|
Post by Jeff on Dec 8, 2005 10:04:12 GMT -5
Job Corps is a cool program. Jon Parsons went there, and when I worked for Child Welfare, I put a couple of kids in the program. One of them did wind up getting pregnant though, so I know they are allowing the kids to experiment with a fairly diverse array of jobs... 8^)
PS I had an Eels record here a while back that I kept trying to listen to but could never get through all the way...Blinking Lights and Other Revelations. In their defense, it was a two-disc set.
PPS Flaming Lips is in my top 5 favorite bands of all time...on most days. The list is in constant flux.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 8, 2005 10:53:12 GMT -5
So the other night on Justin’s recommendation I watched Velvet Goldmine. I really enjoyed it, though the movie basically has no plot or story to tell. It is a meditation on the attitude and style of 70s glam rock. But there was this quote from the film that stuck with me…I can’t remember exactly how it goes but it was in an exchange at a press conference and it was something like: Reporter: Brian, aren’t you worried that your outrageousness will upstage the message of your music? Brian: The music is the medium; I am the message. And of course this reminded me of that quote from 32 short films about Glenn Gould: “To me the ideal audience-to-artist relationship...is a one-to-zero relationship.” The more I’ve thought about how these two ideas rub against each other the more I can see how Gould’s idea radically shapes all my aesthetic thinking. Just to give a trivial example, I truly loathe the vocal acrobatics of singers like Whitney Houston and Mariah Carry. Their voices are a near constant distraction from the music and the lyrics. I always get the sense that their songs are at their service rather than the other way round. And I just hate it, hate it! This is also the main problem I have with the Stones. I can’t tell you how artistically uncool I think it is for an artist to try to be cool... and worse, to try to sell it! So every Stones song starts at about negative ten on my tomatometer. Most of them never get out of the hole dug by the various (irredeemably annoying) egos of the band members. Now I did like a lot of glam rock, but it was always despite the artists' personalities. David Bowie is just a hell of a singer/songwriter/musician. There was real talent under that dress. Brian Ferry was no slouch himself. And so on. But clearly there have been pop music movements that are nearly lost in attitude. Punk rock and heavy metal spring to mind, and mostly these sub-genres leave me cold. So, I just wanted to see what you guys thought of the old Gould quote these days. BTW: If you’ve never seen the film about him, you should. It is weird and wonderful and far better than Velvet Goldmine—which was a good film. You can read the screenplay for the Gould film here: www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/t/32-short-films-about-glenn-gould-script.htmlJeff
|
|
|
Post by Betterout on Dec 8, 2005 11:02:48 GMT -5
Praising ELO side by side with the Lips is one sure way to get my attention. I, too, have a fairly lengthy commute. I think I tack on about 400 miles per working week (not counting all the quick there-and-back-again trips to Tulsa or Bartlesville in my "real" life). I find that I have two real options on these drives: (1) Be socially conscious and stay tuned to NPR, or (2) rock the f*^k out at ear-splitting volumes. Although I like to give equal time to both, here lately I've been leaning far more heavily toward the latter. In fact, a month or so ago, I decided to clean all the CDs out of my car. I had almost 40 CDs, in the console, in the seats, under the seats. It's like I was driving a music store around. I like a good mix when I travel. The Stones and Neil Young are always within reach, and usually at least a few Built to Spill and Modest Mouse discs. Costello, Bowie, the Flaming Lips, ELO, REM, XTC, Depeche Mode, Queens of the Stone Age, Weezer, and the Beatles are frequent riders, too. Right now, though, I just can't get over this whole Big Star phase. I just go from #1 Record & Radio City to Third/Sister Lovers and back again. I don't think I've listened to more than a handful of other discs in their entirety since my headlong plunge into this band's material. Moreover, I seem to just listen to a handful of their songs more than all the others combined: "Feel," "...El Goodo," "O My Soul," "Life Is White," and "Daisy Glaze," of #1 Record & Radio City, as well as "Jesus Christ," "Kangaroo," and "Dream Lover" off Third. I listen to the whole discs, but I always listen to these about three times in a row before moving on. I think there's something wrong with me.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Dec 8, 2005 11:15:18 GMT -5
So, Jeff, speaking about your 1 to 0 relationship... How do you feel about other art forms where the medium is focused almost solely on the individual, and the material is just a means by which that person can be displayed? For example, gymnastics or figureskating or ballroom dancing. I've never considered any of these sports as there's no finish line. I've always thought of them as arts. What say you? Are there practices that you do like that allow the individual to be exalted?
