Name your lame duck artist........

Musicman, The music industry sold out years ago with particular fever sometime beginning in the early '70s. Grammies have been generally bogus for years. Hey, it's big business and that's ok.

A couple of good tunes about it that come to mind are Rundgren's "The Death of Rock 'n Roll" ('75) and Van Morrison's "Big Time Operators" ('93).

It was refreshing to have the Foo Fighters get a grammie a year or so ago. And yea, there are others who've won who are deserving but such is a rarity I.M.O.

I've made sifting through the music "crud" for what I like an enjoyable life-long hobby; one no less interesting than that audiophile disease of searching for the Holy Grail in equipment.

Thomas-- Madonna has talent for publicity, making $, and tapping in to and shaping teen sensibility (or did anyway).

Thomas,

Don't know "Death Heather" but, given his ambition and associative style, it should come as zero surprise that Cohen will produce an ocassional airball. Aim high and you can fall shorter. As a general rule (for me), the more explicit his poetry, the more likely it misfires. You may have just found one miss. Congratulations. There are more. There's also, say..., "Hallelujah", an absolutely exquisite piece of poetry, which seems to have resonated very deeply with the many, many artists who've covered it to tremendous effect. There are more of those, too.

As to the "psychic terrorism" of Jesus, etc - his meaning is pretty clear (even though his choice of words is designed to provoke a reaction).

Finally, the "I'm not sure what it means now". This is a fairly common notion, not only among poets, but also among really ambitous writers of prose. Thomas Pynchon (considered by many to be the finest living American novelist) once acknowledged that there are parts of "Gravity's Rainbow" (considered by many to be his finest novel) that he can't decipher today. Associative writing, by it's nature, is the product of the moment and sometimes the entire point is that the resonance of an association resists rational explanation. That part is called "poetry".

Marty

Bottom line:

I never said Cohen was perfect.
You've said (repeatedly) that he's a poseur and a fake.
I look at the ARMY of highly regarded artists (and a fair number of writers and critics) on my side of the fence and feel pretty comfortable that the best examples of Cohen's poetry have passed the highest level of scrutiny (save your own).

That said, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Sorry,

I guess it's "Dear Heather". Still don't know it.

I forgot to finish the point of the "terrorism" and "First We Take Manhattan" bit.

First off, he renounces violence at the outset (rejecting terror in "the physical plane") before expressing admiration and name checking Freud, Jesus, etc - "and the world is still shaking". He's simply stating an admiration for those who forward a point of view that the world cannot accept and push through the resistance of the world until the resistance is overcome and they are taken seriously. Marx and Einstein both qualify in this respect. Terrorists qualify, too. It also explains why "First We Take Manhattan" can be understood literally. The song is about imposing your will (worldview) on the world around you. You may not find this idea profound, provoking or moving, but it certainly a thoughtful lyric, reasonably well (if somewhat colorfully and provocatively) explained in an interview.

If you find that exchange evidence that Cohen is a poseur, I fully understand why you don't "get" his lyrics.

Look, my point here is that putting Cohen on this list (next to Yanni and the like) is silly. I stand by it.

Marty

Thomas,

I will check out the song and get back to you. I wouldn't at all be surprised to agree that it's a failure (possibly even an embarassing failure). But remember that Babe Ruth struck out over 1300 times during his career. That doesn't change the fact that he is among the handful of great hitters who have ever lived. You've got to take the bad with good, man.

Marty