THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: a pack of wolves on 21 May 2005, 06:03
-
To me, politics are inextricably entwined with all forms of art. In fact, the political dimension is an essential element. So I was wondering what other people feel about the relationship between music and politics. Do you like overtly political lyrics? What do you feel about more subtle political aspects to music, if anything? Do you personally feel that music can be seperated from politics?
A lot of my conversations about music are with people from the same overtly-political musical culture, so I'm interested in what you guys coming from a broad range of perspectives think about these things.
-
Politics in songs is fine, but I always get pissed off when people just sing / rap about 'political things' just to sound cool. Just yelling "George Bush is dick!" or "Corporations are totally, like, evil" or other stupid simplifications get incredibly boring. For example, the new System of a Down song. i think it's a new one anyway, I can't stand SOAD, so I don't really know. One of my friends was listening to it the other day, and the chorus was something along the lines of "Why did the president start the war? Why does he always send the poor?". Please. Let's have some subtly, or at least a well thought out, cohesive, individual perpective.
-
I can see where your coming from in that some of my fave bands like A Perfect Circle have definite political overtones. However i think alot more of my music is based on the human experience and emotions which then again is inextricably is linked to politics. As every song is written by a human person it always faces bias in the fact that the said persons thoughts experiences and of course political beleifs are somehow infused into their artwork. So although a song may not be political from the outset or may even be about something totally unrelated to politics (eg a song about relatioships) it still has a writer somewhere with human bias and beleifs which are of ourse influenced by their political background
-
Sometimes there is just no damn relation at all. But then a lot of bands use their music to express their views or their ideas.
I think it can easily be seperated. Looking at the first wave of Black Metal, even when the scene followed the Neo-Nazi line, the music didn't. It was still just Anti-Christian, Satanistic, Grim and Nerco, etc. Guys like Varg are racist fucks beyond question...but Burzum wasn't racist. Still the way it is today in some parts, the people are racist, but the music isnt.
But then you have NSBM, well the name speaks for it itself really.
I listen to music that ranges form all types. With any politics to strong left wing views to full some on NS stuff. Including a few nihilistic/etc things in the middle. I'm not bothered by it, it's not going to change my views on anything really. Though I have a few issues with actively supporting (eg buying) NS music just because of my own views.
Some bands just cant find a good way to express their views for love nor money and sometimes really cringe worthy stuff can be off putting. So sometimes a little line here and there is better than a whole album full of the stuff.
I'm trying to think now if anyone has really done "fair and balanced" view stuff...writing songs that show the politics of different sides together and fairly...hmm but I can't think of anything.
-
Music can easily be a-political, but it can never be a-philosophical. I think that's the difference I'd make. For example, outside the National Socialist Black Metal scene pretty much all black metal is a-political in a classic sense, and I doubt most in the scene would see anti-christian polemics as a political statement. Indeed, black metal was pretty much founded on an a-political basis: it was one of the things that made the still bleeding genre split with death metal in the kate eighties/early nineties so violent. Black metal purists cast death metal that dealt with politics as 'life metal' and essentially ostracised it, and the rest of the genre by association. Still, by a general rule, metal is normally not overtly political, and where it is, it is most often in the realms of philosophy rather than society. Even the aforementioned NSBM as often as not doesn't make really overt political statements, except in the odd song. Most politics in metal is on a more subliminal level. For example, Iron Maiden's '2 Minutes to Midnight' carries basically the same message as Bob Dylan's 'Masters of War', without actually saying so unless you read it/hear it properly and know a few basic facts (Such as what the title means). That said, there are the odd few bands/songs in metal proper that are overtly political or have some overtly political songs: Napalm death are a common example, and every single band Martin Walkyier has been in has ended up churning out album after album of his dense and allegorical mixture of left wing working class politics, ecosensitivity and paganism. Other bands have the odd song: Edge of Sanity placed 'Enter Chaos', a brutally vicous and strong attack on gun ownership (particularly American gun ownership: "Gun propaganda, from the 'land of the free', the land of pain and misery!") in the middle of an album that was otherwise packed full of classic mopey Dan Swano existentialism and pure fantasy/sci-fi.
