Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier music?

Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Perhaps, in some sense, but my point here was lyrics who manage to put political questions to you in such a way that agreeing or disagreeing with the writer’s political orientation seems to be beside the point.

As I understand your statement, it would be sort of like putting political questions to an audience in a way that is political without also being partisan?

Well, isn’t that a basic characteristic of all great writing? That it speaks to you while failing to fit comfortably and wholly into whatever preconceived categories you’re equipped with? It doesn’t make me feel conned, it makes me feel rewarded by the effort of listening. We are all already familiar with the conventional arguments against whatever political creed we subscribe to, and generally profit little from their restatement. It’s most useful to have familiar issues approached from unexpected angles. I don’t see it as conning. Anyway, if it is, and I’m unable to suss it, it’s a fair cop. :)

Well, what I meant by "conned" is that the writer uses his wiles to sway you toward his way of thinking. Sophistry, in a word. It isn't a simple, direct use of unadorned reason to connect with your purely rational mind. Plato attacked poetry because the poet bewitched his audience. Even if his teachings were salutary, they were inherently corrupt because of the poet's use of his subrational arts to influence his audience. Today, music often repeats the "magic" of the epic poets in pre-Socratic Greece. How many times have we seen audiences swayed by music to adopt some kind of political position which, in the sober light of day, is silly and illogical, or at the very least poorly thought out? (U2 comes to mind.)

For that matter, isn't there something intrinsically flawed even in the case of a sound, logical political position expressed in music, precisely because it is transmitted in a rock song?

Also, if you appreciate the way artists approach familiar issues from unexpected angles, how come you don't appreciate Billy Bragg more? Or is that your point, that you appreciate the unexpected angle, even if you ultimately decide it's silly? I suppose the two viewpoints aren't mutually exclusive. :)
 
Last edited:
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Anyway, to move beyond songs one like despite the political content - more should be said about songs that have political content but which somehow manages to transcend the very issue of agreeing with it or not.

I'm thinking of a song like Bright Eyes' I must belong somewhere, which to me exemplifies a really successful way for a pop song to be political. You can't miss Oberst's approximate position as an angry left liberal-something, but the effect of the points he makes doesn't depend wholly on sharing that platform (though of course it helps). He just builds the whole song as a sort of devastating critique of knee-jerk conservatism and inertia by ridiculing our inherent sense of location, the concept is so elegant and forceful it almost makes you want to weep while roaring with laughter. Another remarkable thing about it is that it's not every day you hear a lyric that manages to sound nearly despairing in its enumeration of the seemingly endless ways in which human life deadens itself by clinging to static form (which I suppose is effectively what he employs belonging as a metaphor for), but which nevertheless feels like an accusation that demands action of some sort. Leave the ocean's roar in the turquoise shell/Leave the widower in his private hell/Leave the liberty in that broken bell today. And who can best this as a one-line critique of religion's irrelevance: They locked the Devil in the basement, threw God up into the air.

Oberst is underrated, I find. He is in my opinion, at his best, a quite remarkable lyricist - up there with the best, including St. Steven himself. A sort of Tom Lehrer put through the mincer of the age of irony and thrown out the other side, a wounded but wiser man? :)

Seconded, thirded and fourthed! :)

Oberst's sense of metaphor, poetry, irony, post-irony, spirituality, comedy, tragedy, honesty, wisdom and snark is as advanced as any songwriter I can think of. "Land Locked Blues" has got to be one of the most poignant, universal anti-war songs of all time: a perfect articulation of endless world-weariness that brings out the tears every time, yet never descends into the maudlin or preachy.

Where is the Right's great songwriter? Hank Williams Jr. just ain't gonna cut it.

But who are these flaunty vegetarians? I haven't met one. Not one. In my experience, the subject of vegetarianism only comes up when eating out etc; in other words, when it pretty much has to come up. And then it is typically the meat eaters who suddenly round on them demanding an explanation or throwing up ludicrous what-ifs.

