Pop music and 'art'
Lord Jubjub
was actually the pop music of its time?
I ask this because I saw a bit on TV about the history of the Beach
Boys. Their main popular competition was the Beatles.
The Beatles strike me as having more 'serious' or downbeat music. Most
of the Beach Boys music was upbeat and 'happy' music.
But yet. . .the harmonies, words, and style of the Beach Boys is very
infectious. I would say that decades from now, the Beach Boys music
will still be popular among those who are fans--even after all those who
heard the music fresh are dead and gone.
Same with the Beatles, though. BTW, I was born AFTER the Beach Boys
music had hit its peak and never really heard much of the Beatles until
long after they had broken up.
I'm nearing middle age if you REALLY want to feel old. . .
--
Lord Jubjub
Ruler of the Jabberwocky, Guardian of the Wabe, Prince of the Slithy Toves,
Leader of the raths
GrapeApe
>Boys. Their main popular competition was the Beatles.
>
>The Beatles strike me as having more 'serious' or downbeat music. Most
>
>of the Beach Boys music was upbeat and 'happy' music.
Hmm, seems like the special you watched, if you watched should have educated
you a bit about that. If it wasn't the kind of stuff Mike Love liked, about
cars and girls, it was rather morose, more so than the Beatles. A beautiful
melancholy.
Check out Pet Sounds. Smile isn't as easy to get, legally
Opus the Penguin
>How much is pop music art? How much of what we call 'classical' music
>was actually the pop music of its time?
>
>I ask this because I saw a bit on TV about the history of the Beach
>Boys. Their main popular competition was the Beatles.
>
>The Beatles strike me as having more 'serious' or downbeat music. Most
>of the Beach Boys music was upbeat and 'happy' music.
>
>But yet. . .the harmonies, words, and style of the Beach Boys is very
>infectious. I would say that decades from now, the Beach Boys music
>will still be popular among those who are fans--even after all those who
>heard the music fresh are dead and gone.
A friend told me The Beatles were rather jealous of the album Pet Sounds by
the Beach Boys. I don't know the details. Hey, Boron! Get your daughter in
here for a sec.
Boron Elgar
From The Princess, based on one of the many Beatle books she has
read (but cannot recall the title):
Rubber Soul inspired Pet Sounds, which is one of Paul Mc Cartney's
favorite albums (God only Knows a favorite song, in particular.) Upon
hearing PS, he is supposed to have said something along the lines of
"This is the greatest bloody album of all times. What are we going to
do now?" Then they went & made Sargent Pepper.
None of this was direct challenge, according to the daughter.
Boron
Dutch Courage
>Rubber Soul inspired Pet Sounds, which is one of Paul Mc Cartney's
>favorite albums (God only Knows a favorite song, in particular.) Upon
>hearing PS, he is supposed to have said something along the lines of
>"This is the greatest bloody album of all times. What are we going to
>do now?" Then they went & made Sargent Pepper.
Right, and then Brian Wilson did the same thing, with "Smile," only that never
came out and probably wouldn't have been as good as "Sgt. Pepper" anyway.
>
>None of this was direct challenge, according to the daughter.
>
Brian Wilson did take Sgt. Pepper personally, though.
-"Ain't gonna hang no picture, ain't gonna hang no picture frame
ain't gonna hang no picture, ain't gonna hang no picture frame
Well, I might look like Robert Ford, but I feel just like Jesse James"
Caveat emptor Nostradamus
said in this thread so far:
>How much is pop music art? How much of what we call 'classical' music
>was actually the pop music of its time?
I propose the following definitions:
Folk music - amateur music, the authors largely unknown, performed for
local audiences, readily transmuted as it passes from performer to
performer.
Pop music - music created by professionals that falls outside the
strictures of classical music.
Classical music - music that follows complex and rigid structures. If
the forms have been separately identified, individually named,
transmitted intact over time, and take forever to learn, all the
better. Certain Western European, Indian and Arabic music obviously
meets these criteria.
I understand that one could adduce hundreds of reasons why my
definitions are "wrong" (e.g., this system would classify Woody
Guthrie as "pop") but you can't begin the discussion without some
definitions and these are the ones I propose.
As for pop music being art, I can't tackle that today because I'd have
to define "art" and I'm just not up to it right now.
But as for the question of whether classical music was just the
popular music of its time, I think my definitions point the way
clearly -- most of what we call "classical" today, from Gregorian
chant through, say, Brahms would have been classical then and
classical now.
I believe that there was also pop music during some of that time, made
by troubadors, klezmorim and the like.
Some of the more recent avant-garde classical music (somebody please
help out with some examples!) could be a problem. While the composers
were classically-trained, the works can not always be externally
verified as following classical strictures and perhaps would be better
classified as "pop."
>I ask this because I saw a bit on TV about the history of the Beach
>Boys. Their main popular competition was the Beatles.
>
>The Beatles strike me as having more 'serious' or downbeat music. Most
>of the Beach Boys music was upbeat and 'happy' music.
>
>But yet. . .the harmonies, words, and style of the Beach Boys is very
>infectious. I would say that decades from now, the Beach Boys music
>will still be popular among those who are fans--even after all those who
>heard the music fresh are dead and gone.
>
>Same with the Beatles, though. BTW, I was born AFTER the Beach Boys
>music had hit its peak and never really heard much of the Beatles until
>long after they had broken up.
>
It seems to me that the early Beach Boys were on par with early
Beatles in quality if not in popularity. That changed radically after
about Pet Sounds. The reasons for the change seem to have been:
1. The Beach Boys were dependent on a single writer-composer-producer.
Unfortunately he was mentally ill. The Beatles had two major creative
forces and 1-1/2 minor creatives. They used an outside producer when
it met their needs and in my opinion, would have used outside
songwriters if they had thought it expedient. Conclusion: The Beach
Boys had less resources to draw on.
2. When Brian Wilson turned to poet-lyricist Van Dyke Parks for help
on Smile, it was vetoed by Beach Boy Mike Love, who wanted to keep
with the formula that had been working for the band up till then:
girls and cars. The Beatles managed to leave their teenybop period
behind them before egos shattered the band. Conclusion: The Beach Boys
had bad luck.
3. Both bands had lawsuit problems, but the Beatles managed to
establish themselves as post-teenyboppers before the lawsuits kicked
in. Conclusion: More Beach Boy bad luck.
So there you have it. The Beach Boys exploded before they matured, the
Beatles matured before they exploded.
mike
> How much is pop music art? How much of what we call 'classical' music
> was actually the pop music of its time?
Dear Lord, only time will tell about the pop music/ art question. I would
guess none of it would be considered "Art". In music - or the graphic arts,
for that matter - and for that matter, literature, too - the term "art"
refers to the highest quality of work. A "paint by numbers" by a child may
be a point of great joy or pride to his grandparents but can that paint by
numbers compare to a Van Gogh or a Monet? The Sidney Sheldons, the Tony
Hillermans or the "insert another name here" may have a large following and
many fans but can their writing compare to Shakespeare's or even Michael
Creighton - who blends fact and fiction so well that it is difficult
(sometimes) to tell where one left off and the other started? The great
Johann Sebastian Bach produced an astounding number of works and yet in his
own time he was best know for a few clavier teaching pieces and being the
father of 4 very successful composer/musician sons. BTW, just so we are
speaking the same language, a clavier was a generic name for any keyboard
instrument except an organ. An organ was regarded highly enough to have its
own genre. But a clavier could refer to a harpsichord, a clavichord, a
virginal, a spinet, or even the brand new, high falootin' Grave Cembalo con
forte et piano, shortened to Fortepiano and eventually, shortened again to
Piano. But back to Bach; that he wrote a staggering amount of music (by
today's standards) was nothing at all unusual for his day. A musician who
led an ensemble at court or church was expected to churn out new music
weekly and on demand for special occasions. In fact, Bach doesn't even hold
the record for the most compositions. That is held by Georg Phillip
Telemann. He churned them out right and left and right again. He was by far
the more famous of the two of them. In fact, Bach's last job that he held -
and held it for 25 or so years - he got because Telemann refused the job and
the second choice (don't remember who right off the top of my bald little
head) also refused the job, so the head hunters at the St. Thomas Church in
Leipzig had to settle on JS Bach. Like I said, I don't remember the second
choice but he is remembered now for being the second choice over JS Bach.
