The response to a film is also much higher when seeing it in a theater (as we middle agers used to do in our youth), as opposed to on TV or a phone.
This relates perfectly to Meyers's article on High Art/Pop Art from Hollywood. Stone's work sometimes entertains fabulously, but it is never High Art.
Excellent article, although some may miss the greater point because the discussion and examples are all in film. Cinema excels at simulating reality by its motion, sound, and filling of the peripheral vision, but there are other forms where high art and popular art (sometimes called "kitsch") coexist. Some music is merely entertaining, while other music moves you. Some paintings demand participation while others are merely assemblages of symbols to be read like the printed page. And even the printed page can sometimes pierce through layers of human sensory interpretation to evoke a uniquely powerful response in each observer. The key element is participation.
Though it is entirely possible to be a successful “double major” in diverse disciplines, I agree with “Shut up and sing” because the reprimand is usually leveled at artists with widely acknowledged or longstanding creative talent. The Sound Strike artists are not of that category. I’d prefer to enjoy or loathe artists for their oevre without knowing their particular cause célèbre.
Jon Voigt is guilty of using his acting cred to voice his opinion in speeches which, though I agree with their content, don’t quite measure up to his acting ability. Charles Krauthammer (another double major) runs rings around him in a wheelchair, but is no longer practicing psychiatry. On the other hand, Jeff “Skunk” Baxter (Steely Dan/Doobies guitarist) is now a DoD advisor on antiterrorism, but doesn’t go around grandstanding. The ignorant pop-culture-consuming public too often assumes an equivalency between popularity, ability, and knowledge.
He's on a roll. Now that global warming has been exposed as a scam and supported by flawed data, Gore will have to eat crow.
Calm down folks; though he is a British Knight, he's just a songwriter and a performer. It's showbiz. True, musicians like Sir Paul and Sting shouldn't opine on things political and think their ideas will be met with the same applause as their craft. Neither has to intelligently explain their political philosophy in hopes of getting re-elected; public utterances for them are but performance art based on feelings, not reason. As Slagle notes, Macca most likely thought his quip was a "fair hit" a la Bob Hope, based on the popular perception of Bush by showbiz peers. The miscalculation was thinking his remarks would be heard only by them. McCartney doesn't know how lucky he is to be "Back in the US" or UK following his incredible 1980 pot bust in Japan
http://tinyurl.com/2dwasjs
Although arguably a valuable voice for his alternative viewpoint, saying that Zinn introduces "perspective" to traditional accounts of history is like saying that a spoonful of urine gives a bottle of wine "balance." In A People's History, Zinn cites greed as an explanation for virtually every major historical event, despite a conspicuous absence of footnotes and other academic protocols. He thought the farmers of the Shays Rebellion and labor leaders of the 1930s were more noteworthy American heroes than the Founding Fathers. The Declaration of Independence was less a revolutionary statement of rights than it was a way to benefit the rich by overthrowing the King.
Zinn blamed the US for Pearl Harbor, characterized WWII as an exercise in American imperialism, and sided with the Soviets during the Cold War. Even as American forces ended the murderous reign of Saddam Hussein with surgical precision and minimal damage, this faux-historian accepted the most exaggerated claims of civilian loss without attribution and remained sympathetic to anti-American sentiment and justification for jihad.
And THAT, my friends, is the power of the SONG. It transcends the artist, even as it lends itself to many stylistic interpretations by others.
Being a boomer who was too late to “enjoy” Sesame Street, my initial problem was that PBS presented it as an ersatz babysitter. We were glued to the TV to our parents’ chagrin because Tom & Jerry, Wile E. Coyote, or even Bugs Bunny were long on violence and short on educational value. Yet we inherently knew or soon learned (from participatory parents) that real life was not a cartoon, and they actually taught stuff in public schools in those days. Sesame Street bestowed a false sense of accomplishment to underachiever parents (often time-challenged because higher liberal taxation rates necessitated that both parents work). They felt safe about excessive TV viewing as long as SS was in charge, because it contained “fun” instruction in the alphabet and arithmetic, and since there was no violence of any kind, the caboose of ancillary social indoctrination seemed harmless. We now see what that indoctrination has produced: ubiquitous cultural relativism which, when educated in today’s public schools, equals the moral relativism that threatens our nation and its institutions. Great job, PBS. If you didn’t do it, who would?
Ben Shapiro's original article highlights a trait of Obama's administration that steals from hip-hop culture: Everything is Stolen. Nearly every hip-hop tune is derivative (sometimes plagiaristically so) of some classic from decades ago, even if only a measure or a recognizable riff. In the music publishing/placement business, we are always wary of tunes that have "sampled" elements for fear of copyright infringement, and warn those who submit to us accordingly. No such fear (or knowledge, apparently) of copyright law exists in team Obama. Not much fear or knowledge of the Constitution, either.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Experiment