Anyway, that was a bit rambling. I do like political lyrics, btw. As long as I agree with the politics: I can't stand 'Meat is Still Murder' by Propaghandi, much as I like a lot of their other stuff, and even though their musicianship is insanely excellent, I find it hard to swallow Arghoslent's blatant racism.
EDIT: I do like SOAD. The song actually says 'Why doesn't the President fight the war, why does he always send the poor', and I think it's a valid point. It also lead to a fun debate with my mates last night about how effective a soldier GW Bush would be.
-
There's more to politics than lyrical content though. The way in which the music is treated as a product, attitudes to gender and sexuality, methods of performance, and has been pointed out the political environment the artist comes from... all these add political dimensions. I can't think of a piece of art which is apolitical. I can think of very few things which are myself.
-
To be blunt, that's a wanky socialist student view of politics that I don't really ascribe to. Politics and personal philosophy are seperate but related things. There is no political statement being made in a My Dying Bride song, for example. Just 'fuck, I'm depressed'. The band don't wear black clothes because they're showing their support with the waffen SS or mourning the death of socialism. Rhapsody don't sing about the rain of a thousand flames as a metaphor for the US bombing of Afghanistan and Viking Skull don't set themselves on fire during concerts in sympathy for buddhist monks.
-
Hey Khar chill out a little .... I can sort of see both sides of the fence I mean the lyrics may not be directly related to politics as such; in fact as i said before i think most songs are more bound to human experiences (don't think i can find a broader mroe ambiguous sounding term for it lol) but that every person does put some form of bias into their artwork. So although not all songs are Political, they still have SOME political influences on them in the form of the artists bias. And don't call social students wanky dammit ........ *sulks in the corner* You'll be sorry when i finish my Law and Public Policy degree and take over the world :-P
-
I wasn't, just that viewpoint. Hell, I'm an art student. I can agree with your point pretty much though.
The thing is, anything more is over-analysis: I'm big on the idea that one should try and see something as what the author intended it to be, rather than making up your own meaning to it.
-
I can see where you're coming from Khar with the first part, although I'd argue that that's a very narrow view of what can be meant by the term 'political'. And given the examples you use you're still talking about what could be called overt politics. My Dying Bride aren't making an overt political statement with their clothes or lyrics, no. But their music is sold, and sold in a certain manner. That's political. You might call it a wanky left-wing student view, and I hold my hand up to at least those last two terms, but there it is.
So you ascribe to the view that the author imparts meaning in the role of the 'author-god' then?
-
I really, really wouldn't see that as a political statement. Of course, it is if you want to take it that way, but the band do not mean it to be a political statement. They're not selling out to the man by releasing albums, just as, say Vlad Tepes and Mütiilation weren't saying anything about capitalism when they released all their stuff on ultra-limited vinyl and cassettes. If the band care about how they put out their music, then that's a statement. If it's not it's not.
I take no particularly fixed point in the whole author/text/reader thingumy. However, I definitely believe that the main focus lies in author and text, with the reader as an important, but always tertiary party. The Lord of the Rings was not a nazi tract, or an Anti-nuclear war novel, and no matter how hard you try to read it as such, you will always be incorrect. I do however see a value in examining the subconscious indicators that work their way into the text (colours, use of spaces etc. that the author might not have considered consciously but make a definite psychological statement).
-
The worst political poser wannabe mofos = Pennywise
-
I really, really wouldn't see that as a political statement. Of course, it is if you want to take it that way, but the band do not mean it to be a political statement. They're not selling out to the man by releasing albums, just as, say Vlad Tepes and Mütiilation weren't saying anything about capitalism when they released all their stuff on ultra-limited vinyl and cassettes. If the band care about how they put out their music, then that's a statement. If it's not it's not.
