My Jars of Clay game

[murlough23]

So I'm up to about round 5 in my Jars of Clay Survivor game, and now that "Flood" has received the boot (hey, I never voted for it), I'm detecting a lack of interest. Any of you guys want to come over and help keep things interesting?

http://forum.cmcentral.com/index.php?showtopic=15615

[DvChWi]

Creepy.  That forum looks like ours.  I guess its the same system or something.  I didn't vote becuase I'm not a member, but I must say I loved your goodbye comments for each song.  

No One Loves Me Like You (6 votes) - Looks like no one loves you at all!
Sinking (4 votes) - It's not our problem any more. See, it never really was.
Can't Erase It (3 votes) - Indeed, we can erase it. And we have.
He (3 votes) - For crying out loud, just give this song a chance to hide away.
Flood (3 votes) - In a shocking move, it appears this song can't swim after four rounds, let alone forty days.


Those are great!  

[bloop]

I don't know if interest is lost in these games or if they just get so hard to kick anything off once you get it down to the creme of the crop.

[Josh]

I might work up the courage to sept over to CMC later and help you out, David.

A Jars game would probably work out pretty well over here. Lots of fans... hmmm. Maybe when we're done with Radiohead.

[bloop]

I might work up the courage to sept over to CMC later and help you out, David.

A Jars game would probably work out pretty well over here. Lots of fans... hmmm. Maybe when we're done with Radiohead.

I thought the U2 game was next for this board (I am evil).

[Josh]

Oh, yeah. Boy, that IS evil. I couldn't begin to pick favorites off some of their albums...

[bloop]

I think there's a few too many albums in the U2 canon to do it the same way.  We'd probably take nominations from the floor, then pool them in a survivor-like contest.

[Josh]

Yeah. Because c'mon, do ANY of the songs on October or Boy live up to even the weakest songs on The Joshua Tree?

I'd also propose making that one a two-disc set, so that we could include more songs...

[DvChWi]

I'd also propose making that one a two-disc set, so that we could include more songs...

I second that.  We would have to do it that way.  

[murlough23]

I third that. Though it'd be fun to carry it all the way through and see which track emerges as the most popular between all of us. We'd need more voters who had heard most or all of the albums, though.

[bloop]

I third that. Though it'd be fun to carry it all the way through and see which track emerges as the most popular between all of us. We'd need more voters who had heard most or all of the albums, though.

That would be the hard part.  I had a hard enough time with Pablo Honey, and we're only talking about 6 studio albums here.  I just gave up and arbitrated, but people still need to at least know what they're voting on by listening to at least those tracks (ok - most people have heard "Creep" at least).  Now, I can't be positive of this, but I would think there would be plenty of people on the board who know "Joshua Tree" up, with maybe a few songs from the earlier albums.  That's why I'm proposing nominations, so that those of you that know the earlier tracks can nominate the deserving tracks.  There's really only a few I'd want from those early years anyway ("New Years Day", "Pride", "Sunday Bloody Sunday", "40", maybe a couple others).

By the way, when I chose "Creep", I didn't mention whether it was track 2, the original, or the radio edit on track 13 (replaces "f-ing" with "very").  If it stays, we're going to have to vote on the profanity...that'll be fun.

[oneafroboy]

A U2 one would be cool. I've been kind of jealous of all you voting for RH songs. It looks like fun.

I agree with you Josh. I haven't heard Boy, but I've heard October, and most of the songs just don't compare with their later stuff. (Most bands need a couple albums under their belt before they take off, even great bands like U2.) I do have to admit really enjoying Gloria and Rejoice. I just think they're cools songs.  =)  

[murlough23]

bloop, I did download Pablo Honey the other day and I'm going to see if I can set aside some time this weekend to listen to it... focusing on the four remaining songs, of course. Initially I just figured you'd arbitrate until we got down to few enough songs that we were no longer voting by album, then I'd go for "Creep"s jugular. If we end up keeping "Creep", I vote for the no-profanity version (of course), but then, you can save yourself a CD-R and some postage and I'll just make my own RH compilation. We've already lost too many of my favorites. I'm still interested in voting since I want to see what we whittle it down to... but I know I'm really attached to a few tracks that are less popular among typical RH fans.

