The “real” way of listening to 'The Smiths' and 'Meat is Murder'

[Nikita]

I'm slightly obsessive about listening to albums the way God intended them to be listened to; that is, Yesterday, however, a thought popped into my head that I'd never considered before, one that has left me feeling scarwithout bonus tracks and with the correct running order.ed and confused! That is, 'The Smiths' didn't originally feature 'This Charming Man', and 'Meat is Murder' didn't originally feature 'How Soon is Now?'. I've been listening to these albums with those tracks for years

All I can say is that you're not that obsessive.

 

[Worm]

My point is twofold. One, even though sequencing is intentional that does not mean that any given specific sequencing is the way, the only natural way, to order a given set of material. Secondly, most of it is in the act of listening. Once you have absorbed an album in a given sequence over a long period, it seems unthinkable that it could be otherwise. If Pink Floyd had exchanged one of the tracks on DSOTM with a different track and arranged the tracks in a different sequence (one with a thought behind it) when the album was originally released, would it have seemed wrong somehow today? Of course it wouldn't. Well I wonder is the only song that can possibly follow Nowhere Fast, overwhelmingly because that's what it does.

Or take the album that started this discussion, The Smiths. There's a huge number of songs who could easily have been on that album. If These things Take time and Handsome Devil had been picked for inclusion over You've got Everything Now and I don't owe you anything, would that have made the album seem unnaturally composed? You can say there are reasons why some songs were chosen and some weren't, but ultimately, 25 years down the road, do those reasons really amount to much significance for the listening experience?

I feel like this is somehow a shadow debate over God. We are looking back to posit a Creator, and you are taking the Darwinian model.

You're correct to say the sequencing matters largely because that's how we listened to it, moreso than because of how the artist arranged it. My rebuttal is simply this: the artist put the tracks in a certain order and we should respect their plan. Yes, "Well I Wonder" only follows "Nowhere Fast" in my world because I've always played the album that way-- though I will be extra nerdy and say that sometimes I expect it to follow "How Soon Is Now?" -- but rather than call it an accident I prefer to try and figure out why Morrissey and Marr put the songs in that order, and experience the ebb and flow of the LP as a whole, which is why I dislike the extra tracks.

The additional reason, of course, is that the extra tracks represent the meddling of a record company. A long, long time ago, we Smiths fans used to get quite indignant about record company meddling. Extra tracks, tacky badges, that sort of thing. How long ago those days seem!

 

[Oh my god. it's Robby!]

sequencing matters, duh
but re-sequencing matters too, if done by the original artist, right?

 

[Worm]

but re-sequencing matters too, if done by the original artist, right?

Oh, sure, re-sequencing matters, but only in theory. Usually they get it wrong. Artists are not to be trusted with their older material. So, yeah, if M&M re-ordered "The Queen Is Dead" I'd give it a fair shake, with all due respect to their intentions. I'd just be skeptical. Can you think of any "re-ordered"/"restored" versions of albums (or films or books for that matter) which benefited in any major way from retroactive tampering? Not many I'd wager.

Incidentally, seeing as how we're talking about artists and the albums they carefully arrange and release, I recommend watching the documentary about Bruce Springsteen's "Darkness On The Edge of Town". Even if you're not a rabid fan of the Boss (I'm not) it's pretty interesting to see how much effort and intensity went into the album as an album and not just a collection of tracks. He threw out dozens of songs because they didn't fit, some of which became classics.

 

[Anaesthesine]

Which does not matter at all to the fact that sequencing matters. It matters big time. It is full of meaning. But the meaning is generated overwhelmingly by our repeated listening to the music in a given sequence, and only marginally by any artistic effect inherent in a given sequencing. Which is important relative to the original question because it means that if you've listened to The Smiths with TCM for 20 years, then that is neccessarily the correct sequence. As I wrote, and meant literally, it doesn't even matter if he agrees - he is never going to be able to change his perception, whether he wants to or not.

