Who was "What a Wonderful Man" written about?

[primushead]

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!!!

[DD]

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.

[Corey Brasher]

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

[kevinjanes]

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.  ;)

[aMillionDreams]

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.

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.

[DD]

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.

[Coltrane]

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.

[tomEisenbraun]

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.

[beband]

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

[sivalc]

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]      

[aMillionDreams]

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.

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

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?

[beband]

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

[aMillionDreams]

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.  

[aMillionDreams]

Who 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?

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

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.  

[kevinjanes]

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???

[Half]

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?

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

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

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.

[aMillionDreams]

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.

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.