Chris's take on all this "concept" stuff (long)
CBertolet
Friends,
I've read a lot of posts about the concept of Billy Breathes, and
"what-it-all-might-mean-as-a-message" stuff, and I just want to indulge
myself by throwing an alternate theory out there.
I have to preface it by saying that this is less about Billy Breathes than
art-in-general, and that I have not heard BB. I have heard all the songs
that've been played live, and can't wait to hear the studio versions.
That said...
As a bad (meaning bad) musician and professional writer, the most
important point I'd like to make is that an artist of any kind *very
rarely* sets off to make a "statement" out of a painting, book, or
collection of songs. I mean, VERY rarely. The problem is that it's not a
natural way to create art, because it denies the artist his flow. The
finished product almost always winds up sounding, looking or feeling very
stilted and/or pretentious, and has no depth, no layers.
In fact, Trey has said that these guys went into the studio with
absolutely no idea what they wanted to say with the album. They had some
songs, fragments, thoughts. This is the way most artistic endeavors
begin. The other thing they took with them, and this is the most
important ingredient, is them*selves*.
That includes their anger, their frustration, their confusion, their
lucidity, their love, their goofiness, and all that stuff. And all that
stuff is indeterminate, meaning that you stick those guys in the barn in a
month from now and ask them to record the same album, I promise you it
would come out very different than it did, because of where they are in
space and time as artists. This is because they have learned to be true
to themselves in the moment of creation and trust the Great Creator
(Icculus or whoever the fuck it is) to inspire them and speak through
them.
None of this is meant to suggest that there is no "theme" to Billy
Breathes. But I do believe that themes, especially in something as
abstract as this, emerge as a story or song or poem is being written,
sometimes even in a post-production house or a mixing studio. I think
you'll find that Rift probably became an album about relationships
sometime during its recording.
Finally, I think it's dangerous to get into definitive interpretation of
meaning. The way people interpret art is a very personal thing; I have
carved out my own personal meanings for oblique songs like Reba and Harry
Hood, and I've even posted them on here before. But I think, now, that I
may have made a mistake (unless someone really cares who I think Reba is).
Because you might come up with something *much* cooler for you than I
ever could, and hearing my interpretation could only cloud your experience
at future shows.
If you hear meaning in Billy Breathes, that's awesome. But please don't
try to hear some kind of message from Trey to us Phishheads, because
Phishheads, frankly, are only a very small part of that man's existence.
I would expect him, if he were going to make some kind of statement, to
get just a little... deeper?
Instead, try to hear something that helps you get through the day.
Doesn't matter if anyone else agrees with you at all.
Sorry to ramble.
"This isn't who it would be if it wasn't who it is..."
Chris.
Dan Nooter
In article <52ev52$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, cber...@aol.com
(CBertolet) wrote:
> I've read a lot of posts about the concept of Billy Breathes, and
> "what-it-all-might-mean-as-a-message" stuff, and I just want to indulge
> myself by throwing an alternate theory out there.
Thank you for doing so. I mean that honestly. So please don't take it
personally if I indulge myself by strongly disagreeing...
> art-in-general, and that I have not heard BB. I have heard all the songs
> that've been played live, and can't wait to hear the studio versions.
I haven't heard BB either, other than the live tunes...
> As a bad (meaning bad) musician and professional writer, the most
> important point I'd like to make is that an artist of any kind *very
> rarely* sets off to make a "statement" out of a painting, book, or
> collection of songs. I mean, VERY rarely. The problem is that it's not a
As a decent musician and pretty good writer, I ABSOLUTELY disagree...on a
number of levels. Firstly, what do you mean by "statement". I mean, all
art, necessarily, makes statements. It may not make a statement about,
say, women's suffrage, or the Wellfare bill Clinton recently signed, but
it makes a statement. I mean, why are there so many Grail legends? Are
they all the same? Maybe on the most reductive literal level (although I'd
disagree with this point as well), but figurative language adds whole new
dimensions to literature: typological, tropological, and eschatological
levels all impinge and, one would say, supersede the literal. And that's
just literature. Music adds a whole new welth of dimension, as does
painting, or any other media you'd like to offer.
