Neil's lyrics
Mark Rohlf
This post is for anyone out there who has taken any college
courses in liturature or music histrory.
I took one of each in my undergrad coursework. During the
semester in my liturature course, the instructor lectured a
section on musicians whos lyrics made history. Musicians like
John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Jim Morrison, and a few others were
mentioned in this class.
Then, a few years later, I took a music history course. During
the lectures on the "Rock" era of music, the same names popped
up.
My question is ... Why has Neil not gotten the recognition he
deserves???
If there are any professors reading this post ... I would be
very interested to hear your angle on this.
--
/========================================================\
| http://www.media-net.net/ftpclients/annie/flatlander/ |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
| Mark Rohlf |
| Internet consultant |
| ro...@usa.net |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
| Half the world cries, half the world laughs |
| Half the world tries to be the other half |
| N. Peart |
\========================================================/
Bill J. Bernard
Mark Rohlf wrote:
>
>During the
> semester in my liturature course, the instructor lectured a
> section on musicians whos lyrics made history. Musicians like
> John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Jim Morrison, and a few others were
> mentioned in this class.
>
> deserves???
>
Well, I'm no professor of literature or music history... and please
forgive me for butting in, but I think the answer to your question is
rather simple.
How many times have we heard Neil talk about "appealing to the lowest
common denominator"?
You're talking about musicians whose lyrics made history, right? What
lyrics has Neil ever written that are of historical significance (or,
for that matter, of _any_ significance to non-Rush fans)? First of all,
Neil's lyrics (and Rush) can hardly even be considered part of pop
culture. John Lennon, Bob Dylan and Jim Morrison were practically
spokesmen for a generation of Americans and had a worldwide impact
during a highly politically-charged decade. These guys were first and
foremost highly exposed figures of popular culture. As such, any words
they sang could quite easily be described as having enormous impact on
the lives of millions.
Of course, the direct answer to your question, "Why hasn't Neil gotten
the recognition he deserves?" is easy: He doesn't appeal (nor does he
aspire to) to the general populace the way these guys did.
Unfortunately, you would stand a much better chance of getting the
lyrics of Madonna or Michael Jackson added to that list.
But at least WE know good lyrics when we hear 'em, eh?
Maxx2112
Mark Rohlf <ro...@usa.net> writes:
>
>I took one of each in my undergrad coursework. During the
>semester in my liturature course, the instructor lectured a
>section on musicians whos lyrics made history. Musicians like
>John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Jim Morrison, and a few others were
>mentioned in this class.
>
>the lectures on the "Rock" era of music, the same names popped
>up.
>
>deserves???
It's probably because the folks writing the books and teaching the classes
grew up in the sixties, and Lennon, Dylan, and Morrison are the lyric gods
to them.
Also, those three tend to more poetic than Peart. Neil seems to be more
of a "say what you mean and mean what you say" type, and the others are
more flowery.
Another point maybe that Peart's lyrics don't appeal to the ones teaching
the classes.
- Max -
========================================
Max said to them, "Come and have breakfast."
None of them ventured to question him, "Who are
you?" knowing that is was Max. -- Max 21:12
Cecrle
Mark Rohlf <ro...@usa.net> wrote:
>This post is for anyone out there who has taken any college
>courses in liturature or music histrory.
>
>semester in my liturature course, the instructor lectured a
>section on musicians whos lyrics made history. Musicians like
>John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Jim Morrison, and a few others were
>mentioned in this class.
>
>Then, a few years later, I took a music history course. During
>the lectures on the "Rock" era of music, the same names popped
>up.
>
>My question is ... Why has Neil not gotten the recognition he
>deserves???
>
>very interested to hear your angle on this.
Why *should* he be mentioned? They're organized very nicely, and he makes
his points very well, but what besides that is special about them?
Peart's lyrics really aren't that revolutionary...
-FC
Mark Rohlf
Why does it have to be "flowery" to be worth noting in an academic
environment???
>
>
> His lyrics don't seem to be out to express the human
> spirit/emotions/whatever (the "flowery" part), but to express his opinions
> on things, don't you think?
>
> -FC
Mark Rohlf
Ok ... let's take that argument one step further ... what is so special about
... oh ... say ... Bob Dylan's lyrics??? Why Bob and not Neil???
I have read Bob's Lyrics ... and I have read Neil's ... other than the timing
of publication ... I don't see how Bob's are more special than Neil's
Cecrle wrote:
Mark Rohlf
I must have made a mistake ... I may have worded my original post
in such a way that would discourage those who have not taken these
courses or teach these courses ... or any courses similar in
subject matter ... to post their view on this subject.
Sorry about that ... I am interested in anyone who has an opinion
on this subject to voice their thoughts here.
Mark Rohlf wrote:
> This post is for anyone out there who has taken any college
> courses in liturature or music histrory.
>
> I took one of each in my undergrad coursework. During the
> semester in my liturature course, the instructor lectured a
> section on musicians whos lyrics made history. Musicians like
> John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Jim Morrison, and a few others were
> mentioned in this class.
>
> Then, a few years later, I took a music history course. During
> the lectures on the "Rock" era of music, the same names popped
> up.
>
> My question is ... Why has Neil not gotten the recognition he
> deserves???
>
> If there are any professors reading this post ... I would be
> very interested to hear your angle on this.
>
Bill J. Bernard
Sghorwitz wrote:
>
> Well, I'm a professor, but of economics, not literature or music, and I have
> used Neil's lyrics in class and on an exam. In the latter case, it asked
> students to compare the lyrics to The Trees with John Lennon's Imagine. So
> some of us recognize greatness! :)
>
> I think the post about the pop culture impact of Neil vs. the others is right
> on the mark. OTOH, I dated a woman about 10 years ago who had taken a
> musicology course in college (in the early 80s). When they got to the rock
> section of the course, at one point the professor said he wanted them to hear
> what great rock composition was like. There was a pause and then Tom Sawyer
> pounded out of the classroom audio system.
>
> So Rush is not totally ignored in academia.
>
> The Professor
Cool!
Damon Hynes
Lennon -- elitist
Dylan -- socialist
Morrison -- hedonist
Peart -- unapolegetic capitalist, intellectual, moralist.
Which qualities more closely reflect those of professors and
administrators of academia today?
Former SDS leaders now are running the asylums -- admit nothing, deny
everything, nothing is immoral as long as I want to do it.
Ignoring the White House. . .for now.
--
~~~~~
Men talk; Nature acts.
Cecrle
maxx...@aol.com (Maxx2112) wrote:
>Mark Rohlf <ro...@usa.net> writes:
>>
>>I took one of each in my undergrad coursework. During the
>>semester in my liturature course, the instructor lectured a
>>section on musicians whos lyrics made history. Musicians like
>>John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Jim Morrison, and a few others were
>>mentioned in this class.
>>
>>Then, a few years later, I took a music history course. During
>>the lectures on the "Rock" era of music, the same names popped
>>up.
>>
>>My question is ... Why has Neil not gotten the recognition he
>>deserves???
>
>grew up in the sixties, and Lennon, Dylan, and Morrison are the lyric gods
>to them.
>
>Also, those three tend to more poetic than Peart. Neil seems to be more
>of a "say what you mean and mean what you say" type, and the others are
>more flowery.
Neil's point seems to be to best sum up and back up various opinions, and
history couldn't care less about one Neil Peart's opinions (although they
are written very neatly and cleanly).
John A. & Marianne Sievers
Cecrle wrote:
>
>
> Well, I didn't say it had to. But, a certain spin of "fowery-ness" that
> Neil lacks is personal expression.
Neil lacks personal expression?
>
> How many lyrics do you think are really personal for him? There are some
> obvious ones, but how many are really something from down deep that you'd
> be afraid to share?
That is the way he writes and he has said so. He tries to make his
experiences universal and often hides personal relevance. There are
plenty of lyricists that spill their guts. Some of them even mean it.
> I just love it when people get all happy about pushing Rush on others--I'm
> all for introducing people to new music, but it's naive and self-centered
> to think people will be blown away the moment they hear Neil's words, etc.
Pushing Rush on others? In a Rush newsgroup? By golly, it just might
work!
Sghorwitz
Matt Jovanis
Mark Rohlf <ro...@usa.net> wrote:
>Ok ... let's take that argument one step further ... what is so special about
>... oh ... say ... Bob Dylan's lyrics??? Why Bob and not Neil???
>I have read Bob's Lyrics ... and I have read Neil's ... other than the timing
>of publication ... I don't see how Bob's are more special than Neil's
From what ive heard of Dylan, he writes things from the heart, really
true things, that can touch people.
Neil's are more of straight up, parodies, satires.
+-------------------------------------------------+
| agen...@futuretek.net |
| www.futuretek.net/agentmjj |
| MJJ Bass Online! |
| |
| Visit my web page, |
| You will find many bass Tabs |
| ___________________________________________ |
| |SPAM PROOF- To reply, remove the SPAM/ | |
| |___________________________________________| |
+-------------------------------------------------+
Matt Jovanis
Mark Rohlf <ro...@usa.net> wrote:
>Why does it have to be "flowery" to be worth noting in an academic
>environment???
>>
>>
>> His lyrics don't seem to be out to express the human
>> spirit/emotions/whatever (the "flowery" part), but to express his opinions
>> on things, don't you think?
>>
>> -FC
They dont. But from what it looks like here, everyones favorite FC
didnt try to say that it did.
Cecrle
"John A. & Marianne Sievers" <ytse...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>Cecrle wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well, I didn't say it had to. But, a certain spin of "fowery-ness" that
>> Neil lacks is personal expression.
>Neil lacks personal expression?
Well, he obviously doesn't hesitate to share his opinions, but I'm saying
he doesn't share much more than that.
>> How many lyrics do you think are really personal for him? There are some
>> obvious ones, but how many are really something from down deep that you'd
>> be afraid to share?
>
>That is the way he writes and he has said so.
I'm just pointing out a reason why he wouldn't/isn't/couldn't/shouldn't be
discussed in any sort of college class in the same manner as those other
lyricists.
> He tries to make his
>experiences universal and often hides personal relevance.
Do you think that's a good or bad thing? Just curious.
> There are
>plenty of lyricists that spill their guts. Some of them even mean it.
Was it you who said _Misplaced Childhood_ is great because Fish spills his
guts and you're there to witniss it? Maybe it was someone else--I get you
Johns mixed up, dontcha know. :)
>> I just love it when people get all happy about pushing Rush on others--I'm
>> all for introducing people to new music, but it's naive and self-centered
>> to think people will be blown away the moment they hear Neil's words, etc.
>
>Pushing Rush on others? In a Rush newsgroup? By golly, it just might
>work!
We were talking about the college setting--what professor could seriously
discuss Peart for any amount of time and not be exercising in
self-indulgence?
-FC
Cecrle
Damon Hynes <damon...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>Lennon -- elitist
>Dylan -- socialist
>Morrison -- hedonist
>
>Peart -- unapolegetic capitalist, intellectual, moralist.
But which go out on more limbs in terms of art and expression? Peart
plays it safe--he does a damn good job at what he does, but his lyrics are
really just good for self-affirmations of opinion...."Yes, I agree with
Peart's stance on this topic, therefore he's a lyrical genius!" Huh-uh.
>Which qualities more closely reflect those of professors and
>administrators of academia today?
>Former SDS leaders now are running the asylums -- admit nothing, deny
>everything, nothing is immoral as long as I want to do it.
>
>Ignoring the White House. . .for now.
Yep, just because Peart's "ignored" (although I can't think of any really
good reasons he *should* be cited), it means there's a conspiracy afoot!
FUN FACT: Clinton enjoys having "Where's My Thing?" playing in the
background during 4 out of 5 sexual proposals in hotel rooms.
-FC
Alex Goddard
In article <34439323...@usa.net>,
Mark Rohlf <ro...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>My question is ... Why has Neil not gotten the recognition he
>deserves???
I'd say their are two reasons:
1. Peart doesn't have the exposure that Lennon, Dylan
etc. did.
2. Most of Peart isn't original in its verse. He plucks
phrases from other sources and assembles them to
tell his stories. While he does this brilliantly,
IMHO, the crafting of the words themselves is rarely
"original Peart". Peart is kind of like a lyrical
collage rather than an original work of art.
Alex
Sghorwitz
David writes (in response to FC):
>> One rock musician's thoughts on The Manhattan Project aren't much to be
>> discussed in class, wouldn't you agree?
>
>What are any rock star's lyrics but one person's thoughts on something?
>At least with Neil he tries to deal with universal themes (just listen to
>_Power Windows_ and _HYF_). The last thing I want to hear from Neil is
>something about how fucked up he was as a kid or some damn thing...that's
>so lame.
I agree that there's way to many Oprah-like lyrics out there (here's my story
and listen to me whine about it...) and I also agree that it's good that Neil
has tried to address universal theme etc.. But that's precisely why Neil's
lyrics will never be taken all that seriously:
With a few notable exceptions, he's not a great stylist. He's got some clever
rhymes and a song like Anagram is cool, but mostly he is straightforward and
descriptive. That's fine, esp. because he often has insightful things to say.
But it also means he'll never be discussed in an English class the way others
(esp. say Paul Simon) will be. It also means, however, that he'll never be
discussed as a social critic because there are plenty of other writers (not
just rock lyricists) out there who are deeper and more knowledgeable than
Neil. By choosing to approach his lyrics the way he has, he has made his
comparison group into other social critics (journalists, academics etc.)
rather than lyricists per se.
Again, I happen to like that about Neil, but it also means he'll never get a
serious academic audience.
The Professor
Alex Goddard
In article <620k2s$56q$1...@nw003.infi.net>,
Cecrle <mce...@sbt.infi.net> wrote:
>Why *should* he be mentioned? They're organized very nicely, and he makes
>his points very well, but what besides that is special about them?
>
>Peart's lyrics really aren't that revolutionary...
And, like I said before, the phrases in his lyrics are usually plucked
from other sources. His lyrics are collages of familiar phrases rather
than original works.
Alex
Bill J. Bernard
Cecrle wrote:
>
> I just love it when people get all happy about pushing Rush on others--I'm
> all for introducing people to new music, but it's naive and self-centered
> to think people will be blown away the moment they hear Neil's words, etc.
>
>
Possibly with regards to newer Rush, you have a point. The problem is,
for many of us, having first been introduced to Rush in the form of
2112, e.g., what you just deemed a naive expectation is precisely what
we personally experienced. It is hard for one to ignore past
experiences when forming expectations about the future, as naive as that
might be.
Hearing Neil's lyrics was the purpose when I bought my first Rush album
(this is what several other fans had so highly praised). That was also
the thing I initially enjoyed so much about the album (and Rush).
Bill J. Bernard
Cecrle wrote:
>
> I just love it when people get all happy about pushing Rush on others--I'm
> all for introducing people to new music, but it's naive and self-centered
> to think people will be blown away the moment they hear Neil's words, etc.
>
Possibly with regards to newer Rush, you have a point. The problem is,
Bill J. Bernard
Matt Jovanis wrote:
>
> Mark Rohlf <ro...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >Ok ... let's take that argument one step further ... what is so special about
> >... oh ... say ... Bob Dylan's lyrics??? Why Bob and not Neil???
>
> >I have read Bob's Lyrics ... and I have read Neil's ... other than the timing
> >of publication ... I don't see how Bob's are more special than Neil's
>
> From what ive heard of Dylan, he writes things from the heart, really
> true things, that can touch people.
>
> Neil's are more of straight up, parodies, satires.
>
I think it's a lot simpler than you guys are making it out to be. Neil
is not as widely known; that's all there is to it. Dylan's words aren't
_better_; they were just heard by a lot more ears. He was recognized as
a poet before he ever appeared in a musical group. Morrison was
similarly viewed as a poet in a rock band. And Lennon was a Beatle, for
God's sake! These guys were very popular in their day (and still are)
-- way more popular that Neil Peart is/was or probably ever wants to be,
from what I can tell.
Also, keep in mind, that the greatest artists receive the most
recognition long after they are dead. Morrison and Lennon have this
additional little edge on Neil.
Cecrle
*Exactly*. I've tried to point out the same thing before (on the mailing
list), and it got turned into some big thing about me accusing Neil of
plaigiarism...
He's just out to make his points, and he does it well. There's just
nothing that artistically original or exciting about his words.
-FC
Cecrle
"Bill J. Bernard" <bern...@sterlingdi.com> wrote:
>Cecrle wrote:
>>
>> I just love it when people get all happy about pushing Rush on others--I'm
>> all for introducing people to new music, but it's naive and self-centered
>> to think people will be blown away the moment they hear Neil's words, etc.
>>
>
>Possibly with regards to newer Rush, you have a point. The problem is,
>for many of us, having first been introduced to Rush in the form of
>2112, e.g., what you just deemed a naive expectation is precisely what
>we personally experienced. It is hard for one to ignore past
>experiences when forming expectations about the future, as naive as that
>might be.
Well, I can't relate, considering I never had such an orgasmic
first-encounter. The first song by Rush that I liked instantly was
Temples of Syrinx, and that was because it was like nothing I'd heard
before.
>Hearing Neil's lyrics was the purpose when I bought my first Rush album
>(this is what several other fans had so highly praised). That was also
>the thing I initially enjoyed so much about the album (and Rush).
Yeah, but if Peart's words had this effect on everyone, they'd get much
more radio-play. It's not a matter of people not having the opportunity
to hear Rush--they aren't an obscure band--it's just a matter of hearing
it and they feel nothing from it.
-FC
Cecrle
Pritiera <prit...@shell-00.tor.acc.ca> wrote:
>Cecrle <mce...@sbt.infi.net> wrote:
>Aren't there enough people out there writing about their personal
>problems?
Yes, we all have them. I find it ironic that you can talk about how
Neil's writing is universal, and then dismiss personal problems even
though they're more universal than most of Peart's.
> If an artist sticks to that theme almost exclusively (as most
>do), I think it indicates a lack of ability to reason about abstract
>concepts. Neil is creative and intelligent; he doesn't need to resort to
>writing lyrics that read like a diary.
I'd rather read a guy's diary than hear his opinions on everything! Which
do you think you'd learn more from? I'd choose the diary.
>> How many lyrics do you think are really personal for him? There are some
>> obvious ones, but how many are really something from down deep that you'd
>> be afraid to share?
>
>Those types of lyrics usually come off as so whiny and phony. I think
>there's a limit to the number of times a person can hear about someone
>else's personal problems.
It doesn't have to be like that. Here's an example of some of my favorite
lines from Peart:
"I am made from the dust of the stars
and the oceans flow in my veins.
Here I hide in the heart of the city,
like a stranger coming out of the rain."
Some of my favorites, and he's not pushing some opinion. It's more along
the lines of pure expression of self, which is much more beautiful to me
than why Neil thinks X about Y. He's not whining, he's not talking about
problems--you don't have to do that to express your emotions.
> I can't stand that stuff. What makes anyone think I care about their >problems?
Well, if you're human, you probably have many of the same problems. Music
and art is about expression and touching something in you, right? Well,
how touching is an opinion? What makes Peart think I care about his
opinions?
>> One rock musician's thoughts on The Manhattan Project aren't much to be
>> discussed in class, wouldn't you agree?
>
>What are any rock star's lyrics but one person's thoughts on something?
He just pastes them nicely. Other than that, Peart ain't that special to
me.
>At least with Neil he tries to deal with universal themes (just listen to
>_Power Windows_ and _HYF_).
Somewhat contradictory, see above...
> The last thing I want to hear from Neil is
>something about how fucked up he was as a kid or some damn thing...that's
>so lame.
It's because he *wasnt'* fucked up as a kid. Why do you think he has so
little creative kick? As Goddard has pointed out, his works are more
collage-like than purely original expressions.
That's Rush's problem--they're all too normal and happy. Maybe if Peart
had gone through some more pain, he'd have some more interesting, creative
things to say.
-FC
Roxanna
On 15 Oct 1997, Cecrle wrote:
> >Hearing Neil's lyrics was the purpose when I bought my first Rush album
> >(this is what several other fans had so highly praised). That was also
> >the thing I initially enjoyed so much about the album (and Rush).
>
> Yeah, but if Peart's words had this effect on everyone, they'd get much
> more radio-play. It's not a matter of people not having the opportunity
> to hear Rush--they aren't an obscure band--it's just a matter of hearing
> it and they feel nothing from it.
Well, I don't really know what radio stations you listen to, but
the ones i listen to play Rush a good deal. They play what's relatively
new from younger bands the most, but they play Rush just about as much as
they play some more popular "classic rock" bands, Aerosmith, Led
Zeppelin, etc. And the "classic rock" stations i listen to play Rush
even more than that. I really don't think it has much to do with the
lyrics. Of course this is just my opinion, but I find the lyrics of
Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin seriously lacking most of the time (but i love
the music). Maybe rock stations in other states play Rush a lot less. I
would love to hear them get more air time, but I'm not surprised or
really disappointed. I would expect bands like Live and Pearl Jam and
Dave Matthews Band to get a lot more attention from radio stations.
Chris
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Chris Cooney * "Though we live in trying times, *
* * we're the ones who have to try. *
* (cm...@acpub.duke.edu) * Though we know that time has wings, *
* * We're the ones who have to fly..." - Rush *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Cecrle
"Sam G." <"sgiacco@letthemeatspam"@cedar.vcu.edu> wrote:
>Now to address Frank's response. Frank, I normally don't criticise you
>for your opinions on Rush and Rush fans, for I feel it offers a good
>balance to the overwhelming "Rush Rules" theme which is dominant in this
>newsgroup (as it should be, being a Rush newsgroup!). But to question
>why Neil's words should be treated with respect,
ERR. I never said his lyrics should be disrespected, I said that a
college class really isn't the place for Peart's lyrics. Big difference.
> or to question the
>brilliance of Neil's writing is just absurd.
Why? Why shouldn't everything be questioned? Oh, let's just assume
Neil's awesome and not even think about it, sounds great, yeah...
> (I don't know if you are
>just playing devil's advocate in this, but if you aren't, you need to
>sit down once again with ALL the albums, not just Presto, and
>re-evaluate.)
(Look at this, everyone--another guy treating Rush's skills as objective
facts.) He acts like there's some TRUTH I'm missing. It's all opinions,
man, and while I see where you're coming from, I can also see a wide array
of alternate viewpoints.
> Neil's use of meter, imagery and metaphor are untouched
>in the music industry, and I would even go so far as to say that his
>words rival even the best contemporary poets. His poetry (and I do
>consider it poetry!) is on par with Kerouac, Ginsberg, Brautigan, and
>Ferlingetti.
Yeah, we know how Ginsberg *loved* structure and meter, don't we....I
can't say I know anything about Brautigan or Ferlingetti, but I'm willing
to be they're one hell of a lot better than Peart in the arean of poetry.
Are they just dressing up their opinions and calling them poems, or are
they expressing themselves in artistic, original, creative ways? Peart
dresses his opinions up in pretty words, neat structures, etc.
>He has proven himself as a revolutionary in his writing
>(not revolutionary in the sense that he is a rabble - rouser, calling a
>generation to arms, burning flags and protesting wars. No. A
>revolutionary of the MIND. A revolutionary who offered thoughtful,
>insightful lyrics during generations where intellectual thought was
>replaced by thoughts of materialism and wealth, greed and manipulation.
>His words will probably be for what Rush is remembered in the music
>history books.
No way. They're just a bunch of opinions! Nothing previously unseen,
unexplored, or unexamined! Peart just has viewpoints you agree with, and
he craftfully and deliberately expresses them with words. I don't know
about the rest of you, but that's not how *I* like to think of art.
> I disagree with those who say that Neil's words are so
>"objective" in nature, that he doesn't take a stand on issues, and that
>he just "paints a picture" of the issues at hand. I always get the
>feeling that Neil USUALLY has an opinion on the subject, but his views
>aren't presented in an overly blatant way.
"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand." Pretty blatant to
me.
> One must put some thought
>into the words, search for the opinion. Read them, then re-read them.
>Like poems.
Wow, what a novel idea!
> (For instance, take "The Pass". Obviously anti-suicide.
>Never does he blatantly say "suicide is dumb. don't do it." One must
>put a little thought into the lyrics first.
Yeah, and only *then* can they safely come to the conclusion that Peart's
pat message is *indeed* "suicide is dumb, don't do it." I'm not the only
one to see a pat, insensitive side to his lyrics on that one. I see what
you're saying, but the condescension and pat nature of the lyrics are
still there. I don't think he has any kind of understanding for the
suicidal ones...
> (And "The Pass" is one of
>his more obvious lyrics. There are countless other songs in this
>fashion, some more vague than others. I think this is a strength, one
>which will be remembered. Once they get inducted to the R&R hall of
>fame, that is!) Well, enough rambling for me, gotta get back to work!
I don't think many people give a damn about Rush. I wouldn't say Rush is
that influential a band. Sure, people sometimes cite Rush (even the
guitarist from Tool has cited Rush), but I really don't think of Rush as
having much of an impact on the musical world.
-FC
Roxanna
On 15 Oct 1997, Cecrle wrote:
> "Sam G." <"sgiacco@letthemeatspam"@cedar.vcu.edu> wrote:
>
> > (I don't know if you are
> >just playing devil's advocate in this, but if you aren't, you need to
> >sit down once again with ALL the albums, not just Presto, and
> >re-evaluate.)
>
> (Look at this, everyone--another guy treating Rush's skills as objective
> facts.) He acts like there's some TRUTH I'm missing. It's all opinions,
> man, and while I see where you're coming from, I can also see a wide array
> of alternate viewpoints.
I don't mean to re-hash the objectivity discussion - and I agree
completely with you that is is all opinions. But on the other hand, I
can understand someone who loves Rush (or anything else for that matter)
wanting to share that with someone else, and trying to explain what is so
good about it. Wanting you to take a closer look at the lyrics is just
wanting you to see what he sees. Of course you dont have to do it at all,
and you don't have to come up with the same conclusions if you did or
already have.
> > Neil's use of meter, imagery and metaphor are untouched
> >in the music industry, and I would even go so far as to say that his
> >words rival even the best contemporary poets. His poetry (and I do
> >consider it poetry!) is on par with Kerouac, Ginsberg, Brautigan, and
> >Ferlingetti.
>
> Yeah, we know how Ginsberg *loved* structure and meter, don't we....I
> can't say I know anything about Brautigan or Ferlingetti, but I'm willing
> to be they're one hell of a lot better than Peart in the arean of poetry.
> Are they just dressing up their opinions and calling them poems, or are
> they expressing themselves in artistic, original, creative ways? Peart
> dresses his opinions up in pretty words, neat structures, etc.
Why isn't that artistic, creative, or original? Opinions aren't
any less of those things than emotions are. I don't think artists who
deal with more "emotional" topics are presenting them in any more of an
"original" way than Neil presents his opinions. Everyone has opinions,
and everyone has emotions and experiences. (Talking about emotions vs.
opinions is a bit tricky for me, because a lot of the time, while Neil may
not directly mention emotions, the lyrics seem to evoke a lot of emotions in
me.) Each of these things are, in my opinion, unique to the individual in a
certain sense, but on the surface they seem exactly the same, because others
share those emotions and opinions too. I think it's a problem with the
language (any language) - I think it would be safe to say that you and I
have both felt sadness in the past - but for each of us, the sadness could
have many different origins, meanings, reactions, etc etc. But it's so
hard to capture those differences with words. It comes out all sounding the
same, and I think lyricists ( or poets) who deal emotions have the
same problems as those who deal with opinions. Most of the issues Neil
presents are ones I have already thought about in some way or another,
but then again, most of the emotions presented in songs or poems are ones
that I have already felt and thought about in much the same way as the
artist. On the other hand, I think some of the *ways* he presents
topics, if not the topics themselves, are original (or more so, it
seems to me than other artists) The few songs that deal with love
are done so in a way I haven't heard out of other lyricists.
> >He has proven himself as a revolutionary in his writing
> >(not revolutionary in the sense that he is a rabble - rouser, calling a
> >generation to arms, burning flags and protesting wars. No. A
> >revolutionary of the MIND. A revolutionary who offered thoughtful,
> >insightful lyrics during generations where intellectual thought was
> >replaced by thoughts of materialism and wealth, greed and manipulation.
> >His words will probably be for what Rush is remembered in the music
> >history books.
>
> No way. They're just a bunch of opinions! Nothing previously unseen,
> unexplored, or unexamined! Peart just has viewpoints you agree with, and
> he craftfully and deliberately expresses them with words. I don't know
> about the rest of you, but that's not how *I* like to think of art.
But what really *hasn't* been unseen, unexplored, or unexamined?
And I agree that many of his lyrics are opinions, but I don't think
opinions have any less value than emotions. His lyrics have always
seemed very "artful" to me.
>
> > I disagree with those who say that Neil's words are so
> >"objective" in nature, that he doesn't take a stand on issues, and that
> >he just "paints a picture" of the issues at hand. I always get the
> >feeling that Neil USUALLY has an opinion on the subject, but his views
> >aren't presented in an overly blatant way.
>
> "Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand." Pretty blatant to
> me.
>
> > (For instance, take "The Pass". Obviously anti-suicide.
> >Never does he blatantly say "suicide is dumb. don't do it." One must
> >put a little thought into the lyrics first.
>
> Yeah, and only *then* can they safely come to the conclusion that Peart's
> pat message is *indeed* "suicide is dumb, don't do it." I'm not the only
> one to see a pat, insensitive side to his lyrics on that one. I see what
> you're saying, but the condescension and pat nature of the lyrics are
> still there. I don't think he has any kind of understanding for the
> suicidal ones...
I don't feel the same way here - I don't quite agree that he is
saying suicide is *dumb* - or at least, I don't feel that he is saying
people who commit suicide are themselves dumb. It doesn't come off as
insensitive or condescending at all to me. I do feel that he's saying
"don't do it" but for me it's very emotional and at least *tries* to
understand the "suicidal ones." I think it is hard to completely understand
someone who is suicidal unless you are or have been suicidal yourself,
but you can try, and I think Neil is doing that.
Sam G.
> >I took one of each in my undergrad coursework. During the
> >semester in my liturature course, the instructor lectured a
> >section on musicians whos lyrics made history. Musicians like
> >John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Jim Morrison, and a few others were
> >mentioned in this class.
> >
> >Then, a few years later, I took a music history course. During
> >the lectures on the "Rock" era of music, the same names popped
> >up.
> >
> >deserves???
> >
> >very interested to hear your angle on this.
>
> his points very well, but what besides that is special about them?
>
> Peart's lyrics really aren't that revolutionary...
>
Oh come on. First, let me address the original post. The reason
Peart's lyrics aren't used frequently in college courses is simple -
most college professors are older than average Rush fans. Most current
college professors use Morrison, Dylan and Lennon's words simply because
they grew up when these songwriters were the rage(in the 60's).
(Brilliant poets, all of them. I'm not saying they aren't worthy of the
honor.) However, the people who grew up with Rush (in the 70's and
80's) are only just starting to become teachers / professors (some
adjunct faculty, maybe. not many tenured faculty yet, they're all still
too young, they are still trying to publish work of their own, or land
the jobs. If there are high school teachers who are Rush fans, they
certainly weren't TEACHING high school when I was there, mainly because
they are the SAME AGE as I! They were my friends, hanging out listening
to Rush with me! 8^) They are now becoming high school teachers, and
passing on Peart's words to younger folks. Give them a few years, they
will eventually land the university positions, and begin to give Peart
the recognition he deserves. (You do realize that Rush was named "Band
of the Millenium" by Harvard Lampoon (National Lampoon) which, on the
surface may seem trivial, but considering the history of Harvard
Lampoon, with some of the most brilliant minds in the entertainment
industry having started there, and the high quality an intellect of
their humor, I'd would say it is a VERY BIG HONOR. Sorry for the
tangent. Just thought I'd mention it.)
Now to address Frank's response. Frank, I normally don't criticise you
for your opinions on Rush and Rush fans, for I feel it offers a good
balance to the overwhelming "Rush Rules" theme which is dominant in this
newsgroup (as it should be, being a Rush newsgroup!). But to question
why Neil's words should be treated with respect, or to question the
brilliance of Neil's writing is just absurd. (I don't know if you are
just playing devil's advocate in this, but if you aren't, you need to
sit down once again with ALL the albums, not just Presto, and
re-evaluate.) Neil's use of meter, imagery and metaphor are untouched
in the music industry, and I would even go so far as to say that his
words rival even the best contemporary poets. His poetry (and I do
consider it poetry!) is on par with Kerouac, Ginsberg, Brautigan, and
Ferlingetti. He has proven himself as a revolutionary in his writing
(not revolutionary in the sense that he is a rabble - rouser, calling a
generation to arms, burning flags and protesting wars. No. A
revolutionary of the MIND. A revolutionary who offered thoughtful,
insightful lyrics during generations where intellectual thought was
replaced by thoughts of materialism and wealth, greed and manipulation.
