Classical Music Forum banner

"the emperor's new clothes" comparisons are the emperor's new clothes

14K views 206 replies 39 participants last post by  eugeneonagain 
#1 ·
As we all know, in the story of the emperor's new clothes, no one will admit the emperor is naked because they have been told that his clothes are invisible to foolish people. Not wanting to appear foolish, they pretend to see the non-existent clothes.

This story is almost never applicable to music or any other art. While an "emperor's new clothes" situation might arise from time to time within a particular close-knit scene, it is always short-lived - months, not years.

Also, it's such a cliche. Let's have some self-respect and drop it forever.
 
#4 · (Edited)
I mostly agree with the OP, but then on the other hand I think we can get a bit hung up on a too-literal interpretation of its usage. Do people who say "the emperor has no clothes" really believe that they're a genuine equivalent of the small child in the story, and that just by saying these words, they'll suddenly make everyone realise their mistake? It seems to me it's just a (yes, definitely clichéd) way of saying "this thing you all think is great, is (IMO) actually crap". Or are they actually narcissistic and/or stupid enough to think that their opinion is completely, objectively, and demonstrably, correct? Am I just being naive?
 
#5 ·
Or are they actually narcissistic and/or stupid enough to think that their opinion is completely, objectively, and demonstrably, correct?
Yes, I assure you, when someone says that they think atonal music/Boulez/Schoenberg/modernism/Stravinsky/polyrhythm/Ives/Mahler/Debussy is a hoax, they actually are narcissistic and stupid enough to believe it.
 
#13 ·
Emperor's New Clothes vs. Blue Suede Shoes

Carl Perkins - Blue Suede Shoes Lyrics | MetroLyrics

Well it's one for the money, two for the show
Three to get ready, now go cat go
But don't you, step on my blue suede shoes
You can do anything but lay off of my blue suede shoes

You can knock me down, step in my face
Slander my name all over the place
And do anything that you want to do
But uh uh honey lay off of my shoes
And don't you step on my blue suede shoes
You can do anything but lay off of my blue suede shoes

Oh let's go cats!

You can burn my house, steal my car
Drink my liquor from an old fruit jar
Do anything that you want to do
But uh uh honey lay off of them shoes
And don't you, step on my blue suede shoes
You can do anything but lay off of my blue suede shoes

Rock!

Well it's one for the money, two for the show
Three to get ready, now go cat go
But don't you, step on my blue suede shoes
You can do anything but lay off of my blue suede shoes

Well it's blue, blue, blue suede shoes
Blue, blue, blue suede shoes yeah!
Blue, blue, blue suede shoes baby
Blue, blue, blue suede shoes
You can do anything but lay off of my blue suede shoes
 
#16 · (Edited)
I fully agree.

And of course, in Andersen's story the object of the people's credulity (the "clothes") is a hoax perpetrated by swindlers. Usage in the context of these boards implies that the music in question is a hoax perpetrated by swindlers. If the poster feels that way s/he should come out and say it rather than hide behind a literary allusion that implies that everyone who thinks otherwise is deluded or lying.

I try to be generous and give the poster of such a remark the benefit of the doubt that s/he is not fully aware of what s/he is saying. And then I simply ignore it.
 
#18 ·
I fully agree.

And of course, in the story the object of the people's credulity (the "clothes") is a hoax perpetrated by swindlers. Usage in the context of these boards implies that the music in question is a hoax perpetrated by swindlers. If the poster feels that way s/he should come out and say it rather than hide behind a literary allusion that implies that everyone who thinks otherwise is deluded or lying.

I find it is often best to ignore such remarks and deny the poster the attention s/he seeks.
While that is certainly one valid interpretation of the story, it is not the only interpretation possible. The people who refuse to speak honestly might be constrained by the fact that they are on the Emperor's payroll, and don't want to lose their money. They might be afraid to be seen as argumentative. However, as I just pointed out, the story is also about having the courage to voice an unpopular opinion.

I find the desire to censor members from using this literary allusion revealing.

Why does this allusion bother the "atonal (or whatever you want to call it)" audience so much? Could it be too close to the truth? What are the motivations of the people who want to question the motivations of messengers who shout "The Emperor Has No Clothes? After all, who would care if someone says they think Beethoven was nonsense? If the truth is obvious, the truth should prevail, eventually.

There seems to be a general trend in western culture to want to be "protected" from speech a person doesn't like. Or perhaps it is just a new form of censorship?
 
