Why is it that some films/books/music are considerd "brilliant" and other more enjoyable films/books/music are considerd "trash". It pure evidence that people, mostly adults, want to feel superiour to others interllectually with no effot at all. Shakesphere for example, nonsense plot, totaly unrealistic characters, sure it has rhyhms and good speeches and stuff. But why do fans of it scoth at fans of Harry Potter? The only reason for this is that in Shakesphere its so bloody hard to dechpiher what they are saying you feel you've earnt the plot, which makes you feel good and "interlectual".Amalie for example, crap plot, but it had loadsa stupid camra angles and narration and all these other things film rewiewers like so is considerd brilliant. Where a film like Matrix Reloaded which is full of state of the art action is considerd "awful hollywood trash". For christ sake why is camera angles, atmosphere and other things which film rewiewers look for put above enjoyability! Especally orgional action like in the Matrix. In my opinuion AQUA were far superiour to Mozart, others think the opposite which is there opinuion. Im fine with that. But then people come along and say "Mozart IS superiour to that pop trash".
To sum up what I am saying is why is enjoyability thought of as inferiour to origionality, camera angles, "Artyness", emotion etc
Originally posted by Brother Edwin
Why is it that some films/books/music are considerd "brilliant" and other more enjoyable films/books/music are considerd "trash".
I think the "trash" generally follows cliche, well-trodden lines and thus presents nothing original to be appreciated. Now this doesn't mean that "trash" can't be enjoyable, but from a critic's perspective these films tend to be dull.
I really enjoyed both Amalie and the Matrix (the first one, the rest sucked). Both had fantastic cinematography and very intriguing plots/messages. The following installments of the Matrix triology were just more of the same to overkill and lacked the philosophical depth of the first.
You don't like Shakespeare?! I remember that I found him difficult to understand when I first encountered his works, but eventually, I became comfortable with the style and discovered why he is widely considered the greatest writer in the English language.
As for the plots and characters and such, to the extent that they are unrealistic it is generally to reveal some quality of humanity. Besides if you think that's bad, have you checked out any Greek plays?
Remember too that what you are reading are plays. They were meant to be performed and are much more enjoyable when done so by skilled actors rather than read in a class.
By constrast Harry Potter, while entertaining (my wife assures me of this) does little to reveal the human condition (I suppose some will take exception to this.). So while I'm sure it's fun (I was a big fantasy fan as a kid.), it lacks the "meat" found in literature.
As far as the music you've mentioned, I cannot comment. I haven't listened (knowingly) to AQUA, and my Mozart knowledge is slim at best. I would guess that many music enthusiants/students would point out that like Shakespeare to Harry Potter, Mozart's music is technically far more interesting and nuanced.
I guess if I could give an analogy, it's like red wine vs. Kool-aid. At times Kool-aid hits the spot, but when it comes to interesting flavor no red wine drinker would endure Kool-aid when a fine Cabernet Sauvignon is available.
Finally, I agree with your disapproval of critics condescension. Intellectual snobbery is certainly a turn off. Above I have tried to explain why they may prefer the works that they do over "popular" alternatives. I would encourage you not to reject the works because the critics are a turn-off.
Have you read much Mark Twain?
Intellectually satisfying and funny as hell. A real iconoclast.
Originally posted by telerionI understand what you mean.
Originally posted by Brother Edwin
[b]Why is it that some films/books/music are considerd "brilliant" and other more enjoyable films/books/music are considerd "trash".
I think the "trash" generally follows cliche, well-trodden lines and thus presents nothing original to be appreciated. Now this doesn't mean that "trash" can't be en ...[text shortened]... ve you read much Mark Twain?
Intellectually satisfying and funny as hell. A real iconoclast. [/b]
Originally posted by telerionI agree, and like many things our various tastes will play a part too.
Originally posted by Brother Edwin
[b]Why is it that some films/books/music are considerd "brilliant" and other more enjoyable films/books/music are considerd "trash".
I think the "trash" generally follows cliche, well-trodden lines and thus presents nothing original to be appreciated. Now this doesn't mean that "trash" can't be en ...[text shortened]... ve you read much Mark Twain?
Intellectually satisfying and funny as hell. A real iconoclast. [/b]
I've come a long way with music, I use to only listen to rock, now
I've come to enjoy a wide range, from classical to country which I
never thought I would. I guess having CD quality sound has helped
me sit down and listen to it at another level, where I never did earlier
in life. I mostly only have Christian music now in my collection, but
there the styles of music are as varied as secular.
