The reason that the thesis is overtly political is because, by creating a public utterance, we are changing the texts that define that public. We are creating a change in how that public looks at the world. This thought made me think about how people manipulate language to create different meanings. For example, in 1896 Ernest Dowson wrote this poem about the brevity of life and, it seems to me, the brevity of happiness.
The famous line from this poem "the days of wine and roses" was then used in the creation of the song "Days of Wine and Roses" by Henry Mancini and Johnny Mercer in 1962. The song uses the same language as Dowson's poem, but I think the emphasis has shifted. Below is Frank Sinatra's version of the song recorded in 1964:
So here we have a literary piece that was a part of the public sphere that had its language used in a song that presents a different argument (or at least emphasis). However, this is not where the story ends.The famous line was again used in the 2004 Lars Frederickson and Bastards song "Wine and Roses." Again we see an emphasis shift in the meaning of the famous line.
First of all, I would say the language does somewhat unite these artists. By each of them using the line "days of wine and roses", it means that Frank Sinatra and Lars Frederickson and Bastards both are referencing the same poem. Although their takes on the poem are different from each other's and different from the original ideas that Ernest Dowson had when he first wrote the poem, they are all connected just by referencing it. Also, the fact that it is a poem means that there are a lot of ways one could interpret it, and I believe thats what these two artists have done with their songs. This also leads into the second question. The artists' common grounds are that they each interpret the individual poem differently. What this relationship does for the messages of the songs is give different meanings of life to the public who is aware of the poem. The message in Frank Sinatra's lyrics are just that he see's this poem as an optimistic view on a life which is very short. He also interprets the poem in a romantic manor. Whereas Lars Frederickson and Bastards have a take on this song which is a more cynical outlook on life. Finally, this has to do with how publics are self organized because if a discourse is organized by a discourse, then that means that each of these songs are organized by each other as well as the poem and vise-versa. This can very easily change each of the publics which the poem, and both of the lyrics are talking to.
ReplyDeleteI think that the language does in fact unite these artists simply through the phrase "Wine and Roses", but what I find interesting is that these artists may not have known that they were referencing each other. For instance Lars and the Bastards used the line "wine and roses" and could possibly have been referencing Frank Sinatra or separately referencing the original poem. These poets may share common ground and not even know about it. While they use the phrase "wine and roses" slightly differently, it still sounds like they generally meant it to imply a good concept. Lars Frederickson's view wasn't necessarily a good one, but it was one he sort of played off of to make a good feeling for him. As to what the relationship to these different artists is, I would agree with Kaylin in that simply using the same phrase links them together even if they got a different meaning out of it. The term "Wine and Roses" isn't a copyrighted saying; it can mean whatever it wants to people. What relates these three artists together is that they use the phrase to fit their own meaning in their respective line of work. This shows how publics self-organize because they so easily cross over one another. These artists add to a public conversation by referencing other sources, whether they even reallize they are doing it or not. I look at it like how people sometimes get political messages from movies even though that was not the intent. When artists use other lines from other works, they automatically bring the connotations that already came with it from different people’s perspectives.
ReplyDeleteIt was very interesting to see how these three generations of artists took the idea of "Wine and Roses" and the all sculpted that idea to fit whatever it was they were trying to say. The three expressions of this phrase reflects very well on the artist. I feel like just the act of using that idea unites them even if they have never met or heard each others music. The common ground that I feel they have all experienced is an evolution in one direction or another. Their differences are their actual interpretations of "The days of one and roses." Ernest Downson makes the days of wine and roses feel like our entire life and the time we have to enjoy it; both out of a dream and within one. Frank Sinatra's interpretation is more the joyous present. The feeling of finally reaching your days of wine and roses. One quote from his version goes: "The Golden Smile that introduced me to, the days of wine and roses and you." This is much less vague than Downson's version and much happier. The final version is a version written by people who have yet to discover their days of wine and roses. They say "Bring on the day of wine and roses!" which infers that they have not yet experienced the social justice that they deserve.
ReplyDeleteIt is fascinating to see how different generations, and just people from different walks of life, can interpret things completely differently depending on who they are. These different outlooks on the same few words can be related to the way that social publics are formed. People with different beliefs and ideals will choose their own public to associate with and find media that represents them. Even though all of these pieces of art use the same title, The different ways people interpret that title springs out into new media that can better represent their public. Whether you are living in the time of wine and roses, that time is long gone, or you are still looking forward to it: you will find someone else with that same situation expressing it through art.
