"Kamennyi Most", or - an Exercise in Songwriting
Michael Kagalenko
>song - they won't even sing along with you otherwise. Take some
>lessons from Kormil'tsev, for example: his biggest hit "Ja hochu
>byt' s toboj" doesn't have *any* gender references in it, to the
>best of my recollection.
" Ja lomAL steklo, kak chocolate, v ruke,
Ja rezAL eti pal'tsy ... etc
You are ever so sloppy, Zak
--
Michael
Squicking - because mind is terrible thing to waste
Yury M. Mukharsky
>will sing your song in the future) want. Whenever a rock writer
>gets so mooshy that he actually wants to say something to a girl,
>he does incredible stunts to hide that. At least take it out of
>the chorus so the girls in the audience could associate with the
>song - they won't even sing along with you otherwise.
The paragraph above explains reason of some 30% Beattle's song quite
precisely. For example: "Girl", "Michael", "I wanna ??? that girl", etc.
Or, for example, Nau's "Kazanova", if we are talking about Russian
rock liryc.
Rest of the analisys is skipped, after reading with interest. Sounds nice,
but apparent condradiction of the very first paragraph with my limited
experience in rock-lyrics make me doubt.
Yury
Zak May
> " Ja lomAL steklo, kak chocolate, v ruke,
> Ja rezAL eti pal'tsy ... etc
Oh sure - but he doesn't say anything about the subject's gender.
That's the joke - it could have been dedicated by Kormil'tsev to
Butusov for all I know. If you spent more time reading my stuff
and trying to fit it into your head, instead of looking for easy
ways to argue with me, you'd be a fun opponent. Don't you think
I had the lyrics with me when I wrote that? And fix those empty
lines - I'm serious.
___
Zak.
Zak May
> The paragraph above explains reason of some 30% Beattle's song quite
> precisely. For example: "Girl", "Michael", "I wanna ??? that girl", etc.
Pre-1966 Beatles are definitely not a good example of Rock songwriting -
their audience was 90% female. If you take a look at their later albums,
you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.
BTW, I'd like to hear the songs you mentioned, esp. "Michael".
> Or, for example, Nau's "Kazanova", if we are talking about Russian
> rock liryc.
Where in "Kasanova" can you tell the gender of the person he's talking to?
> Rest of the analisys is skipped, after reading with interest. Sounds nice,
> but apparent condradiction of the very first paragraph with my limited
> experience in rock-lyrics make me doubt.
If you liked the rest of the article, you could have some trust for the
first paragraph. There is no contradiction there - I didn't say nobody
writes songs about *girls*. I said you'd rarely find a Rock song where
the gender of the *subject* is apparent, it's a little more complicated,
but - much more interesting.
___
Zak.
Yury M. Mukharsky
>Yury M. Mukharsky <muh@physics4> wrote:
>> The paragraph above explains reason of some 30% Beattle's song quite
>> precisely. For example: "Girl", "Michael", "I wanna ??? that girl", etc.
>
>Pre-1966 Beatles are definitely not a good example of Rock songwriting -
>their audience was 90% female.
Zak, start reading your own articles, before posting them, for God's sake.
Or, alternatively, if you goofed, say: "I am goofed.". Or keep silent (like
I do :) ).
According to you theory, they should lose this 90% of their audience. Right
away.
>If you take a look at their later albums,
>you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.
You mean those, when their popularity declined? Like what?
>
>BTW, I'd like to hear the songs you mentioned, esp. "Michael".
>
>> Or, for example, Nau's "Kazanova", if we are talking about Russian
>> rock liryc.
>
>Where in "Kasanova" can you tell the gender of the person he's talking to?
"Ty moja zhenchina, ja tvoj muzhchina". And don't say to me
that this zhenchina is a symbol of hidden homosexual desires of Butusov.
>> Rest of the analisys is skipped, after reading with interest. Sounds nice,
>> but apparent condradiction of the very first paragraph with my limited
>> experience in rock-lyrics make me doubt.
>
>If you liked the rest of the article, you could have some trust for the
>first paragraph. There is no contradiction there - I didn't say nobody
It's usually other way around: if I see guy talking with serious face
about something, I usually think: gee, he is so serious, and he probably
knows what he is talking about. And then he says something, dealing with
the area I know something about. And if he is dead wrong, and he said this
with air of highest authority, that's it.
I'll let this paragraph of yours go for now. Let's what follows.
Yury
Zak May
>ZM> Pre-1966 Beatles are definitely not a good example of Rock songwriting -
>ZM> their audience was 90% female.
> Zak, start reading your own articles, before posting them, for God's sake.
> Or, alternatively, if you goofed, say: "I am goofed.". Or keep silent (like
> I do :) ).
I know what I'm talking about. And I do read 174-line articles before posting.
> According to you theory, they should lose this 90% of their audience. Right
> away.
They did. In 1966 The Beatles lost most of their prior audience. I don't
know the exact percentage, but the bulk of the people buying Revolver were
not the people who bought Help! - in 1966 they stopped *touring*, they had
their Jesus controversy, when everybody was burning their albums, and they
stopped writing "silly love songs" for the most part - check it out. I've
read dozens of interviews on the subject. And if you're saying they would
have missed out on male audience in the beginning - they did too. Watch a
documentary from 1963-1965, do a concert crowd demographics survey.
>ZM> If you take a look at their later albums,
>ZM> you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.
>
> You mean those, when their popularity declined? Like what?
Their popularity didn't decline - it grew immensely. But it was different
people now - not just the 12-year old girls. Let us stop this already - I
have no intentions of participating in a *Beatles* discussion, it makes me
feel like I'm 13 years old again.
>ZM> Where in "Kasanova" can you tell the gender of the person he's talking to?
>
> "Ty moja zhenchina, ja tvoj muzhchina". And don't say to me
> that this zhenchina is a symbol of hidden homosexual desires of Butusov.
Frankly I don't think Butusov had any desires at all. Besides, he didn't
write that song, to the best of my knowledge. As for the quote - you are
right, he does call the subject a "woman". Don't see how it's related to
the point in question though.
___
Zak.
Yury M. Mukharsky
Beatles here is an example, which both of us are (somewhat) familiar. That's
not Beatles discussion.
You gave examples, exactly opposite to what you wrote before, and exactly
supporting my point (it's same actually, since the only point I have here
is that your point is wrong): they lost their female audience, exactly after
they stop writing predominantly about girls. Explicitely and undoubtfully
girls, not babes, or other hermo's.
<
<>ZM> Where in "Kasanova" can you tell the gender of the person he's talking to?
<>
<> "Ty moja zhenchina, ja tvoj muzhchina". And don't say to me
<> that this zhenchina is a symbol of hidden homosexual desires of Butusov.
<
<Frankly I don't think Butusov had any desires at all. Besides, he didn't
<write that song, to the best of my knowledge. As for the quote - you are
<right, he does call the subject a "woman". Don't see how it's related to
<the point in question though.
All, right, I quit this discussion. I like to participate in a discussion
based on famous Zhvanecki recipy, but not so strightforwardly.
You make the point: to have hit you should avoid specific references to the sex
of the subject. I post conterexample. You may say that it's only single example
or you may question the example, but to say that is has nothing to do with the
subject in question! It's outrageous to the extend of beeing boring.
Idet okhotnik po lesu, na pleche lisa. Navstrechu lesnik.
Ostanvlivaet okhotnika, Spreshivaet: "Chto eto u tebja na pleche".
Muzhik: "Gde?"
"Da vot na pleche."
"Da gde?"
Lesnik, pokazyvaet- "Da vot".
Muzhik, oborachivaetsja, s uzhasom- "Ahhhhh".
Znaju, chto staryj. No bol'no uzh k mestu.
Yury
Zak May
Too late. I already have "Please Please Me" playing in the house.
I will never forgive you for this. You made me remember my first
successful masturbation. I was trying to forget it for years, it
wasn't too pretty of an experience. I wrote a song about it some
time later, but that is successfully forgotten, don't worry.
> You gave examples, exactly opposite to what you wrote before, and exactly
> supporting my point (it's same actually, since the only point I have here
> is that your point is wrong): they lost their female audience, exactly after
> they stop writing predominantly about girls. Explicitely and undoubtfully
> girls, not babes, or other hermo's.
No, goddamit. 90% of their pre-1966 audience were girls. After that -
50% of their audience were girls. Different girls. Better girls. The
girls with brains. By giving up outdated songwriting practices Beatles
made their audience much bigger, although lost most of the old one. If
you still see a contradiction - please let me know, I will draw a chart.
>ZM> Frankly I don't think Butusov had any desires at all. Besides, he didn't
>ZM> write that song, to the best of my knowledge. As for the quote - you are
>ZM> right, he does call the subject a "woman". Don't see how it's related to
>ZM> the point in question though.
>
> All, right, I quit this discussion. I like to participate in a discussion
> based on famous Zhvanecki recipy, but not so strightforwardly.
Oh, so now - you accuse me of disrespect. I don't see why - I was right
again. Incidentally, the part *you* didn't like contained my admittance
of you being right the last time. I guess you didn't like that. That's
just fine with me - never again will I admit you being right, unless you
will be, like, *really* right. Fortunately for me, the topic is so damn
murky, that you have no chance of seeing that happen.
Now - where were we?
> You make the point: to have hit you should avoid specific references to
> the sex of the subject. I post conterexample.
"Kasanova" is written as a song about sex between a man and a woman. That
is it's main motive. That's the whole content of the song. It's not just
a "single example" - it's a definite "exception supporting the rule". Now,
when you mentioned it - I was not sure about those references, so I _asked
you to supply them. You did - thanks. You were right - he does say "ty -
moja zhenschina". You don't know who he's talking to though, could always
be his pillow. Besides, the whole thing is done in character (he's hardly
the lyrical hero of the song - he's singing it for somebody else), etc.
Those three reasons made it appropriate for me to deny your example as
irrelevant to the argument.
> You may say that it's only single example or you may question the example,
> but to say that is has nothing to do with the subject in question!
I'm sorry that I made those decisions in my head instead of letting *you*
in on the whole thing. Next time - if I tell you something is irrelevant,
it doesn't mean that I think you're stupid. It doesn't mean that I don't
want to talk to you about it. It means - your example does not prove any
thing, get a new one. I did not supply the reasons the last time - I did
this time. Don't you get self-conscious on me, I'm having enough trouble
with opponents as is.
> It's outrageous to the extend of beeing boring.
It's hardly boring. I just don't use smileys anymore - Kibo ne velit.
___
Zak.
Yury M. Mukharsky
>Yury M. Mukharsky <muh@physics4> wrote:
>
>No, goddamit. 90% of their pre-1966 audience were girls. After that -
>50% of their audience were girls.
OK, let's narrow example to pre-1966 Beatles. It's example anyway. I give
up on >1966 because I don't want to fight on thin ice, and I have good
counterexample, anyway. Counterexample, recognized by you. Or by your self
as it was 2 hours ago.
>>ZM> right, he does call the subject a "woman". Don't see how it's related to
>>ZM> the point in question though.
>>
>> All, right, I quit this discussion. I like to participate in a discussion
>> based on famous Zhvanecki recipy, but not so strightforwardly.
>
>Oh, so now - you accuse me of disrespect. I don't see why - I was right
>again. Incidentally, the part *you* didn't like contained my admittance
>of you being right the last time.
OK, so I was right and this song mention the sex of the subject....
>> You make the point: to have hit you should avoid specific references to
>> the sex of the subject. I post conterexample.
>
>"Kasanova" is written as a song about sex between a man and a woman. That
>is it's main motive. That's the whole content of the song. It's not just
>a "single example" - it's a definite "exception supporting the rule". Now,
>when you mentioned it - I was not sure about those references, so I _asked
>you to supply them. You did - thanks. You were right - he does say "ty -
>moja zhenschina". You don't know who he's talking to though, could always
>be his pillow.
... and the subject was a pillow (maybe). So it was female pillow (maybe).
>Besides, the whole thing is done in character (he's hardly
>the lyrical hero of the song - he's singing it for somebody else), etc.
That's exactly what I asked not to do, when I asked not to attribute the
song to Butusov, or whoever wrote it, hidden homesexual desires.
You said: don't say "woman", "man", "he" or "she" in songs: that the recipe
of songmaking. Now you start correcting: "You may say this, if ....".
It's not recipe any more.
I am picky today, I know.
Yury
Zak May
> OK, let's narrow example to pre-1966 Beatles. It's example anyway.
Pre-1966 Beatles have very little to do with Rock songwriting - most
of the songs of that period are just good Tin Pan Alley songs. They
have no relevance in this discussion. I thought I said that already.
> I give up on >1966 because I don't want to fight on thin ice...
To be honest with you, you're on thin ice in a discussion of Rock
with me by default. I'm a professional in the field. I'll do my
very best to make you feel comfortable though, so don't you worry.
> ...and I have good counterexample, anyway.
Was it the one I just killed?
> OK, so I was right and this song mention the sex of the subject....
No. He called the subject a "woman". The subject could be anything.
I'm not putting you on - the "girlfriend" in Supertramp's "Breakfast
in America" is Roger Davies (by Roger Hodgson's own words), just for
example. The "woman" in Bryan Ferry's "In every dream..." is a doll.
The whole "Kasanova" thing is very ironic, he could be singing about
anything, actually. That is why it is a bad example - it is sung in
a character. I thought I said this too already.
>ZM> Besides, the whole thing is done in character (he's hardly
>ZM> the lyrical hero of the song - he's singing it for somebody else), etc.
>
> That's exactly what I asked not to do, when I asked not to attribute the
> song to Butusov, or whoever wrote it, hidden homesexual desires.
It could be a simple coincidence that you chose this song. However, it's
the worst possible counterexample you could come up with. Not your fault.
> You said: don't say "woman", "man", "he" or "she" in songs: that the recipe
> of songmaking. Now you start correcting: "You may say this, if ....".
> It's not recipe any more.
I was talking about a particular case. Then I made some generalizations
with qualifiers. Since Mitya obviously knows _nothing about songwriting,
I gave him the *basic* rules. Those rules can be broken, if you want to
reach an outrageous effect. "Kazanova" is a good example of that. Some
other songs could make good exceptions too, like - BG's own "Jesli by ty
mogla menia slyshat'...". Those songs are special that way. If you had
to teach a diletant physics, would you start with Newton's laws or would
you include the Leibnitz corrections in the first lesson?
