Who was "What a Wonderful Man" written about?

[EC]

Wowee.  This argument is just spiralling all over the place, and it's supposed to be about something else!!

What I was GOING to say about What a Wonderful Man (and any song, for that matter, written by anybody, about a dear loved one) is that it's a pretty special thing to pay hommage to someone in an artistic form that will keep existing.

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

well, if you read the last line of the words I actually wrote...

Who's right?  No one is...it's totally subjective

And I can be embarrassed by something that I like that might not be someone else's cup of tea.  That's my problem.  To say that "musical talent" has something to do with my statements isn't my point at all.  so called "talent" doesn't have anything to do with whether Joe Bob in Tuscaloosa thinks Creed is the shit-and talent isn't judged by amilliondreams or his/her standards, either.  you cite being "educated" into believing NKOTB was/is bad music...what, did you suddenly go off to Orchestra Class and find their music distasteful and off pitch?  Or is it just style?  

All music IS the same.  It is a collection of sounds.  If they please YOU, does that make it BETTER than something that doesn't please you?  No.  It's only music snobbery that dictates such paradigms that somehow the tonalities of say, Kansas are somehow unequal to the tonalities of Twisted Sister.  You are confusing STYLE with QUALITY.

[aMillionDreams]

So Mozart's style is what has made his music survive?  Funny, I don't see people walking around in powered wigs anymore.

And if all music is the same, then why are you on this board and not the Blue Man Group's?  do you really think that all music is the same, just a collection of sounds?  I'm going to keep pushing you because your posts are becoming more and more jumbled and unintelligent.  Maybe if we set your posts to the tune of "I've Been Working on the Railroad" it would be my style.  It still wouldn't be quality though.

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

(sigh)  Obviously, I've struck a nerve here.

I like MMJ better than the other collections of sounds out there.  You sit mighty high on the musical throne to get all worked up about this.  It's just my opinion, this IS a messageboard, and I can go on all day about how my underwear is better than yours, and it won't amount to a hill of beans.  You choose to get all pissed off-how dare me disagree with you?  

Music is now what amilliondreams declares it to be, my friends.

Define quality then.  A real definition of quality, not what you think it is.  

Unintelligent?!  Hardly.

[DD]

yep.  creed is awesome to somebody.  even if htey suck to me.

the dead milkmen are awesom to me.  even if they suck to somebody.

you can have all the talent in the world and write crappy songs.  you can have almost no talent and write amazing ones.

music is subjective.  just because by my perception something sucks it doesnt mean it really does.  but i will have to go chop off one of my fingers now for using "creed" and following it with "is awesome" in a sentence.  thanks jerks.

[Coltrane]

Sorry everyone....didn't mean to spark a huge philosophical debate!

But wait, this is great that we're talking about this!! No one seems to have these conversations anymore! These are the vital conversations to have in order for art to be relevant these days.

I tend to agree with John on this, but aMillionDreams is a Bengals fan like me, so I am a bit torn.

Ultimately, once the artist gives or shows or plays his/her art to the public, it is no longer only the artist's work. The viewer/listener is participating now, thus changing the work, sometimes completely. If Jim stayed in his room playing these somgs and not wanted to share them with us, then they would have only the meaning Jim ascribed to them initially. But by sharing the songs, he's in a sense inviting us to interpret them. He's inviting us to love them too. But I would venture to say that he doesn't want us to love them unless we choose our own way to do that.

Man, i don't know what that means. And I need a nap. I may have more coherent thoughts later. BUt I love that we are having this discussion!!!!



MMJ RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[aMillionDreams]

I know what you mean, Coltrane, when people share music it becomes up for interpretation to some extent.  But the reason this debate started is because Jim said "What a Wonderful Man" was about his friend and people on this board said "No it's not" , "All music is subjective and the same".  I'd love to see Conaway tell Jim that his song doesn't mean what HE thinks it means.  My point: some music has a purpose and to say that the only meaning that a song has is the way is makes someone else feel undercuts the purpose and the actual meaning of the song.

And I don't think that my word is the final word on what is good music and what is not but there are some criteria.   Time tells us what is good.  If a piece of art is over 100 years old and people are still appreciating it, then there is a good chance that it is good.  If you can feel the performers soul through the art then it's probably pretty good.  There are also entire schools of music theory, composition, and appreciation who develop criteria for good music, they're not all correct but some knowledge of melody, harmony, and rhythm can lead to good music believe it or not.

