Björk '07

K-ROWR!

i honestly don't think i'll like this, medulla got boring v. quick for me.

i'm hoping this will turn out to be more of a colloborative effort rather than a bjork bjorkifying everything. i'd much rather listen to chippendale playing rough and ready to some bjorknoisevocals than another quite interesting track full of studio trickery and clever arrangements. yes bjork we know you're a very clever, but how about taking some non-calculated risks for once!

she should be given a Pop ASBO! immediate fine and/or imprisonment if she makes any music in the next ten years!

I don't think the charge is entirely fair anyway, but this is of course, the same behaviour Madonna fans refer to as "her genius".

I just have good taste.

i hope that was to marcello, so i don't have to work out what the hell "poptimist reverse snobbery" means. anyway, i love bjork and gwen stefani and the wire, infact (some of) marcello('s writing) too. don't really like madonna too much though.

i am damn exited about what this album could be like. chris corsano especially, he's been responsible for some of the best shows i've ever seen. i really do hope the guests on this album can contribute to the whole rather than being tools for a bjork remix session. or whoever she drafts in to remix.

I'm pretty much with george bob here, and not at all ready to discount her ability to synthesize all this stuff into something awesome. I'm just far less cynical than Marcello on this basically.

This album MIGHT and I do say might contain decent material.

As for the issue of collaboration, Björk has shown her ability to pull of such projects as well (e.g. Kelis). Not to say that I don't understand some people's dislike of her style (or the relentlessness of it), but to underestimate her talent and significance in modern music would just be wrong.

the bjorkification thing for me is all about how she turns every damn thing into OMG look at me mixing all this this stuff up. looksy! its arvo part harmony with this tiny tiny beats and arvo part.. pomo writers go mad! she always does a damn good job, so this is cool. but i want to hear another side of her. when she lets go a little bit creativly, lets some of the other doods join in the fun on their own terms. thats waht my bjorkification point was about. she's just not fun anymore.

Precisely what changes in music has she "spearheaded" as opposed to ripping them off about ten minutes after they've been spent?

She is hugely insignificant in terms of modern music.

In short, the uniqueness of Björk's work, along with the acclaim she's recieved for re-inventing genres alongside pushing the electronica scene forward is evidence enough. I'm not saying she's the only actor in the game, nor always the first, but she has always been in the lead, and is so talented that she has managed to make a superstar of herself, making her own way to the top (in contrast to just aiming for the R'n'b booth or some other, hoping Universal will use its marketing machine to make you famous). You're welcome to think Björk as dismal as you like, but it's hard to ignore her influence on music over the last fifteen years.

shes's a good composer, nice lyrics and has a voice which is instantly recognisable as hers. she's got talent. i guess she's important in the way she mixes shit up from a non pop context and sticks it into pop songs.

i couldn't really argue that she is that important or has spearheaded any changes, she's based a career on stealing ideas, i don't really think she makes any attempt to hide her influences, or current obsessions, or even synthesise them into something thats more than the sum. which is what i always recognise in someone who is important and has changed things.

"i guess she's important in the way she mixes shit up from a non pop context and sticks it into pop songs."

That's actually my point; how important has that not become for modern popular music? Others have done similar things before, but not taken it in Björk's direction.

Massive Attack have been writing and producing hits since 1989.
Portishead's first mainstream exposure was on Neneh Cherry's Homebrew released a year before Debut.
Bjork went out with Goldie for a bit after he became famous. There is no evidence of d&b influence in her work nor did she have any influence on it apart from Goldie's media profile, two years after the release of his 250,000-selling album Timeless.
"Doop" was number one 12 months before "It's Oh So Quiet." Examples of samples of "cabaret music" in modern pop and R&B please, and how, say, Christina Aguilera owes it all to Bjork and not, say, to Kid Creole or Prince.
Lamb and Sneaker Pimps released their breakthrough albums long before Homogenic came out.
With Medulla you're rightly clutching at straws, but then you're more or less doing that throughout your entire post.