Telemann is remembered for the incredible amount of music he wrote, BUT if
you listen to the music of Bach and the music of almost every other composer
of that day there is no question of the quality, the craftsmanship - the
"Art" of JS Bach, the composer. If you know about music then the difference
becomes clearer because Bach had to write within the boundaries of the
strict rules of composition that were just expected in his time. Today the
rules are much more simple; there are no rules.
Mozart was not unknown in his time but his music sounded weird to the
musical "powers". Audiences generally liked it but the older school actively
did not. Antonio Salieri was the most famous composer in Vienna and probably
all of German speaking Europe at that same time but how much of his music do
you get to hear now? And it's a shame, too, because it is good stuff but it
really does pale in comparison to Mozart's. And Beethoven took it a step
further. Remember those rules I spoke about? Beethoven broke them so much
that Franz Joseph Haydn - a very famous composer as well as one of
Beethoven's teachers in Vienna - said that Beethoven would never do anything
with any grace or style. Debussy was questioned by his teachers, "What rules
of composition do you observe?" He answered, "My own whims." (or words to
that effect) and they responded, "That is well and good - provided that you
are a genius.". Well, most of those teachers are known now only as having
been teachers at the Paris conservatory while Debussy was a student there
but in their own times they were regarded as the best in France.
What is regarded as Art is the skill one uses in creating the work and how
successfully one bends the established rules and changes the perception of
that particular art by others.
2 years ago I was in Rome. Went on a tour and saw a sculpture of Moses by
Michelangelo in The Church of St. Peter in Chains. Everyone knows "David"
but Moses? How many of us know about another famous sculpture by M? Moses is
surrounded by several other smaller sculptures by very accomplished and
famous sculptors of their day but next to that incredible Moses - the
incredible art and craftsmanship of Michelangelo - those other sculptures
may as well have been concrete birdbaths! There is absolutely no comparison
and even an unskilled eye can see it.
You did bring up a good point about some Classical Music today being Pop
music in their day. All of the Waltzing Strausses were nothing more than Pop
musicians of their day. Think of "The Blue Danube" Waltz as a 19th century
Viennese "In A Gadda Da Vida"; little substance but it does go on and on and
on and it's a real toe tapper. Who is NOT going to like that one?The Blue
Danube gets you UP out of your chair and movin'! Mozart wrote a great deal
of "pop" music; dances and little keyboard ditties to turn a quick buck.
Stuff like that. Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Grieg, and a BUNCHA others wrote
music for the theater - "incidental music" - music to keep the audience
occupied during scene changes, Overtures to start things off and music to
start each new act. Incidental music is roughly equivalent to movie or TV
music today. A composer did it because it was quick money and, besides, who
would remember it? It was not the center piece of a concert and it didn't
have to be his/her/it's best work. After all, the audience was there to see
the play, not hear the minute's worth of music during the scene changes.
Will Pop music eventually become classical? I'll be long dead if and when it
happens. Future generations will determine that just like succeeding
generations decided that JS Bach could compose the pants off of GP Telemann.
From what I see now, and basing it on what history has shown, it would not
surprise me at all if "Help Me Rhonda" or "Wishing You Were Here" or
"California Girls" OR "She Loves You" or"The Long and Winding Road" or the
selection of your choice from either band is still remembered 100 years from
now BUT it will be remembered the way we remember "Bicycle Built for Two" or
"The Band Played On" or any of the other songs from the 1890's that is
remembered today. "Aren't they 'cute' or 'quaint' or 'hokey'" or whatever.
But they were big sellers back when.
C.E.Nostradamus made some good points comparing The Beach Boys and The
Beatles in their development. I would add that while the Beach Boys may have
been an inspiration for several Lennon/McCartney works, the latter were more
far sighted in their work that the former. The Beatles were far more
experimental and had a much more far reaching effect on Pop music and Pop
composers to come. (and, of course, George Martin's influence cannot be
forgotten.). And, the last thing I'll add to this long winded posting (and
WHERE did all the hot air going around in this room come from?! I need to go
turn down the thermostat, I guess.), let me tell you something that my dear,
sainted Musicology Professor once told me. The general music history or
music literature or music appreciation books all say that Beethoven was the
first composer to use Voices in the formal structure of a SYMPHONY (the form
called a symphony). Voices were used in church music and operas, of course,
but a symphony was supposed top be a strictly instrumental form. But here
comes Beethoven, churning up trouble, and he adds 4 vocal soloists and a
mixed choir to the orchestra in the last movement of his 9th symphony. But
it turns out, the books are wrong. Peter von Winter wrote and had
performed - in Vienna- a symphony that had voices as a part of the orchestra
4 years before Beethoven's 9th was performed in the same city! Dr Mallard
pointed out to me that that is a good bit of information to remember. Not
being too bright, it struck me that this is just music trivia trash. What
are you gonna do? Impress your friends with just how much worthless
information you can remember? I wasn't very smart back then (and I'm not
that smart today) but even then I knew enough not to state those views that
way to Dr Mallard. So I just changed my approach and asked "Why is that good
information to know? Who, besides you, has even heard of Peter von Winter
much less knows that he wrote a symphony with voices before Beethoven did?".
And Dr. Mallard said, "Because it's not "who does it first"; it's "who does
it BEST"."
Thank you Dr Mallard.
And I'm sorry I went on so long, everyone.
Mike
(no, the other one. the one that doesn't know when to shut up.)
"Lord Jubjub" <jub...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:jubjub-4271F2....@newsa.ev1.net...
Opus the Penguin
>Will Pop music eventually become classical? I'll be long dead if and when it
>happens. Future generations will determine that just like succeeding
>generations decided that JS Bach could compose the pants off of GP Telemann.
>From what I see now, and basing it on what history has shown, it would not
>surprise me at all if "Help Me Rhonda" or "Wishing You Were Here" or
>"California Girls" OR "She Loves You" or"The Long and Winding Road" or the
>selection of your choice from either band is still remembered 100 years from
>now BUT it will be remembered the way we remember "Bicycle Built for Two" or
>"The Band Played On" or any of the other songs from the 1890's that is
>remembered today. "Aren't they 'cute' or 'quaint' or 'hokey'" or whatever.
>But they were big sellers back when.
I dunno. I think some of the Beatles' stuff has the potential to become like
Scott Joplin. Big sellers of their day that quietly enter the canon. From the
Beach Boys, maybe not as much, but at least Sloop John B.
>C.E.Nostradamus made some good points comparing The Beach Boys and The
>Beatles in their development. I would add that while the Beach Boys may have
>been an inspiration for several Lennon/McCartney works, the latter were more
>far sighted in their work that the former. The Beatles were far more
>experimental and had a much more far reaching effect on Pop music and Pop
>composers to come. (and, of course, George Martin's influence cannot be
>forgotten.).
No kidding. Without George Martin, The Beatles might actually have sounded
like they weren't playing behind a thick cardboard partition. There's a story
that McCartney once heard an album by <mumble> and admired the crisp drum
sound and asked Martin, "Why can't we sound like that?" Martin didn't know the
answer. (Paging Boron's daughter!)
