The official class blog for English 102 section C02 at the University of South Carolina. Check back for links to student written album reviews, genre criticisms, cultural analyses, and more.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
R.R. 10/30
Now that you have thought about how Wilson positions his argument, tell me what you think the overall point of the argument is by utilizing your own interpretation and specific language from the text.
I think the overall point of Wilson's argument is that where as Celine Dion's music is sentimental to the point of being kitsch, punk versions of Celine Dion are ironic. This, though, is not a bad thing, as it gives the music a sense of universality. Dion's music is so cliche that it essentially is making fun of itself, which makes it sophisticated and heightens its legitimacy. Punk covers try to make fun of this clichedness, but what they don't realize is that Celine Dion has already done that herself.
The basic point that Wilson is making is that there's nothing wrong with sentimental music. This is human nature, to want to feel emotions. He also points out that it is ironic that people have made punk covers of these songs in an attempt to un-sentimentalize them, when really they are doing nothing to take away its meaning. He uses "My Heart Will Go On" to prove this. It's such a cliche and sentimental song, and no sort of punk cover will ever change that. His argument is convincing overall.
To me the overall point of Wilson's argument is basically to explain why people are so surprised about a punk version of Celine Dion and why they shouldn't be. He is basically just trying to show people that as ironic or strange as punk cover of a cheesy love song may be, it's how the real world is. In reality there are so many sentimental moments just as there are so many darker moments to balance those out, so really a dark version of a sentimental song should feel normal to us because it is such a common occurrence in real life.
After thought, I think that Wilson's argument is that Celine Dion's music is so sentimental and emotional that the punk versions are subversive and ironically good. It's so cliche that its sophisticated, it's literally one big subversion of the norm and it works. Celine embraces every aspect of her gooey emotional side and it's so cheesy and she knows it, which is why when punk covers try to take advantage of her cliche, they can't.
I think that the overall point of his point was to discuss sentimentality and how it fits into society and he chose to use Celine Dion's music because it is so versatile and has many different facets that he can apply multiple ideas to her work. While some of her stuff seems cliche, some of it can be taken seriously, and other songs can be considered ironic in a sense. I think his argument that sentimentality isn't a cardinal sin is the strongest because it is relatable.
The overall point of the argument is that punk covers of Celine Dion that try to remove the "cliche" sentimentality of her music, simply do not work. Even for as much as critics berate her for the over sentiment that Wilson discussed, and the overblown proportions of everyday problems that Wilson pointed to, Dion's sentimentality works in music. Wilson makes the statement that no matter how much we try to escape sentimentality in pop music, even punk versions of these songs can not rid the music of sentiment will not succeed as they express an "anti-sentiment" or in punk terms, that typical "punk angst."
I think Wilson positions himself against the normal critics. He says that sentimentality is not subervsive, but subversion is the new normal. Punk versions of "My Heart Will Go On" are considered cliche. From a personal point of view, I find the original verion of the song to be very sentimental. Sentimentality is not a bad thing. I agree with Wilson that sentimentality brings up a darker side of things.
In my honest opinion, I feel that the point of the argument was that music is supposed to be sentimental and should not be disliked or pushed away for that reason. Like Wilson said, "All art is fake." He points out all these reasons why Celine is mocked for having sentimental music, but why is she pointed out for being sentimental when all music is such a thing. So overall, Wilson is trying to say that for what it is and changing up the view of sentimentality, the song should not be criticized for its sentiment.
I think the overall point of this argument is that we should not have such a negative reaction towards sentimentality in music. Wilson says that critics don't like sentimentality in music because it is seen as conforming but this idea of subversion has become so popular that it is now also seen as conforming. My interpretation of Wilson's argument is that we should not focus so much on hating sentimentality for being conformist because this idea of rebellion and subversion that critics prefer is also conformist.
I think the overall point of the argument is that the sentimentality of Celine Dion's work does not dampen it's validity in the music world. He argues against the widely accepted criticisms of sentimentality: that it is not subversive, that it expunges the darker side, that it inflates drama. He attempts to convince the reader that sentimentality (especially Celine Dion's brand of it) is just as important and valuable as elements of subversion and in some cases they accomplish similar goals. He seems to be saying they work more as partners than opposite forces.
