No subject heading required

[shadowkat]

1. Okay, I've listened to both Coldplay and Nirvana now, about ten songs each, and I keep changing my mind.

Which you like depends a lot on mood and what you are looking for, similar to The Stones and The Beatles.

First, I listened to two Coldplay songs, got bored, because while the lyrics are wonderful in places, it didn't seem to take chances, isn't subversive, and the music sort of stays static. Then I flipped to Nirvana...which, wow, I was listening to Nirvana after twenty minutes..there's this weird song called "Rape Me, My Friend" -- that should be offensive, but isn't, it's just...provocative and really angry. Yes, the sound is somewhat similar, but not static, and the vocals haunting. Also Cobain has a haunting voice that reminds me of Jim Morrison from the Doors. Actually Nirvana reminds me a lot of The Doors. While Chris Martin's voice is like a clear bell...there's none of that sexy rasp or haunting overtone.

That said, Nirvana and Kurt Cobain were angry assholes. I don't like them on one level, but their music is definitely haunting and it more or less created the whole Alternative/Grunge movement in the 1990s.

Then, I went back to listen Coldplay's best songs, after listening to twenty songs by Nirvana...and...I have to say I changed my mind again. Their vocals and lyrics are lovely...and such clean crisp sound. Clear as bell, I can hear each word, and they bounce their vocals and the crowds vocals off each other. None of the electronic feedback from Nirvana. Also...there's a sense of joy in their vocals, and kindness, while Nirvana's vocals exude a raw rage, and despair that just makes you want to curl into a ball and never get out of bed. (One can see why Kurt Cobain killed himself.)

Nirvana is heavy into guitare solos, while Coldplay likes keyboard and piano solos, some bass guitare, with complex vocals, there's more emphasis on vocalization and a capella - see Viva la Vida then move on to The Scientist, which is a simple ballad, with a soft piano in the background. Nirvana seems more interested in the heavy electronic guitar solos...which if you are fan of that, I can see why you'd prefer Nirvana...but I found heavy electronic guitar repetitive after a bit.

So, it depends on what you are looking for -- if you are into guitar solos, Nirvana, if you are into cool blending vocals, Coldplay.

2. Parents Television Council Wants Netflix to Pull 13 Reasons Why

The Parents Television Council asked this week for Netflix to pull the popular series 13 Reasons Why, now in its second season on the streaming platform. 13 Reasons Why is based on a book by Jay Asher that details the death by suicide of a fictional teen, Hannah Baker, and the impact it has on her high school classmates.

“Netflix has delivered a ticking time bomb to teens and children who watch 13 Reasons Why,'” said group president Tim Winter in a statement, calling the second season “even worse” than expected due to certain graphic elements. The PTC calls itself a “non-partisan education organization advocating responsible entertainment.”

“We would have liked to have 13 reasons for hope and redemption following the graphic suicide of the lead character, but rather than providing a path forward, the season only provides cause for despondency,” Winter continued.

I attempted to watch the first season and it's...well...

Teenager Clay Jensen returns home from school one day to find a mysterious box lying on his porch. Inside, he discovers seven double-sided cassette tapes recorded by Hannah Baker, his classmate and unrequited love, who tragically took her own life two weeks earlier. On the tapes, Hannah unfolds an emotional audio diary, detailing the thirteen reasons why she decided to end her life. Her instructions are clear: each person who receives the package is one of the reasons why she killed herself. After each person finishes listening to the tapes, they must pass the package on to the next person. If anyone breaks the chain, a separate set of tapes will be released to the public. Each tape is addressed to a select person in her school, and details their involvement in her eventual suicide.

Hannah basically was brutally raped and then bullied to the point that she felt that the only way she could get Justice was to commit suicide. It's basically revenge by suicide, pushing forth the perspective that if you kill yourself -- you will hurt everyone that didn't care about you or hurt you in your life.

This is NOT true. The only person you hurt is yourself and those who loved you. I found the series offensive and dangerous. If you have ever considered suicide or had depressive thoughts, run do not walk away from this series, and never watch it.

It should be pulled. And the writers who created should be ashamed of themselves. Sometimes we need to take responsibility for the art that we put out there and how it affects others. I'm wondering if in this age of information overload and media bombardment, if we've decided that anything goes and the responsibility should be on the viewer not the artist? Why? It's a question I'm continually asking myself now as an artist...and a viewer, what responsibility do we each bring to art? What responsibility do we bring as viewers? And our interaction with the art? If the art is harmful to others either in how it was made or to those it is targeted towards, do we not have a responsibility to remove or censor or stop it? Should Freedom of Speech be absolute? (It isn't by the way, under the Constitution and various court rulings there are restrictions, but they are arguable ones.) I think people abuse their freedoms, and I'm wondering to what degree those freedoms need to be managed or reigned in? And those who challenge the boundaries...yanked back. Where do we draw the lines, without falling down a dangerous slippery slope in doing so? I do not know.

3. After the success of Jesus Christ Superstar, NBC has decided to do Hair Live! next year for the spring

LOL! Uhm okay. Has NBC seen HAIR? It's an odd musical -- more a series of musical vignettes, than a straight musical. And, are they keeping the nudity in? Not to mention the sex.

