Idle thought on a wet, grey Sunday. Partly prompted by the movie thread.
I often feel this and wondered if it's just me? Not "shame" exactly, but a feeling of being a bit of an outsider, a bit out of sync with everyone else in matters of culture.
With more generic, popular stuff, I get it. Tastes differ wildly and there's something for everyone, but I'm talking specifically about music, film, theatre etc. which is almost universally recognised as "great". Stuff I feel I "should" like, because (it seems to me) almost everyone else does, especially the experts/critics.
A few examples: The Beatles; Shakespeare; Bowie. There are many more. More widely: Opera; Ballet; Musical theatre. I am not for one minute denying that they are everything the fans and critics say they are. I just wonder what wiring fault in my brain stops me seeing what everyone else can clearly see?
With most of these things I have tried repeatedly to like them. To read the history, back story, listen or watch repeatedly to see if I eventually get it, but no. Nada, they just leave me cold.
The answer may be no more complex than I'm just a complete philistine, which is fine. Just wondering if I'm the only one!
IMO some of these things are emperors new clothes. Opera and ballet specifically
I have seen about 3 films in 30 years. I just do not get the medium at all. I read very quickly so a book I get the information much quicker so even modern films that move quickly are too slow and I have a vivid pictorial imagination so reading gets me better images.
As a result I am outside a huge chunk of popular culture
You arent the only one, for sure. Plenty of critically acclaimed stuff that just doesn't do it for me. Any music thread and you'll see examples from others. You aren't missing anything, you just don't like it.
I also get the other bit...New bands that i think are fantastic and my wife wont even let me have it on in the car because it's just noise. I can't see why she can't see it.
Revel in your otherness! We're all individuals!
What does annoy me is when people get snarky because others have different tastes..."I've never watched Traitors but I know it's shit and you're all idiots for watching it" and of course, football vs rugby.
Just like whatever you like.
I always read the Guardian reviews at the weekend and the utter dross I've sat though (invariably at the Cornerhouse/Home) that they hailed as groundbreaking/ the work of genius.... hours of my life I'll never get back. Nowadays if they say its lowest common denominator trash, Im interested, if they give it 5 stars I'm not going anywhere near it.
As a graphic designer, I am however required by law to listen to 6 Music and compile playlists of Bolivian Speed Garage and South American Industrial Pan Pipe Techo, or we get struck off. Sometimes it becomes a chore... 😉
To summarise....
and of course, football vs rugby
Not really an argument. One is the national sport, the other is just a thing that keeps people called Olly out of everyone elses way for a few hours at the weekend. Both benefit society in different ways
and of course, football vs rugby.
That ones obvious. Rugby is a far superior game to soccer. soccer is just playacting and cheating
I am however required by law to listen to 6 Music and compile playlists of Bolivian Speed Garage and South American Industrial Pan Pipe Techo, or we get struck off. Sometimes it becomes a chore... 😉
🤣
Caring what experts/critics have to say is where you went wrong
Rugby is a far superior game to soccer. soccer is just playacting and cheating
You need to watch the company you keep. The only other people who call it 'soccer' are Trump supporters in America.
Nope - its called soccer to distinguish it from other codes of football. My grandad who played at a high level called it soccer. Its the correct name
Beer and football. Never been interested in either. Makes you really feel like an outsider living in the UK. Often wonder if other people don't like them but play along just to fit in
My grandad who played at a high level called it soccer.
I bet he was a Brown Shirt, wasn't he?
Only fascists call it soccer
Just sayin.... 😛
I’m the same about loads of stuff… I just don’t get or like it. Starwars, computer games, rugby, football, Opera (sometimes fine until they start singing), Strictly come whatever and similar stuff, Soaps on telly, sports cars, most stuff that is defined as luxury, musicals in general, horror films, police dramas… the list could go on. It won’t be exactly the same list as yours but the principle is the same.
Very often I appreciate that the stuff I don’t like has merit, involves loads of talent or artistry, but it just isn’t for me. Sometimes I like just a few songs from one artist but not the whole of the rest of their catalogue.
I think that feeling like this does make you feel like an outsider…. It doesn’t help when making small talk and you have to get good at masking it at times, but I also think that it’s pretty common. The important thing for me is not to give the impression that I view other people’s taste with distain when expressing my lack of enthusiasm for something they really enjoy.
