Musical mysteries and missed meaning

I have what I hope will be a quick and relatively simple observation and ponder-ment. As I listen to new musical artists, it occurs to me to ask, in the form of an "I wonder...", whether their music might be unnecessarily opaque.

Now hear me out. I'm not trying to dog on good poetic lyrics, or dumb down art, or promote myself or any particular person or style of music or whatever as superior. That's not my spirit in this. But I have a couple of initial questions for those who intentionally bury the meaning of their art so deep in personal experience (or whatever kind of experience) that their hearers need to do more than just keep listening to it, in effect busting out shovels and sweating for hours just to try and uncover some meaning so they can connect with the song or the artist or whatever it is people are trying to connect with in the music.

(Okay, sure, maybe there's some meaning that emerges in the dialogue of connecting, but some songs are so vague that maybe a song about how cute bunnies are ends up coming across as a political statement against the current state of health care. Maybe I just don't see it, or maybe it's my personal baggage, but I'm operating out of the assumption here that the art is more meaningful when it intentionally connects people to each other and to God, and to things in the world that smell of the depth of experience of everything God is and does. There's certainly more to be said about that aspect of art, but I think that's a fair enough statement to be able to get to some of those other things.)

So here's the first question: in a marketplace where there are so many options out there, and such a saturation of the airwaves with bookoos of artists coming at you through every possible medium, can you really afford to be misunderstood? Maybe you can. This isn't a huge question for me. It just feels like the situation is unfortunately similar to a resume - if yours is difficult to read or sloppy, it gets tossed aside in less than seconds.

Here's my more important question. Are you trying to be like Jesus with all his subtlety and mystery and "wow" moments? (I'm operating out of the assumption that many people are aiming for this in the obscure elements of their art.) Here's the thing about that. Jesus may have been frequently misunderstood, but he hid his treasures out in plain view. Think about the stories he told. Wheat. Sheep. Weddings. Traveling. These are all things that the vast majority of his audiences understood from day-in/day-out ordinary life. He talked in plain language. He may have juxtaposed images and mixed metaphors a little, but my impression of his delivery style was that he wasn't gaudy and didn't overload his points with too much stuff.

I'm not saying don't try for subtlety or mystery. But my take of Jesus is that he wasn't trying to be misunderstood. I think that just happened because of the nature of human hearts and what we love more than him, so that ultimately we don't hear what we don't want to hear. Might I suggest, then, that art is more like a "connect-the-dots" picture and less like an "assembly required" product in which the manufacturer forgot to include the instructions. The aim, in the end, is to be understood.

So my appeal would be for intentionality in a certain level of clarity and transparency in song-writing. As far as I can tell, the way to go about this is to really think about your listeners even as you try to understand yourself and your world, and put to language what you're seeing and experiencing. Hopefully then the process can be valuable to you and the product valuable to them.

Tidbits

First, my oh-so-typical disclaimer: today's post is a little out-of-the-ordinary for me, seeing as I'm about to write about a number of unrelated things (other than the fact that they are all reflections on recent happenings in my life, which, unfortunately, doesn't provide near the unity one would hope for in a blog of this caliber, owing to the fact that I'm not so much the type of guy who "has it all together", though I am able usually to "find it when I need it", so...), rather than my usual unabridged ramblings aimed at exhausting singular subjects, or more accurately your attention spans for those subjects; and yet, some things are not out-of-the-ordinary for me in today's blog at all, like my preoccupation with hyphenated-word-strings. Love those things! They're like cream gravy - they should be used liberally at every possible opportunity.

