Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Ievan Polkka isn't a "stupid meme song", it's a cover of a popular folk song from Finland. The lyrics were added in the 1930s, but the tune goes back to at least the 17th century.

That's why I considered it worth including. In fact, for that reason the song actually has more credibility than all the other Vocaloid songs, which are just modern pop songs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ievan_Polkka

The song was very popular in the postwar era, but then disappeared for a while, until this group covered it in the 1990s, making it popular again, which then inspired the Vocaloid version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yh9i0PAjck
For good measure, here's a version from 1952:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx1vZJSDNHc

And here's some church choir doing it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqB2t3R1nCM

[JoshuaFH]

See Reelya, that's really interesting. Even being the long time lover of Vocaloids that I am, I didn't know that. Though I'd say that that kind of trivia is largely irrelevant, as that kind of historical appreciation of Finnish lore is something only a very small number of people would even recognize, as the demographics for Vocaloid and Finnish Folk Songs, I'd imagine there's little overlap. Moreover, the context is very different, when Hatsune Miku is singing it, it comes off as a cutesy song that is catchy but shallow and meaningless, even if the reality is that there is a wealth of historical embellishment hiding under the surface, nobody sees that cause it's not obvious and it's a fact that noone has any special reason to care about.

So I suppose you're technically right Reelya, as my argument boils down to "But who cares?" which isn't much of an argument.

P.S. you edited your post (Several times!) while I was typing this up, just to compound your point with further evidence. You're like this all the time Reelya, in every topic, I have no clue where your zest for argumentation comes from. I'm truly envious, I don't have that kind of zest for anything.

[Reelya]

I'm not really arguing, I just wanted to support what I was saying with examples as I came across them in the same post. I wanted to support what I was saying (because I kept coming across other versions I didn't know about on youtube. i found an additional 10 or more versions I could have linked, but didn't bother at that point), but it's edited in specifically because I didn't want to make more than one post about the same topic.

EDIT: think about it, if i wanted to "argue" about it. i would have said one thing, then waited for you to respond, then written another thing, rinse and repeat. That's not what I wanted to do, so that's why I edit in the supporting evidence rather than doing a back and forth about it. (and the point of editing in the video links was that people don't have to take my word for it, or google it themselves, they can click the links, which saves everyone else time).

[Flying Dice]

And meanwhile I was familiar with it from an entirely different direction.

That's one of the cool things about an interconnected world, the cultural exchange potential is vastly higher, so you get all sorts of interesting cross-cultural mutation.

I do think Joshua has a point about the potential of Vocaloids as a tool for creative expression, but... that's not really different from calling them instruments. Not to mention that the quality has improved immensely just in a short span of time. I don't imagine that the first flutes carved from wood or bone were particularly versatile or complex either. As for the bit about "a language I can't understand" -- why is this a sticking point? It's easy to look up lyrics for almost anything these days, and it's entirely possible to enjoy music without understanding the lyrics-you can even do it when you do speak the language, heh. 

[Tack]

I would say I enjoyed the 'story'.
But yeah, the voice was just a bit too 'microsoft sam' for me to enjoy.

[Reelya]

JoshuaH, your overall sentiment doesn't actually sit that well with me either.

It seems like you're saying that if someone is unaware of the history of something and they say "just sounds like crap to me" then that's just as valid a viewpoint as someone who is well versed in the entire field. I'm not an elitist: but knowledge trumps ignorance in my book. The ignorant are not just as valid in their interpretations as the well-informed, even if the value of art is highly subjective.

So in other words, an Eragon fan comes along and rubbishes Star Wars ANH as a pale imitation of the real deal - Eragon. And that's perfectly valid, according to that viewpoint, because the Eragon fan can't be expected to look any deeper than the surface appearance of the works they're comparing. It seems to be an argument for the complete de-contextualization of media works.

However, that's not the standard we generally apply to the value of works of art: "looks shinier to me" isn't the standard. Things like cultural context and the history behind a work of art are always valid points to bring up when the value of a work is challenged by people who haven't looked into it at all.

