The current issue features a lengthy interview with Jack White (and occasionally Meg White) of The White Stripes. It's one of the more in-depth interviews with the man I've read, and it made me like him. A lot. In fact, I never realized I had so much in common with him. (Kudos to writer Jason Killingsworth for tackling some big issues.) I found myself admiring Jack and completely agreeing with him about the state of music journalism and indie rock in general:
Paste: It seems like the journalistic community is partially responsible for the cycle of building up rock stars and then ripping them down. Like a kid who makes a bunch of sand castles and then gleefully stomps all over them.
JW: I've never understood it. . . . It's ridiculous to champion underdogs and once they succeed to abandon them. . . . If you abandon a band as soon as other people like them, then you don't love it for the right reasons. You like music for identity. That's not loving music. Loving art for its own sake means you don't care what people think.
Now, I admit I feel a pang of disappointment, maybe even some disillusionment, when a little-known band I like strikes it big, but that's my fault, not the band's. If a band can stay true to its sound and sell out an arena, bully for those guys.
Reading on, I found out that Jack and I have a similar opinion about God as well, at least at the core. He says:
I just want to know what the truth is. I mean that's what I'm looking for. In my opinion, there's no way God looks at things from 14 different angles. I see God as knowing only one truth, and that's it. There's no other opinion about it. And I want to know what that one truth is.
Amen, brother.
That said, I sometimes wear black with colors other than white and red, and there's also no confusion about whether the lady in my life is my wife or my sister. So I guess the similarities only go so far.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Jack White is my homeboy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
That's a really fascinating take on the whole "God" concept. It's going to take some pondering....
I think I maybe agree with it...but I'm also not sure I'd quest after it. I would guess it's probably a truth above and beyond human comprehension. Because you're talking about a single universal truth, and given how litttle we truly understand about the universe as it is, identifying one all-encompassing truth that defines it all is a little out of reach. Plus, I also think that our brains are wired far too complexly (thanks to biology and society) to be able to think in terms of pure and utter simplicity and clarity.
Either way. It's a tremendously provocative concept. Cool post. :-)
I have yet to read that, but now I'm looking forward to it. I've always held the White Stripes, Jack included, at arms length because of their initial hype. But I've had respect for his acting gigs (Cold Mountain) and they've been a week-long guest on Conan on more than one occasion. And I agree, I absolutely love getting Paste, thanks to you and Kate!
I have to say that Jack White's quote on religion bothers me a little bit. If you logically follow that argument to the endgame, which I don't think Jack White has, isn't it now that I think (and think is the key word b/c I believe like bails said that the idea is beyond human comprehension if it exists)I understand what God wants everyone else is wrong. And since they are wrong I should do everything in my power to change their mind. And isn't that the argument made for a lot of religious violence? Please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like a view that is compatable with fundamentalism.
Let me clarify my last post b/c it makes me sound like I'm calling you a foundamentalist, Joel. What I meant was can't that argument (Jack White's) be construed to advocate violence based on the idea that if I understand God's word and others dont I have to use everything I have, including violence, to convert humanity to my viewpoint. The endgame of that idea could be used, and has been used, in sinister fashion, including current day Islamic terrorism. I am not saying that all people that believe that idea naturally take this route, I think that would be a ridiculous thing to argue but how do you prevent that from happening? That is what I meant to say in the last post.
Schulyer (and further down, Bails),
I think you're making a pretty big leap from believing in one God/one truth to advocating violence. I don't think it's an if/then.
Now, I do believe in one God, and though it's inordinately unpopular to say so, I do believe it's the truth. To say that there's many truths out there, I believe, dilutes and discounts the one truth by the very nature of the argument. And sure, because I believe that, I do have a vested interest in others believing that as well. In fact, I'm always open to discussing it, and like any debate, I'd be open about the fact that I'm debating in order to convince.
But I don't and can't, nor should others, ever advocate violence to convert or convince. Unfortunately I don't think one can prevent extremism/fundamentalism in any belief, whether it's holding to one truth or many. There's a lot of people throughout history who have done terrible things in the name of one truth, all the while not realizing their very actions fly in the face of what God intends his people to do. It's a messed up world, man. People can and will do terrible things. But in my opinion, that's all the more reason why we need God's truth.
One addendum: Bails-- I agree that the claim that one God/one truth is an immensely profound concept, one that radically changes things and is utterly complex, rather than simplistic. I know it's tough for me to wrap my head around sometimes. I think it's also something you believe in with more than your head.
On a completely different note, anybody have any thoughts on Icky Thump? Like? Hate? I haven't heard more than a couple tracks. I hit my non-emusic.com spending limit.
I've only heard the single but I think its the best song they've ever made.
Post a Comment