Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
21 - 40 of 41 Posts

·
jaded bitter joy crusher
Joined
·
19,723 Posts
asciibaron said:
the Monty Python clip just made me realize something. no longer are cult items confined to those that seek them out. in a near instant you can be clued into all manner of cultural references that you have missed.
Adam Kirsch thinks it will destroy poetry:
the Internet ... tends to disrupt the more casual, but for literature highly meaningful, kind of right that gives a poet property in his allusions. The Waste Land itself is old enough and famous enough that when we read these Sanskrit words—or the lines it borrows from the Pervigilium Veneris or Kyd’s Spanish Tragedy —we are still likely to think of Eliot. But the advent of Google means, I think, that no future poet will ever be able to make allusions with the same kind of boldness and authority that Eliot did. No matter how esoteric, his references will be an open book to any reader with a computer; the poet will be unable to “trademark” them as successfully as Eliot did.

What this also means is that no future reader, however well informed, will enjoy the particular kind of satisfaction that readers once derived from successful recognition of a poet’s allusions. It used to be the case that the ability to recognize when a poet is alluding to Virgil, or Milton, or even the King James Bible set the reader apart as a member of a more or less exclusive intellectual group. Nor was this simply a matter of snobbishness; there is a genuine aesthetic pleasure in recognizing an allusion, which comes from the reader’s sense that he has successfully entered the poet’s mental world. If the allusion is arcane or clandestine, the pleasure is that much greater, since it suggests how difficult true attunement between poet and reader can be. But here, too, the Internet democratizes and universalizes what used to be a kind of distinctiveness. If every reader can tune in, allusion is no longer a privileged channel of communication.
Tony Judt has a different take:
Cultural insecurity begets its linguistic doppelgänger. The same is true of technical advance. In a world of Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter (not to mention texting), pithy allusion substitutes for exposition. Where once the Internet seemed an opportunity for unrestricted communication, the increasingly commercial bias of the medium—”I am what I buy”—brings impoverishment of its own. My children observe of their own generation that the communicative shorthand of their hardware has begun to seep into communication itself: “people talk like texts.”

This ought to worry us. When words lose their integrity so do the ideas they express. If we privilege personal expression over formal convention, then we are privatizing language no less than we have privatized so much else. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” Alice was right: the outcome is anarchy.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,671 Posts
Fredke said:
Adam Kirsch thinks it will destroy poetry:
the Internet ... tends to disrupt the more casual, but for literature highly meaningful, kind of right that gives a poet property in his allusions. The Waste Land itself is old enough and famous enough that when we read these Sanskrit words—or the lines it borrows from the Pervigilium Veneris or Kyd’s Spanish Tragedy —we are still likely to think of Eliot. But the advent of Google means, I think, that no future poet will ever be able to make allusions with the same kind of boldness and authority that Eliot did. No matter how esoteric, his references will be an open book to any reader with a computer; the poet will be unable to “trademark” them as successfully as Eliot did.

What this also means is that no future reader, however well informed, will enjoy the particular kind of satisfaction that readers once derived from successful recognition of a poet’s allusions. It used to be the case that the ability to recognize when a poet is alluding to Virgil, or Milton, or even the King James Bible set the reader apart as a member of a more or less exclusive intellectual group. Nor was this simply a matter of snobbishness; there is a genuine aesthetic pleasure in recognizing an allusion, which comes from the reader’s sense that he has successfully entered the poet’s mental world. If the allusion is arcane or clandestine, the pleasure is that much greater, since it suggests how difficult true attunement between poet and reader can be. But here, too, the Internet democratizes and universalizes what used to be a kind of distinctiveness. If every reader can tune in, allusion is no longer a privileged channel of communication.

Tony Judt has a different take:
Cultural insecurity begets its linguistic doppelgänger. The same is true of technical advance. In a world of Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter (not to mention texting), pithy allusion substitutes for exposition. Where once the Internet seemed an opportunity for unrestricted communication, the increasingly commercial bias of the medium—”I am what I buy”—brings impoverishment of its own. My children observe of their own generation that the communicative shorthand of their hardware has begun to seep into communication itself: “people talk like texts.”

This ought to worry us. When words lose their integrity so do the ideas they express. If we privilege personal expression over formal convention, then we are privatizing language no less than we have privatized so much else. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” Alice was right: the outcome is anarchy.

To Adam Kirsch: It is just snobbery. And almost nobody bothers with poetry any more, unless it's accompanied by a bass-heavy backing track. Scarface (the rapper, not the movie--how's that for irony?) speaks to us more clearly than Shelley. But not to fret, as there will still be ample opportunity to demonstrate when one is eruditer than another.

