How Many Of You So-Called Critics Are Actually Musicians?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

― Shamalamadingdong, Friday, 8 October 2004 18:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not even a critic and even I know this is the stupidest false trope ever.

― n/a (Nick A.), Friday, 8 October 2004 18:08 (twenty-one years ago)

This same thread gets started once every couple months by somebody who looks around here and gets angry at all the opinions.

― Taxi Dancing in the Soft Prison (Ben Boyer), Friday, 8 October 2004 18:10 (twenty-one years ago)

And then starts a new message board.

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Friday, 8 October 2004 18:12 (twenty-one years ago)

If you can't cook, you can't eat!

― Huk-L, Friday, 8 October 2004 18:13 (twenty-one years ago)

how many of you reporters at this press conference have actually been president? the rest of you will have to leave.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Friday, 8 October 2004 18:16 (twenty-one years ago)

how many of you so-called musicians are actually critics?

― Drew Daniel, Friday, 8 October 2004 18:17 (twenty-one years ago)

how many of you so-called critic critics are actual critics?

― peter smith (plsmith), Friday, 8 October 2004 18:17 (twenty-one years ago)

hahahaha - that was my next post, drew.

― peter smith (plsmith), Friday, 8 October 2004 18:17 (twenty-one years ago)

How many of you citrus fruits are actual lemons?

― Huk-L, Friday, 8 October 2004 18:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow, touched a nerve.

― brumdiddlybrum, Friday, 8 October 2004 18:20 (twenty-one years ago)

How many of you Christians are actually God?

― Wooden (Wooden), Friday, 8 October 2004 18:20 (twenty-one years ago)

How many of these threads are actually necessary?

― Dominique (dleone), Friday, 8 October 2004 18:21 (twenty-one years ago)

how many roads must a man walk down?

― pfeffernuesse (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 8 October 2004 18:22 (twenty-one years ago)

My guitar work has been compared favorably with Yngwie Malmsteen. Seriously, my chops are totally insane, dude.

― Mark (MarkR), Friday, 8 October 2004 18:23 (twenty-one years ago)

The funny thing is, I was thinking of starting a thread about how dumb this trope is -- after reading one of those Amazon reviews of Matos's book, where someone said "he's probably just a failed musician!" -- but then I figured it wasn't worth bothering with.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 8 October 2004 18:24 (twenty-one years ago)

"People who write about music are just bitter that they themselves can't play it."

― chuck, Friday, 8 October 2004 18:24 (twenty-one years ago)

I've always thought it was funny that critics consider criticism to be a one-way street (ie, "I criticize YOU, not the other way around!") Critics often ridicule musicians for being thin-skinned or taking umbrage at their criticism (John Mayer to thread), but question the value of a critic's role/POV and they invariably go BALLISTIC and get really defensive.

carry on...

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 8 October 2004 18:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Why would anyone want to be a music journalist RATHER than a musician?

― chuck, Friday, 8 October 2004 18:27 (twenty-one years ago)

TS: pitching vs auditioning

― Dominique (dleone), Friday, 8 October 2004 18:28 (twenty-one years ago)

You don't have to be an architect to enjoy the beauty of a well-designed building, you don't have to paint to be moved (or reviled) by a painting, and you sure as hell don't have to be a musician to listen to, enjoy, or critique music.

And I AM a musician!!!

― Tantrum The Cat (Tantrum The Cat), Friday, 8 October 2004 18:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Which experience is better: listening to music, or reading what someone has written about music?

― horatio, Friday, 8 October 2004 18:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I think most musicians have felt a version of this twinge of anger when their work is criticized, and they reach for some variation on this complaint. It's painful to spend years of your life on something and then be told that it sucks, and it does make you want to grasp at some kind of cheap shot way to disavow the shame you feel at being told that your hours and hours didn't gel, didn't work out. But art isn't graded on effort, and at this point the cultural mound o products (and the scary alps of masterpieces towering in the distance) is so fucking huge that if you do dare to contribute to the mound, you'd better be ready to take some abuse for your presumption.

