Michael - The Great Album Debate

[love is magical]

Well, maybe if you posted a gold pants picture for inspiration ... but then I'll make a joke again, something like "that's fake, it's socks" trying to start another "fake" discussion on the forum (who says it always has to be about the Cascio tracks) and then I'll be picked on until I leave the thread like it happened to me in the other thread about the gold pants months ago for seemingly disrespcting the force or something. So don't do it.

OMG... I still remember your socks posts... Lol... :lmao:

Oh well... the girls take the force very seriously. Don't we all drool about Mr. Jr. all the time!!! :naughty:

My mom will join you in the "fake" camp. She thinks Mike's butts were too round to be real. :fear:

 

[Arklove]

^^ hahahaha...Yeah, I remember that! Too funny!..Milka, you'll never be picked on in here...We're gentle .....sometimes :shifty:

Michael does have a nice butt :fear:

 

[Milka]

OMG... I still remember your socks posts... Lol... :lmao:

Oh well... the girls take the force very seriously. Don't we all drool about Mr. Jr. all the time!!! :naughty:

I mean, I actually had to leave the thread, lol. The first and only thread ever on here that I had to leave. That in itself is funny. How can you take such a funny body part so seriously? :cheeky: Ouch, don't hit me!

My mom will join you in the "fake" camp. She thinks Mike's butts were too round to be real. :fear:

That's fine, as long as she doesn't say that he used Malachi as a body double, lol.

^^ hahahaha...Yeah, I remember that! Too funny!..Milka, you'll never be picked on in here...We're gentle .....sometimes :shifty:

That's how I like it.

Chamife, I know what you mean, the discussion started with your post, but it then went somewhere completely different. Don't worry, I know that you don't want to limit art.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Ok, just a few things (yeah, I know, I'm like a boomerang, I always come back ...)



The problem is ... and I wasn't even defending Malachi's "all he's got" thing, that and some people in this thread saying that grammar, etc. always has to be right in song lyrics or poems, etc., that's what I have a problem with. Because sometimes BREAKING the rules of language is part of it and has its own meaning. And then you come along being the critic, saying "I'm a linguist, there are mistakes in there and this is not art". When in reality, in this case, you just didn't get the poem and don't allow breaking rules as part of the work of art. I'll give you an example that you won't like at all, because if you google him, you'll see that he was influenced by Dada (which is quite obvious anyway), Ernst Jandl and in particular this poem:

http://www.buchklub.at/magazine/gorilla/hoffnungsreich/cybertour/autoren.htm

I don't know how much German you speak or understand, he was Jewish and his father was killed by the Gestapo, his grandmother died in Auschwitz. His life and art was obviously influenced by his experiences during the Nazi regime and WWII. Now see the poem on the right of that page called "schtzngrmm". Which stands for Schuetzengraben, which means trench. He broke all language rules. There are not even vowels. But, especially when you HEAR it, you understand. How it is about war and the horrors of war. I'd say no matter what language you speak, you'll still understand it. Had he followed the rules and used vowels and rhymed "Schuetzengraben" with whatever ... the message would have been lost. You can hear him read it here:

http://www.ernstjandl.com/archiv_sound.html

You might laugh about it at first, but if you think about what he did here, what the message is, and why and where he is coming from, you'll get it. And how it was necessary to break the rules for the message.

Also, the reaction to art can be part of the work of art. So even if the piece of art seems to be totally stupid or seems empty, its purpose can be to provoke people and to provoke a reaction. And if the reaction is "that's not even art, that should be forbidden" or something similar to that, you can see what the purpose was - showing that people want to forbid or ridicule everything they don't understand. This might be more relevant or better understood in some countries in Europe like Germany and Austria, see "degenerate art" and what happened to artists and their art during the Nazi regime - and the problem with rules is, where do you draw the line? It's ok as long as the grammar is ok? Or it's ok as long as it doesn't question dictatorship? Who makes the rules and why? Or see former Eastern Europe and tons of authors who were also dissidents. And some were killed for their art, because they didn't want to follow the rules. They fought for freedom (not just in art) and in the end helped end communism. Google Vaclav Havel as an example.

A recent example would be Ai Weiwei.

