Jim Naseum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 You're getting a window into her life like reading a book. Definately part of the equation. Also like visiting with the artist. When you visit, are you having feelings of admiration? Pity? Scorn? What? Depends on the artist and the song. You don't have to agree with the artists message to admire their artistry or instrument. I was asking about Amy Winehouse, the subject of that exchange. So, there's no "depends" involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow#422 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) Chapter 1 "In a famous 1951 experiment led by Swarthmore's Solomon Asch, 76% of people conformed at least once to what they heard other people arguing was the correct length of a line on a scale right in front of their face, even though it was plainly wrong. The people arguing for the incorrect measurement were all plants, but overall, 33% of participants went along with the group, even though they were spouting nonsense. A follow-up study in a 1955Journal of Abnormal Psychology report found even under anonymous conditions, about 23% of people preferred to believe what people were saying about the line rather than the evidence in front of their own eyes." How many of the 33% in the 1951 experiment, and how many of the 23% in the 1955 follow-up study did so for the sake of avoiding a confrontation? Special interest individuals & groups have always been spinning propaganda messages through media since their inception. On the lowest level think advertising for product that stimulates a buying instinct. On a larger scale, it could include news media supporting economic, foreign policy, etc. The masses either blindly accept was is being feed to them and get on that bandwagon, or rise above the BS by means of diversity in their informational sources. It has been said that If one could control ALL media, they theoretically could then control the entire world. Is OP just conducting another "experiment" ? I am now diversifying my informational intake by choosing to follow other, more interesting, threads. Edited January 20, 2016 by Arrow#422 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 Is OP just conducting another "experiment" ? Absolutely. That is after all, the essence of the art of conversation. How could that not be obvious before? Never attended any "dinner parties?" What's the methodology? People from diverse b/g are assembled to enjoy each other's company. One tosses out a hypothesis that interests them, and expects to retrieve a variety of replies that confirm, deny, adjust the hypothesis. It's a social mechanism of learning, exchange, interaction, and even amusement. The feelings of utter resentment of that mechanism, itself becomes a new hypothesis! Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapsnb01 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) Classification. There's been much discussion on "ethos" of music genres, but none on what classifies as a "rock" or "country" or "rap" or "blues" etc song/artist. Too many songs/artists to count do not fall nicely and neatly into one of these classifications. They often vacillate between genres. There are many examples of this and it's not hard to think of them. So, I ask, who is a rock and roll artist? What is the classification of a rock and roll song? If it's simply assigned to those that fit the "ethos" of the genre, then many songs that others would not call rock and roll are truly rock and roll then. Painting with a black and white brush is easy and convenient, but unfortunately most of the world is varying shades of grey. Edited January 20, 2016 by kapsnb01 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 You are a fan of what rock and to artists, Mr. Mallette? We didn't actually cover that. Not a "fan." I love great music of all kinds from the Hurrian Hymn of 1400 BC to John Tennison's quantonal boogie woogie of right now. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 Classification. There's been much discussion on "ethos" of music genres, but none on what classifies as a "rock" or "country" or "rap" or "blues" etc song/artist. Too many songs/artists to count do not fall nicely and neatly into one of these classifications. They often vacillate between genres. There are many examples of this and it's not hard to think of them. So, I ask, who is a rock and roll artist? What is the classification of a rock and roll song? If it's simply assigned to those that fit the "ethos" of the genre, then many songs that others would not call rock and roll are truly rock and roll then. Painting with a black and white brush is easy and convenient, but unfortunately most of the world is varying shades of grey. Where have you been hiding? Good comment! A judge once said of pornography, "I don't know how to describe it, but I know it when I see it." This is not a stupid remark. It encapsulates the idea of poetry, which is to put words to the ineffable. I never said Rock had black and white lines. I just accepted the genre for how it is generally understood. I know of no critic who attempts B&W lines, so I can't see it as an issue. I think most people are like the good judge above. They know Pat Boone is not Rock and Roll, and they know Mick Jagger is. Where anyone wants to draw their line of course personal, and that's how all of art works. So, "lines" have nothing to do with the premise. The rock and roll ethos I have already described and of course it is a generality. This isn't science, it is art, a branch of philosophy. So no lines are needed, wanted or accepted. What I have seen so far is that no one here ever considered the ethos of art forms and they can't see how it could possibly matter. R&R is apparently the same as C&W, which I suppose is then the same as Baroque, or Jazz or Swing or Opera, and all that matters is the "sound coming into the ear." I accept that as the basic consensus at this "dinner party." That no one can see a contradiction of authoritarians embracing anti-establishment art is not an indictment, it's just a point of interest to me. Thanks for the good comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimjimbo Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 As my EX wife used to say....."Are we done now?" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max2 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Conservatism is gone. Fear of God is gone. Family values are out the window and its all from the freedom of expression, acceptance and conformity that Rock and Roll is all about. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 That no one can see a contradiction of authoritarians embracing anti-establishment art What is so strange about that? Art is art. If you like art, you will like art produced by people who may be the antithesis of your ethics, morals, religion, or whatever. As to music, "If it sounds good, it IS good." Dave 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Sargent Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Conservatism is gone. Fear of God is gone. Family values are out the window and its all from the freedom of expression, acceptance and conformity that Rock and Roll is all about. Whatever it is you look for, you will see. I choose to look for and therefore find the opposite from this in my world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 Conservatism is gone. Fear of God is gone. Family values are out the window and its all from the freedom of expression, acceptance and conformity that Rock and Roll is all about. What music do you listen to? Are you a fan of any music? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 Art is art. That means you believe all art is simply equal and interchangeable. I certainly do not believe that, nor does the entire institution of criticism, or art history, or even art appreciation. You would declare Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" as the same as Judith Krantz' "Princess Daisy" by such reasoning. Similarly, food is food, would allow that bacon is the same as kale. Ha ha...well, thanks for that exposition! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 Conservatism is gone. Fear of God is gone. Family values are out the window and its all from the freedom of expression, acceptance and conformity that Rock and Roll is all about. Whatever it is you look for, you will see. I choose to look for and therefore find the opposite from this in my world. Pity you didn't feel like responding to my specific question about Amy Winehouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) Art is art. That means you believe all art is simply equal and interchangeable. I certainly do not believe that, nor does the entire institution of criticism, or art history, or even art appreciation. You would declare Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" as the same as Judith Krantz' "Princess Daisy" by such reasoning. Similarly, food is food, would allow that bacon is the same as kale. Ha ha...well, thanks for that exposition! Wow. Even I know that's not what Dave believes. Edited January 20, 2016 by mungkiman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 Amy Winehouse During this time, Winehouse began developing a reputation as an unstable party girl, often showing up to her club or TV performances too drunk to sing a whole set. She also started a tumultuous, on-again-off-again relationship with music video assistant Blake Fielder-Civil who admitted to introducing Winehouse to hard drugs. In public, the couples' arguments often devolved into fistfights and dramatic scenes. In private, their romance centered around drugs, alcohol, physical abuse and even self-harm. I accept the general outlines of this rather generous bio, I also accept she had a remarkable voice and could really sing. But, would I buy her records or tickets to her concerts? No. Because I don't want to support clownish and outlandish social behavior with my art dollar. I don't want to enable or encourage those values in a person. I don't want to see more of that, but rather less. And, since I believe art comes from the soul of an artist, embracing the art is to understand and embrace the artist at some level. That's not to suggest that artists are not flawed, because they are some of the most flawed people in society. But there must be an offset to the flaws, that makes a person "admirable" - in which case their art takes on more human value to me. So, in the case of a Winehouse kind of character, I may pity them, have sympathy for their tragic life, but remain unwilling to contribute to the enabling of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Because I don't want to support clownish and outlandish social behavior with my art dollar. That's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Of course now it's a moot point. With your logic, there is very little you'd watch or see. Everyone is flawed. Where do you draw the line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 Everyone is flawed. Where do you draw the line? Explained clearly and explicitly in the 3rd paragraph above your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 Art is art. That means you believe all art is simply equal and interchangeable. I certainly do not believe that, nor does the entire institution of criticism, or art history, or even art appreciation. You would declare Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" as the same as Judith Krantz' "Princess Daisy" by such reasoning. Similarly, food is food, would allow that bacon is the same as kale. Ha ha...well, thanks for that exposition! Wow. Even I know that's not what Dave believes. Oh? Well then, can you explain what is the meaning of "Art is art?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Art is art. That means you believe all art is simply equal and interchangeable. I certainly do not believe that, nor does the entire institution of criticism, or art history, or even art appreciation. You would declare Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" as the same as Judith Krantz' "Princess Daisy" by such reasoning. Similarly, food is food, would allow that bacon is the same as kale. Ha ha...well, thanks for that exposition! Wow. Even I know that's not what Dave believes. Oh? Well then, can you explain what is the meaning of "Art is art?" Not to you, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel's wife Posted January 20, 2016 Moderators Share Posted January 20, 2016 Because I don't want to support clownish and outlandish social behavior with my art dollar. That's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Of course now it's a moot point. With your logic, there is very little you'd watch or see. Everyone is flawed. Where do you draw the line? Everyone is flawed except jo56steph74. Haven't you figured that out yet? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts