I don’t see what’s so great about top chefs and high cuisine. It all seems to me like self-serving insider elitist wankery to me. There is no genius or art involved by topping my shrimp fettucine with a curled rosette of colorful mystery fruit and drizzled with baslamic in a Spirograph pattern. Your $9 designer trademarked cocktail is worthless, no matter how pretty it is, if I can get a better tasting drink with more alcohol at the hotel lounge happy hour across the street.
My mom used to make me pancakes shaped like cookie monster, with chocolate chips for hair and marshmallow eyes, and she didn’t charge $30 a plate for it.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Again…it’s art that I don’t get; not bad art.
[/QUOTE]
Right, exactly. I feel like there’s something I don’t get with Joyce, and as a result I don’t like what I’ve read. That’s not the same as, for example, On the Road. I know what people like about that book, I just thought it sucked.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Well, I admit there’s a whole lot of knowin’ that I simply don’t possess (but would like to…if I had about 3 more lifetimes to live), and in that respect, certainly he’s a great writer…able to incorporate all of that into his work. However, he’s very inaccessible; you can’t get him unless you have all that background. It’s difficult to enjoy the work on its own. That’s what bothers me about him. Again…it’s art that I don’t get; not bad art.
[/QUOTE]
That’s cool. I didn’t want to speak for you or belittle it by saying (with nose in the air) “Well, maybe you just don’t get it”.
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Did watching “Apocalypse Now” help you like or dislike the Heart of Darkness?
[/QUOTE]
We watched Apocalypse Now in class after reading Heart of Darkness so my opinion of the book was already well established and the movie did nothing to mitigate it.
[QUOTE=pendgwen]
We watched Apocalypse Now in class after reading Heart of Darkness so my opinion of the book was already well established and the movie did nothing to mitigate it.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, so you’ve split the two apart, then. Just wondering/making sure. Is there anything in particular you disliked about it?
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Right, exactly. I feel like there’s something I don’t get with Joyce, and as a result I don’t like what I’ve read. That’s not the same as, for example, On the Road. I know what people like about that book, I just thought it sucked.
[/QUOTE]
(High-fives Marley) Good gawd but I think that book is the biggest piece of shit that ever rolled off a pen.
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Ah, so you’ve split the two apart, then. Just wondering/making sure. Is there anything in particular you disliked about it?
[/QUOTE]
You know it was long enough ago and I’ve so completely avoided thinking about it since then that I couldn’t even tell you what exactly produced such a visceral hate, hate, hate reaction. I rather enjoyed Apocalypse Now but it didn’t make me like the book.
I think Frank Zappa was so off the mainstream (particularly his sense of humor and his lyrics) that sometimes his musicianship got lost amidst the absurdity. I saw him once, and I gotta say he had the tightest band I’ve ever seen. I know he’s not everyone’s cup o’ tea, and I wouldn’t presume to tell you what you like or dislike, but I found his music to be interesting and complex – not to mention lyrically hilarious. Here is an interesting biography. Frank Zappa Biography - hotshotdigital.com
I’ve heard on more than one occasion that he was kind of a dick.
[QUOTE=VCO3]
I’m another “doesn’t get into Radiohead” person, but I have a workable theory as to why; I think that Radiohead is one of those bands that sounds really impressive and interesting to people that don’t listen to anything more challenging than standard rock music, but sounds completely boring if you listen to stuff that’s far weirder and denser on a daily basis.
[/QUOTE]
I’m with you on this one…and my contribution in a similar train of though: The Beatles
I just don’t get it. What is/was so great about their music? That they invented whole new musical concepts (except didn’t)? That they used these concepts and turned them into commercial successes (which isn’t a measure of artistic success)? Or another argument I’ve been unconvinced by, that they did so many different things but always were recognisably The Beatles (and why is this important?).
[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
I’m with you on this one…and my contribution in a similar train of though: The Beatles
I just don’t get it. What is/was so great about their music? That they invented whole new musical concepts (except didn’t)? That they used these concepts and turned them into commercial successes (which isn’t a measure of artistic success)? Or another argument I’ve been unconvinced by, that they did so many different things but always were recognisably The Beatles (and why is this important?).
[/QUOTE]
It’s this simple: Lennon and McCartney simply crapped incredible, instantly-timeless songs. Everything else that you mentioned was icing on the cake, but the fact is, some of the songs that have become the most loved songs of the past century were literally written in a few hours by those guys because they needed an extra track for the new record or for the next film. Mindblowing.
Thundering away on the same two riffs for 13 minutes is not “progressive.”
[/QUOTE]
My Third Eye is the only song I can think of that vaguely fits that description. Do you think their songs are less varied than other bands’?
Regarding progressiveness. They have many songs with untraditional structure, and they use more odd time signatures than most other bands I can think of. Why not use the term progressive, and what would you call them instead?
cartoons
fart jokes
NASCAR
Symbolism in art or books, How do you know what the artist or author meant unless he spelled it out somewhere?
Modern Jazz - I used to think I didnt’ like jazz music until I realized what I listen to IS jazz it just isn’t modern jazz or neo jazz or something like that.
Watching sports pretty much of any kind
“So you think you can dance”
The fact that I live in a place reknowned for it’s blues music but the only places I can hear live blues are in places I really don’t want to walk into alone.
In a very general sense I recognize that some music can be aesthetically pleasing. I see how it can be used to communicate/evoke emotion. I understand that it is a fairly prominent aspect of our culture. I can also listen to more elaborate explanations of what music reportedly is and does and nod politely at the end.
On a very fundamental level however, I just don’t get what the fuss is about. It doesn’t work for me. I’m aware that I’m missing something that means so much to many people but I can’t help it.
In a very general sense I recognize that some music can be aesthetically pleasing. I see how it can be used to communicate/evoke emotion. I understand that it is a fairly prominent aspect of our culture. I can also listen to more elaborate explanations of what music reportedly is and does and nod politely at the end.
On a very fundamental level however, I just don’t get what the fuss is about. It doesn’t work for me. I’m aware that I’m missing something that means so much to many people but I can’t help it.
[/QUOTE]
I hope I’m not being wooshed here, but if you don’t get music in general, I don’t think anyone can explain it to you.
