In the first of an irregular series, two of our editors discuss a pertinent topic—in this case, Ryan Adams's full album cover of Taylor Swift's 1989.
Chris Alarie (Senior Editor-in-Chief of Uncanny Valley Magazine): I suppose the best way to start our discussion of Ryan Adams's album length cover of Taylor Swift's 1989 is to lay bare our allegiances: you are a huge fan (maybe just short of a superfan) of both artists while I am something of an agnostic on both fronts. I'm pretty sure the only Ryan Adams album I've ever listened to all the way through was his nostalgic, 80s hardcore-style EP 1984. And I am pretty much only familiar with Swift's original version of 1989 from hearing the big radio hits ("Shake It Off", "Bad Blood", "Welcome to New York", "Blank Space") at the supermarket. That said, I think this is a relatively successful project. It may not be the most important or serious artistic statement and not all of Adams's versions of the songs are interesting, but in its high points, it is an enjoyable listen. What say you, Doug?
Douglas Slayton (Professor Editor-in-Chief of Uncanny Valley Magazine): I think that is a fair assessment of how I feel about both artists. It is actually funny for me that this record exists, as they are two of the only currently active "mainstream" artists that I genuinely care about. As such, when this was announced, I was stoked. My feelings sound like they are more complicated than yours, but that may be colored by anticipation. I want to get into this because I want to work through these feelings. What are the bits you found to be interesting?
CA: I think Adams did a good job with the hit songs, for the most part. I know Adams had originally said that he wanted to cover 1989 in the style of the Smiths but on the finished product, his touchstones seem to be MOR 80s dad rock like Bruce Springsteen and Dire Straits as well as college rock like R.E.M. and the Replacements.
The Springsteen influence seems particularly strong on "Welcome to New York" and "Shake It Off". The expansive, driving Springsteenish midtempo stomp that Adams brings to "Welcome to New York" really seems to fit the sentiment of the song. It is the song that most evenly divides itself between Swift's original and Adams's other influences while still bringing enough originality in Adams's performance. It is not my favorite song on this album but it is probably the one that most successfully realizes Adams's intentions.
His version of "Shake It Off" is less successful as it is more of a pure pastiche. As Christina Caterucci points out on Slate, it is basically just Adams reimagining Swift's hit as Springsteen's "I'm On Fire". Maybe it's the specifity of the reference or maybe it's because Adams doesn't really bring anything original to the song, but it just doesn't work as well as "Welcome to New York".1Really, it seems much closer to Father John Misty's obviously comical cover of Adams's cover of Swift done in the style of the Velvet Underground. Misty's version of "Blank Space" is a pitch perfect send up of the Velvet Underground—while also simultaneously revealing the weakness of Swift's lyrics. The difference is that Misty is aiming for humor and criticism (not just of Swift, Adams, and Lou Reed but also of the whole post-modern, ouroboric nature of internet culture) while Adams is trying to produce something more heartfelt and faithful (if not exactly reverant).
I think Adams is much more successful in his cover of "Blank Space". Like "Shake It Off", he turns it into a primarily acoustic ballad. But unlike "Shake It Off", there is no other immediate reference. Indeed, it falls squarely within the tradition of acoustic covers of pop hits. While most acoustic covers are unsuccessful because they are either lazy or poorly suited to the song, Adams's version of "Blank Space" works well because of the earnestness of his vocals2 and the quality of the melody. "Blank Space"—which is probably the song I like the most of the Swift originals—is a (musically, if not lyrically) well-written song and thus is well-suited to Adams's stripped down interpretation.
What do you think, Doug? I suspect that you may not agree with me on some of these points.
DS: I knew we were going diverge pretty early in this discussion, but I almost feel bad that it was at the beginning. When I first started the record with "Welcome to New York", I immediately begin to have misgivings. In subsequent listenings, I have come to appreciate it more. The issue I seem to be having is that I have listened to the Swift version so many times at this point that I still hear hers. So there has been a transition period for me. The observation about the Springsteen elements make sense, though. Springsteen, and by extension similar heartland-styled rock, has never done anything for me. So the times Adams has leaned on this influence in the past, it has largely left me cold.