[JoshuaFH]

I'm not really arguing, I just wanted to support what I was saying with examples as I came across them in the same post. I wanted to support what I was saying (because I kept coming across other versions I didn't know about on youtube. i found an additional 10 or more versions I could have linked, but didn't bother at that point), but it's edited in specifically because I didn't want to make more than one post about the same topic.

EDIT: think about it, if i wanted to "argue" about it. i would have said one thing, then waited for you to respond, then written another thing, rinse and repeat. That's not what I wanted to do, so that's why I edit in the supporting evidence rather than doing a back and forth about it. (and the point of editing in the video links was that people don't have to take my word for it, or google it themselves, they can click the links, which saves everyone else time).

I feel there's a semantic difference occurring here. From what I see, how you frame your posts, your general tone, your inclusion of evidence and emphasis on points, makes it arguing pretty much by definition, atleast in my mind. Even you saying you're not arguing, is textbook argumentation. The irony tickled me greatly.

As for the bit about "a language I can't understand" -- why is this a sticking point? It's easy to look up lyrics for almost anything these days, and it's entirely possible to enjoy music without understanding the lyrics-you can even do it when you do speak the language, heh. 

I suppose that has to relate to the 'visceral feel' I mentioned. That something being in your native tongue or not makes the song 'feel' different. Also, different languages just altogether have different 'feels' to them, as different cultures over time placed more or less emphasis on certain sounds or enunciations. Knowing the words is important to me, that's why I listen to almost all Vocaloid songs through video with subtitles, as it provides the context that lets you really enjoy the song, but if the songs were instead just sung in English, I don't know if I'd like them as much, there's definitely some subjective value I get from listening to the roboticized Japanese words.

The Folk Metal was cool af btw.

JoshuaH, your overall sentiment doesn't actually sit that well with me either.

It seems like you're saying that if someone is unaware of the history of something and they say "just sounds like crap to me" then that's a valid viewpoint.

So in other words, an Eragon fan comes along and rubbishes Star Wars ANH as a pale imitation of the real deal - Eragon. And that's perfectly valid, according to that viewpoint, because the Eragon fan can't be expected to look any deeper than the surface appearance of the works they're comparing. It seems to be an argument for the complete de-contextualization of media works.

However, that's not the standard we generally apply to the value of works of art: "looks shinier to me" isn't the standard. Things like cultural context and the history behind a work of art are always valid points to bring up when the value of a work is challenged by people who haven't looked into it at all.

You're a machine-gun dialectician, Reelya. I generally mull things over for a bit, you ratatatat them right out. This isn't a subject I've devoted great thought to, so I'll go right ahead and start mulling it over rather than risk making an ass of myself with an unthoughtful response.

[Reelya]

idk man, for example, when I brought up Ievan Polkka, i referenced exactly one thing you said "stupid meme song" then the rest of the post is just talking about the history of the song and why I like it. e.g. it's specific, it addresses only one point and doesn't cover unrelated points, or cast any aspersions on you as a person or why you believe that.

Then you had a detailed response to that, which multiple times pointed out why you think everything I wrote is irrelevant. I consider that to be much more argumentative, since you directed it at me by name, multiple times, which included basic straight-up ad hominems (e.g accusations of "argumentative" editing of my first post). it's accusatory in tone, repeatedly aims comments at me by name, and offhand dismisses what I was saying.

I consider that to be much more in the way of argument fuel than me merely editing in some videos of old Ievan Pollka versions.

I mean, I'm only getting meta now, because you got meta by making accusations that my editing posts was somehow suspect. When I pointed out why I edit posts, that's not being "argumentative" either, it's because you made it a point to single me out for editing posts, so I was just responding to that.

[JoshuaFH]

By 'argument' I don't mean it in an antagonistic sense. More of a 'Wanting to prove a point' sense, perhaps 'debate' would be a better word. Also, I think there's another misunderstanding of the tone, I'm trying to be friendly and familiar. I apologize if I came off as rude at all.

[IronyOwl]

JoshuaH, your overall sentiment doesn't actually sit that well with me either.

