Originally posted by crazed: That said, Wilco's "A Ghost is Born" would have been more perfect for me were it not for that annoyingly long drone tacked at the end of "Less Than You Think".
That song is the only hitch on that album, clever name though.
I wouldn't say Van Lear Rose is overrated at all (well maybe on Metacritic it is), but after buying Van Lear Rose I DID go out and investigate more Loretta Lynn, and some of it was pretty good, but I didn't like any of it as much as Van Lear Rose. Was this because Jack White produced it? Maybe...but if it were, that only speaks to his producing capability and not to the cache that his name carries.
Originally posted by Bobthespirit: I'd have to disagree there....Van Lear Rose is easily my favorite record of 2004. And while the name 'Jack White' may have attracted more purchases, if the record sounded exactly the same and was produced by somebody else, it still would have gotten a 97 on metacritic and #3 on the pazznjop poll.
I don't think that last claim is true at all. Many of the critics who reviewed Van Lear Rose and RAVED about it would not have reviewed a Loretta Lynn record that was not White Stripes related. I don't see indie mags like Under The Radar, Pitchfork, tinymixtapes, PopMatters (all of whom gave VLR a 90 or higher), and others of that ilk reviewing records by country artists without crossover appeal to the indie crowd. They toss in a Johnny Cash and Loretta Lynn review for the sake of crossover cred from time to time, but they frequently ignore much of the rest of the non-commercial country because it doesn't appeal to the target demographic.
The reviews of VLR might still have been good, but if the bulk of them came from places like Rolling Stone, Spin, or whatnot, I think many 'indie kids' would have ignored them.
Nickel Creek doesn't appeal to indie kids, and it debuted at #16 on billboard. Country has it's share of rabid fans who know good country when they see it. I agree 'indie kids' wouldn't have bought it as much, but anybody open minded about country would have still checked it out, and once they actually heard the music, it wouldn't have mattered to them whether it was Jack White or not.
Plus, I would argue that maybe indie publications would take hipster-pleasure in liking the classic country artists over the current popular ones. Like "Loretta Lynn's not like those lame Garth Brooks types! Loretta knows how to really do it!"
It might not have gotten as many reviews, so maybe actually it would have been lower on Pazznjop, but the reviews would be of the same quality, and those who were open minded to listening to it would have still liked it.
Originally posted by Bobthespirit: I'd have to disagree there....Van Lear Rose is easily my favorite record of 2004. And while the name 'Jack White' may have attracted more purchases, if the record sounded exactly the same and was produced by somebody else, it still would have gotten a 97 on metacritic and #3 on the pazznjop poll.
I don't think that last claim is true at all. Many of the critics who reviewed Van Lear Rose and RAVED about it would not have reviewed a Loretta Lynn record that was not White Stripes related. I don't see indie mags like Under The Radar, Pitchfork, tinymixtapes, PopMatters (all of whom gave VLR a 90 or higher), and others of that ilk reviewing records by country artists without crossover appeal to the indie crowd. They toss in a Johnny Cash and Loretta Lynn review for the sake of crossover cred from time to time, but they frequently ignore much of the rest of the non-commercial country because it doesn't appeal to the target demographic.
The reviews of VLR might still have been good, but if the bulk of them came from places like Rolling Stone, Spin, or whatnot, I think many 'indie kids' would have ignored them.
But it would still be a 97 on Metacritic, just one with a smaller total number of reviews. I'm pretty sure it would have been lower on Pazz & Jop. Either way, Bob was responding to the idea from page 1 that the only reason anyone enjoyed Van Lear Rose was because of its critical reception.
PS: If you think about it, Pitchfork (for instance, although at the time of Van Lear Rose's release tinymixtapes would have been just as good an example) are hardly the types to give an album a good rating just because it has Jack White on it. Certainly it's less likely that they would have reviewed the record in the first place if Jack White hadn't been part of the picture, but it didn't guarantee a high score.
Originally posted by Vykromond: PS: If you think about it, Pitchfork (for instance, although at the time of Van Lear Rose's release tinymixtapes would have been just as good an example) are hardly the types to give an album a good rating just because it has Jack White on it. Certainly it's less likely that they would have reviewed the record in the first place if Jack White hadn't been part of the picture, but it didn't guarantee a high score.
I'm not sure what the implication is here, but the scores of the various Jack White-associated records are pretty high: 8.3, 9.0, 9.0, 6.9, and 7.3 for the White Stripes records (noting a carefully placed critical downturn on the records after they had become popular) and 9.3 for Loretta Lynn. I may be missing other White-affiliated affairs, and I certainly can't assume WHY they ranked those albums as they did, but it seems fair to say that Jack White-related projects average an 8.3 rating from Pitchfork, and that seems to indicate that there's some connection to be gleaned.
If you drop out all of the 'indie' publication reviews, the score might still be a 97 (but with the secret Metacritic weighting formula, I wouldn't assume it to be so) but there would be considerably fewer reviews. That would lead to two things, I think:
1. The 'indie' crowd would not have glommed onto the record without some incentive to do so vis-a-vis a review source or two that they liked giving it the thumbs up.
2. A lot of people, even those who use Metascores as a buying guide, might have been less willing to try it based on fewer reviews or reviews from 'less-reputable' publications. It seems like most of the people who hang out around here are suspicious of Rolling Stone and SPIN...
I'm certainly not going to say that Jack White is the sole reason that album scored well from various sources, but I don't think that it would have been the rave of 2004 without him.
I can't believe I didn't think of this when the topic first started, but I can't stand the song "Only Love Can Break Your Heart" from Neil Young's After the Gold Rush. It just sounds hopelessly mawkish to me. That album is still one of my favorites though.
-------------------------------------------------- Anatomy to me is a homesick stomach and a broken heart
Oh, I can't believe I didn't think of THIS one immediately..
Electric Ladyland - Little Miss Strange
The album's moving along with Hendrix sounding guitar-driven power rock....suddenly, extremely Nasal british voices jump in.. "I don't know..where she comes from..maybe she's..a devil in disguise!" Big 'skip button' song for me.
I don't have a problem with Pitchfork et al reviewing Van Lear Rose only because of the Jack White connection. I'm sure country music magazines do not regularly review White Stripes albums!
My only point was that I think if you loved VLR and you love music, curiosity and open-mindedness about music should make you want to investigate Loretta Lynn's earlier work, for which she is, after all, most famous. It may be you end up hating it -- which is fine. But what bugged me was people who buy lots of records and professed to love VLR who then could not be bothered to investigate other Lynn music. Pax Soprano is to be praised for at least taking the plunge -- and it is his right to decide it's not his cup of tea.
Other recent country reviews they've run in the last month have included Trisha Yearwood, Marty Stuart, Gretchen Wilson, Abigail Washburn, Grey DeLisle, George Jones, and Marty Robbins.
And there were recent cover story interviews with Delbert McClinton, Patricia Vonne, Grey DeLisle, among others.
Just wanted to set the record straight.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: modgrrl,
Originally posted by modgrrl: Just wanted to set the record straight.
Rightfully so. If there is an online magazine that does a better job of covering a wide variety of genres than PopMatters I'd like to know about it.
Your coverage of jazz recordings has been really excellent the past year or so as well.
Unfortunately, your writers too often suffer from an obvious knowledge of the practice and creation of music, which isn't going to buy you much indie cred these days, I'm afraid.
Now Playing: "Lacy's Out East" Charles Tyler Black Mysticism
