A while ago I was in a grocery store gathering provisions for dinner. They had the radio playing and the announcer came on and said "Here's a classic from The Police," at which point "King of Pain" began to play..
This got me to thinking... So what really makes a classic, no matter the artistic genre? Why do we generally consider works by somebody such as Dostoevsky to be "classics," while books by say, Stephen King, are not usually placed in that category? The same can be said of visual art, music, even clothing... Is it because the said work or item has a timeless quality that resonates regardless of the era? Is it intellectual or social snobbery? Does it allude to a certain conservatism that is in opposition to the term "avante-garde?"
Thoughts?
'That's Classic!'
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
'That's Classic!'
Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
It's a much abused term. When he was at his height, the Marketing-Tool-Who-Formerly-Went-By-the-Name-of-Prince was repeatedly referred to on the radio as "a classic." Apparently, classics are immediate and now, and no longer the result of the sifting of years.
But since that throws out all critical thought, it doesn't help us, here. So taking the traditional approach to a classic, I'll venture that it's something which has survived changing cultural modes and interests, out of something that transcends the ephemeral--both in subject (where applicable) and quality of treatment. I don't care for much of Beethoven, but he's a certifiable classic. Now that he's dead, everybody pretty much agrees Shostakovich is a classic. Clemens and Kerouac are classics. Kurosawa and Bergman are classics, at least, in some of their work. Though I think the satire on Bergman which the Muppet Show did years ago was classic in its own way, too. ("If you will not walk with me, Death, will you take this rubber chicken on the road with you?")
But since that throws out all critical thought, it doesn't help us, here. So taking the traditional approach to a classic, I'll venture that it's something which has survived changing cultural modes and interests, out of something that transcends the ephemeral--both in subject (where applicable) and quality of treatment. I don't care for much of Beethoven, but he's a certifiable classic. Now that he's dead, everybody pretty much agrees Shostakovich is a classic. Clemens and Kerouac are classics. Kurosawa and Bergman are classics, at least, in some of their work. Though I think the satire on Bergman which the Muppet Show did years ago was classic in its own way, too. ("If you will not walk with me, Death, will you take this rubber chicken on the road with you?")
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Yeah I think it's snobbery...although timeless popular appeal has something to do with it too...but I think that far fewer people would claim that Notes From the Underground is a great book if it were not deemed 'a classic' by the literati...
However, you do get classics in fields as well, which tends to be out of recognition of novelty and ground-breakingness rather than timeless popular appeal. For example, The Psychedelic Sounds of the Thirteenth Floor Elevators is definately a 'classic' album, even though it has never been popular by pop music standards, because it crystalises an era and a paradigm shift.
However, you do get classics in fields as well, which tends to be out of recognition of novelty and ground-breakingness rather than timeless popular appeal. For example, The Psychedelic Sounds of the Thirteenth Floor Elevators is definately a 'classic' album, even though it has never been popular by pop music standards, because it crystalises an era and a paradigm shift.
SYMISTANI COMMUNIST
I think the term "classic" should denote either:
1. a genre-defining and/or genre-creating style/paradigm/idea/concept
2. a work which is widely known, has been referred to extensively later, and has had great influence
Naturally, many works that fulfill critera 1 also fulfil critera 2, but there are also works around that were neither groundbreaking in novelty nor the purest example of their style, but still have become important and they fulfill critera 2.
I would say Joyce's Ulysses, Stockhausen's Kontakte and Monty Python's flying circus are examples of genre-creation, Dostoyevsky, Schubert and Sex Pistols would be example of genre defining.
1. a genre-defining and/or genre-creating style/paradigm/idea/concept
2. a work which is widely known, has been referred to extensively later, and has had great influence
Naturally, many works that fulfill critera 1 also fulfil critera 2, but there are also works around that were neither groundbreaking in novelty nor the purest example of their style, but still have become important and they fulfill critera 2.
I would say Joyce's Ulysses, Stockhausen's Kontakte and Monty Python's flying circus are examples of genre-creation, Dostoyevsky, Schubert and Sex Pistols would be example of genre defining.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
I like CE's criteria. There is a tendency these days to label a work a classic within the genre (CE's criteria 1). I believe that this is critically sound; however, not everyone understands this and so therefore uses the label liberally (extending it to criteria 2). As much as I enjoy King of Pain, I wouldn't call it a classic in the broad sense. While The Police were in my opinion a good trio, they haven't had quite the impact (yet) that a genre-defining band such as AC/DC has had. Like them or not, you will hear their style and sound imitated quite often (I heard a new band on the radio recently that went so far as to use old AC/DC riffs, and scream like Brian Johnson made popular). I would say AC/DC's songs are classics as defined by criteria 1.
