Skip

Molly
January 29, 2007 2:15 PM   Subscribe

They Don't Know I'm speechless right now.
posted by vronsky (110 comments total) 28 users marked this as a favorite

 
Yup.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 2:22 PM on January 29, 2007


Whoa.
posted by brundlefly at 2:24 PM on January 29, 2007


nice! (it's a million times better than Tracey Ullman's version, which is the only one i've ever known before)
posted by amberglow at 2:28 PM on January 29, 2007


The moment at :44 when she gets confident enough to lift her head as she starts feeling it is so adorable. It's perfect. YouTube at its self-revealing best.

(And she's right, the Google video is better)
posted by mediareport at 2:32 PM on January 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


when she gets confident enough to lift her head as she starts feeling it is so adorable

The "I nailed that" head-nod at the end is pretty sweet to.

What a great song, too. It withstands a lot of interpretations, according to my search of YouTube covers (I like the girl-group Tracy Ullman version). Is there an original version somewhere out there?
posted by Bookhouse at 2:39 PM on January 29, 2007


It's only January, but this probably made my year.
posted by soundofsuburbia at 2:47 PM on January 29, 2007


Very cool! Thanks for sharing.
posted by kimdog at 2:49 PM on January 29, 2007


Very nice find. Thanks!
posted by Nugget at 2:51 PM on January 29, 2007


Holy shit. Lovely rendering to boot.

(And the comments are even supportive and expletive free. Is this really Youtube?)
posted by cortex at 2:51 PM on January 29, 2007


Best YouTube post ever. Thank you.
posted by Ostara at 2:56 PM on January 29, 2007


Lovely. Thanks.
posted by Sk4n at 2:58 PM on January 29, 2007


eparchos, you have joined that argument rather late. Flag it or take it to Metatalk, please.
posted by cortex at 3:00 PM on January 29, 2007


Loved it!...

Here's the Tracey Ullman version, with Paul McCartney cameo.
posted by amyms at 3:00 PM on January 29, 2007


Much more beautiful than any of the other versions I've heard.

This was my song with an old exgf who I was just thinking about before I came to metafilter. I think she even has an account. Hi Lola, if you're reading.
posted by Brainy at 3:02 PM on January 29, 2007


Holy smokes. Impressive for the obvious reasons, but also because she took a song that I've always thought of as sweetly defiant, a chocolate kiss off, and turned it into something so delicate and yearningl. I love when someone is able to turn a familiar song inside out like that. Really wonderful -- thanks, vronsky.

(And amberglow sweets, please reconsider: I adore Tracey Ullman's version. It had a fantastically produced classic wall of sound richness. Kristy herself supplies the backing vocals! Try listening to it again sometime. )
posted by melissa may at 3:04 PM on January 29, 2007


That was absolutely lovely. Thank you. :)
posted by thehmsbeagle at 3:06 PM on January 29, 2007


Oh no! Yearning and Kirsty -- that was supposed to be a preview, dang diggity dang it.
posted by melissa may at 3:11 PM on January 29, 2007


Was it The Go_gos did the original? Or the Greg Kihn Band (anyone remember them)?
posted by dash_slot- at 3:18 PM on January 29, 2007


I take it back - it's a Kirsty McColl original. And the Wiki could be updated to include this, if anyone were so minded.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:29 PM on January 29, 2007


Awesome. Love her voice and her rendition of the song.
posted by nickyskye at 3:34 PM on January 29, 2007


So, does anyone know anything about "Molly"?

As I play guitar myself, I'm frustrated that the left arm is almost out of shot the whole time, I would like to try and figure out more about what's going on. Open tuning of some kind?

But yes, it's fascinating and very nice too.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 3:37 PM on January 29, 2007


Simply beautiful.
posted by letitrain at 3:53 PM on January 29, 2007


On the one hand, it's of course amazing that someone can play in that condition. On the other, faux bawling over it on here seems to me a twee cheapening of sentiment. I fail to believe that anyone gushing about this video here will care or remember about it in one month.

