Fun Stuff > BAND

Music & Politics

<< < (3/13) > >>

KharBevNor:
I really, really wouldn't see that as a political statement. Of course, it is if you want to take it that way, but the band do not mean it to be a political statement. They're not selling out to the man by releasing albums, just as, say Vlad Tepes and Mütiilation weren't saying anything about capitalism when they released all their stuff on ultra-limited vinyl and cassettes. If the band care about how they put out their music, then that's a statement. If it's not it's not.

I take no particularly fixed point in the whole author/text/reader thingumy. However, I definitely believe that the main focus lies in author and text, with the reader as an important, but always tertiary party. The Lord of the Rings was not a nazi tract, or an Anti-nuclear war novel, and no matter how hard you try to read it as such, you will always be incorrect. I do however see a value in examining the subconscious indicators that work their way into the text (colours, use of spaces etc. that the author might not have considered consciously but make a definite psychological statement).

ASturge:
The worst political poser wannabe mofos = Pennywise

a pack of wolves:

--- Quote from: KharBevNor ---I really, really wouldn't see that as a political statement. Of course, it is if you want to take it that way, but the band do not mean it to be a political statement. They're not selling out to the man by releasing albums, just as, say Vlad Tepes and Mütiilation weren't saying anything about capitalism when they released all their stuff on ultra-limited vinyl and cassettes. If the band care about how they put out their music, then that's a statement. If it's not it's not.

I take no particularly fixed point in the whole author/text/reader thingumy. However, I definitely believe that the main focus lies in author and text, with the reader as an important, but always tertiary party. The Lord of the Rings was not a nazi tract, or an Anti-nuclear war novel, and no matter how hard you try to read it as such, you will always be incorrect. I do however see a value in examining the subconscious indicators that work their way into the text (colours, use of spaces etc. that the author might not have considered consciously but make a definite psychological statement).
--- End quote ---


I didn't say it was a political statement, at least not consciously. I'd be very surprised if it was. But it is nonetheless political.

So I take it you have very little interest in the whole concept of intertextuality then?

KharBevNor:
Intertextuality in what way? Surely intertextuality is in the hands of the author: it's up to them what to reference and what to be influenced by. I don't see your implication?

a pack of wolves:
Intertextuality can never be controlled by the author as they have no control over what other texts the reader has read. They have a certain amount of control in terms of which category their work is placed (creating a painting will no doubt create very different intertextual responses than a short film), but no total control. And of course they can't control what has gone before them in that particular sphere. Barthes argues in 'The Death of the Author' that in the relationships between the texts the reader (or 'scriptor' as he calls them) meaning is created, not as something handed down from the author (in the role of the 'author-god') or something decided upon consciously by the reader. For Barthes, all meaning arises from intertextuality.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page