Personally, I like derivative works of fiction (or music), depending on what they're derivative of (grammar?).
Most Fantasy authors do not have the level of learning that JRR did (or the time/inclination to put that much work into world-building), making a faithful ripoff of LOTR pretty much impossible - Conan or John Carter 'tributes' are another matter, benefit from *not* having that much time/thought put into them (IMO) and are to be strongly encouraged.
It has been said that all art is derivative.
I think Shakespeare himself was credited with saying there were only seven stories you could tell. Something like that.
What makes a story good, or bad, isn't the "story" so much as how the story is told, what sort of characters are involved and what the author directs the reader to think about while reading.
** spoiler omitted **
What makes a story good, or bad, isn't the "story" so much as how the story is told, what sort of characters are involved and what the author directs the reader to think about while reading.
And I think this is where we disagree most of all, and the crux of our disagreements throughout the entire thread and others like it levers upon this.
I read primarily for the story itself.
The rest of that stuff is sometimes nice to have, but secondary at best.
The story is why I came, why I stay or why I leave. It's why I pick the book up and it determines whether or not I'll put it down.
Some authors tell the story better than others. Some tell it in a way I do or do not like. But it's still the story, and how it interests or holds me, that determines whether or not I'll pay it mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You called LotR "10,000 pages about annoying hobbits doing nothing but whining" and implied that Tolkein owes his commercial success to the ignorant masses who aren't/weren't smart enough to see things as you do.
The first is true, but the second was your inference, rather than my implication.
What makes a story good, or bad, isn't the "story" so much as how the story is told, what sort of characters are involved and what the author directs the reader to think about while reading.And I think this is where we disagree most of all, and the crux of our disagreements throughout the entire thread and others like it levers upon this.
I read primarily for the story itself.
The rest of that stuff is sometimes nice to have, but secondary at best.
The story is why I came, why I stay or why I leave. It's why I pick the book up and it determines whether or not I'll put it down.
Some authors tell the story better than others. Some tell it in a way I do or do not like. But it's still the story, and how it interests or holds me, that determines whether or not I'll pay it mind.
An interesting assertion. So, maybe you can help me to understand your perspective by educating me on what you perceive "the story" to be.
I put it in quotes in my post because I didn't just want to say "the plot."
Are you saying that you read for the plot?
I just want to understand what you mean by the "the story" so I can figure out if you are truly saying something different or we just aren't on the same wavelength.
You called LotR "10,000 pages about annoying hobbits doing nothing but whining" and implied that Tolkein owes his commercial success to the ignorant masses who aren't/weren't smart enough to see things as you do.The first is true, but the second was your inference, rather than my implication.
Well, if "inference" it was, I'm pretty sure it wasn't a unique one Kirth. I certainly caught some of the same whiff as Sebastrd is describing.
An interesting assertion. So, maybe you can help me to understand your perspective by educating me on what you perceive "the story" to be.
I put it in quotes in my post because I didn't just want to say "the plot."
Are you saying that you read for the plot?
I just want to understand what you mean the "the story" so I can figure out if you are truly saying something different or we just aren't on the same wavelength.
That might be a more accurate way to put it, yeah. What happens in the scope of the book. The characters who get involved, what they do, how things react, the back and forth of cause and effect and action and reaction, the buildup, climax, and conclusion.
I'm not an intellectual, by any means. I don't "get" deep literary analysis. 90% of the stuff you claim makes Tolkien's work one of the best literary achievements of all time goes way over my head. I don't pick up on the secondary meanings or intricate little webs of background information beneath the plot, mostly because I have the Wisdom score of a bag of rocks. I don't pick up on intuitive well, and if it's not plainly spelled out, nine times out of ten I'll miss it.
I just know when I pick up a book and read it, I either enjoy what's inside or don't.
Well, if "inference" it was, I'm pretty sure it wasn't a unique one Kirth. I certainly caught some of the same whiff as Sebastrd is describing.You called LotR "10,000 pages about annoying hobbits doing nothing but whining" and implied that Tolkein owes his commercial success to the ignorant masses who aren't/weren't smart enough to see things as you do.The first is true, but the second was your inference, rather than my implication.
Whereas I didn't get that at all. Or that Kirth has ever attempted to speak for anyone beyond himself.
He's been pretty vocal about his own opinions, but as far as I read nothing he said was anything more than his own 2cp.
