Discussion Post 2

Part A:

Kim Cooper’s “On Neutral Milk Hotel” clearly had a lot of background research done prior to the article being written. Cooper researched all the events going on throughout that time period, and clearly the most important were the events that occurred during World War 2 with the Nazis and the Jews. She was able to draw comparisons to the artist and their lyrics regarding Anne Frank and a potential relationship that was there or even just some sort of idolization. Cooper was able to add these research points into her track by track annotations by simply going one at a time while providing historical background on what was going on and how the song related to these events. The annotation that stuck out most to me was the portion on “Ghost.” This stuck out to me most because of the comparisons between old and new, for example the Americas compared to the old times prior to the war. I just found this one specifically to be the most intriguing to me and the farthest thing from sexualizing the events as I could. 

Part B:

The differences in lengths amongst the annotations was clearly done on purpose. With the longer and wordier writings, they are able to compile more information while each piece stacked on top of one another for important and viable information. Whereas with the shorter annotations, because there are so few words that just makes each one more important than the last in order to decipher what is being said. For example, with the analysis  of “The Story of Us,” she is quoted saying, “Listening to this song is the only time I see myself fist-pumping.” This allows the reader to think about this a little more and attempt to interpret why, the obvious explanation is because it is clearly a great song and gets the juices flowing a bit, but others may view it differently. Another example is with “Everything has Changed” and how we see the shortened version of the analysis where it simply is saying the song is perfect. Finally, with the analysis of “Fifteen” we see the author dive in more and try to decode what is being said from their interpretation of the song. Also, this shows that there is clearly some controversy over the messages that are being broadcasted to people through music. 

Part C:

Jonathan Letham’s piece on the Talking Heads was definitely an interesting interpretation of the group performing during live shows. He clearly was disappointed with the group and discussed how they just aren’t the same as when they originated. The addition of more people and more instruments definitely threw the band off during the live performances and it didn’t go unnoted. Letham talked about his own feelings about the live performances with a series of complaints about the changes being made. One quote that stuck out to me in particular was the portion early on in the piece calling the original band simply a tombstone of what they are now, just a memory. 

Part D:

Shea Serrano and Patterson Hood provide the reader with a different form of track by track analysis by incorporating a wide variety of artists and their tracks into their pieces. What this allows the two authors to do is simply compare and contrast the tracks within one another and provide concrete examples on why they are similar or different, as well as common themes between all of them. Their goals for each of the pieces is to critique as well as provide insight into what the artists were attempting to do, and with the addition of other tracks that just made it easier for them to show how differently a similar message could come across as.