Re: Great, yet not *memorable*
posted at 7/17/2014 8:58 PM EDT
In response to yogafriend's comment:
In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
Did you manage to get to see BWATS on 21 June?
Re this post...isn't the question oxymoronic i.e. how can anything be "great" yet not "memorable"? Isn't "memorable" an integral part of "great"?
Sonics, dear. I responded re: BWATS in the other thread, a day or so ago (called "Reason to bore" or some such similar title) ... so ugh, the date flew right over my head, and was off my radar b/c I had a yoga event that day (for the Sumner Solstice). I saw that a good time was had by all -- gorgeous day / night. Now at least I KNOW to check them out another time, another venue. They surface fairly regularly. Radar on.
RE: Great and not memorable. Great is a fairly generic descriptor, isn't it? I think, at the time I created this post, I was probably disenchanted by an album that I felt was great -- yet, despite that, it just spilled into other albums that I own. I wish I'd said what album it was (I can see I didn't!). An album by a favorite artist, perhaps, that you do truly think is great, yet, as time passes, it does not turn out to be a keeper. Wish I'd given the example, because here it is weeks later, and hell if I know. :D
Hi Yoga! My point - poorly expressed - was that both "great" and "memorable" are subjective. Forget what anybody else thinks about art - who cares? - while some things might slip through the cracks (James Booker?) without being appreciated, surely if at some point I thought X band, Y author or Z film director was great but after years I've moved on/forgotten they, IMO, cannot have ever been "great". Right?