― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:00 (twenty years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:00 (twenty years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:01 (twenty years ago) link
― M Matos (M Matos), Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:02 (twenty years ago) link
― Josh (Josh), Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:06 (twenty years ago) link
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:08 (twenty years ago) link
As far as I know, Craig is from a well off family, and met [gtr player] in college (Boston?) and they decided to start a punk band, so they came back to Mpls (I don't remember which of them was from here). I don't think it's possible to even BE IN a band and not have heavy heavy contact with the nighlife, even if you didn't want it.
Anyway, I think his day job is now in finance somewhere. So he stands in the same relation to the 'k-hole' (ie the gutter-rock-drug-sex-loser halfworld) as, I would think, Brian Wilson did to the 'beach,' ie always looking in no matter how in he gets.
And I think the connection btw those two is important; LP do a kind of loser-pastoral. It's a stretched connection bcz LP is so much more WORDY than the Beach Boys, lyrical content counts for much more of what LP were than what the BBs were, but it's the same artistic strategy: find a little corner and make the world out of it. (a good enough reason not to like Wilson either, really.)
And unlike Wilson the k-hole IS ridiculous (the beach is pretty ridiculous too, but less intentionally so), far too detailed and amplified to be read too seriously. I don't know how much of an 'indie-beaudelaire' act they were trying to do, they were always way too FUNNY. (one thing I don't like abt LP is how reliant their schtick is on schtick: their riffs often didn't stand up to the weight of the spiel)
(I don't think they ever made enough money to afford not being anemic on record. I guess that's still their 'fault,' I'm sure there are other cheap engineers out there who know how to mic a bass cabinet, but hey their uh historical record is imperfect.)
― g--ff c-nn-n (gcannon), Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:14 (twenty years ago) link
I'm not saying that. but suppose it's something like what you describe in that book. the way you put it, it's sort of like, 'this really held my interest and was enjoyable'. I can understand reasons like that given that you talked about the vivid writing, etc. (bad people make for good characters, sure.) but people seem to talk about lifter puller a lot giving reasons like that, sort of music criticy, materials-of-songwriting and canons-of-rock kinds of things, while acting and sounding like they are far more committed to... something, I don't know what, thus my talk about myth, sensibility, etc. above - way more into something, more moved by it, whatever, than people tend to get by 'mere' good or innovative songcraft, etc. (I know it's not you, but: a guy with lftr pllr tatooed on his knuckles?)
― Josh (Josh), Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:19 (twenty years ago) link
― M Matos (M Matos), Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:20 (twenty years ago) link
― Josh (Josh), Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:28 (twenty years ago) link
― Josh (Josh), Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:33 (twenty years ago) link
― Josh (Josh), Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:36 (twenty years ago) link
I'm not sure what you're talking about re: "music criticy, materials-of-songwriting and canons-of-rock kinds of things"--I've probably written about them more and more prominently than anyone else, and I don't seem to recall doing any of that, though maybe I'm too close to it to know better--but as far as "[getting] way more into something, more moved by it, whatever, than people tend to get by 'mere' good or innovative songcraft, etc." goes, (a) there's nothing "mere" about them in terms of craft etc. and (b) as my personal examples above help illustrate, LP get to something pretty deep in the heart of why people go clubbing et al; there is a romantic aspect to nightlife and there are, believe it or not, intelligent people who are drawn to that.
I don't think he's pastoralizing something he's moved on from (especially if the stuff he's doing w/the Hold Steady, which is even grimier subject-wise, is any indication), I think he found it fascinating and wanted to explore it. CF told me once that he was trying to create a Pynchon-esque world w/his characters, and the whole seamier-than-you-first-suspect underworld is a tribute in particular to The Crying of Lot 49. I try not to mention any of this generally because I artists' intentions generally mean bubkes, plus having never read Pynchon myself I couldn't necessarily draw any parallels anyway. but it resonates w/people for lots of different reasons, not just my personal ones above, and while obviously having a nightlife background helps me get to it faster I was a fan even before I deduced that was what was going on lyrically.
I must ask, though, Josh, why the incredulousness for the guy w/their name tattooed on his knuckles? you just sound like you're totally afraid of anything that excites people when you say stuff like that, and I really hope that's not the case. I mean, why wouldn't someone do that? and what does it matter whether he did or not?
(also, I gotta ask: when would you prefer I be at my rudest? when people wear plaid after labor day? how can any of this surprise you, really? all this time after you first read me on this board and elsewhere, you have to know that I'm really fucking argumentative?)
― M Matos (M Matos), Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:42 (twenty years ago) link
― scott seward, Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:49 (twenty years ago) link
no, I'm not afraid. but do a thought experiment: a LP fan with the tattoo, and a bedhead fan with a bedhead tattoo. (the results? I don't know. but they seem different.)
