I can't remember but there was a friend of Jim's in Louisville who killed himself a couple years ago - does anyone remember his name? He was a muscian. I think they were in a band together. They played some of his music on FPK after he died and it was very good. Evidently, unless Jim has known more than one person who killed himself - "What a Wonderful Man" was written about him.
I think his last name started with a T??
Help!
His name was Aaron Todovich. The lead guitarist for Jim's band Month of Sundays, and then he played with Patrick for a while. Amazing guy, from what I've heard.
http://leoweekly.com/archives/121003/cs-aarontodovich.shtml
Wonderful Man isn't about him, though.
Wow, a new low for the board. Does anyone else think this is a bit creepy, weird, or just plain inappropriate to discuss people like this? By their first and last name??
I've had friends who I lost to suicide and accidents, heart attacks, drugs...AIDS, you name it. And I loved every one of them like brothers. I wouldn't name any of them by their first and last names, out of respect for the living people who knew them, let alone post that information on an internet message board for the whole world to read. Imagine being a friend of these folks and having to read their names on a message board-shit, I didn't know these guys and this discussion brings back memories of the friends I lost, whether a song was written about them or not.
This is just plain fucking creepy and disrespecful, IMHO.
im pretty sure hed just be happy people were talking about him.
just trying to help, didn't mean to offend anyone. Leave it to me to take us to a new low. I deleted my post, Mr. Humble. Here ia a link to the history of the band. It also contains first and last names though:
http://www.magnix.demon.nl/mmj/archive/history.htm
i dont think i understand the logic here at all. bad things happen, you cant keep them in a lockbox, john. i dont see how discussing someone whos died is an automatic disrepect towards that person. a person's memory after death is only what you make it.
my uncle physically killed his wife, set fire to the apartment, and then killed himself, after telling my family hed done all that. it was front page news in the town where he lived (a city of 50,000) for days, and it made the 6 o'clock indianapolis news on all 3 major networks. should i bitch at them for using his first and last name and causing my family problems where they lived?
that all said, i cant forget those events which were the end, but i have excellent happy memories of my uncle, considering the circumstances. a first and last name of someone whos died is not disrespect. i take offense to the fact you take offense to this.
ok all that just said, the only problem i can see here is the wording of the subject. it could have been better asked "who did he write what a wonderful man and don dante about?" maybe the "guy who killed himself" is disrespectful to these men, their names and everlasting memories sure arent, though.
Sorry, I just find it disrespectful to their names and memories. This is a subject close to me-not these fine gentlemen in particular-but losing people that are like blood brothers to you is some harsh shit, so I can only imagine what is like for the friends and family of these folks to have this rehashed.
I'll just shut up now.
QuoteSorry, I just find it disrespectful to their names and memories. This is a subject close to me-not these fine gentlemen in particular-but losing people that are like blood brothers to you is some harsh shit, so I can only imagine what is like for the friends and family of these folks to have this rehashed.
I'll just shut up now.
right ok, in that respect i know what you mean. i sorta relive the shit everyday thats happened in my situation, but you have to battle through it and move on. its never good to dwell on the past, but if more recognition can be brought to these gentlemen in question, maybe their greatness during their short lives can touch more people? that wouldnt be a bad thing, would it?
heres a drink to all those weve lost, happy thoughts and a good after life for those in mind, too. [smiley=bier.gif]
Quoteheres a drink to all those weve lost, happy thoughts and a good after life for those in mind, too.
As I sit here drinking the last bits of the Knob Creek we got in Kentucky, I say "here here!!" :)
I did think that the title was quite insensitive, but I think that, being a member of bands that both Jim and Patrick were in, and seeing as he did play a relatively important role in where those guys are now, he makes an impact. It's not to throw his name around, but to say. He played a very important role to these guys.
If he was a relative, or someone privately close to the guys, then I'd say "leave it alone", but he was in bands with Jim, Tommy, and Patrick, and his music is still accessible, and I would suggest checking his material out.
