes might be a pie (and, as such, your suggestions may help then), but you can’t recommend that he turn his completed cake into a pie without coming off as a lunatic.
Populists and elitists don’t always occupy their separate camps. Stranger than Fiction was an artsy movie that happened to have Will Ferrell in it; it was enjoyed by a lot of people who don’t usually go to artsy films. Office Space is generally regarded as one of the funniest movies of all time, and it is appreciated by film critics and stoned 7-11 clerks alike. But the goals of those movies were more high-reaching than National Treasure or even That Thing You Do, both movies that accomplished their goals impeccably.
A movie should not be panned simply because it is not the movie the critic wanted to see. If it accomplishes its set goals, it is a good movie. If it does not accomplish its set goals, it is a bad movie (see: Meet the Spartans, Walk the Line, Indiana Jones and the I’m George Lucas and Do Whatever I Want, Star Wars Episode II, The Day after Tomorrow). There are good stupid comedies. There are terrible artsy films. This is how I review things.
This year has been really fragmented for me. After having the last five years totally absorbed by music (via Independent Clauses or various bands I’ve been in), I spent most of this year not doing anything music-related. In the eight months that Independent Clauses was down, I busied myself with other things. Thus, I don’t have enough information to really make an adequate top ten or even top five list of the year’s best. What I do have is a playlist composed of the tracks that I listened to the most in 2008. Some of these tracks are old; some of these came from 2008. “Now” by Mates of State is my favorite track off my favorite album of 2008 (Re-arrange Us). “Sax Rohmer #1″ is a stand-out track from Heretic Pride by the Mountain Goats, another top album of ’08. “Talking in Code” and “Price is Right” take the prize for best overall songs I discovered.
Work Out Your Salvation Through Fear and Trembling: a 2008 retrospective
1. “Brother” by Annuals
2. “The Lining is Silver” by Relient K
3. “You Can Make Him Like You” by The Hold Steady
4. “Story Problem” by the Envy Corps
5. “Now” by Mates of State
6. “Weird” by Clem Snide
7. “Sax Rohmer #1″ by the Mountain Goats
8. “Lovers in Japan/Reign of Love” by Coldplay
9. “Blue Eleanor” by Old Canes
10. “The Swiss Army Romance” by Dashboard Confessional
11. “My Rollercoaster” by Kimya Dawson
12. “Sinaloan Milk Snake Song” by the Mountain Goats
13. “Me and Julio Down by the Schoolyard” by Right Away, Great Captain!
14. “Monster Ballads” by Josh Ritter
15. “Table for Two” by Caedmon’s Call
16. “California Skies” by Novi Split
17. “Talking in Code” by Margot and the Nuclear So & So’s
18. “Makers” by Rocky Votolato
19. “Murder in the City” by Avett Brothers
20. “Price is Right” by Aaron Robinson and the Lost Verses
Directions: Once you’ve been tagged, you have to write a note with 16 random things, shortcomings, facts, habits or goals about you. At the end choose 16 people to be tagged, listing their names and why you chose them. You have to tag the person who tagged you.
1. Collage is my favorite decorating style. For example, I have 73 posters/papers/tickets/set
lists on the walls of my room. I have 40+ bumper stickers on my van. I have a corkboard that I keep meticulously unorganized.
2. Despite this, I am a minimalist. I routinely sell, give away, and donate things that I no longer need. I get anxious if I can’t fit everything I own into my van; it means I am too attached to one place and need to minimize. At this point, I am a little over my desired quantity of stuff: the desk and the couch are liabilities in my quest to take up as little space as possible.
3. The couch is as old as I am. It is about as comfortable to sit on as I am. Regardless, I am deeply attached to it. When you don’t have many things, you are free to form deep emotional attachments to the things you do have. I go a mile deep and an inch wide when it comes to loving things.
4. This distance analogy transfers over to my love of people. I don’t do well with acquaintances. I would much rather have a small number of deep relationships than a large number of friends to party with on the weekends. In fact, it often makes me uncomfortable to know a person for a long period of time in an acquaintance way. If I’ve been friends with you for this long, and we haven’t gotten to know each other in a meaningful way, I am weirded out. Either you are stopping us from being deeper friends like I desire, or I am failing at being a good friend to you. Neither of these are appetizing to me.
5. This is not to say I don’t like parties. Dance parties (formal dancing and techno/rave dancing), birthday parties, random parties, any kind of party. The only kind of parties I don’t like are political parties.
6. I have a firm belief that a man should keep as much of what he earns as possible. I have a similarly firm stance that a man’s conscience, not his government, should tell him what is morally right. The government exists for the stabilization and continuance of the country’s infrastructure; anything beyond paving roads and keeping order (prosecuting murderers, thieves and all others who infringe on others’ rights with their actions) is out of line with the federal government’s reason for existence.
7. I will soon be on those very roads with a new car. It does sadden me that I may be sending the Stephen Carradini Memorial Art Museum and Traveling Exhibit to the great parking lot in the sky, but I’ve been driving the Milk Carton for almost four years now. The Old Lady is a ’94 Aerostar van; she needs her rest. I’m being merciful. In addition to granting the TL Bandvan a much-deserved rest, I need a new car for the internship I have next semester.
