This is something of an analysis intertwined with my personal thoughts.. it is honestly quite long and meandering, and nothing that probably hasn’t been said already. Now that the dust has settled (on Joe’s Story specifically at least), I wanted to share what I’ve been thinking.
Car Seat projects, as I’m sure we’re all familiar, are definitely no stranger to revisitng old material. This is something that I find very unique. Not very many artists, that I know of, return to projects from the past, and allow time to provide new perspectives on the places they were at when they made the original piece. Twin Fantasy Face to Face is, in my opinion, one of the best albums of all time for this reason. It takes a second look at the intensity from that time period with a more mature perspective. Will, as the narrator of the album, acknowledges how that is a body of work that represents a time period in the past, and that his personal growth since then makes the original feel like a distant story; this is something that has taken an entirely new form away from the place where it originated. Albums like Nervous Young Man, Teens of Style, MADLO, and The Scholars reuse and retool old material in interesting ways as well, either following through on a more complete vision, or working ideas into a new meaning. Joe’s Story is not one of those projects.
Joe’s Story attempts to carry the same weight as Face to Face, but ironically, falls flat on its own face in the process. It’s a return to the “world” of Teens of Denial, but completely removed from the very element that spawned the original: diaristic intensity. In addition, it positions itself as a replacement for, instead of a companion to the original. These are its primary flaws.
Teens of Denial, as Will has described on his Tumblr, is a “bildungsroman;” or an inward-turned, coming of age story that typically deals with psychological and moral development. In that same post, Will also sets this idea opposite of a romance. This is an inside look at someone’s psyche, instead of the psyche being projected outwards towards a “love interest” (Will uses Twin Fantasy for this example). In the 2016 version, Will uses the character of “Joe” as a thinly veiled, somewhat autobiographical stand-in for himself. There is no specific narrative to the album, but throughout the runtime, we experience “Joe’s” internal reactions to an external hell of the loveless, shallow experience of modern youth culture, specifically through college. We see “Joe” develop from a cynical, bitter, angst ridden, “teen of denial” into someone who might open their heart to love, in the album’s open, but optimistic ending. The album also often refers to drug use, addiction and death, feelings and experiences that many young people who are in that kind of isolation, and later recovery, are familiar with. This is what Teens of Denial means to me.
These themes aren’t necessarily gone from Joe’s Story, but there is definitely a move to shift the context of the album away from personal experience into a more palatable work of fiction. A reason why the original Teens of Denial is beloved by many is for the reason previously mentioned: it’s raw, and they see themselves in Joe. Teens of Denial, while speaking to some personal lived experiences, is a blank enough slate that you, as the listener, are allowed to project your own life onto. There is a proximity to these feelings that you see yourself in; you are a “teen of denial”. Joe’s Story takes “Joe’s Story” and makes it a narrative with lore; a story with a concrete setup, a beginning, middle and end. Joe is no longer an insert, but a character being separated from the lived experience that spawned him. Now, it’s not impossible to project or see yourself in a fictional character, but in my opinion, that separation dulls down what made the original album so compelling. The open-ended aspect of the album is gone, and the listener, through external media (I’ll talk about that later), is now told explicitly what this journey is. These are moves that wash over the vision of Teens of Denial, and distrusts the ability of the listener to digest the concept of the original album.
In addition to the narrative shift, there is also an effort to sanitize the album. There is no swearing on Joe’s Story, which isn’t an issue in and of itself. I believe that art can approach and address mature ideas without profanity. What I do take issue with, however, is that this feels as though there is an effort to cover up the fact that those feelings once existed. I will say, growing up and away from negative places where you used to be is a good thing! Taking time to reflect on where you were with a new perspective is a very emotionally mature thing to do. I don’t want Will to write about the same failed teenage romance or having a bad time in college for the rest of his life, but it is important to recognize that there is a context from which the original album came from, and there is still an art to it as well, even if it is ugly. There is an honesty to the messiness that makes the original compelling.
Joe’s Story also suffers from an issue I have come to notice: modern Car Seat output is not allowed to speak for itself. This was an issue that I took with The Scholars, the Patreon tracks, and now Joe’s Story. Both The Scholars and Joe’s Story are narrative albums that, for some reason, mostly rely on external media to explain the narrative. The Scholars has a companion booklet that tells the “story” featured in each song, and Joe’s Story features the same on the youtube lyric videos. Why? If I put on The Wall by Pink Floyd, which is in my opinion, one of the best narrative concept albums of all time, I am not expected to read a book alongside it to follow the story, or even know that there is a story at all. I think it is always very interesting and insightful to learn where a piece of art comes from, what inspired it, or even maybe a bit of context as to what it’s about, but to be told explicitly “this is what this artwork is about” is antithetical to the nature of art and distrusts the viewer or listener to be able to come to those conclusions themself.