... though in the light of mentioning that I don't read into things well, that might not mean much at all. =)
I enjoy Tolkien for his use of language, the sense of loss he incorporates into an epic story, and the mythic world building he did, which I do find to be a rather unique contribution to the development of fantasy (Yes, Lovecraft also engaged in myth building before him, but of a much different kind).
That said, I will happily admit his non-hobbit characters tend to two dimensional, and there are certainly parts of the books which are a bit too much at times of a slog to read through.
Orthos, I would say that you aren't really describing a different way of reading than I am talking about.
I do think that from what you say, you and I probably find different things to appreciate when reading certain books. And as disdainful as I am of pseudo-intellectuals who try to distance themselves from the masses by sniffing about their superior sensibilities, I certainly don't want to imply that my way of reading is better than yours. I do think it's different though. Again, based as much as possible on what you said above.
When I talk about a book's "layers" and its use of symbolism, metaphor, allegory or other literary devices, it's a reflection of my lifelong appreciation of the craft of writing. As a very young boy I was extremely lucky to have been in a class with a very good Literature teacher who took it upon herself to explain to a young, excited kid how writing works, what writers try to do and what tools they utilize to accomplish their goals.
What that did was give me an appreciation for the art of writing, and I realized that writers typically had several things they were trying to do with their books. I realized that appreciation of a really well-written book was greatly enhanced by the process of discovering those deeper messages when they were present (which they usually are in truly great literature). That's when I really began to understand why "Gone With The Wind" was something truly special, or that J. D. Salinger was dealing with deeper philosophical issues than a casual reading might reveal.
In a sense it is sort of like learning how to appreciate any art. The first level is just what you see in a first glance. But true artistry almost always explores concepts more deeply than a first glance, and it helped me to understand the craft of writing so could recognize when a writer was utilizing those tools, because then I could search for the reason the author chose to utilize those tools.
The comment above about how someone was reading "LotR" to their kid and had a sudden realization that he was reading an epic tragedy about the ending of an age of the world, while his child was listening to a heroic journey is one example of what I mean. Both viewings of the story are true. And both are intended to be true. In my mind it helps me to gain a more fulfilling reading experience when I feel I have understood all of the simultaneous stories, and for certain books (Moby Dick being a prime example) the actual SEARCH for those meanings becomes one of the great pleasures of reading the book.
I probably am not making much sense. But that's the gist of it.
When I talk about a book's "layers" and its use of symbolism, metaphor, allegory or other literary devices, it's a reflection of my lifelong appreciation of the craft of writing. As a very young boy I was extremely lucky to have been in a class with a very good Literature teacher who took it upon herself to explain to a young, excited kid how writing works, what writers try to do and what tools they utilize to accomplish their goals.
Yeah, I never got that, and don't understand most of it.
I also don't consider it necessary to write a good story. But what determines a "good story" for me is probably a lot simpler than it does for someone like yourself who is looking for deeper meaning.
Maybe that means I'm doomed in my own attempts at writing. Don't know if that means doomed to never get anywhere with it at all, or doomed to never be considered a classic. I'm okay with the latter. I'm not looking to pen the next great literary achievement. I just like telling stories, and I have a lot of them in my head, and not enough time, energy, and resources to tell them. Wonder if I could do better if I told them orally rather than trying to write them down. I dunno. I'm rambling at this point.
In a sense it is sort of like learning how to appreciate any art. The first level is just what you see in a first glance. But true artistry almost always explores concepts more deeply than a first glance, and it helped me to understand the craft of writing so could recognize when a writer was utilizing those tools, because then I could search for the reason the author chose to utilize those tools.
I'm the same way with art as I am with books - if it appeals to me and I like it, that's that. If not, I typically don't care for it. I've never managed to get into the mindset of trying to understand the artist.
Calybos, I don't disagree with your overall point, and I consider communication to be a PRIMARY goal of good writing.
But I also understand that authors typically have a target audience. And James Joyce's target audience with "Finnegan's Wake" was not the casual reader. Nor even the educated reader. If anything he was targeting a very tiny audience of accomplished writers and trying to demonstrate a new way of telling stories. By the time he published the work he was well established, comfortable and acknowledged as one of the great literary minds of his day. So he was fine with a book that had a tiny audience.