His words will probably be for what Rush is remembered in the music
history books. I disagree with those who say that Neil's words are so
"objective" in nature, that he doesn't take a stand on issues, and that
he just "paints a picture" of the issues at hand. I always get the
feeling that Neil USUALLY has an opinion on the subject, but his views
aren't presented in an overly blatant way. One must put some thought
into the words, search for the opinion. Read them, then re-read them.
Like poems. (For instance, take "The Pass". Obviously anti-suicide.
Never does he blatantly say "suicide is dumb. don't do it." One must
put a little thought into the lyrics first. (And "The Pass" is one of
his more obvious lyrics. There are countless other songs in this
fashion, some more vague than others. I think this is a strength, one
which will be remembered. Once they get inducted to the R&R hall of
fame, that is!) Well, enough rambling for me, gotta get back to work!
Peace.
Sam
--
Reply. Often. I enjoy e-mail. However, remove @letthemeatspam first.
John Caballero
In article <34438A...@sterlingdi.com> Bill J. Bernard,
bern...@sterlingdi.com writes:
>John Lennon, Bob Dylan and Jim Morrison were practically
>spokesmen for a generation of Americans and had a worldwide impact
>during a highly politically-charged decade.
Yup. I let a high school teacher, who was part of that generation, listen
to A Farewell to Kings (the song). He said the lyrics didn't contain
anything new, but was glad the message was finding a new generation of
listeners.
The appeal of Neil's lyrics is limited because a lot of the themes he
deals with and how he writes about them are inaccessible to many people.
How many people can really relate to Limelight, for instance? I mean, how
many of us on this newsgroup have a problem with being famous? Or how
many of us had to face the pressure of conformity vs being ostracized?
I'm not saying that the stuff he writes isn't valid, but it seems to
appeal to only a small group of people.
----------------------
John Caballero
edib...@mail.utexas.edu
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~john/
Article title found in a popular PC magazine: "Plug and Play - How to
Make It Work"
Sghorwitz
>Lennon -- elitist
>Dylan -- socialist
>Morrison -- hedonist
>
>Peart -- unapolegetic capitalist, intellectual, moralist.
>
>administrators of academia today?
>Former SDS leaders now are running the asylums -- admit nothing, deny
>everything, nothing is immoral as long as I want to do it.
Hey, hey, hey!!! Speaking as an unapologetic capitalist intellectual and
college professor (and major Rush fan), careful with your generalizations.
While you're surely right about the norm, some of us deviate (if not elevate)
from that norm.
The Professor
Cecrle
Mark Rohlf <ro...@usa.net> wrote:
>Why does it have to be "flowery" to be worth noting in an academic
>environment???
Well, I didn't say it had to. But, a certain spin of "fowery-ness" that
Neil lacks is personal expression.
How many lyrics do you think are really personal for him? There are some
obvious ones, but how many are really something from down deep that you'd
be afraid to share?
One rock musician's thoughts on The Manhattan Project aren't much to be
discussed in class, wouldn't you agree?
I just love it when people get all happy about pushing Rush on others--I'm
all for introducing people to new music, but it's naive and self-centered
to think people will be blown away the moment they hear Neil's words, etc.
-FC
Cecrle
>> >from other sources. His lyrics are collages of familiar phrases rather
>> >than original works.
>
>> *Exactly*. I've tried to point out the same thing before (on the mailing
>> list), and it got turned into some big thing about me accusing Neil of
>> plaigiarism...
>
>> He's just out to make his points, and he does it well. There's just
>> nothing that artistically original or exciting about his words.
>
>"Oh, that triple-ratamacue Neil did between the two flamadiddles on his
>gong bass drums is artistically original and I've never heard anything
>like that before" you're the first one to pipe in and say "Who cares, it
>doesn't matter...".
Yeah, that's a hoot.
>But now, with respect to lyrics, you criticize Neil for not being much of
>a stylist. You're saying Neil should concentrate a little more on *how*
>he says things if he wants to be taken more seriously as a poet.
I'm saying he should be more bloody original and uninhibited.
>Don't you see the contradiction here? When it comes to lyrics, I don't
>want flowery stuff--all I care about is the meaning (just like all you
>really care about in the music is the underlying emotion, not all the
>ornamentation).
There's no contradiction, although I see why you think so. In lyrics *as
well* as music, I care about the underlying emotion--which Neil ignores.
He's so intent on honing and polishing his lyrics to make a point that
what I like is left out or never there. Someone can have a knack for
putting down words that move me, just like someone can with music. Both
can be simple or whatever, as long as they move something deep in me.
Neil's opinions on life just don't touch my core, sorry.
I'm not saying he should use more ornamention, necessarily--I'm saying he
should chill out with the messages he's intent on giving and step back
from that. But I guess that's his style, so whatever. There seem to be
plenty of people who are happy with it...
I don't really like it when someone says, "Okay, I'm gonna write about
*this* and point out *this* and emphasize *this*," etc. Like a freakin'
essay. No soul.
-FC
Cecrle
>> Yes, we all have them.
>
>Really? We're all badly educated, unemployed drug addicts who suffered
>horrible abuse during our childhoods? I'm sorry but I can't relate to any
>of this, and I don't apologize for having a happy childhood.
Yeah, David. These are the only problems those nasty "rock 'n' roll"
musicians write about. Mmmhmm. Rush is an island of sanity in a sea of
madness, right?
>> I find it ironic that you can talk about how
>> Neil's writing is universal, and then dismiss personal problems even
>> though they're more universal than most of Peart's.
>
>Sorry, I disagre. Neil writes about things I can relate to: emotion vs.
>reason, the power of dreams, perseverance, artistic integrity, human
>response to fear, pressure, etc. But it's always done in an abstract way.
Abstract? Not quite.
>
>He doesn't have to write details about how Joe Blow is having problem X
>with his girlfriend. Neil's words apply to more people and more
>situations, IMO.
Just steering clear of specifics doesn't make it "abstract".
>> I'd rather read a guy's diary than hear his opinions on everything! Which
>> do you think you'd learn more from?
>
>Neil writes about a lot more than just opinions. You keep saying this,
>but I don't know why. Yes, the point of some of his lyrics is to express
>an opinion, but most simply describe things such as his
>observations...it's left up to you to form your own opinion.
Discuss further. What songs are good examples of that?
>> I'd choose the diary.
>
>You'd probably choose to read the "National Enquierer" over the "New
>York Times" then, right?
I just might. Some people need to be spoon-fed thoughts and ideas.
Seeing some obviously false story in National Enquirer could make me think
about all sorts of issues. It's the readers job to think for himself.
This is why I like more abstract art.
>> Well, if you're human, you probably have many of the same problems.
>
>Well, as I said before, I tend not to have the same problems as most
>lyricists.
You mean you *can* drive 55? Well lucky, privelaged you!
>And when I do have problems, I feel like I usually want to
>listen to something completely instrumental...something like Chopin. He
>didn't need lyrics to express his emotions--he did it in a much more
>abstract and universal language.
> Would his music be more touching and
>more UNIVERSAL if he had written a whole bunch of lyrics about his
>tuberculosis?
>
>"I got up outta bed today,
> Coughed up 5 pounds of phlegm and mucous,
> I'm having problems getting my latest waltz published,
> And my girlfriend's a real dufus
> etc."
>
>Yeah, that would have made it much better!
You're right--Neil should just pound on his drums and shut up with the
words.
>> Music
>> and art is about expression and touching something in you, right? Well,
>> how touching is an opinion? What makes Peart think I care about his
>> opinions?
>
>Okay, you don't, fine. But I also don't care at all about other people's
>problems. So why is your position better than mine?
It ain't! My point was that yours is no better than mine.
>> >At least with Neil he tries to deal with universal themes (just listen to
>> >_Power Windows_ and _HYF_).
>
>> Somewhat contradictory, see above...
>
>Not at all. The point I'm trying to make is that Neil Peart will write
>about how humans will deal with problems in *general*, whereas Jo Blow
>lyricist will write about how shitty his life is, how he doesn't have a
>girlfriend, how he can't find a job, how he spends most of his day high on
>crank, etc.
You need to get some new lyricists, it seems to me. :) I don't want
Peart's generalities. Boring. I'd rather have a little story to draw
from and think about. How's that?
>Which one is more universal?
You're praising the wonders of universal writing, but hasn't everyone been
talking about how most of Neil's stuff won't be relatable to most people?
>> It's because he *wasnt'* fucked up as a kid. Why do you think he has so
>> little creative kick?
>
>This is such bullshit. Being fucked up as a kid is not something anyone
>should proud of! That's the problem today; people *want* be fucked
>because it's a status symbol and an easy ticket to gain credibility with
>other people who have nothing to offer society except their own self-pity.
>I'm really surprised to find out that you count yourself among this group.
Oh, I do--in fact, I wish Neil had been molested as a child. I bet he'd
have some *really* good stuff, then...
>> That's Rush's problem--they're all too normal and happy.
>
>Jesus Christ, isn't that what people are here for? To be happy?
Sure. It's just not very interesting to witness.
> When you
>make suffering a virtue then it means you must *want* people to suffer.
>What kind of twisted philosophy is that? This kind of talk really
>frightens me.
Obviously I haven't been serious with all of this, but I *do* think pain
makes for interesting art. Think about it--how many great artists have
been *happy* people? It's when a guy like Peart gets nice and comfy that
he starts getting stale and useless. His daughter has recently died, so
let's see how he handles himself now.
-FC
Cecrle
Roxanna <cm...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>On 15 Oct 1997, Cecrle wrote:
>
>> (Look at this, everyone--another guy treating Rush's skills as objective
>> facts.) He acts like there's some TRUTH I'm missing. It's all opinions,
>> man, and while I see where you're coming from, I can also see a wide array
>> of alternate viewpoints.
>
> I don't mean to re-hash the objectivity discussion - and I agree
>completely with you that is is all opinions. But on the other hand, I
>can understand someone who loves Rush (or anything else for that matter)
>wanting to share that with someone else, and trying to explain what is so
>good about it. Wanting you to take a closer look at the lyrics is just
>wanting you to see what he sees. Of course you dont have to do it at all,
>and you don't have to come up with the same conclusions if you did or
>already have.
Yes, I agree. But then there are people who get indignant if people don't
"realize Rush's genius!" at first glance! Big difference.
>> Yeah, we know how Ginsberg *loved* structure and meter, don't we....I
>> can't say I know anything about Brautigan or Ferlingetti, but I'm willing
>> to be they're one hell of a lot better than Peart in the arean of poetry.
>> Are they just dressing up their opinions and calling them poems, or are
>> they expressing themselves in artistic, original, creative ways? Peart
>> dresses his opinions up in pretty words, neat structures, etc.
>
> Why isn't that artistic, creative, or original?
Why *is* it any of those things? Neil thinks that racism is based on
ignorance, prejudice, and fear--how original! How creative! These lyrics
are obvious and useless. If someone needs such obvious things pointed out
to them, or re-affirmed, then what can I say...
> Opinions aren't
>any less of those things than emotions are.
Opinions are easy to catalog and express. What about emotions, though?
Especially since emotions *lead* to opinions. Tackle the emotions and
you'll naturally get some opinions. Skip right to the opinions and you're
missing out.
>I don't think artists who
>deal with more "emotional" topics are presenting them in any more of an
>"original" way than Neil presents his opinions.
A painter could use his nice, shiny blue paint to print, "Women and men
are equal," on a canvas. Wouldn't that be a work of genius?
> Everyone has opinions,
>and everyone has emotions and experiences. (Talking about emotions vs.
>opinions is a bit tricky for me, because a lot of the time, while Neil may
>not directly mention emotions, the lyrics seem to evoke a lot of emotions in
>me.)
Me too--boredom, fatigue, nausea.... :) Had to.
>Each of these things are, in my opinion, unique to the individual in a
>certain sense, but on the surface they seem exactly the same, because others
>share those emotions and opinions too. I think it's a problem with the
>language (any language) - I think it would be safe to say that you and I
>have both felt sadness in the past - but for each of us, the sadness could
>have many different origins, meanings, reactions, etc etc. But it's so
>hard to capture those differences with words.
So why bother, right? Let's just say, "Sadness is useless!" and spit an
opinion out!
> It comes out all sounding the
>same, and I think lyricists ( or poets) who deal emotions have the
>same problems as those who deal with opinions. Most of the issues Neil
>presents are ones I have already thought about in some way or another,
Hopefully.
>but then again, most of the emotions presented in songs or poems are ones
>that I have already felt and thought about in much the same way as the
>artist.
I like it most when art shows me things I've never seen before. It's not
much fun to have your own opinion on something re-stated, is it?
> On the other hand, I think some of the *ways* he presents
>topics, if not the topics themselves, are original (or more so, it
>seems to me than other artists) The few songs that deal with love
>are done so in a way I haven't heard out of other lyricists.
That's a good point--I think "Cold Fire" is very clever and well-done.
The way it's written is more subtle and less preaching straight from the
narrator.
>> No way. They're just a bunch of opinions! Nothing previously unseen,
>> unexplored, or unexamined! Peart just has viewpoints you agree with, and
>> he craftfully and deliberately expresses them with words. I don't know
>> about the rest of you, but that's not how *I* like to think of art.
>
> But what really *hasn't* been unseen, unexplored, or unexamined?
There's no name for these things until they've been brought into the
light. That's the beauty of it--you think, "What else *is* there to talk
about?" and then some brilliant artists shows you. But Peart just
re-affirms your opinion on something.
>And I agree that many of his lyrics are opinions, but I don't think
>opinions have any less value than emotions. His lyrics have always
>seemed very "artful" to me.
Artful in the archaic sense....It's pretty propaganda, if you ask me.
>> Yeah, and only *then* can they safely come to the conclusion that Peart's
>> pat message is *indeed* "suicide is dumb, don't do it." I'm not the only
>> one to see a pat, insensitive side to his lyrics on that one. I see what
>> you're saying, but the condescension and pat nature of the lyrics are
>> still there. I don't think he has any kind of understanding for the
>> suicidal ones...
>
> I don't feel the same way here - I don't quite agree that he is
>saying suicide is *dumb* - or at least, I don't feel that he is saying
>people who commit suicide are themselves dumb. It doesn't come off as
>insensitive or condescending at all to me. I do feel that he's saying
>"don't do it" but for me it's very emotional and at least *tries* to
>understand the "suicidal ones." I think it is hard to completely understand
>someone who is suicidal unless you are or have been suicidal yourself,
>but you can try, and I think Neil is doing that.
No he's not. He's saying to the suicidal person, "Listen, you're being
selfish--try to understand those you'd hurt." That's a completely
valid--and very good--point, but it really doesn't fit in with a suicidal
person's mindset. "Oh, woops! Would I hurt dear old ma and pa's
feelings? I guess I won't jump off the bridge then!" Yeah, it's that
simple Neil. Sure. He's not saying, "Let's try to understand the
suicidal person," he's saying, "Listen, ya selfish bastard--what about
those you'd hurt?" And I don't think it's as simple as Neil would lead us
to believe.
He needs to write from inside the head of a suicidal person--someone with
a mind-set they can't even fucking *help*. Then see how much he has to
say about, "Suicide is bad, just say no."
-FC
demian
Cecrle wrote:
>
>
> That's a good point--I think "Cold Fire" is very clever and well-done.
> The way it's written is more subtle and less preaching straight from the
> narrator.
>
i agree, completely. Cold Fire is a visible stretchmark in Peart's
writing career.
Bill J. Bernard
Cecrle wrote:
>
> Roxanna <cm...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> > Why isn't that artistic, creative, or original?
>
> Why *is* it any of those things? Neil thinks that racism is based on
> ignorance, prejudice, and fear--how original! How creative! These lyrics
> are obvious and useless. If someone needs such obvious things pointed out
> to them, or re-affirmed, then what can I say...
Uuuuh... this is a good example of what I have been talking about. Are
you saying, Frank, that your interpretation of Witch Hunt is that it has
to do with racism?!
If so, _you_ certainly get originality points for your unique
translation of Neil's lyrics. My take on that song is nothing at all
like that, but how could this be, since Neil's lyrics are so
straightforward and opinionated?! My interpretation must be wrong!
> > Opinions aren't
> >any less of those things than emotions are.
>
> Opinions are easy to catalog and express. What about emotions, though?
What!? I can express emotions without even using words (and so can most
infants, even though they sometimes may not even be aware that they are
doing it)! That's more _difficult_ than expressing an opinion?!
> A painter could use his nice, shiny blue paint to print, "Women and men
> are equal," on a canvas. Wouldn't that be a work of genius?
>
Well, actually, I'll bet there would some segment of the art world that
would assert that!
But in all fairness, that's a terribly inappropriate analogy of what
Neil does. If he was drawing pictures in place of writing words, then
it would be a good analogy, but he doesn't do that.
Bill J. Bernard
Cecrle wrote:
>
> "Bill J. Bernard" <bern...@sterlingdi.com> wrote:
>
> >Hearing Neil's lyrics was the purpose when I bought my first Rush album
> >(this is what several other fans had so highly praised). That was also
> >the thing I initially enjoyed so much about the album (and Rush).
>
> Yeah, but if Peart's words had this effect on everyone, they'd get much
> more radio-play. It's not a matter of people not having the opportunity
> to hear Rush--they aren't an obscure band--it's just a matter of hearing
> it and they feel nothing from it.
>
I've never attributed the fact of Rush's non-pop existence to Neil's
lyrical style. I figure most of the "hits" on radio aren't played
because of the appeal of their lyrics. Sure, there are some rare
exceptions, but not many in hard/progressive rock. I think it's Rush's
genre, their traditionally longer songs, and their snubbing their nose
at popular music formats that has alienated them from radio. They've
always shied away from the more commercial type activities of being in a
rock'n'roll band, and that has certainly hurt their chances at being a
pop-band. Somehow, I don't think they mind, though.
Also, keep in mind that Rush has more gold/platinum albums than 99% of
all rock bands that have ever had music aired on radio.
Bill J. Bernard
Pritiera wrote:
>
> I read an interview with Roger Waters where he said he was actually a very
> happy guy. He just likes to make depressing music. I also know of lots
> of great classical artists who were happy, and I would say that the
> members of Rush are great artists, too. Seems that I know a lot of happy,
> great artists.
>
> > It's when a guy like Peart gets nice and comfy that
> > he starts getting stale and useless.
>
> suicide is something a happy guy can necessarily relate to. Also, the
> message of "don't commit suicide because it'll hurt the ones you leave
> behind" seems to contradict his philosophy of living for yourself.
I think there is a genuine attraction between people who are basically
happy and music which is somewhat depressing. Likewise, opposites
attract in the inverse way -- relatively depressed people tend to prefer
more cheery music. It seems we use music to acheive an emotional
change, I suppose.
The comments here about Roger Waters sparked this line of thought.
Anyone have any opinions about this proposed phenomenon?
Cecrle
>Uuuuh... this is a good example of what I have been talking about. Are
>you saying, Frank, that your interpretation of Witch Hunt is that it has
>to do with racism?!
Racism, prejudices and how fear influences them.
>If so, _you_ certainly get originality points for your unique
>translation of Neil's lyrics. My take on that song is nothing at all
>like that, but how could this be, since Neil's lyrics are so
>straightforward and opinionated?! My interpretation must be wrong!
Okay, share your opinion.
>> Opinions are easy to catalog and express. What about emotions, though?
>
>What!? I can express emotions without even using words (and so can most
>infants, even though they sometimes may not even be aware that they are
>doing it)! That's more _difficult_ than expressing an opinion?!
I think opinions are like sheets of ice floating on a sea--there's much
more underneath the opinions. The opinions are precipitates,
secondary to the emotional liquid. To understand the opinions is cool,
but the emotions is underneath it all, and it speaks of the human
condition and mind-set more....There, I'll toss that out and see what you
make of it.
>> A painter could use his nice, shiny blue paint to print, "Women and men
>> are equal," on a canvas. Wouldn't that be a work of genius?
>>
>
>Well, actually, I'll bet there would some segment of the art world that
>would assert that!
Damn straight...
>But in all fairness, that's a terribly inappropriate analogy of what
>Neil does. If he was drawing pictures in place of writing words, then
>it would be a good analogy, but he doesn't do that.
Okay, he'd write, "Women and men are equal" in different colors and a
really neat font. That better? :)
-FC
Anthony Page
In article <6257tt$kfk$1...@news1.tor.acc.ca>,
Pritiera <prit...@shell-00.tor.acc.ca> wrote:
>Cecrle <mce...@sbt.infi.net> wrote:
>
>> Just steering clear of specifics doesn't make it "abstract".
>
>Um, sorry to break the news to you, but yes it does. Here's how
>"abstract" is defined in my Webster's dictionary:
>
>"Expressed without reference to a specific instance."
>
>This is what an abstraction is--the general concept separated from
>the specific details.
Hi
I think you have the wrong dictionary, David. In my "Cercle's 1997 Dictionary" it defines
"abstract" as :
"Any damn thing I say it is."
Actually it defines pretty much everything that way. But it fits into the pocket nicely. :)))
the ant.
Roxanna
I'm not exactly sure he is saying that only racism is based on
those things, but anyway - they may be obvious to you, but they aren't to
everyone. And while it is true that most people who are racist, for
example, aren't going to listen to Witch Hunt and then say, "you know,
he's right!" some people at least think about it. A person a worked with
over the summer listened to the song and said it really made him think
about his attitude towards other groups of people. He still has some
ideas about them that I don't like, but I could see a change in his
behavior at least. So who knows? The song reached at least one person
out there.
> > Opinions aren't
> >any less of those things than emotions are.
>
> Opinions are easy to catalog and express. What about emotions, though?
> Especially since emotions *lead* to opinions. Tackle the emotions and
> you'll naturally get some opinions. Skip right to the opinions and you're
> missing out.
It's easy to state your opinion but i don't think it's always
easy to explain why you have it. And i also don't think Neil "skips"
emotions. But I guess that is just a difference of opinion between us.
> >I don't think artists who
> >deal with more "emotional" topics are presenting them in any more of an
> >"original" way than Neil presents his opinions.
>
> A painter could use his nice, shiny blue paint to print, "Women and men
> are equal," on a canvas. Wouldn't that be a work of genius?
Well, Rush could just have a nice, cool drum beating in the
background while Neil (or Alex or Geddy) says "Women and men are equal."
That to me would be the equivalent of simply printing it on canvas. But
I think Rush uses a combination of music and lyrics very nicely to convey
an idea without necessarily coming out and saying what that idea is. And
once again, I think a lot of emotion comes through as well.
> > Everyone has opinions,
> >and everyone has emotions and experiences. (Talking about emotions vs.
> >opinions is a bit tricky for me, because a lot of the time, while Neil may
> >not directly mention emotions, the lyrics seem to evoke a lot of emotions in
> >me.)
>
> Me too--boredom, fatigue, nausea.... :) Had to.
well, there are a lot of lyrics out there that evoke those
emotions in me too. but unless the music is so good that i can ignore
the lyrics (which happens occasionally), I just don't listen to it after
giving it a few tries. And i don't go to their newsgroup and tell
everyone how nausiated I am. I am sure they are perfectly aware that
there are people out there who don't like that particular band.
>
> >Each of these things are, in my opinion, unique to the individual in a
> >certain sense, but on the surface they seem exactly the same, because others
> >share those emotions and opinions too. I think it's a problem with the
> >language (any language) - I think it would be safe to say that you and I
> >have both felt sadness in the past - but for each of us, the sadness could
> >have many different origins, meanings, reactions, etc etc. But it's so
> >hard to capture those differences with words.
>
> So why bother, right? Let's just say, "Sadness is useless!" and spit an
> opinion out!
No - I'm saying that a lot of artists manage to make emotions
sound the same as in a lot of other songs. Especially love songs and songs
about depression. It's hard to present something, no matter what is it,
that has never been dealt with before. Neil's themes, although they
probably have been sung or written about before, are interesting to me,
just as emotional (for argument's sake i'm excluding neil from the
emotional category for now, altho i don't believe he should be) ones are
still interesting to me, most of the time.
> > It comes out all sounding the
> >same, and I think lyricists ( or poets) who deal emotions have the
> >same problems as those who deal with opinions. Most of the issues Neil
> >presents are ones I have already thought about in some way or another,
>
> Hopefully.
>
> >but then again, most of the emotions presented in songs or poems are ones
> >that I have already felt and thought about in much the same way as the
> >artist.
>
> I like it most when art shows me things I've never seen before. It's not
> much fun to have your own opinion on something re-stated, is it?
I've often found that Neil expresses things in a way that makes
it more interesting, even if i do agree with him. I enjoy hearing a new
way of expressing what I believe. On the other hand, I can't say that I
have heard lyrics that show me something I have *never* seen before.
>
> > On the other hand, I think some of the *ways* he presents
> >topics, if not the topics themselves, are original (or more so, it
> >seems to me than other artists) The few songs that deal with love
> >are done so in a way I haven't heard out of other lyricists.
>
> That's a good point--I think "Cold Fire" is very clever and well-done.
> The way it's written is more subtle and less preaching straight from the
> narrator.
>
> >> No way. They're just a bunch of opinions! Nothing previously unseen,
> >> unexplored, or unexamined! Peart just has viewpoints you agree with, and
> >> he craftfully and deliberately expresses them with words. I don't know
> >> about the rest of you, but that's not how *I* like to think of art.
> >
> > But what really *hasn't* been unseen, unexplored, or unexamined?
>
> There's no name for these things until they've been brought into the
> light. That's the beauty of it--you think, "What else *is* there to talk
> about?" and then some brilliant artists shows you. But Peart just
> re-affirms your opinion on something.
so could you give me some examples of these brilliant artists?
Where are they hiding?
I disagree again. He does deal with the people they've hurt (and
pretty emotionally, to me), but I think he's also dealing with their own
lives. He's saying that they aren't alone, which in my experience is a
comfort in a lot of situations. People deal with things in different
ways, of course, and I'm sure it doesn't matter to *all* suicidal people,
but it does to some. Discovering you're not the only one who feels that
way, and that there are people out there you can talk to and share your
feelings with, and that they might actually understand you, can be a big
help. A lot more could be said on both angles, of course, but you could
go on and on forever talking about it. An as for writing from inside
their heads, again, I think you need to have been suicidal at one point
to be able to do that. But even most people who are or have been
suicidal would agree that suicide is not a good thing.
Cecrle
"Bill J. Bernard" <bern...@sterlingdi.com> wrote:
>I've never attributed the fact of Rush's non-pop existence to Neil's
>lyrical style. I figure most of the "hits" on radio aren't played
>because of the appeal of their lyrics. Sure, there are some rare
>exceptions, but not many in hard/progressive rock. I think it's Rush's
>genre, their traditionally longer songs, and their snubbing their nose
>at popular music formats that has alienated them from radio.
Longer songs? Well, if you count 5 minutes as long, I guess, 'cause lord
knows they haven't come out with a long song in awhile.
> They've
>always shied away from the more commercial type activities of being in a
>rock'n'roll band, and that has certainly hurt their chances at being a
>pop-band. Somehow, I don't think they mind, though.
>
>Also, keep in mind that Rush has more gold/platinum albums than 99% of
>all rock bands that have ever had music aired on radio.
That's a very cool thing.
But Rush can still be seen as very commercial with their song structures
and such. Certainly not everyone of their songs is a Cygnus X-1 that
would confuse and throw everyone off. People could still feel comfortable
with the whole verse/chorus/verse/guitar solo/chorus structure of their
songs. Not the most exotic ones, of late...
-FC
Cecrle
Anthony Page <car...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>In article <6257tt$kfk$1...@news1.tor.acc.ca>,
> Pritiera <prit...@shell-00.tor.acc.ca> wrote:
>
>>Cecrle <mce...@sbt.infi.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Just steering clear of specifics doesn't make it "abstract".
>>
>>"abstract" is defined in my Webster's dictionary:
>>
>>"Expressed without reference to a specific instance."
>>
>>This is what an abstraction is--the general concept separated from
>>the specific details.
>
>Hi
>
>I think you have the wrong dictionary, David. In my "Cercle's 1997 Dictionary" it defines
>"abstract" as :
>
>"Any damn thing I say it is."
Actually, there's a newer version out. In it, the definition of abstract
reads: "Any damn thing I mean it as, bitch." Maybe I'll mail you a copy.
:)
>Actually it defines pretty much everything that way. But it fits into the pocket nicely. :)))
Okay, even if my definition of abstract is flawed (which I disagree with,
so far--there are different interpretations and connotations of words,
aren't there?), the idea behind it is still there. I guess I'll just need
to touch up the way I try to communicate it.
-FC
M.A. ARINO CLARKE
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will
Bill J. Bernard
Roxanna wrote:
>
> On 15 Oct 1997, Cecrle wrote:
>
> > No way. They're just a bunch of opinions! Nothing previously unseen,
> > unexplored, or unexamined! Peart just has viewpoints you agree with, and
> > he craftfully and deliberately expresses them with words. I don't know
> > about the rest of you, but that's not how *I* like to think of art.
>
> But what really *hasn't* been unseen, unexplored, or unexamined?
> And I agree that many of his lyrics are opinions, but I don't think
> opinions have any less value than emotions. His lyrics have always
> seemed very "artful" to me.
Well, I fail to see how anyone can assume Neil has a clearly expressed
opinion in all of his lyrics (unless, as I said in another post, his
lyrics are just so accessible in a universal way, that the listener
doesn't even realize he/she is imposing his/her own viewpoint on it when
translating the meaning). Sure, occasionally he might express an
undeniable opinion. But, then again, occasionally his lyrics are purely
emotional and not even dealing with any issue that involves opinions.
Sghorwitz
>>
>>Neil writes about a lot more than just opinions. You keep saying this,
>>but I don't know why. Yes, the point of some of his lyrics is to express
>>an opinion, but most simply describe things such as his
>>observations...it's left up to you to form your own opinion.
>
>Discuss further. What songs are good examples of that?
The Big Money. "Big money done a power of good/ big money make mistakes"
Let's see. Which one is it? Is Neil going to tell? I don't know...
Scars. A description with no particular opinion
Manhattan Project. Observations about the issues involved.
Emotion Detector.
The Enemy Within
Red Sector A (Are the liberators here? Do I hope or do I fear?)
Tom Sawyer, for Christ's sake
The Camera Eye, while we're at it.
Entre Nous, going back a bit.
Losing It.
Whew, I'm getting tired.
The Professor
Cecrle
sgho...@aol.com (Sghorwitz) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Neil writes about a lot more than just opinions. You keep saying this,
>>>but I don't know why. Yes, the point of some of his lyrics is to express
>>>an opinion, but most simply describe things such as his
>>>observations...it's left up to you to form your own opinion.
>>
>>Discuss further. What songs are good examples of that?
>
> Let's see. Which one is it? Is Neil going to tell? I don't know...
>
>Scars. A description with no particular opinion
>
>Manhattan Project. Observations about the issues involved.
>
>Emotion Detector.
>
>The Enemy Within
>
>Red Sector A (Are the liberators here? Do I hope or do I fear?)
>
>Tom Sawyer, for Christ's sake
>
>The Camera Eye, while we're at it.
>
>Entre Nous, going back a bit.
>
>Losing It.
>
>Whew, I'm getting tired.
Good job. And you know what? I live every one of those songs' lyrics
(except for maybe one or two that I could nit-pick :)
Scars--awesome song. Those lines aren't preachy or anything--just
expressive. That song has such a strong mood to it--it's not weighed down
by a "message." Closer to pure expression.
-FC
Cecrle
>> Yeah, David. These are the only problems those nasty "rock 'n' roll"
>> musicians write about. Mmmhmm. Rush is an island of sanity in a sea of
>> madness, right?
>
>Seems to be.
Heh.
>> Just steering clear of specifics doesn't make it "abstract".
>
>Um, sorry to break the news to you, but yes it does. Here's how
>"abstract" is defined in my Webster's dictionary:
>
>"Expressed without reference to a specific instance."
Okay, so I could say, "Love is good. Have fun. Love your wife," and just
because I don't involve a specific instance/situation it's abstract?
Abstract, for me, means that the artist doesn't really have a point
they're trying to make--they just paint something that comes out of them
and looks nice, or writes words that seem good. How can it be abstract
when Neil plots everything out?
>This is what an abstraction is--the general concept separated from
>the specific details.
I'm thinking of it in a more abstract way then, I guess. Anything filled
with points and messages can't be very abstract to me.
>> >but I don't know why. Yes, the point of some of his lyrics is to express
>> >an opinion, but most simply describe things such as his
>> >observations...it's left up to you to form your own opinion.
>
>> Discuss further. What songs are good examples of that?
