If you are interested, click on the title of this post and it'll lead you to NPR's list of the 50 most important recordings of the '00s or noughties or whatever we're supposed to call this decade that's wrapping up. A strange, fascinating decade it was, from which ever lens you choose to view it through: politics, technology, culture, sports, and of course music.
The decade has seen the decline of what was supposed to be the be-all-end-all format for music: the CD. I remember when CD's first came out. They were supposed to be indestructable--if you took care of them of course. The sound was supposed to be crystal clear--but then people started to realize that when things become crystal clear, a certain richness is lost. Oh yes, they were expensive. How I remember going into Musicland in the Carl Sandburg Mall in Galesburg, IL and having to lay down $20 for a CD. I think I payed around $24 for the White Album, back in the days when buying a CD meant getting a whole lot of extra cardboard packaging. I ended up having to return it because the package contained two Disc Ones and no Disc Two. Oddly enough, I have since lost one of the discs of the White Album. I wonder if it was Disc One, because I sure could use one of those two copies I once had!
But thing changed, as things have a tendency of doing. There is no Musicland anymore, to my knowledge. Not many record stores, period. Fewer and fewer people buy CD's and the industry is struggling for it. Digital sales aren't yet making up for the difference and piracy continues to be an issue. What will the '10s (what are we supposed to call this decade!) look like for the music industry? Streaming seems to be the future, but who the hell knows? Nobody really saw the total collapse of the CD. I'm still convinced the industry will be okay and maybe even better in the long run for indie artists.
It seems like more music than ever came out during this past decade. Bands are everywhere! The rise of Pro Tools has made it easier for bands to take the crappy music they previously played exclusively in their garages and put it down in recorded form, whether anyone asked them or not! So there's plenty to choose from, some good within the loads and loads of crap. Most of it now comes to us via word of mouth rather than traditional ways, who are some of the other victims of the first decade of the 2000s: major record labels, music mags, mainstream radio (RIP, oh you relics of the 20th Century!!!).
And it just seems like there's more variety than ever before. I haven't done this, but I'd venture a guess that if you put up the most important music of the '90s up next to the most important music of the '00s, you'd see a stark contrast. I read somewhere that as time goes on, music just keeps splintering further and further. Is it the result of the decline of the industry? Is it because people are looking for niche music rather than mainstream fluff? Not that mainstream fluff has gone, nor should necessarily, go away--even it has its purpose. Has hipster culture grown so much that there has to be a constant supply of music that so-and-so only knows about, but is sooo much better than what we, the normals, listen to? My answer to every single one of these questions is: I don't know!
But nonetheless, there was a whole lot of great music released this past decade. I've heard and own many of the albums on the various lists, and some are just so ingrained in us that we may not realize that we know these albums, but we actually can't help but know them! I'm not going to make a list of the decade. I'm having a hard enough time with my best of '09 list. Take on the decade? Nope. But I will give you a few of the albums that were with me quite a lot and/or impacted me greatly during this opening decade of the 21st Century. In no particular order:
Radiohead, Kid A
Wasn't this actually released in '99? I feel like I was still in college when it came out, but I could be wrong. And maybe it's counted as being a part of the '00s because of carry over from '99 to '00? Regardless, it was and remains a classic. It's the album that got me into Radiohead. I had been a fan of The Bends, and of course OK Computer, but something with Kid A just clicked. It was the perfect mixing of electronic and rock music. Thom Yorke in ethereal, emotional top form--backed by sonic richness and just amazing SOUND! I can't tell you how many times I played this one when it first came out.
Bob Dylan, Love and Theft
It's weird how your view of an artist changes as you yourself age and/or the artist him/herself ages. Dylan's music had been all around ever since I remember being aware of music, but it was almost a cliche. Nasally Bob could write a great song, but man he was one awful singer! I couldn't get into it. I loved '60s rock, from a very young age, but I would have gladly taken the versions of Dylan's songs by The Byrds, Hendrix, and the many others, over Bob's. As I got a little older though, I began to appreciate it. I bought all three Greatest Hits records and then '01 rolls around and croaking ol' Bob releases Love and Theft--and I really get it. The songs are somehow just right for his worn out voice. They are songs of an aging troubadour. They are songs of a traveller who's got more travelling to do before his day is done. If Woody Guthrie would have made it to old age, I have a feeling his music would have sounded something like this. The songwriting is still amazing, the band is incredible, and I actually enjoy Bob's voice. Personally I think it's purposeful and just right for the songs.