Yeah, I can't stand Tom Hanks and Billy Joel. They sound like nice enough guys and they aren't terrible, just mediocre. Why should I bother with mediocrity when I can choose excellence like Nicolas Cage and Bruce Springsteen?
I also can't stand Bruce Willis, but that's because he's just a terrible actor.
I’m the same about loads of stuff… I just don’t get or like it. Starwars, computer games, rugby, football, Opera (sometimes fine until they start singing), Strictly come whatever and similar stuff, Soaps on telly, sports cars, most stuff that is defined as luxury, musicals in general, horror films, police dramas… the list could go on. It won’t be exactly the same list as yours but the principle is the same.
Very often I appreciate that the stuff I don’t like has merit, involves loads of talent or artistry, but it just isn’t for me. Sometimes I like just a few songs from one artist but not the whole of the rest of their catalogue.
I think that feeling like this does make you feel like an outsider…. It doesn’t help when making small talk and you have to get good at masking it at times, but I also think that it’s pretty common. The important thing for me is not to give the impression that I view other people’s taste with distain when expressing my lack of enthusiasm for something they really enjoy.
That could have been my opening post. You said it better than I did.
It's also possible to appreciate the art/skill in something without necessarily "liking" it. As an example, opera works like that for me. I can hear it, appreciate the talent of the singers and still not want to listen to it. On the other hand I can enjoy some music that others might think is a bit cheesy or awful.
That could have been my opening post. You said it better than I did.
Yes I think gowerboy nailed it. STW is my go-to source of wisdom for all manner of subjects. But I can guarantee that the movie/tv threads are full of recommendations for shows/series that I'd like less than Melania. Well, maybe an exaggeration but you get my drift. And as for the music threads - as my daughter says, "dad, you're not the demographic". Like what you like, but saying that something like ballet is actually empty, and you're the one that spots the truth is somewhere between arrogant and idiotic.
Everyone is different. I've never been interested in association football, not bothered about films generally although there are one of two that I've liked, really dislike musicals (and opera which is just an old musical), and I don't subscribe to any streaming services. This doesn't make me feel either left out, or superior, just people have different tastes, and I won't judge anyone for that - unless they like Mrs Brown's Boys, obvs.
saying that something like ballet is actually empty, and you're the one that spots the truth is somewhere between arrogant and idiotic.
Agreed, but I don't think anyone here is saying that. In my case with ballet, I can absolutely see the technical skill, choreography, athleticism etc. and admire them without "enjoying" it.
Edit to say: @scotroutes nailed this 3 posts above:
It's also possible to appreciate the art/skill in something without necessarily "liking" it. As an example, opera works like that for me. I can hear it, appreciate the talent of the singers and still not want to listen to it.
It took me till my 40's to appreciate how good the Beatles were. Only when I started learning the guitar did it really click that they were so talented. In my 30s I went to several world class Opera performances as part of my job and didn't really get it - now I pay good money to see them.
Some things just take time and experience to understand and with that understanding comes appreciation which may lead to enjoyment but not always. You have to have an interest in the art to start with though, I'm not a dance fan so its not really a surprise that I don't enjoy ballet despite appreciating how incredibly hard it is to perform.
The thing that pisses me off about live arts is its way too expensive - gigs, theatre, Opera, Ballet, festivals....prices are crazy.
The thing that pisses me off about live arts is its way too expensive - gigs, theatre, Opera, Ballet, festivals....prices are crazy.
No kidding. And then if you have to travel to see something, and maybe stay overnight ... it becomes a rich man's pastime.
I think that feeling like this does make you feel like an outsider…. It doesn’t help when making small talk and you have to get good at masking it at times, but I also think that it’s pretty common. The important thing for me is not to give the impression that I view other people’s taste with distain when expressing my lack of enthusiasm for something they really enjoy.
I used to work abroad a bit and have no interest in watching football or other ball sports.
When going somewhere like Portugal, there was a fine line between acting like that episode of the IT Crowd, or be seen as a football hating outsider.
Being non-conformist / individualist ftw.
Never really got the Beatles. It's music. It's higher up the scale than "don't like" (apart from a few hits), so mostly "meh". But at least it had real voices, real instruments, and no autotune, so better than most of the rest of anything that came since.
Footy/Soccer/Wendyball is mostly in the "loathe" area on my scale. No problem if people really do like it, but please don't assume or expect that I have paid any attention unless perhaps England get in the final. And I'd only way I'd know that will be because the likers will have made sure I know. Saying that, I might pay attention to the opening ceremonies this time to see which anthem gets the biggest boos and hisses 😉
Movies... easy to tell when it will be a snooze fest. If it gets overhyped, it will be naff.
