Michael - The Great Album Debate

[Milka]

There is nothing poetic in the Cascio songs. Only attempts. The Cascio songs are written in such a manner that the listener or the reader is constantly interrupted in his/her listening/reading either by the lack of context or lack of depth in those songs. It sounds just like a pale echo of MJ's previous songs.

We were talking about Malachi's song and the heart/eyes thing. Also, the lyrics in the Cascio songs - what if they were just never really finished? Buttercup a day?

The tons you are referring to are not poems, just randomness. There is a clear difference between art and writing randomly things just to fit without worrying about the context. Anyone can do it. The art is different, not anyone is a poet/artist.

No, not anyone can do it. And also, with what you just said, you are basically saying that at least half the songs (or parts of them) that were ever written are just randomness and not art.

Lyrics are not English class, they are also not math and don't have to be "logical".

Regarding Falco (I presume you are referring to the songs such as "Jeannie" and "Rock me Amadeus"), there is nothing wrong in mixing languages. Many great poets did it. Pushkin wrote sometimes in French and Russian. The issue is not mixing the languages, but the content, the form, the meaning and even the shape. Take the booklet from Dangerous and look at the shape and the way the lyrics of the song Dangerous are written: that's both art and poetry.

I was talking about all of Falco's songs, he didn't just do it in one or two. My point also wasn't the mixing of the languages, my point was to do it to get a certain flow or sound. Mixing languages like that could also be seen as "illogical" and "wrong", because nobody talks like that, when I talk to people I never switch between English and German every other sentence.
´

"Break of dawn" is not correct. The correct expression is "break of day" meaning "dawn". Now if you say "break of dawn", what does that mean? Night?

The reason you find it in the dictionary is because people use it, and that's why I said, it does not sound wrong or disturbing. But in reality it is wrong to say "break of dawn". It's a pleonasm.

Of course break of dawn is correct (and even if it wasn't and was just in the dictionary because people use it - language changes over time, all the time actually, language is always growing and changing, that's why an expression that might be "wrong" can still become right with time if people use it). Dusk would be evening/night. In German: dawn = Morgen(morning)daemmerung, dusk = Abend(evening)daemmerung, with "Daemmerung" meaning "twilight", "gloaming". Ever watched the movie "From Dusk Till Dawn"?

P.S. Oh wait, I think you also meant the "break of" part? Still nothing wrong with that. (Edit: To clarify - because "break" has a lot of different meanings, it also means arrival, onset, beginning).

 

[Arklove]

Of course you agree. If you disagreed, I'd request to ban you from this site definitely

Just try it

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

We were talking about Malachi's song and the heart/eyes thing. Also, the lyrics in the Cascio songs - what if they were just never really finished? Buttercup a day?

If they weren't finished you'd hear that. Butthey don't sound demos, do they?

No, not anyone can do it. And also, with what you just said, you are basically saying that at least half the songs (or parts of them) that were ever written are just randomness and not art.

Exactly. Many lyrics are all but certainly not art.

Lyrics are not English class, they are also not math and don't have to be "logical".

I wasn't refering to logic, but grammar must be respected to a certain acceptable degree. A language is not a painting, you can't do anything you want or else we wouldn't understand each other. It's a way of communication. If you mess with the transmission the communication is lost. If you make it perfect, you make art.

I was talking about all of Falco's songs, he didn't just do it in one or two. My point also wasn't the mixing of the languages, my point was to do it to get a certain flow or sound. Mixing languages like that could also be seen as "illogical" and "wrong", because nobody talks like that, when I talk to people I never switch between English and German every other sentence.

The point is, you can't put anything in a song and use the excuse of "art" in order to fit the need of the flow. The real art is to find the right wording fitting the flow, not a randome one.
´

Of course break of dawn is correct (and even if it wasn't and was just in the dictionary because people use it - language changes over time, all the time actually, language is always growing and changing, that's why an expression that might be "wrong" can still become right with time if people use it). Dusk would be evening/night. In German: dawn = Morgen(morning)daemmerung, dusk = Abend(evening)daemmerung, with "Daemmerung" meaning "twilight", "gloaming". Ever watched the movie "From Dusk Till Dawn"?

P.S. Oh wait, I think you also meant the "break of" part? Still nothing wrong with that.

No, it is not correct and I doubt it will be. I offered the reason why. "BREAK OF DAY" means "DAWN". But if BREAK OF DAY means DAWN, what does BREAK OF DAWN mean? It is simply not correct. It is accepted only as a slang or colloquial expression. Nevertheless it remains a pleonasm. It's just like saying "the water is wet". Of course it is.

