bruce springsteen

[SR]

When I wrote 'begs' I was fully aware of the formal implications. I chose not to make the amendment thinking everyone would know what I was trying to get at. I'm not horrible with the fallacies of reason both formal and informal.

[Hype]

When I wrote 'begs' I was fully aware of the formal implications. I chose not to make the amendment thinking everyone would know what I was trying to get at. I'm not horrible with the fallacies of reason both formal and informal.

It's important not to attribute a weaker position to your opponent than the one they actually have, though. If I define 'art' as that which is beautiful (in some sense of that term), and you come along and say "Nu uhh... there's this other kind of art... non-beautiful art." Then one way of responding to this is to say: well, I'm talking about a specific concept, namely, the concept of beautiful things. If the things you think are non-beautiful art are 'art' in the sense I'm using it, then I should be able to show how these things turn out to be beautiful after all. If I can't do this, then you may try to convince me that the concept of 'art' I am using contains in it further features that require me to accept your definition rather than my own. For example, it may be that the features that I think constitute 'beauty' equally apply to non-beautiful art, and therefore I was wrong to think that I was committed only to beautiful things being art.

[SR]

When I wrote 'begs' I was fully aware of the formal implications. I chose not to make the amendment thinking everyone would know what I was trying to get at. I'm not horrible with the fallacies of reason both formal and informal.

It's important not to attribute a weaker position to your opponent than the one they actually have, though. If I define 'art' as that which is beautiful (in some sense of that term), and you come along and say "Nu uhh... there's this other kind of art... non-beautiful art." Then one way of responding to this is to say: well, I'm talking about a specific concept, namely, the concept of beautiful things. If the things you think are non-beautiful art are 'art' in the sense I'm using it, then I should be able to show how these things turn out to be beautiful after all. If I can't do this, then you may try to convince me that the concept of 'art' I am using contains in it further features that require me to accept your definition rather than my own. For example, it may be that the features that I think constitute 'beauty' equally apply to non-beautiful art, and therefore I was wrong to think that I was committed only to beautiful things being art.

I do not respond as opposition, but one to present an alternate point and perhaps learrn a bit in the process to fortify my position or alter it. Even philosophy can't clarify what is beautiful from centuries of discussion and debate.

Coleridge stated that in asking what art is, one is nearly asking who/what the artist is. This very issue came up when the photo of DN came up here with a JWG clown painting. I submit that DN did not merely find the painting beautiful per se. He too was attracted to the unspeakable darkness that the artist brought to it. Of course, I do not know for sure, but the foundations for this assumption are that I do not see the beauty per se in the painting. Additionally, I take into account DN's tragic history (one that has dynamics that I can easily surmise are deep and profoundly confusing), and finally that DN knows whereof this painting was originated.

Coleridge can speak for himself...."For it is a distinction resulting from the poetic genius itself, which sustains and modifies the images, thoughts, and emotion's of the poet's own mind. The poet describes in ideal perfection, brings the whole soul of man into activity, with the subordination of faculties to eachother, according to their relative worth and dignity. He diffuses a tone, and spirit of unity, that blends, and (as it were) fuses, each into each, by that synthetic and magical power, to which we have exclusively appropriated the name of imagination. This power, first put in action by the will and understanding, and retained under their irremissive, though gentle and unnoticed controul (laxis effertur habenis) reveals itself in the balance or reconciliation of opposite or discordant qualities: of sameness, with difference; of the general with the concrete; the idea, with the image; the individual, with the representative; the sense of novelty and freshness, with the old and familiar objects; a more than usual state of emotion, with more than usual order; judgement ever awake and steady self possession, with enthusiasm and feeling profound or vehement; and while it blends and harmonizes the natural and the artificial, still subordinates art to nature; the matter to the matter; and our admiration of the poet to our sympathy with the poetry."

I see no reason why the artist can't or even ought to be considered to at least a marginal degree when assessing beauty in art.

[Hype]

I agree that an assessment of the artist may play a role in what people find beautiful in art... that's why I said Pandemonium seems to be doing it. The question is whether we're really talking about *just art* at that point. I admit, my position draws a stark functional distinction between art and aspects of the objects that many others may include in the evaluation of the art. But there is something to this that Wilde is right to lean on, I think. Part of the problem is the interplay between objective and subjective elements of judgment. You're right to point out that the subjective element plays a deep role in the things people may have a taste for -- ala the Dave Navarro case you raise. But the objection from the distinct-function reading of art will say that in actual fact Dave is not appreciating the art qua art in that case. He is engaged in something else (psychotherapy or catharsis or whatever, which is not a necessary or sufficient component of art; this is obvious, I think, since many things that are not art could become fetish objects or therapeutic in the same way, and there is art that doesn't do this). But again, you're right that ordinarily we may not distinguish between objects which are simultaneously art (even bad art) and something else, and how they are being appreciated or judged. But shouldn't we? If, for example, it came to light that Shakespeare was a mass murderer... it may affect our ability to LIKE his works, but does it affect the objective quality of the art qua art? Really?