Finnegan's wake is SO esoteric and unusual I probably never should have mentioned it. I probably should have used "Ulysses" instead.
But don't make the mistake of thinking that Joyce somehow failed in his goals with "Finnegan's Wake." In fact I believe the book accomplished exactly what he intended it to do.
Orthos, many people, especially many literary critics, think you have to understand the author to understand the message. I don't. I think it's the author's job to give you the clues you need to understand the message, and that's what great literature does.
In an attempt to explain the value of analogy, I'll utilize one. I love simple straightforward songs. But a song can appear to be simple and straightforward on the surface, but can be exploring musical goals that might not be apparent to a casual listener, but will be obvious and appreciated by a music aficionado. Something as simple as a guitar solo with a particular slide/hammer technique can leap out of the song to people who understand the mastery of guitar that is required to accomplish the effect. So the song works on different levels.
The same is true of writing.
Now, having said that, there are a lot of great writers who claim to have never given a second thought to such literary niceties. Hemingway, for example, routinely sneered at such literary techniques. In the world of sci-fi Robert Heinlein was known for not caring much about such things. But then he wrote "Stranger in a Strange Land" and it was clear that he KNEW about them and utilized them when he wanted to.
Anyway, writers write. If you are writing, you're a writer. If you can get your stories on paper, that's better than the vast majority of writers. Yes, I too write, I just submitted my first novel to Baen Publishing, for example. And, yes, I did try to weave multiple levels into the story. But did I succeed? Was the effort to do so counterproductive? Would it have been better if I just wrote a single layer and let the story carry itself? I dunno. But I like that my story has deeper meaning, and I am curious to see if others who read it will be able to discern it.
Well, for what it's worth, I wish you luck =)
Doodle, I think the quote you mentioned demonstrates an "intellectual" of the period giving Shakespeare faint praise, while satisfying his crowd with the leading diss about the "younger sort" liking one of his plays.
Shakespeare had a rather difficult time attaining the status that people associate with him these days. That's one reason he built his own theater.
Shakespeare didn't attain the status that people associate with him these days until about two centuries after his death. My understanding was that he was a successful, respected playwright who wrote plays for Jimmy I. If it took time for him to build a reputation, it's because some of his earlier works weren't as good as what he'd write later.
I don't know as much about the world of classical music, but I didn't realize Mozart was sneered at by snobs, either. I know about the whole "hard-to-be-accepted-after-being-a-child-prodigy" thing, but it certainly took him a lot less time to attain his status than it did ol' Bill's.
Anyway, I could use a number of examples of artists whose work was sneered at by the "right people" in their time, but are now regarded as geniuses. And many of those had reputations which ebbed and flowed with the cultural tides.
Yes, you could. I am still amused at this being somehow analagous to Kirth (sorry I got your fav book wrong) not liking Tolkien, but [shrugs].
But I am confident that people will still be debating Tolkien's magnum opus 200 years from now.
I'm not confident you pinkskins will be debating anything in 200 years' time, let alone fantasy literature, but if you are, I agree.
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
I can (or could) play the solo in 'For No One', and the one in the middle of 'After the Goldrush' - I think Penny Lane's a (varispeeded) flugelhorn solo, though...
Wait a mo.
Nope. Piccolo trumpet! :)
For better or worse, Tolkien has pretty much become the "Grandfather of Modern Fantasy" if only through higher profile. I can go into any bookstore in the country and find Tolkien. I have never seen Eddison and Clark Ashton Smith anthologies in those same stores. And REH's stuff also tends to get a lot less room; Most of the books of his I have seen are usually linked to a movie release.
In the UK we are lucky to have the SF and Fantasy Masterworks ranges form Gollancz, which republish 'classic' SFF novels from yesteryear. Eddison and Smith are both in there, I believe (along with Dunsany and Howard).
This is slightly off topic, but I was reading A Civil Affair by Bujold last night and her protagionst's Miles Vorkosian, a stunted nobl, details his early military nexperience cleaning drains.
That immediately set to mind GRR Martin's Tyrion Lannister mentioning his experiences cleaning the drains of Casterly Rock.
It's possible. GRRM has certainly read Bujold and a I think a couple of times the vague similarities between Tyrion and Miles have been mentioned (though in VORKOSIGAN I believe it's Miles's grandfather who despises him, and it's nowhere near as major a plot point). It could certainly be a tribue (of which there are many to other authors in ASoIaF).