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
1. a genre-defining and/or genre-creating style/paradigm/idea/concept
But at what point does an eccentric attempt to do "something different" become a viable genre? If we're going to quantify a classic as above, then we need a timeline and a way to analyze the experience. Accepting the praise or damns of people in a decade or two isn't sufficient to generate a classic. For example, the rock-opera of the 1960s and 1970s would have been considered a genre back then, and The Who's Tommy, therefore, a classic. But nobody writes rock-operas any longer. They're now regarded as pretentious attempts to craft the emotionally limited entertainment form of rock onto a structure that requires technical and emotional complexity.
But at what point does an eccentric attempt to do "something different" become a viable genre? If we're going to quantify a classic as above, then we need a timeline and a way to analyze the experience. Accepting the praise or damns of people in a decade or two isn't sufficient to generate a classic. For example, the rock-opera of the 1960s and 1970s would have been considered a genre back then, and The Who's Tommy, therefore, a classic. But nobody writes rock-operas any longer. They're now regarded as pretentious attempts to craft the emotionally limited entertainment form of rock onto a structure that requires technical and emotional complexity.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Art and science share the same inherent difficultlies with assessing the value of of something novel at the time of presentation. Only over time, sometimes a very long time, can we know the value of something, since we have to wait and see what context develops around the new item presented. In science, the concept heuristic vavlue, is fundamental to how we assess a discovery. (Heuristic is Greek and is related to "heureka", to find, and heuristic value means what impact a discovery has on the field in terms of provocing new research, generate new hypothesis, etc.) The same goes for art although I do not know of any specific term to describe this, and I think there are two solutions depending on how exclusive one want the term "classic" to be:But at what point does an eccentric attempt to do "something different" become a viable genre?
1. More inclusive definition: A new eccentric attempt must be followed by a sufficient amount of others over a sufficently long time, so that a category is created. We can then call it "genre". With this definition, The Who's "Tommy" would be a classic since Rock Opera's were a genre (although only for about 10 years, then it went extinct.). "Tommy" is classic, just a bad classic
2. More exclusive definition: A new eccentric attempt creates a genres, but even if the genre itself does not survive, the defining, characteristic elements are picked up by other genres. Marc Bolan and New York Dolls would then be classics, since even if the Glam rock genre swiftly died out in the middle/late 1970's, their specific style in music, image, lifestyle and values were picked up by the punk, new wave, goth, synth etc. "Tommy" would however not qualify as a classic, since there are no surviving elements that was particular for the Rock opera.
Personally, I use the 2nd definition.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
Nobody makes Firebirds anymore, but those are classic cars. So are muscle cars are all makes. Today we have oversized SUV's and trucks longer the limos, but no small American made muscle car. But they are "classics".
Classic means that it survived cultural trends and attention spans. Whether its car, music, movies, plays, f**king pokemon! it becomes classic if it refuses to go away.
After something has lasted for, say, a decade outside of the culture, time period, political environment, etc, etc. and it is still around with a least a percentage of the population remembering it or recognizing it...it's a classic.
Flock of Seagulls' "I Ran" is not a good song. It is not complex, it is not original. It broke no ground artistically. It had zero lasting affects on modern/pop music. It was, in reality, a flash in the pan of 1980's Americana. New technology can make new music. New sounds that no one has every heard before. Too bad that electrical sound effects were not the next wave of musical sounds. The hair is today a sad reminder of what people used to do for "fashion" because we can't see that today's crap is no better.
We thought people had no taste in the '70's, then just remember the hair cuts from the '80's and it's Hair Band time!
But, VH1 invited Flock of Seagulls to do "I Ran" live on television almost 20 years after being a onehit wonder, the only kind of band in the '80's.
Classic?
Yes. Because it survived. Like it or not, then or now, surviving and remaining recognizable makes things classic.
Classic means that it survived cultural trends and attention spans. Whether its car, music, movies, plays, f**king pokemon! it becomes classic if it refuses to go away.
After something has lasted for, say, a decade outside of the culture, time period, political environment, etc, etc. and it is still around with a least a percentage of the population remembering it or recognizing it...it's a classic.
Flock of Seagulls' "I Ran" is not a good song. It is not complex, it is not original. It broke no ground artistically. It had zero lasting affects on modern/pop music. It was, in reality, a flash in the pan of 1980's Americana. New technology can make new music. New sounds that no one has every heard before. Too bad that electrical sound effects were not the next wave of musical sounds. The hair is today a sad reminder of what people used to do for "fashion" because we can't see that today's crap is no better.
We thought people had no taste in the '70's, then just remember the hair cuts from the '80's and it's Hair Band time!
