I'd like to hear from the old(er) timers

[Al_Osterheld]

Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus got tossed out as garbage in this thread, but clearly they are great at what they do (generate fame).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOwblaKmyVw

I’m mostly agreeing with you but it’s more than just “generating fame”.

Not the greatest ever, but Dolly Parton owns that piece of turf.

-Al

[Jayson_Cohen]

Dave,

Thanks for your excellent comment. I also wonder how much the impression of “greatness” is confused with creating a successful “fame.” Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus got tossed out as garbage in this thread, but clearly they are great at what they do (generate fame). I wonder when I ever would have heard of Prince if he had not put out Purple Rain and a girlfriend dragged me to go see it. Given my age, I found Apollonia Six by far the most interesting part of the movie. What I did not get was why people were fussing over Prince. But by age 14, I had been exposed to Jeff Beck, Alex Lifeson, Steve Howe, Al Dimeola, Robert Fripp, and Frank Zappa, so I failed to understand why people thought he was such an amazing guitar player. And I still don’t. Would Prince really have received all the attention he did if he had not put out a catchy movie, been glamorous/flamboyant,whatever, and sucked up the attention of the Pop world by changing his name to a silly symbol? In other words, how much greatness has gone undiscovered or largely overlooked due to “poor marketing.”

Putting attention aside. And no disrespect all around to your exposure. That’s just a big nah. Nah. Prince was Crazy talented.

[ChrisJames]

Dave,

Thanks for your excellent comment. I also wonder how much the impression of “greatness” is confused with creating a successful “fame.” Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus got tossed out as garbage in this thread, but clearly they are great at what they do (generate fame). I wonder when I ever would have heard of Prince if he had not put out Purple Rain and a girlfriend dragged me to go see it. Given my age, I found Apollonia Six by far the most interesting part of the movie. What I did not get was why people were fussing over Prince. But by age 14, I had been exposed to Jeff Beck, Alex Lifeson, Steve Howe, Al Dimeola, Robert Fripp, and Frank Zappa, so I failed to understand why people thought he was such an amazing guitar player. And I still don’t. Would Prince really have received all the attention he did if he had not put out a catchy movie, been glamorous/flamboyant,whatever, and sucked up the attention of the Pop world by changing his name to a silly symbol? In other words, how much greatness has gone undiscovered or largely overlooked due to “poor marketing.”

Putting attention aside. And no disrespect all around to your exposure. That’s just a big nah. Nah. Prince was Crazy talented.

Accepting that Prince was crazy talented, the other people I listed are/were also crazy talented (and many more artists). So really Prince is just one crazy talented person among many in his generation. Perhaps Prince will be remembered in 70 years much like Marilyn Monroe - maybe not the most beautiful, but one who garnished the most attention. And that is a problem with trying to decide in a contemporary setting who is “great.” And my orchestra teacher wife reminded me that Bach was not considered particularly exceptional in his day.

[Jonathan_Loesberg]

You need to read what Michelangelo and his contemporaries thought they were doing, not why we think he matters as a result of intervening art history. And there is little doubt that they saw what they called lifelikeness (thus what you take to be the weasel language of “the impression of it” but was just an attempt to get around a term of art) as one of the primary criteria of great art. If it were true that Michelangelo would be amazed by a Wheaties box for the reasons that critic thought he would be, it would have been out artistic awe at how well that commercial artist had achieved what he, Michelangelo, had aimed for, and not out of technological wonder. That at least is the clear point of the epigram. I have no particular brief for the banana guy. Really, what he was about is very old news. But preferring Dali to Stills or Hockney or Frankenthaler is…well…a matter of taste.

I don’t know how that bolded part could be proven or disproven, but I don’t believe it and I don’t think you really believe it, either. That is to say, I would be shocked if we brought a Wheaties box back in the Tardis to Michelangelo and he held it in artistic awe and regarded it as achieving what he set out to do in his own art - and that holds true regardless whether you presented it to him free of context or whispered in his ear that in the 20th century we invented machines that could take accurate color photographs and reproduce them in mass quantities with the push of a button. Actually, maybe I conceded too much by saying I don’t know how the claim could be disproven, because now that I think about it, it seems fairly easily disproven by the fact that we have artists now who don’t regard a Wheaties box as fine art, and it isn’t because realism isn’t considered art anymore - photographers still rank among the fine artists! But not all photographs are fine art notwithstanding the fact that they’re all (well, except the out-of-focus ones) more-or-less equally good at reproducing their subjects realistically. Speaking of Hockney, here’s a cool interview where he kinda dunks on photography because painters representing a scene see things and bring out things that photographers do not. And here’s a cool vid from “Great Art Explained” about the Mona Lisa. What’s notable for present purposes is maybe like a third of the video is dedicated to praising the techniques for the realism of the rendering. The rest is talking about choices made and techniques used in the composition that have nothing to do with realism and couldn’t be reproduced by having a Mona Lisa lookalike sit for a photograph. I realize this is a different ninja turtle. Regardless, I don’t think what Michelangelo and his contemporaries thought they were doing or were “aiming” to do could be accomplished by your average or even your especially skilled sports or portraiture photographer. Given the era, I understand that it also had a lot to do with the sanctification of God and all that woo-woo none of us can relate to anymore, but I’m still pretty sure that accomplishing this to a Renaissance master’s satisfaction required quite a bit more deliberation in the composition than is factored into a snapshot of Mary Lou Retton dismounting the uneven parallel bars.