 

[Milka]

If they weren't finished you'd hear that. Butthey don't sound demos, do they?

Maybe you do hear it and that's why they sound so "stupid" to the people in this thread. I don't know, if you just work on a melody, you might not have finished lyrics yet.

Exactly. Many lyrics are all but certainly not art.

LOL - don't know what else to say to that. Art actually lies in the eyes of the beholder (I guess that was "illogical", sorry ). And there are good and bad artists.

I wasn't refering to logic, but grammar must be respected to a certain acceptable degree. A language is not a painting, you can't do anything you want or else we wouldn't understand each other. It's a way of communication. If you mess with the transmission the communication is lost. If you make it perfect, you make art.

Grammar doesn't have to be respected, sometimes not respecting it (or other "rules") is what makes a poem or song lyrics art.

The point is, you can't put anything in a song and use the excuse of "art" in order to fit the need of the flow. The real art is to find the right wording fitting the flow, not a randome one.

Well, the moment it fits for YOU when you hear it (and that can be the complete opposite of what fits for me), you'll probably call it "art".
´

No, it is not correct and I doubt it will be. I offered the reason why. "BREAK OF DAY" means "DAWN". But if BREAK OF DAY means DAWN, what does BREAK OF DAWN mean? It is simply not correct. It is accepted only as a slang or colloquial expression. Nevertheless it remains a pleonasm. It's just like saying "the water is wet". Of course it is.

Your approach to language is a very "technical" one, that's not how language works (and especially poems or song lyrics), it's like a living and developing and growing thing (or something that develops basically in the blink of an eye out of necessity - pidgin languages). The thing with "break of dawn" is ... if you are a night owl, like me, you'll see "the break of dawn" almost every day, at least during summer. It's not something that happens within a split second, it's something that takes at least an hour (technically even more, depending on where you are in the world and on the season, but the part of it that is really noticable to non-astronomers). So it's something that is different from day or night, so it's also something that has a beginning and an end. So the break of dawn is the beginning of dawn, when it ends it's the beginning of the day.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Maybe you do hear it and that's why they sound so "stupid" to the people in this thread. I don't know, if you just work on a melody, you might not have finished lyrics yet.



LOL - don't know what else to say to that. Art actually lies in the eyes of the beholder (I guess that was "illogical", sorry ). And there are good and bad artists.



Grammar doesn't have to be respected, sometimes not respecting it (or other "rules") is what makes a poem or song lyrics art.




Well, the moment it fits for YOU when you hear it (and that can be the complete opposite of what fits for me), you'll probably call it "art".
´


Your approach to language is a very "technical" one, that's not how language works (and especially poems or song lyrics), it's like a living and developing and growing thing (or something that develops basically in the blink of an eye out of necessity - pidgin languages). The thing with "break of dawn" is ... if you are a night owl, like me, you'll see "the break of dawn" almost every day, at least during summer. It's not something that happens within a split second, it's something that takes at least an hour (technically even more, depending on where you are in the world and on the season, but the part of it that is really noticable to non-astronomers). So it's something that is different from day or night, so it's also something that has a beginning and an end. So the break of dawn is the beginning of dawn, when it ends it's the beginning of the day.

Well, I am not going to endlessly debate what's art, but trust me I know something about it, as well as about languages.

Regarding the "break of dawn", it is not correct, I am sorry. In the song it is clearly meant "break of day". Making love till dawn (=break of day) makes sense. Making love till "break of dawn" makes sense only if the latter means "break of day" (which is the case). And as far as I am concerned, it's perfectly fine to use slang. But not respecting grammar is neither art nor a poetic form of language. Try not to respect grammar while writing a poem and you'll see the reaction. Nobody would even bother to read it as it would be confusing and disturbing.

 

[Chamife]

Maybe you do hear it and that's why they sound so "stupid" to the people in this thread. I don't know, if you just work on a melody, you might not have finished lyrics yet.

Just quoting a snippet from your post, because I don't have anything more to add (for the moment...;D to my other posts)

Not sure who you mean with 'the people', but if you are also addressing me: I have called the Cascio songs many things like empty, hollow, soulless, unconvincing, and yes, illogical. But I've never called them stupid. I always try to be as respectful as possible.

 

[Milka]

Well, I am not going to endlessly debate what's art, but trust me I know something about it, as well as about languages.

And you are not the only one in here.

Regarding the "break of dawn", it is not correct, I am sorry. In the song it is clearly meant "break of day". Making love till dawn (=break of day) makes sense. Making love till "break of dawn" makes sense only if the latter means "break of day" (which is the case). And as far as I am concerned, it's perfectly fine to use slang. But not respecting grammar is neither art nor a poetic form of language. Try not to respect grammar while writing a poem and you'll see the reaction. Nobody would even bother to read it as it would be confusing and disturbing.