So what is bugging me a lot more in this discussion than Malachi's little grammar mistake is the reactions to it and how people are saying you can't use language any way you want in art. His little mistake led to you saying that if artists do that, the message will be lost, language will turn into Gibberish ... which of course won't happen if artists break rules, they do that all the time but our language is still fine and we can still understand each other (even us non-native speakers who make mistakes because it's not our first language). To me that just shows some kind of latent fear of everything that is "different" and therefore people are insisting that rules have to be followed.



It was the only thing that I pointed out because of how it sounds, and because you could hear both, that was just me wondering which it is (and I think it is "it's" for the reasons you explained).



Well, he says "sometime", not "sometimes". And yes, I know why and you don't have to explain it to me. And then there is something else, but YOU are the linguist, if you don't see it, that either means I'm wrong (which could very well be) or you need to go back to school. My point though was that you made it sound like only things pretty close to Oxford English are allowed in art. I just gave you one example why it's not - and why this example? Because for some reason that's one of my favorite lines in a song ever, lol. Yeah, I know I'm weird.

And your "I wish I am" example - the funny thing about it is, grammar wrong, but people would still understand it. Language and people's ability to understand it are quite flexible.

http://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/lessons/can-you-read

I'll answer later your post. But for now I think you are referring to "bad" vs "badly". Nothing unusual in slang. For your info you can say and write "sometime" without "s", look up in the dictionary.

 

[Milka]

I'll answer later your post. But for now I think you are referring to "bad" vs "badly". Nothing unusual in slang. For your info you can say and write "sometime" without "s", look up in the dictionary.

It doesn't mean the same though, so in this case in "perfect English" it should be sometimes. But my point was that you are ok with some "mistakes" and with others you are not, you can't make rules for art by what YOU think is right in art, depending on all kinds of things, your understanding of language, the artists that you prefer, etc.

 

[love is magical]

IMO, the rhythm, phrasing, and sound of words is more important than grammar rules in songs and poetry. Of course, grammar rules shouldn't be ignored to the point that listeners and readers can't figure out what the artist is saying. That's not the case here, though. Everyone knows what the songwriter is trying to communicate with "he gave all he's got."

Who gets to decide which linguistic rules must be obeyed and which may be ignored? I think that's for the artist to decide. Maybe you find that this particular verb tense conflict is distracting from the art. That's fine, but that doesn't mean that everyone feels that way. The use of this phrase in the song can easily be defended. Either the songwriter believes that this phrase is slang, and that listeners are familiar with it, or the songwriter may have intentionally ignored linguistic rules beause he thought that the rhythm, phrasing, and sound of these words fit the song. You may disgree with the songwriter, but that doesn't mean that his decision was wrong.

In music, the rhythm, melody and rhyming are very important. These are the qualities that separate random sound and music. Anyone can make some musical sounds. I can hit some notes on a piano and make some sounds. But, that's not music.

In songs, phrasing skill is important as well. I have always said Michael was one master pharser. That's one of the reasons he's able to pull our heartstrings. He knew how to convey emotions.

But, I don't think basic linguistic rules should be compromised because of rhythm, phrasing and rhyming. IMO, a good song-writer needs to respect the basic framework while fitting the lyrics in the song.

The phrase that we are discussing "he gave all he's got" is not a slang. Anyway I look at it, it's a elemetary level grammatical error. I disagree with the songwriter. However, I'm not saying his decision was wrong. But, this type of deviation demonstrates the sluggish quality of the lyrics.

 

[love is magical]

I mean, I actually had to leave the thread, lol. The first and only thread ever on here that I had to leave. That in itself is funny. How can you take such a funny body part so seriously? :cheeky: Ouch, don't hit me!



That's fine, as long as she doesn't say that he used Malachi as a body double, lol.

The force is a funny body part? :scratch: No, the force has a lot of power. :smack:

Lol... my mom doesn't know any bodydouble, but she insists there is serious padding inside that black pants. :rollin:

Edit: ooh... i just realized how sexy and hot my avatar really is... :heat:

 

[Milka]

Edit: ooh... i just realized how sexy and hot my avatar really is... :heat:

LMAO! :doh: :rofl:

This thread should really be called "The Great Debate". I think it's easier to list the things that haven't been discussed in here.