No shame whatsoever. In fact I take pride in having little interest in the stuff of the majority. I choose my likes and interests, not anyone else or society as a whole (who were possibly brainwashed into liking it by marketing anyway 😉 )
^ I see Tjs taken our clothing advice and is looking much sharper!Is his new girlfriend Eva Peron?
Complete agree with the op. Why is opera, which is just entertainment of the day, elevated and subsidised because it culture. Who gets to decide? Most so called culture passes me by. It holds little interest beyond providing a couple of hours entertainment or a simple do I like in when it comes to painting or sculpture, not that I see much beyond what’s on antiques road show.
For me 'art', regardless of what form it takes isn't one thing to all people. A great example, I was in London one weekend years ago, it was a weekend booked with this girl I was seeing but we split, so my mate got the spare train ticket and the hotel was fine swapping the room from a double to a twin.
I was his first time in london and he's a bit of a geek so we did science museum and stuff like that, and i have a bit of an 'arty' background' ...at one point we were near the Tate gallery, so I said lets have a look around!
Now, the only thing he knew about modern art was seeing turner prize stuff in the papers and he didn't have a very high opinion... I had a very hard time convincing him until I came up with a brilliant line.. I basically said "I'll walk around there and think 99% of it is crap, but there will be one or two things I really like, pretty much guaranteed, I bet you if we walk around the whole place, you won't be able to, hand on heart, say it was a waste of time".
Anyway, long story short, he walked in scoffing, and walked out talking like a poncy art critic. Talking about this peice and that, sure there was stuff in there that was just silly and dull but after probably an afternoon of talking about the handfull of things that caught our attention, and one in particular he liked, I slighty sarcasticaly said 'so you did find somehting that moved you?" wink wink.
He had to begrudgingly admit that it was worth walking around, afterall!
I guess my point is, you don't have to like everything that other people like, I'd far sooner go to see a musical than an opera because it's probably more relevent to my interests, and i can identify with it more easlily, but really, is there so much difference?
Responding to the OP, rathe than some of the other points; I think very few people see anything wrong with liking or disliking whatever you want. But skill, or genius, or talent is something different, and can definitely exist without me liking it. So things can be appreciated, without liking them.
So the Beatles for example, or Jimi Hendrix were utterly ground breaking, and phenomenally skilled. It doesn’t matter if I like or personally appreciate those artists. And I don’t think anyone will judge me for disliking then. But for me to say that those artists were not hugely talents and genre-changing would not be correct.
Another example; I would hate to be forced to sit through a ballet. I’d rather poke my eyes out. But ballet dancers are incredibly talented, incredibly physically skilled, and unbelievably committed to their art. So me disliking it is something totally different than saying it is without merit.
I have long since decided what I like to watch, read and listen to, and quite emphatically couldn't give a damn whether that is what I'm supposed to like or not. There's a good point made in the OP though that some feel it necessary to signal just how edgy or hip they are by vehemently dissing those who like stuff they think it's uncool to like.
I don't get ballet, I can't really enjoy opera, and I have been guilty of describing musical theatre as "pap for the masses", but how many of those audiences want to hear me or my colleagues singing renaissance or early english polyphony, or a bit of Rachmaninov?
It's like anything else, sanity prevails when you do what YOU like, and spend your money in a way that suits you. I'll listen to recommendations, but make my own mind up rather than pander to what is supposed to be "on point".
Oh, and I cannot stand The Beatles.
Do people really waste time and brainspace thinking and worrying about this stuff? Have you genuinely got nothing better to be doing or thinking about? What a tragic luxury…
Well I've gathered my berries, tended my crops and milked my cow.... so yeah I've got a bit of free time to think about culture - what do you spend your free time thinking about?
The thing that pisses me off about live arts is its way too expensive - gigs, theatre, Opera, Ballet, festivals....prices are crazy.
No kidding. And then if you have to travel to see something, and maybe stay overnight ... it becomes a rich man's pastime.
i don’t do either opera or ballet, or indeed football.
but is it really more money to go to the theatre than to an in-demand football game? Some crucial euro or World Cup game? Which might involve travel, or an overnight stay?