The aforementioned Killing Joke fought so long and hard (with each other) over what songs to include on the last album that they pushed back the release date and the tour. They're still debating the results. I don't think the effect is marginal at all; it's like constructing a set list - there's a flow and a momentum that either makes or breaks a mood. Some moods are better than others.

It's kind of like the Sistine Chapel - we all got used to those somber, muted colors, but the bright, pastel colors uncovered for the first time in centuries gave it a whole new meaning.

I feel like this is somehow a shadow debate over God. We are looking back to posit a Creator, and you are taking the Darwinian model.

In this case (and this case only), the creationists are correct.

You're correct to say the sequencing matters largely because that's how we listened to it, moreso than because of how the artist arranged it. My rebuttal is simply this: the artist put the tracks in a certain order and we should respect their plan.

God is (usually) great, however:

Oh, sure, re-sequencing matters, but only in theory. Usually they get it wrong. Artists are not to be trusted with their older material. So, yeah, if M&M re-ordered "The Queen Is Dead" I'd give it a fair shake, with all due respect to their intentions. I'd just be skeptical. Can you think of any "re-ordered"/"restored" versions of albums (or films or books for that matter) which benefited in any major way from retroactive tampering? Not many I'd wager.

I hate to say it, but the Maladjusted reissue is one example of a wrong rectified.

 

[Worm]

I hate to say it, but the Maladjusted reissue is one example of a wrong rectified.

Well, I hate to say this, but that wrong was so wrong it can't be rectified.

('Twas the album cover.)

 

[Qvist]

I feel like this is somehow a shadow debate over God. We are looking back to posit a Creator, and you are taking the Darwinian model.

Dangerous analogy. That sounds to me as if I'm right, and will no doubt sound the opposite way to some other people.

You're correct to say the sequencing matters largely because that's how we listened to it, moreso than because of how the artist arranged it. My rebuttal is simply this: the artist put the tracks in a certain order and we should respect their plan.

Certainly! If however after 15 years you discover that the plan you have been following may not have been what God originally intended, it is probably both safe and prudent to say "oh, stuff it" and carry on regardless. That was the gist of my advice.

cheers

 

[egosheep]

This Charming Man is the quintessential single... it should be enjoyed as such. HSIN just does not belong on MIM, period. The band made a genius record, the record company added a track arbitrarily. Boo!

 

[Qvist]

The aforementioned Killing Joke fought so long and hard (with each other) over what songs to include on the last album that they pushed back the release date and the tour. They're still debating the results. I don't think the effect is marginal at all; it's like constructing a set list - there's a flow and a momentum that either makes or breaks a mood. Some moods are better than others.

Well, that goes to prove my point: There is no inherently correct or natural sequencing of a record. If there was, Killing Joke wouldn't need to push back the release to agree on it. Nor is artistic intention a monolithic or unproblematic fact. Whatever the outcome of the internal KJ sequencing debate, what they end up with is one among several possibilities, all of whom had artistic backing within the group. If one of the members had perhaps been of a less stubborn disposition, or had too much else on his mind, or owed one of the other members a really big favor, the outcome might have been different - which is artistically arbitrary. The example underlines exactly that there are, potentially, a large number of ways to arrange the record that would all express artistic intention.

And what do you think are the odds that 20 years from now, you will favor any other sequencing than the one they happened to end up with when the dust had settled?

It's kind of like the Sistine Chapel - we all got used to those somber, muted colors, but the bright, pastel colors uncovered for the first time in centuries gave it a whole new meaning.

Well, that is also an ambivalent analogy relative to the point under discussion. It once again underlines how we impose meaning through our own experience and construct notions of authenticity through it, much more than we do through whatever we know about the intention of the artist. A similar example would be the stark purity of classical sculpture, before it was realised that they all used to be painted in garish colours.

