It's also a book. Which I have not read, but will point some links to for those interested.
The book itself: https://www.amazon.com/Pretentiousne.../dp/156689428X
A review: https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...dan-fox-review
Another review: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/b..._reviewed.html, which contains this passage:
Slate said:
By the end of the book, pretentiousness comes to mean something much closer to ambition, to a noble cultural yearning. And there is something deeply humane, and even touching, in Fox’s unwillingness to see any form of pretentiousness as bad. See, for example, his lovely reference to prog-rock’s “charmingly overblown narrative follies,” which he categorizes as no more or less pretentious than the “demonstrative nihilism” of the punk rock that was so viscerally opposed to it. (He’s right, of course, even if I’d still take the punk version of pretentiousness.)
Last edited by Baribrotzer; 01-13-2018 at 08:10 PM.
Interesting article, but I went off on a tangent reading the Guardian article about Atheism that he mentions. Mistake! That article comes around to this:
"In reality, "religion" is far wider than a belief in a supernatural power. This is only one aspect of what we mean by "religion". For example there is surely something religious in the communal ecstasy of a rave, or a pop concert, or a play, or a sporting event, or a political rally."
Come on, when people say they're an Atheist they don't mean they won't go to a play or a concert, etc.
Anyway, the article about Pretentiousness is spot on! I love his list of hobbies and interests. Those pretentious Billy Joel fans, always claiming he's the perfect fusion of music and Long Island culture! They think they're so superior...
It would take a lot more than believing in God to get me out to a Neal Morse concert. I think God would have to ask me personally. And even then I'd have to think about it.
If there is one word I never seem to get, it's 'authentic'.
It should mean real, but it seems to be more like 'unpolished'.
In the end it is mostly used for people who don't mind what others think of their behaviour and just do as they please.
If it is in my character to be civilised, I'm not authentic, while I think I am, because it's just how I am.
In contrast to its meaning, "authentic" is, in fact, a rather slippery word. It tends to be used by people with an axe to grind - to impute that if your politics, or language, or manners, or taste in art is not the simplest, crudest, and most basic it cannot be genuine, and that you've assumed it just to impress yourself or impress other people. As opposed to their own politics, or language, or manners, or taste in art, which is genuine, unaffected, and does not get above itself. And, as Dan Fox evidently points out in his book (mentioned earlier), there's a lot of class hostility and class assumptions baked into that. In politics, it can mean that someone who shoots off his mouth like a belligerent drunk in the corner bar is seen as "honest", whereas someone who speaks diplomatically and knowledgeably is seen as a fraud.
In music, "authentic" tends to imply the oldest and simplest folk music, the most unsullied by commercial calculation and watering-down. So thus the Rolling Stones are "authentic", because they started out as a bunch of British schoolboys imitating the music of Black Americans as exactly as they could, and they still do. Whereas the Beatles are not "authentic", because they started out as a bunch of British schoolboys imitating almost every kind of music they ever heard, not very exactly and occasionally all at the same time. However, "authentic" music can also be the kind made entirely as a commercial product - this apparent paradox being reconciled by its marketing to and consumption by an unsophisticated audience for whom it fulfills the social role of early folk music: embodying their daily lives, desires, and concerns. (Or, in other words, the latest TeenPop Diva Autotuning "Yo, that bitch dissed me, gonna pwn her Facebook" to a stadium full of junior-high girls chronicles their world in the same way that an acoustic bluesman wailing "Got forty hard acres an' a broke-back mule" does for a juke-joint full of Thirties Delta sharecroppers.)
Last edited by Baribrotzer; 01-13-2018 at 08:09 PM.
This made me laugh (though not an Athiest). I saw Neal in concert a couple years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it, especially from a music standpoint (versus lyrics). I don't recall any proselytizing at all. Were you serious you wouldn't go? And if so is it also his musical style you don't care for?
Or did I really just miss the whole point of your post? <g>
Steve
Well, Steve, it is a bit of both...the main point of my post was humor...
However, I have actually walked out of a Neal Morse concert (last year's RoSfest - I lasted about 15-20 minutes), as I felt that his proselytizing was over the top. It's one thing to include spiritually in music - or even religion (in small doses. for example, the Strawb's have many songs with references to religion, but when viewed as part of their entire work...it is a small amount). But Morse is clearly on a religious journey - and that's fine - as is sharing that with those who want it. But for me, videos filled with crosses, constant (CONSTANT) references to religious symbols, etc is not something I want/need. Even though the musicianship was top knotch...nope.
hope this answers your questions...
Ken
You are on a roll these days. I've had a bit of free time over the holidays and I've read many of your recent posts on various subjects. All I'll say is, well done. I've enjoyed reading what you have written.
As to the subject of the article as it relates to the creative arts, I think a dichotomy has emerged: the untrained talented, vs the trained (variably) talented. Technology has leveled the playing field. Many or most people have an excellent camera always available now. Anyone can create music on the most basic of computers. Established journalists must compete with bloggers who come out of nowhere. Now that I think about it, there's another category. Probably the biggest one: the untrained/untalented. Even within that group, brilliance might emerge.
Is it pretentious to think you have something of value to add, even though you may be new to the field and not quite sure what you are doing? In the end, it comes down to the results. It's harder than ever to rise above the din. Things are constantly changing and the ways of creating meaningful things will continue to change. If you really have something to say, you will not let being labelled pretentious or anything else put you off. Or, maybe you are completely unaware of what is happening in society and you are creating a masterpiece totally within your own reality, e.g. Henry Darger. You have no idea what 'authentic' is, you just do what you are driven to do.
On the other hand, maybe you really have nothing to say, yet you insist on saying nothing quite loudly. Only the passing of time sorts it all out. I think it's all quite unpredictable.
What I got from that article:
It is better to aim for greatness and fail than to aim for mediocrity and succeed.
And I agree!
Confirmed Bachelors: the dramedy hit of 1883...
pretend
My favorite band was often and even now occasionally accused of pretentiousness, bombast and pomposity.
Over the years I have come to realize, acknowledge that possibly some truth lay in these charges.
But, also my reflex response was always to defend these same qualities in the music as audacious, adventurous. And lastly but not least, original. Or at least mostly original. They did these things musically because they could!
There was that unique "climate" at the time that allowed artistic freedoms and liberties we no longer see, no longer enjoy.
Perhaps finding the happy medium is harder than we know.
Heck, I just want to go to a good concert. I'll skip the merch table on this one.
The older I get, the better I was.
I think Robert Fripp said something like, 'If we [Crimson] were pretentious, what were we pretending to be?'
Member since Wednesday 09.09.09
Real, serious musical artists - as opposed to proper rock musicians, who make music for The People, and are guided by what The People love and want.
Proper rock music is the Stones, or Humble Pie, or Creedence: simple, rootsy, lots of attitude, three-chord songs in 4/4, all meat and potatoes two-and-a-half-minute sdingles and none of that "psych" crap. Everything goes back to Elvis. Great lyrics are fantastic, if you're Bob Dylan, but hardly a necessity. And what you are really trying to do, ultimately, is make something maybe one-tenth as good as soul music - you know you'll never get there, but you've got to try.
Not moi
Bookmarks