MIH Track 13 question

There's no fallacy in my asking for clarity about an interpretation of a piece of art or of the artist's motivation.

If the artist's intention is not clear, questions have to be asked. If the artist's statement is muddied by ineffective execution, questions will expose that. It is the artist's responsibility to have clear intent and to be able to defend it.

Being vague, non-committal or generally wishy-washy about their idea does not make for an impactful artistic vision.

As to "Bohemian Rhapsody," since you brought it up, you still fail to see my point.

It's not about whether Freddie was creative enough to write the song solely from his imagination or not, it's about the fact that certain fans seem to think that something so evocative could ONLY come out of his direct personal experience. In his lifetime he denied such personal motivations were behind it, but those are patently ignored now because the tragedy of his death paints a more romantic picture of he himself being the tragic figure in the song.

I thought we were supposed to be watching The Wizard Of Oz while playing Track 13.   The flying monkeys appear right when Freddie dies.

[QUOTE]

[b]rhyeking wrote: [/b] There's no fallacy in my asking for clarity about an interpretation of a piece of art or of the artist's motivation.

If the artist's intention is not clear, questions have to be asked. If the artist's statement is muddied by ineffective execution, questions will expose that. It is the artist's responsibility to have clear intent and to be able to defend it.

Being vague, non-committal or generally wishy-washy about their idea does not make for an impactful artistic vision. [/QUOTE]
I don't really know or care what any of that is meant to mean, but my point stands:  It's is not a reasonable argument against the length of the piece being significant or the possibility of Fred's death being marked in the piece to say that the intention of every other minute is not clear.  To repeat, what follows is crap, with the parts in bold especially crap:

[b]In order to work, each minute must represent a year. [/b]Therefore, each set of sounds represents something happening in that year? Are they referring to points significant to the band? To Freddie? Their personal lives? Which events? Why those and not others? Is there significance to the different musical bits used (the percussion represents X? The piano represents Y? Freddie laughing in "1993" is what?)? [b]Honestly, there ought to be a consistent method to the application of an idea in order for it carry the impact of that idea most fully. And don't call it "Abstract," because you can't be both specific (22 years) and abstract at the same time.
[/b]
Queen was under no artistic obligation to make every minute reflect a year.  Get real.  Once again, you're so hot to undermine the ideas of other people (which is different from simply constructing an opposing argument) that you don't even care if you make any sense!

[QUOTE]

[b]rhyeking wrote: [/b] As to "Bohemian Rhapsody," since you brought it up, you still fail to see my point.

It's not about whether Freddie was creative enough to write the song solely from his imagination or not, it's about the fact that certain fans seem to think that something so evocative could ONLY come out of his direct personal experience. In his lifetime he denied such personal motivations were behind it, but those are patently ignored now because the tragedy of his death paints a more romantic picture of he himself being the tragic figure in the song. [/QUOTE]
The only fan I'm aware of that has ever implied that there is some issue around the idea "that something so evocative could ONLY come out of his direct personal experience" is YOU!  The original thread: 

http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1282128/very-interesting-probably-the-best-interpretation-of-boh-rhap.aspx

Fred said in one way or another all his songs were about love, or alternatively, about relationships.   Like many songwriters he wanted people to find their own lives and meanings in his songs. That a private gay man might have declined to describe in intimate and frank detail what may have been beautifully and creatively camouflaged struggles around those issues can hardly be considered proof of anything.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Didn't Brian May clear this up saying that the track represents "night" while the rest of the MIH album represents day ?
I've seen that statement somewhere on his soapbox.

[QUOTE]

[b]GratefulFan wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]

[b]rhyeking wrote: [/b] There's no fallacy in my asking for clarity about an interpretation of a piece of art or of the artist's motivation.

If the artist's intention is not clear, questions have to be asked. If the artist's statement is muddied by ineffective execution, questions will expose that. It is the artist's responsibility to have clear intent and to be able to defend it.

Being vague, non-committal or generally wishy-washy about their idea does not make for an impactful artistic vision. [/QUOTE]
I don't really know or care what any of that is meant to mean, but my point stands:  It's is not a reasonable argument against the length of the piece being significant or the possibility of Fred's death being marked in the piece to say that the intention of every other minute is not clear.  To repeat, what follows is crap, with theparts in bold especially crap:

[b]In order to work, each minute must represent a year. [/b]Therefore, each set of sounds represents something happening in that year? Are they referring to points significant to the band? To Freddie? Their personal lives? Which events? Why those and not others? Is there significance to the different musical bits used (the percussion represents X? The piano represents Y? Freddie laughing in "1993" is what?)? [b]Honestly, there ought to be a consistent method to the application of an idea in order for it carry the impact of that idea most fully. And don't call it "Abstract," because you can't be both specific (22 years) and abstract at the same time.
[/b]
Queen was under no artistic obligation to make every minute reflect a year.  Get real.  Once again, you're so hot to undermine the ideas of other people (which is different from simply constructing an opposing argument) that you don't even care if you make any sense! [/QUOTE]
++++++++++++++++++++++

Geez, wipe the foam from your mouth and actually read what I write using the sense God gave you.

I said I didn't buy the 22 minutes = 22 years idea, because as a fan theory, it doesn't hold up, in my opinion. It's vague and only works superficially. It falls apart under detailed scrutiny.

