I caught the August 17th screening of Dailies latest Ween project. The goal was simple, create a five (5) minute short inspired by the music of Ween and the form was kept fairly open: “Explore Noise. Non-sense. Stupidity. Satire. Parody. Hijack Genres. Don’t be shy. Don’t opt-out just because you don’t feel like you have a solid idea or a well-developed concept. Put on the headphones. Close your eyes. See things; create with them; create because of them; create in spite of them.”

A study was released a few weeks ago that linked the amount of sexually explicit lyrics in hip hop and pop music to teenage sexual activity. One NPR host asked a teenage girl what she thought of the sexually demeaning lyrics. The girl said she only listened to the beat, so the lyrics didn’t bother her. I remember giving my father that same line when he caught me and my sister listening to UB40s cover of Red, Red Wine. In his eyes it was a drinking song and being staunchly anti-drinking, the song was off limits.

Excluding the chorus, I never knew the lyrics to Red, Red Wine. Now that I’ve utilized the power of the internet I now know almost two decades after the song was re-released in 1988 that it’s about a guy who lost a girl and the wine is helping him forget. I really was only listening to the beat.

Are the beats and the music so good to some songs that neither I nor that girl even need the lyrics for the song to be good? Or are the lyrics to some songs so insipid and underwritten that there’s no need to dig any deeper? Or is the disconnect between lyrics and the music a natural phenomenon and it’s up to the listener to bridge the gap?

I’ve never heard a Ween album. If I’ve listened to a Ween song I was totally unconscious that I did so. So as I watched Ween Dailies I didn’t know what songs were being referenced or used in each short. Some shorts didn’t even use music and were slightly askew or blatantly absurd narratives based on a specific Ween song. This lack of a knowledge and experience base started me thinking about the intersection of music and visuals and to ask the question: Do the visuals need the songs?

Flashing back to the 80’s, the main reason I listened to A-Ha’s Take On Me was because of the video. The combination of rotoscope animation and live action sucked me in. Once again I’ve only learned what they lyrics are. If I heard the song on the radio first, would I have even given it a chance?

We’ve all had some show or movie catch our attention as we’ve been channel surfing. How often have we had a song really catch us off guard in the same manner?

Back to Ween Dailies.

Even when I couldn’t understand the lyrics or was even sure I liked the song, the visuals kept me engaged. And since I couldn’t contrast the Ween songs with the shorts, I could only base success on the shorts themselves. Did they work on their own? I’ll be honest, I think the shorts work in tandem but alone the majority fall kind of flat.

In Dailies Return to Pepperland and Dailies Fight Scene, many of those films stand up well outside of the original context they were created. More so than the other Dailies projects I’ve seen, I think this one requires some post-screening interaction with the filmmakers, which could be seen as either a negative or a positive.

The contrast between Pepperland and Ween is most pronounced since both projects centered on music. But why was Pepperland more effective than Ween?

I think the answer definitely lies in free association and how equipped is a filmmaker in recreating stream of consciousness through the use of visuals. Huh? What?

Music has always been a medium that inspires random thoughts and random ideas. And just like books, what one imagines profoundly varies from person to person. However in film, the combination of visuals and sound is more concrete. The red truck can only be a red truck and nothing can change that. In music and books the visuals go through an act of process and creation. In film, the viewer is almost strictly in the process mode. And the more one has to exclusively process a thing, the less they usually can experience that thing.

Without any grounding in Ween, I have to run through the act of processing the visuals and sound more so than if I knew a little something about Ween. Ironically, if I was too grounded in Ween the same might be true. At some point, the only way I can enjoy the show is to avoid processing.

So in Pepperland wouldn’t the progression of thought be similar? Not so.

I personally think on either side of the spectrum of fixed form and free form the viewer/listener is allowed to experience. In free form the viewer/listener doesn’t impose control they just let things happen and they can just sit back and experience. In fixed form, the viewer/listener has no control so again they’re free to just experience. It’s the nebulous middle where the waters become murky because the artist and her audience are often at odds at who should be in control.

In Pepperland, the filmmakers were clearly in control, they had clearly taken the lead. Any information you need or didn’t need the filmmakers provided it. All of the shorts in Pepperland were based on a specific song and thematically each short reflected that.

In Ween, the goal—at least from what I saw—was to create the illusion of free form when in reality they’re working in a medium that is decidedly fixed form. Music has no control over the visuals so it has an easier time. Film and video on the other hand includes both. Even when a filmmaker chooses silence over having a soundtrack, that choice is still part of the equation.

As soon as the film is switched on the viewer wants to be lead and when they aren’t they become frustrated. Unless, the filmmaker gives the nod that the viewer is in control. The sooner the viewer knows this, the easier the transition. Yet, since every inch of visual information that exists within the frame was already chosen, the viewer is tempted to fall back on being led. It’s the successful filmmaker that can short circuit that process and draw the viewer into just experiencing.

Think of it this way. What’s a song you have a strong connection to and why? I bet you associated that song with certain emotions and a general period in time: how you felt on a first date, reaction to a loved one’s death, where you were with your friend’s, being 13 years old,etc. Now do the same with a movie. Movies are like little worlds unto themselves. Rarely do we strongly associate other experiences with movies and when we do the experience is unique and can’t be replicated. With movies, you probably associate the first date itself with the movie than the actual emotions attached to that first date.

As a result, songs are much more mood reflexive and have the ability to alter mood. However, movies aren’t so flexible. How often have you popped in a movie to get into the mood? If you’ve put in a porno, you’re most likely already horny. The porno is just there to get things started, not there to get you horny. Music on the other hand, can literally get you in the mood.

So do the visuals need the music? For the filmmaker who isn’t able to effectively manipulate free form, most definitely. However, how many folks can do that? As for the filmmaker who’s playing in the fixed form sandbox the most likely answer is no, but the music sure does help. Ironically, most of the films seem to be above the music. Huh? What? Exactly.

For those who hung on to the end of this post, I salute you. To those who didn’t, I totally understand.

I haven’t said if Ween Dailies is good or not. “But didn’t you say they fell flat and isn’t that as good as saying it’s not good?” Yes, I’m saying they fell. But they fell flat for me. Although there were several I definitely enjoyed and overall I still had a good time. But “is it good?” I’ll leave that up to you to decide for yourself. As of this posting there are showings on August 19th and on August 24th-25th. Go check out the films and support these filmmakers. For more specific times, information and links for the screenings click on the CinemATL calendar on the right hand side of your screen.