I feel like he is well intentioned and some parts work while other parts don't. The same thing could be said for any non cover record. But when it comes to cover records, those things can be easily exacerbated because you are essentially retooling something that already exists.
Covers are primarily for fun, unless an artist has an absolutely unique take that truly makes it artistically valuable.
I think where Adams fall short, for me, is that there wasn't an interesting enough idea for every song to necessitate a cover album. This could have been a strong EP, but so many times it feels like he just fell back on stripping them down to a minimalistic acoustic version with altered lyrics. It doesn't feel like a Ryan Adams record. It feels like a Taylor Swift record rerecorded by Ryan Adams—which doesn't make this a valuable addition to his oeuvre.
Chris Alarie is Senior Editor-in-Chief of Uncanny Valley Magazine.
Doug Slayton is Professor Editor-in-Chief of Uncanny Valley Magazine.
DS: I knew we were going diverge pretty early in this discussion, but I almost feel bad that it was at the beginning. When I first started the record with "Welcome to New York", I immediately begin to have misgivings. In subsequent listenings, I have come to appreciate it more. The issue I seem to be having is that I have listened to the Swift version so many times at this point that I still hear hers. So there has been a transition period for me. The observation about the Springsteen elements make sense, though. Springsteen, and by extension similar heartland-styled rock, has never done anything for me. So the times Adams has leaned on this influence in the past, it has largely left me cold.
"Shake It Off" is easily one of my two favorite songs on the record though. It gelled for me immediately, which, again, is strange because the Swift version had the opposite effect when it first debuted. As a non fan of Springsteen, I am not familiar with "I'm on Fire" so maybe that helps my appreciation. There is an authenticity in Adams's delivery of Swift's words that works for me, but that has always been Adams's strong suit and is the place where the two of them are most closely connected.
The parts of this project that work for me have to do with both Adams's and Swift's roots in country music. There is that simplicity to Swift's songs that gets muddied on 1989 a little with the poppiness of it all. At the heart of Adams's work here is him finding that a little bit of simplicity and drawing it out, which is why most of the subdued songs work for me, except "Blank Space."
It doesn't feel like Adams is having any fun with "Blank Space". I get to that song with every listen and the momentum of the album just crashes. There is pained quality to his performance of "Shake it Off" that resonates with me, while "Blank Space" is the one point on the record where he felt like "oh, I am doing EVERY song on this thing, aren't I?" It is actually shocking that we had the exact opposite reaction to those songs.
Along with "Shake it Off", the track that worked the best for me was "Style". This could go back to me already being invested in the original and this being one of two songs, along with "Clean", that diverges the least from the originals. I have some minor quibbles in that some of his lyrical changes (the Sonic Youth reference) don't really add anything, but ultimately it seems like this is one of the songs that he felt most invested in.
CA: Yeah, I agree that "Style" is one of the better songs on Adams's album. In fact, I liked it so much that I went and listened to Swift's original, which I had never heard. 3 And it's interesting that you mention his lyrical changes because that Slate article that I linked above includes an interesting analysis of how Adams's lyrical changes reinforce heteronormative pop song tropes. I am not going to defend Adams's changes but I will say that I think "Daydream Nation" scans better than "James Dean daydream" to me.
So how much of our difference of opinions on Adams's album comes directly out of our different expectations before listening to it?
DS: The argument about his lyrical changes is good as it is a problem that that pops up in a couple places on this record. "Wildest Dreams" suffers from that heteronormativity probably the most and maybe actually hurts the song more than similar changes on "Style".
The "Daydream Nation" line has a slightly different meter than the original that isn't as pleasing for me. The alliteration of "James Dean Daydream" adds a stuttering to the vocal rhythm that I like.