But, VH1 invited Flock of Seagulls to do "I Ran" live on television almost 20 years after being a onehit wonder, the only kind of band in the '80's.
Classic?
Yes. Because it survived. Like it or not, then or now, surviving and remaining recognizable makes things classic.
-
RandomThug
- Posts: 2795
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:00 am
- Location: Nowheresville
- Contact:
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
But, VH1 invited Flock of Seagulls to do "I Ran" live on television almost 20 years after being a onehit wonder, the only kind of band in the '80's.
Classic?
Yes. Because it survived. Like it or not, then or now, surviving and remaining recognizable makes things classic.
Because a single network decided to run something 20 years after it's created, it becomes a classic? Then what about something that's played 40 years after it's created, over and over, to the point where it's known immediately upon hearing, such as the Beatles? If they're classics, then FoS isn't. Commercial pumping of an old group in time for an album re-release doesn't constitute "classic" status, IMO. Especially as FoS will be forgotten again in a year, when the cash register drawer is full.
Classic?
Yes. Because it survived. Like it or not, then or now, surviving and remaining recognizable makes things classic.
Because a single network decided to run something 20 years after it's created, it becomes a classic? Then what about something that's played 40 years after it's created, over and over, to the point where it's known immediately upon hearing, such as the Beatles? If they're classics, then FoS isn't. Commercial pumping of an old group in time for an album re-release doesn't constitute "classic" status, IMO. Especially as FoS will be forgotten again in a year, when the cash register drawer is full.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Roger Ebert defines a classic film as a film he could not bare the thought of never seeing again. Though that makes it a hugely subjective term, I think that fits, at least in film and literature. Music is a different thing. There are many pieces I couldn't bare not listening to again and that I wouldn't define as classic. And Planets of The Apes is without a doubt a classic score, but I could stand not to hear it again.
"Veni,Vidi,vici!"
(I came,I saw,I conquered!) Julius Ceasar
(I came,I saw,I conquered!) Julius Ceasar
FoS was an example I was making. I picked something that many people wouldn't place up there with real "classics," stuff like Morlock's definition. Things that you couldn't stand to not see again.
I think that people enjoy classics because of that reason. To us, a classic is wonderful every time we see or hear it. To that end, I love the every living crap out of John Williams music scores for major block busters dating back to the 1970's. Star Wars, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third, and E.T. are beautiful sweaping pieces that I always love to hear and listen to when I get tired of the radio, which is often. You should see the looks on peoples faces when the come into the store to buy a pack of smokes when the Battle of Hoth is playing. They get this look that says "I know this, but from where?"
That's where I was basing my last post. People recognize older music whether they like it or not. If something is played often enough and long enough, people will always recognize it.
When I said FoS was "classic" I was referring to the evil, money making alternative definition of "classic".
"Classic" has become way overused in the same way that "extreme" has become way over used. "Classic" to the companies out to get your dollar has the power to promote something up bigger than it may deserve to resell it.
But still, something has to stand the test of time to be given the dehonor of being called "classic" for the sake of selling a product, even itself.
I think that people enjoy classics because of that reason. To us, a classic is wonderful every time we see or hear it. To that end, I love the every living crap out of John Williams music scores for major block busters dating back to the 1970's. Star Wars, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third, and E.T. are beautiful sweaping pieces that I always love to hear and listen to when I get tired of the radio, which is often. You should see the looks on peoples faces when the come into the store to buy a pack of smokes when the Battle of Hoth is playing. They get this look that says "I know this, but from where?"
That's where I was basing my last post. People recognize older music whether they like it or not. If something is played often enough and long enough, people will always recognize it.
When I said FoS was "classic" I was referring to the evil, money making alternative definition of "classic".
"Classic" has become way overused in the same way that "extreme" has become way over used. "Classic" to the companies out to get your dollar has the power to promote something up bigger than it may deserve to resell it.
But still, something has to stand the test of time to be given the dehonor of being called "classic" for the sake of selling a product, even itself.
[QUOTE=SmokeSoft]I think that people enjoy classics because of that reason. To us, a classic is wonderful every time we see or hear it. To that end, I love the every living crap out of John Williams music scores for major block busters dating back to the 1970's. Star Wars, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third, and E.T. are beautiful sweaping pieces that I always love to hear and listen to when I get tired of the radio, which is often. You should see the looks on peoples faces when the come into the store to buy a pack of smokes when the Battle of Hoth is playing. They get this look that says "I know this, but from where?"[/QUOTE]
"SmokeSoft, I think this is the begining of a beautiful friendship"
"SmokeSoft, I think this is the begining of a beautiful friendship"
"Veni,Vidi,vici!"