I don't mean anything malicious by any of this, and would gladly partake in a little Knob Creek were I but four years older.
Hi Tom. :)
i remember playing 007 on n64 with him. he always beat me. in fact he usually beat everybody when we would play on allotafajita nights, thursdays in the "nights" period.
seriously. i dont think hed see any disrespect in any of this. he would be happy people from around the world were talking about him/remembering him.
i think its about Jesus
Quotei think its about Jesus
you're wrong.
So does sombody have an article or proof of who it's about, because I too find that it really sounds like it's about Christ. The last line "till I found out he did it for all of us"...how could that be about anybody earthly? What did someone here do for all of us? And I'm assuming Jim means he died for all of us. I'm just interested is all. If there is an article or quote out there, I'd really love to read it. SInce I'm fairly new to this band, I'd love to see what inspires them especially in the lyrics dept.
Thanks
Corey
QuoteSo does sombody have an article or proof of who it's about, because I too find that it really sounds like it's about Christ. The last line "till I found out he did it for all of us"...how could that be about anybody earthly? What did someone here do for all of us? And I'm assuming Jim means he died for all of us. I'm just interested is all. If there is an article or quote out there, I'd really love to read it. SInce I'm fairly new to this band, I'd love to see what inspires them especially in the lyrics dept.
Thanks
Corey
Hey Corey, you can safely trust all that's been written here. It's not about Jesus. I thought that, too. I mean, maybe it's a little about Jesus (in an abstract way - who knows?), but it was surely written for Jim's friend.
I can't remember the article where Jim talks about the fact that he wrote it because he thought it would make his friend laugh. But if you read the recent articles, mostly found in the "press" section above, you'll find out the information that exists. :)
Quote
you're wrong.
i'm smarter and better looking than you
Here's the article, straight from Jim's mouth. I believe this article also talks about how Jim is NOT into organized religion:
http://www.velocityweekly.com/2005/0928/cover/
I don't see why people think it's about Jesus. Does Jesus normally go driving with Jim in the park? Did he ever say "Love goes on"? Anyways, proof's in the pudding, read the article.
And Half, who could tell how good looking you are if you don't take off that football helmet?
Quote
And Half, who could tell how good looking you are if you don't take off that football helmet?
now youre not really suggesting Half and all these other lovely characters might just be Horkolad in disguise, are you? could he have really fooled us that much? ::) :o
[smiley=smartass.gif]
Quote
now youre not really suggesting Half and all these other lovely characters might just be Horkolad in disguise, are you? could he have really fooled us that much? ::) :o
[smiley=smartass.gif]
I'm afraid you're wrong on that one....you see, I'm not REALLY primushead. I'm...Horkolad and Half! I fooled all of you!!! YEAHHH!!!
the last time i saw aaron was the halloween before he died. ill never forget him sitting back in that room by himself with candles and a quija board trying to call up spirits.
i didnt say much to him that night. i feel kinda bad about that. not because i could have "stopped him" or some other bullshit. it was pretty obvious through hanging with him and just knowing him that one day he would take himself out. i feel bad because, well, i dont know, maybe for a moment i could have made him feel better...or laugh....or anything.
Ratsprayer,
Thanks for the article link. SO I guess that clears it up for me anyways.
Being a Christian I could see how it might be about Jesus though. "Do it for all of us" is obvious...since Christ died for us. Other references are just general, about Christ being a wonderful man..."Leading us through the dark" being one. The "Ice Cream" I just took for a vice, and since Christ knows our vices, then he'd know what Jim meant. Driving through the park I just took maybe as a metaphor for Christ being with us wherever we go and on this particular day Jim was in the park. You know. Small stuff like that.
But Like I said, the article is crystal clear and thanks again for the link!
