4 / 13 : Rave On

[Danen]

hey though (and I SWEAR this is my last post for today.  Damn this is addictive) here's what I really wanted to say.  It's funny John should bring up Berryman cause poets are by a LONG shot the most guilty of replying to criticism on their own work. If you want a good time read the letters section of Poetry every month.  I swear at least 2 of them each time will either be a poet responding to a bad review or a FRIEND of the poet (or editor) responding to the bad review.  For what it's worth these guys and gals know how to bring it on. And the reviewers REALLY ask for it: One reviewer,for instance, compares the writer of a book he is reviewing to Kim Jong-Il then says that the poetry might be interesting if it were "Surrealist poetry based on the neural feedback of a squid." So a DIFFERENT poet calls out the reviewer and says of the book in question (which is, btw, Jeff Clark's "Music and Suicide") that it "is an exacting book that embodies psychological struggles with whipsaw violence and erotic voluptiousness" and unleashes fury at the reviewer, who responds by pointing out that, in fact, she has a good REASON to defend the book: one of the poems is written TO her.  And to prove his point that Cook's book is a bad one?  He QUOTES THE POEM WRITTEN TO HER VERBATIM.  And indeed it is impenitrable. That said, stay tuned for the next issue to get the poet's feedback, or some other poet defending the reviewer, or what you will.  Point is?  Old writers have been flaming and reacting and over emoting about reviews for a LONG time.  Damn Berryman nailed it.  You guys think Ryan Adams goes off?  Read some poetry reviews (or the RESPONSE to poetry reviews).  Hell hath no fury like a poet scorned.

[milly balgeary]

you're so earnest man, i love you. you're a god. but the point is, d. is; change the subject.

[TheVole]

words

i have no idea what you just said.

[perry]

I think John wrote this article because I TOTALLY KICKED his gold-brickin' ass in FIGHT NIGHT, ROUND 2.  He is terrible at all video games and I rule him with an iron fist.  I also thumb my nose at him, good sir.

And now he can't respond to my scathing criticism, lest he create an ironic tear in this thread.

(Actually, he kicked my ass--but it doesn't matter because he can't respond)

Take that, Johannes.

[another max]

a bit of reorganization, won't you?

To deny the effectiveness of the art is kind of like denying the author's relationship to it. If I were to make something that I think is absolutely gorgeous and extremely meaningful to me, It wouldn't be great if someone turned around and said it was crap. This naturally leads to the "you don't know what you're talking about" response, since you feel some part of your being has been denied.

To you sir, I say:

When an artist creates something and presents it to the world, they lose a degree of ownership of it - it's not theirs and theirs alone anymore. (not talking about anything monetary, just to clarify, y'allz) And because of that, their own interpretation of it is no longer the only "correct" one. It takes on a whole host of meanings that the artist hadn't intended, all of which are entirely valid.

All of that to say that the really terrible thing about art is that you don't have to be a particularly smart or sensible person to be good or even great at it (and, in fact, it helps if you're not either one).  Artists are (cue sweeping generalization) egomaniacs, convinced that they are the ones who see the world for what it really is - this feeling leads to not being able to understand that their work really isn't entirely theirs, once it's in the world.  And also to their seeking out press about themselves online, and responding to it, and all that.

What's painful about the whole thing to me is that I'm really irked to know that I sometimes fall prey to being a big fan of unintelligent, arrogant people (which is why this particular blog is such a constant relief to me).  I hate people like Anne Rice, precisely for the sorts of things she says in that stupid response; she lacks decorum, modesty, humility - she lacks a BRAIN.  But I'm not so naive that I don't realize half or more of the authors I love, the musicians I love, and all of the rest, are just like her.

All that to say, John, that I love you exponentially more when you take it upon yourself, as an artist I admire, to debunk the artists I wish I didn't have to admire.

[Andrew_TSKS]

i found danen's response really interesting. some of you kids need to chill.

[Chuck]

a bit of reorganization, won't you?

Yeah I really should have taken more time to properly organize my post...I apologize.