> I am picky today, I know.
That's OK, I'm enjoying it.
___
Zak.
Yury M. Mukharsky
>Yury M. Mukharsky <muh@physics4> wrote:
OK, to summarize:
I can agree it's a good rule.
It has a lot's of exceprtion. I was able to come out with two
(and that leaving alone BG with numerous examples) in 30 seconds and whatever
you say, recipe with that much reservations is not a recipe. And thus you can not
reject Dmitri's lirycs on this basis. I don't know if there are songs which
violate all you rules at once.
About Beatles: what recipes did they violate after 1966 to scare all those
girls?
>mogla menia slyshat'...". Those songs are special that way. If you had
>to teach a diletant physics, would you start with Newton's laws or would
>you include the Leibnitz corrections in the first lesson?
What are Leibnitz corrections? Is this special relativity?
If this will be course without strict requirements, I would start with
some application of Newton laws, to Newton's laws and so on. And there
will be no contradiction and counter-examples I mean nobody in the class
will give me counterexamples. And if they will, I will say: "Excelent,
you know this already."
Anyways, I am tired, I will go skiing tomorrow, and I think this thread
will die before Monday comes.
Yury
Zak May
> And thus you can not reject Dmitri's lirycs on this basis.
Dmitry did not sumbit his lyrics for publication in my production company.
He simply asked me to offer my *opinion* on them. You're making it sound
like I did something *immoral*, like - made fun of his poetry or told him
to give up the idea of writing fake rock songs in the future. I gave him
several general advices on songwriting. Now you're telling me that there
are people who don't follow those advices and succeed. What *difference*
does that make? Did I suddenly *monopolize* songwriting as a profession?
I'm doing an extensive, difficult and time-consuming job of expressing my
intuitive notions into easy-to-follow formulas, and _you are telling me I
shouldn't do that because they are not always applicable? Perfect, let's
pad them with footnotes, spend a couple of years on testing them and only
*then* publish them with a money-back guarantee to whoever can not have a
number one hit with them. Are you out of your mind?
> I don't know if there are songs which violate all you rules at once.
There might be. There is a lot of unexplainable stuff going on in any
branch of science. Does that make science obsolete? I don't think so.
> About Beatles: what recipes did they violate after 1966 to scare all those
> girls?
They made a natural and conscious decision of shifting their interests from
making easy money to developing pop-music into an *artform*. They were the
first who imagined such a thing possible. From the Rock point of view they
were the first who took control, they transformed themselves from pop-stars
with pretty faces into serious musicians. Of course their audience changed -
those poor girls thought that Paul *died* and was replaced by a look-alike,
and John lost his mind. It took the Beatles only several *months* (between
Rubber Soul and Revolver) to trade some lines like "I'd rather see you dead,
little girl, than to be with another man" for the lines like "Turn off your
mind, relax and float downstream" - of course it came as a shock to whoever
used to listene to them before.
> What are Leibnitz corrections? Is this special relativity?
Yeah.
> If this will be course without strict requirements, I would start with
> some application of Newton laws, to Newton's laws and so on.
That's what I did, isn't it? Only there's no study book stating the laws
for me to follow, and I do it on the spot.
> And there will be no contradiction and counter-examples I mean nobody
> in the class will give me counterexamples.
And if they will? Like, "what happens to those laws at the speeds close
to the speed of light?"
> And if they will, I will say: "Excelent, you know this already."
Cool - that's what I'll say to Mitya in case he has a comparable question.
Now - what do you do with a street punk who just happened to wander in on
the discussion, and had some smart ass questions, because he did not like
the teachers attitude? Do you start talking to *him*, ignoring the class?
Or do you try to brush him off, saying "That's the next lesson's material,
it's irrelevant to whatever we're discussing today - go ski or something"?
> Anyways, I am tired, I will go skiing tomorrow, and I think this thread
> will die before Monday comes.
Enjoy your skiing. This thread won't die before Monday - looks like we
got ourselves some new participants.
___
Zak.
Michael Stepanov
>Yury M. Mukharsky <muh@physics4> wrote:
>> The paragraph above explains reason of some 30% Beattle's song quite
>> precisely. For example: "Girl", "Michael", "I wanna ??? that girl", etc.
>
>
Probably, "Michael" means "Michelle", while "I wanna ??? that girl" came
from "I wanna hold your hand" and "You're gonna lose that girl"
Anyway, it's a funny way to think about early Beetles lirics. I
enjoyed the joke, Yury.
Misha
Michael Kagalenko
>
>> What are Leibnitz corrections? Is this special relativity?
>
>Yeah.
Hmm, is this Leibnitz bit example of Zak's "_Knowledge_" which is
absolute and infallible, or "_Faith_" which can be wrong ? ;/)
Igor Pankevich
>I promised to post my analysis of these lyrics.
>
>First - the general comments. Rock lyrics are different from traditional
>poetry in several aspects. The most important one - they are _rarely, if
>ever, abstract, most rock songs that I know are about sharing experiences.
Why then do you say that you want a song not to associate in any way
with its writer? You said you don't want anything personal to the
authors present in the song; if there is nothing like that there, how
can there be a sharing of experience?
>If a song is sincere (and I do not talk about the rest - that is Slavik's
>personal hobby), the experience it describes should've been strong enough
>to get the author to write the damn song. A ride in a bus doesn't really
>suffice, Tsoi's "Trolleybus" wasn't written because he rode a trolley bus
>once. That wouldn't be interesting to anybody but him and the song would
>have never become a hippie anthem it was some ten years ago.
>
Of course! :)
>Dmitri Manin <ma...@Csli.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>> Ty videla zvezdy?
>> -----------------
Interesting. Naumov has a great song called "Ya ne vizhu solntsa"...
No gender there!
>There you go cutting off half of your potential audience already.
>You can't have a gender in the name or in the chorus, Mitya. It
>
>However, none of those people have anything to do with Rock.
>What you really want is something like:
>
> Ja jedu v avtobuse, mesto riadom so mnoj -
> Pusto. My jedem, i shofior molchit ...
>
>you'd be on to something, because this is spooky, and thus - interesting.
>
That would be Naumov.
>> Skazhi, kogda my igrali v peske --
>> Ty videla zvezdy?
>
>I have to admit - this did make me laugh.
>
Vo-vo. A kogda my tantsevali na plyazhe, my v peske lyubili...
>> Veter rezhet glaza, zasypaet peskom
>> Ya kutayus' v sharf, otvorachivayu litso
>
>Nice. I would change "otvorachivaju" for "ja priachu" if I were you.
>
"Seichas ya odin, mne ne nuzhen nikto.
Ya v svoem odinochestve, kak v osennem pal'to.
Ono ukroet menya ot xolodnyx vetrov.
Nichto ne greet menya, i so vcherashnego dnya ya ne veryu v lyubov'"
(Yurii Naumov, "Ya ne zaktoyu svoyu dver'", 1982)
>> Ya mogu dvigat'sya dazhe polzkom
>> No mne nuzhno chtoby ty povernulas' ko mne
>
>No. Look:
>
> Zdes' dvigat'sa mozhno tol'ko polzkom,
> No mne nuzhno videt' tvojo litso.
>
"A ya mogu govorit' lish' togda, kogda ya - slovno vyzhatyi limon.
No esli ya tebe skazhu, chto ya lyublyu tebya,
Kak ne lyubil nikigda,
To eto pravda - ved' ya deistvitel'no
Ne lyubil nikogo nikogda - o, da!"
(tam zhe)
>
>Hope this helps.
>
:)
>___
>Zak.
>
--Igor
Dmitri Manin
>
>First - the general comments. Rock lyrics are different from traditional
>poetry in several aspects. The most important one - they are _rarely, if
>ever, abstract, most rock songs that I know are about sharing experiences.
>personal hobby), the experience it describes should've been strong enough
>to get the author to write the damn song. A ride in a bus doesn't really
>suffice, Tsoi's "Trolleybus" wasn't written because he rode a trolley bus
>once. That wouldn't be interesting to anybody but him and the song would
>have never become a hippie anthem it was some ten years ago.
That's a good point to continue with. But first of all, thanks for
technical remarks; you were right: I don't know shit about
songwriting. My primary goal in writing it was to demonstrate that
writing this sort of text is _simple_. It seems to me that I
succeeded. Misha said it's authentic. Peter thought that it was
"Trolleibus" that was a fake. A professional (you) caught me on some
inconsistensies, due to the fact that I'm completely unaware of
stylistic peculiarities and common connotations. (None of other
readers bothered to express an opinion, and that's a pity). But about
half of the text would pass even though I was basing on a very limited
sampling.
So it's simple. If you wonder why I think that it's important, let me
know, and we'll discuss that too.
Now let's get back to the point: A rock song should convey an
experience. I gladly agree; in my opinion, this applies to _any_ piece
of art. Does my excersise convey an experience? No, of course. (Well,
to write it I had to coerce myself in a specific state of mind:
something lost and bitter, so there definitely is a share of
sincerity, but its interest for general public is at least doubtful.)
Do previously posted examples convey their experiences? That's what I
strongly doubt. I don't think you can achieve this goal by plainly
stacking worn-out symbols.
Let's take "Trolleybus", as a tough example (I do feel some strength
in it)
Mojo mesto - sleva, i ja dolzhen tam sest',
(1. rok tyagoteet nad lyud'mi)
Ne pojmu, pochemu mne tak holodno zdes'.
(2. cheloveku neuyutno v etom mire)
Ja ne znakom s sosedom, hot' my vmeste uzh god,
(3. lyudi chuzhie drug drugu)
I my tonem, hotia kazhdyj znajet gde brod.
(<pustoi paradoks> na temu 1)
I kazhdyj s nadezhdoj gliadit v potolok
Trollejbusa, kotoryj idet na vostok,
Trollejbusa, kotoryj idet na vostok,
Trollejbusa, kotoryj...
Vse liudi - bratja, my - sed'maja voda,
(<pustoi paradoks> na temu 3)
I my jedem, ne znaju zachem i kuda.
(1)
etc., etc., etc... Skuchno. What sort of experience does this convey?
"I'm lost". That's it. How does it convey the experience? By repeating
dull and million times used metaphors. A metaphor a line. What's even
worse with rock texts I've seen, they are dead serious. I think it's
adolescence.
I honestly prefer this one:
My s toboi davno uzhe ne te
I ne zhivem delami greshnymi
Spim v teple,
Ne verim temnote
A shpagi na stenu povesheny
V nashei shkhune sdelali kafe
Pustili parus na <ne pomnyu chto>...
It's at least funny (and has an easy but powerful tune). Otherwise the
quality is _exactly_ the same. Grebenschikov's texts seem to stand out
due to some irony they possess (same goes with your "Khudaya korova",
even more so).
Do you disagree?
PS
>> "Kamennyi Most" 1990 (?)
>
>This gave you out. Nobody would call their band "Kamennyj Most", not
>when "Kalinov Most" was one of the most popular bands in that
>country.
If _this_ gave me out, I can think that I really succeeded.
--
- M
--------------------
| OFORMLENIE VITRINY |
Yury M. Mukharsky
<Yury M. Mukharsky <muh@physics4> wrote:
<> And thus you can not reject Dmitri's lirycs on this basis.
<
<Dmitry did not sumbit his lyrics for publication in my production company.
<He simply asked me to offer my *opinion* on them. You're making it sound
<like I did something *immoral*, like - made fun of his poetry or told him
<to give up the idea of writing fake rock songs in the future. I gave him
<several general advices on songwriting.
No, the question was: can you distinguish his texts from Tsoj's. You answered:
Yes you can , because of a, b and c. I said, b and c may be
correct, but a looks like a BS, because there is quite a few rock songs,
that violates a and became hits.
<> And if they will, I will say: "Excelent, you know this already."
<
<Cool - that's what I'll say to Mitya in case he has a comparable question.
<Now - what do you do with a street punk who just happened to wander in on
<the discussion, and had some smart ass questions, because he did not like
<the teachers attitude? Do you start talking to *him*, ignoring the class?
<Or do you try to brush him off, saying "That's the next lesson's material,
<it's irrelevant to whatever we're discussing today - go ski or something"?
So,you would say: "You are right, but this is the next lesson material." ?
Yury
Zak May
> So,you would say: "You are right, but this is the next lesson material." ?
Yes. You are right. This is the next lesson's material.
How was your ski trip, BTW?
___
Zak.
Misha Verbitsky
>In article <2ltg9b...@umbc8.umbc.edu> sav...@umbc.edu (Zak May) writes:
>Now let's get back to the point: A rock song should convey an
>experience.
This is usually an opinion of illiterati. Someone
completely un-versed in art would say that
the abstract art is worse than the Perov's
"Troyka" or any other thematic piece because
abstract art doesn't convey an experience.
In fact, whatever experience a piece of art
conveys, depends on recepient, not on
the artist. Try to explain what message
is conveyed by Chien d'Andalou or Kandinsky's
pictures.
>I gladly agree; in my opinion, this applies to _any_ piece
>of art. Does my excersise convey an experience? No, of course. (Well,
>to write it I had to coerce myself in a specific state of mind:
>something lost and bitter, so there definitely is a share of
>sincerity, but its interest for general public is at least doubtful.)
>Do previously posted examples convey their experiences? That's what I
>strongly doubt. I don't think you can achieve this goal by plainly
>stacking worn-out symbols.
You are trying to find a hidden message in
Trolleybus and certainly fail. This is because
you are looking for symbols where there are none
such. Your failure is quite pathetic, and the
whole "analysis" looks like a homework
on Evgenii Onegin by a 10-yrs old kid who
dislikes E. O. this much.
>Let's take "Trolleybus", as a tough example (I do feel some strength
>in it)
>
> Mojo mesto - sleva, i ja dolzhen tam sest',
>(1. rok tyagoteet nad lyud'mi)
Ridiculous!
> Ne pojmu, pochemu mne tak holodno zdes'.
>(2. cheloveku neuyutno v etom mire)
Pathetic!
> Ja ne znakom s sosedom, hot' my vmeste uzh god,
>(3. lyudi chuzhie drug drugu)
< etc >
> I my tonem, hotia kazhdyj znajet gde brod.