Take landscape art. Now, I LOVE landscape art; J.M.W. Turner is my
favorite painter. A lot of people, however, look at landscape and think
"big f--king deal, I could go outside and see this for myself." But a
landscape painting is not merely a phootgraph, but an artist's personal
interpretation of a transient scene. Great landscape art (like Turner's)
is deeply emotional, for it depicts not merely landscape, but landscape
filtered through the painter's emotions, mediated by the painter's talent.
If a landscape artist doesn't like a tree or a mountain, she can remove
it. She can use color, parallelism, chiaroscuro, and many other techniques
to interpret the scene. She makes a _statement_ about that landscape, and
that statement can be interpreted in the painting.
I mean, why did Wagner write *Tristan und Isolde* the way he did? Why did
Joyce write *Ulysees* as he did? Why did Shakespeare do anything? Even I
could choose different words here, and in doing so, communicate different
undertones to the same argument. I could portray myself as reflective,
abusive, arrogant, disinterested, silly, lexiphanic, or sympathetic. But
the fact that I choose certain words as opposed to others is a _statement_
that wraps itself back on the argument I wish to express.
> natural way to create art, because it denies the artist his flow. The
> finished product almost always winds up sounding, looking or feeling very
> stilted and/or pretentious, and has no depth, no layers.
Are you kidding?!? No offense, but this is ridiculous. You think that
artists don't revise their work, sometimes YEARS after they were
originally written? Wordsworth wrote *The Prelude* in 1805, and finished
revising it in 1850 -- 45 years later. Are you going to tell me that it
"has no depth, no layers," and it stilted or pretentious. Joyce took over
seven years to write *Ulysses* -- the best book ever written, imnsho. Do
you think this happened over seven years of continuous "flow"? Obviously,
artists have their "Muses" -- moments of pure artistic energy that seem to
bypass rational intellectual mediation. But this raw artistic energy is
almost _always_ polished and re-shaped into the final work of art. And any
artist worth his salt is also a re-artist.
> In fact, Trey has said that these guys went into the studio with
> absolutely no idea what they wanted to say with the album. They had some
> songs, fragments, thoughts. This is the way most artistic endeavors
> begin. The other thing they took with them, and this is the most
> important ingredient, is them*selves*.
>
> That includes their anger, their frustration, their confusion, their
> lucidity, their love, their goofiness, and all that stuff. And all that
> stuff is indeterminate, meaning that you stick those guys in the barn in a
> month from now and ask them to record the same album, I promise you it
> would come out very different than it did, because of where they are in
> space and time as artists. This is because they have learned to be true
Of course!!! So how the heck can you say that there's no statement?!?
That's precisely, necessarily, why there MUST be a statement. All the
songs have something in common -- the fact that four men, in the universe
of people over the totality of history, over a relatively infintesimal
space of time, created these songs. The only thing that would be
surprising is if these songs had NOTHING in common; we'd be forced to
think the members of the band are schzoid. Perhaps not all of these songs
are consciously related, or perhaps they are, but they're related in a
deeper way; and taken together, they act synergistically to tell us more
about each other song, as well as the artists who created them.
> None of this is meant to suggest that there is no "theme" to Billy
> Breathes. But I do believe that themes, especially in something as
> abstract as this, emerge as a story or song or poem is being written,
> sometimes even in a post-production house or a mixing studio. I think
> you'll find that Rift probably became an album about relationships
> sometime during its recording.
Who cares where the theme emerged. I think that's entirely irrelevant. If
we say that Rift is an album about relationships, does it matter at what
point in its creation it became so? Hell, that's exactly what the
revisionary process does: it adds MORE layers, more depth. In literature,
it adds MORE illusions, and levels of meaning; in painting, it adds MORE
personal emotion in its interpretive framework; in music, it does both of
these things.
> Finally, I think it's dangerous to get into definitive interpretation of
> meaning. The way people interpret art is a very personal thing; I have
Bullshit. Sorry to be so blunt, but this is total bullshit. _Everything_
we do is interpretation. Anyone reading what I write is giving it a
definitive interpretation of meaning. Anyone who responds to what I write
is responding to their own personal interpretation of that meaning. Far
from dangerous, interpretation is _necessary_ to life, not to mention our
appreciation of life.
When we read Keats' *To Autumn*, we first interpret each individual word.