Precisely. At mealtime (when the subject comes up), it is the meat eaters who inevitably bring up the suffering of carrots as they are ripped out of the ground and the pain of peas as they are removed from the pod. I ask a waiter for broccoli instead of shrimp, and suddenly I'm subjected to a manifesto on vegetable rights by someone who really couldn't care less. :rolleyes:

Surely most 'life choices' imply that anything to the contrary is wrong to a certain extent. If someone drives an electric car or has solar panels installed on their roof, aren't they implying that non-green energy users are 'wrong'?

Hence the appeal of the Jesus Fish car decal.
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Where is the Right's great songwriter?

Does the Right need a great songwriter when 98% of mass culture is designed to replace thinking with blind allegiance to the TV and Internet, which are largely controlled by the Right? Just askin'. :rolleyes:
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Where is the Right's great songwriter?

Paul Weller, natch.
 
Re:

Well when I started this thread I was of the opinon that the answer to the proposition "Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier music?". The resounding response has been no. But, despite being taken down various side alleys, I still think the answer is yes.
But I think after reading all the responses I'd like to put this proposition in different way; I am saying that we all see things in a context, that is, where we, when we are and what we are. These things affect us whether we like it or not. Things go out of fashion because people move on. We change as we learn and have experiences. All I am saying that what we are affects how we look at things. People who say they can divorce their appreciation of art completely from any context are surely wrong. How can you separate what you are from how you see something. You're thinking about it using your brain and that is what you are, what defines you.
Someone tell me why I'm wrong about this.
 
Re:

I don't think anybody has argued that they can (or want to) divorce their appreciation of art from any context, nor that they can separate completely what they are from how they see something.

"What you are". What are you? For my part I'm someone who's looking for enough other things than just political opinion not to let those define everything about myself and everyone else. Not that they don't matter, but firstly many other things matter too, and secondly the way in which they matter isn't simply mechanistically a question of agreement or disagreement. There are all sorts of contexts involved, whereas your above argument rests on the simplistic misconception that there is only one. You're simply defining things in a self-limiting way and constructing artificial conundrums. That's how you're wrong about this. Or wrong is perhaps the wrong word, if you want to reduce yourself to the sorry logic that you're describing, it's your choice. ;)
 
Re:

I don't think anybody has argued that they can (or want to) divorce their appreciation of art from any context, nor that they can separate completely what they are from how they see something.

"What you are". What are you? For my part I'm someone who's looking for enough other things than just political opinion not to let those define everything about myself and everyone else. Not that they don't matter, but firstly many other things matter too, and secondly the way in which they matter isn't simply mechanistically a question of agreement or disagreement. There are all sorts of contexts involved, whereas your above argument rests on the simplistic misconception that there is only one. You're simply defining things in a self-limiting way and constructing artificial conundrums. That's how you're wrong about this. Or wrong is perhaps the wrong word, if you want to reduce yourself to the sorry logic that you're describing, it's your choice. ;)
Qvist, you should learn to read people posts. I said, after reading peoples posts I was qualifying my original proposition by widening the context beyond the political. It's very simple really. For someone who claims to want to read everything you appear to have difficulty with a short post. Consequently, I agree with you, there are all sorts of contexts involved, that is what I said. The political is just one.
So, I think this thread has helped me. I started it one place, read a lot of very interesting posts and have moved. If you read what I said you'd have got that.
 
Re:

Well when I started this thread I was of the opinon that the answer to the proposition "Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier music?". The resounding response has been no. But, despite being taken down various side alleys, I still think the answer is yes.

Peterb, I think it's wonderful that there is someone here who is keeping the dialogue alive. :) That being said, if you ask a question, get a whole bunch of thoughtful responses and discount the answers, then why ask? You have rephrased the question, but the answer is still (in my opinion) no:

But I think after reading all the responses I'd like to put this proposition in different way; I am saying that we all see things in a context, that is, where we, when we are and what we are. These things affect us whether we like it or not. Things go out of fashion because people move on. We change as we learn and have experiences. All I am saying that what we are affects how we look at things. People who say they can divorce their appreciation of art completely from any context are surely wrong. How can you separate what you are from how you see something. You're thinking about it using your brain and that is what you are, what defines you.
Someone tell me why I'm wrong about this.

