14 fucking pages.

fantasmatical thorr wrote:14 fucking pages.

and you just made it 15, g.

world of pee wrote:

fantasmatical thorr wrote:14 fucking pages.

and you just made it 15, g.

Nuts. Why are you calling me 'g', g?

'Cos you're a g-g-g-girl!

M_a_x wrote:

tocharian wrote:
A lot of rock's charm is that it's kitsch that doesn't know it's kitsch. It's in earnest.

This is an amazing, baffling quote. I never saw this. Wow.

I'm thinking specifically of the birth of rock and roll (someone wants to argue this point with me, start up another thread and we'll roll). Elvis going into Sun Studios for the first time. He starts singing a couple common ballads from the time. Lackluster. Sam Phillips shakes his head but keeps trying. They take a break. Elvis picks up the guitar and starts goofing around on "That's All Right, Mama". He thinks it's a joke. The band laughs and follow along. Phillips stops everything and jumps into that sound with both feet. Everything else follows from that.

From the start rock wasn't taken seriously by the performers. But it does demand seriousness. There is something awesome and primal about it. As I said, it's the opposite of kitsch, which is done in earnest, dead seriously, but cannot be taken seriously. Certainly, Elvis was taken so seriously he got to stop driving a truck for a living.

All my favourite bands have done what Elvis did - in essence, "let's screw things up and see what happens". Something happens that is greater than just notes on a page or a piece of music.

Satie's early pieces certainly have the same mocking motivations behind them but are of the utmost gravity and awesomeness.

I could go on and on. But anyway. You're wrong.

This is a great post but I'm confused about the conclusions.

So then are you saying that, contrary to Tocharian's view, Rock Music knows it is Kitsch but doesn't care? Because that's what I'd say, anyway. And I keep expecting someone to say that but no one has. I'm surprised people have taken offense to this. Rock is Kitsch, whatever. Rock is not art, who cares? I mean, most of Rock Music is really really bad, and we all spend an aweful lot of time saying so on this forum. I mean really, Rock music kinda blows.

JDanger wrote:

M_a_x wrote:

tocharian wrote:
A lot of rock's charm is that it's kitsch that doesn't know it's kitsch. It's in earnest.

This is an amazing, baffling quote. I never saw this. Wow.

I'm thinking specifically of the birth of rock and roll (someone wants to argue this point with me, start up another thread and we'll roll). Elvis going into Sun Studios for the first time. He starts singing a couple common ballads from the time. Lackluster. Sam Phillips shakes his head but keeps trying. They take a break. Elvis picks up the guitar and starts goofing around on "That's All Right, Mama". He thinks it's a joke. The band laughs and follow along. Phillips stops everything and jumps into that sound with both feet. Everything else follows from that.

From the start rock wasn't taken seriously by the performers. But it does demand seriousness. There is something awesome and primal about it. As I said, it's the opposite of kitsch, which is done in earnest, dead seriously, but cannot be taken seriously. Certainly, Elvis was taken so seriously he got to stop driving a truck for a living.

All my favourite bands have done what Elvis did - in essence, "let's screw things up and see what happens". Something happens that is greater than just notes on a page or a piece of music.

Satie's early pieces certainly have the same mocking motivations behind them but are of the utmost gravity and awesomeness.

I could go on and on. But anyway. You're wrong.

This is a great post but I'm confused about the conclusions.

So then are you saying that, contrary to Tocharian's view, Rock Music knows it is Kitsch but doesn't care? Because that's what I'd say, anyway. And I keep expecting someone to say that but no one has. I'm surprised people have taken offense to this. Rock is Kitsch, whatever. Rock is not art, who cares? I mean, most of Rock Music is really really bad, and we all spend an aweful lot of time saying so on this forum. I mean really, Rock music kinda blows.

Sorry for the huge quotes.
Well, kitsch is something that is created in a serious manner but can't be taken 100% seriously. Kitsch to me (following from Jong's "Notes On Camp" - and if I can be uber-snob, the best of which is derived from Chester) is that which is created in utter dead seriousness but is so melodramatic, or showy, it can't be perceived except as joke-y. Not to get crazy but when people usually talk about kitsch, a la something like the B-52s, it's usually not true camp or kitsch because the creators are throwing the audience the audience's version of kitsch. It's ironic kitsch. Now take something like, uhm, Jobriath.....

But good rock is usually not done with those super-serious intention. My 'good' is subjective, so I'll just say "The stuff I identify with the most" is that crazy inventive 'see what sticks' philosophy. It can even be done as a bit of a joke. But the end product actually functions like all great art (could argue on THAT subject as well...can we just say "That in which an audience finds sympathy with", or "That which reflects an audience's perspective back at them"). It is NOT created as art, but it functions at art, and because it can be (and in fact is) perceived as serious, it is serious and cannot function as kitsch.

The audience creates the kitsch by their perceptions. The author makes their work a candidate by approaching their creation with utter seriousness.

The audience PERCEIVING and therefore LABELLING kitsch... no matter how many dictionary definitions we pull out or how closely we read Jong, it's STILL subjective. It is possible for someone to 'perceive' all rock music as kitsch, just like someone can, I suppose, perceive Bach as kitsch (serialists?) - they could find it melodramatic, sentimentalistic, too many foolish rules, whatever. But anyway I find it hard to believe that great rock is not created with a bit of giggling and "What the fuck is coming out of the speakers" giddyness from the creators. People who do approach rock music with deep reverence and awe....well I'm thinking of ELO or crap like that....but not the GOOD stuff.

Another way to think about it: MST3K never did a comedy, to my recollection. If they did it certainly wasn't as memorable as the dramas or "horrors"....

M_a_x wrote: . Not to get crazy but when people usually talk about kitsch, a la something like the B-52s, it's usually not true camp or kitsch because the creators are throwing the audience the audience's version of kitsch. It's ironic kitsch. Now take something like, uhm, Jobriath.....

...

So if the Author endeavors to meet the Audience's expectations of Kitsch, and the audience is satisfied, the Art (or whatever) is not, in fact, Kitsch?

sure was nice of tocharian to duck out two pages ago and leave us arguing amongst ourselves.

JDanger wrote:

M_a_x wrote: . Not to get crazy but when people usually talk about kitsch, a la something like the B-52s, it's usually not true camp or kitsch because the creators are throwing the audience the audience's version of kitsch. It's ironic kitsch. Now take something like, uhm, Jobriath.....

...

So if the Author endeavors to meet the Audience's expectations of Kitsch, and the audience is satisfied, the Art (or whatever) is not, in fact, Kitsch?

Right. It's just hipster doofus irony...going by tocharian's academic definition.

M_a_x wrote:Right. It's just hipster doofus evasive sarcasm...going by tocharian's academic definition.

FYP.