 

[Yukon Jack]

Anyone remember this:

http://www.legendarymichaeljackson.nl/?p=2286

"As you know there is some concern that no outtakes existed of the tracks Michael recorded with Eddie Cascio. But now sources tell Roger Friedman from Showbiz411 that there were “work tapes” made during the Cascio sessions. These aren’t outtakes of the songs, but tapes running in the studio while Michael discussed what was going on with Eddie Cascio and other members of the Cascio family.

Michael’s own kids even make cameo appearances on the tapes. At some point, the work tapes will be released, although it’s unclear by whom. According to Friedman the main thing is, there’s plenty of evidence of Michael Jackson working with Eddie Cascio."

I wonder what ever happened to this yarn. . .

 

[Arklove]

^^ Yup, I remember...

They likely don't exist...If they do, what the hell is taking them so long?

 

[MusicMan26]

I know but it just seems strange that he has been here for months and all he does is view this thread.

It was a long time before I started posting. I just liked to read but then I figured I'd contribute to the conversations.

 

[diana79]

Anyone remember this:

http://www.legendarymichaeljackson.nl/?p=2286

"As you know there is some concern that no outtakes existed of the tracks Michael recorded with Eddie Cascio. But now sources tell Roger Friedman from Showbiz411 that there were “work tapes” made during the Cascio sessions. These aren’t outtakes of the songs, but tapes running in the studio while Michael discussed what was going on with Eddie Cascio and other members of the Cascio family.

Michael’s own kids even make cameo appearances on the tapes. At some point, the work tapes will be released, although it’s unclear by whom. According to Friedman the main thing is, there’s plenty of evidence of Michael Jackson working with Eddie Cascio."

I wonder what ever happened to this yarn. . .

I wish that Eddie Cascio would address stuff like this. Are there work tapes with Michael talking about the songs? If there are, release them. The Cascios were always there for Michael in the past, so I find it hard to believe that they would suddenly try to deceive his fans with fake songs. But, there is clearly somethng wrong with these tracks. Why won't Eddie address it???

 

[Arklove]

I wish that Eddie Cascio would address stuff like this. Are there work tapes with Michael talking about the songs? If there are, release them. The Cascios were always there for Michael in the past, so I find it hard to believe that they would suddenly try to deceive his fans with fake songs. But, there is clearly somethng wrong with these tracks. Why won't Eddie address it???

Well, it doesn't do them any good to withhold any proof that they may have...They likely don't exist..that's the only reason why I think they haven't shown it...They had a perfect opportunity to show them on Oprah, if in fact they do exist...After this long people wonder why we're being so cynical? It's hard to give people the benefit of the doubt when they refuse to address something like this...The authenticity of Michael Jackson's vocals still hanging in limbo...You don't just bury your head in the sand over something like this and not expect outrage, speculation, and even some nastiness from his fans....

I don't like to think that his friends have betrayed him, but after this long, patience is wearing thin, and it's very difficult to trust people like this, in my opinion...

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

It doesn't mean the same though, so in this case in "perfect English" it should be sometimes. But my point was that you are ok with some "mistakes" and with others you are not, you can't make rules for art by what YOU think is right in art, depending on all kinds of things, your understanding of language, the artists that you prefer, etc.

Did you read what I mentioned? I was talking about registers. The sentences you pointed out is in slang register. It has nothing to do with me being ok with some mistakes. The register allows to say "bad" instead of "badly". I never said it has to be perfect English, I said "he gave all he's got" fits in no other register or any other category but a pure primary school level mistake.

(Have you) ever heard "real good" instead of "really good"? I do not make up any rules nor slang. I can only point them out to you and explain why it is ok. But it seems that whenever I point out and explain why some "mistakes" are ok, you have difficulties to accept what I say and you think that I want to win a debate or something. If you don't accept a linguist's opinion on a language then fine, but know one thing: linguistics does take into account all forms and types of evolving expressions from children's first words to poets' most extravagant artistic freedom. But it also points out when there is a clear mistake which has nothing to do with any of the possible categories except pure mistakes. That's what I said, we can't take any mistake and randomly call it artistic or poetic. If some so called poets ignore some basics, too bad for them, because they risk to be ridiculed by their own mistakes without even being aware. If millions of people fall for that, well, I let it be, but I can't agree with them. For me those millions of people fall for cheap "art" such as the lyrics in the Cascio songs:


"stabbed in the back as a matter of fact"
"sucking the air from under me"
"killing up the life"
"sexy wine"
"mama say mama got you in the zigzag"
"they eat your soul like a vegetable"

etc.


p.s. Telling me to go back to school was really an unnecessary comment. Now that I am over with the Cascio debate since the leak of Burn Tonight, I really am not willing to spend my precious time any more in justifying Michael's deliberate choice of terms in his lyrics and explain why it is ok, and why it is not ok to use some expressions as found in the Cascio tracks. If people want to drink vinegar and claim to drink excellent wine, then fine. Cheers.

