Do you think too much pop/rock music can be a waste of time?

[James]

So now this really stupid person sees at last why the Stockhausen Verlag catalogue is so pricey  0:)

As the ancient saying goes .. "You get what you pay for"

[Mirror Image]

Just one out of thousands of examples of rock musicians that transcend the confines that rock music seems to sometimes trap itself in that means something (to me at least):

https://www.youtube.com/v/bpoK4YUKYu0

In summary, no, I do not think for a second that rock music is a waste of time nor do I subscribe to the attitude that classical music is somehow above every other genre. If you enjoy the music, then, ultimately, it's not a waste of time.

[71 dB]

Size doesn't matter, in a lot of cases less is more, even within Art Music. And pop music of the nature that is focused on within the last few pages of the thread is there to entertain; it's simple, catchy musically/lyrically and you can dance to it, a blast of joy, really not much more .. and the young artists involved operate within that, and the environment that cultivates their "personal statements". Is it High Art? Nope. But it's not going for that..  music does serve many purposes and feeds many hungers. Someone in these sort of discussions always ends up comparing things to teen pop as opposed to bringing up artists within the popular idioms (and not just music) that are far more significant than the many, many - average, lesser, inconsequential classical composers. Realistically, only a handful of composers down through the various eras are really worth knowing. The same can be said for popular music(s). If you compare the best from both "worlds", sure .. the greatest Art Music is the best we've managed to do; but the best popular music beats out the vast majority of really average classical music, easily. And if offers something different.

Good imperturbable post.  0:)

[Karl Henning]

Good imperturbable post.  0:)

I'll perturb it.

And if offers something different.

There is no subject in that sentence.

[James]

There is no subject in that sentence.

If you follow the paragraph of thoughts .. you'll getting what I'm saying. You'll know what "it" is referring to in that last line, as it relates to the sentence directly before it. I just post things on the fly ..

[Parsifal]

The juxtaposition does seem to say, "He's made a pile of dough, therefore he is an artist."

The idea is that literally millions, perhaps billions of people are willing to spend their hard-earned money to obtain access to his audio/video tracks. You cannot deny that something compelling has been created. Whether you call it art or not is beside the fact.

[James]

The idea is that literally millions, perhaps billions of people are willing to spend their hard-earned money to obtain access to his audio/video tracks. You cannot deny that something compelling has been created. Whether you call it art or not is beside the fact.

It's entertainment, and I'd say his largest demographic are kids/younger-adolescents. So they are likely spending their parents hard earned money.

[James]

... whereas Stockhausen's core demo seems to be musicians & connoisseurs.

[Florestan]

The juxtaposition does seem to say, "He's made a pile of dough, therefore he is an artist."

Portrait of the Artist as a Bourgeois Man.

[Karl Henning]

Part of the conversation I overheard last night was about the author of The Da Vinci Code.  Somebody described him as writing the same book a number of times since; to which another rejoined, he knows that book sells.  "If I had a machine in the basement which prints money, I'd use it, too."

[Florestan]

Part of the conversation I overheard last night was about the author of The Da Vinci Code.  Somebody described him as writing the same book a number of times since; to which another rejoined, he knows that book sells.  "If I had a machine in the basement which prints money, I'd use it, too."

Well, true, of course! But not everyone having a money printer in the basement claims to be an artist...

[Monsieur Croche]

Part of the conversation I overheard last night was about the author of The Da Vinci Code.  Somebody described him as writing the same book a number of times since; to which another rejoined, he knows that book sells.  "If I had a machine in the basement which prints money, I'd use it, too."

http://www.theonion.com/graphic/copies-of-da-vinci-code-litter-crash-site-9523

[Parsifal]

Well, true, of course! But not everyone having a money printer in the basement claims to be an artist...

You have to be Tolstoy or Rembrandt to "claim to be an artist?"  A person who creates something that is not a work of utter genius has no claim to the word?

