Bjork

[Harry 26,836]

She's being interviewed on Zane Lowe's Radio 1 show right now with Vulnicura as 'Album of the Week'. She's so cute.

[Dr Rogoe 23]

Lest we forget the good sis jöanna lee

[StrawberryBlond 14,120]

Intelligent words and phrasing? You described her music as a "series of bleeps, squawks and whistles". How can you expect me to take that kind of thing seriously?

 

I guess we'll just have to leave it and agree to disagree then since I thoroughly believe you aren't educated enough on this area of music to provide a respectable critique, and still think the way you've spoken about this album is lazy.

 

Not all her music. That phrase was actually lifted from a part of my review of Biophilia (in the days when I actually made documented reviews instead of just rating them and listing the best and worst tracks). This is how I described the tracks Moon, Thunderbolt, Virus and The Comet Song. In retrospect, re-listening to them, I think that description was off, to say the least. For the most part, it was quite string and bell orientated and I don't think there was any whistles. I didn't like how aggressive and loud her vocals were especially when paired with backing vocals, making the song a big mess of too much going on at once. Though it was nowhere near as headache inducing as I remember it. But it was something I listened to once back in 2011, wrote a review about, and then never went back to. And it was one of my first ever reviews and I was still learning. But I looked it up again and thought this phrase was an apt way to describe some music that's hailed as innovative and cutting edge, but I just find jarring and pretentious. For what it's worth, I did like Dark Matter and Solstice, though: the former for its dark, spooky organ accompaniment and the latter for its beautifully serene properties with tolerable vocals. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but I think saying that you can't take my views seriously just because you don't agree with them is a bit much. It's funny, I've experienced being laughed at for being too intelligent and in depth before and now I'm being critiqued for not being intelligent and in-depth enough. And I have to admit, I'm not used to hearing the latter.

 

Well, you're kinda right, I'm not educated on this type of music, but I doubt every critic is either. Lots of critics just review the genres they like, but I review all genres as I like to find beauty in all music, not just my favourites. That's why I'm listening to a Bjork album in the first place, because I try to review as many albums by traceable artists as I can every year. The reason why you find my views on the album lazy is because I'm not reviewing it right. What I originally posted wasn't a review, it was an answer to a question. I don't write out reviews anymore, so I haven't had time to sit back and evalutate how I would sum it all up and I wouldn't even attempt to either, because the album all blends into one big piece of irritation for me. But suffice to say, listening to Vulnicura was a very difficult experience and actually, revisiting Biophilia was a welcome respite after that. Sorry if it may not be a "respectable" critique in your eyes, but that's what happens when you hear an album that does nothing for you.

 

I guess it is just best to agree to disagree. I wasn't even supposed to be on her dedicated thread anyway. By the way, if you want to see a negative but (hopefully) intelligent, meaningful critique of an album, I've spoilered below the review of Daft Punk's Random Access Memories that I made for Metacritic. I believe it's one of the best reviews I've ever made, the closest to the kind written by older, professional critics, as opposed to a (at the time) 23 year old amateur critic with no musical degree:

 

Daft Punk - Random Access Memories - 3/10

 

Get Lucky was one of the most surprising hit singles I've ever witnessed in my lifetime. For a song by an act who'd only ever had one big hit and one reasonable hit in the 19 years they'd been making music, to achieve the success that they did with this track (which included #1's in regions that they'd never succeeded in before) was something of a miracle. To achieve that level of success, it had to be a generic track that embodied all the current trends, right? No, it was a throwback to the 70's disco movement, the complete opposite to what the public wanted, yet for some reason, it took off and I knew it was pointless making predictions about what was going to be popular anymore. Due to the single's success, there was significant hype around this album, which puzzled me as while Daft Punk haven't released many albums, I had never been aware of this demand for them and certainly not when they were releasing 70's disco jams. After the album's release, there was considerable confusion among fans as to what the duo were thinking and genuine surprise among critics as to what made them decide to do something so avant garde. And I understand why: RAM is an album full of bizarre choices and is the opposite to what mainstream DJs are doing right now. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of modern dance music, but that doesn't mean I'd rather it became so low key to the point where it's undanceable. Ironically, the only kind of music that has never made me feel like dancing is disco music. It's so bland and soul-less to me and I have relatives who lived through the 70's who can testify to this. So, to listen to an album that consisted of this theme for 78 minutes was quite frankly, torture. If it's not throwing boring disco music full of repetition at you, it's making you stomach the rambling nonsense that is Giorgio by Moroder for 9 minutes. I have heard people say that this album is really cutting edge and revolutionary. What is cutting edge and revolutionary about singing ba--l lyrics like "We're up all night to get lucky" and "If we're doing it right, everybody will be dancing"? That's the sort of lyrics amateur songwriters can come up with in 5 minutes. The only rays of hope are, in an unusual theme, all the tracks composed of one word: Within, Touch, Beyond, Motherboard, Contact, and bonus track, Horizon. Here you will find relaxing, euphoric tunes that make me see, just for a moment, what the fans of this album saw. But the rest of it sounds like it's from a completely different album.

