Marcel Duchamp. Now there’s a name you probably never thought you’d read in relation to the Christian pop/punk band MxPx. Allow me to explain the connection.
Duchamp was a French artist most known for his subversive art that was highly influential in changing the perceptions of “Art” in the early 20th century. He created very few pieces, but each was aimed at challenging the conventional standards of the artistic world. Some of his most noted works include The Fountain, which is nothing more than a urinal, and his 1919 parody of the Mona Lisa (complete with mustache and goatee, and lewd tag line reading “she has a hot butt”). This represents well Duchamp’s artistic philosophy which involved taking the works of others and reappropriating them as your own. Now let’s jump ahead to see the connection between Duchamp and MxPx.
MxPx is releasing a new album on March 24th, On the Cover II. As the title indicates it is a collection of covers from other bands performed by MxPx. One might begin by asking why on earth someone would buy a cd of one band literally copying the songs of another, but that is another subject. The connection between Duchamp and MxPx becomes, in this case, clearer as we see the band taking the work of another and making it their own. Now, while hundreds of professional bands do this regularly (not to mention every high school band playing graduation parties), I can’t help but wonder about the artistic value of this approach?
Does Duchamp’s philosophy seem appropriate? Is there any real value in altering, recreating, and perhaps defacing (if you see it that way) another person’s artwork and then calling it your own? I doubt that MxPx has put such thought into their artistic philosophy (of course I could be wrong), but we should pause and contemplate whether or not such an approach is fitting to the artistic capacities God has given us, if it actually contributes something worthwhile to the world, or if it is simply evidence of the “Death of Art” (as H.R. Rookmaaker put it). Who knew MxPx would require so much thought!
David R. Dunham (Co-Founder) is a pastor, blogger, and avid fan of pop-culture. He has long been interested in the arts. He received honors for acting throughout high school and college, even being given a scholarship for musical theater to Youngstown State University. He is also an amateur musician, with one album, Get Well Soon, released in 2004. David has a Bachelor of Arts in English Literature and in Pre-Theology from Ohio University, and a Masters of Divinity from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently teaches English Composition at Shawnee State University and serves as a staff pastor at Christ's Community Church. David and his wife Krista have two children, and they currently live in Portsmouth, OH. 
David, I’m not sure you’re taking into account the intent of an album like this. Isn’t it okay for us to sometimes do things in good fun, without heaping all of our artistic frustrations on it?
I’m not the biggest fan of MxPx, but it’s pretty clear to me that what they’re doing here is similar to a summer popcorn film. Sure, it’s important not to cease thinking in the midst of taking part of these things, but to ask “whether or not such an approach is fitting to the artistic capacities God has given us, if it actually contributes something worthwhile to the world, or if it is simply evidence of the ‘Death of Art’” is probably a bit much.
I am actually pretty excited about this album, for the same reason I’d be excited about a new Mario Game or a rousing round of Tetris. There’s nothing thought-provoking about it. It’s just good fun. While it shouldn’t characterize one’s life, it’s certainly not off-limits.
Those are all fair points. And I don’t mean to over analyze the work, nor am I intended to pick on MxPx themselves. Rather, I am using them and this particular cover album (the second one they’ve made)as a spring board to discuss a larger subject.
So maybe I can encourage you to think beyond MxPx’s “On the Cover II” and ask the same questions.
I guess I see in most mediums a trend toward innovation. To me it’s not about singular works, as I’ve pointed out. It’s about trends. And while a certain amount of cultural works tend to be derivative and unimaginative, I get the sense that for the most part artists like to be unique.
Of course, I’m probably naive.
It looks like we’ve got two questions here: 1) can covers (or other derivative works) be artistically satisfying? and 2) should we be put off (or speak of the death of art) when they aren’t? My short answers here are Yes and then No. But since you should know by now that I don’t do short answers…
While I don’t necessarily look to MxPx for innovation in their albums (let alone in their cover albums), sometimes covers of songs can be intensely artistic creations. You know how moral do-gooders never tire of speaking of the glorious Hays-Code era of filmmaking? When you couldn’t cuss or show boobs or show blood or any of the things that make films PG-13 now? And how that was a great era because it forced filmmakers to work at greatness by placing them under strict constraints? Well, though there’s a little truth to that series of beliefs, the kernel of it is magnified in the art of the cover.
