I'm just not that big a fan of Wilco. Cool band name! It's the band itself, I'm not too crazy about. I mean, don't get me wrong - I respect their musicianship, and their standing! You can't have too many prominent bands flying the standard for the Quality-Rock genre. "Qual-Rock." Whatever you might call that. But it's their music I'm not really too sweet on. I could take it or leave it. In practice, mostly leave it, I guess.
Who's the main guy, Jeff Tweedy? From Uncle Tupelo, right? What a shitty fucking band name that was. "Uncle Tupelo." Shit. Well I guess I owe Wilco a great debt of love if I never have to hear about another album from Uncle Fucking Tupelo. Lord what a weak band name. You'd be better off calling your band We're Actually Fags. Not that there's anything suggestively homosexual about Uncle Tupelo! And who cares if there is (or was)? Seriously - people who get upset about things like that, they're just sad relics of a bygone and benighted mindset. I have no axe to grind on the human sexuality tip! I was just trying to pick an egregiously weak band name, and I accidentally settled on one with some potentially offensive overtones - or I should say, offensive to some. Offensive to those who get offended at what their shadow might be doing behind their back. So whatever. Sue me. Okay fine, I'll come up with a more neutral bad band name example: "Lord what a weak band name. You'd be better off calling your band Pretentious Hicks."
Actually, the other one was better. Marginally.
Anyhow, Wilco. I'll say this, that main guy (Tweedy) - I like the look of him. He's got a real classic cut-of-the-jib for a Qual-Rock frontman. Very much the look of someone who could easily have been in "The Band." By the way, I'm not too fucking crazy about that band name either, let me tell you. Underplay creativity much?
But yeah, Tweedy. He looks the part. Those angular jowls.
So anyway: Wilco. In my next Wilco installment, I will be doing an in-depth review of some of their music. I'm sure it'll be fine. I'm just not that big a fan, is all. But I'm sure it will be fine. One time, I almost bought an album of theirs - it was a live album, and I believe members of the Young Fresh Fellows guested on it, and they covered my favorite Young Fresh Fellows song ("I'm Not Bitter"), and I almost got the album, just for that. But in the end, I didn't. I just...it didn't seem worth it, to wade through all that Wilco just for that.
Not that Wilco is bad! Hell no. They're pretty justly respected for their place in the firmament. If they didn't do what they're doing, who else could do it? Who else would do it? Nobody, that's who!
I don't want anybody to go distorting my stance on Wilco, here. I'm sick of people taking what I say, and twisting it.
Who's the main guy, Jeff Tweedy? From Uncle Tupelo, right? What a shitty fucking band name that was. "Uncle Tupelo." Shit. Well I guess I owe Wilco a great debt of love if I never have to hear about another album from Uncle Fucking Tupelo. Lord what a weak band name. You'd be better off calling your band We're Actually Fags. Not that there's anything suggestively homosexual about Uncle Tupelo! And who cares if there is (or was)? Seriously - people who get upset about things like that, they're just sad relics of a bygone and benighted mindset. I have no axe to grind on the human sexuality tip! I was just trying to pick an egregiously weak band name, and I accidentally settled on one with some potentially offensive overtones - or I should say, offensive to some. Offensive to those who get offended at what their shadow might be doing behind their back. So whatever. Sue me. Okay fine, I'll come up with a more neutral bad band name example: "Lord what a weak band name. You'd be better off calling your band Pretentious Hicks."
Actually, the other one was better. Marginally.
Anyhow, Wilco. I'll say this, that main guy (Tweedy) - I like the look of him. He's got a real classic cut-of-the-jib for a Qual-Rock frontman. Very much the look of someone who could easily have been in "The Band." By the way, I'm not too fucking crazy about that band name either, let me tell you. Underplay creativity much?
But yeah, Tweedy. He looks the part. Those angular jowls.
So anyway: Wilco. In my next Wilco installment, I will be doing an in-depth review of some of their music. I'm sure it'll be fine. I'm just not that big a fan, is all. But I'm sure it will be fine. One time, I almost bought an album of theirs - it was a live album, and I believe members of the Young Fresh Fellows guested on it, and they covered my favorite Young Fresh Fellows song ("I'm Not Bitter"), and I almost got the album, just for that. But in the end, I didn't. I just...it didn't seem worth it, to wade through all that Wilco just for that.
Not that Wilco is bad! Hell no. They're pretty justly respected for their place in the firmament. If they didn't do what they're doing, who else could do it? Who else would do it? Nobody, that's who!
I don't want anybody to go distorting my stance on Wilco, here. I'm sick of people taking what I say, and twisting it.
Comments
There. I stood up for them. :)
And now I feel really old.
Thanks, Dogimo. Thanks.
But good job standing up for the ones you love. Always!!!
Hey, just be thankful I didn't do another article about these bands!
I'm always a threat to drop an in-depth article on a bunch of bands nobody ever heard of.
"If this is what passes for a radical change in the CH community, I shudder to think what some of you'd make of the new album if it really did take off in the style of Wilco's 'YHF' or 'A Ghost is Born'. ...
with a big, fat cry-from-the-back-of-the-room of "WILCO SUCK!"
