Electronica backing to a Bukowski poem. (1 Viewer)

mjp is right that electronica is nothing new.

Absolutely.
But neither is poetry.

It's doing something well that counts.

Now if your kids painted the dog green in your absence, I would call that (and the look on your face when you got home) ART

:D
 
So in a very very nice ladylike way ( with all due respect to esart ) you are calling us bitches.

nope, i sure aint. but if we were all women some guy would inevitably call us a bunch of catty bitches -- peeing on each others cat boxes and such.

i don't agree or disagree with anyone on this thread, hence the off-topic (and not all that funny) comment.
 
See that, I don't get any automatic agreement. Not even pretend agreement to make me feel like I'm right. She's tough, I tell you.
 
We always go for the tough ones. The easy ones pose no challenge and well we don't need to go into all that.

Speaking of that...there is no challenge in playing music behind pre recorded old poems. Now this all makes even more sense.

;)
 
"there is no challenge in playing music behind pre recorded old poems".

Good point.

Ponder....why? :eek: Oh... the humanity!

Bach fucked up... Buk fucked up.

Proof that two wrongs definitely do make a right dick head... Mr WvE
 
Don't worry about it. This has turned into a venting thread. I think you make a great point about Hendrix music on car ads.

But I do feel bad about it. You see, I started that first post just wanting to say "now now, kid's, don't fight" and ended it taking a cheap shot at the musician who backed Buk's poem with his electronica. I hate myself when I am gratuitously mean. It doesn't happen often, but once in a while it comes out, this general meaness, and I feel lousy for it. Apologizing helped a little, but still I don't like having gone there. I have a rule that I'm always breaking, that I won't comment on people, just ideas, events -- and this is why I have that rule.
 
Would it help if I get gratuitously mean with you?
I could even bring my whip.

Then we could both apologise to everyone else on the forum.
 
i get annoyed when people show up and say "hey look at this thing!" as their first post. i kind of did that myself, although i at least took the time to introduce myself as well, which isn't AS bad... but still, if this guy at least took the time to be humble upon introduction, i think he wouldn't have received such a bad reception.

i think a lot of music is based on something that "sounds cool," and bukowski reading poetry with some beats laid under it probably sounds cool to some people. i would guess that the best you could hope for, then, is for it to sound cool (and i suspect/hope that your comment about it being art was in part meant to be sarcastic). i've heard electronic music that i thought was really well-composed, but it was based on multiple layered beats, key changes, tempo changes, etc (the same thing that makes all music great, except maybe for the layered beats). bukowski reading isn't a very good beat, though, so it kind of puts a wet blanket on whatever else you're trying to do. what it does do, however, is give whatever bland techno music you're composing a gimmicky hook. kind of when like when you go see a bad punk/hardcore band and all of a sudden they play a minor threat or gorilla biscuits cover song, and the crowd is suddenly into them.
 
Would it help if I get gratuitously mean with you?
I could even bring my whip.

Then we could both apologise to everyone else on the forum.

Hmmm. That might assuage my sense of guilt. Seems a bit over the top, though.

Okay, I'll stop beating myself up. Guess I'll have to live with being an imperfect human.
 
You see, I started that first post just wanting to say "now now, kid's, don't fight" and ended it taking a cheap shot at the musician who backed Buk's poem with his electronica.
Is it a cheap shot if it's deserved though? I wonder.

Some things do suck. That cocksucker butchering Bluebird in Ponder's post, VALERIAN, Linsay Lohan records, The Los Angeles Lakers...they suck as a fact, regardless of how nice we want to be and say, "Oh, well, come on, art is art."

Bullshit. Some things are not art, they are just crap taking up space on earth.

I don't mean that everything that I don't like is crap. I see the value of plenty of things that I don't personally like. But I also know crap when I see it (or hear it), and I'm afraid a lot of people don't want to offend anyone so they just smile and nod and wish the artist well.

I wish I could do that, I really do. It would make my life a lot easier.
 
Is it a cheap shot if it's deserved though? I wonder. ..[snip] ... But I also know crap when I see it (or hear it), and I'm afraid a lot of people don't want to offend anyone so they just smile and nod and wish the artist well.

I wish I could do that, I really do. It would make my life a lot easier.

All agreed. I wasn't judging my comment a cheap shot because it wasn't deserved. I was thinking more of my internal motivation. It's what's in the heart. I realized I was taking a shot because I could, simply because I could, and that's what I found disgusting in myself. Sort of the mob instinct. If others make the same criticisms, they very well may be valid -- I don't know what motivates them. Too much introspection, huh?
 
Too much introspection, huh?
Nah, I have been forced to think about the source of a lot of my anger over the past couple of years, and it's good to recognize the cause.

But I'm still angry at a lot of shit! Ha ha.

