Bjork: genius or what?

Posted by: kj burrell on 05 September 2004

Given that the new release "Medulla" is her 3rd consecutive record of absolute brilliance, given that she is one of (if not the) most innovative artist working in popular music, given that she's not been mentioned around these parts for some time, I thought a collective celebration of her Icelantic genius was in order. Any dissent?

(And let's not mention "Dancer in the Dark" - that wasn't her fault!)

For those who haven't got it yet, the new cd is almost entirely vocal based, no other instruments except some programming of voices. It is full of moments of beauty stretching from almost dance to almost classical. I love the way she pushes boundaries and yet makes accessible music that almost touches the mainstream. I don't think anyone has done this so well since Bowie in the mid 70s, and much of what he did was down to those he collaborated with.

Kevin
Posted on: 05 September 2004 by kid spatula
yeah, either that or she sounds like a walrus with a poker up its arse.
Posted on: 05 September 2004 by BigH47
What! Standing on a cats tail makes a better sound.
Posted on: 05 September 2004 by kj burrell
quote:
Originally posted by kid spatula:
yeah, either that or she sounds like a walrus with a poker up its arse.


I prefer to think of her distinctive voice as a contemporary equivalent of Billie Holiday, but then I've never heard said walrus in said distress. Must be a beautiful sound to merit such comparisons!

Kevin
Posted on: 05 September 2004 by Gunnar Jansson
She also makes excellent liveperformances
Posted on: 05 September 2004 by long-time-dead
Apart from miming in Greece recently in front of a worldwide audience........
Posted on: 06 September 2004 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by kj burrell:

(And let's not mention "Dancer in the Dark" - that wasn't her fault!)

For those who haven't got it yet, the new cd is almost entirely vocal based, no other instruments except some programming of voices.
Kevin


Unless I'm imagining it, there is a piano on one track (mouths cradle)! Big Grin

And Dancer in the Dark is a masterpiece.

Regards

Stephen
Posted on: 06 September 2004 by Mekon
Is Mark Bell from LFO still doing her production?
Posted on: 06 September 2004 by greeny
quote:
For those who haven't got it yet, the new cd is almost entirely vocal based


There really is little I could imagine I would less likely listen to than a vocal only Bjork album. I can manage little more than a few seconds of her squark without a sense of considerable unrest overwhelming me. A bit like listening to someone scraping their fingernails down a blackboard for an hour.

So as you may guess I will not be buying her latest offering.
Posted on: 06 September 2004 by woodface
I am afraid this is a classic example of the, increasingly common, over use of the word 'genius'. Talented definitely, original arguabley (did Kate Bush not produce similar music?) but Genius no. Sorry to be a pedant but it is something which increasingly bugs me!
Posted on: 06 September 2004 by Mike Hughes
It's a good and interesting album much like that last two but only in the sense of you thinking "ooh, that sounds interesting" and then realising that whilst it is aurally stimulating the material hasn't been up to scratch for some years.

The voice divides people. Fair enough. She ain't a genius but she is an individual and I would have thought all here would welcome that. Look at the alternatives!!!

Mike
Posted on: 06 September 2004 by kj burrell
quote:
Genius no. Sorry to be a pedant but it is something which increasingly bugs me!

quote:
She ain't a genius but she is an individual


So who would we consider a genius in comtemporary popular music? Is it to grand a term to apply to something as trivial as pop/rock/whatever? I think Bjork is a close as you get thesedays. And the very idea that she can be compared to Kate Bush!! I always thought Bush was over theatrical and not as innovative as claimed. Bjork IMO is a more significant artist in influence, creative output and originality.

I'd agree that genius is over used, it's been applied to The Strokes, Radiohead and Oasis for goodness sake - but I think a few rare artists do just about get there, pushing the form, finding a new way of expressing the familiar. Bjork, Tom Waits, Tim Buckley, Beefheart ....
Kevin

Kevin
Posted on: 07 September 2004 by fred simon
quote:
Originally posted by kj burrell:
(And let's not mention "Dancer in the Dark" - that wasn't her fault!)


What does this mean? The movie? The music? What wasn't her fault?

I haven't heard Medulla, but I love much of Bjork's music. I do think the music for Dancer in the Dark is brilliant, and I dug the movie a lot.
Posted on: 07 September 2004 by kid spatula
quote:
I'd agree that genius is over used, it's been applied to The Strokes, Radiohead and Oasis for goodness sake - but I think a few rare artists do just about get there, pushing the form, finding a new way of expressing the familiar. Bjork, Tom Waits, Tim Buckley, Beefheart ....


oh for goodness sake Smile

a lot of people like the bands you disparagingly mentioned, but i don't think they have been around long enough to judge whether or not they fit into the "significant" (as opposed to genius) category.

i certainly don't think bjork is a particularly significant artist (nor tom waits, for that matter). but if you love them, then that's great.

it's just that you're wrong.

Wink
Posted on: 07 September 2004 by Pete
quote:
Originally posted by kj burrell:

So who would we consider a genius in comtemporary popular music? Is it to grand a term to apply to something as trivial as pop/rock/whatever?