>(<pustoi paradoks> na temu 1)
>
> I kazhdyj s nadezhdoj gliadit v potolok
> Trollejbusa, kotoryj idet na vostok,
> Trollejbusa, kotoryj idet na vostok,
> Trollejbusa, kotoryj...
>
> Vse liudi - bratja, my - sed'maja voda,
>(<pustoi paradoks> na temu 3)
> I my jedem, ne znaju zachem i kuda.
>(1)
>etc., etc., etc... Skuchno. What sort of experience does this convey?
>"I'm lost". That's it. How does it convey the experience? By repeating
>dull and million times used metaphors. A metaphor a line. What's even
>worse with rock texts I've seen, they are dead serious. I think it's
>adolescence.
You are reading this and since your perception
is best adjusted to finding "metaphors" (a plague
of Soviet literature; I believe that a Soviet
poet who used "metaphors" after Olesha must
be castrated on place), and hidden symbols,
you are looking for such. If you look for
structuralist definition of metaphor (the only
one I am aware of), you'll see that there
are none in Tsoi's piece. Ditto for hidden symbols.
>I honestly prefer this one:
Naturally - it is the best adjusted for
your perception! Otherwise, the Adelung's piece
that you quoted is completely different from
Tsoi's, in aesthetics, intent and language alike.
This is natural: someone who didn't spend with
Chinese a lot of time will believe that all of them
look alike. Similarly, one who didn't listen
much to experimental music believes that it's
all the sound of frying pans (like Zak).
Like Zak with his frying pans, you are trying to relate
Trolleybus to something closer to your experience - which,
in fact, bears as much resemblance to Trolleybus
as the sound of frying pans.
>My s toboi davno uzhe ne te
>I ne zhivem delami greshnymi
>Spim v teple,
>Ne verim temnote
>A shpagi na stenu povesheny
>
>V nashei shkhune sdelali kafe
>Pustili parus na <ne pomnyu chto>...
na tumbu pushku iskoverkali
istrachen porokh feierverkami
na katafalk poshiol lafet
my s toboi ne te uzhe sovsem
i vse dorogi nam zakazany
spim v teple ne verim temnote
izbrali gorod vechnoi bazoyu <etc>
(I believe I still remember this shit in whole :)
>It's at least funny (and has an easy but powerful tune). Otherwise the
>quality is _exactly_ the same. Grebenschikov's texts seem to stand out
>due to some irony they possess (same goes with your "Khudaya korova",
>even more so).
In fact, Tsoi's songs bear a lot more
irony than BG's (his Eto Ne Lyubov' album is quite
more funny than Treugol'nik). You are not prepared
to hear it, because, as everything, to perceive irony
of something quite alien you must alter your perception
first.
Misha.
----------------------
The Death of Mary, Queen of
Scots from Monty Python's Flying Circus
(voice over) Number ninety-seven: a radio.
Radio Announcer: And now the BBC is proud to present a brand new radio drama
series, "The Death of Mary, Queen of Scots."
Part One: The Beginning.
(music)
Man's voice: Yoo arrr Mary, Queen of Scots?
Woman's voice: I am!
(sound of violent blows being dealt, things being smashed, awful crunching
noises, bones being broken, and other bodily harm being inflicted. All of
this accompanied by screaming from the woman.)
(music fades up and out)
Announcer: Stay tuned for part two of the Radio Four Production of "The Death
of Mary, Queen of Scots", coming up...almost immediately.
(music)
(sound of saw cutting, and other violent sounds as before, with the woman
screaming. Suddenly it is silent.)
Man's voice: I think she's dead.
Woman's voice: No I'm not!
(sounds of physical harm and screaming start again.)
(music fades up and out)
Announcer: that was episode two of "The Death of Mary, Queen of Scots",
specially adapted for radio by Gracie Fields and Joe Frazier. And
now, Radio Four will explode.
(music)
The radio explodes.
Yury M. Mukharsky
>Yury M. Mukharsky <muh@physics3> wrote:
>
>How was your ski trip, BTW?
Lousy. I forgot that that bloody ski resort has no night skiing on Sundays.
Yury
Zak May
> You said you don't want anything personal to the authors present in the song.
Not really - I said it won't be interesting if the author's personality
is too specific or too shallow.
> ...if there is nothing like that there, how can there be a sharing of
> experience?..
If there is too much of a personality, i.e. if it is too specific, there
won't be any sharing either. The whole thing is about finding the right
balance between "open" and "tactful". It's all about taste, really.
___
Zak.
Dmitri Manin
arrows on my left, at last we have a lively discussion.
In article <1994Mar14.1...@husc14.harvard.edu> ver...@kovalevskaia.harvard.edu (Misha Verbitsky) writes:
>In article <1994Mar14.1...@Csli.Stanford.EDU> ma...@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Dmitri Manin) writes:
>>In article <2ltg9b...@umbc8.umbc.edu> sav...@umbc.edu (Zak May) writes:
>
>>Now let's get back to the point: A rock song should convey an
>>experience.
>
> This is usually an opinion of illiterati.
[*whew* an arrowlet whistles by my ear in Zak's direction]
> Someone
> completely un-versed in art would say that
> the abstract art is worse than the Perov's
> "Troyka" or any other thematic piece because
> abstract art doesn't convey an experience.
Moi, I'd say that with abstract art it's much simpler. Artist
experiences beauty or pain or both, and conveys this experience. There
are complications, of course, when the artist pursues some technical
aims as well.
> In fact, whatever experience a piece of art
> conveys, depends on recepient, not on
> the artist.
It depends on the recipient _as well as_ on the author. And if you
wish to measure the degree of artist's success, you should take into
account whether the recipient gets the experience implied by the
author or not. Simply put, when you laugh not where author intended
you to, it's a miserable failure for the author.
>Try to explain what message
> is conveyed by Chien d'Andalou or Kandinsky's
> pictures.
See above. For Kandinsky, as far as I know his works, it's mostly
beauty: Sun, Light, sometimes The Way Things Work.
> You are trying to find a hidden message in
> Trolleybus and certainly fail.
Hidden? Why hidden? Just -- message. And now I know: Zak explained me.
> This is because
> you are looking for symbols where there are none
> such.
Oh really? A ya-to Zaku poveril, balda!
[.......]
> You are reading this and since your perception
> is best adjusted to finding "metaphors" (a plague
> of Soviet literature; I believe that a Soviet
> poet who used "metaphors" after Olesha must
> be castrated on place),
Poets should be pitied. Anyway, give me a single example of a (not
necessarily Soviet) poet (poem), not using metaphors. A definition of
metaphor would be handy, if you think that I misunderstand the term.
> and hidden symbols,
> you are looking for such. If you look for
> structuralist definition of metaphor (the only
> one I am aware of), you'll see that there
> are none in Tsoi's piece. Ditto for hidden symbols.
Honestly, I'd prefer to hear about what is there, rather than what
isn't. And, be so kind to explain me what this phrase _is_, if not
a literal account of an event and not a symbol/metaphor:
"I my tonem, hotia kazhdyj znajet gde brod."
> In fact, Tsoi's songs bear a lot more
> irony than BG's (his Eto Ne Lyubov' album is quite
> more funny than Treugol'nik). You are not prepared
> to hear it, because, as everything, to perceive irony
> of something quite alien you must alter your perception
> first.
I'm ready, and I want your help. I already asked Zak to point me out
to where irony is there in this text. It will be interesting to
compare your answers, if you bother to answer, of course.
>----------------------
> The Death of Mary, Queen of
And, as ever, thanks for great citations.
Zak May
>MV> You are trying to find a hidden message in
>MV> Trolleybus and certainly fail.
>
> Hidden? Why hidden? Just -- message. And now I know: Zak explained me.
Not true - I explained the meanings for some of the words that you would not
know otherwise. There's no hidden message - it's all obvious. *You* didn't
understand it, but it's obvious for us. It *is* a different culture, Mitya.
>MV> This is because you are looking for symbols where there are none such.
>
> Oh really? A ya-to Zaku poveril, balda!
Let's not confuse a "symbol" with a "word". Misha goes on to say:
>MV> If you look for structuralist definition of metaphor (the only one I am
>MV> aware of), you'll see that there are none in Tsoi's piece. Ditto for
>MV> hidden symbols.
Thank you.
___
Zak.
Dmitri Manin
>Dmitri Manin <ma...@Csli.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>MV> You are trying to find a hidden message in
>>MV> Trolleybus and certainly fail.
>>
>> Hidden? Why hidden? Just -- message. And now I know: Zak explained me.
>
>Not true - I explained the meanings for some of the words that you would not
>know otherwise. There's no hidden message - it's all obvious. *You* didn't
>understand it,
Zak, read my line you've just quoted, will you please?
>but it's obvious for us. It *is* a different culture, Mitya.
Did I ever argue? I'm willing to understand, but you seem to be unable
to believe it, you two. And you're wasting words explaining me that I
don't understand something instead of helping me to. Your analysis of
Trolleybus was really good, keep up to this standard.
>>MV> This is because you are looking for symbols where there are none such.
>>
>> Oh really? A ya-to Zaku poveril, balda!
>
>Let's not confuse a "symbol" with a "word".
Every word is a symbol. But I don't want to fall into
gzeigarnikovschina. If some phrase has a meaning not derivable from
the dictionary value of its constituent words, if to understand that
meaning you must possess some specific knowledge, then the phrase is
but a symbol. It refers to a meaning (external to it), rather than
contains a meaning (within). And that's exactly what you're talking
about, and that's exactly what all language arts are about.
> Misha goes on to say:
>
>>MV> If you look for structuralist definition of metaphor (the only one I am
>>MV> aware of), you'll see that there are none in Tsoi's piece. Ditto for
>>MV> hidden symbols.
>
>Thank you.
Thank you, too. But I've read this already. And I wrote something
after it. Perhaps you happened not to notice it somehow? Check it, be
so kind.
Peter V.Vorobieff
>Sure. Hi, I'm Zak. I'm the most open-minded person in this newsgroup.
S chela davnego khlad veet
V glaze palevyj ogon'
I pod nim - VELIKII KON'
Neobyatnyj ves' beleet
I VSE BOLEE RASTET
Skoro nebo oboymet
I pokoyniki s pokoyu
Strashnoy tyanutsya tolpoyu...
(see my earlier posts today for references)
--
Thus spake Kalmoth the Avenger, Kinsman of the Slain.
DISCLAIMER: All opinions expressed are neither mine nor
yours nor my employer's.
Zak May
> Zak, read my line you've just quoted, will you please?
I apologize. You said I explained the message to you. I hope you don't
really think so, I only explained some of the words. If you think I can
explain to you the meaning of a rock lyric - I can't. But I will answer
your direct questions. It's like sex education - I can't have an orgasm
for you, I can only tell you what the most popular way to _achieve it is.
> I'm willing to understand, but you seem to be unable to believe it, you two.
We don't *want* you to understand it *that* way, we want you to grok it.
Even if you know every notion of meaning for every word in a song, it's
still not enough to realize whatever I was talking about as "Absolut".
> Your analysis of Trolleybus was really good, keep up to this standard.
It was not an analysis, it was a set of hints. Please understand that.
I don't want Verbitsky to eat me alive here for rationalizing whatever
he calls "abstract art".
> Every word is a symbol. But I don't want to fall into gzeigarnikovschina.
Talking about words as symbols - what a beauty!
> If some phrase has a meaning not derivable from the dictionary value
> of its constituent words, if to understand that meaning you must possess
> some specific knowledge, then the phrase is but a symbol.
You're on a shaky ground here - you won't be able to define "dictionary".
> It refers to a meaning (external to it), rather than contains a meaning
> (within).
Yeah, but to uncover that meaning you have to grok it. You can't just
take whatever I say for granted, I'm definitely not going to "analyse"
all rock songs for you here, and you'll miss out on them unless you're
ready for them. Let us try again, on some BG song - you post whatever
you could get out of it, and I'll add something to that.
___
Zak.
Misha Verbitsky
>In article <1994Mar14.1...@husc14.harvard.edu> ver...@kovalevskaia.harvard.edu (Misha Verbitsky) writes:
>> Someone
>> completely un-versed in art would say that
>> the abstract art is worse than the Perov's
>> "Troyka" or any other thematic piece because
>> abstract art doesn't convey an experience.
>Moi, I'd say that with abstract art it's much simpler. Artist
>experiences beauty or pain or both, and conveys this experience. There
>are complications, of course, when the artist pursues some technical
>aims as well.
This is a generaic answer: everyone who lives
experiences beauty or pain or both. You can't
tell much in particular what some of artists
experience (Bunuel's Chien d'Andalou is a good
example, as well as anything by Khlebnikov,
Robert Fripp or John Cage).
>> In fact, whatever experience a piece of art
>> conveys, depends on recepient, not on
>> the artist.
>It depends on the recipient _as well as_ on the author. And if you
>wish to measure the degree of artist's success, you should take into
>account whether the recipient gets the experience implied by the
>author or not. Simply put, when you laugh not where author intended
>you to, it's a miserable failure for the author.
Bullshit. Many people were quite serious,
and created the art which is laughable.
Pretty anything written before say 1500
is un-intentionally funny. In fact, the
laugh is a most natural reaction to an alien
imagery. I can't see how someone can
read Nekrasov, Derzhavin or Kol'tsov without
laughing at their lack of finesse, low intelligence
and lack of education.
However, all three of them are genuises.
>>Try to explain what message
>> is conveyed by Chien d'Andalou or Kandinsky's
>> pictures.
>See above. For Kandinsky, as far as I know his works, it's mostly
>beauty: Sun, Light, sometimes The Way Things Work.
Bad guess. Explain me what you see in C. d'A
(a surrealist picture made by Bunuel and some other
Surrealist ca 1930; I think, it's the most important
movie ever made) or Rodchenko (not beauty, I hope :).
>> You are reading this and since your perception
>> is best adjusted to finding "metaphors" (a plague
>> of Soviet literature; I believe that a Soviet
>> poet who used "metaphors" after Olesha must
>> be castrated on place),
>Poets should be pitied. Anyway, give me a single example of a (not
>necessarily Soviet) poet (poem), not using metaphors. A definition of
>metaphor would be handy, if you think that I misunderstand the term.
