|
| Thread: The Death of Culture |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV |
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
posted December 05, 2008 03:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's typical for most of people to call 'techno' everything from among techno, house, tech-house, dance, and by the way trance (!), drum'n'bass (?) or even electro (sic!), sometimes darkwave . It becomes somewhat confusing and dangerous for all the EDM scene and beyond, of course leads to misunderstanding and conflict involving all the listeners.
It's usually irrelevant which genre or style particular track belongs, as commercial crap will stay commercial crap no matter whether its techno or not and for that reason statement about crappy techno remixes makes a lot of sense. But please get it right.
Of course commercial crap is crap but that's what people love.
Kings of Leon, Chris Brown, Rihanna, Katy Perry, the whole itunes top 100, it's all crap, not just 'techno remixes' but you're right.
I mean you can have some tool like Armin van Buuren with his trance music and then you have true artists like Busy P or Justice or JFK from MSTRKRFT and Death From Above 1979. I mean, even Klaxons riding on the whole joke that is the 'nu rave' scene that MGMT got sucked in by. At least they are original an interesting.
I mean, I find JFK's remix of Bloc Party's Flux more inspiring than any Beethoven piece.
As said in Scenario Rock's Skitzo Dancer:
"Who is the dj today ? Give me something to dance to..
And please no techno!"
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 05, 2008 03:50 PM |
|
|
|
People seem to think that art has to be "good" whatever that may be, while something that isn't "good" cannot be art.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted December 05, 2008 03:51 PM |
|
|
Well said, Joker.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted December 05, 2008 04:02 PM |
|
|
|
This argument is kinda stupid, it depends entirely on your definition of 'art', and I'm sure this is not where IYY intended the discussion to go.
|
|
nocaplato
Adventuring Hero
Lover of Ancient Philosophy
|
|
posted December 06, 2008 06:46 AM |
|
|
It seems most of this thread is something of an attack on establishment teaching regarding literature. I'd like to respond in defense of the classics, particularly Shakespeare, and to address what I think of as the 'Curse of Knowing' which originally started the thread.
In full disclosure, I'm an English teacher, and a 'grey beard' as we self-depricatingly call ourselves. From what I can tell, I'm older by a good sight than most anyone who posts here, so you'll have to pardon my decrepitude and geezer-ness. All the same, here goes.
First, the classics should be addressed, and since he was brought up, and because I love his writing, Shakespeare will serve fantastically. To claim he is somehow bound by the conventions of his time, that he (as someone claimed) is hollow and without feeling is, frankly, laugable. To show what I mean, I'd like to address two plays, which I know rather well, and which shows his brilliance at recreating humanity very well. The first is Romeo and Juliet, one of his earlier works, and certainly not his best. However, it's probably the one most students know most intimitaley since it deals with the issues of youth.
In it, we have a main character, Romeo who is represents the full depth and pain of early youth. Romeo is classicly tortured by his parents, society, and most importantly, girls. He is either 15 or 16, though his age is never as certain as Juliet's. When we are first introduced to him, it's not Romeo we meet, but his friend and cousin Benvolio in a conversation with Romeo's dad. Romeo has been moping around, hiding away from his folks because he's got it bad for a young cutie who won't give him the time of day. So, instead of telling his parents about it, he avoids them, and his friends, preferring to wallow in self-pity. Even when Ben tries to get Romeo to talk about it, Romeo's kind of a twit. He avoids answering Ben's questions, partly because he's embarassed about his interest, partly because it's just part of who Romeo is, a young lover and a horrible romantic. We learn the rough outlines of this from a distance and through friends and family. Ben, in particular is a level headed sort of character who we've already started to trust and like by the end of the first scene because he's stood up to, and held his own, against the town bully, Tybalt. Romeo, though, won't have any of Ben's good advice to go out and look for other girls. Why? Because Romeo is so infatuataded with Rosaline (we never meet her, which is also important for several reasons). How many of us have had the hots for some girl who won't give us the time of day? How much good advice and pain have all of us gone through in wishing for some girl or boy to notice us? Romeo is an incredibly real and human figure and we learn this even before we really get to even see him!
Romeo changes as time goes on, of course, but not enough to change his doom. Nor would most of us be able to change our natures, as Romeo fails to do, even when it's what common sense is constantly whispering in our ears. Like most of us, Romeo fails to act according to what's best for himself because he holds to his ideals in a world of harsh pragmatism. Again, the idealism of youth is evident in Romeo's every action and desire. He knows what love is and damn the consequences. As we age, we start to see love in a much more flexible way than Romeo, or most 16 year olds, are capable of. To have Romeo change would have violated the concept of what youthful love is, that hot, perfect emotional reaction that denies society, denies our parents, even denies our friends. Admit it, if you've ever had the sort of relationship Romeo ends up with, you also avoided or lied to your friends, or slowly (temporarily) drifted away from them. "Where's Romeo?" "Ahh, he's whipped, dude, he's out with Juliet... AGAIN!" You know you've been there, or if you haven't, you've had friends who were.