I don't know that the medium really affects it, but I would agree it's over used. Look at classical music, where in ~300 (arguably more) years we've had a handful of composers who are widely regarded as meriting the label "genius".

Robert Fripp has commented on its over-use, and noted at the same time that it is no affront to almost everyone not to use the term for them.

Besides that, I rate Bjork a lot. I heard a couple of snippets from the new one on the radio, and it sounded good. Quite why a Bjork fan would have anything against Selmasongs I don't know, I think it's great!

Pete.
Posted on: 07 September 2004 by O
I recently got into Bjork after hearing 'Vespertine', which is just staggeringly beautiful in places... she uses strings and choirs used in such subtle, unusual and textural ways, and combines them with modern production techniques. I think we are incredibly lucky to have such a unique and pioneering artist (and she *is* an artist - both influential and important) signed to a major corparate label and pushing boundaries in the mainstream. She may not be to everyone's taste, but anyone who values innovation and originality in music must appreciate and respect that at the very least.

Oh, and 'Medulla' is feckin great!

Owen

www.owenduff.co.uk
Posted on: 07 September 2004 by kj burrell
I love Selmasongs, but the movie... I wanted to like it but found myself feeling horribly embarrased by the plot, character, acting and so on. I love Von Triers and Bjork so maybe it was me, although lots of other people seem to have had the same reaction from the initial screening onwards.

From all of the above, do we deduce, then, that unlike all other art forms - film, sculpture, composition, fiction, documetary, photography, poetry and so on - popular music alone is the area where all responses are subjective? To say an artist is great just means you like them which is fine but otherwise meaningless.

quote:
i certainly don't think bjork is a particularly significant artist (nor tom waits, for that matter). but if you love them, then that's great.


Waits not great?!? Red Face

You're wrong. Wink Pistols at dawn methinks.

Kevin
Posted on: 07 September 2004 by kid spatula
quote:
From all of the above, do we deduce, then, that unlike all other art forms - film, sculpture, composition, fiction, documetary, photography, poetry and so on - popular music alone is the area where all responses are subjective? To say an artist is great just means you like them which is fine but otherwise meaningless.


all art is viewed subjectively. there are no lab tests you can do on a painting, for example, to decide whether or not it is genius. the acid test, as pete alluded to, is time. if for 100 years critics examine and re-examine a piece of art and 90% of them agree that it is genius then that piece has gained a certain status. that's not to say that everyone has to like it or that you have to agree with the overall consensus, but you cannot deny that it has attained that status.

pop music hasn't really been around long enough for us to make these judgements, certainly not bjork.

...but what about the beatles, have they attained the genius status?
Posted on: 07 September 2004 by Mike Hughes
I think we're falling into a trap of confusing great artists with great music.

I love Bjork and Tom Waits but Waits hasn't produced anything mesmerising as a body of work since The Black Rider and Bjork has let quirk overtake content. Within both oeuvres there are great tracks but genius? I think not. It's an over-used word that has become meaningless.

I do find myself constantly frustrated by people here deciding that someone is fantastic and can't be criticised on the back of some of their work. No-one is a god, however great their individual music.

Mike

Mike
Posted on: 07 September 2004 by woodface
I suppose the only real way to 'judge' genius is comparatively? For example if you accept that Duke Ellington is/was a genius then you have to look at who would be worthy to sit at his table (figuratively speaking). The answer within 'pop' music is few if any and within Jazz perhaps a dozen or so? I appreciate I am cross comparing music genres but Jazz was once the 'pop' of it's day. I am really struggling to think of anyone currently recording who I would consider a true genius, on current form, but people like Bowie, Prince, James Brown, Brian Wilson, The Beatles have all had serious claims in their time.
Posted on: 07 September 2004 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by greeny:
There really is little I could imagine I would less likely listen to than a vocal only Bjork album. I can manage little more than a few seconds of her squark without a sense of considerable unrest overwhelming me. A bit like listening to someone scraping their fingernails down a blackboard for an hour.

So as you may guess I will not be buying her latest offering.


Uggh. I'm with Greeny. Just as humpback whale songs are, no doubt, really really beautiful to other humpback whales, so I suspect Bjork songs must be to other, umm, Bjorks. I did make it through a couple of Sugarcubes albums way back when, but I did so in spite of the "surface noise" that is Bjork's voice, most certainly not because of. An all-vocal album? If Bjork can pull it off, maybe Neil Young should do one too.

Waits, on the other hand, cracks me up.

jay
Posted on: 07 September 2004 by sideshowbob
I like Bjork's new record, but it's the only album of hers I've ever heard all the way through, so I've no idea how it compares to her previous work.

As for genius, I reserve that word for The Beatles, Captain Beefheart, John Coltrane, Charles Mingus, Thelonious Monk, Hank Williams, and maybe half a dozen others, although I have been known to use it about loads of other people in my enthusiastic moments.

-- Ian
Posted on: 08 September 2004 by Malcolm Davey
Oh Dear

I used to quite like her BUT I am still reeling from the utter c..p that totally spoiled an otherwise excellent opening to the Olympic Games. Yes 'Your sweat is salty'

As you can see I am really up to date with all this

Setting trends I think not Cool