Nope, I’m with you and have mentioned on here. The Beatles were poor, they go lucky with the start of new genre of music and had good promotion of ordinary people and a bit of a boy band rhetoric to them.
Soccer is not its proper name. It's just an abbreviation of ASSOCiation football. Rugby is properly called Rugby Football and is just a different code of the same game, invented when some boys at Rugby school lacked sufficient talent to propel the ball properly and found the only way to move it up the field was by legalising cheating, a philosophy that remains at the heart of rugby to this day. Which is why so much emphasis is put on respect for the referee in rugby, because no-one actually knows the laws and so sucking up to the control freak with the whistle and hoping they 'interpret' them in your favour is basically the point of the game.
And if it was really called Soccer, why do FIFA, UEFA, or the FA, etc., not refer to it in their naming?
Oh, and universally, Pink Floyd are just shit 😉
I always find it mildly irritating when I listen to Desert Island Discs that the guest gets no choice in having the bible and the complete works of Shakespeare. It’s very presumptive that anyone would want either - I wouldn’t.
Do people really waste time and brainspace thinking and worrying about this stuff? Have you genuinely got nothing better to be doing or thinking about? What a tragic luxury…
Do people really waste "time and brainspace" opening a thread whose title is of no interest to them, reading the posts and then typing out a reply? Have YOU genuinely got nothing better to be doing or thinking about?
It's a wet and dreary Sunday, I'm stuck in the house and a bit bored so I posted a thread about an idle musing. Not meant to be particularly deep or serious and easily ignored if you've no interest. Trust me, I do have plenty of more serious stuff going on in my life I could be "worrying about", but I choose to post mince and triv on here for a little light relief of a weekend.
If that's OK with you. Or even to be frank, if it isn't.
How are you using your time today that makes you more worthy than the other posters on this thread?
Wine for me will quench a thirst but where are all the supposed flavours some pretentious folk describe and then I love coffee but it's coffee flavour to me and maybe caramel or chocolate notes if you kill it with sugar or sprinkle it with cocoa
Oh, and universally, Pink Floyd are just shit
Pink Floyd were three different bands: Syd Barrett Pink Floyd, post-Syd Barrett Pink Floyd, and Roger Waters is a Dick Pink Floyd. Which one do you hate?
Rugby is a far superior game to soccer. soccer is just playacting and cheating
You need to watch the company you keep. The only other people who call it 'soccer' are Trump supporters in America.
Nope - its called soccer to distinguish it from other codes of football. My grandad who played at a high level called it soccer. Its the correct name
Both form of football. One is association and the other is union. Clue is in the name.
Soccer is not its proper name. It's just an abbreviation of ASSOCiation football. Rugby is properly called Rugby Football and is just a different code of the same game, invented when some boys at Rugby school lacked sufficient talent to propel the ball properly and found the only way to move it up the field was by legalising cheating, a philosophy that remains at the heart of rugby to this day. Which is why so much emphasis is put on respect for the referee in rugby, because no-one actually knows the laws and so sucking up to the control freak with the whistle and hoping they 'interpret' them in your favour is basically the point of the game.
And if it was really called Soccer, why do FIFA, UEFA, or the FA, etc., not refer to it in their naming?
Ooooh - cheating you say? In rugby its all about pushing the envelope, in soccer its all about diving and flopping and pretending you have been shot
What do you think the "A" in those acronyms is 🙂 Association shortened to soccer which is its name 🙂
Both form of football. One is association and the other is union. Clue is in the name.
Association football and rugby football not union football. also gaelic football, Aussie rules football even american handegg - I mean football
I've long thought there's nothing more boring tha two blokes arguing about football but I realise I was wrong. Two blokes arguing about the proper name for football is even more boring.
Why is opera, which is just entertainment of the day, elevated and subsidised because it culture.
I dont like opera, but there are massive subsidies for "low" culture too in this country - tax credits for superhero films and the entire BBC, for example.
Interesting post and thoughts.
Certainly don't see why anyone should feel bad for not liking things that are universally praised in the way you describe. Our tastes come from so many influences, and for most things we like there's something else that could fill that space, we just like what we know and got familiar with.
Plus, what people say they like sometimes comes from 'people like us do things like this', cultural direction and influence. In private I expect a lot of people listen to music that's from a fairly small area that they've always liked or watch the same kind of films, or aren't as bothered about football as they might say.