― Drew Daniel, Friday, 8 October 2004 18:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, Drew, but taking the leap into creating art and putting it out there is infinitely more than those who sit on the sidelines and cowardly take their potshots. And besides, musicians are probably getting laid more.

― horatio, Friday, 8 October 2004 18:37 (twenty-one years ago)

that should have read "infinitely more noble and admirable"

― horatio, Friday, 8 October 2004 18:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Which experience is better: listening to music, or reading what someone has written about music?

Depends on the quality of the writing and the music. I'd rather read good criticism than listen to more mediocre music.

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Friday, 8 October 2004 18:38 (twenty-one years ago)

>taking the leap into creating art and putting it out there <

and musicians by definition do this more than writers, right?

― chuck, Friday, 8 October 2004 18:42 (twenty-one years ago)

But yes, I agree, every half-assed dime-a-dozen demo CD I get in the mail does indeed strike me as an act of utter bravery, I admit it.

― chuck, Friday, 8 October 2004 18:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Which experience is better: listening to music, or reading what someone has written about music?

The former. I really only read music reviews to find out what's worth a listen. And I haven't bought a music magazine in maybe 15 years.

― Good Dog, Friday, 8 October 2004 18:48 (twenty-one years ago)

To me music criticism is just a specific part of criticism with a capital C, and that means an activity whose pantheon includes Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Oscar Wilde, Hazlitt, Longinus, etc. The stakes of what an act of criticism can do, of how creatively it can re-organize our own thinking and acting, are very high indeed. The fact that journalism puts limits on the space isn't necessarily an issue either- look at Clement Greenberg's little tiny reviews of painting shows from the 50s. They are Fabergé eggs of criticism.

― Drew Daniel, Friday, 8 October 2004 18:50 (twenty-one years ago)

in case the bit about "cowardly potshots" wasn't enough to meet your sad irony quota for the day, i'd like to take this opportunity to point out that "shamalamadingdong," "brumdiddlybrum" and "horatio" are all posting from the same ip address.

― mark p (Mark P), Friday, 8 October 2004 18:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm with Drew. Thinking that criticism is a worthless activity is a pretty juvenile position, really. It all has its part in the cultural fabric. I can understand a musician getting pissed off by bad reviews, but jesus christ, not everyone can like you. Take it on the fucking chin.

― Wooden (Wooden), Friday, 8 October 2004 18:57 (twenty-one years ago)

I can never remember. How do you find that out?

― Rick Massimo (Rick Massimo), Friday, 8 October 2004 19:12 (twenty-one years ago)

(it's a moderator feature)

― mark p (Mark P), Friday, 8 October 2004 19:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Thanks for saving me another half-hour or so of trying to figure it out.

― Rick Massimo (Rick Massimo), Friday, 8 October 2004 19:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe obvious but: if somebody says something that strikes us interesting or true, we don't generally wonder about their "right" to say it; we just let it stand. The angry musician rejoinder to the critic is to say "you're not a musician so you don't have the right to comment on what I'm doing", or, even more basically "you don't know me or my intentions so how can you comment on what I'm doing". This last claim rests on the intentional fallacy, but critics DO open themselves up to it when and if they make speculative claims about what artist X was trying to do. As long as critics stick to an evaluation of results, or a report about subjective pleasure, they are pretty obviously immune to this move. The hard part is that we like to treat works of art as successes or failures, but that often commits us to a claim about what the artist was attempting, and that's where the trouble with intentionality arises. My favorite criticism isn't about success or failure at the level of entrance into Ye Great Canon; instead it's about making the personal, subjective pleasure report so compelling on its own terms that you are won over to seeing the art object in a new way on the very articulate specificity of experiencing the critic's feelings in action.

― Drew Daniel, Friday, 8 October 2004 19:26 (twenty-one years ago)

The fact that journalism puts limits on the space isn't necessarily an issue either- look at Clement Greenberg's little tiny reviews of painting shows from the 50s. They are Fabergé eggs of criticism.

