Jimmy Eat World - Integrity Blues (October 21, 2016) Album • Page 109

I don't care much for thrice

 

No man, thanks for being critical. It'll ultimately help me sort out how I feel about this issue.

I'll be honest about my ignorance and admit that I don't have a solid answer. I've been sitting here for about 7 minutes trying to articulate a decent response to no avail. I think if this were to happen, I'd have to come forward and denounce the use of my art in that way, and therefore assert my intent as its creator. However, I think there is a difference between music used as a political device (and I'm speaking in the very particular cases you are describing here) and music enjoyed as recreational art by a listener. I'm struggling to pin down exactly what I think the difference is in a way that relates to this conversation, but I still feel that an artist is allowed to condemn the use of their art in ways that are harmful or derogatory (The White Stripes condemning Trump for playing one of their songs at his rally) without divulging the true intent behind the art. I can say that I do not approve of the way it is being utilized, but I don't have to express what it is about to do so. And also, just because I disagree with or even abhor someone's interpretation of something doesn't really mean I get to completely deride it. Sure, I can come out and say "I think this is wrong and do not support it," but ultimately it's out of my control. Like I said, it's out of my hands once it's in the wild, and therefore I no longer hold dominion over it.

I hope that makes some sort of sense. It's not a great answer, and it's something I'll be pondering for a while, so thank you for making me think!

 

That's still their interpretation of the song. The meaning of a song can obviously be completely lost on people. And everyone's quick to point out what the song (born in the USA) actually is about. Not that those who think it's about something else have an "incorrect" interpretation (or perhaps they do) but there are widely agreed upon meanings of songs among listeners. Those who are "wrong" are still more than welcome to their interpretation

 

Funny, I almost kept writing and would've addressed some of the questions you just asked.

I'll use some examples rather than continuing in the theoretical.

As far as an album being super eclectic, this might not be the best example because I haven't listened to it in a decade, but the first thing that came to mind was Red Jumpsuit Apparatus' Lonely Road. If I remember correctly, the album has a country song, some monstrous ballads, and a more classic rock-bent take on the debut album's penchant emo. This "eclecticism" might have impressed some people, but most likely only the people with little familiarity with the genres being tossed around. Those songs are template-fillers, with no creation actually occurring, just regurgitation. Likewise, the only people who were impressed when Boys Like Girls released a country album were probably people who don't listen to much country. The more knowledge you have of a genre, the more prepared you are to notice when a genre is being utilized well, performed adequately, or merely being imitated.

I'm a huge fan of Hands Like Houses's latest album Dissonants. The album has almost zero variance in genre or style. Kind of like your example, I admire the album's "strong sense of cohesion," but I wouldn't think that way if the songs were too similar. The stylistic cohesion works because the songs are still distinct. This is largely due to the singer's really strong melodies. If I sat down with you and a keyboard, I could prove to you that the songs have unique melodies from each other. This fact then correlates to my own ability to remember each chorus and probably be able to sing each chorus on demand, despite the stylistic similarities that, in weaker hands, would make all the songs blend together.

Still, it's my own biased taste for post-hardcore music that makes me interested in Hands Like Houses in the first place. I get that. To a certain extent, I'm not disagreeing with you.

If you could run with me for a second, imagine a spectrum with 100% taste on one end and 100% judgment on the other. Theoretically, all humans are born on the taste-end of the spectrum, but what I'm arguing for is that learning about something, be it politics or music or theology, moves you down the spectrum toward judgment. I don't completely disagree with your statement that the music "you prefer and want to hear ... is informed by your own opinions and biases." Of course I have opinions about music and I have tastes for specific genres. But these aren't opinions for opinion's sake or taste for taste's sake. These are opinions that have become informed over time as I have learned more. These are tastes that have been molded by knowledge.

