a ghost is born

Today as a matter of fact.

I've only heard a few songs from the new Wilco album, but I'm hoping for a great textured album that will seep in and not go away, just like Yankee Hotel Foxtrot.

This post isn't so much about the album, since I don't own it, but about the treatment it's received from rock writers so far. Every review I've seen has been glowing, but qualified with resentment for the band's well-deserved reputation. In classic too cool for school fashion, writers aren't writing about the album, but the myth of the album.

People hate it when talented artists deserving respect ... well, get respect. Modest Mouse is on a bullet train to not cool ever since they gained mainstream success with an uncompromising, astonishing release. The Sunday New York Times had a big article about the "myth of Wilco," that essentially stated: "sure they're good, but I'm not nearly as impressed by them as everyone else. And oh yeah, they're fans are all so white." Entertainment Weekly gave it a solid B, but bitched throughout about Tweedy's past pretention. "the music was continually undercut by a smug, smart-ass cockiness; Tweedy seemed all too aware he was a clever songwriter." and "they sure reveled in their roles as industry martyrs. Annoying, also, is ghost's pretentious lowercase album title and especially, the way Tweedy ... actively resists vocal projection..." and so on.

I once read a Bright Eyes review on trendy Pitchfork Media that gave an album a great rating, but deemed it disappointing that Oberst hasn't done anything more adventurous. Fuck you, where's your album rock geek? It's kind of like how you can read the NYT Book Review, and have no fucking clue whether the reviewers like the books or not.

I don't know where I'm going with this. I hope a requirement for the TSL isn't a concrete thesis. But it's not like anyone else is posting anyway, and besides, I got the first F-bomb.