Wilson points out how sentimentality has been criticized as a cardinal aesthetic sin, but he argues sentimentality is what all music is, or is supposed to be, because music is supposed to move us. Essentially all art and music is phony in some way, but if the lies it tells us are convincing and effective then who really cares? Also he argues against the idea that Céline’s music inflates real-life drama. He says sentimental music should not be criticized because sentimentality is really more a product of the user, not the music. We are the ones who blow up the sentimentality with how we emotionally connect to it. Also Wilson describes how people criticize Céline’s sentimental type of music for being conformist, yet the new norm of our society has become subversion, rebellion, or being anti-conformist. Therefore, he argues that since both sentimentality and subversion are the new norm, then sentimentality does have value and should not be dismissed. Overall Wilson is arguing for a shift in the way we as a culture are viewing sentimentality in art, and now I feel better about how I am going to go jam out to "My Heart Will Go On" after this class and cry a little.
The overall point of the argument is that everyone interprets sentimentality in music in their own way. Whether that be through making it seem melodramatic or interpreting it as the expression of emotion and embracing their own emotion through it. He makes the argument that Celine Dion is criticized for "bulldozing" a song, when it is a term of praise for rock anthems. He also points out that people call her music over-dramatic but that's hypocritical because they say that U2's performances (which are equally dramatic in his eyes) are just the right balance. Another argument he makes is that her music is conforming and the new "cool" is subversive content.
I think the overall point of the argument is that abnormality is the new normality, or in Wilson's terms, "subversive" has become the norm. Sentimentality gets hated on by critics because of its normality, but if subversive is the new normal, then hating centrality based on its widespread-ness is no longer valid. Honestly, in dumbed-down terms, I think Wilson is basically saying that everyone is so weird that being weird has become normal and thus individuality and conformity are intertwined. It is thus invalid to harp on a work because one of these aspects.
I think the overall argument is that although Celine Dion's muisc does contain some of the points Wilson argues against, the music goes beyond the argument. So one of the arguments is that sentimentality is a sin. And yes, Celine's music is pretty much all about sentimentality, even if sentimentality is a sin. But Wilson argues that all music is manipulative and made to make a listener feel a specific way. Celine does do that in her music, so I think that it makes her music stonger. So the overall point is that Celine uses these critiques so make her music stronger.
Wilson's overall point is that although Celine Dion's song utilizes sentimentality, and "sentimentality has been the cardinal aesthetic sin", the use of sentimentality is thought of to be conformist, but in our society we are open to going against the common opinion. He sees that there is value in sentimentality, and in this piece he is looking for the value.
I think the overall point of the argument was that sentimentality is often seen as being all theses negative things ( a cardinal sin, a distortion of reality, and subversive) it may not be this way. He argues that sentimentality is seen as famine and that people may not like it but why? Why does there have to be bad to balance the good in sentimentality. He is saying nothing is wrong with sentimentality. It is human nature to feel emotions.
The overall point of the argument Wilson presents is that subversion is promoted by the media, making it no longer "going against the norm." Therefore, the difference between subversiveness and sentimentality is not as much as one would think. He also states how sentimentality is the "aesthetic cardinal sin" because it is phony and kitsch. Work that is sentimental cannot be taken seriously, like Celine Dion's music.
Wilson's overall argument is meant to defend sentimentality in music, and that it isn't a negative part of musicality. If anything, sentimentality adds a great deal to the meaning behind music, specifically lyricism, and this has become the norm. As humans we like to take greater meaning out of smaller things, and Wilson says that this is why sentimentality plays such a great role in the grand scheme of music culture.
Wilson starts out by saying that many critics in todays society and for a long time before today thought of sentimentality as an extreme negative because, "to be sentimental is to be kitsch, phony, exaggerated, manipulative, self-indulgent, hypocritical, cheap and clichéd." My original confusion was that I didn't see if he ever actually took a side in this argument or just stated the different sides of the argument. Now, however, I see that he is going against the basic argument that I described earlier. He says that people criticize sentimentality by calling it not subversive because subversive is essentially no longer subversive.