Imagine if George Martin had been as competent a recording engineer as the one
who did, say, Paint It Black for the Stones. Almost makes you want to cry.
Caveat emptor Nostradamus
>Imagine if George Martin had been as competent a recording engineer as the one
>who did, say, Paint It Black for the Stones.
They tell a joke about a fellow who came off the boat from Europe,
looking for a job. He found out that they needed a Gabai (sexton) in
the shul. When he got there he was informed that he needs to know how
to read and write in order to fulfill his duties. He didn't know and
he was not accepted. Swallowing his disappointment and pride he went
into the rag business. He started out with a little pushcart on the
Lower East Side and little by little he built up his business. Within
a matter of a few years, Siyata DeShamaya (Heavenly Assistance), and
wise investments he became a millionaire. He opened up a bank account,
but still couldn't read or write. He would sign his name with an "X".
Once one of the tellers who knew this wealthy man was shocked to see
him signing an "X". The teller exclaimed, "If this is how successful
you are without knowing how to read and write, imagine where you would
be if you did know." The wealthy man responded, "If I knew how to read
and write, then I would be the gabai in a shul."
Source: http://www.neveh.org/price/priceqa3.html
Caveat emptor Nostradamus
man of taste and discernment. However I am constrained to offer some
slight disagreement with your words about the qualities of art. The
opinions you state about Salieri vs. Mozart, the superiority of
Michelangelo and so on, while widely held, seem not to be verifiable
by objective criteria.
I am reminded of something that happened to me about thirty years ago.
The late Frank Pileggi, organizer of the New York Avant Garde Art
Festival, invited me to come to one of his shows. There I saw a piece
that consisted of an artist sitting on a pile of dirt. Later I asked
Mr Pileggi why that man's sitting on the pile was art, but if I sat on
a pile of dirt, it would just be me on a pile of dirt. Mr Pileggi
explained that that was becaiuse this artist had studied at several
renowned art schools.
With no disrespect to Mr Pileggi, who was one of the nicest men I ever
met, I found his answer unsatisfying. Similarly, you may find the
artistry in the statue of Moses self-evident, but it doesn't seem
self-evident to me. And I daresay it may not be self-evident to those
raised in traditions such as Chinese, African, Indian, Islamic, and
the like.
>
>
Boron Elgar
Nostradamus) wrote:
> Similarly, you may find the
>artistry in the statue of Moses self-evident, but it doesn't seem
>self-evident to me. And I daresay it may not be self-evident to those
>raised in traditions such as Chinese, African, Indian, Islamic, and
>the like.
The understanding and appreciation of art has a whole field unto
itself, of course, but I do think the visual arts are the most
comprehensible cross-culturally. Though I cannot say that I can
appreciate each & every piece on all levels, I sure don't have much
trouble enjoying what I see.
Literature involves a full grasp of another language & music, too, ,
is less accessible, but translations and/or a little instruction
before listening can go far towards opening these avenues, too.
When we are exposed to the art of other cultures, it is presented to
us within the category. We see it in a museum or on a tour or in some
film or book. Someone else, someone trained in the subject at hand, at
some point along the line has made the determination and showed us the
object with a label on it.
I have always believed in the universality of the visual arts, and I
am fortunate enough take delight in "Chinese, African, Indian,
Islamic, and the like." Again, I may not understand the context of an
individual piece, but I am still able to appreciate it physically.
That said, Michaelangelo's Moses, though incredible, has always
disturbed somewhat me because of the horns. The name of the church, in
Italian, has always intrigued me much more than the English....
San Pietro in Vincoli. I remember many years ago, putting coins into a
meter to pay to light the statue for a few minutes.
Boron
Caveat emptor Nostradamus
As I reply to you, I am listening to an album of Ugandan children
singing Hebrew songs. I think it's delightful and can think of several
people who might enjoy it. But I wouldn't think the Ugandans' artistry
is in any way self-evident. Because I am familiar with both African
and Jewish music, I can catch many familiar elements in this album. A
Chinese person, not having my particular background, might not
appreciate the album at all. My conclusion is that appreciation of art
is based on familiarity with cultural forms.
By contrast the science of bridge-building is the same everywhere.
Different choices will be made by local architects based on the
availability of funds, materials, labor, as well as local needs,
tolerance for failure and bridge-building custom. But the science
doesn't vary.
As for them horns, I believe that Mike sculpted it to honor Moses and
that's good enough for me.
Shabbat shalom,
Nos
Elissa Caffery
>That said, Michaelangelo's Moses, though incredible, has always
>disturbed somewhat me because of the horns.
I understood them to be the result of a linguistic mixup-- "horns" for "beams
of light". Untrue?
from Elissa |O
Ain't nobody's biznitch but my own.
Boron Elgar
Caffery) wrote:
>Boron Elgar boron...@hotmail.com said:
>
>>That said, Michaelangelo's Moses, though incredible, has always
>>disturbed somewhat me because of the horns.
>
>I understood them to be the result of a linguistic mixup-- "horns" for "beams
>of light". Untrue?
True.
From Bartleby. E. Cobham Brewer 1810-1897. Dictionary of Phrase and
Fable. 1898.
"This is a mere blunder. The Hebrew karan means "to shoot out beams of
light," but has by mistake been translated in some versions "to wear
horns" Thus Moses is conventionally represented with horns. "Moses
wist not that the skin of his face shone" (Exod. xxxiv. 29); compare
(Cor. iii. 7-13: ) "The children of Israel could not stedfastly behold
the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance."
Opus will be better able to handle this.
Boron
Dutch Courage
>With no disrespect to Mr Pileggi, who was one of the nicest men I ever
>met, I found his answer unsatisfying. Similarly, you may find the
>artistry in the statue of Moses self-evident, but it doesn't seem
>self-evident to me.
Really? Even in the hands?
> And I daresay it may not be self-evident to those
>raised in traditions such as Chinese, African, Indian, Islamic, and
>the like.
Ehh...I dunno. Certainly the European artists of the 19th or so century all
liked the netsuke stuff.
GrapeApe
>Scott Joplin. Big sellers of their day that quietly enter the canon. From the
>Beach Boys, maybe not as much, but at least Sloop John B.
Which was around before they decided to do it. Fifty years from now it will
probably be the sunkist commercial that is most remembered.
Dr H
On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, mike wrote:
}Lord JJ asked;
}> How much is pop music art? How much of what we call 'classical' music
}> was actually the pop music of its time?
}
}Dear Lord, only time will tell about the pop music/ art question. I would
}guess none of it would be considered "Art". In music - or the graphic arts,
}for that matter - and for that matter, literature, too - the term "art"
}refers to the highest quality of work.
That assumes a fairly narrow and by no means universal definition of
"art". I prefer the borader definition in which "art" results from
the exercise of creative imagination to create an aesthetic object
or event. What constitutes "aesthetic" is very much a matter of
personal and cultural background and preferences.
People collect and pay high prices for old objects which were
originally created with only utilitarian purpose in mind. They
find them aesthetically pleasing, and these objects are, to them,
"art". I have known musicians to hold up every scrap of composition
ever discovered by J. S. Bach as a masterpiece of music, when it is
a fact that /every/ composer has his off-days.
There is no universal objective definition for "art"; art is what
any particular person happens to consider art. The pop music of
past times was regarded as art by some, and disdained by others;
the same is, and will be true of the pop music of today. Some
consider it art right now; others never will.
Dr H
ra...@westnet.poe.com
>> How much is pop music art? How much of what we call 'classical' music
>> was actually the pop music of its time?