Then we interpret each word in relation to the other words in the
sentence; then to the other words in the poetic line; then to the other
words in the stanza; then to words between stanzas. We see whether that
word has been used before in the poem -- or in other poems by Keats. We
see whether Keats uses the word in the same way in each instance. We look
to the images that each work conjures, and examine how those images
resonate with other images conjured by other words. Perhaps we
re-interpret the poem based on what we know of Keats' life at the time, or
the conditions in which he wrote. Perhaps we read criticism of *to Autumn*
or discuss it with our friends or English professors. And in applying
layer upon layer of interpretation upon the poem, we can appreciate the
poem even more, as we understand it even more. And, of course, it's a
personal endeavor. But I think you'll find that if you spoke to one
hundred English professors about their personal interpretation of *To
Autumn*, you'd find that they're almost exactly identical. And this isn't
because the literary trandition has force-fed its interpretation on the
free-will of the world's english professors; it's because there IS meaning
to be found in these poems, and the deeper we probe, the more meaning
we're liable to unearth. I think the only real danger is NOT getting into
definitive interpretations of meaning...
> carved out my own personal meanings for oblique songs like Reba and Harry
> Hood, and I've even posted them on here before. But I think, now, that I
> may have made a mistake (unless someone really cares who I think Reba is).
Of course people care, even if they disagree. Because your interpretation
is going to influence other people's interpretations. Even if I disagree
with your take on Reba, I'll ask muself _why_ I disagree, and doing so
will force me to defend and strengthen my own interpretation. Or perhaps
I'll be set down a new road altogether. Perhaps your interpretatioin will
provide that creative spark that sets off all kinds of creative energies
in my head. The "my interpretation is my own damn business" approach is
not only anti-intellectual, anti-social, and ineffective, it's stupid, too
;^).
> Because you might come up with something *much* cooler for you than I
> ever could, and hearing my interpretation could only cloud your experience
> at future shows.
Trust me, Chris. I have enough brain power to disagree with one of your
opinions without forever being "cloud"ed by it. As does anyone else on
this newsgroup with a brin larger than that of a pea. You have nothing to
worry about.
> If you hear meaning in Billy Breathes, that's awesome. But please don't
> try to hear some kind of message from Trey to us Phishheads, because
Please don't censor other people's interpretations. What kind of a
professional writer are you? What if I told you that you couldn't publish
your thoughts on <insert subject here> because there's no way you could
ever know everything there is to know about a subject; and that even if
you did, it might conflict with other people's opinions?
I hereby encourage ANYONE who hears a message from Trey to us Phishheads
to post it here, because I'd be damned interested. But please say what
you're doing in the subject header so that Chris can ignore it if he so
chooses.
> Phishheads, frankly, are only a very small part of that man's existence.
> I would expect him, if he were going to make some kind of statement, to
> get just a little... deeper?
Frankly, I think Phishheads are a _large_ part of that man's existence. As
a good many things are. But that's completely irrelevant. In fact, it's
circular reasoning. If Trey made a statement about Phishheads, it would
only prove how important a part of his existence we are. There's no way
for you to tell what's important to Trey or not, _except_ through what he
creates. For as you mentioned above, creation is born of that mush of
emotions that is constantly evolving within us, yet informs all of our
work.
> Instead, try to hear something that helps you get through the day.
> Doesn't matter if anyone else agrees with you at all.
Why did you bother to post this, Chris? I mean, I'm glad that you did,
because I find the subject fascinating, but the action of posting this
seems to go against everything you're arguing for. Aren't the thoughts in
your post your own opinions and interpretations? Aren't you offering these
interpretations to the Phish community to agree or disagree with at will.
Isn't this exactly what you're asking other Phish.netters NOT to do?!?
People are going to form their own opinions regardless of whether you tell
them they can. But since all opinions are forged from experience, the best
we can do is to enlarge he available stock of experience from which people
can opine.
Waiting patiently for Oct. 15th... And when it comes, expect a TON of
opinions from _this_ .netter... ;^)
Dan =^)
******************************************************************************
* "A lovely view of ** Daniel Nooter ** "Don't you see anything *
* heaven but I'd rather ** 18 Hannum Drive #1B ** that you'd like *
* be with you"--Dead ** Ardmore, PA 19003 ** to try?"--Phish *
******************************************************************************
:-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)** SMILE! **(-:(-:(-:(-:(-:(-:(-:(-:(-:(-:
*******************
CBertolet
Dan wrote:
>>>Firstly, what do you mean by "statement". I mean, all
art, necessarily, makes statements. It may not make a statement about,
say, women's suffrage, or the Wellfare bill Clinton recently signed, but
it makes a statement. I mean, why are there so many Grail legends?>>>
Because they make salient statements that endure across the ages, unlike
the Clinton Welfare act. But this isn't my point, nor, I think, is it
yours.