>
>"Losing It",
"Sadder still to watch it die than never to have known it--
For you the blind who once could see, the bell tolls for thee."
> "Distant Early Warning", "Red Sector A",
These are good examples--a couple of my favorites. I love the stuff in
DEW--"Cruising under your radar, watching from satellites / Take a page
from the red book and keep them in your sights" I wish he did more like
that.
>"Chain Lightning",
I like this one, but what is there left for you to decide? Just curious.
>"Test for Echo" (more descriptive than preachy, IMO), "Time and Motion",
There's really not much in Time and Motion--you can either disagree or
agree, don't you think? "Live and love and dream, do this, do that," I
like the forest/ocean lines, though.
>"Half the World"
>(doesn't really say which half of the world *he* sides with), etc.
Oh, come one! This is a perfect illustration of what I mentioned in an
earlier post--sure he gives you choices, but there's one that's portrayed
as bad and one that's portrayed as good! Yeah, let's ask Neil, "Which
side of the world do *you* side with?" "The *bad* side!"
>Actually, the list is pretty huge--these are just the ones that come to
>mind. Then there are other songs that describe more specific stories, like
>"Jacob's Ladder", "The Camera Eye", "Countdown", "Red Barchetta",
>"Afterimage" (to some extent), and even "Hemispheres" is a story, but of
>course there is an underlying theme.
Yes, these are specific stories, but (save Hemispheres), they are the most
abstract in terms of intent. He's painting a picture with them and
letting you feel the emotions and think about how they apply. These are
some of my favorites.
That's why Red Barchetta is great--it's "an expression of freedom" as Neil
has put it. Just an expression of a human emotion/feeling. That's what I
want and what I like to hear and feel. What about you? Should he have
tacked on something more to that and made more of a point?
>> This is why I like more abstract art.
>
>You like abstract art, but want art filled with gritty details?
I think I see what's going on--by abstract, I mean abstract meaning, not
abstract imagery or word usage. You're thinking along the lines of
certain events and stories.
> That
>doesn't make sense to me. You seem to have a weird interpretation of the
>word abstract (of course, you have a weird interpretation of the word
>"objective", too, so it's hardly surprising).
Obviously I had some creative use of the English language going on there
to try to help make my point. Maybe my definition of "abstract" is off,
but the idea behind it is valid. And I don't think my definition is off.
>> You need to get some new lyricists, it seems to me. :) I don't want
>> Peart's generalities. Boring. I'd rather have a little story to draw
>> from and think about. How's that?
>
>It's fine. I just don't see how any of this is "abstract".
How abstract is something where the artists says, "I want to discuss
element A and topic Z and show ___,"? That's less abstract to me than
someone who just gets a vision of a scene in their head and paints it.
But maybe my defn. is off--still, I think you can see what I mean.
>> You're praising the wonders of universal writing, but hasn't everyone been
>> talking about how most of Neil's stuff won't be relatable to most people?
>
>Remember when Selena Taylor died and they had the sympathy wall on the NMS
>site? So many people there kept saying "Your lyrics really got me through
>some rough periods in my life". Far more said stuff like that than the
>few people in this thread who said they can't relate to Neil's lyrics.
Yeah, but that's only from the Rush fan demographic.
>> Oh, I do--in fact, I wish Neil had been molested as a child. I bet he'd
>> have some *really* good stuff, then...
>
>I hope you're joking about this.
Oh, no.
>> >Jesus Christ, isn't that what people are here for? To be happy?
>
>> Sure. It's just not very interesting to witness.
>
>Not for people who think the most noble state a man can achieve is one of
>suffering!
How much fun is it to watch a happy? The happiest songs are the ones that
are radio pop that you guys despise. Shouldn't you love all those cheezy
love songs?
>> Obviously I haven't been serious with all of this, but I *do* think pain
>> makes for interesting art.
>
>Weren't you the one (along with me, of course) who criticized Christianity
>for glorifying suffering?
Yep. Don't think that point has escaped me--I realize it.
> Now, you're doing *precisely* the same thing! That's fucked up.
I'm saying there's more to be learned from suffering than from happiness.
And happiness can only be reached from learning and knowledge. So pain
has its place and must be confronted if you really want to be happy. I'm
not saying it's always a *good* thing, I'm just saying we might as well
learn from it instead of wasting our time concentrating on someone who's
apparently happy.
This is very interesting.
>> Think about it--how many great artists have
>> been *happy* people?
>
>I read an interview with Roger Waters where he said he was actually a very
>happy guy. He just likes to make depressing music.
He's come off as depressed in every interview *I've* read. Things like,
"...the world's a sad fucking place..." I also recall him referring to
his artistic abilities as a gift and a terrible curse at the same time. I
don't think Waters is the best one to choose for that, but...
> I also know of lots
>of great classical artists who were happy, and I would say that the
>members of Rush are great artists, too. Seems that I know a lot of happy,
>great artists.
Cool. I guess I just don't think of them as geniuses. They're very
talented, but there's some sort of spark missing from them--something that
can be very exciting in a band's music even when it's got obvious flaws.
Maybe all of this just goes too deep for us to understand--personal
outlooks, etc.
>> It's when a guy like Peart gets nice and comfy that
>> he starts getting stale and useless.
>
>I feel this way about only one Rush song: "The Pass". I'm not sure
>suicide is something a happy guy can necessarily relate to.
Exactly. It's not only that a guy like that would completely reject the
idea of suicide himself, but the fact that he'd tell other people it's
wrong. He has no idea, and for some people, maybe it *is* the best thing.
If we lived in Neil's objectivist playground, maybe that would be a big
no-no, but I think everyone's lives are too subjective and personal to
have pat messages thrown at them. What the hell does Neil know about any
of that? Maybe a little of the same could open his eyes up and make him a
more understanding, better person.
> Also, the
>message of "don't commit suicide because it'll hurt the ones you leave
>behind" seems to contradict his philosophy of living for yourself.
It's funny, 'cause I used to (and still do?) really like The Pass. I
guess we don't have to think of it as such a blatant message, (it doesn't
have to be taken as such) but you just know that that's what Neil
intended. And that's the problem.
-FC
Anthony Page
In article <6260os$6tc$2...@nw001.infi.net>,
Cecrle <mce...@sbt.infi.net> wrote:
>Anthony Page <car...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>>Hi
>>
>>I think you have the wrong dictionary, David. In my "Cercle's 1997 Dictionary" it defines
>>"abstract" as :
>>
>>"Any damn thing I say it is."
>
>Actually, there's a newer version out. In it, the definition of abstract
>reads: "Any damn thing I mean it as, bitch." Maybe I'll mail you a copy.
>:)
Oh, Frank!! I bet you say that to all the boys!!! xx
>
>>Actually it defines pretty much everything that way. But it fits into the pocket nicely. :)))
>
>Okay, even if my definition of abstract is flawed (which I disagree with,
>so far--there are different interpretations and connotations of words,
>aren't there?), the idea behind it is still there. I guess I'll just need
>to touch up the way I try to communicate
You can touch me up any time , O powerful one..........
the ant
Cecrle
sgho...@aol.com (Sghorwitz) wrote:
>FC writes:
>
>Agree 100%. In fact, the band has said that the motif of Moving Pictures was
> that each song was like a short film. And RB and TCE are the prime examples
> of that, IMO. The rest of the lyrics on that album aren't all that preachy or
> opinionated. Yes, Limelight is Neil venting emotionally, but I thought Frank
> liked that, so we won't call it "opinion" :).
You know, I was thinking about MP--one of my faves on it is Vital Signs.
The last lines of it are all that "Everbody got to deviate from the norm,"
stuff--blatant messages/statements. But I really like it, and the whole
song. Maybe it's not so bad to make a point if it's more new/creative? I
mean, I haven't heard many songs that say, "*Be* different," instead of
"It's okay to be different."
I was also thinking about Dead Kennedys--Jello Biafra's lyrics are always
messages/statements, but I still enjoy them. I guess it's because I
haven't encountered many issues like them before...? Or maybe it's
because that's *all* he tries to do?
>And in a world of political correctness, the notion that there is "strangeness
> too dangerous in our theatres and bookstore shelves" remains highly relevant
> and non-obvious. That's also a great interior rhyme there
> (strangeness/dangerous). Sorry Frank, hope that didn't sound like all those
> guitar-worshippers talking about Al's half-Nelson triple whammy suspended G or
> something. :)
Good points. Neil does have some really cool writing in that one, and it
*is* a timeless message....But I guess it's good that *someone* does that
kind of message, 'cause if Peart didn't, who would? It's just not always
that interesting to hear, once you're used to it. And I guess it's good
if it reinforces someone's position and helps them develop those ideas.
-FC
Roxanna
On 17 Oct 1997, Cecrle wrote:
> Roxanna <cm...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> >
> >On 16 Oct 1997, Cecrle wrote:
>
> > I'm not exactly sure he is saying that only racism is based on
> >those things, but anyway - they may be obvious to you, but they aren't to
> >everyone.
>
> As you say later, the people who'll love it the most are the ones who
> already agree with it, so it's masturbatory, in a way...
To write it or to listen to it?
> > And while it is true that most people who are racist, for
> >example, aren't going to listen to Witch Hunt and then say, "you know,
> >he's right!" some people at least think about it. A person a worked with
> >over the summer listened to the song and said it really made him think
> >about his attitude towards other groups of people. He still has some
> >ideas about them that I don't like, but I could see a change in his
> >behavior at least. So who knows? The song reached at least one person
> >out there.
>
> Yeah, it can do that, and that's cool. It just gets kinda tiring if you
> agree with it all! At first it was really cool to find someone I agreed
> with on many things, but sooner or later it gets to be, "Why am I still
> listening to this?"
I would say i agree with most of what Neil says, or least i agree
with what I think it means. But i haven't gotten tired of that so far
anyways. And there are a lot of songs that don't really state a
viewpoint too. I also like the how "positive" a lot of their songs are.
> >> A painter could use his nice, shiny blue paint to print, "Women and men
> >> are equal," on a canvas. Wouldn't that be a work of genius?
> >
> > Well, Rush could just have a nice, cool drum beating in the
> >background while Neil (or Alex or Geddy) says "Women and men are equal."
> >That to me would be the equivalent of simply printing it on canvas. But
> >I think Rush uses a combination of music and lyrics very nicely to convey
> >an idea without necessarily coming out and saying what that idea is. And
> >once again, I think a lot of emotion comes through as well.
>
> Good points.
>
> >> Me too--boredom, fatigue, nausea.... :) Had to.
> >
> > well, there are a lot of lyrics out there that evoke those
> >emotions in me too. but unless the music is so good that i can ignore
> >the lyrics (which happens occasionally), I just don't listen to it after
> >giving it a few tries. And i don't go to their newsgroup and tell
> >everyone how nausiated I am. I am sure they are perfectly aware that
> >there are people out there who don't like that particular band.
>
> It was just side joke, nothing important.
Well it does make me curious about what *doesn't* bore you.
>
> >> So why bother, right? Let's just say, "Sadness is useless!" and spit an
> >> opinion out!
> >
> > No - I'm saying that a lot of artists manage to make emotions
> >sound the same as in a lot of other songs. Especially love songs and songs
> >about depression. It's hard to present something, no matter what is it,
> >that has never been dealt with before. Neil's themes, although they
> >probably have been sung or written about before, are interesting to me,
> >just as emotional (for argument's sake i'm excluding neil from the
> >emotional category for now, altho i don't believe he should be) ones are
> >still interesting to me, most of the time.
>
> I find them very narrow. Maybe it's my fault, but his lyrics seem very
> sharpened, aimed, and intended (I think you'll agree that he *strives* for
> this--that it's part of his craft). It makes it so narrow that I'm left
> with a specific slant on an issue instead of freely wandering through
> it...
Well you don't have to agree with his take. I think he presents
a certain viewpoint in Losing It, and i'm not so sure i agree with him.
It seems to be that he can put a certain slant on an issue, but the
listener can still wander freely and have their own thoughts.
> > I've often found that Neil expresses things in a way that makes
> >it more interesting, even if i do agree with him. I enjoy hearing a new
> >way of expressing what I believe. On the other hand, I can't say that I
> >have heard lyrics that show me something I have *never* seen before.
>
> Well, how about lyrics that show you something from a very different
> viewpoint? That's as good as new, don't you think?
I think Neil does this pretty well when he wants to.
> >> There's no name for these things until they've been brought into the
> >> light. That's the beauty of it--you think, "What else *is* there to talk
> >> about?" and then some brilliant artists shows you. But Peart just
> >> re-affirms your opinion on something.
> >
> > so could you give me some examples of these brilliant artists?
> >Where are they hiding?
>
> I wasn't thinking of anyone specific. Some really crappy artists have one
> slight moment of brilliance, perhaps, and that's enough....Just to see
> something that makes you tingle or get goosebumps. Rush has moments like
> these, but it's usually not a thesis statement from Neil.
I'm just curious about this - could you quote something you think
is a good example?
> >> He needs to write from inside the head of a suicidal person--someone with
> >> a mind-set they can't even fucking *help*. Then see how much he has to
> >> say about, "Suicide is bad, just say no."
> >
> > I disagree again. He does deal with the people they've hurt (and
> >pretty emotionally, to me), but I think he's also dealing with their own
> >lives. He's saying that they aren't alone, which in my experience is a
> >comfort in a lot of situations. People deal with things in different
> >ways, of course, and I'm sure it doesn't matter to *all* suicidal people,
> >but it does to some. Discovering you're not the only one who feels that
> >way, and that there are people out there you can talk to and share your
> >feelings with, and that they might actually understand you, can be a big
> >help.
>
> I usually find that to be a load of crap. "Oh, we understand how you
> feel!" No ya don't--you're not me!
But in talking to someone who has been through a similar type
experience, i think one often finds a lot more understand than with
someone who hasn't. No one is going to understand perfectly how I feel
about something, but the ones that come the closest are the ones who have
been through something similar.
> > A lot more could be said on both angles, of course, but you could
> >go on and on forever talking about it. An as for writing from inside
> >their heads, again, I think you need to have been suicidal at one point
> >to be able to do that. But even most people who are or have been
> >suicidal would agree that suicide is not a good thing.
>
> Of course not, but does that mean it should be ignored?
No, but who's ignoring it? The Pass has always seemed very
moving to me.
Cecrle
> I'm not exactly sure he is saying that only racism is based on
>those things, but anyway - they may be obvious to you, but they aren't to
>everyone.
As you say later, the people who'll love it the most are the ones who
already agree with it, so it's masturbatory, in a way...
> And while it is true that most people who are racist, for
>example, aren't going to listen to Witch Hunt and then say, "you know,
>he's right!" some people at least think about it. A person a worked with
>over the summer listened to the song and said it really made him think
>about his attitude towards other groups of people. He still has some
>ideas about them that I don't like, but I could see a change in his
>behavior at least. So who knows? The song reached at least one person
>out there.
Yeah, it can do that, and that's cool. It just gets kinda tiring if you
agree with it all! At first it was really cool to find someone I agreed
with on many things, but sooner or later it gets to be, "Why am I still
listening to this?"
>> A painter could use his nice, shiny blue paint to print, "Women and men
>> are equal," on a canvas. Wouldn't that be a work of genius?
>
> Well, Rush could just have a nice, cool drum beating in the
>background while Neil (or Alex or Geddy) says "Women and men are equal."
>That to me would be the equivalent of simply printing it on canvas. But
>I think Rush uses a combination of music and lyrics very nicely to convey
>an idea without necessarily coming out and saying what that idea is. And
>once again, I think a lot of emotion comes through as well.
Good points.
>> Me too--boredom, fatigue, nausea.... :) Had to.
>
> well, there are a lot of lyrics out there that evoke those
>emotions in me too. but unless the music is so good that i can ignore
>the lyrics (which happens occasionally), I just don't listen to it after
>giving it a few tries. And i don't go to their newsgroup and tell
>everyone how nausiated I am. I am sure they are perfectly aware that
>there are people out there who don't like that particular band.
It was just side joke, nothing important.
>> So why bother, right? Let's just say, "Sadness is useless!" and spit an
>> opinion out!
>
> No - I'm saying that a lot of artists manage to make emotions
>sound the same as in a lot of other songs. Especially love songs and songs
>about depression. It's hard to present something, no matter what is it,
>that has never been dealt with before. Neil's themes, although they
>probably have been sung or written about before, are interesting to me,
>just as emotional (for argument's sake i'm excluding neil from the
>emotional category for now, altho i don't believe he should be) ones are
>still interesting to me, most of the time.
I find them very narrow. Maybe it's my fault, but his lyrics seem very
sharpened, aimed, and intended (I think you'll agree that he *strives* for
this--that it's part of his craft). It makes it so narrow that I'm left
with a specific slant on an issue instead of freely wandering through
it...
> I've often found that Neil expresses things in a way that makes
>it more interesting, even if i do agree with him. I enjoy hearing a new
>way of expressing what I believe. On the other hand, I can't say that I
>have heard lyrics that show me something I have *never* seen before.
Well, how about lyrics that show you something from a very different
viewpoint? That's as good as new, don't you think?
>> There's no name for these things until they've been brought into the
>> light. That's the beauty of it--you think, "What else *is* there to talk
>> about?" and then some brilliant artists shows you. But Peart just
>> re-affirms your opinion on something.
>
> so could you give me some examples of these brilliant artists?
>Where are they hiding?
I wasn't thinking of anyone specific. Some really crappy artists have one
slight moment of brilliance, perhaps, and that's enough....Just to see
something that makes you tingle or get goosebumps. Rush has moments like
these, but it's usually not a thesis statement from Neil.
>> He needs to write from inside the head of a suicidal person--someone with
>> a mind-set they can't even fucking *help*. Then see how much he has to
>> say about, "Suicide is bad, just say no."
>
> I disagree again. He does deal with the people they've hurt (and
>pretty emotionally, to me), but I think he's also dealing with their own
>lives. He's saying that they aren't alone, which in my experience is a
>comfort in a lot of situations. People deal with things in different
>ways, of course, and I'm sure it doesn't matter to *all* suicidal people,
>but it does to some. Discovering you're not the only one who feels that
>way, and that there are people out there you can talk to and share your
>feelings with, and that they might actually understand you, can be a big
>help.
I usually find that to be a load of crap. "Oh, we understand how you
feel!" No ya don't--you're not me!
> A lot more could be said on both angles, of course, but you could
>go on and on forever talking about it. An as for writing from inside
>their heads, again, I think you need to have been suicidal at one point
>to be able to do that. But even most people who are or have been
>suicidal would agree that suicide is not a good thing.
Of course not, but does that mean it should be ignored?
-FC
Bill J. Bernard
Sghorwitz wrote:
>
> >>
> >>Neil writes about a lot more than just opinions. You keep saying this,
> >>but I don't know why. Yes, the point of some of his lyrics is to express
> >>an opinion, but most simply describe things such as his
> >>observations...it's left up to you to form your own opinion.
> >
> >Discuss further. What songs are good examples of that?
>
> Let's see. Which one is it? Is Neil going to tell? I don't know...
>
> Scars. A description with no particular opinion
>
> Manhattan Project. Observations about the issues involved.
>
> Emotion Detector.
>
> The Enemy Within
>
> Red Sector A (Are the liberators here? Do I hope or do I fear?)
>
> Tom Sawyer, for Christ's sake
>
> The Camera Eye, while we're at it.
>
> Entre Nous, going back a bit.
>
> Losing It.
.
.
Well, with the exception of Losing It (which I think has a pretty simple
message -- "sadder still to watch it die..."), you make an interesting
point. Neil has often taken _subjects_ for which there are obvious
strong popular opinions, and challenging them. The Trees is a
simplistic example of this; Heresy is another. People obviously want
equality (and most people have supported initiatives to enforce this),
people also agree that Communism was bad and it's fall a great thing to
be celebrated... Neil presents questions (not answers) or challenges to
these opinions -- he presents another side that he feels should be
considered, perhaps. But does he come to a _conclusion_ about what
_should_ be done, thought, or felt? I don't think he does.
Sam G.
Cecrle wrote:
>
> Neil's point seems to be to best sum up and back up various opinions, and
> history couldn't care less about one Neil Peart's opinions (although they
> are written very neatly and cleanly).
>
> His lyrics don't seem to be out to express the human
> spirit/emotions/whatever (the "flowery" part), but to express his opinions
> on things, don't you think?
>
> -FC
Which is the POINT of writing in the first place! Whether or not he is
cryptic in his writing, writes in the first person, or as a narrator
telling a story is IRRELEVANT! (Each is valid. Each has its uses.) The
QUALITY of HOW he conveys his ideas matters most. HE IS EXCEPTIONAL AT
THIS. Of course he expresses his opinions in his writing. Do you
expect him to talk about other people's opinions? HE is the writer.
All writers / artists convey THEIR OPINIONS. People relate to that.
You are correct in that assumption. *Even the more 'emotional' writers
just express their opinions.* When you hear words of that sort, you
relate/agree to them as well. Same thing. Different approach.
Neil is more cognitive in his writing.
If you don't like cognitive writing, just say so. But do not say that it
isn't a valid form of expression; do not say noone cares about Neil
Peart's opinions on this issue. I do. A great many people do. Why do
you think he was asked to be on 'Politically Correct?' For his good
looks, and charming demeanor? (Hell, the fact that we are having a
debate about his lyrics is proof that they are widely respected and
acknowleged. If no one cared, would we be having this debate? 8^) )
Do you think he wrote "Subdivisions" based on his 'observations and
opinion of youth in the early 1980's?' Hardly. Those words came from
his soul, based on his experience as a suburban youth. His cognitive
way of expressing these emotions is far more timeless than any other
means. That is why they are still relevant today, as they were when he
was a kid, and as they will be years to come. (I'd say the intellectual
narrative of "Subdivisions" will withstand the test of time far better
than other songs about suburban teens, like "Smells like Teen Spirit" or
some other song in that genre. I mean, you make it sound as Neil writes
like..."Being a teen has been proven to be the most difficult experience
in one's life. Being a teen is all acne and bullies. USA Today rates
'being a teenager is the third hardest thing in the country.' This is to
validate my opinion. These are the facts, madam. You can't argue with
the facts. The textbooks state that as a teenager, you can expect to
see a 50% increase in hardships...etc."
Completely devoid of any emotion.
I beg to differ.
I would say that his "narrative" style is FULL of EMOTIONS, conceived by
experience, presented intellectually, not obscurely.
Peace.
Sam
--
Reply. Often. I enjoy e-mail. However, remove @letthemeatspam first.
Cecrle
>> As you say later, the people who'll love it the most are the ones who
>> already agree with it, so it's masturbatory, in a way...
>
> To write it or to listen to it?
Mainly the former, partly the latter.
> I would say i agree with most of what Neil says, or least i agree
>with what I think it means. But i haven't gotten tired of that so far
>anyways. And there are a lot of songs that don't really state a
>viewpoint too. I also like the how "positive" a lot of their songs are.
That's an interesting part of it--I don't usually enjoy "positive" stuff.
At least I don't let myself enjoy it or something....It feels fake, like
trying to whip up happiness....But that's probably all based on the
chemical imbalance I suspect I have. :)
> Well you don't have to agree with his take. I think he presents
>a certain viewpoint in Losing It, and i'm not so sure i agree with him.
>It seems to be that he can put a certain slant on an issue, but the
>listener can still wander freely and have their own thoughts.
See, you don't agree with the song. I don't think I like it when it comes
down to "agreeing" or "disagreeing" with a *song*. Didn't you just admit
that the song is a blatant message? Writing about opinions can get in the
way, 'cause there's a ton of them out there, and is one viewpoint better
than another? I think it would be cool if Neil just wrote the little
thing about the dancer and the writer and left it at that. Then we could
think about that and lead it into other things, and there'd be nothing to
"agree/disagree" with and leave a bad taste in your mouth.
>> Well, how about lyrics that show you something from a very different
>> viewpoint? That's as good as new, don't you think?
>
> I think Neil does this pretty well when he wants to.
I wish he wanted to more often.
>> I wasn't thinking of anyone specific. Some really crappy artists have one
>> slight moment of brilliance, perhaps, and that's enough....Just to see
>> something that makes you tingle or get goosebumps. Rush has moments like
>> these, but it's usually not a thesis statement from Neil.
>
> I'm just curious about this - could you quote something you think
>is a good example?
Of Neil's "thesis statements"? "Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk
hand in hand." , "Sadder still to watch it die than never to have known
it..." , "A particle of mercy makes the color of right [whatever]." ,
"Live and love and dream." Of course, in discussing it, I'm exaggerating
it, so I really don't have as many good examples as I'd like. It's just
the feeling I get from the lyrics...
>> I usually find that to be a load of crap. "Oh, we understand how you
>> feel!" No ya don't--you're not me!
>
> But in talking to someone who has been through a similar type
>experience, i think one often finds a lot more understand than with
>someone who hasn't. No one is going to understand perfectly how I feel
>about something, but the ones that come the closest are the ones who have
>been through something similar.
Well, I think the things behind suicide are *pretty* damn personal....Not
like, "Hey, I broke my toe, too!"
>> > A lot more could be said on both angles, of course, but you could
>> >go on and on forever talking about it. An as for writing from inside
>> >their heads, again, I think you need to have been suicidal at one point
>> >to be able to do that. But even most people who are or have been
>> >suicidal would agree that suicide is not a good thing.
>>
>> Of course not, but does that mean it should be ignored?
>
> No, but who's ignoring it? The Pass has always seemed very
>moving to me.
Peart seems to have a condescending, wiser-than-thou tone in that
song....Hard to describe, but it feels like he thinks he *knows* about
life and those foolish people who kill themselves don't. I really don't
think that's the case.
-FC
Roxanna
On 18 Oct 1997, Cecrle wrote:
> Roxanna <cm...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> >On 17 Oct 1997, Cecrle wrote:
>
> >> As you say later, the people who'll love it the most are the ones who
> >> already agree with it, so it's masturbatory, in a way...
> >
> > To write it or to listen to it?
>
> Mainly the former, partly the latter.
well if he is enjoying it, and the listeners are too, i dont' see
a reason for him not to continue...
>
> > I would say i agree with most of what Neil says, or least i agree
> >with what I think it means. But i haven't gotten tired of that so far
> >anyways. And there are a lot of songs that don't really state a
> >viewpoint too. I also like the how "positive" a lot of their songs are.
>
> That's an interesting part of it--I don't usually enjoy "positive" stuff.
> At least I don't let myself enjoy it or something....It feels fake, like
> trying to whip up happiness....But that's probably all based on the
> chemical imbalance I suspect I have. :)
Hehehehe. I think its good to listen to lyrics with a variety of
different emotions, but overall, i think i enjoy the happier lyrics
best. I've often thought it a shame that some of the most beautiful
songs are so sad, and one thing i love about Rush is that so many of
their songs that I consider beautiful have a positive feel to them. One
of my favorite non-Rush songs, Silent Lucidity is like that. For me, I
think I like it because I consider myself a positive person, and because
there is so much sadness in real life - you can't watch the news without
getting a strong dose of it. I look for the positive in music, and in
books and movies as well.
>
> > Well you don't have to agree with his take. I think he presents
> >a certain viewpoint in Losing It, and i'm not so sure i agree with him.
> >It seems to be that he can put a certain slant on an issue, but the
> >listener can still wander freely and have their own thoughts.
>
> See, you don't agree with the song. I don't think I like it when it comes
> down to "agreeing" or "disagreeing" with a *song*. Didn't you just admit
> that the song is a blatant message? Writing about opinions can get in the
> way, 'cause there's a ton of them out there, and is one viewpoint better
> than another? I think it would be cool if Neil just wrote the little
> thing about the dancer and the writer and left it at that. Then we could
> think about that and lead it into other things, and there'd be nothing to
> "agree/disagree" with and leave a bad taste in your mouth.
In this song, yes i do think there is a message. But it doesn't
leave a bad taste in my mouth, and i don't mind disagreeing. It makes me
think about it a lot, and i like to know what Neil's feelings are on it.
>
> >> Well, how about lyrics that show you something from a very different
> >> viewpoint? That's as good as new, don't you think?
> >
> > I think Neil does this pretty well when he wants to.
>
> I wish he wanted to more often.
>
> >> I wasn't thinking of anyone specific. Some really crappy artists have one
> >> slight moment of brilliance, perhaps, and that's enough....Just to see
> >> something that makes you tingle or get goosebumps. Rush has moments like
> >> these, but it's usually not a thesis statement from Neil.
> >
> > I'm just curious about this - could you quote something you think
> >is a good example?
>
> Of Neil's "thesis statements"? "Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk
> hand in hand." , "Sadder still to watch it die than never to have known
> it..." , "A particle of mercy makes the color of right [whatever]." ,
> "Live and love and dream." Of course, in discussing it, I'm exaggerating
> it, so I really don't have as many good examples as I'd like. It's just
> the feeling I get from the lyrics...
Actually I meant examples of rare brilliance in crappy artists
(or not so rare brilliance in better artists.) I'd just like some
sampling of the kind of lyrics you like. Are there any artists who you
think have consistently great lyrics?
>
> >> I usually find that to be a load of crap. "Oh, we understand how you
> >> feel!" No ya don't--you're not me!
> >
> > But in talking to someone who has been through a similar type
> >experience, i think one often finds a lot more understand than with
> >someone who hasn't. No one is going to understand perfectly how I feel
> >about something, but the ones that come the closest are the ones who have
> >been through something similar.
>
> Well, I think the things behind suicide are *pretty* damn personal....Not
> like, "Hey, I broke my toe, too!"
But I think even if your reasons are completely different, there
is still some level of understanding, or at least a greater opportunity
for that understanding, among people going through the same thing.
> >> > A lot more could be said on both angles, of course, but you could
> >> >go on and on forever talking about it. An as for writing from inside
> >> >their heads, again, I think you need to have been suicidal at one point
> >> >to be able to do that. But even most people who are or have been
> >> >suicidal would agree that suicide is not a good thing.
> >>
> >> Of course not, but does that mean it should be ignored?
> >
> > No, but who's ignoring it? The Pass has always seemed very
> >moving to me.
>
> Peart seems to have a condescending, wiser-than-thou tone in that
> song....Hard to describe, but it feels like he thinks he *knows* about
> life and those foolish people who kill themselves don't. I really don't
> think that's the case.
I just dont' get the impression that he is calling them foolish.
It feels to me more like a heart-felt cry not to do it - not only for
their loved ones but also themselves.
Cecrle
>> >"Chain Lightning",
>
>> I like this one, but what is there left for you to decide? Just curious.
>
>Well, that's what you wanted, right? Just lyrics describing something.
You're right....I just thought you were trying to--never mind, you're
right.
>> There's really not much in Time and Motion--you can either disagree or
>> agree, don't you think? "Live and love and dream, do this, do that," I
>> like the forest/ocean lines, though.
>
>Still, it's not preachy.
Well, it's sappy.
>But you're not digging deep enough. Consider the line "Half the world
>gives while the other half takes". Which side does Neil himself consider
>to be the "good" side here? It seems like the capitalist, Randian in him
>might say it's the half that *takes*. Rand, as you probably know, doesn't
>have a very high opinion of people who dedicate their lives to serving
>their fellow man.
I think that's too "deep" to have any relavance. I doubt he was thinking
along those lines--it's probably just 'cause "take" rhymed well.
>> That's why Red Barchetta is great--it's "an expression of freedom" as Neil
>> has put it. Just an expression of a human emotion/feeling.
>
>But isn't it really more than that? Isn't it also the idea that freedom
>is *good*, and an over-governed, over-regulated society is *bad*? It's
>very hard for an artist to write something without it having at least >some sort of angle, IMO.
I definitely agree. But nowhere does Neil say, "Over-regulated societes
are restrictive and bad," or anything close to that. He lets you draw
that from the song, and it's not so condescending as to have to put it
into obvious words.
>> That's what I
>> want and what I like to hear and feel. What about you? Should he have
>> tacked on something more to that and made more of a point?
>
>Well, I think there is a point.
You're right, there is a point--there can be a bunch of points. It's just
that Neil doesn't point his finger at them so eagerly or specifically.
> And what do you think of songs like
>"Cygnus X-1", "Manhattan Project", "Mystic Rhythms", "Prime Mover", "Open
>Secrets", "High Water", and "Scars"? Are these songs overly preachy? I
>don't think so. I don't think Neil preaches all that much.
I like those (although I can't think of many lines to the HYF tracks
off-hand).
>Well, geez, look at the size of that demographic! Is the Bob Dylan
>demographic as big? How many gold records does *he* have? The very fact
>that Rush have sold over 35 million albums and have more gold records than
>almost any artist in existence indicates to me that a rather large number
>of people can relate to Neil's lyrics. I don't see what your point is
>here.
