Making A Case Against Sufjan?

Music

AMG’s Stephen Thomas Erlewine makes makes his case against Sufjan Stevens:

His pretension—his convoluted song titles, his cloying song about Saul Bellow, his adolescent fascination with John Wayne Gacy, Jr.—all comes across like a precocious high school student in his senior year, where he’s smug enough to want to prove that he’s smarter than the rest of the school. Appropriately, his lyrics often read like the work of a gifted but sheltered high schooler, and his music sounds like a drama student’s idea of a pop opera—and it’s all wrapped up on albums with stylized childish artwork, hand-drawn pictures that inadvertently wind up enforcing the impression that Stevens is an overgrown teenager.

I think Erlewine generally misses the point on Sufjan’s music, especially with regards to the man’s lyrics. Sufjan’s songs are not nearly as precocious, insular, or merely charming for charm’s sake as Erlewine seems to think they are. If you dig just a wee bit past the orchestral trappings and arrangements, you’ll see the threads of compassion and faith that provide the heart of Sufjan’s finest work. Threads that are positively glowing with honesty and warmth, moreso than most folks’ music these days.

(Andy Whitman makes some lovely related points in his Sufjan-related blog entry.)

These threads are why Sufjan’s music resonates with people so much, whether they think about it or not. These songs tell stories, oftentimes in only a whisper, of sin, guilt, redemption, hope, blood, death, man, God, the devil, salvation, hubris, and humility. Sure, it’s flowery. Probably a touch too flowery at times. But, as Erlewine suggests, “insular” and “alienating”? Whaaaa?!?

Perhaps Erlewine can explain why I’ve often found myself listening to Sufjan’s music with eyes rimmed with tears and lips a-tremble. I doubt it’s because of the alienating nature of Sufjan’s music, but rather because one of Sufjan’s so-called “cutesy” turns of phrase has just hit me where I live, cut through the clutter, and delivered a wee bit of Truth about this little human condition we have here.

However, I do think Erlewine’s piece does inadvertently raise a good question: has Sufjan worked himself into a rut, musically-speaking? Not yet, methinks, but after three sizable releases that, while quite different in many ways, have essentially mined much of the same “baroque folk-pop” territory time and again, perhaps it is time for Sufjan to move on to other styles, arrangements, and instruments (the man only plays 23 or so—what a slacker).

Sufjan is very good at wringing out gorgeously hushed pop pieces full of orchestral arrangements and elaborate choral singalongs, but it’d be a shame if that’s all he ever sticks with. Simply put, he’s too good a songwriter to allow himself to get stuck in any rut.

While I can’t necessarily picture Sufjan releasing, say, a hardcore punk album in the future (though I wouldn’t put it past him), I’d personally love to see him tackle electronic music again, a la Enjoy Your Rabbit. Or even better, get together with the Sounds Are Active crew and throw out some abstract hip-hop (replete with banjo and oboe, natch).

Sufjan and Soul-Junk?!? The mind is boggled!

17
Jul 11, 2006, 10:32pm

Related Entries

No related entries were found.

Comments

aaron
July 11, 2006 10:56pm

Sorry, but Erlewine is a black turtleneck wearing, chin-stroking jackass music critic who gives regular black turtleneck-wearing, chin-stroking music critics a bad name. :)

His arguments all basically come down to personal opinion, which is weak if you’re going to write a huge call-out like this. At least get academic on my ass, dude. Don’t tell me one thing has more heart than the other when you obviously can’t even glean where one is coming from in the first place.

You make better points in your short rebuttal Jason, which is why I keep coming back here, and largely flick my chin at Allmusic anyway.
olaolu
July 11, 2006 11:05pm

i kinda disagree with the above poster and all the flack I’m sure erlewine will get from avid sufjan fans. I agree that his criticisms are subjective opinions, but so are all the counter-criticisms that will be harpooned towards him. Neither of them have any greater foundation in the physical world than the other.

