Re: Good Dog Bad Dog classic album

[rhys daily <shadow at teuton_org>]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, John Paul Davis wrote:

> >>Whaaaaat? does that have to do with anything? (BAPM)
> >
> >
> > it means that the lyrics have a deeper meaning? dunno - stretching.
> >
> >
>
> But see, no it doesn't. One can easily imagine facile, shallow biblical
> references, after all. They happen all the time.

i meant by using the word 'literate' it implies or infers that there is
more to the language than meets the eye.

the bapm seemed like an abberration to me. a silly sidenote that wasn't
worht my time in getting upset about.

shallow biblical references or not - you might not like me saying this -
but i will. when i hear music, i t reminds me of stuff i've read.heard in
the bible. it happens - why? cos it's a reference in my mind. its linked.
it's associative.

so if i say - wow - that song really made me think iof X in the bible',
that's not a bad thing - nor is it shallow.

by the same token, i agree, it's silly to dig for references. but if they
smack me on the head - i will notice them.

i think she cuold've noticed better things than heart and angels and stuff
- that's as much renaiassancey as biblical.

> > why can't it be? why can't it be whate ver the reviewer gets from it?
> > there's not a necessarily set 'meaning' to a son. someone who comes
> > from a different walk of life hears something different. which is a
> > good definition o good lyrics/art. appeals to the masses, yet also
> > stretches beyond what they like.
>
> Hmmm. It depends on how we're defining "meaning". If we're defining it
> as "anyone's reaction" then you're right. But then we don't really need
> Biblical references or lyrics at all to come up with a "meaning", we can
> just attach whatever meaning we want to whatever art we choose. There is
> another kind of meaning, one written into the song by the song's
> composer, which may not be cut-and-dried, but which still can be said
> *not* to mean certain things. For example, I doubt Linford/Karin imagine
> people hearing "Happy To Be So" and conluding God does not exist at all,
> or that God is evil, etc. Most songwriters, even the really obscure
> ones, give us clues to help us interpret the song. In the case of Latter
> Days, I think the clues point to "Latter" meaning "recent" as opposed to
> "Last". There's nothing in the song that suggests a connection between
> the so-called "Last Days" and what's going on in the song. The song is
> about a strained relationship.

then accordint ot htat logic, if i followed it correctly, the LOTR series
would be absolutely NOT about antyhing christian - even though you can see
allusions to this in the same way you do with a parable (which are
admittedly incomplete analogies) all over the place. and to WWII. like it
or not, the worldview you have, the world you live in touches/taint/s
tarnishes/polishes your works.

> > and you don't have to. why is there this sudden outpouring of 'that's
> > too christian, so it must be wrong'?
>
> No one said that.

ok. it seemed that way - when what seemed ot be a sinlge paragraph touched
off this horror/upsetness

> > i bet someone who is satanic could listen to this and expoound on dark
> > mass and other rituals. or someone from a chinese background could
> > perhaps note that there is a strong use of colour, and the meanings
> > found therein.
>
> Hmm. Have you ever met anyone "Satanic"?

hm (: i meant someone who follows the Satanic religion.

> > it's not like she went on and on about how this was good, since it had
> > christianity in it - i tseems like it was an after though, an 'o yea,
> > i noticed this too' which made it a little more complete.
>
> But it kind of actually unravelled it - she couldn't talk about the
> music itself- she felt she had to justify it with the comment about
> BAPM.

i can see how it could come across as justificaiton. i guess i appreciated
she listened and found something deeper in it.

so iguess that's where we differ, since i can appreciate the spirit in
which she tried and i see that it seems like she got something good. if it
gets somone to listen to something they wouldn't normally - then great.
i'm not saying all the reviews on this site (which i guess are more just
opinions, but it seems like review has chaned anyway, to become people
offeringtheir opinions and feelings on something) are this way.


> >
> > and i don't think there's anythign wrong with trying to look at pop
> > culture, or anything else and evaluating it against your own life and
> > trying to see what's good ot keep or not.
>
> But that wasn't my point. My point was that they seem to be looking at
> all the wrong things.

that's fine i wasn't trying to say it w as. i'm sure i read some things in
your note and reacted to those more instead of your intent. but it sounded
like you didn' tlike christians looking at pop culture. though i bet if
i'd read it better, i would've seeen that it was the justification aspect.
i don't need ot justify my... um consumption of popculture. (i don't drink
starbucks cos i don't do coffee  expensive or otherwise)


> Hence my comments about Starbucks and Eminem's movie (they "review" both
> on the site). Theie mission doesn't seem to be evaluating pop culture
> against Christianity but rather providing justification to evangelicals
> for being rather uncritical consumers of it.

o bad. you should really be critical of what you take in. i agree. but how
did an otr review of an album become unthinking consumption? not sayin
gyou said this - just trying to tie things in.

rhys
>

-- 
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/