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

51–60 of 75 posts

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#51

Post by vikramkr »

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.

that's art too, and a pretty narrow selection of it. Music videos are awesome. Pretty good short video essay type deal that I think captures some of the highlights of what makes them tick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FdMkgxOPlo

I think you'll find that simply pointing to how TV enabled a whole bunch of new music videos that are fun and speak to a popular demand while ignoring the explosion of other music videos that push the boundaries of the art isn't actually that compelling an argument that new forms of art are bad. Music went from a luxury to something that soundtracks everyday people's everyday lives - there's more of everything and that's awesome.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#52

Post by jrm4 »

klodolph wrote: post #29
jrm4 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, "problematic" as used commonly today is, well, problematic: Kind of like "woke" and some others, perhaps "toxic", it's used as a placeholder for a feeling/idea that the speaker believes to be commonplace, but is often VERY ill-defined, and thus ends up muddying the discussion and/or leaving things unsaid that do deserve more consideration.

Kind of like the words “good” or “bad”, or “smart”, or “ugly”, or a million other subjective, contextual ideas? Words that are ill-defined and leave things unsaid are the norm. If you want clarity, you need sentences, paragraphs, and context. Those sentences will be filled with words that, individually, and stripped of their context, are unclear.

No.

To use a metaphor, we're talking about the weather and you're saying technically true but useless things about climate.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#53

Post by ghaff »

Gravityloss wrote: post #50
ghaff wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people (like myself) don't even get broadcast/cable TV any longer. But lots of stuff streaming/purchased if you want it. Being there is certainly different (plusses and minuses). But, of course, things like world-class opera and ballet aren't widely available (and are expensive).

Public broadcasters offer the same content as live stream or on demand. You can watch with a phone if you want to. Some summer we watched football world cup with a friend while having beers outside.

I don't really consider football world cup the same thing. There's a fairly limited amount of theater etc. available streaming.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#54

Post by TacticalCoder »

musha68k wrote: post #12
unraveller wrote: post #11

It's a fools errand to put elitist classical music and opera on TV to compete with the slop when mass TV dispersion is anti-elitism to the core, operating over the work week schedule not the broadway season. Any one who cares about experiencing art as a pastime can see that government subsidies of culture performances could be better spent anywhere else than TV. Surely the TV station will just game it so whatever app…

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.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#55

Post by gweinberg »

klodolph wrote: post #29
jrm4 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, "problematic" as used commonly today is, well, problematic: Kind of like "woke" and some others, perhaps "toxic", it's used as a placeholder for a feeling/idea that the speaker believes to be commonplace, but is often VERY ill-defined, and thus ends up muddying the discussion and/or leaving things unsaid that do deserve more consideration.

Kind of like the words “good” or “bad”, or “smart”, or “ugly”, or a million other subjective, contextual ideas? Words that are ill-defined and leave things unsaid are the norm. If you want clarity, you need sentences, paragraphs, and context. Those sentences will be filled with words that, individually, and stripped of their context, are unclear.

I think "problematic" is more or less used a synonym for "bad", except the speaker wants to indicate "this isn't just not to my personal tastes, you are a wicked person if you don't agree".

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#57

Post by klodolph »

rpdillon wrote: post #44
klodolph wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of like the words “good” or “bad”, or “smart”, or “ugly”, or a million other subjective, contextual ideas? Words that are ill-defined and leave things unsaid are the norm. If you want clarity, you need sentences, paragraphs, and context. Those sentences will be filled with words that, individually, and stripped of their context, are unclear.

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.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#58

Post by jrm4 »

gweinberg wrote: post #55
klodolph wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of like the words “good” or “bad”, or “smart”, or “ugly”, or a million other subjective, contextual ideas? Words that are ill-defined and leave things unsaid are the norm. If you want clarity, you need sentences, paragraphs, and context. Those sentences will be filled with words that, individually, and stripped of their context, are unclear.

I think "problematic" is more or less used a synonym for "bad", except the speaker wants to indicate "this isn't just not to my personal tastes, you are a wicked person if you don't agree".

That's exactly it. And I don't mind calling someone wicked, but you really should be clear exactly WHY you think they are wicked.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#59

Post by dpig_ »

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...

Caricaturing progressive ideas as some linear scale of 0 - Not Woke, 10 - Wokest is such a lame way to avoid the real points being made on a given subject.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#60

Post by d1sxeyes »

rpdillon wrote: post #23
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 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 flowery.

Basically, I think the point is that the idea of the 'taste of the public' is just a shorthand for 'something that appeals to lots of people with differing tastes'.

The author's key point (I think) is that 'engineering' music somehow makes it less artistic, and the 'problematic taste of the public' is a tangent which explores why sound engineers do what they do, rather than being part of the main argument.

Post reply on HN