>>>Are you kidding?!? No offense, but this is ridiculous. You think that
artists don't revise their work, sometimes YEARS after they were
originally written? Wordsworth wrote *The Prelude* in 1805, and finished
revising it in 1850 -- 45 years later. Are you going to tell me that it
"has no depth, no layers," and it stilted or pretentious. Joyce took over
seven years to write *Ulysses* -- the best book ever written, imnsho. Do
you think this happened over seven years of continuous "flow"?...Any
artist worth his salt is also a re-artist.>>>
WHOA, Cowboy!!! I never said, ever said, never ever ever said that an
artist creates genius like a magician pulls a rabbit from a hat. I
nevereverever said that artists don't revise, paint over themselves, edit,
hack, twist and deform their original works. As you've obviously heard, a
poem is never finished. How you could've gleaned that opinion from what I
wrote is beyond me, but...
What I *meant* to say, to clarify, was in response to people who seem to
think that good art - let's take Billy Breathes, for example - starts out
like this:
TREY: Hey guys. Welcome to the Barn. I think we should make an album
that tells Phishheads exactly what we think about them. It'll be rad!
PAGE: Good idea, Trey. Do you think we have some songs that we could,
you know, make fit into that idea?
MIKE: Sure!... and so on...
You know as well as I do that this isn't how it happens.
>>>Who cares where the theme emerged. I think that's entirely irrelevant.
If
we say that Rift is an album about relationships, does it matter at what
point in its creation it became so? Hell, that's exactly what the
revisionary process does: it adds MORE layers, more depth>>>
Absolutely, positively agreed. But that's usually because, at some point
(this is my experience, OK, so don't belittle it), an artist DISCOVERS
"Oh, my God. This is a painting about fear." And this discovery enables
him to paint it better.
>>>>> Finally, I think it's dangerous to get into definitive
interpretation of
> meaning. The way people interpret art is a very personal thing; I
have...>>>>>>>
>>>Bullshit. Sorry to be so blunt, but this is total bullshit.
_Everything_
we do is interpretation. Anyone reading what I write is giving it a
definitive interpretation of meaning. Anyone who responds to what I write
is responding to their own personal interpretation of that meaning. Far
from dangerous, interpretation is _necessary_ to life, not to mention our
appreciation of life>>>>>
I smell a lit critic who thinks he's been told that lit criticism isn't
valid. That was not what I meant by my "bullshit." And I think maybe
your opinion is as valid as my "bullshit." But know that Samuel Beckett
and other writers would agree with my "bullshit" because they have created
something they would like to have people experience on a personal level -
which is not to say it can't be shared, but that there comes a time when
an enlightened mind must decide for itself what art means or how they want
to use it in their soul.
>>>What kind of professional writer are you?>>>
As I'm not sure whether you mean to demean me here or ask what type of
writing I do, I'll assume the latter. I make a living writing movies. I
can almost hear you scoff, "no wonder." I wish you hadn't gotten so
personal in your post. I think you're very smart and very well-educated
(maybe too well-educated), and I'd like to have a dialogue with you. Not
a pissing match.
Dan Nooter
In article <52mea2$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, cber...@aol.com
(CBertolet) wrote:
> WHOA, Cowboy!!! I never said, ever said, never ever ever said that an
> artist creates genius like a magician pulls a rabbit from a hat. I
> nevereverever said that artists don't revise, paint over themselves, edit,
> hack, twist and deform their original works. As you've obviously heard, a
> poem is never finished. How you could've gleaned that opinion from what I
> wrote is beyond me, but...
Well, I got it from the part of your post in which you claimed that the
process of imposing meaning on a work denies it its "flow," causing the
finished work to lack "depth" and "layers".
> What I *meant* to say, to clarify, was in response to people who seem to
> think that good art - let's take Billy Breathes, for example - starts out
> like this:
>
> TREY: Hey guys. Welcome to the Barn. I think we should make an album
> that tells Phishheads exactly what we think about them. It'll be rad!
