Lifter Puller, Rock and Roll!

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?)

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?)

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.

ok now going.

"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?

OK, it's time for me to leave this conversation.

yes, Kate, we knew

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 attractive
2) personal experience of the lifestyle
3) 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
4) 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.

(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?)

Maybe Josh's problem is that it's a little obvious? I was going to post a lecturing post abt how EVERY band lives in this world and is comprised of these kinds of people, that would have gone something like this: Waiting tables, tending bar, doing a little freelance, going to parties, living at NIGHT, making your money in tips, getting a tattoo, driving a shitty car, being in a couple bands or art projects that will go nowhere, doing drugs and knowing people who do WAY more than you, wasting your money, watching people you went to school with (whatever level you managed to finish) commuting in their new Jetta, trying to make your ideas matter in the world, to make them pay off, to make the utter childish mess of your life pay off --> this is the place that all pop music comes from, unless you're Kelly Clarkson. So it's not like LP are somehow special or wierd for having anything TO DO with the life; you could even fault every other performer for saying LESS abt it. Yeah LP do a 'pastoral' or 'grotesque' way of looking at it, but it's the place that all of your other music comes from.

...But that isn't news to anyone I guess. So maybe that's Josh's problem with them? Every band ever is in this world and all the other ones want to talk abt something ELSE? CF's great use of metonymy notwithstanding? I mean, "woke up with my hand stuck in the tapedeck" is probably one of my favorite lines from any song: hilarious, unexpected, clear, detailed. To bring up another of my old poetry profs: "there is no such thing as a synonym" (she was qting someone else who I should know the name of) TAPEDECK, it's so perfect, so much better than 'stereo' (or, since the line dodges away at the last second from snicker-snicker sex talk, 'up her ass' or something). What kind of manky shithole was he partying in? The part stands in for the whole. But if you (the general 'you' here really) just think that waking up with your hand stuck in a tapedeck at 23 or 27 or 35 is ONLY a stupid thing to do, I guess yeah the uh charms of LP may mean jack to you.

Yeah, I do think so, actually! While I respond partly because I recognize a lot of CF's characters, it's pretty much an article of faith for me that subject matter is cosmetic: the substance lies elsewhere.

the girl selling t-shirts was kind of a freaker,
first she gets handcuffed
they started to beat her, i was so angry, you had just left me
they had her pinned down, it was so easy, gotta admit it
i can't forget it, i don't regret it
that i got some kicks in

Can't get beyond the selfishness, and it's just so plainly sad and even universal. The heft of the cruel world is underwhelming and unmoving next to selfish thoughts and personal pain.

About language? I dunno. Certainly they use language in a fascinating, complicated, almost singular way, but I wouldn't say they're about it. At least not in the formalist/gestural way the word "about" implies to me.

I think there's really dense, rich thematic stuff going on in LP's ouvre -- stuff about the way subcultures work, about a certain kind of millenial American sadness... Anyone wanna start a thread on thematic strands that run through Craig Finn's work?