[Charming Tedious]

A tangent: What about musicians who comment on their work, but not in direct response to critics?  Back in the day, it was not uncommon for albums to have not just recording notes, biographies, and lyrics, but extensive explanatory comments on the individual songs by the artists, right on the back of the album.  Now that sort of thing is taboo.  What changed?

What do people think, for example, about Phil Elvrum's booklet "Headwaters: An Attempted Explanation of Mount Eerie" which spelled out  every single reference, metaphor, and plot point on the album over the course of 24 pages, just in case we missed his intended meaning?

[Debaser]

A tangent: What about musicians who comment on their work, but not in direct response to critics?  Back in the day, it was not uncommon for albums to have not just recording notes, biographies, and lyrics, but extensive explanatory comments on the individual songs by the artists, right on the back of the album.  Now that sort of thing is taboo.  What changed?

What do people think, for example, about Phil Elvrum's booklet "Headwaters: An Attempted Explanation of Mount Eerie" which spelled out  every single reference, metaphor, and plot point on the album over the course of 24 pages, just in case we missed his intended meaning?

i think the point here is the fine line between getting the point across and killing the "magic of interpretation". I actually talked to phil about the whole meaning of mt. eerie thing, and he really stressed getting the whole point across there and still people didn't get it, which sorta bummed him. But then again there is the whole nice thing about writing so insanely vague lyrics that people can go "oh wow, that is soooo like me, man" or something.

[TheVole]

i found danen's response really interesting. some of you kids need to chill.

I wasn't trying to be a dick, i just didn't understand it.

To you sir, I say:

Pssh.  Dude, I totally said that first.  

[rtotalexvii]

i'm glad hip hop artists respond to their critics 'cause that's where most of the best stuff comes from

[TheVole]

What do people think, for example, about Phil Elvrum's booklet "Headwaters: An Attempted Explanation of Mount Eerie" which spelled out  every single reference, metaphor, and plot point on the album over the course of 24 pages, just in case we missed his intended meaning?

If an artist feels they have to explain their work because people don't "get it" the way they "get it," it's bad art.

The message should be in the work, not reliant on supplimental materials, cliff's notes, or a read-a-long cassette.  Being didactic and saying your interpreation of your work is the only valid one isn't cool.

[insomniapays]

What do people think, for example, about Phil Elvrum's booklet "Headwaters: An Attempted Explanation of Mount Eerie" which spelled out  every single reference, metaphor, and plot point on the album over the course of 24 pages, just in case we missed his intended meaning?

I think I would like to find a copy.  Honestly, one of the best illicit little thrills I get is trainspotting, for example, song quotes in the lyrics of other artists.  Like when Hammerhead reference the Psychedelic Furs in "Victoria", or Pulp does the Fall in "Help the Aged".  It would be nice to see how well I do at it, at least where Mt. Eerie is concerned.

now I just feel bad 'cause I think I alienated the new guy

S'cool.  Alienation is the craze.

[Andrew_TSKS]

The message should be in the work, not reliant on supplimental materials, cliff's notes, or a read-a-long cassette.  Being didactic and saying your interpreation of your work is the only valid one isn't cool.

well, while i sort of agree with you, i also think that taking this to the point you're taking it is also wrong. if an artist wants to explain his/her work, that just becomes a supplement to the initial art, and therefore part of it. granted i liked donnie darko better before i found out that the director had a specific interpretation of everything that he spelled out in the commentary to make sure everyone got the "right" idea. however, that's just my opinion. in the director's cut, he puts all the stuff back into the movie that, when taken out, kept you from interpreting it in the way he intended. it's apparently a lot less vague now. and i may once i see the director's cut think the guy ruined a much better movie by doing that. however, it's his art, and i'm just some guy with an opinion. i say let him do what he wants to do. if phil elvrum wants to put out a book that explains the mount eerie album, more power to him! if i liked the album (i've never heard it), i'd totally read it. and just because it makes things definite that were indefinite before does not remove the ability of the listener to apply their own interpretation to it, nor does it make that interpretation wrong.

oh and by the way, explanation of artistic intent may be out of vogue in some places, but not in all--a lot of more politcal hardcore and punk bands will put extensive explanations for their lyrics in the lyric sheets on their albums. in fact, i myself wrote a bunch of long essays about each of the songs on my band's first album, because there was a lot more to what i was thinking about the topics of the songs than could be expressed in 50 or so words. that doesn't mean the songs don't stand on their own, it just means that sometimes there's more that can be said.

oh god, i'm going on way too long. i just hope i'm doing a halfway ok job of making my point.