The Beatles; Shakespeare; Bowie
Undoubtedly talented but whether you like what they do is another thing. Michael Jackson was talented, so are Oasis, Benjamin Zephaniah, Notorious B.I.G. and Raye, they're all relatively well known. Good luck to anyone arguing that Shakespeare is worth more than any of them. Needs more than having history on your side and maybe he was just ahead of the genre and a big fish in a small pond. (I'm not much of a poetry fan so maybe there is a good reason - never heard one though. Maybe I'm just a Philistine too, my English teacher once said I was).
Opera; Ballet; Musical theatre
Just long established and seen as having high social leverage. No more mainstream or deserving of popularity than a drum n bass night I'd say?
I don't think our tastes (and identity from many other things eg being a cyclist or MTBer, etc) should stay fixed. What we like now probably includes a few things we didn't appreciate in the past - food, music, places etc. I didn't like the books my English teacher said I should like then, I love books like them now.
And what about the performance or art styles you may like that many might not appreciate? Chinese ink paintings, 80s New York graffiti, underground grime artists, Spanish flamenco*, performance martial arts from the Shaolin temple .. creativity is wide and fascinating.
*the most jaw-dropping performance I've seen in recent years was a flamenco show in Madrid (turns out they were a highly regarded outfit, new to it or not the ability and talent seemed obvious). I was mesmerised tbh, and the sound was stunning. My wife wanted to see it and I'm often suprised by how much I like the things she suggests that at first I doubt I'll be into. So maybe I'd like a classic opera or ballet, who knows. Maybe it's about how you're introduced to it or discover it. Maybe it's about going in with no expectations or preconceptions.
Try (almost) anything once, right?
Do people really waste time and brainspace thinking and worrying about this stuff? Have you genuinely got nothing better to be doing or thinking about? What a tragic luxury…
What is this life if, full of care?
We have no time to ponder our views of the arts
I don't think that there's any shame in not liking something no matter how popular. Taste is subjective not objective.
However in my life, there have been a few things that I've not "got" and then later on massively changed my mind about. I went to the Leonardo exhibition that was on at the time of the London Olympics. It was excellent and explained exactly why Leonardo Da Vinci was important to art (TL:DR before him, art was figurative, he was the first to aspire to realism) and it changed my understanding and appreciation on the spot.
Similarly, I never used to understand Shakespeare, until I did some acting classes. Realising that he wrote stuff that is still relevant today ~ 500 years ago is pretty mind-blowing IMO. King Lear anyone?
One theory that I've got, is the more influential an artist is, the more mundane they can seem in retrospect. I quite like fantasy writing, but have never managed to finish Lord of the Rings because I find it too cliched. Of course the reason that it is so cliched is that almost everyone copied Tolkien after he'd written it...
The Beatles changed everything. They were the first boy band. In retrospect they don't look so special because they changed everything that came after them.
Oh, and universally, Pink Floyd are just shit 😉
Funnily enough, this is one of the things that I changed my mind on. I never used to get the fuss about Pink Floyd, until I went to see Roger Waters tour "The Wall". It was one of the most mind blowing experiences I've ever had. I now think that they're brilliant. Waters is a dick though.
The trouble with dismissing art is that you miss so much. Example off the top of my head: There's a scene in Ferris Bueller when the trio go to the Chicago Museum of Art - a beautiful museum, if you get the chance you should definitely go, and Cameron is mesmerised by a Surat pointillist painting "Sunday Afternoon on the Grand Jatte, the central figures are a mother and child just walking along holding hands, something that Cameron - who we know has a difficult relationship with his own parents has probably never experienced. Playing over the top of this as we watch him have an existential crisis is an instrumental version of 'Please, please let me get want I want'
Speaking of the Chicago Museum of Art (The Frick collection specifically in this case), there's a poem by Frank O'Hara, who was otherwise a bit of drunk and a terrible of letch of much much younger men that he had any right swooning over, who spoke about the fact that above all the art and noise that goes with it, there's also just the simple things in life;
Having a Coke With You.