Dyr byl shchil,
Ubeshchul
Scum <etc>
is a perfect example. However, "Neshchastnaya Koshka"
by Kharms is just as good, or, well, anything by Prigov
or Rubinshtein or Billy Bragg ( <chuckle> )
>Honestly, I'd prefer to hear about what is there, rather than what
>isn't. And, be so kind to explain me what this phrase _is_, if not
>a literal account of an event and not a symbol/metaphor:
>"I my tonem, hotia kazhdyj znajet gde brod."
It is a collection of words, pretty much like
dyr bul shchil. Don't try to find the hidden meaning
here. Next you'll find the hidden meaning in
"Kornelii Shnaps" (like, "shnaps" means the
plague of alcoholism in Russian villages).
>I'm ready, and I want your help. I already asked Zak to point me out
>to where irony is there in this text. It will be interesting to
>compare your answers, if you bother to answer, of course.
Irony is in intonation. Tsoi understands that
the serious intonation this text is sung doesn't
belong here; generic hippie-like pseudo-symbolic
is funny by itself. In early Tsoi's poetry, heroic
was synonymous to funny; later, he put emphasis
to this funny-ness by singing the ridiculous lyrics
with straight face. In pop-phase, he lost his irony,
so most of his songs from Gruppa Krovi and later
were pretty straight - no double identity
self-irony. So most people (naturally) like
this shit because they understand it better,
and Tsoi was forced (chiefly by his cult) to continue in
this vein untill be become completely ridiculous as a
male Alla Pugacheva and promptly died. A typical
Tsoi's lyrics of early period was like following
(a good fun is made from Yngwie Malmsteen hero-cult
wannabees like some on this newsgroup, by the way)
I want to dedicate this transcription to Vorobieff...
------------
Sasha lyubit knigi pro geroev i pro mest'
Sasha khochet byt' geroem, a on takoi i est'
Sasha nosit shlyapu, v shlyape strausinoe pero
On khvataet shpagu i tseplyaet eio pryamo na bedro.
CHORUS: Master slova i klinka
On glyadit v svoyu ladon'
On prishiol izdaleka
I proshiol cherez ogon'.
On deretsya na dueli, okhranyaya svoyu chest'
Shpagoi kolet on vraga i predlagaet emu sest'.
On gonyaet negodyaev khvorostinoi kak korov,
Sasha razdaiot krest'yanam negodyaiskoe dobro.
CHORUS.
On poet pod mandolinu i krasiv kak Appolon
Po latyni tak-zhe mozhet govorit' kak Tsitseron.
On ne znaet chto takoe nepristupnaya stena
Sasha vzglyadom na okhote ubivaet kabana.
CHORUS.
Damy bez uma ot Sashi, Sasha bez uma ot dam
Noch'yu on prikhodit k damam a vykhodit po utram.
Damy iz vysokikh okon brosayut lepestki
On borets za spravedlivost' i shagi ego legki.
CHORUS.
-----------------
I think it could be rightfully said that later Tsoi became
exactly the same sort of heroic-delusion-plagued songwriter
as the type he parodied in this song - the basic reason
for his wide popularity among, err, intellectually challenged.
Misha.
Yury M. Mukharsky
Dmitri Manin <ma...@Csli.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>gzeigarnikovschina. If some phrase has a meaning not derivable from
>the dictionary value of its constituent words, if to understand that
>meaning you must possess some specific knowledge, then the phrase is
>but a symbol. It refers to a meaning (external to it), rather than
>contains a meaning (within). And that's exactly what you're talking
>about, and that's exactly what all language arts are about.
Do you mean that real language art have to consist of phrases with
external meaning in them? Do you mean that this important/nessesary
for language arts? I don't think so. I think it's enough to put words
in unususal and "pleasant" way. It's not nessesary to code them.
Yury
Dmitri Manin
Well, it was an exaggeration. I spoke about symbols. There are also
metaphors, whose meaning is derivable, though by special techniques.
Metaphors and symbols are intertwined, and there are no boundaries, of
course. And when you're speaking about putting words "in an unusual
way", you mean just that: "so that the meaning is not derivable by the
generic procedure"
Misha Verbitsky
>Dmitri Manin <ma...@Csli.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>> So you agree that they are symbols, do you?
>Symbols are euphemisms. There are no euphemisms in that song.
Applause! What a beauty is that "Symbols are euphemisms"!
I strongly dislike the Gzeigarnik's
approach "everything is symbols" - thus,
completely devaluating the word "symbol".
Of course, words are meanings of communications,
just like, say, notes or rhythms or paints.
You wouldn't say that the note "re" or a cobalt blue
paint is a symbol unless you are a complete idiot.
Same for the words as used in most of decent poetry
(but not, of course, Voznesensky or Okudzhava
or 99% other of Soviet "intelligentsia" wankers).
Misha.
THE BATTLE OF THE ANTS
That is not which is.
The only Word is Silence.
The only Meaning of that Word is not.
Thoughts are false.
Fatherhood is unity disguised as duality.
Peace implies war.
Power implies war.
Harmony implies war.
Victory implies war.
Glory implies war.
Foundation implies war.
Alas! for the Kingdom wherein all these are at war.
- Aleister Crowley, The Book Of Lies, Chapter 5.
Zak May
> I'd still say that the meanings are external to words, and belong
> to the system (sub-culture).
Let's try another approach - those words mean the same things in our
everyday language as they do in our songs. Colloquial Russian isn't
any more native to me, than colloquial English. I don't know if you
notice, but I choose the language for my postings with the same ease
I choose the language for my programming projects or for the records
that I produce - not just written language - programming and musical
languages as well. Neither of them is the language in which I think
or talk to my brother Alex, for example. The meanings that we chose
to discuss are integral to that language - they are hardly "symbols".
> This is rather scholastic though, and I don't see the point in
> continuing.
I'd still prefer we reach an understanding, I've got a lot riding on it.
>DM> No way. By dictionary value of a word I mean connotations common to
>DM> all or most native speakers. "Water" definitely does not refer to
>DM> "music" for generic Russian speaker, even if he hears the word in a
>DM> rock song.
>
>ZM> Oh yeah? What does "manda" mean? Let's have a poll among the native
>ZM> speakers.
>
> I bet that all opinions will center around genital area. Anyway, I
> fail to see this as a counter-example. Care to explain?
The usage of the word "manda" has very little in common with its dictionary
meaning. In Russian conversational culture it has a very different meaning.
Still - everybody who uses it, understands it in the same way - its meaning
is inside of it and doesn't depend on the context. And I do not understand
why you still refer to Rock as "sub-culture" - that is contemporary Russian
culture for you. It was "sub-culture" _before Kino became the most popular
art outfit in the country, with millions of devoted followers to its name.
> 1. You state that the phrase "Moe mesto sleva, i ya dolzhen tam sest'"
> is not a direct account of an event.
It is a direct account of an event in Tsoi's spiritual life. That's
exactly how he thinks. That's the language he uses to describe that
dimension of his existence which is *higher* than your everyday type
of reality. I hope you understand.
> 2. You state that it is not a symbol, nor metaphor, nor euphemism.
That's right.
> That means that you can look in a dictionary, take meanings of all
> simple words it consists of, put them together, and get the meaning.
In a dictionary of Tsoi's internal language - yes.
> 3. The above two statements contradict each other.
Not anymore.
>DM> I asked you about "Musornyi Veter", why do you ignore it?
>
>ZM> Because I don't like it. It's negative.
>
> Do you miss out on an experience not liking it?
I grokked it. I didn't like it. I had my experience - I had a glimpse
of the guy's internal life. It wasn't a pleasant experience. I do not
feel comfortable talking about it.
> Besides negative, is it clever?
It's good songwriting. It does carry the point across.
> beautiful?
Beauty is always positive. Even punk beauty is positive. This is not beauty.
> funny?
From the devil's point of view - yes. I have a different point of view.
> Why did you post it?
Because the girl that sent it to me asked me to. She asked for all the
comments about it to be referred to her e:mail address. The address is
in the post.
What are we doing next?
___
Zak.
Dimitri Vulis, CUNY GC Math
>
>Let's try another approach - those words mean the same things in our
>everyday language as they do in our songs. Colloquial Russian isn't
>any more native to me, than colloquial English. I don't know if you
>notice, but I choose the language for my postings with the same ease
>I choose the language for my programming projects or for the records
>that I produce - not just written language - programming and musical
>languages as well. Neither of them is the language in which I think
>or talk to my brother Alex, for example.
Vladimir Kozlovskij kak-to davno vypustil knizhku --- "Slovar'
argo russkoj gomosekzual'noj subkul'tury" or some such.
Dimitri Vulis
CUNY GC Math
D...@CUNYVMS1.BITNET D...@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU
Disclaimer: my Usenet postings don't necessarily represent anyone's views,
especially my own and/or CUNY's.
gzeig...@vax.clarku.edu
> I strongly dislike the Gzeigarnik's
> approach "everything is symbols" - thus,
> completely devaluating the word "symbol".
Did I say that? Just curious.
> Of course, words are meanings of communications,
> just like, say, notes or rhythms or paints.
> You wouldn't say that the note "re" or a cobalt blue
> paint is a symbol unless you are a complete idiot.
Try to explain about 're' to Indian, or 'cobalt blue' to Old Greek.
Gz.
Dmitri Manin
ver...@kovalevskaia.harvard.edu (Misha Verbitsky) brought up several
interesting issues. As I like my postings short and clear, I'll tackle
it in more than one followup. So:
>In article <1994Mar15....@Csli.Stanford.EDU> ma...@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Dmitri Manin) writes:
>>Poets should be pitied. Anyway, give me a single example of a (not
>>necessarily Soviet) poet (poem), not using metaphors. A definition of
>>metaphor would be handy, if you think that I misunderstand the term.
>
> Dyr byl shchil,
> Ubeshchul
> Scum <etc>
>
> is a perfect example. However, "Neshchastnaya Koshka"
> by Kharms is just as good, or, well, anything by Prigov
> or Rubinshtein or Billy Bragg ( <chuckle> )
Fine. You beat me here. Neither of them use metaphors (dunno Billy
Bragg though). It's interesting therefore, what they do use. Let's
see.
"Dyr bul schir" is, in my understanding, no more (no less though) that
a technical experimentation. Many artists are very concerned with
developing techniques (extending language, building aesthetics),
especially in visual arts. This experiment by Kruchenykh is as
unique as Malevich's Black Square is: although it's more than easy to
repeat it, there's no point in repeating. It's message is not about
author's experience, it's a meta-message about the art itself.
Prigov's poetry is built upon misusing symbols. "Militsaner", for
example, is a mighty symbol: try substitute instead "Rabochii", which
is another symbol of the same system, but with different connotations.
"Symbol abuse" is the name of Prigov's game. It is closely related to
the children's nonsense poetry, and its goal is the same: to
establish our confidence in the proper order of things, through
laughing at the improper one. (You may laugh, and Prigov would
definitely laugh at this, but this is true.)
I think, it's generally the same with Kharms, especially taking into
account how seamless is the boundary between his works for kids and
grown-ups.
I'll have to think more about Rubinshtein. I like his poetry too much.
Dmitri Manin
>>MV> In fact, whatever experience a piece of art
>>MV> conveys, depends on recepient, not on
>>MV> the artist.
>
>DM>It depends on the recipient _as well as_ on the author. And if you
>DM>wish to measure the degree of artist's success, you should take into
>DM>account whether the recipient gets the experience implied by the
>DM>author or not. Simply put, when you laugh not where author intended
>DM>you to, it's a miserable failure for the author.
Or for the reader, should I have added.
> Bullshit. Many people were quite serious,
> and created the art which is laughable.
> Pretty anything written before say 1500
> is un-intentionally funny. In fact, the
> laugh is a most natural reaction to an alien
> imagery. I can't see how someone can
> read Nekrasov, Derzhavin or Kol'tsov without
> laughing at their lack of finesse, low intelligence
> and lack of education.
> However, all three of them are genuises.
A piece of art is a canned communication act -- that is what you're
denying. I still maintain that in the act of consuming art, as in a
communication act, both author and consumer should be acting in
accord. By denying that, by removing the author, you bring the piece
of art down to a level of a natural phenomenon. You percieve it as you
would percieve a sunset, a playful cat (hi Lilia), a rainworm. But it
is not a natural phenomenon (cf. art/artificial,
iskusstvo/iskusstvennyi), it's improper way to percieve it as such.
A while ago you said that by genius you mean a medium. Your position
would be consistent if you thought that the God is _the_ artist, and
you're taking _his_ messages in Nekrasov's verse and in sunset
equally. That's an interesting idea, and it implies that the man was
created as the spectator to the God's art, which is man's destiny.
Most probably it's been believed by somebody, but somehow I doubt that
it's your belief. Or is it?
Dmitri Manin
ver...@kovalevskaia.harvard.edu (Misha Verbitsky) writes:
[re Tsoi's "Trolleybus"]
>
> Irony is in intonation. Tsoi understands that
> the serious intonation this text is sung doesn't
> belong here; generic hippie-like pseudo-symbolic
> is funny by itself.
So you admit that he does employ some pre-existing symbolic system
("pseudo-" or not, doesn't matter). Irony can appear only as you are
pushing away, departing from something established. And to percieve
irony you must be thoroghly familiar with the establishment, because
the shift is subtle, and you may just not notice.
I had an impression (wrong, perhaps), that Zak's idea of irony in
this song was different. But anyway, you only confirmed the fact that
some well-established symbolic system is essential for this song.
Dmitri Manin
>
>The usage of the word "manda" has very little in common with its dictionary
>meaning. In Russian conversational culture it has a very different meaning.
>Still - everybody who uses it, understands it in the same way - its meaning
>is inside of it and doesn't depend on the context.
If you recall, that's just what I _defined_ as a dictionary value. Now
let's take a word whose meaning (a cloud of associations) _does_
depend on context (I mean, cultural context). "Voda". I prefer to say
that the cultural-context-dependent associations constitute its
symbolic content, and if you have them in mind when using the word,
you're using it symbolically. However if you're allergic to the word,
I don't insist on it. If you see what I mean, that's fine.
> And I do not understand
>why you still refer to Rock as "sub-culture" - that is contemporary Russian
>culture for you. It was "sub-culture" _before Kino became the most popular
>art outfit in the country, with millions of devoted followers to its
>name.