Heh, funny you should mention him, we just checked out a book of his criticism today. He's still being read!

For some reason it's riled many but I've always enjoyed J. D. Considine's mini-reviews for Musician that used to run on a fairly regular basis, specifically his five-words-or-less dismissals. You can argue he doesn't 'say' anything about the record but the point is that he was able to draw on cases where, for the most part, enough publicity and attention had been given to the acts in question, or had already existed before the release of the album, that further explanation would be unnecessary.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 8 October 2004 19:27 (twenty-one years ago)

otm - very well summed up. i love to get behind a reviewer's enthusiasm...

― peter smith (plsmith), Friday, 8 October 2004 19:27 (twenty-one years ago)

umm - i guess i mean, i love to support. a writers enthusiasm. for music.

― peter smith (plsmith), Friday, 8 October 2004 19:28 (twenty-one years ago)

(As for me, not a musician or a singer, doubt I ever will be. Does this mean I still feel passionately about things I love and hate? Damn straight. Upset with a review I wrote trashing your work? (And I've gotten this from time to time -- and whenever I do I wonder, "Why in heck are you even CARING what a random person like me thinks, have you no faith in your own work?") Do something I like better next time and I'll say so. I have no illusions about my Grand Role in the Musical Scheme of Things -- it's infinitesimal.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 8 October 2004 19:30 (twenty-one years ago)

"I can understand a musician getting pissed off by bad reviews, but jesus christ, not everyone can like you. Take it on the fucking chin. "

As evidenced by this very thread, most critics are not capable of taking their own advice.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 8 October 2004 19:34 (twenty-one years ago)

by which I mean instead of "taking it on the fucking chin" you all work yourselves into a tizzy justifying the very existence of criticism.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 8 October 2004 19:35 (twenty-one years ago)

whats your take, shakey?

― mark p (Mark P), Friday, 8 October 2004 19:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree that this is the oldest and lamest of complaints. So let me just say this: Most of the best musicians I know can't write for shit. You really, really, really would not want to read a magazine written by them.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 8 October 2004 19:39 (twenty-one years ago)

(i only ask because i need a good laugh and i can't find custos' verbal beatdown thread.)

― mark p (Mark P), Friday, 8 October 2004 19:39 (twenty-one years ago)

(and based on the last month or so, i would read a magazine written by drew in a heartbeat.)

― mark p (Mark P), Friday, 8 October 2004 19:40 (twenty-one years ago)

what's my take on the ostensible thread "topic"? Obviously critics don't need to be musicians, that particular line of reasoning doesn't make any sense, as numerous people have pointed out.

x-post

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 8 October 2004 19:41 (twenty-one years ago)

at the same time, if critics are gonna take musicians to task for being bitter crybabies, maybe critics shouldn't act like a bitter crybabies themselves.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 8 October 2004 19:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Everyone here is in a "tizzy" EXCEPT FOR SHAKEY MO.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 8 October 2004 19:43 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah no kidding. shakey in anti-intellectual boob shocker.

― mark p (Mark P), Friday, 8 October 2004 19:45 (twenty-one years ago)

what? how is my stance "anti-intellectual"?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 8 October 2004 19:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Please check out my new band, "Boob Shocker," made up of all music writers, once we form and start writing songs.

― Taxi Dancing in the Soft Prison (Ben Boyer), Friday, 8 October 2004 19:48 (twenty-one years ago)

This is pretty off-topic, but I feel like part of the reason I feel a disconnect with ILM is that there's this huge focus on criticism. I have come to realize that music writing is of little to no interest to me personally, I can't even read any of it any more (due to oversaturation or disinterest or both, I'm not sure), but it seems like there are more words spent on criticism (i.e., the CANON, article responses, b.s. about the same music critics, etc.) than on, you know, music. I'm not asking for capitulation or even empathy, but just wanted to express something.

― n/a (Nick A.), Friday, 8 October 2004 19:51 (twenty-one years ago)

i sometimes feel a little alienated from the crit-heavy talk, but i figure thats the nature of the beast around here, right?

