Premier Rock Forum

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:I have never been a fan of The Carpenters' music. I don't hate it, but I see/hear no reason to hold it any higher regard than John Denver or Helen Reddy. Actually, I don't think that I've heard a Carpenters song that I like as much as "Angie Baby." But I digress . . .

I have yet to hear any John Denver songs or recordings that can stand up to the depth of the carpenters as far as song craft, production, and arrangement. As far as personal expression, I find John Denver more up front with his words and not as interesting. There is less mystery I guess. As for Helen Reddy, I have only heard radio hits from her... never spent the time listening to her music.

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:
Although it's impossible to know why a person likes a certain musical act (unless s/he tells you--if s/he even knows), I am uncomforttable with what I perceive to be the motivations behind championing the Carpenters' music. More than one person has suggested to me that the Carpenters are brilliant precisely because they made vapid pop songs that almost wholly kept hidden the fact that this music was made by a deeply conflicted closeted homosexual and a gawky drummer who was slowly but surely starving herself to death. Therefore, a song like "Top of the World" achieves a kind of massively tragic irony that totally eclipses its lameness as "music."

I agree... ironic love for music seems to be purposeless. I do not in anyway think of the Carpenters music as vapid. I find it very full in may ways... "Top of the World" is one of the exceptions for me... I do not care for the song nor do I buy anything in it.

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:
I am not a fan of this kind of listening, which seems to me to amount to a kind of aesthetic vampirism: "Let's listen for clues to how miserable they really were! Let's read Sylvia Plath's poems and look for encrypted suicide notes!" I don't think the back story should become more important than the art itself, though I realize that they're inextricably linked. Still, knowing how fucking crazy Brian Wilson is doesn't make me like the Beach Boys anymore, nor do I think I'd be seduced by the coke-addled wife-swapping that informs Rumours if I didn't like the music already.

I think there is music made by tragic figures that sucks and some made by tragic figures that speaks to me. I do not think by definition such a thing is good or bad. The Carpenters did make very good and interesting music in my opinion regardless of their back story. The back story surely adds to my perception of their body of work... but certainly does not outshadow it. The odd sunny melancholy you hear in the music comes from the music, not from your knowledge of their personal lives.

Mayfair wrote:Other than the zany material like "Top of the World" I like a good deal of their recordings a lot.

Yikes! This is one of my favorite Carpenter's songs. I'm sure my appreciation of it has much to with nostalgia, but, it really is a pretty song.

NC

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:Although it's impossible to know why a person likes a certain musical act (unless s/he tells you--if s/he even knows), I am uncomforttable with what I perceive to be the motivations behind championing the Carpenters' music. More than one person has suggested to me that the Carpenters are brilliant precisely because they made vapid pop songs that almost wholly kept hidden the fact that this music was made by a deeply conflicted closeted homosexual and a gawky drummer who was slowly but surely starving herself to death. Therefore, a song like "Top of the World" achieves a kind of massively tragic irony that totally eclipses its lameness as "music."

two things. the actual songwriting is pretty strong in my opinion. Second., I would say the majority of their material is really really depressing. There is top of the world but also, goodbye to love.

has anyone heard the If I were a carpenter tribute. American music club nails goodbye to love and sonic yough have a lot of fun with superstar.

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:Although it's impossible to know why a person likes a certain musical act (unless s/he tells you--if s/he even knows), I am uncomforttable with what I perceive to be the motivations behind championing the Carpenters' music. More than one person has suggested to me that the Carpenters are brilliant precisely because they made vapid pop songs that almost wholly kept hidden the fact that this music was made by a deeply conflicted closeted homosexual and a gawky drummer who was slowly but surely starving herself to death. Therefore, a song like "Top of the World" achieves a kind of massively tragic irony that totally eclipses its lameness as "music."

I am not a fan of this kind of listening, which seems to me to amount to a kind of aesthetic vampirism: "Let's listen for clues to how miserable they really were! Let's read Sylvia Plath's poems and look for encrypted suicide notes!" I don't think the back story should become more important than the art itself, though I realize that they're inextricably linked. Still, knowing how fucking crazy Brian Wilson is doesn't make me like the Beach Boys anymore, nor do I think I'd be seduced by the coke-addled wife-swapping that informs Rumours if I didn't like the music already.