[SR]

Well fuck you for drawing god into this. Jk

Really, the question before your q on Shakes is if he was a mass murderer, could he have been capable of the unspeakably beautiful body of work. Facinating question really. My knee jerk response is no, he could not. But he was, by all accounts, a prick.

[Hype]

Well fuck you for drawing god into this. Jk

Really, the question before your q on Shakes is if he was a mass murderer, could he have been capable of the unspeakably beautiful body of work. Facinating question really. My knee jerk response is no, he could not. But he was, by all accounts, a prick.

You can see why I think it's an important question. I think you're right that it's a fascinating question to ask whether deeply morally corrupt people can be capable of beautiful/genius art. I take it to be conceptually possible: you can suppose that the two features coexist in a single individual and then ask whether the former corrupts the latter. But I think the real question: whether it's actually possible, is an empirical/scientific question -- when a brain is morally defective in measurable ways is it also necessarily artistically defective? We can't answer that.

[Pandemonium]

Pandemonium's lack of "respect" for Michael Jackson seems to be in terms of 'respect as a human being'... sort of like...not respecting Hitler's paintings. And that is supposed to be separate from the question of whether you like the art.

But I think this is muddled. Maybe some people tie art and morality together in this way (Pandemonium seems to), but I don't think this is a very clear way of talking about art. E.g., Wagner was a raging anti-semite, but I love quite a lot of his music, artistically speaking.

If I tied my appreciation and tastes in art solely due to any perceived "morality," I'd have a pretty short list of favorites. A lot of my favorite artists spout off some pretty ridiculous opinions and even a guy like Springsteen is no saint (he was busted cheating on his first wife with the singer in his band who later became his 2nd wife). Doesn't stop me from enjoying their art.

I just draw the line at pedophiles.

[Hype]

I just draw the line at pedophiles.

I understand the moral objection to pedophilia. And I also understand that from a personal perspective it makes sense to feel more strongly about some bad actions than others, and to therefore treat things associated with people who do those things likewise. But as I've been arguing, I think this does simply go beyond art. It's like not driving a Volkswagen because Hitler is associated with the company. I get why people wouldn't do that. But I don't think the reasons they have have to do with the quality of the vehicles.

[Larry B.]

BTW... Michael Jackson never took advantage of any kids. If you still believe what the media/police wanted you to, you're making a mistake.

Michael Jackson simply does not fit any profile of a pedophile. And he just couldn't mess about with children. It's a pointless discussion, really, because there are no proofs whatsoever and there are plenty of texts out there profiling child molesters and Michael Jackson just doesn't fit.

If Hype ever is greatly respected by the academic world I could just sue him for touching my kids or whatever... it doesn't matter if there are no fucking proofs, if my case gets dismissed and even if Hype sues me back and wins. If my legal action gets enough publicity, Hype's reputation would be forever tainted. Nobody likes a guy being charged with child molestation, and the brain doesn't really seem to care whether it's true or not.

[creep]

Michael Jackson simply does not fit any profile of a pedophile. And he just couldn't mess about with children. It's a pointless discussion, really, because there are no proofs whatsoever and there are plenty of texts out there profiling child molesters and Michael Jackson just doesn't fit.

[Larry B.]

It's ok if you don't understand the intricacy of the human brain and how a fucked up life can distort things. Fucking kids, touching them or making them touch him wasn't how he coped with stuff. Surrounding himself with people who wouldn't judge him or try to steal money from him (i.e., kids) was.

Some times I feat that friends of relatives might thing I'm some kind of child molester. When I go to my brother's house or whenever I'm with my nephews, I spent 90% of my time with them (ages between 9 months and 10 years old.) It's a lot more comfortable for me than being surrounded by bullshitting adults talking about the most stupid crap you could hear. Seriously, why the fuck would I want to know about the food your grandma used to cook on Tuesdays? I'd rather hear how my niece felt when she held a pigeon between her hands or how my 10 year old nephew won the top goalscorer award in a football championship.

How many kids said Michael Jackson touched him? How many kids feared him? Zero. The kids who claimed Michael touched them (one? two?) later said it was all lies made up by their parents.

How many adults said MJ touched their children? How many adults used the N word when talking about him? How many adults mocked him because of his appearance?