The 'noble dude having to do menial labour' trope is also a lot older than that.
Pre- Tolkien the vast majority of fantasy was as I described. Post Tolkien sees an explosion in the popularity of fantasy writing as well as the fantasy story set in a fantasy world. The very fact at we are discussing this issue is proof enough on who has been the biggest influence on modern fantasy. Ask the vast majority of people who Edison was and they will say that guy who invented the lightbulb. He may have been a great author, but who knows.
True, but ask the vast majority of people who Conan is and they'll tell you, and Conan pre-dated the publication of any Middle-earth book. So did the Oz books (some of the Oz books do have characters visiting from Earth but IIRC quite a few are wholly set in Oz with no interaction with the 'real' world).
Much like that Prince of Thorns book- self aggrandizing 'ubermensch' kills whoever he wants, f***s whoever he wants, and proceeds to deliberate upon the uncivilized nature of the world while sitting in a pile of dead prostitutes (who were, don't you worry, raped before they died).
That never happens in the book, at all. Maybe in the sequels, but certainly not in PRINCE OF THORNS.
Let me put it this way: I'm a Susanna Clarke fan-boy
This may be relevant to your interests. It's the casting news for the two leads in the TV mini-series that starts shooting in a couple of weeks.
In the UK we are lucky to have the SF and Fantasy Masterworks ranges form Gollancz, which republish 'classic' SFF novels from yesteryear. Eddison and Smith are both in there, I believe (along with Dunsany and Howard).
[Sighs longingly]
I have picked up a few of these here and there and I just drool over the pages where they list the other volumes in the series...
[Drools]
This may be relevant to your interests.
It is, quite. Thank you for the heads-up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Orthos, I would say that you aren't really describing a different way of reading than I am talking about.
I do think that from what you say, you and I probably find different things to appreciate when reading certain books. And as disdainful as I am of pseudo-intellectuals who try to distance themselves from the masses by sniffing about their superior sensibilities, I certainly don't want to imply that my way of reading is better than yours. I do think it's different though. Again, based as much as possible on what you said above.
When I talk about a book's "layers" and its use of symbolism, metaphor, allegory or other literary devices, it's a reflection of my lifelong appreciation of the craft of writing. As a very young boy I was extremely lucky to have been in a class with a very good Literature teacher who took it upon herself to explain to a young, excited kid how writing works, what writers try to do and what tools they utilize to accomplish their goals.
What that did was give me an appreciation for the art of writing, and I realized that writers typically had several things they were trying to do with their books. I realized that appreciation of a really well-written book was greatly enhanced by the process of discovering those deeper messages when they were present (which they usually are in truly great literature). That's when I really began to understand why "Gone With The Wind" was something truly special, or that J. D. Salinger was dealing with deeper philosophical issues than a casual reading might reveal.
In a sense it is sort of like learning how to appreciate any art. The first level is just what you see in a first glance. But true artistry almost always explores concepts more deeply than a first glance, and it helped me to understand the craft of writing so could recognize when a writer was utilizing those tools, because then I could search for the reason the author chose to utilize those tools.
The comment above about how someone was reading "LotR" to their kid...
As a jazz musician currently living in a semi-rural area, I strongly agree with your points here.
Modern jazz (from the '40s on), classical music, and any form of art with real depth, these are not forms of entertainment that can be passively enjoyed, at least not initially. They require an active audience, one who is willing to interact with the art. Good art doesn't tell you things, it presents you with concepts, ideas, feelings, and requires you to interact with those things. It doesn't give answers, it asks questions. It is not complete, or finished, it is a starting point, with space for the audience member to inhabit with their own mind/imagination/spirit, and thus connect the whole. This is why, in a sense, good art is subjective, because everyone will interact with that open space in their own unique way. On the other hand, it can be objectively evaluated, not as a complete thing, but how far it succeeds in pulling the audience into the space to experience it uniquely.
But good art can never force an audience member that doesn't want, or is unable, to go there. In art, as in life, it takes two to tango. And some (most?) prefer to dance along to Miley Cyrus than tango, as Miley requires no interaction, just passive tolerance, for her "art" to achieve its goals.