So why the obsequious cooing? It just comes off as so unbelievably insencere.
posted by anatinus at 4:03 PM on January 29, 2007


So why the obsequious cooing? It just comes off as so unbelievably insencere.
posted by anatinus

Take that, meanie!
posted by papakwanz at 4:14 PM on January 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


I had never really paid attention to the lyrics before. She made it into a sweet love song.
posted by samsaunt at 4:18 PM on January 29, 2007


On the one hand, it's of course amazing that someone can play in that condition.

Molly and this guy should start a band.... she's got the voice, and he can play guitar. They'd make one heck of a novelty act.
posted by eparchos at 4:18 PM on January 29, 2007


Be hard to find a drummer, though.
posted by eparchos at 4:23 PM on January 29, 2007


anatinus, kinda like when I say, "Wow, I really like what you have to say. Thanks."? Like that?

Thanks vronsky. I love that song dearly, both by Kirsty McColl and Tracey Ullman, and that was a wonderfully sweet version.
posted by sleepy pete at 4:24 PM on January 29, 2007


Via Lost In The '80s blog btw.
posted by vronsky at 4:31 PM on January 29, 2007


I guess I'll stick my neck out and say that I find these sorts of posts condescending. The 'Ooooh look the retards can do stuff too!' approach is insulting. This is a real person and yes she can play guitar and sing better than a lot of people with hands. If this were a post of a fully able-bodied person doing a cover of the same song the comments would be filled with snark, no? People do wonderful things all the time that don't have to be gushed over with, like anatinus says above, insincere cooing.
posted by jimmythefish at 4:34 PM on January 29, 2007


MetaFilter: Look, the retards can do stuff too!
posted by knave at 4:41 PM on January 29, 2007


There is absolutely nothing insincere about my crankiness, I assure you. Now, a big hand for the Amazing Armless Woman!
posted by eparchos at 4:43 PM on January 29, 2007


Holy shit. Thanks.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:44 PM on January 29, 2007


Everybody can stop pretending to be nice to Django too, I guess.

If this were a post of a fully able-bodied person doing a cover of the same song the comments would be filled with snark, no?

It'd be a lot less notable, yeah. If a video of a woman with no arms diapering her kid was instead of a woman with two arms diapering her kid, that'd be less notable too. The main distinction here being that this is a girl with shockingly reduced limbs who happens to be doing a very sweet rendition of this song.

There's some reasonable distance between condescention and a simple lack of harsh criticism of someone doing something cool in the face of adversity.
posted by cortex at 4:45 PM on January 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


I'm a singing-voice-detail-nerd, and many of the high notes came out in a way I really like.
posted by Anything at 5:06 PM on January 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


>On the one hand, it's of course amazing that someone can >play in that condition. On the other, faux bawling over it on >here seems to me a twee cheapening of sentiment. I fail to >believe that anyone gushing about this video here will care or >remember about it in one month.

it is a lovely and heartfelt rendition of a fine tune & i'll remember it for some time to come. it's tough to expose your soul. moreso when you don't seem fit in with conventional appearance, technique, constitution, etc -so yes, this (for me) factors into my appreciation of her performance but it's not the basis of why i think it's great. i've listened to her do this tune about half dozen times now and i dig it more and more each time. ..young gal workin a tune and it is beautiful!
posted by The_Auditor at 5:09 PM on January 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


cortex nailed it.

And I'm one of those people who didn't particularly like the song (especially the Tracy Ullman version I heard first). But that was good! (And I played it once without the video)

I'll bet she could even do "Sometimes When We Touch" without making me cringe... uh... no, probably not.
posted by wendell at 5:11 PM on January 29, 2007


I'm a big asshole, but I wouldn't be so holier-than-thou to call anyone else's cooing "insincere.". Video is disabled on my machine, so I can't hear the clip in question, but plenty of people say nice things when anyone sings. But you'd have them hold their applause for the differently abled. Bravo, jerk!

Then again, I'm one of those insincere pricks who's greatly impressed when Prince Randian rolls and lights a smoke, or shaves, or paints. It looks difficult. I've never faced a challenge like that.
posted by breezeway at 5:17 PM on January 29, 2007


Awesome. Love her voice and her rendition of the song.

She made it into a sweet love song.

The only version of this song I've heard is Ben Gibbard's, and Molly is playing that version. So, technically, it's his rendition.

