Rolling Stone's Review of Leonard's Remastered

Teratogen · Post by **Teratogen** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:16 am

Yes, he did know who Leonard Cohen was and was aware that I was a fan of his. In fact, he actually "lent" me another book that I still have called Songwriters on Songwriting: Expanded Edition, by Paul Zollo, who interviews several songwriters on the process of writing songs, including Leonard Cohen, Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, Randy Newman, R.E.M., Neil Young, Tom Petty, Madonna, k.d. lang, Frank Zappa, Brian Wilson, Pete Seeger, Yoko Ono, Burt Bacharach, Jackson Browne, David Byrne, Suzanne Vega, and many, many others. There's even a great quote before the preface by Leonard that says, "If I knew where the good songs came from, I'd go there more often. It's a mysterious condition. It's much like the life of a Catholic nun. You're married to a mystery." The interview with Leonard took place in L.A. in 1992, I think just before The Future came out, because during the interview he tells the writer that he'd let him hear different versions of songs for "the new album," and mentions at least 3 or 4 songs from it.

Perhaps one day these books will get back to him... I still have yet to read entirely through them.

lizzytysh · Post by **lizzytysh** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:51 pm

Hi Jason ~

Ahh... cool teacher. Very cool teacher to lend you his books like that. The second one sounds like a very good one to read and to have if you're writing songs. I hope one day after you've finished them you'll meet with him for their rightful return.

"If I knew where the good songs came from, I'd go there more often. It's a mysterious condition. It's much like the life of a Catholic nun. You're married to a mystery."

Leonard said the first sentence as he was accepting the Canadian Songwriter's Award. So apparently true on his additional three and a great addition they are

.

~ Lizzy

John K. · Post by **John K.** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:41 pm

post deleted

Teratogen · Post by **Teratogen** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:28 am

Thanks for the info, John. Go figure someone else has got the same exact book!

lizzytysh · Post by **lizzytysh** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:23 pm

Go figure someone else has got the same exact book!

... and not just someone. Someone who lives on the opposite end of the U.S.; visits the same Forum you do; and someone whom you've actually met in a city where neither of you live

.

~ Lizzy

Teratogen · Post by **Teratogen** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:58 am

Good observations, Lizzy! Makes it even wore weird!!

lizzytysh · Post by **lizzytysh** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:12 am

... not only that, it was fun considering it

.

~ Lizzy

John K. · Post by **John K.** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:35 pm

post deleted

Kaleid · Post by **Kaleid** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:43 pm

Which albums will be remastered? I take it's atleast up to "Various positions" and hopefully "I'm your Man"?

Davido · Post by **Davido** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:59 pm

I have the same book, though mine is the fourth edition (2003).I agree, it's a great book to dip into now and then; which I tend to do when listening to a particular artist.
Regarding reissues:All albums are to be reissued upto, and including,'The Future' in 2008.

Red Poppy · Post by **Red Poppy** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:56 am

Two things Teratogen -
firstly, if as you say you earned a degree in English where did you get this piece of grammatical brilliance:
"Rock and roll is dead, but I am its revival. I'm prophesied by sages died, from Buddha to the Bible." --TERATOGEN
Secondly, how can anyone dismiss ALL journalism and ALL journalists and expect to be taken seriously????

Teratogen · Post by **Teratogen** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:28 am

I wrote that line myself. And I never said I dismissed all journalism. I said that I didn't like them, didn't trust them, and would never go into journalism. If you're writing for a particular paper, magazine, weekly, tabloid, or even for the talking heads on the nightly news, there is always going to be some secret, hidden agenda. That's one major thing. Some journalists will give good reviews to films, albums or even books because of some association with the producers, the labels, or the publication company. Especially if either of those outlets of production are involved with the publication company of the magazine or newspaper. That's one reason I really can't trust what some journalists may write. Specifically we are talking about the reviews for the Cohen remasters here. Another thing is the television news, which I really don't think I need to get into. It pretty much speaks for itself. They're all vultures to me.