I take no particularly fixed point in the whole author/text/reader thingumy. However, I definitely believe that the main focus lies in author and text, with the reader as an important, but always tertiary party. The Lord of the Rings was not a nazi tract, or an Anti-nuclear war novel, and no matter how hard you try to read it as such, you will always be incorrect. I do however see a value in examining the subconscious indicators that work their way into the text (colours, use of spaces etc. that the author might not have considered consciously but make a definite psychological statement).
I didn't say it was a political statement, at least not consciously. I'd be very surprised if it was. But it is nonetheless political.
So I take it you have very little interest in the whole concept of intertextuality then?
-
Intertextuality in what way? Surely intertextuality is in the hands of the author: it's up to them what to reference and what to be influenced by. I don't see your implication?
-
Intertextuality can never be controlled by the author as they have no control over what other texts the reader has read. They have a certain amount of control in terms of which category their work is placed (creating a painting will no doubt create very different intertextual responses than a short film), but no total control. And of course they can't control what has gone before them in that particular sphere. Barthes argues in 'The Death of the Author' that in the relationships between the texts the reader (or 'scriptor' as he calls them) meaning is created, not as something handed down from the author (in the role of the 'author-god') or something decided upon consciously by the reader. For Barthes, all meaning arises from intertextuality.
-
Ah, we have a different conception of intertextuality. I see intertextuality as the influence upon and refrencing of texts by the author.
As I said, feel free to interpret any text however you want, but as far as I am concerned, you will be wrong. I am a writer, an artist and a musician, and I know quite well what I want my texts to mean, what I am trying to imply etc, and whilst peoples personal responses and what they see in something are interesting, I find it disconcerting when people try and see something in my work that is totally off the mark, and I have been known to correct them. There is a difference anyway between conjuring up sub-meanings or whatever and total intepretation of the text. There's nothing wrong with conjuring up subtexts and whatever, as long as you grasp in your mind what the author was actually trying to do. Hell, I've even done it with my own work on occasion.
There is no way you can divorce a work from the person who created it. That is my view.
-
Ah, interesting. I take the opposite view, I have little interest in the author at all. It's the text that interests me. Trying to deep-mine what they wanted to say I find pointless, I'm only interested in what the text itself is saying.
-
I think I only really catch political undertones when it's blatantly put forth (such as System of a Down or Dead Kennedys), but what I often encounter is criticism of society, which I suppose in turn could be a criticism of politics or ideologies. Take Radiohead, they are very political in my mind, with songs like Electioneering and Fitter Happier, but Hail to the Thief is also political (even if the title weren't). In short I like opinions expressed in a song, but I agree that subtlety is sometimes more powerful than attacking, say, Bush. Another thing is that I think what people really mean when they say for example I hate Bush, is A: I am saying it because I have no opinion really or B: they are essentially going for the man instead of the ball, meaning it's the system they should be criticizing, not the tip of the iceberg.
-
There has always been politics in music to a certain extent (even classical music was often commissioned by politicians, not to mention patriotic marches like Sousa's). Personally, I think the political counterculture really started becoming important in music in the 60s, and frankly, it should have stayed that way. Punk really boiled down ideas to their most simplistic (with the exception, perhaps, of Dead Kennedys, but Jello Biafra is a very political person in general, and has been nominated for several political positions, though he turned them down). Most bands have made at least one or two political songs, but whether they're decent is another story entirely. A good example would be U2; they've made tons, but no one takes Bono seriously (mainly because he's a self-righteous prick). Currently, the most strongly activist music I can think of is, as a rule, industrial...recent albums such as Skinny Puppy's "Greater Wrong of the Right" just furthers my point, but unfortunately industrial is not particularly accessible to the general public, not like, say, John Lennon or Bob Dylan, and thus has only limited effect on a group of people whose political beliefs are already pretty much similar anyways. Radiohead is perhaps the only current pop rock that is strongly political but still accessible to the general public (U2 notwithstanding, U2 are a bunch of pricks).
I really don't forsee another "All Around the Watchtower" or "How Many Roads Must a Man Walk Down" or "Imagine" or something similar in the near future. Which is sad, because our political situation is incredibly unpleasant at the moment. I think people are really just too selfish and cynical to buy into something like that, probably.
