At 01:38 PM 4/10/1999 Amy Haugesag wrote:
>>So how's that new Wilco record?
>>
>I rilly, rilly don't like what I've heard, and as others have said, I don't
>see how the record can be called a breakthrough, since it's not drastically
>different from Being There (which wasn't as drastically different from A.M.
>as writers and fans claimed at the time).
Hmm, for a small hypothetical, if you removed the vocal track from all
three Wilco records, and just listened to the instrumentals, you wouldn't
find each record different from the other? (What's the degree of difference
significant to your mini-analysis here? "Drastically different" is a
self-justifying measure of judgement. And what constitutes a "breakthrough?")
To me, BEING THERE sounds notably different from AM, the transition from
twang-rock into twang-pop into the notably different pop stylings of
SUMMERTEETH.
>I'm withholding full judgement
>until I've heard the whole record more than once, but for now, I give it an
>"it sucks." <g>
I'll be holding my breath until the big light bulb comes on and the sheer
brilliance (or even the barely-marginal OK-ness) of SUMMERTEETH reveals
itself to you. <g>
Geez, if you were the judge of most any Tweedy endeavor, I'd get a change
of venue, begging your honor's pardon.
off to mow two yards,
b.s.
n.p. A Replacements overview show on KCUR. How about some "objective"
analysis on that new Westerberg record?
I just heard 3 tracks and they didn't suck, though I wasn't sure if it was
my cup of tea. <g>
"Time begins on Opening Day" -Thomas Boswell