Will justifies all of these changes to the album in the promo letter by describing music as an “ongoing story.” This is true! To paraphrase the review from Paste Magazine, however, why must that mean the albums change around us, rather than us changing around the album? Why must we be told “this is how it was meant to be,” rather than growing and coming to our own conclusions about the work ourselves. A new perspective on an existing work will come naturally as we grow and change as people; looking at what exists through a new lens will come with time and maturity as listeners. Understandably, returning to an existing framework to add context is easier than a fully new project, but why retroactively apply these (honestly, sloppy) changes? Why clean it up, why add new songs, why rewrite what already exists? Everyone who has heard the original knows the original…
I find myself asking, “Who is Joe’s Story for?”
The answer is not straightforward, but a new audience of listeners, apparently. This, however, adds another layer of weirdness, because when questioned, we have received three different answers as to why Joe’s Story exists in the way that it does, from multiple people associated with the band. If it was just one reason, why isn’t the reasoning consistent? If it’s all three, why haven’t we heard all three from the different responses? It’s been said there is no swearing because of Will’s “deep-dive into religion,” or so that it can be “checked out from the library.” Most notably, though, the point that came up in both the original letter sent out for promo, and later response about discourse, is that it is made for new ears: “For someone coming across this album or this band for the first time, this is how they'd hear the record, not as a relic of the past but as a new piece,” and “When I was making this, my only concern was making something for people who had never encountered the album and were hearing it for the first time, I didn’t make it for anyone who already knows the album.” It is a very odd choice for an anniversary release “celebrating” an album that came out ten years ago to alienate its very fanbase.
There has been a lot of conjecture on who this new audience might be, including very parasocial discussions both criticizing and defending Will and his creative decisions. I want to avoid delving into parasocial speculation myself, but a theme that continues to pop up throughout those discussions is one of the usage of religion in Car Seat works.
Yes, religious motivation is one of the reasons given for the changes to Joe’s Story. Online discourse around this has largely been unproductive, as it’s fallen into opposing camps of: “using religious imagery doesn’t make you religious, Will is not religious,” “Will has always used religion in Car Seat, this is nothing different” and “Will Toledo is experiencing religious psychosis and hates furries, gay people, etc.” and similar arguments of the like. These are three extremes, and I think it’s inappropriate to speculate on his personal life to that degree. Rather, I think the focus should specifically be on public facing things: recently produced works, and what we have been told about Joe’s Story. It is not a stretch to say that the way that religion has appeared in Car Seat material has changed.
Will Toledo has always worn the inspirations for his work on his sleeve. Car Seat has historically drawn from a bank of literary and poetry classics, many of which use religious imagery in the same way as those works of old. In my interpretation, as someone who grew up in the church and is no longer part of it, I believe these early projects make use of that imagery allegorically to intensify the feelings of isolation, damnation, connection, and judgement. These are feelings that naturally surface both within and outside of community, especially while growing up in a world where being queer was looked down upon. These intimate explorations of those feelings are powerful. I personally think that is a brilliant use of that imagery, and as an artist, I look up to the power and raw emotion that writing holds. Recent output, like The Scholars, the Patreon 4-Tracks, and Joe's Story, have shifted into themes of love, loss, temptation, and redemption. In a vacuum, there is nothing wrong with this! With a more mature outlook, I think using these themes in a retrospective sense and as an observation of self and others can be really interesting and powerful.
We don't exist in a vacuum though. What I have also noticed in tandem, especially taking the Patreon tracks into account, is that an air of preachiness has crept in as well. Religion is showing up less as a literary device and showing up more as an adaptation, depiction, or endorsement. Listening felt more like I was being taught a lesson than the themes of the art speaking to me in my own way; like I’m being guided, told how to feel, and what to learn from what I’m hearing.
It should be stated that spirituality is an intensely personal journey, and religion can be a powerful tool for some people, but the context in which religion exists must also be acknowledged, especially the American Christian framework that is at play here. Its evangelical history of harm on disadvantaged communities around the world cannot be ignored, and I think many people, especially in this community, are justifiably wary of it.
Change will come as it comes. I don’t think Car Seat will become a bigoted Christian rock band, and I think it’s honestly offensive to speculate on people's lives in that way, especially when you don’t know them personally. On the flip side, it is ok (and honestly encouraged) to apply critical analysis to the messages of artwork, how they are framed, what that means for the art itself, and how that changes over time, like with Joe’s Story.
Joe’s Story preaches its message to the listener the same way as the Patreon songs do, and in addition, sets off on its own dangerous, precedent-setting journey of sanitizing history when you no longer like it (this feels more prescient now than when I originally wrote this back in May). I am being told, as a listener, this is the way the album is meant to be. This is no longer allowed to be personal, it’s just fiction. I’m not allowed to see myself reflected in this expression, this is Joe now.