-
What in the butt-ass is "All Around The Watchtower"? Anyways, I think that there is some good political music out there but a good portion of it is just bad screamy punk bands yelling about "the system" and "the man". Seems all you have to do these days in a punk band is play power chords and put the word fuck before above statements "Fuck the system! Fuck the man! I hate America! I am so punk!".
Goddam. On the other side though, there are some great political bands. I totally agree about Radiohead. Plus there's the Dead Kennedies, who (though I don't like them all that much) really can rock rebellion. The new Tom Waits album "Real Gone" has some great political stuff on it. And who could forget Patti Smith? Also, Michael Franti is argueably the best political rapper in ever.
-
What in the butt-ass is "All Around The Watchtower"?
No need to be crass, we all make mistakes.
-
khar, the lord of the rings was written during the second world war, gandalf was a metaphor for moses and sauron was a metaphor for hitlet. the hobbits represented the working class and the elves represented the upper class, abandoning middle earth (europe) the first chance that they got. while writing the book, j. r. r. tolkien's sons were in the army getting shot at.
so, i can see why it isn't political or anti anything in any way.
-
What in the butt-ass is "All Around The Watchtower"?
No need to be crass, we all make mistakes.
Especially when we're hungover.
-
All around my hat...
-
I, for one, am in a phase where I find myself tired of every single lyricist who just keeps writing about his or her broken heart, and as such, I find myself gravitating towards bands that do have something political to say, even to the point where I dug out my old Rage Against the Machine albums. In fact, it has gone so far that I am considering just writing a big entry in my Livejournal (of all places) about how people should shut up about their everyday problems, but that would be kind of rude, wouldn't it?
Then again, this is all part of the fact that I am in indignation experiencing a bit of a political rebirth within myself, a development I find most fitting during this coming of legal age; I will have to vote next year, and it is a right, nay, a privilege I intend to use fully.
There are, after all, things that are more important than ourselves.
-
There's more to politics than lyrical content though. The way in which the music is treated as a product, attitudes to gender and sexuality, methods of performance, and has been pointed out the political environment the artist comes from... all these add political dimensions. I can't think of a piece of art which is apolitical. I can think of very few things which are myself.
Oh. That kind of political. If you want to start dragging all that crap under the banner of 'political' well then yeah, sure, everyone who has ever picked up an instrument, let alone recorded and released an album, is making political statements. You bought your guiter? Woah there, That's tacit consent for all capitalist economies and social systems, buddy. So yeah, I have no view on that kind of 'politics' in music, as frankly it's bit "wanky socialist student" as Khar so elequently put it. Normally I find myself under that category, but not this time.
-
I think political songs become much better when they are either very subtle or cryptic enough that the meaning is only obvious when one actually puts some thought into the lyrics.
Except for "America Is Not The World." That song is awesome.
-
All around my hat...
The music police chuckle jocularly at what they believe to be the first subtly placed, opportune Steeleye Span reference ever made. Have a cookie.
Political songs either need, in my mind, to be subtle or be totally in your face, and actually have something to say whilst it's there. There's no real middle ground. Wishy washyness has no place in my view of music.
My favourite explicitly political artists:
Skyclad (duh)
Bob Dylan (Earlier stuff, whilst he was still really angry about everything)
KMFDM (Again, earlier stuff, Angst is my personal favourite album)
Ministry (Either of the 'Bush albums')
Anti-Flag
Propaghandi (some. As said above, I don't always agree with them: which is all damn well and good)
Those are only ones who I'd definitely paint as political bands.
-
I agree with what people are saying about politics having some subtlety - some things get overstated and become fashion statements, not genuine political feelings - I prefer it to have a personal element to it.
That said, that song by The Others 'This is for the Poor' about how rich kids don't have a clue and have no right to listen to their music can fuck RIGHT off - yes, it's political, but in all honesty, if you're someone from a terminally skint background (as am I), you have enough stuff to deal with without some gimp like that claiming to be your spokesperson.
