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

[EGarrett]

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.

No, it's not better to keep thoughts to yourself, especially if they run counter to popular opinion. You should share those, because for one reason, there may be others that agree. I happen to agree that Shakespeare's work is difficult to appreciate these days due to the gap in language between Olde and Modern English. There may be other people who are led to believe that there's something with them because their eyes glaze over in the same way when attending a Shakespeare performance, but if it was explained in that manner, they could seek out something of his in more modern language and would thus be able to enjoy and appreciate something they didn't before. That's a good thing.

A lot of things in life require putting in effort to appreciate.

That's probably not what Shakespeare intended. I just looked up some more info and, similar to what I remembered, his works were originally performed in low-end theaters attached to brothels, and were attended by audiences of commoners, most of whom were illiterate.

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)

Noel DID attend the play, didn't he? I'm not saying he and his brother haven't made asses of themselves in the past, they obviously have, but in this case he pointed out that obviously the actors did put a lot of effort into memorizing the lines and producing the play, so clearly he wasn't just pissing on the whole thing. And the specific thing he seems to be referring to is something that I happen to agree with. By the way I appreciate the clarification.

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.

Oasis didn't produce nearly as much quality music as the Beatles, and I haven't spent much time on most of their output, just mainly the one song...and I did look it up and find that Wonderwall was voted the #1 and #2 best British song of all-time by separate polls (it's on the wikipedia page for the song), and since the Beatles were also British...I think that indicates that Noel accomplished something quite special with that one.

 

[Cleon]

No, it's not better to keep thoughts to yourself, especially if they run counter to popular opinion. You should share those, because for one reason, there may be others that agree. I happen to agree that Shakespeare's work is difficult to appreciate these days due to the gap in language between Olde and Modern English.

Shakespeare didn't write in Old (not "olde") English.

There may be other people who are led to believe that there's something with them because their eyes glaze over in the same way when attending a Shakespeare performance, but if it was explained in that manner, they could seek out something of his in more modern language and would thus be able to enjoy and appreciate something they didn't before. That's a good thing.

Given that Shakespeare's works are written in prose, then "translating" them to modern English would involve sacrificing much of what makes them special.

 

[Insane Duck]

I abstain. As a high school student I can hardly be objective about this.

 

[EGarrett]

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

I think you mean a psychologist. And this is another logically fallacious personal attack. Given the amount of research I've done into the topic of auto-didacts of Asperger's, I'm probably more qualified to assess it than you and 99.9% of other people, including psychologists.

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

If you want to get into that topic, and the actual reasons why I say so, we can. I actually guessed that the writer of the song was some type of savant simply from listening to it. I then did some research and found out that his brother supposedly scored 164 on an IQ test, and though I don't put much stock into IQ results, that does indicate that my instinct was likely correct.

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

Nope. A single word alone that could have a perfectly valid use is not reason enough to disqualify someone's opinion. You need to look at the reasons people use certain terms, especially when given informal quotes.

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

Or I know it better than you do. I gave you my exact reasons. It's cute though, that you're now attempting to personally attack me as well for disagreeing with you on the issue.

 

[Complexity]

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...

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.

You really don't get it. The most glorious part of Shakespeare's work is his language. You can't strip his words out and then hope to have a glimpse of superb majesty, wit, punning, flow, and passion that is Shakespeare.

Either read Shakespeare honestly, being open to experiencing something truly good, or stop talking about him altogether, for you are not worthy.

There is no royal road to mathematics, and there is no easy path to Shakespeare - you will have to climb closer to his level to hear him.

By the way, please stop using 'Olde'. It is embarrassing. It is like people thinking that 'Ye', as in 'Ye Olde Country Store', is pronounced 'yee'. It isn't. It is a way of writing 'the'.

 

[roger]

I will say one thing in defense of Gallagher's statement. I have no ear for spoken language, to the point that even a slight accent can leave me wondering what a person is saying. I'm just not good at it. I've attended Shakespeare productions where I basically couldn't understand what was being said. It seems to be worse in theater vs. movies. Something like Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing features extremely clear enunciation, and it is trivial to follow. But there is also a very stylized, projecting voice used in Shakespearean theater that I personally find impenetrable. In order of preference, I prefer reading Shakespeare, then movies, then live performance. I know everyone says to not read Shakespeare, but I find him extraordinary on the printed page, hard to follow in very well enunciated movies, and impossible on stage if I am not intimately familiar with the work being performed.

So, in that sense I agree with Gallagher. It can sound like gibberish. If that was his only exposure to Shakespeare, I can see how it would be a bit hard to appreciate.

 

[Complexity]

I expected better than this from a moderator.

I hate to be the one to explain this, but moderators are people, too.




They are members of this community, they are entitled to have their opinions and express them as long as they follow the same rules as anyone else.

Nothing in the rules says that you can't attack Shakespeare, or that we can't attack whatshisname.

