Listening: Loving the artist, hating the song

"Comments? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?" (15 comments & pings so far)

Ping from Blogcritics on August 10, 2003 11:39 PM:
Freedom of conscience 101: Indeed, if I find my own interest in a piece of art troubling, then I take it as a sign that it's something I definitely need to hear and think about.

Ping from Blogcritics on August 11, 2003 12:26 AM:
A worthy Skynyrd cause: "Freebird" alone should have long since gotten Lynyrd Skynyrd into the Hall of Fame.

Comment 1 posted by Tom Johnson on August 9, 2003 01:34 AM:

Delete "Ain't Nobody's Business If I Do" if you want, but realize you're doing so for the wrong reasons. The problem I've found with most people today is presented right here in this entry: you are only listening to the lyrics with your own prejudices and not looking at the bigger picture - that is, not looking at the artist's intent. Sure, you can take this song as an anti-feminist stance from a woman too stupid and ignorant to realize she's only hurting herself, or you can look at it from the angle with which Lady Day is singing. That is, simply, as the voice of a woman who thinks she's strong for sticking by her abusive mate - in an effort to point out how stupid this is.

Once again, I would like to point readers to Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. There's a reason this is taught in school - not to annoy us as kids, but to teach us how to discern sarcasm from real ignorance. Just like with authors who are black-listed because they write about a most foul character - people assume they can only write from experience and their own feelings and attribute the character's actions to that of the author him/herself. People need to learn to distance the art from the artist.

Sure, this song, on the surface, sounds like it's saying that you're best to stand by your man through thick and thin. But underneath the meaning is clear as daylight - she's portraying the victimization of the many women who do just this, clouded by the fog of denial and "love." She's playing a character.

So, go ahead and delete that song, but I hope you really understand the music before you do. Realize you're deleting something out of your own ignorance and not because of the song itself. Maybe you should give that song one more spin . . .

As for Miles, he hated everyone - white people, women, men, even other black people. To discount the music because the man was disgusting . . . well, that's really childish.

Oh, and be sure you get rid of any and all Wagner pieces, too and never allow it to enter your ear, lest you be exposed to the music created by a raging anti-semite.

(See other comments from the same name, url or both.)

Comment 2 posted by Al Barger on August 9, 2003 05:25 PM:

What a bunch of self-righteous crap. Enjoy your cheap feelings of morally superiority.

This posts represents such a shallow perspective on art as to be unworthy of an educated person. Reading a book or watching a movie does not constitute an endorsement of all the ideas inside. Feeling the flow of a melody, or the emotional feeling has a great value- even if you recognize an underlying dysfunctionality. "I Hate Myself for Loving You" makes a good case in point, or "Still" by Macy Gray.

Go indulge your little Church Lady feelings of superiority if you want, but leave Lynyrd Skynyrd out of it. They never in life, nor in that song, endorsed segregation and racism. Perhaps you missed "The Ballad of Curtis Loewe." You're just making that shit up so you can feel good about rejecting it.

And what the hell do you even think you're accomplishing by boycotting Miles Davis? He made instrumental music, so he didn't even have any words to have bad messages about women or whitey or anyone else.

(See other comments from the same name, url or both.)

Comment 3 posted by Natalie Davis on August 9, 2003 06:04 PM:

Anyone certainly has the right to listen to or read whatever they choose, for whatever reasons they want. If ignoring the creations of those whose philosphies you don't endorse, floats your boat, more power to you. But I must agree with Tom (though not Al's nasty sentiments) on this.

Just because I adore Wagner's music does not mean I endorse his politics. Hitler liked Wagner too -- should I ditch my recently acquired Deutsche Grammophon copy of Tannhäuser? Must I give up immersing myself in one of the composer's wondrous leitmotifs? I don't think so.

I am a journalist and a musician. Just because I loathe H.L. Mencken's racism and anti-Semitism doesn't make him any less a fine journalist craftsperson. Musically, Miles Davis was an innovative genius. I can and will not deprive myself of the opportunity to learn from their talents. Even those with whom we disagree can teach us things -- none of us is all good or all bad. And anyone who would make assumptions about someone for owning and/or appreciating Bitches' Brew is someone whose opinion would not matter to me and, IMO, shouldn't matter to you.

"Sweet Home Alabama," from all I've read and heard on the subject, is a representation of an old-South attitude; it doesn't mean necessarily that the brothers Van Zant and company believed that crap. I've never believed that the members of Skynyrd supported segregation. And even if they did, there's no disputing their rock and blues credentials -- those boys could play. In fact, I would wager that if any of the band's surviving members ran into Neil Young on the street, they would shake his hand gladly, even if (which I doubt) they truly believed that a Southern man don't need him around anyhow.

(See other comments from the same name, url or both.)

Comment 4 posted by excitableboy on August 10, 2003 02:49 AM:

When I listen to 'Sweet Home Alabama' I hear this:
"In Birmingham they love the governor-- Boo! Boo! Boo!"
Ronnie and company were booing George Wallace and his supporters. How did you get the impression the song "applauds massive resistance to desegregation?"
Did you just assume that because the members of Lynyrd Skynyrd were white, Southern, and lower-class, they must therefore be racists?
Does your conscience bother you?

(See other comments from the same name, url or both.)

Comment 5 posted by Mac Diva on August 10, 2003 03:37 AM:

D, you may not be aware of it, but I entered blogging as a result of being something of an expert on the neo-Confederate movement, which is definitely racist. The neos consider Lynyrd Skynyrd fellow travelers. I will look into the matter more to see if that is justified. If not, I will change my opinion of LS.

I am somewhat surprised by some of the responses. I thought I made it clear I am trying to apply a balancing test to the issue of when to reject a song or artist. I believe everyone draws such a line. The question is: Where?

