Turn on thread page Beta

Musicals are for children watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    :eek:

    May I ask what prompted this thread? I feel I'm being personally attacked
    :ditto:

    I love musicals and all the Disney classics! Can't beat them!

    I'm getting Sleeping Beauty for my 19th birthday at the end of this month ! Got the Jungle Book for my 18th ! Also got Hairspray for my 18th from a friend !
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by sweetlovinchick2k1)
    :ditto:

    I love musicals and all the Disney classics! Can't beat them!

    I'm getting Sleeping Beauty for my 19th birthday at the end of this month ! Got the Jungle Book for my 18th ! Also got Hairspray for my 18th from a friend !
    I'm so jealous. My dad gave away all my Disney videos, but they're currently far too expensive to buy on DVD
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    I'm so jealous. My dad gave away all my Disney videos, but they're currently far too expensive to buy on DVD
    :hugs:

    I would have killed my parents if they gave away my Disney videos! They know what would happen if they even contemplated it! :p:

    If you go into Sainsbury's they sell them for £13.97 if that helps.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Just because something isn't taken seriously doesn't mean it's intended for children.

    *goes back to watching Shaun the Sheep*
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Some musicals are for kids, and some are not... Just like with basically everything in life, there is an apparent spectrum, and I fear those putting down the genre are yet to see some of it's more adult incarnations...

    May I suggest: Sweeney Todd, Les Miserables and Phantom of the Opera.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    I don't believe Kant - I don't think true beauty demands universal assent. I think everyone is a little different, and every mind is a little different. What moves one person might leave another cold and while we (as a species) are quick to judge, maybe we should hold our tongues occassionaly as well.
    So you believe that beauty and taste are the same? (if we're going to follow Kant's terms)

    But I don't think Kant is concerned with defending a certain standard of "true beauty" as universally and objectively recognizable. What he's interested in is the nature of our judgements of beauty: these judements have such a form that they demand or claim universal assent, even though this assent cannot be proven. A proposition such as "This is beautiful" claims universality, in the way a proposition such as "I like this" does not; the issue is ultimately about how we use "beautiful" as a predicate, not that "beauty" qua noumenon is universally pereptible (which obviously would contradict transcendental idealism anyway).

    I don't think we should only discuss this within the framework of Kant's aesthetics, of course, but it's a starting point, and necessary for understanding the whole post-Kantian tradition, which is particularly rich in its treatment of aesthetics.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I think anyone discussing any subjective material in a definitive manner deserves some ridicule, really.

    You're never going to get a consensus, you're not going to get sensible answers, arguments on both sides are not always going to be coherent.

    So why bother?
    Aside from trying to rile a few people on the internet, which is always a really valid use of anyone's time :rolleyes:
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by musicbloke)
    So what you're saying is that you're against people talking about aesthetic value because some people may be upset?

    MB
    I think she's actually saying that such value judgments shouldn't be seen as definitive, that's all
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musicbloke)
    So what you're saying is that you're against people talking about aesthetic value because some people may be upset?
    1) People value their individuality, identiy, &c.
    2) People correlate their tastes with their individuality, identity, &c.
    3) Taste apparently can't be "helped" and is arbitrary.

    So, what we like most is the arbitrariness of ourselves? We should celebrate our incapacity to criticize what we just "receive"? We're celebrating "identity" as a kind of absolute passivity?

    I really don't like the sound of that.

    Plus, this whole "everyone is different lolz!" myth of personal identity is stuctured so as to set one apart from one's social background. But if we admit that what is "arbitrary" about taste is really just determined by one's exposure to certain aesthetic forms, and therefore submitted to a social and historical determination, we're left with the paradox that one's "individual tastes" are really just the unreflective expression of a social condition, which the affirmation of that individuality is trying to escape.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by sweetlovinchick2k1)
    :hugs:

    I would have killed my parents if they gave away my Disney videos! They know what would happen if they even contemplated it! :p:

    If you go into Sainsbury's they sell them for £13.97 if that helps.
    :eek:

    Rep for that :yep:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    I think anyone discussing any subjective material in a definitive manner deserves some ridicule, really.
    How are you using "subjective" here?

    (Original post by Drewski)
    You're never going to get a consensus, you're not going to get sensible answers, arguments on both sides are not always going to be coherent.
    Are you equating truth claims with argumentum ad populum?

    (Original post by Drewski)
    So why bother?
    The fact that we may not come up with a definitive conclusion (sadly), does not mean that the discussion is not worth having.

    MB
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    I think she's actually saying that such value judgments shouldn't be seen as definitive, that's all
    Yes, but the problem is that certain predicates used in value judgements are necessarily subjective, unverifiable, yet that the structure of those judgments is definitive.