> PAGE: Good idea, Trey. Do you think we have some songs that we could,
> you know, make fit into that idea?
> MIKE: Sure!... and so on...
>
> You know as well as I do that this isn't how it happens.
I still think that's irrelevant. If the album is about Martians burning
toast, as discerned from careful and concrete analysis of the music and
lyrics, then that's what it's about -- even if that theme never crossed
the conscious mind of its composers.
> Absolutely, positively agreed. But that's usually because, at some point
> (this is my experience, OK, so don't belittle it), an artist DISCOVERS
> "Oh, my God. This is a painting about fear." And this discovery enables
> him to paint it better.
But we agree that such a realization informs the finished process. The
painter in your analogy may now consciously accentuate the aspects of fear
latent in the painting. If we are careful enought critics, we will be able
to discern the thread of fear in the painting and tease it out. The
painter may make this easier or more difficult for us by seeking to
underscore or bury this theme. Or perhaps she won't even realize its
existence. But this is irrelevant. The band's thoughts when they entered
the barn are equally irrelevant. What's relevant is what's actually
recorded on the album (and, in some cases, what's excised from it). The
proof of the pudding is in the eating.
> I smell a lit critic who thinks he's been told that lit criticism isn't
> valid. That was not what I meant by my "bullshit." And I think maybe
> your opinion is as valid as my "bullshit." But know that Samuel Beckett
> and other writers would agree with my "bullshit" because they have created
> something they would like to have people experience on a personal level -
> which is not to say it can't be shared, but that there comes a time when
> an enlightened mind must decide for itself what art means or how they want
> to use it in their soul.
Firstly, I find it bizarre to say the least that you would evoke Beckett
-- the writer who stiffled personal interpretation more than any other
writer I can think of. During his lifetime, Beckett would hover over the
shoulder of directors producing his plays, to make sure they were creating
it exactly as _he_ intended. No one wrote more anal retentive stage
directions than Beckett; and even pieces such as "Play" or "Quad," which
appear to give directors a modicum of personal interpretation in the form
of the piece's repetition, are weighed down by Beckett's own directoral
impositions. Beckett would be rolling in his grave if he saw how
creatively Mabou Mines adapted *Company* -- originally written by Beckett
as 60 pages of prose fragments -- adding, among other things, four string
duets composed specifically for the work by Philip Glass.
But that's neither here nor there. We all interpret art differently,
necessarily, for we are different people and our interpretations percolate
through individual sets of experiences, are modified by different
hierarchies of values, and are fashioned by the environment within which
we perceive them. But although Joe Schmo may take Keats' *To Autumn* and
interpret it as a variation on the Faustian theme, not too many people
will take him seriously unless he can demonstrate where this is in the
text. As I stated in my last post, if you were to talk to 100 English
professors independently about *To Autumn*, you'd find that each of their
"personal" interpretations seem pretty identical to one another. They are
each experiencing the poem on a personal level, and their emotional
responses -- and perhaps their assessment of the poem's literary merits --
will vary, but the meaning each devrives from the poem comes from _the
poem_, not the individual response.
> As I'm not sure whether you mean to demean me here or ask what type of
> writing I do, I'll assume the latter. I make a living writing movies. I
> can almost hear you scoff, "no wonder." I wish you hadn't gotten so
> personal in your post. I think you're very smart and very well-educated
> (maybe too well-educated), and I'd like to have a dialogue with you. Not
> a pissing match.
I did not intend to get into a pissing match, nor did I intend to demean
you -- although I was (and am) admittedly bewildered by a professional
writer endorsing something very akin to censorship. I this _has been_ a
dialogue and continues to be. I also think it's fascinating that you write
movies, and I can understand an artist's discomfort with the idea of
meaning that transcends individual interpretation. I'm not claiming that
your argument is a defense mechanism, but it does seem to respond to the
fear of misinterpretation by denying, at some level, the efficacy of any
interpretation.
It's strange how you use the word "personal," however, considering that
the theme of our discussion is individual interpretation. It would seem to
me as if you're advocating total personal autonomy of interpretation, as
long as no one attempts to assert that her opinion has any meaning outside
of her own grey matter. I've responded that everyone has their own
interpretation which is based on a number of factors -- not least the
interpretations of our peers; and that careful weighing of these
interpretations, combined with our emotional and intuitive responses, will
help discern a meaning that _does_, in fact, exist intersubjectively.