Wilco, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
This is the album that got me into Wilco and I haven't looked back since. This is an album of texture, experimentation, brilliant songwriting. The album is one their record company, Reprise, famously saw as a failure and thus refused to release, but now is near universally lauded as a must-have of the decade (It was released by Nonesuch Records after Wilco left Reprise). The four song sequence of "Jesus Etc", "Ashes of American Flags", "Heavy Metal Drummer", and "I'm the Man Who Loves You", may very well be among the top few best sequences of songs of any album I've heard. The album was the last with master experimenter, the late Jay Bennett (who died this past year), who was quite often at odds with front man, Jeff Tweedy. Great album cover as well: Chicago's Marina City towers, the corn cob-esque structures that sit on the Chicago River. I know I'm not the only one that refers to them now as: The Wilco Buildings.
Gillian Welch, Time (The Revelator)
This is one of the few albums that I've bought twice. I had it downloaded on a different computer, but that computer crashed, taking with it, most of my downloaded music, including Time (The Revelator). I guess you'd qualify this as country music, but it doesn't fit into the Taylor Swift, Tim McGraw, Rascal Flatts vision of country that is predominant today. It's more in the vein of classic country: Patsy Cline, Hank Williams, etc. But then again, it's not a relic at all. And it doesn't quite fit into any of the sub-genres of country music. Folk? Maybe. Whatever it is, Welch's voice is captivating with every brilliant note and lyric. Her voice is at once heartbreaking, rich with life, other-worldly, part of the past, fore-runner of the future, and the thing of pleasant dreams. It's one of those albums I'd probably buy again if I had to!
Those are probably my main favorites of the past decade--at least the one's that had the greatest impact on my CD player/computer--however the songs may have reached my ears. Here's a few more that were in heavy rotation for me in the noughties. Don't consider this a comprehensive list by any means. Just a few of my personal favorites:
Arcade Fire, Funeral
MGMT, Oracular Spectacular
Spoon, Kill the Moonlight/Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga
O Brother Where Art Thou Soundtrack
OutKast, Stankonia
Sufjan Stevens, Come on Feel the Illinoise!
White Stripes--any and all!
Bright Eyes--also pretty much any and all!
Flaming Lips--Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots
Fleet Foxes--Ragged Wood
Like I said, not even close to being a comprehensive list. I'll probably remember quite a few more that I forgot to put on the list. What did you have blaring out of your headphones, car radio, stereo/computer speakers during the past decade?
Next up for The Hidden Chord--a look back at the best albums and songs of 2009. Also I'll mention a couple movies and top music news stories of the year. Sigh! It's a project, let me tell you!
Showing posts with label wilco. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wilco. Show all posts
Friday, December 11, 2009
Friday, November 21, 2008
To Innovate or To Emulate?
A question I've always pondered in all things in life, most certainly applies directly to music as well. Are there any truly original ideas left in the world? Is everything just an imitation of something that came before?
Ironically, this blog idea is not mine. Thanks again, Mike. I'm not sure how many original ideas I have within me. I've learned to surround myself with people who do, though, so I guess it works out all right for me.
I've heard this debate within several spheres of life. There are people within the art world who say that there is no where left to go when it comes to painting. That would be a sad thing, but is there really a limit to what you can do with color, shape, form, and intricacy when it comes to paint on canvas? I'm no expert in this field, so I can't say. Maybe no one can until the next innovator comes along to refute that assumption.
So since this is a music blog, what about music? I once read a songwriting book that quoted one of the Gallagher brothers of Oasis, who said that there is a finite number of notes and chords that one can effectively use in popular music. He basically said everything had already been done, which explains the direction that Oasis has decided to go with their music. They are blatent emulators.
