Noel Gallagher on Shakespeare - "*********** gibberish"

[angrysoba]

He didn't say Shakespeare was a bad writer, he said that he couldn't understand the Olde English...and neither can I. The language is simply too great a barrier to enjoy the work.

Noel Gallagher is an absolutely brilliant musician, by the way.

That's rich coming from someone who can write this:

'Someday you will find me/ Caught beneath a landslide/ ln a Champagne Supernova in the sky'

And he calls Hamlet gibberish???

Jeez Louise!

 

[roger]

The difference is that the height of a mountain can be measured objectively. The quality of one's writing...Not so much.

Frth anve enathtasdf.
Dude! woah. Gnarly.


I suggest anyone can objectively measure the difference between your prose and either of my two lines of text.

edit: for example - you could not find a consensus view on the meaning of my first line to text among a group of people - there is extremely limited information content (and that information is limited to "roger is typing using a western alphabet and might be hammering keys randomly (given the asdf sequence)"). The second sentence expresses some kind of suprise or perhaps appreciation? Can't really say - the words are overloaded, and overused, and depend on meaning in spoken context through vocal inflection, something not communicated in writing. Whereas your sentences, while prosaic, communicate a definite idea clearly.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Oasis didn't bring anything new to rock and will be all but forgotten in 20 years.

 

[Tolls]

That's pretty good.

I love Shakespeare but he did have a tendency to bend the truth a bit for purposes of propaganda. He did twist the truth of good king MacBeth and Richard III and his comedies are dogs but he's still brilliant.

So would you if your then ruler was a rather domineering monarch whose grandfather took the throne off the aforementioned Richard. I suspect Will rather liked his head still attached.

 

[EGarrett]

That's rich coming from someone who can write this:



And he calls Hamlet gibberish???

Jeez Louise!

The purpose of music is that it be pleasing to the ear. Lyrics are secondary. And again, Gallagher was just saying that the "Olde English" was too great a barrier for him to follow the play. The same is true for me and, I imagine, many other people. Shakespeare's work, when given as plot outlines or other forms of clearly understood modern English, seems to be quite brilliant. (I say seems because I'm not familiar with enough average work in that time/genre to use as a comparison)

Oasis didn't bring anything new to rock and will be all but forgotten in 20 years.

It's not appropriate for you to personally attack someone because they don't like what you like, let alone because they don't care for Olde English in a play but seem to be quite respectful otherwise.

Also, for what it's worth, Wonderwall, which Noel Gallagher wrote and produced, is the best song I've ever heard. I'm pretty meticulous about these things, so I don't say that lightly.

 

[Sideroxylon]

It's not appropriate for you to personally attack someone because they don't like what you like, let alone because they don't care for Olde English in a play but seem to be quite respectful otherwise.

Also, for what it's worth, Wonderwall, which Noel Gallagher wrote and produced, is the best song I've ever heard. I'm pretty meticulous about these things, so I don't say that lightly.

I think Shakespeare's longevity says something about his contributions to playwriting. I will admit the reverse says much less in many instances. As for having a go at Oasis, well that's at least in the spirit of the gobby Gallagher brothers.

I am pretty big music listener myself and disagree (Whose is bigger I wonder?). Popular rock has been treading water for decades. Wonderwall, while a good song, is just another Beatles rip-off.

 

[roger]

Let's not forget we are talking about somebody who has bragged in interviews that he has never read a book (until recently, in which case it was Dan Brown)

 

[Skeptic]

He's the lead singer of Oasis, a band that was (for reasons that elude me) relevant for a brief period in the 90s.

Why this qualifies him as a literary critic, I have no idea.

Here is another quote by him:

"Do any of you ****ers have any *********** drugs?" -- Gallagher during a performance of Oasis, as quoted by Theodore Dalrymple in Our Culture, What's Left of it.

Yes, just the man to tell me what Shakespeare is worth.

 

[Cleon]

The purpose of music is that it be pleasing to the ear. Lyrics are secondary.

Says who?

And again, Gallagher was just saying that the "Olde English" was too great a barrier for him to follow the play.The same is true for me and, I imagine, many other people.

What he said was that it's "*********** gibberish." Which is obviously untrue, or nobody could understand it.

Of course, given that Gallagher doesn't have much in the way of education, I don't really hold it against him. I just don't see why his opinion is the least bit significant.