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 8, 2005 11:26:50 GMT -5
Big Star is cool, Justin. I've been listening to them a lot, too. I just can't seem to get my mind around Third, though. For example, is "Jesus Christ" celebratory or venomous? The opening toy piano sounds make me think the latter. I dig the song, but I wonder if it ain't blasphemous. “Dream Lover” is just a hopelessly isolated song. I love it; it’s great; and it’s about as depressing as you can get without writing holocaust songs—which of course Chilton does on this CD! I love how the guitar and drums are so loose in the song. The song hovers on the edge of waking. It’s beautiful and disturbing. “Kangaroo” is fucking depressing too. I want you till I don’t kinda song. Jesus Christ! You need some serious EtOH to swallow while listening to this quite wonderful CD!
PS Justin, do you find it hard to sing the chorus of El Goodo? I do. I keeping wanting to sing "There ain't no one gonna.." instead of "There ain't no one going..." And you have to sing it the last way because the next lyric is "to turn me around." BTW: I love the line "I'll fall if I don't fight."
PPS What do you think is the best Big Star song? I don't think they get any better than Life is White.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 8, 2005 12:24:00 GMT -5
Tyler,
Clearly there are body arts, performance arts, just as you say. I don’t think these are problem cases for me. My ideal would simply be for the bodies involved to be serving the overall piece instead of drawing undue attention to themselves. Singing, after all, is a performance art, and there are many singers that I quite like. Neither am I saying that performing artists should have no personality at. I think my ideal performance type would be something like Don McLean’s on “Vincent” or Sting’s on “Fragile.” Their voices have obvious flaws and they are definite and recognizable voices, but both are at the service of their songs making even the flaws contribute to the overall expressiveness of these pieces.
I think there is, even in performances, a kind of suspension of disbelief. When I hear a singer sing a song I want a kind of musical experience. The experience certainly starts with the performers but it must be able to move away from them if it needs to...and to achieve any depth it almost always does. I am cool with the performer drawing my attention back to her provided this is done in the service of my (the audience’s) musical experience.
Your implied question is interesting too: What is the difference between sport and art? Clearly there are boundary areas where the distinction gets real fuzzy. Dancing is clearly an art, but it takes as much training as any sport. And martial arts...well, I guess that really says it.
We might begin by asking what makes these boundary cases problematic. A quick answer might go something like this: The goal of sport is the attainment of some external goal, usually described as winning. But the goal of art is internal, is (perhaps) the performance of the activity itself. Problems arise when art is 1) performance based and 2) appears to have an external goal; or when sport appears to have no external goal. This view may make too much of the competitiveness of sport...and too little of the constitutive value of aesthetic criteria. But it raises interesting test questions at least, for example: Are there any non-competitive sports? I know there are kids programs that claim to teach sport skills without the competition. But is catching a ball a sport? I’d be inclined to say that it is neither art nor sport by itself.
Finally, I should add as an admission (I guess) that it has always been hard for me to fully appreciate many performance arts. When I go to the ballet—I saw Stravinsky’s Firebird a few years ago—I often find myself just listening to music and ignoring the dancing altogether. This is a personal limitation—I hope—and doesn’t really count against my theory. I don’t think.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Dec 8, 2005 12:47:30 GMT -5
My criteria for sports is that they have to have a finish line. Either that or an obvious visible sign of dominance, either a non-arbitrary point system, or a mechanical means such as "gross blood lost"
|
|
|
Post by chris on Dec 8, 2005 12:59:02 GMT -5
Sports have to have the criterion of competition, otherwise the idea of sport is meaningless. And I don't just mean competition against another person, I mean competition against the environment (e.g., mountain climbing) and especially against one's own past performance. But as Tyler says, there has to be some external measure of performance for it to be a sport -- if it was just about improving one's performance, period, then doing aerobics in your living room and successfully lowering your weight could be a sport.
Although it is debatable, I would insert that a sport has to include a inherently physical activity that is being measured. Rowing: a physical activity that is measured by distance achieved... a sport. Chess: a mental activity that is measured by binary win-loss...not a sport.
But wait, you say, chess does involve physical motion, picking up the pieces, staring down the opponent, etc. Perhaps, but that motion is not an inherent part of the sport. Think of "History of the World, Part I," where King Louis sits in a chair and orders the pieces of his life-sized board around. Physical activity is not an inherent part of the game.
The big monkey wrenches into what is considered sport are events like figure skating and gymastics. Both of them are based on subjective criteria of performance, grace, etc. But even there, the subjective elements are converted into hard numbers which are then tallied to measure competition.
Then there's events like equestrian and horse racing. Isn't it the horse who is the athlete? Yeah, pretty much, but the jockey is doing physical activity that inherently contributes to the measurable goal, i.e., crossing the tape first.
|
|
|
Post by lonniemarie on Dec 8, 2005 17:39:36 GMT -5
Yea...Job Corps is a great program...and I remind my applicants on a daily basis to remember that no other place is going to pay someone to get training...Of course, I also tell them..."THIS IS JOB CORPS...not FIND ME A SPOUSE Corps...or THAT'S MY BABY'S FUTURE DADDY Corps"...*I know that I'm not commenting on the sports issue...mostly cuz it's a debate that both sides are right*. BTW, has anyone listened to Black Rebel Mortorcycle Club?
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Dec 9, 2005 11:58:55 GMT -5
The big monkey wrenches into what is considered sport are events like figure skating and gymastics. Both of them are based on subjective criteria of performance, grace, etc. But even there, the subjective elements are converted into hard numbers which are then tallied to measure competition. Hmm, I hope you're not saying that due to the subjective nature of determining win/loss they're more inclined to be called an art form. Or even that this puts them more in the realm of art than sport. That 'all art is subjective' line has never been accurate and really needs to die off (I'm only referring to the technical aspects of art here, not meaning). It’s done a lot of damage to art credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 9, 2005 12:56:18 GMT -5
That 'all art is subjective' line has never been accurate and really needs to die off (I'm only referring to the technical aspects of art here, not meaning). It’s done a lot of damage to art credibility. Amen. Just because aesthetic criteria are hard to give doesn't mean that we don't use them. Perhaps we have a cluster of principles that are subtly related to one another through a kind of family resemblance. If so, then getting clear on artistic value will require thought more careful than that which can be had while strolling through an art gallery or sipping a cocktail at a party.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Dec 12, 2005 10:09:04 GMT -5
Please heretofore consider any perceived expression of knowledge or understanding about the nature, form, viability, or meaining of art on behalf of myself as wrong. I know naught about art. I really enjoy landscapes and erotica. You know, stuff with shapes. I was just saying that the floor exercise in gymnasics is probably less of a sport and more of an artform. As for rating art, I'm not sure you could place all art on a continuum and give it ratings out to 3 decimal points, though I'd really like to see it done.
|
|
|
Post by Betterout on Dec 22, 2005 12:25:38 GMT -5
Okay, I rediscovered a CD this month. Not really. I've been listening to it for years, but this is the first time I felt compelled to review it. No more of the pseudo-high brow review of mostly unknown bands. I'm here to talk about Zep.
I seriously dislike Led Zeppelin for the most part. They represent all that's wrong with rock in so many ways: Bloated egos, "appropriation" without credit, meaningless lyrics, pointless and unending flights of guitar masturbation, sexism, conceptual album packaging (not writing), druggy excess, the sin of taking oneself waaaaay too seriously, sales feuled by rumors of pacts with the devil... I could go on and on. But even with all that crap in the mix, it's hard to deny that these guys were truly expert musicians who could crank out excellent original material from time to time, to say nothing of their unique approach to covers. I would say that Zep's positives are best presented in two of their albums, their self titled debut and 'Houses of the Holy.' Because of its historical position as the official tastesetter for the band, and because I've been listening to it a great deal this week, I am going to review the debut here.
First off, it's great. I say that unashamedly. All but one of the songs are memorably good. If you've never heard this album or any of the songs from it, then you've probably been living under a rock and have most likely been missing out on other stuff, too. But since Zep is one of those big names in music, and something everybody has to have at least an opinion on, it's probably important (there's that word again) to hear their stuff. I'd suggest starting with this one. In fact, the next three albums they released seem to my ears anyway to just repeat what they did here. Secondly, while not really original (Hendrix and Cream and the original Yardbirds did the heavy blues thing years before), this album takes the whole blues rock thing in a fun and exciting direction. I think the cowbell touch at the beginning of Good Times Bad Times sets the stage for a silly appreciation of this album, and various goofy (albeit unintentionally so) touches all along keep the fun going. The excitement is there all along. Even on the downtempo numbers, this album is high energy, and it doesn't let you forget it. The fun and excitement makes for an enjoyable listening experience. Thirdly, if you have any appreciation at all of musicianship, you'll be pleased by the quality apparent on this album. Page is a phenomenal guitarist, Jones is a hyper-talented multi-instrumentalist, Bonham is one of the greatest rock drummers ever, and Plant is not only a talented and muscular vocalist, but a really great harmonica player, too. But while their skills are obvious, it's often easy to overlook, since their given to such unlistenable excess from time to time. Well, it's a good balance on this album. Lastly, this song isn't all 4/4 time. Much of the album has a swingin' waltz feel, which makes it seem, well, different than a lot of hard rock.