What has really disappointed me more than the album's potential buried under a pile of stinkers, is the reaction from those who praised it. Predicatably, an album that splits public opinion like this will have those who have a sense of superiority regarding anyone who didn't like it to be uncultured, musically ignorant, you name it. If you're below the age of 30 and don't have a degree in music, your opinion isn't valid, apparently. Well, while I might still be discovering all the intricacies of music at my age and am not a professional music critic or expert, I do listen to lots of albums a year and open my mind to all music, which is a lot more than some of those with a superiority complex do. I also have a fascination with sound and am part of the ASMR community (look it up). As such, I understand that we all have different musical tastes for a reason and no one's taste is better than others. I would advise anyone listening to this album to not be taken in by music snobs who will praise anything just because it's "different" and listen to it with your opinion solely in mind.

 

I hope the last paragraph in particular gets through to you.

 

People seriously think Bjork can't sing? 

Anyway I think this album is brilliant, definitely better than Biophilia and Volta anyway. Stonemilker, Black Lake, Atom Dance and Quicksand are amazing.

 

 

That's pretty much what trip hop is so yeah, not really a meaningful critique. Don't worry about it though hun, not everyone can appreciate genius 

 

i find her voice overly aggressive, exaggerated, loud and almost obnoxious. it's like she deliberately trying to make the audience uncomfortable, which I think is the opposite of what an artist should be doing. I physically wince when I hear most of her music because she spits the words out in such a jarring way and does loud, off-key notes. When paired with lyrics accented so thick that's it's difficult to make out and it all amounts to hitting that part of my inner ear that says: "Make it stop." And I'm not alone in thinking this. Her voice could only appeal to a niche crowd.

 

And here we go again, another music snob who thinks anyone who doesn't connect to the music you do must mean that they're empty-headed. When it comes to music, "genius" is defined in extremely subjective terms.

[Homogenik 5]

 

interview on the BBC radio (at 1h) : http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0505g6b

 

[Shu Rin 64]

Ok so I’ve been listening to Vulnicura non stop since it came out and I’m obviously in love with it. You get so emotional when you sit down and really listen to it. It feels like Homogenic and Vespertine, but I also hear bits and pieces of the songs that also feel like her other albums. Notget reminds me of Biophilia because of the pipe organ,  Lionsong and Mouth Mantra also reminds me of Dark Matter because of that weird voice harmony thing, but I also get Medulla feels from Mouth Mantra as well. Quicksand sounds so happy and refreshing like something from Debut or Post. I could go on, but yeah i'm really enjoying the album. Can't wait to get my hands on the physical CD. 

[scrappy 302]

Official Björk shop now offers an instant free mp3 download when you pre-order the CD/Vinyl version.

 

BTW, was the deluxe cover revealed?

[MikeyMoonShine 0]

And here we go again, another music snob who thinks anyone who doesn't connect to the music you do must mean that they're empty-headed. When it comes to music, "genius" is defined in extremely subjective terms.

 

When did I call you "empty headed"? I was merely trying to cheer up another user who had become exasperated by your constant ranting. Obviously you were offended by the way I phrased my comment. I am really not interested in playing the objective vs subjective game but let me assure you I was merely pointing out that not everyone has the same taste and that it is better not to worry about it. 

[StrawberryBlond 14,120]

When did I call you "empty headed"? I was merely trying to cheer up another user who had become exasperated by your constant ranting. Obviously you were offended by the way I phrased my comment. I am really not interested in playing the objective vs subjective game but let me assure you I was merely pointing out that not everyone has the same taste and that it is better not to worry about it. 

