Sufjan Stevens
2010 August 27
I think everybody got sick of the endless stream of self-important whiny songs from Sufjan Stevens. But he has a new album coming out which allegedly turns from the whiny direction. You can listen to one track here. Maybe we can look forward to endless airy synthesizer music instead. As with old Sufjan, I’m sure I’ll be able to take these songs in small and infrequent, but quite pleasurable, doses.
8 Responses
leave one →
Infrequent doses is correct. I tried listening to this song twice in a row for kicks and the music began turning my brain to mush.
On the other hand, I don’t know how anyone could be sick of the polyrhythms and uncommon time signatures in a lot of his previous music.
This latest song leads me to believe that Sufjan may be sick of that himself. (…which sucks.) This sounds like a SUPER watered-down combo of aphex twin beats and bjork-style melodies and lyrical scansion. (With a little Dirty Projectors thrown in there at the end.)
I dig re-inventing one’s music as one becomes influenced by different artists. But there’s a difference between influence and copying styles. Then again, it is a new creative product. Those influences have been translated through the “copying” artist to create something new. In the case of this latest song by Sufjan, is it worth taking influences from different artists, ‘translating’, then creating a ‘new’ product when that new product is going to pale in comparison???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1N2-ZgD7H0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhHkUg-QCwk&feature=related
Or:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yn_uMwDCJk
Hi Allie. Do you like the cover he did for the album Dark Was the Night?
Hm, okay.
Yes, I love it. In fact, I think it is way better than the original. I love all the instruments plus the electronic stuff, and how it is constantly changing and going different places. it’s very epic. The original seemed to be going for very minimal instrumentation, which is obviously the exact opposite of this.
So the case with his latest song is taking influences or sounds he likes and making his own song with it, just like the cover I guess. Personally, I prefer the old song done in a new way compared to a new song done in the old way. That’s personal opinion though.
I suppose it’s art either way. But this is making me re-think my view on radio pop music: how can it be new art when all the songs sound almost identical in every way? Technically each song has never been written EXACTLY before, so it is new. It is just “influences” which have “influenced” the “composer”. Does art have to be creative or innovative to be considered art? What is the value of songs that are new, but sound like they’ve already existed? Or visual art?
Anyway, blah blah blah.
I still don’t like the new Sufjan song.
I think pop music is confusing because it so often is using music as a means to something else. Certain artists, when they write and perform songs, are really attempting to make a kind of new object of pop culture, not a strictly musical object. For example Lady Gaga isn’t really innovating music, but music is just one of the things that she uses to (arguably) innovate in other arena: pop performance art, or some such more complicated project.
In purely commercial contexts (say, California Girls?) I’m not sure what is being done. It is possible that nothing other than garbage is being produced. Or rather, more of the same product (dance music), like another brownie mix with the same ingredients but different proportions.
You might say: Lady Gaga’s music exists in a purely commercial context. But I guess it matters to me what an artist is trying to do, even if they might be unsuccessful. Lady Gaga at least has delusions of singlehandedly directing pop culture. Katy Perry may have no thoughts at all.
For the record, Josh, it’s California Gurls (with a “u”). This seems like strong evidence in favor of the garbage hypothesis.
Ben: I may have made that mistake. But then, I may have also simply mistaken Katy Perry for the Beach Boys. We’ll never know.