― peter smith (plsmith), Friday, 8 October 2004 19:54 (twenty-one years ago)

ummm shakey, b/c you choose to decode a pretty well-reasoned, thoughtful discussion as a "tizzy" by "bitter crybabies"?

― mark p (Mark P), Friday, 8 October 2004 19:54 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, what peter said. still, it's hard to decide which is more boring/irritating: musicians pontificating on the value of music, or critics pontificating on the value of criticism?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 8 October 2004 19:55 (twenty-one years ago)

haha sounds pretty anti-intellectual to me dude!

― mark p (Mark P), Friday, 8 October 2004 19:56 (twenty-one years ago)

well "dude", there ARE a bunch of well-reasoned, thoughtful posts here (Drew in particular) - but look, they're in response to a completely idiotic and already oft-refuted line of questioning. The post hardly merits or requires any response at all, but lo and behold many of you nonetheless take the opportunity to expound on the virtues of yr chosen trade.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 8 October 2004 20:02 (twenty-one years ago)

"the post" = the one starting this thread

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 8 October 2004 20:03 (twenty-one years ago)

i dont really think anyone who regularly posts on ILM can be considered a real anti-intellectual - the nature of this board seems to be fairly uniquely intellectual (for the MOST part) among boards. if its anything, its a difference in the preferred style of discourse. of course there will be types of discussion around here that turn off each person, but WE ARE ALL NERDS.

― peter smith (plsmith), Friday, 8 October 2004 20:05 (twenty-one years ago)

group hug!

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 8 October 2004 20:08 (twenty-one years ago)

I've written a CD review or two and I'm a damn fine accordion player. I've made my point.

― Bruce S. Urquhart (BanjoMania), Friday, 8 October 2004 20:14 (twenty-one years ago)

The ILM Cult of Crit is probably the most alienating thing about the board IMO (and might be partially responsible for the gigantic disconnect between the way I view music and the way 90% of the people here view music).

― Dan Perry '08 (Dan Perry), Friday, 8 October 2004 20:17 (twenty-one years ago)

when I was told about this list by a musician lurker friend of mine it was summarized as "yeah it's all these East Coast music journalists and that's kind of alienating but it's really funny some times and dangerously habit forming"

and IT WAS ALL TRUE . . .

― Drew Daniel, Friday, 8 October 2004 20:40 (twenty-one years ago)

finish your thesis drew

― milton parker (Jon L), Friday, 8 October 2004 20:51 (twenty-one years ago)

To make a tangential point, not all critics are alike. There are anal-sadistic critics and orally fixated critics, and the second kind, with their omnivorous appreciation, always devouring, chewing on and sucking down music, are inspiring to be around and tend to show us new delights; while the former kind tend to arouse the ire of musicians, especially when they apply their tools of dissection to the musician's own work. It's the former kind that evokes the memory of the judging parental figure.

For instance, take Ian Christie and Ned Raggett (to take two of many examples on ILM) - they have a spare and straightforward style of writing, the gift for elegantly simple but accurate description, that is infused with love and appreciation of the music about which they write, and without moralising undertones or a bloodless, dissect-and-rule approach. Critics with this approach tend to inspire the reader to follow certain musical paths of enquiry that previously seemed inaccessible, and this in turn has the potential to bear creative rewards in the aretist's own music.

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Friday, 8 October 2004 20:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Good heavens, Mr. Mole! But I thank you, that is extremely flattering and kind. I try, and am well aware I do not always succeed, but you have certainly identified what I hope is my constant goal.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 8 October 2004 20:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Well said Mr Mole. Quick point to make then I'm gone.

If a musician's intended audience was strickly other musicians (however that could be managed), then there might almost be a point to this comment. But if the artist has any wish for a non-musician audience to appreciate, even love their work, then writings from non-musician critics must be openly accepted with kisses.

― piers (piers), Saturday, 9 October 2004 03:03 (twenty-one years ago)

strictly - i meant dammit!