I'm not saying those artists owe their entire production to Björk, what I am saying is that she has, through her talents, been an ambassador for this stage, and yes, she has influenced many of these. I don't say MA makes Björksy music, but that they have similarities that she forwards. As for Goldie, I didn't mean that as a direct musical reference, you're right about him and I don't think they have much in common musically. Lamb and Sneaker Pimps have been active for a long time, but there's no doubt their style was influenced by Björk's work, I used them to underline the orchestration of newer electronic music, nothing more. Again, with Portishead; I'm calling her a representative, not the basis of all their work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_ad_absurdum

Kid Creole and Prince mixed genres, but this is about totally different styles! Today's R'n'B/Pop is largely about

1. Electronic music

2. Sampling

is it really that unclear?

Surriously.

"It's oh so Quiet" and "Doop", come on, that's so not the same. That's just a sped-up Ragtime.

About the "contemporary artists" thing, quite honestly I've liked Björk from the word go here, but the chronology IS a bit off as far being able to give her the credit for opening up audiences to all that stuff alone. It's completely playing into Marcello's counter-argument.

1. Ragtime vs. Showtunes: Not the same.

2. Doop album vs. Post - "Doop" full-length was released 1 month before "Post". The single was only a hit in Europe.

3. Doop is not a good song. It's oh so Quiet is.

4. Doop uses the Dance formula from Debut, just much worse, to make the album.

5. It's just a bad example.

But I suspect the "troll" section of your email address gives the game away so I'm not going to waste any more time listening to you telling me that the sky is green when it's blue.

YOU LOSE!

ilx search for "cornelius" + "lazy Jap" = 0

I can't sing jazz either - am I therefore Billie Holiday?

the morning's young yet, next round's on me though

Cornelius was a hyped-up Jap twat

-- Marcello Carlin (marcellocarli...), June 14th, 2005.

At least he wasn't lazy though. That might have been offensive.

well you don't HAVE to read the thread... but hey, put up a new topic header "what we like/dislike about Björk", I'll be happy contribute. It's been done though.

FWIW I was trying to steer the debate towards this, and away from the "Importance, Innovation, Influence" strawman debating society crap that every Björk thread ever seems to turn into w/point-by-inaccurate-often-irrelevent-rebuttal from haters & lovers alike. Absolute tedium, topped only in predictability and pointlessness by Madonna, Radiohead and Nirvana threads.

I'm not particularly interested in Bjork's "importance and innovation," but I'm pretty sure at least as far as this threads troll is concerned, there are no right reasons to enjoy Bjork, and plenty of damning reasons why anyone would. He's not goading toward anything; he's just goading. I thought for a minute maybe he had an argument as to why he so viscerally hates this artist, but it's long since become clear he does not.

As for myself, I enjoy Bjork's voice, her ability to go from sweet notes to odd noises and back in seconds; her songwriting; her musical playfulness, willingness to mix "highbrow" and "lowbrow," electronic and organic; her videos; her straddling of pop and "art" musics; her roots in weirdo post-punk silliness; her lyrics; her melodies; her beats; her production/producers; her b-sides; her choice in collaborations, from Evelyn Glennie to Timbaland to Matmos to Wu Tang Clan to Robert Wyatt, Rhazell, Toumani Diabate, Brodsky Quartet, Tricky, et al and how it almost always fits together; how she knows more about music, both in the sense of what she's heard/processed and what she can create, than "critics" like M. Carlin ever could do.

I couldn't give two shits about: her chart positions; her clothes; her personality outside of her records; her photographs; how popular or not she is; whether she "steals" bits and pieces from other people; whom she punches in airports; whether her voice is "technically flawless"; who her fans are or aren't; how "important" or "influencial" she is or will one day be considered.

Seriously, Bjork is on the outer limits of the NPR set. Maybe I could evaluate her recent output if I didn't have to hear "Listen, it's Bjork, she's going to do something important" with every release. But I do, and it's hard to get at her outside of who she's collaborating with/who she goes out with/what films she's acting in. She was never that great of a songwriter or lyricist, and for such a risk-taker, her albums sound pretty safe to me.

err...none really. the channels tend to be split thusly:

BBC radio 1: pop
radio 2: oldies, 'classics' + easy listening (roughly)
radio 3: classical, bits of jazz, bits of friendly experimental
radio 4: speech
radio 5: sport + phone-ins

what you're talking about seems a bit more like Xfm, which is a regional station that describes itself as 'alternative' (i.e. indie). its history is convoluted though...it used to be entirely independent and have quite an adventurous remit before being bought by a commercial conglomerate and dumbing down somewhat. it also used to be truly alternative in that you'd rarely find a guitar band in the charts back then, but somewhere along the way a fairly drab form of indie-lite became common top 40 currency - meaning that these days Xfm shares a great deal of its playlist with R1, and therefore is the alternative to...not a lot.