I guess that means a hell of a lot of people can relate to the Spice
Girls' lyrics.
>> How much fun is it to watch a happy?
>
>Is it more fun to watch people suffer? Do you like to see your friends
>and family suffer? I don't.
No, but artists aren't my friends or family.
>> The happiest songs are the ones that
>> are radio pop that you guys despise. Shouldn't you love all those cheezy
>> love songs?
>
>I don't necessarily love happy music. I'm just saying that I don't think
>Neil has to be fucked up to write lyrics with artistic merit.
Agreed.
>> >Weren't you the one (along with me, of course) who criticized Christianity
>> >for glorifying suffering?
>
>> Yep. Don't think that point has escaped me--I realize it.
>
>Then how are you planning on reconciling this contradiction?
I'm not. I see it as a point of interest, something to think about. I
don't have to modify anything so I can be "right"--obviously we're just
sampling ideas here. That's all I want to do, not come up with a Grand
Unified Theory of opinions. When I wrote it, I was considering the
usefullness of pain, questioning. I wanted to see some reactions/thoughts
on that.
>> > Now, you're doing *precisely* the same thing! That's fucked up.
>
>> I'm saying there's more to be learned from suffering than from happiness.
>
>Oh, bull. I go to school everyday, read books and papers, write some
>computer programs, and am generally having a good time and learning a lot.
>Would suffering really enhance my learning experience? I don't think so.
>All you can learn from suffering is how to avoid it in the future.
And how to get even more happiness, don't you think? And there will
always be individual suffering, don't you think?
>> So pain
>> has its place and must be confronted if you really want to be happy.
>
>Oh god, Frank, this is precisely what all those religious people say:
>"Only through suffering can you find true happiness!" It makes no sense
>whatsoever, and anyone who spews this type of garbage is an enemy of
>reason, IMO.
I disagree. You can't ignore bad things. I'm saying bad things exist,
and if you want to conquer them, you have to face them instead of
discussing and examining everything *but*. The difference is--I'm saying,
"hey, we all have pain *to begin with*, but we can learn from it," while a
certain religion will say, "pain is holy, so accept as much as we're gonna
dish out." I'm not very firm on this, anyway--just experimenting with the
ideas.
>> I'm
>> not saying it's always a *good* thing, I'm just saying we might as well
>> learn from it instead of wasting our time concentrating on someone who's
>> apparently happy.
>
>From the happy man you can learn how he achieved his happiness and
>hopefully how to avoid suffering. Isn't this more important than what >you can learn through suffering?
From the suffering, you can see what *not* to do. Don't you think that's
better than seeing what *to* do? "He's happy, so you go buy a speed-boat
too!" Different things make different people happy, but many similar
things make many people suffer. What do you think?
>> He's come off as depressed in every interview *I've* read. Things like,
>> "...the world's a sad fucking place..."
>
>The world *is* a sad fucking place. That doesn't mean he's not happy. I
>recognize that the world is fucked up, but I don't let it get me down.
Is that a selfish dismissal of others' pain?
>> It's funny, 'cause I used to (and still do?) really like The Pass.
>
>I like it, too, especially the music. But as I said before, Marillion
>have an album about a girl who eventually commits suicide, and they called
>the album _Brave_. That took a lot of balls, IMO. And I feel like I
>relate better to that attitude towards suicide than the old "it's a
>cop-out" thing.
I've heard that title, but never knew that was the story behind it.
Interesting. Is there anything specific given as a motive/reason for her
suicide?
-FC
Cecrle
Roxanna <cm...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>
>On 18 Oct 1997, Cecrle wrote:
>
>> > To write it or to listen to it?
>>
>> Mainly the former, partly the latter.
>
> well if he is enjoying it, and the listeners are too, i dont' see
>a reason for him not to continue...
Circle jerk! Circle jerk! :)
> Hehehehe. I think its good to listen to lyrics with a variety of
>different emotions,
I agree. You know who's happy lyrics I like? Robert Smith's, from The
Cure. And his lyrics are just so stupid, so rambling, so bad! But
certain "happy" songs from The Cure make me feel good (although most of
their lyrics/vocals are whining, gloomy crap).
>but overall, i think i enjoy the happier lyrics
>best.
Sometimes I agree, but....I mean, I have to be in so narrow a mood for
that--I guess that means I'm rarely happy! But anyway, I feel like I'm
tricking myself when lyrics make me happy. It's like, "Isn't this just a
melodramatic portrayal of happiness? Have I ever felt the way these
lyrics describe it?"
> I've often thought it a shame that some of the most beautiful
>songs are so sad, and one thing i love about Rush is that so many of
>their songs that I consider beautiful have a positive feel to them. One
>of my favorite non-Rush songs, Silent Lucidity is like that.
Oh, that one! Just hearing that makes me feel like I could cry!
Seriously. I find that song to be very sad. I see how it has a positive
tone to it--"I'll be watching over you," but isn't that spoken from the
dead parent, thus, from an imaginary friend of sorts? So isn't the whole
positive angle just imaginary? Maybe I'm thinking about the song
wrong--I've never studied the lyrics.
> For me, I
>think I like it because I consider myself a positive person, and because
>there is so much sadness in real life - you can't watch the news without
>getting a strong dose of it. I look for the positive in music, and in
>books and movies as well.
That's cool. And what you said about the sadness in real life--I think
that if you *can't* feel much sadness for things like that, you probably
can't feel much happiness for anything, either. What do you think about
that?
> Actually I meant examples of rare brilliance in crappy artists
>(or not so rare brilliance in better artists.)
Well, Smith from The Cure can be like that, I think. A lot of the times
the lyrics suck, but they fit the music, so it usually works. Consider
these lyrics from "Inbetween Days":
"Yesterday I got so old, I felt like I could die
Yesterday I got so old, it made me want to cry"
And I still manage to like the song! It just goes well, with the music,
especially the, "Go on, go on, just walk away / Go on, go on, your choice
is made" part. But he has some lyrics I feel are good on their own.
"Pictures of You", "Catch"....Anyway, the lyrics can be mediocre, but
they're put to the music in a way that lets me appreciate them.
> I'd just like some
>sampling of the kind of lyrics you like. Are there any artists who you
>think have consistently great lyrics?
Hmm. Waters is usually good, although they're so depressing and gloomy (I
wish he'd throw a little more rage in sometimes, like in "One of My Turns"
from The Wall).
I really enjoy David Byrne's lyrics, pretty consistently. They are goofy
and silly and strange, but serious and sensitive. I mean, some people
might not think he's being serious all the time, and then think that he's
just weird and lame.
Part of what I enjoy about his lyrics are that they are very
subconscious, I think. This is something I've been thinking about a lot
lately--Peart is just about as conscious as you can get. He thinks
everything through and understands what he means with every line. Then
there's someone like Byrne; Talking Heads' album _Speaking in Tongues_ was
named such because Byrne just wrote whatever words came into his head as
the music was being made. There are certain themes and ideas, but I
believe they are very subconscious, and you'd be hard-pressed to take any
song from that album and determine any one theme. I find this to be more
interesting and revealing of my consciousness than Neil's thoughts on one
topic.
One lyricist I'm amazed by right now is Edward Ka-Spel from The Legendary
Pink Dots. I'm really getting into that band by now (I have about 5 of
their CDs, plus some various stuff on tape). Ka-Spel writes many
story/fantasty type of lyrics, all kinds of stuff. One thing I think is
neat about them is the fact that there are many interweaving
themes/ideas in them. I'm going to post about this band soon to try and
introduce them to anyone on this ng who's interested.
If you want examples of any of these lyrics above mentioned, I'll post
some. I'm just hesitant considering I find the music and words to be too
connected for an accurate representation. I mean, I used to read a bands
lyrics before I'd hear their songs--just to get a feel for the band.
They'd almost always be lame, so I'd dismiss the band. When you hear the
words sung with the music, though, I think it's something a lot different.
It brings to mind something David Byrne has said: "Words are just a way to
get people to listen to music longer than they normally would." Or
something along those lines.
>> Well, I think the things behind suicide are *pretty* damn personal....Not
>> like, "Hey, I broke my toe, too!"
>
> But I think even if your reasons are completely different, there
>is still some level of understanding, or at least a greater opportunity
>for that understanding, among people going through the same thing.
Yeah, that's a good point.
>> Peart seems to have a condescending, wiser-than-thou tone in that
>> song....Hard to describe, but it feels like he thinks he *knows* about
>> life and those foolish people who kill themselves don't. I really don't
>> think that's the case.
>
> I just dont' get the impression that he is calling them foolish.
But don't you get the feeling he's thinking, "These poor people, if only
they could see that life is worth living,"? I get that impression--like
those people don't know something Neil knows.
>It feels to me more like a heart-felt cry not to do it - not only for
>their loved ones but also themselves.
It's touching from a personal level, but when it's a message for people
all over, it's kind of boring.
-FC
Roxanna
On 18 Oct 1997, Cecrle wrote:
> Roxanna <cm...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> >
> >On 18 Oct 1997, Cecrle wrote:
> >
> >> > To write it or to listen to it?
> >>
> >> Mainly the former, partly the latter.
> >
> > well if he is enjoying it, and the listeners are too, i dont' see
> >a reason for him not to continue...
>
> Circle jerk! Circle jerk! :)
uh huh.....
> > Hehehehe. I think its good to listen to lyrics with a variety of
> >different emotions,
>
> I agree. You know who's happy lyrics I like? Robert Smith's, from The
> Cure. And his lyrics are just so stupid, so rambling, so bad! But
> certain "happy" songs from The Cure make me feel good (although most of
> their lyrics/vocals are whining, gloomy crap).
i wouldn't call his lyrics "stupid" - if they have the power to
make someone feel good, there must be something to them.
> >but overall, i think i enjoy the happier lyrics
> >best.
>
> Sometimes I agree, but....I mean, I have to be in so narrow a mood for
> that--I guess that means I'm rarely happy! But anyway, I feel like I'm
> tricking myself when lyrics make me happy. It's like, "Isn't this just a
> melodramatic portrayal of happiness? Have I ever felt the way these
> lyrics describe it?"
i wouldn't quite say that the lyrics make me happy, i have to
make myself happy. but they often make me feel better when i'm a little
bit down, or enforce my good mood when i'm in one. sometimes, i do feel
the way the lyrics describe.
> > I've often thought it a shame that some of the most beautiful
> >songs are so sad, and one thing i love about Rush is that so many of
> >their songs that I consider beautiful have a positive feel to them. One
> >of my favorite non-Rush songs, Silent Lucidity is like that.
>
> Oh, that one! Just hearing that makes me feel like I could cry!
> Seriously. I find that song to be very sad. I see how it has a positive
> tone to it--"I'll be watching over you," but isn't that spoken from the
> dead parent, thus, from an imaginary friend of sorts? So isn't the whole
> positive angle just imaginary? Maybe I'm thinking about the song
> wrong--I've never studied the lyrics.
or maybe i'm wrong - i've never heard anything said about the
meaning of the song; i've read the lyrics over and over again, and i
can't say for sure if i think someone is dead or not. i finally decided
to give it my own interpretation and it it, no one is dead:) (but i
would love to know what the band intended). The "I will be watching over
you" part does seem positive, but so does the rest of the song to me, and
it shows a world full of possibilities..."If you open your mind for me
You won't rely on open eyes to see/The walls you built within/Come
tumbling down, and a new world will begin" I could be totally wrong, but
it seems very positive and open to me.
> > For me, I
> >think I like it because I consider myself a positive person, and because
> >there is so much sadness in real life - you can't watch the news without
> >getting a strong dose of it. I look for the positive in music, and in
> >books and movies as well.
>
> That's cool. And what you said about the sadness in real life--I think
> that if you *can't* feel much sadness for things like that, you probably
> can't feel much happiness for anything, either. What do you think about
> that?
hmm, I'm really not sure. i probably tend to agree with you
about personal events - if someone can't feel sadness for things that are
happening to people they know around them, it makes me wonder if they
would ever feel much of anything at all. on the other hand, i know a lot
of people who are completely unfazed by the events they hear about in the
papers or on tv, and yet they seem like they find happiness in their
lives - maybe they have just forced themselves to become immune...
> > Actually I meant examples of rare brilliance in crappy artists
> >(or not so rare brilliance in better artists.)
>
> Well, Smith from The Cure can be like that, I think. A lot of the times
> the lyrics suck, but they fit the music, so it usually works. Consider
> these lyrics from "Inbetween Days":
>
> "Yesterday I got so old, I felt like I could die
> Yesterday I got so old, it made me want to cry"
>
> And I still manage to like the song! It just goes well, with the music,
> especially the, "Go on, go on, just walk away / Go on, go on, your choice
> is made" part. But he has some lyrics I feel are good on their own.
> "Pictures of You", "Catch"....Anyway, the lyrics can be mediocre, but
> they're put to the music in a way that lets me appreciate them.
I don't think there's anything wrong at all with liking lyrics you
consider mediocre. But what i really want are the examples of lyrics that
present something from a completely different and totally new viewpoint.
Liking the above lyrics doesn't seem any better to me than liking some of
Neil's lyrics because you agree with them. But before you were making it
sound like there were lyrics out there that you considered so good and so
original, so much better than Neil's.
>
> > I'd just like some
> >sampling of the kind of lyrics you like. Are there any artists who you
> >think have consistently great lyrics?
>
> Hmm. Waters is usually good, although they're so depressing and gloomy (I
> wish he'd throw a little more rage in sometimes, like in "One of My Turns"
> from The Wall).
>
> I really enjoy David Byrne's lyrics, pretty consistently. They are goofy
> and silly and strange, but serious and sensitive. I mean, some people
> might not think he's being serious all the time, and then think that he's
> just weird and lame.
> Part of what I enjoy about his lyrics are that they are very
> subconscious, I think. This is something I've been thinking about a lot
> lately--Peart is just about as conscious as you can get. He thinks
> everything through and understands what he means with every line. Then
> there's someone like Byrne; Talking Heads' album _Speaking in Tongues_ was
> named such because Byrne just wrote whatever words came into his head as
> the music was being made. There are certain themes and ideas, but I
> believe they are very subconscious, and you'd be hard-pressed to take any
> song from that album and determine any one theme. I find this to be more
> interesting and revealing of my consciousness than Neil's thoughts on one
> topic.
I've always had a hard time with Talking Heads because I never
really liked the music. I think music can make lyrics sound a little bit
better, I guess kind of like the way the music made you like the Cure
lyrics better. Maybe if I enjoyed the music more I would like the lyrics
better, but they really never appealed to me.
>
> One lyricist I'm amazed by right now is Edward Ka-Spel from The Legendary
> Pink Dots. I'm really getting into that band by now (I have about 5 of
> their CDs, plus some various stuff on tape). Ka-Spel writes many
> story/fantasty type of lyrics, all kinds of stuff. One thing I think is
> neat about them is the fact that there are many interweaving
> themes/ideas in them. I'm going to post about this band soon to try and
> introduce them to anyone on this ng who's interested.
>
> If you want examples of any of these lyrics above mentioned, I'll post
> some.
Go ahead and post some of your favorites anyway.
> I'm just hesitant considering I find the music and words to be too
> connected for an accurate representation. I mean, I used to read a bands
> lyrics before I'd hear their songs--just to get a feel for the band.
> They'd almost always be lame, so I'd dismiss the band. When you hear the
> words sung with the music, though, I think it's something a lot different.
i agree with you here - sometimes the music makes the lyrics seem
different...most of the time I think Neil's lyrics can stand on their
own, but then when i listen to the music, it makes it that much better.
On the other hand, there are some lyrics that can't be helped. If i like
the music enough I can still enjoy the song though.
> >> Well, I think the things behind suicide are *pretty* damn personal....Not
> >> like, "Hey, I broke my toe, too!"
> >
> > But I think even if your reasons are completely different, there
> >is still some level of understanding, or at least a greater opportunity
> >for that understanding, among people going through the same thing.
>
> Yeah, that's a good point.
>
>
> >> Peart seems to have a condescending, wiser-than-thou tone in that
> >> song....Hard to describe, but it feels like he thinks he *knows* about
> >> life and those foolish people who kill themselves don't. I really don't
> >> think that's the case.
> >
> > I just dont' get the impression that he is calling them foolish.
>
> But don't you get the feeling he's thinking, "These poor people, if only
> they could see that life is worth living,"? I get that impression--like
> those people don't know something Neil knows.
I think he is holding them in higher regard than foolish, but i
do get the impression that he thinks there is a side of life that they
are missing - or perhaps a side of life that they can reach if they just
hang in there. I kind of like that though.
> >It feels to me more like a heart-felt cry not to do it - not only for
> >their loved ones but also themselves.
>
> It's touching from a personal level, but when it's a message for people
> all over, it's kind of boring.
i don't quite follow - it touches me in a personal way, but the
thought that he perhaps intended for more experiences than my own doesn't
take away from anything for me...
demian
Pritiera wrote:
>
> Cecrle <mcecrle@SPAM=BADsbt.infi.net> wrote:
>
> > >But you're not digging deep enough. Consider the line "Half the world
> > >gives while the other half takes". Which side does Neil himself consider
> > >to be the "good" side here? It seems like the capitalist, Randian in him
> > >might say it's the half that *takes*. Rand, as you probably know, doesn't
> > >have a very high opinion of people who dedicate their lives to serving
> > >their fellow man.
>
> > I think that's too "deep" to have any relavance. I doubt he was thinking
> > along those lines--it's probably just 'cause "take" rhymed well.
>
> automatically condemning the takers while exalting the givers when he
> included the line "Pain is better to *give* than *receive*" in the song
> "Freewill".
>
> > >Well, geez, look at the size of that demographic! Is the Bob Dylan
> > >demographic as big? How many gold records does *he* have? The very fact
> > >that Rush have sold over 35 million albums and have more gold records than
> > >almost any artist in existence indicates to me that a rather large number
> > >of people can relate to Neil's lyrics. I don't see what your point is
> > >here.
>
> > I guess that means a hell of a lot of people can relate to the Spice
> > Girls' lyrics.
>
> intellectual plane as the Spice Girls, so it's hardly surprising. But my
> point was that there still are people who can relate to Neil's lyrics,
> contrary to your assertion that his lyrics aren't very universal.
>
i think Rand would have liked The Spice Girls. they're light
on their toes (cheery), sorta good looking (except for the jock chick),
believe in Maggie Thatcher (i heard something like that), and don't
dwell on the *bad* stuff, only "Girl Powah!" divas, honey! snap-snap.
> > >> How much fun is it to watch a happy?
> > >
> > >Is it more fun to watch people suffer? Do you like to see your friends
> > >and family suffer? I don't.
>
> > No, but artists aren't my friends or family.
>
> It doesn't matter--I don't want anybody to suffer. What kind of person
> *wants* other people to suffer?
>
he wants Peart to better himself. anything wrong with that?
perhaps he wants an _Anthem_, or a _Bastille Day_, or a convincing,
honest, _The Pass_. is he too selfish for that?
it's your assumption that he is so gloriously wishing suffering
on people. as a matter of circumstance, it will be interesting
to see Peart, though i really have no clue if he'll go furthur
into your way or FC's, and i'm not sure i'm all that interested
anymore about Peart lyrics.
> > >> Yep. Don't think that point has escaped me--I realize it.
> > >
> > >Then how are you planning on reconciling this contradiction?
>
> > I'm not. I see it as a point of interest, something to think about.
>
> It just seems to me that you have now forfeited your right to condemn
> other people who glorify suffering. You're no better than they are.
>
must be that "bad education" of his, huh? this gives him a reason
to be jealous of you, and now you can have a point of pride from
this prestige, if you like. this conclusion of yours is a pessimistic
outlook, in my opinion. any sort of dictionary-like diminishing of
that kind can only be so.
> > I
> > don't have to modify anything so I can be "right"
>
> It's not so that you can be "right"; it's so that you can be *consistent*.
> Your beleif system is fucked up now. You dislike religions that glorify
> suffering, but glorify suffering yourself for your own reasons. And not
> only do you glorify suffering, you actually admit to hoping that people do
> suffer so that you can reap the alleged benefits of this suffering.
> It all seems so bizarre.
>
> > And how to get even more happiness, don't you think? And there will
> > always be individual suffering, don't you think?
>
> If the world continues to be populated by people who see suffering as a
> virtue and who want people to suffer, then yes, there will, unfortunatley,
> always be suffering.
>
you believe everyone can conform to a collective state of happiness,
and thereby make life even more pleasant for the already advanced
"happy" folk?
> > >From the happy man you can learn how he achieved his happiness and
> > >hopefully how to avoid suffering. Isn't this more important than what >you can learn through suffering?
>
> > From the suffering, you can see what *not* to do. Don't you think that's
> > better than seeing what *to* do?
>
> No. From the happy man you can learn how to directly achieve happiness
> without ever having to suffer. Isn't this the way things are done?
> Someone invented anaethesia for surgery and now we just automatically give
> it to people. There's no need for anybody to learn what surgery without
> anaethesia is like. This is just an analogy, of course, but I think you
> see what I mean.
>
anaesthesia came from happiness?
> > "He's happy, so you go buy a speed-boat
> > too!" Different things make different people happy, but many similar
> > things make many people suffer. What do you think?
>
> Different things make people happy, true. But I think there are some
> general principles that people can follow to hopefully achieve happiness.
>
> > >The world *is* a sad fucking place. That doesn't mean he's not happy. I
> > >recognize that the world is fucked up, but I don't let it get me down.
>
> > Is that a selfish dismissal of others' pain?
>
> "Take it easy on yourself, there's nothing more you can do!" You hate
> this line, I know, but I see it as being very true. Would the world
> *really* be a better place if everybody were depressed because there
> exists people who are suffering? I don't think so. The non-sufferers
> have to be happy and productive or else the sufferers will be even worse
> off. After all, someone has to be productive, right?
where's the exalted Perserverance in that line? where's the angry,
"unapologetic," Anthem in that line?
if someone has the hypersenstivity and ability to transfer
an exceptionally rare sinking stone of depression, like Chopin's
Raindrop tune--into what is, in the full context--a beautiful and
valuable expression, then what are you talking about? certianly not
artists. i don't detest Chopin as a Romantic, and i don't think you
do either.
>
> > >I like it, too, especially the music. But as I said before, Marillion
> > >have an album about a girl who eventually commits suicide, and they called
> > >the album _Brave_. That took a lot of balls, IMO. And I feel like I
> > >relate better to that attitude towards suicide than the old "it's a
> > >cop-out" thing.
>
> > I've heard that title, but never knew that was the story behind it.
> > Interesting. Is there anything specific given as a motive/reason for her
> > suicide?
>
> Abuse from her father, among other things. This album is about someone's
> problems and about suicide, but I like it anyway because it's not trying
> to judge suicide (though it certainly doesn't glorify it), but it tries to
> show what might drive a person to take such an extreme action. It's a
> great album.
>
i don't get it. how is suicide worthy of hesitation in judgement, when
it contradicts a line of yours above? doesn't suicide help relatives,
friends, or society in general, suffer, and according to your
anaesthesia, that "suffering" should be extinguished like a plague
because it's "fucked up." who the hell made the world rational all
of a sudden, and what makes you so rational if you still need art?
i mean, if Christ glorifies suffering, then why doesn't Peart's
perserverance with Peart's particular moral codes also glofity it?
how large would the sheep population explosion be, if Peart had to
die for his beliefs? there's a lot of conceit on a.m.r., and it's
hardly different from the conceit and judgements of the few "holy"
men i see on t.v.
is this why you would like to ignore the process of struggling for
happiness and simply convince people that it's wrong and naughty to
see beauty in the unconscious therapy of creating art? if the image
of the final art, is superficially antagonizing for you, you don't even
want to explore the underlying theme ("universal" theme), but no one
is asking you to, and no is asking anyone else to fall in love with the
self-pity of "Dog Years" or "Animate," i hope.
the worst thing to me about Peart lyrics is when his "opinions"
--his personal, slimey, dog breath--stick out, even after his
very conscious attempts to balance a particular theme impersonally.
that is a failing that sometimes is not forgiveable because it fails
more than say, an angsting song that doesn't follow your mood or your
life state.
it's either spit or swallow and that depends on the creative process
and muse as much as the polished work, which FC has tried to explore
to many people's stubbornly plugged ears (dictionaries suck). what's
at stake is what Art is, what it should be and what purpose it serves.
Peart is a great archivist, chronicler and journalist of universal
themes, summarized from novelists and other sources, but he *is* also
a pretty capable personal lyricist, as far as i'm concerned.
i.e. Available Light.
it's when you don't agree with him personally that you most see
him critically, especially when he attempts and fails to erase his
personal residue from a song, because that can resemble a thrifty
artist or a coward of the mind.
Roxanna
On Sat, 18 Oct 1997, demian wrote:
> Pritiera wrote:
> >
> > Cecrle <mcecrle@SPAM=BADsbt.infi.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >> How much fun is it to watch a happy?
> > > >
> > > >Is it more fun to watch people suffer? Do you like to see your friends
> > > >and family suffer? I don't.
> >
> > > No, but artists aren't my friends or family.
> >
> > It doesn't matter--I don't want anybody to suffer. What kind of person
> > *wants* other people to suffer?
> >
>
> he wants Peart to better himself. anything wrong with that?
> perhaps he wants an _Anthem_, or a _Bastille Day_, or a convincing,
> honest, _The Pass_. is he too selfish for that?
There's nothing wrong with wanting anyone to better themself.
But do you need to suffer to better yourself? I don't think so. And I
also don't think Frank is saying that he *wants* Neil to suffer either.
(am I right?)
> > > >> Yep. Don't think that point has escaped me--I realize it.
> > > >
> > > >Then how are you planning on reconciling this contradiction?
> >
> > > I'm not. I see it as a point of interest, something to think about.
> >
> > It just seems to me that you have now forfeited your right to condemn
> > other people who glorify suffering. You're no better than they are.
> >
>
> must be that "bad education" of his, huh? this gives him a reason
> to be jealous of you, and now you can have a point of pride from
> this prestige, if you like. this conclusion of yours is a pessimistic
> outlook, in my opinion. any sort of dictionary-like diminishing of
> that kind can only be so.
whoa...you're reading an awful lot into his statement...
> > > And how to get even more happiness, don't you think? And there will
> > > always be individual suffering, don't you think?
> >
> > If the world continues to be populated by people who see suffering as a
> > virtue and who want people to suffer, then yes, there will, unfortunatley,
> > always be suffering.
> >
>
> you believe everyone can conform to a collective state of happiness,
> and thereby make life even more pleasant for the already advanced
> "happy" folk?
a collective state of happiness? who said anything about that?
i think everyone has the potential to be happy, but i don't think
happiness means the same thing for everyone...
> > > >From the happy man you can learn how he achieved his happiness and
> > > >hopefully how to avoid suffering. Isn't this more important than what >you can learn through suffering?
> >
> > > From the suffering, you can see what *not* to do. Don't you think that's
> > > better than seeing what *to* do?
> >
> > No. From the happy man you can learn how to directly achieve happiness
> > without ever having to suffer. Isn't this the way things are done?
> > Someone invented anaethesia for surgery and now we just automatically give
> > it to people. There's no need for anybody to learn what surgery without
> > anaethesia is like. This is just an analogy, of course, but I think you
> > see what I mean.
> >
>
> anaesthesia came from happiness?
no - and i don't think he is claiming any such thing - he's
saying you don't need to know what surgery w/out anaethesia is like in
order to appreciate it and benefit from it (i think)
> > > >I like it, too, especially the music. But as I said before, Marillion
> > > >have an album about a girl who eventually commits suicide, and they called
> > > >the album _Brave_. That took a lot of balls, IMO. And I feel like I
> > > >relate better to that attitude towards suicide than the old "it's a
> > > >cop-out" thing.
> >
> > > I've heard that title, but never knew that was the story behind it.
> > > Interesting. Is there anything specific given as a motive/reason for her
> > > suicide?
> >
> > Abuse from her father, among other things. This album is about someone's
> > problems and about suicide, but I like it anyway because it's not trying
> > to judge suicide (though it certainly doesn't glorify it), but it tries to
> > show what might drive a person to take such an extreme action. It's a
> > great album.
> >
>
> i don't get it. how is suicide worthy of hesitation in judgement, when
> it contradicts a line of yours above? doesn't suicide help relatives,
> friends, or society in general, suffer, and according to your
> anaesthesia, that "suffering" should be extinguished like a plague
> because it's "fucked up." who the hell made the world rational all
> of a sudden, and what makes you so rational if you still need art?
i think he was basically saying that he is tired of lyrics that
deal with suffering and extreme depression - because there has been a lot
of that lately - never once did i see him say that he is this superior
super-rational being; iv'e never heard that marillion album, but maybe
he thinks it's treatment of suicide is somehow different from the same
old depression lyrics
> i mean, if Christ glorifies suffering, then why doesn't Peart's
> perserverance with Peart's particular moral codes also glofity it?
um, why would they?
> how large would the sheep population explosion be, if Peart had to
> die for his beliefs? there's a lot of conceit on a.m.r., and it's
> hardly different from the conceit and judgements of the few "holy"
> men i see on t.v.
i don't see Peart as the martyr time. i'm really not sure what
you are saying here, but i don't think there is much more conceit here
than on any internet newsgroup.
> is this why you would like to ignore the process of struggling for
> happiness and simply convince people that it's wrong and naughty to
> see beauty in the unconscious therapy of creating art? if the image
> of the final art, is superficially antagonizing for you, you don't even
> want to explore the underlying theme ("universal" theme), but no one
> is asking you to, and no is asking anyone else to fall in love with the
> self-pity of "Dog Years" or "Animate," i hope.
self pity? i don't see it.
> the worst thing to me about Peart lyrics is when his "opinions"
> --his personal, slimey, dog breath--stick out, even after his
> very conscious attempts to balance a particular theme impersonally.
> that is a failing that sometimes is not forgiveable because it fails
> more than say, an angsting song that doesn't follow your mood or your
> life state.
why shouldn't he let his personal viewpoint "stick out?"
>
> it's either spit or swallow and that depends on the creative process
> and muse as much as the polished work, which FC has tried to explore
> to many people's stubbornly plugged ears (dictionaries suck). what's
> at stake is what Art is, what it should be and what purpose it serves.
i don't see any such thing "at stake" in this discussion - they
were disagreeing on what they liked to get out of musical lyrics
>
> Peart is a great archivist, chronicler and journalist of universal
> themes, summarized from novelists and other sources, but he *is* also
> a pretty capable personal lyricist, as far as i'm concerned.
> i.e. Available Light.
i agree here
>
> it's when you don't agree with him personally that you most see
> him critically, especially when he attempts and fails to erase his
> personal residue from a song, because that can resemble a thrifty
> artist or a coward of the mind.
i don't always agree with him - but i don't see this "personal
residue" that he has tried to erase...when there is a viewpoint
presented, i think it does it intentionally.
Cecrle
Pritiera <prit...@shell-00.tor.acc.ca> wrote:
>demian <demia...@SELLMEinterlog.com> wrote:
>> it's your assumption that he is so gloriously wishing suffering
>> on people.
>
>He just said he wished Peart was molested as a child so that he could
>write better lyrics!
Did you take that seriously?
> Wishing suffering on people doesn't get any more
>blatant than that. And he's been trying to tell me that only through
>suffering can people be happy. How am I making any sort of assumption
>here?
Where did I say that *only* through suffering can people be happy? Maybe
I implied it, but it was probably about as serious as my molestation
comment.
>> must be that "bad education" of his, huh?
>
>First of all, I never once said that Frank had a "bad education". Where
>the hell did I say that? And secondly, what's this particular point got
>to do with education? Frank seems to be saying "Neil hasn't suffered
>enough so his art can't be that great." This is the point I'm trying to
>argue against.
Go ahead. I'm just saying, where does the urge to create art come from?
Does it come from a feeling of peace and contentment? I don't think so.
A person may be *happy*, but there is still some part of him that's
pushing him on, the "drive" Neil has talked about. Something that needs
to be satisfied. I guess my real point was that maybe Neil has just
become to peaceful and content to have the creative spark anymore. Do his
recent lines look like there's any real drive behind them? I don't think
so. "Driven to the margin of terror, driven to the edge of control..."
"Half the world blah, while half the world blah..." "Live and love and
dream..." Seems like he's going through the motions, somehow.
>Don't get me wrong, I think some great art has come out of people's
>suffering (certainly Chopin is a good example of this), but I also think
>that some great art has come from happy people like Neil Peart.
Which do you find is usually better?
>My point is this: Frank was saying, "Man, Neil's lyrics are weak in the
>area of personal expression. I think he's *too* happy to write great
>lyrics."
Maybe just too content. Maybe he doesn't have the drive anymore.