The language used definitely unites these artists. They are all referring to the Days of Wine and Roses as a period of time where the grass is greener. In Ernest Dowson's poem, he expresses that he believes that he is living in a time where the grass is as green as ever, but is soon taking a turn down hill. In Frank Sinatra's song, he believes that he is living in a time where the process of change is underway. The romantic and honorable days of america are retreating, and that door is going to close forever. The song by Lars Frederiksen and the Bastards states that the good old days are a thing of the past. Violence and cocaine (everything bad) has taken over this modern day society. All three artists might believe in a slightly different version of "the good days", but they are all referring to the same general time. Although all the artists have similar beliefs, and are talking about the same thing, most lovers of Mr. Sinatra are not going to enjoy music by Mr. Frederiksen (vise-versa). In the case of the sound of the songs, these public utterances are self-organized into different discourses. Interestingly enough, on the other hand to just look at the lyrics, these songs and the poem in my opinion are considered as part of the same discourse.
ReplyDeleteThis language, in no way, unites the artists. First off, as people, we speak similar utterances all the time. For example, I could share the love for Beyoncé among with millions of others. Yes, we may be a part of a similar public, but our shared love for this artist still does not unite us as people. Maybe our only common interest is Beyoncé - that may be big enough to excite us, but not to unite us. Look how drastically different the three interpretations, and authors of the interpretations are. I don't think their use of the same utterance provides any relation between them. After all, they aren't even interpreting the utterance in a similar way; it wouldn't even be correct to say that they share the same thoughts. This lack of relationship doesn't affect them or change them. It just allows them to maintain their own individuality in their public. I don't think that Lars Frederikson and the Bastards fans are going to suddenly become Frank Sinatra fans just because they used the same utterance. Instead, each of their publics will listen to Sinatra's and Frederikson's language as their original idea, whether it was actually theirs or not. Because in the end, it is their interpretation and their inspiration that is what drove them to create their song/poem in the first place. This has to do with how publics are self organized because any utterance can influence or manipulate a public, as said above. I believe that the speaker of the utterance can even further influence the public, but the originator of the utterance is irrelevant, however. Therefore, these pieces may've created discourse in their own publics, but the discourse was kept separate from each other's public because it had a different meaning and a different speaker altogether.
ReplyDeleteThe language in each of these videos protray different values of life to the individual that is expressing them. For example, Ernest Dowson is exprssing a more gloomy message to the reader of his poem. He misses the days of "Wine and Roses" that are now only memories behind closed doors. Frank Sanatra is embracing the memories of "Wine and Roses" in his song. He defines them as the "Golden Days." The music by Mr. Frederikson is different. The utterance continued by him seems to be yet experienced. I do think that the language does unite the artists without them even knowing so. It is a continuted uttereance with multiple interpertations. I also believe that there is a common ground between the artists because the "Days of Wine and Roses" is time in someone's life to cherish and look at the good in life. Each message is protrayed differently as far as having a similar relationship. I say this because each individual has their own experience with the phrase so each message is different but still one utterance. This has to do with publics being self organized because it is organized by the public. The songs and the poems both written to address a public to tell a story of "Wine and Roses."
ReplyDeleteI find Paige’s interpretation of these three different utterances very enlightening. I do, however, believe that while these three examples of one idea are very different in how they are presented, the mere fact that they stem from one original thought unites them on a certain level. It is obvious that these three publics would probably never consider themselves as having similarities, but they still are manipulating the same original utterance. In the broad spectrum of how these sub publics relate it would be safe to say that they do not share quite the same beliefs. For example the public that the Lars Frederiksen And The Bastards band belongs to are searching for social justice through the use of the “days of wine and roses”. They are making a statement about the lack of change in the social and political public. When this change occurs it will be their “days of wine and roses”. Frank Sinatra is making a statement about the love of a certain woman. She gave him his “days of wine and roses”. The original utterance of the “days of wine and roses” is broader, referring to the happy moments found in life as a whole. While these differing views of the utterance separates the publics for the most part, there still lies a small bond between them, the fact that the “days of wine and roses” are significant to their lives.
