Sasha Frere-Jones on Bright Eyes

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
NEW MORNING
by SASHA FRERE-JONES

There are three things that people often say about Conor Oberst, the singer, songwriter, and only permanent member of the band Bright Eyes. One is that he started his musical career when he was thirteen. Another is that he is the new Bob Dylan. And the third is that he is not unpopular with the women who attend his shows. Oberst did begin recording at thirteen, and he was touring three years later, while still in high school and living with his parents in Omaha, Nebraska. Oberst’s own label, Saddle Creek, which he formed with his brother and a friend when he was seventeen, has seized on his youth as a promotional asset. A sticker on the 2002 album “Lifted or The Story Is in the Soil, Keep Your Ear to the Ground” declared, “Conor Oberst owns a voice that quakes with the tumultuous energy that only youth can produce.”

This isn’t just sales talk. At the age of twenty-four, Oberst is delicate and skinny, with the long face and rumpled corduroys of someone who is preparing to be fifteen forever. Many of his songs—there are already more than a hundred—deal with the states of high dudgeon that are native to teen-agers everywhere: extreme heartbreak, extreme moral disapproval, extreme sadness. His wobbling voice and overstuffed couplets call to mind late-night dorm-room epiphanies, those moments when, drunk on cheap wine and the excitement of a new crush, you realize that nobody means anyone else any good, that companies care only about profit, but that you and me, babe, we can make it through the night—though I will probably be shoving off in the wee morning light. Babe.

This sense of being let down by the world at a young age may remind people of Dylan. Or maybe the comparison came about because Oberst plays an acoustic guitar and sings songs with lots of words, sometimes in Dylan’s cadence. In fact, Oberst is not very much like Dylan, but the differences between them are instructive. Dylan is armor-plated, even when singing about love; Oberst is permanently open to pain, wonder, and confusion. Dylan gives voice to thoughts so dense that he himself might not understand them all; Oberst is content to tackle hope and heartbreak—and, increasingly now, politics—in accessible, occasionally sententious language. Dylan fled the Midwest and invented a person who seemed to come from nowhere; Oberst moved to an apartment in the East Village a year and a half ago but still spends a third of his time in Omaha, where Saddle Creek is based. He talks freely to reporters and is exactly as charming as the girls who scream “I love you, Conor!” hope he is. Oberst has not transformed rock music. (If there were a “new Bob Dylan,” he would make people uncomfortable right away, attack the world with a pickaxe, and refuse to say he’s sorry. He would probably not be a musician.) Oberst is simply more talented, and more prolific, than the average songwriter.

Last week, Bright Eyes released “I’m Wide Awake, It’s Morning” and “Digital Ash in a Digital Urn,” the band’s fifth and sixth albums. “I’m Wide Awake,” the stronger of the two, was recorded quickly, with some songs done live in one take, and generally resembles Oberst’s earlier work. “Digital Ash,” which was created using a combination of electronic sources (such as keyboards and programmed samples) and traditional instruments, represents something of a departure. On both albums, the songs move at a fairly brisk pace and shy away from grand pronouncements. It’s a blessing that Oberst has cut back on fortune-cookie lines like “Your eyes must do some raining if you are ever going to grow” (from “Lifted”). But platitudes are an occupational hazard for a songwriter who specializes in gauging the human heart. If Oberst sometimes mistakes his private turmoil for the universal condition, it is not simply because he is young; he understands that pop songs need to overstate the case, to howl, to make a moment last because there might not be another like it. The outsize emotions are still there, but now they’re delivered in a more compressed, catchier form.

Two songs from the albums, “Lua” and “Take It Easy (Love Nothing),” were released as singles last November. Within a week, they were No. 1 and No. 2, respectively, on the Billboard Hot 100 Singles Sales chart, an uncommon feat for independent rock releases. (The chart is based solely on sales and does not reflect radio play.) “Take It Easy,” from “Digital Ash,” is taut and upbeat. Oberst is falling in love again: “You took off your clothes, left on the light. You stood there so brave. You used to be shy.” But in the next verse his lover leaves him a note: “Don’t take it so bad, it is nothing you did. It is just once something dies you can’t make it live. You are a beautiful boy. You’re a sweet little kid but I am a woman.” It’s a canny maneuver. Oberst wants us to know that, kid or not, he’s getting around, and, at the same time, that he’s still as vulnerable as he was when he had to yell in order to speak.