There are several reasons why "break of dawn" is correct, but with your technical approach, you'll never reach that conclusion. And as far as respecting grammar goes, even in Michael's lyrics (written by him or others) the grammar isn't always "correct" in the technical sense. People's reaction to that usually was to buy millions and millions of CD's.

My point (again) is that a few lines of lyrics from a few songs that sound "illogical" and "wrong" to some people because they can't see the poetic approach in them (or with incorrect grammar) are not evidence of anything and can't be used for "comparison".

Chamife, people make fun of the lyrics in here all the time, I don't care what they call them. I was just giving my opinion on why they might not be "perfect".

 

[Chamife]

And you are not the only one in here.



There are several reasons why "break of dawn" is correct, but with your technical approach, you'll never reach that conclusion. And as far as respecting grammar goes, even in Michael's lyrics (written by him or others) the grammar isn't always "correct" in the technical sense. People's reaction to that usually was to buy millions and millions of CD's.

My point (again) is that a few lines of lyrics from a few songs that sound "illogical" and "wrong" to some people because they can't see the poetic approach in them (or with incorrect grammar) are not evidence of anything and can't be used for "comparison".


Chamife, people make fun of the lyrics in here all the time, I don't care what they call them. I was just giving my opinion on why they might not be "perfect".

I'm leaving for tonight with saying I disagree with you on this. Every songwriter has his own style of writing, so why isn't it possible to compare songs by the way they were written?

Enjoyed the convo, despite the disagreements.

Gute Nacht..

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

And you are not the only one in here.



There are several reasons why "break of dawn" is correct, but with your technical approach, you'll never reach that conclusion. And as far as respecting grammar goes, even in Michael's lyrics (written by him or others) the grammar isn't always "correct" in the technical sense. People's reaction to that usually was to buy millions and millions of CD's.

My point (again) is that a few lines of lyrics from a few songs that sound "illogical" and "wrong" to some people because they can't see the poetic approach in them (or with incorrect grammar) are not evidence of anything and can't be used for "comparison".

Chamife, people make fun of the lyrics in here all the time, I don't care what they call them. I was just giving my opinion on why they might not be "perfect".

I am sorry, no offense, but I don't see a single convincing argument in your posts regarding the defense of the Cascio lyrics. Artistic freedom has limits. You seem to defend any lyrics as art/poetry when giving examples of Red Hot Chilli Peppers or Falco.

The reason why my approach is technical is because the poetry is taught, studied, analyzed and criticized. There is a framework that must be respected. Poets or artists do not think about that framework. They spontaneously fit in it when they create their work. Grammar is part of that framework and it must be respected. However those who think they are poets and randomly lay lyrics and are way off the artistic frameork, simply do not do any form of art or poetry as they spontaneity leads them out of the framework. In other words, they have no clue what is writing a poem.

If you find Cascio lyrics poetic and artistic, fine, that's your opinion. But according to me they are lame and far from being poetic or artistic.

p.s. Do not mix up the use of slang such as "break of dawn" which, although incorrect, is acceptable and sentences with big mistakes such as "he gave all he's got" vs. "he gave all he got". Even a 15-year old pupil knows his/her tenses. But when a so called poet makes such a mistake, sorry s/he ain't no a poet. There is not a single excuse of using a present tense "he's got" after "he gave". Nothing justifies it whatsoever. Where is the poetry there?

 

[Milka]

I'm leaving for tonight with saying I disagree with you on this. Every songwriter has his own style of writing, so why isn't it possible to compare songs by the way they were written?

My point was A FEW LINES that some people see as "illogical" or "wrong" are not evidence. It's not enough. And add to that that in Michael's lyrics you'll also find "wrong" grammar, symbolism, metaphors, etc.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

My point was A FEW LINES that some people see as "illogical" or "wrong" are not evidence. It's not enough. And add to that that in Michael's lyrics you'll also find "wrong" grammar, symbolism, metaphors, etc.

Please point them out to me.

 

[Milka]

I am sorry, no offense, but I don't see a single convincing argument in your posts regarding the defense of the Cascio lyrics.

Hm, that's because I didn't talk about the Cascio lyrics. I think you didn't get my posts ... I was talking about the Malachi lyrics mentioned.

Artistic freedom has limits. You seem to defend any lyrics as art/poetry when giving examples of Red Hot Chilli Peppers or Falco.

If you are saying that Falco's and RHCP's music and lyrics isn't art, then you disagree with millions of people.