I can't really speak to the lot 49 bit either, from the other end (though at first hunch I would say, before getting LP, that maybe they got some of the cast-of-characters sort of stuff, but that that's not what's key abt pynchon). yo what up sterl though.
going now, will think about the other part later.
― Josh (Josh), Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:52 (twenty years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:53 (twenty years ago) link
― M Matos (M Matos), Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:54 (twenty years ago) link
ok now going.
― Josh (Josh), Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:55 (twenty years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:57 (twenty years ago) link
― M Matos (M Matos), Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:57 (twenty years ago) link
― scott seward, Sunday, 29 June 2003 02:57 (twenty years ago) link
― M Matos (M Matos), Sunday, 29 June 2003 03:01 (twenty years ago) link
― scott seward, Sunday, 29 June 2003 03:02 (twenty years ago) link
― scott seward, Sunday, 29 June 2003 03:03 (twenty years ago) link
― M Matos (M Matos), Sunday, 29 June 2003 03:03 (twenty years ago) link
"The thing about the lyrics is that they were written for people who were the same types of fans as me. I would obsess over records when I was young. Analyzing every lyric, piece of artwork, etc. When I was really young I thought every record was a concept album, it was just up to me to figure out the concept. So I tried to create lyrics that related to other songs of ours, and that tell a linear story to make it a fun puzzle thing for listeners, something that has rewards for people who listen closely or a ton of times, etc. I think that led to us gaining some particularly obsessive fans."
I also think seeing the band live can completely change a person's perspective on the group. Yet, we're talking about lyricism here, aren't we?
― Kate Silver (Kate Silver), Sunday, 29 June 2003 03:04 (twenty years ago) link
― scott seward, Sunday, 29 June 2003 03:06 (twenty years ago) link
― scott seward, Sunday, 29 June 2003 03:08 (twenty years ago) link
― M Matos (M Matos), Sunday, 29 June 2003 03:16 (twenty years ago) link
OK, it's time for me to leave this conversation.
― Kate Silver (Kate Silver), Sunday, 29 June 2003 03:22 (twenty years ago) link
― Kate Silver (Kate Silver), Sunday, 29 June 2003 03:23 (twenty years ago) link
yes, Kate, we knew
― M Matos (M Matos), Sunday, 29 June 2003 03:23 (twenty years ago) link
― M Matos (M Matos), Sunday, 29 June 2003 03:42 (twenty years ago) link
― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 29 June 2003 05:42 (twenty years ago) link
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 29 June 2003 06:01 (twenty years ago) link
― scott m (mcd), Monday, 30 June 2003 01:09 (twenty years ago) link
― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 30 June 2003 01:32 (twenty years ago) link
― Josh (Josh), Monday, 30 June 2003 02:38 (twenty years ago) link
― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 30 June 2003 02:43 (twenty years ago) link
― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 30 June 2003 02:55 (twenty years ago) link
― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 30 June 2003 03:07 (twenty years ago) link
― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 30 June 2003 04:18 (twenty years ago) link
matos keeps posting as if he's answered me somehow, but I'm not happy. reason: I don't CARE about the 'interesting way' stuff, the mechanics of songwriting. there are lots of good songwriters out there. my original question and later questions had the thrust of: why this subject matter? why the extremely intense identification with, or affinity for, this subject matter? this is what I think I've gotten out of matos, so far:
1) rebellion is attractive2) personal experience of the lifestyle3) LP get to something pretty deep in the heart of why people go clubbing et al; there is a romantic aspect to nightlife and there are, believe it or not, intelligent people who are drawn to that4) CF found this world/life interesting and wanted to explore it
what do LP get to about why people choose the nightlife (and I assume we mean here not just to go out and have a little fun kind of nightlife, but a lifestyle where this IS life)? the reason I put it in terms of a 'myth' before was that that thing, at the heart of why people live this life, seems like one sort of story told about, if you will, the essence of 'rock'. about what really makes it important, or authentic, or significant, or good.
― Josh (Josh), Monday, 30 June 2003 05:07 (twenty years ago) link
― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 30 June 2003 05:15 (twenty years ago) link
― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 30 June 2003 05:16 (twenty years ago) link
― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 30 June 2003 05:17 (twenty years ago) link
― general zod, Monday, 30 June 2003 05:41 (twenty years ago) link
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 30 June 2003 07:00 (twenty years ago) link
(the fact that zod is possibly a poster i like when s/he's NOT being anonymous doesn't alter this judgment in the slightest)
this is an interesting thread even if the main discussors were annoyed and unhappy during it: in fact, possibly BECAUSE the main discussors — both highly intelligent writers — were annoyed and unhappy about it (two very raw spots rubbing against one another: why?)
― mark s (mark s), Monday, 30 June 2003 09:49 (twenty years ago) link
― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 30 June 2003 10:21 (twenty years ago) link