Molly does a fine job (considering), but the Ben Gibbard version is just as sweet. I really can't imagine it as anything other than a love song.
posted by eunoia at 5:19 PM on January 29, 2007


On the other, faux bawling over it on here seems to me a twee cheapening of sentiment. I fail to believe that anyone gushing about this video here will care or remember about it in one month.

So what. What? Are people supposed to gouge out their own eyes or something to feel the pain of the world? Your so punk rock and shit!

So why the obsequious cooing? It just comes off as so unbelievably insencere.

Shut up. Just shut THE fuck up.

Who the fuck are you to judge if anybody here is being less than sincere? What an asshole.

I tell you what. Go get disfigured in a fire and then post a video of your self attempting... oh I dunno... to tie your own shoes or something. Then I will come on and call you a fucking retard if that will make you feel any better.
posted by tkchrist at 5:31 PM on January 29, 2007


Ladies and Gentlemen, I hereby present the sum total contribution of anatinus' Metafilter career:

"meh. Doesn't seem to work in Vista."

"On the one hand, it's of course amazing that someone can play in that condition. On the other, faux bawling over it on here seems to me a twee cheapening of sentiment. I fail to believe that anyone gushing about this video here will care or remember about it in one month.

So why the obsequious cooing? It just comes off as so unbelievably insencere."

I can't wait to see what the third comment will be!
posted by Kwine at 5:46 PM on January 29, 2007


wendell, the honesty is just too much!
It was good to see the Tracey Ullman video again. Paul was quite the cameo whore back in the 80s, eh?
posted by Saucy Intruder at 5:50 PM on January 29, 2007


"On the other, faux bawling over it on here seems to me a twee cheapening of sentiment. I fail to believe that anyone gushing about this video here will care or remember about it in one month."

Wow, ain't you the sentimental one?

Yes, I'm wiping my teary eyes. The tears are real, as is the happiness.

You're obviously not a poet, and you don't understand matters of the heart.
posted by rougy at 5:54 PM on January 29, 2007


Yes, I'm wiping my teary eyes. The tears are real, as is the happiness.

You're obviously not a poet, and you don't understand matters of the heart.


Ok, it was a sweet video and I wish I could sing half as well as her, but please let go of the "if you're not crying you're not a poet" drivel. Different people react to the same thing differently.
posted by justgary at 6:10 PM on January 29, 2007


WTH is up with "youtubefilter" anyways? I mean, youtube itself has a search function, and you can even browse videos in many different ways! Not worth a post.

Well, yeah, youtube has search. It also has comments. But I think we can all agree that Metfilter discussions are of a higher relative caliber. Usually by the time something hits the blue I've seen it in a few other places, or heard someone talking about it, or something. It's nice to have a place that isn't youtube to talk about it with, what I largely assume, is a group of my peers. As opposed to youtube, which is not a group of my peers. And with whom I don't want to converse at all. Mostly.

We discuss what happens. Right now, youtube is happening. Eventually it'll be relgated to just a simple little post summing up the folly of the aughts. "Remember twenty years ago when youtube mattered (or at least seamed to, to some)?"
posted by jeffamaphone at 6:14 PM on January 29, 2007


Why not tell me how you really feel, tkchrist? Put some gusto into this time.
posted by anatinus at 6:16 PM on January 29, 2007


But to comment on topic, yeah, great guitar work for someone who has no hands, but I'm wouldn't put it on a mix tape.

Also, Timmy. This argument isn't new.
posted by jeffamaphone at 6:18 PM on January 29, 2007


When I first watched this, I only glanced at the screen and listened to the song while browsing. After it was done I figured it could be some sort of rip-off or viral marketting thing because it sounded so much better than most youtube stuff (singing and production value). So I went back to see if she was lip synching or something, and at first I thought 'well duh' the guitar is pasted in..then I squinted and saw the truth.

So for what its worth, the music stands on its own and requires no subliminal reference to the status of the musician.
posted by Osmanthus at 6:24 PM on January 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


This post caught my eye right away. I *love* Tracy Ullman's version. Molly's version is just as wonderful.
posted by LoriFLA at 6:34 PM on January 29, 2007


jeffamaphone

I agree that MeFi is higher quality, in general, but I'd like to keep it that way. Basically, a one-link youtube post does NOT make MeFi better. All a poster would have to do is find one or two more related links and it would be a much better post. Otherwise, it's just "OMG I was browsing youtube and I found this AWESOME video checkitout!" That is not "Best of The Web", IMO.
Note that I linked a second youtube link about an armless musician earlier in this thread.... that didn't take much research.
posted by eparchos at 6:40 PM on January 29, 2007


This was lovely. Thank you.
posted by biscotti at 6:42 PM on January 29, 2007


The 'Ooooh look the retards can do stuff too!' approach is insulting.