But as I wrote in my reply to Worm, by no means do I question that there is a point in listening to music in the sequence intended by the artist. I just don't think that that is strong enough to override or even meaningfully adjust the power of the reconstruction of meaning you carry out yourself through the act of listening, if you are already immersed in a different sequence.

cheers

 

[DAVIE]

Boo, bloody hoo! Who really gives a shit if an extra song is put on an album or if they have mixed the songs around slightly...Your behaving like a bunch of big girls blouses, writing essays on such a pathetic topic --->
Simply just skip the track or rearrange the album on your pc...is it THAT hard? There's no need for these stupid rows...

 

[Anaesthesine]

Well, that goes to prove my point: There is no inherently correct or natural sequencing of a record. If there was, Killing Joke wouldn't need to push back the release to agree on it. Nor is artistic intention a monolithic or unproblematic fact. Whatever the outcome of the internal KJ sequencing debate, what they end up with is one among several possibilities, all of whom had artistic backing within the group. If one of the members had perhaps been of a less stubborn disposition, or had too much else on his mind, or owed one of the other members a really big favor, the outcome might have been different - which is artistically arbitrary. The example underlines exactly that there are, potentially, a large number of ways to arrange the record that would all express artistic intention.

Yes, it proves the point that there are any number of ways to conceive of an album. KJ recorded 22 songs, and 12 of them were dedicated to posterity, in a certain sequence. Had the band not given a damn and chosen some of the lesser tracks for the album, the result might be a boring mess instead of the resultant, triumphal return to form. Then again, we may never know - maybe they were all equally worthy.

It is a dirty little secret that there were (and maybe still are) people out there whose job it is to sequence albums. It is an even dirtier secret that some bands made use of these people. Record labels may not give a damn about artistic intent, but they do want product that sells. Back when such things mattered, bands who were unable to provide a coherent, listenable disc had to place their tracks in the hands of a professional who was paid to create narrative out of chaos. It made the difference between an album that people wanted to listen to, and a sonic mess.

So, there are any number of ways to put one song after another, but they are not all equal. Sequence matters, in an artistic as well as a commercial sense.

And what do you think are the odds that 20 years from now, you will favor any other sequencing than the one they happened to end up with when the dust had settled?

The most important time in an album's life for me is the first six to twelve weeks. That's when the music grabs me, becomes a part of my life, and takes its place in my inner soundtrack. After that, I seldom listen to it again.

Well, that is also an ambivalent analogy relative to the point under discussion. It once again underlines how we impose meaning through our own experience and construct notions of authenticity through it, much more than we do through whatever we know about the intention of the artist. A similar example would be the stark purity of classical sculpture, before it was realised that they all used to be painted in garish colours.

Yes, it was not a very good analogy, I agree.

I should have left Michelangelo out of it, and instead referred to Ridley Scott. I'm one of those Blade Runner fanatics who intensely disliked aspects of the film as it was originally released. The voice-over, the happy ending, the editing - it didn't make sense. That film is a great work of pop art that was terribly compromised by corporate interference. It has always bothered me that one of my favorite films is forever engraved in my psyche in its bastardized form.

But as I wrote in my reply to Worm, by no means do I question that there is a point in listening to music in the sequence intended by the artist. I just don't think that that is strong enough to override or even meaningfully adjust the power of the reconstruction of meaning you carry out yourself through the act of listening, if you are already immersed in a different sequence.

When it comes to a band like The Smiths, I agree. Most of the music that I listened to in the '80s was on mix tapes. I remember most of that music as a random jumble of songs heard in clubs, in cars, and at parties. However, there were a few albums that existed as a whole, whose magic still lingers as a progression of songs and emotions. Would it really matter if the songs were in a different order, or even if they were different songs? I think in some cases, yes. It would be the difference between a great album that captured my imagination, and an album that just didn't resonate.

 

[Anaesthesine]

Boo, bloody hoo! Who really gives a shit if an extra song is put on an album or if they have mixed the songs around slightly...Your behaving like a bunch of big girls blouses, writing essays on such a pathetic topic --->
Simply just skip the track or rearrange the album on your pc...is it THAT hard? There's no need for these stupid rows...