I didn't imply a derogatory or pejorative meaning. Just that it is a
part of the entire contemporary Russian culture.
>> 1. You state that the phrase "Moe mesto sleva, i ya dolzhen tam sest'"
>> is not a direct account of an event.
>
>It is a direct account of an event in Tsoi's spiritual life. That's
>exactly how he thinks. That's the language he uses to describe that
>dimension of his existence which is *higher* than your everyday type
>of reality. I hope you understand.
>
>> 2. You state that it is not a symbol, nor metaphor, nor euphemism.
>
>That's right.
>
>> That means that you can look in a dictionary, take meanings of all
>> simple words it consists of, put them together, and get the meaning.
>
>In a dictionary of Tsoi's internal language - yes.
Had it been _just_ Tsoi's internal language, you'd not understand it.
The whole point is that this language (symbolic system) is proprietary
to _a_ culture. It uses the same words as your everyday type of
language, but endows them (not literally words, of course, mostly)
with additional meaning.
>> 3. The above two statements contradict each other.
>
>Not anymore.
After you admit that this phrase is in a different language, or
symbolic system. Again, I don't insist on the word "symbol" if you
agree with the rest :)
>What are we doing next?
I'm not finished with Verbitsky yet.
victoria sukhanov
> I strongly dislike the Gzeigarnik's
> approach "everything is symbols" - thus,
> completely devaluating the word "symbol".
the term "real number"? Everything is symbols, no matter how we
like this, because every word appeals not only to its direct
meaning but also to many other. While a language becomes more
developed, each word acquires more and more symbols, until at
last everything becomes a symbol of everything and a new circle
starts.
> Same for the words as used in most of decent poetry
> (but not, of course, Voznesensky or Okudzhava
> or 99% other of Soviet "intelligentsia" wankers).
he uses BAD symbols. What about Okudjava - his poetry is not symbolic
at all. He has as few symbols as it is possible at all.
Here is an example of a very good poetry (you can disagree but at
least it is "decent") which consists only of symbols:
(Of course everybody knows it but if anyone doesn't - enjoy...)
BG, 197*
On slyshal ee imya, on jdal povtorenia
On brosli b ogon' vse, chego bylo ne jal'
On smotrel na sledy ee, jajdal vody ee,
Shel daleko v svete zvezdy ee
V paltsax ego sneg prevraschalsia v stal'
I on vstal u reki, chtob napitsia molchania
Smyt' s sebia vse i vnov' ostat'sia jivym
Chtoby golos naiti ee, v sumrak voiti ee,
Strannikom stat' v dolgom puti ee
V paltsax ego voda prevraschalas' v dym
I kogva ego den' konchilsia molcha i stranno
I koni ego vpervye ostalis' legki
To plamia svechei ee, koltsa kluchei ee,
Nejnyi kak noch' mramor plechei ee
Molcha legli v kamen ego ruki.
--------------------------------------
- Smirnov
Email: vlad...@rainbow.physics.utoronto.ca
Zak May
> ...let's take a word whose meaning (a cloud of associations) _does_
> depend on context (I mean, cultural context). "Voda". I prefer to say
> that the cultural-context-dependent associations constitute its
> symbolic content, and if you have them in mind when using the word,
No. When I hear "voda" in a rock song, it doesn't trigger a meaning
for me based on other songs I have heard. I re-discover its meaning,
its true meaning, its *primal* meaning for myself. "Voda" in a song
like "My pili etu chistuju vodu" is the same "voda" that the cavemen
knew - the source of life, the ultimate necessity, the purity itself.
They didn't know anything about its chemical content, about where it
comes from, about what it does to them - it had a supreme meaning as
simple and absolute as "solntse" and "noch'", those are the meanings
that we carry inside ourselves. But to let them out and give us the
pure experiences associated with them we need an outside trigger. A
rock song can be such a trigger. I gave you my literal translations
("music", "pure spirituality") to hint at those meanings. In no way
are they consize - they are but hints at the real thing. To have an
experience with the real thing you have to have an unprejudiced mind.
> However if you're allergic to the word, I don't insist on it.
It's not the word, it's this rational method of understanding that
you insist on - it does not work with art. Look - even Peter, the
master of rational thought, retracted to fuzzy logic already. You
are the only one, who is still hoping for a rational understanding.
> If you see what I mean, that's fine.
I see what you mean and it's not fine.
> Had it been _just_ Tsoi's internal language, you'd not understand it.
We all have the same internal language - we are all the same inside.
> The whole point is that this language (symbolic system) is proprietary
> to _a_ culture.
*The* culture, the human culture.
>ZM> What are we doing next?
>
> I'm not finished with Verbitsky yet.
I'm afraid he's finished with you though. What are we doing next?
___
Zak.
Dmitri Manin
>Dmitri Manin <ma...@Csli.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> "Voda" in a song
>like "My pili etu chistuju vodu" is the same "voda" that the cavemen
>knew - the source of life, the ultimate necessity, the purity itself.
>They didn't know anything about its chemical content, about where it
>comes from, about what it does to them - it had a supreme meaning as
>simple and absolute as "solntse" and "noch'", those are the meanings
>that we carry inside ourselves.
Wrong, Zak. "Solntse" does have a more or less absolute [:)] meaning,
as our day star. However its symbolic meaning is different in
different cultures. In Russian, it's "Krasno Solnyshko", goodness,
warmth, etc. In Near East and Mid-Asia (? Srednyaya Aziya), it's an
evil, all-drying, burning down, etc. "Moon" and "night" are goodness
for them.
You have to realize that rock culture is as foreign to me.
>> However if you're allergic to the word, I don't insist on it.
>
>It's not the word, it's this rational method of understanding that
>you insist on - it does not work with art. Look - even Peter, the
>master of rational thought, retracted to fuzzy logic already. You
>are the only one, who is still hoping for a rational understanding.
I do not imply rational understanding of rock songs, I'm not that
dumb. But discussing is a different deal. You can have either a
rational discussion, or mumbling, or singing. The latter is best,
admitted, but it's no substitution for the first. And I want to avoid
the second.
The outcome of a discussion for me is a better understanding of you,
and this in turn gives me grounds to approach rock songs. It's a
parasitic attitude, you see.
>> If you see what I mean, that's fine.
>
>I see what you mean and it's not fine.
You fine what I see, and that's mean.
>> Had it been _just_ Tsoi's internal language, you'd not understand it.
>
>We all have the same internal language - we are all the same inside.
All birches are the same. All birches are different.
"O esli by bez slov, dushoi skazat'sya bylo mozhno"
The fact that we're all the same inside makes it just possible to
communicate, but doesn't make it easy. Chinese are the same inside as
we are, so we can grok Chinese poetry or philosophy. We have, however,
to learn the language and something about the culture, first. Or have
it explained and translated by somebody (this is inferior, of course).
That's the role that you could play (and played, somewhat):
translator in this my encounter with rock. You hate this role, you
want me to learn Chinese.
>> The whole point is that this language (symbolic system) is proprietary
>> to _a_ culture.
>
>*The* culture, the human culture.
See above, the "Sun" example.
> What are we doing next?
What about irony in "Trolleybus"? Verbitsky answered, you didn't. Do
you agree with him?
Yury
>From: sav...@umbc.edu (Zak May)
>Subject: Re: More eternal truths uncovered
>Date: 18 Mar 1994 14:13:02 -0500
>Yury <m...@physics.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Yurik, mne sil'no ne nravitsa tvoj novyj metod uchastija v moih sporah.
>Ty podkapyvajesh'sia pod moju ideju, ne imeja dlia togo ni prichin, ni
>osnovanij. Ty prekrasno ponimajesh', chto *liubaja* ideja imejet svoi
>ogranichenija - ja ih opuskaju.
Ja pytajus' tebe skazat', chto tvoja ideja, chto "iznachal'noe" znachenie
slova "voda" sovpadaet s tvoim "vnutrennim" znacheniem - neverna. Ne to
chtoby ogranichena, a ne verna. Ili ogranichena uzkim krugom kul'tur. Skazhem
narodov, zhivuschih v pustune. Chem "voda" vedelena po sravneniju s "drova"?
Ili skazhem "les"?
> Ja _znaju, chto ne vsia voda chistaja.
>Ja _znaju, chto v Kazanove jest' slovo "zhenschina". Ja _znaju eto, i
>pri etom nahozhu vozmozhnym delat' opredelionnyje vyvody, obobschenija
>i sravnenija - ja tak mysliu.
Prekrasno. Dolzhen li ja vyrazhat' svoje mnenie tol'ko kogda "hod vashih
myslej mne nravitsja"? I esli da, to kakaja ot etogo pol'za?
>That's a bunch of bull. Marshes - yes, but nobody drinks from the marshes.
Nu i chto? My kazhetsja govorim o vode a ne o napitkah.
Yury
Misha Verbitsky
>In article <1994Mar15.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>
>ver...@kovalevskaia.harvard.edu (Misha Verbitsky) brought up several
>interesting issues. As I like my postings short and clear, I'll tackle
>it in more than one followup. So:
>
>>In article <1994Mar15....@Csli.Stanford.EDU> ma...@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Dmitri Manin) writes:
>>>Poets should be pitied. Anyway, give me a single example of a (not
>>>necessarily Soviet) poet (poem), not using metaphors. A definition of
>>>metaphor would be handy, if you think that I misunderstand the term.
>>
>> Dyr byl shchil,
>> Ubeshchul
>> Scum <etc>
>>
>> is a perfect example. However, "Neshchastnaya Koshka"
>> by Kharms is just as good, or, well, anything by Prigov
>> or Rubinshtein or Billy Bragg ( <chuckle> )
>
>Fine. You beat me here. Neither of them use metaphors (dunno Billy
>Bragg though). It's interesting therefore, what they do use. Let's
>see.
Billy Bragg is a joke: he is an English pseudo-KSP
songwriter of strong Maoist views who halfheartedly
rips off Mayakovsky together with Clash and generic
"protest music". Fun, though.
>Prigov's poetry is built upon misusing symbols. "Militsaner", for
>example, is a mighty symbol: try substitute instead "Rabochii", which
>is another symbol of the same system, but with different connotations.
>"Symbol abuse" is the name of Prigov's game. It is closely related to
>the children's nonsense poetry, and its goal is the same: to
>establish our confidence in the proper order of things, through
>laughing at the improper one. (You may laugh, and Prigov would
>definitely laugh at this, but this is true.)
I _do_ laugh.
Misha.
Misha Verbitsky
>In article <1994Mar15.1...@husc14.harvard.edu> ver...@kovalevskaia.harvard.edu (Misha Verbitsky) writes:
>
>>>MV> In fact, whatever experience a piece of art
>>>MV> conveys, depends on recepient, not on
>>>MV> the artist.
>I still maintain that in the act of consuming art, as in a
>communication act, both author and consumer should be acting in
>accord. By denying that, by removing the author, you bring the piece
>of art down to a level of a natural phenomenon. You percieve it as you
>would percieve a sunset, a playful cat (hi Lilia), a rainworm. But it
>is not a natural phenomenon (cf. art/artificial,
>iskusstvo/iskusstvennyi), it's improper way to percieve it as such.
>A while ago you said that by genius you mean a medium. Your position
>would be consistent if you thought that the God is _the_ artist, and
>you're taking _his_ messages in Nekrasov's verse and in sunset
>equally. That's an interesting idea, and it implies that the man was
>created as the spectator to the God's art, which is man's destiny.
>Most probably it's been believed by somebody, but somehow I doubt that
>it's your belief. Or is it?
This is an idea of Plato, and most Christian
theologists believe that the God is _the_
primary artist, and all other artists are
God's mouthpieces. The same was belief of
Blok, Pushkin and most Russian Silver Age
poets. However I don't subscribe to this
belief because I don't think God (assuming
He exists) cares enough of people to make
them his mouthpieces. Anyway, my own experience
of writing poetry tell me that the conscious
effort in writing is rather harmful. Many
people who wrote good poetry (typically: Coleridge,
Blok, Mandelshtam) did it in entranced state,
and the creation process happened on other than conscious
level. For example, I seem to be enable to rhyme two lines
correctly when I consciously try to do so, but while
properly readied and entranced I was often able
to write about ten pages of quite well rhymed
poetry in 40 minutes. Most interesting,
I have had no clear idea what I wrote, but
by re-reading I found that it was quite well
written. So I firmly believe that the creative
processes happen independently on verbalization,
and most often the verbalization (an active
effort in communication) is even harmful.
Misha.
Misha Verbitsky
>ver...@kovalevskaia.harvard.edu (Misha Verbitsky) writes:
>
>[re Tsoi's "Trolleybus"]
>>
>> Irony is in intonation. Tsoi understands that
>> the serious intonation this text is sung doesn't
>> belong here; generic hippie-like pseudo-symbolic
>> is funny by itself.
>So you admit that he does employ some pre-existing symbolic system
>("pseudo-" or not, doesn't matter). Irony can appear only as you are
>pushing away, departing from something established. And to percieve
>irony you must be thoroghly familiar with the establishment, because
>the shift is subtle, and you may just not notice.
Sure - the art is context-dependent. I don't
believe that outside of context the art has any
value. The value of art is in the eyes of beholder,
so one may assume that for an alien nothing of
the Earth art would have any value. With respect to
Tsoi's lyrics, your impression is similar to one of
the alien's.
Misha.
Yuri Pavlovich Ammosov
>In article <2mbf8i...@umbc9.umbc.edu> sav...@umbc.edu (Zak May) writes:
>>Dmitri Manin <ma...@Csli.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
>> "Voda" in a song
>>like "My pili etu chistuju vodu" is the same "voda" that the cavemen
>>knew - the source of life, the ultimate necessity, the purity itself.
>>They didn't know anything about its chemical content, about where it
>>comes from, about what it does to them - it had a supreme meaning as
>>simple and absolute as "solntse" and "noch'", those are the meanings
>>that we carry inside ourselves.
>
>Wrong, Zak. "Solntse" does have a more or less absolute [:)] meaning,
>as our day star. However its symbolic meaning is different in
>different cultures. In Russian, it's "Krasno Solnyshko", goodness,
>warmth, etc. In Near East and Mid-Asia (? Srednyaya Aziya), it's an
>evil, all-drying, burning down, etc.