Another reason I can't trust journalists (in general) relates to this secret agenda and that's money. If there's money in it some journalists will write whatever they're told to write. I also said that I would only trust someone who writes about a topic they are seriously passionate about. Tell me, where does passion of news come into play when things like money and ratings and buyrates and subscriptions factor in? You don't really have to take me seriously as I know the argument that "All journalism cannot be trusted" is a fallacy. Ever heard of sarcasm? It's a literary tool devised to express one's discontent and/or cynicism with bitter, often ironic and satirical rhetoric. If I were to really dismiss all journalism and its purveyors, then I would never want to read newspapers or magazines, and certainly I'd never watch television news. Unless, of course, I wanted some sick entertainment [<--example of sarcasm].

Red Poppy · Post by **Red Poppy** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:27 pm

I agree with you on the fact that no journalist is unbiased - no humasn bering is unbiased so how can journalists be any different?
I think you may be judging world media by the standards of FOX etc.
I believe you would find a greater breadth and a greater diversity and choice of opinion in many European radio and TV stations and newspapers.
And no not all journalists are vultures - that is a slur and ignores the amazing revelatory work done by many investigative journalists.
Band Aid would never have happened without the work of journalists in the first place and there are countless other examples of journalists bringing issues to the fore and leading to politicians having to deal with them.
I think you're shooting all the messengers for the sins of the few.

Red Poppy · Post by **Red Poppy** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:29 pm

PS "Ever heard of sarcasm?"
Yes
Ever heard of grammar?????

Teratogen · Post by **Teratogen** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:23 am

First I'd like to point out what you responded with to my sarcastic comment about sarcasm:

Red Poppy wrote:PS "Ever heard of sarcasm?"
Yes
Ever heard of grammar?????

Then I'd like to point to your first sentence to your initial response.

Red Poppy wrote:I agree with you on the fact that no journalist is unbiased - no humasn bering is unbiased so how can journalists be any different?
I think you may be judging world media by the standards of FOX etc.
I believe you would find a greater breadth and a greater diversity and choice of opinion in many European radio and TV stations and newspapers.
And no not all journalists are vultures - that is a slur and ignores the amazing revelatory work done by many investigative journalists.
Band Aid would never have happened without the work of journalists in the first place and there are countless other examples of journalists bringing issues to the fore and leading to politicians having to deal with them.
I think you're shooting all the messengers for the sins of the few.

I think I need not say any more on that subject. However, I don't understand where grammar comes to play in my quote. Perhaps you may explain that one to me.

But to respond to your comment on journalists I think it's safe to say that there are no more Woodward and Bernsteins in our world today. I terribly despise Fox News, but that is not what I was talking about anyway. I am referring to any and every stations' broadcasts of television news. Just listen to the Don Henley song "Dirty Laundry." He describes it very well. I even wrote a song myself entitled "FEAR" in which I describe the "if it bleeds it leads" formula that has worked so well in their favor for many, many years:

"Let them all be on the scene with cameras in hand
to show you how your neighbors died like you don't understand
They rotate your emotions in a neverending circle
Cue the tears and candles, then cut to a commercial

Advertise the happiness you get from medication
John Q, you will die if you don't receive this elation
The news comes back with more information to thrill you
What you don't know about this medication may kill you"

There are many subtleties to the gearworks of the nightly news. There is plenty to go into but I'm not sure I necessarily have the time to touch on them all. But just to give you an idea, I will point out a few things. For instance, the stations treat the talking heads like major celebrities; towards the end of whatever show precedes the news they advertise in a commercial what kind of violent and depressing event happened that day so that you will stay up to watch it; there is a cycle of fear and consumerism between the segments and the commercials that can really suck someone in, especially someone who has been working all day and comes home late enough to see the evening news; and that brings me to my next point: when you're an average joe with a 9-5 job you're usually too busy to read a paper, so you wake up to watch the morning news while you get ready, then you have stuff to talk about at the cooler or in the lunch room, and then when you get home at night you usually turn on the evening news right before going to sleep. Now tell me, don't you see a problem with that? What's the last thing your mind has attended to before you go to sleep? Death, destruction, violence, sad stories, and any number of other world events that can easily strike fear into a person who is tired and ready to go to sleep. Personally I find all of that revolting and I want absolutely nothing to do with it. It's all very disheartening and desensitizing.