What is or is not "art" is wholley subjective. The best you can get is
'yeah, a lot of poeple think so' or 'nope, not many people think so'.
Ditto for the term "music".
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
Dutch Courage
>On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, mike wrote:
>
>}Lord JJ asked;
>}> How much is pop music art? How much of what we call 'classical' music
>}> was actually the pop music of its time?
>}
>}Dear Lord, only time will tell about the pop music/ art question. I would
>}guess none of it would be considered "Art". In music - or the graphic arts,
>}for that matter - and for that matter, literature, too - the term "art"
>}refers to the highest quality of work.
>
> That assumes a fairly narrow and by no means universal definition of
> "art".
Well, or some idea that the canon is the canon for a reason, and the central
conceits that inform it are really pretty definable and more or less objective
after all.
>I prefer the borader definition in which "art" results from
> the exercise of creative imagination to create an aesthetic object
> or event.
You mean, the narrower definition where it's specifically things you like?
> What constitutes "aesthetic" is very much a matter of
> personal and cultural background and preferences.
see, but I wonder if...if say even someone like Harold Bloom came out and said
"Titus Andronicus has been undeservedly neglected, it's a first rate
Shakespeare play" would it start showing up in high school literature text
books? Huh, I don't know. And Harold Bloom is someone other people really much
care what he thinks about a book he read. You and I, no one gives a fuck.
You know, it's kind of like representative democracy.
>
> People collect and pay high prices for old objects which were
> originally created with only utilitarian purpose in mind.
I can think of hardly any object created since at least the caveman days that
wasn't meant to be at least mildly decorative, or aesthetically pleasant.
> They
> find them aesthetically pleasing, and these objects are, to them,
> "art".
Well, or "antiques," or "collectibles." An Edison record player is a cool
thing to own, sure, but it's, I dont think they idea of owning one is the same
as why you might buy a Chagall print, say.
> I have known musicians to hold up every scrap of composition
> ever discovered by J. S. Bach as a masterpiece of music, when it is
> a fact that /every/ composer has his off-days.
Yeah, I guess so.
>
> There is no universal objective definition for "art"; art is what
> any particular person happens to consider art.
well, I think that's wrong headed, and the fun part of accepting the canon is
you don't have to like a lot of crap.
> The pop music of
> past times was regarded as art by some, and disdained by others;
Well, huh, apart from Stephen Foster, Frank Sinatra, Motown, um... Relatively
little of the pop music of past times, though. I bet the Velvet Underground,
say, outsells the Bay City Rollers these days, and I bet relatively few people
who saw the BCR went on to form a band, but I bet lots of people who were real
bugs on, um...well, Jimi Hendryx started bands.
The average Austrian Peasant, I gather, had little exposure to Mozart.
> the same is, and will be true of the pop music of today. Some
> consider it art right now;
Boy, do they?
> others never will.
And they're probably right. I think Brittney Spears will be utterly forgetten
in the next five years.
Dutch Courage
Date: 7/6/2001 12:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>> Lord JJ asked;
>>> How much is pop music art? How much of what we call 'classical' music
>>> was actually the pop music of its time?
>
>What is or is not "art" is wholley subjective.
Ah, I see. So the set of "what art is" is exactly identical to "what john
freiler likes."
I don't think so.
>Ditto for the term "music".
Horseshit. Don't embarass yourself just because you're an old square man who
doesn't like that racket these kids today play.
>
>
>John
>--
>Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
>Ask me about joining the NRA.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Big Iron5
> I think Brittney Spears will be utterly forgetten
>in the next five years.
Unless that "stolen" porn video gets out.
Dutch Courage
Big Iron5
>>> I think Brittney Spears will be utterly forgetten
>>>in the next five years.
>>
>>
>>Unless that "stolen" porn video gets out.
>
> I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about.
Oh, I was just making a joke on what "real value" that young chippy brings to
the culture -- I'm not aware that such a video exists (yet, anyway).
Dutch Courage
Date: 7/7/2001 7:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>Dutch writes:
>
>
>>>> I think Brittney Spears will be utterly forgetten
>>>>in the next five years.
>>>
>>>
>>>Unless that "stolen" porn video gets out.
>>
>> I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about.
>
>
>Oh, I was just making a joke on what "real value" that young chippy brings to
>the culture
::memo to self: Be less subtle in the future.
Gary S. Callison
: I don't think he's saying that at all. He's taking the Frank Zappa
: definition (Art is anything its creator says is art) and broadening it
: to include items that were not conciously created as art but have been
: found at some point (by anyone, not by Dr. H) to have aesthetic value.
...like "My Pal Foot Foot", by the Shaggs. It's art. Really. No, really,
it is. Honest. Listen to it and tell me you could do better.
<http://www.shaggs.com/sound/TheShaggs_MyPalFootFoot.mp3> [1]
: A lot of people probably said that about Madonna in the early to mid
: 80s. Now she's considered (by the "conventional wisdom") to be one of
: the most important popular musicians of the last 20 years. It wouldn't
: surprise me one bit if Madonna were considered part of "the canon" in
: 100 years' time when university students are studying the development
: of pop music in our time. Lots of people probably said that about the
: Beatles in 1964 too. The fact that some pop music (The Bay City
: Rollers, Britney) is lightweight fluff doesn't mean that there isn't
: great art being created as "mere pop music" right under our noses
: today.
Yes, but 'great art' doesn't become apparent until it has an influence on
later artists that transcends what it was at the time. There's really no
way to tell in the present. If I had to pick some recent examples, I'd
point at Pink Floyd and Steely Dan as pop musicians who are likely to have
a lot of influence down the line. Black Sabbath, too. Rush? Not so much.
Smashing Pumpkins? Sure. Radiohead? Too soon to tell.
"Seattle" by Public Image Limited is art. Poetry, even.
--
Huey - [1] I know what some of you are saying. You're saying "Huey, I'll
get even with you for making me listen to that." I know. I'm sorry. But
you'll thank me later, mark my words. It grows on you, it really does.
Dana Carpender
"Gary S. Callison" wrote:
>
> --
> Huey - [1] I know what some of you are saying. You're saying "Huey, I'll
> get even with you for making me listen to that." I know. I'm sorry. But
> you'll thank me later, mark my words. It grows on you, it really does.
No, what I'm saying is, "Huey, do you really think I have ten minutes of
my Sunday to spend downloading a song you've already warned me is
seriously annoying?" I don't think so.
--
Dana W. Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Check out our FREE Low Carb Ezine!
Dutch Courage
Date: 7/8/2001 12:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>Dutch Courage <mutigho...@aol.comafcaking> wrote:
>: Well, or some idea that the canon is the canon for a reason, and the
>central
>: conceits that inform it are really pretty definable and more or less
>objective
>: after all.
>
>You are aware that the canon changes with time, right?
Right.
>And that a lot of
>works that are considered "classic" today weren't considered worthy of
>serious academic study when they were new?
Still, I wouldn't be getting my hopes up if I were a Tom Clancey fan.
> but it's hardly infallible and it ultimately comes down to nothing
>more than the accumulation, over time, of the aesthetic preferences of
>whoever the most influential university professors were at any given
>moment in time.
I don't think it's totally made up of influential university professors,
although I do not feel like thinking who else might have some say in it, as I
have to get ready for work sho'tly. Oh, oh, I know (this is me coming back from
way down at the bottom of the post,) other artists and writers and musicians,
sure.
>
>
>:>I prefer the borader definition in which "art" results from
>:> the exercise of creative imagination to create an aesthetic object
>:> or event.
>
>: You mean, the narrower definition where it's specifically things you like?
>
>I don't think he's saying that at all.
Careful, it's Dr. H.