 

[KingMikeJ]

I think I have solved the debate on what "sexy wine" is.

 

[Arklove]

^^ LOOOL Well at least one debate has been solved

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

IMO, the rhythm, phrasing, and sound of words is more important than grammar rules in songs and poetry. Of course, grammar rules shouldn't be ignored to the point that listeners and readers can't figure out what the artist is saying. That's not the case here, though. Everyone knows what the songwriter is trying to communicate with "he gave all he's got."

Who gets to decide which linguistic rules must be obeyed and which may be ignored? I think that's for the artist to decide. Maybe you find that this particular verb tense conflict is distracting from the art. That's fine, but that doesn't mean that everyone feels that way. The use of this phrase in the song can easily be defended. Either the songwriter believes that this phrase is slang, and that listeners are familiar with it, or the songwriter may have intentionally ignored linguistic rules beause he thought that the rhythm, phrasing, and sound of these words fit the song. You may disgree with the songwriter, but that doesn't mean that his decision was wrong.

It is not about the rules, but about artist's credibility. How can anyone claim to be an artist when that same "artist" makes primary school level mistakes. Even if an artist makes a deliberate mistake, the mistake is always justified. In this case "he gave all he's got" is not justified at all.

I just don't get people defending the freedom of making mistakes and call it art. Some architects are also true artists when you see their marvelous achievments. Trust me, if they had made huge mistakes, they would have never achieved anything else but ruins. Likewise, making a mistake such as "he gave all he's got" ruins the whole so called "poem".

 

[Jesta]

I think I have solved the debate on what "sexy wine" is.

You sure it's not the cornrows as well?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Ok, just a few things (yeah, I know, I'm like a boomerang, I always come back ...)



The problem is ... and I wasn't even defending Malachi's "all he's got" thing, that and some people in this thread saying that grammar, etc. always has to be right in song lyrics or poems, etc., that's what I have a problem with. Because sometimes BREAKING the rules of language is part of it and has its own meaning. And then you come along being the critic, saying "I'm a linguist, there are mistakes in there and this is not art". When in reality, in this case, you just didn't get the poem and don't allow breaking rules as part of the work of art. I'll give you an example that you won't like at all, because if you google him, you'll see that he was influenced by Dada (which is quite obvious anyway), Ernst Jandl and in particular this poem:

http://www.buchklub.at/magazine/gorilla/hoffnungsreich/cybertour/autoren.htm

I don't know how much German you speak or understand, he was Jewish and his father was killed by the Gestapo, his grandmother died in Auschwitz. His life and art was obviously influenced by his experiences during the Nazi regime and WWII. Now see the poem on the right of that page called "schtzngrmm". Which stands for Schuetzengraben, which means trench. He broke all language rules. There are not even vowels. But, especially when you HEAR it, you understand. How it is about war and the horrors of war. I'd say no matter what language you speak, you'll still understand it. Had he followed the rules and used vowels and rhymed "Schuetzengraben" with whatever ... the message would have been lost. You can hear him read it here:

http://www.ernstjandl.com/archiv_sound.html

You might laugh about it at first, but if you think about what he did here, what the message is, and why and where he is coming from, you'll get it. And how it was necessary to break the rules for the message.

Also, the reaction to art can be part of the work of art. So even if the piece of art seems to be totally stupid or seems empty, its purpose can be to provoke people and to provoke a reaction. And if the reaction is "that's not even art, that should be forbidden" or something similar to that, you can see what the purpose was - showing that people want to forbid or ridicule everything they don't understand. This might be more relevant or better understood in some countries in Europe like Germany and Austria, see "degenerate art" and what happened to artists and their art during the Nazi regime - and the problem with rules is, where do you draw the line? It's ok as long as the grammar is ok? Or it's ok as long as it doesn't question dictatorship? Who makes the rules and why? Or see former Eastern Europe and tons of authors who were also dissidents. And some were killed for their art, because they didn't want to follow the rules. They fought for freedom (not just in art) and in the end helped end communism. Google Vaclav Havel as an example.