 

That's what you seemed to be suggesting. If all you meant to say was that everyone has different tastes, why didn't you just say exactly that? There's a difference between "everyone has different tastes" and "some people just can't appreciate genius." The former is saying that you respect people's rights to have a differing opinion and respect their intelligence. The latter, however, says that some people's opinions are invalid because they're too stupid or close-minded to understand talent. Now, that is actually a pretty apt statement for some of the public, usually the very young who only listen to music that the media feeds them and are very easily led into believeing that something is good because it's popular. But I'm not like that at all. I study music extensively and listen to around 100 albums a year, from all genres and all levels of talent and have never based my opinion of an artist on how popular they are. So, it makes me annoyed to see someone saying that I don't have the ability to understand a very polarizing piece of work, of all things. If you were just trying to say that we all have different tastes, fine, but be more mindful of how you speak that view in future. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

[MikeyMoonShine 0]

That's what you seemed to be suggesting. If all you meant to say was that everyone has different tastes, why didn't you just say exactly that? There's a difference between "everyone has different tastes" and "some people just can't appreciate genius." The former is saying that you respect people's rights to have a differing opinion and respect their intelligence. The latter, however, says that some people's opinions are invalid because they're too stupid or close-minded to understand talent. Now, that is actually a pretty apt statement for some of the public, usually the very young who only listen to music that the media feeds them and are very easily led into believeing that something is good because it's popular. But I'm not like that at all. I study music extensively and listen to around 100 albums a year, from all genres and all levels of talent and have never based my opinion of an artist on how popular they are. So, it makes me annoyed to see someone saying that I don't have the ability to understand a very polarizing piece of work, of all things. If you were just trying to say that we all have different tastes, fine, but be more mindful of how you speak that view in future. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

 

Well my comment was somewhat snarky and for that I apologize. Still though Bjork is considered a musical genius by many both in and out of the music industry. This isn't in the same way that every artist is considered a genius by someone out there, bjork is considered quite an important figure and a pioneer in experimental music, electronic music, artistic conceptual music and trip hop. As well as for her imagery and her music videos. 

 

Sure you can deny all that and say it's subjective, which it is to an extent. She's not a huge seller (although she does pretty well), she's not massively well known in comparison to modern pop girls. Many find her music distasteful for many reasons, i do not deny this. Still she has influenced and inspired many artists including the artist this forum is dedicated to. She has a place in music history.

 

I wouldn't say you lack ability to appreciate good music but you don't appreciate what I do when it comes to Bjork at least. There could be any number of reasons as to why.  :P As I said though the comment was snarky and I apologize I should not have insulted your intellect like that. I was mostly talking only about taste but i said it in a sarcastic and insulting way I guess coz your posts irritated me a bit. So yeah, lets put bitterness aside and discuss the album and Bjork in general? Well I'll discuss her anyway and you are welcome to respond. 

 

So to disclose my bias, Bjork is probably my favorite artist if I were to have such a thing. I listen to her more than any other artist and I am very knowledgeable when it comes to her discography. There are only a handful of songs by her that I don't like.  

I haven't really had enough time with the album to decide how much I like it, it takes me a long time to fully come to terms with a Bjork album. I am pretty sure I like it more than some of her previous albums though. This album is probably her most cohesive but that doesn't mean it's her best.  I doubt it will end up in front of Homogenic, Vespertine and  Medúlla for me but it may end up outranking the others. 

 

So Bjork's voice. Lots of people do seem to dislike her voice and the way she sings, for many it is a deal breaker but it is something you can learn to appreciate better. I found her vocals on many of her songs to be very off putting when I first heard of her, I only really liked some of her bigger singles. Eventually i decided to branch out and try out more of her discography, getting used to her vocals made it easier to appreciate what had previously been inaccessible to me. You are correct though she is loud, she is aggressive  she wails and she sometimes uses her vocals in a purposefully grating way. She also sings in a very unmelodic way with this album along with Homogenic and Vespertine being one of her more melodic albums when it comes to vocals. All of this can be appreciated though, there is beauty in the experimental. Sometimes something sounds a bit off putting on purpose and you have to learn to get used to it in order to appreciate it. This is common in Trip hop music although that's more about production than vocals. Bjork uses her voice like an instrument (I know a voice is an instrument but bare with me) you aren't always going to understand what she is saying and that is fine. Sometimes she is just wailing anyway.  :P

 

I saw that you criticized her lyrics, I am a bit confused as to how you came to a conclusion like this "her lyrics are just hipster-esque "poetic" phrasing that doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things." I mean the first part of this critique completely lacks substance and the second part is false. Bjork's lyrics have never been meaningless and she is hardly subtle, she's generally very clear about what she is referring to and this album is no different. The album refers to a breakup, the songs describe her emotional state and mindset leading up to and after the breakup. The first track Stonemilker describes her struggle to relate emotionally to the person she is with, the fifth song family deals with her trying to come to terms with the loss of her family unit due to her breakup. Bjork is a very straight forward songwriter and she always has been. 