“Lua,” from “I’m Wide Awake,” is the quietest song on either record, just a very soft guitar and Oberst singing. It is a blue, but not regretful, story of a night that never ends: “Julie knows a party at some actor’s West Side loft. Supplies are endless in the evening, by the morning they’ll be gone.” Just when Oberst begins to sound jaded, he drops the conceit: “When everything is lonely I can be my own best friend. I get a coffee and the paper; have my own conversations with sidewalk and pigeons and my window reflection.” He lingers delightfully on the word “conversations,” making his banal morning ritual sound as pleasurable as the previous night’s adventure.

Last Tuesday, the day the albums were released, Bright Eyes performed the first of three shows at Town Hall. Oberst, in a tight white tennis shirt and sagging jeans, was in an affectionate mood. He whispered with his bandmates, and at one point gently nuzzled his bass player’s shoulder. The set was made up almost entirely of songs from “I’m Wide Awake,” and Mike Mogis, on pedal-steel guitar, and Nate Walcott, on trumpet, gave the music an unexpectedly big and colorful shape. Midway through the show, the band left the stage, and Oberst performed alone. “I was so moved by the President’s inauguration speech last week that I wrote this song,” he announced. To the evening’s loudest applause, he sang “When the President Talks to God,” a fierce synthesis of accusation and repetition which recalled Dylan’s early protest songs: “When the President talks to God, does he ever think maybe he’s not, that the voice is just inside his head? As he kneels next to the presidential bed, does he ever smell his own bullshit, when the President talks to God?”

The show ended with a rowdy version of “Road to Joy,” a song from “I’m Wide Awake” that neatly ties together Oberst’s many concerns. Based on the melody of Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy,” the song unfolds like a march, even though Oberst seems to be retreating into himself: “I have my drugs. I have my woman. They keep away my loneliness. My parents, they have their religion, but sleep in separate houses.” Gradually, his voice falls into step with the music, and his words become harsh and sarcastic: “So when you’re asked to fight a war that’s over nothing, it’s best to join the side that’s going to win. And no one’s sure how all of this got started, but we’re going to make them goddamn certain how it’s going to end.” Riled, Oberst turns the anger back on himself: “I could have been a famous singer, if I had someone else’s voice. But failure’s always sounded better, let’s fuck it up, boys. Make some noise.” The band obliges with a burst of horns and galloping drums. But Oberst knows that the lyric is implausible. After all, he is a famous singer. So, perhaps to convince himself, and his fans, that he’s an ordinary guy trying to find his place in the world, he reprises the song’s opening lines, this time screaming them: “The sun came up with no conclusions. Flowers sleeping in their beds. The city cemetery’s humming. I’m wide awake, it’s morning.”

shut up, Tuesday, 1 February 2005 16:29 (twenty years ago)

Make a judgement! Screw objectivity!

David Allen (David Allen), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 16:41 (twenty years ago)

Where did anyone ever get the Dylan comparison? The only place I've ever seen it was in an obnoxiously fawning NYTimes Mag profile a couple of years ago that called him "The Bob Dylan of his generation" or something to that effect. Any decent editor should automatically delete that phrase whenever it occurs, even if it refers to Bob Dylan's young clone.

Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 16:44 (twenty years ago)

There are so many singer/songwriters who deserve this fawning more than he does.

miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 16:48 (twenty years ago)

if the word "fawning" bothers you, replace it with "constant press attention"

miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 16:49 (twenty years ago)

If there were a “new Bob Dylan,” he would make people uncomfortable right away, attack the world with a pickaxe, and refuse to say he’s sorry. He would probably not be a musician.

I'm neutral on Bright Eyes but this is spectacularly OTM.

The Mad Puffin, Tuesday, 1 February 2005 16:56 (twenty years ago)

Actually, I think that gives Bob Dylan a little too much credit.

Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 16:57 (twenty years ago)

There are so many singer/songwriters who deserve this fawning more than he does.

but Conor's cute. So was Dylan at 24.

Aaron A., Tuesday, 1 February 2005 16:58 (twenty years ago)

God help me, I think this is the first thing I've read that made me think I might actually be able to enjoy Bright Eyes. (I dl'ed a song once, listened to it, and never went back for another.)

o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 16:59 (twenty years ago)

Ok folks... NO ONE today has ANYTHING in common with Bob Dylan's songwriting.

