Comments on: When bad band names…

By: Amy

Amy — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 05:01:10 +0000

Ooh, a challenge…I think it’s going to take a whole separate post to expound on this in full, so see the latest entry.

(And there’s nothing wrong with linking to yourself, especially when the link goes to a well-written and thought-provoking review.))

By: Philip S.

Philip S. — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:32:40 +0000

I’d be VERY interested to hear you expand on how something that arouses no passion in you can be considered “favorite.” True, there are certainly records we admire for the craftsmanship or process that went into their creation — but how could such a record get into your personal top ten? If it doesn’t move you, what’s the point?

I know there are many levels at which we enjoy music and songs (guilty pleasures, earnest critical faves we feel we ought to appreciate but frankly don’t, infectious but dumb singles, dumb but hard-rocking songs that have literal physical effects, etc. etc.) besides those that key directly into the lock of our own aesthetic sense. I think this is fascinating, and I’d LOVe to hear you talk about it in more detail.

(By the way, I feel incredibly lame linking to myself here, but I did once write about this in the process of writing a Freakwater review, so…)

By: Amy

Amy — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 20:33:37 +0000

David Rawlings is clearly Gillian’s not-very-secret weapon, and he seems to play with all of the joy and passion that she lacks. I mean, maybe she’s just very restrained and I’m just being uncharitable; certainly, she seems like a perfectly likeable person based on the New Yorker profile I read. But there’s just something about her…

I do enjoy singing that is perfect as long as it has something else going on, some timbre, some depth, some nuance. Otherwise, you’ve got Judy Collins. It also depends on the genre: imperfection doesn’t work so well with bluegrass, for example. (You could argue that bluegrass + imperfection = old-time, actually, but only if you were a) on P2 and b) in the mood to get massacred.)

You bought “Blackbirds and Thrushes”? Ah, my work here is done. Gosh, I love that record. I’ve been doing a bunch of exploring of unfamiliar Britfolk and Celtic artists (unfamiliar to me, that is) courtesy of the BBC’s various folk shows and the fine Website TradTunes, and I’ve got lots of new names to add to my “must buy” list. Which is just what I need, of course.

And yeah, “all of the good ones are taken,” and I suppose there are worse band names out there than the everybodyfields (although that damn lowercase business drives me friggin’ nuts). Dogs Die in Hot Cars, for example, has to rank among the worst band names ever, although they’re a pretty good band. But I like the everybodyfields so much that I’d really prefer they had a better name.

By: Marcia

Marcia — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:48:10 +0000

I feel that way about Gillian Welch, too, mainly because of seeing Welch & Rawlings perform live so many times (I haven’t paid much attention to her recordings other than Revival and Revelator). It used to annoy the hell out of me the way she would “tune up” her voice before starting a song (“Mmmmmmm”–shut up and sing already!). The thing that finally made me stop seeing them altogether–and the same sort of perfectionism was at the root of it–was the time at the Staion Inn when she insisted that they shut off the air conditioner IN NASHVILLE IN AUGUST because it was “interfering” with the sound. The lack of air conditioning certainly interfered with my ability to enjoy her set, so I left about five minutes into it. She just seems kind of soulless to me (although I also agree that there are parts of Time the Revelator that feel real in the way you mean). David Rawlings, on the other hand, does not seem soulless. I used to love to watch him. But then apparently someone told him not to let his tongue hang out, and he started looking kind of repressed on stage.

Since moving to the land of the new, I’ve realized that a lot of what says “character” or “soul” to me has to do with imperfection–decripitude, flaws, rough edges. While I like it when singers sing on key, I don’t enjoy singing that is too perfect. That’s why I don’t like a lot of female Irish singers, though I’m not sure whether it’s the way they sing or the way it’s recorded that gives them that overly clean, polished sound. (BTW, I bought Niamh Parsons’ Blackbirds and Thrushes and love it).

Don’t be too hard on the everybodyfields. It is a stupid name, to be sure, but I’d say at this point most of the good ones are taken (cue Ian Hunter ).

By: Amy

Amy — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:40:23 +0000

It’s definitely not just you. It occurs to me, though, that I should amend that statement to say that I’m passionate about parts of “Time the Revelator” too, though not all of it. It feels more real to me than most of her work—and I hasten to add that I don’t mean “authentic,” because I find that whole argument about Gillian Welch pretty silly, I mean “real” in the sense of genuinely felt, rather than studied. So much of her writing feels like a graduate thesis at Berklee rather than anything that comes from the heart. (I’ve been attacked for that opinion before, though. I won’t mention any names, but his initials are Roy Francis Kasten. )

I don’t get that studied feeling at all from the everybodyfields, happily. I just wish they had a better name.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:11:59 +0000

I feel the same way about Welch & Rawlings’ oeuvre: I love Revival and merely have respect for the rest. Glad to hear it’s not just me.