To be "cultured"

[Spiffor]

Zero, I certainly didn't want you to change your ways. You're a loveable poster, and your style does help

But I'm pretty sure a bunch of Apolyton members would prefer you to post in the standard way, as they expect your contributions to the discussions to be more intelligent, or something like that.

[Boris Godunov]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Things which have filtered down through history may not, and a lot times are not, the popular thing. They may have been the popular thing at one point in time (or not), but are filtered down because of the objective measures of the world of music. People who weren't ever popular find life in history's filter because it is realized how technically proficient or just how good they really were later on, when standards may have shifted.

Indeed, a healthy heaping of the classical music masterpieces revered today were not popular or even considered "good" when written. Bach's compositions were unsung for a hundred years after his death. Beethoven's later works were critically reviled and caused head scratching with audiences, but today are considered his greatest works.

There's a great book I have called the "Lexicon of Musical Invective," which is a compilation of negative critical and popular reviews of famous composer's works. It's a great read, especially when the critics are spouting off about how Beethoven's 9th was a jumbled cacophony of unintelligible nonsense what would be forgotten even before Beethoven died. Hee!

[Zero]

thanks spiffor. Much to you too! Totally in brotherly and platonic love of course.

But I'm pretty sure a bunch of Apolyton members would prefer you to post in the standard way, as they expect your contributions to the discussions to be more intelligent, or something like that.

I understand that. Well they should have such low expectation of me now, that whenever I use correct grammar, they'll want to congratulate me or something... Anyways, I believe its about what a person has to say not how he says it. Which is why I kind of overdo it.

I had a "ghetto" tutor for my organic chemistry. That brother was always saying "Nigga this and Nigga that" when talking about reactions, Chiral molecules etc... Aside from being funny as hell, It made me realize that how he said things didnt matter. And that he was obviously smarter than other classmates from many other classes I had where they talked out of their ass pretending to sound retardedly smart. Yall had that experience where there was one outgoing kid who always makes comments and asks stupid question to try to look good to the professor, but his retardness shows... Anyway too offtopic. Point is, Im stupid because I am. Not becaus of how i talk. The end.

[Imran Siddiqui]

mran i agree that the few select people with influence can set the standards and effect other people's view on matters subjective as art, but that deos not mean that art is still objective.

Art is not objective from the outside looking in. However from the inside there are objective standards which must be met for something to be decided good.

After all, if art was totally subjective, then there would be no need for the critic.

I only agree with you from the POV of an outsider. From an inside POV, there are some standards which every artist is being judged against.

I'm not saying there is no subjectivity in art. I'm saying that it is bound by objective rules, which have been estasblished within that art by those who have the power to decide those rules.

Thats because the people who enjoyed that music faded away. Their tastes didn't.

Musical tastes don't change? And obviously if people who enjoyed that music fade away, then so does the music. However, Swing music faded to the background in the 60s. The people who enjoyed that music didn't fade away at that point.

[East Street Trader]

I have never been able to like pop music. Which is not good because this alienated me a bit from my peers - pop music was even more powerful an interest for the young in the 60s and 70s than it is now.

I have thought a bit - in a desultary way - about why it doesn't grab me. And the main reason turns out to be its length. A typical pop song lasts around two minutes going on three. If it lasts four minutes it is very unusual. The two longest I can remember are Whiter Shade of Pale and Bohemian Rhapsody (both of which I like) and they don't get much above five minutes (I think).

What has to happen within the three minutes is for something sufficiently to grab the listener's attention so that they will recognise it next time it is heard and familiarity will then start creating a liking. A "hook" I think this is called. A loud beat is often employed but the hook, in all likelihood, will be a musical phrase probably no more than three or four notes long and maybe associated with a noise or two melding in from the lyric - often the hook itself is repetitive within the song or the instrumental.

I just can't get excited about something which seizes my attention for such an infinitessimal period of time - as compared with a jazz solo or a symphany or an opera score.

If you once get caught up in a piece of Beethoven or Tchaikovsky it will hold you for half an hour or longer and is complex enough so that you may still be making discoveries about it 30 years later.

