Re: Basic intro

["Christopher White" <magicicada@charter.net>]

you can wax all day philosophical on manson or what have you
but when it comes right down to it i think i am most
interested in how something sounds and well manson sounds
horrible and boring to my ears-which makes me none too
interested in exploring his deep hidden messages as
delivered to him on 'black leathery wings'


-tis a tired horse that man beats-

 often times i find that the actual sounds of a 'song' say
more to me than the 'well constructed' lyrical content-

but hell this is just me-
c




On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 19:19:01 -0700
 Caliban Tiresias Darklock <caliban@darklock.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 18:38:33 -0700, glenn
> <glenn234@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> >that was great! Recognized lots of those themes but
> they'd become somewhat
> >nebulous over the years to say the least. Thanks for
> that: Interesting
> >stuff.
> 
> (Dragging things back on topic...)
> 
> The most interesting Tiresias reference I ever found was
> in Peter
> Gabriel's "White Shadow" on his second solo album:
> 
>       No one knew if the spirit died;
>       All wrapped to go, like Kentucky Fried.
>       Trying to read the flight of birds --
>       low on fuel, getting low on words.
> 
> When I thought about this, it occurred to me that a lot
> of the songs I
> really like are somewhat "secret". They have an
> interpretation and
> meaning that's almost private between me and the artist;
> things the
> average guy just plain isn't going to get. That's one of
> the reasons I'm
> such a huge Marilyn Manson fan; I "get" his work in a way
> that I'm
> convinced most people can't or won't. To understand
> "Little Horn" from
> Antichrist Superstar, for example, you need to draw the
> parallel with
> the biblical book of Daniel (8:9-12, "And out of one of
> them came forth
> a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, [...] and it
> cast down truth
> to the ground, and it wrought, and prospered.") -- but I
> don't think
> there are all that many biblical scholars listening to
> ACS. 
> 
> This is also reflected in my own work. When I use a
> sample, it's not
> always just "that will sound good here", it's often a
> deliberate
> juxtaposition of opposing concepts -- like the opening
> verse of Ice-T's
> "Colors" overlaid on the introduction to Lynyrd Skynyrd's
> "Sweet Home
> Alabama". There's also a definite intent to bring
> *surrounding* material
> to mind; the rhythm guitar from any well-known song, for
> example,
> carries some amount of that song's entire meaning with
> it. Adding the
> intro to Metallica's "Harvester of Sorrow" over a drum
> beat can make an
> otherwise silly sample significantly darker and more
> compelling... the
> phrase "Let me take you down, 'cos I'm going to" from the
> Beatles'
> "Strawberry Fields Forever" would sound light and happy
> in most mixes,
> but when placed in this context it becomes downright
> creepy. Especially
> when you follow it with the main rhythm from Alice in
> Chains' "Grind",
> which further includes the verse "I could set you free,
> rather hear the
> sound/of your body breaking as I take you down" -- even
> though that
> verse is not itself sampled. This three-way combination
> (conflagration?)
> turns a line normally associated with peace and love and
> nature into a
> thoroughly wicked little threat.
> 
> So how do other people see this sort of thing? Do others
> use this kind
> of contextual mixing? Is the presence of obscure meaning
> in a song a
> bonus, or a liability? Is it even relevant? (Many
> electronic and
> loop-based musicians I've spoken to consider the
> "meaning" of a song
> unnecessary, a simple side-effect of throwing things
> together that sound
> good. I'm not going to start the "are lyrics important,
> or just another
> kind of noise you throw into the music" debate just yet;
> I've been
> blamed for starting flame wars with that too many times.)
>