― piers (piers), Saturday, 9 October 2004 03:05 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah

― Dominique (dleone), Saturday, 9 October 2004 03:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Did you say that in one of those other threads on the same topic Dom? I'll have to remember that.

― piers (piers), Saturday, 9 October 2004 06:40 (twenty-one years ago)

I know what you mean, Dan. I often feel reluctant to post about something on ilm now without the qualifier "I'm not a critic, but here's what I think" added on to it.

That said, it's interesting to read what the critics think, and the "y'all just jellus!" argument the original poster used seems more appropo for a Lindsey Lohan fansite than a forum that discusses music.

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Saturday, 9 October 2004 14:52 (twenty-one years ago)

The hard part is that we like to treat works of art as successes or failures, but that often commits us to a claim about what the artist was attempting, and that's where the trouble with intentionality arises.

I completely agree with this...but don't devices like ratings systems, lists, etc. undermine this idea, regardless of the content said device is framing? I think that one reason this (lazy) attack surfaces so much is that a lot of modern criticism has become a series of rankings. Critical insight is often overpowered by subjective placement rather than subjective pleasure, leading to overly defensive reactions on both sides of the debate.

― nameom (nameom), Saturday, 9 October 2004 16:32 (twenty-one years ago)

This may seem a strange question -- though I see what you and Dan are both saying clearly -- but do you think it's a Cult of Critic or Cult of Criticism? Or both?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 9 October 2004 16:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Ts ts ts, anti-Pop is not the way to go. That said, Rumors sux donkeypoopoo, she''s a Brit Brit wannabe. ;-)

I have no problems with criticsm. I actually enjoy reading about music. Sometimes more than listening to music. It enables me to clearly see (or hear) what I normally only sense.

Writers being defensive - like or more than musicians: Well, they are humans, aren't they? Who likes to be pointed out they are wrong?

― jesus nathalie (nathalie), Saturday, 9 October 2004 18:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I've argued this before on here, but one cannot help but have ideas about an artist's intentions and this cannot help but have an effect on how you perceive something. To generalize and say that a critic should not speculate about an artist's intentions--PERIOD--is wrong. The issue is relative. Sometimes, you have a better idea about what an artist's intentions were about something they have done than you do at other times.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 9 October 2004 18:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Tim, I didn't say a critic "shouldn't" do anything. I just said that when they DO speculate on the intentions of the artist, they open themselves up to the "you don't actually know my intentions" objection from the artist whose motives/goals are being speculated about. Such speculation is probably inevitable, but it's also exactly that- speculation- and hence necessarily subject to doubt and open to revision. I can say "Shakespeare no doubt intended for his play to produce effect X" or I can say "When I watch Shakespeare's play it produces effect X in me for the following reason". The angry ghost of Shakespeare could show up and correct me about the first formulation, but wouldn't be in a position to "correct" the second because it doesn't get routed through an assertion about what private mental content was locked in Shakespeare's head at the time he put the marks on the paper.

― Drew Daniel, Saturday, 9 October 2004 21:59 (twenty-one years ago)

The angry ghost of Shakespeare could show up

"IS THIS THE END FOR ZOMBIE SHAKESPEARE?"

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 9 October 2004 22:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Just remember, when critics actually ARE musicians, you get Blue Oyster Cult, and really, who needs another one of those?

― Phil Dennison (Phil D.), Saturday, 9 October 2004 22:11 (twenty-one years ago)

I can't rememeber ever reading a gd review that talked about the artist and his/her intentions - that kind of speculation doesn't do much for me.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 9 October 2004 22:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Obviously the idea of an angry Shakespeare attacking me is totally my own little masochistic fantasy, sorry everybody. Maybe some day . . .

hey, wasn't Morrissey a music critic before the whole Smiths thing got cookin'?