So, on to the first tidbit: I got a haircut last week. (Sorry, this isn't the type of blog where you're going to find pictures. Not that I don't like those types of blogs, and not that posting pictures on a blog necessarily makes it "one-of-those-types-of-blogs" [is it okay to hyphenate word-strings inside of quotation marks? Maybe that type of thing is like putting parentheses inside of parentheses - you can get away with it, but then you're really testing your limits {which, as a little brother, I must admit is something that comes pretty much second-nature to me}] - all I'm saying is, I don't have any pictures for you. Gee whiz, Toto - give a guy a break.) Anyways, I think that was the first time in probably... ever that I've waited over an hour to get my haircut. (I had a coupon.) But that's not the point. Actually, waiting that long wasn't so bad, seeing as it allowed me to do a little Culture-Watching (if this was a talk show, there would be a special theme song playing right now). So here's my latest puzzlement over the psyche of my fellow Americans, particularly those of my fellow males. What makes a guy want to get a haircut? For me, if you saw me two weeks ago, you'd know that my motivation in getting "buzzed" (I do drink alcohol, but always responsibly and in small quantities, so I look elsewhere for those conscience-boundary-stretching-thrills [I am paying for a haircut, after all, rather than letting my wife cut it for me, as has been the case for several years {she was sick that week}]) was concern for my life: my mop was getting so unwieldy that I risked it fluffing up onto my face at night - as it got displaced by my head hitting the pillow - and choking out my airflow. But here's what I'm wondering: what is the point of getting a haircut when you look as if you literally just walked out of a previous human-grooming establishment and straight into the one where I was waiting to get mine? Seriously, dudes - I just need you to enlighten me on this one - what's the deal? Is a little scruff or shag (not in the Austin Powers sense) really such a bad thing? And please tell me you don't iron your clothes. At the very least, someone please, please tell me that you have no idea what the "color-wheel" is or how it works. Otherwise, I am forced to admit my "lostness" in the world of whatever-you-would-collectively-call-this-stuff.

Second tidbit. Went to a lecture on bioterrorism by a guy who is over the Homeland Security department in the Health Science Center at A&M. He talked about Anthrax a lot at first - scary, but not the end of the world. But you know what would be? Bird flu. His exact words were "Mission Impossible" if it became weaponized or the strain evolved to be contagious human-to-human-wise. (Roughly translated into civilian terms: if that happens, we're screwed.) A couple of reactions to this:
-Our government takes threats seriously, and has a heavy weight on its shoulders. Too heavy, in fact.
-Even in the face of an insurmountable challenge like a super-pathogen that we can't defend against, optimism and faith in the power of the people to take steps to get to a point where we can survive it leads us to keep plodding along towards being more prepared for such doomsday scenarios.
-If the people of God are looking for points of contact between the Gospel and the felt needs of our culture, this is just such a point. What do we do in the case of an evil we just can't resist? Pray to God! Confess that only he can save.
-I hope that when the time comes, I'm not afraid to say just that. I need to keep my eyes and ears open for the opportunity.

Well, that's it for now. Thanks for reading. If you've got a minute, drop me a quick response. I'd love to know who's reading my blog so I know better how to adapt my awkward humor to fit my audience. If I haven't offended your sensibilities even in some small way, then there is much work to do. Now leaving JoeZone, Population: his name is Me.

Elementary, My Dear Watson

Logic. It is just a tool utilized by whatever dominant spirit you're experiencing in any particular location or situation. Rationality. The only one limited to the way you see things is you. God certainly isn't - has he ever been?

The Difference Between Men and Women (and also my usual sort of quasi-theological ramblings)

Okay World-
Here it is. The definitive word on what really separates the men from the women. You ready for it? Yes? Good - then let's talk about...

Carrots. Yep, that's right. I like 'em cooked, my wife likes to eat them raw. What the helk*? Actually, what really rubs my rabbits about all of this is that I can force down a handful of raw carrots (as I did today), and STILL not have consumed a whole serving. 14 baby carrots. That's what they say is a serving. I reached capacity somewhere around 8 or 9. Oh, and you buy a candy bar, like a bigger one (but still not that big, definitely not "Texas-sized"), and you're probably looking at 2 servings. Bogus. Totally bogus. I'm like 99% sure that the government is screwing with us on this. But to get into that here would test even my limits of appropriate use of tangenting in a blogging event. Plus, you haven't even gotten to the asterisked footnote yet. So I reluctantly digress.

Okay, so that probably didn't have much to do with men and women. But I do still wonder... why this difference between my wife and me? Is it just about carrots, or is it something deeper than that? Maybe y'all can help me with this. Help me broaden my mind. Help me uncover the deeper issues. Any thoughts?


