The Boss

[Mp40]

meni ovo deluje super zanimljivo i ako uzmes, prijavio bih se za citanje cim svrsis.Ethics of Encores mi je zakon!

[Buck Naked]

I'll see what I can do. Evo kritika:

Uneven collection of essays reflects the range of interests and writing abilities of the writers, almost all of whom are professors of philosophy of apparently accredited institutions of higher education, raising questions as to the current standing and academic rigor of the philosophical field of study in 2008.Not to say this set of essays is egregiously bad, but the writing and proofreading left numerous errors in the text of the essays, a sure sign for me that I should treat the material with the same level of seriousness that its authors and editors did. There are way too many bad puns and flat attempts at word play on Springsteen songs, characters, and lyrics, starting with the vapid subtitle. Truth has an edge? It's dark there? What does that mean, other than the "yeah, we get it" reference to Springsteen's "Darkness on the Edge of Town"?And note to most of the writers: dial back (waaaaaaaaay back) on the wanna-be-Bruce vibes already. We get it. We all wanted to be Bruce, cut someplace of our own with these drums and these guitars, but we're not, and we didn't, so let it go, and write with the seriousness and focus and academic abilities that the subject and your positions demand.A couple of the essays did stand out for their insight and interest:--Auxier's "Blinded by the Subterranean Homesick Muse: The Poet as Virtuous and Virtuoso" pairs Springsteen and his constant comparator Dylan in this essay introducing the classical Muses and their uses in these great poets' lyrics (as well as tracing the etymological connection between the two adjectives in his essay's subtitle).--Auxier deconstructs Wendy, the lover to whom Springsteen sings "Born to Run", and places her (and Springsteen) in the literary canon in the essay "An Everlasting Kiss: The Seduction of Wendy."--"Straight Time: Images of Oppression" by Luke Dick examines that phrase and the use of images in meaning, understanding, imagination and empathy (along the way explaining why Dana Carvey's impression of Jimmy Stewart works).This is the second book of literary, philosophical and historical examination of Springsteen's music that I have read recently (see Born in the U.S.A.: Bruce Springsteen and the American Tradition), and both fall short. We are still too close the power of his performance and the peak of his musical output to truly and accurately appreciate and define it. Dylan similarly suffers in literary examinations; although Dylan is closer to the end of his oeuvre, both men still have too much to say and a love and compulsion to play that makes it impossible for even the deepest among us to summarize, categorize, or academize them.

(ne slažem se sa poslednjom rečenicom, pa bih kritiku odjebao)a evo i pohvale:

I've read (at least parts of) several of the titles in the "Popular culture and philosophy" series; unfortunately, despite the general value of this sort of work, the series is very uneven. This title, I am glad to say, being both an armchair philosopher and a semi-professional Bruce Springsteen fan, is among the best entries.The best feature of this book is that each of the authors (among the chapters I have read so far) takes Bruce seriously as what he is: a rock n' roll musician and contemporary poet. There is no attempt to make Bruce into something he is not (this point is clearly made in the first chapter). Instead, the authors stay true to the themes and issues that Bruce himself explores in his songs. In contrast to many of the other books in the series, for example, there are no chapters concerning how Bruce does (or does not) capture some element of Plato's theory of knowledge. There are, however, chapters on the nature of work and labor, the importance of human connection, the nature of freedom, and the possibility of redemption. Anyone familiar with Bruce's music will recognize these themes in his lyrics and choice of material. These themes are, moreover, profoundly philosophical, regardless of whether Bruce's explorations are as 'deep' as those of professional philosophers. (Although I would insist, as do many of the authors, that Bruce's music, in a sense, has greater depth than any philosophical treatise could achieve.)This book is also notable, among the "Popular culture" series, for its list of contributors, which includes several prominent interpreters of classic and modern American philosophy (particularly the pragmatist tradition). This list includes: Randall Auxier and Doug Anderson (editors and contributors), John Shook, and Scott Pratt. This is possibly the best selection of professional philosophers among any titles in the series (apart from Slavoj Zizek's contribution to "The Matrix"). But this selection is also important because there is a (mediated) connection between Bruce and classic American philosophy. Though I am not suggesting that Bruce has necessarily read James, Dewey, etc., I believe that both Bruce (and other musicians who could be classed in the same genre as Bruce - including perhaps Steve Earle, Tom Cochrane, John Mellencamp, and John Fogerty - call it 'heartland rock') and James et al. share common roots in the philosophy and literature of the American Renaissance: Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman, Melville...A good book, in all - though definitely for a certain 'type' of Springsteen fan. There are chapters that should appeal to any fan, but, as I suggested above, one reason for Bruce's importance may be that he pursues philosophical issues in a profoundly non-philosophical medium.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Buck Naked

[The Ghost]

Video sam ovu knjigu ranije i meni je naslov bio jako zanimljiv. Zaista bih voleo da je procitam.Svidja mi se pocetak:I have always thought there was something beyond the usual going on in Bruce Springsteen`s music, and I was reaching for a word to describe it.

[Buck Naked]

Eh, koliki pritisak :)Ništa, onda je moram poručiti..

[dancing]

Buck Naked, kako se toliki interes za filozofske aspekte Bruceove muzike uklapa u "telesna zadovoljstva i prolazne vrednosti"?

[Mp40]

on dzrmi dok cita!

[BornToRun]

I'll see what I can do. (ne slažem se sa poslednjom rečenicom, pa bih kritiku odjebao)

sto se ne slazes sa poslednjom recenicom

[dancing]

Pa tip otprilike kaže da o muzičarima ne vrijedi pisati knjige i procjenjivati njihov rad i utjecaj dok su još u naponu snage, nego da se to može tek onda kad kažu sve što su imali (tj. kad odu u penziju).Niti ja se ne slažem s takvim stavom.

[BornToRun]

Kaze da ne mozemo precizno da definisemo njihov rad dok su zivi.To je mozda i tacno. Ne za dilana jer on sam i nedodirljiv sedi na tronu i to niko nece poreci. Ali za Brusa je to sasvim moguce. Ok smo mi koji ga pratimo i volimo i upoznati smo sa njegovim radom ali sta je sa sirom javnoscu. Moja baba je cula za Dilana i Bitlse i Elvisa ali ne za Brusa. Vecina ljudi nije upoznata koliki je njegov znacaj u muzici i sigurno je da ce se to promenii u narednoj deceniji i da ce dobiti mesto koje mu pripada. Dobro ne pored dilana ali odmah ispod njega u rangu sa Stonsima, Led Zeplelin-om itdPa evo primer Jacksona. Dok je bio ziv jedino kad sam ga pominjao je bilo u konotaciji neke sprdnje, ali sad kad je umro jasno mi je da zauzima bitno mesto u muzici .

[Buck Naked]

Ja mislim da poenta rečenice nije bila u "dok su živi" aspektu, već u tom kretenskom humanističkom maniru da se o umetnosti ne može akademski raspravljati, jer je to nešto fluidno, neuhvatljivo, uzvišeno za "dosadnu" i "suvoparnu" nauku i/ili filozofiju.Ja svako malo nalećem na takve idiotluke.. Jedno vreme sam se bavio sociologijom emocija i kao da je svuda vrvelo (!) od stavova da je ljubav nešto što se ne može naučno obuhvatiti i saznajno uhvatiti.Mislim da je to sranje. Umetnost je i te kako podložna dosadnim naučnim i filozofskim analizama, i toga nam treba što više. Moja bojazan je da Brusova muzika i lirika nisu dovoljno kvalitetno filozofski obrađeni, već da su to neki pop-esejčići u kojima se sa vremena na vreme spomenu neki Sokrat ili Kant, da bi se nakitio tekst.Edit: tako je, autor one kritike je rekao "We are still too close the power of his performance and the peak of his musical output to truly and accurately appreciate and define it", tako da jeste malo "ne dok su živi" fazon, ali i to je sranje. Naravno da ovi imaju još štošta da pruže, ali ne razumem zašto bi nas to sprečavalo da napišemo nešto kvalitetno o dosadašnjem - višedecenijskom! - radu dotičnih. Zašto čekati da svi poumiru?

Edited July 23, 2009 by Buck Naked

[Buck Naked]

Buck Naked, kako se toliki interes za filozofske aspekte Bruceove muzike uklapa u "telesna zadovoljstva i prolazne vrednosti"?

pa i mozak je telo, a čitanje telesno zadovoljstvo!

[dancing]

Živim u neznanju - da li postoji kakva knjiga u kojoj su objedinjeni Bruceovi intervjui?Radije bih čitala što on ima za reći o svojim pjesmama, nego kako ih drugi doživljavaju.

[dancing]

pa i mozak je telo, a čitanje telesno zadovoljstvo!

A što ona famozna podjela na dušu i tijelo, jel duša samo jedan dio tijela? :)

[Buck Naked]

duše nema!

[dancing]

Jel to znanstveno dokazano? :) Duša bi bila zajednički naziv za skup misli i osjećaja, tj. neuronskih podražaja koje generira naš mozak?Jesus, tko se može baviti tom znanošću, to je sve tako suhoparno i definitivno!OK.Uglavnom, danas me duša tako boli da ću izludjeti. Pardon, tj. mozak mi radi na krivoj frekvenciji.Bruce je u Udinama svirao Born In The USA, a mene nije bilo tamo.Zato što je moja šefica morala ići u Banja Luku na koncert Lennyja WTF Kravitza održanog sinoć.Born In The USA... sigh...