music has the rights to children

why is is called that, i dont understand? dont make no sense

well thanks for doing this

  felttipen said:

why is is called that, i dont understand? dont make no sense

it isn't

  LUDD said:

it isn't

right. it's Music Has The Right To Children, not rights.

my take is thus: i think they're making a statement re: sampling, fair use, copyright laws. in other words, music can be creatively re-used for another purpose, as part of a new composition, making it have a whole new life that is secondary to the original recording. music should not be constrained by arbitrary copyright laws, but should be allowed to find new life via new applications as part of a new project.

One Very Important Thought sort of drives this point home. We all know it's a sample heavy album, there are probably even more samples than we realize which are twisted beyond recognition, thus giving them a new life.

children have the right to music and music has the righ tto children, makes sense?

music can speak to children (adults can`t)

i think thats what it means.

  Kazuo said:

music can speak to children (adults can`t)

i think thats what it means.

Right. I didn't know there was actually any disagreement about this, seems pretty straightforward to me. It's like the beginning of Jane's Addiction's "Ritual" album where they have someone in Spanish saying "we have more influence over your children than you do." They could have said "children have the right to music," which would have been a positive assertion a la One Very Important Thought, but by switching it around it gives a very sinister impression, that "music" as an entity speaks to (controls?) children in a way that adults can't. Hence the faceless kids on the cover. It shows that even back then they were toying with cult-like ideas. It's the idea that, since children are more open than adults, they are somehow closer to the eternal mysteries and can be easily led away by a Pied Piper (ie. music). Those wacky pagans!

that's a lot of crap, and the reason you think like that is because of the whole 'boc are the creators of that sound and no-one evr influenced them and everyone else even remotely similar is a copycat artist' frame of mind.

it's about the genesis of music.

kraftwerk and eno and the beatles becomes, or sires boards of canada who in turn sire freescha and isan and etc.

it's about how they taqke the past and turn it into the future.

thus music has had children in a metaphorical sense.

i can't for one minute believe it's about how they can speak to children through their music and mess with their tiny developing minds.

edit: alzado pretty much had it bang on the button up there^^

just need to see the bigger picture... boc is a combination of influences from many periods in the development of modern music, plus a hefty spark of originality to boot. that's how music works. it has the right to children.

If any of you have kids of your own (or access to kids) please play the album to them, and note their reaction.

  loganfive said:

i can't for one minute believe it's about how they can speak to children through their music and mess with their tiny developing minds.

I didn't say that. Not they in particular, but music in general. Did you ever feel overwhelmed by those PBS shorts when you were a kid? That sesame street pinball animation completely blew me away. It's engraved in my mind. It's pretty clear that the early media the Sandison's were exposed to had a similar effect. All of BoCs music seems to revolve around childhood, and memory, and sensory impressions (whether early in development, or as the result of psychadelic use). That's why I see the title of the album in that light, as a testament to the power of music (and in fact all sensory stimulus) on a child's development.

I see your point of view, but it still seems secondary to me. BoC seem much less interested in their place in musical history, their forebears and legacy and what have you, than in evoking certain half-buried emotional reactions in their listeners. I mean, this album has children on the cover, their voices are sampled on several tracks, the tracks play around with themes related to children, I don't see the need to make it more metaphorical than it needs to be by assuming that it's somehow a comment on sampling and reviving old stuff and making it new. That could be part of it too, of course but...when have BoC ever spoken out on fair use and copyright laws? Maybe they have, but it's certainly not one of their central concerns. Remember that in the original version of "One Very Important Thought", the voice said "the same people who would prevent you from watching a pornographic movie..." not "the same people who would prevent you from listening to Boards of Canada..." So it's really very tongue in cheek. I don't believe it's intended as a "big statment."

I don't think BoC are a band of "big statements", which is why your interpretation seems off to me. When you say "boc is a combination of influences from many periods in the development of modern music, plus a hefty spark of originality to boot. that's how music works. it has the right to children" of course that seems correct, but...who would ever be disputing that? Does anyone contest the right of music to evolve? The only way one could answer yes to this, would be in the area of sampling and shit like the criminal justice bill, but again it seems weird to me to draw such a narrow conclusion from the album title. BoC have said that they have strong opinions on politics but they consciously keep it out of their music. Post "Old Tunes" that is...

  Kazuo said:

music can speak to children (adults can`t)

i think thats what it means.

honestly, how can having the right to children be interpreted as being more understandable to children? they mean two completely different things.

all opinions are equal, but some are more equal than others.

  LOL Alzado said:

  Kazuo said:

music can speak to children (adults can`t)

i think thats what it means.

honestly, how can having the right to children be interpreted as being more understandable to children? they mean two completely different things.

