Henley songs about Stevie...

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by dissention

Would you say that to Bob Dylan?

I'm wondering if anyone here would carp at Dylan for using the phrase "Heaven's Door," when we ALL know Heaven has a gate.

[glitter_fades]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I'm wondering if anyone here would carp at Dylan for using the phrase "Heaven's Door," when we ALL know Heaven has a gate.

He deserves a royal ass whoopin' for that boner.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I'm wondering if anyone here would carp at Dylan for using the phrase "Heaven's Door," when we ALL know Heaven has a gate.

Not ALL of us, dear.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by bushesandbriars

Also, someone remarked on Stevie's use of "existing" cliches--well, yes, some sound re-hashed, probably because "existing" is the definition of a cliche--an oft-stated observation.

That would be me.

I am quite fond of cliches, actually. They wouldn't be cliches if there wasn't some truth to them. But, it is plain old lazy to just repeat a cliche. I like to hear people do something with them. A few of my favorite writers twist cliches just a tiny bit and make them sound either novel or completely fresh. And usually it's country writers.

Rosanne Cash is genius at this. How tired is the saying "Distance makes the heart grow fonder" ? Rosanne's take on this ?

"Distance makes the heart start wondering
Absence makes the anger grow
The world may just be spinning through us
And separation lets it show."

Move you or not, Yeats or not, at least she does something with the old saying.

Even Clint Black, whose main claim to fame in my book is how he looks in a pair of Wranglers, has fun with cliches (actually I think he's a fine writer).

"Put yourself in my shoes
Walk a mile for me
I'll put myself in your shoes
Maybe then we'd see
That if you put yourself in my shoes
You'd have some sympathy
And if I could only put myself in your shoes
I'd walk right back to me."

It's not serious. It's cute. Doesn't have to be earth shattering. Just do something, anything with your cliche. Please !

I hear Clint, and snicker. I smirk. I hear Rosanne, then think of "Ooooh it's just like a river, Ooooh it's never ending", and I want to gouge my eyes out with a fondue fork. And I don't even own a fondue fork.

Addendum : The fine Mrs. Leventhal is also responsible for the following brilliant turn:
"The tables are turning, the tempo slows down
And we're getting off this misery go round."

Ahh, Misery Go Round. Now that is delicious. So good I co-opted it and use it at opportune moments.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by dissention

Not ALL of us, dear.

But then you might take issue with Dylan referring to Heaven at all!

[bushesandbriars]

Originally Posted by David

But if it doesn't ring true to me, it doesn't ring true. What can I tell ya? If her image -- her selection of one word or phrase from among the many that language makes available to her -- doesn't hit me as especially evocative or well-chosen, there isn't much I can do about it.

Yes, but when you referred to her as "Ms. Malapropism", it meant she had completely misapplied the term, which she didn't.

Originally Posted by David

Well, it's silly to expect poets to be essayists or journalists or other recorders of facts in their poems.

My point exactly--which is why, when you say she's using Hilton's idea wrongly, it sounds as though you think ideas should remain rigid and unevolved. None of the things you're now saying about reinvention were in the original post. You're explicit that she's objectively wrong, and say little about your definition of precision.

Originally Posted by David

But it's not silly to expect poets -- or songwriters -- to select words, phrases & images that are precise in the sense that they are chosen for the rightness of their connotation as well as their denotation. There are dozens of ways, in any language, of saying the same thing; & there are even ways of saying the same thing by using words in new ways. It's all open to the poet.

Exactly, which is why I spoke about reinvention--Stevie's taking an idea that exists in the culture and using it in her own way. Most people would agree with her interpretation of Shangri-La, which as I pointed out, is Chinese in lore, and not Hilton's to define exclusively.

Originally Posted by David

But words aren't lumps of clay. You can look at a lump of clay & have no idea what the sculptor made out of it beforehand. He's free to turn it into a horse or a spaceship or even some creature you've never seen before. Words have history associated with them, they have images & ideas associated with them & they have feelings associated with them. It's the poet's business to have all that in mind in order to either recapitulate denotation & connotation or to extend them in some startling & magical new way.