or being sick to my stomach on the Travesera de Gracia in Barcelona
partly because in your orange shirt you look like a better happier St. Sebastian
partly because of my love for you, partly because of your love for yoghurt
partly because of the fluorescent orange tulips around the birches
partly because of the secrecy our smiles take on before people and statuary
it is hard to believe when I’m with you that there can be anything as still
as solemn as unpleasantly definitive as statuary when right in front of it
in the warm New York 4 o’clock light we are drifting back and forth
between each other like a tree breathing through its spectacles
and the portrait show seems to have no faces in it at all, just paint
you suddenly wonder why in the world anyone ever did them
I look
at you and I would rather look at you than all the portraits in the world
except possibly for the Polish Rider occasionally and anyway it’s in the Frick
which thank heavens you haven’t gone to yet so we can go together the first time
and the fact that you move so beautifully more or less takes care of Futurism
just as at home I never think of the Nude Descending a Staircase or
at a rehearsal a single drawing of Leonardo or Michelangelo that used to wow me
and what good does all the research of the Impressionists do them
when they never got the right person to stand near the tree when the sun sank
or for that matter Marino Marini when he didn’t pick the rider as carefully
as the horse
it seems they were all cheated of some marvellous experience
which is not going to go wasted on me which is why I’m telling you about it
saying that something like ballet is actually empty, and you're the one that spots the truth is somewhere between arrogant and idiotic.
Agreed, but I don't think anyone here is saying that.
I suspect it was referencing this:
IMO some of these things are emperors new clothes. Opera and ballet specifically
Which is nonsense. Ballet doesn't do a lot for me but opera can be a wonderful experience. However most of the music I listen to (and play) is classical so that might explain my view. I do still appreciate the occasional "popular beat combo" of the day but if I'm in a rock frame of mind I tend to head back to the 60s/70s when I was growing up. So The Beatles and Pink Floyd (before Dark Side) were and remain brilliant. IMO of course. Which is the whole point. My opinion shouldn't necessarily have any merit to someone who isn't interested in the same stuff and so the OP shouldn't beat himself up over not appreciating "universally acclaimed culture". That's a rather silly phrase given that no culture is universally acclaimed anyway, as demonstrated by this thread.
I wouldn’t worry about it. Plenty of people on this thread base their whole personalities on not liking popular things.
It always makes my brain twitch when people ask what music I like... I mean, most of it, if it's decent, so it's a stupid question, really.
IMO some of these things are emperors new clothes. Opera and ballet specifically
I suspect what TJ actually meant (rather than what he wrote) is that there are many people who pretend to like or pretend to understand Opera and Ballet because its the 'thing to do' not that Opera and Ballet are worthless. I agree with him there - but then its been like that since the first Opera was performed. Also, I suspect more than a few people have gone to a performance or an art gallery because its the 'thing to do' or the 'place to be seem' and found they really enjoyed it. Its all nonsense anyway - what's cooler Opera or a Biffy Clyro gig or Wicked? Obviously none of them if you hate the experience! But anything where humans are applying themselves to entertain others has got to be worth a try surely?
I think your age pays a big part, I prefer similar music to that from my youth and find modern pop mostly meh, although appreciate some.
Ballet and opera do nothing for me, although I do like Andy Warhols Art not into much other.
I’ve been listening to a lot of Spanish Indie music , as you do , some is really good and it’s nice to actually know some of the music you hear at Fiestas although it’s not uncommon to hear English music.
It’s interesting when you start delving into other countries culture , it’s not all flamenco although I’m not into bad bunny and a lot of the Spanish chart ,I prefer home grown Spain’ish bands.
I always find it mildly irritating when I listen to Desert Island Discs that the guest gets no choice in having the bible and the complete works of Shakespeare. It’s very presumptive that anyone would want either - I wouldn’t.
they do get a choice.
many times folk have had a different religious or spiritual book, even if it’s not their religion but one they want to study or find interesting. And there’s plenty of precedent for folk requesting different collected works.
The Beatles changed everything. They were the first boy band. In retrospect they don't look so special because they changed everything that came after them.
This really resonates with me - they made something new.
I remember when OK Computer was released. It sounded like it came from another planet. It was *amazing*.
A re-listen last year (prompted by a thread on here as it goes) reminded me how great it is, but it no longer sounds out of the ordinary.
It sounds more like pop music, but that’s because pop music sounds like Radiohead!!
The trouble with dismissing art is that you miss so much.
I absolutely don't do that. Quite the opposite, if it's critically acclaimed or universally liked but not immediately pleasing to me, I try hard to see what others see in it. Because I worry I may be missing out. I want to see if, with a deeper understanding, or knowledge of the back story I can grow to appreciate something that doesn't grab me straight away. This was kind of the point (perhaps badly explained) of the thread.
