Perhaps if one is merely pretending one has adapted ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Great photo. If they are viewing a dying human, here is my guess at what the ape in back is saying: "See, I told you humans were too dumb to survive in the jungle." Anyone have more interesting guess?
In my experience, people who are into classical music are mostly snobs. Certainly not all of them, but many of them. Same with other forms of art. Do you know Terry Eagleton's work? I've been reading his Literary Theory: An Introduction (1996 edition). Especially in the final section on political criticism, he points out that there is a traditional idea of "pure literary intepretation" as opposed to various "biased ways to read literature" - but that the traditional idea of "pure literary intepretation" is a myth, an utopia, that there is no such thing as pure literary intepretation nor can there be. Still, many people who are into literature insist that literature be interpreted purely literary. They are completely blind that they, too, maintain some political position. I think the same goes for other forms of art as well. Even though art evolves, and art theory and art criticism evolve, there remains a group of art lovers who insist in some "pure art" ways of looking at art, considering those evolvements as irrelevant.
As a lifelong music fan and an amateur turned non-career professional musician, I certainly have not observed that. Only in people my age or older who weren't able to digest rock and roll, but even then they still like blues, swing, folk, country and/or musical comedy and haven't dismissed all popular music. Even though I'm a rock'n'roller I know a great many fans, performers and composers of "formal" music; they all have their favorite rock bands and many of them have played in rock bands. In fact I find the contrary to be more true. Many rockers turn up their noses at symphonies, concertos, chamber music, etc. "Too long, not enough energy, can't tap my foot to it, too complicated, too many quiet parts, sissy instruments, can't understand it, not danceable, they want me to sit still and shut up, etc." Even so, if you slip something iconic on the PA like Bolero, Ride of the Valkyries, Carmina Burana, Pictures at an Exhibition, or Also Sprach Zarathustra (all of which occasionally show up as intermission music at heavy metal concerts), half the time they'll get into it before they realize what they're doing.
I would enjoy being smart then being able to teach those in my society the things I knew to educate and enlighten them as well. Then others would become smarter as I got older and they would hopefully do the same...pass on the knowledge to others.
I don't believe thats an option, otherwise it strays from the purpose of the question. In addition, if for instance they were unable to be taught, would you be able to tolerate them? What if they knew that you were smarter and despised you, that or you pretend to be at their level of intelligence while still maintaining your enhanced intelligence.
Only snobs call other people snobs. lol. I am very much into classical music, to the point where I try to get high quality recordings as much as possible, and even then I'm also picky about the conductors and specific recording/remasterings. I tend to spend the extra disposable income I have saved on audiophile equipment, as music is a passion and a large part of my life (I have been playing piano since I was 7 as well as traveled the states performing as a professional drummer in DCI). But if there is a better term that doesn't infer a negative connotation, I believe "connoisseur" would be more appropriate. IMO, it seems shallow to pass judgement so quickly when you are not in the field or in the relative interest at discussion. And I agree with fragglerocker; it seems that a lot of people think that classical music is a thing of the past, that or its too slow paced, or doesn't have words to keep them interested. When you start to hear the synchronization, or the antagonism between certain instruments, the usage of cacaphony as expression or the time signatures and dynamic choices, thats when you start to appreciate the music to a whole new level. I believe the same applies to art as well. I believe in order to learn and experience new things we should expose ourselves to things that may seem bland or un-interesting to us. That is how I was able to see things that I would have never been able to otherwise.
Says a snob ...:bugeye: It seems to me you missed my point about the "pure art" way of looking at art. I think it's this insistence on the "pure art" way of looking at art that makes someone a(n art) snob. That denial that there is a political (in the broadest sense) agenda behind one's interest in art.
I consider you a snob, Fraggle. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It's because of the way you speak with that immense self-confidence, as if you were enlightened and objective and as if you knew the be-all-and-end-all of all things.