There are no limits to artistic freedom. Which doesn't mean that everything "random" is art or good art, just like you said. But there are no limits. That's also something we should learn from history, there was a very dark time in Europe and in particular in Germany and Austria where art wasn't free (and artists were killed for their art). If you set limits to art, that's because you want to control people. Not you personally, what I mean is that this way of thinking is wrong.

The reason why my approach is technical is because the poetry is taught, studied, analyzed and criticized. There is a framework that must be respected. Poets or artists do not think about that framework. They spontaneously fit in it when they create their work. Grammar is part of that framework and it must be respected. However those who think they are poets and randomly lay lyrics and are way off the artistic frameork, simply do not do any form of art or poetry as they spontaneity leads them out of the framework. In other words, they have no clue what is writing a poem.

Who makes the rules? People who analyze poems/lyrics, study them, critics? Or the people who write them? And should there even be any rules?

If you find Cascio lyrics poetic and artistic, fine, that's your opinion. But according to me they are lame and far from being poetic or artistic.

Never said a word about the Cascio lyrics, apart from that I think it might be possible that they were not finished.

p.s. Do not mix up the use of slang such as "break of dawn" which, although incorrect, is acceptable and sentences with big mistakes such as "he gave all he's got" vs. "he gave all he got". Even a 15-year old pupil knows his/her tenses. But when a so called poet makes such a mistake, sorry s/he ain't no a poet. There is not a single excuse of using a present tense "he's got" after "he gave". Nothing justifies it whatsoever. Where is the poetry there?

"Hurts so bad sometime is (or is it 'it's'? Sounds like a mix of is and it's) hard to breathe ..."

As for the Malachi song ... maybe it is a mistake, or maybe he just thought it flows better with the music, or maybe he mispoke and then thought it flows better with the music. Who knows.

 

[Jesta]

Ivy and Bumper, can you both have a big multi-paragraph battle of words for nostalgia's sake? It can be about anything!!

 

[Milka]

Please point them out to me.

You must be kidding. So you are saying Michael never used symbolism, metaphors or even what you call "wrong grammar" in his lyrics (written by him or others)? For the latter I already gave you an example in my previous post, and the symbolism and metaphors are all over the place, from 2000 Watts to Morphine to Stranger in Moscow (what did Stalin's tomb do to him again? Literally?) to whatever. I think I could write a book about that, lol. So I won't even start.

On a side note, because I mentioned Morphine ... there are a lot of expressions in there that I didn't understand at first or that I still don't really understand, probably a mix of English not being my first language and at least some of it being symbolism. But the thing is, I still GOT the song the very first time I heard it, through the lyrics, even if you don't really get every single expression and through the music. That's probably another reason why I don't really get this "technical" approach, that's not the way I listen to music or how I read/hear lyrics. I FEEL them. And sometimes I don't. And if I don't I just don't listen to the song again.

 

[ivy]

Ivy and Bumper, can you both have a big multi-paragraph battle of words for nostalgia's sake? It can be about anything!!

I have limited typing ability nowadays.. so it can only be short and to the point.

 

[Jesta]

I have limited typing ability nowadays.. so it can only be short and to the point.

Ohh Well if you ever have a spare half an hour, post a big paragraph of whatever and Bumper can counter it with whatever! Just like old times...

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Hm, that's because I didn't talk about the Cascio lyrics. I think you didn't get my posts ... I was talking about the Malachi lyrics mentioned.

Ok, but te Cascio lyrics are very close to Malachi's style.

If you are saying that Falco's and RHCP's music and lyrics isn't art, then you disagree with millions of people.

It depends on the lyrics. Some are probably better than others. But I have no problems with disagreeing with millions of people. Millions of people do not define what is poetry, there are special courses for that and it has nothing to do with personal or political freedom. Yes, millions of people can be wrong.

I have no problems with questioning some paintings in the museum either. When I ask questions to the guides in the museums they simply can't answer. So, for me the true art is constantly being diminished and there is only business left with lame paintings (if we even can call them paintings.)

There are no limits to artistic freedom. Which doesn't mean that everything "random" is art or good art, just like you said. But there are no limits. That's also something we should learn from history, there was a very dark time in Europe and in particular in Germany and Austria where art wasn't free (and artists were killed for their art). If you set limits to art, that's because you want to control people. Not you personally, what I mean is that this way of thinking is wrong.

You misunderstand me. The artistic limits can be endless as far as I am concerned, but only if the artist knows his/her basics. In other words, as long as the artists knows what he/she is doing. From the moment the artist is not realizing his/her mistakes, it becomes randomness

Who makes the rules? People who analyze poems/lyrics, study them, critics? Or the people who write them? And should there even be any rules?

