Why is something being "obscure" often a desirable quality when it comes to music and movies (among other arts) but never when it comes to literature?
Some people believe that a fairly unknown musical album has more artistic merit than a popular top-40 album, same when it comes to movies.
Why this isn't the case with literature and philosophy though? Why is it that no one will read something by an unknown author? Why is it that they are never or very rarely praised? Why are people so skeptical when it comes to new authors and only stick to "canon"?
For example, when it comes existentialism, people will pick up something by Sartre, Kierkegaard, Camus, etc, no, they won't pick up something by Rahmudin Ùalebeshku from Turkmenistan. When it comes to postmodern literature, people will read DFW or Pynchon, when it comes to the best pieces of literature of the last century everyone will read East of Eden by Steinbeck, 1984 by Orwell, Catch-22 by Heller, no one wants to read something by Koyunqlu Reuğhlin Séparmurat from Romania.
Same with all the "greatest books of all time" lists, there's always Joyce on them, there's always Orwell there, but there's never an unknown or an "obscure" name.
So, why do many people like "obscurity" in medias like movies and music but not literature?
Some people would rather watch a Michael Snow or Jonas Mekas film instead of something by Andrei Tarkovsky or Clint Eastwood.
Some people would rather listen to Taku Unami instead of Igor Stravinsky or Drake.
No one would rather read Rahmudin Ùalebeshku instead of James Joyce or even Dan Brown.
How can this be explained?
It's not desirable because it's obscure, it's the other way round: it's obscure because it's good.
To be popular, music must appeal to most people. To appeal to most people, it has to avoid turning people off, so it ends up bland.
Same goes for movies.
Same goes for books to a certain extent, but the main difference is plebs simply don;t read any books whatsoever. So them lists with Joyce on are written by book-patricians.
There still some popular pleb books, like Stephen King and Barbara Cartland.
>it's obscure because it's good
Sorry but that's just bullshit, most obscure stuff is often as generic as popular one
This epic meme that one Cash Money release can be just as good or even better than one Erstwhile Records release needs to stop. Pretending to be open minded and into every genre ironically was never funny.
>Cash Money release can be just as good or even better than one Erstwhile Records
Why do you make such extreme comparisons I was talking more about stuff like Subpop, Matador or 4AD
I don't agree : imo there are obscure work in every art field, but only because there is so much production one can't keep an eye on evertything, so a lot of good but not overwhelming works are going to be flooded into the mass production, hence their obscurity
and this happens quite a lot in litterature, just think about all the middle age litterature and how little people are interested in it, even if it's the source of most of our modern litterature
Totally agree. I play a game on /mu/ called Reverse Sharethread where I delete any album I own that gets posted here. That way I know my tastes remain obscure and thus better than anyone else.
>listening to an album takes 40 minutes
>watching a film takes 90 minutes
>reading a book takes at least 4 hours normally something between 10 to 12 hours
reading is boring so if you're gonna read something it has to be from someone you know isn't retarded
I expect it's different with classical. Most radio-listenin popfags are pleb, but I expect far more classicalfags are patrish to begin with, so good classical stuff can be popular.
Unsarcastically a 10/10 thread.
I think it has to do with the inherently commercial and accessible nature of pop music in the modern industry.
To people that give a shit, listeners of pop music are contributing to the mass market/bell curve that drive labels to simplify and water down the production of their artists to appeal to the most people and sell the most singles on iTunes.
This is not the case with literature because there have only been a few instances im pop literature that an author reaches the commercial success of any given top 40's artist.
Literature isn't a business in the same way that music and film are a business these days. Also, music and movies that are popular are made to be popular, accessible, and easily understood.