 

all opinions are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Pah. Did you even read either of my posts? Look, they put the mock-PSA "One Very Important Thought" on that album, right? That track is ostensibly about freedom of speech and how we should have the right to listen to whatever we want. So, the Sandison's were probably sitting around working on that track, and one of them said, "Hey, how about we call the album 'Children have the right to music.'?" And they thought about it, and it sounded clunky, too plain. Then one of them had the idea, "what if we switch it around so it's "Music has the right to Children"? And they liked the idea, because it conveyed something that was important to them, namely, that children exist in the realm of the senses, and are therefore much more succeptible to sensory stimulus than they are to words or logic. In other words, something like music has domain over them in a way that parents can't. By using the word "right", instead of something stupid like "influence", they force you to see music as a distinct living, breathing entity, on an equal or even more powerful level than a child's parents. That's scary. Which is precisely the sort of unsettling feeling they were trying to achieve, imo.

If this still doesn't make sense to you, then I suppose you weren't much of a dreamer as a child. Listen to "the story of Xentrix" again.

I'm not saying I'm right, just that, as you say, some opinions are more equal than others. And in this case, I buy yours as little as you buy mine. But I'm sure one thing we'd agree on, is they left the title purposefully ambiguous and open to interpretation, same as their music. Which is one reason we like it.

theyre just personifying music. in order to have the right to children, you must have the ability to have children. it also probably stems from their interest in politics: Do the mentally handicapped have the right to children?

and since when to children have special rights? i mean, what would a child do with rights?

  slsnod said:

Do the mentally handicapped have the right to children?

lol, wtf?

  lumpenprol said:

  Kazuo said:

music can speak to children (adults can`t)

i think thats what it means.

 

Right. I didn't know there was actually any disagreement about this, seems pretty straightforward to me. It's like the beginning of Jane's Addiction's "Ritual" album where they have someone in Spanish saying "we have more influence over your children than you do." They could have said "children have the right to music," which would have been a positive assertion a la One Very Important Thought, but by switching it around it gives a very sinister impression, that "music" as an entity speaks to (controls?) children in a way that adults can't. Hence the faceless kids on the cover. It shows that even back then they were toying with cult-like ideas. It's the idea that, since children are more open than adults, they are somehow closer to the eternal mysteries and can be easily led away by a Pied Piper (ie. music). Those wacky pagans!

This is close to what BOC said in various interviews at the time.

  lumpenprol said:

  LOL Alzado said:

  Kazuo said:

music can speak to children (adults can`t)

i think thats what it means.

honestly, how can having the right to children be interpreted as being more understandable to children? they mean two completely different things.

 

all opinions are equal, but some are more equal than others.

 

Pah. Did you even read either of my posts? Look, they put the mock-PSA "One Very Important Thought" on that album, right? That track is ostensibly about freedom of speech and how we should have the right to listen to whatever we want. So, the Sandison's were probably sitting around working on that track, and one of them said, "Hey, how about we call the album 'Children have the right to music.'?" And they thought about it, and it sounded clunky, too plain. Then one of them had the idea, "what if we switch it around so it's "Music has the right to Children"? And they liked the idea, because it conveyed something that was important to them, namely, that children exist in the realm of the senses, and are therefore much more succeptible to sensory stimulus than they are to words or logic. In other words, something like music has domain over them in a way that parents can't. By using the word "right", instead of something stupid like "influence", they force you to see music as a distinct living, breathing entity, on an equal or even more powerful level than a child's parents. That's scary. Which is precisely the sort of unsettling feeling they were trying to achieve, imo.

 

If this still doesn't make sense to you, then I suppose you weren't much of a dreamer as a child. Listen to "the story of Xentrix" again.

 

I'm not saying I'm right, just that, as you say, some opinions are more equal than others. And in this case, I buy yours as little as you buy mine. But I'm sure one thing we'd agree on, is they left the title purposefully ambiguous and open to interpretation, same as their music. Which is one reason we like it.

there's a difference between interpretation, e.g. trying to figure out the meaning of what they have actually presented to us, and wildly speculating about their thought process and the 15 hypothetical steps they must have taken to reach the conclusion you've reached.

  slsnod said:

theyre just personifying music. in order to have the right to children, you must have the ability to have children. it also probably stems from their interest in politics: Do the mentally handicapped have the right to children?

 

and since when to children have special rights? i mean, what would a child do with rights?

that was funny

my vote is on loganfive's perspective.

past>present>future.

  skytree said:

my vote is on loganfive's perspective.

 

past>present>future.

but as i said, lumenprol's first message was closer to what boc said at the time

Everything You Do Is A Balloon

  Pwnr said:

  skytree said:

my vote is on loganfive's perspective.

 

past>present>future.

 

but as i said, lumenprol's first message was closer to what boc said at the time

Thanks Pwnr for doing my pwning for me.

quotes or i don't believe you.