Kelly
Originally posted by Brother EdwinI see what you're saying and you make a good point but I am one of those who prefers substance over style and for me, it comes down to viewing films/music/books as artistic works. Personally, I find something with a high artistic merit to be superior to that of a lower artistic value. That's not to say that everyone should have the same "grading system" or that "artistic value" is a quantitative thing. Obviously, one man's trash can be another man's treasure.
Why is it that some films/books/music are considerd "brilliant" and other more enjoyable films/books/music are considerd "trash". It pure evidence that people, mostly adults, want to feel superiour to others interllectually with no effot at all. Shakesphere for example, nonsense plot, totaly unrealistic characters, sure it has rhyhms and good speec ...[text shortened]... s enjoyability thought of as inferiour to origionality, camera angles, "Artyness", emotion etc
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's interesting. Is this a coincidence, or do you much prefer Christian to secular music? If the latter, is it that the styles of music you like aren't found in secular form, or that you feel the lyrics in secular music are rather meaningless by comparison? The reason I ask is that in the UK, in many genres of music only a tiny minority of songs that are widely available have an explicitly Christian theme (as opposed to the artists themselves being Christian, which I'm sure plenty are).
I mostly only have Christian music now in my collection, but
there the styles of music are as varied as secular.
Kelly
Originally posted by Brother EdwinI reckon it really depends what you like.
Why is it that some films/books/music are considerd "brilliant" and other more enjoyable films/books/music are considerd "trash". It pure evidence that people, mostly adults, want to feel superiour to others interllectually with no effot at all. Shakesphere for example, nonsense plot, totaly unrealistic characters, sure it has rhyhms and good speec ...[text shortened]... s enjoyability thought of as inferiour to origionality, camera angles, "Artyness", emotion etc
Yes, you may find Joseph Heller's "Catch 22" funnier and therefor better than Shakespeare's "Hamlet." I do, certainly.
But, say you want to read a book out loud to an audience to show how sentences and flow and others will not. Then certainly Hamlet is better written.
So, I find it really depends on taste.
I do think there is a certain pretentiousness within artistic circles to find something 'new' more attractive than something which is not new, but certainly (more) attractive.
I find the Academy awards to be quite the opposite. Compare the films which win the Palm D'or with the films which win an Oscar. I think the primary example of this was "Forest Gump" (a feel good movie) and "Pulp Fiction" (artistic).
Yet both are probably very good films in their own right.
I can't stand Forest Gump, but I love Pulp Fiction.
However, I think Lord of the Rings was better than Farenheit 9-11.
Basically, I just ignore what the television critics and the artistic people say. I just enjoy what I enjoy and dislike that which I find crap.
Amalie is the film about the French girl isn't it? I loved that.
Originally posted by AcolyteI prefer Christian to secular, mainly because of the message. Some
That's interesting. Is this a coincidence, or do you much prefer Christian to secular music? If the latter, is it that the styles of music you like aren't found in secular form, or that you feel the lyrics in secular music are rather meaningless by comparison? The reason I ask is that in the UK, in many genres of music only a tiny minority of songs that ...[text shortened]... istian theme (as opposed to the artists themselves being Christian, which I'm sure plenty are).
of my favorite songs, before I became a Christian held some dark
meanings. One example is "Don't fear the Reaper" by Blue Oyster
Cult. It puts a positive twist on suicides.
Then there are more subtle messages within music as well, which I
will not go into. I’d also say that simply because something is
called Christian does not make it good either. For taste and for some
of the messages there too.
Music was big in my life before I got saved, and it still is though not
the degree it once was. I was amazed to find out that many of the
old time hymns were actually old beer drinking melodies that some of
the people put gospel music too. For the life of my I cannot think of
of the name of one at the moment.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI used to listen exclusively to "Christian" music (basically xtian label music). I must say that artistically there are some good groups. Unfortunately for most of these artists being under the xtian label means singing only directly about their god or their life in relation to that god. Remember when Amy Grant got all that crap for singing a song about her husband? Seemed like everytime a group came up with a song that didn't fit into the narrow guidelines, xtians worried that their artist had "crossed-over."
I prefer Christian to secular, mainly because of the message. Some
of my favorite songs, before I became a Christian held some dark
meanings. One example is "Don't fear the Reaper" by Blue Oyster
Cult. It puts a positive twist on sui ...[text shortened]... f my I cannot think of
of the name of one at the moment.
Kelly
Personally I get a little tired of the repitition (Plus it's kinda eerie to here a group like Jars of Clay (I used to really love that band.) singing a "Love Song for a Savior." It's this really intimate song which makes a lot of sense to an xtian, but once you think that Jesus is just a person in your head, it's kinda creepy.).
