Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

theparisreview.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 75 posts

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#61

Post by musha68k »

xwolfi wrote: post #32
musha68k wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless it's outright public broadcasting itself e.g. check fantastic European arte.tv as probably best of class (?) example.

But arte is clearly not good because of music. They do some,but what we watch it for are their mindblowing and regular documentaries they either produce or purchase. As well as their debate shows (I can spend a month watching their daily debates show C dans l'air). But there is something I learned eventually: I work deep in finance now, on a trading floor in HK, and all their cool documentaries about Finance feel to…

They regularly transmit live concerts and music features on many genres even.

Can you be more specific in your critique? Why were the documentaries not honest in your opinion? Which one(s)?

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#62

Post by musha68k »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #54
musha68k wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless it's outright public broadcasting itself e.g. check fantastic European arte.tv as probably best of class (?) example.

> check fantastic European arte.tv There are some good stuff on Arte. But most of the stuff on Arte has got to deal with two major Arte problems: - Arte's brain is so far left it fell out of its skull - it is *the* perfect example "artsy fartsy" I am not thrilled when my EU taxpayers money goes toward funding artsy fartsy far-left stuff.

Maybe art is just not your thing? I mean the program is in its name quite literally?

It's objectively good that this gets government funded as cultural institutions and creators get highlighted.

As per one of the foremost analysts of a major airline I worked for many years ago:

"Europe is a cultural Disney Land"

I wouldn't underestimate the impact tourism has on EU economies.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#63

Post by gizajob »

drewcoo wrote: post #7

Adorno was Frankfurt school. He opposed "culture industry." He loved Schoenberg's music because it was challenging. He hated pop music of any kind because it was the opposite - an easily pleasing pablum to sell to and control people. I don't agree with him but I think his concerns were/are valid. Going into this piece knowing that probably changes the way it's read. In that light, Adorno is pulling his punches and be…

He couldn't handle the challenge of jazz though.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#64

Post by amanaplanacanal »

solardev wrote: post #35
cafard wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quibble: A 1983 Webster's Collegiate gives the definition of problematic as "1: a. difficult to settle or decide b. not definite or settled c. open to question or debate 2: expressing or supporting a possibility". (Bold type, proffered synonyms, and examples omitted.) The sense of "problematic" as in "you've got a problem" developed after 1968, perhaps after 1990.

I think the common modern usage of that word is kinda an euphemism for "yucky because they're not woke enough". I've never seen it used outside that context, personally...

If by “not woke enough” you mean racist, sexist, or homophobic, that what I usually assume too.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#65

Post by cafard »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #60
rpdillon wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had no idea, thanks for pointing this out! I'm mostly frustrated with the modern usage, usually when used in reference to someone or some entity's behavior. Every time I hear it I want to understand what exactly the issue is. So if I go back and reread the quote that I had posted, is the critique that the public's tastes are not fixed, and change across geography and time? I'm still not sure what he was really gett…

> This is the fault of the sound engineers, who subsequently engage in fundamentally quite unmusical procedures by surgically extracting these voices, which is quite in keeping with their—if I may say this—unartistic intuitions and is also congenial to the highly problematic taste of the public. This sentence scores as 'extremely difficult' or 'difficult' on most readability scores, and it's just unnecessarily flower…

> This sentence scores as 'extremely difficult' or 'difficult' on most readability scores, and it's just unnecessarily flowery.

It was written for the Paris Review subscribers of 1968. I imagine that they found little difficulty in understanding it.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#66

Post by ano-ther »

musha68k wrote: post #61
xwolfi wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But arte is clearly not good because of music. They do some,but what we watch it for are their mindblowing and regular documentaries they either produce or purchase. As well as their debate shows (I can spend a month watching their daily debates show C dans l'air). But there is something I learned eventually: I work deep in finance now, on a trading floor in HK, and all their cool documentaries about Finance feel to…

They regularly transmit live concerts and music features on many genres even. Can you be more specific in your critique? Why were the documentaries not honest in your opinion? Which one(s)?

Am not GP, but my experience is that the deeper I know a topic, the more uninformed and slanted any reporting / documentary / media article becomes.

It’s probably natural, because (1) journalists only have a given amount of space to convey an idea, (2) need to capture a non-expert audience, (3) are usually working across a broad range of topics.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#67

Post by d1sxeyes »

cafard wrote: post #65
d1sxeyes wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the fault of the sound engineers, who subsequently engage in fundamentally quite unmusical procedures by surgically extracting these voices, which is quite in keeping with their—if I may say this—unartistic intuitions and is also congenial to the highly problematic taste of the public. This sentence scores as 'extremely difficult' or 'difficult' on most readability scores, and it's just unnecessarily flower…

> This sentence scores as 'extremely difficult' or 'difficult' on most readability scores, and it's just unnecessarily flowery. It was written for the Paris Review subscribers of 1968. I imagine that they found little difficulty in understanding it.

