From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #395 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, October 24 2003 Volume 12 : Number 395 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip [Capuchin ] Re: yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Prince (that's what he's called again, right?) ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: unreleased wishlist ["Brian" ] Re: The Name of this Thread is... I forget... [Eb ] Re: yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:45:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > At 11:45 AM 10/24/2003 -0700, Capuchin wrote: > >I don't recall The Yip Song having a video featuring clips from a Jennifer > >Jason Leigh movie, for one. > > A difference only in degree. Degree? He was using the death of his son to sell tickets to someone else's movie! OR He was using a movie about drug addicts to sell his song! That's not just degree, that's a whole different approach... a crass, money-grubbing approach. > >Also, Robyn had an interesting take on a unique experience, whereas > >Clapton wrote some dumb crap about going to heaven and being sad. > > "Interesting" to you, not necessarily to others. Whereas Clapton's lyric isn't interesting to anyone. > There's nothing particularly unique about the death of a father - although > every individual and their experiences are unique. Have you HEARD The Yip Song? It's about a man fading between images of his own hospitalization and the image of Vera Lynn juxtaposed with Nine Inch Nails whilst a dog yips. I'd say that's a pretty unique experience. > So, in that sense, Clapton's experiences are no less unique than > Robyn's. Clapton doesn't describe HIS experience. He describes generic popularized versions of the common death-of-a-loved-one experience. > Hell, more people die from cancer than from falling out of windows. > Clapton's experiences could be seen as more unique. Clapton didn't write about falling out of windows. > But Clapton's failure to create great art in this case is not an > indicator that he purposefully created crap just take advantage of the > situation for nothing but personal monetary gain. Using the song to promote the movie? Using the death to promote the song? > >There was nothing personal about Clapton's song. > > Bullshit. It was extremely personal, just not very well executed. OK, there was nothing personal IN Clapton's song. > >It was engineered for universal appeal. > > Your bias seems more against the popularity and sales figures of the > artist and song than the processes by and reasons for the creation of > the artwork. I think you're trying to paint me with a brush already dipped in a color you don't like instead of actually looking at what color this should be. First, this isn't an artwork. It does not evoke emotion through a display of mastery of a craft (except perhaps the craft of marketting, but I don't think anyone has used that craft to evoke anything other than mild nausea). It is, at best, a craftwork. Second, the popularity is totally unrelated to the fact that it was crafted for universal appeal. Lots of unpopular stuff is engineered for universal appeal. If this was such a personal song that related so closely to the death of his son, why does it not mention any particular facts about his son or even himself in the song? It seemed darn important to him to bring up the fact that his son died every time he appeared on television promoting the song, but to leave that out of the primary vehicle by which he might express his the loss of his son any explicit mention of the loss of HIS SON must necessarily have been calculated. > >An "artist" (or musical performer, in this case) can control whether or > >not their work is pimped to every video and television market on Earth. > > You're just bitching about differences in degree again. Whether Robyn > pimps his art to the few people that are interested and Clapton pimps > his to a larger audience, there's no fucking difference. He's still > making a buck off it. Did Robyn issue a press release about his father's death and the forthcoming single about it? I don't think so. Robyn passively mentions the meaning of the song when asked. Clapton used the death as a marketting tool. That's not just a difference in degree, that's a difference in tactic and tact. > >And Clapton made damned sure everyone KNEW that it was about his dead > >son. > > And Robyn hasn't made it well aware what "The Yip Song" was about? When asked, he's told. He didn't put a sticker on the promo. > >There was no attempt at all to let the song stand on its own as a > >creative work. The emotional ploy was central to the marketting of his > >product. > > More twisted speculation about another human being's motivations with > absolutely no basis in reality. Only someone with an extreme prejudice > would make these judgements. I think the prejudice in your statements is much more clear than any prejudice you're reading into mine. I'm not speculating about the press releases or the notes sent along with the video. Those things existed and were created for a reason. You want to believe that I'm being ugly or mean, but you're denying very basic facts here in order to maintain that view. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:48:20 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip Quoting "Jason R. Thornton" : > At 02:40 AM 10/24/2003 +0200, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: > > >AFAIK that's pretty much straight on and even seems to the the > common > >assessment of what happened. > > "Straight on" based on what? Nothing but sick, petty > speculation and ugly, > baseless assertions about Clapton's intentions. The idea that > he was > exploiting the situation in any way is ludicrous. I can understand writing a song about his son's death: he's a musician, that's what musicians do. I can understand thinking, well, I should record this - as a keepsake, as a gift for his mother or siblings, etc. I can understand thinking, I should release this - maybe it will help others with their pain. But: after that, I wonder. I should think even the *idea* of appearing to profit from the situation would have given him pause - - at least enough to, say, release it only on a charitable special title or something. It goes further, though: it became the (how-do-you-say) emphasis track, with video and all that era's promotional propaganda...all of which prominently featured (as Jeme said) the fact of the song's inspiration, as marketing hook. I thought (and think) Clapton's career since...well, a long time ago...is a festering pile of liquid flatulence, with that "Look Ma I'm falling asleep" version of "Layla" that completely eviscerates the original's passion as the primary offender. So I wasn't exactly scanning the press and scouting out websites to find out info about Clapton's recordings...yet I knew the story of the song. Why? Because it had the fuck promoted out of it, that's how. If you still think, well, that's no different from other artists using their pain to further their recording careers, visualize Clapton sitting in a marketing meeting as suits who could care less about him personally solicitously pretend to give a crap, and ask the former "God" whether this particular angle, this particular approach, this particular image evocative of your dead son, Mr. Clapton Sir, would best help push more units of this saccharine piece of drivel. Clapton was already a star; he didn't really need to go out and hawk souvenirs of his son's death like a poverty-stricken itinerant snake-oil salesman...but there he was, milking tears from his eyes on MTV in between various breasts and explosions. > I chose the more optimistic path, and definitely am not going > to pass that > sort of judgement on an obviously suffering human being without > some pretty > substantial evidence about his intentions to back it up. One usually judges intentions by results - since people's thoughts and emotions are otherwise opaque to us. And I say if Clapton had more moral character, he would have told the marketing people to go stuff themselves. > He was hurting, wrote a song about it, and a lot of people > obviously > related to it, or just felt sorry for him, and purchased it. > It became popular, and Clapton felt validated that > he could > connect to an audience with whom he could share his emotional > turmoil. It kind of makes my skin crawl to think of mobilizing the entire record industry to see whether people might feel sorry for me. And I don't want to criticize *you*...but "validated" and "connect" strike me as the sort of needy, Oprah-esque psychobabble that, one would hope, genuine pain reveals as hopelessly inadequate to the situation. Again, it's not writing or recording the song itself, it's Clapton's then-central position in popular music and the marketing of the song *as souvenir of his grief* that pissed me off. And if Robyn Hitchcock had had a giant hit months before, and then showed up hawking "The Yip Song" with saccharine images from a movie and going on and on about his father (and of course if the song itself were a mawkish piece of tripe), I'd feel the same way about him. Only I'd be much more disappointed, since Hitchcock's always been the superior artist. Clapton's a fine technician, and he had a run of good records...but you'll notice, he always had incredibly talented collaborators, who I think helped bring out his best. Layla, the album, is the piece of work it is because of those collaborators, and because it reads like a genuine response to emotional trauma. That trauma, though, was beneath the surface, and not as severe (ultimately, an ill-fated love affair is *always* the stuff of popular song), and therefore I don't see any comparison in terms of emotional exploitation. The more I think about it, the more I think the blatant lack of subtlety, both in song and marketing, is what irks me. Clapton and Reprise acted as emotional puppetmasters, yanking on my heartstrings and telling me to dance dammit, aren't you normal, why aren't you wallowing in grief at THE DEATH OF A BEAUTIFUL INNOCENT CHILD you creep? ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb :: --Batman ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:00:51 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: unreleased wishlist Quoting ross taylor : > >From Steve Hoffman Forum: > > >From the Austin American Statesman newspaper today: > > 15 greatest albums that have never > been released on CD > > The Beatles, 'Meet the Beatles' > (Capitol, 1964 Oh come on...this is here only on a technicality. Every track on it has been released: burn your own. Totally different from, say, _The Name of This Band..., which you have to first digitize from vinyl: way more work with lower quality. > Martha and the Muffins, 'This is the > Ice Age' (Virgin/Dindisc, 1981) Right on! I'm surprised the Canadian national arts board or whatever hasn't insisted this be released. If all you remember is "Echo Beach," this one's a fine, subtle record, with keyboard sounds that kind of remind me of Mike Thorne's work on Wire's _Chairs Missing_. A couple of tracks are available on a compilation - available on EMusic, in fact - althogh I haven't heard it, so I can't vouch for their being original versions... > I'd add > "These Things Too" by Tom Rapp. I thought I read that a lot of Rapp's material was being reissued. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb :: --Batman ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 13:20:41 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Prince (that's what he's called again, right?) Miles: >>Anyway, I could swear I remember running out of room when I tried to >>transfer TNOTBITH from vinyl to disc, but that might have been on a >>74-minute disc instead of an 80-minute one, and in my memory, I thought it >>was over 80 minutes instead of over 74. At any rate, it'd be silly to argue that >>you *didn't* manage to get it all on one disc. :-) You can argue that quite effectively, because I didn't. I dunno what I was thinking before. I burned it as a two-disc set. Digitized from cassette, no less. Between that and referring to "New Feeling" as unreleased, I've said almost nothing correct about that record whatsoever. Sheesh. >>Speaking of Prince -- wow, I can't imagine my collection without that massive >>batch of Prince albums, and I even have mostly good things to say about the >>ones with copyright dates in the '90s. Need some guidance/sampler help >>there, Rex? First, stupid trivia: although I don't own the Prince Hits / B-Sides comp as recommended by Ken, I do have 20 or so copies of the CD my old band put out in 1994, and if you scan the barcode on the back of that disc, it'll read as if it is that Prince record. I don't recall why we thought we needed a barcode-- to confer legitimacy on our little self -release, maybe, and yes, that's five flavors of sad-- but I was there when the artist picked up the first disc nearby, scanned the barcode, and added it to the layout. I'd probably ask for a Springsteen Starter Kit from you before a Prince one. I know Prince is (was), like, a genius and stuff, but I feel like I've heard plenty of his stuff passively over the years... I guess my take on him is similar to what a few folks around here think about Dylan: glad he exists, accept that he's a major talent, have heard enough of him to decide I don't find him that compelling to me personally. I rarely really enjoy music that's hyper-sexual in nature. Which may be revealing something about myself that's better left unsaid, but now that we know the details of how Jeme waxes his pole I think we're well beyond that. Back in college I do remember listening to my girlfriend's cassette of Sign {peace symbol} the Times and enjoying it a lot. I think I probably would have picked up a few used Prince CD's by now except that the ones you see in the used bin are overwhelmingly the ones you don't want, so I think at some point I started reflexively not even looking at used Prince records and have probably passed up a few good ones without noticing it. - -Rex "but I do have that Tom Jones/Art of Noise version of 'Kiss'" Broome ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 13:47:14 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip At 12:45 PM 10/24/2003 -0700, Capuchin wrote: >Degree? Yes, degree. >He was using the death of his son to sell tickets to someone else's movie! >OR >He was using a movie about drug addicts to sell his song! That's your inane dichotomy, and hardly the only way to look at it. Sell, sell, sell, sell, fucking sell. Get off your stupid anti-marketing kick. A song takes on a life of its own above and beyond its original intent when it enters the public sphere. That the lyrics were vague enough to work well in another piece of art, a film, and that the song was used in it is hardly a condemnation at all. >That's not just degree, that's a whole different approach... a crass, >money-grubbing approach. It's exactly the same as Robyn's approach. Hitchcock released his work into the marketplace, and in doing such, sold a product to the general public and profited from the death of his father. No fucking difference. Robyn's as crass and money-grubbing as Clapton in that regard. >Whereas Clapton's lyric isn't interesting to anyone. Except for the millions that purchased the fucking song and liked it. Or are they not anyone to you, because you think of yourself as so much more highly evolved than them? >Have you HEARD The Yip Song? It's about a man fading between images of >his own hospitalization and the image of Vera Lynn juxtaposed with Nine >Inch Nails whilst a dog yips. I'd say that's a pretty unique experience. Did you not read what I wrote? Did I not say each individual's experiences are unique? The death of a father is hardly unique. Nor are hallucinations when under massive amounts of medication. But, the specifics are. >Clapton doesn't describe HIS experience. He describes generic popularized >versions of the common death-of-a-loved-one experience. In touching upon what he saw as universal themes, and using popular imagery, he does try to describe both his personal feelings and those shared with others who have gone through similar experiences. Who says he has to describe his experience in detail to the degree you desire? Or that the song even work well? Just because he doesn't do it in a manner you like or are moved by does not mean he was exploiting the situation. He and Robyn took different lyrical approaches, but that doesn't prove or even remotely suggest that one was exploiting a death, and the other not. >Clapton didn't write about falling out of windows. Not specifically, no. >Using the song to promote the movie? The use of a song in a movie is not necessarily for promotion. >Using the death to promote the song? He told people exactly why he wrote the song. And it was true. >OK, there was nothing personal IN Clapton's song. Your opinion, nothing more. It was personal to him. It seems quite obviously personal to me. I just think the lyrics are weak. That doesn't make Clapton a money-grubbing bastard, though. Just a sucky lyricist. >I think you're trying to paint me with a brush already dipped in a color >you don't like instead of actually looking at what color this should be. Which color would that be? >First, this isn't an artwork. It does not evoke emotion through a display >of mastery of a craft (except perhaps the craft of marketting, but I don't >think anyone has used that craft to evoke anything other than mild >nausea). It is, at best, a craftwork. It is artwork in the sense that it is an attempt to evoke emotion through a display of craft. It may not be "good" art in your or my eyes, but it's still art. You focusing on marketing is simply silly. But quite telling, and not at all unexpected. You're really just pissed off that corporations were involved, aren't you? If Robyn, in an interview, tells you what his song is about, in other words advertises it to the general population in a publication designed to promote and explore his industry, knowing that potential record buyers are going to be reading it, is that not marketing as well? It is as much as anything Clapton did. >If this was such a personal song that related so >closely to the death of his son, why does it not mention any particular >facts about his son or even himself in the song? Personal and literal are two very different words. >It seemed darn important >to him to bring up the fact that his son died every time he appeared on >television promoting the song, but to leave that out of the primary >vehicle by which he might express his the loss of his son any explicit >mention of the loss of HIS SON must necessarily have been calculated. Oh, that is just so stupid. Just because the lyrics were not specific about details does not mean the feelings he was attempting to convey were not those connected to his son's death. True, the lyrics were no better than a high school freshman's poem about the death of a parent. But the attempt to create art and share it with an audience was genuine, not at all calculated. As genuine as anything Robyn has done. If anything, Robyn's song seems more calculated and crass, because "The Yip Song" sounds like he's making a joke about the whole situation his father went through. Did you ever stop to think that it was darn important for Clapton to mention it because his son's death was darn important to him? >Did Robyn issue a press release about his father's death and the >forthcoming single about it? I don't think so. Did he mention it to the press? I think so. Written or spoken, not a huge degree of difference. >Robyn passively mentions the meaning of the song when asked. Clapton used >the death as a marketting tool. You're just splitting hairs. So, Clapton felt more comfortable telling people what his song was about. Big freakin' deal. Robyn wasn't forced to answer questions about his song's meaning in interviews. Musicians do interviews to promote their work. Guess what? The man you're deifying does just this. Actively. >That's not just a difference in degree, that's a difference in tactic and >tact. Or so you'd like to believe, because you can't get past your hero-worship and knee-jerk hatred of anything mainstream. >I think the prejudice in your statements is much more clear than any >prejudice you're reading into mine. That you think you're better than me and everyone else hardly surprises me. >I'm not speculating about the press releases or the notes sent along with >the video. Those things existed and were created for a reason. You just have an extremely limited, biased perception of what those reasons might be. Robyn's answers to questions that he know would be published in publications designed to help sell records is just as telling. >You want to believe that I'm being ugly or mean, but you're denying very >basic facts here in order to maintain that view. You mistake your opinions for "fact," as you so often do. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:19:40 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip At 02:48 PM 10/24/2003 -0500, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >But: after that, I wonder. I should think even the *idea* of >appearing to profit from the situation would have given him pause >- at least enough to, say, release it only on a charitable >special >title or something. I truly don't understand what makes this situation different from selling and promoting any other semi-autobiographical piece of art. People write and sell songs about the deaths of friends and relatives, and much less extreme tragedies, in their lives all the time. And they make money off them. And they advertise the availability of their art for sale. Had Clapton known the sort of reaction he'd get, the misinterpretations of his actions that would arise, perhaps he would have acted slightly differently. I would think a calculating bastard would be shrewd enough to not make any conscious attempt to exploit obvious. > So I wasn't >exactly scanning the press and scouting out websites to find out >info about Clapton's recordings...yet I knew the story of the >song. Why? Because it had the fuck promoted out of it, that's how. Clapton's more popular, and his experiences are more likely to become public knowledge. Either way, both Clapton and Hitchcock are telling a group of consumers the motivations behind their creation of a piece of art in some fashion or another. >Clapton was already a star; he didn't >really need to go out... That he was already a star, and needs more money like he needs a hole in the head leads me to believe that the popularity of the song wasn't a marketing gimmick, and wasn't an attempt to cash-in on his son's death. >One usually judges intentions by results - since people's >thoughts >and emotions are otherwise opaque to us. I try to judge intentions by actions, and I see nothing in Clapton's particularly sinister in this instance. >It kind of makes my skin crawl to think of mobilizing the entire >record industry to see whether people might feel sorry for me. Well, I'm not saying that's what he did. He did what he always does - made music, released it and sold it. >And >I don't want to criticize *you*...but "validated" and "connect" >strike me as the sort of needy, Oprah-esque psychobabble that, >one >would hope, genuine pain reveals as hopelessly inadequate to the >situation. Maybe that did sound a bit psychobabblish. But, for lack of a better word, I think every artist is trying to "connect" with an audience in some manner, to relay something. All I mean by "validated" is that it can be rewarding for an artist to have an audience like, appreciate, be touched by, be moved by, a piece of art. And that so many people did seem to like it probably convinced him it was much better than it was. >Again, it's not writing or recording the song itself, it's >Clapton's then-central position in popular music and the >marketing >of the song *as souvenir of his grief* that pissed me off. Souvenir, ode, tribute... I think you have to be pissed off ahead of time to call it a "souvenir." Clapton's centralness made the "marketing" more noticeable to more people. That's all. But, writing the song about a death in the family and selling it is not at all a strange thing for a musician to do. Nor is telling a lot of people about that death, because people do tend to dwell on such tragedies. >And if Robyn Hitchcock had had a giant hit months before, and >then >showed up hawking "The Yip Song" with saccharine images from a >movie and going on and on about his father (and of course if the >song itself were a mawkish piece of tripe), I'd feel the same way >about him. Only I'd be much more disappointed, since Hitchcock's >always been the superior artist. The suckiness of Clapton's song is the only thing that bugs me about it. But that it sucks does not make his motivations different to those of a far superior artist. As a Hitchcock fan, and a member of a smaller audience, I was well informed about what "The Yip Song" was written about. The machinery may not have been in as high of a gear, but the motor was still running. >Clapton's a fine technician, and >he had a run of good records...but you'll notice, he always had >incredibly talented collaborators, who I think helped bring out >his best. True. My favorite thing Clapton ever did was "While My Guitar Gently Weeps." - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 13:28:26 -0800 From: "Brian" Subject: Re: unreleased wishlist Soft Boys: Two Halves For The Price Of One (especially Lope At The Hive) Portland Arms RH: Mossy Liquor Others: Jazz- Cedar Walton "Animation" Captain Sensibles 1st 2 albums Local Heroes SW9 "Drip Dry Zone" It amazes me I can't think of anymore right now. What ever happened to the Live Soft Boys San Fran album? - -- Brian nightshadecat@mailbolt.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 13:29:32 -0800 From: "Brian" Subject: Re: unreleased wishlist Oh and all 3 Fingerprintz albums. - -- Brian nightshadecat@mailbolt.