>He's taking the Frank Zappa
>definition (Art is anything its creator says is art) and broadening it to
>include items that were not conciously created as art but have been found
>at some point (by anyone, not by Dr. H) to have aesthetic value.
Well, okay, sure.
>
>That doesn't mean that aesthetic criteria go out the window, or that
>conciously created art can't be hideously awful art. But I think it's
>important to keep in mind when discussing this whole "art" thing that it
>really does come down to aesthetics in most cases.
Aesthetics isn't just "what I me mine think is pretty," and it hasn't been the
important consideration in the visual arts since the great war.
>
>For example, if I love the industrial design of, say, an early
>20th-century typewriter so much that I choose to place it on a pedestal
>and display it as an art object,
Well, wait...an art object? Now it seems you're doing something a little
different.
> does it matter whether that object was
>created with the specific intent to create art?
I kind of think it does.
> Does it matter that most
>people would say "That's just a typewriter"?
>
>What if an artist meticulously created a papier-mache replica of an early
>20th-century typewriter? Some would argue that the intentions of the
>creator should make a difference in whether something is considered
>"art" or not, but in terms of the aesthetic experience of looking at it on
>its pedestal, the difference is exactly nil.
I'm not sure you'd be going for the aesthetics of the typewriter there,
anyway. You may also be adding a different context, so perhaps the aesthetics
would change after all. Certainly Duchamp isn't going for the aesthetics of the
urinal with "Fountain."
>
>(Apropos of nothing, note that none of this really has any bearing on the
>question of whether song lyrics and poetry are two different art forms or
>the same one.)
Well, I think Dr. H did a driveby on the gruppe, replaying to an old, old
message.
>
>: see, but I wonder if...if say even someone like Harold Bloom came out and
>said
>: "Titus Andronicus has been undeservedly neglected, it's a first rate
>: Shakespeare play" would it start showing up in high school literature text
>: books? Huh, I don't know. And Harold Bloom is someone other people really
>much
>: care what he thinks about a book he read. You and I, no one gives a fuck.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean here,
It's a reaction against Freilerism, and more or less what I was taught in
school.
>: You know, it's kind of like representative democracy.
>
>Or, it's just the opposite.
No, I don't really think it is. You get a vote, and it only sort of matters.
Also, some people's vote matters more than others, but still...
> The canon is based on the aesthetic
>preferences of a tiny group of people who have made thinking about art
>their life's work.
I don't feel like thinking about how relatively tiny this group is, since I
have to go along to work.
> In many cases, this will result in a higher quality of
>work being selected to enter the canon (no Britney Spears, no Robert
>Parker), but there's nothing inherent in the academic life that renders
>one immune the influence of current fads, or, contrariwise, of the "weight
>of history" (i.e. you have to like something because everyone through
>history has always said it's good), or even of your own quirky personal
>likes and dislikes.
>
> I dont think they idea of owning one is the
>same
>: as why you might buy a Chagall print, say.
>
>There are many, many different reasons why people might buy either of
>those items (as an investment, because they think it's "cool" in some
>vague sense, because of some sentimental association with childhood, etc),
>but if two people buy these two objects because they find them
>aesthetically pleasing to look at, is there a meaningful distinction to be
>made between the "artsiness" of each?
Yes, which I will tell you about later.
>
>:> There is no universal objective definition for "art"; art is what
>:> any particular person happens to consider art.
>
>: well, I think that's wrong headed, and the fun part of accepting the canon
>is
>: you don't have to like a lot of crap.
>
>Or, conversely, the pain in the arse of the canon is that you have to read
>a bunch of boring old shit
hey, no one said it was easy.
>that brings you zero pleasure and has little if
>any bearing on your actual life and which in many cases is impossible to
>appreciate on its own merits unless you have a considerable knowledge of
>the historical world in which it was produced. And then, one or two
>hundred years later, you find that a lot of the stuff that you really
>wanted to be listening to/reading/looking at instead of slogging through
>all that canon shit has, in fact entered the canon (e.g. Bob Dylan,
See, that's what we're talking about, though. Is Bob Dylan in the canon? And
what canon is that? the phony "we made ourselves a hall of fame, so we're
making important stuff" canon, or the "reasonably interesting popular
composers" or "great poets of the english language" canon? and, of course, Bob
Dylan has always been an intellectual, academic thing.
> Bill
>Monroe, even Andy Warhol; hell, it wouldn't shock me if Stephen King
>entered the canon some day).
I would be shocked all to hell.
>
>:> The pop music of
>:> past times was regarded as art by some, and disdained by others;
>
>: Well, huh, apart from Stephen Foster, Frank Sinatra, Motown, um...
>Relatively
>: little of the pop music of past times, though.
>
>I'm sure that Bill Monroe ("hillbilly music") falls into the category of
>pop music of past times that was disdained by many but held in high regard
>today. What about Elvis,
I think he's more "major cultural icon" than he is rubbing shoulders with
Shelley.
>the Beatles,
Considered to be an exciting hip thing by academical critical types, it is my
understanding, even if some people's parent't thoguht they should cut their
hair
>even Bob Dylan?
People of at least some academic distinction have been making the case that
Bob Dylan is really a singing poet more or less since he emerged on the folk
music scene, such as it is. Funny thing about folk music in america, the
primary audience isn't folky at all, and the actual folk can't stand it. it's
like Ulysses, huh?
>What about the
>Clash? The Stooges?
I have no idea.
>
>: I bet the Velvet Underground,
>: say, outsells the Bay City Rollers these days, and I bet relatively few
>people
>: who saw the BCR went on to form a band
>
>But the Velvet Underground were very much "disdained"
I know they didn't sell a lot of records when they came out, but I think they
were well recieved among critics and obviously musicians.
> still
>existed, so what's your point?
Um...jeez, I thought it was obvious? relatively little pop phenomenons do make
it into the canon.
>Oliver Stone even still felt obligated to
>take a gratuitous poke at them in his Doors movie in 1991.
The Monkees outsold the Doors in the sixties, so again...
>
>:> others never will.
>
>: And they're probably right. I think Brittney Spears will be utterly
>forgetten
>: in the next five years.
>
>A lot of people probably said that about Madonna in the early to mid 80s.
Well, they were wrong. I just don't think she's Madonna, though.
>Now she's considered (by the "conventional wisdom") to be one of the most
>important popular musicians of the last 20 years.
Yeah, she sure is.
> It wouldn't surprise me
>one bit if Madonna were considered part of "the canon" in 100 years' time
>when university students are studying the development of pop music in our
>time.
I don't think Madonna just makes disposable pop music anymore, and relatively
little of that does make its way into the canon.
> Lots of people probably said that about the Beatles in 1964 too.
Yes, but by 1966 they were talking about how cool it is that they were
including imagist poetry and Aeolian cadences and ragas in their music. On the
other hand, who likes Donovan, really?
> The
>fact that some pop music (The Bay City Rollers, Britney) is lightweight
>fluff doesn't mean that there isn't great art being created as "mere pop
>music" right under our noses today.
No, but there probably isn't very much of it.
Gary S. Callison
: "Gary S. Callison" wrote:
: > Huey - [1] I know what some of you are saying. You're saying "Huey,
: > I'll get even with you for making me listen to that." I know. I'm
: > sorry. But you'll thank me later, mark my words. It grows on you, it
: > really does.
: No, what I'm saying is, "Huey, do you really think I have ten minutes
: of my Sunday to spend downloading a song you've already warned me is
: seriously annoying?" I don't think so.
Okay, for the benefit of the bandwidth-impaired, I'll try to describe it.
Picture in your mind a group of enthusiastic but tone-deaf Down's children
with instruments. ...no, that's not it. Picture a congenitally deaf person
trying to sing the Messiah translated into Polish by Babelfish. ...er, no.