 

As for her production, Bjork music is usually very production heavy and often the vocals seem to at first clash with the prod but this is just because it's something you need to get used to. If you manage to get there you will find her vocals compliment the production very well on many of her songs. Bjork is very well known for her producing skills and for experimenting with new methods constantly. This album is one of the few where she hasn't really done much of that but it's also one of her most well produced albums ever, in my opinion. 

 

You don't seem that interested in giving Bjork a go but if you are I would suggest Homogenic, Post, Vespertine and maybe Debut if you like that sort of thing. Biophilia (whilst I personally really liked it) is one of her worst albums, only just beaten by Volta. 

It's good to remember that the main focus of this album wasn't really to be a collection of songs but an educational music app. It focuses more on experimental sounds and conceptual ideas than it does on making solid accessible songs. 

[Pluto 776]

mess @ this thread

anyways to concide with the moma exhibition they are releasing her back catalogue on coloured vinyl!

debut-beige

post-pink

homogenic-green

vespertine-white

medulla-brown

volta-red

biophilia-blue

[StrawberryBlond 14,120]

Well my comment was somewhat snarky and for that I apologize. Still though Bjork is considered a musical genius by many both in and out of the music industry. This isn't in the same way that every artist is considered a genius by someone out there, bjork is considered quite an important figure and a pioneer in experimental music, electronic music, artistic conceptual music and trip hop. As well as for her imagery and her music videos. 

 

Sure you can deny all that and say it's subjective, which it is to an extent. She's not a huge seller (although she does pretty well), she's not massively well known in comparison to modern pop girls. Many find her music distasteful for many reasons, i do not deny this. Still she has influenced and inspired many artists including the artist this forum is dedicated to. She has a place in music history.

 

I wouldn't say you lack ability to appreciate good music but you don't appreciate what I do when it comes to Bjork at least. There could be any number of reasons as to why.  :P As I said though the comment was snarky and I apologize I should not have insulted your intellect like that. I was mostly talking only about taste but i said it in a sarcastic and insulting way I guess coz your posts irritated me a bit. So yeah, lets put bitterness aside and discuss the album and Bjork in general? Well I'll discuss her anyway and you are welcome to respond. 

 

So to disclose my bias, Bjork is probably my favorite artist if I were to have such a thing. I listen to her more than any other artist and I am very knowledgeable when it comes to her discography. There are only a handful of songs by her that I don't like.  

I haven't really had enough time with the album to decide how much I like it, it takes me a long time to fully come to terms with a Bjork album. I am pretty sure I like it more than some of her previous albums though. This album is probably her most cohesive but that doesn't mean it's her best.  I doubt it will end up in front of Homogenic, Vespertine and  Medúlla for me but it may end up outranking the others. 

 

So Bjork's voice. Lots of people do seem to dislike her voice and the way she sings, for many it is a deal breaker but it is something you can learn to appreciate better. I found her vocals on many of her songs to be very off putting when I first heard of her, I only really liked some of her bigger singles. Eventually i decided to branch out and try out more of her discography, getting used to her vocals made it easier to appreciate what had previously been inaccessible to me. You are correct though she is loud, she is aggressive  she wails and she sometimes uses her vocals in a purposefully grating way. She also sings in a very unmelodic way with this album along with Homogenic and Vespertine being one of her more melodic albums when it comes to vocals. All of this can be appreciated though, there is beauty in the experimental. Sometimes something sounds a bit off putting on purpose and you have to learn to get used to it in order to appreciate it. This is common in Trip hop music although that's more about production than vocals. Bjork uses her voice like an instrument (I know a voice is an instrument but bare with me) you aren't always going to understand what she is saying and that is fine. Sometimes she is just wailing anyway.  :P

 

I saw that you criticized her lyrics, I am a bit confused as to how you came to a conclusion like this "her lyrics are just hipster-esque "poetic" phrasing that doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things." I mean the first part of this critique completely lacks substance and the second part is false. Bjork's lyrics have never been meaningless and she is hardly subtle, she's generally very clear about what she is referring to and this album is no different. The album refers to a breakup, the songs describe her emotional state and mindset leading up to and after the breakup. The first track Stonemilker describes her struggle to relate emotionally to the person she is with, the fifth song family deals with her trying to come to terms with the loss of her family unit due to her breakup. Bjork is a very straight forward songwriter and she always has been. 