#28 ·
I have no attachment to, and don't recall ever using, the expression "the emperor's new clothes" (which is good, since having to give things up is unpleasant), but I've seen it used on occasion, and I have a strong feeling that people don't always use it in its full, original meaning. I suspect that most people have only a vague recollection of the tale, and when they hear the expression they think it simply means something like "this thing is not all it claims to be." Some people who do know the story may actually be accusing others of a pretense, but I wouldn't want automatically to assume this without some other evidence. They may simply be claiming that those others are ignorant or unperceptive, i.e., the emperor is naked but people just can't see it - which, of course, is not an offensive statement but an opinion which anyone is entitled to hold or express.
 
#33 ·
This is a fair point that I hadn't really considered. To me the story means a very specific thing, and I assumed most people used it that way.

For example it's always used against high-fallutin', smarty-pants things, right? No one would ever say the new Star Wars movie is the emperor's new clothes.

Whenever I've encountered it on this forum, I've understood it to mean that the thing in question is a fraud that many people are only pretending to like.
 
#35 ·
Mahlerian- This is a mod criticizing the arguments and the content of posts which I have been so unfortunate as to have been on the receiving end of.

This is a mod criticizing the wishful thinking that characterizes the arguments of those who do not want to admit that there are things in art that they do not yet understand, as there are for all of us.

"I assure you, when someone says that they think atonal music/Boulez/Schoenberg/modernism/Stravinsky/polyrhythm/Ives/Mahler/Debussy is a hoax, they actually are narcissistic and stupid enough to believe it."

Your original quote (in italics) goes a bit further, declaring that anyone who thinks atonal music etc... is a hoax... anyone who disagrees with you?... is narcissistic and stupid.

One might suggest that it takes a certain degree of presumption... if not narcissism... to assume that because someone dislikes a certain work or style of art that they "do not yet understand". How blessed you must be to already understand such things and thus take infinite pleasure in them.

Is it not possible, however, that one may actually be quite knowledgeable upon a work or style of art... and still dislike it... still feel it is even a hoax?
 
#37 · (Edited)
Your original quote (in italics) goes a bit further, declaring that anyone who thinks atonal music etc... is a hoax... anyone who disagrees with you?... is narcissistic and stupid.
Equivocation can get you lots of places. You don't even need to rely on what has been said.

Agreement and disagreement are really irrelevant here.

One might suggest that it takes a certain degree of presumption... if not narcissism... to assume that because someone dislikes a certain work or style of art that they "do not yet understand". How blessed you must be to already understand such things and thus take infinite pleasure in them.
I said nothing about liking and disliking. Again, you are adding to and changing the meaning of what I said. Like I said before, we all are continually learning about art and none of us understand everything.

Is it not possible, however, that one may actually be quite knowledgeable upon a work or style of art... and still dislike it... still feel it is even a hoax?
In the sense that you can today find astronomers who believe in a flat Earth or trained political scientists who believe that the Illuminati control the world from behind the scenes, I suppose there could be musicologists who are convinced that any or all of the things I mentioned (I'll throw in Mozart, too, as he's also been the recipient of these "arguments") are hoaxes.
 
#41 ·
SLG (quoted)- Is it not possible, however, that one may actually be quite knowledgeable upon a work or style of art... and still dislike it... still feel it is even a hoax?

Mahlerian- In the sense that you can today find astronomers who believe in a flat Earth or trained political scientists who believe that the Illuminati control the world from behind the scenes, I suppose there could be musicologists who are convinced that any or all of the things I mentioned (I'll throw in Mozart, too, as he's also been the recipient of these "arguments") are hoaxes.

So once one is suitably knowledgeable of a given artist, work of art, or artistic style it is only possible to dislike or dismiss such if one is slightly on the disturbed side? In other words... one might only be seen as reasonably knowledgeable if one tows the "party line"?

isorhthym- I don't think it's possible for an intelligent person to think huge swaths of modern music are literally a hoax, no. That's not the same as disliking it.

Hmmm... I must say that within my own forte, the visual arts, I find a good many contemporary "art stars" who I feel are hoaxes... and I'm not alone in this assessment. There are more than a few artists of some renown, museum curators, and critics who share this view. Perhaps we're all just narcissistic and stupid. :rolleyes:
 
#42 · (Edited)
So once one is suitably knowledgeable of a given artist, work of art, or artistic style it is only possible to dislike or dismiss such if one is slightly on the disturbed side? In other words... one might only be seen as reasonably knowledgeable if one tows the "party line"?
What party line? You keep changing the subject from what I've said. I never mentioned like or dislike, and I told you this. Now you're adding dismissal?

Hmmm... I must say that within my own forte, the visual arts, I find a good many contemporary "art stars" who I feel are hoaxes... and I'm not alone in this assessment. There are more than a few artists of some renown, museum curators, and critics who share this view. Perhaps we're all just narcissistic and stupid. :rolleyes:
Even admitting that you're definitely right, and that all of the modern artists you think are hoaxes are actually hoaxes,

this does absolutely nothing to prove any point about music,

let alone the specific cases I've mentioned.
 