I’ve never really “gotten” sufjan, I guess. My first experience with him was when he released his Enjoy Your Rabbit album and while I didn’t exactly fall in love with the album, I enjoyed it more than I have his pop-folk outings. The cuteness and poppy nature of his music really starts to wear thin for me, as someone who’s generally indifferent towards what he’s created. I agree that it’d be nice to see him collaborate with a group like Soul-Junk, although if he did, I’d be more interested in seeing him reprise his IDM role instead of do some “folk-hip hop” shindig.
aaron
July 12, 2006 9:29am

You know, it’s odd. I don’t mind negative reviews, even when they’re written in a way that doesn’t have any basis in academics. I’ve taken potshots at artists in reviews and in forums, and I’ll probably do it again.

My problem is with the article in general. Basically, this guy is calling out Sufjan as an artist, which I don’t think is fair. The argument that he does the same things musically over and over again is the only one that I could see as valid, but I’m also one of those people who thinks that as long as the songs are strong, why do you always have to change. I mean, the guy mentioned Elliot Smith in his article as someone who’s more “genuine” (or something, or is ES just getting more props because he killed himself?), but other than adding some baroque touches to his work at the end, it’s not like Elliot Smith ever really ventured much outside a certain musical comfort zone either.

The fact remains that if a person wanted to, they could basically write an article like this about ANY artist or group if they wanted. I could easily churn out about 2,000 words on why Sonic Youth is the most over-rated band on the planet, but what good would it serve? Sure, it would probably get me a few links and some comments and message-boards maybe talking about it, but in the end it’s not going to change anyone’s mind anyway.

Weird, if I read that last line, it seems like I could be talking about politics just as much as I could be talking about music. In that case, I’m a uniter, not a divider, baby!
Lucas Jensen
July 12, 2006 12:39pm

I think it can be both ways. I think his criticisms are genuine, and yours (when you get past the semi-ad hominems at the beginning) are valid, too. There’s a lot of taste in it, but one of the points Tom Erlewine made about Sufjan not touching on the musical history of each state is extremely valid, given he picked two of the most rich states in the US, musically speaking. No Motown, no Stooges, no house music for Michigan?
aaron
July 12, 2006 1:45pm

Apologies for my snarky ad hominem attacks. I’ll call myself a few names to balance it out…

Although I can see the point of people saying that he hasn’t touched on the music of the different states he’s covered, I would argue that that criticism is a bit flawed as well.

You’ve gotta remember, “Michigan” was his FIRST album in the series. He’s admitted that doing an album for each state wasn’t his goal until after he’d released that first album. I honestly think that he just sat down to write something that was an ode to his home state, and “Michigan” is what came about. Later on, the whole “50 States” thing was thrown out, and it’s still hard to tell whether he’s going to seriously tackle it or not.

Oh, and if you listen to “Michigan” and “Illinois” side by side and don’t think that “Illinois” has expanded into completely different musical territory (including disco-funk inspired stuff on “We Are The Night Zombies”), then I simply think we’ll have a difference of opinion, because I hear HUGE differences between both it (and “The Avalanche” for that matter) and his earlier work.

I just think it’s unfair to hack on him heavily for the first two albums in what may or may not be a 50-piece project when his entire back catalogue to date shows that he has by no means pinned himself in a box musically (uh, “Enjoy Your Rabbit” anyone?).
richie
July 12, 2006 2:17pm

A few things:

Sufjan never struck me as short on ideas; predictable and formulaic, perhaps, but never a one-trick pony. Illinois alone is brimming with so many styles and sounds.

His songs sound complex to me. Though the author says Stevens isn’t in the same league as Jim O’Rourke, he was one of the first people that came to mind when I heard Sufjan Stevens. Different ears I suppose.

Maybe I’m wrong, but those long song titles and drawings always struck me as Sufjan not taking himself very seriously. He’s a funny guy and those long-winded song titles come across as hilarious, not pretentious.

I fail to understand why he sees it as an insular and alienating album, especially considering how many fans it has won. That just makes absolutely no sense to me. I do feel that of all the hyped and highly praised artists to come from this new generation of indie music, Sufjan is one of the few who truly deserves all the accolades. His popularity, to me, makes sense and is well-earned. And it is because his music is not only inviting, soothing, melodic, but indeed compassionate, heart-wrenching, moving, earnest.

To wittle down a song like Casimir Pulaski Day (or more recently, The Mistress WItch of McClure) as the cold, studied project of an ambitious know-it-all is misguided and baffling.