To be fair, a great many non-xtian label bands get repititous too (How about Blink 182? Horrible.). However within the entire spectrum on not xtian-label music, I can always find an interesting tune. This is a lot more difficult in the xtian industry.
The punk band MXPX started off as a Christian band until non-Christians started listening and they actually started making money. Then they became bad-asses. But now they're your run-of-the-mill tattoo-laden crappy hardcore band. I guess when you lose your integrity, you lose your talent too. It's a shame because they were really good when they started out.
Christian music tailored for teens is an interesting paradox. The most of it that I've seen on TV or whatever is obviously a mimc of what's currently popular on "secular" airwaves or MTV but with a message of christianity thrown in which may or may not be easily deciphered. Is this presented as an alternative to secular music for kids? Or is it just a way for "Christian" recording companies to profit off a specific target market? And how Christian are those motives?
As you can tell KellyJay, not only do I have issues with Christians but I also have issues with the ultra greedy entertainment industry 😉
Originally posted by telerionI agree.
I used to listen exclusively to "Christian" music (basically xtian label music). I must say that artistically there are some good groups. Unfortunately for most of these artists being under the xtian label means singing only directly about their god or their life in relation to that god. Remember when Amy Grant got all that crap for singing a song abou ...[text shortened]... sic, I can always find an interesting tune. This is a lot more difficult in the xtian industry.
I don't mind songs not about God or even our relaitonship with God.
The message or topic can be about anything, just the message behind
it should not be something promoting something harmful. I don't care
that Amy Grant sings about something other than God. I guess for
some worship is all they want. That is okay, I guess for others they
dislike anything with a rock sound and so on. It is taste and with some
people when they listen to music, it is very important as to the style
or personal views on right and wrong come into play. I love Jars of
Clay and the News Boys, my first date with my wife was to go to a
Petra concert.
Kelly
Originally posted by darvlayI don't mind any style of music, the message is important.
The punk band MXPX started off as a Christian band until non-Christians started listening and they actually started making money. Then they became bad-asses. But now they're your run-of-the-mill tattoo-laden crappy hardcore band. I guess when you lose your integrity, you lose your talent too. It's a shame because they were really good when they started ...[text shortened]... issues with Christians but I also have issues with the ultra greedy entertainment industry 😉
I agree with what you said about making money and integrity.
It is amazing how little it takes to corrupt someone's integrity today.
It is what it is in music and everywhere else, what is real and why
are we doing the things we do? Anyone can sing Amazing Grace, but
how many know the realities of that song as they sing it?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThis goes right back to Brother Edwin's topic. Apparently a lot of Schubert's Lieder are also melodically based on drinking songs
I was amazed to find out that many of the
old time hymns were actually old beer drinking melodies that some of
the people put gospel music too. For the life of my I cannot think of
of the name of one at the moment.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYeah the Newsboys were also big favorites, along with Audio Adrenaline. I still have some DC Talk and Small Town Poets, but the last time I tried listening to them the lyrics just creeped me out.
I agree.
I don't mind songs not about God or even our relaitonship with God.
The message or topic can be about anything, just the message behind
it should not be something promoting something harmful. I don't care
that Amy Grant sings about something other than God. I guess for
some worship is all they want. That is okay, I guess for others they
dis ...[text shortened]... ars of
Clay and the News Boys, my first date with my wife was to go to a
Petra concert.
Kelly
Guess I can't criticize xtians for having the same feeling when they hear Marilyn Mason or Tool.
Originally posted by Brother EdwinBrother, Brother, Brother...
Why is it that some films/books/music are considerd "brilliant" and other more enjoyable films/books/music are considerd "trash". It pure evidence that people, mostly adults, want to feel superiour to others interllectually with n ...[text shortened]... nferiour to origionality, camera angles, "Artyness", emotion etc
You are right if you are relying on READING SHAKESPEAR.
You have to see people on stage to 'get it'. There is something that just comes alive when those words (And Actions!) come out of real mouths.
Don't read it. See it. Feel it.
As to what is great? Not me. <snark>
But I would say that any NEW THING THAT TICKLES AND STAYS in the human scene for a hundred years is great. Can there be any doubt about "The Importance Of Being Earnest"?
If we fail to see the greatness of any single thing that is that old (and still popular with the masses)... then it is probably a flaw in us... not the thing itself.
For what it's worth.
How you doin' Brother Ed? I'm OK. Tired, but OK.