The rules are set for the communication sake. If yuo don't respect them, fine, you won't be understood. Did Goethe make mistakes?

Never said a word about the Cascio lyrics, apart from that I think it might be possible that they were not finished.

They are sung as if they were finished. There is no single mumbling.

"Hurts so bad sometime is (or is it 'it's'? Sounds like a mix of is and it's) hard to breathe ..."

As for the Malachi song ... maybe it is a mistake, or maybe he just thought it flows better with the music, or maybe he mispoke and then thought it flows better with the music. Who knows.

You can't make a grammatical mistake in order to justify the flow. That's a weakness, not art. It makes me think of a student who complained about a mistake that I underlined. He wrote Spain with a small "s" instead of writing it with a capital "S". I tried to explain that in order to be understood language codes must be respected. He answered "But that's the way I write Spain, with a small "s".

Now, if we don't respect the rules we obtain anarchy like randomness and complete confusion.

 

[Milka]

It depends on the lyrics. Some are probably better than others. But I have no problems with disagreeing with millions of people. Millions of people do not define what is poetry, there are special courses for that and it has nothing to do with personal or political freedom. Yes, millions of people can be wrong.

I don't know what to say to that ... I mentioned Falco and RHCP, they basically invented their own style. Doesn't mean every single song is a masterpiece, but saying that it's not creative and art is simply wrong. Even critics can be wrong (and they are wrong a lot). And I don't need courses to read or write poetry. I really do not get this approach. With creativity, that's something you either have or you don't. It can't be taught in "courses".

You misunderstand me. The artistic limits can be endless as far as I am concerned, but only if the artist knows his/her basics. In other words, as long as the artists knows what he/she is doing. From the moment the artist is not realizing his/her mistakes, it becomes randomness

A lot of artists don't "know" anything. They do, they create, they don't care about "basics". If they are true artists they break the rules and try out all kinds of different directions.

The rules are set for the communication sake. If yuo don't respect them, fine, you won't be understood. Did Goethe make mistakes?

Poems and song lyrics are creative works, not communication courses ...

They are sung as if they were finished. There is no single mumbling.

It depends on how one writes songs. There doesn't have to be mumbling, you can just sing random words and write the melody that way and then later come back to it and turn them into actual lyrics.

You can't make a grammatical mistake in order to justify the flow.

Even Michael did ... And he invented new "words" ... Shamone! How random is that?

That's a weakness, not art. It makes me think of a student who complained about a mistake that I underlined. He wrote Spain with a small "s" instead of writing it with a capital "S". I tried to explain that in order to be understood language codes must be respected. He answered "But that's the way I write Spain, with a small "s".

Now, if we don't respect the rules we obtain anarchy like randomness and complete confusion.

People will always write and speak in a way that is understood, because they want to be understood. A lot of grammar errors or writing "spain" instead of "Spain" don't mean that it can't be understood anymore.

P.S. I have something for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_orthography_reform_of_1996

People didn't like that AT ALL. Because that's not how language works, you can't just come up with rules "artificially" and then make people use them. Even teachers are against it, a lot of authors protested. Language "happens" all by itself.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I don't know what to say to that ... I mentioned Falco and RHCP, they basically invented their own style. Doesn't mean every single song is a masterpiece, but saying that it's not creative and art is simply wrong. Even critics can be wrong (and they are wrong a lot). And I don't need courses to read or write poetry. I really do not get this approach. With creativity, that's something you either have or you don't. It can't be taught in "courses".

I didn't say there are courses to write poetry. There are courses how to analyze it within the limits of the language code. The poet does not need to know the theory of the function of the language code, but certainly must respect it (spelling, grammar, tenses, etc) Someone who does not use that common code for all of us, is simply not taken seriously as a poet. It is just another wannabe. It's like writing music. You don't need to know music theory to write music, but if you don't respect certain framework, than even a little baby randomly hitting notes on a piano is an artist according to your definition.

A lot of artists don't "know" anything. They do, they create, they don't care about "basics". If they are true artists they break the rules and try out all kinds of different directions.

I am afraid that you are referring either to punk culture here or dadaism. Art is not something that anyone can do, I am sorry. Yes, many people can claim to do art. With such an approach you obtain programms such as "American Idol" in which many believe can sing, but in reality cannot. Why? Because they break so many rules that they go beyond artistic framework. So, no, the artistic freedom has also its limits and you simply cannot break the rules for the sake of it.

