The NY Times is collectively pondering mightily the meaning of the million-selling success of Norah Jones's new album Feels Like Home. First, in an unsigned editorial published yesterday, they spend most of their words trying to get around damning sweet Norah with faint praise:
- Norah Jones is a lovely young woman with a lovely young voice who sings jazz-inflected songs of romance in a manner that can only be called consoling. Her first album, "Come Away With Me," earned her a double armful of Grammys last year and the attention of the entire music industry. Her second album, "Feels Like Home," has just been released. It made its debut at No. 1 and sold more than a million copies in its first week, proving that politeness does have its rewards. The sound of Ms. Jones's piano is amiability itself, and in her voice there lurks a plaintive contentment. It feels churlish to speak even that critically of a woman whose music is so palpably pleasing. Who knew so many people needed so much consolation?
....The psychology of the recording industry, like that of book publishing, is now so dependent on blockbuster sales that the idea of profitability based on modest sales across a diverse catalog has nearly vanished. The business depends on the hundred-year flood, not a steady rain.
There is no begrudging Ms. Jones her success. Part of her attraction is that she seems to be pursuing the art as it appeals to her, without pandering to her audience. But what's curious about her career so far is that she is essentially a midlist artist who broke into the big time. Her first album was rolled out in a way that suggested modest expectations - and on such modest, artful expectations, once upon a time, a gratifying career might have been based. But her niche is now the whole world. The industry will no longer be talking about Norah Jones; it will be talking about "a Norah Jones" or "the next Norah Jones," who comes out of nowhere to rescue the bottom line once again.
Just because her chosen approach is quiet and subtle doesn't mean she isn't a major talent, or that her success is somehow a fluke. She is all kinds of interesting things: a young woman performing music that largely appeals to an older audience; she is lovely and sexy but in a modest, unassuming manner in an age of in-your-face pop strumpets; she is as deep as the Marianas Trench while her surface remains calm; she has a unique, warm, soulful voice and is a real musician.
Article comments
1 - Robert Brandt
Are we right in the middle another post-traumatic era in the music industry? Are we seeing stuff in the style of "easy" favorites like Bread, The Carpenters, or James Taylor getting big again?
2 - Mark Saleski
the inability of people to deal with the subtleties of Jones' voice continues to puzzle me.
i feel like i'm being snobby when i say this, but i can't help but think that the average person's attention span has been flogged to the point where entertainment (music in this case) of this nature just doesn't register anymore.
3 - ClubhouseCancer
Or perhaps her songs are hopelessly banal. Her approach is consistently pleasant and never challenging " much more soft-rock than any kind of jazz, and her songs are just boring and trivial and forgettable.
For similar, much more intricate and involving stuff in this vein, I urge you to check out the past five Cassandra Wilson albums. Much of Norah's sounds come from these much better, much more emotive albums" try New Moon Daughter or Travelling Miles.
4 - Eric Olsen
CC, damn you get snide. I am not aware that anyone here is calling her "jazz." She is "jazzy," and the new one is less jazzy than the first one. The comparison with Wilson is specious - they do entirely different things.
Who says more "intricate" is more "involving"? What you hear as "never challenging," I hear as subtle and deep. "Emotive" is better? I typically hate "emotive." Christina Aguilera and Celine Dion are "emotive."
I find Norah neither "boring," nor "trivial," nor "forgettable," in fact quite the opposite on all three.
Should I be equally dismissive of your opinion? Should I say you just don't get it? Should I say your label of "soft rock" reveals an inability to hear the disparate influences she has drawn from - sophisticated country, folk, jazz, traditional pop, blues (especially on the new one) - to create somthing uniquesly hers?
You are free to express any opinion you'd like, but I do not get the attitude: surely anyone who might possibly disagree is an idiot.
5 - Mark Saleski
norah herself has said in interviews that as much as she'd like to emulate here piano hero, Bill Evans, what seems to come out is more country-ish.
as far as a comparison to wilson goes, hey, this ain't a competition. i love both New Moon Daught and Travelling Miles...are they "better" than "Feels Like Home". i have no idea. i'm not keeping score.
6 - ClubhouseCancer
Eric:
Wow. Didn't know I needed a special waiver to disagree with you, but thanks for granting me said permission.
We obviously don't agree on the merits of this banausic music, but one statement of yours is truly puzzling.
Cassandra and Norah Jones clearly do NOT do totally different things, as you, strangely, state.
They both choose country/pop-tinged tunes. They use jazz musicians. (Some of the SAME musicians.)
They both play the tunes, as a rule, slowly and quietly, with a lack of adornment.
They both record for Blue Note.
They also share a key producer, Craig Street, who recorded the basic tracks for the first Norah album.
A cursory listen to both would reveal that there are obvious similarities.
To me, the Cassandra albums are deeper, as the singer sounds more engaged, and the recordings are weirder and denser. They're also much more dynamic, with hushed, gently swinging parts juxtaposed with harder driving stuff.
In short, the Norah albums sound like Cassandra albums with a sweeter singer and the rough edges smoothed out.
And Mark, Norah may say that her fave is Bill Evans, but, as she knows, that piano is pure Floyd Cramer Slip-Note 101. Sounds great, too.
7 - David
I just remember this LA times article a way back claiming that she got signed to Blue Note because of her impressive jazz ability, and there were all kinds of quotes from teachers and whatnot raving about her extraordinary natural talent, and, besides, she's got her daddy's jeans, but after she got signed she decided she was interested in other things. I figure she's young yet - not for pop, maybe, but definitely for jazz.
Cassandra: nice voice - that's about it. I liked the album she did with Jackie Terrason a lot, and her contribution to Blood on the Fields was pleasant enough, but here pop stuff leave me as cold as ice. There are plenty of jazz singers out there who are much better in every way.
8 - Eric Olsen
CC, I think I made it pretty clear that I wasn't complaining about disagreement - which is NEVER an issue - but about the tone and attitude. I am certain such a perceptive and meticulous reader such as yourself will see the vast difference between #3 and #6.
As to the merits, interesting comparison between Wilson and Jones, including commonalities I hadn't grasped, but the fundamental difference is between a jazz singer and a not-jazz singer: for Wilson, the jazz singer, it's all about the performance; for Jones, the not-jazz singer, it's all about the song.
Wilson is Billie Holiday, Jones is Peggy Lee; commonalities but fundamental difference.
9 - ClubhouseCancer
David:
I agree. Just brought up the Cassandra albums as obvious precursors to this. I thought the Terrasson album was disappointingly bland, though.