And, like a game of cricket or the climax to love making, some thrills need to be built up to. There just isn't time for that with pop music. It is instant and up front and (to me) deeply, deeply trivial and uninteresting.

I enjoy songs and tunes. So I pretty well exempt the Beatles from all this. For sure their stuff grabs people up front and trivial but it is also chock full of excellent tunes and splendid lyrics.

And there are some albums which develop a bit like a symphony. Sergeant Pepper's, for sure, but also things like Joni Mitchel's Blue.

The songs for Saturday Night Fever make a superb suite also, with a whole bunch of development involved.

And the crooners, who preceeded pop music proper (but were part of starting the phenomenon off) had some excellent tunes and lyrics.

I rank Frank Sinatra up with Pavarotti, Pele, Olivier and Maggie Smith as the pre-emminent performing artists of my time.

But generally pop music is trivial. Intentionally so. It makes limited demands on attention and works, for the most part, by formula. It is deeply, deeply shallow.

But that is only to me. When I see countless people loving it, discussing the respective merits of one performer over another and getting an enviable buzz out of going to pop concerts and the like I know that to others all this is so much nonsense.

And there is another side to the same coin. I love ballet and opera. But I have heard numbers of people derride both. For some, operatic singing is less interesting to their ear than a forest full of parrots screetching. And their view of opera is just as valid, for them, as my view of pop music is valid, for me.

So to each his own. As to how a taste for one of these things is to be compaed to a taste for another, well I was taught that comparisons are odious. And so they are.

I would rather like to have been provided with whatever it is that is needed to appreciate pop music. I would then have fit that bit more snugly into my generation. But I would not be without the tastes I do enjoy. And I suspect that is equally true of most of us.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If it adheres to the standards, then it is 'good'. If it doesn't. It's 'bad'.

Okay, that's what I thought.

I completely disagree with you, but that's okay, because I'd expect as much.

Art is not about adhering to standards, I can't believe you actually tried to make this argument. It single-handedly discredits anything you try to say in this thread, because it's clear you have no understanding what art really is.

Art is expression and soul put into various forms. To trivialize it into an issue of judging it against a "standard" is insulting to the people who make it, and exactly why I think critics are worthless. They don't understand what they're reviewing, they're just talentless hacks taking their opinions and trying to disguise it as being 'objective'.

[quote]
quote:
mran i agree that the few select people with influence can set the standards and effect other people's view on matters subjective as art, but that deos not mean that art is still objective.

Art is not objective from the outside looking in. However from the inside there are objective standards which must be met for something to be decided good.

Just because a bunch of snobs agree something is good and this becomes a "standard", doesn't mean that something is 'good'. People interpret art different ways, people have different tastes. There is no good/bad in art that can be extended in scope to anything but a person's tastes.

After all, if art was totally subjective, then there would be no need for the critic.

YES, precisely! The only critic that matters is yourself. Who the f*ck cares what others think. Think for yourself.

Musical tastes don't change? And obviously if people who enjoyed that music fade away, then so does the music.

If people are no longer interested in hearing it, and do not like hearing it, what importance is it that it stays around?

However, Swing music faded to the background in the 60s.

Actually, in the 90s it made a brief comeback. There goes your point.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asher
Art is not about adhering to standards

In general, this is correct. Art is fundamentally expression.

However, within various artistic styles, there are standards of expression, and each style has "objective" means of determining what is good and bad. That's why an Impressionist painting by Claude Monet is going to be seen as better than an Impressionist painting by Jacques LeFrog, or whomever. Still, to a discussion of overall good and bad art, this is inapplicable, as a bad Impressionist painting my be a really good painting to some other group.

And within societal concepts, it is valid to say that some forms of artistic expression are given a higher tier than others. One just has to keep in mind that such societal concepts are inherently subjective.

And, in general, there has to be a modicum of technical proficiency in the chosen art form for the expression to be considered "good" by anyone. What constitutes technical proficiency is also subjective, however.

