Is there an advantage to being well-read?

Tordelback

Candie wrote: »

Perhaps, but there are 10 or 20 or 100 popular ID type artists for every Dylan...

More than 100 Biebers to the Zimmerman, even in Dylan's heyday, and you can still be sure that fans of Bill Haley and the Comets bemoaned the proliferation of whiny balladeers. Similarly there are several billion people in the world with a camera and the means to distribute their work, but there's still only one Ansel Adams.

The raw numbers don't mean much, as you say, and truly worthwhile art will usually rise to the top of public consciousness in time, and then be lost and disregarded once again. All this 'kill the pig' telly will be forgotten in good time, and people will still be talking about The Wire the way they still talk about Hill Street Blues. Until they stop.

Artful_Badger

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Modern popular culture does elevate mediocrity but I'm not so sure it is all saturating. Just as the pointless lives of the Kardashians are broadcast to millions of people so too are other things which are of more worth available to a much wider audience.

Also if you go back to the time a lot of the now classics were created and they were not all popular among the masses, in fact a lot of those outside elite society were most likely illiterate and poor anyway and these high quality works were unavailable to them. I'm sure there was a lot of small shows, hookers, pub bands, burlesque shows, comedians etc that entertained the unrefined on a regular basis too.

And as with everything it cant all be great, for something to be considered a great work there has to be a lot of other works considered inferior which is just as true now as it was then. So in terms of what the masses were into I'm not so sure the quality has lowered more so than broadened just as everything has with education and technology.

In terms of availability my perception would be that the average is much more available then the exceptional, which was my original point.

I take your point that the masses consumed their culture in different ways to the privileged, and that things like levels of literacy would have been very relevant to the disparity. Classic novels were unlikely to be appreciated by the barely literate, or by people who were raised without the easy access to the printed word.

It still holds true to some extent, but not to it's former extent - which in turn probably also had much to do with perceptions of class and correctness, concepts that are very much diluted today.

I'm not sure that availability isn't an issue, speaking only from my own observation, there seems to be very much more of the average available than the exceptional, and average is a very broad concept. Quality exists as it always has, but as always, it's harder to find.

MaxWig

Candie wrote: »

In terms of availability my perception would be that the average is much more available then the exceptional, which was my original point.

I take your point that the masses consumed their culture in different ways to the privileged, and that things like levels of literacy would have been very relevant to the disparity. Classic novels were unlikely to be appreciated by the barely literate, or by people who were raised without the easy access to the printed word.

It still holds true to some extent, but not to it's former extent - which in turn probably also had much to do with perceptions of class and correctness, concepts that are very much diluted today.

I'm not sure that availability isn't an issue, speaking only from my own observation, there seems to be very much more of the average available than the exceptional, and average is a very broad concept. Quality exists as it always has, but as always, it's harder to find.

Perhaps, and I say this respectfully, you are confusing what is available with what is 'force-fed'.

I think where a desire for music is instilled in a child, they now have the means to find pretty much anything they want. In fact, they have the ability to make music on their smart-phone. If they are happy to be Beliebers, then fair enough.

You need only open three websites that I can think of, and you have almost every piece of music ever made for your listening pleasure.

MaxWig

MaxWig wrote: »

Couldn't it be said that this period is unique in it's pattern of consumption.

There simply were no 7 yr old consumers of popular music in the 60s and 70s. Hence we are bombarded with the rubbish during prime time.

But in terms of the availability and diversity of music, consumers and producers alike have never had it so good.

Every period is unique in it's pattern of consumption. Cultural, social and economic variables dictate how and what every generation consumes and to what extent.

Diversity is good, popular doesn't always equal quality. However, if enough people like something, whether its Big Brother or Miley Cyrus, that in itself is enough to make it culturally relevant. Worthwhile or not is another matter, and one that is highly subjective.

MaxWig

MaxWig wrote: »

Perhaps, and I say this respectfully, you are confusing what is available with what is 'force-fed'.

I think where a desire for music is instilled in a child, they now have the means to find pretty much anything they want. In fact, they have the ability to make music on their smart-phone. If they are happy to be Beliebers, then fair enough.

You need only open three websites that I can think of, and you have almost every piece of music ever made for your listening pleasure.

I'm confusing nothing. When the mass media is saturated with the mediocre, it doesn't equate to being forced to consume it. People still have choices, they just have a greater choice within the middle ground than the upper echelons.