Regarding U2... we should definitely let Josh head that one up if he's willing and has the time and emotional energy to invest in it. What I suggest we do is have everyone list every U2 song that they want to be considered for the list. Any song that doesn't get mentioned by anyone, we won't even bother with. I figure U2 has way too many albums and B-sides and other random things to deal with their entire discogprahy. (Though it'd be fun to see what Josh voted off after "Elvis Presley in America" and "Miami" were gone.)

We could also do it this way - list everything and then start with a free-for-all round where everyone lists the songs they think shouldn't even be in the game. We'd all have veto rights, so if I mention some obscure track from October that Josh really likes and wants to keep in the game, we keep it, and if Josh mentions "Miami" I'll veto, etc. Then, normal voting would start in round two. I suspect there'd still be a lot of songs to choose from, but it would be interesting, to say the least.

[bloop]

If we end up keeping "Creep", I vote for the no-profanity version (of course)

You are sometimes really predictable...you know that, right?  I think the "f-word" in that song has a similar meaning to "very", but a slightly different and (IMO, better for the song) connotation, and it doesn't offend me in the least.  

If we kept Creep, I would go for the non-radio edit, but I guess that's pretty typical (and I guess predictable) of me too.  I just believe in not screwing with the vision of the artist for broadcast purposes.  I doubt we're keeping it anyway, though.  There are so many songs in their canon that I like much better than Creep.

[murlough23]

You are sometimes really predictable...you know that, right?

I know I'm predictable in that regard. I also don't care. Radiohead has every right to use whatever words they want in a song. And if they go to the trouble to record a version without those words, I have every right to like that version better. If "f-ing" means the same thing as "very" in this case, then I'll go with "very" just because I find it more aesthetically pleasing. I don't like hearing the f-word in a song. And while I understand that swear words are totally a cultural context thing, therefore I'm not going to assume it's an un-Christian action for Bono to use the word or whatever... I still find that I don't like the word. There are other words I don't like as well that aren't even swear words, I just think they sound dumb in songs. Using the f-word in "Creep" doesn't exactly make Radiohead sound intelligent... nor does it in "Wolf" for that matter. Early in their career, I could understand it, but but nowadays they can communicate so much without needing to swear, so when they do it, it just seems like they're lowering themselves to the level of a lot of other bands.

Make sense?

[bloop]

Make sense?

To me?  No, not really.  It's all under the false assumption that our culturally-defined swear words automatically make one look "dumber".  I don't believe that always to be the case...not in "Creep" nor "Wolf".

I did say the "f-word" has a slightly different connotation than "very" in "Creep" in much the same way as "messed up" would be different than "f-ed up" in U2's "Wake Up Dead Man".  Both ring true, and the words are denotatively the same, but one seems somehow truer, to me at least.  It's the difference between a safe word and a much more powerful word in that case.  I don't think it makes the narrator seem any dumber in either song.  It's a moment of clarity and that is all.

One last point re:  Wolf.  If you think the f-word is what makes the narrator of that song sound dumb, isn't the "flan in the face" lyric a bit sillier if one was to be honest?

[Josh]

(Though it'd be fun to see what Josh voted off after "Elvis Presley in America" and "Miami" were gone.)

Actually, I'd vote off "Some Days" long before I would vote off "Miami." But I'd probably give the axe to a couple of October tracks before I voted off EITHER of those two. (The only October songs I'd even consider for a U2 best-of collection would be "Tomorrow" and "Gloria").

Re: "Creep": I don't think the f-word is needed in that song. As much as I hate censorship, I'd probably vote for the radio version. I don't mind the word in "Wolf," though, as I think Thom is using the word quite literally.

[bloop]

The "f-word" in Creep implies that more than just infatuation is involved with that song, so I think it is the best word there whether it is the nice Christian thing to say or not.  It's not a really deep song, really, but the word should stick around.  

For U2's song, I would vote for "f-ed up world" over "messed up world" if such an edit existed as well...same with the OtR example so I'm pretty consistent when it comes to this.  It isn't necessary in any of these songs, but I think the word is appropriate and probably the best one to use in their contexts.

[Josh]

For U2's song, I would vote for "f-ed up world" over "messed up world" if such an edit existed as well...

Yes. "Messed up" would change the meaning of the song. And it sounds lame. And there's nothing wrong with the song in the first place, so why consider changing it at all?

[bloop]

Yes. "Messed up" would change the meaning of the song. And it sounds lame. And there's nothing wrong with the song in the first place, so why consider changing it at all?

no no no no no.  It wouldn't change the meaning of the song at all.  It would just be less emphatic and less meaningful in some sense, but the meaning if you were to try to describe the statement would be the same.  That's why I brought that up.  