That sort of shit exists in literature, too. James Patterson novels, for example. However, it's definitely not structured the same way to make cash.
because if music comes off as garbled mess (harsh noise) or boring af (ambient) people can appreciate it for what it's worth. i like harsh noise for its rhythmic qualities and abrasiveness, and i like ambient because it's peaceful and relaxing. the same can't be said with literature since you need focus to read a book, and if it's complete mess it's probably going to be a Ulysses ripoff, or if it's boring, you're not going to finish the thing.
best of lists tend to be composed of well-known artists anyway, regardless of the field. i suppose it also comes down to the fact that people are more willing to read something that's already been established as good.
there's also the barrier of language, obscure foreign books aren't likely to be available in languages that many people can understand. translations that may be available can possibly botch the content so badly that it comes off as being a really bad read when it isn't.
First, you should really be comparing how critics treat the most popular books with the way critics treat the most popular music. You're referring to popular music, which is often engineered for mass consumption and comparing that to books that really aren't. A more apt comparison would be to compare pieces of classical music or composers that are considered the best and books that are considered the best, and then you'll see that the results are pretty similar - that is, obscure composers aren't ranked highly compared to well-known, popular composers.
because for every 1 person who thinks they can make it in making good music or movies, there's 10 people who think they can write good books
also because if you fail at the others
>my film is trash but I still have all this dialogue and stage captions
>my music is shit but I still have these deep lyrics
you can still publish the words
"Obscure" is literally what is wrong with /mu/ - self-serving obscurantism manifesting in trashing music/albums that aren't the most incredibly collectors-only obscure level artist from X genre. My collection of serialism is quite large, about 45gb, and I do consider myself an enthusiast in the genre but I only feel unbounded happiness when I recognize another devotee and I don't act like I'm part of some fucking elitist club.
I recently posted something about Popol Vuh and how I like them, and I barely ever got any serious responses and everyone called me a pleb and said that the artist is not "obscure" enough for their liking. But in reality, I haven't met a single person who knows what Popol Vuh is in real life. Seriously people who think like that can all go and suck their own dicks.
>it's obscure because it's good.
This. Most people are not very intelligent, with an IQ below 130. More often than not this implies terrible taste in music, films, books and pretty much everything.
- Michael Bay films
- Dan Brown books
- Kanye West music
I have nothing against stupidity but refined taste does not correlate well with popularity. This is a scientific FACT.
Not him man, but using IQ as a valid point is the stupidest thing you can do.
People get into music and film because they want to make money, people write books because they want to get their ideas out there. Therefore, in music and film the most popular aren't that good because it's just the people who wanted money the most whereas in books those sorts of people don't really exist. Very few people get into writing thinking they're going to be rich so there isn't this mass marketing push to make shitty stuff successful, yeah it happens somewhat (Rowling, Meyer, whoever wrote that 50 Shades of Grey book, etc.) but not on the same level. I mean most people can't even read these days, how are you going to sell them on that shit? They had to make film adaptations of those books to really rake in the cash on those properties.
>- Kanye West music
Oh fuck off you stupid pathetic piece of shit.
LE EEEPIC LE MEMEEEE !!! 1!! ! ! KANYE LE SHIT looook
post croissants XDDDDDDDDDDDD
shame about le lyrics dat beat good tho XDDD hhahahahahahahhahahahah
he has a team of le producers looooooool lele top kek lel top lel lel kekkest of le lels
kanye doesnt even le produce his own music le thief amirite muh fellow /b/rothers?
back to kanyetothe with you XDDDDD le reddit le KTT le nigger looololol
epic memers meme memeing le uhuh honey le croissants le that nigger le its a stolen beat lolol le based as fuck us with out
>implying hes a genius XDD
kanye is shit
haha i said it again
kanye le sucks has to hire ghostwriters
is it pusha t? O_o
why is a guy wearing womans clothing? O_O
a guy in adress?
MUH LEATHER BLACK JEANS ON HAHAHA BRAVO KANYEEEEEE :)) XD :D
wow dat cover album is ugly XXDDDDDD someone le post le kanye lyrics :)) :D her beats tho XDD shame about le MUH MEME RAP hes dumb too
he got #REKT by sway it shows hes dumb haha XDDDDDDD