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:07:10 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: The Name of this Thread is... I forget... > >>I instantly think of Dylan, Tom Waits and Costello as far as >>>musicians who shouldn't die, but I'd have to work to figure out a >>>whole top 5. Beck, Andy Partridge, Rufus Wainwright, Thurston Moore? >>>PJ Harvey? Bjork? Dunno. > >Hmmm. Interesting. I've bagged on Wainwright before, but while I'm not >going to do that right now, I am surprised at how quickly he's climbed that >high into your personal panoply of indispensible musicians. He's on what, >his third album? Admittedly that does constitute a career in this day and >age, but I don't think I've ever glommed onto an emerging artist that >strongly that quickly... at least not for many many years. Well, the point partially *is* that he only has three albums. He's still growing, he has a lot *more* albums in him, and I would be very sad to lose those. As I've said before, I mourn celebrity deaths primarily based on the loss of their future art. Thus, I worry about Beck, Bjork and PJ Harvey more than, say, Keith Richards or Ray Davies, even if those guys have given me more happiness over the years. And yes, Jeme is just yanking his anti-corporate pud again and I agree with what Thornton says about Clapton. Except I don't even think it's all that bad a song. A few skewed chord changes in there keep things mildly interesting. Further note: I find it especially irksome seeing the song's "universality" being criticized, when really, broadening one's personal experiences enough for others to relate is a major trick of being a songwriter. I think that if I tried writing a batch of songs, this would be a notable creative obstacle for me. The air outside looks unnaturally orange-ish and there's ash all over my car, yet I don't see any smoke clouds anywhere. Hm. So many fires lately.... Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:36:39 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Confessions of a feg monkey... >just that The Allman Brothers and >Santana are stoner noodlers rather than serious musicians. Jesus. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:16:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > At 12:45 PM 10/24/2003 -0700, Capuchin wrote: > >He was using the death of his son to sell tickets to someone else's movie! > >OR > >He was using a movie about drug addicts to sell his song! > > That's your inane dichotomy, and hardly the only way to look at it. That's the purpose of sending out promo copies of a music video to hundreds of stations and networks. That's the purpose of putting clips from a movie into a video. Please, explain what the other way to look at it might be. > Sell, sell, sell, sell, fucking sell. Get off your stupid > anti-marketing kick. The marketting is exactly what makes this crass. The song was pitched with death. Profitting from the death is icky. Purposely spreading information about the death in order to increase profits is sick. > A song takes on a life of its own above and beyond its original intent > when it enters the public sphere. That the lyrics were vague enough to > work well in another piece of art, a film, and that the song was used in > it is hardly a condemnation at all. The song was put into the film before the song was released. There was no public sphere influence. > It's exactly the same as Robyn's approach. Hitchcock released his work > into the marketplace, and in doing such, sold a product to the general > public and profited from the death of his father. No fucking > difference. Robyn's as crass and money-grubbing as Clapton in that > regard. Robyn didn't use the death of his father to sell the song. Robyn used the death of his father to help him create the song, but not to sell it. It wasn't part of the packaging. > >Whereas Clapton's lyric isn't interesting to anyone. > > Except for the millions that purchased the fucking song and liked it. I don't remember anyone commenting on their interest in the lyrics. I remember things like, "I really like this song... did you know his son died?" and "I bought that song... the one about Eric Clapton's son." and even "That song really gets to me... I heard it's about his son falling out of a window." > Or are they not anyone to you, because you think of yourself as so much > more highly evolved than them? More of your harsh and totally false assumptions about me, Jason. No basis in fact at all. > >Have you HEARD The Yip Song? It's about a man fading between images of > >his own hospitalization and the image of Vera Lynn juxtaposed with Nine > >Inch Nails whilst a dog yips. I'd say that's a pretty unique > >experience. > > Did you not read what I wrote? Did I not say each individual's > experiences are unique? The death of a father is hardly unique. Nor > are hallucinations when under massive amounts of medication. But, the > specifics are. And so what Robyn wrote has a purpose because it is about the unique specifics of the experience. Clapton made no such effort and added absolutely zero to the public understanding of death and dying. > Who says he has to describe his experience in detail to the degree you > desire? Or that the song even work well? Just because he doesn't do it > in a manner you like or are moved by does not mean he was exploiting the > situation. It is no proof at all. It's not even evidence. But had he made even the tiniest effort to bring the specific experience into the work, it could be at least circumstantial evidence that he wasn't just shooting for mass appeal and the highest sales possible. > >Using the song to promote the movie? > > The use of a song in a movie is not necessarily for promotion. The song was put in the movie before the song was released. Someone had to shop the song to the producers/director in order to get it into the film. > >Using the death to promote the song? > He told people exactly