Pop versus High Culture

[Henry Musikar]

I think that it's the speed and size of pop culture now. My 
grandparents didn't here music unless it was live (until they came to 
Amerika).

On  1 Jul 96 at 9:27, Mr Craig Clark wrote:

> From:          "Mr Craig Clark" <CLARK at superbowl.und.ac.za>
> Organization:  University of Natal
> To:            pynchon-l at waste.org
> Date:          Mon, 1 Jul 1996 09:27:39 +0200 SAST
> Subject:       Pop versus High Culture
> Priority:      normal

> Let's stick my nose in where it isn't needed, right into the 
> discussion between HAG and Davemarc
> 
> Hag wrote:
> > What bothers me is that you still refuse to engage with my point
> > beyond a 
> >cursory rejection. Rude, that - and that means giving you the
> >benefit of the doubt. I said pop culture was increasingly
> >formulaic, not produced by some shmuck on dope but according to the
> >latest market research, blablabla. I take it you don't concur? Why
> >not?
> 
> To which Davemarc replied
> > But if you'd really like to know my reaction to your comment that
> > pop culture is increasingly formulaic, my observation is that that
> > statement is so generalized (particular in the international
> > context of this list) that it doesn't make much sense.  There is
> > so much pop culture produced all over the world that it's hard to
> > know how to *begin* considering your statement. Only a century
> > ago, for example, American popular songs were extremely formulaic,
> > more so than they are today.  American television's a complicated
> > issue in itself, but recent trends (especially the growth of
> > cable) have led to a burst of formula-breaking, particularly in
> > the comedy genre.  
> 
> > But again, the statement's simply too general for my tastes.  I
> > honestly didn't see any point in spending much time with it, so I
> > just tried to add to the discussion by noting that Pynchon revels
> > in pop culture and pop culture references.  He gets a kick out of
> > much of it, remaining aware of (and exploiting) its comic as well
> > as its potentially sinister ramifications.
> 
> I'm inclined to go along with HAG here - it's possible that he and
> I, stranded on the southern tip of the African continent, just don't
> get to see enough of the formula-breaking pop culture. Our closest
> equivalent to cable TV here is a decoder-system network which seems
> to think that "Half-Vietnamese teenager comes to the US to find his
> GI father because he needs a bone marrow transfusion" is such a cool
> premise for a movie that we can have twenty variations on this theme
> screened each month.
> 
> But I digress. I think a lot of Pop Culture is shit, and I think TRP
> thinks so too. He can parody bad pop culture like no-one else in
> literature (my fave is that C&W song in _V._). I think a lot of Pop
> Culture is very good, and I think TRP thinks so too. He celebrates
> the good often by alluding to it. I think TRP would agree that a lot
> of pop culture is manufactured in accordance with the latest market
> research, and I think he'd also agree that there are times when even
> this kind of stuff can surprise one with its freshness and vitality,
> not to mention the popular culture that is created "by some shmuck
> on dope". 
> 
> I think there's some truth in Davemarc's claim that "only a century
> ago, for example, American popular songs were extremely formulaic,
> more so than they are today." Only the merest smidgeon of truth,
> mind you - I think that it would be more accurate to say that there
> is a wider range of formulae today - you can choose from formulaic
> rap, formulaic C & W, formulaic blues, formulaic angst-filled
> teen-rock, formulaic save-the-whales folk, etc: and that, despite
> having so many formulae to choose from, a handful of real artists
> produce great popular songs. I'd also argue though, along with HAG,
> that whereas thirty years ago it took the genius of a Lennon and
> McCartney to set the world on fire, today it takes a lot less. To
> draw a parallel from a medium that hardly anyone else takes
> seriously these days, mostly because there's so much schlock: 25
> years ago Broadway was set on fire by the witty, sardonic lyrics and
> restlessly serialist music of Stephen Sondheim. Today Broadway can't
> wait for the inane lyrics and plagiarised ditties of Andrew
> Lloyd-Webber. There's a definite decline in Pop Culture standards.
> 
> But then again, Sondheim and the Beatles are still Pop Culture,
> every bit as much as Lloyd-Webber and Kylie Minogue. Think of the
> Proles in Orwell's _1984_, or their immediate literary ancestors,
> the Yahoos in Swift's _Gulliver's Travels_. Debased, yeah. Dedicated
> to trivia, sure. Embodying everything that's worst in their culture,
> obviously. But still, when all's said and done, there's hope and
> vitality in them. That's what Swift and Orwell recognise and
> celebrate. Pynchon does too.  Craig Clark
> 
> "Living inside the system is like driving across
> the countryside in a bus driven by a maniac bent
> on suicide."
>    - Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
> 
> 
      | |
     /|/|
____/ | |
O   \ | |
     \|\|
      | |