« the borrowed tunes top 10 :: 2004 Edition | Main | fiery furnaces :: ep »
February 08, 2005
bright eyes :: i'm wide awake, it's morning
 |
| (buy) |
The story on Bright Eyes is pretty simple and well-known by now: precious, precocious, quavery, over-emotive new Dylan wins over unsuspecting hearts (typically under 25, female) and raises the hackles of cynics (typically over 35, male, rock critic). Here's the issue: he has nothing to do with Dylan except that he uses an acoustic guitar with a lot of words, and is a spotty live performer. But the majority of his songs are A-grade pieces of music writing, and he does share the folk talent for timeless melody. The lyrics? Let's have a look: "What's so simple in the moonlight by the morning never is." That's either a platitude or a great song line. Or they're the same thing. It's all in the tune. Ever had one of those nights?
Which leaves the vocal delivery. I can't defend it; only Conor Oberst can, and he insists it's the only way he knows how to sing. When I first heard Bright Eyes, did I immediately love the way he wrecks most of his songs by setting vocal chords to intense mode? No, but he convinced me that he really believes in the approach. That said, I can't blame you if you don't get past it.
Sasha Frere-Jones wrote a great piece in a recent New Yorker that says better what I'm getting at here.
On the other hand, the usually balanced Stephen Thomas Erlewine, loses his shit for the All Music Guide. Jealous?
it's clear that Bright Eyes is little more than a pretty boy in a sweater who's idea of being clever is appropriating Beethoven's Ode to Joy for "Road to Joy" -- a move that makes you grateful that Billy Joel at least knew enough Beethoven to steal a lesser-known melody for "This Night" (and, being the stand-up guy that he is, Billy gave him a co-writing credit, something Conor doesn't do here)
Er, no, I'm not grateful for anything that Billy Joel has ever done. And don't you think that since the melody is in the public domain and he called the tune "Road To Joy" - get it? - that he's making the necessary acknowlegement?
I have a lot of respect for STE as an even-handed critic, but this is a serious wipeout. You'll hear more positive things about his writing in this space in the future.
Bottom line: tracks 3 and 4, available here, are as beautiful a stretch of music as you'll hear all year. An early entry to the top 10, and it will probably stay.
(Yes, there is a simultaneously-released electronic album that isn't quite as good; I'll get to it later).
Old Soul Song (For The New World Order) (mp3)
Lua (mp3)
Posted by borrowed_tunes at February 8, 2005 09:28 PM
Comments
Sorry, but Bright Eyes is just hard to go for. I've even lived in Nebraska, and I feel no pride nor urge to claim yon Conor Oberst. The man can't sing, and there's really nothing so very innovative about his music. That just leaves the lyrics, which, granted, are often good--but good lyrics minus music and vocals is essentially equal to poetry. Or good prose writing, perhaps. Give the boy a publishing deal or something, but get him off my radio...
Posted by: LenaLovesVictor at March 5, 2005 05:02 AM
I would never claim innovation for Oberst, and certainly his voice is an acquired taste - which means lots of people think it plain sucks and don't care to change their minds. I just happen to like it, as I do lots of people who "can't sing", such as, say, 3 guys named Dylan, Young, and Reed.
Posted by: borrowed tunes at March 5, 2005 09:59 AM
Thank you much for your actual consideration of my opinion. It gets frustrating after a while because, for whatever reason, Bright Eyes seems to be one of those new acts that one isn't generally allowed to be critical of. Perhaps it's because America loves underdog, rags-to-riches tales, which is admirable. But I do get tired of seeing the "innovative" claim, especially in college newspapers, which are aimed toward (in my opinion) the people most likely to be influenced by new-artist hype. Witness: "'Digital Ash' is being hailed as an innovative album"--Marcus Toussaint, The Battalion (Texas A&M); "...most of them are innovative and memorable"--Becca Sanders, The Observer (Notre Dame/St. Marys) It's not the complimentary nature of the word "innovative" that bothers me so much as the fact that I don't think it's deserved, yet it is fairly easily found. What these people appear to want to express is the fact that "Digital Ash" is DIFFERENT than Bright Eyes' usual work. I wouldn't describe it as innovative; in fact, electronics appears to be all the rage in today's post-New Wave music scene. If anything, it seems almost more conformist than innovator. I did find one "innovative" I could agree with, however: in the Bright Eyes reviews of AThousandApologies.com, which included the comment, "Deep, meaningful, honest, complex, innovative lyrics is what makes Bright Eyes different from all of the other blubbering, whiney indie/emo." Exactly--indeed, that's what sets Bright Eyes apart from most of the music you'll find. Keeping the focus on lyrical prowess shows Bright Eyes in the best possible fashion.
Posted by: LenaLovesVictor at March 31, 2005 07:35 AM
I totally agree that Digital Ash isn't innovative. It's post-Postal Service, which wasn't innovative itself.
Thanks for dropping by!
Posted by: borrowed tunes at April 1, 2005 05:15 PM
The thing I like about Conor Oberst is the fact that his voice not only displays his emotion, but his bravery. I mean, honestly, you have to be brave to go ahead and sing when you have his voice. But a lot of people are addicted to his sound, myself included. His lyrics are great, and once you get used to it, his voice has a real heart to it. But I won't dog anyone for not appreciating Conor Oberst, because I never could really get into Bob Dylan for some reason, even though I know I "should" ;-)
And while I was the first person in my group of friends (and most likely the entire community I live in - ~5,000 people) to listen to and enjoy Modest Mouse, I still don't enjoy them nearly as much as some of my friends.
If this post doesn't make much sense, it's because i've been up for forty-some hours.
Posted by: Lester at April 9, 2005 05:40 AM