To Tony Judt: RIP. Your piece reminds me of one of my children's friends, who says "LOL" instead of actually laughing out loud. You will be missed.
 

·
donuts?
Joined
·
8,945 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
WaynefromOrlando said:
Like when a youngster gets all excited over downloading some old Boston tracks just like I got excited listening to the same track on vinyl about 35 years ago.
you must live in mulletlandia.
 

·
Sticky Valentine
Joined
·
28,404 Posts

·
donuts?
Joined
·
8,945 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
Fredke said:
there is a genuine aesthetic pleasure in recognizing an allusion, which comes from the reader’s sense that he has successfully entered the poet’s mental world. If the allusion is arcane or clandestine, the pleasure is that much greater, since it suggests how difficult true attunement between poet and reader can be.
this is why i love the music i do. sample heavy music works it's magic on many levels. at the face, the music flows and sounds good, but at the core, the selected samples are often a musical education. i'm not talking about simple vocal samplings, rather, tracks that have borrowed the voice of other tracks.

take for instance Pump Up the Volume by MARRS. within the track there are over 35 sources of samples that cover over a decade of music. today, Pump Up the Volume is sampled often for the vocal samples or the percussion sections, yet those are samples from other tracks.

it's interesting to hear someone proclaim that track X has sampled Pump Up the Volume when in fact, they sampled a sample. it's all a matter of depth and background in music. the best instances of this are when a track has samples from a genre that is a polar opposite. sampling a Mahogany Rush guitar riff and using it as a percussive hit has to be one of the most clever uses of a sample i've heard in a long time, but it works and sounds good. how many people know that riff? how many people know who Mahogany Rush were?
 

·
Sticky Valentine
Joined
·
28,404 Posts

·
Sticky Valentine
Joined
·
28,404 Posts

·
jaded bitter joy crusher
Joined
·
19,723 Posts
asciibaron said:
this is why i love the music i do. sample heavy music works it's magic on many levels.
But I still think early De La Soul was the first, the last, the everything of sampling.

And good jazz musicians blow anything relating to sampling away with their repertoire of improvisational quotations, variations, and allusions that they can pull out at will, live.
 

·
donuts?
Joined
·
8,945 Posts
Discussion Starter · #34 · (Edited)
Fredke said:
But I still think early De La Soul was the first, the last, the everything of sampling.

And good jazz musicians blow anything relating to sampling away with their repertoire of improvisational quotations, variations, and allusions that they can pull out at will, live.
de la soul were late comers to the sampling scene. sure they used a mixed bag of pop culture references from across the musical spectrum, but the Beastie Boys beat them to the punch. and look at Art of Noise- wow.

this is a great track with some great samples...


It's Just Begun by the Jimmy Castor Bunch is at the core of the track - the beginning beat has been used by many people and it comes from a funk record from the mid 70's.


the astute listener would have heard a sample at 1:30 that was used in Pump Up the Volume.

many of the samples used in contemporary music can be traced back to record series called, oddly enough Ultimate Breaks and Beats released from 1986 to 1991. this collection made made of the hits you have shaken you a$$ to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Breaks_and_Beats


this site gives some insight into some other classics. (if you care)

http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Greatest-Samples--Breakbeats-in-Hip-Hop-History
 

·
Sticky Valentine
Joined
·
28,404 Posts

·
RoadBikeReview's Member
Joined
·
5,505 Posts
asciibaron said:
for the first 25 years of Monty Python existence, it was a cult thing - you had to scour to find the shows - only the hardcore had access. now the daisy pickers come along and ruin it all.

the internet is to geeks what Lance is to cyclists.
This is not at all due to the internet only. Monty Python? Christ, I watched it in High School. On tape. In a room full of people. Say "It's only a flesh wound!" and it immediately registers with everyone, but not due to the internet... but due to Monty Python being mainstream.
 

·
jaded bitter joy crusher
Joined
·
19,723 Posts
asciibaron said:
for the first 25 years of Monty Python existence, it was a cult thing.
LOL. In 1979 Life of Brian was the #2 grossing movie on its opening weekend (just behind Alien). Some cult.

When I was in high school in the 1970s, everyone watched Monty Python on TV.

Cult back then was stuff like Rocky Horror Picture Show, The Man Who Fell to Earth, Eraserhead, and Pink Flamingos.
 

·
donuts?
Joined
·
8,945 Posts
Discussion Starter · #39 ·
estone2 said:
Say "It's only a flesh wound!" and it immediately registers with everyone, but not due to the internet... but due to Monty Python being mainstream.
um, no. my parents and many of my co-workers have no idea. it's interesting, what many take as common place cultural references are no longer valid. i work with a guy in his late 20's - i have to explain so much stuff to him. the worst was a UHF reference.
 
21 - 40 of 41 Posts
Top