Lumps of clay may be symbolically neutral, but most of us have seen sculptures before, especially sculptors, and sculptures exist in a cultural context just as words do, not a vaccum, so the comparison here isn't quite on. And it's a contradiction to demand that artists reinvent ideas and criticize Stevie for not using Lost Horizon the way Hilton did.

Originally Posted by David

"I hear there's trouble in Shangri-La" is not a simile. It's a metaphor. I like to think I'm picky enough to distinguish a simile from a metaphor. In Fowler's good definition: "Between simile & metaphor the differences are (1) that a simile is a comparison proclaimed as such, whereas a metaphor is a tacit comparison made by the subtitution of the compared notion for the one to be illustrated; (2) that the simile is usually worked out at some length & often includes many points of resemblance, whereas a metaphor is as often as not expressed in a single word; & (3) that in nine out of ten metaphors the purpose is the practical one of presenting the notion in the most intelligible or convincing or arresting way, but nine out of ten similes are to be classed not as a means of explanation or persuasion, but as ends in themselves, things of real or supposed beauty for which a suitable place is to be found."

From your previous quote, I understood that you disliked the entire concept, and not the title track, and Stevie was quite explicit in her comparison when she spoke in her interviews, that the two things were alike, and that she was making a comparison. But hell, since we're having fun with literary dictionaries, here's J.A. Cuddon:

Simile: "A figure of soeech in which one thing is likened to another, is such a way as to clarify or enhance an image."

Metaphor: "A figure of speech in which one thing is described in terms of another."

So she may use the title track as a metaphor of sorts, but the concept certainly isn't. The interpretation is explicit, not implicit.

Originally Posted by David

But you're eating your cake & having it, too.

Actually, I think that's kinda what you're doing, since I'm not demanding "reportorial or denotative accuracy," but think you were by saying Shangri-La is a malapropism or misnomer. All I'm pointing out, by saying Stevie is post-modernist, is that she is concerned primarily with re-invention, which requires imaginative freedom.

[QUOTE=David]As far as I'm concerned, it's excessive to demand reportorial or denotative accuracy of a songwriter or a poet, but not excessive to demand metaphorical accuracy (which I assume is nothing more than the precise, selective use of language to render connotative -- or suggestive -- accuracy).

Originally Posted by David

I also don't agree with you that all poetry is governed by precise rules of meter, form & tradition; much of it is, but even that amount adheres to rules that have evolved from earlier rules & may bear little, if any, resemblance to the older rules.

Nowhere did I say all poetry is governed by these things, but the majority of it is governed by meter, and all of it has form, even if the form is not traditional, the rules of the new form are made explicit by each worker in that form. And all of it does come from a tradiion of one kind or another, whether reacting for or against--be it Futurism or Modernism, it comes from somewhere. Even rap can be related back to Gwendolen Brooks's poems. And I certainly never said poetry doesn't evolve, though many forms are still in use--villanelles, sestinas, pantoum--and people evolve based on the past. My post is all about re-invention, which poets do as well, and must, and about why Stevie's use of Shangri-La isn't inaccurate, just not resonant for you, because as I said, your point previously wasn't about reinvention but about misuse.

Originally Posted by David

My reason for not considering Stevie a poet is that I don't see in her that precise, selective use of language to render connotative -- or suggestive -- accuracy. . . which is why I posted about the use of "trouble in Shangri-La" in the first place! What if she had named the song "Trouble in Paradise"? What would be different? or even lost? What is it specifically about the use of the phrase "Shangri-La" that "does it" for the song? I think I actually cited an advantage earlier: it sounds mystical, far-away, exotic, slightly mandarin, & I posited the possibility that Stevie was attracted to the phrase for that very appeal.

I agree her accuracy can be off, but I don't agree in this case, obviously.
I could point out that Paradise is defined by other literary works--the Bible and Divine Comedy--and that they come with their own set of terms and limits that are no less specific than Shangri-La. And Paradise is hackneyed--Meat Loaf, Phil Collins, and Robin Zander have used it that I can think of. Perhaps she wished to avoid a religious element.