>And I don't agree with this viewpoint because it implies that great art
>necessarily implies suffering. And while I agree that some great art has
>come out of suffering, I don't think suffering is *necessary* for great
>art, which is what Frank seems to be saying.
I'm not, but I think I *am* saying that the creative urge comes out of
some discontent. How many great artists are there that were ambivelent
about their work? "Oh, well, I guess I'll paint this now, I've got
nothing better to do..." I guess I've been trying to say that sure, you
can be happy, but there still has to be some part that's not content
unless it's creating. Now, did Neil just *have* to get the lines, "Take
it easy on yourself, there's nothing more you can do," out to feel
content?
>Because the Christian moral code is about self-sacrifice, but Peart's is
>about living for yourself!
Maybe sometimes living for yourself *includes* sacrificing at times...?
>That's merely your opinion. As I've already argued here, there aren't
>that many Peart lyrics that are blatantly over-opinionated. A few yes,
>but not too many. And I, for one, love to see a person who is passionate
>about his opinions.
Yeah, me too--I really get a kick out of Hitler. Torquemada as well.
It reminds me of an interview with Edward Ka-Spel I read once. The
interviewer was asking about his lyrics, how personal they were, etc.
Ka-Spel said something like, "I don't like giving my opinions on things--I
might be wrong!"
>The thing that bugs me is that some people on this newsgroup feel that if
>you *don't* criticize Neil you're a "sheep". Well, all I can say is that
>I generally agree with Neil and I really like Rush's music and I'm not
>going to come onto this newsgroup and start bashing Rush just so people
>like you will think I'm really cool. That would be dishonest.
Yeah, we all know how cool everyone thinks *I* am, don't we? :)
>That's right. And art should not just be for the sufferers. We can't
>just say, "Oh, your art doesn't count for anything because you haven't
>suffered enough". That's what I'm arguing against here.
No way.
>Oh, this is complete nonsense! Why should he always try to erase his
>"personal residue" from a song? Why can't art be a vehicle to express an
>opinion? Many of the great novels I've read are mostly that.
Novels, to me, can be cheap when they're like that. I realized this
awhile ago while discussing books in English class. "In this book, the
author is saying ____." Well, that's great, I guess. But it just reduces
the book to an opinion. If you agree with it, that's cool; you might like
the book (but for the right reasons?). But if you don't, then the book
sucks, doesn't it? How many novels really present new opinions? The best
pieces of art pose questions instead of answering them.
-FC
"I'm painting! I'm painting again!
I'm cleaning! I'm cleaning again!
I'm cleaning, I'm cleaning my brain
Pretty soon now...I will be bitter
Pretty soon now...will be quitter
Pretty soon now...I will be bitter
You can't see it 'til it's finished
I don't have to prove...that I am creative!
I don't have to prove...that I am creative!
All my pictures...are confused
And now I'm going...to take me to you"
-Talking Heads, "Artists Only"
John A. & Marianne Sievers
Cecrle wrote:
>
> >
> > He tries to make his
> >experiences universal and often hides personal relevance.
>
> Do you think that's a good or bad thing? Just curious.
Don't take this the wrong way, but it really doesn't matter what I think.
It's just what he does. People do things differently.
Sometimes you can tell a lot about someone by what he doesn't reveal as
much as you can by what he does.
Good or Bad? I really haven't thought about it.
>
> > There are
> >plenty of lyricists that spill their guts. Some of them even mean it.
>
> Was it you who said _Misplaced Childhood_ is great because Fish spills his
> guts and you're there to witniss it? Maybe it was someone else--I get you
> Johns mixed up, dontcha know. :)
It was me. That's only one example that always comes to mind. There are
plenty of others. Toni Childs is another.
Scott D. Erb
In article <3447A2...@sterlingdi.com>, bern...@sterlingdi.com says...
>But I'm not about to suggest that is the only factor that prevents them
>from having a frequent hit songs. Their music is not so easily
>accessible; as they have stated, it doesn't aim at the lowest common
>denominator.
Very true. Even as a Rush fan who has all the CDs, it sometimes takes me
a long time to really appreciate a CD. Some like "Roll the Bones" grab me
right away. But "Presto" and "Test for Echo" took a long time to sink in.
And once they do, they end up being more appreciated than the ones that I
like right away.
cheers, scott
demian
Roxanna wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Oct 1997, demian wrote:
>
> > Pritiera wrote:
> > >
> > > Cecrle <mcecrle@SPAM=BADsbt.infi.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >> How much fun is it to watch a happy?
> > > > >
> > > > >Is it more fun to watch people suffer? Do you like to see your friends
> > > > >and family suffer? I don't.
> > >
> > > > No, but artists aren't my friends or family.
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter--I don't want anybody to suffer. What kind of person
> > > *wants* other people to suffer?
> > >
> >
> > he wants Peart to better himself. anything wrong with that?
> > perhaps he wants an _Anthem_, or a _Bastille Day_, or a convincing,
> > honest, _The Pass_. is he too selfish for that?
>
> There's nothing wrong with wanting anyone to better themself.
> But do you need to suffer to better yourself? I don't think so. And I
> also don't think Frank is saying that he *wants* Neil to suffer either.
> (am I right?)
>
i don't think he wants suffering on Peart either.
"it's fun to watch [strangers] suffer," doesn't have to appear
as twisted as it does.
maybe he used "fun" because he's too cool to use "helpful" or
"constructive."
i can offer this from a trio of rhymin, hip-hop punks: "Darkness is
not the opposite of Light, it is the abscence of Light" -- Beastie
Boys.
an awareness of this abscence is the inspiration for Art, in my opinion,
not to mention an incentive for every other reality-changing,
consciousness-dulling and distracting occupation, both sober and
unsober.
> > > > >> Yep. Don't think that point has escaped me--I realize it.
> > > > >
> > > > >Then how are you planning on reconciling this contradiction?
> > >
> > > > I'm not. I see it as a point of interest, something to think about.
> > >
> > > It just seems to me that you have now forfeited your right to condemn
> > > other people who glorify suffering. You're no better than they are.
> > >
> >
> > must be that "bad education" of his, huh? this gives him a reason
> > to be jealous of you, and now you can have a point of pride from
> > this prestige, if you like. this conclusion of yours is a pessimistic
> > outlook, in my opinion. any sort of dictionary-like diminishing of
> > that kind can only be so.
>
> whoa...you're reading an awful lot into his statement...
>
well, i certainly hope not, as i'm counting on it.
David probably knows what i mean. it's a packed paragraph that
addresses lots of little bits which David personally can correlate,
if he pays attention to what he writes in his messages. the prestige
bit was nonsense. i do believe he is pessimisstic about *some* people
if he thinks art and "sickness" have no workable place for eachother
without it being a bunch of "badly educated," moping misers.
Faulkner and Hemmingway, two of Peart's faves, weren't exactly
as "unapologetically happy," as David proudly claims to be. they
were famous drunks, and Faulker was apparently always wasted
when he wrote. Hemmingway killed himself, and Faulkner wrote
morbid novels.
i also don't see how any artist that decides to say something
personal, or has in mind to share something "meaningful" isn't
testing for an echo, one way or another.
i'm interested in how far David believes such artists are "fucked up,"
in their art.
> > > > And how to get even more happiness, don't you think? And there will
> > > > always be individual suffering, don't you think?
> > >
> > > If the world continues to be populated by people who see suffering as a
> > > virtue and who want people to suffer, then yes, there will, unfortunatley,
> > > always be suffering.
> > >
> >
> > you believe everyone can conform to a collective state of happiness,
> > and thereby make life even more pleasant for the already advanced
> > "happy" folk?
>
> a collective state of happiness? who said anything about that?
> i think everyone has the potential to be happy, but i don't think
> happiness means the same thing for everyone...
>
that's my eventual conclusion too. David says happy people
can teach the unhappy. how is that possible without recognizing,
what you did recognize, that it isn't the same for everyone?
are we talking Prozac here? i mean, people take Prozac because
seasons changes. if that's the solutoin, well, i don't see why
total misery in art would be so objectable over some chemicals
that one must depend on.
> > > > >From the happy man you can learn how he achieved his happiness and
> > > > >hopefully how to avoid suffering. Isn't this more important than what >you can learn through suffering?
> > >
> > > > From the suffering, you can see what *not* to do. Don't you think that's
> > > > better than seeing what *to* do?
> > >
> > > No. From the happy man you can learn how to directly achieve happiness
> > > without ever having to suffer. Isn't this the way things are done?
> > > Someone invented anaethesia for surgery and now we just automatically give
> > > it to people. There's no need for anybody to learn what surgery without
> > > anaethesia is like. This is just an analogy, of course, but I think you
> > > see what I mean.
> > >
> >
> > anaesthesia came from happiness?
>
> no - and i don't think he is claiming any such thing - he's
> saying you don't need to know what surgery w/out anaethesia is like in
> order to appreciate it and benefit from it (i think)
>
true. consider his statements overall.
David, writes that Peart may not be the best person to judge
suicide (The Pass) because Peart may be too happy a guy to do the
scenario justice.
how then, can a happy man "teach" happiness if he is as
unapologetically happy and unable to relate as David has
admitted, and then decide when someone glorifies suffering?
there's a conflict here that hasn't been detailed, i don't
think.
all this is just a sigh about how there is too much depressing
stuff? i would think it's more than that.
some things don't add up. i'm curious what "badly educated" whiners
look like.
i haven't seen him say he's super-rational either. the rationality
gets lost in some details, in art. David likes Chopin. Chopin
was a very capable, lyrical, and Romantic pianist. Chopin wrote
"Raindrop," a composition that would make a bad-ass pimp cry. is
Chopin a whiner, if not, why not?
> > i mean, if Christ glorifies suffering, then why doesn't Peart's
> > perserverance with Peart's particular moral codes also glofity it?
>
> um, why would they?
>
i dunno. David believes Christians glorify suffering. i'm
curious why Christ is a martyr of suffering, and not a hero
of his principles. "Jesus Was a Terrorist" is one of my
favourites songs. if you like, Peart is a Terrorist because
he's constantly talking about bucking the norm.
> > how large would the sheep population explosion be, if Peart had to
> > die for his beliefs? there's a lot of conceit on a.m.r., and it's
> > hardly different from the conceit and judgements of the few "holy"
> > men i see on t.v.
>
> i don't see Peart as the martyr time. i'm really not sure what
> you are saying here, but i don't think there is much more conceit here
> than on any internet newsgroup.
>
i'm not comparing newsgroups, but the sort of posters who need to
blame rap and t.v. for brainwashing non-Rush fans into their
unappreciative ignorance.
David is not included among that crap.
> > is this why you would like to ignore the process of struggling for
> > happiness and simply convince people that it's wrong and naughty to
> > see beauty in the unconscious therapy of creating art? if the image
> > of the final art, is superficially antagonizing for you, you don't even
> > want to explore the underlying theme ("universal" theme), but no one
> > is asking you to, and no is asking anyone else to fall in love with the
> > self-pity of "Dog Years" or "Animate," i hope.
>
> self pity? i don't see it.
>
Animate: woe is my Maleness. Dog Years: woe is my mid-life crisis.
i used to trick myself into thinking these were good satirical tunes,
but that idea wore out its welcome. Peart doesn't like nostaligia,
apparently, so Dog Years seems like he took a vacation with nostalgia
for a bit. it has a taste of regret about making circles, that
doesn't seem like Peart. Animate is a much better song because i
think Lee really compliments it with that pleading voice of his.
> > the worst thing to me about Peart lyrics is when his "opinions"
> > --his personal, slimey, dog breath--stick out, even after his
> > very conscious attempts to balance a particular theme impersonally.
> > that is a failing that sometimes is not forgiveable because it fails
> > more than say, an angsting song that doesn't follow your mood or your
> > life state.
>
> why shouldn't he let his personal viewpoint "stick out?"
>
he should do whatever he likes. why should i explain why i dislike
some Peart lyrcis, or why should anyone in discussion?
> >
> > it's either spit or swallow and that depends on the creative process
> > and muse as much as the polished work, which FC has tried to explore
> > to many people's stubbornly plugged ears (dictionaries suck). what's
> > at stake is what Art is, what it should be and what purpose it serves.
>
> i don't see any such thing "at stake" in this discussion - they
> were disagreeing on what they liked to get out of musical lyrics
>
neither do i, really. you're right, it's a purposeless line.
> >
> > Peart is a great archivist, chronicler and journalist of universal
> > themes, summarized from novelists and other sources, but he *is* also
> > a pretty capable personal lyricist, as far as i'm concerned.
> > i.e. Available Light.
>
> i agree here
>
> >
> > it's when you don't agree with him personally that you most see
> > him critically, especially when he attempts and fails to erase his
> > personal residue from a song, because that can resemble a thrifty
> > artist or a coward of the mind.
>
> i don't always agree with him - but i don't see this "personal
> residue" that he has tried to erase...when there is a viewpoint
> presented, i think it does it intentionally.
>
if you don't agree, can you listen and enjoy it? if yes, then
obviously you're not so disagreeable.
it's the idea that one must agree or disagree with a lyric that's
unappealing.
Scott D. Erb
In article <62b6dj$r30$1...@nw001.infi.net>, mcecrle@SPAM=BADsbt.infi.net
says...
>Picture a world where no one is ever sad. This would be a world of
>zombies. There can be no one without the other.
Nah, I'd choose to feel the happiness, and brush aside the sadness.
I mean, why not?
>If you cannot feel one
>end of the spectrum, the spectrum loses its center and the extreme you
>inhabit is lost--meaningless. Pain gives happiness meaning.
No, happiness is fun in and of itself. Happiness is movement, excitement.
It is skiing down a hill, and then enjoying the rest as the ski lift takes
you back to the top. We may not be able to avoid pain in this world, but
my happiness doesn't need pain to give it meaning!
>I'll check it out if I get the chance. I sorta liked _Season's End_ by
>Marillion, but I thought _Misplaced Childhood_ was a joke.
It's just a dream...
Roxanna
On Sun, 19 Oct 1997, demian wrote:
> Roxanna wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 18 Oct 1997, demian wrote:
> >
> > > Pritiera wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Cecrle <mcecrle@SPAM=BADsbt.infi.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >> How much fun is it to watch a happy?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Is it more fun to watch people suffer? Do you like to see your friends
> > > > > >and family suffer? I don't.
> > > >
> > > > > No, but artists aren't my friends or family.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't matter--I don't want anybody to suffer. What kind of person
> > > > *wants* other people to suffer?
> > > >
> > >
> > > he wants Peart to better himself. anything wrong with that?
> > > perhaps he wants an _Anthem_, or a _Bastille Day_, or a convincing,
> > > honest, _The Pass_. is he too selfish for that?
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with wanting anyone to better themself.
> > But do you need to suffer to better yourself? I don't think so. And I
> > also don't think Frank is saying that he *wants* Neil to suffer either.
> > (am I right?)
> >
>
> i don't think he wants suffering on Peart either.
>
> "it's fun to watch [strangers] suffer," doesn't have to appear
> as twisted as it does.
>
> maybe he used "fun" because he's too cool to use "helpful" or
> "constructive."
By saying "how much fun is it to watch a happy?" he is not
necessarily saying that it is fun to watch people suffer. Neil's
daughter died, and unless I read him incorrectly and he really is a this
sick demented person, I doubt he is rubbing his hands together and
thinking, "Good, now he must be suffering! I bet I'll see some good
lyrics out of him now!" I think he believes that suffering is *one*
cause of good art. In a another thread, he cited some lyrics
that make him feel good, and those lyrics don't seem to have come
from a lot of pain and suffering. So evidently he does think
suffering isn't the *only* source of good art. Actually, I really think the
two of them blew each other's comments way out of proportion and put words
in each other's mouths. And for the sake of argument, neither one
corrected the other until more recently in the discussion.
>
> i can offer this from a trio of rhymin, hip-hop punks: "Darkness is
> not the opposite of Light, it is the abscence of Light" -- Beastie
> Boys.
>
> an awareness of this abscence is the inspiration for Art, in my opinion,
> not to mention an incentive for every other reality-changing,
> consciousness-dulling and distracting occupation, both sober and
> unsober.
I think it is an inspiration for art (and those other things as well),
but not the only one.
>
> > > must be that "bad education" of his, huh? this gives him a reason
> > > to be jealous of you, and now you can have a point of pride from
> > > this prestige, if you like. this conclusion of yours is a pessimistic
> > > outlook, in my opinion. any sort of dictionary-like diminishing of
> > > that kind can only be so.
> >
> > whoa...you're reading an awful lot into his statement...
> >
>
> well, i certainly hope not, as i'm counting on it.
>
> David probably knows what i mean. it's a packed paragraph that
> addresses lots of little bits which David personally can correlate,
> if he pays attention to what he writes in his messages. the prestige
> bit was nonsense. i do believe he is pessimisstic about *some* people
> if he thinks art and "sickness" have no workable place for eachother
> without it being a bunch of "badly educated," moping misers.
i think he *did* take issue with your statement, looking at the
last post...i just can't help the feeling that he *doesn't* think they
have absolutely no place for each other....although his posts might
indicate that, I believe an awful lot of exaggeration have been going on.
>
> Faulkner and Hemmingway, two of Peart's faves, weren't exactly
> as "unapologetically happy," as David proudly claims to be. they
> were famous drunks, and Faulker was apparently always wasted
> when he wrote. Hemmingway killed himself, and Faulkner wrote
> morbid novels.
But that doesn't mean Peart himself is like that.
> i also don't see how any artist that decides to say something
> personal, or has in mind to share something "meaningful" isn't
> testing for an echo, one way or another.
perhaps they are...
> i'm interested in how far David believes such artists are "fucked up,"
> in their art.
wait, by personal, were you talking about only the negative stuff?
> > > you believe everyone can conform to a collective state of happiness,
> > > and thereby make life even more pleasant for the already advanced
> > > "happy" folk?
> >
> > a collective state of happiness? who said anything about that?
> > i think everyone has the potential to be happy, but i don't think
> > happiness means the same thing for everyone...
> >
>
> that's my eventual conclusion too. David says happy people
> can teach the unhappy. how is that possible without recognizing,
> what you did recognize, that it isn't the same for everyone?
don't you think he recognizes that too?
>
> are we talking Prozac here? i mean, people take Prozac because
> seasons changes. if that's the solutoin, well, i don't see why
> total misery in art would be so objectable over some chemicals
> that one must depend on.
no, i'm pretty sure that's not what we're talking about :)
> > > > > >From the happy man you can learn how he achieved his happiness and
> > > > > >hopefully how to avoid suffering. Isn't this more important than what >you can learn through suffering?
> > > >
> > > > > From the suffering, you can see what *not* to do. Don't you think that's
> > > > > better than seeing what *to* do?
> > > >
> > > > No. From the happy man you can learn how to directly achieve happiness
> > > > without ever having to suffer. Isn't this the way things are done?
> > > > Someone invented anaethesia for surgery and now we just automatically give
> > > > it to people. There's no need for anybody to learn what surgery without
> > > > anaethesia is like. This is just an analogy, of course, but I think you
> > > > see what I mean.
> > > >
> > >
> > > anaesthesia came from happiness?
> >
> > no - and i don't think he is claiming any such thing - he's
> > saying you don't need to know what surgery w/out anaethesia is like in
> > order to appreciate it and benefit from it (i think)
> >
>
> true. consider his statements overall.
>
> David, writes that Peart may not be the best person to judge
> suicide (The Pass) because Peart may be too happy a guy to do the
> scenario justice.
>
> how then, can a happy man "teach" happiness if he is as
> unapologetically happy and unable to relate as David has
> admitted, and then decide when someone glorifies suffering?
>
> there's a conflict here that hasn't been detailed, i don't
> think.
Yes - that's the one conflict I see as well. I personally like
the Pass and I don't believe that a happy person is completely unable to
relate. I believe that there is a lot to learn from the happy person.
People seem to forget that - they always talk about how much there is to
learn from suffering - and I do agree that we can learn, but they
overlook how much there is to learn from someone who is not suffering.
> > > i don't get it. how is suicide worthy of hesitation in judgement, when
> > > it contradicts a line of yours above? doesn't suicide help relatives,
> > > friends, or society in general, suffer, and according to your
> > > anaesthesia, that "suffering" should be extinguished like a plague
> > > because it's "fucked up." who the hell made the world rational all
> > > of a sudden, and what makes you so rational if you still need art?
> >
> > i think he was basically saying that he is tired of lyrics that
> > deal with suffering and extreme depression - because there has been a lot
> > of that lately - never once did i see him say that he is this superior
> > super-rational being; iv'e never heard that marillion album, but maybe
> > he thinks it's treatment of suicide is somehow different from the same
> > old depression lyrics
> >
>
> all this is just a sigh about how there is too much depressing
> stuff? i would think it's more than that.
I think it started out as that, yes. And like i said above,
a lot of exageration followed.
>
> some things don't add up. i'm curious what "badly educated" whiners
> look like.
>
> i haven't seen him say he's super-rational either. the rationality
> gets lost in some details, in art. David likes Chopin. Chopin
> was a very capable, lyrical, and Romantic pianist. Chopin wrote
> "Raindrop," a composition that would make a bad-ass pimp cry. is
> Chopin a whiner, if not, why not?
that'll be for him to answer, i guess :) i would say no.
>
>
> > > i mean, if Christ glorifies suffering, then why doesn't Peart's
> > > perserverance with Peart's particular moral codes also glofity it?
> >
> > um, why would they?
> >
>
> i dunno. David believes Christians glorify suffering. i'm
> curious why Christ is a martyr of suffering, and not a hero
> of his principles. "Jesus Was a Terrorist" is one of my
> favourites songs. if you like, Peart is a Terrorist because
> he's constantly talking about bucking the norm.
but how is that glorifying suffering even if he is a
"Terrorist." I think his challenging the norm isn't some huge rebellion,
but rather challenging it in smaller more personal ways.
>
>
> > > how large would the sheep population explosion be, if Peart had to
> > > die for his beliefs? there's a lot of conceit on a.m.r., and it's
> > > hardly different from the conceit and judgements of the few "holy"
> > > men i see on t.v.
> >
> > i don't see Peart as the martyr time. i'm really not sure what
> > you are saying here, but i don't think there is much more conceit here
> > than on any internet newsgroup.
> >
>
> i'm not comparing newsgroups, but the sort of posters who need to
> blame rap and t.v. for brainwashing non-Rush fans into their
> unappreciative ignorance.
>
> David is not included among that crap.
>
hehehehe. I think all of those posts need to be taken with a
grain of salt...
>
> > > is this why you would like to ignore the process of struggling for
> > > happiness and simply convince people that it's wrong and naughty to
> > > see beauty in the unconscious therapy of creating art? if the image
> > > of the final art, is superficially antagonizing for you, you don't even
> > > want to explore the underlying theme ("universal" theme), but no one
> > > is asking you to, and no is asking anyone else to fall in love with the
> > > self-pity of "Dog Years" or "Animate," i hope.
> >
> > self pity? i don't see it.
> >
>
> Animate: woe is my Maleness. Dog Years: woe is my mid-life crisis.
>
> i used to trick myself into thinking these were good satirical tunes,
> but that idea wore out its welcome. Peart doesn't like nostaligia,
> apparently, so Dog Years seems like he took a vacation with nostalgia
> for a bit. it has a taste of regret about making circles, that
> doesn't seem like Peart. Animate is a much better song because i
> think Lee really compliments it with that pleading voice of his.
i disagree - the way i see animate (and maybe this is not what
neil intended at all) is not "woe is my maleness" but as welcoming all
sides of self - the "masculine" and the "feminine" that may have
suppressed because one didn't feel there was a place for it in our society...
>
>
> > > the worst thing to me about Peart lyrics is when his "opinions"
> > > --his personal, slimey, dog breath--stick out, even after his
> > > very conscious attempts to balance a particular theme impersonally.
> > > that is a failing that sometimes is not forgiveable because it fails
> > > more than say, an angsting song that doesn't follow your mood or your
> > > life state.
> >
> > why shouldn't he let his personal viewpoint "stick out?"
> >
>
> he should do whatever he likes. why should i explain why i dislike
> some Peart lyrcis, or why should anyone in discussion?
i agree that he should do what he likes - i don't feel that when
his viewpoint sticks out, that he has failed to supress it - i think he
does it intentionally.
> > >
> > > it's when you don't agree with him personally that you most see
> > > him critically, especially when he attempts and fails to erase his
> > > personal residue from a song, because that can resemble a thrifty
> > > artist or a coward of the mind.
> >
> > i don't always agree with him - but i don't see this "personal
> > residue" that he has tried to erase...when there is a viewpoint
> > presented, i think it does it intentionally.
> >
>
> if you don't agree, can you listen and enjoy it? if yes, then
> obviously you're not so disagreeable.
yes, i can listen to it and enjoy it - i really don't think I
agree with The Trees, for example, but I still love the song. And it
still makes me think.
> it's the idea that one must agree or disagree with a lyric that's
> unappealing.
unappealing to some. I've never had a problem with it at all.
Beast of Bourbon
On 15 Oct 1997 20:43:13 GMT, Cecrle wrote:
>I don't think many people give a damn about Rush. I wouldn't say Rush is
>that influential a band. Sure, people sometimes cite Rush (even the
>guitarist from Tool has cited Rush), but I really don't think of Rush as
>having much of an impact on the musical world.
Then why in God's good name are you posting here? Get out! Start an
alt.music.rush.is.mediocre NG and wank there to your heart's delight!
Cecrle
> i wouldn't call his lyrics "stupid" - if they have the power to
>make someone feel good, there must be something to them.
Maybe it's mostly the music, though. I find Smith is usually in such a
melodramatic, effeminate role that it's satisfying for a change. Instead
of a guy saying, "Goddammit, nothing can bother me, 'cause I'm gonna be
tough as nails and ANGRY!", Smith seems like he could break down and cry
if his toast got burnt! "Oh, *no*...!" :)
> i wouldn't quite say that the lyrics make me happy, i have to
>make myself happy. but they often make me feel better when i'm a little
>bit down, or enforce my good mood when i'm in one. sometimes, i do feel
>the way the lyrics describe.
That's interesting--you say you make yourself happy. I think that's a
very good way of looking at it. I guess some lyrics are just good tools
for you to use to raise your spirits, but you probably have to *want* to.
I guess it's just harder for me to do so, but I seem to be a pretty
pessimistic person.
[Silent Lucidity mentioned]
> or maybe i'm wrong - i've never heard anything said about the
>meaning of the song; i've read the lyrics over and over again, and i
>can't say for sure if i think someone is dead or not. i finally decided
>to give it my own interpretation and it it, no one is dead:)
But what about that line that goes something like, "someone close to you
leaving the game--of life,"? I know I've heard those words, so I assumed
there was death in there...?
> (but i
>would love to know what the band intended). The "I will be watching over
>you" part does seem positive, but so does the rest of the song to me, and
>it shows a world full of possibilities..."If you open your mind for me
>You won't rely on open eyes to see/The walls you built within/Come
>tumbling down, and a new world will begin" I could be totally wrong, but
>it seems very positive and open to me.
This all seems to be about remembering the dead person. It all sounds
quite mental and imaginary--not like, "I'm here for you," but, "Think
about me." "If you open your mind for me, you won't rely on open eyes to
see"--I took this to mean the person shouldn't be so hung up on the
physical fact of death, but should look at it from a more spiritual
standpoint. ?
> hmm, I'm really not sure. i probably tend to agree with you
>about personal events - if someone can't feel sadness for things that are
>happening to people they know around them, it makes me wonder if they
>would ever feel much of anything at all. on the other hand, i know a lot
>of people who are completely unfazed by the events they hear about in the
>papers or on tv, and yet they seem like they find happiness in their
>lives - maybe they have just forced themselves to become immune...
Or maybe they are just unaffected by certain things. I mean that if
*nothing* can make a person sad, they probably can't feel much happiness
either.
> I don't think there's anything wrong at all with liking lyrics you
>consider mediocre.
It's not the actual words I like, I think it's the mood of the words and
music. I mean, if Geddy sang those lines by The Cure, it would suck.
> But what i really want are the examples of lyrics that
>present something from a completely different and totally new viewpoint.
Hmm. Time to put my money where my mouth is, huh? :) I don't recall ever
claiming to have something *so* totally new, but here's something I find
unique from The Legendary Pink Dots--"Regression":
"Go back eight years; you're sixteen. What do you see? What do you feel?
A classroom. Yes...and what are they whispering? They're whispering
about you? Why? Laughing...no, no, go back eight years. You're eight--
where are you? Your bedroom? Yes, in your bedroom. Shadows? Shadows
touching you, your head forced to one side. Tell me about the black dog
and tell me...no, no, go back eight years. What do you see? What do you
feel? And you don't want the white light, why? Why? No, no, go back a
hundred, two hundred, FIVE hundred years. What do you see? What do you
feel? Your hands are tied, yes, and they're throwing things.
Fire--you're burning, you're burning. No, go back a thousand, a million
years. What do you see? What do you feel? Nothing, nothing at all.
Tell me, is it better this way?"
That's one lyric presented in an interest way with interested music. I
can't think of any other song like that. There's plenty of cool stuff
from Ed Ka-Spel of the The Legendary Pink Dots. There's one called, "A
Message From Our Sponsor" that has a deep, distorted voice of some God as
narrator. It's really effective; I can't listen to it without getting
chills down my back. There's also strange things like, "Jack the Ripper's
Dead" where the songs starts off with alley sounds--a dripping sound forms
a rhythm of sorts, and the lyrics are a song about some woman killing Jack
the Ripper. "Jack is deaaaad!...Jack is deaaaad!...Jack is
deaaad!.....(and nobody knew)." Ka-Spel has a lot of story/fairy tale
type lyrics. His words really flow--unusual/made-up/no rhyme schemes,
somewhat stream of consciousness...
These are things that are exciting, interesting, new, and captivating once
I hear them. I never know what to expect from a band like LPD, and I love
that quality. I'd be glad to make anybody interested a tape of Legendary
Pink Dots stuff. Just email me.
> I've always had a hard time with Talking Heads because I never
>really liked the music.
I can understand that. What by TH have you heard? I first got _Stop
Making Sense_, their live album (but I didn't know it was live when I
bought it, and boy was I pissed when I heard the CD begin with audience
noise!). It seemed to goofy and ugly at first. Too funky, not serious or
relatable enough. Soon Byrne's odd vocal phrases got me. There's been
plenty of their stuff I didn't like at first. I first thought _'77_ was
so cheezy and old and goofy sounding! Now I love it for some of those
reasons, plus others.
> I think music can make lyrics sound a little bit
>better, I guess kind of like the way the music made you like the Cure
>lyrics better.
Definitely. The music is much more important, but the lyrics can also
ruin a song. I find Brian Eno's take on it interesting--he has said that
people make way too big a deal out of the words. They look to the lyrics
and discuss them in reviews as if that's where most of the meaning lies.
I agree with him, to some extent. If the lyrics' message is what's most
important, than the music is just filler.
> Maybe if I enjoyed the music more I would like the lyrics
>better, but they really never appealed to me.
Well, all I can say is give them a chance. I probably wouldn't like TH
right now if I hadn't forced myself to play _Stop Making Sense_ numerous
times while doing homework. It seeped into my brain, and now I love it!
:) Again, what have you heard by them?
>> If you want examples of any of these lyrics above mentioned, I'll post
>> some.
>
> Go ahead and post some of your favorites anyway.
Here's some from Byrne, "Once in a Lifetime:
"And you may ask yourself...how do I work this?
And you may ask yourself...where *is* that large automobile?
And you may tell yourself...this is not my beautiful house
And you may tell yourself...this is not my beautiful wife!
Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
Into the blue again, after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime--water flowing underground."
The vocals and Byrne's jerkiness really make this song great. Have you
seen this video? Byrne's manic qualities blow me away--this song is a
classic.
Here's some from "The Lady Don't Mind" from _Little Creatures_:
"Come on. Come on. I go up and down.
I kinda like this...curious feeling
I know; I see--it's like make-believe
Cover your ears so you can hear what I'm saying.
I'm not lost...but I don't know where I am
--I got a question.
Alright, alright. This is what we like.
Who knows, who knows what I'm thinking."
Some from "Burning Down the House" on _Speaking in Tongues_:
"Watch out--you might get what you're after.
Cool babies--strange but not a stranger.
I'm - an - or-di-na-ry guy,
Burning down the house"
Some from "Pull Up the Roots" on the same album:
"Towns that disappeared completely
pull up the roots--pull up the roots
Miles and miles of endless highway
pull up the roots--pull up the roots
Colored lights and shiny curtains
pull up the roots--pull up the roots
Everything has been forgiven
pull up the roots--pull up the roots"
Some of "Psycho Killer" from _'77_, their first (although the acoustic
version on Stop Making Sense is better, IMO):
"You start a conversation, you can't even finish it.