*By the way, those of you who regularly resort to using the word "heck" - thinking that you're somehow better off for euphemistically avoiding the "H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks" word - you owe me a debt of gratitude. You're welcome... for me showing you a better way. It seems pretty apparent to me that more and more people truly value transparency and being "real" to the point of not trying to maintain "appearances" that are really of no substantive value to a person (not cussing, not smoking or drinking, not wearing spandex) - that is, why maintain hypocrisy if you're heart's not right? Aim for the heart, and the behaviors will change, right? So, in the process of making real change, you're left with a difficult decision: Do I keep up the appearances whilst trying to have a real change of heart, or do I throw caution to the wind, let the tongue loose, and potentially lose myself in the process of trying to arrive at a changed self? Friends, I have revealed to you that oh-so-prized middle road: Do both. Take "helk", for example. You're not actually cussing by saying "hell", neither are you pulling that lame act of substituting words that no one really says when they stub their toe in an empty house (thus "heck" or "shoot"). You're doing something much better. You're getting some of the frustration out, while still maintaining a measure of dignity and reserve. And both the sailors and the pew-warmers will know what you mean. Again, and not to sound like a broken record, but... You're welcome.

A rant: lowermybills.com

If you're wondering what lowermybills.com is, you probably haven't been to a website where you've seen one of the following things dancing on the side of your screen:
-an alien,
-a woman in an office,
-some kind of priest or Scottish person with a kilt or something, or
-whatever else I can't remember off the top of my head.

Actually, that's the reason behind the rant. The top of my head. It's shrinking. I've been noticing it slowly over time, but I'm pretty sure now that I'm actually getting dumber everytime I see some stupid animated character dance on the side of my screen. I've noticed a similar effect when watching or listening to:
-the Disney channel (btw - did anyone else grow up thinking this was really called Disnep, and that somehow the "p" was silent?)
-McDonald's commercials (I was particularly light-headed after losing 1,219 brain cells while listening to a radio commercial at lunch today - I promise I'm not trying to hold a grudge against them, but you have to admit it's a sad state of affairs when the fast-food giant can continue to be bad for your health even when you never eat their food.)

Case in point: It took me literally two minutes just now to remember which advertisement caused me brain trauma at lunch earlier today. I'd blame it on Mickie D's, of course, but lowermybills.com was the more recent offender. Let me know if you'd like me to send their company feedback about changing their name to lowermyintelligence.com.

Oh, and check out this site: He's got some good stuff, and his posts go back to 2005... I had no spittin' idea these ads had been tormenting unsuspecting web surfers for so long! I especially enjoyed a post from December 2006.

Ba da bup bup BLAH

Okay, so now it will be painfully obvious this is an obsession (if it wasn't already... what comes after painfully obvious, anyways... throttlingly obvious? Now I have to make up words about the degree of discomfort you're feeling at putting up with my "obviosity.") But just one day after reading the article inspiring this post bemoaning the growing threat of the advertising epidemic, I find simultaneously this article and kindred spirits.

So what's the harm in the advertising strategy of branding kids so that by age 2 they're already drooling when they turn a corner and see the Golden Arches? (Granted, studies have yet to show a direct correlation between the branding and the drooling - it could just be that they're 2 years old and 2-year-olds still can't control lots of things that come out of their bodies. Hey, I'm over thirteen times that old and I still manage to sport a shirt-dribble once or twice a week.) What's the harm, you ask? Well, none - that is, so long as you're okay taking a glowing hot iron and searing some kid's skin with it - because that's what branding is. Look it up.

To be fair, it's not just McDonald's that does it. But they do seem to have a knack for annoying the hell out of me with way more spunk than most of the competition (any sympathizers?).

Exhibit A: Ba da bup bup ba. Catchy, right? A little edgy, too, eh? Well, once it drives me over the edge, I don't know that there will be anything to catch me.

Exhibit B: Happy Meal. But you know - maybe I would have grown up liking spinach if my parents had called it "Mega-Cool Vedge" and told me that Voltron got all its powers from it (Popeye popping out of his clothes just didn't have the same awe-inducing effect as when Voltron finally decided to summon the Blazing Sword to annihilate Robeast... the word 'wow' here doesn't even begin to communicate the utter wonderment of such a thing...).

Exhibits C, D, & E: "I'm lovin' it," "Havin' Fun," & "Get Shoppin' " (see their homepage). The phrase "tragically hip" comes to mind, seeming all too appropriate here...

Bless you, Diane Levin. Bless you, Victor Strasburger. Bless you, Tom Robinson. May many more be truly not "lovin' it" because of your efforts.

(If you're interested in reading the study, it's here.)