Originally Posted by David

Jeez, that's the job of the poet, isn't it? Certainly evocative, resonant, metaphorically precise words & images have been used to represent this idea -- by Updike, by William James, by Fitzgerald (with his haunting green light that recedes before Gatsby, who pursues it & pursues it until death stops him), by Wharton, by Benet, by Mencken, by Howells -- heck, by every writer who's ever penned moral tales on the themes of the American Dream.

I asked because you stated this with such conviction I wanted to know. I wasn't asking for new ones penned by you, if that's what you mean. I think maybe it's a little pretentious to hold a rock and roll singer up to Fitzgerald and William James, don't you?

Originally Posted by David

I don't see why it's a question of being "fair." Stevie writes something, & it has meaning & resonance to some people, but other people find it vague, imprecise, unpersuasive. Stevie doesn't necessarily need a defense attorney.

No one said she did, and I suppose the implication is that I came off as one, which isn't so. And I pointed it out because rather than making a case for what you thought was wrong, you and a couple of others went a tangent as though she'd done some wrong to the English language that was sweeping the nation, which also isn't so. She can be imprecise, as can any other number of writers, but in this case I don't think she's nearly as off as you've made it out to be.

Not picking a fight; just giving my opinion.

[David]

Originally Posted by bushesandbriars

Yes, but when you referred to her as "Ms. Malapropism", it meant she had completely misapplied the term, which she didn't.

I think she did. Here's her concept: It was written about the situation that he and many people that sort of make it to the height of their field. Whether you're a sports figure or a rock star or a doctor or a lawyer, indian chief, you know, candlemaker... whatever it is, when you kind of get to the top of your field and you are, like, really there. And how difficult it is for people to stay there. And how difficult it is for people to not go crazy.

To me, this has nothing to do with Shangri-La in any direct or extended sense. If this elicits the cultural idea of Shangri-La to you, then we're at an impasse.

My point exactly--which is why, when you say she's using Hilton's idea wrongly, it sounds as though you think ideas should remain rigid and unevolved.

You make this a zero sum game: either ideas can be stretched to the connotative breaking point, or they must remain "rigid & unevolved." I stand at neither end of that spectrum.

None of the things you're now saying about reinvention were in the original post. You're explicit that she's objectively wrong, and say little about your definition of precision.

Oh, well I apologize for being unable to jot down my entire poetics right here & now for you, but I'm still going to stand for connotative precision in poetry & in language in its broader sense. Reinvention is unavoidable, obviously -- we all reinvent, all of us who use language. Every day, we employ words & phrases to describe what we're feeling & doing in ways that may not have been used in quite that way before (at least in our experience). Sometimes we "reinvent" & people don't know what the hell we're talking about. Doesn't it happen to you? It happens to me quite often. "Shangri-La" doesn't have to be Chinese or Hilton or anything else specifically in order for it to be widely understood in any community. It need only be common -- it needs to belong to that community if it is to be understood at all. If Stevie wants to use the concept of Shangri-La to describe a slaughterhouse she once visited, either it's going to be understood only in the most severely ironic way, or it's not going to be understood at all. It's not going to be precise; it's not going to be persuasive.

Stevie's taking an idea that exists in the culture and using it in her own way. Most people would agree with her interpretation of Shangri-La, which as I pointed out, is Chinese in lore, and not Hilton's to define exclusively.

As far as I'm concerned, using Shangri-La to describe people who make it to the height of their field & then crash is imprecise. I am resolute -- my mind's made up. If you feel otherwise, go to town. That's okay. The song (or the concept of the whole album) is as much yours as it is mine.

Lumps of clay may be symbolically neutral, but most of us have seen sculptures before, especially sculptors, and sculptures exist in a cultural context just as words do, not a vaccum, so the comparison here isn't quite on. And it's a contradiction to demand that artists reinvent ideas and criticize Stevie for not using Lost Horizon the way Hilton did.