    But I also think we need to differentiate between judgements of "beauty" and judgements of, say, aesthetic accomlishment. The two are of quite different orders, since the latter is something determinable by criteria, whereas "beauty" is a rather elusive concept (or not even a concept) dependent entirely on a subjective aesthetic experience.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    :eek:

    May I ask what prompted this thread? I feel I'm being personally attacked

    I am also hurt by this henious suggestion.:eek:
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Da Bachtopus)
    Yes, but the problem is that certain predicates used in value judgements are necessarily subjective, unverifiable, yet that the structure of those judgments is definitive.

    But I also think we need to differentiate between judgements of "beauty" and judgements of, say, aesthetic accomlishment. The two are of quite different orders, since the latter is something determinable by criteria, whereas "beauty" is a rather elusive concept (or not even a concept) dependent entirely on a subjective aesthetic experience.
    I'm not quite sure I've understood you, but I think we are saying the same thing
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Da Bachtopus)
    1) People value their individuality, identiy, &c.
    2) People correlate their tastes with their individuality, identity, &c.
    3) Taste apparently can't be "helped" and is arbitrary.

    So, what we like most is the arbitrariness of ourselves? We should celebrate our incapacity to criticize what we just "receive"? We're celebrating "identity" as a kind of absolute passivity?

    I really don't like the sound of that.

    Plus, this whole "everyone is different lolz!" myth of personal identity is stuctured so as to set one apart from one's social background. But if we admit that what is "arbitrary" about taste is really just determined by one's exposure to certain aesthetic forms, and therefore submitted to a social and historical determination, we're left with the paradox that one's "individual tastes" are really just the unreflective expression of a social condition, which the affirmation of that individuality is trying to escape.
    Well quite, but there is a dangerous trap here in your argument of some kind of nasty-looking determinism, and I'd argue that the treatment of subjectivity would probably need a little more care. Well I mean to start with, we need to be clear that there's a massive difference between "subjectivity" and "individuality", which I guess is what a lot of the other side of this debate doesn't seem to acknowledge in any serious way. So, given we both agree that this structure of individuality is a load of old tosh, one needs to give subjectivity a little more room than "just the unreflective expression of a social condition". Subjectivity demands reflexivity, but I would argue that there are certain objects-purporting-to-be-artworks that undermine this reflexivity such to push the person into an unreflective expression of social condition.

    MB
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I really don't agree. XD Musicals are just one type of theatre, and theatre is for all ages and all backgrounds. Some musicals are adult in nature, and children would either be bored or not understand all levels of it. Some musicals are for children and some are for adults same way as some TV is for children and some is for adults.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musicbloke)
    Well quite, but there is a dangerous trap here in your argument of some kind of nasty-looking determinism, and I'd argue that the treatment of subjectivity would probably need a little more care.
    Oh, well I didn't mean to be deterministic. I wanted to draw attention to the question of "where does taste come from?", if we're going to assume (as the poster did) that taste (not subjectivity) is unreflective, and seems to be doled out arbitrarily by the great Individuality Demiurge. I completely agree that subjectivity and identity must be kept seperate -- which is something this particular myth fails to do. But furthermore, it uses taste as an avatar for identity, in such a way that that concept of taste (as arbitrariness, or socially determined, depending on your philosophical prejudices ) contradicts what it prizes in the concept of individuality. In this sense, the myth is simply internally contradictory, regardless of everything else that's wrong with it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    I'm not quite sure I've understood you, but I think we are saying the same thing
    Not excactly. Of course this kind of judgement can't be seen as "definitive", but stopping the argument there utterly misses the point. A demand that value judgements be recognized as never definitive completely misses the fact that the structure of a judgement implies an appeal to universality: these judgements hence have an aporetic nature.

    This is probably a decent summary of Kant's position.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musicbloke)
    So what you're saying is that you're against people talking about aesthetic value because some people may be upset?

    MB
    Not at all.

    I'm against you judging someone as childish, immature or stupid because they happen to have a mind that responds well to certain forms of entertainment, without knowing a lot more about their other tastes and characteristics.

    I'm all for discussion, just not the unwarranted judgements.

    Incidentaly, I don't think many musicals count as art. Storytelling and entertainment, yes. But not art.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    Not at all.

    I'm against you judging someone as childish, immature or stupid because they happen to have a mind that responds well to certain forms of entertainment, without knowing a lot more about their other tastes and characteristics.
    Wouldn't we all make the same judgment about someone who likes teletubbies?

    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    Incidentaly, I don't think many musicals count as art. Storytelling and entertainment, yes. But not art.
    Then why the need to discuss them at length and treat them seriously?

    MB
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Articles:

TSR wiki music section

Quick link:

Unanswered music threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.