2009.02.20
Album of the month club review: Jason Mraz, "We Dance, We Sing, We Steal Things"
Heather and I are slipping, but Brooks Tuck and Matt Browning are on it, so I'm going to go ahead and post their reviews.
We start with Mr. Tuck:
I tried. Lord, how I tried. When charged with Jason Mraz's We Dance, We Sing, We Steal Things, I hesitated. This is exactly the type of review that tends to get me in trouble with those who love this type of music. By this type of music, I refer to slickly produced focus group tested white boy soul music for female American Idol fans.
Look, the guy has a perfectly pleasant voice and the arrangements of his songs are built for radio play. I get why people listen to this stuff... as long as said listener is unaware that John Mayer ripped off the entire premise (lyrically and musically) of "Waiting for the World to Change" from Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On" and believes that Daryl Hall and John Oates invented R&B.
For me the loathing starts with note one of the record and ends after track two, "I'm Yours" which is the blunderingly executed faux-reggae number that seems to permeate every corner of our existence these days. At that point, I just blank the whole thing out.
I worked in record stores for years, which means listening to hours of in-store music either picked by overzealous counter people, or by the corporation that I worked for at the time. Therefore, my auditory senses naturally switch to auto-pilot when music that doesn't challenge me is played. I couldn't tell you one thing bad or good about a song on this record past track two. Understand, I listened to it, I just don't remember it. That, in the end, may be the biggest indictment of all.
I paid iTunes 9.99 for this record, and I'm seriously considering looking at legal remedies to retrieve not only the purchase price, but punitive damages for the time I wasted listening to this dreck.
Now for Mr. Browning's take:
This album was not my favorite. I keep telling myself that it's a really simple process and that I love listening to new music, finding new music, discovering good things that have gone undiscovered. This album proves that I don't like necessarily like all music like I once thought. It also proves that I simply cannot handle super-chill, acoustic guitar ridden, suburban sprawl, Caucasian rap, or any attempt thereof.
There's a good chance that I have a problem with things that are considered "popular", I've been told that at least once before. I understand the demographic this album appeals to, and I'm not in it. I stated before that I'm really into the lyrics of a song, a good bit of these lyrics are a giant joke. Are the masses really listening? Or do most people just hear the melody and hook and sing the chorus in their cars on the way to work? There are parts of every song that I like, those parts are mostly provided by the backing musicians.
With all of that said, "Love for a Child" is a great song, written from a very interesting perspective. As for some of the others, I'm not sure how happy the Beatles would be about this guy stealing their melodies. But I can't really say that, because even the music I really enjoy has giant chucks of that in it. After all everything that can be done has already been done, right?
I wouldn't buy this album again for myself, but I would buy it as a Christmas or birthday present for a female between the ages of 12 and 40. I bought this album on iTunes because it was the cheapest method of purchase. I think its probably worth 9.99, especially to someone other than me.
Matt is the good cop. I should really work on that.
Comment by Brooks — February 20, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
Music doesn't always have to be deep and profound. Even mass marketed (expletive deleted -- ed.) can serve a purpose, even if it's a shallow one. Taking music in a deadly serious fashion all the time kills the innocent joy that someone can find in music (yes, even in the pre-packaged and market tested). It helps to not approach the music with a snobbish, superior attitude before the first note is played. Not saying Mr. Mraz is going to be a legend...by any means.
Comment by A. Nonymous — February 20, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
I imagine the Mr. Browning is a very lonely guy if he thinks 12 year old girls and 40 year old woman would appreciate the same birthday gifts. Especially if that gift is a subpar record that he has given a bad review to. Mr. Tuck is a genius and should have a statue erected in his honor.
Comment by Ran Stuard — February 21, 2009 @ 9:45 am
Music does NOT always have to be deep and profound. One of my top 10 favorite records is Rio by Duran Duran... ever listened to Simon LeBon's lyrics? What it DOES have to NOT be, for me, is vapid and repetitive of current trends. Jason Mraz is going to be a huge star and I have no problem with that. I'm just not buying any more of his records.
Comment by Brooks — February 21, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
While I can't comment on the specific Mraz record under discussion, I don't accept Matt Browning repeating the postulation that "everything that can be done has already been done". A. Nonymous makes a good point about the personal value of any music that one likes, no matter how derivative, which conversely opens the door to the truly new, since true originality starts with with just one person-the works' creator-liking it. That there will be no more originality is just the received notion of those who settle for a "whatever" reaction in lieu of informed effort, sometimes due to a lack of effort, but just as often as an attempt to discount being under-informed. By definition, though, the truly original emerges without affiliation to existing identities, so recognizing originality, much less appreciating it, is perhaps as difficult for an audience as an artist.
