|
Post by Stephanie on Apr 23, 2008 19:07:20 GMT -5
and quite honestly, i dont think anyone since Kurt has hit that depth and clarity in rock music, let alone in pop music. I think Mark is deeper than Kurt, and has been for a long time. And Nick Cave. And lots of others, so many it's pointless for me to start to try and list them. One of the sad things about dying young is that the potential for the deepening of wisdom and the enrichment of the soul that comes with maturity is lost. i think she is hugely self-aware. she has a lifetime of being in the public eye, and a lifetime of media-training which has clearly turned her back on. I don't believe that Britney entirely lacks self-awareness or depth, but I believe she has an excess of neither. That's one of the reasons that I think she's flailing right now, going through the same destructive patterns and ending up with the same destructive sorts of people. She knows enough to know that she wants out, but I don't think she knows exactly out of what, or how, or why. She is not an empowered woman; she has not taken command of her own life. Other people are still in control of her, not her. I think it would be really triumphant to see her take control. And I don't know the latest details of her drama, so who knows, but from what's filtered down to me, it doesn't seem that she's done that yet. i disagree about the Courtney thing. she is a bit of a puppet, and not remotely creative (im thinking- albums helmed/arranged/co-written by Kim Deal, Kurt Cobain, Billy Corgan, Linda Perry). she is, like Britney, primarily a crowd-pleasing performer who gets people in to do the groundwork. Courtney Love invented herself, and enlisted everyone she needed to enlist to bring her visions to life. Britney Spears was invented by other people--and that's exactly what she's rebelling against right now. of course she has depth. i think you're underestimating what it takes to be a child star and to leave all that behind. to be a mother without her children. to love someone who is ultimately destroying you personally and professionally. This was beautifully said, and you're right. (And your love for Britney really shines through ) But I would distinguish between a depth of experience and a depth of awareness, which I still argue that she has not come into yet.
|
|
m
New Recruit
Posts: 0
|
Post by m on Apr 24, 2008 6:41:29 GMT -5
stephanie-
i think you're probably taking this comparison a tad more seriously than i imagined anyone would. but that is what you're here for. and i welcome it here.
my comparison related more to the media whirlwind and self-destruction of a multimillion-selling music star.
as i said earlier, i think perhaps the Marilyn Monroe comparison would've been more appropriate, but this is for popular culture polemic, and to make people think in ways they do not normally choose to think.
so...
you talk about depth in regard to 'maturity'. maturity brings control, reason and a depth and detachment of thought and self. it brings coping strategies, it brings rationalisation.
Cobain, by 'opting out' and never reaching that stage, is (like it or not) forever an angry young man who signed a deal with a large record company and made a highly-produced, radio-friendly album of his most accessible songs and didnt like a lot of what followed.
but of course he is much more than that, he is forever that angry young man who is SO caught up in the moment that he IS the moment. he IS that raw, youthful power.
it's like Dylan or The Beatles, or anyone... those years in their 20's. THOSE are the time. people will always be drawn to a young man's perspective. that is a huge part of popular culture, whether we like it or not.
i could go into the Holden Caulfield ranting, but you get the point..
i dont like/rate Nick Cave at all, so cant comment on him- but Lanegan (by time the 90's came around) was more of a traditional 'rock singer' (full-on big rock voice, physically tall and strong.. drink, drugs and fighting), albeit one with a great voice... on the other hand, Cobain was just an essence of something. something totally pure- like white noise on a TV that has no aerial. it's either on or off.
he was tormented by the position he created by virtue of his actions. he put himself in an uncontrollable position. his personal actions and style made him a caricature and an 'icon', and he clearly had a lot of disdain and dislike for a lot of people. including, at times, himself and the actions he had taken in his life.