You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything.
When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.
Say something once, why say it again?
Psycho killer--qu'est que c'est?
Fu-fuh-far fu-fuh-far, far, far better
Run run run, run run run away"
"The Girls Want to be With the Girls" on _More Songs About Buildings and
Food_:
"Girls are getting into abstract analysis, would like to
make that intuitive leap
They're making plans that have far-reaching effects, and the
girls want to be with the girls.
And the, boys say 'what do you mean?'
and the, boys say 'what do you mean?'"
Some from "A Walk in the Dark" from his solo _Uh-Oh_
"I'm not afraid to close my eyes...at night
I'm not afraid of what my dreams will show me.
I saw a fish that had a human head...
I saw some things that I would like to show you--
The broken glass...
The cars on fire...
Open their cages...and set them free.
Now Jesus, Mary, and the Holy Ghost
took one look, and they said, 'Hey--we're lost!'
'How the hell do we get *outta* here?'
They shit their pants, they got SO scared"
You really have to hear these sung by his voice, and these examples don't
satisfy me nearly at all--I want to go on an on, and delete my above
examples--but his sung lyrics are great. They really connect with me.
I'd be willing to tape some Talking Heads or Byrne for anyone, as well.
> i agree with you here - sometimes the music makes the lyrics seem
>different...most of the time I think Neil's lyrics can stand on their
>own, but then when i listen to the music, it makes it that much better.
Neil's definitely *do* stand on their own, considering they're *written*
that way, and that's just his style. I don't like them any more once put
to music--Geddy's portrayal of them really doesn't add anything to them,
for me. It's just a way to get the words out, instead of really adding
something to make seemingly plain words amazing.
>> It's touching from a personal level, but when it's a message for people
>> all over, it's kind of boring.
>
> i don't quite follow - it touches me in a personal way, but the
>thought that he perhaps intended for more experiences than my own doesn't
>take away from anything for me...
I mean, on the level of a personal cry--"don't turn your back and slam the
door on me," it's cool. As if it was from *one* person to *one* other.
But when elements of, "people of the world, don't kill yourselves" comes
into it....I guess that doesn't happen, but Neil's style makes me feel
that way.
-FC
Roxanna
Ok I got really curious and did some looking around for the
meaning of the song. I'm almost late for class, so I had to stop at
this interview I found on the net:
HV: The song that you performed on the MTV awards ('Silent Lucidity') is
such a stunningly beautiful song, and very different. Where did you get
the idea for it?
CD: Just from my own experiences, from dreaming. I'm really into lucid
dreaming and I wanted to write a song about it for a long time. I didn't
quite know how to put it into words and then I got this idea to use a
little child as the angle of the challenge of teaching a child what the
potential of the subconscious is and the possibilities of dreams. You
know, I'm a daydream type of guy.
So it gives me hope that no one is dead....:)
Roxanna
On 20 Oct 1997, Cecrle wrote:
> Roxanna <cm...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> >On 18 Oct 1997, Cecrle wrote:
>
> > i wouldn't call his lyrics "stupid" - if they have the power to
> >make someone feel good, there must be something to them.
>
> Maybe it's mostly the music, though. I find Smith is usually in such a
> melodramatic, effeminate role that it's satisfying for a change. Instead
> of a guy saying, "Goddammit, nothing can bother me, 'cause I'm gonna be
> tough as nails and ANGRY!", Smith seems like he could break down and cry
> if his toast got burnt! "Oh, *no*...!" :)
yes, and that's why i can identify with him more than other male
lyricists...i *always* cry when my toast gets burnt...;) but seriously,
i see what you're saying...there's a lot of pressure out there to be that
tough angry male, or that melodramatic, not-so-tough female, and i also
enjoy hearing something different...i do think that you hear it more
often than it seems, but we've heard so much angry music in the past few
years that that is what we think of as common...
> > i wouldn't quite say that the lyrics make me happy, i have to
> >make myself happy. but they often make me feel better when i'm a little
> >bit down, or enforce my good mood when i'm in one. sometimes, i do feel
> >the way the lyrics describe.
>
> That's interesting--you say you make yourself happy. I think that's a
> very good way of looking at it. I guess some lyrics are just good tools
> for you to use to raise your spirits, but you probably have to *want* to.
> I guess it's just harder for me to do so, but I seem to be a pretty
> pessimistic person.
well, i almost always want to be in a good mood...i find that
being sad or depressed not only makes me feel bad emotionally, but
physically as well if i keep it up...it makes me tired and weary...so i
set out to find what is positive in the situation, and i can usually
manage to put myself in a much better mood...now of course, there are
some times when it can't be helped...
> [Silent Lucidity mentioned]
>
> > or maybe i'm wrong - i've never heard anything said about the
> >meaning of the song; i've read the lyrics over and over again, and i
> >can't say for sure if i think someone is dead or not. i finally decided
> >to give it my own interpretation and it it, no one is dead:)
>
> But what about that line that goes something like, "someone close to you
> leaving the game--of life,"? I know I've heard those words, so I assumed
> there was death in there...?
"Hush now, don't you cry/Wipe away the teardrop from your eye/You're
lying safe in bed/It was all a bad dream/Spinning in your head/Your mind
tricked you to feel the pain/Of someone close to you leaving the game of
life" so i don't know, but that seems to me like the person is still
alive...it's hard to tell
> > (but i
> >would love to know what the band intended). The "I will be watching over
> >you" part does seem positive, but so does the rest of the song to me, and
> >it shows a world full of possibilities..."If you open your mind for me
> >You won't rely on open eyes to see/The walls you built within/Come
> >tumbling down, and a new world will begin" I could be totally wrong, but
> >it seems very positive and open to me.
>
> This all seems to be about remembering the dead person. It all sounds
> quite mental and imaginary--not like, "I'm here for you," but, "Think
> about me." "If you open your mind for me, you won't rely on open eyes to
> see"--I took this to mean the person shouldn't be so hung up on the
> physical fact of death, but should look at it from a more spiritual
> standpoint. ?
that's a possibility, if the person's dead...i've always thought
of the song as someone - a friend, husband, parent - leading the "you"
through the world of dreams, showing them to explore their mind and
control their dreams (the lyrics mention acheiving dream control at one
point). It seems to me that this person is more of a real presense than
an imaginary friend...of course it could very well be that the person is
dead and *really* talking to the living person - there are people who
claim that their dead relative has really spoken to them, so maybe that's
what the song is dealing with...but i just don't get that feeling...i get
the feeling that the "you" had a bad dream, and the speaker is showing
them a whole new way of looking at dreams...
>
> > hmm, I'm really not sure. i probably tend to agree with you
> >about personal events - if someone can't feel sadness for things that are
> >happening to people they know around them, it makes me wonder if they
> >would ever feel much of anything at all. on the other hand, i know a lot
> >of people who are completely unfazed by the events they hear about in the
> >papers or on tv, and yet they seem like they find happiness in their
> >lives - maybe they have just forced themselves to become immune...
>
> Or maybe they are just unaffected by certain things. I mean that if
> *nothing* can make a person sad, they probably can't feel much happiness
> either.
i don't know...i don't think i know anyone who has *never* been
sad about something...or if i do, i don't know them well enough that they
would tell me if they were sad....
> > I don't think there's anything wrong at all with liking lyrics you
> >consider mediocre.
>
> It's not the actual words I like, I think it's the mood of the words and
> music. I mean, if Geddy sang those lines by The Cure, it would suck.
i've always felt that Geddy could sing anything and make it sound
good...but that's just me...his voice is what got me into Rush in the
first place, and I know there are a lot of people who don't like it at all.
> > But what i really want are the examples of lyrics that
> >present something from a completely different and totally new viewpoint.
>
> Hmm. Time to put my money where my mouth is, huh? :) I don't recall ever
> claiming to have something *so* totally new, but here's something I find
> unique from The Legendary Pink Dots--"Regression":
>
> "Go back eight years; you're sixteen. What do you see? What do you feel?
> A classroom. Yes...and what are they whispering? They're whispering
> about you? Why? Laughing...no, no, go back eight years. You're eight--
> where are you? Your bedroom? Yes, in your bedroom. Shadows? Shadows
> touching you, your head forced to one side. Tell me about the black dog
> and tell me...no, no, go back eight years. What do you see? What do you
> feel? And you don't want the white light, why? Why? No, no, go back a
> hundred, two hundred, FIVE hundred years. What do you see? What do you
> feel? Your hands are tied, yes, and they're throwing things.
> Fire--you're burning, you're burning. No, go back a thousand, a million
> years. What do you see? What do you feel? Nothing, nothing at all.
> Tell me, is it better this way?"
sounds interesting, but i think you're right...i think you need
the music with this one...it doesn't seem very interesting to read on
it's own, but with music it might be great...
> That's one lyric presented in an interest way with interested music. I
> can't think of any other song like that. There's plenty of cool stuff
> from Ed Ka-Spel of the The Legendary Pink Dots. There's one called, "A
> Message From Our Sponsor" that has a deep, distorted voice of some God as
> narrator. It's really effective; I can't listen to it without getting
> chills down my back. There's also strange things like, "Jack the Ripper's
> Dead" where the songs starts off with alley sounds--a dripping sound forms
> a rhythm of sorts, and the lyrics are a song about some woman killing Jack
> the Ripper. "Jack is deaaaad!...Jack is deaaaad!...Jack is
> deaaad!.....(and nobody knew)." Ka-Spel has a lot of story/fairy tale
> type lyrics. His words really flow--unusual/made-up/no rhyme schemes,
> somewhat stream of consciousness...
now there are some lyrics i could like...*grins* but it does
sound like it could be interesting, but i'd have to hear the music i think;
i guess i was looking for something completely earth-shattering in it's
novelty, and of course you never promised that...
> > I think music can make lyrics sound a little bit
> >better, I guess kind of like the way the music made you like the Cure
> >lyrics better.
>
> Definitely. The music is much more important, but the lyrics can also
> ruin a song. I find Brian Eno's take on it interesting--he has said that
> people make way too big a deal out of the words. They look to the lyrics
> and discuss them in reviews as if that's where most of the meaning lies.
> I agree with him, to some extent. If the lyrics' message is what's most
> important, than the music is just filler.
i don't think either is most important, and i dont think either
one is just filler stuff...it's easier to me to analyze the lyrics than
the music...there's usually some debate about what lyrics mean, but i
think there would be alot more with the music, because that can mean
almost anything, depending on who the listener is
> > Maybe if I enjoyed the music more I would like the lyrics
> >better, but they really never appealed to me.
>
> Well, all I can say is give them a chance. I probably wouldn't like TH
> right now if I hadn't forced myself to play _Stop Making Sense_ numerous
> times while doing homework. It seeped into my brain, and now I love it!
> :) Again, what have you heard by them?
well, if i don't like something by the fourth or fifth try, i
usually decide it's just not going to work for me...i didn't really know
which songs go on which albums, but i know all the songs you posted below,
and i used to have copied tapes of a few albums until i taped them over;
i really don't think i like his voice...
> >> If you want examples of any of these lyrics above mentioned, I'll post
> >> some.
> >
> > Go ahead and post some of your favorites anyway.
>
> Here's some from Byrne, "Once in a Lifetime:
>
> "And you may ask yourself...how do I work this?
> And you may ask yourself...where *is* that large automobile?
> And you may tell yourself...this is not my beautiful house
> And you may tell yourself...this is not my beautiful wife!
>
> Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
> Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
> Into the blue again, after the money's gone
> Once in a lifetime--water flowing underground."
>
> The vocals and Byrne's jerkiness really make this song great. Have you
> seen this video? Byrne's manic qualities blow me away--this song is a
> classic.
i havent seen the video, but i've heard the song a lot...i dont
know, the lyrics and music just don't do it for me...
(more lyrics)
> You really have to hear these sung by his voice, and these examples don't
> satisfy me nearly at all--I want to go on an on, and delete my above
> examples--but his sung lyrics are great. They really connect with me.
> I'd be willing to tape some Talking Heads or Byrne for anyone, as well.
i don't know...I think out of the two, I might like Ka-Spel's
lyrics a lot more if I heard them...these don't really interest me that
much, and although you say you have to hear them sung by his voice, I'm
thinking that maybe if someone else was singing I'd like them better
while listening to the songs.
> > i agree with you here - sometimes the music makes the lyrics seem
> >different...most of the time I think Neil's lyrics can stand on their
> >own, but then when i listen to the music, it makes it that much better.
>
> Neil's definitely *do* stand on their own, considering they're *written*
> that way, and that's just his style. I don't like them any more once put
> to music--Geddy's portrayal of them really doesn't add anything to them,
> for me. It's just a way to get the words out, instead of really adding
> something to make seemingly plain words amazing.
>
> >> It's touching from a personal level, but when it's a message for people
> >> all over, it's kind of boring.
> >
> > i don't quite follow - it touches me in a personal way, but the
> >thought that he perhaps intended for more experiences than my own doesn't
> >take away from anything for me...
>
> I mean, on the level of a personal cry--"don't turn your back and slam the
> door on me," it's cool. As if it was from *one* person to *one* other.
> But when elements of, "people of the world, don't kill yourselves" comes
> into it....I guess that doesn't happen, but Neil's style makes me feel
> that way.
Oh ok i see...I never really got that feeling...I think any song
from one person to another can have meaning to the "people of the world"
in the sense that a lot of people are listening to it, but the song
doesn't feel to me like it's saying "people of the world...." etc.
Bill J. Bernard
> > > demian wrote:
> > >
> > > > ...and no is asking anyone else to fall in love with the
> > > > self-pity of "Dog Years" or "Animate," i hope.
> > Roxanna wrote:
> > >
> > > self pity? i don't see it.
> demian wrote:
> >
> > Animate: woe is my Maleness. Dog Years: woe is my mid-life crisis.
> >
> > i used to trick myself into thinking these were good satirical tunes,
> > but that idea wore out its welcome. Peart doesn't like nostaligia,
> > apparently, so Dog Years seems like he took a vacation with nostalgia
> > for a bit. it has a taste of regret about making circles, that
> > doesn't seem like Peart. Animate is a much better song because i
> > think Lee really compliments it with that pleading voice of his.
Roxanna wrote:
>
> i disagree - the way i see animate (and maybe this is not what
> neil intended at all) is not "woe is my maleness" but as welcoming all
> sides of self - the "masculine" and the "feminine" that may have
> suppressed because one didn't feel there was a place for it in our society...
>
So this thread has become an example to support one answer to the very
question it set out to explore from the very beginning.
Neil's lyrics _are_ apparently quite open to interpretation. Every time
a particular song is brought up, (e.g. The Trees, Animate, Dog Years,
etc.) there seems to be as many interpretations as there are people.
My take on Animate is that it neither condemns masculinity nor rejoices
in the "feminine side," but that it merely addresses this "bipolar"
state of the human being. Both men and women have male and female
sides. Sometimes they oppose each other; sometimes they work together.
The point is to recognize this simple fact of one's gender and these
"counterparts" inside each of us. I don't see any judgement call in
this song, just a mention of the state of affairs, and once again, a
recognition of yet another pair of forces requiring balance.
As for Dog Years, I don't think the idea that one recognizes his/her
mortality is necessarily a "mid-life crisis" thing. Children begin to
question their longevity at an early enough age. There is the
phenomenon whereby we (human beings) take our mortality more seriously
as time goes by, since the end is always approaching. That's not unique
to mid-life, though. And it's not necessarily a crisis, either. The
idea that Neil expresses, IMO, is simply one result of this phenomenon,
the result being our ponderance of the way we waste our brief
lifetimes. This song is one of several that express similar, although
not identical ideas... Time Stand Still (Don't regret carelessness of
the past, but take the time to appreciate things more in the future),
Dreamline (as we grow older, we lose our sense of adventure (we become
more mortal)-- perhaps he is saying we shouldn't let this happen), Time
and Motion (make the most of everyday -- it's not what you can "get out
of" life; it's what you can "squeeze into it.").
Any thoughts?
Roxanna
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Dave H. wrote:
> Cecrle wrote:
> >
> > Roxanna <cm...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > I've often thought it a shame that some of the most beautiful
> > >songs are so sad, and one thing i love about Rush is that so many of
> > >their songs that I consider beautiful have a positive feel to them. One
> > >of my favorite non-Rush songs, Silent Lucidity is like that.
> >
> > Oh, that one! Just hearing that makes me feel like I could cry!
> > Seriously. I find that song to be very sad. I see how it has a positive
> > tone to it--"I'll be watching over you," but isn't that spoken from the
> > dead parent, thus, from an imaginary friend of sorts? So isn't the whole
> > positive angle just imaginary? Maybe I'm thinking about the song
> > wrong--I've never studied the lyrics.
> >
>
> (jumping into huge thread with a slight correction)
> Silent Lucidity is about dreams- trying to understand them, trying to
> control them, embracing them. It has nothing to do with any dead parent.
> It's certainly not a negative song in any way; somewhat neutral...spoken
> from the parent's point of view toward their child, who was frightened
> after a bad dream.
That's what I had thought (about dreams) but I wasn't sure who
the speaker was - a parent, friend, etc, until I surfed around on some
Queensryche pages. Anyway, it seems very positive to me...at least,
using dreams in a positive way.
Bill J. Bernard
> >> some.
> >
> > Go ahead and post some of your favorites anyway.
>
> Here's some from Byrne, "Once in a Lifetime:
>
> "And you may ask yourself...how do I work this?
> And you may ask yourself...where *is* that large automobile?
> And you may tell yourself...this is not my beautiful house
> And you may tell yourself...this is not my beautiful wife!
>
> Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
> Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
> Into the blue again, after the money's gone
> Once in a lifetime--water flowing underground."
>
> The vocals and Byrne's jerkiness really make this song great. Have you
> seen this video? Byrne's manic qualities blow me away--this song is a
> classic.
>
Frank, weren't you just criticizing Dog Years for being a "mid-life
crisis" song? On top of disagreeing that it even IS a MLC song, after
seeing you post THIS as one of your favorites, I was shocked.
This is THE QUINTESSENTIAL MID-LIFE CRISIS song!
Cecrle
Christ, you mean I have to think Rush has rocked the music world or else I
can't post here? Makes a whole lot of sense.
It's not a shot at Rush. I mean, look at how influential Led Zeppelin
was, and I can't stand them.
-FC
Cecrle
Roxanna <cm...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>
>On 20 Oct 1997, Cecrle wrote:
>> That's interesting--you say you make yourself happy. I think that's a
>> very good way of looking at it. I guess some lyrics are just good tools
>> for you to use to raise your spirits, but you probably have to *want* to.
>> I guess it's just harder for me to do so, but I seem to be a pretty
>> pessimistic person.
>
> well, i almost always want to be in a good mood...i find that
>being sad or depressed not only makes me feel bad emotionally, but
>physically as well if i keep it up...it makes me tired and weary...so i
>set out to find what is positive in the situation, and i can usually
>manage to put myself in a much better mood...now of course, there are
>some times when it can't be helped...
I'd like to be in good moods, but it's just not the way it goes....They
barely last. Yeah, mood really affects the way you feel. I go through
periods where I come home from school and just go to sleep for several
hours...
> "Hush now, don't you cry/Wipe away the teardrop from your eye/You're
>lying safe in bed/It was all a bad dream/Spinning in your head/Your mind
>tricked you to feel the pain/Of someone close to you leaving the game of
>life" so i don't know, but that seems to me like the person is still
>alive...it's hard to tell
Makes more sense to me now--I think you're right, doesn't look like anyone
dies. His voice is startling--it's right in your face (head?) at points.
They really affect me, but I'm kinda sick of the song by now.
> i've always felt that Geddy could sing anything and make it sound
>good...but that's just me...his voice is what got me into Rush in the
>first place, and I know there are a lot of people who don't like it at all.
His voice was a deterrent to me at first. I think it's cool at parts, but
with Neil's lyrics and Rush's music, the vocals really don't *add*
anything for me like some bands' do.
> sounds interesting, but i think you're right...i think you need
>the music with this one...it doesn't seem very interesting to read on
>it's own, but with music it might be great...
Yeah....I do think it's interesting, though--a strange
viewpoint/story/style/whatever...
>His words really flow--unusual/made-up/no rhyme schemes,
>> somewhat stream of consciousness...
>
> now there are some lyrics i could like...*grins*
What do you mean, what sounds bad about them?
> but it does
>sound like it could be interesting, but i'd have to hear the music i think;
>i guess i was looking for something completely earth-shattering in it's
>novelty, and of course you never promised that...
No. It's funny--the things I really like can come off as lame once
written down. I think it's just the power of everything at once. In
fact, I think it's cool that they don't look that good written but are
awesome once in context. I've got it!--from now on, Rush won't *need* any
vocals--just include a lyric sheet and leave the vocals out!
> i don't think either is most important, and i dont think either
>one is just filler stuff...
I think music is more important, but I think either *can* be filler.
Filler music in some Roger Waters cases, filler lyrics in various
bands....But the former is much worse a crime.
>it's easier to me to analyze the lyrics than
>the music...
Definitely--the words have agreed definitions, but sounds don't stand for
anything that concrete.
>> Well, all I can say is give them a chance. I probably wouldn't like TH
>> right now if I hadn't forced myself to play _Stop Making Sense_ numerous
>> times while doing homework. It seeped into my brain, and now I love it!
>> :) Again, what have you heard by them?
>
> well, if i don't like something by the fourth or fifth try, i
>usually decide it's just not going to work for me...
Yeah....There have been things for me, like Bauhaus, where I've actually
said aloud, "This is shit!" and then I start to like it! But there are
things you really know just *won't* grow on you.
>i didn't really know
>which songs go on which albums, but i know all the songs you posted below,
>and i used to have copied tapes of a few albums until i taped them over;
>i really don't think i like his voice...
Hmm. Well, I can't say yours is that unbelievable opinion--he can be too
wacky and goofy....I just seem to really connect with a lot of it.
>> The vocals and Byrne's jerkiness really make this song great. Have you
>> seen this video? Byrne's manic qualities blow me away--this song is a
>> classic.
>
> i havent seen the video, but i've heard the song a lot...i dont
>know, the lyrics and music just don't do it for me...
They really grab me--they have from the beginning (well, I remember seeing
it on MTV as a little kid, but I don't think it grabbed me that much
then....Maybe it just dug into my subconscious. :)
> i don't know...I think out of the two, I might like Ka-Spel's
>lyrics a lot more if I heard them...
Probably. He has very original, interesting lyrics, as well as vocals.
Although you might find them irritating as well. ?
>these don't really interest me that
>much, and although you say you have to hear them sung by his voice, I'm
>thinking that maybe if someone else was singing I'd like them better
>while listening to the songs.
Byrne's? The lyrics are interesting to me because they seem so
*un*interesting...maybe? Just the way the thoughts flow pleases something
in me.
His new album _Feelings_ is awesome, BTW. His best solo album yet--that
I've heard, at least.
-FC
Scott D. Erb
In article <344BA3...@sterlingdi.com>, bern...@sterlingdi.com says...
>Frank, weren't you just criticizing Dog Years for being a "mid-life
>crisis" song? On top of disagreeing that it even IS a MLC song, after
>seeing you post THIS as one of your favorites, I was shocked.
Addressing this response to the critique of Dog Years. I think Dog Years
and Time Stand Still are both excellent songs about getting older and
realizing how fast time flies by. Recognizing and expressing that does
not mean one is going through a crisis!!!! Still, the best song about
time has to be Al Stewart's "Time Passages." But "Time Stand Still" is
pretty good too.
cheers, scott
Patrick
Beast of Bourbon wrote:
>
> On 15 Oct 1997 20:43:13 GMT, Cecrle wrote:
>
> >I don't think many people give a damn about Rush. I wouldn't say Rush is
> >that influential a band. Sure, people sometimes cite Rush (even the
> >guitarist from Tool has cited Rush), but I really don't think of Rush as
> >having much of an impact on the musical world.
>
more than 20 album, I think they kick ass and have somewhat of an
influence in some way, dont you think?
demian
Pritiera wrote:
>
> > i think Rand would have liked The Spice Girls.
>
> getting a free ride from MTV, basically.
>
that can't be. :) i've enjoyed seeing them sing live. they seem
to aware about how awful their vocals are.
>
> > he wants Peart to better himself. anything wrong with that?
>
> Of course not, but it's not clear to me that the only road to personal
> improvement is one of suffering. I don't know about you but I learn
> better when I'm happy.
>
actually, maybe Frank wants to better himself by wishing
Peart's pain - doesn't sounds very creative.
> > perhaps he wants an _Anthem_, or a _Bastille Day_, or a convincing,
> > honest, _The Pass_.
>
> I'm not too sure how convincing the "The Pass" is. It's probably the one
> Rush lyric I don't totally agree with. I think "The Pass" is in
> contradiction with "Anthem". How can a person who decides to not commit
> suicide in order to please his loved ones, be living for *himself*?
>
exactly. a convincing one rather than an unconvincing one.
> > it's your assumption that he is so gloriously wishing suffering
> > on people.
>
> He just said he wished Peart was molested as a child so that he could
> write better lyrics! Wishing suffering on people doesn't get any more
> blatant than that. And he's been trying to tell me that only through
> suffering can people be happy. How am I making any sort of assumption
> here?
>
you're right. it's *my* assumption for thinking it's just his load
of crap with something more real behind it.
>
> > must be that "bad education" of his, huh?
>
> First of all, I never once said that Frank had a "bad education". Where
> the hell did I say that? And secondly, what's this particular point got
> to do with education? Frank seems to be saying "Neil hasn't suffered
> enough so his art can't be that great." This is the point I'm trying to
> argue against.
>
i've been misreading some things. i'll take that crapper back,
if you don't mind.
there are people that believe that most or all art comes from
suffering, and i'm in that group. it's just a matter of what
you classify as suffering. if you're less happy without art
then you are with it, doesn't that say something?
just to make it clear: i don't narrow anyone's creativity
because they have not been survivers of Hiroshima or whatever
other tragedy.
in fact, i often marvel at people that seem to have little
personal tragic experience but are able to acutely comprehend
such experiences.
> > and now you can have a point of pride from
> > this prestige, if you like. this conclusion of yours is a pessimistic
> > outlook, in my opinion. any sort of dictionary-like diminishing of
> > that kind can only be so.
>
> You've lost me here.
>
see other msg/reply to Chris. tangential and by now unimportant.
> > you believe everyone can conform to a collective state of happiness,
> > and thereby make life even more pleasant for the already advanced
> > "happy" folk?
>
> Not a "collective" state of hapiness, but I think everyone can be happy
> for their own reasons. If all the people who have reason to be happy
> spend their time depressed because there exists unhappy people, would that
> make life any better for the already unhappy folk? I don't think so.
>
is that possible? can you be influenced by unhappiness?
dragging people down to a state of misery isn't what i'm
suggesting.
if Frank wants pain on others he must have a reason.
he doesn't sound like a sadist. he seems to have a rational
reason...a self-interested one.
it seems to me any distraction in life should be valued,
including art. i don't believe people who take the time and
energy to create something unique, original and meaningful are
self-pitying at the heart, and i guess you would agree.
>
> > > "Take it easy on yourself, there's nothing more you can do!"
>
> > where's the exalted Perserverance in that line? where's the angry,
> > "unapologetic," Anthem in that line?
>
> I think that line is very consistent with "Anthem". This line says you
> have to live for yourself, basically. You can only do so much for other
> people; after that you have to start thinking about yourself. This is the
> way I interpret it, anyway.
>
ok, i get that. i'm not sure i see it fit snuggly within the song,
but ok.
"Take it easy on me now, I'd be there if I could"
this sounds like an askance for a particle of mercy. i think
this "particle" he uses in the song supports your basic idea.
i'd question whether such a word like "particle" would reflect
reality.
> > if someone has the hypersenstivity and ability to transfer
> > an exceptionally rare sinking stone of depression, like Chopin's
> > Raindrop tune--into what is, in the full context--a beautiful and
> > valuable expression, then what are you talking about? certianly not
> > artists. i don't detest Chopin as a Romantic, and i don't think you
> > do either.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I think some great art has come out of people's
> suffering (certainly Chopin is a good example of this), but I also think
> that some great art has come from happy people like Neil Peart. Also,
> by most accounts, Mozart was an extremely happy, optimtimtic person, even
> near the end of his life when he was having severe financial problems.
>
this is what i've been wondering. thanks. i agree.
> My point is this: Frank was saying, "Man, Neil's lyrics are weak in the
> area of personal expression. I think he's *too* happy to write great
> lyrics."
>
this is where i might agree with him if only he would explain this.
> And I don't agree with this viewpoint because it implies that great art
> necessarily implies suffering. And while I agree that some great art has
> come out of suffering, I don't think suffering is *necessary* for great
> art, which is what Frank seems to be saying.
>
wishing someone were molested is closer to torment in my mind.
and i don't believe great art requires torment.
> > i don't get it. how is suicide worthy of hesitation in judgement, when
> > it contradicts a line of yours above? doesn't suicide help relatives,
> > friends, or society in general, suffer, and according to your
> > anaesthesia, that "suffering" should be extinguished like a plague
> > because it's "fucked up."
>
> Good point. I guess I feel that "live for yourself" overrides everything
> else. It's too bad that your death is going to cause suffering for your
> family and friends, but ultimately your have to consider yourself.
> Another thing is that, in certain situations, if a person is truly
> suffering (from a debilitating disease, for instance), then that person's
> death might actually ease the family suffering resulting from seeing their
> loved one suffer from chronic pain.
>
i guess i believe this as well. perserverance becomes questionable
for sufferer and witness.
> > who the hell made the world rational all
> > of a sudden, and what makes you so rational if you still need art?
>
> People aren't rational if they need art? Can you expand on this?
>
geezus, i don't know where that one came from. needing art seems
very rational to me. Chris was right, i've been misreading stuff,
or i've just forgotten what inspired these questions.
> > i mean, if Christ glorifies suffering, then why doesn't Peart's
> > perserverance with Peart's particular moral codes also glofity it?
>
> Because the Christian moral code is about self-sacrifice, but Peart's is
> about living for yourself! And please, I don't want to debate
> Christianity again on this newsgroup.
>
yeah, i'm not interested either.
> > how large would the sheep population explosion be, if Peart had to
> > die for his beliefs?
>
> But those people are just sheep, their not really the people Neil is
> addressing anyway. If they feel this way, they obviously haven't been
> reading Neil's lyrics to closely.
>
yeah; this is true. the same could be said of Christians and
their self-sacrifice.
> > is this why you would like to ignore the process of struggling for
> > happiness and simply convince people that it's wrong and naughty to
> > see beauty in the unconscious therapy of creating art?
>
> Don't twist my argument. I never said this. I merely said that you don't
> *have* to suffer to be a great artist! It was never my intention to say
> that people who have suffered and produced great art are "naughty" in any
> way. I'm not trying to diminish the value of their work at all.
>
i've been overstepping quite a lot then.
let me explain my view:
suffering -as a virtue- that is caressed, like you do a
lamp with a genie inside, seems silly to me. art as a response,
a reaction with purpose, suffering or not, can be distinguished from
art where it has only one purpose, to build a shrine for pain.
> > the worst thing to me about Peart lyrics is when his "opinions"
> > --his personal, slimey, dog breath--stick out, even after his
> > very conscious attempts to balance a particular theme impersonally.
> > that is a failing that sometimes is not forgiveable because it fails
> > more than say, an angsting song that doesn't follow your mood or your
> > life state.
>
> That's merely your opinion. As I've already argued here, there aren't
> that many Peart lyrics that are blatantly over-opinionated. A few yes,
> but not too many. And I, for one, love to see a person who is passionate
> about his opinions.
>
yes, those are my opinions and my thoughts.
> > it's either spit or swallow and that depends on the creative process
> > and muse as much as the polished work, which FC has tried to explore
> > to many people's stubbornly plugged ears (dictionaries suck).
>
> If my ears were plugged, I wouldn't be debating this with him or you. But
> do I have to agree with him (or you)? I don't think so.
>
i prefer discussion. i don't want anyone to agree with anyone else
for the sake of agreement.
> The thing that bugs me is that some people on this newsgroup feel that if
> you *don't* criticize Neil you're a "sheep". Well, all I can say is that
> I generally agree with Neil and I really like Rush's music and I'm not
> going to come onto this newsgroup and start bashing Rush just so people
> like you will think I'm really cool. That would be dishonest.
>
oh, but you are cool, you're just not Elvis cool.
it bugs me too.
when it gets to this level, i don't see it as bashing. "Peart
is preachy" can only be said so many ways, and only so simply.
and because it's easier to say, "Rush is great!" i don't
mind hearing people explain why "Rush has no soul," as long as
they do explain.
i thought Frank has made some great attempts in these
many lyric threads over the weeks; the rut seems to have been
that molestation bit.