 

As for her production, Bjork music is usually very production heavy and often the vocals seem to at first clash with the prod but this is just because it's something you need to get used to. If you manage to get there you will find her vocals compliment the production very well on many of her songs. Bjork is very well known for her producing skills and for experimenting with new methods constantly. This album is one of the few where she hasn't really done much of that but it's also one of her most well produced albums ever, in my opinion. 

 

You don't seem that interested in giving Bjork a go but if you are I would suggest Homogenic, Post, Vespertine and maybe Debut if you like that sort of thing. Biophilia (whilst I personally really liked it) is one of her worst albums, only just beaten by Volta. 

It's good to remember that the main focus of this album wasn't really to be a collection of songs but an educational music app. It focuses more on experimental sounds and conceptual ideas than it does on making solid accessible songs. 

 

Apology accepted. I get what you were trying to say now, I just wished you'd gone about it a different way.

 

Yes, I get that Bjork is an inspiration to many and she is quite a pioneer. But that doesn't mean I think her work should be emulated as it just doesn't do it for me. I think all art is subjective as it can be interpreted differently and touch people in different ways, so we can't start dictating what's objectively good and bad when it comes to artistic visions. For me, I prefer a singer who enunciates words clearly, at a comfortable volume, beats that are melodic and soothing and songs that are reasonably easy to decipher, with relatability being a bonus. As such, Bjork is a very challenging artist for me. I understand that it stings quite a bit to hear someone being highly critical of your favourite artist, so I'll keep things at a respectful minimum. I certainly got really heated back in the day when people insulted Gaga.

 

Thing is, Bjork makes a lot of sounds with her throat, which isn't actually singing in itself, and it's these sounds that are especially a big turn off for me. I looked up a compliation of her vocals and when she sang It's Oh So Quiet live, she added in this bizarre sound that sounded like a cross between a horse and a speeded up chipmunk laugh. Then, of course, she literally screams in the song. That's irritation defined for me. And I don't think I'll ever appreciate it. I physically wince when she sings and that's not going to make me enjoy an album. But the weird thing is, on this compilation filled with extremely polarizing vocals, there was this one exception. She did a live performance of All Is Full Of Love where she held a long note for 17 seconds and it sounded stunning. If she's capable of that, why doesn't she do it more often? That would be too much for the vocal chords, I get that, but can't she even try a faint approximation of what she did then? I find it very depressing when an artist can sing but for some reason, pretends they can't because it sounds "cool" or "modern" or "edgy" or "distinctive." If Bjork sang more like what she did that day, she could gain a lot more fans.

 

Like I said, I find it difficult to understand what she says a lot of the time, so that's what makes some of her lyrics hard to wrap my head around. But I find some of her phrasing overly flowery or dramatic. I found Stonemilker to be a good example of that (though it was difficult to make a lot of it out). I just prefer emotions to be put down in a way that people would say them in real life. That's the best way I can put it. On Biophilia, she was talking about stuff I didn't understand either. To me, if an album contains bizarre song titles, it usually is a red flag for me as it means I probably won't understand it (I was pleasantly surprised with an album that was exactly like this recently, though, and it was one of my favourites of last year - see my review list tomorrow). I don't mind experimental music, but I do have problems with the stuff that's too personal or too ambiguous to be understood by the listener. That's why I don't understand why most critics can like stuff like that.

 

Yes - her vocals clashing with the production is a sore point for me. A song has to flow properly for me to feel comfortable. Like I said before, I think her instrumentals can be nice, I just don't always appreciate her words over them.

 

I would be interested in giving Homogenic and Vespertine a go because they're some of her most loved works, even by non-fans, and involve music styles and themes that could appeal to me more. Is it true that Vespertine is the album where she's at her most "normal?" To give me an idea, what album would you call her most commercial? I once actually saw this graph that explained how you can get into Bjork's music. It says you should start with Post and if you like it, you should listen to a certain album next, if not, something else. And it all eventually sums up with Medulla, for the ultimate fan. I believe that was her most experimental release, right? It certainly would be interesting to hear just to see how far I can push myself.