Jena (JenaP), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 17:00 (twenty years ago)

So get to work, AM! Regardless of aesthetic worth, I think CO's story (or "gimmick", if you're feeling cynical) makes him worthy of attention, and it makes for a much better hook. I don't agree with SF/J's assessments of BE's greatness (or above-averageness), but I'd probably much rather read an article about Conor than I would about a "better" non-descript singer/songwriter, and I'm guessing your average New Yorker reader (never mind the editorial staff) feels the same way.

(o_nate OTM, BTW.)

David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 17:02 (twenty years ago)

why can't will oldham get this kind of press? he's a songwriter with a new album... and kinda young... and maybe cute... in a Deliverance kind of way.

poortheatre (poortheatre), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 17:27 (twenty years ago)

bright eyes are fucking boring.

ppp, Tuesday, 1 February 2005 17:28 (twenty years ago)

I'm certainly with you on that, poortheatre

Jena (JenaP), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 17:38 (twenty years ago)

This new Electric Six song "Future Is In The Future" (at TTIKTDA kicks the ass of every song on either BE album. Fuck a fault-glamourizing self-glorifying case of arrested development. Dude already bitched about all his shit on the last few albums, time to learn how to work them out already. All he's doing now is modernizing his shtick on one album and classicizing it on the other. Why the fuck do we want to encourage that? Can you imagine this guy as your friend?

miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 17:38 (twenty years ago)

Bright Eye's gets this kind of treatment because the alternatives are things like Will Oldham.

danh (danh), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 17:39 (twenty years ago)

Will Oldham is NOT photogenic-- shudder... he looks like a fucking corpse on the Bonnie Prince Billy album.

King Kobra (King Kobra), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 19:29 (twenty years ago)

I'll side w/ miccio here.

the bright eyes ive heard (which isnt the new records) is fine, even interesting, but melodrama is melodrama. maybe people want it, identify with it, whatever, but hearing it always makes me feel too old to "get" bright eyes.

there's no deneying the guys got talent. but do we need more people talking about doing things wrong through pop music.

to thad end, w oldham is lyrically more oblique and dynamically deeper than any bright eyes ive heard. maybe conor is limited, in the public eye, by his youth, but upon hearing his work i always catch myself feeling like my father must have when i was 16 and conor was 13.

b b, Tuesday, 1 February 2005 19:38 (twenty years ago)

Do we really want to compair Will Oldham Oldham and Bright Eyes? Oldham's whole schtick is an affectation for crying out loud.

danh (danh), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 19:44 (twenty years ago)

Conor's "youth" isn't brought up because he's in his early-mid twenties, its brought up because he's almost impossible to take seriously as a peer and adult.

miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 19:58 (twenty years ago)

isn't saying a schtick is an affectation kind of redundant?

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 19:59 (twenty years ago)

no-one ever mentions how funny some bright eyes stuff is, like the interview at the end of fever and mirrors (which some people took seriously, for some reason) and the whole "baby brother who drowned" story.

kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 20:00 (twenty years ago)

Oberst gets compared to Dylan because sometimes Oberst cops right from Bob Dylan, both in delivery and melody. Even the S F-J piece, which claims early on that "Oberst is not very much like Dylan" compares him to Dylan in the second to last 'graph. However, I don't think that when people compare Oberst to Dylan they're saying he's *on par* with Dylan. There are just certain similarities.

Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 20:01 (twenty years ago)

I'm listing to Digital Ash now, and I'll give him this: I prefer this to the Postal Service.

miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 20:04 (twenty years ago)

noone seems to have mentioned SFJ's interview with Oberst -- here: http://newyorker.com/online/content/?050207on_onlineonly01 -- which contains the hilarious question "Who are the people you carry in your emotional iPod?" (note that this is said by Sasha, not Conor).

Al (sitcom), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 20:04 (twenty years ago)

my review of the other album: I'm wide awake, it's BORING!

Thank you.

miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 20:05 (twenty years ago)

if I was Jon Williams I'd drown this thread in animated gifs and re-iterations of the phrase "Who are the people you carry in your emotional iPod?"

(x-post)

Al (sitcom), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 20:06 (twenty years ago)

haha i was kind of kidding about 'prince Billy. He's obviously a better songwriter than [He Who Must Not Be Named] and deserves to be recognized, but every photo of him I've ever seen looks like he's about to go sex up a pig.

poortheatre (poortheatre), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 20:07 (twenty years ago)

if i were god, i'd happily step up the hype and critical fawning in exchange for frequent and increasingly vitriolic attacks on the president.

vahid (vahid), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 20:16 (twenty years ago)

yeah cuz it worked so well with michael moore

miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 20:17 (twenty years ago)

x post

I meant: that which characterizes him is an affectation, making him something of a melodramatic himself.