If you'd like to take this to private email, I'd be happy to continue this
dialogue with you; but I feel we're at a point of diminishing marginal
Phish content.
Take care,
Charles Andrew Dirksen
CBertolet (cber...@aol.com) wrote:
: I smell a lit critic who thinks he's been told that lit criticism isn't
: valid. That was not what I meant by my "bullshit."
Hahahahahaha.. Dan's very sensitive to anything that vaguely smells of the
deconstructive approach to literary "criticism" (snicker). You mentioned
that it was "dangerous" to discuss "definitive" answers to questions that
involve intensely (though NOT wholly, imo) subjective affairs, such as
literary or musical criticism.
I respond that it is MORE dangerous to suggest that there are no "right or
wrong" answers to such questions, since, presumably, in at least some if
not many cases, when an artist creates, the artist has an idea of how his
or her work OUGHT to be understood or interpreted. And sure, if such a
"correct" or "in line with the author's" interpretation exists, then the
interpretations of critics will either be more, or less, correct. You, of
course, never made a suggestion that there weren't such answers, but you
did imply it.
In my opinion, artistic appreciation is wholly subjective, but artistic
"criticism" tends to have more "objective" elements to it. "Objective" at
least to the extent that there's a ground of shared experience upon which
to base claims to truth... "subjective" when it comes to whether a jam or
book or building "moves" one in a particular way. For example, and I've
said this before, in my experience, there tends to be a lot of agreement
between people who've heard too much Phish for their own good that some
versions of some jamming tunes are "above average" and others aren't. But
when it comes to prioritizing one above-average version over and against
another, there is often serious disagreement. There's some objectivity
going on.. but ultimately, whether an artistic work moves you is up to you
alone, of course, and no one can or should take that away from you. IMO.
charlie
benjy eisen
On 30 Sep 1996, Charles Andrew Dirksen wrote:
> In my opinion, artistic appreciation is wholly subjective, but artistic
> "criticism" tends to have more "objective" elements to it. "Objective" at
> least to the extent that there's a ground of shared experience upon which
> to base claims to truth... "subjective" when it comes to whether a jam or
> book or building "moves" one in a particular way. For example, and I've
> said this before, in my experience, there tends to be a lot of agreement
> between people who've heard too much Phish for their own good that some
> versions of some jamming tunes are "above average" and others aren't. But
> when it comes to prioritizing one above-average version over and against
> another, there is often serious disagreement. There's some objectivity
> going on.. but ultimately, whether an artistic work moves you is up to you
> alone, of course, and no one can or should take that away from you. IMO.
>
Once again I have to endorse Charlie's standpoint on this issue,
simply because it is a highly misunderstood practice - this whole
rating and reviewing shows and "authoritative opinions."
Clearly everyone's opinion has a right to be heard. BUT obviously
some are more CREDIBLE than others, NOT because of intellect or musical
appreciation or ability to enjoy a good jam but simply because of the
amount of Phish one has heard and listened to with a critical ear.
Lets face it - some of us have heard an obscene amount of Phish.
I totally admit to owning *too many* Phish tapes (hey, I can't help
it, I'm an addict...you all know exactly what I mean, no?) So I'm not
in denial about my addiction. I don't even want to know how many
shows I have heard on tape. Live it's been about 50+. So while my
musical apprecition is no more advanced than *anybody* else's, I can
factually and statistically support the claim that I am more capable
of rating one version against other versions. Charlie is in this
catagory too, as are alot of you. But not all of you. Again, this
has SOLELY to do with the total range and quantity of PHISH shows
heard. Anyone can say "Yeah, that Y.E.M. at Hershey was great." and
support why. Fine. But to be able to say "That was the best ever"
one would have to have heard every Y.E.M. *ever* if s/he wishes any
credibility. For the rest of us (almost everybody but band&some crew)
we must instead say only "That was the best Y.E.M. that *I* have ever
heard." Fine, with this it would be ludicrous to argue. But if
you've heard only 25 or so Y.E.M.s, then obviously your "that I've
heard" encompasses a much smaller range than somebody who has heard,
say, 200 Y.E.M.'s.