For some reason, the local indigenous folks are of different opinion -
in the Arab/Muslim East, the highest praises were since Rudaki
'sun-like' and 'sun-faced'. ('solnzepodobnyi' and 'solnzelikiii'). If I
nkow right, this title is also part of the official name of Turkmen
President Sapamurad Turkmenbashi Niyazov Sun-like, Great leader of the
turkmens of the world. (a topic in se...)
"Moon" and "night" are goodness for them.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Again shows you hardly ever been in that climate. The daily temperature
gaps can exceed 50 K - i.e. night can be freezing cold (freezing means
below 32 F). And while they have Sun gods and Moon gods, this is not
because they liked (or feared) Sun - an old Atheistic fable of the XVIII
century. Various explanations are possible - compare late father Men and
old bezhbozhnik Bob Rybakov - but fear/adoration argument is ruled out.
Please understand this is just a correction - no personal offence meant.
Regards!
--
Stirlitz, alias Mad Cat
(known to some users as Yuri Ammosov)
Dmitri Manin
Hope it makes you happy.
Dmitri Manin
> so one may assume that for an alien nothing of
> the Earth art would have any value. With respect to
> Tsoi's lyrics, your impression is similar to one of
> the alien's.
Fine, we're finished with this one. Agreement is the product of
complete irresistance of the parties.
Michael Kagalenko
]osnovanij. Ty prekrasno ponimajesh', chto *liubaja* ideja imejet svoi
]Ja _znaju, chto v Kazanove jest' slovo "zhenschina". Ja _znaju eto, i
]pri etom nahozhu vozmozhnym delat' opredelionnyje vyvody, obobschenija
]kak Mishu Kagalenko pridetsa propuskat' - kak bessmyslennogo opponenta.
:^) I think, indeed, that voices in Zak's head make a lot more sense to
him then my articles. You're wimpy newbie, Zak; you're afraid of
being proved wrong. That's OK; exeprience on UseNet will cure your
phobias.
--
Michael
Squicking - because mind is terrible thing to waste
Zak May
> Ja pytajus' tebe skazat', chto tvoja ideja, chto "iznachal'noe" znachenie
> slova "voda" sovpadaet s tvoim "vnutrennim" znacheniem - neverna. Ne to
> chtoby ogranichena, a ne verna. Ili ogranichena uzkim krugom kul'tur. Skazhem
> narodov, zhivuschih v pustune.
Ty govorish' o kakom-to "spetsial'nom" znachenii - ja o boleje shirokom.
Davaj poprobujem jescho raz - predstav' sebe vodu. Zakroj glaza i tiho
predstav'. Vodu. Nu chto - uvidel bolota? Net? A chto zhe ty uvidel?
> Chem "voda" vedelena po sravneniju s "drova"? Ili skazhem "les"?
Delo ne v bytovoj neobhodimosti, delo v chistote i prostote. A "les" -
eto sovsem uzhe drugoj razgovor.
> Dolzhen li ja vyrazhat' svoje mnenie tol'ko kogda "hod vashih myslej mne
> nravitsja"?
Ni v kojem sluchaje - ja budu rad jesli ty menia oprovergnesh' ili
popravish' po suschestvu. Ne po melocham, po suschestvu. Ja tebe
obeschaju - kak tol'ko my sjedem s etoj temy, u tebia budut shansy.
___
Zak.
Yury
>Ty govorish' o kakom-to "spetsial'nom" znachenii - ja o boleje shirokom.
>Davaj poprobujem jescho raz - predstav' sebe vodu. Zakroj glaza i tiho
>predstav'. Vodu. Nu chto - uvidel bolota? Net? A chto zhe ty uvidel?
Eto zavisit ot kontexta: predpolzhim, chto ty upomjanul vodu i pescheru
rjadom: associacii:
Gidrocostjum 30 chasov podrjad, obveska vodopadov, pavodki...
S drugoj storony: poiski vody na poverhnosti, toplenie snega....
Nu i iz kazhdogo punkta cepochka.
>Ni v kojem sluchaje - ja budu rad jesli ty menia oprovergnesh' ili
>popravish' po suschestvu. Ne po melocham, po suschestvu. Ja tebe
>obeschaju - kak tol'ko my sjedem s etoj temy, u tebia budut shansy.
Zak, my tol'ko chto vstupili na territoriju na kotoroj u _tebja
chansov net. Esli ty govorish' o pod-jazyke roka, eto odno. Esli ty
govorish' o nekoem vseobschem vosprijatii vody, eto sovsem drugoe delo.
Davaj voz'mem dozhd'. Dozhd' eto prekrasno. Kogda on shumit za oknom.
Ili b'et v vetrovoe steklo. Vrochem posle togo kak ja razok ne vpisalsja
v povorot, u menja neskol'ko izmenilos' vosprijatie v etom kontexte.
Chache vsego net nichego horoshego v dozhde kogda ty vne
naselenki.
Ja konechno gorozhanin, no ja v svoe vremja bolee-menee serjazno turistil
i, nado polagat', imeju bolee blizkoe predstavlenie o "natural'nom"
vosprijatii vody.
Yury
Zak May
> Wrong, Zak.
Oh shit.
> "Solntse" does have a more or less absolute [:)] meaning, as our day star.
> However its symbolic meaning is different in different cultures.
Who cares? I'm talking about the primal meaning. Rock culture is
as close to anything "primal" as it can possibly get, just because
it developed as a merge of several cultures that did not have much
in common besides the very basic, "human", stuff. It crystallized
the original meanings for what was *lost* beyond the context-bound
cultures. When a band like "Yes", that is a monstrous combination
of African rhythms, Polynesian mythology, German chamber music and
Russian symphonic tradition, - when a band like that writes lyrics,
they write something like:
"Get the idea cross around the track,
Underneath the flank of a thoroughbred racing chaser.
Getting the feel as a river flows,
Would you like to go and shoot the mountain masses?
And here you stand no taller than the grass sees.
And should you really chase so hard?
The truth of sport plays rings around you,
Going for the One" (Jon Anderson, 1977)
- when they write something like that, they appeal to the original,
primal meanings of the words like: "chase", "grass", "one", etc. -
not their culture-bound castrated versions. Those are not symbols,
they are the real thing.
> You have to realize that rock culture is as foreign to me.
It's not more foreign to you than it is to the tens of millions
of non-English speaking people. They are just not afraid of it
as much as you seem to be, they don't necessarily associate the
drums with a military marching orchestra.
> I do not imply rational understanding of rock songs, I'm not that
> dumb. But discussing is a different deal. You can have either a
> rational discussion, or mumbling, or singing. The latter is best,
> admitted, but it's no substitution for the first. And I want to avoid
> the second.
Wherever logic fits, I use it. Wherever it doesn't - I ask for your
participation in experiencing the unexplainable. The only times you
get me to "mumble", is when you're being unreasonably stubborn, like
last week.
> The outcome of a discussion for me is a better understanding of you,
> and this in turn gives me grounds to approach rock songs. It's a
> parasitic attitude, you see.
Oh, I don't mind that. I don't think it's the most productive way
though - Tsoi, for one, is a much simpler person, really, it would
be easier for you to start with him, just like I suggested.
>DM> If you see what I mean, that's fine.
>
>ZM> I see what you mean and it's not fine.
>
> You fine what I see, and that's mean.
I'm fine - I see. And what's that that you mean?
> That's the role that you could play (and played, somewhat):
> translator in this my encounter with rock.
That's "Translator" and "Rock", thank you very much.
> You hate this role, you want me to learn Chinese.
We have people around, I don't want them to think that if I know
Chinese, I must have squinted eyes. I can have _any eyes I want.
> What about irony in "Trolleybus"? Verbitsky answered, you didn't.
He implies that although he has the power, he doesn't use it himself.
It's self-ironic. Verbitsky is talking of a higher irony - I do not
really intend to discuss that. He is talking of the irony of a rock
songwriter over the audience's pre-programmed expectations.
> Do you agree with him?
Do I have a choice? He's Verbitsky. You better agree with him yourself.
___
Zak.
Zak May
>ZM> Davaj poprobujem jescho raz - predstav' sebe vodu. Zakroj glaza i tiho
>ZM> predstav'. Vodu. Nu chto - uvidel bolota? Net? A chto zhe ty uvidel?
>
> Eto zavisit ot kontexta...
Ja ponimaju, ty - abstragirujsia ot konteksta. My zhe govorim o
vnutrennem - nastojaschem - ne isporchennom kontekstom znachenii.
> ... predpolzhim, chto ty upomjanul vodu i pescheru rjadom...
Ty kogda sebe menia sejchas v razgovore predtsavliajesh' - ty
znajesh' gde ja nahozhus'? Vo chto ja odet? Tebia eto vriad
li volnujet, ty menia predstavliajesh' abstraktno. Vot tak i
vodu predstav' - bez assotsiatsij, bez nichego - samu vodu.
> Nu i iz kazhdogo punkta cepochka.
Tsepochka u tebia - tvoja sobstvennaja. No gde-to vnutri tebia
jest' poniatije o vode kak takovoj. Otkopaj jego - bud' drugom.
> Davaj voz'mem dozhd'. Dozhd' eto prekrasno. Kogda on shumit za oknom.
> Ili b'et v vetrovoe steklo. Vrochem posle togo kak ja razok ne vpisalsja
> v povorot, u menja neskol'ko izmenilos' vosprijatie v etom kontexte.
Eto *ty* ne vpisalsia v povorot. Ty sviazyvajesh' dozhd' so *svoimi*
vospominanijami i perezhivanijami - zachem? Dozhd', on dozhd'i jest'.
On dazhe ne mokryj sam po sebe.
> Ja konechno gorozhanin, no ja v svoe vremja bolee-menee serjazno turistil
> i, nado polagat', imeju bolee blizkoe predstavlenie o "natural'nom"
> vosprijatii vody.
Turizm - eto otdel'naja kul'tura. My govorim o vnekul'turnom vosprijatii.
Kstati, ja chempion Voroshilovgradskoj oblasti po sportivnomu orijentirovaniju.
Ne to, chtoby eto imelo kakoje-to znachenije, no - *meriatsa* nam bessmyslenno.
___
Zak.
Yury
>Yury <m...@physics.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Ty kogda sebe menia sejchas v razgovore predtsavliajesh' - ty
>znajesh' gde ja nahozhus'? Vo chto ja odet? Tebia eto vriad
>li volnujet, ty menia predstavliajesh' abstraktno. Vot tak i
>vodu predstav' - bez assotsiatsij, bez nichego - samu vodu.
Dlja menja ponjatie eto sovokupnost' svoijstv. Kak zhe ja mogu ego
predstavit' bez etih svoistv?
>> Nu i iz kazhdogo punkta cepochka.
>Tsepochka u tebia - tvoja sobstvennaja. No gde-to vnutri tebia
>jest' poniatije o vode kak takovoj. Otkopaj jego - bud' drugom.
Otkuda ty znaesh' chto est'? V konce koncov est' zhe prichina tomu, chto
rock voznik kak anglojazychnaja kul'tura. Ne mozhet li otsjuda sledovat',
chto jazyk rocka ne est' nekij edinyj, iskonnyj, pervoistochnyj jazyk,
a vse zhe tesno svjazan s Anglijskim.
>Turizm - eto otdel'naja kul'tura. My govorim o vnekul'turnom vosprijatii.
Ja ne govorju o kul'ture turisma, ja govorju o turizme kak o slabom
priblizhenii k obrazu zhizni peschernogo cheloveka, iz kotorogo ty pytaesh'a
vyvesti iskonnoe znacheje slov. Ja tebe govorju, chto moje vosprijatie
dozhdja i vody stalo dal'she ot tvoego.
Navernoje esli ty hoche' poluchit' vosprijatie obrazov, ne zamutnennoe kul'
turoj, nado skoree smotret' na fol'klor. Kotoryj u raznyh narodov imeet mnogo
obschego. No eto obschee daleko ne vsegda sovpadaet s rock-obrazami. IMHO,
kak
ne specialista. Tvoe zhe vosprijatie mne kazhetsja ne "osvobozhdennym" ot
kul'tury, a skoree chisto prodictovannym kul'turoj.
>Kstati, ja chempion Voroshilovgradskoj oblasti po sportivnomu orijentirovaniju.
>Ne to, chtoby eto imelo kakoje-to znachenije, no - *meriatsa* nam bessmyslenno.
Ne govorja o tom chto sportivnoje orientorovanie imeet esche men'she
obschego s tem, chto ja uslovno nazovu "natural'noj zhizn'ju" i "natural'
nymi obrazami" chem turism.
Yury
Zak May
> Dlja menja ponjatie eto sovokupnost' svoijstv. Kak zhe ja mogu ego
> predstavit' bez etih svoistv?
Ja ne znaju, kak eto objasnit'. Ja znaju, chto ja eto umeju
i eto prekrasno. Kogda u tebia ne taschitsa tsepochka kakih-
nibud' glupyh assotsiatsij, ty chuvstvujesh' vsio kak pervyj
raz - kak rebionok, jebi jego mat'.
> Otkuda ty znaesh' chto est'?
U menia - jest'. Chem ty huzhe?
> V konce koncov est' zhe prichina tomu, chto rock voznik kak
> anglojazychnaja kul'tura.
Prichina prostaja - torgovlia rabami. Do togo belyje s chernymi
vmeste ne zhili i opytom obmenivalis' dovol'no ogranichenno. Ne
v tom delo, chto jazyk anglijskij - Santana, King Crimson, i kto
hochesh' peli na raznyh neponiatnyh nikomu jazykah.
> Ne mozhet li otsjuda sledovat', chto jazyk rocka ne est' nekij
> edinyj, iskonnyj, pervoistochnyj jazyk, a vse zhe tesno svjazan
> s Anglijskim.
Kakim anglijskim? Smiths i Snoop Doogie Dog pojut na sovershenno
raznyh jazykah i ponimajut drug druga s trudom. Cocteau Twins, k
primeru, pojut voobsche na takom anglijskom, chto ih *nikto* i ne
ponimajet. Ne v jazyke delo, pover' mne.