According to your definition of not respecting the rules the following person is a true artist:

[youtube]YNatqCzF_Ns[/youtube]

And still following your theory, there shouldn't be anyone to analyze or judge the artistic abilities of this person in the name of "artistic freedom". So let's call spade a spade, when someone doesn't master the basics, he/she's simply not an artist no matter how many songs he/she has sung or how many so called poems he/she has written..

Poems and song lyrics are creative works, not communication courses ...

Every poem has a message. That's a form of communication. From the moment you lay it down on the paper you communicate the thoughts, no matter if they are poems or other form of text. If a certain code is not respected then what would stop me for example from writing something such as:

jhfmejhmjhejhjdcbdencfbnc;qsnc zadhjkqdhlqhdlqhlqh jlkhldqhdlkqhlhqhq

and claim it to be an artistic creation? I pushed the limits of the rules to such an extent that it has become a ridiculous string of letters that anyone can do.

It depends on how one writes songs. There doesn't have to be mumbling, you can just sing random words and write the melody that way and then later come back to it and turn them into actual lyrics.

Well then, this is the first time in (supposed) MJ's career that we hear a song with unfinsihed lyrics that are just temporarily there (however sung as if they were finsihed).

Even Michael did ... And he invented new "words" ... Shamone! How random is that?

Michael did not break any grammatical rules by creating his own shamone. But in reality, his shamone comes from another person who created a similar thing. I have impression that you are underestimating Michael.

People will always write and speak in a way that is understood, because they want to be understood. A lot of grammar errors or writing "spain" instead of "Spain" don't mean that it can't be understood anymore.

I am sorry, but writing Spain with a small "s" is a huge mistake. If you allow that, then you should allow all kinds of mistakes, and eventually the original message will be lost. If everyone starts to speak and write according to their own rules good luck to understand each other. There is a name for that kind of "language/poetry/artistic" freedom- Gibberish.

 

[Milka]

I didn't say there are courses to write poetry. There are courses how to analyze it within the limits of the language code. The poet does not need to know the theory of the function of the language code, but certainly must respect it (spelling, grammar, tenses, etc) Someone who does not use that common code for all of us, is simply not taken seriously as a poet. It is just another wannabe. It's like writing music. You don't need to know music theory to write music, but if you don't respect certain framework, than even a little baby randomly hitting notes on a piano is an artist according to your definition.

That's not true, but I give up. You don't understand what I'm saying because you need your rules and you believe that everything that doesn't follow certain rules can't be "art". Because you misunderstand me saying art has no limits as me saying "klajsfahgioarehie" is art.

I am afraid that you are referring either to punk culture here or dadaism.

No, I'm not, that's just 2 art forms out there. I'm referring to all art.

Art is not something that anyone can do, I am sorry. Yes, many people can claim to do art. With such an approach you obtain programms such as "American Idol" in which many believe can sing, but in reality cannot. Why? Because they break so many rules that they go beyond artistic framework. So, no, the artistic freedom has also its limits and you simply cannot break the rules for the sake of it.

I talk about art, you talk about some kind of "music mass production" like American Idol or bands out there (do you know or remember "Modern Talking"?) with every single song they ever write and release sounding exactly the same just so that people will buy them. That's not art. But what makes them not art is not "wrong grammar" or "illogical lyrics".

And still following your theory, there shouldn't be anyone to analyze or judge the artistic abilities of this person in the name of "artistic freedom". So let's call spade a spade, when someone doesn't master the basics, he/she's simply not an artist no matter how many songs he/she has sung or how many so called poems he/she has written..

Yes, there shouldn't be. But there always will be. Like I said, it's my personal decision if I feel that I can somehow "connect" to some piece of art, be it a movie, a painting or a song. I don't need critics to tell me what is good or bad or right or wrong.

Every poem has a message. That's a form of communication. From the moment you lay it down on the paper you communicate the thoughts, no matter if they are poems or other form of text. If a certain code is not respected then what would stop me for example from writing something such as:

You know, one of the rules then also would have to be that they are not allowed to be "cryptic" and "poetic" with a lot of symbolism, etc. - because that's also something that is not easily understood. There are websites out there with people interpreting song lyrics, and with a lot of songs people come up with all kinds of meanings and "messages" for the same song. Does that make the lyrics bad? No, it's quite the opposite usually. But according to you, if they can't be understood (easily), then they are "random" and not art.

jhfmejhmjhejhjdcbdencfbnc;qsnc zadhjkqdhlqhdlqhlqh jlkhldqhdlkqhlhqhq

and claim it to be an artistic creation? I pushed the limits of the rules to such an extent that it has become a ridiculous string of letters that anyone can do.