I don't really agree with this assumption. I think it is challenging to be innovative within pop music, but it doesn't mean it can't or doesn't happen. But then again, what's wrong with emulation anyway? There is a certain comfort in familiarity. Bob Dylan started his career basically emulating Woody Guthrie in every single way. Dylan didn't stick with this for long, though. Some make quite a career off of emulating what was done before. Dr. Dog, a band I've blogged about in the past, sounds like they were pulled straight out of the '60s rock scene. They do it well, though. But too much emulation can be a bit tiresome. But on the other hand, too much innovation can too. You don't want to lose your audience by going off the deep end, thank you very much Plastic Ono Band!!!
So what to do then? What are the pros and cons for both sides of the debate? How does one successfully do a little of each (which is probably the formula for success after all)? Let's look at both sides, shall we?
,
Innovation
On most accounts, it's hard to argue against innovation. Inventors aren't usually scolded for the ideas they put into practice. Who are the biggest innovators in today's music scene?
Number one has to be Radiohead. I can't think of anyone who has done more in terms of successful experimentation and innovation. Early on in their career, they were kind of your basic, good mid-'90s alt-rock band. But along comes a little album by the name of "OK Computer" and you can forever drop "run-of-the-mill" as an adjective for Radiohead. And they've continued to push the limits with albums like "Kid A" and "In Rainbows". Their use of electronics and "sound" in general is amazing.
Other innovators that come to mind at least right this moment are Joanna Newsom, Beck, Sufjan Stevens, Saul Williams, and to some degree, Wilco (although they tend to fit in both categories).
But like anything in life, there tends to be a downside to innovation. There is a line between being innovative and experimental and being just plain crappy. Think concept albums. A lot don't work out too well.
I think the problem is when someone thinks they're being innovative, but really are just messing around and fail miserably. You can't fault artists for experimenting, it comes with the territory of being an artist. I think success sometimes brings a whole lot of ego, which leads to grand ideas of what the artist thinks he/she is capable of. Sometimes fans will go along for the ride, sometimes they won't. Remember when country icon Garth Brooks decided to create an alter-ego who sang bad pop songs? Country fans were confused, pop music fans were confused, and most everyone was generally disgusted. I guess you can't fault the guy for trying, but there's a fine line between being an innovator and being horrible. For some, the best thing to do is stick to what they are good at.
Emmulation
Which then brings us to the idea of emulation. I'm going to start with the downside of it. It's no mystery why artists try to emulate the greats. They were great. But given the choice between listening to a knock-off version of The Beatles or The Beatles themselves, it doesn't take a genius to know who most would choose.
For example, there is this band that I saw in Austin called The Explorer's Club. They are a good band, but it doesn't take long to realize that they are blatently ripping off The Beach Boys. They put on a fun show, but I really don't care to buy any of their music.
From an artist's point of you, wouldn't you get tired of emulating someone else's art? I mean, I suppose there is a market for someone who can make exact replicas of Piccaso's and Monet's, but is it fulfilling? Don't you want to explore what you are capable of?
Ok, so it's pretty easy to find the downside of emmulating another artist. So what about the upside?
There is a definite comfort in familiarity (although the old saying does say, "Familiarity breeds contempt). It's fun to hear something and say, "Yeah, I like this, I've heard something like it before". It's kind of like unravelling a mystery. Who did you rip off?
But "rip off" is too strong. Some bands are incredible because they obviously draw upon past influences, but somehow make it sound fresh. One of my favorite bands of all time, as I've said here, is The Band. If you listen to their music, you hear about every imaginable influence conceivable, from early rock and roll, to country, to R & B, to Tin Pan Alley. You can hear it all. But at the same time, when you hear it, you know you are listening to The Band's sound.
I kind of feel the same way about Bright Eyes/Conor Oberst. You've heard this type of music before, definitely, but he manages to put his own spin on it (at least most of the time).
The first time I heard "The Underdog" by Spoon, I thought I was hearing a rarely heard track by Thin Lizzy. But once I knew it was Spoon, it was kind of like, "Ohhhh, ok, Spoon". I hear it now.
The Best of Both Worlds
I'm going to make a slightly disappointing conclusion by saying a mix of both innovation and emmulation is necessary. But like most things in life, the truth is found somewhere in the middle ground.