You've got to be kidding me. The only insulting thing here is you assuming that's our approach. And you're a grad student? Really? I woulda figured junior high at best.

Some of us have a bit more experience with folks with disabilities than "ooh look the retards can do stuff," thanks. That is, in fact, why we can appreciate this for what it is - a sweet, open-hearted gift of a guitar tune from someone with no hands. To equate an appreciation of that with "ooh look the retards can do stuff too" is just completely moronic. You should probably take a break from the internet, you have problems to work on.
posted by mediareport at 6:51 PM on January 29, 2007


I had to sit down at the piano and teach myself this song just now.

While I can now play it, I sure as hell can't sing it. The fact that I'm a professional musician without a singing voice is known among my peers as "my little disability."

Oh and rougy: The hell? Are you a fifteen-year old girl?
posted by sourwookie at 7:02 PM on January 29, 2007


That was just lovely.
posted by hojoki at 7:19 PM on January 29, 2007


brilliant!
posted by brandz at 7:22 PM on January 29, 2007


mediareport,

Reading comprehension clearly isn't your strong point. My issue isn't with the performance, but rather with the double standard which disabled people are subjected to rather consistently. It's my opinion that the commonly held and displayed sentiment isn't one of perceived equality or true respect, but rather subtle condescention. How many of the people who have lavished (sincere, insincere - who cares) praise on this are really appreciating something here, vs. expressing a reaction tempered with PC sentiment in a forum where a 'meh' to the musical quality would be treated completely differently than if an able-bodied person were to produce such a cover. Able-bodied people (even some with mental disabilities) who are expressing an equally earnest part of themselves don't get treated in any sort of way when doing something similar. Watch American Idol sometime if you don't believe me. Public humiliation in that arena is accepted and frequent.

Thanks for presuming so much about me. I seriously doubt you've been affected any more by disability in your family than I have in mine. Perhaps it's you who needs to take a break.
posted by jimmythefish at 7:51 PM on January 29, 2007


As I play guitar myself, I'm frustrated that the left arm is almost out of shot the whole time, I would like to try and figure out more about what's going on. Open tuning of some kind?

i'd be fascinated to see this up close. molly says in one of the comments that she uses standard tuning.
posted by quonsar at 7:52 PM on January 29, 2007


I'm mystified by anybody's ability to hate on this performance or on its being brought to our attention here. It's lovely amateur stuff I'd not have seen on my own, and thanks, vronsky, for the sweet pointer. Another small goodness in life, thanks to MetaFilter.
posted by cgc373 at 7:52 PM on January 29, 2007


I agree that MeFi is higher quality, in general, but I'd like to keep it that way. Basically, a one-link youtube post does NOT make MeFi better. All a poster would have to do is find one or two more related links and it would be a much better post. Otherwise, it's just "OMG I was browsing youtube and I found this AWESOME video checkitout!" That is not "Best of The Web", IMO.
Note that I linked a second youtube link about an armless musician earlier in this thread.... that didn't take much research.


well, we're all just fucking BLESSED to have you here.
posted by quonsar at 7:59 PM on January 29, 2007


What wendell said about what cortex said.
And suck it haters.
And great job, Molly.

I had to sit down at the piano and teach myself this song just now.
Heh same, I'm googling the guitar chords right now, and - aw fuck, BARRE chords?!?
*Plays 'Don't Think Twice, It's Alright' for the 6930th time instead *

posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:02 PM on January 29, 2007



well, we're all just fucking BLESSED to have you here.

I wasn't saying anything about *my* merits, quonsar, I was just talking about the merits of the post. Meta, indeed.
posted by eparchos at 8:10 PM on January 29, 2007


How many of the people who have lavished (sincere, insincere - who cares) praise on this are really appreciating something here, vs. expressing a reaction tempered with PC sentiment in a forum where a 'meh' to the musical quality would be treated completely differently

Another one of you idiots. So. Only YOU possess this genuine response? This pure form of artistic appreciation divorced from lower forms of sentiment? Maybe you should teach the rest of us a class in how you do this.