It depends on the context - if you use it as part of some kind of satire to show people that I type like a monkey, I would at least call it creative thinking. And have a good laugh. And agree with you (thank God for the edit button).

Michael did not break any grammatical rules by creating his own shamone. But in reality, his shamone comes from another person who created a similar thing. I have impression that you are underestimating Michael.

No, I wasn't talking about grammar rules - but using words that don't even exist? I love it, but according to you people won't understand it and therefore it's not art ... but it sounds a lot better than "come on" or whatever in the song.

And I don't know what makes you say that, that I underestimate Michael. No idea where that is coming from. He, in fact, DID all the things that I mentioned, breaking all kinds of rules, not just in some of his lyrics, trying out all kinds of directions (that's why Invincible is my favorite album, he took all kinds and styles of music and made them his own - not just on that album - yes, by breaking rules, that's the only way you can make it your own).

I am sorry, but writing Spain with a small "s" is a huge mistake. If you allow that, then you should allow all kinds of mistakes, and eventually the original message will be lost. If everyone starts to speak and write according to their own rules good luck to understand each other. There is a name for that kind of "language/poetry/artistic" freedom- Gibberish.

The message won't be lost. Language just changes with time. The internet also changed it a lot. Sites like Twitter changed it a lot, where you have to say everything in 140 characters. It'll never become Gibberish though, because people still need to understand each other.

But yeah, whatever, I should really give up, you don't seem to understand what I'm saying ... also, you ignored my example from "One More Chance". Why?

P.S. http://www.xlyrics.de/red-hot-chili-peppers-lyrics/bicycle-song-lyrics.html

 

[Arklove]

Hey! This thread is a sticky now! I don't feel like we're in a dark, dusty dungeon anymore, I can see some light I think

 

[Aniram]

I was wondering where this thread went and then I saw it was stickied!!! Well-deserved.

AND BUMPER SNIPPET IS BACK!!! BUMPER I MISSED YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, Back on topic, sorry, I'll read the thread now.

 

[mapi7723]

Welcome back Bumper!!

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

That's not true, but I give up. You don't understand what I'm saying because you need your rules and you believe that everything that doesn't follow certain rules can't be "art". Because you misunderstand me saying art has no limits as me saying "klajsfahgioarehie" is art.



No, I'm not, that's just 2 art forms out there. I'm referring to all art.



I talk about art, you talk about some kind of "music mass production" like American Idol or bands out there (do you know or remember "Modern Talking"?) with every single song they ever write and release sounding exactly the same just so that people will buy them. That's not art. But what makes them not art is not "wrong grammar" or "illogical lyrics".



Yes, there shouldn't be. But there always will be. Like I said, it's my personal decision if I feel that I can somehow "connect" to some piece of art, be it a movie, a painting or a song. I don't need critics to tell me what is good or bad or right or wrong.



You know, one of the rules then also would have to be that they are not allowed to be "cryptic" and "poetic" with a lot of symbolism, etc. - because that's also something that is not easily understood. There are websites out there with people interpreting song lyrics, and with a lot of songs people come up with all kinds of meanings and "messages" for the same song. Does that make the lyrics bad? No, it's quite the opposite usually. But according to you, if they can't be understood (easily), then they are "random" and not art.




It depends on the context - if you use it as part of some kind of satire to show people that I type like a monkey, I would at least call it creative thinking. And have a good laugh. And agree with you (thank God for the edit button).



No, I wasn't talking about grammar rules - but using words that don't even exist? I love it, but according to you people won't understand it and therefore it's not art ... but it sounds a lot better than "come on" or whatever in the song.

And I don't know what makes you say that, that I underestimate Michael. No idea where that is coming from. He, in fact, DID all the things that I mentioned, breaking all kinds of rules, not just in some of his lyrics, trying out all kinds of directions (that's why Invincible is my favorite album, he took all kinds and styles of music and made them his own - not just on that album - yes, by breaking rules, that's the only way you can make it your own).



The message won't be lost. Language just changes with time. The internet also changed it a lot. Sites like Twitter changed it a lot, where you have to say everything in 140 characters. It'll never become Gibberish though, because people still need to understand each other.

But yeah, whatever, I should really give up, you don't seem to understand what I'm saying ... also, you ignored my example from "One More Chance". Why?

P.S. http://www.xlyrics.de/red-hot-chili-peppers-lyrics/bicycle-song-lyrics.html

When I read your replies I see that you completely misunderstand me. From your comments regarding language(s) it seems that everything is blurry and confused. Based on your comments you seem to mix up what is called "registers" in linguistics and you seem to think that the word "rules" forbids the artist to express her/himself.