It's not appropriate for you to personally attack someone because they don't like what you like, let alone because they don't care for Olde English in a play but seem to be quite respectful otherwise.

Also, for what it's worth, Wonderwall, which Noel Gallagher wrote and produced, is the best song I've ever heard. I'm pretty meticulous about these things, so I don't say that lightly.

I'm sorry you have to see your favorite band being dissed. They still suck, though.

 

[EGarrett]

I think Shakespeare's longevity says something about his contributions to playwriting. I will admit the reverse says much less in many instances. As for having a go at Oasis, well that's at least in the spirit of the gobby Gallagher brothers.

Of course Shakespeare's longevity says a lot. But you have to allow people to tell the truth about how they feel about things without attacking them. I've tried repeatedly to understand Shakespeare and his work, and I've read outlines of most of his plays and I'm familiar with modern movies and plays that are colloquial versions of his stories (like for example, the Lion King)...but in the original language for most of us it's just too awkward to read or listen to in order to follow the story. That's not Shakespeare's fault, and I don't think Noel Gallagher is being rude or inappropriate by pointing that out.

As an aside, I always found it a bit ironic that Shakespeare, a man who so shrugged off false formality of language would find his work so hamstrung by that exact attitude centuries later...since people seem to believe that the outdated English somehow makes it more impressive or magical.

I am pretty big music listener myself and disagree (Whose is bigger I wonder?). Popular rock has been treading water for decades. Wonderwall, while a good song, is just another Beatles rip-off.

Leonardo Da Vinci was a ripoff of Leon Battista Alberti. Da Vinci is also still the most brilliant man I've ever come across. If he modeled himself after someone else, which he did, what he became is still greater than the original template. Wonderwall, as an individual song, is greater than any other individual song I've heard.

 

[learner]

I just noticed that the poll adds up to 110%.

It's the new 100%

 

[EGarrett]

Says who?

That's why music exists and is distinct from painting, writing, and other forms of what we term to be "art."

What he said was that it's "*********** gibberish." Which is obviously untrue, or nobody could understand it.

Not if it was gibberish to him. The term doesn't specify whether it's unintelligible to anyone or just unintelligible to the person using the word.

Of course, given that Gallagher doesn't have much in the way of education, I don't really hold it against him. I just don't see why his opinion is the least bit significant.

He is extraordinarily intelligent. Again, it's not appropriate for you to personally attack someone because they don't like what you like. Especially when his statement didn't even necessarily insult Shakespeare's talent as a writer...but simply referred to the awkwardness of the language gap.

I'm sorry you have to see your favorite band being dissed. They still suck, though.

I expected better than this from a moderator.

 

[Cleon]

That's why music exists and is distinct from painting, writing, and other forms of what we term to be "art."

Including literature and poetry?

He is extraordinarily intelligent.

I have yet to see evidence of this.

Again, it's not appropriate for you to personally attack someone because they don't like what you like.

I haven't done so. Pointing out that he is largely uneducated is not a personal attack, it's simply acknowledgement of reality. He was expelled from school at 15, and AFAIK has never been to any sort of university.

As I said, I don't hold it against him.

Especially when his statement didn't even necessarily insult Shakespeare's talent as a writer...but simply referred to the awkwardness of the language gap.

I expected better than this from a moderator.

Yes, I'm sure you find it unacceptable that I have a different opinion than yours. You'll just have to cope with the disappointment.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Of course Shakespeare's longevity says a lot. But you have to allow people to tell the truth about how they feel about things without attacking them.

And sometimes it's better to keep ignorant thoughts to yourself. As has been pointed out already, Noel is hardly equipped to critique Shakespeare and nor has he offered up anything approaching well considered criticism of the man's works.

I've tried repeatedly to understand Shakespeare and his work, and I've read outlines of most of his plays and I'm familiar with modern movies and plays that are colloquial versions of his stories (like for example, the Lion King)...but in the original language for most of us it's just too awkward to read or listen to in order to follow the story. That's not Shakespeare's fault, and I don't think Noel Gallagher is being rude or inappropriate by pointing that out.

A lot of things in life require putting in effort to appreciate. If all Noel is saying is that Shakespeare is tough to understand, he did it in a surprisingly clumsy way.