More interesting to me is Mercutio, Romeo's best friend, and a particularly complex character, even though he dies half way through the play. As I've mentioned, Romeo's character is developed in broad strokes even before we here him say a single word. Mercutio is different. He comes on stage like a thunderbolt, in full blown glory. He's the perfect opposite to Romeo, a flamboyant, funny, sex-crazed rich kid. He doesn't believe in perfect love, he only believes in gettin' it on. For him, Rosaline is nothing more than a score to be had, and then gotten over so they can get back to having a real friendship. Mercutio shares every one of his scenes with Benvolio. Where Mercutio goes, Benvolio is at his side, and it's a powerful contrast they make. Mercutio is the outgoing social type, while Benvolio is reserved and patient. When they interact with each other, Shakespeare allows the contrast to ooze from every action and line. Benvolio is what's referred to as a foil, a character who's traits highlight another character through comparison. Mercutio is hot tempered, but he cools down as quick. He's funny, but he also suffers from boughts of depression. He takes almost nothing seriously, and because he's such a clown, he ends up dying at the hands of the bully, Tybalt, who can stand being made fun of. While Mercutio runs from hot to cold, from depressed to hilarious, Benvolio calmly rides out the storm, trying to find a solid middle ground, to allay his friends' passions...
Interestingly, and not on accident, I think, it's Juliet who is the most mature of the play. At 13 she is incredibly young, but like most girls she is already more realistic about love and family than any of the other characters (with the possible exception of Ben). She sees love in terms of family and duty... she sees herself as part of society, rather than against it, even though the events of the play end up destroying her chances of a stable life. It's partly because she too is young, and partly because Romeo is a straight pimp, that she falls for him. But even though Romeo is older, it's constantly Juliet who does the hard thing, who sets boundaries. She's a very interesting character, willing to stand up to her love, demanding promises of faithfulness, even marriage, while at the same time she stands up to her over-bearing father, risking disownment, even as Romeo is out fighting in the streets.
I could go on and on about the emotional depth of these primary characters and several others (the Nurse and Father Lawrence in particular) but even this short look should be enough to demonstrate how deeply Shakespeare thinks about his characters, how complex their feelings and motivations are, and most importantly how real they are, in spite of the use of iambic pentameter free-verse. However, I think a look at how flat out funny some of Shakespeare's situations are is necessary. The opening scene of Romeo and Juliet is one of the most fantastic (though not the only) comedic moment. Two minor characters (called 'clowns' in Shakespeare's... they were the Elizabethan equivalent to stand up comics) are the first to come on, named Samson and Gregory. In it, there is a lovely back and forth word game that goes on, starting in a game of mutual insults where each claim the other isn't man enough. Here's an examination of those early lines (at the end of each line is a set of () which roughly translates into modern English what's being said):
GREGORY
To move is to stir; and to be valiant is to stand:
therefore, if thou art moved, thou runn'st away.
(to move is to run, and to be brave is to stay still, therefore, if you are moving, you run away like a little girl)
SAMPSON
A dog of that house shall move me to stand: I will
take the wall of any man or maid of Montague's.
(Any Montague jerk will make me stick around to fight, I'll fight with any man or woman who's a Montague)
GREGORY
That shows thee a weak slave; for the weakest goes
to the wall.
(This is a play on words hard to easily translate because we don't have walled cities any more, but... Gregory says "that shows your a woose, because the people caught in battle are lined against the wall for judgement")
SAMPSON
True; and therefore women, being the weaker vessels,
are ever thrust to the wall: therefore I will push
Montague's men from the wall, and thrust his maids
to the wall.
(That's true, which is why women, who are weak, are thrust against the wall... sexual innuedo intended... that's why I'll throw Montague's men away from the wall, while pushing the women against it)
GREGORY
The quarrel is between our masters and us their men.
(But we're only fighting because our bosses told us to)
SAMPSON
'Tis all one, I will show myself a tyrant: when I
have fought with the men, I will be cruel with the
maids, and cut off their heads.
(Ahh, who cares, I'll be the one in charge, when I've kicked the guys a$$es I'll go after the hotties and take their heads.)
GREGORY
The heads of the maids?
(You'll take their heads?)
SAMPSON
Ay, the heads of the maids, or their maidenheads;
take it in what sense thou wilt.
(Yeah dude, their heads, or their virginity, take it however you feel it... here, maidenheads is another play on words lost to our time. Maidenhead refers to virginity and has pretty explicit sexual meanings about the clitoris and hymen, which Elizabethans would have understood)
GREGORY
They must take it in sense that feel it.