The better bands, I think, have liscense to use those words sparingly for these kinds of emphatic purposes...to make their statement somehow more true.  Some of the lesser groups use it and it does only show their limited vocabulary.  Knowing Radiohead or U2 as I do, and others do as well, such an slam would only seem ignorant and misdirected.

[Josh]

no no no no no. It wouldn't change the meaning of the song at all.

When I track mud through the house, I mess up the carpet. Our world, on the other hand, has been taken advantage of and, in a word, fucked. Sure seems like a different meaning to me...

[bloop]

When I track mud through the house, I mess up the carpet. Our world, on the other hand, has been taken advantage of and, in a word, fucked. Sure seems like a different meaning to me...

You could say by tracking mud in the house, you fucked up the carpet.  When the world is going to hell in a handbasket, you can say it's a messed up world.  I guess I'm saying that the meaning is fundamentally the same at its core, but one is much more emphatic to the point that "messed up" is probably a better choice for the carpet as that really isn't all that important, and "fucked up" is better in describing how this world can be, even though the statements make sense if you switch the phrases.

Wait a minute...this thread is supposed to be about Jars of Clay?  When's the last time they've used their poetic liscence to drop the "f-bomb" on legions of CCMers?  How far we stray...I kind of like that.

[Josh]

If Jars ever used that word, I'd buy their album in a heartbeat.

[DvChWi]

If Jars ever used that word, I'd buy their album in a heartbeat.

You would buy their album just because they used a swear word?  Or do you mean you would buy it in spite of that?  If the first one is true, I find that a little troubling.  Using the f-word does not make something more artistic.

[bloop]

You would buy their album just because they used a swear word?  Or do you mean you would buy it in spite of that?  If the first one is true, I find that a little troubling.  Using the f-word does not make something more artistic.

I don't know what he meant, but I'd buy it just because I'd have to hear it to believe it.  

I agree that it doesn't make a song more artistic by itself (and probably works against more songs than it helps), although I do think those words have their place in art.

[Josh]

It was a joke.

 

[murlough23]

Using the f-word does not make something more artistic.

I know that what Josh said was a joke... but seriously, I think that is some people's attitude, that throwing the f-word into a more poetic, singer/songwriter type song makes it more artistic. I suppose that works if you're in college.

NP: "Blow Out", Radiohead

[bloop]

I know that what Josh said was a joke... but seriously, I think that is some people's attitude, that throwing the f-word into a more poetic, singer/songwriter type song makes it more artistic. I suppose that works if you're in college.

My contention is simply that, used sparingly, it can have a greater effect than other words and be the best word for the job.  Again, it's purpose is emphasis so in some cases, yes, it makes a song more artistic.  I just think it's silly to place certain words in the "no no" bin just because they are "offensive".  To me, that's what's dumb and closed-minded.

Also, I don't know that, say, Wilco "just threw it in so Ashes... would seem more artistic".  They threw it in because A.  it's their right - it's their song and B. ostensibly, not much else would work in the song ("really cares" would kind of , but "give a f" is a stronger phrase and is arguably more appropos).  There's an assumption here that artists do it for image reasons and I'm not so sure they do when they never make such a claim.  I just read in that they went for the stronger phrase because it gets across their meaning better.  You are implying artists' intentions based on your personal bias against these particular words and I can't agree with that.

I understand what people mean when they say these words make one look vocabulary-limited, but it is not always true.  If it is nearly the only words people use (i.e. Fred Durst, Puddle of Mudd), then that is probably a fair assessment, but when the surrounding song is poetic (i.e. U2, Radiohead, Wilco), those kinds of accusations just seem a little dumb in themselves.

[murlough23]

It's just something I find aesthetically displeasing. I'm not trying to say it's morally wrong. I just don't happen to like the word, and anywhere it pops up, I'm generally going to like the song less for it, even if I agree that it would be hard to come up with another word to convey the same meaning with as much power.  

[bloop]

It's just something I find aesthetically displeasing. I'm not trying to say it's morally wrong. I just don't happen to like the word, and anywhere it pops up, I'm generally going to like the song less for it, even if I agree that it would be hard to come up with another word to convey the same meaning with as much power.

but that seems to me to be based more on years of socio-cultural conditioning than actual artistic evaluation, which you sometimes let it bleed into.