"Will Oldham Oldham" was however, redundant.

danh (danh), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 20:28 (twenty years ago)

this leads to a whole new issue.

when does affectaion work? are there rules for good v. bad affectation? good v. bad melodrama?

affectation cal lead easily into drama, melodrama, or plain old artiface. sometimes it works, sometimes it fails.

in the case of BE, i think the melodrama undermines the quality of the music, making it thin and occasionally burdensom. but there must be cases where that doesn't happen.

hell there are plenty...if only one would come to mind

b b, Tuesday, 1 February 2005 20:54 (twenty years ago)

I think it's kind of obvious why Bright Eyes gets more press...Oldham is deviously enjoyable, there's a great complexity to his character...Bright Eyes is easily consumed, his messages are simple and concise, and therefore much more appealling to a wide audience

Space Is the Place (Space Is the Place), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 20:58 (twenty years ago)

BE gets hype because teenage girls want to shower him with motherly affection. TEH END.

Matt Chesnut, Tuesday, 1 February 2005 21:11 (twenty years ago)

yep...

b b, Tuesday, 1 February 2005 21:14 (twenty years ago)

Then how come Aaron Carter doesn't get New Yorker profiles?

miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 21:18 (twenty years ago)

If complexity is the issue, Bright Eyes' lay-it-all-out-there emotional lyricism leads to far more contradiction than Will Oldham's hucksterism. There's nothing devious about pseudo sentimentality and boredom.

danha, Tuesday, 1 February 2005 21:19 (twenty years ago)

Sir miccio, it is because Aaron Carter is not indie enuff and is not "serious music."

Matt Chesnut, Tuesday, 1 February 2005 21:24 (twenty years ago)

though i'm unfamiliar with his entire oeuvre, bright eyes seems a just a classic guy playing the angles to get chicks. all the signifiers of stud yet victim which sfj describes pretty well. so it would make sense that young people who don't know this game yet are taken by it (female) or sooo want to learn it (male). it would also make sense that some guys would be bitter at his success at the game and that a whole other gang of people just turn and yawn.

it's strange how grown journalists are so taken by this unless the culture of rock music is so invested in this myth of smart, sensitive indie boy and its particular manipulative style of selling sex/longing (with ambiguous depths that warrant more obsession than, say, aaron carter, and fill a soft nostalgic spot in 'intellectuals', say journalists) that it always takes to it unquestioningly as if it's real insight into the human condition.

lolita corpus (lolitacorpus), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 21:24 (twenty years ago)

I wish Travis Morrison waterfalls of pussy. It's not a jealousy thing.

miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 21:27 (twenty years ago)

"I just hear the sound of their voice and I’m dropped into some beautiful womb, and it’s peaceful, and there’s warmth all around me."

No wonder he gets so many bjs.

matthew sweet, Tuesday, 1 February 2005 21:43 (twenty years ago)

dan h., i see where you're coming from, but i don't think you fully *get* will oldham. and i've been known to be pretty criticism of will oldham. he sings from within a set of personas none of which he gives himself over to, but that doesn't mean his shtick amounts to a con or anything. just a different way of performing.

Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 21:47 (twenty years ago)

That's true, I don't get Oldham at all. I don't really get the comparison of the two either. When I listen to a Will Oldaham song however, I'm not getting these personas. I get the distance, that comes with the territory he’s treading, but the back-story doesn't translate so well and I'm left with gassy tunes he seems desperately trying weight down.

dan. (dan.), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 21:54 (twenty years ago)

i didn't make the comparison. i think the idea is that both will and conor are people that some critics will enjoy writing about, but conor is the one more new york times readers are likely to want to read about (for numerous reasons, most of them obvious).

Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 22:01 (twenty years ago)

Sir miccio, it is because Aaron Carter is not indie enuff and is not "serious music."

bushwa--SFJ writes about Aaron Carter equivs all the time, and has for years. (see the Timberlake piece in Slate)

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 22:08 (twenty years ago)

(and danh, I kiss you)

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 22:09 (twenty years ago)

Comparing Timbalake with Aaron Carter? Pop blasphemy!

Point taken, though.