So I guess attempting to be political can backfire, but I'd rather have someone putting some thought into why they're saying what they say.
I think Pulp did more for political music than any other band I can think of at the moment, but maybe that's just me.
-
Is it any coincidence that when Radiohead starting being overtly political, they also started to suck?
-
That said, that song by The Others 'This is for the Poor' about how rich kids don't have a clue and have no right to listen to their music can fuck RIGHT off - yes, it's political, but in all honesty, if you're someone from a terminally skint background (as am I), you have enough stuff to deal with without some gimp like that claiming to be your spokesperson.
Skyclad sing about the crushingness of poverty in a heartfelt manner!!
*beats himself with birch twigs for plugging Skyclad way, way, WAY too much*
-
To be blunt, that's a wanky socialist student view of politics that I don't really ascribe to. Politics and personal philosophy are seperate but related things.
It's kind of scary, but for once I agree with the little metal head. When I compose a piece for piano, I'm borrowing from personal philosophies regarding art itself, but I'm not thinking about politics in the least. In fact, they're the furthest thing from my mind. They'd just get in the way of my production.
Remember kids, not all music has lyrics, so take that into consideration. Music itself makes its own statements.
-
Hey hey hey.
I'm not little! I can even tie my own shoe-laces and everything.
Anyway, this thread is getting a little too anti-marxist. Who wants to bitch about those cuhrazy feminists?
-
Case in point: Godspeed You! Black Emperor.
(EDIT: This should be taken in context with ForteBass' comments, because they'd make no sense as a response to Khar's.)
-
Remember kids, not all music has lyrics, so take that into consideration. Music itself makes its own statements.
. . . And that statement can be political - a case in point being "Fable of Faubus" by Charles Mingus. Now that's the ultimate piece of musical character-assassination. (Yes, I know there's a version with lyrics as well which was the original - but frankly, the version without the lyrics is better.)
-
i like political music although the damn lyrics must be masked under some good metaphore. i mean i can't stand obvious statements like the ones morrisey put out in his last album.
-
khar, the lord of the rings was written during the second world war, gandalf was a metaphor for moses and sauron was a metaphor for hitlet. the hobbits represented the working class and the elves represented the upper class, abandoning middle earth (europe) the first chance that they got.
Apologies in advance if you were being sarcastic, or you meant it was political on a subconcious level. I remember reading somewhere (sorry for not having a source here) that Tokien went out of his way to write the Lord of the Rings without any allegory whatsoever. Unfortunately for him too many people saw the book as being filled with allegory, which annoyed him somewhat, as he was all about creating a myth.
Just as something that seems innocent can be allegory, something that appears as an allegory can be perfectly innocent.
-
A large chunk of the book was completed before the commencement of World War II; if anything, parts of the book (the mechanization of warfare, the destruction of the environment to service the army's needs) would be based on Tolkien's observations during his service with the British Army in World War I, and even then they would have to be subconsciously based on those experiences.
-
Though not a fan of Tolkien's work by any means (especially the last in the trilogy), I'll back up Super here.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/5014/interview.html
3/4 down this interview he states absolutely and completely, "I dislike allegory whenever I smell it." in response to such ideas.
I'm with Khar on this one; if you are going to take Pack's approach you might as well blame teacups for genocide.
-
Going way back towards the start of the thread... I don't mind a slight undertone in my music, be it political or whatever, something that, once you figure out the lyrics, let's you go 'huh' and understand that the artist is talking about bigger things. System are, I feel, a good example of this.
That being said, the new single is a little too much... kind of goes out of its way to make its statement, which makes it come off pretty badly.
-
I blame the guitarist's crappy lyric skills.
-
I'm listening to 'When the President Talks to God' at the moment, and...well, as a statement it's good, but as a song it's really not.
It's like when Bright Eyes plays this at a gig, people cheer for the message, but for the rest of the set they're applauding the music. I know we've already had the debate about that song on Leno, but I thought I'd stick it in as an extra spoke.
