Broken Bells: After the Disco: A Review


Neither of the Broken Bells releases will cause you to question authority, reevaluate your identity, or question the role pop music can have in shaping geopolitics.  Neither of the releases takes a nuanced, meteoric direction in music from which there is no going back. For a path down those roads, one may want to consider purchasing one of Bryan Burton’s (AKA Danger Mouse) other, more complex projects, or, to a lesser extent, one of James Mercer’s albums with The Shins. Neither Broken Bells albums will make it to a Music Appreciation course in a university, nor will they remind one of the simplistic brilliance found on any of the albums of The Beatles, but that isn’t what Broken Bells is about. They’re more about a study in the simplistic brilliance of pop music.

Broken+Bells+x_23762e34If we could all conquer the simplistic brilliance of pop music, we would. Instead, George, John, and Paul… and sometimes Ringo, are held up as superhuman beings that once graced our planet with their combined talents. The simplistic brilliance they displayed on their early albums, taught the world that while we all know that brilliance can be defined by doing something more, it can also be achieved by dialing it back a couple notches to those simple artistic statements, that can achieve something tectonic for the world to ooh and awe at for generations to come.

As a person that is just north of the casual listener, and not quite a Beatlemaniac, I have to imagine that the members of The Beatles wanted to add something more to the songs on their early albums. I have to imagine that their desire to write the magnum opus every time out was only contained by their desire to conquer the world with music, and that each song contained their brilliance, as often as it contained their brilliance. I have to imagine that there was some interplay between the members, and producer George Martin, that encouraged each member to push the boundaries of their era’s definition of pop music, but that those voices that called for some restraint were just as prominent.

The early Beatles albums, in particular, were composed of simplistic pop tunes that would prove to be so catchy that they could not be ignored. It would lead a generation of young minds to think, “I can do that.” Their influence became so profound, that someone once said that “Not everyone saw The Beatles performance on The Ed Sullivan Show, but most of those that did —that were of a certain, influential age group— started a band.”

John Lennon, in particular, was known to have an unquenchable desire to write more complex, more experimental, message music. He apparently, wanted personal music that delved into his personal complexities, and he later came to despise a number of the more simplistic pop songs that he, and Paul, wrote to conquer the world.

Creating pop music, it could be said, can be the equivalent of telling a joke, in that some people prefer their jokes to be cute, simple and funny.  The old joke “Why did the chicken cross the road?” has a myriad of answers that say as much about the diversity of the base of that joke as it does the diversity of the joke tellers. Some of the punch lines, to this age old joke, are cute and simple. Those punch lines may make us smile but little more, but there is a certain satisfaction that cute joke tellers gain by making us smile.  Others may prefer a clever twist on that age old joke, and they may repeat it to get us all giggling, and sharing it on Facebook. These people gain a certain satisfaction from their friends telling other friends that they heard it from them first. “Where did you hear that?”  “I saw it on Jenny’s Facebook page.” Even though that clever twist of a punch line wasn’t ours, or we didn’t think of it, we own that joke among those people that heard it from us first. Others go for hilarious punch lines. These punch lines may reference prominent politicians, a reference to some popular starlet’s drug problems, or a reference to an historical figure. Hilarious, and poignant jokes of this type are not going to be received well by all, but the hilarious joke teller knows this is the price to pay for telling a complex and hilarious joke. It may provide some confusion, and it may be so far off the nose that those without a complex understanding of the issue at the heart of the punch line just don’t understand why it’s supposed to be funny, but to the joke teller this is worth it to avoid the universality of the cute and funny punch lines that evoke grins.

Why some people go for the hilarious, as opposed to the cute and silly, may have something to do with their psychological complexity, that they’ve just heard so many jokes, for so many years, that they have to go beyond simplicity and silliness to get to some greater, and more complex definition of their identity? Or, it may have something to do with the fact that they don’t have the talent to execute simplicity in the manner some do, so they go beyond the norm to prove that they are more complex than those simple minded folks to avoid anyone asking the question if they have the basic talent to execute simplicity.

Bryan Burton, aka Danger Mouse, and James Mercer, of the Shins, have proven throughout their careers that they can produce some of the more difficult, complex, and challenging music available on the market. With these bona fides behind them, their current music challenges the notion that artistic brilliance doesn’t always have to be defined by doing something more, but in the restraint and simplicity. While very few would compare either Broken Bells albums with any of The Beatles albums, the first Broken Bells album was a monument to the simplicity of pop music, a statement against the definition for more, bigger and better complexity, and the artistic thirst for the grand artistic statement that is complex and grand. Their second album, After the Disco is not nearly as earth shattering as the first, self-titled album Broken Bells album was, and it’s not as great as Bryan Burton’s album with Daniel Luppi simply called Rome, but it does continue with the theme that artistic brilliance can be pronounced through simplicity and restraint.

