do wah diddy, if the shoe fitty...
I think it's time to retire the Greenberg straw man. Although he had many good points.
ignoratio elenchi
A complaint about one context (a bad, sentimental commercial) destroying the "aura of a song" isn't the same as saying the song can never be used for any other context. In that post I gave an example where the "aura" translated well from one pop culture venue (Popeye with Robin Williams) to another (a PT Anderson movie starring Adam Sandler). We've discussed this many times and you keep misunderstanding the post as some kind of Greenbergian statement of purity, or high art, or "high pop art," or something.
You asked me in July to name an ad where a pop tune worked. I suggested Juan Atkins' techno anthem "No UFOs" in a Ford commercial. The commercial was undeniably exciting and "worked" even though the original context (Detroit kids making art in the ruins of car culture) was lost.
We probably shouldn't even be talking about this since you likely didn't see Popeye or Punch Drunk Love or the Nike commercial in question. You took something I wrote in a moment of honest passion and read your agenda into it.
ive seen popeye but not PDL. nike ad?
i dont think ive ever even mentioned greenberg. one can discuss purity with out greenberg but you cant discuss greenberg with out purity.
in order to feel assured that you were arguing your point at that moment in july consistent with your many many rants about how commercials ruin music
( and or that musicians are greedy or selling out if they do license out material for commercial use. i have provided one example by linking to your nilsson post, but there are others. you know better than i where they are in posts and comments on both of our pages.) i asked you for cases where you were in approval. it took a while but you did come up with one example. it (that single example) still sounds more an exception than the rule. i can name thousands of ditties from deodorant jingles to nick drake that i appreciate unironically .
my agenda is only this. clarity. pop culture is what it is popular culture. the song writers at the brill building (as did the tin pan alley writers before them) went to work in the morning and at the end of the day most of them had justified renting their office by creating a commodity that would feed their family, pay for their clothing, provide them with a somewhat reasonable middle class life style and contribute to the american song book in an astonishing way. most of them will comment on the sea change of '65, the british invasion (beatles) and singer songwriters (dylan) effectively ending their prominent standing in musical sales charts. but really nothing had changed, it was still record companies moving units.
you allowed a pop commodity to take on an aura which could be ruined by it behaving just as a pop commodity (dogs bark - ducks quack), refolding into popular culture as advertising instead of radio play or a disc on your shelf. i dont think you can blame anyone but your self for over investing in an aura bubble. i see you going there time after time, this is not an isolated occurrence. im not making this up. i dont know what to call it. ive tried purist (which isnt inherently a bad value ) but you had a bad reaction to that and called it a greenberghian straw man argument and my agenda. you tell me what it is. because now im starting to think it is idealistic in nature.
again with the straw man. heres what tom has to say.
and heres what the wiki says about popeye and harry. a glance at nilssons biography shows him to be a successful and talented professional songsmith. quack-quack, quack.
|
- bill 9-03-2009 1:44 pm
I think it's time to retire the Greenberg straw man. Although he had many good points.
- tom moody 9-03-2009 3:21 pm [ comments]
ignoratio elenchi
- bill 9-03-2009 3:58 pm [ comments]
A complaint about one context (a bad, sentimental commercial) destroying the "aura of a song" isn't the same as saying the song can never be used for any other context. In that post I gave an example where the "aura" translated well from one pop culture venue (Popeye with Robin Williams) to another (a PT Anderson movie starring Adam Sandler). We've discussed this many times and you keep misunderstanding the post as some kind of Greenbergian statement of purity, or high art, or "high pop art," or something.
You asked me in July to name an ad where a pop tune worked. I suggested Juan Atkins' techno anthem "No UFOs" in a Ford commercial. The commercial was undeniably exciting and "worked" even though the original context (Detroit kids making art in the ruins of car culture) was lost.
- tom moody 9-03-2009 5:30 pm [ comments]
We probably shouldn't even be talking about this since you likely didn't see Popeye or Punch Drunk Love or the Nike commercial in question. You took something I wrote in a moment of honest passion and read your agenda into it.
- tom moody 9-03-2009 5:40 pm [ comments]
ive seen popeye but not PDL. nike ad?
i dont think ive ever even mentioned greenberg. one can discuss purity with out greenberg but you cant discuss greenberg with out purity.
in order to feel assured that you were arguing your point at that moment in july consistent with your many many rants about how commercials ruin music ( and or that musicians are greedy or selling out if they do license out material for commercial use. i have provided one example by linking to your nilsson post, but there are others. you know better than i where they are in posts and comments on both of our pages.) i asked you for cases where you were in approval. it took a while but you did come up with one example. it (that single example) still sounds more an exception than the rule. i can name thousands of ditties from deodorant jingles to nick drake that i appreciate unironically .
my agenda is only this. clarity. pop culture is what it is popular culture. the song writers at the brill building (as did the tin pan alley writers before them) went to work in the morning and at the end of the day most of them had justified renting their office by creating a commodity that would feed their family, pay for their clothing, provide them with a somewhat reasonable middle class life style and contribute to the american song book in an astonishing way. most of them will comment on the sea change of '65, the british invasion (beatles) and singer songwriters (dylan) effectively ending their prominent standing in musical sales charts. but really nothing had changed, it was still record companies moving units.
you allowed a pop commodity to take on an aura which could be ruined by it behaving just as a pop commodity (dogs bark - ducks quack), refolding into popular culture as advertising instead of radio play or a disc on your shelf. i dont think you can blame anyone but your self for over investing in an aura bubble. i see you going there time after time, this is not an isolated occurrence. im not making this up. i dont know what to call it. ive tried purist (which isnt inherently a bad value ) but you had a bad reaction to that and called it a greenberghian straw man argument and my agenda. you tell me what it is. because now im starting to think it is idealistic in nature.
- bill 9-03-2009 8:25 pm [ comments]
again with the straw man. heres what tom has to say.
and heres what the wiki says about popeye and harry. a glance at nilssons biography shows him to be a successful and talented professional songsmith. quack-quack, quack.
- bill 9-04-2009 3:01 pm [ comments]