ReplyDeleteThis is the perfect example of how publics organize themselves. They all extend off of one idea and individuals place themselves among the specific view of an original idea that they identify with. This also shows how sub publics are constantly being intertwined within each other based off of, sometimes unnoticed, common utterances.
The language used in all three of these videos does unite the three artist on some degree. They seem to all portray different views of "wine and roses". In the poem "days of wine and roses" the tone is somewhat gloomy. He states how they miss the days of "days of wine and roses" He expresses that those days are over and behind closed doors. Frank Sinatra's tone is upbeat and talks about the memories of the "days of wine and roses" and how they were the golden days. The third artist portrays an angry tone in his song.He is searching for the days of wine and roses and has yet to find them. These artist do share a common ground. They all believe "the days of wine and roses" is an utterance expressed by happiness. It is to find the good in life and out weigh all the bad. Since each message of the artist has a different tone it is hard to find the relationship between the artists. Although the message is clear "days of wine and roses" means happiness each artist expresses it in a gloomy, happy, or angry tone. This is a good example of how publics are self organized. It shows how individuals have a similar idea introduced to the public by the public.
ReplyDeleteI think that the fact that all of these artists use the same line unites them in the sense that they think the line "the days of wine and roses" is a good way to express themselves and get their utterance out via song. This line is the main in all of these pieces of work and was not changed through the generations. It is very interesting that all these artists have a different type of utterance, such as through a poem or song. Also they speak to different genres; the poem is in a genre of writing and fits into a public of people that enjoy poems and understand them, and the songs are of different genres, the Frank Sinatra song is a jazzy genre whereas the Lars Frederickson and Bastards song is a punk genre. Yet they are still connected because they took the original utterance and adapted it to their own individual genre. The use of "the days of wine and roses" is their common ground because it is the primary line in their songs. The poem and Frank Sinatra's song are have a common ground in the sense that their portrayal of "days of wine and roses" is happier and uplifting and Lars Frederickson and Bastards' song is a darker portrayal of "days of wine and roses". Frank Sinatra and Lars Frederickson and Bastards are not similar in music genre at all, therefore they do not have a relationship other than using the same line in their songs, and it makes the message of their songs completely different. These songs are a part of different publics and this shows that a public is self organized because these publics do not join or mesh. As the genres of the songs are different so are the publics they belong to.
ReplyDeleteThe language used unites these artist. More so the phrase, "the days of wine and roses" unites them. They are both referencing the same text. Both artists had a unique interpretation of the phrase. Frank Sinatra uses it to describe a happier, carefree time. He has an optimistic and romantic view towards this phrase. Lars Frederickson and Bastards uses it in a completely different way. He views it more cynically. It seems they view that phrase as a lie that the government tries to brainwash citizens. When the days of wine and roses come, the government quiets rebellion and opposing voices. I don't think that Sinatra and Lars Frederickson and Bastards are related. They are from two different time periods and music genres. Their lack of a relationship shows how powerful words can be. People can interpret them any way that they wish and see fit. Publics are organized by discourse. A person could interpret discourse however they choose and find people who interpret it the same way. Sinatra and Lars Frederickson and Bastards formed two different publics from their interpretation of discourse.
ReplyDeleteThe line "the days of wine and roses," is united in all of these texts in different contexts. Frank Sinatra is using this lone to address how he feels about someone special, using it as a term of endearment. But, the band Lars Frederickson is using this text in sort of a mocking way. Talking about how they think that wine and roses, and maybe other sort of romance stuff, is dumb and no one should fall into that. So they are saying "bring it on wine and roses, but i'll shut you down." Publics become self organized by opinions. You wouldn't want to go volunteer at an animal shelter if animals scare you, you would rather volunteer at a different organization. In this way, people find strengths and interests that they are good in.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the line " the days of wine and roses" unites the authors simply by the line rather than by the language. In the original poem it seems to me that the author uses the lines to symbolize that the good carefree days are gone, but not necessarily in a morbid way. Sinatra uses it as a romantic theme, and the Lars Fredrecikson band uses it in a cynical sense. The line although, the same, means different things in all of the contexts. I think this shows how a public can be easily affected by such small factors. For example, if a person goes on youtube and searches the Sinatra song, the Lars Frederickson song may come up in the search results and be chosen instead of the Sinatra song, immediately giving the person a different context for the line and a different meaning and genre of music. By being introduced to different genres within a similar public the public itself is always changing.