(They'll only take it if they can actually feel it- a slight against the size of Sampson's... er... Johnson)
SAMPSON
Me they shall feel while I am able to stand: and
'tis known I am a pretty piece of flesh.
(Oh, don't worry, they'll feel me while I'm erect. Everybody knows my nickname is 'Meat')
GREGORY
'Tis well thou art not fish; if thou hadst, thou
hadst been poor John. Draw thy tool! here comes
two of the house of the Montagues.
(It's a good thing you're not fish meat, 'cause if you were, you'd be called a 'Vienna Sausage'. Wait, pull out your tool (the double meaning of tool here is intentional, tool, meaning much like we use it today to refer to the male member, but also in this case to refer to his actual sword))
SAMPSON
My naked weapon is out: quarrel, I will back thee.
(A play on words that shouldn't need explanation at this point)
GREGORY
How! turn thy back and run?
(What, as soon as I go out there, you're gonna run off?)
SAMPSON
Fear me not.
(Don't worry, I've got your back... this is usually acted in a way where Sampson is rather suggestive, even grabbing his crotch, then steps behind Gregory)
GREGORY
No, marry; I fear thee!
(No way dude, I'm worried... also suggestive here, this time Gregory is implying that Sampson is homosexual and doesn't want Sampson any where near his back side)
.....................................................................
I hope you can see Shakespeare's incredible sense of humor here, even further evidence of the incredible humanity of the characters. Even two people who matter almost not at all are just flat out funny, and obviously have a long and deep friendship... at least a good enough friendship to make fun of what a woose the other is, how light in the loafers he is, or about how small his Johnson is.
.....................................................................
Now, as far as being 'forced' to interpret symbolism in plays, being pushed past your comfort zone for literature into a place where you're expected to see depth, I have to admit a lack of sympathy in at least one regard, and an honest 'I'm sorry' in another. First, it's a teacher's job to push you outside your comfort zone, to lead you to a point where you can see more in books than a sort of cheaper, longer movie. When you learn to read as a kid, there's inevitably a point when you're expected to start reading for fun and information, but to leave you there, to continue wasting your time giving you fun material to read while not pushing the boundaries of your understanding is, frankly, criminal. A teacher's job is to keep pushing all the time, to force you to reconsider what you thought you knew by showing you that there are depths within depths, even in the simplest stories. That's why literature classes focus on symbolism and metaphor, that's why we focus on the classics. If a book is in your comfort zone, like those you've listed, you'll read them on your own and enjoy the hell out of them without the teacher. What's the teacher for then? No, no, a teacher needs to keep pressuring you into making choices you wouldn't make on your own, and then acting as a guide through those choices so you can begin to see more than you could before. So, and pardon my frankness here, it's just that I hear this sort of nonsense all the time... Stop whining!
On the other hand, I do sincerely apologize. A good teacher can do all that without making literature a chore. Sure, at first, everyone complains, and poor readers will complain from start to finish, however a good teacher can justify the end results without destroying a student's love for literature. If you've honestly become a non-reader thanks to some bad teacher, then you have an honest complaint, but please don't blame the whole system for the dysfuntion of one teacher who couldn't remind you of the life still extant in those pieces of literature.
Here's a salve, perhaps. Think of it like the difference between a telescope and binoculars. If you can see only through one eye, pleasure reading, then you will end up with a flat understanding of the world around you and the point of literature. Analysis allows you the second lens, the third dimension, enhancing your enjoyment of literature by understanding the art it really is, the word smithing, the intricacies of rhyme and rhythm patterns, the interconnectedness of the text and so on. Authors write deeply personal and convoluted texts and analysis is a tool you can use to understand not just one element of what's going on, but all the rich pageantry of the subtext, metaphor, diction and so on. Maybe for a while it will be hard for you to learn to see with this second eye, but it shouldn't spoil your ability to see what you've always seen... at least not permanently. For a while you'll be so focused on seeing things with that second eye that it may be hard to remember you have two ways of seeing, but as you become more comfortable with it, you'll be able to ignore it, or use it whenever you want, and you'll be richer for the ability (and smarter, by the way).
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 06, 2008 11:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Of course commercial crap is crap but that's what people love.
Well not all commercial music is crap. Today, a huge percent of music overall is crap, and that doesn't depend on whether it's commercial (MTV shyte) or non-commercial (underground black metal shyte).
See, James Brown was commercial. Deep Purple was commercial. Hell, even Nirvana was a commercial band. All of the mainstream bands or musicians are commercial in a way - that doesn't mean they can't make good music. Sometimes, commercialism is just a way of sending a message to a wider variety of people.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
| |
|
|