I really don't feel I criticized Stevie for not using "Shangri-La" the way Hilton did. Why don't you read between my lines the way you read between Stevie's? My criticism had a lot more to do with a use of "Shangri-La" that doesn't reflect this community's understanding of it.

Actually, I think that's kinda what you're doing, since I'm not demanding "reportorial or denotative accuracy," but think you were by saying Shangri-La is a malapropism or misnomer. All I'm pointing out, by saying Stevie is post-modernist, is that she is concerned primarily with re-invention, which requires imaginative freedom.

The pomo label is trotted out to explain just about everything these days. Had Stevie actually used "Shangri-La" to write a concept album about a slaughterhouse, I'm sure she'd be applauded as a post-modernist visionary, madly reinventing our tired old signs & hopelessly naive binary opposites as she twirls off into the sunset of imaginative freedom. My own silly view is that meaning is bounded by certain constraints that exist by virtue of the fact that a language -- any language -- is a system; & that if you use "dog" to mean "cat," the community of readers or listeners is going to boggle & therefore your imaginative gesture will be a failed one (unless your readers find meaning in the very discrepancy of the gesture).

My post is all about re-invention, which poets do as well, and must, and about why Stevie's use of Shangri-La isn't inaccurate, just not resonant for you, because as I said, your point previously wasn't about reinvention but about misuse.

The bottom line here is that you think that Stevie uses Shangri-La accurately, precisely & imaginatively, whereas I really don't. I think that she uses the phrase for a slightly more peripheral effect: sonority.

I think maybe it's a little pretentious to hold a rock and roll singer up to Fitzgerald and William James, don't you?

I do, indeed. Who did that?

No one said she did, and I suppose the implication is that I came off as one, which isn't so. And I pointed it out because rather than making a case for what you thought was wrong, you and a couple of others went a tangent as though she'd done some wrong to the English language that was sweeping the nation, which also isn't so.

You're certainly painting with as broad a brush as I ever did! "Some wrong to the English language that was sweeping the nation"?

Not picking a fight; just giving my opinion.

Same here.

[glitter_fades]

Originally Posted by David

Had Stevie actually used "Shangri-La" to write a concept album about a slaughterhouse, I'm sure she'd be applauded as a post-modernist visionary, madly reinventing our tired old signs & hopelessly naive binary opposites as she twirls off into the sunset of imaginative freedom.

[SapphireSister]

So what if her use of it is completely off (and I happen to think she is right on)? So what if she wants to use Shangri La to talk about lamp shades or something completely unrelated? That's what ART is people...it's all up to interpretation. For me Stevie's music in not about literary accuracy or grammar or her use or misuse of the English Language, or whether or not she has used metaphors to accurately describe what she is going through. To me it's about emotion and what those words mean to me in relevance to my own life experiences and most of the time they just sound so damn beautiful! She is so creative and the images she evokes just blow my mind. Half the time I have no clue what she is talking about but I love that because she speaks of things and ideas I would never conceive of in my own little mind and that's a gift! I really try hard not to analyze her and her music to the point of a science project. We will never get the answers we are looking for anyway. I admit this is quite and interesting discussion and thanks for reading my rant.

[Serrart]

Originally Posted by David

My reason for not considering Stevie a poet is that I don't see in her that precise, selective use of language to render connotative -- or suggestive -- accuracy. . . which is why I posted about the use of "trouble in Shangri-La" in the first place! What if she had named the song "Trouble in Paradise"? .

Well, in my culture you go in Paradise when you're dead or if you're Dante. Not saying that is an exact concept, but that's the common thing you would listen from most people I Think. Paradise is uncompromising, and who compromises with Paradise, is a fool, and deserves a movie with Nicolas Cage. While you can reach during your life Shangri La, it's before us, inside of us, if you're very lucky. It's Katmandu, the dream that comes true. It even rhymes.

