Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU.UUCP (02/19/87)
Really-From: "ROSSI J.A." <rossi@nusc.ARPA> Has it ever occurred to the people who depend on excerpts from interviews with pop stars that it is possible for them to lie occasionally. One would expect that, most lie quite frequently, especially when ego related issues are raised. This is not to dispute the spoken word of, say, Kate about the true meaning of HoL, or Gabriel's explanation for the Genesis breakup, but one must consider that there are always explainations for verbal behavior which extend beyond truth-telling. Now, ponering the ramifications of this insight, it can probably be concluded that people who stand in fanatic adoration of a particular star whoul tend to view their (the star's) spoken word as gospel, and would exhibit a tendency to ignore, or otherwise demine, alternative explainations of events surrounding their idol's life. Just today, I heard a 17 year old female (who adores Bon Jovi in much the same way as IED adores Kate) make similar statements concerning the hairy Italian rocker. Although the language was not as quasi-articulate as that used by IED (one must assume that he has at least 1 year of hard core college under his belt, and has, presumably passed, ehglish composition 101), the same fanatic remarks were there. IED, Diane (this girl's name), challanges you to name an album which is as cohesive, inspirational, or of better quality than Slippery When Wet, with other Bon Jovi albums excluded, has been produced in the last decade. Now, who is right here? Diane can argue her point as effectively as IED, and with all the evidence at hand, based on her description of how she dresses for Bon Jovi concerts, I personally would believe she is probably right (pardon the sexist implications of the last sentence, please). Jesus, maybe IED and Diane should get together and discuss the meaning of life without the existence of their idols. What about it IED, maube she'll show you hers if you show her yours. John ------
Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU.UUCP (02/19/87)
Really-From: rutgers!uwvax!astroatc!gtaylor (Mais, ou sont les neiges d'antan?) >"ROSSI J.A." <rossi@nusc.ARPA> comments on the pitfalls of interpretation >Has it ever occurred to the people who depend on excerpts from interviews with >pop stars that it is possible for them to lie occasionally. One would expect >that, most lie quite frequently, especially when ego-related issues are >raised. This is not to dispute the spoken word of, say, Kate about the true >meaning of HoL, or Gabriel's explanation for the Genesis breakup, but one >must consider that there are always explainations for verbal behavior which >extend beyond truth-telling. This tendency to weigh the differences between someone's own view of what they intended and what their work "means" is one that even Doug has stumbled across (remember his Kate Bush interview?), and I think that Mr. Rossi has a pretty good point. One might also point out that the same problem is present in lots of other things than Rock Journalism: Biography, History, Textual Criticism, Fanzine publishing (right, hof?), etc. With luck, one tempers one's views by attempting to keep the context of one's comments in view, cross-checking that with second sources, keeping the sharp eye out for patterns of behaviour that appear to contradict the presentation of a speaker's ideas, and so forth. I think that the insistence on the part of a writer that what someone *says* is the absolute and final word tends only to be an issue in those aesthetic paradigms where "intention" is the primary currency. Even then, it is incumbent upon the Intentionalist to carefully consider the issues of verification. The key point here is that I do not believe that we're simply dealing with a genius (person) and the product of their genius (the LP) when we deal with art. Both of those two parties are, at best, a kind of convenient shorthand for a very complicated set of cultural, social, etc. transactions. We are at as great a peril when we attempt to be Redictivists about either one as we are when we attempt to say that they can be totally separated. Just my opine, of course.