 sj |
||
|
||
Dodgy Artistic Licence?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: punkfolkrocker Date: 27 Oct 17 - 06:55 PM Absolutely spot on.. we refused to Americanise the songs we were writing, or how we presented our onstage persona... We mocked older derivative formulaic local heavy rock bands who were inthrall to America.. We were British teens from a small provincial west country town, and we were writing about our own direct personal experiences within our own locality... I was borrowing Topic Trad folk LPs from the library, our band was taking inspiration from George Formby & Jake Thackray and other classic British comic novelty songs.. We easily saw parallels in what we were doing with our own short sharp absurdist surreal electrified songs about our mates, girlfriends, and conflicts with pisshead town thugs and coppers who hated all us young hippies & punks.. We were comfortable with being British, without being xenophobic or nationalistic about it.. Those were the years of the Anti N@zi League and Rock against Racism.. Us smart arsed well educated youth versus the forces of resentful boneheaded conservatism... I've always regarded our particular expression of rebel teen culture from that time as punk/folk in spirit... How different it was back then, no onstage health & safety, or noise limiters [well ok - the police occasionally], no artistic licences... 🙄 😜 |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 27 Oct 17 - 04:38 PM Well, I think, musically and lyrically, Punk had it over Skiffle, for example. It did move away from American dominated vocals, and speak to young people. To be far, as a young person, I never felt put upon by the older generation. For example, I cringed the first time I heard "My Generation"( pre- punk, I know) But, then, again, I was in my early 20s when the song came out, and I do know that certain friends of mine, who where five or six years younger than me, really related to the song. Also, in retrospect,, I have a great sympathy for those fans of Swing back in the 50s when in was blown away by 3 chord rock'n'rollers. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: punkfolkrocker Date: 27 Oct 17 - 02:07 PM Actually I was a 16 -> 18 year old with an encyclopedic general knowledge of, and liking for, most genres of post music hall popular music... That's a product of classic Grammar School edumacation that is... same goes for my teen band mates... But we needed your kind of sanctimonious intolerant old miseries to fight back against with our guitars, synths, and amps.. and that included many teen fans of Prog Rock and Singer Songwriters, with their narrow minded ignorant sense of superiority... .. At that same time, those were still 2 of my favourite genres for home listening, even though we were actively gigging out vital 'new wave' music in bands.. While all the moaners sat on their arses complaining about punk being a 3 chord 9 day wonder... Of course it was.. We knew that, and celebrated it as loud and with as much exuberant fun as we could muster... 😎 |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 27 Oct 17 - 01:11 PM The best of the music that was on offer before the arrival of punk beats punk hands down in every area. Of course, if you had have been a thirteen year old music illiterate, then punk would have made sense. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: punkfolkrocker Date: 27 Oct 17 - 11:21 AM Punk would never even have come into being if it hadn't been for tedious middle-brow cultural snobs like you for us bright young bored music obsessives to actively react against... 😜 My sincerest thanks...!!! But that was 40 years ago... I'm mostly an old fart folkie now.... 🙄 |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 27 Oct 17 - 10:23 AM Well, the "punk" part of your "moniker" tells me all a need to know. Punk music was a musical and artistic disaster! to Lyrically and musically it was inferior the the rock music and singer/songwriter that was happening when punk first emerged. For example, a fraction of Joni's work is worth more that the total creative(!) output of the punk era. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: punkfolkrocker Date: 27 Oct 17 - 03:57 AM Yes that's right.. in a song, in creative artistic expression, it's also as much about what a word sounds like, as what it might be intended to mean... 😎 |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: punkfolkrocker Date: 27 Oct 17 - 03:52 AM .... and btw... "A well a everybody's heard about the bird B-b-b bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word A well a bird, bird, bird, the bird is the word A well a bird, bird, bird, well the bird is the word A well a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word A well a bird, bird, bird, well the bird is the word A well a bird, bird, b-bird's the word A well a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word A well a bird, bird, bird, well the bird is the word A well a bird, bird, b-bird's the word A well a don't you know about the bird? Well, everybody knows that the bird is the word! A well a bird, bird, b-bird's the word A well a A well a everybody's heard about the bird Bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word A well a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word A well a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word A well a bird, bird, b-bird's the word A well a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word A well a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word A well a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word A well a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word A