#44 ·
Would someone explain to me why people are so thin-skinned over perceived criticisms of music they like that one can almost see their bones and internal organs showing through? I should think that what matters is that one likes what one likes, and damn the torpedoes. As I've posted before, if somebody agrees with my assessment it's icing on the cake; if they disagree then it's proof of their idiocy and I move on. One needs to demonstrate some firmness in the authenticity of one's own tastes, realizing that it's all nothing but taste in the end.
 
#45 ·
Would someone explain to me why people are so thin-skinned over perceived criticisms of music they like that one can almost see their bones and internal organs showing through?
I think sometimes people prefer to see things in a light that demonstrates, to themselves, their own worth. That is, it is an ego defense reaction. Example: If I like "modernistic music" while most do not, that shows that I am more discerning and more advanced than most people.

This is a comforting belief, particularly for those who feel socially challenged otherwise, and whose self-worth needs boosting. It explains the often angry and bristling response when the quality of this kind of music is challenged -- a simple defensive reaction. This is not advanced psychology!
 
#47 · (Edited)
I want to disavow any notions of the legitimacy of anyone accusing anyone else of fraud, or stupidity, or self-deception, or bad faith or whatever in discussions such as these. Once one understands clearly in one's own mind that art--the arts, music--is all about taste and nothing but taste, then the best response is to say that one is not the audience for whom some particular work was created or to whom it is properly directed; that one is unsuited to properly appreciate said work. This way, nobody's feelings get hurt; few feathers are ruffled. Much better to mutually revel in interests held in common.
 
#50 ·
The subject of a "hoax" or "fraud" perpetrated by artists and critics sounds perfectly fascinating. So far I've seen two contributors asserting that such a thing not only may exist but probably does. If it can and does, how does it work, and what makes it possible? Can cultural products be "insincere" in some way? Can artists and people involved in the arts have dishonest or ulterior motives for what they produce and propagate? Can artists be induced by ideologies and peer pressure to conform to fashion and be untrue to themselves? Can people's tastes and judgments be warped by those with something to gain? Can high culture, like pop culture, be manipulated and manipulative? Can art be untrue to its own nature and be actually destructive of human values, and might its producers and advocates be aware and approving of this? How much faith shall we place in human nature, and should we expect more of human nature when it is reflected in the arts?

Just some questions the idea of artistic "fraud" suggests.
 
#57 ·
One idea here is that some musics may be an attempt to lull us into a view of the world which is untenable. A consoling view for example. I could imagine that this may be an interesting criticism of music by Josquin, Beethoven, Brahms, Sviradov, Part.

This is music as opium of the people, as it were.
 
#54 ·
There's no easier way to dispose of our intellectual opponents than to psychologize them. If we can show that they're only shoring up their tottering egos and compensating for feelings of inferiority, we can define them as inferior and we don't have to take their ideas seriously. But then what do such ad hominem tactics say about us?

Musical Egos - the TC version of Musical Chairs.
 
#64 · (Edited)
There's no easier way to dispose of our intellectual opponents than to psychologize them. If we can show that they're only shoring up their tottering egos and compensating for feelings of inferiority, we can define them as inferior and we don't have to take their ideas seriously. But then what do such ad hominem tactics say about us?
It would say that we are forgetting the beam in our own eye.

All of us are emotionally attached to our opinions, unconsciously at the very least. The rational conscious 'surface' is a very thin construct (from this point of view). The opinions of each and every one of us could be dissected psychologically, given enough material to work with. But a web forum devoted to the discussion of classical music isn't the appropriate place to do it. No-one here has signed up for analysis-by-internet forum...
 
#59 · (Edited)
The question of fraud is interesting, and there have definitely been some nice frauds in the last century -- Fritz Kreisler, Henri Cadadesus, Remo Giazotto (and fine frauds they were). But in general composers are, I think, quite sincere in their music. It's listeners who hear what they like, and attach whatever significance they want. And then give their attachments importance depending on their psychological needs. Overall, an interesting phenomenon.
 
#60 ·
As an example of the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome in music, what about the relatively Joyce Hatto fraud? Here we had an elderly pianist who was apparently turning out fabulously performances of piano music in her old age. The critics queued up to praise the performances. People who questioned the origin of these recordings were told they were insulting our 'national treasure' who had bravely made these wonderful recordings while suffering cancer. Of course it turned out that the recordings so praised were copies of other artists some digitally manipulated. So yes, people like in music!
For a fuller account:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3669195/Joyce-Hatto-Notes-on-a-scandal.html
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top