So maybe I need more introspection. Or maybe I'm just angry. If a little less so now.
 
Is it a cheap shot if it's deserved though? I wonder.

Some things do suck. That cocksucker butchering Bluebird in Ponder's post, VALERIAN, Linsay Lohan records

I appreciate your discontent with the Track. It was not my intention to disrespect the Bukowski's work in any way.

I attempted to maintain a degree of "authenticity" through leaving Bukowski's reading in it's original form, completely unedited, yet believed the backing track accented the reading nicely.

I did not elaborate on the music because i wanted the focus to be on Bukowski, not the music that accompanied it. Thus, I was hoping the attention of the listener was on Bukowski's words and not the accompanying music...

I feel, given the response on this thread, that I may have failed in my goal for the piece... The goal being to promote Bukowski's work, not mine... In a way that I felt allowed the poem a degree of access and appeal to the average joe, which it may not have had otherwise.

And although y'all may be very familiar with Bukowski's work, and thus see this as an abuse of his name, work, and possibily a violation of his Estate (which I am sensitive too), this was not my intention.
 
Do you like what you've created? Yes? Then who gives a fuck what anyone else thinks. Just please don't expect everyone here to jump on the bandwagon and praise it just because it has something to do with Buk.
 
I feel, given the response on this thread, that I may have failed in my goal for the piece... The goal being to promote (bold Father Luke's) Bukowski's work, not mine... In a way that I felt allowed the poem a degree of access and appeal to the average joe, which it may not have had otherwise.

You know, I went to bat for you here slugger, but
I'm gonn'a let you swing away now.

The Buk-moting, so that the average joe may be
exposed, is a wee bit arrogant.

In other words, someone will now read Bukowski
because of you, when they wouldn't have otherwise? Okay. ;)


Hey. I'll try once more. Why not?

What are you listening to?
Seen any good movies?
What is your favorite . . . ?

- -
Okay
Father Luke
 
I was introduced to Bukowski through a recommendation by a friend of mine to watch his documentary, not through reading his poetry... Although, I subsequently began collecting Bukowski's literature and have since gifted friends with copies of his work.

If it weren't for the film however, I would probably not have encountered Bukowski.

Few of my peers read poetry for entertainment... Many however listen to music, and watch films.
 
Is it a cheap shot if it's deserved though? I wonder.

Some things do suck. That cocksucker butchering Bluebird in Ponder's post, VALERIAN, Linsay Lohan records
I appreciate your discontent with the Track. It was not my intention to disrespect the Bukowski's work in any way. [...] The goal being to promote Bukowski's work, not mine... In a way that I felt allowed the poem a degree of access and appeal to the average joe, which it may not have had otherwise.[/QUOTE]Two big "buts" here, partner; first, I didn't listen to or express any discontent with "the track."

Second, the "average Joe" does not listen to electronica. The average Joe listens to Proud to be an American, the music on commercials on ESPN, and whatever his girlfriend tunes the radio to when they are in the truck together.

You can see by the musical tastes in a few threads here that this is not an "average Joe" crowd, so you have to expect that the bar is going to be raised a little higher for whatever you bring through the door.

There is no shame in promoting your creative work here.

Lots of us do it. But if I pimp my books or art or glitter covered Converse high tops incessantly and someone buys from me and then comes in here and says, "You know, this is crap," then I have to take that criticism as it comes.

My question, going back to the beginning of this, is why you consider what you did art. I am interested because I happen to experience a lot of art in my life, and a lot of times I say, "This isn't art, it's a pile of tar paper," "This is just a jar full of bottle caps," or "He's just hitting a pillow with a stick, how is that music?" and I get in arguments with people who apparently know more about art than I do, because they say I'm wrong. It is art.

But at least they try to explain to me why it's art. We may not agree when all is said and done, but they don't say, "Well, I couldn't explain why. It's like trying to describe the smell of rotten fish to someone born without a sense of smell," which is sort of what you did.
 
Nah, I have been forced to think about the source of a lot of my anger over the past couple of years, and it's good to recognize the cause.

But I'm still angry at a lot of shit! Ha ha.

So maybe I need more introspection. Or maybe I'm just angry. If a little less so now.

I meant too much introspection on my part, not yours, although you're welcome to take it up, too. I thought that might not be clear. I know the source of my anger -- have a notebook full of screaming raging anger poems about deep piles of stinking shit at work. But I disappoint myself when I lash at out any one for any reason unless it's truly called for. I check myself constantly. And that is too much introspection.
 
What is your question?

Yes, yes... That is a difficult question for any artist, of any medium or genre.

Defining art to a spectator of the process, is like defining color to a blind man.

Factor in attempting to establish common ground with someone who may never have created anything of their own expression, ever... And I'd suspect the entire process would be akin to defining a color to someone who has never seen light.

This is hilarious...