Comment by pete johnson — February 21, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
I am indeed, so very lonely and I am currently in search of really anyone to survey so I can give you all updated advice on what to buy everyone for Christmas. Moreover, I'll just leave the recommendations out next time.
Pete, I don't like the idea that "everything that can be done has been done." In fact I loathe it, the first time I heard it was Architecture class, and I didn't believe it, I couldn't believe it, if I were to believe it then how could there be any hope to move forward, to go on. I'd like to start a coalition against the very thought that everything that can be done has been done. Teach the world to think with an open mind, starting with music. I'd like for you to be a part of that coalition, Pete. And though my first paragraph was sarcastic, this one is not.
Today, unfortunately, we would have to interject popular music into the equation, throw the music industry into the pile, mix them all together and find that true art forms rarely make it to the top these days. Music is a job as much as it is an art. I would love to believe that everyone that has even sang a song and been paid for it viewed it as art, or even as a part of themselves. Unfortunately since the dawn of money, music has been made by pretty people that are not necessarily that music's creator.
Isn't that why we all love Hank Williams so much in America, because he broke the mold, was a true art form, and then we still watch American Idol religiously?
Lastly, I really like that you all have an opinion. Knowing that you are here reading these and have an opinion will make doing these reviews more interesting from now. I also hope that you all will keep listening to the music that we review so we can keep having these discussions.
Even if I am just a lonely music snob to you all.
Comment by Matt Browning — February 23, 2009 @ 10:02 am
Anyone that honestly does not think that pop music follows very specific formulae doesn't pay attention. Mr. Browning simply maintains that the ever-narrowing window appears to be closing inch by inch. By and large, the MOR aesthetic tends to cannabalize specific sub-genres to translate them to those that tend not to explore music (i. e., Paul Simon's "Graceland" mining South African rhythms). It's doing the work of finding "new sounds" (orientalized in their return) for those that just want to turn the dial. Pointing that out isn't a crime, Mr. Johnson.
This is music criticism people, if you don't want to read a critique (the "hey, dude--let's have fun" crowd) then don't read any review, ever.
Comment by Brandon Miller — February 23, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
Let me address an apparent misunderstanding...I enjoyed reading both reviews, found both informative, and I didn't intend to be negative towards Matt (it was another poster who made the snarky remark about gifts). Perhaps I was not articulate in making my point, which was the audience's role in nurturing originality. It is very reassuring to learn that when Matt encountered the idea of creative defeatism, in an academic setting where that notion is so common, he had the good instincts to resist it.
I did see Mraz on the Tonight show recently, and his performance seemed highly professional, on a tune that was exactly as described by Tuck and Browning: slickly commercial and aimed with precision at a particular popular music fan demographic. At least for me, his competence put him ahead of many others with similar motives. I caught John Mayer at the Roanoke college gym about 2001, when he was building his well funded campaign to be declared a "major" singer/songwriter, and he was so grimly boring that I took his later move into a guitar hero role with some relief. At least the highly derivative chops he uses as a guitar hero don't require a pretense of lyrical profundity.
Having gotten the Oxford American 10th anniversary music issue a couple weeks ago, I guess I zeroed in on the issue of creative defeatism because I get so fed up with the cranio-rectal displacement of so much music "criticism'. Writers on popular music...there's where one finds a high percentage of creative exhaustion. Whether shilling for an agenda, attempting to enshrine a hipster canon, preening for fellow escapees from suburbia, or just simply missing the point, the pretentious, pseudo-authoritative "criticism" that predominates now crowds out basic, informative writing that would make the written words an adjunct to listening, rather than vice versa. I appreciate good music writing, and don't limit it to consumer information. But so much popular music writing now really misleads, a cumulative cocktail of ignorance and pernicious distortion. On that point, here's an inconvenient truth for many music writers: recordings have never been the sole denominator of music that matters, no matter what Rolling Stone and its' ilk, or their collegiate counterparts, might insist.
One of the side issues alluded to by others, which takes us too far off topic of the Mraz record, is the assumption that commercial music making is an inevitablity. Perhaps we are entering an era when music can get some liberation from the pecuniary motives that have come to dominate it, and with new technologies we can expand this idea so that music can reclaim some greater role than mere commerce.
Comment by Pete — February 24, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
I couldn't agree more with that last paragraph, Pete. Furthermore, I love that you read these blog entries and respond with such insight.
I'm excited for next month.
Comment by Matt Browning — February 24, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Whatever Matt Browning's editor is being paid, it should be doubled. That was one incomprehensible comment, dude! Also, it doesn't matter if rock and pop have hit a creative brick wall. There are still a hell of a lot of books you haven't read, and literature is far more satisfying and mind-expanding than pop music. Get your ass to the library!
Comment by Seth — March 15, 2009 @ 3:02 am