 

[Worm]

I should have left Michelangelo out of it, and instead referred to Ridley Scott. I'm one of those Blade Runner fanatics who intensely disliked aspects of the film as it was originally released. The voice-over, the happy ending, the editing - it didn't make sense. That film is a great work of pop art that was terribly compromised by corporate interference. It has always bothered me that one of my favorite films is forever engraved in my psyche in its bastardized form.

I find the original "Blade Runner" to be an inferior film, too, but in a strange way I think the tampering is helpful. It reminds us "Blade Runner" is a commercial product as well as one of the truly great sf works in movie history. It's still Ridley Scott, still Harrison Ford, fresh from "Star Wars", still Rutger Hauer, still a bunch of plastic and pasteboard sets in a warehouse, and above all still a thing-a-macallit a bunch of suits planned, financed and controlled. For the same reason I like Keanu Reeves' presence in "The Matrix". Both movies are a window into a different time which, by accident and sometimes in a very clumsy ways, become a mirror of our own. Isn't there something poetic about your irritation over "Blade Runner" being tampered with by bean-counters-- by corporate "off-worlders", so to speak?

 

[Anaesthesine]

I find the original "Blade Runner" to be an inferior film, too, but in a strange way I think the tampering is helpful. It reminds us "Blade Runner" is a commercial product as well as one of the truly great sf works in movie history. It's still Ridley Scott, still Harrison Ford, fresh from "Star Wars", still Rutger Hauer, still a bunch of plastic and pasteboard sets in a warehouse, and above all still a thing-a-macallit a bunch of suits planned, financed and controlled. For the same reason I like Keanu Reeves' presence in "The Matrix". Both movies are a window into a different time which, by accident and sometimes in a very clumsy ways, become a mirror of our own. Isn't there something poetic about your irritation over "Blade Runner" being tampered with by bean-counters-- by corporate "off-worlders", so to speak?

You know, I think I lost the thread of this discussion a while back. It's really about authenticity and experience, and the way art helps define our inner selves. I saw Kaz's original post as one extremely obsessive objection to corporate intervention - to bean-counters coming between the artist's vision and our own experience of the work. I'm in full sympathy with Kaz - I hate to think that my personal aesthetic epiphanies were engineered by hacks who had eyes on the bottom line. It raises a lot of good questions beyond what song comes after another on a record.

As for Blade Runner, I don't think there's anything good to say about the way the film was manipulated by the suits. As Qvist (and others) have said, though, what difference does it make? Would it really have changed anything if I had seen Ridley Scott's original the first time? It's actually a great metaphysical question. Ultimately, the fact that Deckard and Rachael drove off into a blue sky at the end of the film is just one of life's most insignificant irritants (but if Batty's monologue had been cut, I'd have had a different emotional reference for certain types of events in the intervening 28 years). Thank goodness for Rutger Hauer.

More importantly, I still can't get over the fact that Jane Austen was not responsible for her own punctuation: http://www.wordworker.co.uk/Blog/tabid/60/EntryId/27/Jane-Austen-s-work-needed-proofreading.aspx

Believe me, this has precipitated an acute epistemological crisis.

 

[DAVIE]

I give up

 

[Worm]

Certainly! If however after 15 years you discover that the plan you have been following may not have been what God originally intended, it is probably both safe and prudent to say "oh, stuff it" and carry on regardless. That was the gist of my advice.

cheers

It's probably safe and prudent to say "oh, stuff it" and carry on regardless to 99% of life's little squalls. We take that as read, as most civilized people do, although some people apparently need to have it spelled out.

Here is where I think your logic works against you: if meaning is created from our listening experience, and theoretically one sequence can carry as much meaning as another in the listener's mind, then this is precisely the one compelling reason to abandon one's habitual listening order and take up the artist's.

I listened to "Meat Is Murder" with ten tracks for a long period. Then I started listening to it with nine tracks, in its proper form, as Morrissey and Marr intended. Did it make a big difference? Maybe not, but enough of a difference that I consider the nine-track version to be canon and not the Sire Records bastardization. There's an additional factor to consider here, too, which is that "How Soon Is Now?" had a life before "Meat Is Murder". As much as it is not a part of the fabric of "Meat Is Murder", it is a part of another release, having started life as a B-side, the flip side of "William It Was Really Nothing". So its inclusion on a two- or three-track package gives it an interesting dimension as well, as for example if you care to listen to the development of The Smiths in loose chronological order.

I don't think this is needless hair-splitting. Tracks which are tossed around, ripped out of time and out of joint, take on different textures and meanings when they're jammed into another context. The most obvious instance is the "Girlfriend In A Coma" single. Because of an oddity of release dates, the single-- released prior to "Strangeways, Here We Come"-- anachronistically features the track which is the "final" Smiths recording, "I Keep Mine Hidden", and not "I Won't Share You". And there are more subtle cases, too, like "The Boy With The Thorn In His Side", which was released well before "The Queen Is Dead" and seems to have a different aura as a single. I realize this can all be taken as tiresome pedantry, but if you're really interested in the evolution of your favorite band, it's an argument in favor of trying to puzzle out the proper sequence of the songs, both on the various releases as well as within the context of each album or compilation.

I mention these points not as "necessities" for listening to The Smiths, but merely to show that between having a totally arbitrary sequence (the listener's) and one with some "empirical" meaning, however slight (the artist's, history's), I think it's worth choosing the latter.

 

[Worm]

You know, I think I lost the thread of this discussion a while back. It's really about authenticity and experience, and the way art helps define our inner selves. I saw Kaz's original post as one extremely obsessive objection to corporate intervention - to bean-counters coming between the artist's vision and our own experience of the work. I'm in full sympathy with Kaz - I hate to think that my personal aesthetic epiphanies were engineered by hacks who had eyes on the bottom line. It raises a lot of good questions beyond what song comes after another on a record.

As for Blade Runner, I don't think there's anything good to say about the way the film was manipulated by the suits. As Qvist (and others) have said, though, what difference does it make? Would it really have changed anything if I had seen Ridley Scott's original the first time? It's actually a great metaphysical question. Ultimately, the fact that Deckard and Rachael drove off into a blue sky at the end of the film is just one of life's most insignificant irritants (but if Batty's monologue had been cut, I'd have had a different emotional reference for certain types of events in the intervening 28 years). Thank goodness for Rutger Hauer.

More importantly, I still can't get over the fact that Jane Austen was not responsible for her own punctuation: http://www.wordworker.co.uk/Blog/tabid/60/EntryId/27/Jane-Austen-s-work-needed-proofreading.aspx

Believe me, this has precipitated an acute epistemological crisis.

Well, now you're expanding the range of the discussion into epistemology, which of course is a marvelous development. In the larger view, nothing happens by chance and everything, but everything, contributes not only to the work of art but to how we receive it in our minds. I had $25 and intended to buy "Strangeways" and "Viva Hate" on cassette during the same trip to the record shop. By chance the shop carried only the vinyl version of the former and the cassette of the latter, so that's what I came home with. "Viva Hate" I listened to and absorbed immediately. But my cheap-ass ten-dollar turntable couldn't play "Strangeways" without skipping over and over again, so I ended up discovering that album slowly, in fits and starts, over a long period of time, and really only after I'd managed to get a taped copy and then, eventually, a CD. (Conversely, I got to appreciate the full sleeve artwork of "Strangeways" as Morrissey intended and not with "Viva Hate", which was distorted and crunched down to size for the tape.) My technological hiccup will always be a part of my listening experience of that album, just as your first few weeks of owning an album set the course for you. In a way, artistic intention only goes so far and we shouldn't enslave ourselves to some idea of what the artist intended, an idea which is probably wrong in the first place.