As an aside, I always found it a bit ironic that Shakespeare, a man who so shrugged off false formality of language would find his work so hamstrung by that exact attitude centuries later...since people seem to believe that the outdated English somehow makes it more impressive or magical.

That kind of thing might be said by someone unwilling to put in the effort to understand what "the Bard" was all about. (Not trying to make that personal)

Leonardo Da Vinci was a ripoff of Leon Battista Alberti. Da Vinci is also still the most brilliant man I've ever come across. If he modeled himself after someone else, which he did, what he became is still greater than the original template. Wonderwall, as an individual song, is greater than any other individual song I've heard.

And the Stones built on Chuck Berry, but its very clear what the former brought to the party. I don't think we can say the same for Oasis or a whole raft of popular rock bands since the '80s. It's the contemporary musicians who blazed new trails and produced large catalogues of high quality work that will be remembered not also-rans like Oasis.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I just noticed that the poll adds up to 110%.

I thought he was rather clever and would also be doing sitcoms, though perhaps on state-subsidised networks.

 

[EGarrett]

Including literature and poetry?

Yes.

I have yet to see evidence of this.

Just about every bit of evidence I found indicated that he's an auto-didact with Asperger's symptoms. That does not require a college education and people with that personality and manner of skill development tend to produce results far superior than what a normal person with a college education can produce. Or even a person with an Ivy League education.

I haven't done so. Pointing out that he is largely uneducated is not a personal attack, it's simply acknowledgement of reality. He was expelled from school at 15, and AFAIK has never been to any sort of university.

And in doing so you are arguing that he isn't fit to make a judgement, not questioning or discussing the judgement itself. That's a personal attack.

Yes, I'm sure you find it unacceptable that I have a different opinion than yours. You'll just have to cope with the disappointment.

Given that you're now distorting statements and trying to justify your behavior, I really expected better.

 

[Cleon]

Just about every bit of evidence I found indicated that he's an auto-didact with Asperger's symptoms.

And I'm sure you're a qualified psychiatrist who has examined him and come to that conclusion in a professional manner.

That does not require a college education and people with that personality and manner of skill development tend to produce results far superior than what a normal person with a college education can produce. Or even a person with an Ivy League education.

So based on your say-so alone, we're supposed to accept that he's highly intelligent.

And in doing so you are arguing that he isn't fit to make a judgement, not questioning or discussing the judgement itself.

If he calls Shakespeare "gibberish," then yes, he's not qualified to offer an opinion on the matter.

That's a personal attack.

Then you don't know what a "personal attack" is.

Given that you're now distorting statements and trying to justify your behavior, I really expected better.

 

[Complexity]

He didn't say Shakespeare was a bad writer, he said that he couldn't understand the Olde English...and neither can I. The language is simply too great a barrier to enjoy the work.

Shakespeare wrote in Elizabethan English, not Old English.

Not only did Shakespeare write in Elizabethan English, he did it superbly and creatively.

Shakespeare did his part. If you don't want to miss out on some of the best language ever written, you're going to have to rise to the occasion and put in whatever work you need to to approach Shakespeare's works openly, eagerly, and ready to engage.

Any failure to appreciate Shakespeare is a failure on your part, not on his.

Major hint - Read Shakespeare aloud. It is delicious and easier to understand.

Old English is a glorious language, by the way. It is nothing at all like modern English, or Elizabethan English.

 

[Cleon]

Shakespeare wrote in Elizabethan English, not Old English.

Not only did Shakespeare write in Elizabethan English, he did it superbly and creatively.

Shakespeare did his part. If you don't want to miss out on some of the best language ever written, you're going to have to rise to the occasion and put in whatever work you need to to approach Shakespeare's works openly, eagerly, and ready to engage.

Any failure to appreciate Shakespeare is a failure on your part, not on his.

Major hint - Read Shakespeare aloud. It is delicious and easier to understand.

Old English is a glorious language, by the way. It is nothing at all like modern English, or Elizabethan English.

And if you think Shakespeare's Elizabethan English is hard to understand, you'd best stay away from Beowulf...

 

[Complexity]

Until this thread, I'd never heard of Gallagher or Oasis.

Nothing said here has given me the slightest curiosity about them.

I seriously doubt I've been missing anything.

As for someone or other claiming that Oasis wrote the best song he ever heard, I suggest that he get out more.

This statement speaks more to his lack of musical experience and taste than it does to the value of an Oasis song.