First Fox decides to do Rent, and now NBE decides on Hair.

Hee.

I like both, but I find the choices interesting...and a definite political commentary on what's happening.

Comments

[spikewriter]

"Odd" is definitely the word for Hair. Me, my aunt and my mother went to see it on tour when it was the "hot" new musical. For a week, I was literally the coolest kid in my sixth-grade class. Some people weren't even allowed to listen to the album and here I was getting to see it. (I was appallingly young and it goes down under yet another questionable parenting decision I love her for.)

I'll be somewhat curious to see how they handle it because while there is some stuff that's still apt, other parts seem as if they've not aged well.

As for Thirteen Reasons Why my reaction when I first heard about the series was "Oh, HELL no." Cuts too damn close to home. As to your question, I think the responsibility lies on both side. I believe viewers should take responsibility for what they watch/read and not just let it wash over them and then cry that it was offensive or triggering. Too many people expect to have entertainment curated so they don't have to do any work. (And that goes across the spectrum of beliefs.)

On the other side, yes, we as artists have a responsibility as well with what we let out into the world. I'm not saying we shouldn't make uncomfortable, shocking, disturbing art, but I think we should examine why we're doing it. Is it because we have a story we need to tell, that we think needs to be heard? Or is it more an escalation of "I won't get noticed if I don't push the boundaries?" It does go both ways.

[shadowkat]

1.I'll be somewhat curious to see how they handle it because while there is some stuff that's still apt, other parts seem as if they've not aged well.

I saw it recently, I think last year. An off-off-off Broadway version, done by Repertory. It was good, but there are sections that...are dated and did not age well, although overall it is rather timely. They may need to edit it -- it often is, the movie edited it.

It's ironic watching it -- because features a generation that protested free love, etc, and has now become the very thing they were protesting against.
Showing in some respects many of the things they protested...never changed, while many of the things they didn't, have.

2. Regarding responsibility and art?

I agree with what you state above. I do think it goes both ways. If we just let the entertainment wash over us, without looking at it critically, or determining whether the art is in fact a reflection of the society in which we live -- we contribute to the society that creates it. Suppressing the art, doesn't make the problem go away. It's important to look at it, look at the context in which it was created, and why it makes us angry.

That said...I also agree that just throwing stuff out there for "shock value" or "to push boundaries" or get "ratings" or make yourself look good...is a bit hollow and irresponsible. Sort of the difference between pornography and erotica, in a way...I guess, where one is just exploitative and has no value except to dehumanize and objectify, adding to the problem, and erotic art which may be questioning sexuality, and making us wonder who we are as sexual creatures.

Regarding 13 Reasons Why -- the book seemed to have the best of intentions but they changed it in the adaptation, and well...did things to grab viewers. I think sometimes television as a medium is very guilty of going for the wrong things, because it based on profit margins. Commerce and art aren't always a good fit -- there's a temptation, I think, to go towards what boosts ratings, makes money, etc -- screw the consequences. (I saw it GoT -- which went a bit too far in their torture scenes...they went further than the books did. The audience protested, and they scaled back. So the audience does play a role in it.)

[wendelah1]

It's very difficult to know where to draw the line, isn't it? There are worse things available on the internet to anyone with a smart phone than 13 Reasons Why, bad as it is. I was very particular about what sort of media my son had access to, but so much has changed (since 2004 when he turned 18). Maybe the Parents Television Council will succeed in getting it pulled but I'm doubting it.

Hair is an odd choice. At least Rent has a plot.

[shadowkat]

Hair is an odd choice. At least Rent has a plot.

Had the same reaction. Because I've seen Hair recently, and I remember Rent clearly...Hair doesn't really have any plot.
It's just a series of vignettes and some of them do not hold up well. Also, some of the songs.."Sodomy", and "White Boys and Black Boys are delicious..." -- there's a lot racist undertones. Not to mention a lot of sexist undertones.

Very odd choice.

On the other thing...13 Reasons Why...my brother and co-workers control it by literally setting up blocking mechanisms, and just letting them watch what they select.
But once a kid gets into those teen years, and it's out there and their friends have access, there's not a lot you can do.

I saw stuff my parents didn't want me too, as did my brother. Granted there was less of it back then. But we saw it -- because of friends and peers.

I do think the people who create it, distribute it, and market it -- have a responsibility to the audience and society. I remember after Columbine...they pulled an episode of Buffy because they were afraid it was insensitive, except that episode was brilliant subversive take on school shooting. It really showed why you shouldn't do it. It would have been better to show that episode than constant news footage of the shooting.

The choices our media, networks, and others have made to make money...not to create art. I mean they don't have to show the kids getting shot, they don't have to show an interview with the shooter, they don't have to release the shooter's name -- instead they can focus on the victims lives and the sorrow of their loss.