> > at stake is what Art is, what it should be and what purpose it serves.
>
> That's right. And art should not just be for the sufferers. We can't
> just say, "Oh, your art doesn't count for anything because you haven't
> suffered enough". That's what I'm arguing against here.
>
why does Frank or anyone else decide what counts? perhaps you mean
we can't have such opinions like that without some substance to them?
totally agree.
> > it's when you don't agree with him personally that you most see
> > him critically, especially when he attempts and fails to erase his
> > personal residue from a song, because that can resemble a thrifty
> > artist or a coward of the mind.
>
> Oh, this is complete nonsense! Why should he always try to erase his
> "personal residue" from a song? Why can't art be a vehicle to express an
> opinion? Many of the great novels I've read are mostly that.
>
apparently art is subjective. this is not a letter-writing
campaign for Mr Peart to change his ways. i'm not wishing.
i'm curious if anyone else has any of these thoughts, so i share
them.
i prefer novels in novel form, not as lyrics with bleeding
edges of grand themes sprinkled with opinion. what i mean
to say is that his opinions can appear lacking in the
lyrical form; it doesn't always do him justice or vice versa, IMO.
example: The Pass might make a better Peart novel.
he seems to assign himself a tough job, and for that i have a
good deal of respect - doesn't mean i don't have nagging
reactions to some of his attempts.
his residue doesn't spill over negatively if you're in general
agreement with him and *general* seems to be the key.
sometimes his lyrics can be enhanced by Lee and the songwriting.
i know "Animate" is good for me because of Lee and not the lyrics.
i think Lee affects and personifies a tortured doll-like pleading,
and it's a big plus.
the last few albums have more awkward, disagreeable instances.
obviously, not everyone feels the same way, which is no skin off
my back.
about novels:
if the novel ascends into an epic conflict, i'm irritated
when a writer puts it on the reader's lap for resolution.
you spend enough time reading such a novel, you want an
idea what the writer would envision in the end.
i'm getting tired of my ramble. i was careless with my
original reply, sorry for that.
Scott D. Erb
In article <62h5a0$dko$1...@News.Dal.Ca>, av...@chebucto.ns.ca says...
>
>Oh yeah, one more thing... how can anyone say that Neil's lyrics are not
>subject to interpretation?!
All lyrics, writings, poems, and philosophies are subject to
interpretation. Even if the author disagrees with the interpretation.
The text stands out there, we can do with it what we wish.
cheers, scott
Bill J. Bernard
Cecrle wrote:
>
> "Bill J. Bernard" <bern...@sterlingdi.com> wrote:
> >Cecrle wrote:
> >>
> >> Roxanna <cm...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> some.
> >> >
> >> > Go ahead and post some of your favorites anyway.
> >>
> >> Here's some from Byrne, "Once in a Lifetime:
> >>
> >> "And you may ask yourself...how do I work this?
> >> And you may ask yourself...where *is* that large automobile?
> >> And you may tell yourself...this is not my beautiful house
> >> And you may tell yourself...this is not my beautiful wife!
> >>
> >> Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
> >> Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
> >> Into the blue again, after the money's gone
> >> Once in a lifetime--water flowing underground."
> >>
> >> The vocals and Byrne's jerkiness really make this song great. Have you
> >> seen this video? Byrne's manic qualities blow me away--this song is a
> >> classic.
> >>
> >
> >crisis" song? On top of disagreeing that it even IS a MLC song, after
> >seeing you post THIS as one of your favorites, I was shocked.
> >
>
> was lame because of the crappy lyrics (those jokes are really bad--he
> should have kept his comment about jokes getting old--like using Cleese's
> voice for RtB--and scrapped them), and because it's nothing new. It's
> about growing old--that's not necessarily a mid-life crisis.
>
> Now, OiaL obviously has that theme to it, but I think it's more than just
> that. Do you ever look in the mirror and not recognize yourself, almost?
> Or you see your face and think, "That's me!!!, that's who I am!" and just
> give the mirror a frozen stare? That's some of what it is for me.
>
> And even if they're both just mid-life crisis songs, I sure think OiaL
> conveys the feelings a lot better than Dog Years.
>
> -FC
Yeah, it sure does; especially since Dog Years, IMO, doesn't have
anything to do with mid-life crisis. I really wouldn't even want to
compare these two songs any further. It was someone else who had made
the statement that DY was a mid-life crisis lament, so this whole reply
of mine was in error.
I have noticed, though, that a lot of people either hate or love Dog
Years. Personally, I'll agree that the lyrics don't offer any great
insight, but are rather simple and typical. I do think the lightness of
them makes the song a kind of "comic relief" however, and I think Rush
might be concerned with showing this side of themselves, since they have
always had a reputation of taking themselves too seriously. I really
enjoy the song, myself, but mostly due to the more punkish music, not
necessarily the lyrics.
Bill J. Bernard
Pritiera wrote:
>
> [some discussion about "The Pass"]
>
> Matthew D. Sullivan <av...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> >
> > I'd suggest that Neil's "live
> > for yourself" philosophy is not in conflict with this song; more like he's
> > saying "do what you will, but don't defend it as a noble act; defend it as
> > it is, a selfish act".
>
> Yeah, but you have to understand that one of Neil's influences is a woman
> who has authored a book entitled "The Virture of Selfishness"! I think
> Neil generally believes that selfishness is a *good* thing--just listen to
> the lyrics of Anthem.
>
Yeah, but you also have to understand that Rand is only one of Neil's
influences, and Neil wrote that song over 20 years ago. I think Neil's
ideas have evolved quite a bit since then. Sure, I'll bet the whole
individualistic, pro-art, pro-freedom philosophy is still important to
him, but he has also written some anti-Randian things over the years as
well.
Here's an excerpt from "Rush Profiled!" that I pulled off the NMS site.
Neil: "It's not a
triumph. It's not a heroic epic. It's a tragedy, and it's a
personal tragedy for them, but much more so for the people left
behind, and I really started to get offended by the samurai kind of
values that were attached to it, like here's a warrior
that felt it was better to die with honor, and all of that kind of
offended me. I can understand someone making the
choice; it's their choice to make. I can't relate to it, and I
could never imagine it, for myself, but still I thought it's a
really important thing to try to get down."
Sounds to me like that selfishness angle is certainly in there, and not
as a good thing, either, my little Randroids. :-)
> > David/Frank: David, is it really necessary to pull out a months-old
> > thread to slap Frank with? "Gotcha Frank! You've contradicted yourself!"
I thought that was the whole point of this newsgroup! :)
> I think he was definitely glorifying suffering.
>
> > Surely you can't argue this? Why do people run marathons,
> > climb mountains, go on hunger strikes?
>
> I don't think running a marathon necessarily counts as suffering. I see
> suffering as something that comes out of long-term or chronic
> distress--things like abuse, ill health, poverty, depression, self-denial,
> etc. I don't see the suffering that results from any of these things as
> being very useful.
>
Well, that's a pretty narrow definition of suffering. What you're
saying is that you don't glorify tragedy. That's different from
suffering. The expression "no pain, no gain" deals with suffering.
Suffering can certainly be self-induced. Otherwise, why would you have
any beef with Christianity's supposed glorification of suffering?
Even Neil recognizes the "benefits of suffering" and that somehow the
pain makes the gain all that more wonderful. I remember him addressing
that very specifically when discussing Virtuality in the T4E radio
premiere. He said something like "In order to really experience these
things you have to suffer for it..."
Now, having said all of that, Neil is clearly (per his interview)
attempting to claim that there is no "nobility" in suicide. That,
however, is a far cry from saying that suffering is never fruitful (or
good).
But, again, having now said _that_, I have to disagree with Frank's
outrageous claim that there are no great artists who are/were happy.
Unfortunately, I doubt there is any objective way to prove/disprove such
a claim; I just find it absurd.
> > But hey, there just words. What's most important is that they sound good
> > in a song (hasn't Neil said something like this?)... for me, the music is
> > what's most important
>
> Me too! The lyrics are only about 10% of the enjoyment for me. Neil has
> even said that he won't check out the lyrics of a song if the music
> doesn't interest him.
Now that makes a lot of sense. Personally, I have always tended to pay
more attention to lyrics than most people I know. Although, I suspect
many in this newsgroup are similarly interested in the words. In the
end, though, my enjoyment of a song depends more on the music. There
are definitely songs that offer nothing at all lyrically, which I
nonetheless consider to be among my favorites. But if the music is good
(and I always find Rush's music to be good), then it's all the more
enjoyable if they throw in some great lyrics to boot. As rock lyricists
go, Neil may not be the _most_ emotional or artistic, but he's pretty
damned good in comparison with the vast majority, and he writes these
words for a band that I very subjectively consider the greatest musical
group in history!
demian
that's how i see it too.
> lyrics out of him now!" I think he believes that suffering is *one*
> cause of good art. In a another thread, he cited some lyrics
> that make him feel good, and those lyrics don't seem to have come
> from a lot of pain and suffering. So evidently he does think
there you go.
> suffering isn't the *only* source of good art. Actually, I really think the
> two of them blew each other's comments way out of proportion and put words
> in each other's mouths. And for the sake of argument, neither one
> corrected the other until more recently in the discussion.
>
yup. i did the same (exaggerate) unfortunately.
> >
> > i can offer this from a trio of rhymin, hip-hop punks: "Darkness is
> > not the opposite of Light, it is the abscence of Light" -- Beastie
> > Boys.
> >
> > an awareness of this abscence is the inspiration for Art, in my opinion,
> > not to mention an incentive for every other reality-changing,
> > consciousness-dulling and distracting occupation, both sober and
> > unsober.
>
> I think it is an inspiration for art (and those other things as well),
> but not the only one.
>
it is only my understanding of course. an artist worth anything
to me must recognize those words in some way.
i was intrigued to see Peart mention a particular "dissillusionment"
about the world in his younger years - it's not a a drop-dead kind of
suffering. i certainly believe people with such an experience might
turn their heads to create an idea or a voice to describe and make sense
of this dissillusionment. the purpose for art could be to make a
sensible
illusion of the world for yourself by your own hand. if the world
inspires disillusion in you, isn't that a "suffering"? i think so.
i'm not into thinking of "suffering" only as an obvious wracked disease
with flailing arms and uncontrollable moping.
> > David probably knows what i mean. it's a packed paragraph that
> > addresses lots of little bits which David personally can correlate,
> > if he pays attention to what he writes in his messages. the prestige
> > bit was nonsense. i do believe he is pessimisstic about *some* people
> > if he thinks art and "sickness" have no workable place for eachother
> > without it being a bunch of "badly educated," moping misers.
>
> i think he *did* take issue with your statement, looking at the
> last post...i just can't help the feeling that he *doesn't* think they
> have absolutely no place for each other....although his posts might
> indicate that, I believe an awful lot of exaggeration have been going on.
>
yup; he was right to take issue. i'm with you on the exaggeration -
it's what bugged me. and what happened then? i did it too.
> >
> > Faulkner and Hemmingway, two of Peart's faves, weren't exactly
> > as "unapologetically happy," as David proudly claims to be. they
> > were famous drunks, and Faulker was apparently always wasted
> > when he wrote. Hemmingway killed himself, and Faulkner wrote
> > morbid novels.
>
> But that doesn't mean Peart himself is like that.
>
Peart seems a pretty sober guy.
> > i also don't see how any artist that decides to say something
> > personal, or has in mind to share something "meaningful" isn't
> > testing for an echo, one way or another.
>
> perhaps they are...
>
> > i'm interested in how far David believes such artists are "fucked up,"
> > in their art.
>
> wait, by personal, were you talking about only the negative stuff?
>
nope, not only that. since happiness is relative, definitely not.
i value confessoinal writing most when it has an observeable
purpose and when i can identify with it. in poetry or lyricism
just identifying by feel is enough for me...i think music is a lot
like that too - this might explain why a lyric which only blandly
portrays a POV/opinion, can be less than inspiring.
confessional writing can contain a heart and mind in art, or perhaps
a mindful heart. a bitter heart with a keen mind is observeable
in novelists...it's also observeable how they progress with future
novels to a purposeful happiness; if this is the sort of learning
from happy folk you mean, then i agree.
> > > > you believe everyone can conform to a collective state of happiness,
> > > > and thereby make life even more pleasant for the already advanced
> > > > "happy" folk?
> > >
> > > a collective state of happiness? who said anything about that?
> > > i think everyone has the potential to be happy, but i don't think
> > > happiness means the same thing for everyone...
> > >
> >
> > that's my eventual conclusion too. David says happy people
> > can teach the unhappy. how is that possible without recognizing,
> > what you did recognize, that it isn't the same for everyone?
>
> don't you think he recognizes that too?
>
of course. he didn't appear to mention it.
> >
> > are we talking Prozac here? i mean, people take Prozac because
> > seasons changes. if that's the solutoin, well, i don't see why
> > total misery in art would be so objectable over some chemicals
> > that one must depend on.
>
> no, i'm pretty sure that's not what we're talking about :)
>
:)
> > true. consider his statements overall.
> >
> > David, writes that Peart may not be the best person to judge
> > suicide (The Pass) because Peart may be too happy a guy to do the
> > scenario justice.
> >
> > how then, can a happy man "teach" happiness if he is as
> > unapologetically happy and unable to relate as David has
> > admitted, and then decide when someone glorifies suffering?
> >
> > there's a conflict here that hasn't been detailed, i don't
> > think.
>
> Yes - that's the one conflict I see as well. I personally like
> the Pass and I don't believe that a happy person is completely unable to
> relate. I believe that there is a lot to learn from the happy person.
> People seem to forget that - they always talk about how much there is to
> learn from suffering - and I do agree that we can learn, but they
> overlook how much there is to learn from someone who is not suffering.
>
yes, i think learning or instinctively gravitating to happy folk
is natural and good.
i see Beauty in highs and in lows that become highs. it seems to
me there's a need for a perpetual ladder for which each individual
can put a foot forward and step on a rung to begin climbing.
i do believe that any artist, no matter how pitiful seeming, has
stepped on that ladder which is dissimilar to the "dreamer"
in "The Pass"...so...
i would have agreed with that song if Peart would have suggested
art as councilling, and not the somewhat sloppy, accusatory tone
he takes, though i'm not suggesting art as the only or best avenue
to betterment. "Show me what you see," instead of "Don't turn your
back on me!" would have *agreed* with my sensibilities.
the notion that teens escape in death for bravado is another issue
i think is deceptive and unrealistic. a samurai's honour in death
doesn't seem to be the problem that hangs around like a stench in
songs like "Smells like Teen Spirit" or "Pennyroyal Tea". i like
Nirvana.
the song isn't as bad as all my many words about it make it seem,
but i do have strong views about it.
don't you end up curious about what this boy was like? i do.
i ask myself, Does this lyric, with such a taboo for a theme
satisfy my sensibility, in the end? no.
only, i do believe the song already eases the listener to decide
what such a boy is like...coward, ignoble, unheroic, dreamer,
swaggering, etc. it is precisely how the song fails for me.
the lyric hardly seems nobler than the suicide.
> > i dunno. David believes Christians glorify suffering. i'm
> > curious why Christ is a martyr of suffering, and not a hero
> > of his principles. "Jesus Was a Terrorist" is one of my
> > favourites songs. if you like, Peart is a Terrorist because
> > he's constantly talking about bucking the norm.
>
> but how is that glorifying suffering even if he is a
> "Terrorist." I think his challenging the norm isn't some huge rebellion,
> but rather challenging it in smaller more personal ways.
>
great goddam point, and concise! the use of "Terrorist" may be a
spark to your same interpretation and thinking, as i believe.
it disregards the baggage that Christ has garnered over world
history. it has its own mind about Christ. and from what
second-hand writing i know about, the bible doesn't show Christ to
be such a swell guy (egoless) all the time...he's no Mother Teresa
in other words...maybe he was more like Mother Teresa than other
venerated Saints, who would hug a tortoise as they would a human
being.
> > > > how large would the sheep population explosion be, if Peart had to
> > > > die for his beliefs? there's a lot of conceit on a.m.r., and it's
> > > > hardly different from the conceit and judgements of the few "holy"
> > > > men i see on t.v.
> > >
> > > i don't see Peart as the martyr time. i'm really not sure what
> > > you are saying here, but i don't think there is much more conceit here
> > > than on any internet newsgroup.
> > >
> >
> > i'm not comparing newsgroups, but the sort of posters who need to
> > blame rap and t.v. for brainwashing non-Rush fans into their
> > unappreciative ignorance.
> >
> > David is not included among that crap.
> >
>
> hehehehe. I think all of those posts need to be taken with a
> grain of salt...
>
absolutely. i wouldn't mind the salt more casually spread around :)
sorta my underlying point to David about Christians. i wouldn't have
even brought it up if he hadn't mentioned Christians/Christ to Frank.
> > > self pity? i don't see it.
> > >
> >
> > Animate: woe is my Maleness. Dog Years: woe is my mid-life crisis.
> >
> > i used to trick myself into thinking these were good satirical tunes,
> > but that idea wore out its welcome. Peart doesn't like nostaligia,
> > apparently, so Dog Years seems like he took a vacation with nostalgia
> > for a bit. it has a taste of regret about making circles, that
> > doesn't seem like Peart. Animate is a much better song because i
> > think Lee really compliments it with that pleading voice of his.
>
> i disagree - the way i see animate (and maybe this is not what
> neil intended at all) is not "woe is my maleness" but as welcoming all
> sides of self - the "masculine" and the "feminine" that may have
> suppressed because one didn't feel there was a place for it in our society...
>
sure - it's that inner turmoil that i don't relate to very much.
what i like a lot about the song is Peart's way of submitting
to animation. Animate Me, Sensitize Me, Criticize Me, Complicate Me,
etc...these images are interesting and feeling, Lee helps as well.
the "struggle for control" recounts for me an Iron John epidemic
like Sting's. blehh! i'd like to drop-kick "Iron John" (some book
by Robert Bly). as a societal issue i think it's really interesting.
i'm not a fan of witnessing this in art or life...though i'm not
suggesting he shouldn't have written it. let him write it...no one
is going to agree or like everything equally which is not an
original thought.
> >
> > > > the worst thing to me about Peart lyrics is when his "opinions"
> > > > --his personal, slimey, dog breath--stick out, even after his
> > > > very conscious attempts to balance a particular theme impersonally.
> > > > that is a failing that sometimes is not forgiveable because it fails
> > > > more than say, an angsting song that doesn't follow your mood or your
> > > > life state.
> > >
> > > why shouldn't he let his personal viewpoint "stick out?"
> > >
> >
> > he should do whatever he likes. why should i explain why i dislike
> > some Peart lyrcis, or why should anyone in discussion?
>
> i agree that he should do what he likes - i don't feel that when
> his viewpoint sticks out, that he has failed to supress it - i think he
> does it intentionally.
>
very possible. as an audience member all i can do is comment on
how the aesthetics of certain ideas, lines and impressions may
interrupt my enjoyment, irritate me, or best of all, complEment
me.
most of the time, i'm like you, he doesn't "fail" for me.
and i agree with people when they say that's it's to Peart's
credit that he can attract a ranging viewpoint from his audience.
i mean, maybe he doesn't have a 50-50 male/female audience, or
a 50-50 white/black crowd, but it's obvious there are a few (or many)
striking differences in what people appreciate in Rush. that's
one of the things i most appreciate about Rush in music and lyrics.
> > > i don't always agree with him - but i don't see this "personal
> > > residue" that he has tried to erase...when there is a viewpoint
> > > presented, i think it does it intentionally.
> > >
> >
> > if you don't agree, can you listen and enjoy it? if yes, then
> > obviously you're not so disagreeable.
>
> yes, i can listen to it and enjoy it - i really don't think I
> agree with The Trees, for example, but I still love the song. And it
> still makes me think.
>
opinion doesn't count for artistic expression in my mind. if people
are barraged with opinions, by their perception, then it's reasonable
that they begin to respect the art less. i have no use for op-ed in
art.
"art as [opinion], not as market campaigns"? doesn't seem right.
The Trees is a pretty realistic, artful fable, and doesn't ring
like an opinion. (i disagree with it some places, but it's good.)
i think the key with TT is that it shapes a reality worth
accepting, at least in general. the lesson in that story
lacks, IMO.
it's not that i wish Peart to erase his personal residue for *my*
sake or his own. i'm aware that this occassional "failure" is my
opinion and my problem; i don't expect any change about it...in
other words, i have my alternatives.
> > it's the idea that one must agree or disagree with a lyric that's
> > unappealing.
>
> unappealing to some. I've never had a problem with it at all.
>
yes, but you don't listen to lyrics/music you don't like, right?
you've *really* disagreed with something about it. for instance,
there's plenty i hate about DISCO. i can tolerate it, but it's not
like i'm glad to sit in someone's apartment, enduring it, knowing
there's much better stuff at my place.
Cecrle
Roxanna <cm...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>On 20 Oct 1997, Cecrle wrote:
>
>> I'd like to be in good moods, but it's just not the way it goes....They
>> barely last. Yeah, mood really affects the way you feel. I go through
>> periods where I come home from school and just go to sleep for several
>> hours...
>
>time?
A chemical imbalance, most likely.
> I think I got lucky in that regard - by the time I started
>listening to the stations that would play Silent Lucidity, it wasn't so
>new anymore, so it never got overplayed for me. When I hear it now I
>have to pause and listen.
Well, I never really heard it that much. I just feel like it's the kind
of song I only need to hear several times. After that, there just doesn't
seem to be any desire for it anymore.
>> His voice was a deterrent to me at first. I think it's cool at parts, but
>> with Neil's lyrics and Rush's music, the vocals really don't *add*
>> anything for me like some bands' do.
>
> Oh wow, I think it adds a lot. I can't imagine anyone else
>singing Rush's lyrics...
Neither can I, but I don't think Neil's words are the best for singing.
>but I've often tried to "hear" Geddy singing other songs in my head.
Oh boy... :)
>> What do you mean, what sounds bad about them?
>
> Nothing, I meant I liked the idea of Jack the Ripper getting his
>just rewards in a song :)
:) "Jack is deaaaaaad..."
>> I think music is more important, but I think either *can* be filler.
>> Filler music in some Roger Waters cases, filler lyrics in various
>> bands....But the former is much worse a crime.
>
> I don't think either one is a crime.
Well, it's just really lame. I mean, if someone just wants some lyrics,
then just read them. If they just want some music, make it an
instrumental.
>> Hmm. Well, I can't say yours is that unbelievable opinion--he can be too
>> wacky and goofy....I just seem to really connect with a lot of it.
>
> Well, to each their own...I know a lot of people who can't stand
>Geddy's voice. I also really like Joe Elliot's voice a lot (and no I'm
>not ashamed to admit that I like Def Leppard! :) )
Ooh, I scramble to turn the dial when they come on! :) The vocals aren't
so bad, but the lyrics seem dumb....Thanks--now I've got some Def Leppard
song going through my head! :)
>> > i don't know...I think out of the two, I might like Ka-Spel's
>> >lyrics a lot more if I heard them...
>>
>> Probably. He has very original, interesting lyrics, as well as vocals.
>> Although you might find them irritating as well. ?
>
> I don't know, I guess I'll have to wait and see! I found there
>homepage and some .wav files, but they're zipped, and I haven't felt like
>doing all that yet.
You're talking about the http://www.brainwashed.com/lpd/ I assume? It's
the only real LPD page. It's a really cool page, but the audio isn't that
great. The stuff on there is nothing spectacular, if I remember
correctly....There's not much, and the .wav format sucks.
I'd be happy to tape you some LPD if you sent me a blank, though...
-FC
Bill J. Bernard
>
> > Neil: "It's not a
> > triumph. It's not a heroic epic. It's a tragedy, and it's a
> > personal tragedy for them, but much more so for the people left
> > behind, and I really started to get offended by the samurai kind of
> > values that were attached to it, like here's a warrior
> > that felt it was better to die with honor, and all of that kind of
> > offended me. I can understand someone making the
> > choice; it's their choice to make. I can't relate to it, and I
> > could never imagine it, for myself, but still I thought it's a
> > really important thing to try to get down."
>
> He still admits that it's a person's own choice to make. I agree with him
> about this, of course, but I still don't agree with him that suicide is
> always a tragedy.
.
.
.
> I just wonder how a person who
> admits that he can't relate to suicide could possibly hope to properly
> address the issue. What I'd prefer from a song about suicide is an
> investigation of what might make someone decide to take such an extreme
> action. It's all fine and well to say "I can't relate to it", but a large
> number of people on this planet, including me, *can* relate to it, and the
> question is why? Why do some people feel that their continued existence
> is pointless? Wouldn't this be a more interesting treatment of the topic
> than just saying "suicide is a cop-out, I'm offended by it"? I don't mind
> Neil offering his opinion, but in this case, I don't think it's a
> well-supported or argued opinion.
Well, now I feel compelled to post more from the aforementioned article,
not to disagree with what you said, but just to respond to it in some
way. It is evident from that interview that Neil understood (and agreed
with) your protest in regard to his needing to know why one would resort
to such a thing.
Neil (from "Rush Profiled!"):"... I didn't want the classic thing of
'Oh, life's not so bad, you know, it's worth living' and all that. I
didn't want one of those pat, kind of cliched, patronizing statements,
so I really worked hard to find out true stories, and among the people
that I write to are people who are going to universities, to MIT, and
collecting stories from them about people they had known and what they
felt, and why the people had taken this desperate step and all of that
and trying really hard to understand something that, fundamentally, to
me is totally un-understandable. I just can't relate to it at all, but I
wanted to write about it. And the facet that I most wanted to write
about was to de-mythologize it - the same as with 'Manhattan Project' -
it de-mythologized the nuclear age, and it's the same thing with this
facet - of taking the nobility out of it and saying that yes, it's sad,
it's a horrible, tragic thing if someone takes their own life, but let's
not pretend it's a hero's end. It's not a triumph...."
> Anyway, go buy an album by Marillion called _Brave_ and then tell me
> whether you still think "The Pass" is a satisfying discussion of suicide.
> Don't get me wrong, I love Neil's Lyrics (almost all of them) and I love
> the music of "The Pass", but I can't agree with the lyrical message of the
> song. If Neil thinks that most people commit suicide in order to give the
> appearance of dying with "honor", then he is completely out of touch with
> the issue. People commit suicide to *end their suffering*.
I agree. Except in the case of a martyr, of course, but a lot of times,
those people are hopeful that they will survive; they don't always
intend to die. And in those cases (martyrs), it _is_ arguably an
honorable death. In other words, those people _are_ honored. We may
not like that, but it is true.
> > > I don't think running a marathon necessarily counts as suffering. I see
> > > suffering as something that comes out of long-term or chronic
> > > distress--things like abuse, ill health, poverty, depression, self-denial,
> > > etc. I don't see the suffering that results from any of these things as
> > > being very useful.
> > >
>
> > Well, that's a pretty narrow definition of suffering.
>
> Probably.
>
> > What you're
> > saying is that you don't glorify tragedy.
>
> No, no. I'm referring to the state of mind a person finds himself in
> after undergoing one of these "tragedies"--I'm not necessarily talking
> about the tradegy itself. And in the case of ill health, for instance,
> it doesn't necessarily take a health "tragedy" to cause a person to
> suffer a great deal.
>
> > That's different from
> > suffering. The expression "no pain, no gain" deals with suffering.
> > Suffering can certainly be self-induced. Otherwise, why would you have
> > any beef with Christianity's supposed glorification of suffering?
>
> Didn't I include "self-denial" in my list up there? Yes, actually I did.
>
> > Even Neil recognizes the "benefits of suffering" and that somehow the
> > pain makes the gain all that more wonderful. I remember him addressing
> > that very specifically when discussing Virtuality in the T4E radio
> > premiere. He said something like "In order to really experience these
> > things you have to suffer for it..."
>
> I think he was trying to say that virtual reality will never be a
> substitute for reality because it will always be a sanitized version of
> it. I guess this implies that he wants to experience the undesirable
> aspects of reality as well as the desirable ones, but...I don't know...I
> guess you guys have a broader view of suffering than me. I mean, if a guy
> is unhappy because his favourite tv show was canceled, does that
> constitute suffering? I think of suffering as being severe distress.
> Running a marathon--that's got more to do with self-discipline than
> suffering. And hunger strikes? Absolutely ridiculous. If anyone ever
> tried that form of extortion on me I'd let them starve without giving them
> a second thought. Anybody who has such little regard for his own
> well-being is of no interest to me whatsoever.
>
> > Now, having said all of that, Neil is clearly (per his interview)
> > attempting to claim that there is no "nobility" in suicide. That,
> > however, is a far cry from saying that suffering is never fruitful (or
> > good).
>
> Actually, it seems to be saying that suffering *is* good. Live a little
> longer and suffer a little more, right? Everybody spends time in the
> gutter, sure, but what if you're not a "dreamer" who can "look at the
> stars"? This is the hard question Neil never answers.
Right. That's an interesting point. On the one hand he does seem to be
saying that suffering is normal, and we must accept it (which I happen
to agree with, although that doesn't mean we should desire it or try to
acheive it -- that, IMO, would be sick, unless there is something else
we believe we can attain only through this suffering. We might then make
a choice to endure the pain in order to obtain this greater thing --
that, IMO, is a responsible and mature action (and even respectable)).
On the other hand, he is saying that "giving up" is just that --
quitting. The controversial bit about Christ at the end seems to
underline this theme, and the idea that religion glorifies not
suffering, but suicide or dying in general. I suppose he refers to
Christ's allowing himself to die as a form of suicide, although if you
believe in Christ, you don't believe we (or he) ever dies, so that's one
argument against such an analogy. Additionally, religions (and nations)
sometimes encourage martyrdom, which is a form of suicide, if the actor
fully expects that he/she will die. Neil might also be alluding to this
-- the idea that religions glorify suicide this way.
I guess by the very nature of our discussion (and the many previous ones
in here regarding this song), it seems that there are conflicting
messages in this song, and ones that are not misleading. Perhaps all of
this discussion has enabled us to see that this song is riddled with a
certain degree of idealism/confusion/disgust, and that this is the very
reason why Neil wanted to attempt to tackle the subject. He apparently
has mixed, although generally negative, feelings about the act of
suicide. Might he have been simply using the writing of this song as a
vehicle for exploring his feelings on this issue?
>
> David
> "Don't ask me why I'm doing this
> You wouldn't understand
> You're asking the wrong questions
> You couldn't understand
> A bridge is not a high place
> The 52nd floor
> But Icarus would know a mountain's not far to fall
> When you've fallen from the moon..."
>
> -- Marillion (from the song "The Great Escape")
Personally, I find these words much more convincing:
Just think of what my life might be
In a world like I have seen.
I don't think I can carry on,
Carry on this cold and empty life.
My spirits are low in the depths of despair;
My lifeblood spills over.
Cecrle
>This is the point I was trying to make. Why would someone who admits that
>he cannot relate to suicide try to write a song about it?
Because he's the type of guy who thinks he knows all about life.
>You've taken this the wrong way. I didn't bring that up just to lord it
>over Frank. I genuinely wanted to point out the radical departure he's
>made from a philosophy that he generally adheres to in many of his
>messages (at least many of his messages in the religion debates). And I
>have to be honest--if there is one thing that bugs me, it's inconsistency.
What's that Ralph Waldo Emerson quote about inconsistency? About going
with the moment and letting things flow instead of being worried about
"being consistent"...
Anyway, they are two different things, as I've pointed out. I don't go
around forcing people to suffer--I don't torture anyone for my gain--and
then tell them it's good for them. I'm just saying that more *natural*,
*everyday* pain can be good for you. Things that will exist no matter
what--a Spanish Inquisition is definitely not natural or everyday,
obviously. I'm saying that since we're humans, we have emotions, and
since we have emotions, we will experience pain--this is not something
that should be shied away from or *abolished*. It's just something that
you have to face and learn from.
>> We all know that Frank has his traditional devil's advocate role to play,
>
>I don't think Frank plays the devil's advocate when arguing religion.
Most of the time, no--because there's no need to hop around with
viewpoints when the one you're using seems to stand up well. I'm not
unsure of myself in the area of particular religions, because it's such a
narrow little view that the ones who should doubt themselves are the
believers. It's too foolish and silly for devil's advocate, most of the
time, I think.
>Well, he also said that he thought Neil was "too happy" to write great
>lyrics and implied that he did not know of even *one* great artist who
>is/was happy. By suggesting that great art can come only from suffering,
>I think he was definitely glorifying suffering.