The Good, the Bad, and the Fake (News)

My instinctive reaction to this article in the New York Times, about the proliferation of personalized digital advertising, was to attempt to respond in such a dryly sarcastic way that this blog post would have required a disclaimer advising readers to first retrieve a cup of water before continuing to read.

(The basic scenario: by using cheap labor from around the world, advertisers can produce thousands of versions of each ad, enabling ad networks to utilize data about consumer buying habits to customize advertising messages to each person through their computer, cell phone, or TV.)

But such a reaction seemed inadequate, since I don't really know much about advertising, and sarcasm tends to be way more effective when it hits the mark. I suppose I just had to get over the initial horror of the thought of how much this plague of advertising frenzy was sure to become increasingly epidemic as "developing" economies provide the "low-cost" labor necessary to produce terabytes upon petabytes upon exabytes upon zettabytes upon yottabytes of useless information (thousands of versions of the same ad, so you do the math) so that:
-Companies can better know how to manipulate people's minds ever more intrusively and effectively, and
-Consumers can be spared the inconvenience of wasting time seeing ads that don't cater to their addictions.

Okay, so I ended up being sarcastic after all. But I'm also sad. Sad because I'm newly reminded of a very old problem - people (self included) never seem to tire at dreaming up new ways to exploit each other and consume without concern for each other. It's like we're all digging a gigantic mass grave together because we see everyone else digging, and they all seem to be having a good time.

It seems to me, at least at this point in time, that there are basically three types of news, which you could probably lump into two types if you were so inclined: The Good News, the Bad News, and the Fake News. The last two could probably go together, like I said, though they come off quite differently. A quick explanation:

The Fake News - this is the news that sports itself as good news, though if you buy into it, you'll eventually find out it didn't measure up to the expectations with which it was so boldly proclaimed. "Lose Weight Fast!" "Ba Da Bup Bup Ba!" "Improve Your Love Life!" Even if its promises are not explicitly stated, your satisfaction is usually guaranteed. But even Snickers' satisfaction doesn't last. Diminishing returns. Spiraling addictions. Out-of-control debt. A rather short list of things you typically don't even find included in the fine print on the back side of the label.

The Bad News - this is the socially acceptable form of terrorism for Americans: "Are America's Bridges Safe?" "What Your Government Isn't Telling You" "Could Your Prized Dietary Staple Actually Cause Cancer?" If fear is a powerful motivator, why not use it to effect change? In general, why not use power if it is available to you to use to whatever ends you see fit? Don't success and popularity legitimate the use of power, anyways? (This particular type and my examples for it are, admittedly, a little off topic, and should probably be the subject of another post, but seeing as I don't typically blog all that often, I do what I can...)

The Good News - this is the story of one Jesus of Nazareth who was not only greatly anticipated by the Jewish people through their prophets, widely hyped up during his time, and undeniably powerful in both his message and his miracles, but also lived out an ethic of meekness and used his power for God's purposes (not his own), and for the benefit of humanity rather than to make a buck or have a comfortable life or whatever. And he currently has all authority that exists anywhere, which makes even our human governments and institutions (as well as people as individuals) answerable and accountable to him. What's so good about that? His rule is characterized by things like: life, light, healing, hope, love, justice, service, and peace. Just look at his earthly ministry. He lived it - it's not just propaganda or empty rhetoric.

I'd set up a blog poll to see which type of news most people prefer, but I'm not that web-savvy. Sorry.

... edit from wife: I hijacked the blog to add this: ...


What's the point? Is there one, beyond just the opportunity for not-so-veiled and self-indulgent sarcasm after I said up front I would avoid that approach? (It's just so hard to resist!) Yes - and that point is that, beyond my irritation and dis-ease with the state of things, I'm hoping for something. And that hope is, that, as the engine of consumerism gains in ever-increasing sophistication, so too will those who follow Jesus gain in ever-increasing maturity the ability to speak Good News to unsatisfied, unwhole, un-free people who will hear it and receive it as truly Good News. Liberating, freeing news. News that delivers what it says it will deliver.

In the world of marketing, personal choice reigns. But it's a rule of tyranny. The only truly important choice you need to make is which master you want. The offers are on the table: They hope that you'll buy, and don't care if it's ultimately into the slavery of debt and addiction; He hopes that you'll accept his offer to buy your freedom.