Look. WHO CARES.

You don't have lock on how or why people have sentimental reactions. You are not the holy arbiter of what art or artist should or shouldn't give people an emotional response. Or whether it's genuine.

What you seem to be bitching so incoherently about is that people DO have sentimental reactions at all.

Reactions which, BTW, are a good thing. Not a bad thing. It is what motivates people to compassion and empathy.

And if that factors into this persons musical expression then SO BE IT.

We relate to artists for all sorts of reasons beyond their raw mastery of the craft.

For instance some rap artists are "genuine" because of their relationship to poverty and life int he street. Part of the reason we like Johnny Cash, who was NOT a great singer or musician technically by any stretch, is because he was crippled by poverty, by a hard life, etc.

that this girl is handicapped physically plays into how she relates to us through her music.

You get it yet?

Now shut up.
posted by tkchrist at 8:12 PM on January 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


metafilter has been a 7 year parade of blathering about the merits of the post, as opposed to enjoying the post.
posted by quonsar at 8:13 PM on January 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


metafilter has been a 7 year parade of blathering about the merits of the post, as opposed to enjoying the post.

no shit. what the hell is wrong with people.
posted by tkchrist at 8:15 PM on January 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


tkchrist - right back atcha slick. I'm expressing an OPINION. The very fact that I'm suddenly not allowed to do this here is proof of this PC double standard. So, you can shut up too.

Heaven forbit that I'm allowed to say anything except 'wow, thanks'. Sigh...
posted by jimmythefish at 8:18 PM on January 29, 2007


metafilter has been a 7 year parade of blathering about the merits of the post, as opposed to enjoying the post.

no shit. what the hell is wrong with people.


Hmmm...and here I thought Metafilter was set up to, you know, enjoy the posts and then, you know, discuss them. I guess I was wrong...
posted by jimmythefish at 8:19 PM on January 29, 2007


I'm expressing an OPINION.

Yes. You are free to express your uninformed ignorant opinion. One that was also deliberately denigrating and misrepresenting the informed opinions of others.

I have said my share of stupid shit. I was merely giving you advise to prevent you from looking like even MORE of an idiot. Feel free not to take it.

Did you not understand this:

""We relate to artists for all sorts of reasons beyond their raw mastery of the craft. For instance some rap artists are "genuine" because of their relationship to poverty and life int he street. Part of the reason we like Johnny Cash, who was NOT a great singer or musician technically by any stretch, is because he was crippled by poverty, by a hard life, etc. That this girl is handicapped physically plays into how she relates to us through her music."

Contemplate that on the Tree of Woe.
posted by tkchrist at 8:25 PM on January 29, 2007


I'm expressing an OPINION.

No, you assumed and insulted. Grow up.
posted by mediareport at 8:31 PM on January 29, 2007


I found that extremely moving, thank you.
posted by facetious at 8:34 PM on January 29, 2007


I'd like to thank everyone who hasn't been acting like a complete jackass so far for not acting like a complete jackass. That chunk of the thread has been kind of nice.
posted by cortex at 8:39 PM on January 29, 2007


enjoy the posts and then, you know, discuss them.

You're obviously doing neither, and eparchos, please stop trying so hard, it's embarassing.
Go to MeTa or STFU.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:40 PM on January 29, 2007


...eparchos, please stop trying so hard, it's embarassing

Oh, my bad, I'm supposed to be one of these "take it as it's given" post-post-modern hyper-cynical twats.
posted by eparchos at 8:47 PM on January 29, 2007


No, seriously, eparchos, they hang out in MeTa. You'll love it there.
posted by mediareport at 8:48 PM on January 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


I watched the first minute and thought "hmm, decent" and also a rather embarrasing thought that I'm a little bit ashamed to admit (I thought maybe the video was altered, and that the singer/guitarist had complete arms...the youtube version is kinda grainy and...well, we see alot of hoaxes online these days).

Then I went back to MeFi and read all the comments and thought "huh, this sure generated alot of comments...vitriol even...i wonder why".