Let's say for example, I invent a word called, "crangigulous". Obviously, just because I invented a new word, doesn't mean I'm an innovator. The way I would become an innovator in this example, is by either convincing people that this is an incredible word that they should be using in every day life to express profound emotions and somehow having them accept that, or by creating a suitable context for this word to fit into. The latter is probably more reasonable, as what is a word without context anyway? As it is, in creating this word, I'm using a basic knowledge of the English language. "Crangigulous" would probably be an adjective because of its "ous" ending, such as "ambiguous", or "ambitious". So in a way, I'm emulating what I already know (which isn't a lot, considering I've spelled "emulate" a few different ways as you may have noticed). The trick would be taking some random keystrokes, like "alueouohfoiawhfkhd" and finding a way for that to work. Then I'd be among the truest of the true innovators.
But I don't think that type of world exists. People need context. What makes the really great innovators of today's music truly innovative, is that they take risks and try new things in the fairly narrow field of pop/rock/indie music. Instead of branching off completely, they are simply adding to the lineage built before them. "Odelay" is one of the most innovative albums of the past 25 years, but there's really nothing new there. Beck managed to take all sorts of elements and meld them together into something original. It's kind of Frankenstein monster-ish. Making new out of the old.
To me it's not necessarily creating something previously unheard of, it's creating something with the pieces you have in a way that has never been thought of. I don't know if a truly new form of popular music is even possible. Maybe it is, but we won't know until we see it. So I guess the only thing we can hope for is for true artists to keep creating and see what happens.
Ironically, this blog idea is not mine. Thanks again, Mike. I'm not sure how many original ideas I have within me. I've learned to surround myself with people who do, though, so I guess it works out all right for me.
I've heard this debate within several spheres of life. There are people within the art world who say that there is no where left to go when it comes to painting. That would be a sad thing, but is there really a limit to what you can do with color, shape, form, and intricacy when it comes to paint on canvas? I'm no expert in this field, so I can't say. Maybe no one can until the next innovator comes along to refute that assumption.
So since this is a music blog, what about music? I once read a songwriting book that quoted one of the Gallagher brothers of Oasis, who said that there is a finite number of notes and chords that one can effectively use in popular music. He basically said everything had already been done, which explains the direction that Oasis has decided to go with their music. They are blatent emulators.
I don't really agree with this assumption. I think it is challenging to be innovative within pop music, but it doesn't mean it can't or doesn't happen. But then again, what's wrong with emulation anyway? There is a certain comfort in familiarity. Bob Dylan started his career basically emulating Woody Guthrie in every single way. Dylan didn't stick with this for long, though. Some make quite a career off of emulating what was done before. Dr. Dog, a band I've blogged about in the past, sounds like they were pulled straight out of the '60s rock scene. They do it well, though. But too much emulation can be a bit tiresome. But on the other hand, too much innovation can too. You don't want to lose your audience by going off the deep end, thank you very much Plastic Ono Band!!!
So what to do then? What are the pros and cons for both sides of the debate? How does one successfully do a little of each (which is probably the formula for success after all)? Let's look at both sides, shall we?
,
Innovation
On most accounts, it's hard to argue against innovation. Inventors aren't usually scolded for the ideas they put into practice. Who are the biggest innovators in today's music scene?
Number one has to be Radiohead. I can't think of anyone who has done more in terms of successful experimentation and innovation. Early on in their career, they were kind of your basic, good mid-'90s alt-rock band. But along comes a little album by the name of "OK Computer" and you can forever drop "run-of-the-mill" as an adjective for Radiohead. And they've continued to push the limits with albums like "Kid A" and "In Rainbows". Their use of electronics and "sound" in general is amazing.
Other innovators that come to mind at least right this moment are Joanna Newsom, Beck, Sufjan Stevens, Saul Williams, and to some degree, Wilco (although they tend to fit in both categories).
But like anything in life, there tends to be a downside to innovation. There is a line between being innovative and experimental and being just plain crappy. Think concept albums. A lot don't work out too well.
I think the problem is when someone thinks they're being innovative, but really are just messing around and fail miserably. You can't fault artists for experimenting, it comes with the territory of being an artist. I think success sometimes brings a whole lot of ego, which leads to grand ideas of what the artist thinks he/she is capable of. Sometimes fans will go along for the ride, sometimes they won't. Remember when country icon Garth Brooks decided to create an alter-ego who sang bad pop songs? Country fans were confused, pop music fans were confused, and most everyone was generally disgusted. I guess you can't fault the guy for trying, but there's a fine line between being an innovator and being horrible. For some, the best thing to do is stick to what they are good at.