So yeah. Tolkien left plenty of space for the audience to interact with his works. Some don't bother, others are unable, still others find that interaction not to their taste. But in my opinion, Tolkien danced his half of the tango pretty successfully.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to play Devil's Advocate, littlehewy, I once said something similar to Mrs Gersen about some horrid pop music she was listening to. She replied, "You only think that because you haven't tried to 'interact' with it. Same with any kind of music." So I'm on the fence, thinking it's maybe totally subjective whether art "requires interaction" or "requires no interaction" -- that's possibly just a fancy way of denigrating art that you, personally, don't prefer to "interact with."
But I don't know that's true, so I'll ask a question, if I may. If not -- if there is some objective difference other than just one's personal opinion -- then what are the objective standards used to determine which art "requires active interaction" and which art is "passive"?
Regarding jazz, which you mentioned (and which I love, btw), I submit this quote. I don't agree with it, but it's saying more or less the same thing about jazz that you say about Miley Cyrus:
It seems to me monstrous that anyone should believe that the jazz rhythm expresses America. Jazz rhythm expresses the primitive savage.
Good question - and interesting points. I'm very keen to answer you, but my initial responses would, at the moment, all be expressed in poetic, metaphorical, ambiguous, and perhaps not entirely rational language. Probably because I've just come off a three hour practice bender, and I'm feeling like I've just touched the fringes of the sublime (see what I mean?). And I'm guessing you're hoping for more rational, objective language :)
So, I'll ponder what you've said, and see if it's not possible for me to wrap some coherent, straightforward, and transparent words around it in a little while (in musicianspeak, anywhere from 1-48 hours time...).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"We're all sophisticated savages here!"
Literature's different, but with music, anything can be consumed passively, no matter whether it's high, low or middlebrow - Vivaldi being piped down the phoneline while you're being put on hold, Birth of the Cool as an unobtrusively hip background noise in a shop, etc. Betrayal of the artist's vision, possibly, but it's all product. The more complex/skilfully put together a work is, the more it *rewards* interaction - unless you have a particularly specialised interest in pop music production, you're always going to get more out of repeated listens to, say, Zappa or Bach than you are to darling Miley's oeuvre.
But then again, that's not what her records are for, so it may not be a problem. Nobody expected Frank or J.S. to start twerking, after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Music varies pretty widely in its expression. Some things are true of almost all people: We react to certain simple rhythms, we get a certain emotional response to certain tones, and so on. Certain things come with being human, generally. Most music gets at least part of its appeal this way, from classical music and older, to Miley Cyrus and other contemporary music. However, not every piece of music relies on this to the same degree. There are many more complex correlations in some music, and these give a reaction in SOME people, particularly those who know enough similar music, knows a bit of history about it, and is ready to try to grasp emotional nuances of the message. Those who do not have all (or part of) that will feel this music to be pointless, strange and generally stupid. In my experience, those who are receptive to "more demanding" art will usually react very strongly to it - it gobsmacks them completely. The rest of us keep listening to Miley Cyrus et al.
That about right, littlehewy?
Edit: Frank Zappa twerking? Uh... BAD MENTAL IMAGE!!!
unless you have a particularly specialised interest in pop music production, you're always going to get more out of repeated listens to, say, Zappa or Bach than you are to darling Miley's oeuvre.
One could equally say, "unless you have a particularly specialized interest in all that classical stuff, you're always going to get more out of repeated listens to, say, Zappa or Cyrus than you are to darling Bach's repertoire." See -- if there are no objective standards, it all comes down to personal opinion as to what us "skilfully put together" and what is "rewarding" to listen to.
There are many more complex correlations in some music, and these give a reaction in SOME people, particularly those who know enough similar music, knows a bit of history about it, and is ready to try to grasp emotional nuances of the message. Those who do not have all (or part of) that will feel this music to be pointless, strange and generally stupid.
