So, Fleet Foxes...

rock shite that doesn't really offend anyone and doesn't push any sort of boundaries

why is it important for music to offend anyone and/or push boundaries?

I mean that's some seriously "rockist", received wisdom type of crap about the "purpose" of music

res kind of OTM, RECORDED music should always attempt to push boundaries, live music should instil a fucking mood. and most high-scoring Metacritic albums are kinda shite

RECORDED music should always attempt to push boundaries

but... why? To a certain extent, boundaries are inevitably pushed by technology and the passage of time, no artistic/aesthetic input is really necessary. One could note that the advent of digital technology has "pushed the boundaries" - but one could also argue that its enabling of dynamic range compression has been incredibly detrimental to recorded music in general.

also what are these boundaries... are they aesthetic or technological? (the latter will happen inevitably as I've noted, the former begs the question of who establishes those boundaries and what is the point of their constantly being moved)

aesthetic, dude. technology can help with this but it doesn't have to. i just don't think people should record shit that's already been done.

what qualifies as "already been done" (for example, see memphis minnie vs. Zep "When the Levee Breaks" on the LZ IV poll thread, etc.)

do you only enjoy like 1 album a year then louis?

NO RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

my point is that most people record shit that's "already been done" in one sense or another. Even so, the combination of changes in recording technology and any given artist's personal foibles inevitably make any ostensible "copying" kinda impossible, unless yr talking note-for-note slavish traditionalism like the Squirrel Nut Zippers or Combustible Edison or something. Even then I think there's something to be said for such cases where those kinds of artists help to keep a given thread of musical tradition alive, which can be a virtue in itself.

I think the only real instances where doing something that's "already been done" gets out of hand and inevitably produces unsatisfying results is when you have bands trying to actively ape their contemporaries (like with, say, She Wants Revenge basically doing Interpol) - but in those cases it has more to do with the copier being lazy craftsmen rather than their taking an inherently bad approach. She Wants Revenge might be better than Interpol at their own schtick if they happened to write better songs (which they don't).

What I meant was that high scored records on Metacritic are typically inoffensive and cater to pre-existing notions of what music should be-- which is how so many critics all agree on it-- and great music rarely re-treads old ground. Not saying that everything coming out should warp all your expectations, but originality is a virtue, and music that pleases everyone isn't usually the stuff that greatness is made of. Just my opinion.

pre-existing notions like "music must push boundaries" (just like, say, "Sgt Pepper" or "Kid A" "pushed boundaries"? lolz)

having a pre-existing notion doesn't automatically invalidate it.

anyway as I've gotten older the entire concept of "originality" increasingly seems completely unrealistic/irrelevant to me. Everything is part of a continuity and inevitably has precursors and reference points - an artist being identified as "original" usually just means the listener can't identify who the artist in question is drawing from.

x-post

having a pre-existing notion doesn't automatically invalidate it.

well then why did you refer to it as a negative? also why should music be offensive and who should it offend

originality doesn't mean not drawing on anyone else-- it's more like having a unique quality that impresses itself on you in a positive way and which can't be confused for anyone else.

well then why did you refer to it as a negative? also why should music be offensive and who should it offend

Your rebuttal is creating a straw man that I'm not arguing. It's not the expectations or pre-conceived notions by themselves that are bad. It's when they are applied over a large scale by our interpretation of dozens of critics with different tastes-- and how we look to an averaged score of reviews to assess how good an album is. To me, this implies a middling effect over the large scale.

I would say it's more akin to, say, how mediocre politicians are given frontrunner status because they appeal to the widest demographic of people. This, of course, does not make them the ideal candidates. But over the large scale, the most people liked them.

"also why should music be offensive and who should it offend"

Does It Offend You, Yeah?

(sorry about that)

yeah I don't disagree about metacritic - or that the best albums are actually usually the most polarizing.

x-post

This album is BORING. Where's the songs. I don't give a shit that something has HARMONIES. Fuck that.

Tell me about it. I've grown so weary of reading dozens of Metacritic reviews that gush about the "sparking pop gems" and "gorgeous harmonies" and "lush production" and all this shit, but two weeks later you're like, I DON'T REMEMBER ONE FUCKING SONG ON THAT ALBUM

(that's a general statement, btw-- not directly at this album specifically, but definitely applicable)

nick, to my ears, the e.p. has more dynamic songs. the album is slower and more meditative. i get sick of it after a while. disappointment plays a part. also, i think they sound more like my morning jacket and band of horses than the beach boys

I've never consciously heard either MMJ or Band of Horses (or The Shins either for that matter), so can't judge that at all.

I did hear the album about four days before I heard the EP though, so the EP came across to me as 'more of the same, but without the genius of WWH or Ragged Wood.

our experiences of hearing the two releases are reverse. also, the copy of the e.p. that was given to me had "white winter hymnal" on it. i think all the songs on the e.p. are of that quality. on the album it's by far the standout. this is the most disappointed i've been by the focus and quality of a debut e.p. overshadowing its lackluster full-length follow up since tv on the radio

xposts

anyway as I've gotten older the entire concept of "originality" increasingly seems completely unrealistic/irrelevant to me.