A recent example would be Ai Weiwei.

So what is bugging me a lot more in this discussion than Malachi's little grammar mistake is the reactions to it and how people are saying you can't use language any way you want in art. His little mistake led to you saying that if artists do that, the message will be lost, language will turn into Gibberish ... which of course won't happen if artists break rules, they do that all the time but our language is still fine and we can still understand each other (even us non-native speakers who make mistakes because it's not our first language). To me that just shows some kind of latent fear of everything that is "different" and therefore people are insisting that rules have to be followed.



It was the only thing that I pointed out because of how it sounds, and because you could hear both, that was just me wondering which it is (and I think it is "it's" for the reasons you explained).



Well, he says "sometime", not "sometimes". And yes, I know why and you don't have to explain it to me. And then there is something else, but YOU are the linguist, if you don't see it, that either means I'm wrong (which could very well be) or you need to go back to school. My point though was that you made it sound like only things pretty close to Oxford English are allowed in art. I just gave you one example why it's not - and why this example? Because for some reason that's one of my favorite lines in a song ever, lol. Yeah, I know I'm weird.

And your "I wish I am" example - the funny thing about it is, grammar wrong, but people would still understand it. Language and people's ability to understand it are quite flexible.

http://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/lessons/can-you-read

Just as promised, i'll answer this shortly and that will be it.

You judged me by saying that I was going to laugh regarding the poem you posted. You are telling me to go to back to school, etc. Those comments are really not nice. I did not talk about you, but about the flaws in your posts that you don't seem to see.

Regarding the poem you posted without vowels, can't you see that the artist is consitant? He did create his own code and universe by making such a poem. The grammatical mistake I pointed out is NOT consistant. It pops up and hurts the eyes/ears. I really do not believe that it was the "artist's" intention (contrary to the poem you posted).

I am absolutely not surprised at all by the absence of vowels. The artist being Jewish could have been inspired by the Hebrew language which does not use vowels at all. Sorry, but art is clearly visible when it is made purposedly, as much as a mistake which has nothing to do with arts.

I never said grammatical rules had to be respected in order to create a poem. I said when a mistake pops up out of nowhere and is completely unjustified or misplaced and out of context, it is clearly nothing else but what it is -- a mistake, not art.

 

[Milka]

Just as promised, i'll answer this shortly and that will be it.

You judged me by saying that I was going to laugh regarding the poem you posted.

Huh? You yourself said (or at least implied) that you don't like Dadaism and that you don't see it as art.

You are telling me to go to back to school, etc. Those comments are really not nice.

That was a joke. But I guess we clearly don't speak the same language. It happens.

I did not talk about you, but about the flaws in your posts that you don't seem to see.

Oh yeah, that is so much nicer, lol. And finding all kinds of flaws (while we are still talking about 2 different things) in my posts has nothing to do with me, right. :lol:

Regarding the poem you posted without vowels, can't you see that the artist is consitant? He did create his own code and universe by making such a poem. The grammatical mistake I pointed out is NOT consistant. It pops up and hurts the eyes/ears. I really do not believe that it was the "artist's" intention (contrary to the poem you posted).

That's exactly the problem ... like I explained in my other post, I am not even talking about Malachi's mistake or defending it, what I didn't like at all were the reactions. The general statement that art needs rules. That's a very sensitive subject. Like I said, we are still talking about 2 different things.

I am absolutely not surprised at all by the absence of vowels. The artist being Jewish could have been inspired by the Hebrew language which does not use vowels at all.

Possibly, yes.

Anyway, what I was talking about was not defending actual mistakes (but is it also an actual mistake if a poet never got a proper education and makes these kinds of grammar mistakes a lot in his/her poems because of that? And doesn't want to change that by learning, because s/he wants them to reflect his/her life?), I'll say it again - the reaction to this mistake - and also to the metaphor with the seeing through the heart thing, which really can't be called a mistake - is what I have a probem with.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Huh? You yourself said (or at least implied) that you don't like Dadaism and that you don't see it as art.



