"Naturally" get my vote by a long shot. So glad something from Daptone Records made it on to the MDM this year. Ms. Jones is a fantastic soul singer, and you just can't get much tighter than the Dap-Kings. The sound of "soul revival" at its finest.
(Okay so just for the record I'm enjoying both these albums very much.)
I don't know anything about Daptone Records. I do know that I like the music.
Just for a moment, though -- and in line with my whole "Shakespeare sucks" theme, which I admit can be a bit tiresome -- what's the deal with the stories here? The lyrics are all: Ooooooo baby. And the themes are all: He's givin it to her, they're giving it to us, we're giving it to him.
There's a fine line between "distilling the human condition down to basic truths" and "not even trying to express an original thought."
And revival? I feel it's a mistake to try to revive something that passed naturally. There's a fine line between recollection and repetition.
So I think in this round, the Head and the Heart will get my abstention.
I really like the album cover of Head+Heart. And grrrl Charity seems really rad but overall I was bored by them. I liked Winter Song bc of Charity's voice - wish she had more voice throughout.
Sharon Jones + Dap Kings gets my vote. She gets a body moving.
One more vote for Head and the Heart. I will explain in more detail tomorrow when we finally get internet / phone at the new house, but for now I wanted to set a good example and register my vote on time.
The Head and the Heart get my vote, and perhaps I should copy and paste what Sarah wrote.
Sharon Jones is good. But I cannot for the life of me believe that album was released in 2005, and for reasons that I don't fully understand, I therefore ding the album a million points for originality.
I also can't understand why I don't ding The Head and the Heart a million points for originality, as they fit in quite well with plenty of other music right now. But I don't, perhaps because I am enjoying this album and making excuses for my inconsistency. This will be played at our house again and again.
Hoping I made the cut here... I vote for Sharon Jones. First because Head and the Heart cover scares me. Like clowns do. Hmm, that counts for second as well.
I actually liked both, but neither really wowed me. Neither were derivative muzak, but both were somewhat close.
And if I had to listen to muzak, I'd probably want to hear Sharon Jones.
First off, I really like both of the covers. I vote for Sharon Jones. I’d only heard “100 Day, 100 Nights,” before and I like that one more at this point, perhaps just because it is more familiar. I do feel some uneasiness about the whole retro tag and feel of the album (and of much of the Daptone catalog) that many others have expressed. But as I listened to it more, the retro feeling started to fade. I can’t say that it sounds exactly like any other artist, and it seemed more like a blending of influences and not an outright carbon copy of any one thing. May be can be a good move to stick with one’s strengths. In the words of Tim Kinsella:
“all the heavy metal songs are good when they say never surrender. all the hip hop hits are good when they say say my name. all the balladeers ballads are good when they say oh my, my dear i'm so far away. all the patriotic modern country songs are good when they say be patriotic.”
Hmmm...Looks like a tie folks unless I count Karl's abstention for Head & Heart (although I respect his dedication to abstaining so I guess I won't). For now, I'll wait until tonight to see if anyone else votes. In the meantime, I'll put up the next match.
Thinking aloud here about criteria for evaluating music.
Music is good:
...if it makes you move *.
...if it makes you feel. (Very similar to making you move. Special callout for breakup music here, but I am familiar with many kinds of human feeling, beep boop.)
...if it made you move/feel in this past. (If you have a personal history with the music, that is a reason to consider it good music.)
...if it is beautiful.
...if it innovates.
...if it impresses technically. (Musical skill, lyrical skill, production skill, performance skill, etc.)
...if it is spectacular. (Similar to the last, but I'm thinking figurative big inflated animals and fireworks and juggling and stuff. Recorded music can be a spectacle, too.)
...if it tells a good story. (Whether in notes or in words.)
...if it has a good message or meaning or purpose.
...if it was produced by people you admire.
...if you admire its project. (Combination of the last two?)
...if it influences others.
...if it was important in the history of music. (Similar to the last, but perhaps more specific.)
...if it was important culturally. (Similar to the last, but perhaps more specific.)
Okay that's enough for now.
Standard brainstorming disclaimers: This is not intended to be exhaustive or exclusive or anything.
But here's what I was thinking about while coming up with these. I ordered them along a kind of progression:
- self
- the work itself
- the production of the work
- others / world / the art world
I would get into trouble if I tried to claim that certain of these criteria were better or worse than others (for evaluating good or bad music).
The criteria at the top of the list you can't really argue with.