I don't know why I'm getting set off by this but it probably has a lot to do with Conaway's passive aggressive attempts to stay humble, nice, and subjective while implying that I am wrong and immoral.  So, John, this note's for you:
"In a solider's stance I aimed my hand
At the mongrel dogs who teach.
Fearing not I'd become my enemy
In the instant that I preach"
-Bob Dylan

It may not be your style, but that's some good shit.

[Coltrane]

I hear ya man....

By saying that I "feel" that song to be about something personal to me certainly will never exclude the fact that Jim wrote it about his friend. That is simply fact. It can have both meanings. And the listener MUST recognize that if the artist reveals his intentions.

As far as "good" and "bad" goes, well, that is a HUGE can of worms!!! (David Cross anyone?) My wife is getting her Masters in Fine Art at UPenn and is challenging those notions as we speak. My initial comment wanted nothing to de with denoting good vs. bad in any objective sense. I, too, am an elitist according to some (ok, many), but I feel like I have good arguments to support me. In the art world, the great Masters are considered "good," yet irrelevant to contemporary art. By the same token, I see classical music as irrelevant to 20th century music and beyond. Is it still "good?" Maybe. Probably. But who cares?

Man, this is a great discussion! Do you think the band is reading this and saying, "Wow, we got a bunch of nerds for fans!!!   ;D ;D :)

GO BENGALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Coltrane]

oh, P.S....I think I finally feel included on this board! 125 posts later!

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

I'd love to see Conaway tell Jim that his song doesn't mean what HE thinks it means.  My point: some music has a purpose and to say that the only meaning that a song has is the way is makes someone else feel undercuts the purpose and the actual meaning of the song

Wow!  We have a winner.  You my friend have issues;  mainly, with the idea that YOUR ideal on this (and apparently many other subjects) is somehow the ONLY ideal.  Art is open to interpretation;  if there is a shared interpretation that it is "good" by a set of standards agreed upon by that shared group, then so be it.  Isn't that overanalyzing it a bit?  Does it move you, on a spiritual level, a visual level?  Ultimately, the listener/viewer is the audience-not a group of people.  I'm not sitting around with 1000 people waiting for their approval when I'm listening to any music-I'm listening because I and only I am enjoying it, be it the Scorpions or whatever.  Your narrow defintion of "quality" is...dependent on what others say?  That's horseshit.

And I don't think that my word is the final word on what is good music and what is not but there are some criteria.   Time tells us what is good.  If a piece of art is over 100 years old and people are still appreciating it, then there is a good chance that it is good.  If you can feel the performers soul through the art then it's probably pretty good.  There are also entire schools of music theory, composition, and appreciation who develop criteria for good music, they're not all correct but some knowledge of melody, harmony, and rhythm can lead to good music believe it or not.

Once again, looking to others to justify what's good?  Like I said earlier, an audience doesn't make anything "good".  You are confusing quality with popularity.  Just because a whole school of thought is devoted to being the tastemongers of the world means nothing to me-I decide what I think is good, thank you very much.  100 years from now, what "stands the test of time" isn't what matters.  

And knowing what's "good" by going to school hardly makes "good" music, IMHO.  How much artistic influence is sparked at school?  Do you create creative minds?  Or do you create technique replications over and over again?

I don't know why I'm getting set off by this but it probably has a lot to do with Conaway's passive aggressive attempts to stay humble, nice, and subjective while implying that I am wrong and immoral

No, what you can't stand is that anyone else has an opinion different than yours, and time enough to debate you on it.  The "indier than thou" conformist philosophy you espouse leaves no room for any objective thinking about any other positions on art, music-hell, I'd hate to debate you on politics if you're this close-minded on music.  I'd speculate you're younger than me, and therefore not as experienced/worldweary as I am, so maybe you're just not at a place in life to embrace the idea that it's not the magazines you read, or the music you listen to, or the company you keep makes you cool-it's what is within that makes anyone "cool".

[ycartrob]

million, you lost me when you made the definitive statement that Brittney Spears' music sux (and "real" musicians know she sux and blah blah blah). In saying that, you're trying to deny people their right to enjoy someone elses art; or someone else expressing themselves. Sonds Marxist, to me.

Or, you want to make them feel bad for enjoying something. Or, some part of your life is un-fufilled, so you feel it's your duty to point out "what good music is". It's a pointless, tiresome, meaningless discussion.

So Britney Spears doesn't move you. Great. Saying she sux and people who like her have no appreciation for "art" is a load of poop (IMO).

Speaking of poop, a friend of mine put it this way:

If I take a dump on the ground, that's not art; but if I take a dump on the ground and reach down and mash a little point to it with my fingers, then that's art!