\

You seem to be misunderstanding the point of the remark. I’ll try another direction. Vasari tells a story of Giotto when he was a student in Cimabue’s study: while Cimabue was out, Giotto painted a picture of a fly on the nose of a portrait Cimabue was working on that was so lifelike that when Cimabue came back in, he repeatedly tried to swat the fly a way. The story sounds to me apocryphal since it reproduces the old Greek myth in which Zeuxis painted grapes on a wall that were so lifelike that birds would peck at them. Here’s the point. In Vasari, the story is told as praise of Giotto’s ability as a painter. It isn’t all that makes him good, but it is considered a necessary and critical element of being a good painter. By the 19th century, such stories are regularly used–in Hegel, in Ruskin, just as examples–as precisely what art is not about–and Ruskin considered himself a realist (but then so did the painters we now call Impressionists, realism being a term that covers a multitude of sins). Thus, of course, no contemporary artist would consider a Wheaties box an artwork, but that is the point. Vasari and Michelangelo very likely would. And, if Hockney was right, that numbers of old Masters used reproducing lenses to get the exactitude of their representations right (which neither he, nor they if they did, considered in any way cheating), I doubt Michelangelo would have much cared how the representation got on the box. But, again, the point is not how the Renaissance painters would have looked at a Wheaties box. The point is that they considered a skill we think of as mere technique or draughtsmanship to go to the core of art and we don’t. That means that we don’t measure what is art as they do. And when we look at their art in our terms, as we, of course, do, we are looking at it through the lens of an art history that explains why they are important in a way that they would not. Again, if Michelangelo weren’t amazed at a Wheaties box, we have his friend’s testimony that Giotto’s trick with the fly was a significant part of understanding why he was a great artist in a way we would not buy. That really was all Goffman, if he was the critic who said that, was trying to say.

[Jayson_Cohen]

Dave,

Thanks for your excellent comment. I also wonder how much the impression of “greatness” is confused with creating a successful “fame.” Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus got tossed out as garbage in this thread, but clearly they are great at what they do (generate fame). I wonder when I ever would have heard of Prince if he had not put out Purple Rain and a girlfriend dragged me to go see it. Given my age, I found Apollonia Six by far the most interesting part of the movie. What I did not get was why people were fussing over Prince. But by age 14, I had been exposed to Jeff Beck, Alex Lifeson, Steve Howe, Al Dimeola, Robert Fripp, and Frank Zappa, so I failed to understand why people thought he was such an amazing guitar player. And I still don’t. Would Prince really have received all the attention he did if he had not put out a catchy movie, been glamorous/flamboyant,whatever, and sucked up the attention of the Pop world by changing his name to a silly symbol? In other words, how much greatness has gone undiscovered or largely overlooked due to “poor marketing.”

Putting attention aside. And no disrespect all around to your exposure. That’s just a big nah. Nah. Prince was Crazy talented.

Accepting that Prince was crazy talented, the other people I listed are/were also crazy talented (and many more artists). So really Prince is just one crazy talented person among many in his generation. Perhaps Prince will be remembered in 70 years much like Marilyn Monroe - maybe not the most beautiful, but one who garnished the most attention. And that is a problem with trying to decide in a contemporary setting who is “great.” And my orchestra teacher wife reminded me that Bach was not considered particularly exceptional in his day.

I think we agree actually. As do many above. History will give perspective. We just can’t truly predict how, especially since music history historically favored composers before performances could be recorded and promulgated and now performance reigns in the public consciousness. History will judge talent and output well after the public spectacle has faded but in the modern world they are not disconnected.

On Bach, it wasn’t just that he wasn’t considered exceptional then. It took a very long time to place in context and understand the extent of his genius, not properly recognized for several generations and now stronger than ever. I’m sure he is not the last musical talent whose talents will only be put into context after the person has passed.

[Neal.Mollen]

My head spins with all of these hierarchical/taxonomic impossibilities.

Would Michelangelo look at a Wheaties box as a piece of art? Who the fvck knows, and what is the point of the inquiry? (personally, I suspect he’d be more floored by the box itself than what is on it). Prince and Lennon (and, for that matter, Cyrus and Spears) made 4 minute pop songs for a living. They are qualitatively, quantitatively, and taxonomically different animals than Mozart and Beethoven and Monk (and I suppose, Fripp and eventually Zappa).

That’s not intended to be dismissive of Lennon or Prince; I am pretty sure Mozart would have struggled to write a sublime 4 minute pop song. They are just fundamentally different skills, and their respective work products represent fundamentally different achievements. You can marvel at both In My Life and Eine Kleine Nachtmusik without trying to put them in the same Greatest Hits category.

