[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Art is dead, they say...
> Yes, they can, I can have several musicians confirm this if you would
You mean like I'm too stupid to figure it out without several musicians?
How do you know *I* am not a musician?
No, that's OK. The answer is still: No they can't. Not without severe
alteration, and you could do that to any song no matter the beat.
> For a while now, several of you have been "hiding behind" the argument
> that art is anything you say it is.
I never hid at all...I said outright that Art is life and life is
Art...and that Art can ONLY be measured by the effect it has on the one
experiencing it. Look Ma; no hiding. I not only stand by my statements,
I will tell you that you cannot credibly dispute them.
> I believe that this argument is a useless waste of time.
In the sense that one shouldn't argue with it, you are correct.
> Now take for instance Ms. Joplin. She was a song
> writer/poet who wrote about social change. She didn't change society, she
> just wrote about its changes.
Poor choice, or was that intentional? She didn't write her songs.
> So it wasn't unified...
I said the movement was unified within itself. That's pretty clear.
Naturally, not everyone was buying into it. That never happens.
> Rock was altogether a different story. While a generation did clearly
> exist, it was not even close to as dramatic. Plus it did not produce the
> kind of artistic golden age the 20's did.
In your (humble?) opinion.
> I will detail this decade
> somewhat less because I'm sure you all know many of the gory details. The
> most signifigant thing to occur in this decade, historically speaking, was
> the Cuban Missle Crisis.
Yeah...forget about walking on the Moon and other such nonsense.
> This the very environment that rock needed to thrive in. Rock was all
> about destruction, at its core.
Compelling, but you're just about 10 years too late for this
argument...unless you're talking about the `50s, RnR started. All of the
things you say are pretty true, just placed in the wrong decade.
> dialectical realist. In Huck Finn there are 21 different dialects, this
> was something that Dickens may have tried to do, but it doesn't really
But maybe, given the characters he used, he didn't NEED to? Because
someone does not use something doesn't mean he's unable. That you admit
he used "real speech" at all counters your argument about Twain.
> Ouch...This hurts.
But it's true.
> According to this, Shakespeare would be virtually
> ignored today,
Who did you say? Alas poor McGoo; I knew him well.
> Negative. I said that art does move you, but so do trains.
I said that The Who's music moved forward, and you said "Art does move
> Same can said of music. It seems that most people on this list are
> content with saying music is art because music is art. Sounds like they
> are claiming it is worthy simply because it exists.
Ha! That sounds to me more like the Poetry side of the argument!
But I disagree; I think we all agree that music is worthy, and Art,
because it moves us.
> And my contentious is that one cannot measure in this totally personal
Why not? Of COURSE you can, and it's the only way!
> I also contend that rock music has had only marginal influence on
> anything, except the size of our wallets.
Oh, and you stole that book of Dickinson poems did you?
> Art must be looked at in terms
> that can be defined, or else there is no reason to ever discuss it.
A term which is defined: Effect. That is the term which describes how
Art can be measured. OK?
> Fair enough. I just think Tolkein is a fairly minor writer.
That's OK. I think Dickinson is a fairly minor influence, and Tolkein
DEFINITELY had more influence.
> BTW, did anybody here read the TIME article a while back that listed "My
> Generation" as one of the pivotal events of the Twentieth Century?
No, but I'm sure glad you did! Great comment.
> (I'm sure Mark is going to insist it's Dylan.)
You're quite the perseptive fellow. Actually, maybe Woody Guthrie or
Pete Seger? And Ginsburg, certainly.
"You take the guns...I'll keep the women."
what David Koresh should have said