[Japher]

Those who accuse people of being uncultured because the don't like something are stupid. If you don't like it than that probably means that you were exposed to it, thuse getting cultre. Most of the hoity-toity types who say such things are the same ones who snub NASCAR even though they have never been to a race, or will say they dislike Punk music but have never hear of Crass or the Ramones, and mock good 'ol fashion BBQs to pay $100 for BBQ ribs at some posh restaurant.

Not liking something is not being uncultured, it's being cultured enough to being able to formulate an opinion, and to know why you don't like something. Uncultured is disliking something out of ignorance, or not giving something enough of a chance to see why it is that certain ppl like what they do... Most snobs don't like certain things because they feel that the ppl who attend such 'uncultured' events are below them, i.e. Bush and Daytona.

Personally, I have learned to give everything a shot since I met my wife. She introduced me to Country Western, even though I grew up in Clovis, CA (the hickiest hick town in all of CA). While I still am a little uncomfortable with the music, you can't beat the women in tight jeans and that whole farm girl look

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
If your above statement is to be believed, then all decisions of import would be deferred to the elderly. Yet our society sticks the elderly in nursing homes, forces them to retire, and generally expects them to disappear. The people with less life experience, the middle agers are the ones who run the show.

This conflicts with your point.

Well that's a nice little strawman here.

Having the most experience is not the same as running the show. There are other factors involved. Things like energy, drive, determination, just for starters.

But even you conceded that people who are older have more experience. Hence this "ageism" is mostly rubbish.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I do resent opera and classical music being used as some sort of snobbery standard. I know plenty of people who are just as snobbish about whatever music they happen to favor.

True. The difference being, that Classical, and especially Opera, are the cultural standards by which the upper class tends to abide. And this image of elitism satisfies those who strive to feel elite, while it appals the real enthusiasts of the genre.

[GePap]

This thread reeks of the lower classes

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The difference being, that Classical, and especially Opera, are the cultural standards by which the upper class tends to abide.

I don't believe this is true anymore. The upper class doesn't enjoy opera and classical any more than the middle class does, as far as I've seen. Opera and classical have more become the domain of cross-class professionals, intellectuals and artists, rather than those of the rich and powerful. I thing there is still a stereotype that these are the cultural standards of the upper class, but that the stereotype is largely untrue these days.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Spiffor

True. The difference being, that Classical, and especially Opera, are the cultural standards by which the upper class tends to abide. And this image of elitism satisfies those who strive to feel elite, while it appals the real enthusiasts of the genre.

Which doesn't explain the popularity of opera in working class communities in South Wales, for instance. Or explain why gold miners in Victoria in the 19th Century would willingly part with large sums of money to pay people to come from Europe and entertain them. I don't believe that in either instance one can attribute it to either group wishing to ape the standards of the elite.

Who are these 'elite' anyway? And how do they 'set' the cultural standards?

Did Pavarotti singing 'Ness'un Dorma' really become popular because football fans wanted to be the chairman of Deutsche Bank or because just possibly they recognised a trained voice when they heard it?

Have you ever seen the film 'High Fidelity', Spiffor? It might give you an insight into musical snobbery and elitism which are not of the upper classes, nor anything to do with opera or classical music.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Have you ever seen the film 'High Fidelity', Spiffor? It might give you an insight into musical snobbery and elitism which are not of the upper classes, nor anything to do with opera or classical music.

Great movie! Jack Black embodied the elitism of the lower class rocker.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Have you ever seen the film 'High Fidelity', Spiffor? It might give you an insight into musical snobbery and elitism which are not of the upper classes, nor anything to do with opera or classical music.

Great movie! Jack Black embodied the elitism of the lower class rocker.

I love the scorn he showed that poor unsuspecting record buyer. But it does make a quite serious point, that elitism and snobbery are not exclusive to supposedly 'high status' or 'high culture' activities, as an evening's exposure to any football fans would reveal.

Poor Asher can't see that he's being a grotesque snob by loudly trumpeting the superiority of his 'culture' over what he (incorrectly) assumes to be mine, and decrying my allegedly elitist tastes.

It's quite amusing to see he felt the need to make a thread about it, though.

Still compensating, obviously...