People are not wrong: many of us can and do experience music, art, etc. on a level that transcends our expectations and backgounds. Yes, we are all filtering music and art through our subjective minds, but that should not and does not preclude learning, growing and sometimes being transformed by what we encounter. We are not fixed objects, we are human beings who are endlessly adaptive and many of us have fairly open minds and enough sophistication to be able to separate art from politics, religion or some other ideology (and connect art to politics, religion or some other ideology when it is appropriate). Knowledge of historical context is always essential to a deeper understanding of art or music, but it is not essential to an emotional, intuitive, aesthetic knowing.

That is why you are wrong about this. :)

I'm as critical and judgmental as anyone out there, and I think I've missed out on some wonderful experiences as a result. There is a delicate balance between open-mindedness and critical analysis that is essential for getting the most out of life, and it is a constant calibration. Erring on the side of growth is probably a good idea.
 
Re:

Qvist, you should learn to read people posts. I said, after reading peoples posts I was qualifying my original proposition by widening the context beyond the political. It's very simple really. For someone who claims to want to read everything you appear to have difficulty with a short post. Consequently, I agree with you, there are all sorts of contexts involved, that is what I said. The political is just one.
So, I think this thread has helped me. I started it one place, read a lot of very interesting posts and have moved. If you read what I said you'd have got that.

I think the original question was more interesting. By ‘widening the context’ it sort of lost its bite. Never mind. Still, it was a lot more engaging than most other threads on here. :)
 
Re:

I think the original question was more interesting. By ‘widening the context’ it sort of lost its bite. Never mind. Still, it was a lot more engaging than most other threads on here. :)
Thanks CrookedLittleVein. I guess you're right but this has been a case of posters broadening my original stance. If you just consider politics then maybe that's not enough to put you off. I guess I'm just a weak, easily swayed sort of chap.
 
Re:

Peterb, I think it's wonderful that there is someone here who is keeping the dialogue alive. :) That being said, if you ask a question, get a whole bunch of thoughtful responses and discount the answers, then why ask? You have rephrased the question, but the answer is still (in my opinion) no:



People are not wrong: many of us can and do experience music, art, etc. on a level that transcends our expectations and backgounds. Yes, we are all filtering music and art through our subjective minds, but that should not and does not preclude learning, growing and sometimes being transformed by what we encounter. We are not fixed objects, we are human beings who are endlessly adaptive and many of us have fairly open minds and enough sophistication to be able to separate art from politics, religion or some other ideology (and connect art to politics, religion or some other ideology when it is appropriate). Knowledge of historical context is always essential to a deeper understanding of art or music, but it is not essential to an emotional, intuitive, aesthetic knowing.

That is why you are wrong about this. :)

I'm as critical and judgmental as anyone out there, and I think I've missed out on some wonderful experiences as a result. There is a delicate balance between open-mindedness and critical analysis that is essential for getting the most out of life, and it is a constant calibration. Erring on the side of growth is probably a good idea.
Hey Anaesthesine,thanks for responding. I'm really sorry, but I don't understand what on earth your talking about. I get some bits and don't disagree but you are not makikng a clear refutation of my position. Let me restate: We view things from a certain context and that can't be helped. Non of us have the gift of objectivity (if such a thing exists which I doubt) so therefore what we are affects how we see things. What we are is down to many things (I think you say as much).
You say "many of us can and do experience music, art, etc. on a level that transcends our expectations and backgounds. Yes, we are all filtering music and art through our subjective minds, but that should not and does not preclude learning, growing and sometimes being transformed by what we encounter." Yes, that makes sense. In no way did I ever say anything that argues against this. It's not even relevant.
You say "We are not fixed objects, we are human beings who are endlessly adaptive and many of us have fairly open minds and enough sophistication to be able to separate art from politics, religion or some other ideology (and connect art to politics, religion or some other ideology when it is appropriate)." Yes, I know, again what has this to do with the price of eggs.
You say "Knowledge of historical context is always essential to a deeper understanding of art or music, but it is not essential to an emotional, intuitive, aesthetic knowing." Again. Yes, so what. I agree. It has nothing to do with my proposition.
All that you say is interesting and well written but I simply don't see the connection. Maybe it's me.
 