Listening to Thrice in 6th grade gave me a knowledge I didn't have before. I didn't have a taste for post-hardcore or an opinion of it because I'd never heard it. I didn't have a "taste" for country until I started actually learning about the genre and finding the artists therein who were keeping a certain tradition of country songwriting alive. (Thanks again @Craig Manning !) There's a knowledge there. Maybe that's the point I'm really arguing. That learning new things alters people's tastes. There's taste with no judgment involved, such as the kid reading his first poem, and there's taste with a lot of judgment, the Master's holder who reads the same poem. It's the difference between a wholly biased opinion and an informed opinion.

If someone comes galavanting through this thread saying Integrity Blues sucks, but only listened to the album once, that user has a less informed opinion then someone who's listened two or three times or someone who has sat down and dissected the lyrics.

Can we at least agree on this? hahhaa

 

Remember literally last week when you said you actually liked SOME thrice


That must not have lasted long

 

Funny, I'd probably put "Sky Harbor" up there with "23" and "Dizzy."

 

Illusion is the only album by them I love after that it's p meh BUT I can still see the skill and creativity in that band it just isn't for me

 

I know when ur around cuz I know the sound I know the sound of your @

 

They're not "more than welcome to their interpretation of the song" though. Reinterpretation of Born in the USA as a jingoistic song is openly destructive not just to the original intent of the song but to the people who the song is addressing and speaking for. The question at the base of this is, When an audience's interpretation is openly destructive to a song, is it the author's responsibility to speak out and address that destructiveness? and if by releasing the piece of art that artists is relinquishing artistic intent, does the artists feeling that politicians shouldn't use his songs hold any weight? On a songwriting copyright level, yes obviously it does, but I would also argue on an aesthetic leve the artist's intent should continue to matter even after it is released.

 

what knowledge have you gained to make your opinions more objective on music over time? If that's what you're saying? What have you learned that makes your takes objective? It's still gonna come down to your own opinions and biases. You can't call people with a different opinion on xyz music "wrong" based on that

 

The original intent of the song doesn't matter though. That's my argument. If listeners can't pick up the meaning it's one of two things: the meaning was poorly conveyed or the listerns interpretation is off base. I don't think people interpreting it differently from the original intent is destructive to the song at all. Now the argument as music used as a political weapon is completely separate from this in my opinion. Which really is just irony when politicians use it in that way. Those politicians will actively harm the people the song was originally for with or without the song

 

Jake ur just not gonna acknowledge my 1975 post huh I see how it is

 

I liked it!!!!

 

I would like to know more about this particular argument. A song could convey a message perfectly and people could interpret in entirely the wrong way and hold it up as a counter-example against what the artist originally intended. You don't think that's destructive to the song and what the artist was trying to convey? I'm genuinely curious as to the reasons why you believe that to be the case

 

I think that there are objective meanings behind songs but listeners don't necessarily have to take into account those specific meanings when relating the songs to themselves.

It's extremely likely I'm wrong.

 

Getting a little restless waiting to hear this. A bit worried if everyone is saying You Are Free is the high point on the album

 

Because there are enough people who don't interpret it the wrong way to off set that. I've never seen a case where everyone got the meaning of a song wrong. Plus it's more likely for a song to have neither a right or wrong interpretation. Still, I don't know many people if any at all who don't know what born in the USA actually means

 

But does the artists' interpretation of the song they wrote and created hold more weight than the interpretations of songs by the audience? The argument that artistic intent is irrelevant would argue that it does not. I personally argue for the importance of artist intent.

 

I know a lot of people who have no clue that's what Born In the USA is about, because it's been used in expressly political situations for so long.

 

I need a bigger commitment than that hunny

 

But I'm sure you know many people who are aware of the meaning

 

I agree entirely.

 

Btw, a friend of mine bought the CD from a record store (I don't know which one, sorry) today so I'm guessing this makes its way onto the internet sometime in the near future.

 

I do. I took a class on Bruce Springsteens Lyrics in college (welcome to going to college in New Jersey) so yeah sure I know plenty of people who have interpreted correctly. But your initial argument that you don't know of many, if any, people who don't know what the song is actually about is what I was refuting originally.

 

That was the last part of my post. My argument is that it's not destructive when many, perhaps most, people get the meaning