One of the reasons it is funny is it seems like workproductions is trying to imply that mjp is someone "who may never have created anything of their own expression, ever..."

Am I wrong or is that what he was implying?

That's funny.

I like the use of the ellipses though.
 
From Wikipedia's entry for art...

"Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; by transmitting emotions and/or ideas. Beyond this description, there is no general agreed-upon definition of art. "

"The evaluation of art has become especially problematic since the 20th century. Richard Wollheim distinguishes three approaches: the Realist, whereby aesthetic quality is an absolute value independent of any human view; the Objectivist, whereby it is also an absolute value, but is dependent on general human experience; and the Relativist position, whereby it is not an absolute value, but depends on, and varies with, the human experience of different humans.[2] An object may be characterized by the intentions, or lack thereof, of its creator, regardless of its apparent purpose. A cup, which ostensibly can be used as a container, may be considered art if intended solely as an ornament, while a painting may be deemed craft if mass-produced."

Explaining this definition through an analogy to the difficulty of defining color to one who has not experienced it is a valid comparison in my estimation of the philosophical implications.
 
Well, there you have it. If it says so on Wikipedia it absolutely must be true.

Not trying to be a smart-ass here (don't have to since it comes naturally), but I could go over to Wikipedia right now and change the definition to read "Art is what you get when you don't move your bowels often enough." Wikipedia is far from the final word on anything. Just ask ***ERIC IS A FAG***.
 
Seeing the light

workproductions said:
Defining art to a spectator of the process, is like defining color to a blind man.

Factor in attempting to establish common ground with someone who may never have created anything of their own expression, ever... And I'd suspect the entire process would be akin to defining a color to someone who has never seen light.
I'll use this an opportunity to educate. I work in a school for those with blindness (deafness too). We talk about color all the time-the mistake you make the assumption you make is that color is only seen.

This week there is a dance put on by the students with deafness-some of the kids with blindness are going to buy new out fits-it's a real blast...You can bet your ass they will play Metallica but Electronic I don't know. They like most kids like stuff with balls.

There is a great movie Aussie movie about a a photographer who is blind-Proof

Art has to challenge or change perception for me and I think for most who take expression seriously it would be the same or close to the same.
 
Explaining this definition through an analogy to the difficulty of defining color to one who has not experienced it is a valid comparison in my estimation of the philosophical implications.
So you incapable of explaining what you believe. Why didn't you just say so?

as the
talent
wanes
the
electronica
appears
 
602__image_09.jpg
 
I admit that I am unable to define what is, and is not Art outside of referencing the intentions of the "Artist"...

Thus, I am sincerely interested in hearing what YOUR definition of art is.

PS. I vote against locking the thread. Outside of the pettiness and immaturity evident throughout, I feel this subject is valid, especially considering the "low brow" appeal and ease of accessibility that much of Bukowski's work embodies.
 
I call it art.

How is it art?


I admit that I am unable to define what is, and is not Art

My motivation for creating this post, was ... to incorporate Hank's reading, into something which may bring other's who had not heard of him, nor would normally be interested in listening to a spoken word reading, a brief introduction into the mind of Bukowski.


Look. Check out this guy: Krinski

This fellow was a topic of discussion around
here for a while.


Honest question:

What do you think of his work?

Eh?
 
I call it art.

How is it art?

My motivation for creating this post, was not to sell albums, represent a generation of individuals, project a political outcome, or even seek to defend my definition of what is, and is not art.

My motivation was to share, with this Community, a little something that I enjoyed creating, and thought y'all may be able to appreciate given it's subject.

If you don't find it interesting, or are not "impressed" with the piece... You are welcome to voice that disappointment.

Yet, your entertainment was not my goal.

My goal was to incorporate Hank's reading, into something which may bring other's who had not heard of him, nor would normally be interested in listening to a spoken word reading, a brief introduction into the mind of Bukowski.

Call it, label it, define it, hate it as you will.

I admit that I am unable to define what is, and is not Art outside of referencing the intentions of the "Artist"...

Thus, I am sincerely interested in hearing what YOUR definition of art is.

I feel I have been misquoted concerning the Intentions of the "Artist."

I am not content with the definition that if a person calls something Art, then by definition it is...

Yet, I believe this is a widely held definition, which I can easily portray through consideration of a large sector of Modern Art... Abstract, Post-Modern, Sculpture, etc.

Impressionism lies at the foundation of this debate, yet few would argue that Van Gogh was not an Artist...

Was Bukowski an "Artist?"
 
A good friend of mine once defined art quite simply as "Art is criticism." I believe the quote came from someone else, but I've no idea after 20 years. Of course, one needs to consider the word criticism as both positive and negative; in other words, an observation or an opinion. You cannot create something without making it from your persepective; hence it is based on your observations and opinions.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top