well a don't you know about the bird? Well, everybody's talking about the bird! A well a bird, bird, b-bird's the word A well a bird Surfin' bird B-b-b aah, aah! Pa pa pa pa, pa pa pa pa, pa pa pa pa, pa pa pa pa Pa pa pa pa, pa pa pa pa, pa pa pa pa Papa, ooma mow mow Papa, ooma mow mow Papa ooma mow mow, papa ooma mow mow Papa ooma mow mow, papa ooma mow mow Ooma mow mow, papa ooma mow mow Papa ooma mow mow, papa ooma mow mow Papa ooma mow mow, papa ooma mow mow Oom oom oom oom, ooma mow mow Papa ooma mow mow, papa oom oom oom Oom ooma mow mow, papa ooma mow mow Ooma mow mow, papa ooma mow mow Papa a mow mow, papa ooma mow mow Papa ooma mow mow, ooma mow mow Papa ooma mow mow, ooma mow mow Papa oom oom oom oom, ooma mow mow Oom oom oom oom, ooma mow mow Ooma mow mow, papa ooma mow mow Papa ooma mow mow, ooma mow mow Well a don't you know about the bird? Well, everybody knows that the bird is the word! A well a bird, bird, b-bird's the word A well a ooma mow mow Papa ooma mow mow Papa ooma mow mow Papa ooma mow mow Papa ooma mow mow Papa ooma mow mow Papa ooma mow mow"...!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: punkfolkrocker Date: 27 Oct 17 - 03:47 AM I can't speak for Joni.. But if she was here, maybe she'd respond with "Go stuff it up your arse you humourless miserable pompous buffoon..."...??? As I long time ago studied critical analysis of poetry, and inspired by the great Syd Barrett & Kevin Ayers, wrote complete bollocks meaningless surreal song lyrics for our arty farty student punk band, I'd tend to agree with that sentiment... 😜 |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 27 Oct 17 - 02:24 AM Punkfolkrock, I've just checked your contribution to this topic. Pathetic is the word that comes to mind! But, you can redeem yourself! Please enlighten us as to what you believe is the real essence/meaning of Joni's song. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: punkfolkrocker Date: 27 Oct 17 - 12:24 AM ok then OCD lyricologists... "Mah Na Mah Na Do doo be-do-do Mah Na Mah Na Do do-do do Mah Na Mah Na Do doo be-do-do be-do-do be-do-do be-do-do-doodle Do do do-doo do!" |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 26 Oct 17 - 10:28 AM Trying to work out the essence of song's meaning by discussion is pointless to you? But, I do note that your input on this topic has been less than inspiring. I think you're visiting the wrong forum. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: meself Date: 26 Oct 17 - 10:22 AM Not as much as Tunesmith, apparently. This thread seems pointless - I'm out. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: Jackaroodave Date: 26 Oct 17 - 05:03 AM Just from the lyrics, I automatically inferred that the narrator and the composer were far apart and that. the song was "about" the narrator's lack of self-awareness. It seems like a common trope in first-person songs in this genre: cf Paul Simon, Randy Newman. But I'm not familiar with Mitchell's work, so what do I know? |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 26 Oct 17 - 03:38 AM But, if that is the case, doesn't the narrator, Joni, reveal herself as very arrogant? Everybody else passed the busker by because "they hadn't seen him on their TVs ", but the great Joni Mitchell recognises his talent but can't be bothered stopping to listen. Which ever you cut it, Joni doesn't come out covered in roses. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: DaveRo Date: 26 Oct 17 - 03:00 AM Regret - and guilt - that she didn't stop and support an aspiring musician. And 'the signal changed' emphasises how trivial her excuse. Next? |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: Allan Conn Date: 26 Oct 17 - 02:26 AM "She just moves on when the signal changes, and mentions, again, that he was playing real good for free." I suppose people will read different things into what they are listening too. I would agree that she is hinitng at regret. The fact that she meant to stop - and that she's telling the story and bothering to mention that she meant to stop - hints at regret. For me anyway! |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 26 Oct 17 - 01:56 AM Well, if you know anything, you should know that Joni is the ultimate "confessional" singer. Indeed, Kris Kristofferson once warned her about revealing too much of her personal life/emotions in song. And, of course, the narrator in "For Free" is described as a successful singer who fills concert halls...just like Joni. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: frogprince Date: 25 Oct 17 - 09:49 PM ...or writing about a factual incident. I guess I have been approaching this as if it were an entry in J.M.'s diary. It is narrated by a person involved in music, though, not by a coal miner or gunslinger. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: meself Date: 25 Oct 17 - 08:34 PM You know, btw, if Joni or anyone else writes a song with "I" or "me" in it, it doesn't necessarily mean they are actually singing about themselves .... |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: Mr Red Date: 25 Oct 17 - 04:45 PM I gave the dictionary definition of "conspire" in an earlier post, and it doesn't fit the context of the song. Feel free to be more right than dictionary.com - they are only human. Though they is a larger number than one opinion. But do tell us which English you speak. It's not as if songs, poems, or novels are the lexicographical equivalent of a photograph. They are literary paintings. If you want precision, try reading a dictionary, the plot is somewhat thin, though author explains every word in detail. Don't look in more than one, though, they do differ at times. Sturgeon's Law nine tenths of everything is crud - and that goes for opinions IMNSHO. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 25 Oct 17 - 03:38 PM Regret? She doesn't imply any such thing. She just moves on when the signal changes, and mentions, again, that he was playing real good for free. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: frogprince Date: 25 Oct 17 - 03:02 PM Like, pay attention! :) I think the implication is that, in retrospect, she feels she had good reason to stop; she's implying at least a bit of regret because she, like the others, just walked on by. As with other thoughtful lyrics, such as that of "The Cha Cha Slide", there are any number of nuances that make the song worthwhile... |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 25 Oct 17 - 11:33 AM One could argue that every pedestrian is "going about their business". And, if, as you say, Joni, a trained musician, doesn't think there was a good enough reason to stop, why even mention the general public's neglect. In fact, why even write the song in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: frogprince Date: 25 Oct 17 - 11:22 AM Her "reason for not stopping" was simply going on about her business when the signal changed to "walk"; I would say there is an implication that, in retrospect, she doesn't feel that that was a good enough reason. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 25 Oct 17 - 10:48 AM frogprince, that doesn't make sense! "Here's what Joni wrote:
Though he played so sweet and high They knew he had never Been on their T.V. So they passed his music by I meant to go over and ask for a song Maybe put on a harmony I heard his refrain As the signal changed He was playing real good for free Clearly, Joni would NOT be influenced by the fact that the busker had not been on tv. She could hear that is music had great worth, so what is her reason for not stopping? |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: frogprince Date: 25 Oct 17 - 10:38 AM ...makes IT patently obvious... |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: frogprince Date: 25 Oct 17 - 10:36 AM " you can bet your bottom dollar that somebody is going to say that Joni is well aware of this "irony" and that her actions just emphasize the total neglect of the busker's music." Why wouldn't someone say that? The wording of the last verse makes is patently obvious. I will just about bet MY bottom dollar that you will now say that I'm wrong. I will also bet a nickel that you're just trying to pull people's chains. I won't bet a dollar on that; maybe you really are just a bit obsessive. : ) |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: GUEST,John from Kemsing Date: 25 Oct 17 - 10:10 AM In one of James Blount`s song of which name I know not, he says "I have a plan" and virtually in the same breath he says, "and I don`t know what to do". Hello!! |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 25 Oct 17 - 09:48 AM The present topic reminded me of another icon, and more "dodgy" elements in a song. Joni Mitchell's "For Free" is one of her most beloved compositions but there is a dreadful irony in the main thrust of the song. "For Free" tells the story of a street busker who is ignored by all pedestrian who pass him by ( "nobody stopped to hear him, though he played so sweet and high") Joni, presumably the narrator of the song, is critical of all the passer-bys for not stopping to hear the beautiful music. But, and here comes the irony, Joni doesn't stop either! Now, you can bet your bottom dollar that somebody is going to say that Joni is well aware of this "irony" and that her actions just emphasize the total neglect of the busker's music. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 25 Oct 17 - 09:28 AM BUT! Renege doesn't, to me, sound like a word that would be used in the context of the song. It sounds unnatural and forced. And, Snuffy, I can't get my head around your post. And, again, I would say that "unfraid" isn't a good choice of word, anyway. I know we often talk about facing the future unafraid, but not in the "lovey dovey" warm context of "Winter Wonderland". |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: Snuffy Date: 25 Oct 17 - 08:32 AM "To face unafraid the plans that we've made" reinforces the idea of a conspiracy. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: DaveRo Date: 25 Oct 17 - 08:30 AM 'Renege' - break an agreement. The song goes: Remember when we were hand in hand It's more than just 'giving up' on the relationship; he's accusing her of breaking a promise. (I'm assuming a male singer, here.) And yes, 'renege on our love' sounds odd, and no, I can't imagine anyone saying it. Perhaps RT wants to emphasise the singer's desparation - and rather posessive attitude to the woman. I do agree that, in most circumstances, natural words are best - if it expresses what you intend. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 25 Oct 17 - 07:30 AM DaveRo, well, I think it does! And, can you imagine anyone saying to their partner," Don't renege on our marriage/love/relationship?" For example, how often in the history of human relationships has that word been used in that context? It sounds, like I said, a desperate attempt at avoiding the usual phrases. But, that only works if the replacement words sounds natural. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 25 Oct 17 - 07:23 AM Context is everything! Just because certain words can be used as a synonym, doesn't mean they are always interchangeable. I gave the dictionary definition of "conspire" in an earlier post, and it doesn't fit the context of the song. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: Mr Red Date: 25 Oct 17 - 03:37 AM dictionary.com - 2. combine, concur, cooperate. how apt do you want it? Plus a little hint on the side of something more racy or adventurous. And very telling they say: Can be confused "connive", "conspire". So they think the conniving interpretation is a stretch too far. But we forget, we make the cardinal sin of Folkdom. We judge by the mores of OUR time. Words morph, meaning & connotations move. The song was written in a different era. Thesaurus.com |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: DaveRo Date: 25 Oct 17 - 03:12 AM "Don't renege on our love' doesn't mean the same as " Don't give up on our love". Why do you assume he doesn't mean what he wrote? |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 25 Oct 17 - 02:32 AM Well, I'm not convinced, and I still think it's a case of listeners growing up hearing a word and never stopping to consider if it is appropriate. Also, writers have to be careful when reaching for a ' different' word instead of using an obvious one. For example, when Richard Thompson says, "Don't renege on our love' , instead of, for example, " Don't give up on our love", we care a case of a writer trying to avoid an obvious word but ending up with an " unnatural" sound phrase. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: Jackaroodave Date: 24 Oct 17 - 11:46 PM "As for Parson Brown - no, he's NOT in town - he's out in a 'meadow',???outside of town, of course!" OK, fair enough. We built snowmen in the front yard, where we had a nearby supply of coal, carrots, and top hats. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: meself Date: 24 Oct 17 - 09:48 PM I vote for 'conspire'. It's imaginative and appropriate. As for Parson Brown - no, he's NOT in town - he's out in a 'meadow', outside of town, of course! |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: Jackaroodave Date: 24 Oct 17 - 06:34 PM I always heard "conspire" as a witty hyperbole on the part of the speaker: it's just we two with our secrets on the one hand, and the cold world outside on the other--deliberately underscoring the fireside coziness and the light-hearted semi-nonsense throughout the song. (Parson Brown can "do the job when he's in town?"But he IS in town: He's right there, you just built him.) Of course when faced with an apparent anomaly, listeners try to make it fit, but I confess it never struck me as the least inappropriate. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: DaveRo Date: 24 Oct 17 - 05:07 PM Songs and poetry would be greatly impoverished if authors had to stick to conventional (i.e, dictionary) definitions. 'Conspire' is fine: the 'con' is the important bit. The nub of conspiracy is confidentiality, not illegality. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 24 Oct 17 - 04:37 PM frogprince said, "Thesaurus.com give a string of synonyms for conspire, several of which at least muddy Tunesmith's argument" I don't think so. For example, " To Plan" can be a synonym for "To Conspire " as in, for example, The terrorists planned/conspired to blow up the building. But, in the song the couple are planning their future, by the fire, and conspire doesn't fit. Would you be happy, for example if the couple in the song talked about "conspiring to get married?", |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: frogprince Date: 24 Oct 17 - 03:35 PM Thesaurus.com give a string of synonyms for conspire, several of which at least muddy Tunesmith's argument; one that I find interesting in this case is "get in bed with". |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: frogprince Date: 24 Oct 17 - 03:25 PM Later on, we'll perspire, As we BLEEP by the fire... |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: punkfolkrocker Date: 24 Oct 17 - 02:19 PM expire...??? |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: Jackaroodave Date: 24 Oct 17 - 02:03 PM "No, I think "conspire" was a very poor choice, and I bet the lyricist wasn't happy with it neither" I guess the better-fitting "perspire" didn't occur to them. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: Mr Red Date: 24 Oct 17 - 02:00 PM Well! We all have our opinion, but If I had written the song, I would consider the royalties and those willing to sing it professionally were sufficient critique. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: Mr Red Date: 24 Oct 17 - 01:59 PM Well! We all have our opinion, but If I had written the song, I would consider the royalties and those willing to sing it professionally were sufficient critique. |
|
Subject: RE: Dodgy Artistic Licence? From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 24 Oct 17 - 01:32 PM Well, I have to disagree that "conspire" has any merit in the context of the song. Here's a dictionary definition; "make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act". What we have here, I believe, is the fact that everyone grows up hearing that song EVERY Christmas. It has become part of our Christmas experience. We are comfortable with the lyrics. ALL the lyrics. But, just imagine if that the song was written today as part of a songwriting class assignment. Would we be surprised if the person grading the effort returned the lyrics and had drew attention to the fact that the word "conspire" is not appropriate in the context of the rest of the song. Is it possible that the lyricist "settled" on a poor choice of word. The couple in the song are making plans while they sit by the fire. But, of course, the word plans appears in the next line and, of course, wouldn't rhyme with fire. No, I think "conspire" was a very poor choice, and I bet the lyricist wasn't happy with it neither! |
| Share Thread: |