I once got a phone call from Ryan--it was after I had written this post.
"Are you really still mad over the CD thing?"
"No." And honestly I was over it. Over two years had past between the writing of that blog post and my shin-kicking vow to raise as much hell in his truck when he puts on Eminem when he knows fully well that I refuse to have anything to do with that artist.
So I was a little surprised to see that Ryan tagged me to list 5 songs that knock my socks off. I am going ahead and assuming his tag is a concession that I really do have better musical tastes, especially since he didn't list The Artist That Shall Never Be Named Again once in his vastly improved list.
I win!
- "Wonderwall" by Ryan Adams. Yes, it's a cover of Oasis's hit, but it is the sexiest song I have ever heard in my entire life. Where Oasis raises the pitch in the chours, Adams instead lowers it, accomplishing such a sad yearning. Adams voice cracks and falters creating a defeatism that could only be obtained by having a heart stomped on. But with the vocal imperfections, one also knows that he was not entirely innocent of blame.
- "Sweet Thing" by Van Morrison. I discovered this song after the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad breakup of '05. There was one part of the song that stuck with me:
And I'll be satisfied
"I will never grow so old again." That's how I felt: old. The line reminded me who I once was and I sang the song as my mantra over and over again for months on repeat until I finally got back to that place. The $9.99 CD from Best Buy probably saved me thousands of dollars in therapy.
Not to read in between the lines
And I will walk and talk
In gardens all wet with rain
And I will never, ever, ever, ever
Grow so old again.
I will not remember
That I even felt the pain. - "Dixieland Delight" by Alabama. This song takes me back to Athens, GA. I'm in some seedy bar with sticky beer floating on old wooden floors. This song comes on and everyone in the bar cheers. Half the crowd puts their drinks down, but everyone gets up and grabs a partner to dance. It doesn't matter if they know each other or not, it just matters that there is a gentleman to spin you around. Not surprisingly, I was a member of the other half that didn't put their drinks down; I can twirl with beer in hand.
- "Show Me" by Mint Royale. Favorite song of all time. Mint Royale recently held a contest to see if any one of the listeners could figure out the lyrics--not even the band knows them because Pos from De La Soul raps the song. Funny thing is both the winners (See the Competition Results page in the blog) have different results than what I once worked out. In any case, this song will always leave me in a better mood than I was in before listening to it.
- I'm combining five because I can't make up my mind. And it's my blog.
"Kiss Off" by Violent Femmes. If this song is playing, be assured I'm in my underwear dancing in my apartment. And when he counts to ten, I sing extra loud because each number correlates fantastically with a boy:One cause you left me and
Two for my family and
Three for my heartache and
Four for my headaches and
Five for my lonely and
Six for my sorrow and
Seven for no tomorrow and
Eight--I forget what eight was for and
Nine for a lost God and
Ten for everything
"Sweet Child O' Mine" by Guns 'n Roses. I was twenty and I had a new boyfriend, the hockey player. Every Thursday he would take me to the Masquerade to dance to 80's music. When this song came on, he would do a perfect Axl Rose and pick me up in his Brawny-man arms and spin me. I just remember being so happy and carefree that summer.
It seems like I'm always at my happiest when I'm twirling.
Will and AprilBapryll also did this meme.
8 comments:
violent femmes are the bestestest :) well, I like em
Ahem...I do not concede that you have "better" musical taste. I think one of the major problems with popular music is that there is no set criteria for quality. Is it something emotional, something "true," something that sounds good? All of these lead to arbitrary critiques based on personal preference. For there to be good, better, or best taste in popular music, absolute standards would, by necessity, have to exist. Some people value songs that are emotional...some value songs that are "gritty" or "real", and some people like songs just because they sound good. None of these are absolutes, so a consistent criteria can't exist, and there is no such thing as "better taste". Classical music, which follows rules and traditions in composition, or breaks the established rules in meaningful variations, possesses a more or less consistent criteria for quality; consequently, you are able to have better taste than someone else in this realm. Poetry works much like classical music (though this condition is often neglected by those who want poetry to be, like pop music, about "feelings.") With poetry and classical music, because structure must function in following content, we can judge the quality in a fairly objective criticism. Not so with popular music: check out Rolling Stone's web page devoted to the "worst lyrics ever." There's a message board full of comments contradicting each other, but none of the comments give any reasoning actually pertaining to the music: the commentary is always personal and irrational. So, to reiterate, I do not think you have "better" taste in music than I do. But, then again...
If you look at pop music as art, then I could direct you to James Joyce in "Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man" (Thanks for your extra copy btw, it's proving really useful right now.) Joyce says that proper art is static versus improper art as kinetic. Joseph Campbell goes on to elaborate on Joyce's sentiment: "Improper art is kinetic, it moves the observer either to desire or to refuse, to fear or hate the object represented. Art that moves you to desire is pornography." Therefore, all advertisements are pornography.
