February 1, 2012

I Listened to the Lana Del Rey Album

I am taking the side that says this is a fatally flawed album, fascinating though it can be. Here are some more thoughts:

- While I hold to my previous impression of it, “Video Games” is indeed the best song on the album. It’s focused and evocative where much of Born to Die is a slapdash grab-bag of signifiers—one of the few that can be said to be about more than just, well, being Lana Del Rey. It’s also one of her most straightforward vocal turns, which is telling.

- On several tracks, she seems to be confusing jumbled wordiness for the kind of half-rap sass Beyoncé and Rihanna do so well. Is this supposed to be the ‘gangster’ part of her persona? Her vocal style is too slurred and manic to handle such rapid rhythms.

- ‘Trip-hop’ or ‘future cosmetics commercial?’

- She has a flair for stringing together some truly awkward lines. “Off to the Races” and “Lolita” are nearly unlistenable in this respect. Also, rhyming is more important than she thinks it is.

- Even more grating than her words are the way she modulates the timbre of her voice from verse to verse, line to line, and sometimes word to word. Everything from nasal-Stevie-Nicks drone to hiccuping-smurf giggle. She pouts behind the beat until she’s audibly out of breath half way through a phrase, which is not pleasant to hear.

- Not that it matters much, but these songs don’t hang together as an album very well. The sequencing is senseless and haphazard. It’s also about 20 minutes too long.

- The dubious ‘authenticity’ of her persona doesn’t bother me, and in fact I suspect it’s not what’s actually bothering a lot of people who grouse about it. Born to Die’s few clear-headed moments hint at a grand-scale tragedy of American dreaming, of messy, ignoble people wanting more than anything to be magically lifted out and given the kind of sparkly, beautiful new lives they’ve seen on TV, but knowing deep down they’ll never get it. On paper it could be the foundation for a Great American Novel. Here, though, I see it as a problem of execution. The bullet point images of smalltown bad girls, James Dean-ish hearthrob dudes, mid-century Americana, aspirational Hollywood glamor, etc. come so fast and smooshed together that it scans as subterfuge. Maybe we as consumers of music are just so used to incredibly well-executed pop personae that an alarm goes off the minute we encounter a not-so-well-done one. In other words: it’s not that she’s fake, it’s that she’s just not very good.


----- Comments | 6 Notes

January 30, 2012

----- Comments | 47 Notes

January 26, 2012

jakec asked: "I have to ask you something," the young girl sent over gchat. Reflexively he opened a new tab and clicked the bookmarked link to quickmeme, thoughts racing as to which template would be most appropriate to respond with, but then he got another message. "Serious question." His fingers went limp. His expression sobered. His inner Good Guy Greg took over.

Jake C., everyone! (Who hopefully doesn’t mind me posting this publicly.)

My esteemed colleague Loni The Linguist also responded to my complaint thusly:

since you can’t read body language or hear the tone of someone’s voice in digital culture, these are the cues we have to work with

Right, and that friction of intent (combined with the potential for anonymity) is the seed of all trolling, snarking, and asshat-ery online. People can be jerks in real life too, of course, but what troubles me is the way that internet conversations seem to be spiraling toward sarcasm (or irony or meme-ness or whatever you call it) as the default attitude. Our troubled hero Greg is the perfect example: only when forewarned of a serious question does he pocket his cleverness and pay attention. Don’t get me wrong—I love clever gifs/air-quoting/all that and I think people like me just need to lighten up sometimes—but in many cases I sense the kind of one-upsmanship at work where people aren’t ‘listening’ to each other so much as waiting for their chance to make a really ripping comment. Digital culture often seems predicated on speaking (or perhaps shouting), not being spoken to, and I think that’s a dangerous attitude for people to get used to.

Anyway, enough Sean Telling People How To Be for one day. Who needs a drink?

----- Comments | 4 Notes

There is something fatally wrong with digital culture when a person who is asking another person a genuine question has to preface his/her genuineness—“Serious question,” “Not loaded…really interested,” etc.—before it can feel like a real conversation is happening.


----- Comments | 8 Notes

January 25, 2012

The Shins - “Simple Song”

When a no-longer-topical band comes out with a good new song, it forces us to throw our cards on the table and cop to our core values. Some people call it the Tyranny of the New, others call it Relevance, and many more (me?) don’t call it anything but still behave according to its principles. A few years ago when I started DJing at friends’ parties and such, I had a rule that anything between 1 and, oh, 7-10 years old was off-limits. You either play brand new (“relevant”) songs or you play songs old enough to carry an acknowledgement of age (“nostalgia”). Anything from that self-imposed dead zone felt stale and chewed-up, old enough for everyone to be bored with it but not old enough to trigger strong memories. As a DJ (or, for the sake of the argument, any public consumer of music) it would make you seem dorky and out-of-touch, not cool enough to be familiar with culture’s cutting edge the way you’re supposed to be. I’m not as strict about adhering to my dumb rule anymore, but I think I still do it on a subconscious level because, quite frankly, it works. I also suspect I’m not alone.