So why use the patronising, played-out "NPR" strawman re: Bjork?

But this extra-musical baggage has, well, *nothing* to do with the actual music per se.

On the other extreme, I always get shit about liking composers from the Les Six group of composers----the lot of them still pompously considered "low art" in certain classical circles. Bottom line is, people can write a thousand pages on why it's wrong to like them, but that won't affect my immediate reactions to the music. Why should it?

So why doesn't black people want to Bjork?

-- Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (soto.alfre...), January 31st, 2007.

THE ONE AND ONLY CORRECT ANSWER TELL HIM WHAT HE'S WON JOHN!

-- Marcello Carlin (marcellocarli...), February 1st, 2007.

For the actually reading the thread impaired:

As for myself, I enjoy Bjork's voice, her ability to go from sweet notes to odd noises and back in seconds; her songwriting; her musical playfulness, willingness to mix "highbrow" and "lowbrow," electronic and organic; her videos; her straddling of pop and "art" musics; her roots in weirdo post-punk silliness; her lyrics; her melodies; her beats; her production/producers; her b-sides; her choice in collaborations, from Evelyn Glennie to Timbaland to Matmos to Wu Tang Clan to Robert Wyatt, Rhazell, Toumani Diabate, Brodsky Quartet, Tricky, et al and how it almost always fits together; how she knows more about music, both in the sense of what she's heard/processed and what she can create, than "critics" like M. Carlin ever could do.

I couldn't give two shits about: her chart positions; her clothes; her personality outside of her records; her photographs; how popular or not she is; whether she "steals" bits and pieces from other people; whom she punches in airports; whether her voice is "technically flawless"; who her fans are or aren't; how "important" or "influencial" she is or will one day be considered.

You'll stoop to any petty attack to avoid addressing other possible ways of viewing the matter. I hadn't gathered from your eloquently pellucid writing in this thread--polished gems like "YOU LOSE!" and "except (sic) at least they have tunes[,] which is more than you can say for bjork (sic) berk! at (sic) least aaliyah (sic) can sing! and (sic) if her efforts are so bad why is bjork (sic) working with HER FUCKING PRODUCER ten years too late?"--that the omission of dashes in an obviously implied phrase indicated one hadn't learnt English. I'll try to live up to your Oxford-calibre example in future.

I'd say a quick sketch of over a dozen qualities someone who disagrees with you enjoys about this pop musician is a start at moving away from the the topic of lofty "platitudes" about significance. It's not a formal deliniation, but it's a little more substantive than "I just have good taste". But you're not really goading toward "debate" and away from "platitudes". Its easier for you to couch your subjective dislike of the artist in the realm of influence and significance where illusions of objectivity can be maintained, because otherwise you'd have to admit your opinion is no more or less valid than those who like her music.

Nevertheless, in your loud way, you've made clear some of your subjective dislikes; I've set out some of my subjective likes; as have others in both camps. So why not drop the pretense that those who disagree with you are subject to some sort of burden of proof, that we must provide "concrete evidence," whilst you continue to caterwaul with indignant authority?

That pretty well sums up Radio 2 at the moment, though Radio 1 seems to be moving in that direction and re-ghettoising all the black stuff onto 1Xtra.

Well, yeah, per se, but I think that Bjork, more than an average performer, has a persona and image that she has developed along with her music. As nice as it might be, we can't just listen to stuff in a vacuum. The idea of Bjork is part of the experience of listening to Bjork. Maybe you don't think like this, more power to you if that's the case.

That gif is indeed beyond compare. It's like a perfectly-formed Beckett short.

Your idea of Björk is still mediated by your response to the music.

you know, I think her image developed rather a long time before her solo career did! and as for her "persona" I'd say it's half press, half her way of handling the type of press she attracts, at least that's how it comes over to me.

interestingly, she took a stylist along on her last tour, something she'd never actually done before(!) eat that Karen fucking O.

http://www.nataliedee.com/012506/maracas.jpg

NEVER FORGET

her girlish voice is still as awful as it was 15 or 20 years ago. why the hell can't she grow up?