Emmulation
Which then brings us to the idea of emulation. I'm going to start with the downside of it. It's no mystery why artists try to emulate the greats. They were great. But given the choice between listening to a knock-off version of The Beatles or The Beatles themselves, it doesn't take a genius to know who most would choose.
For example, there is this band that I saw in Austin called The Explorer's Club. They are a good band, but it doesn't take long to realize that they are blatently ripping off The Beach Boys. They put on a fun show, but I really don't care to buy any of their music.
From an artist's point of you, wouldn't you get tired of emulating someone else's art? I mean, I suppose there is a market for someone who can make exact replicas of Piccaso's and Monet's, but is it fulfilling? Don't you want to explore what you are capable of?
Ok, so it's pretty easy to find the downside of emmulating another artist. So what about the upside?
There is a definite comfort in familiarity (although the old saying does say, "Familiarity breeds contempt). It's fun to hear something and say, "Yeah, I like this, I've heard something like it before". It's kind of like unravelling a mystery. Who did you rip off?
But "rip off" is too strong. Some bands are incredible because they obviously draw upon past influences, but somehow make it sound fresh. One of my favorite bands of all time, as I've said here, is The Band. If you listen to their music, you hear about every imaginable influence conceivable, from early rock and roll, to country, to R & B, to Tin Pan Alley. You can hear it all. But at the same time, when you hear it, you know you are listening to The Band's sound.
I kind of feel the same way about Bright Eyes/Conor Oberst. You've heard this type of music before, definitely, but he manages to put his own spin on it (at least most of the time).
The first time I heard "The Underdog" by Spoon, I thought I was hearing a rarely heard track by Thin Lizzy. But once I knew it was Spoon, it was kind of like, "Ohhhh, ok, Spoon". I hear it now.
The Best of Both Worlds
I'm going to make a slightly disappointing conclusion by saying a mix of both innovation and emmulation is necessary. But like most things in life, the truth is found somewhere in the middle ground.
Let's say for example, I invent a word called, "crangigulous". Obviously, just because I invented a new word, doesn't mean I'm an innovator. The way I would become an innovator in this example, is by either convincing people that this is an incredible word that they should be using in every day life to express profound emotions and somehow having them accept that, or by creating a suitable context for this word to fit into. The latter is probably more reasonable, as what is a word without context anyway? As it is, in creating this word, I'm using a basic knowledge of the English language. "Crangigulous" would probably be an adjective because of its "ous" ending, such as "ambiguous", or "ambitious". So in a way, I'm emulating what I already know (which isn't a lot, considering I've spelled "emulate" a few different ways as you may have noticed). The trick would be taking some random keystrokes, like "alueouohfoiawhfkhd" and finding a way for that to work. Then I'd be among the truest of the true innovators.
But I don't think that type of world exists. People need context. What makes the really great innovators of today's music truly innovative, is that they take risks and try new things in the fairly narrow field of pop/rock/indie music. Instead of branching off completely, they are simply adding to the lineage built before them. "Odelay" is one of the most innovative albums of the past 25 years, but there's really nothing new there. Beck managed to take all sorts of elements and meld them together into something original. It's kind of Frankenstein monster-ish. Making new out of the old.
To me it's not necessarily creating something previously unheard of, it's creating something with the pieces you have in a way that has never been thought of. I don't know if a truly new form of popular music is even possible. Maybe it is, but we won't know until we see it. So I guess the only thing we can hope for is for true artists to keep creating and see what happens.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
A Sort Of Review Of Wilco @ Lollapalooza
I'm in a forgiving mood tonight. Not that either of the people I was a little upset at even knew, or would even care if they knew I was holding a grudge against them. But nonetheless, I'm cleaning out my karmic closet with these two.