Some might disagree with that, some may not. And in the end, it doesn't matter, it's a meaningless dicussion.

I did not like Head of Femur when I saw them open for WILCO, but props to Head of Femur for moving folks with their art.

That's what "art" is all about.

Wayne of the Flaming Lips was once asked if B Spear's music outselling him 1,000-1 bothered him and he said no. He went on to say that it's not his place to tell people that the music they like is not "good". He didn't want to be closed minded and arrogant.

or something like that.

[ycartrob]

and another thing.  I have been reading Carl Jung lately, and he talks a lot about knowing "self" through social barometers, and that's not really knowing yourself at all. ie, if something (art) lasts for 100+ years, then it must be good, right? Jung would say that if you don't like it, then that's an expression of self rather than an under appreciation of art. In other words, the people who really think the Mona Lisa is a classic have no bearing on me, who thinks the Mona Lisa is just OK. Neither of us is right or wrong.

Got it?
Got it! ;D

[TheLink]

man, i was going to join in on the fun but i don't have any coke and it isn't like 4 am.  shit, this is silly.  million dreams is wrong.  all those who agree say  :-*

[beband]

Well, I saw the Mona Lisa, and I tell you, I did not see what the fuss was all about.  I walked all the way across that friggin Louvre just to see if it was any different in person.  It wasn't.  Go buy the poster, it's just as good.  Anyways, my point is, I didn't like it, but there was about a hundred people in front of it taking pictures (mind you with a flash even though it said no flash photography!) so they must have found something in it.  My friend drove 3 hours listening to Sufjan Stevens and about barfed.  He was so pissed I made him listen to it.  However, I loved it upon first hearing it!  So in the end who's right?  Neither of us.  And Million dreams is not right or wrong, and neither are any of the rest of us.  We have to be free to interpret art, whatever form.  If we weren't, then none of it would survive.  Think if they only interp was that this song was about Jim's friend...do you think it would last very long?  No.  Because there are different takes on the song, it will continue through time and more and more people will hear it and then respond to it.  In the end, your feeling is what determines to you, and you only, if the art is worth your time.  I listen to a song because it moves me.  If it doesn't move me, then I go on.  Some of MMJ's stuff is boring to me.  Yeah I Said it.  But other stuff is so satisfying emtionally that I will always come bask to it again and again.
So...I think we can start being nice again and agree to disagree.  No one will ever be right, and no one will ever be wrong when it comes to how you define art.
Corey

[EC]

I always look at it from a "where did it come from" perspective.  I think it's fairly common knowledge that a lot of superstars are brought on board into the music money wheel in order to make money.  They get the demographics and statistics and figure out what can make them a million bucks.

I remember once my friend Craig said that he kind of liked Britany Spears.  This is a dude who has more records than anybody I ever met.  I was appalled, at the time, and he said "Music is music.  There's a reason that music sells records, and it sounds good."  I can dig that.  Is there a lot of special care and heart that goes into one of those songs?  Probably not.  That's probably why it doesn't interest me.  I'm not crazy about most popular music, but it's not like I feel as though somebody's jamming an ice pick in my ears.  There's certainly musicality to it, even if it's formulaic.

I do get down to that Destiny's Child every once in a while, though.

[tomEisenbraun]

Alright. Screw this.

Who likes What a Wonderful Man?







Problem solved.

[sivalc]

man im getting tired of this britney spears talk? no one has mentioned how marketing mass media, and advertising have an effect on her popularity and how shes a product not an artist she cannot be compared to mmj. Does she write or create the music , does she write the lyrics? for me an artist has to have some creative involvment over what they are making. you could imagine the brainstorming meeting by some marketing execs before she hit the big time  'hey lets put her in a sexy school uniform that will  attract the young boys and there dads will love it too', hey 'lets play on the fact that she's a virgin' hey lets get her that pepsi commercial.
To say people like her simply because of her music is wrong many people especially kids are force fed images and advertising from such a young age that they tend to like stuff like britney because they dont know any better and there is not much of an alternative and if there is they are not aware of it until they are older. Hey im not against pop music some of my favourate songs are what people would deem pop music but just because were forcefed this sh*t like britney doesn't mean we should have to like it.
 