> Ja ne govorju o kul'ture turisma, ja govorju o turizme kak o slabom
> priblizhenii k obrazu zhizni peschernogo cheloveka, iz kotorogo ty pytaesh'a
> vyvesti iskonnoe znacheje slov. Ja tebe govorju, chto moje vosprijatie
> dozhdja i vody stalo dal'she ot tvoego.
Turizm - eto kogda riukzak davit i merzkije pesni pojutsa.
Kakoje uzh tut vam chistoje vosprijatije. Eto - kul'tura.
> Navernoje esli ty hoche' poluchit' vosprijatie obrazov, ne zamutnennoe kul'
> turoj, nado skoree smotret' na fol'klor. Kotoryj u raznyh narodov imeet mnogo
> obschego.
Pravil'no.
> No eto obschee daleko ne vsegda sovpadaet s rock-obrazami.
Dovol'no-taki chasto. Rock - eto tot zhe fol'klor, bud' on chernyj
(Parliament), anglijskij (Jethro Tull), slovenskij (Laibach) ili, k
primeru, chukotskij (Tsoi).
> Tvoe zhe vosprijatie mne kazhetsja ne "osvobozhdennym" ot kul'tury,
> a skoree chisto prodictovannym kul'turoj.
Nu kakaja u menia kul'tura? Posmotri na menia...
___
Zak.
Yulik
ver...@coolidge.harvard.edu (Misha Verbitsky) writes:
|> The value of art is in the eyes of beholder,
|> so one may assume that for an alien nothing of
|> the Earth art would have any value. With respect to
|> Tsoi's lyrics, your impression is similar to one of
|> the alien's.
That returns everything to the only reasonable question
to ask - why Mitya Manin is alienated with respect to
Tsoj's songs? What prevents him from joining the million
crowd of enthusiastic listeners... Apparently not the
prejudices or unwillingness to apprehend any new aesthetics
or any such. The thresholds of intelligent mind - but any
factory worker brought up on `Rabochij polden'' in music
or `Pisateli u mikrophona' in literature doesn't like
anything of the rock subculture; his heart trembles though
when reading Proskurin. Any piece of shit becomes a piece
of art immediately when it resonates with anyone's heart,
and after that all talks about the purity of the channel,
or about its superiority to other ones are senseless.
The only thing to discuss - utterly intersting though -
is *why* this or that brand of write-here-your-favorite-
target prefers Le Carre to Gil'gamesh and not inversely.
Of course the matter is most suitable for investigation
when it's dead... That explains, partly, the special
cruelty of cultural discussions...
Yury
>No. When I hear "voda" in a rock song, it doesn't trigger a meaning
>for me based on other songs I have heard. I re-discover its meaning,
>its true meaning, its *primal* meaning for myself. "Voda" in a song
>like "My pili etu chistuju vodu" is the same "voda" that the cavemen
>knew - the source of life, the ultimate necessity, the purity itself.
...and deep water of the river to be afarid of, and the marshes, and
salty, undrinkable water sometimes and .... To cavemen water as anything
else was not something entirely positive. Nothing was always positive.
It's only for the modern man, sitting in the appartment with internal
plumbing, with pure, sterilized water, the dream of _the_ _water_ is
something entirely positive. For cavemen or eskimo or fishermen or sailor
it has plenty of different connotations. I guess he would laugh at you
if you will say that "water is purity itself".
Yury
Zak May
> ...and deep water of the river to be afarid of, and the marshes, and
> salty, undrinkable water sometimes and .... To cavemen water as anything
> else was not something entirely positive. Nothing was always positive.
Yurik, mne sil'no ne nravitsa tvoj novyj metod uchastija v moih sporah.
Ty podkapyvajesh'sia pod moju ideju, ne imeja dlia togo ni prichin, ni
osnovanij. Ty prekrasno ponimajesh', chto *liubaja* ideja imejet svoi
ogranichenija - ja ih opuskaju. Ja _znaju, chto ne vsia voda chistaja.
Ja _znaju, chto v Kazanove jest' slovo "zhenschina". Ja _znaju eto, i
pri etom nahozhu vozmozhnym delat' opredelionnyje vyvody, obobschenija
i sravnenija - ja tak mysliu. Privykni i _rasslab'sia, a to mne tebia
kak Mishu Kagalenko pridetsa propuskat' - kak bessmyslennogo opponenta.
> It's only for the modern man, sitting in the appartment with internal
> plumbing, with pure, sterilized water, the dream of _the_ _water_ is
> something entirely positive.
That's a bunch of bull. Marshes - yes, but nobody drinks from the marshes.
As for the purifying - the "modern man" purifies whatever he polluted that
water with. And _sea water is just as irrelevant here, as urine and vodka.
Let's not go through this again.
___
Zak.
Misha Verbitsky
Our common friend Katya Amerik called this song
"pesnya pro _dy_ _eio_". I think that this song
is quite hilaroius because of all this cheesy
pseudo-symbolism used. Not unlike Prigov's
Militsaner cycle. Learn to distinguish between
the symbols (which are, as Zak correctly put,
euphemisms) and symbolics (swastika is an
element of Nazi symbolic, but for many people
it is an element of ornament; other people
(indistrial rock musicians, for example)
extensively use swastika to point out on similarity
between Nazi mindset and, say, the capitalist
"common sense", or whatever they don't like at the
given moment. Prigov uses Pushkin and Militsaner
as a clever put on of the predominant mentality.
In fact, the psychology and, more importantly,
perception of most people is dominated by mythology and
the symbolism. Nazis, as well as the modern brainwashing
media used the symbols to control audience. Thus, the bad
artist (a slave of the control machine) employ symbols
and decent (subversive, deviant) artist subverts symbolics
and destroys the symbols that symbnolic carries. This is
actually what Prigov and modern Russian rock musicians did
with symbols. By the way, questioning and destruction
of symbols and the control machine in whole
is the major declared aim of so-called "industrial
music" and in a sense the same could be
applied to the art in whole. To use
the title of _Death_ _In_ _June_ CD,
"...But what remains when the symbols shatter?.."
I mean, you cannot be free as long as you
react to the symbolics in the way
the culture is accustomed to, so the free
artist does not use symbols except in a destructive
(re: Militsaner, Pushkin of Prigov, etc) way.
Misha.
Cheshira
: >are the only one, who is still hoping for a rational understanding.
I'm too. What is it all discussion about ?
--
Cheshira,
berys' za um.
Yury
>From: sav...@umbc.edu (Zak May)
>U menia - jest'. Chem ty huzhe?
Otkuda ty znaesh' chto to, chto u tebja est' - universal'no?
<Prichina prostaja - torgovlia rabami. Do togo belyje s chernymi
<vmeste ne zhili i opytom obmenivalis' dovol'no ogranichenno. Ne
<v tom delo, chto jazyk anglijskij - Santana, King Crimson, i kto
<hochesh' peli na raznyh neponiatnyh nikomu jazykah.
A chto neobhodimo imenno takoe smeshenie cvetov? Kak naschet belyh i
inejcev? Kak naschet Evropejcev i asiatov. Skazhem v Rossii? Kak naschet
francuzev i Alzhircev, Africanerov s Anglichanami i negrov? Malo primerov?
>Kakim anglijskim? Smiths i Snoop Doogie Dog pojut na sovershenno
>raznyh jazykah i ponimajut drug druga s trudom. Cocteau Twins, k
>primeru, pojut voobsche na takom anglijskom, chto ih *nikto* i ne
>ponimajet. Ne v jazyke delo, pover' mne.
Ehh? Kak zhe naschet "edinogo iznachal'nogo"?
Kstati, u menja bylo (i est') vpechatlenie chto Anglijskij Rock
"bol'she" americanskogo.
>Turizm - eto kogda riukzak davit i merzkije pesni pojutsa.
>Kakoje uzh tut vam chistoje vosprijatije. Eto - kul'tura.
Eto tvoje vosprijatije turisma. Ja vprochim im tozhe pol'zovalsja, no vsegda
kak rugatel'stvom. Tipa "tu-urist tvoju mat'".
>Nu kakaja u menia kul'tura? Posmotri na menia...
Kakaja-nikakaja, a kul'tura.
Nu vse. Ja poshel v gnezdo. A poskol'ku zavtra ja uletaju, a potom uezzhaju,
a potom priedu i nazhmu "c" v otchajanji, to eta nitka na tom i pomret.
Yury
victoria sukhanov
>(victoria sukhanov), but in fact it is Vladimir Smirnov writes:
I hope they will validate my account on Nyx soon.
>> (BG's "Steel" quoted)
> Our common friend Katya Amerik called this song
> "pesnya pro _dy_ _eio_". I think that this song
Katya "tudy ee, siudy ee" Amerik...:)
> . Learn to distinguish between
> the symbols (which are, as Zak correctly put,
> euphemisms) and symbolics
What's the difference?! Oh I see: you mean that "symbols" are Freudian
symbols. But the same may be applied to "symbolics" as well. Anyway it
is a terminological question. I mean all symbols, including Freudian.
> Thus, the bad
> artist (a slave of the control machine) employ symbols
> and decent (subversive, deviant) artist subverts symbolics
> and destroys the symbols that symbnolic carries. This is
> actually what Prigov and modern Russian rock musicians did
> with symbols.
Prigov cannot destroy symbols. What he does is he attaches a new symbol
(ironic) to the old one, which contradicts it and thus partly destroys it.
That is what I said: "slovo obrastaet simvolami". In fact, Prigov just
feeds on Soviet symbolics, like a virus who destroys his host but cannot
live without him. He appeals to notorious "Sovok mentality", he needs it.
Unlike BG, who resurrects primary symbols which only are worth to exist.
Like in "Stal'": water carries the symbolisc of cleanness, of music,
of woman - all primary symbols, while for Prigov it might be chlorined
water in a washroom, or the thing "kotoruu liut na sobraniiax".
Both are important, of course, the resurrestor and the exterminator.
> "...But what remains when the symbols shatter?.."
> I mean, you cannot be free as long as you
> react to the symbolics in the way
> the culture is accustomed to, so the free
> artist does not use symbols except in a destructive
> (re: Militsaner, Pushkin of Prigov, etc) way.
You CANNOT be free of symbols. This "a rose is a rose is a rose"
doesn't work. Maybe it was so for Adam when he saw a rose first time.
After Eve appeared and he gave her a rose, it is not only a rose
any more. A free artist does not destroy symbols (except Prigov and
this part of "avangard" he belongs to), he creates his own world
with its system of values. The artist who only destroys expires soon
after it is destroyed (Nekrasov (partly), Maiakovsky etc) The same fate
awaits Prigov.
>
> Misha.
- Smirnov
Misha Verbitsky
>In article <1994Mar18.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>,
>ver...@coolidge.harvard.edu (Misha Verbitsky) writes:
>
>|> The value of art is in the eyes of beholder,
>|> so one may assume that for an alien nothing of
>|> the Earth art would have any value. With respect to
>|> Tsoi's lyrics, your impression is similar to one of
>|> the alien's.
>
>That returns everything to the only reasonable question
>to ask - why Mitya Manin is alienated with respect to
>Tsoj's songs? What prevents him from joining the million
>crowd of enthusiastic listeners...
He is too smart to appreciate people
with low IQ (I _am_ sincere). Of course
IQ shows nothing (as any US mathematician
must know by now, or ask Marilyn). To be exact,
IQ shows the degree of how someone is conditioned
by cultural establishment. PTU students have
low IQ not because they are dumb, but because
they are differently conditioned. Tsoi was PTU
student.
>Apparently not the
>prejudices or unwillingness to apprehend any new aesthetics
>or any such. The thresholds of intelligent mind - but any
>factory worker brought up on `Rabochij polden'' in music
>or `Pisateli u mikrophona' in literature doesn't like
>anything of the rock subculture; his heart trembles though
>when reading Proskurin. Any piece of shit becomes a piece
>of art immediately when it resonates with anyone's heart,
>and after that all talks about the purity of the channel,
>or about its superiority to other ones are senseless.
Fully agree. There are no objective criteria;
only totalitarianists believe that they are.
>The only thing to discuss - utterly intersting though -
>is *why* this or that brand of write-here-your-favorite-
>target prefers Le Carre to Gil'gamesh and not inversely.
>Of course the matter is most suitable for investigation
>when it's dead... That explains, partly, the special
>cruelty of cultural discussions...
Definitely.
Misha.
GP: Is Eris true?
M2: Everything is true.
GP: Even false things?
M2: Even false things are true.
GP: How can that be?
M2: I don't know man, I didn't do it.
GP: Why do you deal with so many negatives?
M2: To dissolve them.
GP: Will you develop that point?
M2: No.
_Principia_ _Discordia_
Zak May
> IQ shows the degree of how someone is conditioned by cultural establishment.
That would mean it should change with time. I don't think it does.
I always thought it had more to do with potential brain power (all
IQ tests are based on pattern-recognition, number-crunching, speed
and amount of "operating memory" access, etc).
> There are no objective criteria; only totalitarianists believe that they are.
And you, Mr. Sweeping Generalisations From Hell, are not a totalitarianist?
> _Principia_ _Discordia_
What's that?
___
Zak.
Dmitri Manin
>
>>I still maintain that in the act of consuming art, as in a
>>communication act, both author and consumer should be acting in
>>accord. By denying that, by removing the author, you bring the piece
>>of art down to a level of a natural phenomenon. You percieve it as you
>>would percieve a sunset, a playful cat (hi Lilia), a rainworm. But it
>>is not a natural phenomenon (cf. art/artificial,
>>iskusstvo/iskusstvennyi), it's improper way to percieve it as such.
>>equally. That's an interesting idea, and it implies that the man was
>>created as the spectator to the God's art, which is man's destiny.
>
> This is an idea of Plato, and most Christian
> theologists believe that the God is _the_
> primary artist, and all other artists are
> God's mouthpieces. The same was belief of
> Blok, Pushkin and most Russian Silver Age
> poets.
Of course it's a rather common belief. I emphasized another twist
that's not so common, perhaps, namely that the Man has been created
for the purpose of being the Spectator to the God's Art.
However I don't subscribe to this
> belief because I don't think God (assuming
> He exists) cares enough of people to make
> them his mouthpieces.