Corey
Hey Corey, I'm with you brother. I thought and hoped the same thing about these song lyrics. I've always been taught that art is always up for the individual's interpretation until the artist himself tells us otherwise. Jim told us what the song's about, but part of me likes adopting the song for my own purposes. Then again, wasn't it Johnny Cash who said that the fans own the music? So, I take these two differeing opinions as, interpret whatever you wish. ;)
Quotethe last time i saw aaron was the halloween before he died. ill never forget him sitting back in that room by himself with candles and a quija board trying to call up spirits.
i didnt say much to him that night. i feel kinda bad about that. not because i could have "stopped him" or some other bullshit. it was pretty obvious through hanging with him and just knowing him that one day he would take himself out. i feel bad because, well, i dont know, maybe for a moment i could have made him feel better...or laugh....or anything.
Last time I saw Aaron was at a jacket show, i think. I remember he looked really bad, bleak, like he hadn't eaten or been in the sunlight in months. There is no reason to feel guilty about stuff like that, DD. Like Jim said on the radio tribute, for some people there is nothing you can say to them to make them understand that they are loved or to keep them doing what they are going to do.
yeah i know no one could stop it. i knew it from the first time i saw that kid. just kinda like one of those situations where i wonder if i could have done something to bring some joy into one of his last days. mostly i just think about this stuff around this time of the year.
for those of you asking questions about this stuff, if you take some time and read through the articles posted under the "press" button you will find most if not all of your answers.
You know, even if the artist looks you in the eye and tells you what his/her art is about, it doesn't have to, in any way, change what YOU believe it to be about. Viewing or experiencing art, especially music, is all about how YOU feel. So, while I understand and appreciate that "...Wonderful Man" and "Dondante" are about Jim's dear departed friend, I choose to believe that they are about MY dear departed friend as well as a whole host of other things. That's why those songs mean so much to me.
This is the same with so many other MMJ songs. And I think it's what the band would want all of us to do too. It's interesting to know what Jim was thinking when he wrote it, but ultimately, it's more interesting to use it as a catharsis for yourself. This is art's true function.
My head hurts now.
I actually would storngly disagree with that.
I think art is an extremely personal matter. The artist is essential to the piece. You can look at a beautiful piece depicting George Washington crossing the Delaware and think its extremely symbolic of the Iraqi war, but you'd be wrong. The artist had nothing of that sort in mind while painting it.
In music's case, especially these two songs, I think that many people can very easily identify with what the guys are going through, but they wrote it about their own friends. The meaning was what they meant. The fact that you may have had a very similar personal experience may help you connect more with the songs, but they still are about the guys' friends.
I think, simply what I'm trying to say, is that you can't remove the artist from the art. A song may mean something special to you because of what it's about, but I think that a respect for the original intent of the song should still be present. I think that, to truly understand art, it may be necessary to have been through similar experience in able to understand it, BUT the artist is the one who wrote the piece, and it's his work, about his experience.
Well, I am going to keep going with this since I am really interested in this topic. I once read an Article by Michael Stipe where he said never to confuse the singer with the song. So to me that says you can make the song be what it is to you. I know to Jim it is about his friend, and I respect that and want to know that because it is very important to understanding the song. However, when the day is done, if I don't take my interpretation away also, then I am not really enjoying the art. If I look at Picaso's "Guernica" and say "that's about that particular war", then I have missed a big point...which is that war is scary, it's a nightmare, it's bullheaded, it's massacre, etc. I hope most of you have seen the picture so this illustration goes further. So I think we each take our own interps away, but we need to start with what the artist meant, and then let it grow.
I write my own music and I often divulge what I was thinking at the time of writing, but I also say that even I have a new interp from day to day and especially after some time has passed, so I urge the audience to take their own meaning away as well as mine.
This is a great topic, and thanks to all who have been so nice. On other boards I've been part of, this would have degenerated into a flame fest long before now! MMJ people are very nice. Glad to be a part of the crowd. You guys rock no matter what your stance is on song interpretation.
Corey
www.grahamcrackerdeluxe.com
this is a great discussion. I tend to agree with coltrane but I can see eisey's point as well. It is very subjective and i think there will be many artists with contrasting view points. I remember Dave Gilmour of Pink Floyd being asked why they dont print lyrics in the record sleeves and he said something along the lines of he wants the listeners to interpret the songs themselves and he mentioned he enjoyed listening to the fans views and interpretations as they often help him see the songs in a different light. He also said he didn't like to discuss the lyrics in detail and would leave it to the listener to decide.