[Pluto 776]

Apology accepted. I get what you were trying to say now, I just wished you'd gone about it a different way.

 

Yes, I get that Bjork is an inspiration to many and she is quite a pioneer. But that doesn't mean I think her work should be emulated as it just doesn't do it for me. I think all art is subjective as it can be interpreted differently and touch people in different ways, so we can't start dictating what's objectively good and bad when it comes to artistic visions. For me, I prefer a singer who enunciates words clearly, at a comfortable volume, beats that are melodic and soothing and songs that are reasonably easy to decipher, with relatability being a bonus. As such, Bjork is a very challenging artist for me. I understand that it stings quite a bit to hear someone being highly critical of your favourite artist, so I'll keep things at a respectful minimum. I certainly got really heated back in the day when people insulted Gaga.

 

Thing is, Bjork makes a lot of sounds with her throat, which isn't actually singing in itself, and it's these sounds that are especially a big turn off for me. I looked up a compliation of her vocals and when she sang It's Oh So Quiet live, she added in this bizarre sound that sounded like a cross between a horse and a speeded up chipmunk laugh. Then, of course, she literally screams in the song. That's irritation defined for me. And I don't think I'll ever appreciate it. I physically wince when she sings and that's not going to make me enjoy an album. But the weird thing is, on this compilation filled with extremely polarizing vocals, there was this one exception. She did a live performance of All Is Full Of Love where she held a long note for 17 seconds and it sounded stunning. If she's capable of that, why doesn't she do it more often? That would be too much for the vocal chords, I get that, but can't she even try a faint approximation of what she did then? I find it very depressing when an artist can sing but for some reason, pretends they can't because it sounds "cool" or "modern" or "edgy" or "distinctive." If Bjork sang more like what she did that day, she could gain a lot more fans.

 

Like I said, I find it difficult to understand what she says a lot of the time, so that's what makes some of her lyrics hard to wrap my head around. But I find some of her phrasing overly flowery or dramatic. I found Stonemilker to be a good example of that (though it was difficult to make a lot of it out). I just prefer emotions to be put down in a way that people would say them in real life. That's the best way I can put it. On Biophilia, she was talking about stuff I didn't understand either. To me, if an album contains bizarre song titles, it usually is a red flag for me as it means I probably won't understand it (I was pleasantly surprised with an album that was exactly like this recently, though, and it was one of my favourites of last year - see my review list tomorrow). I don't mind experimental music, but I do have problems with the stuff that's too personal or too ambiguous to be understood by the listener. That's why I don't understand why most critics can like stuff like that.

 

Yes - her vocals clashing with the production is a sore point for me. A song has to flow properly for me to feel comfortable. Like I said before, I think her instrumentals can be nice, I just don't always appreciate her words over them.

 

I would be interested in giving Homogenic and Vespertine a go because they're some of her most loved works, even by non-fans, and involve music styles and themes that could appeal to me more. Is it true that Vespertine is the album where she's at her most "normal?" To give me an idea, what album would you call her most commercial? I once actually saw this graph that explained how you can get into Bjork's music. It says you should start with Post and if you like it, you should listen to a certain album next, if not, something else. And it all eventually sums up with Medulla, for the ultimate fan. I believe that was her most experimental release, right? It certainly would be interesting to hear just to see how far I can push myself.

Post is probably the best place to start. It has her most known singles, and it's my personal favourite.

[Homogenik 5]

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re8toXR4nv4

 

 

new interview ? 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtRDPCj-MSk

[MikeyMoonShine 0]

Apology accepted. I get what you were trying to say now, I just wished you'd gone about it a different way.

 

Yes, I get that Bjork is an inspiration to many and she is quite a pioneer. But that doesn't mean I think her work should be emulated as it just doesn't do it for me. I think all art is subjective as it can be interpreted differently and touch people in different ways, so we can't start dictating what's objectively good and bad when it comes to artistic visions. For me, I prefer a singer who enunciates words clearly, at a comfortable volume, beats that are melodic and soothing and songs that are reasonably easy to decipher, with relatability being a bonus. As such, Bjork is a very challenging artist for me. I understand that it stings quite a bit to hear someone being highly critical of your favourite artist, so I'll keep things at a respectful minimum. I certainly got really heated back in the day when people insulted Gaga.