The first, self-titled album of Broken Bells asks the artistic equivalent of the age old joke “Why did the chicken cross the road?” with the simplistic, artistic answer:  “To get to the other side”. Some of us prefer the complexity, and we love to listen to those albums that challenge us to twenty to thirty rotations before we can fully grasp its artistic intentions, but even we admit that there’s nothing better than a brilliantly executed pop album that is short, and sweet, and composed with restraint in mind. Broken Bells and After the Disco may never cause you to slap a knee with appreciation, but their simplicity will definitely stick in your head in the manner most brilliantly composed simplicity does.

The Shocking, and Unconventional, Flaming Lips


In an attempt to top his never-ending parlor tricks, The Flaming Lips Wayne Coyne dressed in drag—an outfit that matched Stephen King’s Carrie, to be specific—in an appearance on Last Call with Carson Daly. It was a rerun of a 11/12/13 episode, and the Carrie costume was a Halloween costume that Coyne wore at a “Halloween Blood Bath” Flaming Lips tour stop at The Greek Theatre on Tuesday, Oct. 29, 2013, in Los Angeles. Some may call it a “tour-de-force” and “revolutionary” performance, but I ended up yawning a lot, and I eventually shut the performance off halfway through. I’ve seen my share of “revolutionary” and “tour-de-force” performances, from The Lips, and others, and this was just another one.

Lips“What did you expect from a group that has the word flaming in their name?” those that may think that I was turned off by the shock of a drag performance might ask. I didn’t expect anything different, I answer. Maybe that’s the point. Maybe it’s the point that our performance artists have so deluged us with shocking performances that we’re no longer shocked by them, and we’re all coming back to the point where we want the material back, and the shock and awe performances cause us all to yawn a little.

It may have something to do with the fact that I’m old, and I’ve witnessed “revolutionary” and “tour-de-force” moments from David Bowie, Marc Bolan, Alice Cooper, Kiss, Madonna, and Prince, and I now demand that “revolutionary” and “tour-de-force” material accompany “revolutionary” and “tour-de-force” performances. It may have something to do with the fact that The Lips, Of Montreal, Lady Ga Ga, Miley Cyrus, and Britney Spears aren’t trying to shock me, because I’ve already been shocked so often that my brains are scrambled, and I’m desensitized to it all, but one would think that the demographic they seek, the characteristically nonplussed young ones, aren’t easily shocked anymore either. They’ve grown up in an era of every artist playing king of the mountain in this shocking shell game, and they’re yawning and changing the channel on these performances as often as I am.

Those that have already found their formula for success in music, usually advise up and comers that the path to success has no pamphlet or road map. You simply have to carve a niche for yourself, they say. This doesn’t appear to be true in music. While there may not be a pamphlet, or road map, to success, there are advisers that have studied other paths to the top, and they advise those artists, of which they usually have a vested interest, to shock. If you don’t have the material —and most of those that make today’s headlines don’t— play with a snake on stage, wear a meat dress, insult America, tongue and twerk, or tell people that you hate America, Republicans, or you’re mom, and you will want to carve out sometime in your life for a stint in rehab … whether you actually need it or not. Unfortunate for most upcoming musical artists, this has all culminated in what most semi-talented artists should fear, the idea that something shocking will no longer be shocking to the yawners that are now turning their performance off halfway through.

The less flamboyant, creative peak of the Flaming Lips occurred somewhere around the Transmissions from the Satellite Heart and The Soft Bulletin era. There were some bright spots in the albums before and after these two albums, but few Lips’ aficionados would argue the fact that we are now on the downside of their creative peak. If that’s true, then Coyne and company appear to be doing whatever they have to do to remain viable. This isn’t to say that they’re making bad music, but those of us that were fans of the Lips prior to Transmissions, have such huge expectations. Each album appeared to be leading to that one great album, and The Lips delivered, giving us two seminal albums: one crunchy, weird, glam rock, and the other bleak and blissful. Each of them captured the range, that Lips’ aficionados saw glimpses of in all of the prior albums, but there’s something about being an aficionado that leads one to believe that these upward arcs will continue ad infinitum. They rarely do, and they didn’t in the case of The Flaming Lips.

Hard-core fans also don’t see an official end to that peak. Hard-core fans don’t read one book, watch one movie, or listen to one album and officially declare that it’s all over. They give that artist a chance in the future based on what they’ve done in the past, and they keep on doing this, until they begin to notice a trend with that artist. That trend is not immediately apparent either. It usually takes about three to four lackluster productions for their hope to begin to wane. Even hard-core fans know that these things end, but they’re not prepared to make it official, until they’ve exhausted all belief.

The “He’s dressed like Carrie!” introduction to the taped concert performance of The Flaming Lips brought an official end to the brilliantly creative era of The Flaiming Lips to my mind. Having never been introduced by a major talk show host, I don’t know it to be factually true that an artist has a hand in how they’re introduced, but I have to imagine that Carson Daily’s people went to The Lips people and asked them how they’d like to be introduced. If that’s true, it’s a sad statement that they didn’t want the brunt of their intro to call attention to the single they would be playing, or the album from which that single sprang. It’s a sad statement that they asked that the greater attention be paid to something superficial like Wayne Coyne’s outfit, regardless what that outfit was.

Anyone that has attended a Flaming Lips show knows that they are almost peerless in their presentation. The group goes balls out to provide their fans one of the best concerts currently available on the market. After three songs, at a music fair in Wisconsin, one guy turned to me and said, “This is the greatest show I’ve ever seen in my life.” I wasn’t sure if I was as deliriously impressed as he was, or if I was simply delirious from the contact high I received from other concert goers, but that Lips show elicited a sense of euphoria that this long-time concert goer had never experienced.

This concert combined shocking your sensibilities, and overturning conventions, with all of the great Flaming Lips material I have grown to love. The “He’s dressed like Carrie,” intro signaled to me that The Flaming Lips concentration is no longer focused on the material but shocking your sensibilities and overturning your conventions.

Kiss’ act, in the 70s, was full of parlor tricks, as was Queen’s, David Bowie’s, and Marc Bolan’s, but for the most part these groups shocked sensibilities, and overturned conventions, at the peak of their career. The Flaming Lips appear to be reaching a peak in their shock, with their creative peak long since passed. You can still attend an incredible concert from the Flaming Lips, as it will contain all their greatest hits to remind you of the diverse and impressive catalog they have, and you’ll get their unconventionally shocking moments, but you’ll probably be taking breaks from your delirious euphoria when they start playing their new stuff.

The relative and ever-evolving world of the weird


Everyone’s definition of weird is relative and evolving with time, but the Idiots in Jeff Garland’s Dealin with Idiots appear too weird, at times.  At times, they appear Hollywood weird, funny weird, and weird for the sake of being weird.  These Idiots don’t display the same urgent need to be normal that appears almost indigenous to extremely weird people, and they don’t go overboard trying to convince Garland that they’re normal either.  They don’t try to hide their abnormalities, in other words, and they don’t appear sensitive about them when they’re on display.  The Idiots are funny, and fun, but they just don’t appear organically weird.

dealinwithidiots-500x325One has to have some sympathy for Garland, and any involved in the process of making movies, for the constraints they have in their art form.  We demand that most movies hurry up and get to the funny, and we do not allow them the same amount of space for characterization that is allotted, say, authors.  In depth characterization, of the type I’m calling for, usually ends up on the cutting room floor when a movie is being edited for time constraints, so one has to excuse Jeff Garland’s Dealin’ with Idiots for having his Idiots get too weird too quickly.

Weird has come a long way in Hollywood.  It started out in black and white with a crazy woman muttering softly to herself, until she progressed to a stage modern movie goers would most closely associate with demonic possession.  This crazy lady’s leading man would see this descent, put a cloth on her forehead, and tell her that she needed rest.  Weird then progressed in Hollywood to the lip trilling depiction put forth most famously in the 70’s movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.  Garland’s version of weird matches the modern, and less judgmental, version of weird that is a lot more organic, but it’s still the screen tested, Hollywood-approved weird.

The plot of this movie involves a Max Morris (Garland), getting to know the colorful parents and coaches of his son’s Little League Baseball team for the purpose of putting a movie together.  He tells these people that he’s putting a movie together, and they start to get weird.

That’s mistake number one, as I see it.  You don’t tell people your documenting them in anyway for fear of having them get noteworthy.  They’ll start acting less candid, different, and quirky in a manner that has nothing to do with their personality, because their personality is not weird to them.  It’s funny to watch people act like idiots, but to get to that vaunted, hilarious level one needs to get more authentic and more organic.  It’s difficult, of couse, with all of the constraints on movie makers, but it has been done.

I’ve often found that to get people to act weird all you have to do is prompt them.  These prompts can range from leading questions about the weather, “What do you think of this weather we’re having?” to questions involving geopolitics on some level—usually the conspiratorial level—but the best prompt I’ve ever found is to ask them about the local politics that the two of you share.  “What do you think of that Janie?”  or “What do you think about the way our boss treat us?”