I suspect what TJ actually meant (rather than what he wrote) is that there are many people who pretend to like or pretend to understand Opera and Ballet because its the 'thing to do' not that Opera and Ballet are worthless. I agree with him there - but then its been like that since the first Opera was performed.
Correct
Correct
Ah well in that case it's probably no different to any other art or activity that some people think they ought to be seen at or doing. Like golf.
The Beatles are an interesting one... not on my playlist but I do appreciate them a lot more with age - saccarin 'throw away' pop on the surface, but there's a lot going on in a lot of their music, especially for the time - it's like looking at one of those paintings where the more you look, the more you see.
I think there's a lot of not so obvious complexity, made simple sounding on the surface.
The trouble with dismissing art is that you miss so much.
I absolutely don't do that. Quite the opposite, if it's critically acclaimed or universally liked but not immediately pleasing to me, I try hard to see what others see in it. Because I worry I may be missing out. I want to see if, with a deeper understanding, or knowledge of the back story I can grow to appreciate something that doesn't grab me straight away. This was kind of the point (perhaps badly explained) of the thread.
This is the point. I don’t think I (or the OP) am saying one art form/artist, etc is of more or less value or that anyone was wrong to like what they like. I admire some people I know that seem to get and like the whole spectrum of stuff that I don’t get. Life would be easier if I was like them.
It’s not that I don’t appreciate any art/music/tv… it’s just that a lot (not all) of stuff that seems almost universally popular or enjoyed by most of the community, is lost on or seems inaccessible to me. I also feel that art and sport of all kind is massively important, especially if it’s accessible to ordinary people. For this reason I support public spending on arts and culture… even though I rarely step inside a gallery and almost never watch any sport.
The trouble with dismissing art is that you miss so much.
I absolutely don't do that. Quite the opposite, if it's critically acclaimed or universally liked but not immediately pleasing to me, I try hard to see what others see in it. Because I worry I may be missing out. I want to see if, with a deeper understanding, or knowledge of the back story I can grow to appreciate something that doesn't grab me straight away. This was kind of the point (perhaps badly explained) of the thread.
IME understanding often leads to appreciation.
There are a lot of people in the UK. You can find a lot of people who like a lot of specialist stuff.
Like mountain biking, In the winter, in the mud.
And here we are on a forum linked vaguely by this.
Who cares what 99% of people think. The 1% is still plenty of interesting people to hang about with.
Art...or rather modern/contemporary art...like some of the drivel that Hockney has painted or the likes of 3 random blocks of colour on a canvas and people fawn over it....weird...IMHO
Art...or rather modern/contemporary art...like some of the drivel that Hockney has painted or the likes of 3 random blocks of colour on a canvas and people fawn over it....weird...IMHO
See, I really rate Hockney, the bold colours and great appreciation of light and shade, really speak to me.
This is 1868, though, can it really be considered modern ot over 60 years old? 🤔
For me its about how something makes you feel . There's certain songs or bands that transport you to a time or place and just give you a lift and you can't choose to make something do that to you .
When I was younger I took music and liking certain bands way to seriously but I wouldn't change that , if you can't be passionate about stuff when your young then when can you . As I got a bit older I realized its just stuff you like or dont like .
I watched school of rock recently with my 7 year old , he now loves AC DC . I dont know if it will last but maybe that love of a band stays with him and that music can lift him when he's down . It doesn't make school of rock or AC DC high art or if you dont like them you're not wrong as such , it just doesn't grab you in that way .
Having said that if you don't like School Of Rock you might be dead inside .
Modern art you say? All art should make you think. Opera? That was mass entertainment for the illiterate population.
oops, hit quote instead of edit.
i meant 1968. not 1868 lol
It baffles me that someone can dismiss an entire medium, especially when they have little to no experience of it. Taking Jezza purely as an example, he says he doesn't like films and has only watched three ever. Well, that's not "I don't like films" then is it, that's "I don't watch films." There's a difference between not being excited about something and actively disliking it.
This weekend I spent a not inconsiderable amount of money to take my partner and her daughter to Strictly Live, in isolation I wouldn't have spent a red cent on it but it was an entertaining afternoon.
I don't like musicals, a narrative suddenly breaking into song for no reason is distracting and weird. But I know Joseph and a bit of Cats from school; there are Queen, Monty Python, Def Leppard, (don't judge me) Abba musicals which I would be interested to watch based on the subject. I watched Avenue Q in London, twice, it's phenomenal.
