Yesterday I attended a seminar-type presentation by Lee Marshall about his upcoming book concerning Bob Dylan and the star persona. Great talk; looking forward to the book being published.
But anywho, at the end he opened up a discussion about meaning, music, and whether the meaning should be placed in the lyrics, or in the singer him/herself. Of course, a great debate started about his use of the word "authority" when he mentioned that he thought the meaning was in the "authority" of the singer's command of the song. The gender card was played - authority is too masculine, we should use "lighter" words such as embodiment, or presence.
I, for one, believe that of course authority is a masculine term, but only because we have created it to be so. We can blame rock for that. For male rock stars, it's all about the authenticity - it's all about being who you are, on-stage and off. Liven' the dream, as such.
I need to get my view off my chest. In the heated debate I didn't manage to make my point. So..
Marshall was taking his view of stardom from Dyer's film theory. In this form of stardom, there is a separation from the star as image and the star as regular person. The more "authentic" the star is, the more the same she is perceived to be in her star persona and her "normal life." And so, instead of using words such as authority, Dylan's singing can be seen more of as a removal of the star. In no ways an I implying that Dylan is not a star - he's one of the biggest - but because you can sense so much of him in his singing (he's got a very strong grain), it is removing the gap between star persona and real persona. He IS Dylan, his songs ARE Dylan. Hence why so many people look to the lyrics to find the man. The man is not in the lyrics, he's in the voice, and the voice is in the man. No catch, no star. It simply IS him.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Sunday, October 22, 2006
will i ever have a dog??
I am a nomad.
Since the year 2000, I have lived at eight different addresses, and have also somehow managed to end up with ten mailing addresses. Not that I'm really complaining about this. So far this lifestyle has worked out pretty good for me - I've got a couple degrees, traveled all over Canada, and am now overseas in ye olde Scotland. A lot of people don't have the opportunity to do this.
Also, unlike many others, I don't seem to have a problem with saying goodbye and leaving comfortable situations. My life is in constant flux with friends coming and going (or else, with ME coming and going), and that keeps things interesting.
But that's enough of a rant for one day. I think the root of the problem is that as a water-person, I am just missing the ocean. I can see it from my window in the distance, but have yet to sink my feet into it.
Soon love, soon. And then all shall be well.
Since the year 2000, I have lived at eight different addresses, and have also somehow managed to end up with ten mailing addresses. Not that I'm really complaining about this. So far this lifestyle has worked out pretty good for me - I've got a couple degrees, traveled all over Canada, and am now overseas in ye olde Scotland. A lot of people don't have the opportunity to do this.
Also, unlike many others, I don't seem to have a problem with saying goodbye and leaving comfortable situations. My life is in constant flux with friends coming and going (or else, with ME coming and going), and that keeps things interesting.
But that's enough of a rant for one day. I think the root of the problem is that as a water-person, I am just missing the ocean. I can see it from my window in the distance, but have yet to sink my feet into it.
Soon love, soon. And then all shall be well.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
darksuckers...
Now, to explain the truth about light and dark: the darksuckers theory.
The basic premise is that what we think are light-emitting sources (lightbulbs, candles, the sun) are actually darksuckers. They do not emit light, but rather suck dark.
Darksuckers will not work indefinitely - they all have their own life-time. Once a darksucker has sucked up too much dark, it is basically ineffective. Hence why lightbulbs have a black film on them when they've stopped working: they've built up too much dark inside. For candles, the wick is where the dark collects, hence why it turns black. And what about the sun, the most powerful darksucker in existence, you may ask? What do you think sun spots are?? Yes, a build-up of dark.
The sun will eventually suck up so much dark from the expansive universe that the dark will collapse the darksucker in a black hole (i.e., condensed darkness).
More proof? Well, dark is heavier than light. Why do you think that the bottom of the ocean/lake/water source is darker than the top? The darkness is sinking to the bottom, whereas light (light, is "light," obviously) floats to the surface.
So, now you know. Another flawless theory.
The basic premise is that what we think are light-emitting sources (lightbulbs, candles, the sun) are actually darksuckers. They do not emit light, but rather suck dark.
