Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
would you say it's fair to say you are more a fan of 'low' culture than high culture?
I do enjoy certain types of so called trash.
I just fail to see how you can find Lyndsay Lohan so interesting. That's fundamentally what it comes down to.
I can see why you like Paris Hilton.
But Lyndsay Lohan is so fucking stupid. And really not a good actress at all.
i mean, would you rather watch x-factor or go to the opera?
the other one fell flat. i wanted to redress the balance, and appear more highbrow. i failed.
i love x-factor.
that diana vickers right? she was off ill the other week with laryngitis. well, she SOUNDED like she had laryngitis every week.
and that disco week when she sang the blondie song in shorts sitting down? looked quite like she was sitting on the toilet right? she deserved to get thrown out that week.
when i watched an episode of "im a celebrity get me out of here" for the first time (in a couple of series). it had kilroy on it. he was hilarious. just as you'd hope, claiming to have been cheated out of victory, after himself trying to cheat.
Fortunately, i've never seen strictly come dancing, so i'm not a lost cause yet. but that does mean i have no idea what this john sargent scandal is about.
my new housemates will do though.
Tbh there isn't that much TV I ever found very interesting. A few series here and there I suppose.
and i never missed it.
but i'm really enjoying watching tv again now. i can't really explain why or how, but i feel i learn a lot more for an evening watching tv than an evening reading or something else.
i watched this great show on bbc4 the other night, about cryptic crosswords. i've never beena ble to do them, and think they're really boring. but the programme really brought the whole thing to life. the ways to solve them, the word games, the enjoyment people get from them. it made me feel good.
of course, i'll never bother trying them. i'll stick with the "quick" crossword instead. but it was fun like watching a cookery show would be.
i've done like 3 ever. i always get bored and impatient
And I'm not talking the one that's in her throat - zing. But yeah, it was embarrassing when she did that Coldplay song last week on that platform and was crying because she KNEW she was shit, but Cheryl was all "She only rehearsed that on Friday though!!!!!!!!" So what? That song is radio, like, all the time so there would be absolutely no need to rehearse it anyway.
the thing is though. i cant completely hate her, as much as everyone else seems to. there are some weeks when i thinks he's been really good (if slightly sickening). he one where she was on the swing was really good - i thought that worked. But since then, she just goes from bad to worse.
i guess it doesnt help people like her that they need to fit with the theme every week. AND when did the themes get so bad? I remember when there were themes of good songwriters like burt bacharach. Where did "Maria Carey week" come from. Fucking appalling. I hate to switch it off after about two songs.
the thing is though. i cant hate her as much as everyone else seems to. there are some weeks when i think she's been really good (if slightly sickening). The one where she was on the swing was good - i thought that worked. But since then, she's gone from bad to worse.
i guess it doesnt "quirky" characters like her that they have to fit with the theme every week. AND when did the themes get so bad? I remember when there were themes of good ,like burt bacharach. Where the fuck did "Maria Carey week" come from? Appalling. I had to switch it off after about two songs.
would you rather go to the cinema or go to watch a play?
both could be either really.
from a traditional point of view though, the kind that would explicitly seperate 'high' and 'low' cultures in the first place, they can not.
who would deny Bergmann or Kurosawa as being high culture?
and there are a lot of terribly trashy plays.
There's some thespians who would consider it "beneath them" to perform in film and who think it's not proper acting.
John Hurt said that his family were supportive of him being an actor as long as he didn't act in films, because films were considered "common".
It is a different challenge of acting.
To use a slightly spurious analogy it's like a musician believing it would be beneath them to record.
nor can you make that comparison. There's probably thousands of musicians who haven't recorded and don't want to.
Also, stage acting has existed far, far longer than it has on film - as has live music over recorded music. Both of them are more common: you can go into a shop and buy recordings of films or music for £10 and watch them over and over. But live performances are often rarer events that you have to wait for. Not saying that this is what makes them high brow.
I guess with film acting, you can get several chances to get a scene right, but when you're on the stage there's just one chance to get it right, so it takes a bit more dedication.
If the performance is good on the opening night and nights when it is reviewed they could get away with a bad night
but not really exclusively.
Citizen Kane for example.
just like how they were viewed at the time doesnt matter about examples of sepcific films
Television certainly was though
what have you got to back that belief up with?
of the idea of Art cinema.
as in what do I have to back it up...what would that entail? contemporary reviews? I have no idea HOW I would back it up.
Also same question but to you/
there was a lotta resistence to it so it wasnt really the prevailing sentiment of the time idk i mean you can give examples of all these films that would be considered high art now but thats wrapped up in it being completely acceptable to call films high art now
but my point is, in order to be able to compare them in their own rights as you do, one must necessarily adopt a postmodern point of view, and in doing so reject the idea that 'high' and 'low' cultures are entirely different things or that one is somehow better than the other. you know?
Television, Theatre etc are mediums, not high or low culture in their own right.
i'm just saying, traditionally the divide is quite different. which makes it somewhat ironic that we're having this discussion on an internet forum dedicated to popular music...
is rarely popular music
cause i absolutely agree, i was just fussing over some principles and technicalities.
and i know
i was just fumbling for something that could redress the high-low balance of x-factor being better than opera.
i'm never posting after getting in from the pub again.
It's not about high or low culture it's about trying to twist things so that low culture looks better.
please say something so I can tell them to fuck off, and then go to bed.
I can't dispute that.
so I don't think anyone else considers this statement weird. :D
not anymore anyway.
Low culture can be consumed without any thought.
But off-hand I'd say maybe revise that 'high culture' definition to read: "High culture is anything that requires thought to be appreciated or where a much greater appreciation can be achieved with the application of thought."
The Beatles were a band that were really keen to experiment with sonics and ideas, certainly from Rubber Soul onwards. Popularity doesn't make something 'low culture'.
And Progressive Rock is all about applying the mathematical ideas embedded in classical music to the contemporary rock music.
I'd say you don't really any more from Paula Abdul's music if you apply a lot of thought to it but you would if you consider how something by Battles is more impressively layered. Doesn't really mean there's anything wrong with banging out Opposites Attract at maximum volume, though.
I do think that you are maybe confusing mediums with culture.
Ballet is a medium, and therefore there is nothing intrinsically great about it. If some of the pop idol people wrote a ballet etc.
He seems to be saying to Vikram: "You seem like a really intelligent guy. Why do you apparently invest the majority of your time with things aimed squarely at people much less intelligent than you?"
Well, that's what I got anyway.
and theatre can be thrilling (and really im quite lowbrow in arty farty terms)
Opera kind of bypassed me though, maybe i went to see the wrong thing.
I saw Madam Butterfly and it seemed to last ages (I think it did) A load of songs that I didnt recognise and were not immediately inviting or enjoyable (there were about 2 bits i recognised and could have nejoyed but they were like needles in haystacks
I went a long to opera gave it a go, and do not feel at all inclined to repeat this experiance (perhaps i should have chosen better)
PS I loved the film Amadeus (I quite like some musicals)
And I've gone to see Carmen a couple of times (which I loved) but I guess that is more a musical production rather than opera
Does anyone on here love opera?
I can still be pretentious about them, but I understand the shorter and less complex sentences people use to talk about them.