...I can't explain it. Dana, I'll bring you a tape next time I'm down
there. And then you can thank me in person.
--
Huey
GrapeApe
>it is. Honest. Listen to it and tell me you could do better.
><http://www.shaggs.com/sound/TheShaggs_MyPalFootFoot.mp3> [1]
Some people suspect that it could have been consciously created as art, rather
than naively and accidently, as the official history goes. But I dig the
Shaggs. I don't listen to them very often because it will stick in my head
for at least a day when I do. I think they deserve to be in the Rock and Roll
hall of fame more than some of the people that are inducted, but that place is
a crock of shit anyway.
GrapeApe
>Picture in your mind a group of enthusiastic but tone-deaf Down's children
>with instruments. ...no, that's not it. Picture a congenitally deaf person
>trying to sing the Messiah translated into Polish by Babelfish. ...er, no.
>
But it isn't like that as well. That is, its complexity, which sounds so wrong,
is actually rather cohesive. Damn hard for people trained to notch everything
to 4/4 time to do. I think a better metaphor would be along the lines of "the
private language of twins", it just isn't the language everyone is expecting to
hear.
Big Iron5
> hell, it wouldn't shock me if Stephen King
>>entered the canon some day).
>
> I would be shocked all to hell.
Yeah, me too (although I suppose at the time some harbored similar thoughts
about Charles Dickens -- I'm not a great booster of Dickens, of course,
although I don't think he sucked or anything).
>>: I bet the Velvet Underground,
>>: say, outsells the Bay City Rollers these days, and I bet relatively few
>>people
>>: who saw the BCR went on to form a band
>>
>>But the Velvet Underground were very much "disdained"
>
> I know they didn't sell a lot of records when they came out, but I think
>they
>were well recieved among critics and obviously musicians.
"They were wild like the USA
A mystery band in a New York way
Rock and roll, but not like the rest
And to me, America at it's best
How in the world were they making that sound?
Velvet Underground.
A spooky tone on a Fender bass
Played less notes and left more space
Stayed kind of still, looked kinda shy
Kinda far away, kinda dignified.
How in the world were they making that sound?
Velvet Underground.
Now you can look at that band and wonder where
All that sound was coming from
With just 4 people there.
Twangy sounds of the cheapest types,
Sounds as stark as black and white stripes,
Bold and brash, sharp and rude,
Like the heats turned off
And you're low on food.
How in the world were they making that sound?
Velvet Underground.
Like this...
Wild wild parties when they start to unwind
A close encounter of the thirdest kind
On the bandstand playing, everybody's saying
How in the world were they making that sound?
Velvet Underground.
Well you could look at that band
And at first sight
Say that certain rules about modern music
Wouldn't apply tonight.
Twangy sounds of the cheapest kind,
Like 'Guitar sale $29.99,'
Bold and brash, stark and still,
Like the heats turned off
And you can't pay the bill.
How in the world were they making that sound?
Velvet Underground.
Both guitars got the fuzz tone on
The drummer's standing upright pounding along
A howl, a tone, a feedback whine
Biker boys meet the college kind
How in the world were they making that sound?
Velvet Underground.
Wild wild parties when they start to unwind
A close encounter of the thirdest kind
On the bandstand grooving, everybody moving
How in the world are they making that sound?
Velvet Underground."
>> Lots of people probably said that about the Beatles in 1964 too.
>
> Yes, but by 1966 they were talking about how cool it is that they were
>including imagist poetry and Aeolian cadences and ragas in their music. On
>the
>other hand, who likes Donovan, really?
Eh, he had his moments.
Greg Goss
>I propose the following definitions:
>Folk music - amateur music, the authors largely unknown, performed for
>local audiences, readily transmuted as it passes from performer to
>performer.
>Pop music - music created by professionals that falls outside the
>strictures of classical music.
Do you make a distinction for "filk" or parody music? Where the
melody, and popularity hook are in pop music, but the lyrics are a
separate work of art?
("When you been drivin all day, ain't seen nothin but hay --
Spokaine")
Lesmond
>
> On the other hand, who likes Donovan, really?
>
I do.
Briar Rose
>n...@nostradamus.net (Caveat emptor Nostradamus) wrote:
>>I propose the following definitions:
>>Folk music - amateur music, the authors largely unknown, performed for
>>local audiences, readily transmuted as it passes from performer to
>>performer.
>>Pop music - music created by professionals that falls outside the
>>strictures of classical music.
>Do you make a distinction for "filk" or parody music? Where the
>melody, and popularity hook are in pop music, but the lyrics are a
>separate work of art?
Yargh. Where the "art" part is extremely dubious.
Didja know that there's a buttload of stuff people
call "filk" nowadays that has fully original music
and words? I'm not sure how that works...
:) Connie-Lynne
--
"Thank God for Frito-Lay. It did not market Chee-tos as 'dangerously
cheesy' until after, and ONLY after, it had developed a Chee-to whose
cheesiness exceeded acceptable safety standards."
-- The Onion
GrapeApe
>Yargh. Where the "art" part is extremely dubious.
>
>Didja know that there's a buttload of stuff people
>call "filk" nowadays that has fully original music
>and words? I'm not sure how that works...
This is how it works. You walk by a room where 'filk' is taking place. You are
immediately repulsed yet saddened for its participants and you leave.
Estron
> You walk by a room where 'filk' is taking place. You are
> immediately repulsed yet saddened for its participants and you leave.
And the reason for your repulsion and sadness is?
--
All opinions are --surprise!-- only that.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@tfs.net
Kansas City, Missouri
GrapeApe
>> immediately repulsed yet saddened for its participants and you leave.
>
>And the reason for your repulsion and sadness is?
What they are doing, and their encouragement and enjoyment of same.
Estron
> >> You walk by a room where 'filk' is taking place. You are
> >> immediately repulsed yet saddened for its participants and you leave.
Bristling, I responded:
> >And the reason for your repulsion and sadness is?
And GrapeApe shot back:
> What they are doing, and their encouragement and enjoyment of same.
This is completely irrational. "What they are doing" is singing
songs, frequently borrowing some well-known melody (so that
everyone will be able to sing) and putting to it words pertaining
to the filkers' own hobby and/or obsession, such as "Star Trek"
or the Society for Creative Anachronism.
This activity is creative (for the filk writer), entertaining for
those who sing and those who like to listen, often clever and
amusing to the point of being laugh-out-loud funny. It does not
involve mayhem, property damage or physical abuse, and no animals
are harmed in the making of filk.
So, how could writing and singing filk, and encouraging and
enjoying it, possibly cause repulsion and sorrow in any normally
well-adjusted person?
--
All opinions are --surprise!-- only that.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@tfs.net
"benefits of the doubt payable here"
GrapeApe
>So, how could writing and singing filk, and encouraging and
>enjoying it, possibly cause repulsion and sorrow in any normally
>well-adjusted person?
Because it sucks? Because the participants don't realize how pathetic it is? Do
you want me to write a song about it? "This song is about WIlliam Shatner
telling us to "Get A Life" on Saturday Night Live, its called "Get a Career"
and its sung to the tune of "Get a Job".
The society of creative anachronisms gets me down too. Nothing creative in
mining the same time period each year.
Estron
sent to the cited author.]
Previously on alt.fan.cecil-adams, I wrote:
> >So, how could writing and singing filk, and encouraging and
> >enjoying it, possibly cause repulsion and sorrow in any normally
> >well-adjusted person?
And, to my astonishment, GrapeApe replied:
> Because it sucks?
Circular argument. "It's repulsive because it sucks." What do
you mean by "it sucks"? "I mean it's repulsive." This is not
helpful or informative.
