Volta/The reminder
Opinion is divided on Bjork. Wayward genius or purveyor of shouty tuneless rubbish? Very few people are going to find themselves on the fence, even if both are sometimes true on the same record. This is the fate of "experimental" artists, in no matter which field. And Bjork is fiercely experimental. But is that a good thing? Well, Vespertine was dementedly brilliant, one of the high points of electronic music, but the jury's still out on Medulla. I think she deserved the chance to make an album that didn't quite work, and the notion that she had reached the end of what was possible with electronics, although debatable, was certainly explored in full.Bjork claims that Volta is a pullback from the edge, her idea of a pop album. But it's no Debut. The latter had a quirky pop sensibility, most obviously on display in Human behaviour and Violently happy. This time, Bjork's desire to be difficult has smothered her sense of melody. In other words, you're going to struggle to dig a tune out of this mess.
The same cannot be said of Feist, whose The reminder is chockers with them. Let it die was a good album, with a couple of great songs, but it was patchy. The reminder is the real deal, just good song after good song. I could almost hear Dionne Warwick sing The limit to your love, but I don't think she'd better Leslie Feist, who puts her beautiful voice to good use.
When I see the word "jazz" in a music review, I reach for my AK, and "soft jazz" in particular provokes horrendous visions of Sade or Norah Jones. And perhaps the first few bars of So sorry will instil the fear that that is exactly what you're going to get. But I think that the pop wins out over the "jazz" stylings, and lifts this, a little at least, above "coffee table".
But it is pop. You won't need to knit your brow over this: it's light, fun, inventive. I defy you not to smile when you listen to Brandy Alexander and if you're not bopping along with My moon my man, you probably hate life.
I think the contrast is quite instructive, or could be for Bjork. Feist is not "experimental" but she does experiment across a range of styles. She puts her voice to good use, giving it winsome melodies to sing. I sometimes feel Bjork is scared of melody, scared that the limitations of her voice will be exposed if she actually has to sing a tune. When she does give it a whirl, on the pseudoballad Pneumonia, for instance, the outcome is just very tough listening. The singing is there but the tune entirely absent.
posted by Dr Zen @ 10:44 am
5 Comments:
There are artists out there who can be accused of experimentation for its own sake. Bjork isn't one of them. She has a point, and she expresses it beautifully.
In general, I am inclined to believe that if an artist is talented and his mind is free of inhibition by such common ailments as drug abuse, religion, or hubris, then each new work is going to get generally better then the previous. In Bjork's case, beautiful though Vespertine undoubtedly is, Medulla possesses another level of complexity and a set of artistic questions the former didn't even touch. In that sense comparing the two albums feels sort of like comparing a short story to a novel. However, as the artist progresses, the listener's taste doesn't necessarily follow - it can stagnate, or it can grow in an entirely different direction. Which could explain why "Volta" was tough listening. For my part, I think it has some of the most beautiful music I ever heard.
Well, rather than get into a brawl with a fanboi that I might live to regret, I'll just agree to differ.
I don't agree that Medulla is more complex than Vespertine. I think it's just different.
And I don't agree that Volta is a progression. I don't think it was intended to be, and I don't accept at all that its failure as a piece is anything to do with my lack of taste. It's not that complex an album. It just really badly lacks tunes.
When I said that your taste didn't follow Bjork's progression, I didn't mean it personally. I just meant that sometimes when an artist goes one way, your taste doesn't necessarily go with him. It's not a failure on your part, and I didn't mean to sound like I think you have no taste in music. It's just that the direction Bjork chose to go isn't the one that speaks to you right now. It may sometime later, or it may not.
As far as progress from album to album goes, even when an artist declares they are "going back", that doesn't mean that they're going to completely ignore all they have done between then and now. It will influence and inform everything they do, because, after all, it's not something one can just shut out of one's mind. Would Bjork really be able to write the same music she did 10 years ago? Why would she want to? There is one Debut that exists already, so what is the point of making a carbon copy of it? Not that it wouldn't be commercially feasible: U2 haven't really done anything since "The Joshua Tree", and there are millions who gladly accept that.
TheMinotuar:
I'm willing to bet that much of what's *OK* about _The Joshua Tree_ is due to Brian Eno's involvement.
Moving on, whether an artist tends to naturally progress or not is a difficult question. It would seem that, ideally, if one were to were to enjoy an artist's particular work at a particular time, one would be amicable to their artistic vision. It is odd to think that as this vision deepens and refines through experience that it would worsen or at any rate lead to a worsening effect. It raises the question, though, what is to be attributed for a successful artistic venture? There's such a complex of factors that sometimes it seems best to call it simply happy chance. It becomes difficult when comparing specific works within a body exactly because what you've described is just a tendency and is bound to fail in the particular.
That said, Zen's dislike of Medulla does strike me as odd. Odder still is his particular concern about the lack of melody and Bjork's reportedly limited voice: it is odd for one who professes to be a somewhat fan of Tom Wait's to be so concerned. It is all the more baffling when you consider that her voice is the very aspect she has oft been praised for. But I suppose that demonstrates that it's more a matter of style than ability that bothers him. It seems to me that Zen has a particular set of terms that he is judging by that is preventing his enjoyment of this album. I always felt that Bjork's work demanded its own terms...
Zen:
If you are looking for a more tuneful Bjork I point you to _Selmasongs_ and moreover to the Lars von Trier's film _Dancer in the Dark_ for which _Selmasongs_ is a soundtrack. It also aptly demonstrates that vocal sensitivity it seems you accuse Bjork of lacking. Not that the music in _Medulla_ or _Volta_ lacks sensitivity, it's just not expressed in the vocals in quite the same *particular* manner.
I have to say, Eno or no, the Joshua Tree is a pile of shit, but it's ten times better than anything U2 have excreted since.
I don't not like Medulla; I have mixed feelings about it. I don't think it was successful in its own terms, but an unsuccessful Bjork album is a league above most others' successes.
I think what I was trying to say is that Bjork *does* have the range but didn't use it to good effect on Volta. She definitely has a tendency to hide behind shoutiness, as though just plain singing would somehow not be intense enough.
And Tom Waits rocks the shop when it comes to melody. You don't have to have a sweet voice to have a beautiful voice.
Efflux, Volta seems to me like an album in which Bjork just didn't hit it. Don't get me wrong; I love the way she has explored music, and I'd take Vespertine over Debut any day, and any one of her solo albums over the whole oeuvre of the Sugarcubes. But if someone just didn't write very good songs -- whatever they're capable of, that is just what it is.
Post a Comment
<< Home