Your post simply demonstrates what I've been saying. That access to the popular is easy. It's harder to find the niche, the elite, the more esoteric. That doesn't make it wrong to listen to popular music or to read chick lit, I've done both myself and enjoyed them greatly.

It just doesn't expand your tastes, or your mind, in the way consuming the more thoughtful, the more challenging, or the more lingering and enduring aspects of culture do.

Tordelback

Tordelback wrote: »

More than 100 Biebers to the Zimmerman

So sadly true.

Artful_Badger

Candie wrote: »

I'm confusing nothing. When the mass media is saturated with the mediocre, it doesn't equate to being forced to consume it. People still have choices, they just have a greater choice within the middle ground than the upper echelons.

Your post simply demonstrates what I've been saying. That access to the popular is easy. It's harder to find the niche, the elite, the more esoteric. That doesn't make it wrong to listen to popular music or to read chick lit, I've done both myself and enjoyed them greatly.

It just doesn't expand your tastes, or your mind, in the way consuming the more thoughtful, the more challenging, or the more lingering and enduring aspects of culture do.

But that's just taste your talking about not quality. It is harder to find something unique to your tastes if you dont know what your looking for because there is so much stuff out there but that's not a reflection of quality.

MaxWig

Artful_Badger wrote: »

But that's just taste your talking about not quality. It is harder to find something unique if you dont know what your looking for because there is so much stuff out there but that's not a reflection of quality.

I'd agree.

And while the hip were listening to Dylan in the East Village singing folk songs 'borrowed' from Irish and English traditional folk culture, they were essentially listening to the same stuff that people in villages around these islands with no access to any other music had been listening to for years.

It is very often the idea that something is niche that feels good to the consumer - that they have made a secret discovery that few else appreciate.

Artful_Badger

Artful_Badger wrote: »

But that's just taste your talking about not quality. It is harder to find something unique if you dont know what your looking for because there is so much stuff out there but that's not a reflection of quality.

By quality I mean something a little elevated above the norm, or more challenging. Most mass media isn't challenging or illuminating, but you're right, quality is also a matter of taste and highly subjective within broad parameters.

If I read Jordan's biography it wouldn't necessarily be as mind expanding as reading Ghandi's biography, even if I thought I was a clever 'un because I was reading biographies at all.

MaxWig

MaxWig wrote: »

I'd agree.

And while the hip were listening to Dylan in the East Village singing folk songs 'borrowed' from Irish and English traditional folk culture, they were essentially listening to the same stuff that people in villages around these islands with no access to any other music had been listening to for years.

It is very often the idea that something is niche that feels good to the consumer - that they have made a secret discovery that few else appreciate.

They might have been listening to something that was recognisable in Ireland, but it was certainly a new discovery to people who had no prior exposure, and how fresh and exciting that must have been at the time for them.

Not sure Dylan was ever really niche - he was extremely popular at the height of his fame.

Fox_In_Socks

MaxWig wrote: »

It is very often the idea that something is niche that feels good to the consumer - that they have made a secret discovery that few else appreciate.

Of course. And if there is a market for niche interests, then it will be filled. That's the nature of the world and as long as people want to feel unique, then they will seek out more and more obscure material, either to read, imagine or discover. People want to feel part of a tribe, either nuclear physicists or Oprah's Book Club.

Ultimately, since we are all data consumers, the type of data that we consume ultimately doesn't matter. It's just information stored in a certain way in our meat computors.:)

As it is, we are data storage units-just atoms and molecules arranged a certain way for 80 years if you are lucky. And then disassemled to go back into the world again.

So no, OP, it doesn't matter ultimately whether someone is well read or not. :pac:

silverharp

MaxWig wrote: »

Couldn't it be said that this period is unique in it's pattern of consumption.

There simply were no 7 yr old consumers of popular music in the 60s and 70s. Hence we are bombarded with the rubbish during prime time.

But in terms of the availability and diversity of music, consumers and producers alike have never had it so good.

Id agree with that, a hundred years ago "7 year olds" teenagers and people that lived in tenements didn't get "a vote" when it came to influencing culture or else were relegated to some form of folk culture (I guess) which ran parallel.
Did certain parts of culture peak (in terms of technical brilliance) a couple of hundred years back and hasn't been surpassed since ? or would a "Mozart" born today have to dumb down his art to get on?