Only we, however, will be victorious, since William is glorious.

 

[Cleon]

I think you mean a psychologist.

Either way.

And this is another logically fallacious personal attack.

*sigh* No, questioning your claims is neither logically fallacious nor a personal attack.

Given the amount of research I've done into the topic of auto-didacts of Asperger's, I'm probably more qualified to assess it than you and 99.9% of other people, including psychologists.

Sorry, your say-so is simply not good enough.

If you want to get into that topic, and the actual reasons why I say so, we can. I actually guessed that the writer of the song was some type of savant simply from listening to it.

Then your claim of being "more qualified" to assess issues such as Asperger's is completely invalidated. Nobody actually qualified to make such a diagnosis would do so with such a flimsy basis.

I then did some research and found out that his brother supposedly scored 164 on an IQ test, and though I don't put much stock into IQ results, that does indicate that my instinct was likely correct.

No, it really doesn't.

Or I know it better than you do. I gave you my exact reasons. It's cute though, that you're now attempting to personally attack me as well for disagreeing with you on the issue.

You still have this bizarre idea that disagreeing with you equates to a personal attack.

 

[ZirconBlue]

How many common English expressions were created/popularized by Shakespeare?

Seriously.

 

[EGarrett]

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

They did. And I'd be more than happy to put my knowledge and understanding of music and art in general against yours.

 

[roger]

How many common English expressions were created/popularized by Shakespeare?

Seriously.

Here's a start.

 

[Cleon]

I hate to be the one to explain this, but moderators are people, too.

Am not!

They are members of this community, they are entitled to have their opinions and express them as long as they follow the same rules as anyone else.

And, speaking as a moderator, if EGarrett or anyone else feels that I've made an actual personal attack, they can hit the little report button and one of the other moderators or admins will judge as to whether the claim has merit.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Oasis didn't produce nearly as much quality music as the Beatles, and I haven't spent much time on most of their output, just mainly the one song...and I did look it up and find that Wonderwall was voted the #1 and #2 best British song of all-time by separate polls (it's on the wikipedia page for the song), and since the Beatles were also British...I think that indicates that Noel accomplished something quite special with that one.

I haven't said it was a bad song. I have only said that, like the rest of what Oasis did, it is not a stand-out for creativity or originality. I don't see any reason to think it will be widely appreciated in the future. This in contrast to Shakespeare's works.

Sorry, I haven't anything to say on your other comments. We seem to be talking past each other.

 

[Disraeli Ears]

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

If he calls Shakespeare "gibberish," Noel Gallagher would probably think the original "Beowulf" was written by martians.

I love Shakespeare - I think his command of the language is often wonderful and frequently sublime. I do think, however, that the subtleties are often easier to pick up when reading the text as opposed to listening to it.

ETA: BTW, I like a few Oasis songs, but find them overrated - regardless of whether Noel Gallagher is technically a "great musician" or not. He and that chav of a brother of his can fade into obscurity while Shakespeare endures.

 

[Complexity]

That's probably not what Shakespeare intended. I just looked up some more info and, similar to what I remembered, his works were originally performed in low-end theaters attached to brothels, and were attended by audiences of commoners, most of whom were illiterate.

Shakespeare wrote for the people of his time, and he made up some wonderful words, and what he wrote was very much appreciated by the people of his time, many of whom were not literate.

Being illiterate didn't make them stupid, and being literate apparently doesn't make people intelligent.

We know that Shakespeare wrote for people who lived several years ago, and yes, the language has changed, not always for the better. So it requires some work. The reward more than makes up for it, as people would discover if they got off of their complacent, know-it-all, lazy patoots and tried something that wasn't served up to them in a silver bowl (or on a silver spoon).

Frankly, I don't give a damn if you ever give Shakespeare a fair try, but I won't let someone's ignorant statements about a great writer and his work stand unanswered.

 

[EGarrett]

You really don't get it. The most glorious part of Shakespeare's work is his language. You can't strip his words out and then hope to have a glimpse of superb majesty, wit, punning, flow, and passion that is Shakespeare.

Either read Shakespeare honestly, being open to experiencing something truly good, or stop talking about him altogether, for you are not worthy.

Really? One of my previous full-time jobs was as a professional story analyst, where I read and analyzed multiple novels each week for literary agents. I was hired for the job based on the sheer amount of self-directed learning and knowledge I displayed on the topic.

We can compare knowledge of writing any time. I'll even spot you 5 of your closest friends and a computer with internet access and I'll debate you all blindfolded on any aspect of the craft that you want. None of that will help you, of course, because many of my ideas are self-synthesized and thus can't be responded to via google.

So I don't suggest you try to insult me or question my worthiness, I don't take kindly to it and I won't spare your ego when it comes down to it.

By the way, please stop using 'Olde'. It is embarrassing. It is like people thinking that 'Ye', as in 'Ye Olde Country Store', is pronounced 'yee'. It isn't. It is a way of writing 'the'.