Then I went and watched and listened to the Google version and damn but if it didn't reel me in and make me a little sweetly sad. And it was really all about her voice and the lo-fi production and...i just like it. I don't really care one way or the other about her body.
posted by django_z at 8:49 PM on January 29, 2007


I'm just gonna say 'wow' and leave it at that. Good night...
posted by jimmythefish at 8:51 PM on January 29, 2007


I have decided I am making my own "Worst of the Web" website and everything everybody else likes I am putting there. I am so. You guys just wait and see. You'll be sorry. Screw you. I'm going home.
posted by tkchrist at 8:52 PM on January 29, 2007


I'm just gonna say 'wow'

No. Woe. As in "Tree of Woe."
Go there. Contemplate. Calculate your revenge. Be reborn.
posted by tkchrist at 8:54 PM on January 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


"Ok, it was a sweet video and I wish I could sing half as well as her, but please let go of the "if you're not crying you're not a poet" drivel. Different people react to the same thing differently."

Okay - you're not a good poet if you're too dense to know what the fuck I was talking about.
posted by rougy at 9:42 PM on January 29, 2007


"Oh and rougy: The hell? Are you a fifteen-year old girl?

Why? Do you want somebody to braid your hair and tell you how cute you look in your jammies?
posted by rougy at 9:44 PM on January 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


Wait, did this post have a topic?

One of my faves from the 80s, and yes, I love Tracey's version (not the least 'cos I heard it first). I hadn't heard Ben Gibbard's and still haven't so I can't comment vis-a-vis this one versus that one, but it's clear she does a great job with the song regardless of whose tabs she's playing.

Oddly, tonight I was just discussing Rick Allen (the Def Leppard drummer) with my nieces as an example of how modern technology (at least in part) has changed how we view the disabled. I remember Joni, who was a prominent US mouth painter in the 1970s and appeared on Phil Donahue and so forth. In those days (and perhaps more in her case, with the born-again Christianity) it was all sentimentalism, as if by adapting to her circumstances some sort of miracle had been wrought. (Whatever else I might have to say about her work today, she has gone beyond tokenism since then.) That is, the standard view was much more of a "but that he does it at all" sort of admiration. I think we have a more balanced view today.
</sophistry>
posted by dhartung at 9:52 PM on January 29, 2007


I mean - I see this video, and it's so pure and innocent, and it's being played by a young person without any hands, and she's singing about love, a love she may never come to know, and the sincerity of the moment choked me up.

Then we've got some yutzes who are ostentatious enough to tell me that my sentimentality is phony because I won't remember her a month from now - as if that was some kind of gold standard in this age and time.

And I stand by my statement - if you can't understand why I got teary at seeing that, then you're no poet - and if you claim you are, then you're a shitty poet - and I'll lay money down on that.

Some of you little fuckers coming up in the ranks have become so god damned heartless its frightening....
posted by rougy at 9:53 PM on January 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


Well, WTF, as they say . . .

I first loaded this like six hours ago in the middle of my workday, and I watched ten seconds and then closed the tab because I knew immediately that it was not to be viewed casually. I wasn't sure if that was because of the evident disability or because I was terrified that it'd been posted as an absurdist novelty.

Anyway, just watched the whole thing. And it was aching and evocative and made me feel good about being a human being the way great music always does, because it is the universal language, ultimately, of sincere human emotion.

So, at the risk of demeaning the overall thread, which is thankfully mostly about celebrating a beautiful piece of music played with heartfelt passion and no small talent, I guess I should say, I dunno, suck it haters?
posted by gompa at 10:53 PM on January 29, 2007


Why? Do you want somebody to braid your hair and tell you how cute you look in your jammies?

HAHAHAHAHAHAA.

Oh. My. Hahahaa. ha.

aaahhhhh. Um.




yes. I do
posted by tkchrist at 11:13 PM on January 29, 2007


Then we've got some yutzes who are ostentatious enough to tell me that my sentimentality is phony because I won't remember her a month from now

I won't remember... in.. a minute....


...who we talking about?
posted by tkchrist at 11:14 PM on January 29, 2007


...who we talking about?

Oh...a certain someone...I forget....