Fox_In_Socks

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

Ultimately, since we are all data consumers, the type of data that we consume ultimately doesn't matter. It's just information stored in a certain way in our meat computors.:)

As it is, we are data storage units-just atoms and molecules arranged a certain way for 80 years if you are lucky. And then disassemled to go back into the world again.

So no, OP, it doesn't matter ultimately whether someone is well read or not. :pac:

Wow.

There's just no arguing with that.:)

MaxWig

Candie wrote: »

They might have been listening to something that was recognisable in Ireland, but it was certainly a new discovery to people who had no prior exposure, and how fresh and exciting that must have been at the time for them.

Not sure Dylan was ever really niche - he was extremely popular at the height of his fame.

Sure, and in that sense he has more in common with someone like Beyonce than maybe some of us would like to acknowledge. Not artistically, granted, but in terms of each's tendency to regurgitate their influences with a modern twist.

Pop did eat itself. Absolutely.

But simultaneously there was an explosion of creativity by bedroom producers all over the globe. There's no Dylan's these days because ultimately folk music is irrelevant in a globalised market. It simply cannot transcend boundaries of culture and language in the same way as 'pop', but more importantly electronic music.

Artful_Badger

Candie wrote: »

By quality I mean something a little elevated above the norm, or more challenging. Most mass media isn't challenging or illuminating, but you're right, quality is also a matter of taste and highly subjective within broad parameters.

If I read Jordan's biography it wouldn't necessarily be as mind expanding as reading Ghandi's biography, even if I thought I was a clever 'un because I was reading biographies at all.

The key to it is as you say what's going to broaden your own mind. And true enough a lot of whats available today doesn't do that and people are happy to just keep themselves stimulated with repetition or reassurance by consonantly exposing themselves to what they already know.

But if its biographies you want you have access to them all. The same force that makes available so much of what you see as worthless also recognizes that there's a market for the unique the challenging and the illuminating.

A lot of the answers are entering in to judgements of taste and repeating the belief that internet and the media has made a lot of people more stupid.

I have seen a wonderful production of madam Butterfly which was out of this world, I go to the theatre, however I have also seen great gigs in the 02 and in Whelans and I would not rate one above the other. There is noting wrong with popular culture per say it just that it has assumed more importance that it actually has. I went to see Elysium a standard Hollywood blockbuster and it did raise some interesting question about society, art house films can often be twaddle, so it is wrong to assume something artistic as opposed to popular is always going to be "better " and of more value.

For all the rise of popular culture event like fringe festival and live theatre are still very popular, novelist like Colm Toibin etc are very popular, for everyone who reads the Daily hate mail some one else is reading the Irish times or the Telegraph.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

A lot of the answers are entering in to judgements of taste and repeating the belief that internet and the media has made a lot of people more stupid.

Has anyone said that?

I actually think that's untrue, and if anything the internet has been a positive force in expanding peoples horizons, much like television can and often does do.

Popular culture doesn't make anyone more stupid. It might not be very mind expanding but that doesn't equal mind contracting.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

clairefontaine

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

For me, the true test is that it appeals to multiple levels.

The divide between pop culture and more esoteric is a deceptive argument.

In 50 years people will still be listening to Dylan, some are already studying him in poetry classes. Not so sure I can say that about Beyonce.

It's a fools game to turn up ones nose at Elvis because he was popular. A new historicism or cultural critic can gleam nuggets of gold out of a performance or turn it to slime.

I did a personal experiment once when I took a music theory class at Columbia. The assignment was to compare and contrast two live and two recorded performances of two different pieces of music. I listened to the recordings, and not having the cash for the symphony at the time, invented the two live ones in my head and carried on with my assignments. I received an A. My conclusion? Art criticism is fiction.

MaxWig

clairefontaine wrote: »

My conclusion? Art criticism is fiction.

Or, worse, opinion.

The answer, will the person be read, or will the play be preformed, or the music listened to in 50 years time is a neat way of avoiding the judgement of taste or the question of elitism. i.e I don't have to judge and be accused of elitism history will judge.

MaxWig

clairefontaine wrote: »

For me, the true test is that it appeals to multiple levels.

The divide between pop culture and more esoteric is a deceptive argument.

In 50 years people will still be listening to Dylan, some are already studying him in poetry classes. Not so sure I can say that about Beyonce.