I agree that there should be a considerable degree of suspicion when confronted with this 'aesthetic vampirism' (such a great term). But I must admit I can't deny the attraction I have to experiencing the dread of The Carpenters' music in a sort of removed, analytical way. It's unavoidable. Does this overshadow the experience of the music itself? I don't know for sure, but I think it just adds another layer to the feel of it all. The context of the music is interesting to me only because the music itself is interesting. When I was younger, I was responding to only the songs. A lot of their stuff was vapid, but they had great moments of sad beauty and I recognized these moments before I knew anything about the people in the group.

edit

John W. wrote:

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:Although it's impossible to know why a person likes a certain musical act (unless s/he tells you--if s/he even knows), I am uncomforttable with what I perceive to be the motivations behind championing the Carpenters' music. More than one person has suggested to me that the Carpenters are brilliant precisely because they made vapid pop songs that almost wholly kept hidden the fact that this music was made by a deeply conflicted closeted homosexual and a gawky drummer who was slowly but surely starving herself to death. Therefore, a song like "Top of the World" achieves a kind of massively tragic irony that totally eclipses its lameness as "music."

I am not a fan of this kind of listening, which seems to me to amount to a kind of aesthetic vampirism: "Let's listen for clues to how miserable they really were! Let's read Sylvia Plath's poems and look for encrypted suicide notes!" I don't think the back story should become more important than the art itself, though I realize that they're inextricably linked. Still, knowing how fucking crazy Brian Wilson is doesn't make me like the Beach Boys anymore, nor do I think I'd be seduced by the coke-addled wife-swapping that informs Rumours if I didn't like the music already.

I agree that there should be a considerable degree of suspicion when confronted with this 'aesthetic vampirism' (such a great term). But I must admit I can't deny the attraction I have to experiencing the dread of The Carpenters' music in a sort of removed, analytical way. It's unavoidable. Does this overshadow the experience of the music itself? I don't know for sure, but I think it just adds another layer to the feel of it all. The context of the music is interesting to me only because the music itself is interesting. When I was younger, I was responding to only the songs. A lot of their stuff was vapid, but they had great moments of sad beauty and I recognized these moments before I knew anything about the people in the group.

I agree with everything you and Mayfair have said, John. I wouldn't presume to say that there's no way to appreciate the Carpenters' music, and it's always shaky ground when you attempt to suss out someone's reasons for liking something. I can certainly see how the back story would complicate (and deepen) one's appreciation for their music, but it seems to me that I've encountered people whose sole reason for liking the Carpenters seems to be the back story. They make no claims for the music as music but simply as some kind of terrible echo from tragic lives. This I cannot endorse.

John W. wrote:The context of the music is interesting to me only because the music itself is interesting.

Amen. This is how it should be, I think.

How about: the guitar solos from "Goodbye to Love" are fucking tremendous.

sloppy, splattery fuzz tone.


Not Crap. I love this band.

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:They make no claims for the music as music but simply as some kind of terrible echo from tragic lives. This I cannot endorse.

No, that is retarded.

The 'irony' involved in what they meant to do vs. what they actually DID, or what they sang about vs. who they were, I don't care about that.

I just care about the music.

It's deeply sad, weird music. I've (of course) encountered more Carpenters tunes on the radio since I last posted to this thread, and I feel certain now that it would strike the same chord with me if I knew nothing about the people who made it.

i worked at a pizza hut in high school and every time i had to close on friday nights i would play the carpenters greatest hits cd in the jukebox while i mopped the floors. it was the only decent album in that whole fucking thing.

not crap.

Q: Why do birds suddenly appear every time you are near?

A: You smell like a rotting carcass.

Regarding defense of the Carpenters' "songcraft" and the like, I am unmoved. This is probably because I don't believe songcraft exists as divorced from the totality of that which makes a song audible. It is a conceit that professional songwriters have adopted as a way of validating their profession.

Certain lyrics have good turns of phrase, sure, and certain musical passages have interest, but I believe it is impossible for a song by itself, divorced from execution, to be either good or bad.

Here's a little experiment you all can try (because I have already been exposed to many trials of it myself). Take a "good song" (one you have liked for what you perceive to be its songwriting), and have it played by a poor-to-average band, co-mingled with their other poor-to-average material. The "good song" is not noticeably better than the poor-to-average material, is it?

This is an experience one endures whenever bad bands play famous songs, and everyone concedes that the band must be bad, because they could not even execute a pre-ordained good song.

Certain songs ("Louie Louie" comes to mind) are done passably by almost anyone, but they are not actually good unless done by someone who invests quite a bit of himself in the song.

That's because the song by itself is meaningless.

So, do I like the Carpenters? No, not really. But there is a really sad quality to Karen Carpenter's singing that is evidence of the kind of personal investment I mentioned above. I think it is genuine music for her. It is evidence of a particular aesthetic and world view, and I can imagine really getting into it if I was sensitive to that particular frame of mind.

What's good about it, if anything is, is the relationship Karen Carpenter had to her music, and what she was trying to convey with this patently-bummed-out delivery of notionally cheery text.

Anybody else performing this music (god knows enough idiots try) is evidence that the formal structure of the music is utterly unimportant. There is a booming industry in Nashville based on this transparently phony notion that someone can go off and write a "good song." It is one of many things to ridicule about Nashville.