| Author |
 Topic  |
|
glacial906
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1738 Posts |
 Posted - 08/04/2004 : 21:43:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by RJB
ok, what did I expect?
you're all right and I am wrong Frank Black's songs are like your children you must love them all the same; one's no better than the next and ...and ...and.
bah
Frank Booth: Here's to your f*ck!
Ben: Here's to your f*ck, Frank.
-"Blue Velvet"
I don't really think that's what's been said here. I think that you should just understand that what you consider as "filler" might not be the same as what someone else does. I don't like every Frank Black song I've ever heard. But, my likes are more than likely different from yours, and that's a pretty expected thing, and you really shouldn't be surprised.
That being said, you proffered an opinion. I take it you're not satisfied with the result. Does your dissatisfaction stem from the lack of parallel viewpoints? Or just the frequency and vehemence of those opinions that differ from yours? Some of my favorite songs from Frank are what others consider "filler" and some of the songs I consider "filler" are absolute favorites among all the other members of the forum.
In your post to start this thread you mentioned "consistency" as a way for Frank Black to propel himself to "heights and glory." What does that consistency entail? Is this an issue with the "sound" of his music, or what you would consider the quality? What you would believe to be "consistent" in quality would be wholly subjective to your own personal likes and dislikes. I would admit, on the other hand, that Frank Black's music, when listened to song by song, does not have a particular "consistency" to the sound of the album. But, in a way it gives his listeners a broader spectrum of music than is present in most contemporary musicians. (In other words, there aren't too many FB songs that sound the same.)
Take me, break me, tell me a good one and maybe I'll cry
|
 |
|
|
RJB
- FB Fan -
Canada
15 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2004 : 08:14:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by glacial906
quote:
Originally posted by RJB
ok, what did I expect?
you're all right and I am wrong Frank Black's songs are like your children you must love them all the same; one's no better than the next and ...and ...and.
bah
Frank Booth: Here's to your f*ck!
Ben: Here's to your f*ck, Frank.
-"Blue Velvet"
I don't really think that's what's been said here. I think that you should just understand that what you consider as "filler" might not be the same as what someone else does. I don't like every Frank Black song I've ever heard. But, my likes are more than likely different from yours, and that's a pretty expected thing, and you really shouldn't be surprised.
That being said, you proffered an opinion. I take it you're not satisfied with the result. Does your dissatisfaction stem from the lack of parallel viewpoints? Or just the frequency and vehemence of those opinions that differ from yours? Some of my favorite songs from Frank are what others consider "filler" and some of the songs I consider "filler" are absolute favorites among all the other members of the forum.
In your post to start this thread you mentioned "consistency" as a way for Frank Black to propel himself to "heights and glory." What does that consistency entail? Is this an issue with the "sound" of his music, or what you would consider the quality? What you would believe to be "consistent" in quality would be wholly subjective to your own personal likes and dislikes. I would admit, on the other hand, that Frank Black's music, when listened to song by song, does not have a particular "consistency" to the sound of the album. But, in a way it gives his listeners a broader spectrum of music than is present in most contemporary musicians. (In other words, there aren't too many FB songs that sound the same.)
Take me, break me, tell me a good one and maybe I'll cry
Your thoughtful response is appreciated.
I realize that people here are rabid, somewhat overprotective FB fans and so I guess I got my just deserts. It's quite similiar to visiting any fan forum, like David Bowie's teenage wildlife fan page (http://www.teenagewildlife.com), that is to say, one cannot convince ridiclously loyal fans to try and be somewhat objective. i.e., Never Let Me Down is one of Bowie's weaker albums; to most, a fact, but to the David Bowie loyalists, saying anything is weak or weaker is in fact a blasphomy that needn't be considered... let alone uttered.
I get the same vibe here, from most.
I recognize that FB doesn't have a catalogue that varies as much as Bowie's but I still get the same vibe from most posters here(incredibly unobjective rabid fans) that you have little appriciation for negative opinions, hence that one dude telling me, "hey go away, we all know you came here for pixies set lists" or whatever he said, which is beyond stupid.
True, art is highly subjective but I firmly belive that there is room for some objectivity; some stuff is generally considered worse and some stuff is generally considered better...usually true.
And for me and many people I know we think FB is an amazing artist, probably, if you go on sheer talent alone one of the very best in the world, but if you go by consitency(quality of tracks/quality of albums) he can improve if he slows down and filters a bit more.