Matt Chesnut, Tuesday, 1 February 2005 22:13 (twenty years ago)

well, you get my drift. ;-)

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 22:15 (twenty years ago)

haha who's got it worse? Conor as the future of rock or Timberlake as the future of soul?

miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 22:16 (twenty years ago)

. . . except SFJ never called Timberlake that (nor Oberst, actually)

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 22:17 (twenty years ago)

dude this isn't about SFJ

miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 22:19 (twenty years ago)

I speak of the hype machine straw man

miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 22:20 (twenty years ago)

OK. I'd say Oberst, then, since I actively enjoy Timberlake's album and almost nothing I've heard by Conor. but that's just me.

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 22:26 (twenty years ago)

I went to see Aaron Carer live once. Walking toward the venue, I was passed by a kid, around 10 years old I'd say, racing toward the door, yelling "Aaron Carter! Aaron Carter!" In the excitement he didn't watch where he was going, and ran straight into a flagpole or some other such pole. There was a very cartoonish "clang!", the kid - now on his back - paused for a minute, and then he started bawling like a big baby.

Per S F-J, honestly, his piece isn't all that different from every other BE piece, and for that, yes, it is a little about S F-J.

Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 22:32 (twenty years ago)

s f-j is a fine writer and i've never read a bad piece by him, but this one is kind of blah. i'm tired of how frequently pieces on musical phenomenons open with a dismissive survey of the supposed "conventional wisdom" or "common critical wisdom." i totally understand why this is tempting as a way to start a piece, and it even might help to grab a certain number of readers if for no other reason than a vague intimation of controversy. but it seems sort of beside the point to me. unless there are some really thick layers of received critical wisdom obscuring the true merits (or demerits) of a performer, which i don't really think is the case with conor oberst.

p.s. i like CE and JT.

Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 22:58 (twenty years ago)

and as an example of that tendency (to dismiss the critical wisdom) this is pretty damn mild and inoffensive. some articles seem to spend their entire length doing this and don't get around to making positive observations about their nominal subject until the column inches are just about running out.

Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 23:01 (twenty years ago)

(the new york times, whether by policy or coincidence, is really good about not indulging this common rock critic habit. it's one reason why their pop music criticism is so strong.)

Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 23:03 (twenty years ago)

FWIW, Conor Oberst he said that I'm Wide Awake was influenced by early '70s folk records and Jackson Browne, which are better reference points than Dylan - so if he has illusions of Dylanism, at least he's smart enough to hide them.

On the other hand, the next Fiery Furnaces record will be influenced by Dylan. (Not the grandmother album, the other one.)

I love SFJ but this read like someone forced him to write it - which is funny, because everyone on the planet profiled Bright Eyes this week.

Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 23:32 (twenty years ago)

"On the other hand, the next Fiery Furnaces record will be influenced by Dylan. (Not the grandmother album, the other one.)"

is that based on an interview or an advanced listen, or....?

Scott CE (Scott CE), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 23:38 (twenty years ago)

From my interview in the 'Fork:


Pitchfork: Do you have any ideas for the next one?

Matt: Yeah, we're going to make two records. We're going to have one with our grandmother and Eleanor singing duets about the hopes that Eleanor has as a young person, and then my grandmother will tell her the failures and cruel blows fate delivered. They'll be the same person in the song-- sort of an "after time passes" kind of a thing. The other will be a rollicking record with long verses. Eleanor and I, for the last year, we've listened to a lot of Bob Dylan. Wouldn't you say, Eleanor?

Eleanor: That's pretty much all I've listened to. I wish we could make an album [like] Another Side of Bob Dylan where the songs would be so good that we could do it in about a day-and-a-half. I think it could be great, where it's just guitar-- that would be our most popular one.

Matt: Well, we can't do that until we get dropped. When you have somebody who'll give you money for a record, you can't... I mean, when it's just you, and you have to go over to a friend's house [to record], and you have $600 to spend, you have to wait to make something interesting. That's the record that you make then.

Eleanor: But then we could just take all the money...

Matt: You can't take all the money!

Eleanor: I'm just kidding.

Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 23:54 (twenty years ago)

I love SFJ but this read like someone forced him to write it - which is funny, because everyone on the planet profiled Bright Eyes this week.