ReplyDeleteThough they do share the reference to "Days of Wine and Roses," I don't think Frank Sinatra or Lars Frederickson and Bastards would be quick to say they were united by it at all and for good reason. Similarities in utterances happen pretty frequently. For example, I really enjoy RuPaul's Drag Race and so do millions of other people but that doesn't mean anything outside of liking the show. My enjoyment of a facet of my culture as a queer person being so widely viewed is different from a straight person that just thinks drag queens are funny watching. Outside of the shallow and really obvious where both artists create music, I don't think there's any common ground between them either, and that's okay. A lack of relationship to each other or to the original poem isn't a bad thing, it just means that these utterances will exist as separate entities in their publics and influence them accordingly because the originator of the utterance isn't important to discourse within those publics.
ReplyDeleteIn my point of view, the only reason I can say that the language unites these artists together is because they us the same line “wine and roses”. Other than that, the meanings of “wine and roses” have different meanings in each song. In the first song, he is talking about how the days of “wine and roses” was a happy time that he likes to remember. In the other song, the band is talking about how the days of “wine and roses” were a harsh time where violence and riots occurred. The poem “Days of Wine and Roses” and the song "Days of Wine and Roses" by Henry Mancini and Johnny Mercer have the same meaning and purpose. Other than that connection, there isn't any relationship between the songs. Public's have the own different ways of self-organizing. One can change how the others think or operate. Public's can have the same ideas but can but can act differently on the opinion.
ReplyDeleteIn a way the language of the artist unite. They are using the same line of a poem however using it in different ways. As Kaylin said in the beginning it is a poem that can be interpreted in different ways. I believe they interpreted the way they did is because there genre of music. Frank Sinatra (I know little about him) is more of a Classic Pop singer who sings about love, turmoil, and having a good time. Lars Frederickson and Bastards (who I know nothing about), however from watching the video and listening to the song they are American Street Punk...they are going against the gain/. Emphasized especially in there name (with the word bastard). With Sinatra and then the Bastards style of music the relationship maybe that they where aware of the poem and decided to put there spin unto the poem...i don't know. And finally I the organization comes in on how universal a piece of writing can be from a poem to a whole different utterance such as a song.
ReplyDeleteI Think that these three utterances are not similar at all. sure they may be using the same one line in their songs, but they use them all for different meanings. And if you asked all three of these artists im sure they would agree they that had nothing in common as well. Frank talks about a girl he loves and how it made his days. the other artists talks about society while the other talks about memories and the good life as a whole. Though they all maybe different this is actually a perfect example of a public they are all linked and working off of one another using the same type of concept with a lot of different ideas added to it. also a perfect example of sub publics because they all feed off of one another. None of these songs were great and totally stood out to me and probably wouldnt listen to them outside of this blog, but i do think they showed some great examples of utterances and how sub public can just feed off of one another.
ReplyDeleteI think that the artists are united by this line because even though they hold different meanings or emphasis, they are related in a sense that the phrase can be interpreted differently. By changing they meaning of the same line, they are carrying on the conversation and introducing it to different public spheres. The common ground between these artists is the use of the line. It reflects a different time. Sanatra is reflecting simpler times when things were easier as children and the other artist is refelcting a time of ignorance. The relatioship between the artist show the diversity of the line. The way that it can be interpreted in two different ways strengthen the meaning in a way. The two artists are familiar with the poem and that unites them as well. It brings the two genres together into this common sphere. This is a very good example of how publics are self organized because Sinatra is creating a sphere where the line means something uplifting and light hearted while Lars Fredrickson uses it in a more contradicting way. The connection between the two different genres and interpretations show how their publics are self organized.
ReplyDeleteI think that all of the artists are untied by language because they all use the same line "wine and roses". They do use the same language, however; they use these words to portray many different meanings and feelings. In the poem there is a very sad tone. In contrast, Frank Sinatra's song is upbeat and happy. He talks about the days of wine and roses as being of laughter and like a child running and playing. And the last artist seems to be very angry and in your face. He says bring on the days of wine and roses like they are going to be difficult or intense. He also talks about riots and fire hoses like a battle or something. They all relate the days of wine and roses to something else in life. They use the original utterance in their own ways to convey something to the public. This helps different people identify with a certain public and establish different publics. The different genres of each of these utterances makes the public self organize.
ReplyDelete