I was channel surfing tonight and caught Charlie Daniels mentioning the name of Bob Dylan. So I stopped to listen. Charlie Daniels was talking about his early days as a guitarist (12 string and bass) and how Dylan had encouraged him when he, Daniels, was really down in the dumps about his own musical career.
K.T. Oslin asked Daniels to name other artists for whom he had played back-up on studio albums. He replied, "Leonard Cohen, a Canadian artist." There was then a close-up shot of the "Songs of Love and Hate" album.
Then came the hilarious part.
K.T. Oslin said, "Leonard Cohen is very artsy."
And Daniels replied, "Yes, artsy, very...uh....artsy."
Now I can think of a lot of adjectives to describe Cohen, but "artsy" ain't one of them!!!
eeey
UH, RUN THAT BY ME AGAIN?
Hi eeey......
"Artsy" in the sense of his work as an art form in itself, perhaps; however, K.T.'s "artsy" sounded a bit minimizing, and even moreso with "Songs of Love and Hate" as a backdrop.
Gracious, but baffled, response by Charlie.........did they cut to him walking away, saying to himself, ".....artsy?"
Lizzytysh
"Artsy" in the sense of his work as an art form in itself, perhaps; however, K.T.'s "artsy" sounded a bit minimizing, and even moreso with "Songs of Love and Hate" as a backdrop.
Gracious, but baffled, response by Charlie.........did they cut to him walking away, saying to himself, ".....artsy?"
Lizzytysh
-
Kush
-
george Wright
Artsy here is a valid quote from one artiste to anotherlizzytysh wrote:Hi eeey......
"Artsy" in the sense of his work as an art form in itself, perhaps; however, K.T.'s "artsy" sounded a bit minimizing, and even moreso with "Songs of Love and Hate" as a backdrop.
Gracious, but baffled, response by Charlie.........did they cut to him walking away, saying to himself, ".....artsy?"
Lizzytysh
anything else would have put him(LC) on another plain
Georges
Georges,
In Ireland the word "artsy" may have a different conotation than it does over here.
In American English "artsy" is just a tad pejorative. In fact, there is another word that usually follows "artsy" which delicacy and refinement forbids me to mention.
In fact, now that I think about it, to be called "artsy" is downright insulting! It suggests the dilettante, the dabbler, the pseudo-artist.
That said, I DON'T think that K.T. Oslin meant to be derogatory. She was only attempting to pigeon-hole Leonard for the "clueless" studio audience.
And we all know that can't be done.
Cheers,
eeey
In Ireland the word "artsy" may have a different conotation than it does over here.
In American English "artsy" is just a tad pejorative. In fact, there is another word that usually follows "artsy" which delicacy and refinement forbids me to mention.
In fact, now that I think about it, to be called "artsy" is downright insulting! It suggests the dilettante, the dabbler, the pseudo-artist.
That said, I DON'T think that K.T. Oslin meant to be derogatory. She was only attempting to pigeon-hole Leonard for the "clueless" studio audience.
And we all know that can't be done.
Cheers,
eeey
Ah, lizzytysh. We meet at last!
Nope, I don't think K.T. was trying to minimize LC. (See my post to Georges)
I got the feeling she'd never listened to LC and had been briefed on his "style". You know, the way a politican is briefed by his aides before a debate.
And Charlie's response was one of amiable, if stammering, agreement with the hostess of the show. I somehow don't think Daniels would use "artsy" to describe Leonard Cohen. Not after going on tour with him.
eeey
Nope, I don't think K.T. was trying to minimize LC. (See my post to Georges)
I got the feeling she'd never listened to LC and had been briefed on his "style". You know, the way a politican is briefed by his aides before a debate.
And Charlie's response was one of amiable, if stammering, agreement with the hostess of the show. I somehow don't think Daniels would use "artsy" to describe Leonard Cohen. Not after going on tour with him.
eeey
I can't believe that anyone who had actually listened to Leonard Cohen's songs would describe him as artsy. It sounds to me like a 'cop out' from soneone who finds he doesn't fit easily into any other category, or someone who is fazed by the fact that Leonard's songs are not immediately transparent.
Hi eeey......[as a matter of fact, in my first Post to you, I capitalized the first E, was going to apologize to you about it in a subsequent Post, and then realized you can Edit effortlessly here, so simply corrected it....however, since you directly responded, thought I'd share that with you...and if I could figure out how to implement the Emoticons, I'd put a visual expression at this point!]