Farther down you get better arguments.
Near the bottom I sometimes get irreverent-cranky-obstinate-perverse. I have this in visual art and literature, too. (Shakespeare sucks.)
Uh, okay, that is all. I came dangerously close to making a point or conclusion or hypothesis here. Phew! Narrowly avoided.
* Toe and finger tapping, nodding, all-out dancing. Shoegazer movements on the downbeat stuff: squeezing eyes shut, grimacing, looking upward ecstatically, etc. Ooh, and let's not forget TRUNK GYRATIONS **.
** "Trunk gyrations": One of the criteria for whether certain kinds of music were acceptable in my conservative Christian middle school. The Devil could get a foothold on people who listened to music that caused "trunk gyrations".
1. Interesting. Do you think it's fair to say that stuff at the top of the list is almost purely subjective (except maybe the technical stuff)whereas the stuff at the bottom of the list is largely objective? So you can truthfully say that Dylan or the Beatles or Shakespeare do nothing for you in terms of feeling, moving, etc. but it's hard to deny their cultural impact. And if you get really sick of hearing how awesome/important/influential Shakespeare or the Stones or Cat Power or whoever is/are, does that begin to influence your subjective opinion? Do you accept that others can be moved by the big S. (and likewise ilk) even though you aren't? (there are 99% rhetorical questions, but I still want you--or anyone--to comment...) 2. I truly do admire your abstinence. It's takes the same kind of dedication to, say, an incorrect time zone. But, at the same time, I also really want you to, you know, ahhh...vote.
vs.
I vote for the Head & the Heart because I lurv them.
ReplyDeleteErmahgerd.
Delete"Naturally" get my vote by a long shot. So glad something from Daptone Records made it on to the MDM this year. Ms. Jones is a fantastic soul singer, and you just can't get much tighter than the Dap-Kings. The sound of "soul revival" at its finest.
ReplyDelete(Okay so just for the record I'm enjoying both these albums very much.)
ReplyDeleteI don't know anything about Daptone Records. I do know that I like the music.
Just for a moment, though -- and in line with my whole "Shakespeare sucks" theme, which I admit can be a bit tiresome -- what's the deal with the stories here? The lyrics are all: Ooooooo baby. And the themes are all: He's givin it to her, they're giving it to us, we're giving it to him.
There's a fine line between "distilling the human condition down to basic truths" and "not even trying to express an original thought."
And revival? I feel it's a mistake to try to revive something that passed naturally. There's a fine line between recollection and repetition.
So I think in this round, the Head and the Heart will get my abstention.
I really like the album cover of Head+Heart. And grrrl Charity seems really rad but overall I was bored by them. I liked Winter Song bc of Charity's voice - wish she had more voice throughout.
ReplyDeleteSharon Jones + Dap Kings gets my vote. She gets a body moving.
The Head and the Heart belongs in my "maybe flawed/derivative, but really reaching" category, and I'm a sucka for this category.
ReplyDeleteSharon Jones belongs in my "I know it's good, but it's muzak to me" category.
So you know, Sharon Jones knows what she's doing more, but what she's doing doesn't grab me.
The Head and the Heart. Similar reasons to why I voted for Fleet Foxes. Feeling kind of heart-on-my-sleeve lately. Also, Karl: Abstinence sucks!!!!
ReplyDeleteSharon Jones and the Dap-Kings. Similar reasons to why I voted for Fleet Foxes. Feeling kind of heart-on-...okay I'll stop.
ReplyDeleteOne more vote for Head and the Heart. I will explain in more detail tomorrow when we finally get internet / phone at the new house, but for now I wanted to set a good example and register my vote on time.
ReplyDeleteThe Head and the Heart get my vote, and perhaps I should copy and paste what Sarah wrote.
ReplyDeleteSharon Jones is good. But I cannot for the life of me believe that album was released in 2005, and for reasons that I don't fully understand, I therefore ding the album a million points for originality.
I also can't understand why I don't ding The Head and the Heart a million points for originality, as they fit in quite well with plenty of other music right now. But I don't, perhaps because I am enjoying this album and making excuses for my inconsistency. This will be played at our house again and again.
Hoping I made the cut here... I vote for Sharon Jones. First because Head and the Heart cover scares me. Like clowns do.
ReplyDeleteHmm, that counts for second as well.
I actually liked both, but neither really wowed me. Neither were derivative muzak, but both were somewhat close.