"I can tell that I am growing old; one unequivocal sign is the fact that I find novelty neither interesting nor surprising, perhaps because I see nothing essentially new in it -- it's little more than timid variations on what's already been. When I was young, I was drawn to sunsets, slums, and misfortune; now it is to mornings in the heart of the city and tranquility."

-- Jorge Luis Borges, "The Congress"

I picked up the album yesterday evening, after hearing them for the first time yesterday morning. It's been a really long time since a band has made me feel like "I need this". Haven't heard the EP so can't comment whether it's superior or on par, but based on a couple listens I really like this album, a really lot. I don't hear any Beach Boys in it whatsoever... same went for that Panda Bear record - what, harmonies and reverb equal Beach Boys? I do hear a huge MMJ similarity though. I can't decide if the similarity bugs me or not quite yet. It could be noted that, MMJ aside, bands with reverb-drenched vocals has become a genre in of itself in the last couple years. Panda Bear, Besnard Lakes, Band of Horses, Ruby Suns... those just off the top of my head. I know there are others. The thing that FF have in their favor, I think, is you could take the reverb away and there would still be a lot of really strong, interesting songs.

same went for that Panda Bear record - what, harmonies and reverb equal Beach Boys?

this was ssooooooo my reaction to the Panda Bear record (which I do like) - but yeah, lazy journalists.

I like it very much.

I'll always have a soft spot for anything that references shape note singing so liberally. Sun it Rises is great but White Winter Hymnal perfect lying on the grass music.

Saw them again in Philly the other night. No stage presence to speak of, but they sounded fantastic.

I have a very strong feeling this album will end up garnishing top slots at the end of the year.

ZOMGG QFT

"You pieces of shit."

This album sounds prettier and prettier every time I listen to it. (The EP too.)

i like it, don't listen to it that often though.

Dizzee Rascal doesn't like it much.

It's very pretty but hollow beyond that, I feel.

I can enjoy two or three tracks in isolation, but then it becomes a case of diminishing returns, and after about five or six tracks I've morphed from Charmed to Scornful. "Pretty but hollow" sums it up for me too.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

the only time i liked FF was in the aeroplane resident advisor podcast.

It's very pretty but hollow beyond that, I feel.

this sounds about right, they seem to nicely wash over me without leaving much of an impression. And with no urge to relisten, I don't think they're going to be one of those ones who creep up on you and be incredible when you thought they were only "nice".

For those that think the record is good but becomes a little too faceless by the end, I recommend removing "Quiet Houses" and the instrumental. Try listening to it that way and see if it doesn't feel like a stronger record.

quite liking 'Blue Ridge Mountains' if nothing else much. one of the better album covers this year too tho fwiw.

Fleet Foxes are no Laurel and Hardy, that's for sure.

Fleet Foxes reminds me of Firefox: pleasant, but not original and somewhat overrated.

I just noticed that Starbucks is selling it. Earlier in the year, Starbucks sold an album of Ray Charles duets, Genius Loves Company at its 6,100 locations. The album went platinum, and 350,000 of those were sold at Starbucks. Fleet Foxes was on a rack on the counter that held only two CDs, including a glam rock compilation. I'm not sure if this is the same for most Starbucks, or if a particular employee chose to feature it. I doubt the average yuppie customer is going to jump at an unknown name, but I'd be curious to see if the sales have increased at all.

Someone's blog post - http://gonze.com/blog/2008/10/01/fleet-foxes-from-starbucks/

Yeah, my wife told me that she saw it in Starbucks the other day. She thinks that I only like obscure bands, so she figured that having a band I like featured at Starbucks would annoy me. I jokingly agreed that it did annoy me. But in reality, I wish them all the success they can get, assuming it won't cause them to go mainstream in a bad way (I know that's Rockist Cliches 101, but I think it does actually happen sometimes).

I really like the album though. Someone mentioned My Morning Jacket upthread - I haven't heard enough MMJ to know, but if they do have an album that sound like FF, I'd like to find it. It reminds me more of older bands like Fairport Convention, David Crosby solo, or newer bands like Devendra Banhart, Joanna Newsom, or Espers.

think they sound more like my morning jacket and band of horses than the beach boys

^^^this. i'm really not feeling the hypeyhype quality here - i mean, the first three tracks are knock-out but the fall-off is massive. not a patch on the BoH album.

Maybe the best tracks are at the beginning, but I don't think the fall-off is that great. I really like "He Doesn't Know Why", "Your Protector", and "Meadowlark", and at least like the rest.

http://vimeo.com/1851415

this is super good fyi

i like this album much more than anything by MMJ.