there's a great comment by Neil Young in 1994 about Cobain-
|
|
|
Post by gr0undzer0 on Apr 24, 2008 6:50:27 GMT -5
britney sux kurt r0xrz case closed
|
|
m
New Recruit
Posts: 0
|
Post by m on Apr 24, 2008 7:29:52 GMT -5
britney sux kurt r0xrz case closed i suppose that depends on your perspective and your personal, perceived value of things. i think both are of merit. britney could never do what kurt did, but likewise, he could never do what she did. for instance, JP... to me, the metal music that you love is full of more cliches (musical and lyrical) than most good pop music. it is also as processed and produced as pop music, because metal needs to be loud and upfront. which means a lot of compression to compromise/destroy the dynamic-range of the music and spending a lot on mastering, just like pop music. artistically, i dont see any difference. commercially, i dont see any difference. artistically- both are reliant on the same moves in terms of style, although pop music has more urgency in terms of moving forward and doing new things. it is also a bit more 'free'. commercially- both have target audiences that they play to, and they provide a lifestyle/fashion commodity. 'serious' music like metal is just targeted at people who generally believe themselves to be more deep or intelligent, or people who are led toward a fashion of long hair and acting 'different'. now, obviously, when i talk about pop music i dont mean production-line stuff like boyband ballads that wouldnt sound much different if they'd been recorded in the '80s. i mean the more cutting-edge, innovative stuff. pop music is great because it strives to move forward and create new trends and new things constantly. most metal is tired, dull, uninspired.. nay, turgid to me. and, jeez, girls like to dance to pop music. it is joy. it is escapism. it is technically more difficult to create/produce a great forward-thinking pop song that appeals to millions of people than it is to create a metal song (with the same tired old instrumentation, time sig changes, boring double kick patterns, wailing guitars and screamed, shouted or whiney cliched vocals) that 10,000 people pretend they like because they are part of some depressingly elitist fashion music scene and want to be 'different'. i suppose it depends what you want from music. i dont see what sanctuary or message most metal music offers. it is a list of cliches that have to be ticked off on a list in order to please backward-thinking fans. lyrically, i think metal music is the worst of all popular music forms. but that, of course, is just my opinion. and of course Brian Wilson is pop music, Bacharach is pop music, Spector is pop music, Holland-Dozier-Holland is pop music. point me at someone in the world of metal who is celebrated as a genius in the way these guys are.. melody and connecting with people are more difficult skills than making an angry racket that conforms to metal rules.
|
|
|
Post by gr0undzer0 on Apr 24, 2008 8:15:03 GMT -5
hmmmm.......I think you are unfairly painting me into a "metal" corner arent you ?
|
|
m
New Recruit
Posts: 0
|
Post by m on Apr 24, 2008 8:17:04 GMT -5
hmmmm.......I think you are unfairly painting me into a "metal" corner arent you ? yes.
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie on Apr 24, 2008 8:28:05 GMT -5
you talk about depth in regard to 'maturity'. maturity brings control, reason and a depth and detachment of thought and self. it brings coping strategies, it brings rationalisation. I think it also brings a depth of feeling. People who get to the point where they actually "grow up" are capable of feeling things that other people cannot. but of course he is much more than that, he is forever that angry young man who is SO caught up in the moment that he IS the moment. he IS that raw, youthful power. Well said. I happen to think that moment is overrated, but you're right that our cultures seem to hold it in high esteem. I find that the power that comes with some degree of insight, restraint, and self-control is much more intense and compelling than the sort of "power" of youth you're talking about. In a way, it's not power at all, because people at that point are much more enslaved to their emotions, like children prone to temper tantrums. i dont like/rate Nick Cave at all, so cant comment on him- but Lanegan (by time the 90's came around) was more of a traditional 'rock singer' (full-on big rock voice, physically tall and strong.. drink, drugs and fighting), albeit one with a great voice... on the other hand, Cobain was just an essence of something. something totally pure- like white noise on a TV that has no aerial. it's either on or off. I like what you said about Cobain, and I agree. But what I would say about figures like Mark or Nick that sets them apart is a depth of spiritual awareness... an awareness that goes beyond simple self-awareness. I consider myself a religious person in a very un-orthodox sense and some music that I love reflects that quality of depth and wisdom, while some does not. So much has been made of Mark's "drink, drugs and fighting" background, but that's never been what's attracted me to his music (though it certainly adds depth and interest too). It's the force of insight, the force of compassion, the spiritual yearning that comes out in his songs. Kurt was drawn to religious themes too, and there are similar themes of forgiveness, compassion, and empathetic understanding in the midst of suffering that come out in his songs. But in ways I probably couldn't articulate, it just seems to go so much deeper with Mark, and you (well, at least I) can hear it as far back as his first solo record. there's a great comment by Neil Young in 1994 about Cobain- Yes, that was very interesting and insightful too, especially the part about not holding back vs. controlling. and, jeez, girls like to dance to pop music. Girls like to dance to metal too, dude
|
|
m
New Recruit
Posts: 0
|
Post by m on Apr 24, 2008 8:30:54 GMT -5
ok, so here i go again..
when did pop become a dirty word?
part of the point being missed in this thread is this- Kurt Cobain was an avid lover of pop music.