Creating a good cover is extremely difficult. Most musicians keep a number of covers in their stable of performable songs, just because they’re easy and good crowd-pleasers. So wait, are they easy or difficult? Making a simple crowd-pleaser is simple. All one has to do is perfom something passably recognizable. But to create a brilliant cover takes either serendipity or a deep artistic sense.
Take Charlie Parker’s “Cherokee.” Or John Coltrane’s “My Favourite Things.” Or Dave Brubek’s “Blue Rhondo (a la Turk).” Or Greg Laswell’s “Girl’s Just Want to Have Fun.” Or Israel Kamakawawo’ole’s* “Somewhere over the Rainbow/What a Wonderful World.” Or even Emiliana Tornini’s “Ne Me Quitte Pas.”
These are each instances in which the art of the derivative work transcends the source. We might say the same for Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. So I think the answer to the first question is Yes, covers can be artistically satisfying.
That said, most aren’t and apart from MxPx’s spin on Buddy Holly, there wasn’t anything on On the Cover [I] that brought me back for a second listen. So that brings us to the question of how we should think of uninteresting covers.
I’m of the opinion that if a cover doesn’t add something interesting or completely recontextualize a song, it isn’t worth producing. It’s not enough for me to like, say, Fiona Apple for me to want her to do a cover of “What a Wonderful World.” She has to improve it or make it new. Musicians who do cover albums are doing one of three things: a) making a purely business-oriented decision; b) probably over-rating their ability to craft worthwhile covers; or c) rewarding their die-hard fans. I can’t really respect choice a), because I mean who needs more lame CDs? Choice b) is just kinda sad, but I’ll bet it happens a lot. Choice c) is something I can offer a grudging amount of respect since I bought Colin Meloy cover albums (I really enjoy Colin Meloy Sings Sam Cooke).
Two more things: 1) cover bands roundly suck all the joy out of life; and 2) covering standards may be the only way to accurately compare band talent.
_________________________________
*note: I spelled Iz’s last name from memory so, it may be off.
The Danes last blog post..20081119.ChurchLies
I guess I always thought it was common knowledge that cover songs are just a part of punk rock culture. Have you ever been to a punk show where at LEAST one of the bands didn’t play at LEAST one cover song? I can’t think of one off hand. MxPx has always been known to perform cover songs at their shows, it’s just what they do.
I really think that all the negative attention given to MxPx here is getting a little annoying. If you spend much time in the online punk community, you would hear that the most talked about upcoming releases this year are Blink 182′s new one, New Found Glory, the new Green Day, and . . . MxPx’s On The Cover II.
I think we all get what you’re wanting from MxPx, but it’s starting to sound like a resounding gong. We get the point . . . the problem is, that almost everyone else doesn’t feel this way. You’re welcome to have your opinion, and I’m glad that you’re challenging musicians to push themselves, but you’re kind of on your own on this one. With all of the bands out there today, why do you have such a problem with MxPx? Certainly one of the most influential rock bands in CCM history, and arguably one of the most influential bands in pop punk music. I can think of hundreds of bands that are more worthy of being criticized than MxPx – bands that don’t even have half the credibility, integrity, experience, or talent that MxPx has that have fallen far over the edge of “the death of art.”
Just my two cents.
Kiels last blog post..Top 10 Albums of 2008
@Kiel – “Cover songs are just a part of punk rock culture.” Actually, cover songs are a part of musical culture. No matter what genre you’re into, you’re going to be hearing covers. Punk, jazz, rock, folk, blues, etc. Heck, orchestras play nothing but covers. No one has questioned how commonplace covers are nor how they seem to be a perpetual staple and something bands can fall back on to either win a crowd or fill up time if the can’t adequately populate their own setlist.
David’s questions, I think, are valid and if you disagree so strongly, you would be better served (and better serve the community), by expressing the reasons for your disagreement. Let me restate him so you can clearly get at what he’s asking.