Darksuckers will not work indefinitely - they all have their own life-time. Once a darksucker has sucked up too much dark, it is basically ineffective. Hence why lightbulbs have a black film on them when they've stopped working: they've built up too much dark inside. For candles, the wick is where the dark collects, hence why it turns black. And what about the sun, the most powerful darksucker in existence, you may ask? What do you think sun spots are?? Yes, a build-up of dark.
The sun will eventually suck up so much dark from the expansive universe that the dark will collapse the darksucker in a black hole (i.e., condensed darkness).
More proof? Well, dark is heavier than light. Why do you think that the bottom of the ocean/lake/water source is darker than the top? The darkness is sinking to the bottom, whereas light (light, is "light," obviously) floats to the surface.
So, now you know. Another flawless theory.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
"we don't tolerate stupidity"
So I woke up this morning and read this on Yahoo! news:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/04102006/344/teens-smoke-small-babies.html
If you're going to be so careless with an innocent life growing inside you, then you are obviously not prepared to be giving birth and raising a child.
I have often mentioned to people that a license should be implemented in order to have children (kind of like a marriage license). This would prevent people who should not be having children from having children. Obviously it's not as easy as this - there's the whole human rights issues, morals, etc.etc...but still! People should not be stupid enough to think that they can smoke during pregnancy in the hopes that it will make the birth easier!
Please, can we infect children with tar/nicotine/formaldehyde/arsenic/butane before they're even born!?
Next thing you know there'll be people genetically altering fetuses to create uber-babies..... oh wait....
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/04102006/344/teens-smoke-small-babies.html
If you're going to be so careless with an innocent life growing inside you, then you are obviously not prepared to be giving birth and raising a child.
I have often mentioned to people that a license should be implemented in order to have children (kind of like a marriage license). This would prevent people who should not be having children from having children. Obviously it's not as easy as this - there's the whole human rights issues, morals, etc.etc...but still! People should not be stupid enough to think that they can smoke during pregnancy in the hopes that it will make the birth easier!
Please, can we infect children with tar/nicotine/formaldehyde/arsenic/butane before they're even born!?
Next thing you know there'll be people genetically altering fetuses to create uber-babies..... oh wait....
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
song of the day...
"The Seer's Tower" - Sufjan Stevens
For those of you not familiar with Sufjan Stevens, I would place him in the neo-folk genre of the male singer/songwriters. He's an American multi-instrumentalist and singer who is hoping to write an album dedicated to each of the 50 states in the US.
So far he's done two.
At least he's only 31; but still, if he can only pull off one a year, I hope the last few states aren't some sort of geriatric easy-listening fluff.
Anyways, "The Seer's Tower" is from the Illinoise album. This song, no matter what I'm doing at the time, always stops me dead when I hear it. It's so simple yet so effective.
Just voice, some keyboards/synths, a piano, tambourine. But if you want to talk about hearing the grain of the voice, this song is a prime example. Not only can you hear the grain, but you can practically feel him playing the piano. Breathtaking.
The highlight for me is the third verse where the mood intensifies, but the piano decides to back off and place the emphasis more off-the-beat, delaying the downbeat, and trying to cut through the tension while simultaneously creating more.
Listen to this song. This is not a just a suggestion.
For those of you not familiar with Sufjan Stevens, I would place him in the neo-folk genre of the male singer/songwriters. He's an American multi-instrumentalist and singer who is hoping to write an album dedicated to each of the 50 states in the US.
So far he's done two.
At least he's only 31; but still, if he can only pull off one a year, I hope the last few states aren't some sort of geriatric easy-listening fluff.
Anyways, "The Seer's Tower" is from the Illinoise album. This song, no matter what I'm doing at the time, always stops me dead when I hear it. It's so simple yet so effective.
Just voice, some keyboards/synths, a piano, tambourine. But if you want to talk about hearing the grain of the voice, this song is a prime example. Not only can you hear the grain, but you can practically feel him playing the piano. Breathtaking.
The highlight for me is the third verse where the mood intensifies, but the piano decides to back off and place the emphasis more off-the-beat, delaying the downbeat, and trying to cut through the tension while simultaneously creating more.
Listen to this song. This is not a just a suggestion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)