he loved Abba. he loved the Beatles. he told Vig he wanted a 'top 40' snare sound on Nevermind..
if all the argument im gonna get on here is that none of you like pop music, then a)you must think im really fucking stupid, and b)you're missing the key point in the Nirvana comparison.
the best pop music, like Nirvana (breakdowns, relationships, unexpected fame), like Britney (childstar, breakdowns, addictions, paparazzi, relationships, divorce), like the Beatles (unprecedented stardom, infighting, the very idea of creative/artistic development in pop music, drugs, everything else), like Fleetwood Mac's Rumours (relationships, drugs, infighting), like Abba (infighting, relationships), Marvin Gaye (social commentary, sex, drugs, relationships, God!).... it's the stuff where there is something culturally important, where things connect.. where the personal lives of the exponents are entwined with the music in the audience's eyes and provide a link into that world.
convergence. happenstance.
you just have to look on the plateau above 'genre'. god, if i missed out on Marvin Gaye's work because i dont normally go for that sort of thing, that would be a tragedy.
the last song on Britney's new album is called 'Why Should I Be Sad?' and it's a glorious piece of modern pop. before i heard it, the title and it's place in the tracklisting had me worried that it would be the obvious insipid piano ballad ending of a pop album.
but it's not.
it's produced by Pharrell Williams, and if you dont know who he is or respect his musicianship, production and writing then you're clearly an idiot, so go away and die in your bigoted little indie/rock/metal hellholes.
musically... glorious stuttering drum beats (a million levels more advanced than the Gutter Twins forays into electronic sounds), beautiful synths, mindblowing backing vocal arrangements all melded together incredibly.
lyrically, it is a spectacularly strong, open and powerful comment on Britney's marriage dissolving. the break for the bridge, where she talks about their children... the backing vocals, the melody... wow. and her delivery induces chills (of course lyrics on a page dont interpret quite as well...)
'And don't you worry about our angels (All the magazines trying to intervene Seeing things in the gossip section) There'll get good guidance and be trained well Don't worry I'll keep a little secret When I ask this question
Why should I be sad...?'
it is truly astounding. such clarity of delivery and statement.
|
|
|
Post by gr0undzer0 on Apr 24, 2008 8:38:55 GMT -5
hmmmm.......I think you are unfairly painting me into a "metal" corner arent you ? yes. I once killed a man with a paintbrush.....they found him in a rubbish bin with baby blue paint running down his chin
|
|
|
Post by breakerfall on Apr 24, 2008 8:46:24 GMT -5
Its raining, I'm cold, this thread is makin me chuckle...
|
|
m
New Recruit
Posts: 0
|
Post by m on Apr 24, 2008 8:52:01 GMT -5
I once killed a man with a paintbrush.....they found him in a rubbish bin with baby blue paint running down his chin was this in Vienna..?
|
|
m
New Recruit
Posts: 0
|
Post by m on Apr 24, 2008 8:52:35 GMT -5
Its raining, I'm cold, this thread is makin me chuckle... dont you dare laugh at me.. or Britney!
|
|
|
Post by gr0undzer0 on Apr 24, 2008 8:55:36 GMT -5
hahahahahaha..........that was to myself, not you
|
|
m
New Recruit
Posts: 0
|
Post by m on Apr 24, 2008 9:02:42 GMT -5
I find that the power that comes with some degree of insight, restraint, and self-control is much more intense and compelling than the sort of "power" of youth you're talking about. In a way, it's not power at all, because people at that point are much more enslaved to their emotions, like children prone to temper tantrums. maybe, but if i wholly believed in that, i probably wouldnt have dived into a forum about what people of an indie/rock mentality consider a 'serious, mature artist' and contributed this thread... or maybe i would. since i am rationalising as i speak. who knows, anyway.. ..the world would be a sadder place without this thread. and, to quote the woman herself, 'why should i be sad?'
|
|
m
New Recruit
Posts: 0
|
Post by m on Apr 24, 2008 9:03:18 GMT -5
i dont want to think about it too much.
|
|
m
New Recruit
Posts: 0
|
Post by m on Apr 24, 2008 9:03:27 GMT -5
it might kill the magic.
|
|
|
Post by manintheshadows on Apr 24, 2008 9:05:58 GMT -5
Isn't that just the same as old & grumpy?
|
|
|
Post by breakerfall on Apr 24, 2008 9:10:06 GMT -5
The torrential rain has become a scary thunderstorm....