― Drew Daniel, Saturday, 9 October 2004 22:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Intentions can seem pretty clear at times. Like if the artist tells you what they are, and oh goodie you can see how such a statement jibes or jives with the actual music. (Recent trend: musos who are awesomely better at writing hype than they are at making albums.)"Rankings": yeah, I hate making lists, but old Voicepipe's done got me, and I know I'm not the only one who's been working on my next P&J Top Ten since the last one. But, since it's a rainy day kind of thread, also a rainy day, here's some music writers (not necessarily critics, but those who have written well or at least memeorably about music), who have also made memorable music too: Patti Smith, Lenny Kaye, Peter Laughner, David Thomas, R. Meltzer, R.Crumb, Greil Marcus, Frank Kogan, Ira Kaplan, Thurston Moore, Byron Coley (good jam with Thurston on that Beefheart trib), Ian Hunter, Tom T. Hall, Chuck Berry,Vernon Reid, Greg Tate,Andy Gill, Metal Mike, George Smith, Miles Davis, Bob Dylan,Meredith Ochs (Damn Lovelys), Caetano Veloso, Thomas Pynchon (lyrics, for isnt "The Eyes of a New York Woman" shoulda been a hit for the Insect Trust), Robert Palmer (of Insect Trust) Lou Reed, John Darneille; as producers: David Toop (also a muso, but I'm more familiar with his comps), Jason Gross, Chuck Eddy, Peter Blackstock,Paul Morley (also Chrissie Hynde and Neil Tennant wrote for NME and Smash Hits respectively, but I haven't seen their clippings).

― Don, Saturday, 9 October 2004 22:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Tom T. Hall

Hey, you've caught my eye with this one in particular! I never knew he wrote about music as well.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 9 October 2004 22:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I've got to say that I find it odd that the dialogue generated around the arts - a field where many would say success and failure are intangibles - is called criticism (implying judgments will be made) yet in other 'tangible' fields like business, politics, sports, where the term would actually be more appropriate, it's usually called commentary or analysis. Seems backward doesn't it? Sorry if this is elementary, but I've never considered it before.

― Kim (Kim), Saturday, 9 October 2004 22:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I didn't say a critic "shouldn't" do anything. I just said that when they DO speculate on the intentions of the artist, they open themselves up to the "you don't actually know my intentions" objection from the artist whose motives/goals are being speculated about

Jacques Derrida to thread!

Oh, wait...

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Saturday, 9 October 2004 23:55 (twenty-one years ago)

So happy to see Drew here!

Classic memory from the days when I was working at CMJ, about 10 years ago: most of the editorial staff is sitting around in somebody's office, watching some crappy video or other. A couple of editors make smartass comments about it. Another one says "Aaah, everyone's a critic. [Pause.] Actually, everyone is a critic."

― Douglas (Douglas), Sunday, 10 October 2004 00:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Hi Douglas!

I think everybody here (ILM) IS a music critic, in at least a minimal sense. If you post here, you are writing out your opinion about music in a public forum in hopes that other people will read it; you don't post unless you think that what you have to say will contribute something of value, however teensy. If you post at all on this board, you are here because ("love" of music or no) you are into discourse about music, and that does spin off into discourse about the discourse about music too. Critic isn't a dirty word, or shouldn't be.

Okay, I'm off to go see the Incredible String Band/Espers show . . . huzzah!

― Drew Daniel, Sunday, 10 October 2004 00:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Word up, Douglas!(If you're Wolk, then Wolk up too, cos yer one of the best, and should've been on my list, what with your record label.) Also see Frank Kogan's "Democritization of the Intellect"(title wasn't his idea, but hey, democritz! I dig demos) in that anthology they're selling at robertchristgau.com Kim, yeah that's what i meant by "music writer" rather than just critic, but music (also business, etc.)writers should always keep the critical function ready to go.

