Re: Krelling me softly with his song

+ From: "michaelP" <pennamacoor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+ Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:06:30 +0100

> THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3107351190_1963128_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

> Michael,
>
> Good ear!
>
> This one I've thought a lot about over the years.
>
>> 2) in contrast, take Joe Cocker's take of the Beatle's Sergeant Pepper song
>> 'With a Little Help from My Friends', also about love. The original sung
>> sweetly by Ringo (not the greatest of vocalists) is a 2/4 confection,
>> pleasant enough but ignorable compared to other material on the
>> ground-breaking Pepper album, a filler with intriguing lyrics. That Cocker
>> and his Cocker Band should choose this particular song on that, that album,
>> to render is intriguing enough, but what a reading! Cocker slows the tempo,
>> changes the rhythmic pulse to 6/8, and peppers the piece with fermata and
>> several climaxes, but maintains the chorus-call-and-solo-answer structure
>> of the piece. Through a series of slowly developed explosively executed
>> crescendos, Cocker's vocals hit you right in the chest with a remarkable
>> display of utter soulfulness: at one point the chorus chimes "Do you need
>> any-body?", he returns after an electrifying pause with a roar of
>> passionate assent. The Beatle's nice but flat assertion of the love of
>> friendship (done much better in their later 'All You Need is Love') is
>> transformed into a sexually-charged simmering hippy anthem of universal
>> comradeship by Cocker's extraordinary reading of this song.
>>

> Nicely done. I hear very much the same. You're right about how light and
> confectionary the "original" seems in comparison to Cocker's rocking anthem
> at Woodstock. It's interesting, though, that the Beatles album begins
> with a an evocation of an old-style band concert which brings you to the
> experience of the album in a way which presents a present, but only in a
> "can"--that is with obviously canned audience reactions. Such artificial
> presences were a persistent accompaniment to 50's tv.
>
> But the Beatles always presented their social critique lovingly,
> appreciatively: " C'mon! It really wasn't been all that bad! " There's a
> romantic nostalgia built into their take on what is passing

... she's leaving home [and for good]

> which leaves
> things rather ambiguous.

which is perhaps why they rather than the more dangerous Stones became such
a popular pop phenomenon... although their hard sharp gutsy takes on older
(mostly 'black' american) soul-R&B-blues were also affectionate although the
manner of their celebratory readings did not come across as "romantic
nostalgia", rather, a new spin with sharpened 3H pencils rather than the
softer blunter 3B pencilations of their recent ancestry (Chuck, Bo, Muddy,
et al)...

>The apparent vacuity of the fifties offered up
> some nice possibilities, especially musically. The Beatles found
> themselves as the Beatles, not without a tradition--moments from the recent
> past of their present still wanting to be sung . Cocker of course sings
> out, already live, at the scene of the new beginning. What a time it was!

Yes, you're right... the Beatles had a richer tradition than the Stones (the
Beatles covered a wider range of covers on their first album than the Stones
on theirs)

>
> But back to the Beatles version(putting in one last word for the underdog
> here!). The opening of the band concert fades out, as I remember, with
> lingering audience applause, cheers sighs. And then "With a Little Help
> from my Friends" fades in after a quieting down sweet transition.The song
> lilts along making it almost impossible to really hear anything in it. The
> words can pass you right by, eminently forgettable, as were most of the
> lyrics of songs back then. But then, if you found yourself, just for the
> moment, listening to the words differently, for the first time. . .having
> your attention called by little more than a subtle switch of mood from the
> first song to the second.

and then to the strangely strange tipsy-turvy of Lucy in the Sky with
Diamonds with its alternating 3/4 and 4/4 (the 4/4 chorus announced with
that spine-chilling 3-drumbeat pattern) and new-world-disorder... taking you
away...