Great vid, though. It was really "in the moment."
posted by rougy at 11:54 PM on January 29, 2007


I did the same thing as Osmanthus above and found the song just amazing on its own. For a second was a little mystified as to what all the commotion was upon coming back to this thread and seeing all the comments.

I'm glad I wasn't paying attention though, because my view was not distorted by the ensuing thread conversation or her condition...even if I would like to believe it wouldn't have made a difference, if I'm honest I wonder if it really would have...

This really is though a great rendition of a great song on its own merits besides the amazing person behind it.

Not paying attention paid off for once. Huh.
posted by rfbjames at 1:38 AM on January 30, 2007


How very cute. In the span of several dozen comments, I've seen accusations of
  • hating the guitarist
  • being a yutz/asshole/bad poet
  • being a newbie, and
  • an invitation to physical violence.

    Lovely.

    Now, try to criticise the actual points made - namely, that many of the various forms of PC chiming-in about how great this is cheapens discussion about real sentimentality - instead of the people making them. Ad hominem attacks are, well, nonproductive.

    I wouldn't presume to guess who had a real reaction (notice I originally wrote that it "comes off" as so; not the same as "is") and who was just skirting along, but generally, the length of the post says much. Huge difference between a considered, thoughtful post about how one felt while watching versus one similar to "OMFG how pretty." The barely restrained rage in some of the responses makes it difficult not to conclude the they were written by people not quite used to an actual exchange of opinion.

    If you disagree with these points (and I'm sure many do), a reasoned explanation as to why will go much farther than yet another "go fuck yourself."

    [cue someone posting "go fuck yourself". zzz.]

  • posted by anatinus at 2:18 AM on January 30, 2007


    anatinus:
    I think the basic, fundamental point here is that you can't determine who's being genuine and who's being insincere, on the internet. Your average person would tend to default to the "Oh, they're being insincere!" view, as would be the standard Augustinian approach (no, I'm not being sarcastic here), but the appropriate response in a supportive community like MeFi is to err on the side of belief.
    I don't disagree with your basic idea, but I think that you're mistaking this post as a "music post". In fact, it's a "disabled person does music" post, and the idea that disabled people should be treated as full equals in every way to non-disabled people is pretty darned disingenuous in and of itself.
    Again, I'm not attacking your point, I'm simply trying to point out the difference in viewpoints.
    I, for one, still maintain that the post is crap. And, incidentally, stick it, all you "take it to MeTa" hatas! If one can't discuss a post within that post's comments, what's the point?
    posted by eparchos at 2:27 AM on January 30, 2007


    Conform to the mefi hive mind or have your comment history attacked! I am starting to hate this youtube clip as a contrary reaction to the fawning in the thread. It is not a good FPP and would have been roundly panned had Molly been two fisted.

    That said, it is a fine rendition.
    posted by asok at 2:32 AM on January 30, 2007


    ... That said, it is a fine rendition.
    I don't think it would have been panned--seeing young girls sing of love is like an extraordinarily basic and recognizable "good thing" in our existence and history. An archetype even.
    posted by amberglow at 3:12 AM on January 30, 2007


    (and thing i've always disliked about Tracey's version is that it's a character thing (like most of her stuff) and not real, and the Paul thing turns it all into just a cheap joke about celeb crushes vs. ordinary people's lives)
    posted by amberglow at 3:15 AM on January 30, 2007


    thanks for a great post, vronsky - sweet and uplifting. You go, Molly, girl!
    posted by madamjujujive at 4:59 AM on January 30, 2007


    Very nice. I like the song, and the fact that she can play it so well is amazing given her limitations.
    posted by OmieWise at 6:12 AM on January 30, 2007


    I found that extremely moving, thank you.
    posted by facetious


    I'm confused....
    posted by Floydd at 7:04 AM on January 30, 2007


    "How very cute. In the span of several dozen comments, I've seen accusations of...being a newbie."

    I didn't accuse you of being a newbie. I'm a newbie; that would be silly. I accused you of being a troll. Pay closer attention.
    posted by Kwine at 7:33 AM on January 30, 2007


    As I was laying in bed last night I was thinking what really set me off in this post:

    The moment at :44 when she gets confident enough to lift her head as she starts feeling it is so adorable.