Let me try to put it in other words for you: every single language is codified despite the fact that it is alive and evolving. The reform is part of the evolving code. When there is such a reform you always have a choice to keep the older spelling or choose to have the reformed one. No matter what you do actually, in both cases you follow a certain rule.

Within those rules, you do have what is called registers. An artist can choose to use informal or formal levels of those registers ranging from extremely flexible structures such as jargon and slang to extremely rigid structures (where you cannot change a iota) such as prayers. An artist can even choose to deliberately mix the registers and create his/her own poetic universe built upon his/her own inspiration. There is no limit regarding the artistry.

An artist can deliberately play with letters creating calligraphy, or simply use randomly capital or small letters within the sentences. An artists can take the freedom to break many "standard" --grammatical or other-- rules such as saying "I am loving" instead of "I love". An artist can create his own words when it fits the concept within his/her poem (or the universe that he/she created) such as "shome on / chome on". There are no limits to deliberate choice of the artist to use the tool (the languge) the way he/she wants it. But if you break the tool (the language) it becomes useless and the art is nowhere to be seen, as breaking a tool is extremely easy to do as opposed to creating new things with that tool.

Unfortunately many so called artist break the tool itself (the language) and think they are poets. In other words, if I go back to my initial reaction, making a tense mistake is not a deliberate choice of the "poet", it is what it is - a non-deliberate and unjustified mistake. When an artist is unaware of making a mistake, it becomes an insult to all those who create art.

I am repeating "he gave all he's got" is a mistake and the excuse of art in this particular case is simply invalid. It has nothing to do with being logic or whatever, but with the readers/listeners' reaction when they hear such an obvious and unnecessary mistake, i.e. you can't use the excuse of "art" every time you make a non-deliberate mistake. That's too easy.

In short, if you want to achieve something artistic, don't make unnecessary non-deliberate mistakes or else you end up as the Malaysian Idol poorly imitating Michael Jackson's Billie Jean (or you end up with lyrics such as "he gave all he's got". )

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

"Hurts so bad sometime is (or is it 'it's'? Sounds like a mix of is and it's) hard to breathe ..."

I don't see a mistake here! It is "it's". But if you pronounce quickly and "swallow" the letter "t" in "it's", there is nothing uncommon there.

I'll give you an everyday example in British English:

" A bo'le o' wa'er " instead of "a bottle of water". "Innit" instead of "isn't it".

In American (and even British) English when you pronounce "I want to" a bit quicker it gives impression to hear "I wanna" even if your intention is not to say "I wanna" (listen to Lenny's "I want to go home" and sing along, you'll realize it for yourself). "Swallowing" sounds is a very common thing in many languages, but making tense mistakes is completely different.

[youtube]l8TXq9AFq0A[/youtube]

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I was wondering where this thread went and then I saw it was stickied!!! Well-deserved.

AND BUMPER SNIPPET IS BACK!!! BUMPER I MISSED YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, Back on topic, sorry, I'll read the thread now.

Welcome back Bumper!!

Woooooooooooooohoooooooooooooo!!!! Thank you so much guys oke:

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Ivy and Bumper, can you both have a big multi-paragraph battle of words for nostalgia's sake? It can be about anything!!

In all modesty, everyone knows that Ivy is wrong and that I am right, even when I am wrong I am more right than Ivy. If I have a 5 dollar bill and Ivy has a 5 dollar bill, I have more than her.

I have limited typing ability nowadays.. so it can only be short and to the point.

I vehemently disagree. It is absolutely false and unfounded. If that was the case you would have limited yourself to a shorter sentence than that.

I don't quite understand what you meant by "short and to the point". When you say that I see something like:

+

 

[love is magical]

^^Nice! I'm now waiting for Ivy's counter-argument.

 

[Jesta]

^^Nice! I'm now waiting for Ivy's counter-argument.

As am I... It should provide a good distraction for my horribly analytical mind, which is driving me insane with worry.

But to pass the time...

 

[love is magical]

While I agree that the quality of lyrics does not serve as evidence of authenticity, I think the mediocre lyrics definitely adds to the doubts. I don't see anything poetic in the Cascio lyrics. For the fist time in Michael's career, the songs that bear his name resemble the souless manufactured pop that are forgettable. Many times, the way the Cascio lyrics are penned leaves no room for people's imagination. The writer did nothing to challenge our thoughts.

The more I read about Michael Jackson, the more I realize how otherworldly brilliant he was. He's a true artist. Every fiber of his body down to his core is about art. It's still very difficult for me to visualize him singing lines like "taste your skin" or "stabbed in the back as a matter of fact" or "play me like a toy"...