Romy

[sparky]

Originally Posted by SapphireSister

So what if her use of it is completely off (and I happen to think she is right on)? So what if she wants to use Shangri La to talk about lamp shades or something completely unrelated? That's what ART is people...it's all up to interpretation. For me Stevie's music in not about literary accuracy or grammar or her use or misuse of the English Language, or whether or not she has used metaphors to accurately describe what she is going through. To me it's about emotion and what those words mean to me in relevance to my own life experiences and most of the time they just sound so damn beautiful!

That, in a nutshell, is what people disagree about. Her imagery may evoke an emotional response in some people, but not stand up to any accepted standards of critical thought. It's the difference between the true believers and those who look at things more objectively. I try to do both, but don't always succeed.

Half the time I have no clue what she is talking about

That is why she gets so much criticism on the level of content, accuracy, and structure...if those aspects of her work were more clear and concise, a lot more people would know what she was talking about. When it comes to judging the quality of art - communication of an idea being the goal - vaguery and misuse cloud the message and therefore lead many to believe that the art is inferior. Thank God for Stevie that she can inject so much emotion with her voice. That sometimes saves the day when her words come off as sloppy and misguided. Or just plain goofy.

I love that because she speaks of things and ideas I would never conceive of in my own little mind and that's a gift! I really try hard not to analyze her and her music to the point of a science project. We will never get the answers we are looking for anyway.

I suppose art is all about enjoyment these days. The thing is, there will always be arguments and disagreements about Stevie and her work. It is precisely the erratic and random quality of it that evokes the passionate exchanges.

[amber]

Originally Posted by sparky

That, in a nutshell, is what people disagree about. Her imagery may evoke an emotional response in some people, but not stand up to any accepted standards of critical thought. It's the difference between the true believers and those who look at things more objectively. I try to do both, but don't always succeed.





That is why she gets so much criticism on the level of content, accuracy, and structure...if those aspects of her work were more clear and concise, a lot more people would know what she was talking about. When it comes to judging the quality of art - communication of an idea being the goal - vaguery and misuse cloud the message and therefore lead many to believe that the art is inferior. Thank God for Stevie that she can inject so much emotion with her voice. That sometimes saves the day when her words come off as sloppy and misguided. Or just plain goofy.




I suppose art is all about enjoyment these days. The thing is, there will always be arguments and disagreements about Stevie and her work. It is precisely the erratic and random quality of it that evokes the passionate exchanges.

Yeah, it's funny, I agree both with Saphiresister and with the other point of view. It's like - It could be way better, but I still like it (or not) when it's not. But I guess it's people like me, kind of, who, like that other girl said, maybe make Stevie not try as hard. But, maybe not. Who knows if she's even capable of being different? And, to be fair to myself, the real reason I love Stevie so much is simply her voice quality. There are other things that factor in to songs I like, or don't like, but I willingly forgive a lot of things, simply because it is her singing it. That doesn't mean I think it's great, or brilliantly lyricised, or produced. It only means I think her voice is brilliant, and it touches me in that special way, flaws and all.

[bushesandbriars]

Originally Posted by David

I think she did. Here's her concept: It was written about the situation that he and many people that sort of make it to the height of their field. Whether you're a sports figure or a rock star or a doctor or a lawyer, indian chief, you know, candlemaker... whatever it is, when you kind of get to the top of your field and you are, like, really there. And how difficult it is for people to stay there. And how difficult it is for people to not go crazy.

To me, this has nothing to do with Shangri-La in any direct or extended sense. If this elicits the cultural idea of Shangri-La to you, then we're at an impasse.
You make this a zero sum game: either ideas can be stretched to the connotative breaking point, or they must remain "rigid & unevolved." I stand at neither end of that spectrum.
Oh, well I apologize for being unable to jot down my entire poetics right here & now for you, but I'm still going to stand for connotative precision in poetry & in language in its broader sense. Reinvention is unavoidable, obviously -- we all reinvent, all of us who use language. Every day, we employ words & phrases to describe what we're feeling & doing in ways that may not have been used in quite that way before (at least in our experience). Sometimes we "reinvent" & people don't know what the hell we're talking about. Doesn't it happen to you? It happens to me quite often. "Shangri-La" doesn't have to be Chinese or Hilton or anything else specifically in order for it to be widely understood in any community. It need only be common -- it needs to belong to that community if it is to be understood at all. If Stevie wants to use the concept of Shangri-La to describe a slaughterhouse she once visited, either it's going to be understood only in the most severely ironic way, or it's not going to be understood at all. It's not going to be precise; it's not going to be persuasive.