Disagreeing with me is fine. Great even. Please just remember that pondering FB quality/quantity is not a sin.
|
|
|
|
BLT
> Teenager of the Year <
South Sandwich Islands
4204 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2004 : 08:41:57
|
| Good on you for posting this thread. Anyone who is offended by it deserves to be offended by it. |
|
|
|
jediroller
* Dog in the Sand *
France
1718 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2004 : 10:54:42
|
"I firmly belive that there is room for some objectivity."
That's where you are wrong. Or are you faking naivety?
Who could be considered "objective" on such a subject? A musicologist? On what "objective" criteria do you base your dismissal of certain songs as "filler"? As is the case with lots of other board members, one of the songs you mentioned happen to be my very favourite off "Show Me Your Tears", so I'd like to know how my judgment is flawed. What did I miss about "Everything is New" that makes it a weak song? What does it lack? What does it have that it shouldn't?
Yes, good on you for posting this thread... Of course. No one told you to shut up, did they? But can you please back your point of view with a bit more arguments and a bit less whining about "ridiculously loyal fans"? The harsher answer you got was the one line you quoted (twice in fact) about "Pixies setlists", every single other response (and every single other line in Jason's replies) were definitely level-headed.
I'm aware that Frank produces a lot of material, and that it would be dumb to ask everybody to love all of it. I don't. There are quite a few songs that do nothing for me. But there's a gap between admitting that and claiming that the songs you don't like are necessarily weak material that shouldn't have been put out. That's what make me uncomfortable about your post RJB, not the fact that everything Frank writes is not equally good - I assume that's news to nobody here - but the fact that you should be the one to decide what is good enough to be released, and what isn't.
That's all. Have a nice day!
--
Everything I say to you is gonna come out wrong anyway |
|
|
|
Jason
* Dog in the Sand *
1446 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2004 : 13:00:45
|
fellas, fellas...
by all means, anyone should post any opinion about Mr. Frank that they want to post here. But where is this hubub over the posts disagreeing with the top post a' comin' from? The frankblack.net board (the 'Frank Black' sections, at least) is where the Frank Black GEEKS (like myself) post. It's who the board is for. You're gonna find some folks here who like everything and you're gonna find folks who may disagree with your criticisms. So what?
And I don't apologize for my 'Pixies setlists' comment. I like the idea of Music Talk being a little like Sports Talk. Sometimes you make cutting and/or outlandish comments, and it's all in fun. I disagree with all kindsa stuff I read here and some very nice folks may disagree with me. And it's all fine. In the two or so years I've posted here, I don't think I've ever been in one of those super-cool (not really) "internet fights" with anyone, despite disagreeing with 72.3% of I what I usually read here. I let stuff bounce offa me.
Let some stuff bounce off you. Try to enjoy the board without letting things turn into Ego Matches. Cuz then things usually stop being enjoyable. |
|
|
|
usedtobenavajo
- FB Fan -
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2004 : 15:53:06
|
I think everyone here has some frank black songs that they find to be mediocre or bad. But, as these songs are different for everyone, if frank were to put a certain filter on his work, he would please some fans and displease others. So if his goal (or the perspective that we are taking) is to provide a pleasureable album experience to everyone in his (relatively) small cult following, then it is hard to call very many of his songs filler.
If we are looking at this through any other perspective: flow of album, overall strength of material, etc, then we can begin throwing that label around.
Most of the people who have responded have been looking at pleasure for all of frank's rabid fans.
Just a thought.
So Im headed for the stereo store, to get a white noise maker, and turn it up to ten. |
|
|
|
RJB
- FB Fan -
Canada
15 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2004 : 20:36:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by jediroller
"I firmly belive that there is room for some objectivity."
That's where you are wrong. Or are you faking naivety?
Who could be considered "objective" on such a subject?
I'm speaking generally.
Of course there is going to be people that disagree, and of course I'm not suggesting I be the ultimate judge.
Take this list for example, its a compilation of some great artist's weaker albums:
Bob Dylan: SAVED or Dylan
David Bowie: Never Let Me Down or Tonite
Springsteen: Human Touch...
See most fans that aren't total devotees would be able to consider these generallities(not a word...hmm), most would admit it if they're outside of the worshippers circle. But once you get into the worshippers circle no such generallities can be discussed. You get called naive for suggesting that one album might be almost universally panned or generally thought of as weaker.
I'm saying I thinkDevil's Workshop, Pistollero,and Black Letter Days would go on that list for FB albums, and so would most people I know that are totally into music and totally into FB( just not as much as you guys I guess, and that one guy is right, what do I expect, this is a FB forun and place where the most devout FB come, and I'm not being facetious, I dig that you guys like him that much.)