    This is really the essence of what I was trying to get at. This is the 'condescention' I was referring to. It implies that this person is embarassed by their condition, or is weak. As a guitarist myself I figured she was just looking at the damn guitar. This is what I objected to. Nevermind that the person who wrote it called me ignorant, amongst other things.
    posted by jimmythefish at 7:51 AM on January 30, 2007


    ...er, moronic, sorry. The other one called me ignorant.
    posted by jimmythefish at 7:56 AM on January 30, 2007


    Funny, I just read that as a comment on public performance, not about the specificity of performing with a disability.

    In general, however, I think that the responses that seek to treat this as just another music video aren't responding honestly to the performance. This isn't just the same as all other YouTube videos, it's a video of someone without fingers playing an instrument that is typically understood to be played with the fingers. That's worth noting, and it changes the basis for evaluation and response.
    posted by OmieWise at 8:11 AM on January 30, 2007


    This is really the essence of what I was trying to get at. This is the 'condescention' I was referring to. It implies that this person is embarassed by their condition, or is weak.

    What OmieWise said. I read that, as a musician, as a comment on the conflict between performance anxiety and pride when you're On Stage. I've been there, done that. It is adorable.
    posted by cortex at 8:16 AM on January 30, 2007


    Beautiful! Thanks for the post vronsky.
    posted by sophieblue at 10:51 AM on January 30, 2007


    eparchos:
    Thanks for the considered response; no offense taken. I agree that it is difficult at best to understand the mentality of an unknown poster. (Hell, it's difficult even face to face, let alone written down.) It is, however, (to me at least) equally difficult to not come to some conclusions about the mentality of my interlocutors on the basis of two decades' worth of interacting with people online.

    I think we've hit upon a rather interesting philosophical/moral conundrum here: what is the most ethical way in which to view those with disabilities? Furthering the inherent difficulty in answering that is the fact that many people with said disabilities disagree on these points. Indeed, the parallels between this question and those to do with inter-racial relations are striking. As such, it is of little wonder they can elicit strong reaction. It is, nevertheless, sometimes a little disappointing when the very first reactions are so... unpleasant.

    I will take your implicit posting suggestions to heart. Cheers.
    posted by anatinus at 11:39 AM on January 30, 2007


    ...how great this is cheapens discussion about real sentimentality

    It strikes me that the only cheapening of sentimentality being done here is yours as you dismiss other people's reactions as 'insincere' for no better reason than ... wait, did you even have a reason?

    PS I typed this without any hands. sukkit hataz.
    posted by Sparx at 12:28 PM on January 30, 2007


    This is really the essence of what I was trying to get at. This is the 'condescention' I was referring to. It implies that this person is embarassed by their condition, or is weak. As a guitarist myself I figured she was just looking at the damn guitar.

    It might have been condescension (which i really can't spell right either), but i think that would depend on how people are looking at it--thru a lens of disability and/or thru a lens of "oh, girl with guitar singing"--it took me a little while to even realize that she didn't have hands and then i was actually really was distracted, because it looks like it hurts to do that (and she can't use a pick, i guess), and then i got into her voice and the song again. It's not always clearcut that disability (when it enters into something) is the overriding factor or not.
    posted by amberglow at 1:35 PM on January 30, 2007


    Reading this is hilarious; I have an image of the Three Stooges in my head, slapping and boinking each other in a mad frenzy.

    Video was nice. Her singing is a bit odd though, as if English is not her first language.
    posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:34 PM on January 30, 2007


    Her singing is a bit odd though, as if English is not her first language.

    Or some sort of unusual development of the vocal system.
    posted by cortex at 3:39 PM on January 30, 2007


    wonderful stuff (related?) on disability at this post
    posted by amberglow at 4:16 PM on January 30, 2007


    This was really good. I listened to it many times. Thank you.
    posted by every_one_needs_a_hug_sometimes at 9:51 AM on January 31, 2007


    That performance is the very definition of wabi sabi.
    posted by vronsky at 3:39 PM on January 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


    wabi sabi

    beautiful, vronsky : >
    posted by amberglow at 4:00 PM on January 31, 2007


    Yes, vronsky!
    posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:48 PM on January 31, 2007


    « Older You just crazy!   |   "Window in the Sky", a U2... Newer »


    This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



    Post