] [Thread Prev
Re: In Praise of Taking Risks with Artistry (was conundrum, re: bjork's new CD)
At a record store listening booth, I listened to the first track and
the first minute or so of the next five, and there was nothing grabbing
me, and it sounded pretty Bjork. Like a lot of "music with an unusual
concept in it's production", I found the idea more compelling than the
actual results. At this point she's in my bin marked "artists who have
exhausted my benefit of the doubt owing to my finite amounts of time
and money", along with Radiohead, Merzbow, live Phish recordings, John
Tesh, the films of Kevin Smith, Skrewdriver, all of the post-'91 output
of Philip Glass, and many others. So, I'm unlikely to spend actual
money and time to confirm what several previous years of Bjork exposure
have revealed: a lack of compatibility between her musical art and my
powers of appreciation.
And besides, my point is not to confirm or deny the perceived worth of
any particular piece of art, but rather to emphasize that it's
important to be sure that one isn't mistaking "novel" for "good". A
recording of someone playing piano with just their nose, for instance,
isn't really all that interesting to listen to...twice, regardless of
the novel approach, or the difficulty the performer faced in working in
such a manner.. And maybe not even once if you don't know the back
story. Remember Bang On A Can's version of "Music For Airports"?
So, I'm glad you enjoy the new Bjork, but I'm not just knee-jerking my
rejection of it.
On Sep 6, 2004, at 4:11 PM,
> I guess she had to finance the new album. Have you even heard it?
> The bulk of it is not pop music, I think it's amazing.