So, Iron Maiden is extremely rewarding to SOME people; those who don't like it lack the ability to grasp their emotional nuances. I mean, they have many more complex correlations than in most music -- at one point they had THREE guitarists playing in tandem, along with the bass and drums and operatic singing. Agree?
|
The issue is complexity and intention. I'm not very familiar with Ms Cyrus' oevre but in general most pop music is reduced in complexity compared to, say Herbie Hancock, and intended primarily as a commercial enterprise. That's not to say there isn't art and craft in a great deal of pop music but the multiple levels of that compared to, say, Dolphin Dance, will be less. That makes it easier to "get it" and so easier to sell - relatively simple melodies and harmonies so the listener doesn't have to concentrate too hard to extract something meaningful. And the pop music "industry" is just that - a primarily commercial enterprise whereas no one talks about a jazz industry, because you don't go into it for the cash and girls but because that's where you muse is leading you. I think that if you can appreciate the complexity and intent then I think you can appreciate that the artistry is there. Also, in order to appreciate art as art, you need to have a deeper understanding, even an education, as to what is going on. You might think Beethoven's Fifth is a great tune, but you'll get a much better appreciation of just how great the composition is with a bit of knowledge more generally about classical music. That, I think, is reasonably objective.
But that doesn't take away the role of taste, as such. I like some jazz more than others, for example. I think the whole thing about LotR and your comments wasn't so much that you didn't like it - read what you like, frankly. I think the problem was your "It's all just whining hobbits" when there is so much more going on. That isn't a question of taste, that's just wrong. I won't rehash AD's comments above as he put it very well.
I think the problem was your "It's all just whining hobbits" when there is so much more going on.
Go back and check -- I never said that was "all" that was in it -- the word "all" is something that you and AD and others mentally edited in.
Something might very easily contain "10,000 pages of annoying hobbits doing nothing but whining," and still contain 1,000 pages of mythic grandeur, or whatever else.
But because I said ONE bad thing about it, the knee-jerk reaction is that I must therefore automatically be saying ALL bad things about it. I'm happy to keep obliging, if people keep insisting, but that's not what was initially said.
"We're all sophisticated savages here!"
Literature's different, but with music, anything can be consumed passively, no matter whether it's high, low or middlebrow - Vivaldi being piped down the phoneline while you're being put on hold, Birth of the Cool as an unobtrusively hip background noise in a shop, etc. Betrayal of the artist's vision, possibly, but it's all product. The more complex/skilfully put together a work is, the more it *rewards* interaction - unless you have a particularly specialised interest in pop music production, you're always going to get more out of repeated listens to, say, Zappa or Bach than you are to darling Miley's oeuvre.
But then again, that's not what her records are for, so it may not be a problem. Nobody expected Frank or J.S. to start twerking, after all.
Certainly, artistic intention informs a work - and in fact, that may be one of the hallmarks of good art (say your Bach or Zappa) as opposed to... Miley: that good art is more open-ended, less explicit, and can actually lead the audience to far more experiences that are different or unexpected from the artist's intention than less-good art, which tends to excite responses that conform to a narrower range, and more closely aligned with the intention of the piece.
In other words, perhaps with good art, the intention of the artist is more opaque, less direct, asking more than telling. With poor art, the intention of the artist tends to be explicit and heavy-handed, and leaves less room for the audience to imaginatively move.
For example, Miley's new tune (Wrecking Ball?) can only be interpreted in a very few different ways - the intention of the combination of lyrics and music is pretty straight forward. There's not a lot of room for the audience member's imagination to create a different narrative within it. Tolkien, on the other hand, inspired numerous theories about "what it was all about", from a commentary on WWII, to heroin addiction, to religious beliefs. There are so many threads, layers, themes, that the audience member, if they find it to their taste, can explore in their own imagination.
See what I mean, KG? Not making a whole lot of objective sense right now, am I? :) Like I said, I'll tackle this later...
There are many more complex correlations in some music, and these give a reaction in SOME people, particularly those who know enough similar music, knows a bit of history about it, and is ready to try to grasp emotional nuances of the message. Those who do not have all (or part of) that will feel this music to be pointless, strange and generally stupid.So, Iron Maiden is extremely rewarding to SOME people; those who don't like it lack the ability to grasp their emotional nuances. I mean, they have many more complex correlations than in most music -- at one point they had THREE guitarists playing in tandem, along with the bass and drums and operatic singing. Agree?
I was not talking about any specific genre or type of music, because I do not think it matters. Complicated music will appeal to a smaller audience than simple music. Some music that is in truth complex is probably not recognized for it. Some musicians make music that IS complex but people consider simple - I would see this as approaching a definition of "great art". The natures of the complexities and interrelationships don't matter, every school of music has its own, I would say. That Iron Maiden have a certain instrument setup is not what is important, but how their music uses said instruments. I lack the knowledge to answer your question, Kirth.