Maybe not, but you can say it of Tupac and a number of other hip-hop artists. In terms of their lasting effect on culture, it could easily argued that Public Enemy or N.W.A will ultimately have a much more long lasting and profound effect upon culture than Dylan ever could have.

Dylan and the Stones and The Beatles etc. all hailed at a time when the music industry was controlled by a small elite. It still is in terms of traditional distribution and copyright, but those systems are eroding to the point of irrelevance. As soon as those systems got turned on their head, Rock, Folk and country became a fading influence. While hip-hop is still largely the subject of intellectual snobbery and derision by many, the numbers speak for themselves. Tupac was 'Dylan' for millions.

Dylan may be read in 50 years, but not necessarily because of what he was saying, more so because of who was listening

clairefontaine

MaxWig wrote: »

Maybe not, but you can say it of Tupac and a number of other hip-hop artists. In terms of their lasting effect on culture, it could easily argued that Public Enemy or N.W.A will ultimately have a much more long lasting and profound effect upon culture than Dylan ever could have.

Dylan and the Stones and The Beatles etc. all hailed at a time when the music industry was controlled by a small elite. It still is in terms of traditional distribution and copyright, but those systems are eroding to the point of irrelevance. As soon as those systems got turned on their head, Rock, Folk and country became a fading influence. While hip-hop is still largely the subject of intellectual snobbery and derision by many, the numbers speak for themselves. Tupac was 'Dylan' for millions.

Dylan may be read in 50 years, but not necessarily because of what he was saying, more so because of who was listening

That's a good point too. Dylan draws a lot from early American musical influences. I find it weird he's read in English classes tbh, because he's ultimately musical.

I love Public Enemy. I don't know about more influence, hard to measure something like that.

Radiosonde

MaxWig wrote: »

Maybe not, but you can say it of Tupac and a number of other hip-hop artists. In terms of their lasting effect on culture, it could easily argued that Public Enemy or N.W.A will ultimately have a much more long lasting and profound effect upon culture than Dylan ever could have.

Dylan and the Stones and The Beatles etc. all hailed at a time when the music industry was controlled by a small elite. It still is in terms of traditional distribution and copyright, but those systems are eroding to the point of irrelevance. As soon as those systems got turned on their head, Rock, Folk and country became a fading influence. While hip-hop is still largely the subject of intellectual snobbery and derision by many, the numbers speak for themselves. Tupac was 'Dylan' for millions.

Dylan may be read in 50 years, but not necessarily because of what he was saying, more so because of who was listening

The problem with hip-hop is it didn't transition into the mainstream very well: where the Beatles and Dylan succeeded in pushing back the limits of what was considered "commercial," hip-hop was ultimately reigned-in by them. It started out as something which challenged the stereotypes about urban African-Americans, and ended up with 50cent rapping about 'hos and bling.

clairefontaine

Radiosonde wrote: »

The problem with hip-hop is it didn't transition into the mainstream very well: where the Beatles and Dylan succeeded in pushing back the limits of what was considered "commercial," hip-hop was ultimately reigned-in by them. It started out as something which challenged the stereotypes about urban African-Americans, and ended up with 50cent rapping about 'hos and bling.

In America it has, especially urban places.

MaxWig

Radiosonde wrote: »

The problem with hip-hop is it didn't transition into the mainstream very well: where the Beatles and Dylan succeeded in pushing back the limits of what was considered "commercial," hip-hop was ultimately reigned-in by them. It started out as something which challenged the stereotypes about urban African-Americans, and ended up with 50cent rapping about 'hos and bling.

The same can be said of rockn'roll in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

There were poor black kids lashing it out for years, just like NWA were, but the mainstream would never accept it until the white kids with the right image started to parody it.

Not sure I would agree with you that hip-hop didn't transition well into the mainstream. I think it ultimately took over the mainstream.

The same producers that started out in basements are now producing Rhianna and Beyonce (Dr. Dre, Swizz Beats etc). Of course it morphed into something more palatable for the charts. But everything does in order to satisfy the blander tastes of the masses.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Radiosonde

MaxWig wrote: »

The same can be said of rockn'roll in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

There were poor black kids lashing it out for years, just like NWA were, but the mainstream would never accept it until the white kids with the right image started to parody it.

Not sure I would agree with you that hip-hop didn't transition well into the mainstream. I think it ultimately took over the mainstream.