It seems like you're saying that if someone is unaware of the history of something and they say "just sounds like crap to me" then that's just as valid a viewpoint as someone who is well versed in the entire field. I'm not an elitist: but knowledge trumps ignorance in my book. The ignorant are not just as valid in their interpretations as the well-informed, even if the value of art is highly subjective.

So in other words, an Eragon fan comes along and rubbishes Star Wars ANH as a pale imitation of the real deal - Eragon. And that's perfectly valid, according to that viewpoint, because the Eragon fan can't be expected to look any deeper than the surface appearance of the works they're comparing. It seems to be an argument for the complete de-contextualization of media works.

However, that's not the standard we generally apply to the value of works of art: "looks shinier to me" isn't the standard. Things like cultural context and the history behind a work of art are always valid points to bring up when the value of a work is challenged by people who haven't looked into it at all.

I really don't think a work's background is relevant to its actual execution except in a hoity-toity elitist way, though. You don't need to have seen a bunch of documentaries on the making of Star Wars, George Lucas' early life, the history of cinema, Campbell's blathering on the monomyth, etc etc etc to comment on whether or not you like Star Wars, for example. The primary reason your Eragon > Star Wars example looks bad isn't because the viewpoint is ignorant of the work's rich heritage, but because it's making the history relevant by commenting on it directly, and then mucking that up.

If your opinion is just flatly that Eragon is awesome and Star Wars is shit, knowing that the former is largely fanfiction of the latter really doesn't add anything except smug dickwaving potential, or an obvious defense against it. If your experience is that Ievan Polka is a stupid memesong sung by Vocaloids, knowing it was originally a popular Finnish folk song adds... what, exactly? Is it relevant to the conversation at hand, or is it just more historical dickwaving that allows you to stand up and shout I KNOW THINGS or deflect criticism from other people doing that?

[Reelya]

The primary reason your Eragon > Star Wars example looks bad isn't because the viewpoint is ignorant of the work's rich heritage, but because it's making the history relevant by commenting on it directly, and then mucking that up.

Well, sure, but I think that is in fact true of the Ievan Pollka example too, which is what I was referring to. Calling Ievan Pollka "a stupid memesong sung by Vocaloids" is in fact doing the same kind of thing (making the history relevant by commenting on it directly, and then mucking that up), because it's making a specific claim about its origins, and attaching a value judgement to that origin. Calling something a "stupid memesong" is in fact a claim about its origins as a meme that is calculated to devalue the work, based on the work's providence and not the content. e.g. it's just another type of elitism according to the definition we're using, because it values "proper" songs above "memesongs" based on their origin.

And that's why pointing out that "stupid memesong" isn't a valid interpretation of the history isn't being elitist, or valuing origins over content. The term "stupid memesong" was putting a value on the origins of the song already, so i was just working within that framework as it was given: the song was commented on negatively because of the label, so if the label is in fact wrong, then that particular negative sentiment can be shown to be misplaced. Notice that I didn't have any complaints or comments on the terms "cutesy" "meaningless" and "shallow", because those are assessments of the content not the origins.

[JoshuaFH]

There's no doubt that the history behind it is interesting, and learning that history and listening to that folkmetal rendition makes me appreciate the song a bit more, as it's much more meaningful in the song's home context, but it seems to me that Hatsune Miku's rendition of it strips away that original context completely to make it the meme song I originally described it as, with the cute girl twirling a leek that the majority of internet dwellers would recognize. It's simply the transformative nature of cultural appropriation, I suppose. It's not my intention to somehow insult the history or the original culture of the people that loved the song, but that was certainly how it came off to me in the form it was presented to me in.

[Reelya]

Well my only real point was to make it clear how much richer the story behind the song was that it was being given credit for. I think the fact that you dismissed the song's origins in fairly strident terms with "stupid memesong" added to the cognitive dissonance.

[TamerVirus]

As tvtropes would describe it:
Watch it for the meme

[MrRoboto75]

I'm running out of watamote volumes to read.