The funny thing is, even when you’re not choosing or performing your taste publicly, this same idea can govern the way you think about new music. In 2004, a once-moderately-hyped indie pop quartet called The Shins had a Moment. It was such a Moment, in fact, that most writers (including me, it seems) can’t review their subsequent work without mentioning it. You know how Christian Bale’s Patrick Bateman does more actual music criticism in American Pyscho talking about Phil Collins and Huey Lewis than John Cusack’s record store-owning Rob Gordon does in all of High Fidelity, but no one notices because of, y’know, the serial killer stuff? To me, the Natalie Portman Effect sorta works the same way. Her Garden State character’s dictim that The Shins will “change your life” is so absurdly nullifying, so hilariously sweeping that it cemented The Shins’ legacy before most people even heard them. It’s an anti-critical endorsement that continues to trump any critical endorsement one could give. (Thank goodness for Chutes Too Narrow, right?) Because the Moment was so big for an indie act—a Hollywood starlet in a successful motion picture endorsing the most prominently-featured band on its wildly popular soundtrack—the explosion of attention around The Shins had the adverse effect of freezing them in time in the public consciousness. No matter how much (or how little) music they’ve put out since, they are 2003-4 all the way down.

But James Mercer hasn’t done himself many favors in this realm, either. It’s been almost five years since the last Shins album—a fact that could probably banish them to has-been status by itself—and with news that he’d summarily fired the rest of the band and started over with a fresh crop of backing players, the idea of a new record has started to seem messy and a little desperate. (Not to mention…irrelevant?) “Despite the drastic changes to the musical landscape over the last half-decade, there’s still room for tracks like ‘Simple Song’,” concluded Larry Fitzmaurice in his BNMing track review. And though they were characteristically divided on its quality, the gang of critics at The Singles Jukebox also found themselves frequently hearkening back to the band’s past. This isn’t just a case of evaluating a song within the context of a band’s career, it’s an acknowledgment that The Shins’ shelf life has extended beyond their 15 minutes. The subtitle on the TSJ entry is “Remember 2003?,” as if that were the only year anyone ever listened to this band. You can hardly blame them, of course, but it does make this track seem ill-fated right out of the gate, no?

I like to think that some of “Simple Song“s anthemic qualities—the “Baba O’Riley” windmilling, the spine-chilling background melody that ascends the scale with tenuous urgency—are there as markers of hope, trying to convince your ears that The Shins, such as they are, still have enough spark and vitality to be a presence in the lives (if not the culture) of people in 2012. Whether or not you buy it depends on your relationship with their past, I suppose, but it’s worth noting that Mercer has remained fairly true to his musical self. His sense of melody, always scraping at the upper edges of his range, remains as simultaneously meticulous and delicate as ever, confirming that at least in the abstract sense he couldn’t write a not-catchy tune if he tried. “Simple Song” is recorded as a lithe pop ditty, too, the guitars never overwhelming the rhythm section’s sense of balance, even as they lead to and stomp all over those downbeats. It’s true that Mercer has neither the charisma nor the cojones to be a convincing rock frontman—he’s too boyish and wistful—but that’s why we’re fortunate his new attempt at power-pop still emphasizes pop over power. We don’t have to strain to accept a contrived performance.

Either The Shins are aware of this dubious sense of modesty or (far more likely) it’s intentionally built in. Mercer’s always tended toward knotty lyrics that hinge on, um, unusual images, but here he tones down some of the fancier flights and offers what may be his first straightforward love song. “Well this is just a simple song to say what you done,” he begins, in thrall to a woman who has apparently made him a much happier person, “I told you ‘bout all those fears, and away they did run—you sure must be strong!” I suppose there’s some eye-rolling linkage to be found here between Mercer’s saved-by-a-girl revels and the plot of the film that boosted his tax bracket, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking this isn’t a near-universal trope in popular music. And anyway, the more compelling lines come when he turns from her to face us directly. “I know that things can really get rough when you go it alone,” goes the chorus, offering encouragement through its sympathy. “Don’t go thinking you gotta be tough.” This isn’t exactly groundbreaking advice to get from a vulnerable-sounding singer, but it’s sage wisdom nonetheless. By the end of “Simple Song,” it seems Mercer’s learned his lesson, too: “Love’s such a delicate thing that we do, with nothing to prove.” And as he shouts out his new-found sense of assurance—maybe in love or maybe just in his band’s place in the world—what can we do but cheer him on?