(I came,I saw,I conquered!) Julius Ceasar
(I came,I saw,I conquered!) Julius Ceasar
[QUOTE=SmokeSoft]FoS was an example I was making. I picked something that many people wouldn't place up there with real "classics," stuff like Morlock's definition. Things that you couldn't stand to not see again.
I think that people enjoy classics because of that reason. To us, a classic is wonderful every time we see or hear it. To that end, I love the every living crap out of John Williams music scores for major block busters dating back to the 1970's. Star Wars, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third, and E.T. are beautiful sweaping pieces that I always love to hear and listen to when I get tired of the radio, which is often. You should see the looks on peoples faces when the come into the store to buy a pack of smokes when the Battle of Hoth is playing. They get this look that says "I know this, but from where?"
That's where I was basing my last post. People recognize older music whether they like it or not. If something is played often enough and long enough, people will always recognize it.
[/QUOTE]
I think your defintion is too subjective, since everything people recognise and like according to their personal taste, could be defined as a "classic". Even the most influencal works in art or music could be classified as "classics" because you don't feel the need to see Michelango's sculptures again, and you don't feel anything particular about it.
I think "classic" should be a term that denotes something more than personal taste, something that captures the influence of the work. Liking because of recognition and pleasant association is sentimentality and personal taste, it says nothing of the value of a work in the context of history and development of music/art/design/choose field.
I think that people enjoy classics because of that reason. To us, a classic is wonderful every time we see or hear it. To that end, I love the every living crap out of John Williams music scores for major block busters dating back to the 1970's. Star Wars, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third, and E.T. are beautiful sweaping pieces that I always love to hear and listen to when I get tired of the radio, which is often. You should see the looks on peoples faces when the come into the store to buy a pack of smokes when the Battle of Hoth is playing. They get this look that says "I know this, but from where?"
That's where I was basing my last post. People recognize older music whether they like it or not. If something is played often enough and long enough, people will always recognize it.
[/QUOTE]
I think your defintion is too subjective, since everything people recognise and like according to their personal taste, could be defined as a "classic". Even the most influencal works in art or music could be classified as "classics" because you don't feel the need to see Michelango's sculptures again, and you don't feel anything particular about it.
I think "classic" should be a term that denotes something more than personal taste, something that captures the influence of the work. Liking because of recognition and pleasant association is sentimentality and personal taste, it says nothing of the value of a work in the context of history and development of music/art/design/choose field.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
Well, there is a third definition I've encountered during the course of my studies. I'm a student of history. "Classic" is often used by historians to mean "the model fill-in-the-blank"
The Fe-109 was the model, read here as classic, fighter aircraft of World War II. It's design is called classic because it's design was the basis for fightercraft for the duration of the war.
The 1911A semi-automatic pistol has been the classic design of all automatic pistols from Brownings to Glocks to H&K's for nearly a century.
The Indian Chef has been the classic design for heavy crusier motocycles for the last 80 years, influencing Harley Davidsons best selling models and even getting Honda and Yamaha ideas for their crusiers today.
Using "classic" this way means basis, most functional design, and emulated. These things I mention are "classics" under the other definitions already discussed, as well. Historians use "classic" to label something as the first in a line of.
The definitions so far are:
1. Personal, emotional attactment
2. Marketing tool, sells header
3. Model for, basis of, first
This last definition doesn't fit all that well for entertainment, so definitions 1 and 2 are applied more often because they deal with art when there are lots of art styles to pick from. While there can still be classics of TV, movies and music, most people don't care who was first to set a trend, they like what they like.
The Fe-109 was the model, read here as classic, fighter aircraft of World War II. It's design is called classic because it's design was the basis for fightercraft for the duration of the war.
The 1911A semi-automatic pistol has been the classic design of all automatic pistols from Brownings to Glocks to H&K's for nearly a century.
The Indian Chef has been the classic design for heavy crusier motocycles for the last 80 years, influencing Harley Davidsons best selling models and even getting Honda and Yamaha ideas for their crusiers today.
Using "classic" this way means basis, most functional design, and emulated. These things I mention are "classics" under the other definitions already discussed, as well. Historians use "classic" to label something as the first in a line of.
The definitions so far are:
1. Personal, emotional attactment
2. Marketing tool, sells header
3. Model for, basis of, first
This last definition doesn't fit all that well for entertainment, so definitions 1 and 2 are applied more often because they deal with art when there are lots of art styles to pick from. While there can still be classics of TV, movies and music, most people don't care who was first to set a trend, they like what they like.
Well I think any word is meaningless if it can denote anything, and if the term "classic" can denote anything people just have a personal liking for, that means classic is a meaningless concept since there will always been somebody who likes everything.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums