OT: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Nominees for 2018
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
Johnny Rotten is obviously punk royalty, but he is also a well established whiner of the first order, so forgive me if I don't give his comments much credence. I could trot out countless quotes from "punks" glorifying Green Day's early years, but think the links I provided before touting Green Day's albums as top punk albums of all-time are enough. It's not an argument. Green Day were punk in their early years.
If you want to call them bubblegum in later years, have at it. As I said above, I actually have no issue if you don't like them or punk, in general. You're not alone and I have no desire to try to "convince" you or anyone else that their music is great - it's too subjective of a topic for that. Basically, the video I posted captured the essence of Green Day's early punk years, both from a music and energy/scene perspective. That video was pure punk and representative of the best Green Day has to offer and you clearly thought it was tedious crap - which is ok.
With regard to being snooty, don't sweat it (but thanks for the props - and right back at ya!) - I was being combative and I know how T can get under anyone's skin. IMO, we're done on this topic, but I will post a follow-up on Elvis later. We also disagree on him and his place in R&R history.
I think you have me confused with someone else. Nobody apologized to you. You're still Green Day Boy with the aesthetic sensitivities of a multiply-face-pierced 17 year old. Numb3rs, on the other hand, is a completely rational human being with a deep knowledge of rock and roll. I couldn't disagree more with on punk rock, which I consider to be a cul-de-sac on the rock and roll highway, but that's what makes horse races.
And I'm going to take some time and see if I can't find the value in punk rock. It's happened to me before. For example, I am now a big fan of Jackson Pollock (he's a painter, t) whereas I couldn't figure him out for decades. Same with Kasimir Malevich. Sometimes you just gotta give it time, and most people don't. The average time spent looking at a masterpiece in either the Met or the Art Institute is 27 seconds. Go figure.
Sugar Sugar was written for the Monkees. The band turned it down. Turned out to be the best selling song of the year. I think it out sold Hey Jude
Nicely said. Funny you mentioned Pollock. I'm a moderately big fan of art, but certainly no expert. However, before I even knew who Pollock was, I was in the Met ~30 years ago and came across a couple of his huge drip paintings and was completely mesmerized. I sat on one of those benches for several minutes just marveling at the "controlled fury" of his work. But it took me years to appreciate Monet, for example.
Pollock? I don't like it either, rather bland and tasteless. I prefer halibut or barramundi for a white fish.
That was refuted by the songwriter.
Which is why they deserve to be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame!
Interesting as most people are taken by Monet immediately, but some never like Pollock. However, Pollock would very much fit with an affinity for punk rock (so maybe there's hope for me). Pollock was a weird dude, btw. I'm working on a book of despicable people who were great artists, and he may make the cut!
Can you imagine how hard it was to get all these folks to pose for this!? We had a big exhibition of Gericault at the Met a while back. Really cool as the paintings are huge as well as being dramatic.Theodore Gericault:
Rhythm, pattern, fugues (all kinds) lend themselves to hypnotic/trance experiences with a certain kind of concentration (and you never want to be "mesmerized" by anything if you can help it). These can do the same thing...
FYI, the little one adores art. Going to Philly Art soon. Her school has a huge focus on art, music, theater/drama. Amazing place.
And yes, Monet and most impressionists are an instant hit.
Did a lot of work with Philly back when Anne D'Harnencourt (sp?) was director. They had a great group back then. I love the crucifixion dyptich. It looks like it was finished yesterday. Also have a theory on Duchamp's urinal.
Last edited:
The Meters should and will get in..Those non musicians dont know...and thats cool. But these Nevilles from New Orleans are a group from the 70's influenced EVERYONE, and is still performing today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Meters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Meters
It may have to do with various listeners' ages. If you were 12 years old when Dookie debuted, then it is understandable if you thought "wow, this is punk!". But if you had already been listening to the bands you mentioned along with The Stooges, the NY Dolls, Buzzcocks, The Saints, The Wipers, etc etc, then you probably wouldn't think that Green Day was anything special.
That's easy.. some art will appeal to some people and they will spend more time with that piece.. otherwise.. "masterpieces" that don't appeal to you are just road bumps to go find the stuff you like.
How many "masterpieces" are in the Met?
The great MET website has a search feature that tells me there are 53,370 pieces of art on display of their total collection of over 450,000 pieces. No idea if borrowed or travelling collections are part of this.
Lets just guess that 5% of those are "masterpieces".. that means that 2,668 of the paces on display are "masterpieces". Not counting the time to walk from one to another, eat, drink, visit bathrooms.. it would take 20 hours to spend 27 seconds on each of those.
Suppose it was only 1% are masterpieces.. it would take 4 hours (again, if you did nothing else and moved instantaneously between pieces).
So, given that not everyone is a fan of a style of art or a particular "masterpiece" and the MET is so large with so much to offer, this is not surprising.
Then you have to look at it from a number of visitors standpoint and people that can fit in a room in front of a masterpiece. They saw over 7 million visitors over 365 days last year.. that's just over 19K a day. If we go for that 1% are masterpieces figure.. then that's 533 masterpieces. That's 36 people per masterpiece... hmm.. oh.. that is eminently doable.
But I have no idea where the 27 seconds comes from.. I know Skillet would know. He probably counted it as part of his work there. Lets say the Mona Lisa toured and you had to handle those 19K people filing by it every day. In practice it would be more on some days. It is open 10-5:30.. 7.5 hours... 27,000 seconds... that's 1.4 seconds per visitor.
So it is an odd thing to think about.. 27 seconds per masterpiece.
Here's an odd thing I noticed about paintings that I was drawn to. They make me "dizzy".. not actually dizzy.. but my eye is drawn to so much of it that it moves around and around. That crosses many genres.. some Pollocks did it.. many Van Goghs.. he is my favorite. Mondrians do it.. a lot do it... to me that separates good composition from bad.. pretty simple.. but just because the composition is good and it is well done doesn't mean I'd like it or want to spend a lot of time with it.
To take that to the extreme.. this does it in spades.. but is it a masterpiece? I know I wouldn't want to spend even 27 seconds on it
Last edited:
When I go to the MET I go to focus on one or two sections, I can take 20 minutes studying at one painting/
I do see some people walking past stuff like a bat out of hell. I mean, I don't get it, if that person doesn't like art, why are they even there?
I do see some people walking past stuff like a bat out of hell. I mean, I don't get it, if that person doesn't like art, why are they even there?
Do you choose that painting randomly? Do you check your watch to make sure you spent 20 minutes? Do you spend zero seconds walking past masterpieces on your way to the one you want to spend 20 minutes with?
To each, his own... maybe those people are just going for a walk in a museum.. maybe they are "shopping" for a painting to study.
This whole topic makes me feel like this...
Do you choose that painting randomly? Do you check your watch to make sure you spent 20 minutes? Do you spend zero seconds walking past masterpieces on your way to the one you want to spend 20 minutes with?
To each, his own... maybe those people are just going for a walk in a museum.. maybe they are "shopping" for a painting to study.
This whole topic makes me feel like this...
Each section is like it's own museum so you walk the halls to get to that section.
Completely off topic.
I once saw Rick Steves at the Galileo Museum in Florence. He was basically speed walking through the place.
I think we're talking at cross purposes Good. A rock-a-billy gazillionaire singing about the Get-Toe (pronunciation was awful) is grating.
Here is where I think Elvis was at this best: Don't Be Cruel, Can't Help Falling in Love, Blue Suede Shoes. I still enjoy those songs. Because Elvis had an amazingly good voice, and when he just sang love songs or songs where he didn't take himself seriously, he was at his best. BTW, he didn't write any of them. He got credit for a few, but that was because the Colonel leaned on the song writer to give Elvis writing credit. Why? Because then Colonel Tom got a cut!
And as I said, I like Elvis. He was bigger than life. If you compare him in terms of stature and status, there are few in his league. The Beatles, The Stones, Sinatra, Springsteen, Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, Elton John? And maybe, in terms of overall fame and popularity, it's down to Sinatra, The Beatles, and Elvis. And maybe Michael Jackson.
Actually, I did count them! First at the Met, and much more recently at the Art Institute of Chicago. I don't know how to link a pdf file, but if anyone can show me, I'd be happy to link our publications on the topic. I could link to the journal on the latter one, but I think it's behind a paywall. The former publication is a book chapter.That's easy.. some art will appeal to some people and they will spend more time with that piece.. otherwise.. "masterpieces" that don't appeal to you are just road bumps to go find the stuff you like.
How many "masterpieces" are in the Met?
The great MET website has a search feature that tells me there are 53,370 pieces of art on display of their total collection of over 450,000 pieces. No idea if borrowed or travelling collections are part of this.
Lets just guess that 5% of those are "masterpieces".. that means that 2,668 of the paces on display are "masterpieces". Not counting the time to walk from one to another, eat, drink, visit bathrooms.. it would take 20 hours to spend 27 seconds on each of those.
Suppose it was only 1% are masterpieces.. it would take 4 hours (again, if you did nothing else and moved instantaneously between pieces).
So, given that not everyone is a fan of a style of art or a particular "masterpiece" and the MET is so large with so much to offer, this is not surprising.
Then you have to look at it from a number of visitors standpoint and people that can fit in a room in front of a masterpiece. They saw over 7 million visitors over 365 days last year.. that's just over 19K a day. If we go for that 1% are masterpieces figure.. then that's 533 masterpieces. That's 36 people per masterpiece... hmm.. oh.. that is eminently doable.
But I have no idea where the 27 seconds comes from.. I know Skillet would know. He probably counted it as part of his work there. Lets say the Mona Lisa toured and you had to handle those 19K people filing by it every day. In practice it would be more on some days. It is open 10-5:30.. 7.5 hours... 27,000 seconds... that's 1.4 seconds per visitor.
So it is an odd thing to think about.. 27 seconds per masterpiece.
Here's an odd thing I noticed about paintings that I was drawn to. They make me "dizzy".. not actually dizzy.. but my eye is drawn to so much of it that it moves around and around. That crosses many genres.. some Pollocks did it.. many Van Goghs.. he is my favorite. Mondrians do it.. a lot do it... to me that separates good composition from bad.. pretty simple.. but just because the composition is good and it is well done doesn't mean I'd like it or want to spend a lot of time with it.
To take that to the extreme.. this does it in spades.. but is it a masterpiece? I know I wouldn't want to spend even 27 seconds on it
The mean time is 27 seconds (27.2 in the first study, 28.63 in the second), and the median is closer to 17 seconds, and the mode is 10 seconds. That's actually more representative of the typical viewer stop. We have observed over 1000 individuals looking at art and have found no one who spent as much as five minutes on a single work.
In the second study, we found that over 1/3 of the individuals took selfies with the art (we call them arties), most of whom did not look at the works except to take the selfie.
The Met actually has over 2 million separately accessioned works of art (travelling exhibitions are not counted unless they are in the Met's permanent collection). I'm not sure how many are on display. On the 2 million, you should understand that if a piece of Egyptian pottery is broken into 50 shards, each one of them is counted separately. Still, the Met has just a ton of art.
As to where you look, there is a lot of research done on that, much of it by really good friends of mine. Eye movement cameras have really progressed in the past couple of decades, so this is much easier research to do now. Turns out that experts and novices really differ in how they look. In one study I took part in, a painting of nudes by Matisse was used. Now, everybody in the study knows that their eyes are being tracked. The experts look right at the naughty bits. The novices look "just off" the naughty bits. It appears that they don't want to be caught looking. If you want to see that phenomenon on steroids, go the the Musee d'Orsay and check out: L'Origine du monde by Courbet. It's a riot to watch people not want to get caught looking at it.
Sorry to ramble on. I study two very different areas intensively, and this is one of them!
Have you catalogued how many of them picked their nose or scratched their butt while they were observing a work of art?
Not yet. I've been looking at people look at art for over a quarter of a century, and have never really seen anybody do anything hilarious. No exposing of private parts, no pda's between couples, and I can't remember anybody picking their noses. I have seen massive pretentiousness. And once, at a Delacroix exhibition, I saw about eight people looking at a poster for the exhibition. They were discussing the work depicted in the poster, having quite a deep conversation. The shop was in a hallway (little temporary shop just for the exhibition). Had the group turned 180 degrees, they would have been looking at the actual work instead of a reproduction.
But over 7 million people a year go to the Met, and at a major exhibition, over half a billion dollars can come into the City by people who came to the city to see the exhibition. (We've done that research as well.) Not only are art museums important in the development of a civilized society (yep), they are important engines of economic growth. So trying to understand viewing patterns, desires, uses and consequences, etc., is a worthwhile activity in my mind.