So to go on and look at proper art, which is static. I don't remember if it's Campbell himself or Thomas Aquinas, but stasis is meant to be taken as elevating beyond the ego--the source of inspiration. It doesn't have to be a positive-associated inspiration, it could invoke either the sacred or the profane.
So, you see, there is a set criteria for quality. Which blows your whole argument away. Ergo, I HAVE A BETTER TASTE IN MUSIC! NEENER NEENER NEENER!
The major flaw with your argument is that Aquinas and Joyce were talking about art, not popular music. I previously said that art has criteria by which we can judge it; however, I do not consider pop music to be art, and, consequently, it lacks the criteria of art which you can borrow from Aquinas, Joyce, Plato, Horace, or anybody else. These guys would laugh at pop music being considered art, the same way that real artists now laugh at pop musicians who believe themselves “artists.”
For a classic example, look at Jewel. She thinks she can write poems, but anyone who knows anything about poetry knows she writes trite, reductive, sentimental, consumerist, confused, derivative, delusional, self-indulgent filth. But, not to pick on Jewel, take a look at some of the “greats” of popular music. How about Jim Morrison? Here’s a guy convinced that we was an artist, but, when his book of poems came out, it was universally annihilated as trash. Why? Because it was. See, Morrison thought he was “deep” and “had things to say,” but he was really writing uninformed clichés in imitation of the French child-poet Arthur Rimbaud, who lived a hundred years before him. That’s a big hundred years in art, and, to be an artist, one would have to acknowledge not only the changes in art but also things like, say, the entire twentieth century! But maybe Morrison is too easy a target.
How about Bob Dylan, the greatest pop lyricist ever (if we forget about George Gerswhin and Irving Berlin and everything before the sixties)? Dylan was revered by stoners everywhere for his breakthrough lyrics during the sixties, for his unique style. Unfortunately, Dylan’s style is borrowed from the Dadaists of the 1920s, who, by the 30s had figured out their project was doomed and finally moved on. So, if we consider Dylan an “artist” he’s terribly irrelevant, a buffoon who beat a dead horse thirty years after the art world knew the horse was dead.
The reality is that pop music is not art. It just isn’t. Oscar Wilde says, “The morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium.” Popular music doesn’t use its mediums (music and language) with any type of responsibility or perfection: content and structure are rarely even remotely integrated. Consequently, while it has the raw materials necessary to become art (that is, the imperfect mediums) popular music is not art, or at least it’s not art as Aquinas or Joyce would talk about it, because it is enormously imperfect in its execution. In real art, every piece, every syllable, every drop of paint, every note matters and derives an increase in meaning from existing within its particular context, resulting in multi-functional parts combining to create a whole that is much greater than the sum of parts. Popular music cannot and does not even pretend to do this.
Finally, to consider pop music art is not only to cheapen the term “art” but also to ruin what’s enjoyable about pop music. And that’s what pop is: it is enjoyable, not good. Do you think Dr. Dre wants to be compared to Beethoven? Does Butch Walker want to have his work judged side by side with Stravinsky? Probably not, unless these guys are more delusional than we think. The thing is that the term “art” is bandied about; the term “artist” is bandied about, and, in the true American, consumerist , propagandist fashion we have devalued the words until they mean anything but what they actually mean.
So, to conclude, I never said that art didn’t have criteria. I explicitly stated that art does have absolute criteria by which we can judge it. But, popular music is not art. It was not part of the art that Aquinas or Joyce talked about, and it’s still not relevant to the world of art, even among us mere mortals making art these days. So, pop music can’t be judged by art’s criteria (probably to the benefit of pop music), but, if it can’t be judged by art’s criteria, what is the criteria? There isn’t one. This lack is the gist of my first post, and, as previously stated, without absolute criteria, the question of taste is irrelevant because it is purely personal, whimsical, and, in short, arbitrary.
If we do judge pop music by the criteria you borrow, we’re certainly to find that pop music is improper art. To assume that the consumerist, self-indulgent, self-important, sentimental, pompous whining of pop musicians can transcend the ego is to greatly misunderstand transcendence and egos. I mean, how can pop transcend ego? Pop musicians are little more than egos in tight pants. All jokes aside, pop music can only be valued in a society that values emotion for itself. In art, emotion is not enough; there has to be intelligence, wit, care, responsibility, and a host of other things that pop lacks. Certainly wallowing in emotion isn’t transcendent, and anyone who is intellectually challenged by, or finds mental stimulation in, pop music, well, they really need to visit a library.
oh oh, I want to try! But do I really have to limit to 5? I might have to take a day or so to think about this ...
PS - my favorite song by Violent Femmes is Jesus Walking on the Water ... I must go listen now ... :)
and BTW, I finished mine already! I'm sure I'll want to write a second list in a day or two, but it's good for now! :)
Ooooh, I looooove sweet child 'o mine.
(and eminem!!!)
Post a Comment