[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Goodbye Sister Techno, Whofest mudwrestling, & Conceptual mayhem



"Let us go then, you and I..."

Mr. Mark wrote:

> I don't know that taking longer to write a song is a good thing. Sounds to
> me like he has some kind of problem with it. Just because it takes a year
> doesn't make it a better song. Some of the best songs were (according to
> interviews) written in ten minutes. Inspiration cannot be forced. Trying to
> can (in fact) devalue a piece of Art.
>
 I think the first part of this is true.  There are numerous examples of
something taking a long time and it ends up just being horrible.  A perfect
example is the General Index to The War of the Rebellion Official Records.  It
took the guys down at the National Archives 125 years to get about half-way
done with it, and the rought drafts are downright pitiful.

Now the other half of the above quote I believe is incorrect.  If we put rock
music aside for a moment, we can easily see what I mean.  It took Mark Twain 7
years to write "Huck Finn."  I know people who don't like Twain, or "Huck
Finn," but I have yet to run into a person who refuses to believe that "Huck"
is truly one of the classics of modern literature.  It took T.S. Eliot 12 years
to completely finish and polish up "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock."  Once
again I know people who don't care much for Eliot, but I have yet to run into a
person who absolutely refuses to acknowledge the greatness of this work.  I
have a hard time thinking that the amount of time spent on a project has any
relationship to the greatness of that project.  I mean, if the greatness of a
work of art is measured by the lack of time spent producing it, then Stephen
King would be the greatest novelist of our time (that assumes of course that
Stephen King has actually produced art, something I would be very reluctant to
believe).

-McGoo
"In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michelangelo."