Therefore - yay for having an opinion, nay for denegrating the music with putting it across with less subtlety than a brick in the face.
-
I actually dig the music in that song. The lyrics are ham-fisted rubbish, but the music is enjoyable.
-
I'm with Khar on this one; if you are going to take Pack's approach you might as well blame teacups for genocide.
No, that's ridiculous. Saying there's more to a text than what the author said it was about doesn't mean spouting meaningless garbage.
-
I suppose not everyone is a fan of hyperbole.
My point is simply that if people start deciding what your work is about then it is absurd - much like the example I gave is absurd.
-
Why is it absurd to suggest that a text can be read in more ways than those suggested by the author? You're basically arguing that texts should be read in total isolation from each other and the rest of the world, and I don't really see how that's possible.
-
hm, i don´t really talk about politics in music, to me theres lyricly only two kinds of songs. love songs and political songs. And a really blurry line between the two. for example even a songs about drugs or something is political a some level.
and i love SOAD. i think their new single "Bring your own bombs" is good, but not their best song. The "why don´t presidents fight the wars..."part is pretty simple, and SOAD do write some of their lines like that. I think it has a pretty good effect, cus making such a simple line makes everyone get your point right away, making it more powerfull to sing along to. Noone talks shit on lines like "imagine all the people living life in peace" or "give peace a chance"...
...and it does feel really great to sing (along to) political points you agree to. Which System has alot of for me.
-
I am not saying it is absurd that it can be read in different ways, I'm saying that any way you read it other than as it was intented will be absurd; but I will call it wrong if you prefer.
Let's use the misunderstanding above as another example. I meant one thing, you decided I meant something else - to me it is clear that only one person is right. Would you consider us both to be right? Obviously it was possible for what I said to be read in different ways, else there would be no misunderstanding.
-
Pack is right in that no song exists in a bubble; however, one can detract from a piece of writing when one looks for symbolism or allegory where none exists. It's critical analysis, and it's difficult to get the hang of.
-
Pack is right in that no song exists in a bubble; however, one can detract from a piece of writing when one looks for symbolism or allegory where none exists.
-
Yes, yes I did.
-
Yeah, you did!
-
hm, i don´t really talk about politics in music, to me theres lyricly only two kinds of songs. love songs and political songs. And a really blurry line between the two. for example even a songs about drugs or something is political a some level.
What about the hate songs, the descriptive songs and the abstract songs? And I'm sure there's more.
-
I am not saying it is absurd that it can be read in different ways, I'm saying that any way you read it other than as it was intented will be absurd; but I will call it wrong if you prefer.
Let's use the misunderstanding above as another example. I meant one thing, you decided I meant something else - to me it is clear that only one person is right. Would you consider us both to be right? Obviously it was possible for what I said to be read in different ways, else there would be no misunderstanding.
Well, I actually think I did understand you. But anyway. As Johnny C pointed out, this isn't about reading in meaning for the sake of it. There is a vast amount of writing presenting various ways of reading texts which are far from absurd, but also unrelated to the author's intentions. The whole concept of teir being a 'right' reading I would argue is wrong in itself. It's too limiting. It's not that other readings of a text negate each other, what's interesting is that you end up with a multiplicity of meanings. For example, a Marxist reading of a text would pull out different things than a feminist or postcolonial reading, but they don't cancel each other out.
-
Yes, a text can have multiple meanings, but all are intended by the writer. I think what may be happening here is you are looking at it in a "What does this text say to you?" sort of way, while I am trying to take a different view on it (ie "What is this text trying to say?") - certainly something is wrong if we both consider Johnny C's post to be correct.
Anyway, I think we've both made our cases and clearly we won't be progressing any further - peace out! :)
And yes, I do think both the viewpoints are different - but I don't feel like debating that.
-
Meaning is contextual. Is the only valid meaning the one with which it was originally created? If so, then in order to get meaning from an artwork must you wholly understand the context in which it was created? Is it even possible to do this?