 

Thing is, Bjork makes a lot of sounds with her throat, which isn't actually singing in itself, and it's these sounds that are especially a big turn off for me. I looked up a compliation of her vocals and when she sang It's Oh So Quiet live, she added in this bizarre sound that sounded like a cross between a horse and a speeded up chipmunk laugh. Then, of course, she literally screams in the song. That's irritation defined for me. And I don't think I'll ever appreciate it. I physically wince when she sings and that's not going to make me enjoy an album. But the weird thing is, on this compilation filled with extremely polarizing vocals, there was this one exception. She did a live performance of All Is Full Of Love where she held a long note for 17 seconds and it sounded stunning. If she's capable of that, why doesn't she do it more often? That would be too much for the vocal chords, I get that, but can't she even try a faint approximation of what she did then? I find it very depressing when an artist can sing but for some reason, pretends they can't because it sounds "cool" or "modern" or "edgy" or "distinctive." If Bjork sang more like what she did that day, she could gain a lot more fans.

 

Like I said, I find it difficult to understand what she says a lot of the time, so that's what makes some of her lyrics hard to wrap my head around. But I find some of her phrasing overly flowery or dramatic. I found Stonemilker to be a good example of that (though it was difficult to make a lot of it out). I just prefer emotions to be put down in a way that people would say them in real life. That's the best way I can put it. On Biophilia, she was talking about stuff I didn't understand either. To me, if an album contains bizarre song titles, it usually is a red flag for me as it means I probably won't understand it (I was pleasantly surprised with an album that was exactly like this recently, though, and it was one of my favourites of last year - see my review list tomorrow). I don't mind experimental music, but I do have problems with the stuff that's too personal or too ambiguous to be understood by the listener. That's why I don't understand why most critics can like stuff like that.

 

Yes - her vocals clashing with the production is a sore point for me. A song has to flow properly for me to feel comfortable. Like I said before, I think her instrumentals can be nice, I just don't always appreciate her words over them.

 

I would be interested in giving Homogenic and Vespertine a go because they're some of her most loved works, even by non-fans, and involve music styles and themes that could appeal to me more. Is it true that Vespertine is the album where she's at her most "normal?" To give me an idea, what album would you call her most commercial? I once actually saw this graph that explained how you can get into Bjork's music. It says you should start with Post and if you like it, you should listen to a certain album next, if not, something else. And it all eventually sums up with Medulla, for the ultimate fan. I believe that was her most experimental release, right? It certainly would be interesting to hear just to see how far I can push myself.

 

Well yeah we all have our tastes, I find it difficult to get into many of those modern indie(ish) bands that everyone is always listening to these days. Not really because I think they are bad, some are alright but it just ain't for me. 

 

Probably not that relevant but I personally cannot stand It's Oh So Quite and many of her fans feel the same way about the song. I guess I am glad that she did it because it was quite a big hit and got her a lot more attention but it doesn't fit on Post at all and I always skip it. Um, as for All Is Full Of Love I am not sure what you are saying, I wouldn't say she is pretending she can't sing for any reason. She's just always sang in a certain way and sometimes that involves screeching, growling and wailing. There are many songs where she does that even on Homogenic. Still there are many where she sings more "normally" and Vulnicura actually has her singing more normally and more like the style of songs like AIFOL but maybe not by holding a note for seventeen seconds. 

 

I would agree about the phrasing of words, she is is over the top with it a lot of the time but that's just unique to her and I have learned to enjoy it. Stonemilker has a lot of similarities to Joga which is one of her most well known songs, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that one. As for Biophilia, while some of the songs were metaphorical ( eg. Virus, Mutual Core) a lot of it was not really about personal emotions or her experiences. As I said the album was designed to educate, it's more about the academic than the personal. It's honestly one of her least enjoyable albums, I liked it but then I am a huge fan of hers.  :P

 

I wouldn't say Vespertine is her most "normal" but then non of her albums are normal. Conceptually it's mainly about being in love specifically with the guy Vulnicura is about breaking up with, It's an incredibly personal and intimate album. As for production, it sounds in some ways similar to Vulnicura but it's a lot less heavy. There are no loud drum noises and the electronic sounds never really take over, it's more strings and choir support vocals and quite little electronic blips. Homogenic is again similar to Vulnicura in that there are a lot of strings and electronics but it's louder, heavier and more traditional sounding than post whilst being more vocally driven than Vulnicura. All Is Full Of Love is on Homogenic as is Joga. Medulla is my personal favorite but it is also one of her most experimental in that the instrumentals are almost all vocals or samples of vocals. If you can get past that it's really not an unusual album conceptually, at least not for Bjork but yeah probably not the place to start. I would say Post is her most commercial album being almost a pop album but don't go in expecting something that isn't Bjork. Debut was also quite commercial but it is very of it's time as in it sounds like an album from the 90's. Debut and Post are both more collections of songs than albums with running themes. So yeah I would say Post is a good place to start.  

