16 ms·
The more basic problem is that their methodology would conclude Harry Potter is better than Ulysses, AC/DC is better than Carla Frey, etc etc. It is completely
by aithrowawaycomm 2y ago
The more basic problem is that their methodology would conclude Harry Potter is better than Ulysses, AC/DC is better than Carla Frey, etc etc. It is completely fine to enjoy "dumb" art - I like Marvel comics and a lot of the Disney-era Star Wars novels have been pretty fun. But using easiness and fun as a metric of quality is simply celebrating ignorance and laziness.
- HPsquared 2y agoIt's another case of the impedance mismatch between numbers / KPIs etc and what might be called "lived experience".
- rendaw 2y agoWhy is Ulysses better than Harry Potter?
- musicale 2y agoApples are better than oranges. "An orange a day keeps the doctor away?" I don't think so. Newton's orange? Nope. Orange may be the surprisingly successful remains of a former telecom monopoly, but Apple is the most valuable company on the planet.
- ipaddr 2y agoWhy is Harry Pottery better than a more unknown book like the Sugar Barons? Both are exciting but one is based on real events/letters.. I think parent is basing it on high art principles which are: older better, uniqueness, what others agree is valuable and content/quality. Why aren't we talking about the first english book published? The Recuyell of the Histories of Troye
- krige 2y agoAre you aware of studies of Ulysses and James Joyce in general? That's a good start for this discussion, assuming it's not just a kneejerk reaction.
- netdevphoenix 2y agoYou are assuming that it is objectively true that "Harry Potter is better than Ulysses, AC/DC is better than Carla Frey". What is your basis for that? And what is your definition of "better"?
- spacechild1 2y agoIf all, they are assuming the opposite.
- netdevphoenix 2y agoMy point stands
- snapcaster 2y agoI get the point you're trying to make, and in some philosophical sense you're right. In reality though, people into a field are able to rank quality extremely well and it doesn't end up being the puzzle you're implying it is
- wruza 2y agoWhy is AC/DC “dumber” than, I assume, a fantastic classic musician? I used to think that these artists are riff-riff, but they all turned out to be masters of their art and, ignoring the pop/rock/etc flavor and type, they may actually surpass the genius of a violin virtuoso. Quite a claim you’re making here, assuming that AC/DC popularity was due to “dumbness” overall and that it’s “fine”. It’s not fine, it’s the same step on the ladder. I find this facet of a deep-shallow distinction completely synthetic and (imo) coming from a limited technical-ish view on music. Vivaldi, AC/DC, Blackpink — it’s all an art of a genius level, just differently flavored.
- n4r9 2y agoI'm a bit confused about this AC/DC vs "Carla Frey" comparison. For starters, I can't find any musicians by the name of Carla Frey. There is however a free jazz pianist named Carla Bley. It feels like OP has maybe selected a niche artist that they're personally fond of. I had a listen and it's the sort of stuff you'd get in hotel lobbies. It's nice, and it probably means a lot to people who are really into jazz, but I suspect that few people will ever hear of this artist. Conversely, Angus Young of AC/DC is extremely musically gifted and I suspect that songs like Thunderstruck will have a large social impact for years to come. There's nothing dumb about their songs. Though I don't put much stock in Spotify listens, it has 1.6 billion vs Bley's most popular "Lawns" having around 2 million. Sure, there are cases where great artists are not well known in their own time - from Mozart to Nick Drake - but recognition generally follows in the subsequent decades. If Carla Bley is who they inteded to refer to, they've had over 50 years to become recognised.