>I think the Beatles were teaching us how to
> listen differently to music, how to listen to a different kind of music.
> No easier in music than in philosophy.

you have brought before us the significance of context in two senses:

1) given the piece is in an album, the tracks before and after sandwich the
given piece and we cannot (especially in this, a/the groundbreaking 'concept
album' and one whose 'concept' is that of a show) hear it completely in
isolation from the other tracks nor without considering its serial position
within the whole of parts; trans-lating this to philosophical readings of
philosophical texts, what can we say? if a 'chapter' or 'section' of text
appears in a 'book' or assemblage of readings, etc, then we need to consider
whether it appears in an order or sequence or not (most of the 50s albums I
know seemed to be just mere collections of currently current pieces in no
special order apart from the oft-used slow-fast-slow alternations...); a
business of textual syn&para-tax..
2) the piece and the ensemble of (1) just above, and the other pieces on the
album anyway, belong in various ways and in various relationships with
(celebratory, ironic, pastiche, lampoon, homage, quotation, etc), a
tradition (both from the past and in the present); likewise with texts
especially those that themselves are readings (explicit or implicit or
hidden) of other texts; an aside: [Allen, did you once mention the
Jewish-Rabbinical practice of (forgive the mispellllliiinng) 'Midrash'? is
this an example of a text that plays constantly with another within the
tradition of such playfulness -- the inexhaustibility of reading...??]

This is far more difficult than I at first thought, but, yes, music and
love-sophy are perhaps both essentially songs? about songs?

>
> I have more to say about your other tasty treats, but now I must away.
>
> Allen

thanks Allen, looking forward to your more-sayings

michaelP

--MS_Mac_OE_3107351190_1963128_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Krelling me softly with his song</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#00FFFF">
> Michael, 
> 
> Good ear! 
> 
> This one I've thought a lot about over the years. 
> 
>> 2) in contrast, take Joe Cocker's take of th=
e Beatle's Sergeant Pepper song 
>> 'With a Little Help from My Friends', also about love. The origina=
l sung 
>> sweetly by Ringo (not the greatest of vocalists) is a 2/4 confecti=
on, 
>> pleasant enough but ignorable compared to other material on the <B=
R>
>> ground-breaking Pepper album, a filler with intriguing lyrics. Tha=
t Cocker 
>> and his Cocker Band should choose this particular song on that, th=
at album, 
>> to render is intriguing enough, but what a reading! Cocker slows t=
he tempo, 
>> changes the rhythmic pulse to 6/8, and peppers the piece with ferm=
ata and 
>> several climaxes, but maintains the chorus-call-and-solo-answer st=
ructure 
>> of the piece. Through a series of slowly developed explosively exe=
cuted 
>> crescendos, Cocker's vocals hit you right in the chest with a rema=
rkable 
>> display of utter soulfulness: at one point the chorus chimes &quot=
;Do you need 
>> any-body?", he returns after an electrifying pause with a roa=
r of 
>> passionate assent. The Beatle's nice but flat assertion of the lov=
e of 
>> friendship (done much better in their later 'All You Need is Love'=
) is 
>> transformed into a sexually-charged simmering hippy anthem of univ=
ersal 
>> comradeship by Cocker's extraordinary reading of this song. 
>> 
 
> Nicely done.  I hear very much the same.  You're right about=
how light and 
> confectionary the "original" seems in comparison to Cocker's=
rocking anthem 
> at Woodstock.  It's interesting, though,  that the Beatles a=
lbum begins 
> with a an evocation of an old-style band concert which brings you to t=
he 
> experience of the album in  a way which presents a present, but o=
nly in a 
> "can"--that is with obviously canned audience reactions. &nb=
sp;Such artificial 
> presences were a persistent accompaniment to 50's tv. 
> 
> But the Beatles always presented their social critique lovingly, 
> appreciatively: " C'mon!  It really wasn't  been all th=
at bad! " There's a 
> romantic nostalgia built into their take on what is passing 
 
... she's leaving home [and for good] 
 
> which leaves 
> things rather ambiguous. 
 
which is perhaps why they rather than the more danger=
ous Stones became such a popular pop phenomenon... although their hard sharp=
gutsy takes on older (mostly 'black' american) soul-R&B-blues were also=
affectionate although the manner of their celebratory readings did not come=
across as "romantic nostalgia", rath=
er, a new spin with sharpened 3H pencils rather than the softer blunter 3B p=
encilations of their recent ancestry (Chuck, Bo, Muddy, et al)... 
 