> Because the participants don't realize how pathetic it is? Do
> you want me to write a song about it? "This song is about WIlliam Shatner
> telling us to "Get A Life" on Saturday Night Live, its called "Get a Career"
> and its sung to the tune of "Get a Job".
Are you under the impression that those people in there singing
filk _don't_ do anything else? That all they do with their
times, day in and day out, every waking hour, is write and sing
filk or travel to places where they can write and sing filk?
Like any other hobby, it's a spare-time thing for the majority of
its practitioners, like me. I've been supporting myself by
"real" work for more than two decades, thank you, but I still
write and perform songs and some of them are filk. Most filkers
can say the same (variable on the "two decades" part).
You made the blanket statement that filk singing is repulsive and
sad. I take it personally because you're saying that when I do
it, I'm repulsive and sad. I don't think I am, and I really
would like to know the reasons why you, "GrapeApe," think that I,
"Estron," am repulsive and sad.
--
All opinions are --surprise!-- only that.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@tfs.net
Kansas City, Missouri
RM Mentock
No no no. That logic is wrong. Here's an example.
Waking and weeping uncontrollably in the middle of the night is
repulsive and sad, right, and we all do it but that doesn't make
us repulsive and sad.
We all do do it, right?
--
RM Mentock
Leave out a couple comma's and the average 11 line sentence
can get hard to read. -- Casady
Estron
> Waking and weeping uncontrollably in the middle of the night is
> repulsive and sad, right, and we all do it but that doesn't make
> us repulsive and sad.
> We all do do it, right?
Apparently big girls don't cry, Charlie don't surf, and GrapeApe
don't filk.
Opus the Penguin
>Estron wrote:
>> You made the blanket statement that filk singing is repulsive and
>> sad. I take it personally because you're saying that when I do
>> it, I'm repulsive and sad. I don't think I am, and I really
>> would like to know the reasons why you, "GrapeApe," think that I,
>> "Estron," am repulsive and sad.
>
>No no no. That logic is wrong. Here's an example.
>
>Waking and weeping uncontrollably in the middle of the night is
>repulsive and sad, right, and we all do it but that doesn't make
>us repulsive and sad.
Well, I think there's a difference between something uncontrollable that's
repulsive and sad and something we do deliberately that's r and s.
> We all do do it, right?
Yes, of course we do. Go back to sleep now.
Opus the Penguin
Let's sing some filk
Take a good song
And make it badde-e-er.
Remember to mess up on the rhythm
Then you will co-ome
to make it badder.
Hey Dude
Don't be afraid.
Songs were made to
Be wrecked by moro-o-ons.
The minute the song gets into your hands
No chance it sta-ands.
It will get badder.
And anytime it hurts your brain
Hey, Dude. REFRAIN!
You sing the same words, just over and ove-e-er.
For well you know that it's a geek who sings all week
By recycling words he's sung befo-o-ore.
Blah blah blah blah. Blah bluh blah blah
Hey Dude
Don't let me down.
You've found a song
Now go and wreck i-i-it.
Remember to mess up on the rhythm
Then you will co-ome
to make it badder.
So belt it out and suck it in
Hey Dude begin
And soon you'll have someone to perform with.
And don't you know that it's all free. Hey Dude, you see,
The Constitution lets you paro-ody.
Blah blah blah blah. Blah bluh blah blah
Hey Du-u-u-ude.
Let's sing some filk
Take a good song
And make it badde-e-er.
Remember to mess up on the rhythm
Then you will co-ome
to make it badder.
Badder *Badder* BADDER Ooooh! Yeah yeah yeah
Blah blah blah blah. Blah bluh blah blah.
Hey Dude.
Blah blah blah blah. Blah bluh blah blah.
Hey Dude.
Blah blah blah blah. Blah bluh blah blah.
Hey Dude.
Blah blah blah blah. Blah bluh blah blah.
Hey Dude.
(Dude-y, dude, dude dude duu-ude waaaaaaaaaah!)
Blah blah blah blah. Blah bluh blah blah.
etc.
Hey Dude.
Tank
those who sing and those who like to listen, often clever and
amusing to the point of being laugh-out-loud funny. It does not
involve mayhem, property damage or physical abuse, and no animals
are harmed in the making of filk.<
So, the songs we make up and sing to our cats are filk? I'll have
to tell my wife & daughter there's a name for our idiocy. Some
recent titles from the library:
Black Kitty
(Sung to the tune of "Goldfinger")
The Most Handsomest Kitty of All
(Sung to the tune of "The Most Wonderful Time of the Year")
Where Did My Little Piggie-Wiggie-Wiggie Go?
(Sung to the tune from "The Godfather")
--
Tank
"Remember to pillage before you burn"
Dutch Courage
>So, the songs we make up and sing to our cats are filk?
Only if you have your friends over, and everyone listens to you because it
means they can inflict theirs on you. or worse, you and your friends take over
a bar once a month.
This, by the way, is kind of sad.
GrapeApe
>to tell my wife & daughter there's a name for our idiocy. Some
>recent titles from the library:
>
>Black Kitty
>(Sung to the tune of "Goldfinger")
>
>The Most Handsomest Kitty of All
>(Sung to the tune of "The Most Wonderful Time of the Year")
>
>Where Did My Little Piggie-Wiggie-Wiggie Go?
>(Sung to the tune from "The Godfather")
<ross perot voice> now folks that's just sad...<\ross perot voice>
But cute
Enjoy the freshness of Cute Fluffy Kittens!
Briar Rose
>>So, the songs we make up and sing to our cats are filk? I'll have
>>to tell my wife & daughter there's a name for our idiocy. Some
>>recent titles from the library:
>>
>>Black Kitty
>>(Sung to the tune of "Goldfinger")
>>
>>The Most Handsomest Kitty of All
>>(Sung to the tune of "The Most Wonderful Time of the Year")
>>
>>Where Did My Little Piggie-Wiggie-Wiggie Go?
>>(Sung to the tune from "The Godfather")
Your kitty songs are more cultured than my
kitty songs. I have this giant fat cat whose
name is Sydney. Out of this, we've gotten
"I like Big Cats"
("Baby Got Back," Sir Mix-A-Lot)
"Big Sydney"
("My name is," Eminem)
"The Real Big Sydney"
("The Real Slim Shady," Eminem)
Tank
Thank you! But I don't imagine we'll be hearing The
Three Tenors belting out any of them in the near future.
Actually, I'm relieved to know we're not the only ones
who make up songs to sing to/about their cats. :)
Dana Carpender
Tank wrote:
>
> >Your kitty songs are more cultured than my kitty songs. <
>
> Thank you! But I don't imagine we'll be hearing The
> Three Tenors belting out any of them in the near future.
>
> Actually, I'm relieved to know we're not the only ones
> who make up songs to sing to/about their cats. :)
We make up all sorts of songs, although most of them have melodies we've
made up as well, though not all. We have songs for the cat, we had
songs for the dog <sniff>, we have *many* songs for each other. We have
a "pretty day" song for nice weather. And back when I used to actually
eat things with a graham cracker crust, I had a "smasho cracker" song
for smashing graham crackers. However, now that I make crusts from
ground hazelnuts, I do not have -- as of yet -- a "grinding hazelnuts"
song.
We are exceedingly silly around here, and I don't care if anyone else
thinks it's sad or repulsive. We find it funny and heartwarming. So
there.
Margaret Kane
"Tank" <alr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9in09c$d7b$1...@suaar1ab.prod.compuserve.com...
> >Your kitty songs are more cultured than my kitty songs. <
>
> Thank you! But I don't imagine we'll be hearing The
> Three Tenors belting out any of them in the near future.