Anyways, as he says, he hears something different than I do, and I suppose in the end, there’s nothing wrong with that. I just disagree with him on just about every point he makes.
richie
July 12, 2006 2:19pm

I would like to say that when I heard The Avalanche, I definitely did feel a sense of, “Well, this is not really anything new.“ But that doesn’t bother me. I love what he did on Illinois, and more of it is a good thing.

In other news, I plan to see him live in October. So excited!
Caleb
July 12, 2006 3:00pm

“Or even better, get together with the Sounds Are Active crew and throw out some abstract hip-hop (replete with banjo and oboe, natch).

Sufjan and Soul-Junk?!? The mind is boggled!“

Or going an entirely different direction, how about Sufjan and D.E. Edwards? Since all three artists are loosely affiliated with the same avant-christian collectives, neither is out of the question…

In a recent Pitchfork interview Sufjan mentioned a desire to “undermine the accessability” of his music in the future, what better way to do that than with some old-timey apocalyptic wailing?

Maybe Glen Galaxy can help Soof out when he gets around to a California album, and Edwards can lend a hand to Louisiana, or something.
Lucas Jensen
July 12, 2006 4:54pm

I’m not dissing Sufjan at all here, just for the record. I just thought that was something interesting I’d never thought of before. And ST Erlewine is one of their better reviewers, whose musical taste is pretty impeccable. I think their should be ombudsmenship in music criticism and you disagree necessarily because you like Sufjan a lot.

His takedown of Bright Eyes, btw, was mean but pretty amazing.
Jake T
July 12, 2006 8:26pm

wow. that brought ‘em out of the woodwork, hehehe.

I tend to agree—ole’ boy is smokin’ the crack rock if he thinks Sufjan isn’t accessible. But after listening to Illinois, Seven Swans, and the Christmas stuff, I’m getting pretty tired of over-ochestrated, banjo-driven folk.

As far as tapping into ‘the music of the state’ thing….I’m from Illinois, and with the exception of a few Chicago bluesmen, I’ve got to tell you: there IS no “Illinois music.“ Like most other states, there are a million people in Illinois, and they all like different kinds of music. And like most places, most people in Illinois don’t care that much about music—it’s just what they put on at parties and listen to in the car.

The idea that particular places have their kinds of music might be true for very particular, very specific places (Beale Street comes to mind). But for an entire state? Give me a break.
Jason
July 12, 2006 8:36pm

No kidding… this is the most “controversial” entry I’ve written in a looong time. :)

I’ve thought about a Sufjan/Woven Hand collab, and it definitely sounds intriguing. But I think I want to hear the rumored Danielson/Woven Hand collab first! And to be honest, I think I want to hear some “goofier” Sufjan more than I want to hear some doomy, brimstone-y Sufjan.

And enjoy the show, Richie. If it’s anything like the show I saw in Omaha, it’ll be a good time.
Chris mankey
July 12, 2006 9:13pm

One of my co-workers taped the “Battlestar Galactica” remake that is currently airing on the Sci-Fi channel, and I sat through it last night. Wow, is it painfully bad, even for a “Sci-Fi Original”. I was never a huge fan of the original series. I watched it as a kid, so it’s more nostalgic than anything else. But this revised version is pretty awful.

Wow, you’re a fucking moron! Congrats!
richie
July 13, 2006 2:44pm

The concert should be interesting. From what I’ve read, it won’t be the same as his past tour… there will be no cheerleaders. Instead, it will be a more formal affair, with a string ensemble and such. I hope it will be fun.
Todd
July 14, 2006 1:58pm

Well, for those wanting more eclecticism, I’ve had it straight out of the man’s mouth that New York will be a trashy, Sonic Youth inspired album and Connecticut will be straight up folk music.
Todd
July 14, 2006 1:59pm

And, really, saying that Avalanche is ‘more of the same’ is pretty silly, isn’t it? It’s a b-sides record. Of COURSE it’s more of the same, it was meant to be part of Illinois!
Wayne Giacalone
July 17, 2006 7:06pm

Has anybody heard Soul Junk’s 1942 EP? I think Sufjan does colaborate on it, and it is way different from any other thing of theirs that i’ve heard. Also check out the Soul Junk/Danielson colaboration.
simon
July 23, 2006 12:44am

yeah sufjan is on 1942. great record too. danielson do stuff on it as well, but the funnoest collaborator on it has to be micah from five iron frenzy! haha