Yeah... ... Strip this of all musicality/Thicke's velvety charm and you got something with the maturity of a demented teenaged virgin attempting at pickup based on theoretical structures heavily influenced by pop culture like exhibit A. But, I think in general if you strip music away from lyrics, the resulting poetry is usually underwhelming. Most amateurs begin writing poetry by emulating lyrics, and it's really flat. Music it turns out does most of the heavy lifting in animating the words. I've noticed some of my favorite poets like Tarkovsky and Transtromer suggesting that the most perfect form of art is music, and it's the music of their own work they pay attention to. The more I sit with the idea, I think it's true. What makes music so arresting? It's what goes beyond any intellectualization. Or maybe it's what goes before...
In the vernacular of Trailer Park Boys, Thicke is "greasy." I like your point and I agree with it. This is part of my issue with slam poetry, but I guess that's also why many people feel it's so much more accessible than a lot of poetry on the page. It's funny though, since most people subvocalize at least some of the time when they read (or in any event, they move their lips), so I'd be inclined to think that the music of the words would carry through, but I have grossly underestimate many people's capacity for imagination on many occasions, much to my disappointment. I like that this recording exists though. I feel like I've encountered something similar to this before, somewhere. Maybe it's because I love music so much, but I get annoyed when I hear someone defending a song they like by saying "but it's got a good beat!" and often egregiously keeping time. I don't blame people for liking things, but they should have the balls to admit when they like bad things. I mean, I love cooking and I also love Velveeta. Big deal. It doesn't have to be a "thing."
Haha his Velveeta charm. | I don't blame people for liking things, but they should have the balls to admit when they like bad things. I mean, I love cooking and I also love Velveeta. Big deal. It doesn't have to be a "thing."| Bad in what way? Isn't liking something finding some value in it? Or is it liking something that's clearly bad for you? Or bad as in 'low art' ... media that runs counter to all our higher ideals, appealing to our less than refined interests. Hmm yeah that is probably the best way about it, to like it while being aware how shit it is. That's a trouble of mine. I usually try to not like things that are clearly dumb and vulgar and sensational -- probably because it's hard to handle liking it! Also, good point about the musicality if slam poetry, and I think as soon as that less than stellar written experience becomes a performance, that's where the musicality comes in. I wonder then, in text sans performance, where's the music? I think it's interesting how it really is inaccessible to most. It's not obvious at all. Sometimes it seems to be hiding in more challenging works but still working deep underneath the surface.
Things that are of little value, including the vulgar and dumb. Anything that isn't seen as adding positively to our lives, be it nutritionally or in the sense of the artistic soul. You've grasped my thoughts on it: once we understand that something is pure poo, we can address it by doing things to manage the negative effects. So, eat Velveeta for one meal, eat wild greens the next and maybe walk the dog longer than usual. Plus, I think it's good to recognize these things so that one can manage one's own patterns of consumption, ones which may develop if we continue to only go with things we like because they are immediately pleasurable in a low value way.