I think the overall point of Wilson's argument is that where as Celine Dion's music is sentimental to the point of being kitsch, punk versions of Celine Dion are ironic. This, though, is not a bad thing, as it gives the music a sense of universality. Dion's music is so cliche that it essentially is making fun of itself, which makes it sophisticated and heightens its legitimacy. Punk covers try to make fun of this clichedness, but what they don't realize is that Celine Dion has already done that herself.
ReplyDeleteThe basic point that Wilson is making is that there's nothing wrong with sentimental music. This is human nature, to want to feel emotions. He also points out that it is ironic that people have made punk covers of these songs in an attempt to un-sentimentalize them, when really they are doing nothing to take away its meaning. He uses "My Heart Will Go On" to prove this. It's such a cliche and sentimental song, and no sort of punk cover will ever change that. His argument is convincing overall.
ReplyDeleteTo me the overall point of Wilson's argument is basically to explain why people are so surprised about a punk version of Celine Dion and why they shouldn't be. He is basically just trying to show people that as ironic or strange as punk cover of a cheesy love song may be, it's how the real world is. In reality there are so many sentimental moments just as there are so many darker moments to balance those out, so really a dark version of a sentimental song should feel normal to us because it is such a common occurrence in real life.
ReplyDeleteAfter thought, I think that Wilson's argument is that Celine Dion's music is so sentimental and emotional that the punk versions are subversive and ironically good. It's so cliche that its sophisticated, it's literally one big subversion of the norm and it works. Celine embraces every aspect of her gooey emotional side and it's so cheesy and she knows it, which is why when punk covers try to take advantage of her cliche, they can't.
ReplyDeleteI think that the overall point of his point was to discuss sentimentality and how it fits into society and he chose to use Celine Dion's music because it is so versatile and has many different facets that he can apply multiple ideas to her work. While some of her stuff seems cliche, some of it can be taken seriously, and other songs can be considered ironic in a sense. I think his argument that sentimentality isn't a cardinal sin is the strongest because it is relatable.
ReplyDeleteThe overall point of the argument is that punk covers of Celine Dion that try to remove the "cliche" sentimentality of her music, simply do not work. Even for as much as critics berate her for the over sentiment that Wilson discussed, and the overblown proportions of everyday problems that Wilson pointed to, Dion's sentimentality works in music. Wilson makes the statement that no matter how much we try to escape sentimentality in pop music, even punk versions of these songs can not rid the music of sentiment will not succeed as they express an "anti-sentiment" or in punk terms, that typical "punk angst."
ReplyDeleteI think Wilson positions himself against the normal critics. He says that sentimentality is not subervsive, but subversion is the new normal. Punk versions of "My Heart Will Go On" are considered cliche. From a personal point of view, I find the original verion of the song to be very sentimental. Sentimentality is not a bad thing. I agree with Wilson that sentimentality brings up a darker side of things.
ReplyDeleteIn my honest opinion, I feel that the point of the argument was that music is supposed to be sentimental and should not be disliked or pushed away for that reason. Like Wilson said, "All art is fake." He points out all these reasons why Celine is mocked for having sentimental music, but why is she pointed out for being sentimental when all music is such a thing. So overall, Wilson is trying to say that for what it is and changing up the view of sentimentality, the song should not be criticized for its sentiment.
ReplyDeleteI think the overall point of this argument is that we should not have such a negative reaction towards sentimentality in music. Wilson says that critics don't like sentimentality in music because it is seen as conforming but this idea of subversion has become so popular that it is now also seen as conforming. My interpretation of Wilson's argument is that we should not focus so much on hating sentimentality for being conformist because this idea of rebellion and subversion that critics prefer is also conformist.
ReplyDeleteI think the overall point of the argument is that the sentimentality of Celine Dion's work does not dampen it's validity in the music world. He argues against the widely accepted criticisms of sentimentality: that it is not subversive, that it expunges the darker side, that it inflates drama. He attempts to convince the reader that sentimentality (especially Celine Dion's brand of it) is just as important and valuable as elements of subversion and in some cases they accomplish similar goals. He seems to be saying they work more as partners than opposite forces.
