so instead of bending over backwards, if you're following Sartre's literary criticism, you just insist all the authors do the bending so you can make up what their worldview is?
Not entirely. I don't follow it all the way, the artist's intention is obviously important and notable, but it certainly requires scrutiny and is far from the whole story, and if the author doesn't offer an explanation what else is there to do but go to the text and connect the dots? It doesn't necessarily have to sink to psychoanalysis and I happen to agree with you that it's an absolute load of old horseshit and I wince whenever I'm tasked with evaluating a psychoanalytic reading.
Let's take Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd. They're far from bubble-gum pop but I suspect Sartre (and judging from this thread, perhaps yourself) would make a valid criticism of them that they bluntly and aggressively broadcast their intentions - where people like or dislike this tendency is whether they see it as oppressive or not. Is it very obvious that they're manipulating you into feeling a certain way, does it feel predictable and forced? I like and dislike pieces from both band's discographies and it's often along these lines. I find Led Zeppelin IV and The Wall to be overwrought, bloated and pretentious, with little room for me with their inflated egos. Off the top of my head Muse are among the biggest offenders in this regard in the modern day. It's that suffocating assertion of the artist's ego and worldview that I recoil from.
Not entirely. I don't follow it all the way, the artist's intention is obviously important and notable, but it certainly requires scrutiny and is far from the whole story, and if the author doesn't offer an explanation what else is there to do but go to the text and connect the dots? It doesn't necessarily have to sink to psychoanalysis and I happen to agree with you that it's an absolute load of old horseshit and I wince whenever I'm tasked with evaluating a psychoanalytic reading.
For the record, I also largely discard the artist's intent and agree more with these kinds of takes than not. My reading of Sartre's literary criticism - which honestly was awhile ago and not exhaustive because I think he's a poor thinker in his philosophy and politics and thus have no large interest in hearing his approach to literature either - is that he insists on creating these psychoanalytic constructs of his authors where he's examining what decisions they're making in a radically free universe. I think it's just a lazy way of slapping on the most deplorably daft metaphysics in the world onto yet another subject of study that he hasn't done "the real work" on (see also: the incredibly half-baked and unserious Existentialism Is a Humanism where he demonstrates a stunning lack of understanding of Marxism, humanism, and even possibly existentialism while insisting to have some philosophical proof of how to unite the three). It goes the opposite way of these insufferable twats who wanna talk about author's intent - instead of the author having the last say (a stupid idea), it is now the self-proclaimed expert being able to not just give an interpretation of the work but also of the author's person. It's a strange sort of criticism that seems to miss the point in the other direction of what we're analyzing - art, not artists.
boyd94 wrote:
Let's take Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd. They're far from bubble-gum pop but I suspect Sartre (and judging from this thread, perhaps yourself) would make a valid criticism of them that they bluntly and aggressively broadcast their intentions - where people like or dislike this tendency is whether they see it as oppressive or not. Is it very obvious that they're manipulating you into feeling a certain way, does it feel predictable and forced? I like and dislike pieces from both band's discographies and it's often along these lines. I find Led Zeppelin IV and The Wall to be overwrought, bloated and pretentious, with little room for me with their inflated egos. Off the top of my head Muse are among the biggest offenders in this regard in the modern day. It's that suffocating assertion of the artist's ego and worldview that I recoil from.
I can understand this line of thinking, but it's much easier for me - though I slip into this mode of rhetoric with rock musicians because I do see them as boisterous fucking idiots who get put on this pedestal like they're artists instead of hypermasculine circus performers - to just say that at the core of my dislike of Led Zeppelin is a dislike of the sound. I think you could call Luigi Nono's early "revolutionary" (in the sense of revolutionary politics) work as equally overt, clear, and assertive. I have no problem with good music asserting itself and its ideals on me. But maybe the idiom matters, because I definitely think we have a similar view on rock music where it's embarrassing to listen to Muse put forward their harebrained politics so forcefully. Maybe the difference is that Nono appears to be a serious thinker, and Matt Bellamy is a 14 year old libertarian.
They bluntly and aggressively broadcast their intentions
Is this a bad thing? Why or why not?
I read this and think, shouldn't a musician make his "message" clear, or is the argument, well that's only for the stupid? You shouldn't have to shout it from a megaphone? It can and maybe should be subtle?
Is Beethoven's 9th, fourth movement, equally annoying in it's declaration of "brotherly' love and the joy of togetherness since it does so also very bluntly and agressively?
I do agree in the circus thing Satie brings up though... especially of hair metal kinda stuff (which I initially wouldn't group Led Zeppelin with... but yeah, you know you're right).
I read this and think, shouldn't a musician make his "message" clear, or is the argument, well that's only for the stupid? You shouldn't have to shout it from a megaphone? It can and maybe should be subtle?
Is Beethoven's 9th, fourth movement, equally annoying in it's declaration of "brotherly' love and the joy of togetherness since it does so also very bluntly and agressively?
I do agree in the circus thing Satie brings up though... especially of hair metal kinda stuff (which I initially wouldn't group Led Zeppelin with... but yeah, you know you're right).
It's not necessarily good or bad, it really just comes down to your instinctive reaction.
Pixies and Wu-Tang Clan could certainly be described as assertive and blunt but they don't feel overbearing or that they're trying to lead me down the garden path or sell me anything. I think a lot of it for me comes down to how seriously the band/artist takes themselves.
Btw, welcome! You are of course entitled to your own opinion even if it's wrong!
It's not absolutely epic!
Actually it's incredibly bad, almost wish I haven't played it! _________________ If you can't give me heaven, Ill raise hell, till it's heaven
I think Kanye is a talented producer and it stops there. He isn't revolutionary, he certainly isn't a clever lyricist, and his flow is interesting at first but it becomes apparent that his rapping style doesn't have much diversity. He is the worst part of his best songs.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
2/3 Danish bands. Really? How could you, especially the latter one? For those with a better definition of musical trash, listen to this one:
