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

Dismissing Leonard Cohen as "pretentious dribble" (I presume you mean drivel) strikes me as awfully harsh. His particular genre ("contempopary art song" is probably as good a description as any) may strike some as pretentious in general, but Cohen is awfully good at it. Tom Waits is an interesting talent - no argument there -, but I suspect that you're in the minority as to his relative lyrical ability vis a vis Cohen. John Marks (IIRC) of Stereophile has written pretty extensively on Cohen and contemporary art song and offers some interesting insights.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but IMHO (and just IMHO) you're off base on this one.

Marty

My personal favorite nomination so far is Edge from U2. I just saw the dvd "It Might Get Loud" with Edge, Jimmy Page, and Jack White. Page and White were always looking to (essentially) unadulterated blues for inspiration, while Edge was stroking a giant battery of effects boxes. I kept waiting for White to ask "Who let this guy in here?"

Hey Thomas,

Whatever you say.

I guess that I'm with the easily mislead and terribly misguided Cohen fans - including the hundreds of musicians who have recorded almost 2,000 cover versions of Cohen's songs. We have all been taken in by a giant scam perpetrated by that talentless hoodlum, who's laughing behind our collective backs the whole time.

Thankfully, you've seen through the ruse! We're saved!

OTOH, it's also possible that Cohen's lyrics (often about the conflicts of religion vs. faith, and sex vs. love) speak eloquently to anyone willing and able to listen and understand them. That would include Jeff Buckly, John Cale, Joan Baez, Jennifer Warnes, Johnny Cash, Tori Amos, Roy Buchannon, Nick Cave and a host of similar fools who don't realize thast it's all just:

"Toilet Flush"

Marty

PS I do, however, believe you when you say that Cohen is your pet peeve,

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

I defer to Ben C.
'nuff said on the subject.

Marty