why he wrote the song. And it was true. He sent promotional material about the death of his son along with the single to radio and television stations. > >First, this isn't an artwork. It does not evoke emotion through a > >display of mastery of a craft (except perhaps the craft of marketting, > >but I don't think anyone has used that craft to evoke anything other > >than mild nausea). It is, at best, a craftwork. > > It is artwork in the sense that it is an attempt to evoke emotion > through a display of craft. It may not be "good" art in your or my > eyes, but it's still art. I don't think anyone would agree that this work displays the mastery of ANY craft. Mastery is a prerequisite to merit art. > You focusing on marketing is simply silly. The marketting is exactly what makes it sick, sir. Simply writing about an event like that makes sense. Even publishing it is understandable. Using the death to promote sales is nauseating. > But quite telling, and not at all unexpected. You're really just pissed > off that corporations were involved, aren't you? You're not making any sense, Jason. Put aside your ridiculous preconceived notions and practice some reading comprehension. > If Robyn, in an interview, tells you what his song is about, in other > words advertises it to the general population in a publication designed > to promote and explore his industry, knowing that potential record > buyers are going to be reading it, is that not marketing as well? It is > as much as anything Clapton did. If you're asked what something means to you and you answer honestly, that's expected and, in some cases, even admirable. If you come out and tell people about the rough bits of your life when they don't ask, you're seeking attention. If you do that in conjunction with a publicity tour, you're exploiting those events. > >Did Robyn issue a press release about his father's death and the > >forthcoming single about it? I don't think so. > > Did he mention it to the press? I think so. Written or spoken, not a > huge degree of difference. It's not just degree, it's a different category. See above. > Guess what? The man you're deifying does just this. Actively. Who am I deifying? > Or so you'd like to believe, because you can't get past your > hero-worship and knee-jerk hatred of anything mainstream. Golly, I don't think anyone would mistake the appreciation I have for some of Robyn's stuff to be "hero-worship". In fact, I think I'm on record as saying that when he tries, he fails miserably. His attempts at straight-forward lyrics just plain suck. Do many people tell you that their hero sucks? You're trying to force this into sharper contrast than it is. And I certainly don't think I have any kind of knee-jerk hatred of anything mainstream. Hell, I bought the first Green Day album. I'm sure there are other fine examples, too. Probably a perusal of recent posts will turn up one or three. I don't think you know the difference between your own fantasies about who I am and the reality. In fact, I don't think any real people are the absurd caricature that you're describing. I suggest you rub elbows with a few more people outside your social sphere and see if you can't gain a better perspective. > >I think the prejudice in your statements is much more clear than any > >prejudice you're reading into mine. > > That you think you're better than me and everyone else hardly surprises > me. I have no idea where you got that. But we'll just leave it there. > >I'm not speculating about the press releases or the notes sent along > >with the video. Those things existed and were created for a reason. > > You just have an extremely limited, biased perception of what those > reasons might be. Uh huh. I have this crazy idea that promotional materials are created for promotional purposes. I must be fuckin' nuts. > Robyn's answers to questions that he know would be published in > publications designed to help sell records is just as telling. Actually, there's a secondary effect here. Robyn certainly has been the subject of interviews that were arranged in order to generate some press coverage that might sell his albums or get people into his shows. No doubt about that. Then the interviewer, who is usually being told to do the interview in these circumstances rather than seeking it himself, has to find some "angle" in order to create what they believe is a compelling read. So when, in the course of the obligatory questions about recent material, Robyn mentions his father dying, the interviewer latches onto this because of the obvious play on public sympathy. The information makes it to print. With Clapton, the fact of his son dying was part of the material sent to the interviewers beforehand. It's like showing up on The Tonight Show with a "Ask Me About My Dead Boy" pin on his lapel. > >You want to believe that I'm being ugly or mean, but you're denying > >very basic facts here in order to maintain that view. > > You mistake your opinions for "fact," as you so often do. Actually, I was referring to the fact that promotional material featured the death of his son. That's not my opinion, bub. But if it makes it easier for you to keep your existing worldview by believing it to be so, I'm sure that's exactly what you'll do. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #395 ********************************