Is there any reason to believe that Mr. Brown did not pour all of his talent into The DaVinci Code? He does not deserve the privilege of considering himself an artist because it became more popular than you think it deserved to be?

[Jo498]

No. Brown is simply a horrible writer. What he does doesn't even meet the criteria for competent craftsmanship, not to speak of art:

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000844.html

[Florestan]

Is there any reason to believe that Mr. Brown did not pour all of his talent into The DaVinci Code?

No, but in his case '''all' means little, very little, next to nothing actually, which you can see for yourself by actually reading TDVC.

Heck, the very title is more than enough proof for his being a clueless hack. He is completely unaware of the fact that "da Vinci" was not Leonardo´s last name (he didn´t have any), but a mere indication of his birthplace, it simply means "of Vinci". Writing ''da Vinci'' and meaning Leonardo da Vinci is exactly like writing ''of Nazareth'' and meaning Jesus of Nazareth: ''of Nazareth was crucified in Jerusalem''.

EDIT: the link posted by Jo is priceless. I was too lazy to look it up myself.

[Monsieur Croche]

So...

Dan Brown is a writer who is not a good or great writer who has had much success.

Shostakovich: "What do you think of Puccini?"
Britten: "I think his operas are dreadful."
Shostakovich: "No, Ben, you are wrong. He wrote marvelous operas but dreadful music!"

Puccini was a dreadful composer who wrote marvelous operas and who had much success.

[zamyrabyrd]

Puccini was a dreadful composer who wrote marvelous operas and who had much success.

What would YOU change in Boheme, Butterfly or Tosca to make them better?

[Jo498]

I think there are very few musicians even in commercialized popular music whose musical skills are as poor as Brown's writing skills. Usually they are at least competent. There has probably not been any professional "classical" composer or arranger whose composition skills are as poor as Brown's writing.

Apart from the poor style, Brown's books are also teeming with gross historical and factual errors although the author claims to "have done his research" and that what is presented there is roughly correct within the bounds of artistic license. Unfortunately quite a few of his readers apparently also believe that e.g. "The Da Vinci Code" really gives a "secret history" of what the Catholic Church has tried to hush up for centuries....

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DanBrowned

[Florestan]

Apart from the poor style, Brown's books are also teeming with gross historical and factual errors although the author claims to "have done his research" and that what is presented there is roughly correct within the bounds of artistic license. Unfortunately quite a few of his readers apparently also believe that e.g. "The Da Vinci Code" really gives a "secret history" of what the Catholic Church has tried to hush up for centuries....

Yes. Extremely poor literary skills, abysmal ignorance of history, abundant factual errors --- calling DB an artist is an insult to art.

[Parsifal]

No, but in his case '''all' means little, very little, next to nothing actually, which you can see for yourself by actually reading TDVC.

Heck, the very title is more than enough proof for his being a clueless hack. He is completely unaware of the fact that "da Vinci" was not Leonardo´s last name (he didn´t have any), but a mere indication of his birthplace, it simply means "of Vinci". Writing ''da Vinci'' and meaning Leonardo da Vinci is exactly like writing ''of Nazareth'' and meaning Jesus of Nazareth: ''of Nazareth was crucified in Jerusalem''.

EDIT: the link posted by Jo is priceless. I was too lazy to look it up myself.

I have not "read" the da Vinci Code. I listened to it as an audio book on a solitary cross country drive from New York to California.  No, it was not at all literary, but it was a captivating thriller/detective story in which various intriguing factoids about early Christianity were worked in, such as the mysterious origins of the word grail and the origins of the Knights Templar. I subsequently read up on some of it and when I later visited London it was interesting to see the temple church and the effigies that are featured in the book. No, it is not accurate, but it was fascinating. It is no less art than Sherlock Holmes or Poirot.

Maybe Brown isn't a great writer. I'm sure there are millions of books better written than the da Vinci Code that are nonetheless as boring as hell.