Once they start in on their rants, your job, as a writer, is to simply take a step back and act as a stenographer, recording everything they do or say from that point forward.  You may want to agree with them, to show them that they have an ally, but be careful.  If you agree too much, you’ll diffuse their sense of righteous indignation, and you’ll cost yourself a treasure trove of material.  The weird person may even turn on you, without any sense of objectivity, and tell you that you’re crazy.

Weird people do not have a club, or clique.  They’ll eat their own.  They’ll take every opportunity they can find to point out the weird to you.  They’ll ask you to join them in mocking the weird.  They’ll tell stories about them.  They’ll hope that each instance they point out provides them the distance necessary to land in the center with you, witnessing all of the weird people of life.  If you are able to convince them that you’re one of them, they’ll tell you everything that you want to know about the weird.   You walk a tightrope when attempting to extract the weird, and the best method I’ve found, to get the best material possible, is to simply play the role of active listener.  You don’t get there, in my experience, by telling them to you’re writing a piece about them, because that will prompt them to start acting weird… screen tested, Hollywood-approved weird.

If you do get there, you’ll realize that most weird people don’t know that they’re weird.  Most weird people don’t think weird thoughts, or act in a weird manner, unless those acts and thoughts are screen tested, Hollywood-approved weird.  You may think that they’re a weird person, but who do you think you are?  Why just last week, you said, or did, something weird.  You’re one of them, not one of us, they’ll say, and that’s why we like you.

Few would contest the notion that movies have gotten weirder in the last couple decades,  but a question that a weird movie maker might ask is “are we weirder”?  Do movies reflect this change in our culture, or has it played an instrumental role in its change?  Being different, or weird, used to be anathema in the culture, if artistic interpretations in movies are to be used as a barometer.  Black and white people did anything they could to avoid being associated with such terms.  Modern culture has it, now, that being different carries with it some virtue.  Normal is boring, they say, and  your parents are normal, and look how they turned out, but have these ideas been reflected in movies, or refracted by movies?  Those that think that movies bear the brunt of these cultural changes dismiss the fact that all movies are screen tested, and a movie does not pass these screen tests if they’re judged to be so odd, weird, or out of the norm that people can’t relate to it.  Movie producers put a lot of weight behind these screen tests, and a movie won’t receive those crucial, greenlight investments if they are deemed too odd, or too weird, by the normal people participating in these tests.

Movies, and TV shows, can also affect how a weird person perceives their weirdness, in that if a weird person finds one of their characteristics expressed on screen, they’ll know that they’re now perceived as weird, and they’ll adjust accordingly.  Most truly weird people don’t enjoy being weird, until they’re shown that their version of weird is deemed weird by society.  Weird can be interesting, funny, and entertainhing if it’s cultivated and pruned properly, but in the truly weird it grows like a weed among their prized vegetation.  The truly weird don’t have the advantage of constraint that those that engage in the short bursts of weird for entertainment purposes do.  It’s who they are.

If you’re as interested in the weird as I am, you’ll have to cultivate a relationship with them to get them comfortable enough to open up to you.  They may volley some weird thoughts up to you to see if you’ll spike it, and this will prove to be a crucial moment in a relationship with the weird. If you want to progress through the dark caverns of their mind, you’ll simply put another forkful of peas in your mouth.  If you want this whole disturbing trend to end right then and there, you’ll laugh, make a face, and say something like, “I hope you know that’s weird.”  At that point, the weird will recede back into its shell, and the otherwise normal person will conceal their weird thoughts from that point forward in your relationship.

Are you one of them?  The weird?  Don’t know?  Most people don’t.  Consider having a child.  Your child will imitate and emulate everything you do.  Your family won’t see it for what it is, for that child’s oddities are likely theirs.  Your friends may not see it either, because they’ve either adapted to your eccentricities, or they’re too polite to tell you that you have one odd kid on your hands.  Other kids will though.  Other kids will ostracize your weird kid with no compunction, and they’ll tell you—in the most brutal fashion imaginable—where your kid, you, and your people sit on the psych line.

I know some truly weird people.  We all do.  Some of them are fun, and some of them are funny, but most of them have been plagued by a fundamental, from birth, freakdom for much of their life, and they’re not going to purposely display that weirdness just because someone screams “Action!”  It’s pointless to tell these people to act weird, and you can’t force them to be themselves either.  You just do whatever you can to get them to open up and reveal their weirdness while you furiously scribble it into your memory for future documentation.