It was adapted from an interview which took place with Der Spiegel, so I guess it was originally in German, although I haven't found the original. My guess would be there are less complicated translations, but I might be wrong.

Regardless, I think you're right, the target audience of this as it's written probably would not have issues understanding it.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#68

Post by otterley »

coldtea wrote: post #48
vikramkr wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given songs could be made hits because of their videos - that's arguably the opposite of prescient, because it turned out that the televised image was not actually unrelated but in fact a new core integral aspect of a new art form, the music video!

> because it turned out that the televised image was not actually unrelated but in fact a new core integral aspect of a new art form, the music video! Or rather a parasite on the music, which killed the music for cool shots, "I'm badass" poses, and girls in bikinis.

It also spawned groundbreaking artistic and creative videos such as those for “Take on Me” and “Money for Nothing,” so it wasn’t all dreck. Those videos are probably more widely and fondly remembered today than all the hair-band ones are.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#69

Post by rpdillon »

klodolph wrote: post #57
rpdillon wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think of it like the writing advice that tells you not to use words like good, bad, and nice, since they are low information density. My general feeling is you could replace the word problematic with a much more specific word in every single context where it's used, and the message would be clearer.

Ok, could you replace Umberto Eco’s use of the word “problematic”? It seems like just the right word to use here, and in many places. I think some people just dislike the word “problematic” on an emotional level, and conjure up some justification for that emotional reaction.

Ah, I wasn't clear; I was referring to the modern usage which seem to mean "a thing that I see problems with". I'm unfamiliar with the original definition and have never heard it colloquially, so I'm not sure how it's used.

This is an old discussion now, so I won't post too much more here, but in responding to this, I decided to do a bit of research on "problematic", and it seems (from Merriam Webster) that the first use was in 1609, and was indeed exactly the sense we use it today: "posing a problem: difficult to resolve or decide". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/problematic

So let's say Umberto Eco's use of problematic was indeed in this sense (as I haven't heard a very compelling alternative). My point is that _he_ could replace problematic with what he's really trying to say, but of course I can't because I'm not the speaker and I don't know what he means. But I can take a few (bad) guesses:

1) The public's music taste is a problem for him because they don't appreciate the aspects of music that he thinks are most valuable. In this case, the phrase would be "congenial to the unsophisticated taste of the public".

2) The public's taste could be a problem because they want easy, convenient access to music via radio and TV, and Eco believes the true value of music can only be expressed live, where the listener has more agency. The phrase here would be "congenial to the convenience the public demands".

3) Maybe the public just doesn't like classical music, and like rock instead. Maybe ""congenial to the modern music taste of the public" would work here.

I could go on and on: the point is, if this were written instead of spoken, and I were the editor, and circle the work "problematic" in red and write in the margin "What are you really trying to convey here?" It would then be a discussion point with the author to dig into the real point so it could be conveyed clearly. But this is an (translated?) interview, so I don't think that bar is appropriate, but I still think there's ambiguity.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#70

Post by klodolph »

rpdillon wrote: post #69
klodolph wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, could you replace Umberto Eco’s use of the word “problematic”? It seems like just the right word to use here, and in many places. I think some people just dislike the word “problematic” on an emotional level, and conjure up some justification for that emotional reaction.

Ah, I wasn't clear; I was referring to the modern usage which seem to mean "a thing that I see problems with". I'm unfamiliar with the original definition and have never heard it colloquially, so I'm not sure how it's used. This is an old discussion now, so I won't post too much more here, but in responding to this, I decided to do a bit of research on "problematic", and it seems (from Merriam Webster) that the first…

> "What are you really trying to convey here?"

I don’t think you’ve articulated a reasonable or valid complaint against the word “problematic”.

Words convey very little in isolation. When somebody uses the word “problematic”, it’s only in a larger context—sentences and paragraphs, just to start with.

> …I still think there's ambiguity.

I don’t see how this complaint applies to “problematic” but not, say, your use of the word “ambiguity” here. What are you saying is ambiguous or unclear about the word “problematic”? Why are you saying it is ambiguous or unclear?

You are asking the reader to do some of the work and figure out what you mean by that. But that is ALWAYS true, in every sentence, with every word. I think you are basing your complaint against the word “problematic” on some imagined usage of it in a particular context, and without that context, the complaint just isn’t grounded.

Post reply on HN