----- Comments | 8 Notes

January 24, 2012

I have no idea what these songs are supposed to be about. The lyrics are superficially indecipherable. There’s one track (‘Powa’) where Garbus briefly and convincingly sings like Robert Plant. There’s another track (‘You Yes You’) where she repeatedly screeches the phrase “What’s that about?” and it might be the single most grating musical moment of 2011.
-

Or, you could like, listen closer and think. It’s not that hard. I like Klosterman, but no music writer is ever anywhere near good when s/he tries to parse why others like an artist without doing the actual messy ethnographic work, or (much worse) to be a sportswriter/political wonk and predict an artist’s legacy. (via marathonpacks)

I have no idea how I am supposed to take a piece seriously when it contains the sentence, “I’m not really in a position to argue for (or against) the merits of tUnE-yArDs, simply because I’ve barely listened to w h o k i l l.” (via thirtydollarproject)

He’s doing it to establish a ‘non-partisan’ air so his ‘friendly advice’ seems more sincere I guess.

(I think TBH an experienced music critic should be able to get quite a lot out of something on first listen and maybe articulate it usefully. I don’t think that’s what Klosterman’s doing.)

—-

What’s so lame about this piece is that it’s Klosterman’s way of doing for music crit what cable TV pundit-hacks do for political commentary: substituting poll-number commentary for actual critique of ideas, substituting inane speculation for informed opinion. It’s clearly one of those quota-filling posts that he coughed out in a couple hours. (via marathonpacks)

Yaassss!!! Join me! Disliking Klosterman gets lonely. We even have similar tastes, but the way he writies about things makes me question what I like. (Edited to add my special Chuck Klosterman tag) (via lastbutnotleast)

There are people who like Klosterman?  (Never forget.)

I do not particularly like Klosterman. And this is something of a shit sandwich of a piece. But, it’s sort of girded by whitebread slices of truth… (er, that metaphor got away from me).

He’s clearly adopting a faux-naive critical stance as a rhetorical gesture

I’m guessing this doesn’t mean much to more than (maybe) 10,000 people in the entire country. In fact, if you effortlessly understood 100 percent of this article’s opening sentence, you can probably skip the rest of the piece.

And then his conclusion actually seems like the truth to me, at least.

It’s possible that she’s an authentic genius, and that w h o k i l l will mark the “breakthrough” beginning of a major career punctuated by intermittent moments of meaningful innovation. She could end up like James Murphy or Cat Power. But it’s just as possible — in fact, more possible — that this will not happen. She will probably just make a bunch more albums of varying quality, none of which will get the collective adoration of w h o k i l l. And then Garbus will end up with this bizarre 40-year-old life, where her singular claim to fame will be future people saying things like, “Hey, remember that one winter when we all thought tUnE-yArDs was supposed to be brilliant?”

Granted, it’s not hard to predict things when your prediction is Either this thing will happen or the rough opposite of it will happen, but his thoughts about the fickleness and transience of indie taste-making seem very true to me. The frou-frou about The Strokes’ ten year anniversary, for example. If The Strokes have to scrape and claw for respect in ten years’ time, you really think Tune-Yards is going to be a slam dunk?

But, still, yes, ultimately, Chuck Klosterman is a prevaricating loser. (via bmichael)

The way Tumblr formats these things is tough to parse out (this one paragraph is me, Sean/Popcorn Noises) but suffice it to say I agree with all of this and the Klosterman piece is a terrible excuse for ‘criticism.’ His argument is a muddled cocktail of ignorance and arrogance—I didn’t really listen to it, but I don’t get it, so obviously no one will even take it seriously a year from now—and has little to do with the perils of “critical adoration.” (Also, isn’t the point of a critics’ poll to reflect the taste of critics? Why get all snide about something “10,000 people in the entire country” care about as if Pazz & Jop were the Peoples’ Choice Awards?) I dislike Klosterman a little more every time I read something he’s written about music and I’m reblogging it here for posterity so I never forget.

(via bmichael)

----- Comments | 50 Notes

January 19, 2012

Anonymous asked: when the top 2011 albums post will arrive? :P

Oh, about three weeks ago.

----- Comments | 1 Notes
Powered by Tumblr · Design by wctaiwan