The same producers that started out in basements are now producing Rhianna and Beyonce (Dr. Dre, Swizz Beats etc). Of course it morphed into something more palatable for the charts. But everything does in order to satisfy the blander tastes of the masses.

Well, I couldn't agree there. Hip-hop 'morphed' from a genre which gave a new voice to the more often unarticulated urban black experience, into one dominated by the crass materialism of 'Fiddy' et al (not to mention the hip-hop inflections and lazy sampling of countless r'n'b soundalikes).

Now while rock music has more than its fair share of dull stadium filling Bon Jovis, there are numerous artistically powerful and commercially successful performers, many of whom have carried their audience (or most of them) through some fairly dramatic evolutions in sound - as with Dylan's transition from folk to electric, the Beatles' from "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" to "Strawberry Fields Forever", Bowie from sexually-transgressive glam rock to austere Euro electronics, the punks from their unwritten 'three chords and the truth' manifesto to the subtler and (ironically) more subversive sounds of post-punks like Joy Division, Magazine, and the Fall, Radiohead from "Creep" to Kid A...and I could go on.

Hip hop just can't hold a candle to the richness and diversity of rock's "canon".

MaxWig

Radiosonde wrote: »

Well, I couldn't agree there. Hip-hop 'morphed' from a genre which gave a new voice to the more often unarticulated urban black experience, into one dominated by the crass materialism of 'Fiddy' et al (not to mention the hip-hop inflections and lazy sampling of countless r'n'b soundalikes).

Yeah, the crass materialism we find at the top of the charts is specific to 'Fiddy' et al

Now while rock music has more than its fair share of dull stadium filling Bon Jovis, there are numerous artistically powerful and commercially successful performers, many of whom have carried their audience (or most of them) through some fairly dramatic evolutions in sound - as with Dylan's transition from folk to electric, the Beatles' from "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" to "Strawberry Fields Forever", Bowie from sexually-transgressive glam rock to austere Euro electronics, the punks from their unwritten 'three chords and the truth' manifesto to the subtler and (ironically) more subversive sounds of post-punks like Joy Division, Magazine, and the Fall, Radiohead from "Creep" to Kid A...and I could go on.

Hip hop just can't hold a candle to the richness and diversity of rock's "canon".

I wish you would go on. The transition you are describing (quite eloquently I might add) is a transition away from 'Rock' into something else. Radiohead have all but become an electronic music outfit, and I can't see that changing unless there is a dramatic u-turn. They share more with Electronic music than any contemporary rock bands I can think of. Unless 'Rock' simply means anything that 'isn't pop'.

That process you are discussing is for me, no less than the death of rock music. I notice Radiohead are also the only contemporary band you mention. I'm guessing we're of a certain age.

Hip-Hop might be anathema to many, but it has more in common with punk than bands like Joy Division in my opinion. No knowledge of how to play an instrument - A few records and the human voice. Like it or not, the well known 'rock' music of today has become the pastiche that Fiddy is to hip-hop.

But what hip-hop can claim is a massive influence on how music is consumed and played. 'Two turntables and a microphone' - it's the new reality. From hip-hop and disco right through to the underground electronic music now, Rock became irrelevant for an awful lot of people a long time ago. Just like country and western

MaxWig

Dylan was almost singlehandedly responsible for the demise of Tin Pan Alley, the publishing cartel that had dominated the US music industry since the 19th century. This marked a fundamental revolution in how the U.S. music industry was structured.

Yes, he represented a shift in favour towards a new kind of music. The emergence of a new consumer. The genres. Fashion!

The system may have been revolutionized again since that time, but if we look around at today's bestselling artists — Rhianna, Beyoncé, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, One Direction, Justin Timberlake, Olly Murs, et al — it's hard to discern much in the way of genuine artistry or enduring worth.

I'd agree with you to a degree. But you mentioned Rhianna, Beyonce and Justin Timberlake. These three stand out as three performers who have worked with immensely gifted producers. As performers, they are as talented as anything from the 70s, 80s or 90s.

It's hard to base such an argument on numbers alone. We don't usually find ourselves debating the cultural impact of Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, Elton John, Whitney Houston, or ABBA — and yet they are among the world's best-selling recording artists.

Maybe you don't. I don't know many people who claim to have an understanding of music who would ever consider leaving Elton John out of a discussion of musical influences over the last 50 years. As for ABBA, well, what can you say about ABBA?
The friendly face of disco!

As for disco - well, what else is there?