Whistling wonder's latest requires more work than usual
Andrew Bird has always been a bit of a showoff. For good reason,
though—he’s an incredible violinist and composer, he knows big words
like apocrypha, and anyone who can make a human whistle sound like the
wind, a voice, a theremin and a saw, might as well prove it.
Still, there are a few awkward moments—the flamenco guitars feel tacked-on sometimes, and Bird’s urgent, repetitive wail on the aptly titled “Not A Robot, But A Ghost” too closely recalls Thom Yorke. For someone who practically invented his own genre, Bird seems to forget himself here. Same goes for “Nomenclature,” on which he sounds like a dead-ringer for Rufus Wainwright. He successfully pulls off the cabaret sound, and the song is charming, but it offers nothing new. And the record starts to run together toward the end, beginning with minute-long violin meander “Unfolding Fans.”
Bird’s cutback in musical drama inadvertently begs for a sharper focus on individual parts, including the lyrics, their grandiosity making up for the music’s lack thereof—and then some. But listen too hard, and his words turn into flashing lights.
You might start by looking up the word radiolarian. The dictionary says it’s a protozoan. So you look up protozoan and learn that it’s a eukaryote. Before you know it you’re looking up organelle and cytoplasm and eventually end up with the word cell—you’re pretty sure that radiolarian isn’t a fancy way of saying cell, but you’re kind of pissed off that a lyric sent you on such a goose chase, plus, now you feel stupid and don’t even care what the word means anymore. And if it were just that one trip-up, it’d be no big deal. But there’s more where it came from—to name quite a few: aubergine (French for “eggplant”); proto-Sanskrit (the hypothetical ancestor of the Indo-European language); Cypriot (inhabitant of Cyprus); Uralic (a family of languages to which Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian belong, comprising Finno-Ugric and Samoyed as subfamilies); troglobite (cave-dwelling creature); plecostomus (type of Central and South American fish); anthurium (a kind of plant); pleurisy (inflammation of the pleura, which is a membrane in mammal lungs); valerian (another plant); and dermestid (something about beetles).
The lyrical confusion doesn’t end there. Some words aren’t even definable (Hobis-hot?), and chinless men are scratching their beards, and someone’s “wearing nothing but a onesie and a veil,” and eggplants are dreaming, and people are having “fake conversations on nonexistent telephones.” It’s not merely challenging—it’s a real gluteal throe (pain in the ass).
There’s nothing wrong with having to refer to the dictionary every once in a while, but Bird’s constant textbookish references make it almost impossible to connect with whatever sentiments lie beneath his gratuitous wordplay, and it’s hard to know what any one song is really about. There’s a moment of sympathy for the protagonist in the next-to-last song, because parsnips are scalding his lungs and thistles are burning his feet and his lover won’t return, and honestly, who would wish that sort of physical and emotional pain on anyone? But the feeling quickly passes because, I mean, really—can a parsnip scald someone’s lungs?
None of this changes the fact that Bird’s music is pretty. Individual words and lines are hard to grasp, yes—but they’re probably not meant to be grasped. This multi-instrumentalist and music scholar seems more interested in the sounds of words than the messages they convey (as evidenced best in “Tenuousness”: “Tenuousness less seven comes to three / Them you us plus eleven / Comes just shy of infinity”). Only Bird knows what on earth that means—but we can all agree that it sure sounds nice. This isn’t a confessional record, and Bird isn’t trying to make it onto any wedding playlists or breakup mixes (but just for fun, if you’re making one, let me recommend “Anonanimal” and “Oh No,” respectively). Poetry has always been another tool in his box, but here more than ever, it seems that the lyrics serve as an instrument, not to be separated from the rest of the music, and helping to create a seamless but showy overall sound.
Listen to Andrew Bird's "Oh No" from Noble Beast:



I would have thought that lyrics that were inextricably tied to the music would be a good thing--a kind of bringing together of disparate parts to create a unique whole.
Also, I'll grant you "radiolarian", but didn't we all discover "protozoan" when we put pond water under the microscope in elementary school?
Why try to break an album down to its individual parts when it works so well as a "unique whole," as Elizabeth so aptly put it?
For a review that devoted half its length to the lyrical content, I was surprised to see no mention of the subtle math and science references that cleverly tied each song together. I mean, really...when's the last time you listened to a themed album? Not even the reciprocal song titles "Oh No" and "On Ho!" received a nod??? Noble Beast is more than just "pretty music." It's ingenious (marked by originality, resourcefulness, and cleverness in conception or execution).
I've only listened to this one a few times so far, and as of now I'd say it's not quite as good as armchair apocrypha, but it's still one of the best albums I've heard in a while. Much better than the 67 the reviewer gave it--I don't see how one can fault an album because one doesn't have as big a vocabulary as the artist.
I'd agree with the previous comments; I wouldn't bust Bird on the big words.
There's something delightfully Lewis Carroll-esque about the turn of phrases on "Noble Beast." Meanings are turned topsy turvy, phrases rhyme unexpectedly and the sense that a mystery lies underfoot permeates everything.
I'm tired of artists spelling out the meaning of their songs ad nauseam. Give me a seven syllable word that leaves me thinking, "Hmm?" any day.
"There’s nothing wrong with having to refer to the dictionary every once in a while, but Bird’s constant textbookish references make it almost impossible to connect with whatever sentiments lie beneath his gratuitous wordplay, and it’s hard to know what any one song is really about."
These also could be said of most record reviews these days. Too much intelectual gibberish and not much talking about the songs themselves. Oh, the irony.
Since I'm such a huge Bird fan, I read the series of articles he wrote last year for the NYT. In one of the articles on song writing, he explained that he hums the melody first, and then tries to find words that fit the song, not the other way around. Thus, with that lyrical formula, there are certainly times in which the lyrics themselves don't make sense... but Bird doesn't intend them to, he merely wishes that they add to the overall musical sound. Furthermore, Bird had a serious break-up before he recorded the album, so I'm sure a part of him was reluctant to put himself--lyrically--back out there.
And "Robot/Ghost" is not a Thom Yorke impersonation, but merely a continuation of the work he started with "Simple X" (Armchair Apocrypha) and "The Trees Were Mistaken" (Soldier On EP).
If the reviewer has never heard of Cypriot, pleurisy or aubergine, his poor rating of Andrew Bird is the least of his/our problems.
One wonders how he passed his high school finals. Or has the education system really fallen that low?
But that's besides the point: being an Andrew Bird, and not even having heard this album YET, I would be disappointed if I DIDN'T have to look up a word or two.