The first is Jim DeRogotis of the Chicago Sun-Times. He and Chicago Tribune rock critic Greg Kot host one of the best radio programs around, called Sound Opinions (NPR). It's billed as the world's only rock and roll talk show and features news, commentary, artist performance/interviews, and other segments as well. It's entertaining and great for music nerds like myself. I had the brilliant idea that I could intern on the program, so I went through the application process, pouring every ounce of love for music and their show into the lengthy application. But no internship for me. Not even an interview! Also, I was upset to learn that Kot and/or DeRogotis (can't remember which, or if it was both) failed to review the excellent Steve Goodman biography by Clay Eals entitled, "Steve Goodman: Facing the Music". So I guess I was holding a grudge against both, but I read the Sun-Times more frequently so DeRogotis got the brunt of my anger. But no more. I read his wrap up piece on Lollapalooza and really liked what he had to say, even though he did pan Dr. Dog. But I wasn't there. Maybe they didn't put on their best show (still check them out!). The guy knows what he's talking about and seems to truly have interesting things to say about music, so I trust his judgment. You are forgiven Jim DeRogotis.
The second forgivee is John Stirratt of Wilco. I had a chance to interview both John and Wilco bandmate, Pat Sansone while I was still in broadcast school. Besides Wilco, they are in a mellow, '70s California rock-styled band called The Autumn Defense. As a huge fan of Wilco, I was thrilled to get this opportunity. I had seen their show the night before and was primed for the interview. But only Pat Sansone showed, as apparently John Stirratt was too tired to do the interview. I took it as a bit of a slight. Who's really going to care if you don't show up to a podcast interview conducted by a couple of broadcast school students? That story didn't make Rolling Stone. Pat was extremely gracious and patient with us afterward as we snapped some "I'm with the rock star" photos. Still, I was a bit irked by the situation.
Here's where the "sort of review" comes in, as well as the forgiveness of Mr. Stirratt. I wasn't actually at Wilco's set at Lollapalooza, but through the magic of You Tube, I caught every song. Granted it was out of order, but I still got the idea. The conclusion I came to is that Wilco has to be up there as one of the most versitile, musically tight, entertaining rock and roll bands around. That's really no news flash to many. In fact, even the horribly written Lolla "official program" acknowledged that sometime within the past few years, Wilco has become the best rock and roll band around. And I have always liked them, but in the midst of watching this set, something clicked. At first when you hear them/watch them, you have a tendency to site the many influences. "Oh, there's the Uncle Tupelo country influence. There's the experimentalism. There's the '70s rock". But after awhile, you realize, it's just Wilco music. Even though each style is quite different from the other, there's a thread of good writing, great playing, and adventure running through the different elements. During last Saturday's set, there's a line Jeff Tweedy sings in the song "Misunderstood" that goes, "You still love rock and roll" and the crowed absolutely erupts. This is rock and roll resurrected. It is exciting, always interesting, and played with skill and passion. How can I remain mad at you, John Stirratt? Just keeping doing what you do and I'll forget all about our past troubles.
I do admit, though, I haven't been able to fully throw my support behind "Sky, Blue, Sky". I like it, don't get me wrong, but it's heavy on the mellow end of the spectrum. I like mellow, but I also like it when Wilco busts out a song like "I'm a Wheel". At the same time, this is Wilco for you. They don't let you get too comfortable with one style. Probably why they have been called by some as the American Radiohead. I wouldn't quite agree with that comparison, beyond the fact that they both are unafraid to experiment. But I get it. It is one of the things that makes Radiohead so interesting as well. It's the "what will they come up with next?" ethic. Which is why even though I'm undecided on "Sky, Blue, Sky", I'll keep coming back.
Did you see the Nudie suits too? The Nudie suit is generally thought of as a country/western deal, but they pull it off. It's fitting too that one of the other great adventurous spirits of music over the past 40 years, Gram Parsons, was also a fan of the bedazzled Nudie suit. Gram Parsons and Jeff Tweedy wear the Nudie suit a little bit differently, though. Gram's had a flaming cross and a marijuana leaf on it, while Tweedy's had one of those waving kitties you see at Chinese restaurants. Gram's may have been slightly more badass, but Tweedy still pulled it off. And anyone who looks comfortable in a red Nudie suit, is cool in my book. My old friend Pat Sansone looked slightly less comfortable, but the dude is an amazing musician, so he could wear backward Kriss Kross era clothes and still be cool in my book as well.
