too fucking surreal, man.
― Farmer Al (King Kobra), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 22:19 (twenty-two years ago)
― t\'\'t (t\'\'t), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 22:32 (twenty-two years ago)
― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 22:47 (twenty-two years ago)
?
Is there some scary plot for the largest Traveling Wilburys line-up ever?
― donut bitch (donut), Thursday, 12 June 2003 00:54 (twenty-two years ago)
― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Thursday, 12 June 2003 01:35 (twenty-two years ago)
― jack cole (jackcole), Thursday, 12 June 2003 01:45 (twenty-two years ago)
― Alexis (Alexis), Thursday, 12 June 2003 01:50 (twenty-two years ago)
I also have all kinds of mixed feelings about the whole issue of romanticizing mental illness & its manifestations, which is of course no new phenomenon - the French in particular have done a lot of theory-work regarding the relationship between madness & art, and I don't dismiss that work: in fact sometimes it seems like there's really something to it, and certainly at Baltimore's AMVA (American Museum of Visionary Art: think that's what it's called) a persuasive case is made that "insanity" unlocks doors to realms of artistic expression that aren't typically available to many of us. But should we therefore encourage someone who is suffering to suffer more - since we're enjoying his art, and are willing to pay him to suffer? "Define 'suffer,'" some say when this question comes up (especially in relation to C*t P*wer) - "no-one's making her get up onstage." Well, yes; but when the pyro kid at school is surrounded by four or five friends encouraging him to torch that pile of branches over by the administrationi building, he's right to think of his friends as assholes for encouraging him when he gets caught, which is inevitable.
Complicated stuff, for me. Stuff that may never resolve itself; there's no denying that some of the world's best art ever was made by people who clinically speaking would have been eligible for involuntary conservatorship, i.e. people who legally speaking weren't capable of making decisions for themselves. So that's why I don't know what to think about being at a songwriter conference with Daniel Johnston. Also, I'm always worried that people think I'm nuts, as they imply sometimes, which bothers me.
Anybody still awake at this point is very kind indeed, thanks so much
― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Thursday, 12 June 2003 01:58 (twenty-two years ago)
― jack cole (jackcole), Thursday, 12 June 2003 02:17 (twenty-two years ago)
― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Thursday, 12 June 2003 02:27 (twenty-two years ago)
but the thing is, once he did play, the two songs had this amazing clarity to them. they were smart, they were funny, they had hooks, but most of all they had this get-right-to-the-heart-of-the-matter clarity to them, in the way that a lot of classic country songs and too few rock songs do. so direct and clear that you might call them weird. but there was no mental illness being manifested or romanticized in that five minutes of music, not that i could tell. it was just good pop music. that's why i stayed, and that's i went back to see him again.
i don't quite know what any of this means, but i felt the need to say that.
― fact checking cuz, Thursday, 12 June 2003 02:40 (twenty-two years ago)
― Aaron A., Thursday, 12 June 2003 03:00 (twenty-two years ago)
as far as johnson i suspect that most foax who actually like his stuff, like fcc, are in it more for the quality and less for romanticization of etc. most articles about him i've read have been very sensitive to the issue actually.
i mean if you were going to a conference with wesley willis or something on the other hand it would be difft.
(re: aaron's question i think there's just certain unspoken social conventions which would keep nearly anyone from doing a song in all seriousness about king kong or etc. not to mention that if anyone *did* i actually suspect they'd have to *pretend* mental illness or something to get away with it being accepted, which is a somewhat discomfiting thought. that's just lyricwise tho. hookwise i think any brilliant musician could have accomplished what he's done.)
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 12 June 2003 03:08 (twenty-two years ago)
― jack cole (jackcole), Thursday, 12 June 2003 03:09 (twenty-two years ago)
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 12 June 2003 03:19 (twenty-two years ago)
― dave q, Thursday, 12 June 2003 07:27 (twenty-two years ago)
― dave q, Thursday, 12 June 2003 07:43 (twenty-two years ago)
― Colin Meeder (Mert), Thursday, 12 June 2003 13:49 (twenty-two years ago)
What's he like live these days? I'm thinking about seeing him tonight - the Capitol Years are backing him. Should I go?
― Jazzbo, Saturday, 21 June 2008 12:04 (seventeen years ago)
NO HES A RETARTD
― strgn, Saturday, 21 June 2008 12:26 (seventeen years ago)
That's not nice.
― Jazzbo, Saturday, 21 June 2008 13:09 (seventeen years ago)
no, that's dumb
― stevienixed, Saturday, 21 June 2008 13:18 (seventeen years ago)
that's horrible, strgn.
― StanM, Saturday, 21 June 2008 13:45 (seventeen years ago)
Well, glad I brought it up.
― Jazzbo, Saturday, 21 June 2008 17:02 (seventeen years ago)
the original hilarious experience that started this thread is so... not weird
― s1ocki, Saturday, 21 June 2008 17:20 (seventeen years ago)
"someone used the royal we! SURREAL!!!!!!"
I saw him a few months ago. He played 4 or 5 songs solo, just him and his guitar, then he had some people come on stage for "the full band experience". The first segment of the show was pretty brilliant, if overwhelming. I can't remember which songs he played, but they were all the weepy, sad tunes. It was kind of oppressive, like it finally hit me how fucking sad some of those songs were. Then some other people came out on stage and he moved into the more up-beat numbers, evening things out.
It was a good show.
― circa1916, Saturday, 21 June 2008 18:19 (seventeen years ago)
haha i was thinking the same thing s1ocki
― some dude, Saturday, 21 June 2008 18:28 (seventeen years ago)