Mokkly, is this your fault???
|
|
m
New Recruit
Posts: 0
|
Post by m on Apr 24, 2008 9:11:57 GMT -5
Isn't that just the same as old & grumpy? yes. characteristics you seem to have recognised all too well..... i shouldnt laugh really. i used to, up to the age of about 24, take the mick out of people over 30 on the ML forums. i'll be 30 in May 2009.
|
|
|
Post by maidli2 on Apr 24, 2008 9:21:01 GMT -5
i dont want to think about it too much. Do you hear this breath -- it's an obsessive breath Can you feel this beat -- it's an obsessive heartbeat Waiting to be joined with its obsession
I close my eyes -- but I can't sleep The thin membrane can't veil The branded picture of you The signs and signals show -- the traffic lights say go Again you baffle me, pretending not to see... me
I broke into your room -- I broke down in my room Touched your belongings there -- and left a lock of my hair Another sign for you You screamed into my face -- get the hell out of my place Another sign for me? Can you forgive me? For not understanding your ways
You know sometimes you take it all too far Then I remember -- it's a game between you and me A divine test for us two It's all in my imagination Yes they even say that our mission... is only My obsession
Do you hear this breath -- it's an oppressive breath Suffocating in the poison -- of your obsession Can you feel this beat -- it's a possessive beat Your pulse stops in the claws -- of your obsession**** Britney to M ? or M to Britney ?
|
|
m
New Recruit
Posts: 0
|
Post by m on Apr 24, 2008 9:32:57 GMT -5
i dont think you people are taking this seriously enough.
|
|
|
Post by gr0undzer0 on Apr 24, 2008 9:38:56 GMT -5
why? does lifestyle define the music? or does music define the lifestyle?
|
|
m
New Recruit
Posts: 0
|
Post by m on Apr 24, 2008 9:40:21 GMT -5
why? does lifestyle define the music? or does music define the lifestyle? what is that in response to..?
|
|
|
Post by Fields at Midnight on Apr 24, 2008 9:42:19 GMT -5
This is what I have gathered from Mokkly's posts:
Britney is better than the Beatles.
|
|
m
New Recruit
Posts: 0
|
Post by m on Apr 24, 2008 10:17:38 GMT -5
why? does lifestyle define the music? or does music define the lifestyle? ok, i'll attempt to ansewr what i think you're asking.. well, it's subjective, of course. music isn't as simple to classify and 'judge' as 'who makes the best music?' otherwise there would be a definite answer. so lifestyle and background are factors. it works both ways is the answer to your question, which i suspect you already know. technically there is more going on, and more hard work in the creation, of classical music as opposed to anything in the popular realm (rock/indie/pop/metal/rap/dance/etc).. but for that to be the difference in what is the best music is like saying Picasso's later, stylised work is of no merit compared to the Sistine Chapel. they are different things, at different moments in time. they have different appeal to different people. so this brings me to... your immediate question alludes to lifestyle informing music or music informing lifestyle, which is an interesting point- is it any surprise that kids who are bullied or not confident in their appearance or place in the world (but have feelings toward artistic merit in entertainment) often move toward, say, metal/punk/emo music. this is music that clearly aims to speak (ie, to sell/pitch itself) it's 'deep, sensitive' message toward the supposed disenchanted and disenfranchised. and let us not forget, post-Cobain, this is a desirable thing to aim toward. 'yes im deep and sad. i like My Chemical Romance'. in the areas of music that WE (the people on this forum) tend to like, it is seen as anathema to like pop music. you're not supposed to because this 'scene' disagrees with it and thinks of it as not serious enough, and not 'art'. in my area of smalltown england, kids from rough backgrounds gravitate toward hardcore dance and the gangster elements of rap/hip-hop. again, anger/violence, drugs, girls. classical music is generally preferred by well-off, older people who wish to impose their intellect and exclude less-educated people in much the same way that indie fans choose to exclude 'pop' fans. do you see many people dressed in punk clothing listening to classical or opera? so.. music draws in it's respective crowds by selling/aiming at different groups of people, different aspects of society. sometimes a person will feel/act a certain way and then find the music that fits with that. sometimes, a person will be drawn toward something and then costume themselves in the tribal styles of that genre to show their allegiance to others. on the other hand, i recently taught a kid who was a huge fan of metal bands like Lamb Of God, but who looked and dressed like a 'chav', in baseball cap, oversized t-shirt and tracksuit bottoms, etc in order to fit in and not get beaten up around town..
|
|