(See other comments from the same name, url or both.)

Comment 6 posted by Tom Johnson on August 10, 2003 11:55 AM:

Mac Diva, your "balancing test" needs to be thrown out because it's completely worthless. Regardless of whether you're an "expert on the neo-Confederate movement" or not, you lack the knowledge about music (and, apparently, the ability to discern sarcasm - read my comment and please do read "A Modest Proposal") with which to make judgement calls like this. You stand for civil rights for all, yet you yourself are actually guilty of ignorance. Being aware of the problem women and minorities face is only part of your mission - you also have to be aware that not everything that sounds racist or sexist on the surface really is, and is crafted that way to make a point (it's called "sarcasm" - an insulting comment phrased in such a way that illustrates the ignorance of the subject while sounding like it really stands for it.) Once you can understand this - and you clearly don't yet - you will truly be ready to go after this kind of ignorance.

Exciteableboy has it right. Natalie has it right. Even Al, in his loveably gritty way, has it right. Maybe you should ask yourself why you don't.

(See other comments from the same name, url or both.)

Comment 7 posted by Eric Olsen on August 10, 2003 05:32 PM:

I am easing back into things and will jump back in with both feet tomorrow, but I want to affirm the "Boo Boo Boo" element in "Sweet Home Alabama." It is so important to the meaning that the next rhyme is set up off of it:

"In Birmingham they love the governor
Boo Boo Boo
We all did what we could do
Now Watergate does not bother me
Does your conscience bother you?"

And I would have to agree that lyrics are a very slippery set of signs: first person from another's perspective, irony, story telling, etc. In the case of "Ain't Nobody's Biz," I believe her point is that even if she does something really stupid - like taking a beating - it STILL isn't anybody's right to tell her what to do, a highly libertarian position.

Finally (for now) I would disagree that song lyrics can or should be taken more literally than literature - I would argue the opposite because the wild card of the music adds a whole additional layer to be considered.

(See other comments from the same name, url or both.)

Comment 8 posted by mike on August 10, 2003 10:58 PM:

We should all take Al's condemnation of "self righteous crap" seriously. After all, when it comes to churning out self righteous crap, Al is the expert. (Sorry, buddy, you left yourself wide open for that one.)

As for Leonard Skinnard, I have to second (or third) the view that they were not racists, at least the Van Zandts.

It's true their songs have been appropriated by neo-Confeds, but, hey, Nietsche was adopted by the Nazis (he loathed anti-Semitism and Prussian nationalism) and Marx by the Leninists (he hated dictatorship). That's no test. And even if it were: Ezra Pound was a fascist. Should we stop reading him too?

If you want to sit around listening to dreary straight edge punk or saccharine peacenik folk, go for it. Somebody has to.

(See other comments from the same name, url or both.)

Comment 9 posted by Mac Diva on August 11, 2003 01:11 AM:

The comments are moving to Al Barger's reply to this essay, "Freedom of conscience." I've responded there.

(See other comments from the same name, url or both.)

Comment 10 posted by Al Barger on August 11, 2003 02:31 AM:

With your PC thing here Diva, I think it's a bit like the fish not seeing the water. You seem to think that you're very open because you tolerate a fair range of opinions in your listening that you might not literally agree with; you seem to figure that you don't censor yourself from anything unless it's pretty egregious. I, on the other hand, reject the whole premise of denying ANY art on such a basis.

The resistance to Miles Davis really boggles my imagination. I can somewhat understand if you don't want to hear Guns n Roses singing "One in a Million" on the basis perhaps feeling that some ethnic slurs ruin it for you. But Miles was making instrumental music, having nothing in the art to do with whatever objectionable personality traits he may have exhibited after work.

Jebus Criminy, what does any of his supposed woman hating have to do with how great Sketches of Spain is? Am I going to deprive myself of his artistic achievement in the belief that this will somehow punish him for his character flaws?

Dumb it down for a Kentuckian if you could.

(See other comments from the same name, url or both.)

Comment 11 posted by Brian Flemming on August 12, 2003 02:40 AM:

As an amateur trumpet player, I am in awe of Miles Davis's talents. A while back there were weeks when I would listen to nothing else.

And then I read his autobiography. Big mistake. His music has never sounded the same. The beauty of it is still there, but the knowledge I now have of what an utterly hateful man produced it taints my experience of it.

That it shouldn't be this way matters not a bit. Music is an emotional experience, not a logical one. I can tell myself how Davis's compositions and performances are separate from his personal life all I want. That's very true--but I still have the same gut reaction to the idea "Miles Davis." (Not that Kind of Blue won't be welcome on my iPod if I ever get one--it will.)

For a short while I was taking occasional trumpet lessons with Uan Rasey, a great man who is retired now but was first trumpet with the MGM Studio Orchestra (and is also the guy who played the "Godfather" theme). Uan knew all the players personally, all the way back to Louis Armstrong, and sometimes I would get him talking about them.

Whenever Miles Davis's name would come up, he'd just shake his head and go quiet. If you can't say anything nice...

The foul person Davis was doesn't change a note of his music. But it is part of his legacy.

(See other comments from the same name, url or both.)

Comment 12 posted by Natalie Davis on August 12, 2003 08:33 AM:

Can't argue with that.

(See other comments from the same name, url or both.)

Comment 13 posted by Mac Diva on August 12, 2003 08:51 AM:

Thanks, Brian,

You have gotten right to the core of what discomfits me. Al thinks he gets it, but he doesn't. I'm not making the Fahrenheit 451 argument. I'm saying we who are not book or CD burners draw lines about issues of this sort and it is interesting to consider how we do that.

(See other comments from the same name, url or both.)