Quote:
|
Originally Posted by keiko
It is entirely possible to separate the art from the artist.
|
You're cute, you're intelligent and you're good with a knife, but you're wrong. Sorry.
If you're writing lyrics then you draw on your life and those of the people around you, if you consciously want to or not it just happens - every damn time. That means a lyricist with a substance addiction may not write all their songs about Benny and the Jets (oh... wait...), but they apply a point of view based on their experiences (political, criminal, religious and family values) and of course if your life is spent strung out, in abusive relationships or chained up in Rikers your experience base becomes a little narrower.
With some it's gradeschool obvious ( "I'll take alcoholic female singers for $200" "...and the answer is 'who wrote a song about rehab clinics?' ") but I agree that if the artist covers their issues in the public eye it's less obvious to a casual listener - however when you know them personally it's a different matter. Amy W couldn't write a lyric about fluffy bunny wabbits if her life depended on it, neither could Amy L write about being a US Ranger in Iraq - and it's nothing to do with 'musical style'. You can't dream something you can't imagine, and you can't write about it either. It's one of the reasons collaborative lyrics often seem to appeal to a wider audience, as they're a melt of multiple points of view on the same subject. They may still flow as a single point of view in the song, but with wider boundaries than one person can operate inside.
Creepshow says Evanescence (the old band) isn't Christian, but of course they were. The members were, and a band is nothing more than the sum of its parts buffed by a few million dollars worth of people like me. No, they didn't go off all Creed and write albums praising Lord God Almighty, but their points of view were all taken from their upbringing and life experiences - hence no songs about being satanists, Hindus or sheepfucking psycho Welshmen. Instead, lyrics about their demographic target primaries of teen love (looking for it, losing it, being confused by it, wanting it, not wanting it...getting it and regretting it) and death (life after it, loss over it, the tax implications of it etc.). Reincarnation as a hamster? no.
Of course to the aforementioned demographic of stripey-legged tweens and mallgoths the surface lyrics appealed, we got album sales and everyone made cash (well, almost everyone). Underneath is a whole pile of stuff that only makes sense to a small group and it'll no doubt stay that way, but even with all the careful layers of marketing and psych targeting your mall-dwelling album purchaser does recognize 'an association to the artist' from the music they hear - it's intentional for sales and polished to within an inch of its life but if we wanted to turn it off we couldn't.
I have no problem with the idea of enjoying someone's music and not agreeing with their politics, religion or lifestyle - you're not being asked to accept them as a friend or move into their world, but you can't deny that the thing you're enjoying is a product of that world. Export sales maybe, but still a product.
Re: The Evanescence Hoax