That was a joke. But I guess we clearly don't speak the same language. It happens.



Oh yeah, that is so much nicer, lol. And finding all kinds of flaws (while we are still talking about 2 different things) in my posts has nothing to do with me, right. :lol:



That's exactly the problem ... like I explained in my other post, I am not even talking about Malachi's mistake or defending it, what I didn't like at all were the reactions. The general statement that art needs rules. That's a very sensitive subject. Like I said, we are still talking about 2 different things.



Possibly, yes.

Anyway, what I was talking about was not defending actual mistakes (but is it also an actual mistake if a poet never got a proper education and makes these kinds of grammar mistakes a lot in his/her poems because of that? And doesn't want to change that by learning, because s/he wants them to reflect his/her life?), I'll say it again - the reaction to this mistake - and also to the metaphor with the seeing through the heart thing, which really can't be called a mistake - is what I have a probem with.

This is getting extremely tiring. Only by saying that there are no rules for art you just created a rule of "non-rule", but I guess that it's ok for you. By the way, I did not say that art needs rules. I said that if you want to achieve an artistic work, some elements must be respected or else your rule of "non-rule" makes anything art and anyone an artist. But I am really going to stop commenting on that.

Now the two bolded parts in your post:

1) No, your posts have nothing to do with your person. Yes there are flaws, but that does not mean that I was criticizing you as a person. I easily accept when I make a mistake, but some people don't accept at all. You seem to defend undefendable and don't accept what I say. Fine, follow your "non-rule" rule and tell people that art does not have to follow any rule.

2) Two examples that pop up in my mind: Shakespeare did not have any education, Michael Jackson did not have any particular education. They were both mastering their art without breaking any rule to my knowledge, and their work does not reflect lack of education. That's art.

 

[Milka]

I said that if you want to achieve an artistic work, some elements must be respected or else your rule of "non-rule" makes anything art and anyone an artist.

That is not true. The ARTIST makes the rules. Not you. Not me. Not linguists. Not critics. But that's what I meant with the latent fear of anything that's different - why do you want to make the rules for them? If Malachi wants to "see through the heart" and not "with the heart" (when both expressions are quite common, but even if they weren't), you scream "anarchy", lol.

The funny thing is that we don't even really disagree, about details, yes, not so much about art in general though. But for some reason you created a "disagreement" - you must really miss ivy.

And btw. "pointing out flaws" in my posts - it's condescending and I do take that personally, because you know, I wrote them, and I especially take that personally because you didn't even try to understand them. And if you don't understand or don't want to understand, how can you find flaws? I've tried several times, other people seemed to understand the points I was making, and now I ran out of ways to try and explain it to you again in other words. And I ran out of patience.

 

[diana79]

Bumper - who gets to decide which rules need to be respected and which can be ignored?

When does usage of an incorrect verb tense officially become slang, instead of just being a mistake? I'm not suggesting that verb tense rules should be ignored, I'm just curious about where the tipping point is between slang and a mistake.

It's interesting that you brought up architecture as an art where rules need to be respected. Many consider Frank Lloyd Wright's houses to be art. However, Frank Lloyd Wright certainly broke rules, and the results are beautiful houses with structural and water infiltration problems. They're still standing today because the owners are willing to pay a fortune to maintain them.

 

[love is magical]

Bumper - who gets to decide which rules need to be respected and which can be ignored?

When does usage of an incorrect verb tense officially become slang, instead of just being a mistake? I'm not suggesting that verb tense rules should be ignored, I'm just curious about where the tipping point is between slang and a mistake.

It's interesting that you brought up architecture as an art where rules need to be respected. Many consider Frank Lloyd Wright's houses to be art. However, Frank Lloyd Wright certainly broke rules, and the results are beautiful houses with structural and water infiltration problems. They're still standing today because the owners are willing to pay a fortune to maintain them.

I'm not able to comment on the verb tense rule, as English is my second language. There is no verb tense rule in my first language, so I'm not knowledgable enough to differentiate a mistake and a slang.