>The apparent vacuity of the fifties offered up 
> some nice possibilities, especially musically.  The Beatles found=
 
> themselves as the Beatles, not without a tradition--moments from the r=
ecent 
> past of their present still wanting to be sung  .  Cocker of=
course sings 
> out, already live, at the scene of the new beginning.  What a tim=
e it was! 
 
Yes, you're right... the Beatles had a richer traditi=
on than the Stones (the Beatles covered a wider range of covers on their fir=
st album than the Stones on theirs) 
 
> 
> But back to the Beatles version(putting in one last word for the under=
dog 
> here!).  The opening of the band concert fades out, as I remember=
, with 
> lingering audience applause, cheers sighs.  And then "With a=
Little Help 
> from my Friends" fades in after a quieting down sweet transition.=
The song 
> lilts along making it almost impossible to really hear anything in it.=
 The 
> words can pass you right by, eminently forgettable, as were most of th=
e 
> lyrics of songs back then.  But then, if you  found yourself=
, just for the 
> moment, listening to the words differently, for the first time. . .hav=
ing 
> your attention called by little more than a subtle switch of mood from=
the 
> first song to the second. 
 
and then to the strangely strange tipsy-turvy of Lucy=
in the Sky with Diamonds with its alternating 3/4 and 4/4 (the 4/4 chorus a=
nnounced with that spine-chilling 3-drumbeat pattern) and new-world-disorder=
... taking you away... 
 
>I think the Beatles were teaching us how to 
> listen differently to music, how to listen to a different kind of musi=
c.   
> No easier in music than in philosophy. 
 
you have brought before us the significance of contex=
t in two senses: 
 
1) given the piece is in an album, the tracks before and after sandwich the=
given piece and we cannot (especially in this, a/the groundbreaking 'concep=
t album' and one whose 'concept' is that of a show) hear it completely in is=
olation from the other tracks nor without considering its serial position wi=
thin the whole of parts; trans-lating this to philosophical readings of phil=
osophical texts, what can we say? if a 'chapter' or 'section' of text appear=
s in a 'book' or assemblage of readings, etc, then we need to consider wheth=
er it appears in an order or sequence or not (most of the 50s albums I know =
seemed to be just mere collections of currently current pieces in no special=
order apart from the oft-used slow-fast-slow alternations...); a business o=
f textual syn&para-tax.. 
. 
2) the piece and the ensemble of (1) just above, and the other pieces on th=
e album anyway, belong in various ways and in various relationships with (ce=
lebratory, ironic, pastiche, lampoon, homage, quotation, etc), a tradition (=
both from the past and in the present); likewise with texts especially those=
that themselves are readings (explicit or implicit or hidden) of other text=
s; an aside: [Allen, did you once mention the Jewish-Rabbinical practice of =
(forgive the mispellllliiinng) 'Midrash'? is this an example of a text that =
plays constantly with another within the tradition of such playfulness -- th=
e inexhaustibility of reading...??] 
 
This is far more difficult than I at first thought, but, yes, music and lov=
e-sophy are perhaps both essentially songs? about songs? 
 
> 
>   I have more to say about your other tasty treats, but now =
I must away. 
> 
> Allen 
 
thanks Allen, looking forward to your more-sayings<BR=
>
 
michaelP 

</BODY>
</HTML>

--MS_Mac_OE_3107351190_1963128_MIME_Part--

--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

+ Previous by Thread: Re: Krelling me softly with his song
+ Next by Thread: Re: Kulturpessimismus

Partial thread listing:

Re: Krelling me softly with his song, (continued…)

Re: Krelling me softly with his song, michaelP

Re: Kulturpessimismus, Rene de Bakker
Re: Kunst und Raum, Jan Straathof (1997-01-24)

<Possible follow-up(s)>

Re: Kunst und Raum, PANU MINKKINEN

Re: Kunst und Raum, heiner

<< Thread Prev < Date Prev…	^ date index+…	^ thread index+…	…Date Next > Thread Next >>
message ## 07099…