As far as I'm concerned, using Shangri-La to describe people who make it to the height of their field & then crash is imprecise. I am resolute -- my mind's made up. If you feel otherwise, go to town. That's okay. The song (or the concept of the whole album) is as much yours as it is mine.
I really don't feel I criticized Stevie for not using "Shangri-La" the way Hilton did. Why don't you read between my lines the way you read between Stevie's? My criticism had a lot more to do with a use of "Shangri-La" that doesn't reflect this community's understanding of it.
The pomo label is trotted out to explain just about everything these days. Had Stevie actually used "Shangri-La" to write a concept album about a slaughterhouse, I'm sure she'd be applauded as a post-modernist visionary, madly reinventing our tired old signs & hopelessly naive binary opposites as she twirls off into the sunset of imaginative freedom. My own silly view is that meaning is bounded by certain constraints that exist by virtue of the fact that a language -- any language -- is a system; & that if you use "dog" to mean "cat," the community of readers or listeners is going to boggle & therefore your imaginative gesture will be a failed one (unless your readers find meaning in the very discrepancy of the gesture).
The bottom line here is that you think that Stevie uses Shangri-La accurately, precisely & imaginatively, whereas I really don't. I think that she uses the phrase for a slightly more peripheral effect: sonority.
I do, indeed. Who did that?
You're certainly painting with as broad a brush as I ever did! "Some wrong to the English language that was sweeping the nation"?
Same here.

This whole tangent proves only that you got nothing that I said in either post, because your whole post relates not to what I actually said but to the fact that you took offense, so there's really no point in bothering with further debate, is there? If you read what I said and thought about it, rather than just reacting, you would realize I'm not saying she's a "post-modernist visionary," and you would realize that I'm not in love with this comparison--which is just you exaggerating, really--but that my point is that it's perfectly a legitimate use of Shangri-La, and that's all. There is such a thing as poetic license, which you didn't acknowledge in your first post, I came in, I made some comments because I thought they were missing. That's all. And your post-modernist bit comes off as downright bitchy, and I don't think it's worthy of you, but if that suits you then hey, knock yourself out. I'm just pointing out that post-modernism is, in one of its definitions, taking cultural symbols and re-using them, like any number of people do, some well, some not. I never said your point of view was silly, though you've certainly gone out of your way to exaggerate mine so it sounds absurd, and that's fine. This still isn't a personal war for me, just my opinion. And it's just your opinion as well.

[SapphireSister]

This had been one of the most intelligent, thought provoking, and passionate discussions I've ever seen on this board. Kudos to all those involved! Even though we disagree we have one thing we can agree upon and that is our love and admiration of Ms. Nicks

[sarafield]

Originally Posted by amber

Yeah, it's funny, I agree both with Saphiresister and with the other point of view. It's like - It could be way better, but I still like it (or not) when it's not. But I guess it's people like me, kind of, who, like that other girl said, maybe make Stevie not try as hard. But, maybe not. Who knows if she's even capable of being different? And, to be fair to myself, the real reason I love Stevie so much is simply her voice quality. There are other things that factor in to songs I like, or don't like, but I willingly forgive a lot of things, simply because it is her singing it. That doesn't mean I think it's great, or brilliantly lyricised, or produced. It only means I think her voice is brilliant, and it touches me in that special way, flaws and all.

I completely agree with you and others who have said her voice/singing (and general charisma too) make up for so much. I wish she still had the range she used to, because I'd love to hear an album of covers by Stevie. Not songs written for her like on TISL, but existing songs she just really loved, sung in her special way. As she doesn't seem to be as much into songwriting as she used to be, she could do an album of "interpretations" a la Emmylou Harris. I like her voice as it is now, don't get me wrong, but more range would mean more songs she could sing.