Mike:
>i couldn't care any less what you say about the beatles or, anyone else.
Finally, someone's just said something that makes sense.
>the point you seem to be making, that i disagree with, is that there is something inherently better about some arts over others.
Not inherently. Comparatively, yes. Or isn't Western music, for instance, better than music based on the pentatonic scale. Don't you think Shakespeare could write better than... well... me?!
> you seem to have bought into some elitest notion that there can be a hierarchy of tastes (italian furniture over star trek furniture or, woody allen over buffy).
Yes, but we'd have to delve into the notion of "elite" to get that straight. I know it's a trace of the American culture, and growingly a worldwide notion, that an "elite" is something bad, mostly because it's mistakenly interpreted as "social class" issue. An elite is a group of people that stands out by understanding, keeping and, when possible, developing our culture. Bach is part of the Western culture elite as a "developer". Bruce Dickinson is not. I could even say our co-lister Lloyd is at an "understander" and keeper of the art of singing. Most of us here are "dischargable" ( EXCLUSIVELY IN THAT RESPECT ), but civilization depends on people like Lloyd, Bach, Einstein, etc. They're the ones who keep the wheels turning ( Bach and Einstein speeded them up ).
Regarding the Beatles, they may have speeded up the wheel of pop music, but in the big picture I have no doubt they helped turn it back ( but that is not what I was discussing and I don't see any point in discussing that here, btw ).
> if i had to categorize it, you seem to hold that which is accepted by academia, in higher regard than that which is shunned by academia. additionally, you seem to be asking us to accept this as a given rather than giving us an argument as to why we should.
Well... here we'd have to discuss another issue, which I think does not fit on this list: how much academia represents the elite nowadays, or if hasn't been taken up by the rebelled mass.
>if you want to look at complexity and excellence in construction as the litmus test for the value of an art, consider the twinkie and the nuclear weapon. if i'm hungry, i'd rather have the twinkie (maybe someone should point this out to india and pakistan). First, what a hack is a twinkie?? I could only find that word in my American slang dictionary as "a cute, teenage girl ( California )". Do you mean pedophilia might solve their imbroglio?? Never thought of that...
>if i want to be entertained, i'll take the sex pistols over the st. matthew passion, anytime. the excellence of the latter's construction is not enough to do the trick.
The Sex Pistols' kind of music may be reproduced by any 10-year-old kid after 2 guitar classes. The same is not true for the St. Matthew Passion. The latter is the result of our civilization's effort, while the former is the assumed and militant expression of its denial.
>accepting elitist standards without reason, is no better than exhaulting the beatles beyond reason.
Without reason? How can you assume that? You may not agree with my reasons, but never say I don't have any.
> 'revolver' is one of the best albums ever, not because it is, but, because i think so. show me that i don't!
You sure do THINK 'Revolver' is one of the best albums ever. But you're wrong! It's one of the albums you MOST LIKE.
Bye,
Caio
|