― Don A, Sunday, 10 October 2004 00:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Ned, the Tom T. book I was mainly thinking of is THE STORYTELLER'S NASHVILLE.Some serious stuff, but mostly, one of the funniest I've read. Haven't read HOW I WRITE SONGS--WHY YOU CAN TOO. He's also written novels, like the very quirky SPRING HILL TENNESSEE, about the Japanese starting their (actual) Saturn plant there. He may still still teach Creative Writing at Middle Tennessee State University (think that's the exact name; anyway, it's the one in Murfreesboro). Speaking of country, I should also have mentioned Dave Hickey, the art critic who used to write about music for the Voice alongside Meltzer & co., and is also on that robertchristgau.com anthology, and wote a bunch of songs, some with his girlfriend, Marshall Chapman (who has some choice Dave stories in her how-I-wrote-this-song GOODBYE LIITLE ROCK N ROLLER). He had one on Jim (James Luther) Dickinson's FREE BEER last year, "The Ballad of Billy and Oscar," about Billy the Kid and Oscar Wilde, who did tour the West, so mebbe.

― Don, Sunday, 10 October 2004 02:12 (twenty-one years ago)

The thread I mentioned where the issue came up was on REM. Someone had made a sarcastic comment about Michael Stipe's lyrics on the early records, saying something along the lines of, "OH WOW, ISN'T IT NEAT? THEY CAN MEAN ANYTHING YOU WANT THEM TO! GEE!"

I didn't think that the implication in the comment was valid. The implication was that one of the main reasons that Michael Stipe thought that his lyrics were good was because they can mean anything that you want them to. I stated on here that I did not believe that this was his intention in creating these lyrics. I believed (and still believe) that he liked them AESTHETICALLY; he liked them as abstract poetry. I was taken to task for speculating about his intentions.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Sunday, 10 October 2004 02:32 (twenty-one years ago)

This is not meant as a hostile question: what do you mean by "abstract" here?

― Don, Sunday, 10 October 2004 03:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Beside yourself if radio's gonna stay.
Reason: it could polish up the grey.
Put that, put that, put that up your wall
That this isn't country at all

Raving station, beside yourself

Keep me out of country in the word
Deal the porch is leading us absurd.
Push that, push that, push that to the hull
That this isn't nothing at all.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Sunday, 10 October 2004 05:01 (twenty-one years ago)

; )

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Sunday, 10 October 2004 06:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow! That doesn't "mean anything you want it do," does it? He's rapisingcelebrating/depending the way radio keeps him in touch with thee modern world, playing on "country" as dread genre and "out of country" in the military sense: "Radio Free Europe" keeps him from being this po' little doughboy bogged down somewhere. (Not that he's nec. against actual genre, but what it *can* mean to a Southern kid, especially: the same old handmedown shit, basically. Polish up the grey indeed!)I think I would read it this way even if I didn't know Stipe was a military dependant schlepped around from base to base on acount of his (whacky) noncom dad, like a lotta kids on my school, only worse cos they were Air Force; Stipe was *Army* (and, as Chuck Eddy recounts his own experience in the Signal Corps, forciby exposed to masive amounts of country music, country everything, prob'ly. But in CE's case. it took). I think I would read it the same without knowing this, but just as journalistic disclosure, I add this followup. But maybe your attacker just heard so much of a murmur, eh thought Stipe intended listeners to free associate on the actual sound. But even if he did, why would that be a *bad thing,especially in the contest of this instant (first sound is that beat!) call to get up and dance with the radio on? Kind of the next step after "A Hazy Shade Of Pale," and about freaking tyme.

― Don, Sunday, 10 October 2004 13:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow, following those links up there took me to some horrible threads I never really wanted to revisit...

― Danger Whore (kate), Sunday, 10 October 2004 13:57 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't know if those are the actual lyrics. They're the ones on all the internet lyrics pages. I remember him once saying, "I never wrote lyrics for that song."

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Sunday, 10 October 2004 14:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, they fit. "A Hazy Shade Of Pale" seems to be the mental mashup he had in mynd (Procol Simon protocol).

― Don, Sunday, 10 October 2004 18:11 (twenty-one years ago)

I do like you, Don, have I mentioned that?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 10 October 2004 18:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Isn't 'Gay Dad' the favoured ILM standard response to a question like this?

― Sasha (sgh), Monday, 11 October 2004 03:51 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.