There are many more complex correlations in some music, and these give a reaction in SOME people, particularly those who know enough similar music, knows a bit of history about it, and is ready to try to grasp emotional nuances of the message. Those who do not have all (or part of) that will feel this music to be pointless, strange and generally stupid.So, Iron Maiden is extremely rewarding to SOME people; those who don't like it lack the ability to grasp their emotional nuances. I mean, they have many more complex correlations than in most music -- at one point they had THREE guitarists playing in tandem, along with the bass and drums and operatic singing. Agree?
I have a great deal of respect for the high-level practitioners of just about every kind of music. I don't like all genres, but I can appreciate good art even if I don't enjoy its particular expression. Metal for example: I actually hate to have it on. But as an exercise, I can actually enjoy analysing it, because a lot of it is very deep. When it comes to music, I find it quite easy to overcome my subjective likes and dislikes, to a large degree at least, if not in totality.
Leaving my tastes as far to the side as i can, I don't think Iron Maiden is necessarily high-level art. But I'm not an expert regarding their discography.
See what I mean, KG? Not making a whole lot of objective sense right now, am I?
Exactly so! Art makes us feel certain ways -- very powerfully so, in many cases -- but ways which are generally not subject to objective standards, because it's idiosyncratic which art affects which people in what ways.
Myself, I'm a blues music fanatic. Mrs Gersen listens to something like Lightnin' Hopkins, and she hears a very simple chord being repeated over and over, and an old guy whining about a woman. She could very legitimately claim there's not much room to "interact," little interpretation needed, no real complexity, and no reward for interaction. I listen to it and I'm hearing the whole story of the man's life, all his hopes and disappointments, expressed in lyric and rhythm and subtlety of intonation.
We're both right.
You and I listen to Miley and say it's just simple repetitive noises and bubble-gum singing. Her fans say it's the whole story of her life, etc., etc. Might we all be right there, too?
Leaving my tastes as far to the side as i can, I don't think Iron Maiden is necessarily high-level art. But I'm not an expert regarding their discography.
My brother is a musician, and said the same thing. I put on one of their '80s tracks and said, "Mentally replace the first guitar with a brass section, the second guitar with strings, and the third guitar with woodwinds, then listen to it again." A lot of it is very complex, harmonic classical-style composition, played on contemporary instruments and with a sped up tempo.
There will always be art that is accessible to many people, and art that is not. These two differ in certain ways, different depending on the form of art in question. Now, I have noticed that when someone likes less accessible art, it usually means a lot to them, and they react more strongly. It is also noteworthy that some art remains relevant, while other art doesn't. I would say this is a rather closely related issue.
It isn't as simple as "everyone has different tastes", Kirth.
Aubrey, apparently you're taking what I wrote to be nearly the opposite of what I thought I was writing. I've flagged your response and am otherwise happy to let you think whatever you like.
It isn't as simple as "everyone has different tastes", Kirth.
I agree, but with no objective standards and a large number of counterexamples, it's difficult to reject that null hypothesis on solid grounds.
See what I mean, KG? Not making a whole lot of objective sense right now, am I?Exactly so! Art makes us feel certain ways -- very powerfully so, in many cases -- but ways which are generally not subject to objective standards, because it's idiosyncratic which art affects which people in what ways.
Myself, I'm a blues music fanatic. Mrs Gersen listens to something like Lightnin' Hopkins, and she hears a very simple chord being repeated over and over, and an old guy whining about a woman. She could very legitimately claim there's not much room to "interact," little interpretation needed, no real complexity, and no reward for interaction. I listen to it and I'm hearing the whole story of the man's life, all his hopes and disappointments, expressed in lyric and rhythm and subtlety of intonation.
We're both right.
You and I listen to Miley and say it's just simple repetitive noises and bubble-gum singing. Her fans say it's the whole story of her life, etc., etc. Might we all be right there, too?
So your question becomes, "Is quality in art a human invention, and thus objectively meaningless?" (with a "Yes," hidden behind it?).
Well, certainly, if you're a tree, or an alien, or an insect, or a black hole, the concept of the actual existence of different levels of quality in human art is pretty far removed from reality...
But we're human. And as a human, I completely reject the concept that we, as humans, should just say, "It's all subjective, so there's no point talking about quality in art - Miley is just as enjoyable to some as Coltrane is to others, so Miley's music must be of as high a quality as Coltrane's". That's patent rubbish.