1) Is their any artistic merit to the creation/performance of a cover song. Acceptable answers include Yes, No, or some sort of Qualifying response.
1a) Correlary to this question (and unasked by David), are there worthwhile goals for music (covers, in this case) to achieve beyond the artistic? If so, please describe.
2) Presuming covers are artistically bankrupt, what should we think about music that lacks any artistic merit?
3) How should our Christian redemption and status as children of heaven reflect in our understanding, treatment, and enjoyment of such music?
You’ve obviously got an opinion on this matter. Please resubmit and this time, be interesting.
p.s. Just joshing you.
p.p.s. But seriously, bring something to the discussion if you’ve got something. All that you said just now was a) David bags on MxPx too much without giving plausible reason why he shouldn’t (their popularity in CCM circles is not a plausible reason) and b) covers are ubiquitous. I thought there was a c), but in glancing over your comment again, there wasn’t.
The Danes last blog post..20081119.ChurchLies
Forgive me for not submitting a response that follows the code of conduct that I apparently didn’t know about. Also, thanks for calling me out with your distaste of my response in public forum. I believe I’ll head out to another website that will better fit my low intelligence level. Thanks so much for your time.
P.S. I have my wife read over everything I write before I post it online to make sure I’m being fair, cordial, and making the correct point. Since she approved of the last post, I will reprimand her accordingly.
P.P.S. I don’t see why building credibility for MxPx during the response and showing them to have been used as a poor example in this discussion (and previous ones on this very website) is that far in left field. I never mentioned anything about their “popularity in CCM circles,” but rather eluded to the fact that the Christian rock market is what it is today, in large part, thanks to MxPx. That doesn’t mean that they’re overly “popular,” instead it hints at the impact they’ve had on record labels and musicians who are involved in Christian music and the direction they’ve taken their own music. However, I know that this information in no way addresses what you wanted, so I’ll stop here.
Kiels last blog post..Top 10 Albums of 2008
You’re forgiven because I just made them up.
Wait, you’d head somewhere else because I (someone not even connected to this site) didn’t like your comment? That’s… that’s kinda weird, man. Really, I mean this isn’t my site any more than it is yours and I called you out for my distaste just like how you called David out for your distaste. And I didn’t even call you a resounding gong…
p.s. no one made any presumption about your intelligence.
As far as your p.p.s. MxPx’s popularity-slash-influence is not relevant to the discussion for the reason that influence does not demand artistic integrity. David’s post, this time (I haven’t read the others, not being interested in MxPx after a bout of excitement I had for them fifteen years ago), was all about artistic integrity and artistic value, not about the band’s influence.
Your argument was about something that no one was arguing. I’m just saying that a better use for your time and passion would be to address the heart of David’s issue here. If you think MxPx survives the artistic problem, then tell us why man. If you think the artistic problem is made up, then tell us why. Add to the conversation going on here.
I mean, it’s cool if you want to start a new conversation about influence and we can talk about whether your assessment of their influence is correct, or even how often influence and artistry intersect, but you should definitely see it as a New Topic and not David’s Topic.
In any case, I’m sure you’re welcome to leave, but it seems kinda strange to me that you’d leave just because I’m cranky. Seeing as how I’m as connected to this site as little as you are. Or actually less, since you’ve actually written an article for them and I’ve only yammered on in comments. I mean, you didn’t see poor Scott Schultz leave because everybody dog-piled on his hip-hop article, did you? Oh, what? Nevermind then.
The Danes last blog post..20081119.ChurchLies
Wow, this took a rather strange and personal turn in the discussion.
I am not quite sure what other post was written where MxPx was apparently lambasted, but I can see how fans would be frustrated with this one. I don’t mean to knock the band themselves, I have been a long time fan of MxPx. But my question has to do more with the larger concept of cover art, as I pointed out to Rich in response to his question.
@ThDane, your response (to me not Kiel) is a wise one and I appreciate your point that just because it’s kind of bad art really doesn’t warrant the lable “Death of art”. Good thoughts.
@Kiel, dude, I am just asking questions and trying to engage us all on thinking about a subject. Chill out.
Dang.
Scotts last blog post..A Really Good Question
poor Scott…