An artist cares for having an audience. And if he can create it as he
wishes, he'll endow spectators with creativity akin to his own, for
them to be able to appreciate his art :)
Anyway, my own experience
> of writing poetry tell me that the conscious
> effort in writing is rather harmful. Many
> people who wrote good poetry (typically: Coleridge,
> Blok, Mandelshtam) did it in entranced state,
What about Nekrasov though? In absense of evidence, I'd be confident
that his poetry is rather rational and constructed. But you call him
genius?
> and the creation process happened on other than conscious
> level. For example, I seem to be enable to rhyme two lines
> correctly when I consciously try to do so, but while
> properly readied and entranced I was often able
> to write about ten pages of quite well rhymed
> poetry in 40 minutes. Most interesting,
> I have had no clear idea what I wrote, but
> by re-reading I found that it was quite well
> written.
Yes, I know the feeling too, and I know that for many a creative mind
it's a primary source of religious feeling. Not for me, though.
So I firmly believe that the creative
> processes happen independently on verbalization,
I tend to agree here, for all I know.
> and most often the verbalization (an active
> effort in communication) is even harmful.
When you jerk your hand off a hot teapot, there is no conscious effort
to avoid harm. The goal is however just that. If language arts were
not communication acts, why use language then? Why share it with
Dmitri Manin
> media used the symbols to control audience. Thus, the bad
> artist (a slave of the control machine) employ symbols
> and decent (subversive, deviant) artist subverts symbolics
> and destroys the symbols that symbnolic carries. This is
> actually what Prigov and modern Russian rock musicians did
> with symbols.
> I mean, you cannot be free as long as you
> react to the symbolics in the way
> the culture is accustomed to, so the free
> artist does not use symbols except in a destructive
> (re: Militsaner, Pushkin of Prigov, etc) way.
That's an illusion of freedom, but actually another kind of slavery.
Taking Prigov again, he does inflate symbols until they blow up, but
that's about all he does (note: I like Prigov). Dwelling on destroying
symbols, the poet does not _serve_ the control machine, but in a
higher sense he is intrinsically bound to the very symbol system he
destroys. To be free (if it makes sense to pose such a goal, which I
doubt), one should try to avoid the angst of the day, and deal with
the eternal.
Misha Verbitsky
>Misha Verbitsky <ver...@brauer.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> IQ shows the degree of how someone is conditioned by cultural establishment.
>That would mean it should change with time. I don't think it does.
>I always thought it had more to do with potential brain power (all
>IQ tests are based on pattern-recognition, number-crunching, speed
>and amount of "operating memory" access, etc).
Read sci.math, I believe that it needs a new chapter
in FAQ on Marilyn vos Savant and IQ tests. About
20% of traffic here is constantly given to this
subject. Consensus seems to agree with my assertion.
>> There are no objective criteria; only
>> totalitarianists believe that they are.
>And you, Mr. Sweeping Generalisations From Hell, are not a totalitarianist?
No, I don't believe in objective perception
or recognition and object violently when people
say that there are objective criteria in art or science.
By my own definition (see above), I am not a totalitarianist.
(Zak was quoting my sigmature)
>> _Principia_ _Discordia_
>What's that?
read alt.discordia or (better) the newsgroup
called junk. What is the sound of one hand clapping?
Fnord.
CAVIAR
The Word was uttered: the One exploded into one
thousand million worlds.
Each world contained a thousand million spheres.
Each sphere contained a thousand million planes.
Each plane contained a thousand million stars.
Each star contained a many thousand million things.
Of these the reasoner took six, and, preening, said:
This is the One and the All.
These six the Adept harmonised, and said: This is the
Heart of the One and the All.
These six were destroyed by the Master of the
Temple; and he spake not.
The Ash thereof was burnt up by the Magus into
The Word.
Of all this did the Ipsissimus know Nothing.
Aleister Crowley, Book of Lies, Chapter 6
Dmitri Manin
>Dmitri Manin <ma...@Csli.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
> Underneath the flank of a thoroughbred racing chaser.
> Getting the feel as a river flows,
> Would you like to go and shoot the mountain masses?
> And here you stand no taller than the grass sees.
> And should you really chase so hard?
> The truth of sport plays rings around you,
> Going for the One" (Jon Anderson, 1977)
>
>- when they write something like that, they appeal to the original,
>primal meanings of the words like: "chase", "grass", "one", etc. -
>not their culture-bound castrated versions. Those are not symbols,
>they are the real thing.
Perhaps so, in this example. Unfortunately I don't grok it. Let's
assume it's the language barrier: that's why I asked for
Russian-language texts.
This gets boring as hell, and I plead you to be patient. I'm asking
the same damned thing the last time.
Isn't the word "TROLLEYBUS" in Tsoi's song a symbol or metaphor? A
regular, normal poetic trope, not a totalitarian symbol subject to
destruction. You see, it hardly has an "original, primal" meaning other
than "a means of public transportation". And you yourself said that
the song is not about riding a trolleybus.
Why Tsoi used this word? Can it be replaced by "TRAMWAY"? "AVTOBUS"? I
don't think so. If it can't be replaced by another "means of public
transportation", then there should be a subtle shade of meaning, which
is however essential here. Perhaps it symbolizes the regular routing,
without being able to err from the predefined path? Note that I don't
imply that Tsoi planted this meaning _consciously_. But if his
sub-consciousness chose the word there also should be good reasons for
that. And if a nuance of meaning comes forth and becomes dominating,
then it's but a trope.
Why is it essential whether this trolleybus is a trope or not? I don't
know. Somehow it is the main point of our disagreement.
>> You have to realize that rock culture is as foreign to me.
>
>It's not more foreign to you than it is to the tens of millions
>of non-English speaking people. They are just not afraid of it
>as much as you seem to be, they don't necessarily associate the
>drums with a military marching orchestra.
I enjoy a street musician playing drums (plastic trash cans, actually)
in the underpass from PA Bus terminal to 42nd St Station. I'm by no
means afraid of the above-cited text. I just don't understand it, nor
do I feel it.
>when you're being unreasonably stubborn, like
>last week.
At least both of us are stubborn. And I'm not belligerent, I'm ready
to agree, and I'm being as specific as I can.
>I don't think it's the most productive way
>though - Tsoi, for one, is a much simpler person, really, it would
>be easier for you to start with him, just like I suggested.
I can't talk to him, I can talk to you, and I often enjoy it, btw.
>>DM> If you see what I mean, that's fine.
>>
>>ZM> I see what you mean and it's not fine.
>>
>> You fine what I see, and that's mean.
>
>I'm fine - I see. And what's that that you mean?
Nothing, really. Just couldn't resist word-playing.
Misha Verbitsky
>In article <1994Mar18.1...@husc14.harvard.edu> ver...@coolidge.harvard.edu (Misha Verbitsky) writes:
>What about Nekrasov though? In absense of evidence, I'd be confident
>that his poetry is rather rational and constructed. But you call him
>genius?
Nekrasov was not a rational artist. The logic of
his art was usually aghast with his own intentions,
and as a result, we see B-movie gems like
...Pomnyu, tebe osoblivo
Nravilis' zuby moi.
Kak lyubovalas' ty imi,
Kak ikh laskala, lyubya!
No i zubami svoimi
No uderzhal ya tebya.
In fact, Nekrasov is the most nonsensical
and self-contradicting poet after Trediakovsky
(well, and Ezra Pound :), and quite more so than,
say, Mayakovsky. His irrationality was well
appreciated by Blok and especially Belyi,
who dedicated his second book ("Pepel")
to Nekrasov.
Misha.
Misha Verbitsky
[answering Zak]
>Isn't the word "TROLLEYBUS" in Tsoi's song a symbol or metaphor? A
>regular, normal poetic trope, not a totalitarian symbol subject to
>destruction. You see, it hardly has an "original, primal" meaning other
>than "a means of public transportation". And you yourself said that
>the song is not about riding a trolleybus.
I would say that as long as you can tell
what this song is about (usually this question
makes no sense - what is Eraserhead about?), this
song _is_ about riding a trolleybus, nothing else.
And Eraserhead is about slime and deformed babies.
Answering nonsense questions, you get nonsense answers.
>I enjoy a street musician playing drums (plastic trash cans, actually)
>in the underpass from PA Bus terminal to 42nd St Station. I'm by no
>means afraid of the above-cited text. I just don't understand it, nor
>do I feel it.
This text is (like everything written by Jon) a pure,
brain-dead, imbecilic nonsense. Jon is a pretentious
moron with zero ability to write poetry. I was completely
shocked when I came to possession of Yes lyrics - I didn't
think _any_ band is able to sing such stupid verses, and
especially Yes which is considered to be an intellectual
one. Western approach to rock lyrics is completely
different than Russian one: none of the third league
garage bands in Russia ever sung a nonsense such like
every second top Western band does.
Misha.
Zak May
> This text is (like everything written by Jon) a pure, brain-dead,
> imbecilic nonsense.
I didn't say it wasn't - I said he used the original meanings for the words,
which gave it just the right feel. Everything but the words "lake", "rain",
"mountain", etc. is a filler, just like most of Howe's guitar parts are but
fillers (ss I said before, segodnia ty poslushal Yes, a zavtra - chlen KPSS).
> Jon is a pretentious moron with zero ability to write poetry.
Blasphemy! Just look at this:
"Ten true summers we'll be there and laughing too
Twenty four before my love you'll see
I'll be there with you..."
or this:
"The sunshine in mountains sometimes lost
The river can disregard the cost
And melt in the sky warmth when you die
Were we ever warmer on that day a million miles away
We seemed from all of eternity..."
What do you say now, you totalitarian crook? You are silent, because
you're overcome with emotion. I see criminal tears running down your
Armenian cheeks. yEs rOoL3s - and "Talk" is "Brave" for the nineties.
> ...I didn't think _any_ band is able to sing such stupid verses...
Ha! You ain't seen nothing yet. Yes was the first Punk band - they
were oblivious to the snobbish criticisms in their quest for eternal
damnation. Death to Yes! Long live Rush! I have to quote some now:
"Delusions of grandeur
Visions of splendour
A manic depressive
He walks in the rain..."
and, of course:
"When life becomes so barren
And as cold as winter skies
There's a beacon in the darkness
In a distant pair of eyes."
and - let's not forget this partuclar monstrosity:
"Sound and fury
Drowns my heart
Every nerve
Is torn apart..."
Now - that's real Punk lyrics. Iggy Pop trembles in horror.
> Western approach to rock lyrics is completely different than Russian one:
> none of the third league garage bands in Russia ever sung a nonsense such
> like every second top Western band does.
Oh sure. Here's a little pick:
"Byvajut dni, kogda - opustish' ruki,
I net ni slov, ni muzyki, ni sil.
V takije dni ja byl s soboj v razluke
I nikogo pomoch' mne ne prosil.
Ja byl gotov idti kuda popalo,
Zakryt' svoj dom i ne najti kliucha.
No veril ja - ne vse jescho propalo,
all together now:
Poka ne meeeeerknet svet, poka gorit svechaaaaaaaaaaaa!"
___
Zak.
Tom Nagy
8< snip 8<
|> yEs rOoL3s - and "Talk" is "Brave" for the nineties.
Er... um... hate to break this to you... um... but they're BOTH from the
ninties... and somehow I don't think the two albums are *REEEEALY* comparable.
Other than that, I agree with you 100%
8-)
8< more snip 8<
|> ___
|> Zak.
|>
Tom
Dmitri Manin
In article <1994Mar20.1...@husc14.harvard.edu> ver...@brauer.harvard.edu (Misha Verbitsky) writes:
>In article <XK1M...@math.fu-berlin.de> yu...@aphrodite.mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE (Yulik) writes:
>>
>>That returns everything to the only reasonable question
>>to ask - why Mitya Manin is alienated with respect to
>>Tsoj's songs? What prevents him from joining the million
>>crowd of enthusiastic listeners...
Agreed. That's what I was asking Zak all the way: what makes him so
partial to the "Rossija" song.
> He is too smart to appreciate people
> with low IQ (I _am_ sincere).
: webster smart
[.......]
2 smart adj (bef. 12c)
1: making one smart: causing a sharp stinging
2: marked by often sharp forceful activity or vigorous strength <a
smart pull of the starter cord>
3: BRISK, SPIRITED
4a: mentally alert: BRIGHT
4b: KNOWLEDGEABLE
4c : SHREWD <a smart investment>
5a: WITTY, CLEVER
5b: PERT, SAUCY <was fired for being smart with the boss>
6a: NEAT, TRIM
6b: stylish or elegant in dress or appearance
6c1: SOPHISTICATED
6c2: characteristic of or patronized by fashionable society
7a: being a guided missile <a laser-guided smart bomb>
b: operating by automation <a smart machine tool>
c of a computer terminal: having part of the processing done by a
microcomputer--
Now, what did you mean and how does this allegedly prevent me from
etc.? And aren't you smart, Misha? You, Yulik?
Dmitri Manin
>
> I would say that as long as you can tell
> what this song is about (usually this question
> makes no sense - what is Eraserhead about?), this
> song _is_ about riding a trolleybus, nothing else.
Rational discussion needn't reduce to "chto khotel avtor skazat' svoim
proizvedeniem". Do you generally reject the idea of discussing a piece
of art, rather than general issues?
>>means afraid of the above-cited text. I just don't understand it, nor
>>do I feel it.
>
> This text is (like everything written by Jon) a pure,
> brain-dead, imbecilic nonsense. Jon is a pretentious
> moron with zero ability to write poetry.
Heh, that's a relief :)
Leo Kaushansky
>Dmitri Manin <ma...@Csli.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>ZM> Oh yeah? What does "manda" mean? Let's have a poll among the native
>>ZM> speakers.
>>
>> I bet that all opinions will center around genital area. Anyway, I
>> fail to see this as a counter-example. Care to explain?
Just of the top of my head a rude anecdote (not for Ladies)
1917.. St. Petersburg...Serdobolskaya 1...
Temniy cabinet... Na stole zelenaya lampa...Za stolom sidit V.I. Lenin
Podhodit N.K. Krupstkaya...
NK: Volodia, a chto ti pishesh' ?
VI: Mandati
NK: Sam ti huy, Voloden'ka ...
Just a comic relief... Everybody is so tense over here :-{)
--
|| // // ,'/~~\' Leo Kaushansky leo&mks.com
/||/// //|' `\\\ QA Testing (Mortice Kern Systems)
/ | //_// ||\___/ -------------------------------------------------