Two Versions of Santa Lucia
My Italian mother used to listen to the crooner, Mario Lanza. Here is his version of Santa Lucia. It is overdone and larded with Italian histrionics. Now compare the much better Elvis Presley version. Whereas Lanza uses the lovely old tune to promote himself and show off, 'The King' self-effacingly allows the song to emerge in all its beauty.
I find it ironic. In the late '50s I mentioned Presley to my mother. I can see her now, in her apron, in the kitchen. "That jackass!" she snorted. But if you compare the two clips you may agree with me that in the case of Santa Lucia, it was Lanza who was the jackass.
And here, for good measure, in Enrico Caruso's version.
Posted by William F. Vallicella on
Sunday September 7, 2008 at 6:09pm
But how close to kitsch is some of this? Does it matter? One is conscious there is a boundary that hasn't quite been crossed yet, but is close.
As for kitsch, something from an earlier post:
Kitsch is bad art, but what is the essence of kitsch, and why is it bad? Presumably it is sentimentality that makes kitsch kitsch, and it is this sentimentality that makes kitsch aesthetically and perhaps even morally dubious. One self-indulgently 'wallows' in a song like this, giving into its 'cheap' emotions. The emotions are 'false' and 'faked.' The melody and lyrics are formulaic and predictable, 'catchy.' The listener allows himself to be manipulated by the songwriter who is out to 'push the listener's buttons.' The aesthetic experience is not authentic but vicarious. And so on. Adorno would not approve.
There is great art and there is kitsch. I partake of both, enjoy both, and know the difference. What is wrong with a little kitsch in moderation? No, I don't collect Hummel figurines and my stoa is not carpeted with astroturf. What is sentimentality and what is wrong with it? There is a literature on this, but I've read almost none of it.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.