I tend to agree with a milliondreams 'Time tells us what is good.  If a piece of art is over 100 years old and people are still appreciating it, then there is a good chance that it is good' notice he says 'good chance' over time people can look at things with a more neutral viewpoint without getting caught up in the hyperbowl or what the general opinion of an artist was at the time . So time can be a good guide  for example the velvet underground didnt sell any records were not appreciated much when they first appeared but over the last 30 odd years people have come to realise what a great band they were. Another great example is Nick Drake a man who sold  a couple of hundred albums when he was alive. but is now revered by millions and sells thousands of records and has had a massive influence on music especially in britain over the last 25 years.
A good example of the opposite of this was the hype surrounding oasis. In England around 1996/97 this band was so hyped up by the media you could not avoid them everywhere you went you heard oasis they were getting played in every bar, club in the land and everyone owned a copy of there album. They sold millions we were told they were the new beatles, how they would break america etc.The music press were giving there albums 5 out of 5 10 out of 10 etc. But now when people look back at 'britpop' they now realise hey Oasis were not that great they were not the new beatles shit we were made fools of again by the media telling us what to buy and what is good. The same can be said now, for Franz Ferdinand i think there ok a good band but my god the F*ckin hype is unbeleviable this from a band just 2 albums in and again the british music press and even some of the US press of late have been claiming them to be the saviour of rock and roll. Hey come on there not bad but they are not exactly revolutionary.

I recently seen an interview with tall paul the man who claims he is a reggae superstar and the interviewer asked him how he thinks he compares to the greats like Bob Marley , Pete Tosh, etc and he said well im the biggest and best reggae superstar of all time then the interviewer asked him why he though this and his answer was well iv'e sold more records than them put together and have had more number ones than bob marley. Now anyone who has been unfortunate enough to hear any of tall paul's music will understand that bob marley had more talent in his cancerous toe than tall paul will ever have. sorry im meandering my point is sales and popularity does not necessarily equal great art. Recently a lot of what sell could not even be classed as art its more a product I can think of two quotes that best sum this up the first from Chuck D from public Enemy which is 'dont believe the hype' and the other from bill hicks which is 'Trust your own internal judgement if something is shit says its shit dont be afraid'

rant over            

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

careful, not everyone is jeff mangum...there's a hype machine for just about anyone on any label.  and for good reason-the greatest music in the world that isn't heard by an audience tends to make for lousy sales.  and no label is around unless there's an audience, money to be made on that audience, and whatever else a label does to cater to that audience.  even the smallest, most independent labels are there for those very reasons...that and to expose their particular blend of what they consider "good" to the world.

all the way back to the beginning:  whether it's the one end of the spectrum (britany spears) or the other (morphine, for example), music is impossible to rate or categorize as it's an individual's tastes and experiences that tend to shape what they think is "good".  now, if a 12 yr. old girl in Omaha has never been exposed to anything but MTV and the radio, what do you think she'll go with?  

Of course, I have my own opinions on what I think is crap.  But does it amount to anything worthy of examination?  Of course not.  I can give you all the reasons in the world for what I think is good, and you can either agree or disagree.  The notion that the critics or tastemongers or "they think it's good" is just bullshit to me.  I read reviews and take away what I think is important.

Example, and I'll get hung for this:  Regardless of how many people go on and on about Pearl Jam, and that they sell this many millions of records, and blah blah blah, it doesn't do it for me.  Never has, never will.  I can appreciate that they are good musicians, and respect what they do, but on a visceral level, their music gives me the willies.  What does that mean?  Nothing!  It doesn't move me, period.

Now, Guided by Voices moves me.  On multiple levels.  I get it.  What does that mean?  Nothing!  I appreciate their music and dig it.  Which means I buy it.  And (used to) go to the shows.  It's really that simple.

The world is already too fucking complex.  When it comes to music, if you get it, you get it.  "What a Wonderful Man" is a great song.  To me.  And ultimately, that's what matters...is it a great song to YOU?

[CC]

Sorry I had to remove some posts but a certain forum member decided to offend someone who isn't even present at this forum and that's just really low and unacceptable. He'll be hearing from me. Feel free to continue this discussion but keep it civilized, CC is watching...

[TheLink]

let me get this straight...you guys are trying to figure out what makes art "good" and if it is subjective or not?  i have read most of your posts, but there are a lot that just say the same thing over and over.  so, that tells me that this argument cannot be won or even debated any further.  i think you all have made the points you wanted, but still haven't come to any real conclusion.  personally, i lean towards all art is subjective.  but, i have personal preferences and i do look down on those a bit who think that what i would consider crappy art is good.  it kind of offends me.  the problem is, i offend them...so nobody can be right.  time doesn't tell us a damn thing.  people are sheep and if you haven't figured that out you aren't as brilliant as you think.  maybe you like mmj because someone else does and you just don't know it.  in the end, who the hell cares.  we like it either way.  peace. ;)