The portions of my post  which you emphasized (thanks, it saves me doing that, by the way) is my explaining one of the many things a person has to look for in competent critical analysis, not mention basic understand art theory: Consistent method in the application of an idea.

When the artist is unavailable for comment and interpretation is felt to be needed, as is the case here, a critic's proposed idea must be tested against all possible details provided in the work. The more details that exist in the piece which provide evidence of the artist's intent, the more support the proposed idea has that the intent has been isolated. The fewer examples one finds in the piece to support the idea, the less likely it is that proposed idea has merit.

Seriously, this is pretty basic stuff. Most of us learned it high school.

Thankfully after the callow if earnest intellectual wankery of Grade 13 English class many go on to university where they eventually get their heads out of their asses and open those newly liberated minds to the finer points of reason.  Although there are shades of a couple of the standard informal fallacies here (the fallacy of composition, or division, depending on how you look at things), what it is most surely is a good old fashioned false dilemma.  The options are not limited to 'Queen intended no correlation with their band history' or 'Queen intended complete correlation with their band history'.  There are effectively unlimited possibilities in between, with each possibility having as much likelihood as any other given the limitations of us as outsiders to divine the band's intentions.  Whether there is more - or less - 'proof' supporting a false extreme is completely irrelevant.

There is another interpretation that has never been discussed.

Perhaps this was a production accident that was pressed on the first batch of CDs.  The band heard it and said "well, they want bonus tracks, give 'em this crap".

To which a faint "Yeah!" was heard because Roger was listening to Action This Day.

Hence 2 bonus tracks were born and you're all suckers for thinking it's a SECRET MESSAGE FROM QUEEN AND GHOST OF FREDDIE.

[QUOTE]

[b]GratefulFan wrote: [/b] Thankfully after the callow if earnest intellectual wankery of Grade 13 English class many go on to university where they eventually get their heads out of their asses and open those newly liberated minds to the finer points of reason.  Although there are shades of a couple of the standard informal fallacies here (the fallacy of composition, or division, depending on how you look at things), what it is most surely is a good old fashioned false dilemma.  The options are not limited to 'Queen intended no correlation with their band history' or 'Queen intended complete correlation with their band history'.  There are effectively unlimited possibilities in between, with each possibility having as much likelihood as any other given the limitations of us as outsiders to divine the band's intentions.  Whether there is more - or less - 'proof' supporting a false extreme is completely irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
I said nothing about extremes, nor did I say those were the only two options. That's your pathologically obtuse reading of my posts. I can't help you there, nor do I want to, so let's stick with what I did say, which was that the theory is superficial. Under the light of available information, it remains so. 

You also continue to confuse my views of the theory with my views of Queen's intentions with the song. I believe the theory is flawed for reasons noted previously. My only comment in this thread on Queen's intention was that of David Richards' experimentation. Pretty much every point in my various other posts is in regards to the quality of critical analysis as fans attempt to glean Queen's intention. 

What amuses me most is how you fail to really make any point of your own aside from the fact you don't like what I say and don't seem to understand it. I question an interpretation and explain my reason and methodology for doing so, and all you do pronounce that it's "crap" and a "fallacy," neither demonstrating how it is so nor offering an example of a more valid line of reasoning. Basically, you seem in over your head. I'll let you off and move on to other threads. Call me if you ever broaden your capacity for rational thought.

Exclusive options are precisely what you're arguing.  "In order to work, each minute must represent a year" expressed another way is "either each minute must represent a year or it does not work".  Not surprisingly the false dilemma is also referred to as 'the either or fallacy'. In fact artistic choices in the 18th minute could easily represent events in the18th year while the 4th and the 11th and the 21st minutes (or whatever) represent absolutely nothing other than having relative positions in the piece as a whole and to a moment in the piece that was chosen for its symbolism independently. "Either it is specific or it is abstract" fails similarly because of course a piece could easily have elements that are are both abstract ("the night") and concrete (a 22 minute length that represents the mathematical difference between 73 and 95).  While I firmly doubt I'm failing to grasp the finer points of your wankery, let me simplify things anyway:  just like your Bo Rap argument, you are throwing out a strawman.  The proposition that 22 minutes = 22 years is not the same as the proposition that the song is 22 minutes long because there were 22 years between Queen and Made in Heaven, with or without symbolism at the 18th minute.  The former imposes the burden of a sweeping and rigid thematic intention nobody implied was necessary or present but you, while the latter does not.  Assuming your continuing inability to grasp the implications what you yourself are saying let alone what I'm saying, I'm happy to leave you to your concern for my rational thought on the belief that anybody whose opinion I would remotely give a toss about can plainly see that in this instance at least you're pontificating straight out of your ass.

"the callow if earnest intellectual wankery of Grade 13 English class"

See, that's actually what Track 13 is about.  13.  Wheels within wheels, people ...

Hmm... 13 is 1 and 3 which is 1 dead and 3 still living. 1+3 = 4 which means the 4 band members. The plot thickens :-)

OMG OMG OMG.  If you turn '13' 90 degrees to the right it's John Deacon sitting on his ass signing cheques.  They were already mad in 1995!

This Thread went far beyond my expectations. To use a common phrase 'Shit's goin' down'

By the way, to a previous poster asking about the 'Yeah' track, if you listen to the second chorus of 'ATD', the yeah part comes right after the first 'Action This Day' line in the second chorus.