Musical Integrity

[The Nal]

it's like the old gary glitter point. do i enjoy christmas rock and roll any less cos we know he's a paedophile? of course not, it's the same bloody song.

[worm]

Has it spoilt my enjoyment of the writings of his that I'd enjoyed so much? You can be damned sure it has, because I can no longer view his words as I used to despite them being the same words that I'd previously enjoyed. The meaning I took from his words that gave me that enjoyment has gone.

[llcoolphil]

It's not music, but....

There's a particular author who I used to love, and read many of his books. I took much of what he was saying as a confirmation of my own views on much of life.

Then I started to read some of his non-fiction books, and discovered that I'd taken him completely wrongly, and he was making Hitler look like a Marxist in comparison.

Has it spoilt my enjoyment of the writings of his that I'd enjoyed so much? You can be damned sure it has, because I can no longer view his words as I used to despite them being the same words that I'd previously enjoyed. The meaning I took from his words that gave me that enjoyment has gone.

I wouldn't think that things are any different with anyone's relationship with music. The enjoyment is gained thru what it means to you, and if it suddenly means something different because you know more about the artist, then the appreciation you have of that art is also different.

[worm]

Incidentally Neil, what was the text that you're referring to called again? I meant to get a copy, but I stopped writing on here for a while after you moderated me. It's the one that has the concept of us being our own God's, isn't it?

Edited November 9, 2010 by worm

[The Nal]

not so much for Wacko, as his 'story' is too weird almost to comprehend.

[ampersand]

Not to me. Same for Wacko.

[eFestivals]

I can entirely understand that. But if you hadn't found out the new information, the enjoyment wouldn't be tainted. The influence behind the work you enjoyed hasn't changed - it was already there. So it's your own perception that has changed and that has subsequently altered your enjoyment of the books. My point is that has bugger all to do with artistic integrity and everything to do with your own perception of the world.

I'd mostly agree with that, but of course my view (or anyone else's) of what is 'artistic integrity' is something that's always related to my perception of the world. They're ultimately inseparable.

[The Nal]

was it polanski who was convicted for a similar offence? do his films all of a sudden change?

[feral chile]

oo this is interesting. On one hand, the intentions of the author/musician are irrelevant, because the audience imparts their own meaning onto the creation. But on the other hand, our interpretion of the message often includes an interpretation of the motives of the writer. Because an insincere message is valueless, no matter how well-written.

[worm]

I'd mostly agree with that, but of course my view (or anyone else's) of what is 'artistic integrity' is something that's always related to my perception of the world. They're ultimately inseparable.

[llcoolphil]

So if, say, Bob Dylan, came out and said that most of his songs are actually racist and he hates anyone who isn’t white, that wouldn’t influence how you feel about him? (Provided you like Dylan that is!)

[The Nal]

oo this is interesting. On one hand, the intentions of the author/musician are irrelevant, because the audience imparts their own meaning onto the creation. But on the other hand, our interpretion of the message often includes an interpretation of the motives of the writer. Because an insincere message is valueless, no matter how well-written.

[worm]

Nail on the head yeah. Depth and authenticity cant be faked and always shine through, for good or bad.

Edited November 9, 2010 by worm

[ampersand]

A little bit yeah.

[eFestivals]

Incidentally Neil, what was the text that you're referring to called again? I meant to get a copy, but I stopped writing on here for a while after you moderated me. It's the one that has the concept of us being our own God's, isn't it?

"Stranger In A Strange Land" - Robert Heinlein.

Just googled it to double-check the spelling of his surname, and discovered there's a wiki page that gives a précis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land

And from reading that, I've discovered that there's now two published versions, a version as first published (which I'm pretty sure is the one I've read), and a longer version as first written. I'd be quite interested to read the longer version, just to see what was too 'shocking' to be included first time around.

I was around 20 when I read this book, and thought it a very good dissection of human attitudes towards religion(s). Whether I'd still feel the same if I read it again I don't know, but going by the wiki page it's defo classed as a classic book.

[The Nal]

but for many people, those issues (sincerity for example) aren't important.

[feral chile]

and everything inbetween

but for many people, those issues (sincerity for example) aren't important.

[ampersand]

I think you can still enjoy a song, but it changes. You can't tell me that when you hear Do You Wanna Be In My Gang or Do You Wanna Touch Me, there isn't a little part of you that has a knowing reaction to it, that's different to before you knew his antics..?

[The Nal]

Sinatra is an interesting example. His music, possibly more than Elvis, is the background to my youth. My dad was an arranger and adored all the Nelson Riddle stuff, and my mum just loved him. His performances are faultless, and are totally believable, but his real life does get in the way for me

a bit

[eFestivals]

I agree. This is the key factor I reckon - we can't listen to music objectively. Objective music doesn't have a sound.

And - cross-threading - the same applies with language.

It can't be dealt with objectively (as your 'rules' try to do), the mind is led by the subjective, by what the words mean to you and not by some arbitrary set of rules all separate from the meanings to the speaker or hearer of the words used.

(if you want to follow up on this, take it into that other thread).

[Steve P]

Thinking about this, it's trying to have some sort of lyrical integrity that makes it so hard for me to write lyrics. I've been in a band on and off for 15 years now and must have written getting on for 100 songs by now (of varying shades of dreadfulness). I can only think of 2 songs in all that time that i've done the lyrics for that I felt happy with. To me lyrics are a chance to engage people and talk to them about something that matters to you, and i've never really managed to get that accross properly in anything i've written. A big part of getting a new album for me is (after a couple of listens) sitting down and reading the lyrics along with it. If they're well written then it adds so much more to my enjoyment than. It can be whole songs or just single lines. Possibly my favourite line of all time is in Elbow's Mexican Stand Off "Your sweet reasurances don't change the fact, that he's better looking than me". Just utterly brilliant.

My ramblings above are a big part of why I dislike dance music. The total lack of effort into putting any kind of heartfelt message into the lyrics means I just can't get into it. Whilst I might like a song that's filled with lyrics that are there for the sake of the song having lyrics, the chances are I won't love it.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Steve P

[eFestivals]

is that the same though?

A song, or a book or a painting is usually 'created' on the basis that the reciever will make their own judgement on it. Which is why many artists don't like to explain their own 'intention' as it would take away the option of it being percieved differently by different people.

Language kind of needs to be more specific, otherwise, what's the point?

Songs have language - which, as you point out, the artist might be deliberately vague about. So you've answered your question: it has a point.

As for spoken words with the direct aim of communication, the only requirement is that the hearer is able to understand what the speaker means - and as worm has got to prove (despite what he wants people to believe) that doesn't require that language is worked to a set of arbitrary rules.

[eFestivals]

ok

as you said, let's leave this for the other thread

(my fault)

it is something I'm following thru on. I answered yours cos it was directly relevant here, but have deleted worm's response cos it wasn't.

[llcoolphil]

Because an insincere message is valueless, no matter how well-written.

[eFestivals]

worm, it's irrelevant drivel, nowt else. Try applying your wonderful rules of language to the language which was put to you.