Yeah but the guy does have it listed as second only to M.I.A. so I doubt there was any arm twisting.

http://sfj.abstractdynamics.org/archives/004384.html

dan. (dan.), Tuesday, 1 February 2005 23:57 (twenty years ago)

I just listened to a 19-year-old Dylan rattling off covers on his first living room tape (recently donated to the Minnesota Historical Society). The kid sings rings around Oberst.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/919/5185213.html

Dylan fled the Midwest and invented a person who seemed to come from nowhere

That's entirely true. But I also think it's worth pointing out that he never stopped writing about Minnesota, recorded Blood on the Tracks here, still lives here, and, in his new autobiography, wrote fondly of his 1959-1961 period in Minneapolis. I know, beside the point...

Pete Scholtes, Wednesday, 2 February 2005 20:14 (twenty years ago)

First Caramanica and now Sasha. I feel like the whole world is gobbling up crazy pills re: Oberst.

That "When The President Talks To God" could possibly be the worst Oberst song yet. It's so awful that it made me want to become a Republican just to spite him. And when he gets really angry, it sounds more like he's telling his parents to leave him alone and get out of his room. So so so so so so so bad. It blows my mind that anyone can take this douchebag even a little bit seriously unless they want to fuck him.

Matthew "Flux" Perpetua, Wednesday, 2 February 2005 20:50 (twenty years ago)

And seriously, if you want to fuck him, you've got terrible taste in men!

Matthew "Flux" Perpetua, Wednesday, 2 February 2005 20:50 (twenty years ago)

I have terrible taste in men, then. (NB I have never actually heard a single Bright Eyes song, to my knowledge, but c'mon, he's so cute!)

jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 20:52 (twenty years ago)

101,903 BRIGHT EYES ALBUMS SOLD IN ONE WEEK, IN THE US ALONE.

scott seward (scott seward), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 20:58 (twenty years ago)

Dear Scott,

Is this an actual number, or are you having the fun?

Love,
Saddle Creek Accounting Dept.

David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 21:01 (twenty years ago)

He's going to have to work hard to satisfy all those groupies.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 21:01 (twenty years ago)

I wasn't trying to say that he's not physically attractive - he's def. cute if you're into anime characters. But there's a lot more to taste than looks!

Matthew "Flux" Perpetua, Wednesday, 2 February 2005 21:02 (twenty years ago)

the new york times, whether by policy or coincidence, is really good about not indulging this common rock critic habit

That's probably because their astronomical sense of self-importance prevents them from acknowledging that any other viewpoints could be taken seriously. But I agree with you that it probably helps their writing - just because dismissing the CW tends to be a crutch for too many critics.

o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 21:02 (twenty years ago)

Scott is not having the fun: "Released simultaneously, the acoustic-driven "I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning" (Saddle Creek) bows at No. 10 with 56,000 units, while the more experimental "Digital Ash in a Digital Urn" starts at No. 15 with 46,000 copies. Previously, the act spent only one week on the big chart at No. 161 with 2002's "Lifted or the Story is in the Soil, Keep Your Ear to the Ground," which has sold 200,000 to date." (Billboard.com)

JoB (JoB), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 22:35 (twenty years ago)

More money for the Faint, yay! (At least indirectly.)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 22:41 (twenty years ago)

Faint is gonna be Conor's backing band on the tour for Digital Ash!

miccio (miccio), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 22:46 (twenty years ago)

A saddle creek album in the top 10. Criminy crap on a crutch!

miccio (miccio), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 22:48 (twenty years ago)

Faint is gonna be Conor's backing band on the tour for Digital Ash!

More groupies for the Faint!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 22:52 (twenty years ago)

(If there were a “new Bob Dylan,” he would make people uncomfortable right away, attack the world with a pickaxe, and refuse to say he’s sorry. He would probably not be a musician.)

Is this really what Dylan did?

I just read the Village Voice Hitchens review and it leads with this:

A lot of people are angry at Christopher Hitchens. Since his much publicized split with his former comrades on the left, he's found himself in roughly the same spot as Dylan when he went electric.

http://www.villagevoice.com/books/0505,giuffo,60659,10.html

Hasn't this view of Dylan and his audience been thoroughly debunked? I just watched Festival!, with footage of his "notorious" Newport electric show, and they weren't booing the man, contrary to myth. This first-hand recollection shows how far a myth can outstrip reality:

http://buffaloreport.com/020826dylan.html

Pete Scholtes, Thursday, 3 February 2005 23:39 (twenty years ago)

By contrast, I don't think all the people who are booing Digital Ash will become much of a legend.

Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Friday, 4 February 2005 00:22 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.