Re:

Qvist, you should learn to read people posts. I said, after reading peoples posts I was qualifying my original proposition by widening the context beyond the political. It's very simple really. For someone who claims to want to read everything you appear to have difficulty with a short post. Consequently, I agree with you, there are all sorts of contexts involved, that is what I said. The political is just one.
So, I think this thread has helped me. I started it one place, read a lot of very interesting posts and have moved. If you read what I said you'd have got that.

:rolleyes:

Golly, did I miss that you've changed your point of view? Perhaps I was somewhat misled by this?

The resounding response has been no. But, despite being taken down various side alleys, I still think the answer is yes.

Then of course you go on to state But I think after reading all the responses I'd like to put this proposition in different way, which by the normal rules of English semantics means that you're rephrasing your point without changing its essence. This being followed by a restated position which combines the bleedin' obvious with a spirited assault on strawmen.

You're in no position to complain about being misinterpreted. You need to learn to f***ing construct something that resembles a semi-conscious chain of argument.



All I am saying that what we are affects how we look at things. People who say they can divorce their appreciation of art completely from any context are surely wrong. How can you separate what you are from how you see something.

My simple point is that nobody has actually made the arguments that you counter in the above, and that the arguments that have been made are other ones, such as those made in my above post.
 
Re:

:rolleyes:

Golly, did I miss that you've changed your point of view? Perhaps I was somewhat misled by this?

The resounding response has been no. But, despite being taken down various side alleys, I still think the answer is yes.

Then of course you go on to state But I think after reading all the responses I'd like to put this proposition in different way, which by the normal rules of English semantics means that you're rephrasing your point without changing its essence. This being followed by a restated position which combines the bleedin' obvious with a spirited assault on strawmen.

You're in no position to complain about being misinterpreted. You need to learn to f***ing construct something that resembles a semi-conscious chain of argument.



All I am saying that what we are affects how we look at things. People who say they can divorce their appreciation of art completely from any context are surely wrong. How can you separate what you are from how you see something.

My simple point is that nobody has actually made the arguments that you counter in the above, and that the arguments that have been made are other ones, such as those made in my above post.
Qvist, I've no idea what point you are making. You obviously do not like exchanging ideas and modifying positions accordingly. Maybe it's not your fault and it's this medium, buts thanks to you reducing this discussion to insults you've made the process pointless. Why should I repeat what I've said for someone who appears like a bigot? I've listened and moved along. You should try it.
 
Re:

Hey Anaesthesine,thanks for responding. I'm really sorry, but I don't understand what on earth your talking about. I get some bits and don't disagree but you are not makikng a clear refutation of my position. Let me restate: We view things from a certain context and that can't be helped. Non of us have the gift of objectivity (if such a thing exists which I doubt) so therefore what we are affects how we see things. What we are is down to many things (I think you say as much).
You say "many of us can and do experience music, art, etc. on a level that transcends our expectations and backgounds. Yes, we are all filtering music and art through our subjective minds, but that should not and does not preclude learning, growing and sometimes being transformed by what we encounter." Yes, that makes sense. In no way did I ever say anything that argues against this. It's not even relevant.
You say "We are not fixed objects, we are human beings who are endlessly adaptive and many of us have fairly open minds and enough sophistication to be able to separate art from politics, religion or some other ideology (and connect art to politics, religion or some other ideology when it is appropriate)." Yes, I know, again what has this to do with the price of eggs.
You say "Knowledge of historical context is always essential to a deeper understanding of art or music, but it is not essential to an emotional, intuitive, aesthetic knowing." Again. Yes, so what. I agree. It has nothing to do with my proposition.
All that you say is interesting and well written but I simply don't see the connection. Maybe it's me.

Perhaps the Socratic method would be more useful in this particular instance. Unfortunately, this medium doesn't lend itself to that kind of critical argument. Besides, it's much more fun to talk endlessly past each other every once in a while.