8. I will be commuting forty minutes four times a week next semester to work as a part-time copy editor at Tate Publishing in Mustang, OK. I will edit Christian fiction and non-fiction by first-time authors for publication. As this is something I may do full-time at the end of my undergraduate career, this is a very good move.
9. I’m excited about being at a Christian book publishing house because it gives me a foothold in “the industry.” My current dream is to write books of essays (think Blue Like Jazz, Traveling Mercies, Nooma videos, or Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten) that deal with religion, politics, entertainment and their intersections.
10. I am compiling my first book of essays next semester as my Honors Research project. This kills three birds with one stone: I get to graduate with honors in December ’09, I get three more hours out of the way, and I emerge with an edited book ready to be sent off to potential publishers. God willing, I could be published before I even leave college. I hope and pray for that, but I do not expect it.
11. My take on expectations: God gave us desires, and commands us to ask for them in Philippians 4:6-7.
Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
So pray about anything and everything, big and small; all that you want and wish for and hope for. But know this: God delights in giving us the desires that we will use for his glory. As Christians grow to be like Christ, their desires grow to be more and more like Christ’s. As Christ’s goal was the Father’s glory, our goal becomes the Father’s glory. But God’s glory is not an abstract concept; it is the work of reconciliation that God has entrusted to us. The work of reconciliation is not an abstract concept either; it’s how we use our skills and talents to bring people to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. So pray about the things you want, but know that God wants to use those things for his glory. Recognizing that God grants requests for things that he can use to his glory often changes my prayers (and my expectations on those prayers).
12. I pray a lot. If I say that I am praying for you, know that I really truly am. I am not just saying the nice Christian thing.
13. I hold in disdain this model of the “perfect Christian.” There is no such thing. Self-righteous living doesn’t fool me and it certainly doesn’t fool those who don’t know Jesus Christ. It’s much easier to be a part of people’s lives when you don’t have this self-imposed pressure to be perfect. I accidentally said an offensive word during the middle of a speech I was giving to the Econ club last week. They laughed; I was mortified. But I just kept rolling with my speech; I had to. I apologized twice and moved on to the next point. I think we should deal with this life in this manner much more often.
14. The speech was called “Economics and the Music Industry.” I got to give it because I run IndependentClauses.com, an online independent music magazine. I started it because I loved music and I was poor. Both of these things are the same as they were six years ago when I started the ‘zine, although my music interests have changed from primarily pop-punk to predominantly alt-folk. The IC is just restarting after a six-month hiatus. That story is too long to tell here.
15. I love telling stories. My deep love of stories comes from being read to as an infant, toddler and child. I view life as a story; I view bad situations as merely a good story in the making (“when this is all over, this story is going to be awesome!” “yeah, but we might not make it to the ‘when this is all over’ part!”); and there’s nothing that absorbs me more than a good story.
16. Stories have to be interesting; if life is a story, it has to be interesting too. I have a book called “2,001 Things to Do Before You Die,” and it’s my goal to get as many of them done as possible. I love new experiences and reminiscing on old experiences. If you want a sure-fire way to get me excited, suggest that we do something I’ve never done before. It will pull me out of any slump. And I love new things because it reminds me of the unendingly interesting nature of life. That nature reminds me of this: I love life.
Andrew Stephens – because it would be interesting to see what you write.
Anthony Plopper – because I like you.
Brian Burns – because you are in my phone as aaawesomeness.
Carli Lewis – point 5.
Chris Krycho – because he is influential in the existence of points 11 and 12.
Janelle Breeding – cause you’re in half of these, and agree with most of the other ones.
Jason Flack – you’re in here a lot.
Jordan Howard – there’s an x in point 16.
Kasey Carradini – influential in my existence.
Katie Mayes – because you tried to teach me to blow a bubble to fulfill part of point 16. Props.
Laura Bartlett – because you will probably do it, and you and I share point 4.
Matt McCarter – points 1,2, and 3 (sorry bout the uncomfortable couch).
Melody Hollifield – point 11.
Nathan Lauderdale – point 12.
Sarah Mitchell – point 13 is agreed upon.
Shinae Smith – points 13, 15 and 16, amongst the others.
I’m not an early adapter to new technologies. This has something to do with the fact that I’m poor, and partly to do with the fact that the first generation of anything has enough bugs to keep the Orkin Man in business for weeks. With Apple’s ridiculously fast turnover, this pretty much ensures that I never get anything by Apple. By the time it is bug-free enough for me, they’ve already discontinued creation of that item and moved on to a new, buggy item. For example, I still rock the first gen iPod Nano, which now weighs almost as much, if not more, than the 160 gig iPod Touch Video. Somebody called me old-school the other day. I think our history moves too fast if the Nano is old-school.
After a few weeks of procrastinating, I updated to iTunes 8.0. I mostly got this because my best friend said that the Genius feature was worth the time by itself. So I did it, and I started using Genius. To use Genius, you pick one of your songs and turn on Genius. Then the Genius will make a playlist of 25, 50, 75 or 100 songs related to that song. Brian said that it made him feel hip and cool for having such good music picked by someone (something? Most terrifying concept of our time: the Singularity) other than him.