[TheVole]

well, while i sort of agree with you, i also think that taking this to the point you're taking it is also wrong.

I think our trolleys are on the same track, I'm just saying a piece of art shouldn't be reliant on a little book.  Supplimetnary is fine but you shouldn't need a decoder.

[Andrew_TSKS]

yeah... i agree. the book is a cool idea but without it you should still be able to enjoy the record. and the book doesn't cancel out any alternative interpretations either (and see, it seems like from what was said above that phil would like it to, and i don't agree with that).

[Charming Tedious]

I'm pretty sure Phil's primary motivation (based on his introduction to the booklet) was to give credit where credit is due...to say "the melody here was partially borrowed from a Sade song", "this part references The Big Lebowski", "here I extended a metaphor which originally appeared in a Little Wings song" etc, not to disallow people's subjective interpretations.   Heck, for me, the album will always be about coming to terms with flunking out of college, something Phil has never done.    

I think of this sort of thing as parallel to visual artists preparing Artists' Statements for gallery shows.  You don't have to read it to enjoy the work, but it can add context and draw your attention to aspects of their creative intent that you might have otherwise missed.

It becomes tacky only when it's overly self-aggrandizing (i think reading the back covers of early Dylan LPs is what turned me off to him) or in direct response to someone dissing your work.

[rtotalexvii]

oh and by the way, explanation of artistic intent may be out of vogue in some places, but not in all--a lot of more politcal hardcore and punk bands will put extensive explanations for their lyrics in the lyric sheets on their albums. in fact, i myself wrote a bunch of long essays about each of the songs on my band's first album, because there was a lot more to what i was thinking about the topics of the songs than could be expressed in 50 or so words. that doesn't mean the songs don't stand on their own, it just means that sometimes there's more that can be said.

i'm a big fan of the 30-second grindcore song w/ 4 lines of lyrics ("chomsky's cliffs notes") that comes with an eight-page exegesis

from the ridiculous to the sublime, right there

[rtotalexvii]

but hip hop has always had the most honest attitude re: artistic autonomy 'cause it has no choice

[jettison]

All I can think of after reading this thread is G'n'R's "Get in the Ring"!

[Andrew_TSKS]

charming tedious--i used to have the pooh sticks album "great white wonder" (and oh how i miss it... i should hunt that album up on half.com or somewhere) and in the liner notes tambourine player trudy went through and dissected each of their songs to point out exactly which riff they'd stolen from what song. there was this one great part that went something like "... the bridge of this song was stolen from the first raspberries album, so when your older brother sticks his head into the room to tell you that that's a stolen eric carmen riff you can tell him to bog off because you knew that already." hahahaha. shit like that is awesome.

rtotalex--uh, yeah, other than the fact that my band's songs tended to run about 90 seconds and have mosh parts inbetween the blast beats, you've pretty well nailed us.  

and jettison--oh man, i'd forgotten about that. that's an even better call than fred durst. hahahaha. [this thread is making me lol.]

[rtotalexvii]

i love that stuff, i think it's great.  i love how the liner notes will never quite fit in the CD case because somebody's dissertation is in there

[rtotalexvii]

enter the ebullition-style anarcho digipack

[rtotalexvii]

made from recycled materials

[Bernard]

In the middle of the funny bit, there's a reference to stewardship of one's craft. There's certainly a distinction between viewing oneself as a steward of a craft, which is to say a person in a long line of people doing related things and essentially in a caretaker position, rather than as an auteur, font, or mastermind. I wonder whether the artists who go off on these rants would be better served by an image of themselves as lifelong apprentices rather than by going on the Byronic tortured-artist model.

If I thought I was putting the depths of my soul on a record and it got slammed, I suppose I'd be touchy too. They key is probably not to completely withhold yourself from your work. Is it about striking a balance of some kind?