Making a sensible qualitative and hierarchical comparison of the worth of artists working in different media, towards different goals, esp. hundreds of years apart, requires a level of computational power (and spare time?) that I don’t have.

So I’ll ask you experts: who’s better, Stephen Foster or Mies van der Rohe? Rodin or Johnny Carson? Inquiring minds . . . aren’t really that interested.

[Dav3_Dyr0ff]

The answer is Bill Watterson, for it is self-evident that all creative and artistic progress throughout human history built, slowly and unevenly, but inexorably, toward Calvin & Hobbes, and since BW’s retirement, we are now living in the inevitable decline that follows Peak Art.

[Jim_Stewart]

My head spins with all of these hierarchical/taxonomic impossibilities.

Would Michelangelo look at a Wheaties box as a piece of art? Who the fvck knows, and what is the point of the inquiry? (personally, I suspect he’d be more floored by the box itself than what is on it). Prince and Lennon (and, for that matter, Cyrus and Spears) made 4 minute pop songs for a living. They are qualitatively, quantitatively, and taxonomically different animals than Mozart and Beethoven and Monk (and I suppose, Fripp and eventually Zappa).

That’s not intended to be dismissive of Lennon or Prince; I am pretty sure Mozart would have struggled to write a sublime 4 minute pop song. They are just fundamentally different skills, and their respective work products represent fundamentally different achievements. You can marvel at both In My Life and Eine Kleine Nachtmusik without trying to put them in the same Greatest Hits category.

Making a sensible qualitative and hierarchical comparison of the worth of artists working in different media, towards a different goals, esp. hundreds of years apart, requires a level of computational power (and spare time?) that I don’t have.

So I’ll ask you experts: who’s better, Stephen Foster or Mies van der Rohe? Rodin or Johnny Carson? Inquiring minds . . . aren’t really that interested.

/ɜː/

[Dav3_Dyr0ff]

Or…

[Ian_Sutton]

That’s the other thing about old timers, they easily forget what they were talking about in the first place

[John_Morris]

I am pretty sure Mozart would have struggled to write a sublime 4 minute pop song.

A point lost on so many people.

But imagine if he’d taken his hand to that!

[Dav3_Dyr0ff]

I am pretty sure Mozart would have struggled to write a sublime 4 minute pop song.

A point lost on so many people.

But imagine if he’d taken his hand to that!

Mary Had a Little Lamb 🐑 Sing-along Nursery Rhyme Song 🐑 Kids Songs by The Learning Station

[Jayson_Cohen]

I am pretty sure Mozart would have struggled to write a sublime 4 minute pop song.

A point lost on so many people.

But imagine if he’d taken his hand to that!

Not sure I agree. I’m not that familiar with Mozart’s short pieces but Bach’s Sonatas and Partitas, not only as a set but individually, are remarkable.

Bach: Sonatas And Partitas

[Jayson_Cohen]

I am pretty sure Mozart would have struggled to write a sublime 4 minute pop song.

A point lost on so many people.

But imagine if he’d taken his hand to that!

https://youtu.be/uyvdG39-Gzk?t=15

I suppose that’s a reminder I am familiar with at least one of Mozart’s short pieces.

[Dav3_Dyr0ff]

I suppose that’s a reminder I am familiar with at least one of Mozart’s short pieces.

Of course, he was no one-hit wonder on the pop scene.

Twinkle Twinkle Little Star | Nursery Rhymes for Kids | Super Simple Songs

[ChrisJames]

I am pretty sure Mozart would have struggled to write a sublime 4 minute pop song.

A point lost on so many people.

But imagine if he’d taken his hand to that!

Do you mean 20th/21st century pop music? That seems irrelevant because he didn’t live in that context. Many or most of the now famous composers were hired entertainers for the money class of their day, whether nobility or clergy. In other words, they had to write in a style that would be appealing (popular) to their culture at the time. There were plenty of starving composers to step in and replace them if their music wasn’t a “hit.”

[Tomas_Costa]

I am pretty sure Mozart would have struggled to write a sublime 4 minute pop song.

A point lost on so many people.

But imagine if he’d taken his hand to that!

Not sure I agree. I’m not that familiar with Mozart’s short pieces but Bach’s Sonatas and Partitas, not only as a set but individually, are remarkable.

Spotify

Having played the entire S&P, I found great interest in a book named Sei Solo, which describes and explains how the set is a giant theological/numerical allegory for the life of Christ. Fascinating stuff.

[Neal.Mollen]

Do you mean 20th/21st century pop music? That seems irrelevant because he didn’t live in that context.

And on that one point, if nothing else, we are in complete agreement. Which was kind of my whole point

[ToddFrench]

Might have to pull this thread out of Wine Talk soon, sheesh! Gone off the rails over here! Come on, ‘older timers’ - back on target!

[Jim_Stewart]

Might have to pull this thread out of Wine Talk soon, sheesh! Gone off the rails over here! Come on, ‘older timers’ - back on target!

One has to