snobbery and aesthetics is such an unusual phenomenon. considering music exlusively, i am regarded as a snob by some (for the most part, i "operate" within a particular milieu and so tastes and propensities tend to be shared) both with respect to my listening tastes and my own creative output. as to the former, i confess to being uncommonly particular about my likes and plainly dismissive with respect to my dislikes; BUT, by "dismissive" i simply mean i don't like ____, i don't wish to listen to _____, i will go to extremes to avoid listening to ______, and i'm inclined to make faces if for some reason i am compelled to listen to _____. that said, i'm extremely critical but for the most part i simply prefer to refrain from commenting on what i do not like. but this is the "problem" (for some), i.e. what makes me a "snob": the bulk of what i do like is more than a trifle fringe and marginal, to put it mildly. for instance, i would estimate that roughly 80 percent of the 800-1000 albums that i own were pressed in quantities ranging from one thousand to perhaps fifty thousand. IOW most of what i listen to most people have never heard of, and most people would probably dislike it were they to listen to it. the thing is, it's not as though i at some point in my life made a conscious decision to only listen to obscure stuff; it's simply what i like. and i intensely dislike over-produced, "polished" music and, for whatever reason, that which is apparently euphonious to the overwhelming majority of people. with regards to western "classical" music, i simply don't like most of what was composed between the latter part of the baroque era to about the end of the nineteenth century. i think my opinions are informed largely by being a musician, and i don't really understand why a tendency to gravitate towards the obscure would make one a snob. being considered a snob (by some) for my own output is even more confounding: why exactly, and how exactly, would i choose to write, perform, and record that which only appeals to a very limited audience? to me, at least, it is pretty apparent when a person is actually making a concerted effort to be uncompromising--and the results are typically unsatisfactory: contrived passionless crap. i do what i like, and what i am capable of, and i rarely consider my "intended" audience. were i being commissioned by and for something particular, it would be a very different matter; but such is not the case. apparently, being satisfied with making scarcely enough money to survive makes me a snob. so, am i a snob (with respect to either aspect)? why? on a related note, perhaps someone can explain this to me: what precisely is "funny" about this clip? it's pre-dream syndicate/v.u. (actually, it's around the time he met lamonte young, tony conrad, et al) john cale performing satie's "vexations" just once. i suppose that it was performed 840 times in succession--john cage had assembled the entire production the previous evening with a team of pianists--is the ostensibly "funny" part, but the audience seem to be laughing at the music itself, irrespective of this aspect. so, why is it "funny"? i asked my girlfriend, but i wasn't really satisfied with her response.
for instance (alluding to previous post), i don't really care for any of these, save perhaps carmina burana. actually i love orff, but i prefer his other work--his compositions for children especially, and "gassenhauer" in particular. and i like some wagner, but his best work was his drone piece--the prelude to das rheingold. does this make me a snob?
You'll just have to ask those people ... although I doubt it they will tell you. Calling someone a snob is usually done in a tone of "I'm calling you a snob and I'm not discussing it". You mean why some of the people there in the show laugh and smile? I don't know, but laughing and smiling can be ways to deal with an awkward situation. One of my neighbors, a woman in her late fifties or so, laughs/smiles almost to anything one says to her.
right. seldom do people actually articulate what they mean when they describe someone as a snob. i think there are clearer instances of snobbery, i.e. that which is a product of seemingly unfounded prejudice (which of course begs a question), but in this instance it's somewhat vague. i'm supposing that the audience were prompted to laugh at this time as well, but i want to know why they were intended to laugh at this moment--what is it that is supposed to be "funny"? EDIT: i haven't watched this in a long while, and i just noticed that it's a rather long clip--i am referring to the portion from 7:40 on during which john cale is performing the piece. there is a point at which some audience members laugh, and it's clearly not prompted. perhaps you are correct, and it's just awkwardness. still, i'm somewhat confused by this.
I'm not sure they thought it was funny. Like I said, laughing and smiling can be ways to deal with an awkward situation. But laughing and smiling are not necessarily signs that someone thinks something is funny. I do think that that piece of music, knowing that it is called "Vexations" and hearing it, the sounds and composition of it, and the notion that it is to be played for over 18 hours, 840 repetitions, generally make people a bit uncomfortable. Some, especially modern music has a way of pointing at deep existential fears that many people have. People who consider themselves civilized would generally not admit to having such fears, especially not in front of a tv audience. So they mask this fear - laughing and smiling and making chirpy remarks is the way to do it. What I personally felt and thought when I listened to the piece was this: "I really don't know what I am doing with my life. I am afraid things will end badly for me. I also don't really seem to care. This is all so vexing. But I kind of don't care. This could go on forever, couldn't it?" I am sure I am not the only one feeling and thinking this way at such a piece. But it generally is not socially acceptable to say such things to other people, what to speak of saying such things on a popular, mainstream, middle-class tv show.
the fear of nothingness. personally, i'm sceptical--but i'm inclined to attribute far fewer capacities to humans than are many. hmmm. my thoughts were: "why have i not learned or played this piece yet? i play other satie pieces--in this rare instance, i gravitate towards the more 'popular' satie pieces, 'gnosiennes' and 'gymnopedies.' i really ought to learn 'vexations,' but i have put it off. what do i fear? or is it simply laziness on my part?"
That's why I come here, to get put in my place.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I agree that my writing style is smooth and persuasive because it's what I do for a living so it has to be. But don't let style carry you away; that's how preachers, politicians and other con men get their way.