In contrast i'm sure many artists print the lyrics and discuss them as they want to make sure they are getting a particular message accross and dont want there songs interpreted the wrong way. for example Sometimes the artist has to come out and explain the song for instance 'born in the usa' by springsteen. it wasn't the blindly patriotic song many people thought it was and he got very angry about it and had to speak out and explain to people what it was really about.
another point is the use of metaphor many MMJ songs are so open to interpretation through the use of metaphor. where as a songs like 'the lonesome death of hattie carrol' by Dylan uses few metaphors and is put across in a way the listener cannot interpret it about anything else other than the death of hattie carrol and the events surrounding it.
anyway my conclusion is its all subjective and again this is only my personal viewpoint but its good to see everyone has different opinions from fans to artists etc because if we all thought the same way and had the same views the world would be a very boring place [smiley=bier.gif]
I agree that there is a subjective quality to music/art but if it was all subjective that would mean that MMJ is no better than Brittany Spears or that the doodles I draw when I'm bored are as artisically significant as a Monet or a Dali painting. I think that there are certain parts of art that are subjective and other parts that are objective. I know that Jeff Tweedy purposely writes vague lyrics that can be interpreted by the listener, but that is his objective. Other artists create art for a purpose and I think this vision should be respected. And I think there is a difference between interpreting a song and making it seem like something it clearly is not, like Tom said. By the way, "He's Got the Whole World in His Hands" is about me.
If it moves you, it moves you..whether it's doodles or a Dali. If it doesn't move you, regardless of what a million people say about it, it doesn't move you. Objectivity about art/music is bullshit. People tend to agree more or less about what they think is "good" or "great", but all art is subjective, a very personal experience. Case in point, Ms. Spears has sold millions of records and has just a rabid fanbase as any one else does, and they all think she's the greatest thing since Mozart. Obviously, others disagree with that assumption...but to them, she's the Messiah. Who is to say they're wrong?
Well...I have to say they're wrong if they think Spears is the messiah. If that's the case, I'll be a devil worshipper ;) .
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Who said that objectivity has anything to do with popularity? If something is good, it is good regardless if no one gets the chance to enjoy it, that's what objectivity means. Subjectivity depends on the listener.
I can't believe that anyone on this board would think that MMJ music is on the same level as ANY song you would hear on the radio. Ask any musician, there is good music and there is bad music. Just because a lot of people like bad music doesn't make it good.
QuoteWho is to say they're wrong?
Me. And a shit ton of other people who know a lot more about muisc than Brittany Spears. Brittany sucks and you're wrong, John. Does that move you?
Quote
Me. And a shit ton of other people who know a lot more about muisc than Brittany Spears. Brittany sucks and you're wrong, John. Does that move you?
Well, Mr. Personality, you just proved my point for me. Music snobbery doesn't make you "right" on this. It's still a subjective experience, whether you agree or not. Hence the existence of an entire industry that (IMHO) pollutes the airwaves with such things. There is a demand for pop schmaltz for a reason-people think it's good.
John's right to an extent. He just left out the part about ignorance, and I don't mean ignorance negatively. If a 14 year old is into Brittnay Spears, she's unlikely to even know who bands like MMJ or Wilco are. It's up to us more seasoned veteran snobs to educate her so that one day she'll chuck the Spears CDs and buy some decent music. But to her 14 year old mind, Brittnay's it!
Come on guys, isn't there some music from your past you're embarrassed to say you were into? Or were you all guitar-toting intellectuals right out of the womb? I saw the New Kids on the Block in 1989. I was in the 4th grade. At the time, they were the shit in mine and my sister's adolescent eyes. To me then, it was a kickass show. It was NKOTB all the way. Bob Dylan who???
QuoteHere's the article, straight from Jim's mouth. I believe this article also talks about how Jim is NOT into organized religion:
http://www.velocityweekly.com/2005/0928/cover/
I don't see why people think it's about Jesus. Does Jesus normally go driving with Jim in the park? Did he ever say "Love goes on"? Anyways, proof's in the pudding, read the article.
And Half, who could tell how good looking you are if you don't take off that football helmet?
first and foremost- i have a hand
secondly- maybe its not about the son of god, maybe it is. maybe i just thought that because so many MMJ songs reference religion in some way. Jimbo doesn't have to be into organized religion to write about it or find insipration out of it.
finally- i have a hand
yo kev, thanks for that. i've paraded my embarrasing past influences here plenty of times, and I agree with the notion that a lot of folks try to come off like they were born totally hip. Journey was the shit when I was 12...but the world now would have me believe the musical barometer revolved around Athens, GA instead. Who's right? No one is...it's totally subjective.
Quoteyo kev, thanks for that. i've paraded my embarrasing past influences here plenty of times, and I agree with the notion that a lot of folks try to come off like they were born totally hip. Journey was the shit when I was 12...but the world now would have me believe the musical barometer revolved around Athens, GA instead. Who's right? No one is...it's totally subjective.
How could they be embarrassing if no music is better than any other? Or are you still operating under the idea that music is only as good as it is popular? I can't believe you still think that Brittany Spears is as musically talented as Jim James or Mozart for that matter. If everything is subjective you are saying that Mozart's compositions have no worth outside of their ability to "move" people. So his compositions aren't good, just popular. And they've been popular for some reason that it personal to everyone in the world? don't you think there might be a reason that Mozart's music has survived?
I liked NOKTB when I was in second grade but I am educated enough now to know that it is and was totally BAD music.
I was going to let you have the last word, but your position is untenable, so I couldn't resist.
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.
well, if you read the last line of the words I actually wrote...
QuoteWho'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.
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.
(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.
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.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
oh, P.S....I think I finally feel included on this board! 125 posts later!
QuoteI'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.
QuoteAnd 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?
QuoteI 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".
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.
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
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 :-*
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
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.
Alright. Screw this.
Who likes What a Wonderful Man?
Problem solved.
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
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?
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...
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. ;)
wonderful man is my least favorite on the album because i can't stand organized religion
Wow. I think EVERYONE is missing alot of good points. Everyone here should go read some Joseph Kosuth or Jean Baudrillard.
If, after 100 years, there's a lot of people taking pictures of a painting, that does not make it good in any objective sense. Period. Objectivity in Art does not exist. Period. Art exists only to spark human beings into discussion about the world around them and the human condition; it is here to wake us up and shake us by the shoulders. I think we can agree that MMJ does that for us. Period. But it may not do that for others, and that's okay. Period.
.....aaaaand scene!
Come on people now, smile on your brother....! Everybody get together, try to love one another right now! :D
QuoteI can give you all the reasons in the world for what I think is good, and you can either agree or disagree.
Isn't that the truth? Almost no one that I am close to shares my love for my favorite bands. I have tried and failed miserably. Now I just appreciate that our tastes are different, but still love the music as well as my close friends/family.
that is one sweet cap'n caveman avatar!
Thanks. I thought I wanted to go as CC to a friend's halloween party but I couldn't pull it off. Just not crafty enough.
QuoteSorry 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...
Nice work CC. Way to keep our streets safe. It was getting out of hand. Sometimes we all need to be rebuked...
i think a lot of posts went in circles, so i dont know where to begin. whatever, if you like it, thats ok. no one has to agree, but at least show a bit of tolerance and respect.
amilliondreams was right about one thing, people dont walk around wearing powdered wigs anymore.
oh by the way, i hate britney spears in all ways, but ill be goddamn if i dont like the song "toxic". shoot me, you fucks! ;D ;D ;D
powedered wigs or transplants? what's the difference?
Quotepowedered wigs or transplants? what's the difference?
I feel that the difference would be that I shouldn't do sappy drunk posts. ;)