As for architectual structure, if the deviation from the standard is serious enough to compromise the safety of the building, then I don't think the architect of the faulty building can be considered a true master. I'm not diminishing Frank Lloyd Wright here. I'm sure many of Wright's designs are safe and creative. However, I would never live in a building that may collapse because of its structual flaws. To a certain degree, being creative means daring to break rules. Still, it's very important for the artists to respect the very basics of the frameworks. It will never be right for an architect to design a faulty structure in the name of art. The result can be catastrophic.

Say an unknown architect design a beautiful house with water infiltration problem, I'm quite sure most people will call the design faulty and even sue the architect for his "mistakes." Frank Lloyd Wright designed a house with water infiltration problem. Frank Lloyd Wright made mistakes. Just because the owners of the houses are willing to spend a fortune to maintain the houses do not turn the mistakes into a tolerable exceptions to be followed by other architects.

 

[Milka]

There is no verb tense rule in my first language, so I'm not knowledgable enough to differentiate a mistake and a slang.

What? And your language still works and people can still understand each other? :wild:

However, I would never live in a building that may collapse because of its structual flaws.

Architecture is a different thing, it's like apples and oranges. Art is just a part of it (and most of the time it isn't). It's also for people to live in. So it has to be safe and also practical, at least to a certain extent. Architecture in the end is something that people use and have to use, architects have to take this into consideration. Other art, like songs, paintings, etc. doesn't need these limitations.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Bumper - who gets to decide which rules need to be respected and which can be ignored?

The rules I was referring to are not the limited ones as you think. Let me put it this way.

-If you create a melody, obviously, as an artist, you can "break" any rule as long as you are not randomly hitting any notes as anyone would be able to do so. That's not art, that's lack of musical skills.

-If you write a poem, no one dictates you how to write it. No one teaches you how to write it either. Anyone can do anything. Linguistics does not impose any kinds of rules as some might have misunderstood what I wrote. Linguistics observes and studies all kinds of language forms and thanks to the detailed and meticuluous observation it can categorize each form and classify each one of them. Among different classifications and categorizations it appears clear when a writer makes a mistake and when it is a deliberate choice of the writer to use one form rather than another.

I already had discussed some of this earlier in this thread and pointed out for example that "A place without no name" is a grammatical mistake, but not a register mistake! Linguistics observes that it is a common slang register and that there is nothing uncommon in that sentence in the universe of slang. Another example is "Ain't no sunshine" instead of "There is no sunshine".

I also pointed out the expression "break of dawn" and discussed this back in 2001 with an English language professor, a prominent PhD in linguistics, translator and author of several English language manuals. He was clear: "break of dawn" is not a correct expression. The correct one is "break of day". However, beyond that grammatical mistake, I pointed out that linguistics observes "break of dawn" as an expression commonly used in slang register on the same level as "ain't no" or "without no" or using an adjective instead of an adverb such as "bad" or "real" instead of "badly" and "really". In other words, the expressions I mentioned break grammatical rules, but not particular register rules. So, seeing them in poems is absolutely not disturbing, because they are authors' deliberate choice and commonly used expressions, these latter created within a particular context.

Now after observation, you hear someone saying "he gave all he's got". You actually realize that that tense not only isn't grammatically correct, but it does not fit in any language register, including the category of neologisms such as "chome on". On top of that, the incorrect sentence simply pops up without writer's intention to shock or trigger any particular feeling. Not to mention that the classical mistake in this (indirect speech) tense is usually made by kids at school. In this case the linguistcis which does not impose rules but observes linguistical behavior concludes that the incorrect tense fits in the category of pure mistakes, hence lack of literature/poetical skills on the same level as hitting randomly some notes and believing by the amateur writer and unaware public that those notes are hit correctly. If the public however doesn't care about such mistakes, fine. But for the sake of real art itself, let's not elevate such poorly written tenses on the same level as those written by the true poets. Wanting and believing to be a poet and being one is a different thing. Some people have just to face it, they are NOT poets, their trash that they call art speak for them.

Eddie Murphy (a true artist) can be helpful here and illustrate what I am talking about:

[youtube]nHRERLEM2eE[/youtube]

When does usage of an incorrect verb tense officially become slang, instead of just being a mistake? I'm not suggesting that verb tense rules should be ignored, I'm just curious about where the tipping point is between slang and a mistake.