Furthermore, of those people who have heard relatively the same
number, it is *great* to argue/debate/hold one
opinion-against-another's-of-equal-wieght. This is fun, and both
opinions are valid in relation to each other...if I said, "That R.Jim
sucked tonight." I would bet that almost anybody who has only heard
five R.Jims would care to differ, unless they botched it big time . I
mean, I know I would have. Shit, when I heard only 5 or so of any jam
tune, there was no way I was able to say, "Tonights ______ sucked."
Far from it, my first however many shows I walked away from saying
that each one was special (they still are) but ina GROUNDBREAKING
way. Surely this wasn't the case after all. A below average Bowie is
still and AMAZING bit of music.
So Charlie or whoever else is not being elitist when they say, "this
version was below average." They are merely comparing them to other
versions and 9 out of 10 people who have heard an equal amount agree.
"____files438" for whatever song never claims to be rating the show
from an all-encomapassing musical view. If that were the case, every
Sparkle would KICK ASS (to say, a Mariah Carey tune). These
reviews/ratings/critiques are doing so IN RELATION to other versions
of the SAME song.
It is vitally important to keep this in mind when participating in
Scott Jordan's Phish.net scale. He makes it clear that this is a scale
of Phish wieghing against Phish. Anyone who doesn't have enough Phish
to wiegh on a scale balance, clearly should wait till they do before
participating. This is NOT elitism. This is merely a matter of
experience. Hey look man, it's not discriminatory to insist that
someone takes the necessary prerequisites before signing up for a 400
level class...and that's all this is really. Keep that in mind,
Freshman but keep in mind also that nothing is holding you back from
making it to Senior status. Its merely a matter of progression.
Preferably from V->I :) :)
Also Sprach,
Benjy
OBC:(yeah yeah - walk with light, my friends....)
Dan Nooter
In article <Pine.SV4.3.91.960930005314.12696C-100000@mail>, benjy eisen
<be...@ezonline.com> wrote:
<snip>
> heard. Anyone can say "Yeah, that Y.E.M. at Hershey was great." and
> support why. Fine. But to be able to say "That was the best ever"
> one would have to have heard every Y.E.M. *ever* if s/he wishes any
> credibility. For the rest of us (almost everybody but band&some crew)
> we must instead say only "That was the best Y.E.M. that *I* have ever
> heard." Fine, with this it would be ludicrous to argue. But if
> you've heard only 25 or so Y.E.M.s, then obviously your "that I've
> heard" encompasses a much smaller range than somebody who has heard,
> say, 200 Y.E.M.'s.
<snip>
I completely agree with you, Benjy, but that's not really what we're
talking about. There's a slight difference between evaluation and
interpretation. Obviously we all evaluate things differently, but it's
probable that if we analysed them well enough, we'd interpret them pretty
damn similarly... As iwith my example of 100 English professors. They may
not all agree that *To Autumn* is the best poem written in the English
language, but they will all take it to mean approximately the same thing.
This debate came out of the interpretations people have been offering for
the songs and themes of BB. Not that the Theme on the album is any better
or worse than particular live Themes, but that Theme in general (the type
from which we derive the token) means a certain thing -- especially when
placed in the particular context of *Billy Breathes*.
Chris' original point is that interpretation is just as subjective as
evaluation, and subject to the same constraints. I disagree, for the
reasons stated above. I don't think it's an all an issue of elitism;
merely one of artistic criticism.
To bed, IRC has exhausted me (and it's 2:15 anyway),
Caboose =^)
Lauren Prior
benjy eisen <be...@ezonline.com> wrote:
> It is vitally important to keep this in mind when participating in
>Scott Jordan's Phish.net scale. He makes it clear that this is a scale
>of Phish wieghing against Phish. Anyone who doesn't have enough Phish
>to wiegh on a scale balance, clearly should wait till they do before
>participating. This is NOT elitism. This is merely a matter of
>experience. Hey look man, it's not discriminatory to insist that
>someone takes the necessary prerequisites before signing up for a 400
>level class...and that's all this is really.
School of Phish.....I like the sound of that. How much is tuition? Is
there AA or EOF programs at this school?
Keep that in mind,
>Freshman but keep in mind also that nothing is holding you back from
>making it to Senior status.
Well, besides the three years of education of course.