I don't like soap operas, but Prisoner: Cell Block H was compulsive viewing as a student.
I don't like vacuous "Prime Time" TV for the masses, but The Masked Singer is oddly compelling because I enjoy trying to identify voices when watching animated TV/films.
I don't like spectator sports, but tonight is Superbowl Sunday and I've been looking forward to it for weeks. It's the only sportsball match I'll be watching for another 364 days. There's probably a longer post to be had here.
I don't like reality TV, but the opening night of Big Brother is amusing.
No cougar - its films do not work for me for the reasons I explained. I have tried many times. ONly 3 in the last 30 years I have watched the whole thing. the medium does not work for me
Footy/Soccer/Wendyball is mostly in the "loathe" area on my scale.
Yet you're still interested in an England game?
I "loathe" football but really, I loathe everything that football brings to the table. The game itself might be moderately entertaining for five minutes, but **** me the national obsession drives me spare. And it is just that, it's an obsession, a cult. You can see it in action on this thread: instant tribal behaviour, add balls and retire. You can't get away from it, from TV to radio to 'water cooler' office chat to going to the pub for a quiet pint.
"Sports" news is no such thing, it's football news. One time I attended an ice hockey match between Manchester and Sheffield, then the two best teams in the UK and sworn rivals, they sold out the MEN (now AO) Arena. 16,245 people. Our tickets were in CP105 - CP is "camera platform," they'd run out of regular seats and started sticking camping chairs in the square metre next to the Sky TV cameras. This is unprecedented, headline stadium rock bands don't even do that. Yet in the mainstream media it was a footnote after Accrington Stanley losing to Oswaldtwistle Amateurs or something. Sports news, I want to know what's going on in the archery or the tiddlywinks or, heaven forfend today, the Superbowl. Why hasn't Playoff results been lead stories for the last couple of weeks?
Oh, and universally, Pink Floyd are just shit
This is "TJ doesn't like films" again.
I was never a Pink Floyd fan. I'm still not. But I got tickets to see them one time and went because I could and figured I might regret it if I didn't. It was an astonishing experience, one of the best gigs of my life and I've been to a lot. The music may not be to someone's taste but, objectively, "shit" they are not.
I always find it mildly irritating when I listen to Desert Island Discs that the guest gets no choice in having the bible and the complete works of Shakespeare. It’s very presumptive that anyone would want either - I wouldn’t.
You might need kindling?
Association football and rugby football not union football. also gaelic football, Aussie rules football even american handegg - I mean football
"Handegg" annoys me and you should know better because I'm sure we've had this conversation before.
The "foot" in football does not refer to kicking, it refers to being played on foot as opposed to (say) on horseback. Rugby and other football games in America, Canada, Australia etc etc all use a ball which is a prolate spheroid, Association Football is an outlier in having a spherical ball. And none of them use a ****ing egg.
No cougar - its films do not work for me for the reasons I explained. I have tried many times. ONly 3 in the last 30 years I have watched the whole thing. the medium does not work for me
I feel a bit sorry for you. “Films” encompasses a huge range of works and give a window into stories and worlds that can entertain, move, educate and inspire. If you don’t have the gene or whatever for appreciating at least some part of them it’s a big loss for you.
Why would it be?
Why wouldn't it be?
Is there a single bigger sporting event happening globally right now?
Is there a single bigger sporting event happening globally right now?
No idea but American football is not of much interest or relevance to a British audience.
I don't think fooball is 'cultural', I mean...
It's just a business - the winning team is the team who has the most wealthy owners/backers as they can afford to buy the best players.
No idea but American football is not of much interest or relevance to a British audience.
My Rashgeneralisationometer just exploded. How can you tell me it's not relevant to me when (amongst other reasons) I used to play it?
It might be of more interest if it got more exposure, perhaps?
The fact remains that all egg-based games are shit, with the possible exception of egg and spoon races, which at least appear to have some form of rules that everyone understands.
It might be of more interest if it got more exposure, perhaps?
What more do you want…
My Rashgeneralisationometer just exploded. How can you tell me it's not relevant to me when (amongst other reasons) I used to play it?
... though I care so much that I thought it was tonight up until about 20 minutes ago.
It's just a business - the winning team is the team who has the most wealthy owners/backers as they can afford to buy the best players
As a Manchester United supporter I’d advise you take a look at the squillions of pounds we’ve spent over the last 10 years and then have a look at where that actually got us