Re: (TV) Hitchcock

[Sam Inglis <sam@sospubs.co.uk>]

Very well put. 

I find that for me it works more like this: if the person singing the
lyrics sounds as if they matter to them, or has an interesting and
sincere-sounding delivery, they can get away with an awful lot. For
instance, Beck's lyrics are deliberately and literally nonsensical, but
I find that they draw me in because he makes them sound as if, in his
world, they're saying something significant. Same with Mark E Smith and
Syd Barrett. You get the feeling that Syd was really trying to convey
some sort of truth in his life for which down-to-earth description just
wouldn't have worked. Or take the 13th Floor Elevators. A lot of their
lyrics are utterly barking, but they sound as if Roky Erikson is
desperately trying to get some message across. None of these guys, to
me, sound as if they're _trying_ to be surreal on purpose -- they're
just trying to describe reality as they see it, but they see it
differently to the rest of us.

The trouble with Robyn Hitchcock, on the other hand, is that he just
sounds like someone who's heard Barrett and thought 'Wow, that's really
cool', then copied it because it's a style that he likes, rather than
because it's true for him. Surrealism for the sake of it doesn't really
do it for me (not a big fan of Zappa either) -- it is often lazy, and it
doesn't go anywhere. 
Don't know enough Pavement to know which side they belong though...
Sam

eric s gregory wrote:
> 
> of course it's all in good cheer & this is exactly why i dig posting to this
> list...
> i haven't seriously ever attempted the cut-up method...i'm not a huge burroughs
> fan, tho i have enjoyed the brion gysin stuff i've come across...& i'm a big fan
> of dada/surrealism (tho i lean more toward the political/social engagement of
> the dadaists), so i'm not arguing for some kinda apollonian clear light of
> purpose/meaning.
> verlaine's lyrics on "marquee moon" pull me in cos they straddle the line
> betwixt abstraction (which if it goes too far can be simply impenetrable) &
> realism (if we wanna break it down that essentially...apologies for the art
> world cliches).
> the warm hard details of those songs inform the more curious lines (i think
> we've already discussed "life in the hive puckered up my night", which, while
> it's part of a great song, ain't really too terrific a line), creating a vital
> dialogue...AND most importantly; a narrative.
> when i hear pavement or the worst of hitchcock or much of beefheart for that
> matter, i'm lost....it's too personal, too inscrutable, nothing's compelling me
> into that world, making me care bout what's happening....
> & as old-fashioned (& perhaps moralistic) as this is gonna sound, i'm at a point
> in my life where i NEED meaning....i'm tired of coy nihilism, artsy turnabout
> where the words just dance for my delight but don't allow me to stay & dig in
> deep: in short, i'm demanding meaning that speaks to the experiences we know as
> love, work, heartbreak, EMOTIONAL veracity, etc...
> & please don't take this as an attack on the enjoyment you may get outta cats
> like malkmus, van vliet, et al....i just love the fact that this list gives me
> (& everybody else) the opportunity to vent & sweat out this shit....
> testimonial pause.
> 
> Martin McClellan wrote:
> 
> > Well, I can't speak for Malkmus, not knowing them or their work, so they may
> > have not done a good job of it, but I hope you're not suggesting that
> > Burrough's cut-up technique is lazy. Have you ever attempted it?
> >
> > A good example is british artist Tom Phillips, and his work A Humument, in
> > which he appropriated a victorian novel named A Human Document and has
> > painted or altered every page to locate found poetry. See www.humument.com
> > if interested. Phillips claims Burroughs as a direct influence.
> >
> > And besides, laziness has little to do with it. Although I agree that
> > Hitchcock's abstraction is just plain silly at times (I think he intends it
> > that way) I think that the lack of abstraction at all in modern music is
> > atrocious. What would good 'ol Capt. Beefheart have to say (well, we might
> > not be able to understand it if he did speak...)? It's not about laziness,
> > it's about breaking our standard modes of linear thought.
> >
> > Anyway, taste is another issue and it doesn't appeal to some. That's fine.
> > But Eric, do we really need to know what every Pavement song is about to
> > enjoy it? Did anyone here understand Marquee Moon the first time they heard
> > it? I've heard Verlaine blasted for the inanity of falling into the arms of
> > Venus de Milo ("it doesn't have arms!"), but it sounds just fine to me.
> >
> > Finally, would you call Cage's 4'33 lazy?
> >
> > 'nuff said (all in good cheer, by the by),
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > did you realize that malkmus took a book of ashberry's poetry, chopped it up
> > &
> > applied a burroughsian "cut-up" method to the lyrics for one of their recent
> > records???
> > & by the by, that ain't "art-rock"; it's lazy.
> >
> > bedwellm@WellsFargo.COM wrote:
> >
> > > Well, I would agree with you on GBV's account. In regards to Pavement, I
> > > think there is alot of signifying going on. In the same sense, if I may be
> > > so bold, as the poetry of John Ashbury (tho, not as informed. That will
> > come
> > > with experience.)
> > >
> > > Micah
> > >
> > >
> >
--------------
To post: Mail tv@obbard.com
To unsubscribe: Mail majordomo@obbard.com with message "unsubscribe tv"