Is It Really So Strange...that these lyrics could be Moz at his most gay?

[Cassius]

there is an invisible "in my opinion" in every sentence I write here. I'm about the last one to say I own some claim on the truth.

That's cool. I'm not accusing you of that.

 

[Stoner Kebab]

Jack Straw is one of my favorites. They're unique as far as I know and I love how they draw from the entire american musical tradition.

one time i was really feeling depressed (v. rare occurrence) and box of rain came on my itunes randomly and i actually cryed it was kind of shocking cos you know who cries to the dead?

 

[Dave]

My friend loved singing "morning dew". He'd sound like he was going to cry but he didn't. That would have been too much I think.

 

[Alcoholic Afternoons]

Jack Straw is one of my favorites. They're unique as far as I know and I love how they draw from the entire american musical tradition.

I'll respond to your other post in depth, but I have to comment here quickly, because strangely enough (on topic - is it really so strange?) I thought of Jack Straw while reading this thread. The Dead was criticized for the "we can share the women" line in that song. Bobby defended the line on the basis that it wasn't "him" or "them" singing, it was the character he was portraying in that song. It's a good point, but can only be carried so far, obviously.

Great song, btw. Nice afternoon outdoor show, ah youth....

one time i was really feeling depressed (v. rare occurrence) and box of rain came on my itunes randomly and i actually cryed it was kind of shocking cos you know who cries to the dead?

Lots of people. Their music is beautiful. China Doll could do it, or Brokedown Palace, or Black Peter, or....

 

[Stoner Kebab]

thing is AA i dont cry to music ever. I havent since like 1996.
am i an android?

 

[Alcoholic Afternoons]

No. Sorry to edit your response but I did read and consider it. I think that other person we've been discussing a lot made his lyrics purposely vague too, but I'll confine that to the other thread.

I have studied the idea of whether the intention of the artist needs to be clear in order for the art to be successful. I decided it didn't because art is personal and seperate from the demands of an audience. However there is a difference between the artist developing his own language because the art demands it and a person deliberately blurring the message so that everyone can get their own thing out of it.

I've thought about this quite a lot. I can sort of see it with The Grateful Dead because it fits the nature of one of their core messages that we are all different but all part of something bigger. I just tossed that out there but I'm familiar with their music and saw them several times and I think it's not too far off. Believe it if you need it...

On the other hand, you've probably heard that famous interview with John Lennon where he seems to be bent on exposing Bob Dylan as some sort of fraud. Whatever the personal reasons, and John Lennon was a hugely ego-driven person, he really developed a distaste for Dylan and called his music meaningless and his lyrics "gobbledegook". If you throw a bunch of images out there and have a flair for language you can sound like there is more meaning than there is.

Another example is David Lynch. When I saw Mullholland Drive I wondered if he was just putting a lot of strong images out there in something that resembled an enigmatic story, and challenging people to put their own spin on it. That's valid, in a sense, but it's a whole different and lesser thing than having a specific idea what you are talking about but respecting the audience enough to let them interpret without spoonfeeding them.

So, I did say I accept it if people have their own ideas. But that's a whole differnt thing than celebrating ambiguity for it's own sake. And like I said, ambiguity might be part of The Grateful Dead's toolkit, because of the nature of the role they play (played) to their following.

It is okay for people to see different things. But it's not okay to purposely remain vague in order to serve an audience unless that is what the art demands. Otherwise it's not art.

I think I have avoided discussing Morrissey's personal life pretty well and kept it on the lyrics so I'm not going to start discussing his motives now. I'm just saying that if people see different things and it affects them different ways, that's fine for them, but I'm not going to celebrate ambiguity for the sake of an audience.

Last night I almost started a thread based on a question implicit in your post, to the effect of "Is it art when the artist is finished, or is the act of art not complete until it's received by the sensory recipient?" I'm of the latter belief, and think that when art is "personal to the artist" and the larger audience receipt is separate, then really the art is selfish to the artist and the artist is his or her own intended audience.

The actual Dead song I had in mind was a Jerry band song, "Reuben and Cherise," where Jerry eliminated the last verse (I may be getting this slightly wrong, but the main point is right) which explained what happened to the main characters. Jerry preferred not answering that question in the song, which left it open to interpretation and wonder. I'm not sure when art "demands" something, but I liked the idea and appreciate not having every loose end tied.

I'm not sure how much I disagree with you because I don't know, as I said, what the art "demands." I think at worst ambiguity can be a cop out, either refusing to deal with a tough issue or trying to appear deep by being weird and unclear. Ambiguity serves the art often, however, such as in the Jerry song referenced above, and in many Morrissey songs. In the Jerry song, you have an unresolved ending (they die in the Hunter version), and in the Morrissey songs you have cues and references at times, which I think are playful and part of the art, and you have a common experience at other times, which is shared when you don't get into specifics and when left open appeals to the broader audience without compromising the art by turning it into Wonder Bread or limiting the personal effect it has on each audience member.