Back to Leonard and k.t.---because of other country singers' awareness/covers of him, I got the sense that she has actually heard him. I agree that she did not mean it in the full context of the [whole] phrase. I've just now reread your original Post and it appears that she spontaneously took the initiative to make her editorial comment. I know what you mean about the "briefing" aspect of it, yet it sounded [not having been there myself watching it] to me like she is indeed familiar with Leonard and his work, and simply chose a less-than-optimum word to make Charlie and the viewers aware of that. I agree with you that she didn't necessarily mean it to be minimizing at all, and my point is that the word itself [i.e. poor word choice] accomplishes that effect on its own.
Of course, giving an opinion 3rd-hand to the event, my footing isn't too secure.
I feel that Georges' point may be a function of the differences in shades of meaning, as you've already pointed out. There were other things she could have said that would have been more accurate and still kept her and him on the same plane. However, I didn't get the sense [from her comment and/or her personal politics] that she's really used to discussing Leonard and his work much [if at all], and her choice of the lightweight word reflects that.
Yes, I definitely took Charlie's response to be the gracious one to the hostess [and my comment regarding cutting to him walking away, was just my visual for underscoring his feeling a bit baffled in the moment, given that word to grapple with]. Ha! Touring with Leonard......no, Charlie definitely would not use that particular word [with any, much less all, of our connotations] to sum up any aspect of him.
Great to hear from you. I've read many of your Posts on the original site, yet for whatever reason, never responded to any of them. Who knows why.....
Lizzytysh [/i]
Back to Leonard and k.t.---because of other country singers' awareness/covers of him, I got the sense that she has actually heard him. I agree that she did not mean it in the full context of the [whole] phrase. I've just now reread your original Post and it appears that she spontaneously took the initiative to make her editorial comment. I know what you mean about the "briefing" aspect of it, yet it sounded [not having been there myself watching it] to me like she is indeed familiar with Leonard and his work, and simply chose a less-than-optimum word to make Charlie and the viewers aware of that. I agree with you that she didn't necessarily mean it to be minimizing at all, and my point is that the word itself [i.e. poor word choice] accomplishes that effect on its own.
Of course, giving an opinion 3rd-hand to the event, my footing isn't too secure.
I feel that Georges' point may be a function of the differences in shades of meaning, as you've already pointed out. There were other things she could have said that would have been more accurate and still kept her and him on the same plane. However, I didn't get the sense [from her comment and/or her personal politics] that she's really used to discussing Leonard and his work much [if at all], and her choice of the lightweight word reflects that.
Yes, I definitely took Charlie's response to be the gracious one to the hostess [and my comment regarding cutting to him walking away, was just my visual for underscoring his feeling a bit baffled in the moment, given that word to grapple with]. Ha! Touring with Leonard......no, Charlie definitely would not use that particular word [with any, much less all, of our connotations] to sum up any aspect of him.
Great to hear from you. I've read many of your Posts on the original site, yet for whatever reason, never responded to any of them. Who knows why.....
Lizzytysh [/i]
Hi Linda
Yes, I agree with you that the lack of an appropriate category for easy reference in an interview [where time is of the essence] regarding Leonard and his music is the crux of the problem here.
For the sake of k.t. trying to be a good interviewer, she also would always be "looking out for" her audience of listeners. The country listeners, in general, would not be so aware [if at all.....chagrin!] of who Leonard is or what his music is like.....so pulling up the rear on their behalf [as you would for someone just entering a conversation in person, i.e. "briefing" them quickly, so that they can knowledgeably join in], she tried to encapsulate the essence of him and his work in one word, for their benefit. Charlie had [musician to musician] referred to Leonard as a given, in terms of being known. To clue in her audience [as the astute interviewer], I think she simply tried [albeit inadequately] to give them the jist of the nature of some of Charlie's backup experience.
As you say, with Leonard's songs not being [immediately or otherwise] transparent, it creates a problem for us all as to how to best describe him and his music. I believe that had she anticipated Leonard's name coming up and hadn't listened to him, she would have, pre-interview, consulted Charlie himself. As it was, she was left to fend for herself in the moment....a tough call, given all our strugglings on the Board and elsewhere, to "define" him in the span of an unanticipated moment.