But, it's also very important that the question "Why not?" is asked as well. And in 1-48 hours, I'll have more coherent things to say about it :)
But, it's also very important that the question "Why not?" is asked as well.
And in 1-48 hours, I'll have more coherent things to say about it :)
Again, I'm arguing as a Devil's Advocate, but actually agree with you -- it's that "why not" that I'm interested in, and look forward to hearing more when you come down a bit and get your head in a different space.
Leaving my tastes as far to the side as i can, I don't think Iron Maiden is necessarily high-level art. But I'm not an expert regarding their discography.My brother is a musician, and said the same thing. I put on one of their '80s tracks and said, "Mentally replace the first guitar with a brass section, the second guitar with strings, and the third guitar with woodwinds, then listen to it again." A lot of it is very complex, harmonic classical-style composition, played on contemporary instruments and with a sped up tempo.
Not a good example to trap me with - I've only heard a few tracks, a few times, and I've certainly never had the opportunity to properly interact with Maiden. As I said, I'm not well-versed in their work.
It is also noteworthy that some art remains relevant, while other art doesn't. I would say this is a rather closely related issue.
Absolutely. I think that depth is the key - the closer art cleaves to the heart of human existence, and the more numerous and diverse strands it uses to connect to that core of humanity, the more relevant it will remain.
/waffle
Not a good example to trap me with - I've only heard a few tracks, a few times, and I've certainly never had the opportunity to properly interact with Maiden. As I said, I'm not well-versed in their work.
No trap intended; it's just another example I put out there. I'll stick with Lightnin' Hopkins if you prefer. Or, for jazz, on the surface Miles Davis is just repeated low tones. People swear by it, though -- him and Coltraine. I personally prefer Coleman Hawkins and Lester Young (to stick with similar instruments; Max Roach was my favorite jazz artist), but I'm sure as hell not willing to say that Davis is "lesser art." But I like to think about the "why not."
It isn't as simple as "everyone has different tastes", Kirth.I agree, but with no objective standards and a large number of counterexamples, it's difficult to reject that null hypothesis on solid grounds.
I am not all that good at analysing art, Kirth. It's not my thing. When I listen to music, I get stuck with simple stuff. When I hear more complex jazz and other stuff (twelve-tone opera, anyone?), I don't manage to see it as a whole, I get stuck at the details, and they don't speak to me. I know people who do manage to see it, and who have described the process to me roughly as "your mind fills in stuff", which I have no reason not to believe.
I repeat: This is not dependent on genre. We all have art we understand better, and obviously a lot of people love Iron Maiden - perhaps this is the reason, that their music is complex stuff that they find rewarding even though many others who listen don't even realize what is hidden in the music? I do not see their music as a counterexample of anything I said.
I would try to, tentatively, phrase it as: Music that is huge for a while and then disappears in all likelihood does not contain this quality.
Which Iron Maiden certainly has not done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That puts us back to what my elementary school teacher always said, "Classics are works that have survived the test of time," as if this was an objective measure of quality. As a kid, I always sort of thought it was more a measure of lasting popularity instead, and never really agreed -- if "being really poular" doesn't make something great art, I was never clear on how "being popular for a longer period of time" would.
That applies to literature, too, not just music, of course. I've heard it said that Shakespeare was popular in his day because of the sex and violence, not the art, and that the plays remained popular because they contained so much of those things. I read Othello and get a lot more out of it than that, but I'm hard-pressed to objectively say why Othello is a greater work than, say, The Big Sleep.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The trap comment should have had wink after it, but the dash following it would have rendered it visually awkward :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Comparing one older great work to a more recent great work doesn't really help, though. I think it behooves us to be generous regarding art, and be sure not to disparage those who aim their work at entertaining with rather simple stuff. Let's face it, if it was easy to do what Miley Cyrus does, lots more would be doing it. She makes music (I have no idea what parts of the process she is involved in beyond the obvious singing), she keeps to deadlines, she manages to keep it feasible economically, she manages to market herself enough. I have a healthy amount of admiration for someone who can do all that, and know I wouldn't manage it. That, in itself, doesn't mean that her music is "great art". I would guess that she'll be gone pretty soon. The Big Sleep isn't, nor is Othello.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Twerks up a storm]