'Good Times Bad Times' What a great beginning to a fine album! To my way of thinking, this song sounds new. I came to Zep late, after hearing all the Zep-influenced mainstream rock acts (Great White, White Snake, and a host of other white acts) and not quite so maninstream "alternative" acts (from Jane's Addiction and Stone Temple Pilots to early Flaming Lips and Living Color). So when I head this song first, I already appreciated what it had become over the next 25 years or so. Well, this song is not only part of that whole tradition, as its progenitor, it somehow manages both to define and also to transcend it. It's got all the hard rockin', loud screamin', rock bravado you'd ever want, and even a curious mistake by John Paul Jones (he stays on a riff too long, missing the beginning of the chorus right after the solo) preserved for all time's sake. Oh, and Bonham's trademark double-kick style is played up for all it's worth.
'Babe I'm Gonna Leave You' The first of three covers on a nine-song album. Unfortunately, this one is superfluous and just plain bad. I never listen to this, even when I try to listen critically: It's too bad to criticize. I don't know why they felt the need to include this on the album at all, let alone right after one of the best songs. It's a downer, too, and doesn't even fit the mood of the album.
'You Shook Me' This is basically a conversation between Page and Plant, each using his respective instrument(s) of choice. Dig the groovy paired downward slides of guitar and voice. Being a guitarist and occasional singer, I can assure you that it's harder to do this than you might think. The conversation continues up to the silly call and response ending. Excessive, sure. Fun, yes. 100% fun, as Matt Sweet might say. By the way, this is the second cover on the album, and the first of two originally penned by bluesman Willie Dixon.
'Dazed and Confused' A dark classic, at turns blues, rock, and even (is he really saying this?) punk. It's long and oh so corny at times, but it's still a great song. And it's always been one that never fails to produce the desire in me to crank the stereo way up. If I recall this story correctly, Mandy was once listening to this song on headphones on a school trip, and almost unconsciously singing along. When she got to Plant's sexy 'aaooh, aaaooh, aaaaoooohh, aaaaaooooohhh!!!!' moans, she was still aping him, even though the people sitting around her couldn't hear the song blaring in her ears. She looked up to see all the guys in the surrounding seats looking at her with a strange sort of interest...
'Your Time Is Gonna Come' JPJ is not such a bad keyboard player. He's got a feeling for atmosphere, and he's not afraid to use it. I love the chanting chorus.
'Black Mountain Side' Okay, Zep should be able to sue STP. But then again, Willie Dixon, Muddy Waters, and Howlin' Wolf should be able to sue STP. World music has never been my cup of tea, but I think there's something fun about combining tablas with British folk and hard rock.
'Communication Breakdown' Drop the too highly pitched solo, the macho singing, and the 60s era backing vocals, and you have the Sex Pistols, but almost a decade earlier. This song is a hoot. Hard, fast, stripped, and mercifully short. And if that's not got something in common with punk, I don't know what does. The Flaming Lips would cover this one fifteen years later, and their cover stays pretty much on the mark--even if it makes strides to laugh at the original. What would you expect from a band who subtitled one song 'Fuck Led Zeppelin' (Hare Krishna Stomp Wagon, of Telepathic Surgery).
'I Can't Quit You Baby' The other Willie Dixon song, not as good as the first. JPJ can't seem to find the bassline at times, but his noodlings are nonetheless interesting, and they give the song a seat-of-your-pants feeling. That feeling is reinforced by occasional timing problems. Page shows he can pull off rhythmic subtelty just moments away from letting all hell break loose. Here's where he gives Jimi a run for his money, in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, Jimi comes out on top, but Jimmy's not too far behind.
'How Many More Times' My favorite off this album, mostly for the intro riff, which has to be one of the most memorable rock riffs of all time. Surely every would-be rock bassist has spent the better part of an evening or two thumbing this one. The song is all over the thematic map, and goes off in some pretty weird directions. But it's always listenable, even when a teenaged Plant is raving loudly about having ten children or refering to his dong as a dangerous weapon that "there ain't no need to run" from. Bonham shines again on this one during the 'steal away' bit, and Page manages to find the perfect guitar complement to the lumbering rhythm.
|
|