At home you use your own expressions common with your partner or family. At school/work you use another kind of register when talking to your classmates/colleagues. When you speak to your hierarchical superiors you use yet another register. When you get your bills another register is used. When you see your friends you use again another register. Your neighborhood use a common register. Your city uses a wider yet particular to that city register. Etc, etc. Within those registers it appears clear when someone uses a particular register (respective regional slang, colloquial, administrative, formal, informal, prayers, poetical, etc) and when someone makes a clear mistake. When you know that an element does not belong to any of the registers, we cannot use the word "art" instead of the word "mistake" in order to justify the very mistake and easily categorize it as artistic freedom.

So when I was referring to the rules, I wasn't referring to the rigid unflexible rules, but to the observation of different language behaviors. If some elements are not respected, you don't create art but anarchy. Even dadaism (which I really don't like) respect some rules. Without a particular framework the word art itself wouldn't exist.

So, to answer your question, slang is shared by people, random mistakes not. In other words you cannot relate any random mistake to slang. For example, in written language, if in slang you use the spelling "ain't no", you can't use randomly "ai'nt no", "a'int no", "aint' no" and claim it to be the same as "ain't no" or even a part of slang. So yes, even slang has some rules. That's what I referred to as code (or codified language). If you break those rules, you create something that no one uses (not to be mixed up with neologism), which becomes a mistake.

It's interesting that you brought up architecture as an art where rules need to be respected. Many consider Frank Lloyd Wright's houses to be art. However, Frank Lloyd Wright certainly broke rules, and the results are beautiful houses with structural and water infiltration problems. They're still standing today because the owners are willing to pay a fortune to maintain them.

I doubt Frank Lloyd Wright broke rules. He tried new things. That's not breaking the rules, that's pushing them further. I imagine that if another architect used Wright's architectural vision, he could improve it and solve the problems of the infiltration. I admit I don't know much about Wright, so I don't know what kind of "rules" he broke. The point is, there is a difference between pushing the rules further and breaking them.

My conclusion is that a true artist does not break the rules, but pushes the existing rules further and set the new ones challenging anyone to do better. Those who can't do better, indeed -out of frustration- break the rules, do worse and call themselves artists uke: and even find a public to admire them.

 

[dam2040]

Well I don't know...maybe he/she's still trying to form an opinion based on the highly stimulating discussion in here

Or trying to learn about sexy wine

They also have pictures of the Cascio family with Michael,but no pictures,videos or anything to do with the songs. Strange,very strange.

 

[Jesta]

Or trying to learn about sexy wine

*Insert "Sexy Cornrow Man" here*

EDIT: You think fake tracks are a perfect crime? Pfft, THIS is the perfect crime!:

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

That is not true. The ARTIST makes the rules. Not you. Not me. Not linguists. Not critics. But that's what I meant with the latent fear of anything that's different - why do you want to make the rules for them? If Malachi wants to "see through the heart" and not "with the heart" (when both expressions are quite common, but even if they weren't), you scream "anarchy", lol.

The funny thing is that we don't even really disagree, about details, yes, not so much about art in general though. But for some reason you created a "disagreement" - you must really miss ivy.

And btw. "pointing out flaws" in my posts - it's condescending and I do take that personally, because you know, I wrote them, and I especially take that personally because you didn't even try to understand them. And if you don't understand or don't want to understand, how can you find flaws? I've tried several times, other people seemed to understand the points I was making, and now I ran out of ways to try and explain it to you again in other words. And I ran out of patience.

The flaws I was referring to was you equalling "break of day" to "break of dawn" and on another level making it comparable to "he gave all he's got".

Furthermore, when I asked you to give me what kind of mistakes Michael did in his songs, you posted a sentence from the lyrics which does not break actually any literature rule as it was written in common slang language. Again, it is uncomparable to the tense mistake I pointed out.

So, all I did was saying that there are some flaws in that post. I did not however say that you were an idiot because of that.

If you don't accept to be corrected then fine, I won't do it. Just know that correcting people doesn't mean being condescending with them. I never told you to go back to school. You told me that and afterwards you said you were joking. Whatever.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

What? And your language still works and people can still understand each other? :wild:

If you put "yesterday", "today", "tomorrow" in front of each sentence equally conjugated you obtain the past the present and the future. So people can understand each other.