However, it is equally fallacious to assume that one is "enslaving" oneself to the artist's intention anyway. The point I made to Qvist, above, is one I'll make again: if everything is an arbitrary throw of the dice, take what guidelines you can find, however nebulous or unbinding they are. I'm not dogmatic about "Meat Is Murder" not including "How Soon Is Now?" If it can be shown that a stupid mistake caused its omission from the album (Morrissey called Rough Trade to tell them to add the track but the secretary didn't leave the message for Geoff Travis, the master tape went missing, whatever), or if we find out that Marr wanted the track included but Morrissey threw a tantrum because his astrologer told him nine would the lucky number of tracks to guarantee a U.K. Number One, I could easily adapt my mind to the "new" order of things, just as I used to get a tear in my eye thinking "I Won't Share You" was "the final song" but don't anymore because, in fact, the song that really captured the turmoil of the band in 1987 was "I Keep Mine Hidden".

Ultimately what I find much more interesting, as a listener, is to ponder why the sucker punch of "Nowhere Fast" should open Side Two and not the minatory shimmer of "How Soon Is Now?" Or why "There Is A Light That Never Goes Out", the emotional peak of "The Queen Is Dead", is followed up with a trivial little comedy track. Or why "Bigmouth Strikes Again" was called The Smiths' "Jumpin' Jack Flash" by none other than Johnny Marr. Or why both of them said "everything The Smiths are comes out of 'Hand In Glove'". Et cetera. The songs still have a personal meaning which "helps define my inner self", as you put it, but I can enter more into the spirit of things outside myself-- which I must do for a full accounting of my experience, since we both agree that many factors influence our reception of art and not merely what our conscious mind abstracts from the impressions we get from any given work.

 

[Not Right in the Head]

More importantly, I still can't get over the fact that Jane Austen was not responsible for her own punctuation: http://www.wordworker.co.uk/Blog/tabid/60/EntryId/27/Jane-Austen-s-work-needed-proofreading.aspx

Believe me, this has precipitated an acute epistemological crisis.

The blog post doesn't cite references, so I had to find some. This is one.

Here's an example that Sutherland found, from Persuasion:

The manuscript:

“When I yeilded, I thought it was to Duty. — But no Duty could be called in aid here. – In marrying a Man indifferent to me, all Risk would have been incurred, & all Duty violated." —"Perhaps I ought to have reasoned thus, he replied, but I could not. — I could not derive benefit from the later knowledge of your Character which I had acquired, I could not bring it into play, it was overwhelmed, buried, lost in those earlier feelings, which I had been smarting under Year after Year. —" (Manuscript, erasures and line breaks are not reproduced)

And as it appeared in print:

"When I yielded, I thought it was to duty; but no duty could be called in aid here. In marrying a man indifferent to me, all risk would have been incurred, and all duty violated."
"Perhaps I ought to have reasoned thus,” he replied, “but I could not. I could not derive benefit from the late knowledge I had acquired of your character. I could not bring it into play: it was overwhelmed, buried, lost in those earlier feelings which I had been smarting under year after year.”

Sutherland points out that

My point is not that Jane Austen was a poor grammarian and speller. She lived in an age when fashions in this and much else were in flux. But Gifford may have perceived her to be so, and out of a declared and considerable admiration for her talents he wished to serve her text well. Shifts in presentation between manuscript and print and between first and second lifetime editions toned down something fresh in a remarkable fictional conversational voice. They did not suppress it. Who could or would wish to do so?

There's more at the link posted above.

 

[Anaesthesine]

Well, now you're expanding the range of the discussion into epistemology, which of course is a marvelous development. In the larger view, nothing happens by chance and everything, but everything, contributes not only to the work of art but to how we receive it in our minds. I had $25 and intended to buy "Strangeways" and "Viva Hate" on cassette during the same trip to the record shop. By chance the shop carried only the vinyl version of the former and the cassette of the latter, so that's what I came home with. "Viva Hate" I listened to and absorbed immediately. But my cheap-ass ten-dollar turntable couldn't play "Strangeways" without skipping over and over again, so I ended up discovering that album slowly, in fits and starts, over a long period of time, and really only after I'd managed to get a taped copy and then, eventually, a CD. (Conversely, I got to appreciate the full sleeve artwork of "Strangeways" as Morrissey intended and not with "Viva Hate", which was distorted and crunched down to size for the tape.) My technological hiccup will always be a part of my listening experience of that album, just as your first few weeks of owning an album set the course for you. In a way, artistic intention only goes so far and we shouldn't enslave ourselves to some idea of what the artist intended, an idea which is probably wrong in the first place.