ReplyDeleteWilson points out how sentimentality has been criticized as a cardinal aesthetic sin, but he argues sentimentality is what all music is, or is supposed to be, because music is supposed to move us. Essentially all art and music is phony in some way, but if the lies it tells us are convincing and effective then who really cares? Also he argues against the idea that Céline’s music inflates real-life drama. He says sentimental music should not be criticized because sentimentality is really more a product of the user, not the music. We are the ones who blow up the sentimentality with how we emotionally connect to it. Also Wilson describes how people criticize Céline’s sentimental type of music for being conformist, yet the new norm of our society has become subversion, rebellion, or being anti-conformist. Therefore, he argues that since both sentimentality and subversion are the new norm, then sentimentality does have value and should not be dismissed. Overall Wilson is arguing for a shift in the way we as a culture are viewing sentimentality in art, and now I feel better about how I am going to go jam out to "My Heart Will Go On" after this class and cry a little.
ReplyDeleteThe overall point of the argument is that everyone interprets sentimentality in music in their own way. Whether that be through making it seem melodramatic or interpreting it as the expression of emotion and embracing their own emotion through it. He makes the argument that Celine Dion is criticized for "bulldozing" a song, when it is a term of praise for rock anthems. He also points out that people call her music over-dramatic but that's hypocritical because they say that U2's performances (which are equally dramatic in his eyes) are just the right balance. Another argument he makes is that her music is conforming and the new "cool" is subversive content.
ReplyDeleteI think the overall point of the argument is that abnormality is the new normality, or in Wilson's terms, "subversive" has become the norm. Sentimentality gets hated on by critics because of its normality, but if subversive is the new normal, then hating centrality based on its widespread-ness is no longer valid. Honestly, in dumbed-down terms, I think Wilson is basically saying that everyone is so weird that being weird has become normal and thus individuality and conformity are intertwined. It is thus invalid to harp on a work because one of these aspects.
ReplyDeleteI think the overall argument is that although Celine Dion's muisc does contain some of the points Wilson argues against, the music goes beyond the argument. So one of the arguments is that sentimentality is a sin. And yes, Celine's music is pretty much all about sentimentality, even if sentimentality is a sin. But Wilson argues that all music is manipulative and made to make a listener feel a specific way. Celine does do that in her music, so I think that it makes her music stonger. So the overall point is that Celine uses these critiques so make her music stronger.
ReplyDeleteWilson's overall point is that although Celine Dion's song utilizes sentimentality, and "sentimentality has been the cardinal aesthetic sin", the use of sentimentality is thought of to be conformist, but in our society we are open to going against the common opinion. He sees that there is value in sentimentality, and in this piece he is looking for the value.
ReplyDeleteI think the overall point of the argument was that sentimentality is often seen as being all theses negative things ( a cardinal sin, a distortion of reality, and subversive) it may not be this way. He argues that sentimentality is seen as famine and that people may not like it but why? Why does there have to be bad to balance the good in sentimentality. He is saying nothing is wrong with sentimentality. It is human nature to feel emotions.
ReplyDeleteThe overall point of the argument Wilson presents is that subversion is promoted by the media, making it no longer "going against the norm." Therefore, the difference between subversiveness and sentimentality is not as much as one would think. He also states how sentimentality is the "aesthetic cardinal sin" because it is phony and kitsch. Work that is sentimental cannot be taken seriously, like Celine Dion's music.
ReplyDeleteWilson's overall argument is meant to defend sentimentality in music, and that it isn't a negative part of musicality. If anything, sentimentality adds a great deal to the meaning behind music, specifically lyricism, and this has become the norm. As humans we like to take greater meaning out of smaller things, and Wilson says that this is why sentimentality plays such a great role in the grand scheme of music culture.
ReplyDeleteWilson starts out by saying that many critics in todays society and for a long time before today thought of sentimentality as an extreme negative because, "to be sentimental is to be kitsch, phony, exaggerated, manipulative, self-indulgent, hypocritical, cheap and clichéd." My original confusion was that I didn't see if he ever actually took a side in this argument or just stated the different sides of the argument. Now, however, I see that he is going against the basic argument that I described earlier. He says that people criticize sentimentality by calling it not subversive because subversive is essentially no longer subversive.
ReplyDelete