tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-660808341284783109.post2995499904661982401..comments2024-03-02T07:40:22.786+03:00Comments on Only Solitaire blog: Cat Stevens: Buddha And The Chocolate BoxUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-660808341284783109.post-91796894570865087152017-08-20T19:38:34.088+03:002017-08-20T19:38:34.088+03:00GS has given Thumbs Ups to three out of the eight ...GS has given Thumbs Ups to three out of the eight albums he's reviewed so far, so he doesn't "obviously dislike" him. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06614278412291704419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-660808341284783109.post-10425443642373522652017-08-17T23:27:04.155+03:002017-08-17T23:27:04.155+03:00The word preach is sometimes used synonymously wit...The word preach is sometimes used synonymously with persuade but that's not what it means. I agree that preachiness is an attempt to alter people's beliefs but it's more than that. Simply stating your beliefs as you or I are doing now does not qualify as preachiness. It is the assertion of what each of us thinks even if an element of implicit persuasion is there. <br /><br /> But it lacks the vocational attempt to Convert the other person to a certain worldview. It matters to the preacher that his audience is converted. It matters to a religious person that others share their views which is why preaching is usually religious. Fair enough you Could portray much of Lennon solo work as preaching because there are humanitarian quasi religious themes he kept returning to. But it was incidental to his songwriting in my opinion. For me Stevens was just recording his personal journey in song. <br /><br />Totally disagree about songs however. If the use of the voice as an instrument was a formative influence on songwriting then most songs would simply involve chanting. Hardly any do or ever have and been called songs. The very purpose of songs is to relay words in a musical form. That the lyrics can be bad is irrelevant as is the fact that people can enjoy the music but not the words. Quality and enjoyment are descriptive not defining characteristics. So the fact that many pop lyrics are vapid shallow or silly and still have people singing to them is a reflection of the audience, it does not mean the words are meaningless or silly to Them. CloudSurferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147823143388632564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-660808341284783109.post-21776385846611375662017-08-17T21:31:51.873+03:002017-08-17T21:31:51.873+03:00The whole point of having "songs" is to ...The whole point of having "songs" is to have your words backed up by music. Otherwise you'd stick to poetry. This is why "songs" may be enjoyed on a cross-cultural level, unlike (untranslated) poetry, because music is a (more or less) universal language. This is also why poor lyrics, far from qualifying as solid poetry, may be easily tolerated in songs if they are conveyed with sufficient emotion that correlates with the general mood of the music - it does not so much matter what is sung as how it is sung, with the human voice functioning as an additional, and important, musical instrument (which is why vocal songs are not the same as instrumental music).<br /><br />As for preachiness, the very fact of strongly stating your beliefs not before yourself or an imaginary conversationalist like God, but publicly, before potential hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of listeners is in itself a form of preachiness, since it inevitably implies a desire to "infect" the listeners with your beliefs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but it is hypocrisy to deny that it is so. In terms of illocutive force, "I hope some day you'll join us" is not the same as "I order you to join us", but in practical terms, the former is much more likely to have a persuasive effect on the listener than the latter.G. S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05848634884798924824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-660808341284783109.post-56999714250417917412017-08-17T21:03:47.631+03:002017-08-17T21:03:47.631+03:00the whole point of having "songs" is to ...the whole point of having "songs" is to set words to music. Otherwise you'd stick to instrumental music. The word are actually more important in songs for that reason, even if a beguiling melody makes them more listenable and remain the focus of the listeners attention. <br /><br />As for preachiness you may technically separate it from simply stating your viewpoint but they're worlds apart. A preacher is trying to persuade or even dictate to others. Not just stating his beliefs even if he believes strongly in them but determining that his truth should be everyone else's.<br /><br /> Lennon Was not preaching in Imagine. Nor was Stevens even in this album. They were merely putting their personal truths in song form. CloudSurferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147823143388632564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-660808341284783109.post-64636619431419677102017-08-16T23:24:18.279+03:002017-08-16T23:24:18.279+03:00I agree with you on the melody over lyrics issue, ...I agree with you on the melody over lyrics issue, is spite of the fact that I have always put I high value on the message of the lyrics. I don't mind a little preaching, even if I disagree with it. Imagine is my case in point: I do not want to live in John Lennon's unified fairy land of no religion, no heaven, no hell, no poop, etc. I'm not even sure John himself would want to live in such a place, but that's just my opinion (I am a preacher after all). But at least he has the guts to say it, and put it to great music. Indeed, I cannot help myself succumbing to his song's spell. Same with No. 9 Dream, and those lyrics make NO sense.<br /><br />Another example would be Steppenwolf's The Pusher. I don't agree with the whole "Dealer good/Pusher evil" dichotomy, but I LOVE the way John Kay sings, "God DAMN the Pusher Man!" Yes, it violates the Third Commandment, but at least it SOUNDS like he really believes it.JimmADerbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13331334978761537408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-660808341284783109.post-52560980024615587322017-08-16T22:14:38.164+03:002017-08-16T22:14:38.164+03:00Honestly, the line between "speaking out your...Honestly, the line between "speaking out your own position" and "preaching to the crowd" is always blurred in art. From a technical point of view, it is as faint as changing from "now they've cut down the trees" to an imperative "do not cut down the trees!", and one could always argue that the second is always implied in the first anyway. A public statement of occupying a strong moral position is not formally, but substantially the equivalent of inciting others to occupy the same moral position. From that point of view, Cat Stevens has always been "preachy" - at least from 1970 on.<br /><br />But, I reiterate: lots of artists are "preachy", in fact, one could say that one of the main (though not only) functions of art is to be preachy. In music, it only becomes a problem when the attraction of "musical form" is sacrificed for the (to me, quite boring at best and quite annoying at worst) attraction of "spiritual content", something of which Stevens was quite guilty at times. I mean, you can't really get any preachier than John Lennon, but he (almost!) never sacrificed his melodic gift for propaganda. It is really not for the lyrics that people still hold 'Imagine' on a pedestal, it is for its seductive melodic structure.G. S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05848634884798924824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-660808341284783109.post-41803396969675914652017-08-16T20:58:42.999+03:002017-08-16T20:58:42.999+03:00One important thing, coming from someone who has r...One important thing, coming from someone who has read a lot about Cat Stevens over the years, he is not preaching in any of these albums, he is not speaking out. He's 100% talking about himself and his own position. These albums reflect his personal search going wrong after his initial comeback, suffering from some form of depression or something. The whole Buddha period his him flying through every religion and spiritituality on the list, tying and failing to find some sort of happiness. Ultimate he finds Islam and has a convenient excuse to opt out of a life and career he clearly can't handle.<br /><br />I dont disagree on Buddha being weak though I think his arrangments are pretty interesting.Midnight Rockshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00299340585466896965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-660808341284783109.post-66370214749894300312017-08-16T11:46:15.444+03:002017-08-16T11:46:15.444+03:00Ok so you obviously don't like Cat Stevens. Fa...Ok so you obviously don't like Cat Stevens. Fair enough. I gave this album a listen out of curiosity and I don't think it's half bad in a pleasant inoffensive easy listening sort of way. It's only preachy in a vague hippy sort of way since I don't think he'd embraced any formal religion at this time. Still though it puts into perspective how good he was before and just how elusive timeless melodies can be. CloudSurferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147823143388632564noreply@blogger.com