But I didn't.
Now, "suck" is probably a bit harsh, but the more people try to tell me how great something is, the more it just niggles at me when, for me, it just ain't that special.
Stay tuned for Part Two...
The Success of The Beach Boys: What's Up With That?
Maybe you can get away with dissing these American bands, but you've really got to watch what you say about The Beatles.
They're pleasant enough listening in the background of a road trip soundtrack, and I've certainly heard several of their albums more than once that way. A previous girlfriend liked 'em.
They just haven't grabbed me. Part of the fallout from them not having grabbing me is that I'm afraid I can't name for you a specific song, to single out for not-grabby-ness. They all pretty much not-grabbed-me equally.
One of the albums was definitely A Ghost Is Born; the other two would have been earlier than that. Plus assorted additional other songs thrown in.
My theory in bands is: there are a ton of them. I try to give everything a fair shake as I come across it, but when I do come across it, it's going to be up to the band's music to grab me by the lapels - if they don't, OK, no hard feelings either way!
But it's cool! Plenty of people whose musical opinion I respect like 'em. I'm sure they don't need my additional endorsement!
Animal Collective for me is a band I have no desire to listen to, even though all the critics rave. I have no doubt that if I immersed myself in it I would get more than I did from the cursory listening experience, but honestly I think they are just silly.
Obviously music is a very subjective thing, but what you said about it not catching you struck a chord with my own experience. Each Wilco album took many listens through to appreciate in its fullness. The live album is a good one to try because their material is more fully realized live. In fact, if you ever get a chance to see them live, you should take a chance. Their live shows are legendary.
If I'm honest, I must admit that for me musical complexity comes second, and is not necessarily a selling point. Lyrically of course, a song can be as intricate as the songwriter likes! But musically, I tend to prefer a certain forceful simplicity. I like strong hooks, front-and-center melodicism, and arrangements that are arresting and uncluttered.
Now if the song itself is strong, then I don't mind intricacy on top of it. And really, intricacy, experimentalism or complexity won't hurt the song - but it's generally not a selling point, either. It's more just something I get used to, and like because it is part of the song I like. I'm not anti-complexity by any means, nor anti-experimental. It all depends on what's being explored. But more important than anything - is the song.
That's how it is for me at least!
I do remember one particular Wilco song that was quite long, with a lot of long, quiet parts and atmospherics. And then suddenly about 2/3rds in there was a positively thrilling rock raucous stomp section! And I wished, wished: couldn't they have recut the whole thing down to about 4 minutes tops, and hung the whole song on that scorch and stomp? And I'd have loved it!
But of course I can't be serious with such a wish. I don't want them to change what they're after, certainly not for me! They need to follow their muse, and be true to it. What I'm after as a listener is not what they're after exploring as artists. And that's fine, and sincerely: bless 'em and their efforts.
I remember when I grew up, listening to some early Beatles records with my mom, and I remember thinking, what's the big deal, these guys are lame. It wasn't until college when I got into their catalog, and read about their history, that they grabbed me. For years prior, I thought of them as something I wouldn't get into. Help and I Saw Her Standing There, seemed trite. Hey Jude seemed like another cheesy ballad. When I just glossed over those few singles, I made assumptions about the band. They really surprised me, however.
Honestly, I don't really have any particular assumptions about Wilco. I've heard a few albums, and a lot of talk about the band. I have respect for them, that is based on the high place they have in the opinions of people who I respect. That's about the sum total of my impression of Wilco.
I'm trying to explain myself a bit here, because I don't know if this makes sense or not (except to me). People appreciate music different ways. Some music fans enjoy the hunt, enjoy sleuthing, unearthing and working to appreciate, and for them the bands they get into sound all the sweeter for the time they put in discovering their virtues. I don't enjoy that aspect. It's not value-added to me.
Now, I do love music! I get a good 40% of my joy from music, easy. And I'll go to a show just because I love to go to a show, even if I've never heard of the band before. Or I'll buy a CD comepletely-unheard, based on a recommendation. I love getting into new music! But I will not work to get into a band. I refuse to make an effort to like music. I am opposed to the idea. A band, given the chance, has got to knock me out.
I cannot justify making an effort - or else, once I start to say I need to investigate bands that "deserve" it, I have just made music a chore in my life. Suddenly I'm setting myself a lifetime homework assignment to ferret out and get into bands. For others maybe this work is worth it for what they get out. For me, I suspect that any music I have to make an effort to like, I will never fully enjoy. It's the summer reading list effect. I don't want to spoil my appreciation for what I could have appreciated, if I'd let it take its course a different time or in a different setting. I'd rather let the band woo me at their own pace.
Because if a band doesn't knock me out first time, that doesn't mean they lost their chance! It just means the time was not right. Every band in the world has a standing invitation to knock my socks off at any time.
I fully suspect Wilco will get their crack at me via a concert at some point. But anyway, I'm just a guy! No band needs to sweat my absence from their fanbase! Especially a band with so many devoted fans as Wilco.