Back to basics: Morrissey's singularly beautiful voice negates any nonsense that may spew forth in an unguarded/unfortunate moment. Wagner's music overrode his bigotry. T.S. Eliot's poetry triumphs over his human frailties. Hemingway has always bothered me, and Picasso can shove it. :)
 
Re:

Perhaps the Socratic method would be more useful in this particular instance. Unfortunately, this medium doesn't lend itself to that kind of critical argument. Besides, it's much more fun to talk endlessly past each other every once in a while.

Back to basics: Morrissey's singularly beautiful voice negates any nonsense that may spew forth in an unguarded/unfortunate moment. Wagner's music overrode his bigotry. T.S. Eliot's poetry triumphs over his human frailties. Hemingway has always bothered me, and Picasso can shove it. :)

Oh Anaesthesine, I think I love you . I think you're exactly right. This medium is a ghastly method for exchanging ideas. I have no doubt that you are totally sound in all of your reasoning. After a rather acrimonious exchange with Qvist, I've become a little tense over this forum.
I agree with your last paragraph. Although could you enlarge on the Picasso bit?
 
Re:

and Picasso can shove it. :)

Elaine!! ELAINE!!!!!!!
picasso2.jpg
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

It depends on what an artist stands for, I suppose. If Morrissey was to condone hard drug use, child abuse, wife-beating, and bashing up black people and social minorities then that would definitely cause me to cease supporting him and his music altogether. I am not politically correct, but I can understand why Morrissey is seen to be upset with immigration. A country's appeal and identity lies very strongly in its own social and cultural traditions. When it is challenged or threatened with extinction by people who come to the country as a migrant and start telling us how to live our lives, how to dress, what festivals and holy days we should be celebrating then I think they've got a hide.

We've been having such problems in Australia over the last 10 - 20 years ever since the Muslim communities took a stronghold and complained about celebrating Christmas, and the clothes that our women choose to wear. I think they should go shove it.

Except for the Aborigines, the white Australians were here before the Middle-Easterns were. If you don't like the way a particular country is run, don't try to change it. Either you learn to adapt to its culture or customs, or fix what is wrong with your own country. I'm glad to see the Libyans do that with Gaddafi recently, now it's time that people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Israel, and Saudi Arabia did the same with their tyrannical rulers.
 
Re:

Qvist, I've no idea what point you are making. You obviously do not like exchanging ideas and modifying positions accordingly. Maybe it's not your fault and it's this medium, buts thanks to you reducing this discussion to insults you've made the process pointless. Why should I repeat what I've said for someone who appears like a bigot? I've listened and moved along. You should try it.

:rolleyes:

Sorry Peter, but you appear to suffer from delusions of adequacy. You haven't moved along, you haven't modified your ideas despite a seeming attraction to the notion of appearing to have done so and I highly doubt that repeating yourself would much improve things. My loss of patience with you does not, I fear, stem from any disinclination on my part to exchange ideas and develop, but simply from your apparent inability to offer any, combined with petulant whining over having the rather glaring shortcomings in your reasoning pointed out. You don't actually reach the point where you're worth having a disagreement with, to put it like that. And if you hadn't been quite as insistent in your forceful pretence that you're just being misunderstood and treated more badly than you deserve, I wouldn't have to make things unpleasant by putting this in writing. Good bye.
 
Re:

:rolleyes:

Sorry Peter, but you appear to suffer from delusions of adequacy. You haven't moved along, you haven't modified your ideas despite a seeming attraction to the notion of appearing to have done so and I highly doubt that repeating yourself would much improve things. My loss of patience with you does not, I fear, stem from any disinclination on my part to exchange ideas and develop, but simply from your apparent inability to offer any, combined with petulant whining over having the rather glaring shortcomings in your reasoning pointed out. You don't actually reach the point where you're worth having a disagreement with, to put it like that. And if you hadn't been quite as insistent in your forceful pretence that you're just being misunderstood and treated more badly than you deserve, I wouldn't have to make things unpleasant by putting this in writing. Good bye.
Yeah Goodbye Qvist. I have no intention in having a slanging match with you. I'm as baffled by your posts as you appear to be by mine. Bottom line though, you are both unpleasant and rude so please, if you would go away and leave me alone that would be great. Thanks.
 
Back
Top Bottom