CBertolet
Charlie Dirksen wrote:
>>>when an artist creates, the artist has an idea of how his
or her work OUGHT to be understood or interpreted. And sure, if such a
"correct" or "in line with the author's" interpretation exists, then the
interpretations of critics will either be more, or less, correct.>>>
Well, sometimes yes, sometimes no. What about the consumer of the art -
the listener of music, the seer of paintings. If you take it from *their*
POV rather than the artist's, the most useful interpretation (and the
best, arguably) is the one that makes the most impact on them personally.
An artist might have intended to make a very powerful statement about
nuclear waste, but if it tells someone else something about how to grieve
their dead mother, that's a whole helluva lot more valid and correct for
that person, dontcha think?
For example, I have worked out a pretty amazing interpretation for Reba
(which I'll spare you). It makes me cry like a baby when I hear a
well-played version. Now, Phish may have meant absolutely nothing by
Reba when they wrote it, but would that be the "correct" or "best"
interpretation for me? I don't think it would, but that's just me. And
mine wouldn't necessarily be the best for someone else.
>>>In my opinion, artistic appreciation is wholly subjective, but artistic
"criticism" tends to have more "objective" elements to it. "Objective" at
least to the extent that there's a ground of shared experience upon which
to base claims to truth... "subjective" when it comes to whether a jam or
book or building "moves" one in a particular way. For example, and I've
said this before, in my experience, there tends to be a lot of agreement
between people who've heard too much Phish for their own good that some
versions of some jamming tunes are "above average" and others aren't. But
when it comes to prioritizing one above-average version over and against
another, there is often serious disagreement. There's some objectivity
going on.. but ultimately, whether an artistic work moves you is up to you
alone, of course, and no one can or should take that away from you.
IMO>:>>>
Totally agree with you here, Charlie. Thanks for the response.
Charles Andrew Dirksen
CBertolet (cber...@aol.com) wrote:
: Well, sometimes yes, sometimes no. What about the consumer of the art -
: the listener of music, the seer of paintings. If you take it from *their*
: POV rather than the artist's, the most useful interpretation (and the
: best, arguably) is the one that makes the most impact on them personally.
Absolutely, but that POV might still not be "correct," if the author had a
specific interpretation in mind. I strongly agree that even an
"incorrect" interpretation is meaningful and good and useful if someone
is most impacted/moved by a particular interpretation.
: An artist might have intended to make a very powerful statement about
: nuclear waste, but if it tells someone else something about how to grieve
: their dead mother, that's a whole helluva lot more valid and correct for
: that person, dontcha think?
For that person, absolutely! =^] But I don't know anyone who would
disagree with this. The point is that the "dead mother" interpretation
would still be technically "incorrect" since the author meant for the
statement to be about "nuclear waste." This is neither here nor there, in
my opinion, but the fact remains that the "how to grieve [about mom]"
interpretation is still incorrect, even if it is incredibly beneficial and
arguably more meaningful spiritually than the author's "nuclear waste"
interpretation.
: For example, I have worked out a pretty amazing interpretation for Reba
: (which I'll spare you). It makes me cry like a baby when I hear a
: well-played version. Now, Phish may have meant absolutely nothing by
: Reba when they wrote it, but would that be the "correct" or "best"
: interpretation for me? I don't think it would, but that's just me. And
: mine wouldn't necessarily be the best for someone else.
Absolutely. But who is disagreeing with this?
charlie
CBertolet
Charlie Dirksen wrote:
>>>The point is that the "dead mother" interpretation
would still be technically "incorrect" since the author meant for the
statement to be about "nuclear waste." This is neither here nor there, in
my opinion, but the fact remains that the "how to grieve [about mom]"
interpretation is still incorrect, even if it is incredibly beneficial and
arguably more meaningful spiritually than the author's "nuclear waste"
interpretation.>>>
"Technically incorrect?" Don't bother me with technicalities, son...
Now, seriously. As an artist, had I painted the painting, I would be glad
that the person interpreted it in the manner that made him whole. Even
though it wasn't what I'd intended, I'd call it a "correct"
interpretation. There's nothing "wrong" about it. And trying to
understand what an artist was saying is just a way, IMHO, to get at the
meaning of the art *personally*, that is, to us. (Wow, that was a bad
sentence, but I hope it's clear)
I'm not trying to change your mind (as if I could, Charlie ;-)) I believe
this is really just a matter of opinion.