Wesley Willis vs. the Kids of Widney High

For some reason, I don't get that vibe from the Kids of Widney High's listeners, and I think there's a reason for that: since music, for those kids, is being employed in a sort of therapeutic way, in a pretty positive setting, you hear a real joy in the results, a sense of enjoyment of the simple act of making music. As much as I thought I detected some form of outsider-music patronizing going on with Ipecac distributing those records, it's been blown away by the fact that when I listen to the songs, I feel pretty happy for the kids.

Neither of the above speak to the "musical quality" of either Wesley or the Kids, but then when you're talking about this sort of thing, "musical quality" becomes a bit of a red herring.

And yeah, I'm sure there's a decent number of people like you out there, who have an honest and good-hearted appreciation of what Wesley's doing. So maybe the difference with me is that I'm just not digging it on some actual musical level.

Haven't heard the Kids of Widney High. Don't particularly want to, based on what I've read here.

I usually avoid folks who've been lionized for their mental illnesses. It's as much a celebrity-type distraction as following the charts. If the music is good (songs, singing, playing, you know), great. So I love, say, Daniel Johnston. I couldn't possibly find a reason to listen to the Shaggs for pleasure, though, beyond perhaps "hy listen to how much this group sucks!" They're funny records because they suck; but who likes to hear the same joke twice?

The thing is, Tarden, that a whole lot of the scene surrounding Wesley actually *isn't* about his being happy, and I suppose that's the criticism I was trying to get at. I think a lot of Wesley's fans would enjoy watching pretty terrible stuff happen to Wesley, just for their own amusement---they *want* to see a freakshow, and if Wesley had a nervous breakdown or a delusional episode during a show, they'd probably think they'd gotten their money's worth.

Also, I think the "outsider art" term has a specific meaning beyond just collected various odds and sods. I think the important point with outsider art is that the person creating it isn't completely aware of the conventions of contemporary art, or isn't completely able to abide by them---which is what makes the Kids of Widney High "outsider" art but John Cage or Merzbow "inside." So I'd say it's a valid and useful distinction. . .

"Succumbing" to socially constructed versions? Jeez, we do live in a society, you know, and interact with other human beings and all that, last I checked. If one were to attempt to define and categorize these sorts of mental illnesses without reference to "social constructs" (which, by the way, is impossible to do in any meaningful way, seeing as we live and have always lived among other human beings), then what would one use as one's terms? Survival? Clearly the ability of these people to survive is impaired. And Wesley would sure like to get rid of his schizophrenia, as would the KOWH love to be more "normal", I suspect.

Anyway, this doesn't make much sense to me. Schizophrenia and mental retardation have empirical existence; furthermore, they have no free-will component, unlike Thom Yorke's depression, or mine or anyone else's for that matter. (Yes, I know depression has a physical component, but it's not all biological and involuntary, whereas the abovementioned diseases are.) Saying that Wesley Willis and the KOWH have a disease isn't equivalent to calling them "bad" or "useless", so I don't see anything productive to be gained in an attempt at defining their deficiencies out of existence.

Sorry if this seems a bit irritable; it's a pet peeve of mine.

Ah, but there are two different things going on here. One is laughter whose origin is the feeling of superiority; that's contemptuous laughter, and the kind for which we should feel guilty.

The other is the laughter that's produced when we see someone else violating what we consider the norms of society, communication, deportment, and so forth. Depending on the severity of the violation, our laughter may have its origins in discomfort, or a sense of the absurd or incongruous, or in vicarious pleasure (wouldn't you love, just once, to tell a bus driver to "suck a Bactrian camel's dick", ˆ la Wesley?). That kind of laughter, to me, is not contemptuous at all, and when Wesley Willis makes me laugh, that is what's at work.

I feel sort of the same way about Willis. I saw him in Edmonton at a small club and he was well respected. The music is appreciated for its oddity ( really whats the differences between idosyncrsies and freakdom) and i think he views at theruptic. However people have taken it as a commerical enterpise and marketed that way. It reminds me of the Prizhorn collection.

This is proably a running leap and has not been spellchecked but i think it makes sense. As well i don't want to go thru bookshleves so the dates amybe wrong.

why do people fight?
why are people angry?

I want to find a secret place
far, far away