[StrawberryBlond 14,120]

Well yeah we all have our tastes, I find it difficult to get into many of those modern indie(ish) bands that everyone is always listening to these days. Not really because I think they are bad, some are alright but it just ain't for me. 

 

Probably not that relevant but I personally cannot stand It's Oh So Quite and many of her fans feel the same way about the song. I guess I am glad that she did it because it was quite a big hit and got her a lot more attention but it doesn't fit on Post at all and I always skip it. Um, as for All Is Full Of Love I am not sure what you are saying, I wouldn't say she is pretending she can't sing for any reason. She's just always sang in a certain way and sometimes that involves screeching, growling and wailing. There are many songs where she does that even on Homogenic. Still there are many where she sings more "normally" and Vulnicura actually has her singing more normally and more like the style of songs like AIFOL but maybe not by holding a note for seventeen seconds. 

 

I would agree about the phrasing of words, she is is over the top with it a lot of the time but that's just unique to her and I have learned to enjoy it. Stonemilker has a lot of similarities to Joga which is one of her most well known songs, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that one. As for Biophilia, while some of the songs were metaphorical ( eg. Virus, Mutual Core) a lot of it was not really about personal emotions or her experiences. As I said the album was designed to educate, it's more about the academic than the personal. It's honestly one of her least enjoyable albums, I liked it but then I am a huge fan of hers.  :P

 

I wouldn't say Vespertine is her most "normal" but then non of her albums are normal. Conceptually it's mainly about being in love specifically with the guy Vulnicura is about breaking up with, It's an incredibly personal and intimate album. As for production, it sounds in some ways similar to Vulnicura but it's a lot less heavy. There are no loud drum noises and the electronic sounds never really take over, it's more strings and choir support vocals and quite little electronic blips. Homogenic is again similar to Vulnicura in that there are a lot of strings and electronics but it's louder, heavier and more traditional sounding than post whilst being more vocally driven than Vulnicura. All Is Full Of Love is on Homogenic as is Joga. Medulla is my personal favorite but it is also one of her most experimental in that the instrumentals are almost all vocals or samples of vocals. If you can get past that it's really not an unusual album conceptually, at least not for Bjork but yeah probably not the place to start. I would say Post is her most commercial album being almost a pop album but don't go in expecting something that isn't Bjork. Debut was also quite commercial but it is very of it's time as in it sounds like an album from the 90's. Debut and Post are both more collections of songs than albums with running themes. So yeah I would say Post is a good place to start.  

 

I'm the same - most indie music just doesn't do it for me, with very few exceptions. So many of them can't sing, their beats are tired and boring, their songs are not groundbreaking. And a lot of people seem to think indie music is superior just because it's indie and "real." It's not surprising why a lot of them aren't getting signed to major labels - because some of them just aren't good enough. Then again, I tend to see more bad indie artists hitting it big as opposed to good ones.

 

After hearing some of what she's capable of, it seems she deliberately sings in a different way for effect, it's perhaps not her natural voice. As far as I can hear, Vulnicura involves her practically talking rather than singing. Very slow, methodical delivery and drawing out and spitting words. I don't remember hearing anything on there that was like AIFOL. I've started listening to Post and it's a joy to hear her singing properly. She should sing at that level more often.

 

I like Joga a lot better than Stonemilker. Although I think the instrumental is still the best part of the song. I like how she actually keeps a rhythm going with her singing here and is properly singing with some nice little trills at the end. I could find her work a lot easier to take if she took this route more. I know what you mean in regards to Biophilia - it seemed like it was trying to be educational, and I'd prefer personal.

 

I'm halfway through Post and you'll be pleased to hear that I'm pleasantly surprised, although we're talking passable at the moment. I really liked Army Of Me - best Bjork track I've heard thus far. I like how she's singing normally and her enunciation is actually clear. If she could do that back then, I don't see why she can't do it now.