It's an informal term to give reference to what Gallagher and others were hearing during the play. Again, I'm amused by the tone you're attempting to take. Why don't you start a thread just for you and me, that everyone can read, then you can really educate me?

I will say one thing in defense of Gallagher's statement. I have no ear for spoken language, to the point that even a slight accent can leave me wondering what a person is saying. I'm just not good at it. I've attended Shakespeare productions where I basically couldn't understand what was being said. It seems to be worse in theater vs. movies. Something like Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing features extremely clear enunciation, and it is trivial to follow. But there is also a very stylized, projecting voice used in Shakespearean theater that I personally find impenetrable. In order of preference, I prefer reading Shakespeare, then movies, then live performance. I know everyone says to not read Shakespeare, but I find him extraordinary on the printed page, hard to follow in very well enunciated movies, and impossible on stage if I am not intimately familiar with the work being performed.

So, in that sense I agree with Gallagher. It can sound like gibberish. If that was his only exposure to Shakespeare, I can see how it would be a bit hard to appreciate.

Exactly. Many people feel the same way.

 

[Complexity]

Given the amount of research I've done into the topic of auto-didacts of Asperger's, I'm probably more qualified to assess it than you and 99.9% of other people, including psychologists.

Nonsense.

Asperger's guy here. Been researching autism and Asperger's for several years (obsessively, of course).

If you knew the first thing about Asperger's (of which I am not persuaded), you would know that not everyone with Asperger's is brilliant, or of even average intelligence. None of us can be regarded as 'retarded', or we wouldn't be eligible for the Asperger's label.

Some of us are brilliant, however, and many with Asperger's think so differently from people without that it can seem like brilliance.

That said, your statements regarding him are irrelevant. Why?

• You are a self-proclaimed expert on Asperger's
• You have 'diagnosed' an idol of yours with Asperger's hoping that this, along with 'auto-didact' (why not say self-educated?) will somehow make him automatically brilliant
• You haven't provided us with any evidence that you understand anything about Asperger's
• While having extraordinarily little exposure to music, let alone good music, you make grandiose statements that we are expected to take at face value
• You have gushed like a schoolgirl (sorry, schoolgirls) rather than provide us with any evidence, or even vague gestures, of his obvious god-like supremacy

I could go on and on, but why beat a dead horse.

 

[ZirconBlue]

We can compare knowledge of writing any time. I'll even spot you 5 of your closest friends and a computer with internet access and I'll debate you all blindfolded on any aspect of the craft that you want. None of that will help you, of course, because many of my ideas are self-synthesized and thus can't be responded to via google.

You are really full of yourself, aren't you?

Exactly. Many people feel the same way.

Many people like Justin Bieber, too.

 

[EGarrett]

Either way.

If you're going to make appeals to authority, at least appeal to the right authority.

*sigh* No, questioning your claims is neither logically fallacious nor a personal attack.

It's not questioning the claim, it's questioning the person's fitness to make the claim. The mere fact that I have to repeat this to you is exactly what I was referring to when I said I expected better.

Sorry, your say-so is simply not good enough.

Okay, why don't you start by simply going to wikipedia and looking up the articles on giftedness and positive disintegration. That will give you information on hyper-sensitivity and emotional intensity of the particular type that is displayed very often in Gallagher's poor manners. Then you can head to google video or youtube and watch the BBC Special Battle of the Brains where they do a brain-scan on the founder of the International High IQ Society and discovered the unique way his brain had hyper-configured itself to devote more space on things it saw as useful and stimulating and next to no space for mindless things like organization or hygiene...then cross-reference it with the exhaustively long list of historical geniuses who ignored their grooming or cleanliness (off the top of my head, Einstein, Michelangelo, Edison, Newton, Fischer, Feynman, Hughes, Poe etc etc etc). I also found a second source for this today while researching the book "The Prodigy" and finding an anecdote about Sidis's grooming habits and how they got him uninvited from his friend's parties. Now compare that to the way Gallagher appears in all his public performances and interviews...despite the fact that he's on television and should be concerned about how he comes off. That's enough for a start...then we'll move on from there...

Then your claim of being "more qualified" to assess issues such as Asperger's is completely invalidated. Nobody actually qualified to make such a diagnosis would do so with such a flimsy basis.

...or, by this point, I've developed an excellent instinct.

I don't see anything else you posted that would merit a response besides repeating something I already said.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Shakespeare was superb.

He was certainly the greatest writer in the English language.
I don't know how he compares with writers in other language, but I suspect that he's at or near the top in the estimation of many.

Just as the music of Bach can so easily pass through cultural barriers and be reinterpreted, the works of Shakespeare have had great impact on people from other cultures. Akiro Kurosawa and films are a prime example.

That honor goes to Sinclair Lewis.