And if I had to listen to muzak, I'd probably want to hear Sharon Jones.
First off, I really like both of the covers. I vote for Sharon Jones. I’d only heard “100 Day, 100 Nights,” before and I like that one more at this point, perhaps just because it is more familiar. I do feel some uneasiness about the whole retro tag and feel of the album (and of much of the Daptone catalog) that many others have expressed. But as I listened to it more, the retro feeling started to fade. I can’t say that it sounds exactly like any other artist, and it seemed more like a blending of influences and not an outright carbon copy of any one thing. May be can be a good move to stick with one’s strengths. In the words of Tim Kinsella:
ReplyDelete“all the heavy metal songs are good when they say never surrender.
all the hip hop hits are good when they say say my name.
all the balladeers ballads are good when they say oh my, my dear i'm so far away.
all the patriotic modern country songs are good when they say be patriotic.”
oh!! did you say Tuesday MORNING?????????
ReplyDeleteHmmm...Looks like a tie folks unless I count Karl's abstention for Head & Heart (although I respect his dedication to abstaining so I guess I won't). For now, I'll wait until tonight to see if anyone else votes. In the meantime, I'll put up the next match.
ReplyDeleteI think there's really only one way to settle this tie: we have to move Disintegration forward to the next round. Cut the baby in half.
DeleteThinking aloud here about criteria for evaluating music.
ReplyDeleteMusic is good:
...if it makes you move *.
...if it makes you feel. (Very similar to making you move. Special callout for breakup music here, but I am familiar with many kinds of human feeling, beep boop.)
...if it made you move/feel in this past. (If you have a personal history with the music, that is a reason to consider it good music.)
...if it is beautiful.
...if it innovates.
...if it impresses technically. (Musical skill, lyrical skill, production skill, performance skill, etc.)
...if it is spectacular. (Similar to the last, but I'm thinking figurative big inflated animals and fireworks and juggling and stuff. Recorded music can be a spectacle, too.)
...if it tells a good story. (Whether in notes or in words.)
...if it has a good message or meaning or purpose.
...if it was produced by people you admire.
...if you admire its project. (Combination of the last two?)
...if it influences others.
...if it was important in the history of music. (Similar to the last, but perhaps more specific.)
...if it was important culturally. (Similar to the last, but perhaps more specific.)
Okay that's enough for now.
Standard brainstorming disclaimers: This is not intended to be exhaustive or exclusive or anything.
But here's what I was thinking about while coming up with these. I ordered them along a kind of progression:
- self
- the work itself
- the production of the work
- others / world / the art world
I would get into trouble if I tried to claim that certain of these criteria were better or worse than others (for evaluating good or bad music).
The criteria at the top of the list you can't really argue with.
Farther down you get better arguments.
Near the bottom I sometimes get irreverent-cranky-obstinate-perverse. I have this in visual art and literature, too. (Shakespeare sucks.)
Uh, okay, that is all. I came dangerously close to making a point or conclusion or hypothesis here. Phew! Narrowly avoided.
* Toe and finger tapping, nodding, all-out dancing. Shoegazer movements on the downbeat stuff: squeezing eyes shut, grimacing, looking upward ecstatically, etc. Ooh, and let's not forget TRUNK GYRATIONS **.
** "Trunk gyrations": One of the criteria for whether certain kinds of music were acceptable in my conservative Christian middle school. The Devil could get a foothold on people who listened to music that caused "trunk gyrations".
1. Interesting. Do you think it's fair to say that stuff at the top of the list is almost purely subjective (except maybe the technical stuff)whereas the stuff at the bottom of the list is largely objective? So you can truthfully say that Dylan or the Beatles or Shakespeare do nothing for you in terms of feeling, moving, etc. but it's hard to deny their cultural impact. And if you get really sick of hearing how awesome/important/influential Shakespeare or the Stones or Cat Power or whoever is/are, does that begin to influence your subjective opinion? Do you accept that others can be moved by the big S. (and likewise ilk) even though you aren't? (there are 99% rhetorical questions, but I still want you--or anyone--to comment...)
Delete2. I truly do admire your abstinence. It's takes the same kind of dedication to, say, an incorrect time zone. But, at the same time, I also really want you to, you know, ahhh...vote.
abstinence makes the heart grow fonder.
DeleteThe head and the heart
ReplyDeleteFWIW, I really did mean for my vote to count for The Head and the Heart. Although I do like both.
ReplyDelete