Yes, but I want to enslave myself to an artist's intention. It gives me great pleasure to think that I'm communing with another soul, seeing into another mind, and not just mindlessly consuming an economically engineered product, or something carelessly thrown together. This is, of course, a pure, naive, romantic, misguided impulse:

However, it is equally fallacious to assume that one is "enslaving" oneself to the artist's intention anyway. The point I made to Qvist, above, is one I'll make again: if everything is an arbitrary throw of the dice, take what guidelines you can find, however nebulous or unbinding they are. I'm not dogmatic about "Meat Is Murder" not including "How Soon Is Now?" If it can be shown that a stupid mistake caused its omission from the album (Morrissey called Rough Trade to tell them to add the track but the secretary didn't leave the message for Geoff Travis, the master tape went missing, whatever), or if we find out that Marr wanted the track included but Morrissey threw a tantrum because his astrologer told him nine would the lucky number of tracks to guarantee a U.K. Number One, I could easily adapt my mind to the "new" order of things, just as I used to get a tear in my eye thinking "I Won't Share You" was "the final song" but don't anymore because, in fact, the song that really captured the turmoil of the band in 1987 was "I Keep Mine Hidden".

Yes, we live in a world ruled by chance and nonsense; someone didn't get a message, someone threw a tantrum, someone didn't get enough sleep the night before. Suddenly our tender memories of those haunting strains of the final song are shown to be based on nothing more than the fact that someone took a bathroom break.

Which is why I find the statement of intent inherent in the fact that several members of a Killing Joke actually fought tooth-and-nail to carefully, deliberately craft an emotionally satisfying album to be very moving. Someone took the process seriously - what a lovely, romantic, uncynical gesture.

Ultimately what I find much more interesting, as a listener, is to ponder why the sucker punch of "Nowhere Fast" should open Side Two and not the minatory shimmer of "How Soon Is Now?" Or why "There Is A Light That Never Goes Out", the emotional peak of "The Queen Is Dead", is followed up with a trivial little comedy track. Or why "Bigmouth Strikes Again" was called The Smiths' "Jumpin' Jack Flash" by none other than Johnny Marr. Or why both of them said "everything The Smiths are comes out of 'Hand In Glove'". Et cetera. The songs still have a personal meaning which "helps define my inner self", as you put it, but I can enter more into the spirit of things outside myself-- which I must do for a full accounting of my experience, since we both agree that many factors influence our reception of art and not merely what our conscious mind abstracts from the impressions we get from any given work.

Wow, I'd almost forgotten that there were two kickoff points involved in listening to an album back then. The wrong choice of song there could lead you to skip the second half altogether. The right choice of song was crucial when physical effort was involved.

I have to admit that everyone has a valid point to make in this discussion. I'm correct: the choice of what song follows what other song can make or break the experience and coherence of an album. Qvist is correct: ultimately, we assign meaning to a song and a listening experience that usually (but not always) transcends artistic (or commercial) intent. You're correct: We live in a random and meaningless universe where there is only an illusion of artistic or commercial control. DAVIE is correct: we should just shuffle the tracks to our liking and move on...

 

[Anaesthesine]

The blog post doesn't cite references, so I had to find some. This is one.

Thanks Guru!

I ran across the original post on Austen's proofreader and didn't dig any deeper because I'm just too busy with other things (like, um, posting here sometimes ). I should really have read further, because it's a fascinating subject that I'm going to have to think about more deeply.

I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who was forced to rethink their notions of "pure style" once the news broke that Austen's "voice" was a mediated experience.