Had Charlie and she been having coffee, a drink, or generalized conversation elsewhere.....that generalization would have led to a rather lengthy exploration of Leonard and his work. "Poor" Charlie, having to respond to it in the context of an interview focused on himself.
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Yes, I agree with you that the lack of an appropriate category for easy reference in an interview [where time is of the essence] regarding Leonard and his music is the crux of the problem here.
For the sake of k.t. trying to be a good interviewer, she also would always be "looking out for" her audience of listeners. The country listeners, in general, would not be so aware [if at all.....chagrin!] of who Leonard is or what his music is like.....so pulling up the rear on their behalf [as you would for someone just entering a conversation in person, i.e. "briefing" them quickly, so that they can knowledgeably join in], she tried to encapsulate the essence of him and his work in one word, for their benefit. Charlie had [musician to musician] referred to Leonard as a given, in terms of being known. To clue in her audience [as the astute interviewer], I think she simply tried [albeit inadequately] to give them the jist of the nature of some of Charlie's backup experience.
As you say, with Leonard's songs not being [immediately or otherwise] transparent, it creates a problem for us all as to how to best describe him and his music. I believe that had she anticipated Leonard's name coming up and hadn't listened to him, she would have, pre-interview, consulted Charlie himself. As it was, she was left to fend for herself in the moment....a tough call, given all our strugglings on the Board and elsewhere, to "define" him in the span of an unanticipated moment.
Had Charlie and she been having coffee, a drink, or generalized conversation elsewhere.....that generalization would have led to a rather lengthy exploration of Leonard and his work. "Poor" Charlie, having to respond to it in the context of an interview focused on himself.
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
-
George.Wright
eeyay
Thanks for the reply
In ireland artsy does not have the derogratory meaning of the USA
it would be accepted as a compliment
you can see where i'm from
Apologies for your misunderstanding
Georges
In ireland artsy does not have the derogratory meaning of the USA
it would be accepted as a compliment
you can see where i'm from
Apologies for your misunderstanding
Georges
Linmag,
I certainly agree that LC's "songs are not immediately transparent".
But sometimes Cohen's opaqueness is really irksome.
Particularly in his poetry. I read his poems and sometimes I want to yell; "Come on, Leonard! just once, spit it out!!! "
"And while you're at it, how about a sonnet?"
eeey (the "sort-of" fan)
I certainly agree that LC's "songs are not immediately transparent".
But sometimes Cohen's opaqueness is really irksome.
Particularly in his poetry. I read his poems and sometimes I want to yell; "Come on, Leonard! just once, spit it out!!! "
"And while you're at it, how about a sonnet?"
eeey (the "sort-of" fan)
Hi eeey,
I have always assumed that the fault was in me when I had difficulty in undersanding Leonard's work. After all, he spends so much time on them that they have to be right by the time he publishes them, surely? Then I saw the notes published on this site showing his work over the years on Alexandra Leaving, and I realised that over time with this sort of process words come to take on the meaning of whole phrases for Leonard as he simplifies things down. This means that what we end up with is a beautifully elegant piece of writing, which embodies a wealth of meaning for the writer, but which is more like a set of clues for the reader. Even so, I often find that I may not have understood the piece intellectually, but it has said something to me emotionally nevertheless
I have always assumed that the fault was in me when I had difficulty in undersanding Leonard's work. After all, he spends so much time on them that they have to be right by the time he publishes them, surely? Then I saw the notes published on this site showing his work over the years on Alexandra Leaving, and I realised that over time with this sort of process words come to take on the meaning of whole phrases for Leonard as he simplifies things down. This means that what we end up with is a beautifully elegant piece of writing, which embodies a wealth of meaning for the writer, but which is more like a set of clues for the reader. Even so, I often find that I may not have understood the piece intellectually, but it has said something to me emotionally nevertheless
Hi Elizabeth
The emoticons are easy
Just click on the one you want and it will appear where the cursor is in your text. It won't look like it does in the finished version though because of the different codes used 
If you place the cursor over an emoticon without clicking on it, it will tell you what it is supposed to represent. Very helpful
Linda
The emoticons are easy
Just click on the one you want and it will appear where the cursor is in your text. It won't look like it does in the finished version though
because of the different codes used If you place the cursor over an emoticon without clicking on it, it will tell you what it is supposed to represent. Very helpful
Linda