I've realized/refined that down to this: great artists have some inner
conflict that is somewhat resolved by creating art. How many good artists
are ambivelent about what they do? It's not like, "Oh well, I'm
bored....I guess I'll paint a masterpiece..." I'm saying that perhaps
Neil has become too inwardly content to need this act of creating to
satisfy him any more, and that this leads him to just go through the
motions because it's what he's been doing for 20+ years, and it's the role
he's accustomed to. Maybe he's *always* been too content to do more
with art than just present his opinions. What do you think?
>I don't think running a marathon necessarily counts as suffering. I see
>suffering as something that comes out of long-term or chronic
>distress--things like abuse, ill health, poverty, depression, self-denial,
>etc. I don't see the suffering that results from any of these things as
>being very useful.
If that's suffering, then I wouldn't say it's useful, either. I was
thinking along the lines of personal pain.
>> Also: Maybe you don't have to be screwed up to be a good lyricist; surely
>> Neil (and many others) have demonstrated this. But Neil has known many
>> people and seen and done many things, and I think this is better. People
>> that have had a single (or a few) major trauma to "screw them up" in their
>> lives do not have the wide perspective or experience of a guy like Neil I
>> think.
>
>Exactly. I find that these people can't do much more than drone on about
>their problems. I don't think someone could make 16 albums of that stuff.
Nope. But how many novels about the hunt for a whale could you write, and
how many mystery novels? Just because you crank out a lot of material
doesn't mean they--or you--are great. Look at Pink Floyd's _The Wall_.
Just *one* more album like that would be too much, but does that make The
Wall any less of a masterpiece?
>> But hey, there just words. What's most important is that they sound good
>> in a song (hasn't Neil said something like this?)... for me, the music is
>> what's most important
>
>Me too! The lyrics are only about 10% of the enjoyment for me. Neil has
>even said that he won't check out the lyrics of a song if the music
>doesn't interest him.
Yep. It's funny that he gets so serious with making points in *his*,
then.
-FC
Cecrle
Definitely. It's when an author tries to be too specific and pointed that
we get into problems. Then it almost *does* become a matter about being
"right" or "wrong" in your interpretation.
When the meaning is so honed and purposeful, if you miss it or see it from
another perspective, the whole song can be thrown off or just less smooth.
-FC
Cecrle
demian <demia...@SELLMEinterlog.com> wrote:
>Pritiera wrote:
>actually, maybe Frank wants to better himself by wishing
>Peart's pain - doesn't sounds very creative.
I don't wish Peart any pain. I think it's horrible what he must be having
to go through now. All I can do is hope that something good can come out
of a terrible, tragic situation. Some geniusly artistic, heart-felt
lyrics would be cool, but there's no way I'd make the trade if it were up
to me.
>there are people that believe that most or all art comes from
>suffering, and i'm in that group. it's just a matter of what
>you classify as suffering. if you're less happy without art
>then you are with it, doesn't that say something?
I definitely think so. If art can soothe you--even if it's *sad*,
*depressing* art, that say something. That says it's stirring something
deep within you. It says that pain can have some good come from it. Or
that it's at least not an entirely bad thing. Just another experience to
draw from.
>in fact, i often marvel at people that seem to have little
>personal tragic experience but are able to acutely comprehend
>such experiences.
Definitely. It's weird--sometimes I find myself setting certain artists
apart from other people. Like, "Oh, *that* artist went through some crazy
shit, so they're justified in talking about it." But many times, I think,
the human mind is just amazing enough to understand and predict pain in a
way that doesn't need to be directly experienced. I mean, does someone
have to have a life full of tragedy to be justified in writing a sad song?
The human mind can spread out and explore these experiences, so I wouldn't
say they should ignore pain just because they don't feel it often. Or
something.
>if Frank wants pain on others he must have a reason.
>he doesn't sound like a sadist. he seems to have a rational
>reason...a self-interested one.
I don't *want* pain on others. It's already there. Might as well use it.
I think it would be more selfish to ignore that.
>it seems to me any distraction in life should be valued,
>including art. i don't believe people who take the time and
>energy to create something unique, original and meaningful are
>self-pitying at the heart, and i guess you would agree.
I'm not sure. If no-one had self-pity, there wouldn't be as many sad,
tragic art around, don't you think?
>> My point is this: Frank was saying, "Man, Neil's lyrics are weak in the
>> area of personal expression. I think he's *too* happy to write great
>> lyrics."
>>
>
>this is where i might agree with him if only he would explain this.
He might not have the creative spark in him that artists usually do. He
might not have the desire gnawing inside him, pushing him to just
*express* his self in whatever way possible. His conservative lyrics make
me feel this way, to some extent. Does he feel driven to create? If so,
could the lyrics he writes satisfy him, "Wow, 'Half the world gives, half
the world takes', I feel *better*!" :)
They seem like shiny, polished vehicles for opinions instead of
unexplainable expression. I remember a line from the film
_Il Postino_--the poet (Pablo Neruda) says, perhaps quoting someone,
something to the effect of "Once explained, poetry is banal." Now there
are so many songs/poems that you could never describe, that would just
have to be read to feel the full experience. But what about Peart's
lyrics? I find they can be explained with almost nothing lost. No
emotions that spill over and get lost along the way.
(It's ironic--many people seem to think that unless you *can* transfer all
the ideas to other words/ways, it's not good writing! Like, "What does
*that* line mean? That's non-sense, that's crap!" The point is to
*experience* it, not to necessarily *understand* it. I guess I'm looking
at this from a more subconscious, spiritual level. ?)
Peart is so picky with his words, so frugal, so conservative, that they
are just packed with opinions or ideas backing up opinions, and this is
nothing magical for me. Sure, he presents ideas damn well, but that's not
what art is, in my opinion--at least, that's not what art is *best* at, or
even *meant* for.
>wishing someone were molested is closer to torment in my mind.
>and i don't believe great art requires torment.
I think art can serve as a release of self-torment. But my molestation
joke was just that--a joke sort of poking fun at my opinion and
exaggerating it.
>> That's merely your opinion. As I've already argued here, there aren't
>> that many Peart lyrics that are blatantly over-opinionated. A few yes,
>> but not too many. And I, for one, love to see a person who is passionate
>> about his opinions.
>>
>yes, those are my opinions and my thoughts.
It's interesting to see someone who's passionate about ideas and
opinions--that's why people like Hitler and Manson interest me.
>i thought Frank has made some great attempts in these
>many lyric threads over the weeks; the rut seems to have been
>that molestation bit.
Well, jump over it--it was just a smart-ass comment.
>apparently art is subjective. this is not a letter-writing
>campaign for Mr Peart to change his ways. i'm not wishing.
>i'm curious if anyone else has any of these thoughts, so i share
>them.
I'm glad Peart writes the way he does. It makes me appreciate other
lyrics more. Now, if Peart suddenly came onto the scene for the first
time right now, it'd probably be like, "Hey, cool--who's *this* guy? His
style is so different and cool!"
>i prefer novels in novel form, not as lyrics with bleeding
>edges of grand themes sprinkled with opinion. what i mean
>to say is that his opinions can appear lacking in the
>lyrical form; it doesn't always do him justice or vice versa, IMO.
Exactly! Let him write essays if he wants to. I'd rather have lyrics
like, Jacob's Ladder, Cygnus X-1, Red Barchetta, etc. Notice these owe a
lot to *how* they're sung. Just giving the lines, "wind in my
hair/shifting and drifting/mechanical music/adrenalin surge" would not be
nearly as awesome if it weren't put to music the way it is, and vocalised
the way it is. But most Peart-lines just rely on their message.
>his residue doesn't spill over negatively if you're in general
>agreement with him and *general* seems to be the key.
Even then. Freewill was cool for me at first, because it wasn't a
viewpoint I thought a whole lot of people shared. You see countless
musician's thanking God at music-awards, etc., so it was neat to hear
something going against that. But then you have to realize many people
feel this way, and you're familiar with it. Then what is left but
agreement and affirmation of opinion?
>the last few albums have more awkward, disagreeable instances.
>obviously, not everyone feels the same way, which is no skin off
>my back.
Well, *I* agree with you. It's really funny--I've read an interview of
Peart where he says something like, "I used to devote 4 or 5 lines to
establishing mood, whereas now I usually do it in one." Blah! He's just
cutting back on the creative, artistic, imaginative, free-flowing part and
building sturdier forts of opinion. This, as art, is crap. Maybe you
just don't know much about humanity, and you just can't seem to form your
own new opinions, this would be cool, but c'mon--we don't need Peart's
opinions or messages.
I know sometimes I feel like I've realized a seemingly
un-discussed/ignored viewpoint/opinion, and I try to get it out. When I
look back on those instances, though, they seem dead. The feeling that,
"No one else seems to feel this way, I need to spread the word and make it
known," seems to be what leads to opinion-preaching, in my opinion. What
do you think?
-FC
Roxanna
On 21 Oct 1997, Cecrle wrote:
> Roxanna <cm...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> >On 20 Oct 1997, Cecrle wrote:
> >
> >> I'd like to be in good moods, but it's just not the way it goes....They
> >> barely last. Yeah, mood really affects the way you feel. I go through
> >> periods where I come home from school and just go to sleep for several
> >> hours...
> >
> > Well what do you think makes you in such a bad mood all the
> >time?
>
> A chemical imbalance, most likely.
That's such a depressing way to look at it, I think. Leaves so
little room for personal control...
> > I think I got lucky in that regard - by the time I started
> >listening to the stations that would play Silent Lucidity, it wasn't so
> >new anymore, so it never got overplayed for me. When I hear it now I
> >have to pause and listen.
>
> Well, I never really heard it that much. I just feel like it's the kind
> of song I only need to hear several times. After that, there just doesn't
> seem to be any desire for it anymore.
Oh, I love to hear it - I think for me it's one of those songs I
could never get tired of.
> >> His voice was a deterrent to me at first. I think it's cool at parts, but
> >> with Neil's lyrics and Rush's music, the vocals really don't *add*
> >> anything for me like some bands' do.
> >
> > Oh wow, I think it adds a lot. I can't imagine anyone else
> >singing Rush's lyrics...
>
> Neither can I, but I don't think Neil's words are the best for singing.
I think they go together very well.
> >but I've often tried to "hear" Geddy singing other songs in my head.
>
> Oh boy... :)
` *grins* Well I just can't help it sometimes, especially if I
don't like a particular vocalist's voice.
> >> What do you mean, what sounds bad about them?
> >
> > Nothing, I meant I liked the idea of Jack the Ripper getting his
> >just rewards in a song :)
>
> :) "Jack is deaaaaaad..."
*rnod*
> >> I think music is more important, but I think either *can* be filler.
> >> Filler music in some Roger Waters cases, filler lyrics in various
> >> bands....But the former is much worse a crime.
> >
> > I don't think either one is a crime.
>
> Well, it's just really lame. I mean, if someone just wants some lyrics,
> then just read them. If they just want some music, make it an
> instrumental.
But then again, if a band used lyrics or music as filler stuff,
and then really liked the way it sounded, why not go with it?
> >> Hmm. Well, I can't say yours is that unbelievable opinion--he can be too
> >> wacky and goofy....I just seem to really connect with a lot of it.
> >
> > Well, to each their own...I know a lot of people who can't stand
> >Geddy's voice. I also really like Joe Elliot's voice a lot (and no I'm
> >not ashamed to admit that I like Def Leppard! :) )
>
> Ooh, I scramble to turn the dial when they come on! :) The vocals aren't
> so bad, but the lyrics seem dumb....Thanks--now I've got some Def Leppard
> song going through my head! :)
Well, yes, most of the time the lyrics do seem kind of dumb,
especially ones from the more popular songs. But I like his voice, and I
like the music. A good example of guess of the music being more
important. :)
> >> > i don't know...I think out of the two, I might like Ka-Spel's
> >> >lyrics a lot more if I heard them...
> >>
> >> Probably. He has very original, interesting lyrics, as well as vocals.
> >> Although you might find them irritating as well. ?
> >
> > I don't know, I guess I'll have to wait and see! I found there
> >homepage and some .wav files, but they're zipped, and I haven't felt like
> >doing all that yet.
>
> You're talking about the http://www.brainwashed.com/lpd/ I assume? It's
> the only real LPD page. It's a really cool page, but the audio isn't that
> great. The stuff on there is nothing spectacular, if I remember
> correctly....There's not much, and the .wav format sucks.
>
> I'd be happy to tape you some LPD if you sent me a blank, though...
You mean you're not just going to give me one? ;)
John Caballero
In article <62j7uo$kbn$1...@nw003.infi.net> Cecrle, mce...@sbt.infi.net
writes:
>My more developed point
>is this: great artists have inner conflicts that they have to satisfy
>through art. They don't paint/sculpt/make music/whatever just to kill
>time--they do it because they almost *have* to.
I agree. I think one of the ingredients for making an artist "great" is
that he is driven to create and that being creative does indeed fill a
void. I certainly don't have it, but "I wish I had their instincts, I
wish I had that drive."
Obviously Neil does too.
----------------------
John Caballero
edib...@mail.utexas.edu
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~john/
Article title found in a popular PC magazine: "Plug and Play - How to
Make It Work"
John Caballero
>deeper things behind it all.
By jove! :-)
Cecrle
Karl Harger <kha...@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote:
>
> Nobody mentioned John Denver's death on this ng..
>What gives?
> During the hey day of Rush's rock epic period, this guy was pretty
>huge...Sure, alot of people hated the guy..But, during the bong hit days
>of the '70s, John Denver, like Rush, was certainly 'anti-disco'..
>
>'Country Roads' is simple and listenable..Who wrote that anyway?
I like that song (I remember listening to it in music class in elementary
school).
Just a pretty song--no fucking opinion being blatantly pushed. You can
say it presents the opinion that "home is a healing place for humans" or
something, but Mr. Denver wasn't trying to convince anyone or push that
idea. He was just relating what he felt--which is the surest path to
truth, in my opinion.
-FC
John Caballero
In article <62lo6i$12i$1...@nw003.infi.net> Cecrle,
mcecrle@SPAM=BADsbt.infi.net writes:
>Real subtle, John. :) My point was: maybe Neil *doesn't* have that drive.
Believe it or not, Frank, that was my point as well. I think Mission is
about those who have that drive and I think Neil wishes he was one of
them. Of course, I consider Neil a great lyricist/artist, but I can see
where he has people he looks up to and dreams of becoming as talented as
them. I can also see where some his lyrics don't do anything for you. I
just don't see that as a shortcoming on his part.
Cecrle
Cecrle
>Cecrle wrote:
>Well, this is one place where we disagree. First of all, I don't
>believe Neil presents an opinion. I think Neil's style of lyrics has to
>do with presenting issues/observations pertaining to the conditions that
>go along with being a human being.
Well, what lyrics don't do that? Everything that comes from a human being
has to do with being a human being, don't you think?
> Very often, you and I might think we
>have glimpsed Neil's personal 'wisdom' entering the song in the form of
>an opinion, but I have found my interpretation is often wrong (i.e. Neil
>didn't intend to say what I thought he did). There have also been times
>when I spoke to others regarding Neil's songs and we discovered that
>they had similarly incorrect assumptions about what Neil intended (based
>on things he said in interviews, etc).
Should you be able to be *wrong* or *right* about a song? That speaks to
me of how he writes--with a clear message in mind. He seems to think,
"Okay, this is exactly what I want to do--this line will show this, this
line will show this," etc.
> The point is that his words are
>frequently greatly suspect to personal interpretation.
Anything and everything is. But with Peart's lyrics, you can be one hell
of a lot more "right" than someone else. This is because Peart has a
message he's trying to give.
>Further, as I've said previously, you confuse me when you complain about
>an artist expressing opinions, and yet champion art as an emotional
>outlet for the artist.
> Emotion is simply a passionate form of
>expressing an opinion after all.
I disagree. Opinions come from emotions, not the other way around.
> And I hardly think Neil's lyrics are
>unemotional, or not passionate. Your problem seems to lie more with
>your perception that his words are too carefully thought out, meaning
>he's not just blurting things out in an emotional fit or something. I
>don't thinks it's right to say that art requires that kind of 'primal
>scream' approach. Art is more than just therapy; it can actually offer
>something profound, and even well thought out.
It can, and sometimes does. But many times it's not intended--the human
subconscious takes care of it. Neil puts too much thought into his
writing. That sentence shocks me, but I think there could be some truth
to it. Why do we need something thought out for us? That's a dead end.
Like someone working out a math equation for you--yeah, they work it out
neatly and nicely, and you see each of their steps clearly and how they
got their answer, but what fun is that? I'd rather play around with the
numbers myself. Does that make any sense? I guess thought isn't bad in
writing, but when it's used to all drive home a point, ugh. Thoughts?
>> There's little expression of emotion, of self, and of subconscious in his
>> words, for me.
>
>Again, how can you say this and simultaneously charge that his lyrics
>are over-opinionated?
Very easily! You seem to think opinions create emotions. I disagree.
Emotions are there first. They're subconscious, pervading, they're
human existence. Opinions are stupid, piddly things when compared to
that. The most profound things can only be felt--what do you think about
that?
>> People will argue that this isn't true--that his lyrics are smooth and
>> polished and honed and have solid ideas presented in solid ways, so how
>> can I say he's not a *fantastic* lyricist?
>
>Evidently because you dislike those characteristics in a lyricist.
>You're free to find whatever you want fantastic, IMO. Just don't trash
>something as not being artistic, simply because you're not personally
>moved.
Good point--I probably have done that too much. I guess I did it because
people say, "Well, of *course* he's good, because he does ___." I just
want to show that those things aren't necessarily/universally *good*.
> On the other hand, those of us who enjoy Neil's lyrics should
>similarly not claim "this is what art is supposed to be," simply on the
>basis that we are personally moved by it.
Yep.
>Here's an interesting thought that just dawned on me. This whole
>discussion about Neil's lyrics mirrors the discussion I previously had
>in this newsgroup about his drumming. That was an argument about "feel"
>vs. precision and how Neil had always been a great, precise, technically
>superior drummer, but that an element of feel was sometimes missing. I
>think what you are saying about Neil's lyrics, in a way, is the same
>thing. His words are crafty, precise and technically superior
>(eloquent) as far as most rock lyricists go, but perhaps you think they
>simply lack "feel".
That's an excellent analogy. It goes back to the whole "no soul"
discussion. Very precise, very nice, very complex, etc., but they don't
contain much magic for me. They don't spark something inside of me. Now,
I can be logical and reason out, "Wow, Neil makes his point very cleanly
and effectively in song X," but the fact that it doesn't move me can't
really be helped.
(For the guy who wrote "Hemispheres", he sure doesn't put much weight on
the heart's side of the scale! :)
>> I won't argue with those first
>> points, but I will say that those aren't the things I usually look for in
>> art.
>
>I don't think you should _look for_ anything in art; to me, it's always
>been more about what you find (unlooked for).
That's a cool point. I like that. I guess I just don't *find* a whole
lot in Peart's writing, though. ?
>A little digression: Speaking of which, the song, Chain Lightning,
>addresses this in a way. Seeing something firsthand which moves us, we
>often desire to share it with someone else. Generally, though, once
>that other person we describe it to brings our description to the table,
>the thing they find is never quite as precious. We are seeking a
>validation of our response; but it's never really validated, since the
>other person is predisposed to find what we did. The problem lies in
>the fact that they are "looking for" it.
That's interesting (although I don't think there's much about that in
Chain Lightning--the "showing" side, that is).
I value art as something magical, moving, inspiring, highly personal. I
know that something could "rock my world" (:)) but leave someone else
untouched. That's part of the magic. But then along comes Peart, and
people seem to toss the personal side out the window, to a certain extent.
It's not awesome because "it stirs something in me," but because "he makes
that awesome observation and points it out so well!" Does this help you
see where I'm coming from? Maybe many find opinions stirring--I just
think they're small and pesky when compared to more emotional writing from
the *gut*.
>> Hafta disagree--there was a band called "Oogh" in Southern France some
>> thousands of years ago, and they really kicked ass.
>
>Are you kidding?! They sucked! Although, I'll admit that many of
>today's popular music is undoubtedly influenced by their original style.
Well, they were pretty much a live band--you really had to see them to get
into them.
-FC
Cecrle
John Caballero <edib...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>In article <62j7uo$kbn$1...@nw003.infi.net> Cecrle, mce...@sbt.infi.net
>writes:
>>is this: great artists have inner conflicts that they have to satisfy
>>through art. They don't paint/sculpt/make music/whatever just to kill
>>time--they do it because they almost *have* to.
>
>I agree. I think one of the ingredients for making an artist "great" is
>that he is driven to create and that being creative does indeed fill a
>void. I certainly don't have it, but "I wish I had their instincts, I
>wish I had that drive."
>
>Obviously Neil does too.
Real subtle, John. :) My point was: maybe Neil *doesn't* have that drive.
Let's be honest--is someone going to stumble across his words in 50 years
and think, "Wow!"?
And would an artist write something like, "I wish I had their instincts, I
wish I had that drive,"? Is Neil role-playing here, or does he really
feel that way?
-FC
Cecrle
Cecrle
Pritiera <prit...@shell-00.tor.acc.ca> wrote:
>Cecrle <mcecrle@SPAM=BADsbt.infi.net> wrote:
>
>> Should you be able to be *wrong* or *right* about a song? That speaks to
>> me of how he writes--with a clear message in mind.
>
>meaning?
Did I *say* "meaning"? I thought I said "clear message", but that's just
me (the guy who wrote the above sentence).
> That has certainly not been my experience. You've completely
>failed to convince me why things must be devoid of meaning for them to
>have any lasting value.
Not devoid of meaning--devoid of clear message. When I think of messages,
I think of propaganda posters, etc. Everything contains meanings--some
peole just want them to be taken down to actual points (because they can't
make the points for themselves?, I don't know).
> Why is that we still read and care about the
>philosophy of people who have been dead for hundreds of years? Immanuel
>Kant must be completely irrelevant, right? He must be--he actually took >a clear position on most matters.
Yeah--but Neil's not a philosopher, is he? What great new ideas has he
added to the world of philosophy? "Philosophers, take urgent note--Neil
Peart thinks half the world wants to be the other half! Mark it!"
You're twisting the argument--I'm talking about lyrics, here, not
*philosophies*. It worries that you look to someone like Peart for
friggin' *philosophy*...
>You've completely lost me with all this. I want to know what people are
>*thinking*.
Is that how people always think? Nice and neat and ordered and arranged?
The Neil Peart Method? What about stream-of-consciousness? Ironic name
for it, don't you think?
Well, look at that--you said "what" and I was more along the lines of
"how." I think that's a big difference for me; I'm very interested in
*how* people are thinking--in the psychology of lyrics. I don't really
care for any points or messages, usually.
>> He seems to think,
>> "Okay, this is exactly what I want to do--this line will show this, this
>> line will show this," etc.
>
>That's just a person with a clear, logical mind.
Oooh, let's all bow to Peart as a fountain of logical thinking. I could
logically reason out to you why I need to go to the supermarket. Would
that be cool?
> And this is also the way
>many great writers work. They plan their story and then they write and
>re-write and re-re-write until everything is perfect. Spontaneity is rare
>in art, and some of the greatest pieces of art have been created through >a painstaking process of planning and revision.
Yeah, maybe someone like Rand--a propaganda artist. :) I'm not arguing
that great works are often painstaking; I'm just saying that Neil tries so
hard to accomplish something that matters so little. You can catch a man
a fish and he will eat for a night--you can teach a man to fish and he
will eat for a lifetime. Every one of Neil's opinions is a fish he throws
to us. I'm sick of it.
>> Anything and everything is. But with Peart's lyrics, you can be one hell
>> of a lot more "right" than someone else. This is because Peart has a
>> message he's trying to give.
>
>Again, so what? Don't philosophers have a message?
Is Peart a philosopher with any new philisophical ideas of his own? Hmm?
When did I say philosophers shouldn't strive for logic and clear meanings?
You're equating song lyrics with fucking *philosophies*, and that's just a
tad unsettling. It really sheds some light on where you're coming from, I
think.
> Don't they give their
>views on truth, aesthetics, ethics, existence? Does this somehow
>invalidate their work?
Sigh...*is* Peart a philosopher?
>> I disagree. Opinions come from emotions, not the other way around.
>
>Opinions come from reason, not emotion.
I could reason out that you're an asshole who needs to be killed, but that
reason would be based on emotion. Just a...thought.
>> It can, and sometimes does. But many times it's not intended--the human
>> subconscious takes care of it. Neil puts too much thought into his
>> writing.
>
>Too much thought?
([crowd questions:] Too much thaw-ught?! :)
>> That sentence shocks me, but I think there could be some truth
>> to it. Why do we need something thought out for us? That's a dead end.
>> Like someone working out a math equation for you--yeah, they work it out
>> neatly and nicely, and you see each of their steps clearly and how they
>> got their answer, but what fun is that? I'd rather play around with the
>> numbers myself. Does that make any sense?
>
>But what if someone shows you an *algorithm*, a method, a procedure for
>solving problems of a certain type! Then you can follow that yourself to
>solve other problems.
Where are some algorithms of Neil's?
>> I guess thought isn't bad in
>> writing, but when it's used to all drive home a point, ugh. Thoughts?
>
>I can't relate to what you're saying. If I had to stop reading all
>literature with a point, I'd pretty much have nothing to read and I'd
>probably never learn anything.
Whose fault is that? Can you look at your world and think up your own
"points" or do you need somone to show them to you? And--once again--how
fair is it to compare Peart's lyrics to all litereture and philosophy?
That just shows that's what area Neil (and some of his fans) *thinks* he's
in. Sorry--he's writing *lyrics*. *Lyrics*. Malcolm, control goes to
you.
>> That's an excellent analogy. It goes back to the whole "no soul"
>> discussion. Very precise, very nice, very complex, etc., but they don't
>> contain much magic for me. They don't spark something inside of me. Now,
>> I can be logical and reason out, "Wow, Neil makes his point very cleanly
>> and effectively in song X," but the fact that it doesn't move me can't
>> really be helped.
>
>That's just your taste. Why don't you just admit that and be done with
>it.
Read the paragraph again. I said, "...for *me*," "inside of *me*",
"doesn't move *me*." It's pretty obvious that that's my taste--I'm just
trying to explain my viewpoint. Don't ideas matter to you unless they're
objective and true and full of logic?
>> (For the guy who wrote "Hemispheres", he sure doesn't put much weight on
>> the heart's side of the scale! :)
>
>Why? I thought it was supposed to be a balance, no?
Yeah, but if you call 5:3 balance, your scale is fucked.
>> I value art as something magical, moving, inspiring, highly personal. I
>> know that something could "rock my world" (:)) but leave someone else
>> untouched. That's part of the magic. But then along comes Peart, and
>> people seem to toss the personal side out the window, to a certain extent.
>> It's not awesome because "it stirs something in me," but because "he makes
>> that awesome observation and points it out so well!"
>
>So? Why can't that be what stirs some people?
I believe you conveniantly deleted my next line, which said, "Maybe that's
what stirs some people..."
> Why is it that everyone
>who isn't moved by the same things you are is deficient in some way?
Where did I say that? I'm just explaining my viewpoint.
>And
>how come you never talk about Neil's drumming? That certainly blows me
>away and moves me.
Because I don't know shit about drumming. His drumming is cool, but what
can be said about it? Too personal, unexplainable. (But if you listen
closely to the song "Red Sector A", you can hear the electronic drum-pads
saying, "Freedom of speech is good!" over and over! That's why I love
them! Packed with meaning and logic! Brimming with ideas and opinions!
So meaningful!)
>> Does this help you
>> see where I'm coming from?
>
>No, not at all. I can't understand what you're saying. Some damn
>nonsense about everything needing to be completely meaningless, >pointless,or ambiguous for it to have value. I don't get it.
Maybe I'll have Neil reason it out and write you a song about it. A nice,
neat, tidy, packaged message on a silver platter and tied with a pink
silk string. You ought to love it.
-FC
Cecrle
>> me of how he writes--with a clear message in mind.
>
>> He seems to think,
>> "Okay, this is exactly what I want to do--this line will show this, this
>> line will show this," etc.
>
>That's just a person with a clear, logical mind.
Oooh, let's all bow to Peart as a fountain of logical thinking. I could
logically reason out to you why I need to go to the supermarket. Would
that be cool?
> And this is also the way
>many great writers work. They plan their story and then they write and
>re-write and re-re-write until everything is perfect. Spontaneity is rare
>in art, and some of the greatest pieces of art have been created through >a painstaking process of planning and revision.
Yeah, maybe someone like Rand--a propaganda artist. :) I'm not arguing
that great works are often painstaking; I'm just saying that Neil tries so
hard to accomplish something that matters so little. You can catch a man
a fish and he will eat for a night--you can teach a man to fish and he
will eat for a lifetime. Every one of Neil's opinions is a fish he throws
to us. I'm sick of it.
>> Anything and everything is. But with Peart's lyrics, you can be one hell
>> of a lot more "right" than someone else. This is because Peart has a
>> message he's trying to give.
>
>Again, so what? Don't philosophers have a message?
Is Peart a philosopher with any new philisophical ideas of his own? Hmm?
When did I say philosophers shouldn't strive for logic and clear meanings?
You're equating song lyrics with fucking *philosophies*, and that's just a
tad unsettling. It really sheds some light on where you're coming from, I
think.
> Don't they give their
>views on truth, aesthetics, ethics, existence? Does this somehow
>invalidate their work?
Sigh...*is* Peart a philosopher?
>> I disagree. Opinions come from emotions, not the other way around.
>
>Opinions come from reason, not emotion.
I could reason out that you're an asshole who needs to be killed, but that
reason would be based on emotion. Just a...thought.
>> It can, and sometimes does. But many times it's not intended--the human
>> subconscious takes care of it. Neil puts too much thought into his
>> writing.
>
>Too much thought?
([crowd questions:] Too much thaw-ught?! :)
>> That sentence shocks me, but I think there could be some truth
>> to it. Why do we need something thought out for us? That's a dead end.
>> Like someone working out a math equation for you--yeah, they work it out
>> neatly and nicely, and you see each of their steps clearly and how they
>> got their answer, but what fun is that? I'd rather play around with the
>> numbers myself. Does that make any sense?
>
>But what if someone shows you an *algorithm*, a method, a procedure for
>solving problems of a certain type! Then you can follow that yourself to
>solve other problems.
Where are some algorithms of Neil's?
>> I guess thought isn't bad in
>> writing, but when it's used to all drive home a point, ugh. Thoughts?
>
>I can't relate to what you're saying. If I had to stop reading all
>literature with a point, I'd pretty much have nothing to read and I'd
>probably never learn anything.
Whose fault is that? Can you look at your world and think up your own
"points" or do you need somone to show them to you? And--once again--how
fair is it to compare Peart's lyrics to all litereture and philosophy?
That just shows that's what area Neil (and some of his fans) *thinks* he's
in. Sorry--he's writing *lyrics*. *Lyrics*. Malcolm, control goes to
you.
>> That's an excellent analogy. It goes back to the whole "no soul"
>> discussion. Very precise, very nice, very complex, etc., but they don't
>> contain much magic for me. They don't spark something inside of me. Now,
>> I can be logical and reason out, "Wow, Neil makes his point very cleanly
>> and effectively in song X," but the fact that it doesn't move me can't
>> really be helped.
>
>That's just your taste. Why don't you just admit that and be done with
>it.
Read the paragraph again. I said, "...for *me*," "inside of *me*",
"doesn't move *me*." It's pretty obvious that that's my taste--I'm just
trying to explain my viewpoint. Don't ideas matter to you unless they're
objective and true and full of logic?
>> (For the guy who wrote "Hemispheres", he sure doesn't put much weight on
>> the heart's side of the scale! :)
>
>Why? I thought it was supposed to be a balance, no?
Yeah, but if you call 5:3 balance, your scale is fucked.
>> I value art as something magical, moving, inspiring, highly personal. I
>> know that something could "rock my world" (:)) but leave someone else
>> untouched. That's part of the magic. But then along comes Peart, and
>> people seem to toss the personal side out the window, to a certain extent.
>> It's not awesome because "it stirs something in me," but because "he makes
>> that awesome observation and points it out so well!"
>
>So? Why can't that be what stirs some people?
I believe you conveniantly deleted my next line, which said, "Maybe that's
what stirs some people..."
> Why is it that everyone
>who isn't moved by the same things you are is deficient in some way?
Where did I say that? I'm just explaining my viewpoint.
>And
>how come you never talk about Neil's drumming? That certainly blows me
>away and moves me.
Because I don't know shit about drumming. His drumming is cool, but what
can be said about it? Too personal, unexplainable. (But if you listen
closely to the song "Red Sector A", you can hear the electronic drum-pads
saying, "Freedom of speech is good!" over and over! That's why I love
them! Packed with meaning and logic! Brimming with ideas and opinions!
So meaningful!)
>> Does this help you
>> see where I'm coming from?
>