So I plugged in “Good Man” by Josh Ritter. The list was incredible. I went through it, with highlights being Modest Mouse’s “One Chance” and “When the Night Turns Cold” by Tobias Froberg. I plugged in “To Sheila” by the Smashing Pumpkins. It gave me a list of mellow tracks, but also “Honestly” by Zwan (a Corgan project) and a song by the Silversun Pickups (who picked up where the Pumpkins left off).
Today I’m listening to a list based on “Oh Mandy” by the Spinto Band. I’ve got The Killers, The Rapture, Sigur Ros, several Grandaddy songs, Calexico, and one of my favorite tracks of last semester, “Waves of Grain” by Two Gallants. I spent a lot of time biking around in empty parking lots to that song, but that’s another essay.
Also of note is that “To Sheila” and “Good Man” both appear on my “Oh Mandy” playlist. This means I either have very streamlined tastes, or iTunes just slaps my last choices in there because it recognizes that I like them (shortcuts = frowny face on you). Also, the ordering is a bit abrupt sometimes. I just jumped straight from “An Honest Mistake” by the Bravery to “Needle in the Hay” by Elliot Smith; kind of a jarring change. But it does have some really good runs, like “The Yeah Yeah Yeah Song” by the Flaming Lips to “El Caminos in the West” by Grandaddy to “Good Man” to “Poison Oak” by Bright Eyes, back to “The View” by Modest Mouse and up to “An Honest Mistake.” A very good mood swing in there, from upbeat to mellow and back.
So, iTunes 8.0 is actually a good change, even if it is contributing to the arrival of a machine uprising and subsequent human eradication. I’ll be ready with my buckets of water (sizzle sizzle goes the technology).
I have a standing policy that if anyone invites me to a show, I go. It doesn’t matter what band; if I’m invited and I’m not already committed, I’m there. This is because I am no longer a zealous show attendee. I used to go to a show a week. After seeing dozens of shows in the past four years, my zeal for live music has drawn back into step with the rest of my pleasures. I now attend shows at about the same rate I buy albums, go to movies, and attend football/basketball games.
So even though I’d heard only one track by Margot and the Nuclear So & Sos, I went out to the Opolis to meet my friend Elle and take in some live music. I missed the first band, but I heard that Judgment Day consisted of an electric cello, an electric violin and drums. I hope you play around here again soon, Judgment Day. That sounds wonderful.
I did see David Vandervelde play a very passionate southern rock set. His songwriting was full of riffs, and the guitar solos were as plentiful as the shoulder-length hair that adorned two of the three members. His vocals were especially solid, and I especially enjoyed them. The set was was solid but not necessarily something to write home about.
I’d heard that Margot had seven or eight people in the band, but I didn’t really register this until the band and all its equipment (which included a pedal steel guitar, a cellist, and an auxiliary percussionist with a Culligan jug, suitcase and electrical cord spool in tow) crammed onto the stage. It was mighty crowded. There was not much moving on the part of the band, because they would have injured themselves on other band members.
Regardless of the tight quarters, Margot put on quite a show. As would be expected with eight people performing on one song, the songs were complex, lush and cinematic in scope. Even so, the arrangements were surprising and unique. Many of the tracks sounded like a country band consuming Enrico Morricone and washing it down with energy drinks. This is a compliment.
The crowd got into several of the band’s older songs. Head-bobbing, hand-clapping and lots of yelling prevailed. There was even a raucous sing-a-long during “Talking in Code.” The fans so enjoyed the songs from the first album that I bought it earlier today.
The whole thing reminded me a lot of seeing Annuals at the Opolis last year, which I saw under similar circumstances. Annuals also has crazy percussion, loads of people and surprising arrangements. Annuals has a lot more energy and glee towards their music, though. Margot has a much more downtrodden outlook on life. The phrase “I’m tired” was a part of at least two and I think three songs; many of their songs had a darker feel.
Overall, I was grinning ear-to-ear when I left the venue. I’d recommend Margot to fans of Calexico, Joseph Arthur and Annuals. I’d also recommend “Talking in Code” off the album The Dust of Retreat.
Tags: Annuals, Calexico, concerts, David Vandervelde, Enrico Morricone, Joseph Arthur, Judgment Day, Margot and the Nuclear So & Sos, Margot and the Nuclear So and Sos, Opolis
The easiest way to find out what something is to find out what it’s not. This blog is not an mp3 blog, although I will post mp3s that compliment or further the things I am saying. It is not a diary; I’m not going to post things like “I went to the post office today” unless there was some deeper meaning encommpassed in that visit. It is not purely a blog about Christianity, either. It will have a lot to do with my ongoing struggle to “work out my salvation through fear and trembling”, but there will be days that don’t have anything to do with Jesus or God. I daresay that there may be some stuff that wouldn’t usually be on a Christian blog at all.
Instead, I’m going to write essays about my encounters with life. They will have music, they will have God. They will be what they are. I hope that you can take something away from reading. I hope your walk with God is strengthened, and that you are entertained, but mostly that you think. I hope that these essays cause you to think.