I think our expectations colored our experiences pretty significantly. I have seen lots of my friends who are Swift fans dig this, so my feelings may be not be the norm for us Swift fans. Ditto for fans of Adams. I have spent a lot of time listening to Swift's 1989 since it came out. It has been one of those records that I will just leave on repeat while I do what I do, so it probably is in my bones at this point, making Adams's version a difficult fit. As someone who had not spent the time with original maybe that made this a better thing for you? You mentioned listening to some of Swift's after but how much have you gone back?
DS: The argument about his lyrical changes is good as it is a problem that that pops up in a couple places on this record. "Wildest Dreams" suffers from that heteronormativity probably the most and maybe actually hurts the song more than similar changes on "Style".
The "Daydream Nation" line has a slightly different meter than the original that isn't as pleasing for me. The alliteration of "James Dean Daydream" adds a stuttering to the vocal rhythm that I like.
I think our expectations colored our experiences pretty significantly. I have seen lots of my friends who are Swift fans dig this, so my feelings may be not be the norm for us Swift fans. Ditto for fans of Adams. I have spent a lot of time listening to Swift's 1989 since it came out. It has been one of those records that I will just leave on repeat while I do what I do, so it probably is in my bones at this point, making Adams's version a difficult fit. As someone who had not spent the time with original maybe that made this a better thing for you? You mentioned listening to some of Swift's after but how much have you gone back?
CA: I literally went back and listened to her version of "Style" half of one time so I could compare it. But I didn't finish it because I found her version to be boring. Taylor Swift: the celebrity and Taylor Swift: the songwriter definitely seem to be figures worthy of attention but I find Taylor Swift: the singer to be generic and unmemorable. If somebody were to play me unfamiliar songs by Swift, Carly Rae Jepsen, and, say, Ellie Goulding, I doubt that I would be able to tell them apart.
The question of expectations makes me wonder about the ultimate value of a project such as things one. If you, as a fan of Adams and Swift, are disappointed by the project while I see it, at best, as enjoyable but ultimately inessential, how meaningful is a project such as the one? Is there a level of execution that would have made this a genuine artistic success? As much as I love cover songs, it seems like it's sort of project necessarily has a built in ceiling of "enjoyable but inessential". The only full-album cover that comes to mind that is rises even slightly above that level is Petra Haden's version of The Who Sell Out, which was a fairly dramatic reinvention. Can there be an earnest full album cover that is successful beyond the conceptual level?
DS: There is a criticism of Adams that comes up frequently—though it feels less true nowadays—that he is too prolific for his own good. This could be relevant here. He had the idea to cover 1989 and had to make it happen immediately. There are parts that feel like they are simply there because he committed himself to it and the project became more compulsion than anything else.
I feel like he is well intentioned and some parts work while other parts don't. The same thing could be said for any non cover record. But when it comes to cover records, those things can be easily exacerbated because you are essentially retooling something that already exists.
Covers are primarily for fun, unless an artist has an absolutely unique take that truly makes it artistically valuable.
I think where Adams fall short, for me, is that there wasn't an interesting enough idea for every song to necessitate a cover album. This could have been a strong EP, but so many times it feels like he just fell back on stripping them down to a minimalistic acoustic version with altered lyrics. It doesn't feel like a Ryan Adams record. It feels like a Taylor Swift record rerecorded by Ryan Adams—which doesn't make this a valuable addition to his oeuvre.
Chris Alarie is Senior Editor-in-Chief of Uncanny Valley Magazine.
Doug Slayton is Professor Editor-in-Chief of Uncanny Valley Magazine.
1 It also probably doesn't help that the Screaming Females have already done a much better cover of this song.↩
2 Which is an interesting coutnerpoint to the archness with which Swift sings in the original and the sneering, blase irony of Father John Misty's cover↩
3 I prefer Adams's version.↩
No comments:
Post a Comment