I think from what I've read Morrissey definitely feels that his art isn't complete until it's shared with the audience, and I think the loose ends are a deliberate and valuable part of his art.

BTW, I've never heard of the Lennon interview but I suspect there was a lot of jealousy involved. He was, after all, just a jealous guy.

am i an android?

Some of your posts make me wonder, actually.


p.s. Dave, I edited your post for relative total brevity's sake. My appy-polly-logies.

 

[Dave]

relative total brevity, it's a way of life.

 

[Nikita]

Mulholland dr. is a quite simple film

 

[Dave]

I like this post. I don't think Moz minds us discussing his lyrics. I think he doesn't want us going, "Oooh, I heard he snogged this chick/guy who used to be my cousin's hamster's veterinarian's next door neighbor!"

Dave, your great uncle sounds like Moz, too! And an uncle in our family... which makes me sad that these guys have never found just the right one to share their passions with. But then again, why must everyone be paired off? What's wrong with being alone?

Thanks. I think he loves us to discuss. I think those quotes Worm posted show that, but also that he doen't like it if we think we have it all figured out. Very interesting.

about being alone, it's an interesting question. It makes me feel sad too, in a way, to think of people being alone, expecially if they are lonely.

 

[Dave]

Mulholland dr. is a quite simple film

well there are websites devoted to debating its meaning.

my point with that, I got off track, but when I read an interview with David Lynch saying that everything in the film made sense from a certain viewpoint, and it had ...what's that phrase? An internal logic. Once you understood the point you could view any scene and understand it.

That was important to me to know it "made sense". Same with Lost Highway. anyway, I have watched Mulholland Drive about 15 times and while I "get it" now pretty much, it still isn't crystal clear.

 

[sistasheila]

by comtesse posted somewhere here in this thread

[/QUOTE]

@comtesse
do you know where this pic got taken..looks like a wedding and he is about to preparing a speech and people cheering him to do so *lol*

or some award show?

 

[the more you explore me!]

So after 26 pages, is Morrissey gay then?

*Yawning*
​

 

[the judge]

Hi explory.
I think you missed the last pages, where the discussion isn't about gay-or-not.
As some others already said, this thread's become quite interesting.
I love philosophical discussions about art.

 

[Dave]

by comtesse posted somewhere here in this thread

@comtesse
do you know where this pic got taken..looks like a wedding and he is about to preparing a speech and people cheering him to do so *lol*

or some award show?[/QUOTE]

He's at The Price Is Right and they've just said "Morrissey! Come on down!"

 

[nugz]

@comtesse
do you know where this pic got taken..looks like a wedding and he is about to preparing a speech and people cheering him to do so *lol*

or some award show?

He's at The Price Is Right and they've just said "Morrissey! Come on down!"[/QUOTE]

hahahaha. Morrissey, you've just won....A BRAND NEW CAR!!!

 

[vicarinatutugal]

by comtesse posted somewhere here in this thread

@comtesse
do you know where this pic got taken..looks like a wedding and he is about to preparing a speech and people cheering him to do so *lol*

or some award show?[/QUOTE]

he got given an award by the new york dolls in london.

 

[Dave]

I want to see him jump up and down and then get in a Pontiac Sunbird.

 

[Sir Alec]

well there are websites devoted to debating its meaning.

my point with that, I got off track, but when I read an interview with David Lynch saying that everything in the film made sense from a certain viewpoint, and it had ...what's that phrase? An internal logic. Once you understood the point you could view any scene and understand it.

That was important to me to know it "made sense". Same with Lost Highway. anyway, I have watched Mulholland Drive about 15 times and while I "get it" now pretty much, it still isn't crystal clear.

When I first saw that film I was still in my immature guy trying to be an intellectual hipster phase, so I was trying to figure out the meaning until I saw Laura Harring's tits. Between and after those scenes I really didn't pay much attention to the rest of the film.

 

[nugz]

I want to see him jump up and down and then get in a Pontiac Sunbird.

I want to see him play Plinko.

 

[lilikoi]

Last night I almost started a thread based on a question implicit in your post, to the effect of "Is it art when the artist is finished, or is the act of art not complete until it's received by the sensory recipient?" I'm of the latter belief, and think that when art is "personal to the artist" and the larger audience receipt is separate, then really the art is selfish to the artist and the artist is his or her own intended audience.

no. art can never been done with an audience in mind - for an audience. call it selfish but art is something someone creates because they enjoy the process of doing it and not for an audience. antonioni said this. woody allen said this etc. and i as a hobbyist say it: i make music and paint because it´s fun and not because i want someone to see or hear anything particular in it. i think an emotional creative process rules out any such rational intentions anyway.