-
I never said that. I just said you're going to have to keep in mind the author and the authors intentions. Sometimes the authors intentions is just for you to interpret it in any way you want. But more often than not, this is not the case.
I have particular beef with schools of criticism such as marxist, feminist, national socialist etc. As they are merely concerned with proving definitively that their cause celebre as it were is almost the central element of human existence, creating political implication where, quite simply, none exists.
-
khar, the lord of the rings was written during the second world war, gandalf was a metaphor for moses and sauron was a metaphor for hitlet. the hobbits represented the working class and the elves represented the upper class, abandoning middle earth (europe) the first chance that they got. while writing the book, j. r. r. tolkien's sons were in the army getting shot at.
so, i can see why it isn't political or anti anything in any way.
I really hope you are joking. Oh well, some other people have already addressed Tolkien's negative feelings towards allegory and the fact that the LotR is a myth.
I try to go for balance in my understanding of meaning. A work of art can mean so much more than the artist, from his limited perspective, intentended it to, but it's also very important to know the author's intentions and experience as an aid to realizing the larger meaning.
On the politics thing, I think we might have definitions of politics that vary in scope and inclusiveness.
-
I never said that. I just said you're going to have to keep in mind the author and the authors intentions. Sometimes the authors intentions is just for you to interpret it in any way you want. But more often than not, this is not the case.
I have particular beef with schools of criticism such as marxist, feminist, national socialist etc. As they are merely concerned with proving definitively that their cause celebre as it were is almost the central element of human existence, creating political implication where, quite simply, none exists.
Not really. Can't say anything about NS criticism since I've never read any, and anyone who follows that path would be undoubtedly too stupid to come up with any interesting criticism. But in the case of feminism for example, many feminist readings are trying to bring an examination of the female into prominence when previously it has been left in the background. Obviously that piece of criticism will have that aspect as central, but the whole point is that you don't just read one perspective, or at least you don't have to.
I can see why you personally might think that the author's conception is the most important, but it's not the only standpoint. I really don't care, which is why I read few interviews and can't even name the members of most of my favourite bands.
-
Okay, I was diggin' around in my room today and I came across the short story book I've been reading, and it actually has some interesting stuff to say on the topic of symbolism. Keep in mind that it's discussing the short story form, but that it could easily apply to lyrics.
The ability to recognize and identify symbols requires perception and tact. The great danger facing the student when he first becomes aware of symbolical values is a tendency to run wild - to find symbols everywhere and to read into the details of a story all sorts of fanciful meanings not legitimately supported by it. The beginning reader needs to remember that most stories operate almost wholly at the literal level, and that even in a story like "Tears, Idle Tears" [contained in the book as an example of both symbolism and character] most details are purely literal. A story should not be made the excuse for an exercise in ingenuity. It is better, indeed, to miss the symbolical meanings of a story than to pervert its meaning by discovering symbols which are nonexistent. Better to miss the boat than to jump wildly for it and drown.
Not really on the original topic, but I thought it was neat.
Also, question: How political are Metric? Songs like "Succexxy" and lines like "Every ten-year-old enemy soldier / thinks falling bombs are shooting stars sometimes" are definitely politically-minded, yet so many of the songs seem more about love and social critique. Or is the latter politics?
POLITICS ARE CONFUSING
-
I think stories are perfect excuses for exercises in ingenuity
-
I like when bands try to put out a message, subtle or no.
Some of my favorite bands are all about overtly telling you to start thinking, Against Me for example, another being the Delegates a wonderful wonderful band from Montreal.
Then there are bands like Crass whose political rants all lie in the times and experiences they were facing when they were together.
But what I really like are bands who do manage to subtley tell you whats going on, especially in the public eye.
Best example is The Gorillaz.
These guys came out so advertised and over all mainstream yet at the same time, they manage to get out some pretty decent messages and not with just their music but their videos as well.
The best example of this is the video for 19-2000, they put out a great satire involving the environment, its fantastic.
Ha, Im sure this thread has been dead for a while now, but I'm new so deal with my opinion or deal with...lead?
*bang*