American society is the problem. Not Michael Jackson.

[Hype]

Well, also, there was clearly a bunch of stuff wrong with the guy even if he never molested anyone. The vitiligo/burns and facial surgeries have nothing to do with his actual freakiness, which imho is more to do with his stunted emotional and intellectual growth. There's a clear sense in which he was literally retarded --- failing to understand what was wrong with having kids in his bed even if he wasn't touching them is part of that.

[kv]

larry explain to me how a child identified key elements of jackson's genitals?

[clickie]

a big part of the whole hangin out with kids thing is because he missed out on having his own childhood.

[Pandemonium]

If Hype ever is greatly respected by the academic world I could just sue him for touching my kids or whatever... it doesn't matter if there are no fucking proofs, if my case gets dismissed and even if Hype sues me back and wins. If my legal action gets enough publicity, Hype's reputation would be forever tainted. Nobody likes a guy being charged with child molestation, and the brain doesn't really seem to care whether it's true or not.

It doesn't help "the brain" if the parents get paid off to drop the charges or to keep their kid from testifying. And it especially makes one's head hurt when it happened again and again.

I knew this was gonna upset Larry. Good thing there's no Gary Glitter fans on this board.

[Pandemonium]

American society is the problem. Not Michael Jackson.

Well, not any more.

[kv]

zing

[Hype]

Good thing there's no Gary Glitter fans on this board.

As a Canadian, I like that one song.

[perkana]

Also a guy who gives underage kids "jesus juice" aka white wine is not right, and really as much as you admired someone, there were really hard evidence against him. I read articles (really good ones on Vanity Fair) and saw the inteview with the British guy. There wasn't anything right between him and the small kid. When I saw it, it was like watching a "couple".

[Pandemonium]

Rage Against The Machine guitarist Tom Morello will replace long time E Street Band member Steve Van Zandt during a run of shows this Spring.

Press Release:

Since Stevie Van Zandt’s filming commitments to his highly successful television show Lilyhammer will keep him off stage for the upcoming Australian tour dates, Bruce Springsteen has invited Tom Morello to sit in temporarily on guitar. Following the Australian dates, Van Zandt will return to the tour in Oslo, Norway on April 29, 2013.

Tom Morello performed on multiple recordings from ‘Wrecking Ball’ (Jack of All Trades, This Depression), and recently joined Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band onstage for performances on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, at SXSW and for the legendary 25th Anniversary Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Concert. He has also joined the band on concert tour stops in NYC, Los Angeles and Chicago. Morello will perform at the 2013 MusiCares benefit gala honoring Bruce Springsteen.

A mainstay on Best Guitarist lists worldwide, Tom Morello AKA The Nightwatchman is also known for his outstanding work with Rage Against the Machine and Audioslave.

++++++++++++++

I guess that means "The Ghost Of Tom Joad" will be played every show.

[SR]

Rage Against The Machine guitarist Tom Morello will replace long time E Street Band member Steve Van Zandt during a run of shows this Spring.

Press Release:

Since Stevie Van Zandt’s filming commitments to his highly successful television show Lilyhammer will keep him off stage for the upcoming Australian tour dates, Bruce Springsteen has invited Tom Morello to sit in temporarily on guitar. Following the Australian dates, Van Zandt will return to the tour in Oslo, Norway on April 29, 2013.

Tom Morello performed on multiple recordings from ‘Wrecking Ball’ (Jack of All Trades, This Depression), and recently joined Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band onstage for performances on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, at SXSW and for the legendary 25th Anniversary Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Concert. He has also joined the band on concert tour stops in NYC, Los Angeles and Chicago. Morello will perform at the 2013 MusiCares benefit gala honoring Bruce Springsteen.

A mainstay on Best Guitarist lists worldwide, Tom Morello AKA The Nightwatchman is also known for his outstanding work with Rage Against the Machine and Audioslave.

++++++++++++++

I guess that means "The Ghost Of Tom Joad" will be played every show.

Nice! He's done with the southland though.

[Pandemonium]

Pretty funny. Springsteen appeared on Jimmy Fallon's show (who's obviously a huge fan) to plug Springsteen's new album. They both dressed as Born in the USA-era Bruce and did a parody of the New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's traffic jam scandal to the tune of "Born To Run."

[Hype]

I've been listening to really early Springsteen lately, and I've realized that he and Tom Waits are basically the same person, except one of them smoked and drank a lot more over the last few decades.

[Hokahey]

larry explain to me how a child identified key elements of jackson's genitals?

Link?

If there was actual evidence, MJ would have been in jail.

[clickie]

Not if MJ settled it by paying off the family about 20 million.