The first is Jim DeRogotis of the Chicago Sun-Times. He and Chicago Tribune rock critic Greg Kot host one of the best radio programs around, called Sound Opinions (NPR). It's billed as the world's only rock and roll talk show and features news, commentary, artist performance/interviews, and other segments as well. It's entertaining and great for music nerds like myself. I had the brilliant idea that I could intern on the program, so I went through the application process, pouring every ounce of love for music and their show into the lengthy application. But no internship for me. Not even an interview! Also, I was upset to learn that Kot and/or DeRogotis (can't remember which, or if it was both) failed to review the excellent Steve Goodman biography by Clay Eals entitled, "Steve Goodman: Facing the Music". So I guess I was holding a grudge against both, but I read the Sun-Times more frequently so DeRogotis got the brunt of my anger. But no more. I read his wrap up piece on Lollapalooza and really liked what he had to say, even though he did pan Dr. Dog. But I wasn't there. Maybe they didn't put on their best show (still check them out!). The guy knows what he's talking about and seems to truly have interesting things to say about music, so I trust his judgment. You are forgiven Jim DeRogotis.
The second forgivee is John Stirratt of Wilco. I had a chance to interview both John and Wilco bandmate, Pat Sansone while I was still in broadcast school. Besides Wilco, they are in a mellow, '70s California rock-styled band called The Autumn Defense. As a huge fan of Wilco, I was thrilled to get this opportunity. I had seen their show the night before and was primed for the interview. But only Pat Sansone showed, as apparently John Stirratt was too tired to do the interview. I took it as a bit of a slight. Who's really going to care if you don't show up to a podcast interview conducted by a couple of broadcast school students? That story didn't make Rolling Stone. Pat was extremely gracious and patient with us afterward as we snapped some "I'm with the rock star" photos. Still, I was a bit irked by the situation.
Here's where the "sort of review" comes in, as well as the forgiveness of Mr. Stirratt. I wasn't actually at Wilco's set at Lollapalooza, but through the magic of You Tube, I caught every song. Granted it was out of order, but I still got the idea. The conclusion I came to is that Wilco has to be up there as one of the most versitile, musically tight, entertaining rock and roll bands around. That's really no news flash to many. In fact, even the horribly written Lolla "official program" acknowledged that sometime within the past few years, Wilco has become the best rock and roll band around. And I have always liked them, but in the midst of watching this set, something clicked. At first when you hear them/watch them, you have a tendency to site the many influences. "Oh, there's the Uncle Tupelo country influence. There's the experimentalism. There's the '70s rock". But after awhile, you realize, it's just Wilco music. Even though each style is quite different from the other, there's a thread of good writing, great playing, and adventure running through the different elements. During last Saturday's set, there's a line Jeff Tweedy sings in the song "Misunderstood" that goes, "You still love rock and roll" and the crowed absolutely erupts. This is rock and roll resurrected. It is exciting, always interesting, and played with skill and passion. How can I remain mad at you, John Stirratt? Just keeping doing what you do and I'll forget all about our past troubles.
I do admit, though, I haven't been able to fully throw my support behind "Sky, Blue, Sky". I like it, don't get me wrong, but it's heavy on the mellow end of the spectrum. I like mellow, but I also like it when Wilco busts out a song like "I'm a Wheel". At the same time, this is Wilco for you. They don't let you get too comfortable with one style. Probably why they have been called by some as the American Radiohead. I wouldn't quite agree with that comparison, beyond the fact that they both are unafraid to experiment. But I get it. It is one of the things that makes Radiohead so interesting as well. It's the "what will they come up with next?" ethic. Which is why even though I'm undecided on "Sky, Blue, Sky", I'll keep coming back.
Did you see the Nudie suits too? The Nudie suit is generally thought of as a country/western deal, but they pull it off. It's fitting too that one of the other great adventurous spirits of music over the past 40 years, Gram Parsons, was also a fan of the bedazzled Nudie suit. Gram Parsons and Jeff Tweedy wear the Nudie suit a little bit differently, though. Gram's had a flaming cross and a marijuana leaf on it, while Tweedy's had one of those waving kitties you see at Chinese restaurants. Gram's may have been slightly more badass, but Tweedy still pulled it off. And anyone who looks comfortable in a red Nudie suit, is cool in my book. My old friend Pat Sansone looked slightly less comfortable, but the dude is an amazing musician, so he could wear backward Kriss Kross era clothes and still be cool in my book as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