>
> Actually, I'm relieved to know we're not the only ones
> who make up songs to sing to/about their cats. :)
>
>
I suppose it's more acceptable to sing to babies, but probably not the songs
we sing. Mostly, it's because we can never remember the words to the
standard baby songs, so we just started substituting her name. But then it
spread ...
"Her name was Julie, she was a baby"
"She bounces around, all over the town, she's Julie, the bouncy baby."
"Oops, you did it again. You pooped in your pants..."
That last one has about three verses.
Margaret
kay w
>Actually, I'm relieved to know we're not the only ones
>who make up songs to sing to/about their cats. :)
You'll hear it at my house, too, but the tunes are not nearly as sophisticated
as many mentioned here. Most of ours are along the lines of, "I'm a little
kitty, short and stout." (Unless you consider Tom Jones sophisticated, 'cause
you'll hear "What's New, Pussycat?" on occasion.)
kay w
Address munged. AOL isn't necessarily comatose, evidence to the contrary not
withstanding.
Tank
made up as well, though not all.<
We're not talented enough to make up melodies, so we steal from the
classics. We, too have songs for other people and things besides kitties.
>However, now that I make crusts from ground hazelnuts, I do not have
-- as of yet -- a "grinding hazelnuts" song.<
Like to hear more about that crust. Could it be used for a quiche? What
are you doing with it?
Dutch Courage
>We are exceedingly silly around here, and I don't care if anyone else
>thinks it's sad or repulsive. We find it funny and heartwarming.
And it is.
> So
>there.
Well, fine, but if you get up in my bar to sing the "smasho cracker" song,
well...I'll show you how to "so, there" with a blackjack.
Dana Carpender
Dutch Courage wrote:
>
> Dana Carpender dcar...@kiva.net
> Date: 7/13/2001 10:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>
> >We are exceedingly silly around here, and I don't care if anyone else
> >thinks it's sad or repulsive. We find it funny and heartwarming.
>
> And it is.
>
> > So
> >there.
>
> Well, fine, but if you get up in my bar to sing the "smasho cracker" song,
> well...I'll show you how to "so, there" with a blackjack.
Can't see why I'd be smashing graham crackers in a bar...
Dana Carpender
Tank wrote:
>
> >We make up all sorts of songs, although most of them have melodies we've
> made up as well, though not all.<
>
> We're not talented enough to make up melodies, so we steal from the
> classics.
I never said we made up *good* melodies, did I?
We, too have songs for other people and things besides kitties.
>
> >However, now that I make crusts from ground hazelnuts, I do not have
> -- as of yet -- a "grinding hazelnuts" song.<
>
> Like to hear more about that crust. Could it be used for a quiche? What
> are you doing with it?
Use it for cheesecake, and no, it wouldn't do for quiche, as it is
mildly sweet. It consists of ground hazelnuts, vanilla whey protein
powder, and butter.
However, I've been thinking I should try making a pie shell from low
carb bake mix. If it's successful, I'll let you know.
Gary S. Callison
: "Oops, you did it again. You pooped in your pants..."
One of my songwriting partners has done something very similar to this,
but the one song that both he and I absolutely adore is the one his
daughter wrote: "The 'Daddy Put Your Guitar Down' Blues".
Kind of like Brak's "PUPPY! STOP CHEWIN' ON THE FURNITURE!" poem, it was.
Only cuter...
--
Huey
Marie Martinek
>We make up all sorts of songs, although most of them have melodies we've
>made up as well, though not all. We have songs for the cat, we had
>songs for the dog <sniff>, we have *many* songs for each other. We have
>a "pretty day" song for nice weather. And back when I used to actually
>eat things with a graham cracker crust, I had a "smasho cracker" song
>for smashing graham crackers. However, now that I make crusts from
>ground hazelnuts, I do not have -- as of yet -- a "grinding hazelnuts"
>song.
>
>We are exceedingly silly around here, and I don't care if anyone else
>thinks it's sad or repulsive. We find it funny and heartwarming. So
>there.
You know how songs will stick in your mind forever and ever and ever...?
I use that a lot to remind myself to do things. I've got one song to remind
myself to get off at the Braeside train station instead of going all the way
to Waukegan (to the tune of Paul Simon's "Graceland"), one to reset it if I've
been Braesiding for a while (to the tune of "Sweet Home Chicago"), one to
remind me to deposit the checks I've been carrying around ("account is gonna
tank, tank, tank; I'm going to the bank, bank, bank", yeah, I'm cruel, we're
*all* gonna have that for the next couple hours...)
Oh, and our cats' songs are Born to Be Feline ("heavy furry rumble, get up on
the table...") and
Furballs! Flying furballs!
What sort of cats are flying furballs?
Starfish cats, cold nosed cats, cats that step on your face
Bladder cats, *oof* cats, they get sent to outer space
They're furballs! Flying furballs!
Because they wake you up!
Marie Martinek
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA
mv-ma...@northwestern.edu
Marie Martinek
>Didja know that there's a buttload of stuff people
>call "filk" nowadays that has fully original music
>and words? I'm not sure how that works...
"Filk" has never meant (only) parodies. It's just that that's the stuff that
non-filkers remember (because it's what gets on Doctor Demento, or it sticks
in their mind when they catch one line as they go down the hall).
Define "filk". Ask three filkers and you'll get four definitions. It's the
"music of the science fiction community, at least of those who self-identify
as filkers". Usually it's "self-made", although with Joe Ellis bringing his
Mac and synth, and Ookla the Mok bringing their sound mix man, it can get
complex and close-to-professional. Any style is (usually) welcome. You wanna
invite the Boston Philharmonic into the filk room -- hey, if they don't mind
the crowding, we'll be happy to listen to them doing a piece or two. They
can't take up the whole time, though...
>
>:) Connie-Lynne
Gina Marie Wade
<margar...@zdnet.com> wrote:
>I suppose it's more acceptable to sing to babies, but probably not the songs
>we sing. Mostly, it's because we can never remember the words to the
>standard baby songs, so we just started substituting her name. But then it
>spread ...
>
>
>"Her name was Julie, she was a baby"
>
>"She bounces around, all over the town, she's Julie, the bouncy baby."
>
>"Oops, you did it again. You pooped in your pants..."
>
>That last one has about three verses.
>
My son was born on 6/26 - so we altered this song:
"He's a Jakey-Doodle Dandy
Jakey-Doodle Do or Die
A real live nephew of his Uncle Stan
Born near the 4th of July."
Gina Marie
Amy Austin
> Previously, Tank said:
>
> >Actually, I'm relieved to know we're not the only ones
> >who make up songs to sing to/about their cats. :)
>
> You'll hear it at my house, too, but the tunes are not nearly as sophisticated
> as many mentioned here. Most of ours are along the lines of, "I'm a little
> kitty, short and stout." (Unless you consider Tom Jones sophisticated, 'cause
> you'll hear "What's New, Pussycat?" on occasion.)
I can't believe I'm actually admitting this to other adults, but I sing to
my animals ALL the time.
Kona the cat enjoys:
"Kona, K-O-N-A, Kona, Ko-ko-ko-ko-kona..." (to the tune of "Lola", or
actually the Weird Al "Yoda" song, cause that's where I learned the tune)
Maxine the dog gets:
"Maxine, you don't have to chew on your mother. Maxine..." etc. (to the
tune of Roxanne by Sting)
The Rabbits hear:
"Bunny bunny bunny bunny, BUNNY, BUNNY!" (to the tune of that song that
goes, "Money...")
L & k,
Amy
Dutch Courage
>
>"Bunny bunny bunny bunny, BUNNY, BUNNY!" (to the tune of that song that
>goes, "Money...")
For the love of money, recorded by the Ojays?