There was some things he stretched a bit, but mostly he told the truth.
I think the difference between you and an Indian, Greg, is that if you get hammered and wander around downtown, nobody claims that all white people are drunks.
I hear what you're saying, Glen, but I personally believe the 90(ish) percent claim. All four of the polls mentioned in the article found support for background checks between 83% and 90%, and there's little reason to believe they made it all up. Some things reported in the media aren't true, but I think we should be careful about deciding that nothing is true.
Thanks for pointing that out, John, because now that I read the article again it's totally misleading. "Daylight" and "Uncle Sam" are from Undisputed Truth, not from Mourning in America as their paragraph placement implies. Three cheers for smart readers.
You make a good point about personal taste. I think my worst-case scenario writing a review would be to convince someone to stop liking something. That would be awful. Second worst-case, though, might be to say I liked something I didn't just because it was weird.
I also would much rather see messy risk taking than polished mediocrity—sorry, String Cheese Incident—but my objection to Bad Naked is not that he's messy. It's that he's not taking meaningful risks.
It's true that art is what it is, but I don't think it follows that it can therefore have no standards of success or failure. A work of art sets its own goals and meets them on its own terms. I like Choking Victim and I like the Velvet Underground, but only a jerk would demand that they satisfy the same standards. What CV tried to do and what VU tried to do are very different projects, and each succeeded (and often failed) on the terms of those projects.
What worries me about Bad Naked is that his terms seem to be such that he could not fail to meet them. I disagree with your claim that there is no irony involved in Bad Naked, that it is not supposed to be bad. I think a fundamental part of his project is to discomfit the audience, partly via his performance and partly by making songs that do not have the structure or tonal organization of what we usually think of as songs. The problem is that he is rejecting that structure without putting forward anything in its place.
Noisy punk rock is good, to me at least, because it offers an alternative to restrictive ideas about what music should be. It rejects accepted forms, but more importantly it shows us something better. Anyone can not play "Stairway to Heaven," but it takes a Fucked Up to play "Queen of Hearts" instead. My problem with Bad Naked is that I cannot see what he is doing beyond rejecting conventions of songwriting and performance. He is not trying to do something instead so much as he is trying to do something not.
Aaron, I am dumb, but you don't know me so lucky guess.
What's the second worst review you've ever read?
Missoula News/Independent Publishing |
Powered by Foundation