Yet, in some cases, the art adds depth, like the Buffy episode Earshot, or the old film Heathers...which shows how idiotic it is to commit suicide and pointless, and how stupid it is to blow up a school. That it doesn't work.
As opposed to 13 Reasons Why which shows suicide as a means to become famous and obtain revenge and justice. That show can cause people to commit suicide. And Netflix doesn't have to air it. Not when they could pick up Lucifer, Timeless or continue with Sense8, far better shows, and less harmful ones, instead.

[wendelah1]

But once a kid gets into those teen years, and it's out there and their friends have access, there's not a lot you can do.

I saw stuff my parents didn't want me too, as did my brother. Granted there was less of it back then. But we saw it -- because of friends and peers.

Yes, and that was true for my son, too. Even my brother and I had completely different ideas of appropriate content for our kids, for example.

I wish they'd never started airing the series. Glorifying suicide, putting young lives at risk, is shameful.

[shadowkat]

Agreed. There really is no excuse for the television adaptation of 13 Reasons Why. I've read their justifications and reasoning, but it doesn't play. And unfortunately the negative publicity just attracts more interest and makes them more popular. (Sigh).

And it is wildly popular among teens.

[cactuswatcher]

13 Reasons Why:

Unfortunately many teens (including myself back in the day) have the mistaken idea that if they just do [fill in the blank dramatic irreversible thing] everyone will pay attention to them, cry over them, or whatever the teen wants most in their time of stress and depression. Feeding that kind of thinking is a poor idea. That includes 13 Reasons Why, national news coverage of school shootings, and other magnification of the desperate acts of desperate kids who often see that magnification as a goal in itself.

I'm not crazy about censorship, but as you say we have responsibilities, too. It's no accident that teen suicides can come in batches. I remember the day, I learned that a girl had just attempted suicide in a restroom not far away from where I was in class at our high school. To this day I do not know who she was, or why she wanted to do it, only that she survived. I wonder how much different it would have been if she'd succeeded or if they'd just named her and they'd made a big deal of it, given other kids the idea that they too could become famous... I hope she got help.

[shadowkat]

What you state here is exactly what I thought after I saw two to three episodes of the first season 13 Reasons Why, then went to read the entire plot synopsis to see if it was going the way I feared. (It did and was. And I couldn't jump away from it fast enough.) And I've had the opportunity to interact with high school teachers who are dealing with kids watching it...ugh.

Feeding that kind of thinking is a poor idea. That includes 13 Reasons Why, national news coverage of school shootings, and other magnification of the desperate acts of desperate kids who often see that magnification as a goal in itself.

Agreed. I think a lot of the school shootings are an indirect response to our media. Kids were miserable when I was a kid, but they either didn't have access to guns, or the media was less present...and the idea wasn't out there. Now, we're giving ideas. Constantly.

I wonder how much different it would have been if she'd succeeded or if they'd just named her and they'd made a big deal of it, given other kids the idea that they too could become famous... I hope she got help.

I hope so too. That's sad. And I do wonder...the degree to which our media saturated society influences these kids, influences all of us really. People on reality shows do horrible things just to become famous. As if becoming famous means anything or gives the world or us anything. It's brief. In 100 years, less? You're forgotten. And if remembered? Rarely well. Fame is such a narcissistic thing. I've never really understood the appeal - I don't want to be famous. People rip famous people apart.

But so many people are willing to sell their souls, bodies, everything just for a chance at it.

[dlgood]

Then I flipped to Nirvana...which, wow, I was listening to Nirvana after twenty minutes..there's this weird song called "Rape Me, My Friend" -- that should be offensive, but isn't, it's just...provocative and really angry.

One of the things with Nirvana... the lyrics are indirect and Cobain's vocals are muddled so you'd have to see him in an interview to know what he intended his songs to be about. It was never entirely clear. What was clear - despair and anguish. It's something to consider that Dave Grohl played a minor part in Nirvana but has had tremendous success afterwards, and seems well adjusted. Cobain was not.

But as a performer, very few people were more emotionally affecting. Particularly his cover of Ledbelly Where did You Sleep Last Night from Nirvana's Unplugged in NYC performance.

[shadowkat]

Having listened to several of their songs -- I'd agree, the lyrics are indirect, and metaphorical not literal, also Cobain's vocals are muddled but also weirdly emotionally affecting -- more so than Chris Martin of Coldplay. And many others.

Cobain just pours everything into his performance -- the despair, the anguish, the pain.

[dlgood]

Yeah. "Rape Me" - according to Cobain's interviews - is supposed to be an anti-rape song. I don't know who you'd get from just listening to it. I got some of the lyrics, but never had any sense of what he was trying to say.

[shadowkat]

When I listened to it, it sounded like he was using it as a metaphor -- in regards to how friends and the world can treat you. The idea of being seen as an object or taken from, usually by coercion, and no control over it?

It's an emotionally charged word. And it sounded like he was using it the same way someone might us "Fuck me", another charged phrase -- to get across rage or pain?

From his performances and songs, I pick up the emotion behind it, more than the lyrics or words. Some performers are like that -- Jimi Hendrix was, and so was Janis Joplin (couldn't understand or hear a word of her songs in vintage Woodstock clips and concert footage, or on albums, but certainly picked up on the emotion.)