So yeah, I'm gonna stop beating a dead horse here, I think he needs to be more meticulous you guys disagree.
Frank Booth: Here's to your f*ck!
Ben: Here's to your f*ck, Frank.
-"Blue Velvet" |
|
|
|
ElevatorLady
= Cult of Ray =
385 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2004 : 11:32:01
|
If I may just add, there is a nice little paradox here: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the "worshippers circle" fans are extremely subjective in evaluating FB's music, and other "casual" fans are very much objective in this. That would make the "casual" fans better judges on what is good and what is not, right? On the other hand, only the "worshipers circle" knows the music well enough to be entitled to make such judgments. They know every album and every song in detail. A casual fan, no matter how objective he is, can in no way say which FB album is the best and which one is the worst, because he probably hasn't heard all of them, and even if he has, he probably didn't listen to all of them thoroughly enough to be able to make such judgments.
I'm over-generalizing, I know, but anyway.
Besides, I'm sure there are many out there who would consider everything FB has ever done complete crap... Do you think those people are too objective, or too subjective?
______________________
When in doubt, sqare. |
|
|
|
Jason
* Dog in the Sand *
1446 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2004 : 15:40:48
|
When it comes to this music stuff, there is no real Objectivity. Different people value different things, and the best anyone can do when reaching for any kind of objectivity is be objective within their own subjective paradigm.
If you think think melodic, verse-chorus-verse guitar rock is a debased form of music and the great classical and jazz musicians are the only guys who made real art, then objectively any Frank Black & the Catholics song -- or any rock song -- is bad.
I think anyone's informed opinion is valid (informed meaning you've at least heard the music before criticizing or categorizing it -- and I'd say RJB's opinion is informed). You can be a casual fan and have very valid, interesting things to say.
And this board isn't much of a "worshipper's circle" (at least in RJB's vision of one that will defend en masse every single thing Frank does). Sometimes I feel like I'm one of only three people here who thinks Pistolero is a flawless album, for example. |
Edited by - Jason on 08/07/2004 15:41:42 |
|
|
|
jediroller
* Dog in the Sand *
France
1718 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2004 : 00:27:01
|
There are three of you?
--
Everything I say to you is gonna come out wrong anyway |
|
|
|
langdonboom
= Cult of Ray =
USA
260 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2004 : 07:38:32
|
I like hearing this back-and-forth, especially since everyone seems really intellegent about how to discuss it. Of course its super-murky. But I tend to agree with the almost-paradoxical sounding theory that the ones who are 'rabid' fans are the most objective (or at least have the position to be so, though any individual could always be nuts) since they know the songs in the most detail. Though its a chicken-or-the-egg question, since why would they bother to get to know the songs as well as they do if something in them didn't speak to them in the first place?
With that said, I'll just add that I am a rabid Frank Black fan, I have never felt let down by any of his songs, even though yes, I like some better than others (Naturally) but to point out a particular difference I have with the original poster -- THE SNAKE is a song that I almost NEVER listen to ONCE -- its always instantly repeated. I LOVE IT. If we want to start a thread about defending what you consider "filler" songs, I'd be glad to offer my 2 cents. Though this is the kind of thing you need to look each other in the eyes, feel each others excitement, listen to the songs together to really transmit one person's feelign to the other -- words and logical arguments pretty much fall flat when discussing these things (great rock criticism nonwithstanding).
Anyway, what a great thing to debate! How much BETTER could Frank be? The mind boggles.
Finally, I'll add that the man's soul speaks to me in a way that any disscetion of his musicality or musicianship itself wouldn't quite get at. Perhaps like trying to find someone's personality by cutting him open on the coroner's table. Sorta the wrong arena for invetigation of these things.
Alienation confers freedom. Obscurity will keep you pure. Pray that you won’t be discovered young, so that you won’t be tempted to sell out early, or won’t be seduced by celebrity.
--THE PATH OF THE ARTIST |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4109 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2004 : 12:10:12
|
I totally agree with all you said Langdonboom!
For me there are, of course, musics that I like more than others, it depends on the day and on my state of mind.
But none of them has ever let me down! I was never desappointed!
It´s still a big mistery for me, the Pixies and Frank Black´s music!
I can try hard but I can´t find a music that I can say that I don´t really like...
... I´m learning!... |
|
|
|
VoVat
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
9168 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2004 : 13:55:48
|
quote:
When it comes to this music stuff, there is no real Objectivity.
Uh-oh. Better not tell Ebb!
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
FB too prolific..yesm
