Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
francois

Το ελληνικό πρόσωπο του Γιώργου Νταλάρα

77 posts in this topic

Celeste, you seem not to know how a boy becomes homosexual...

It is sometimes in born, but most of the times it is learned from the dominant mother and passive father AND FROM GROWN UP HOMOSEXUALS WHO ARE NEAR THE BOY, and have some influence at him, as TEACHERS DO...and a teacher, being a competent one AND a homosexual, will COMPETENTLY try to teach the boys to become LIKE him, thus trying to justify his "SEXUAL "ORIENTATION", CONSCIOUS OR NOT...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YOU do it!!!... YOUR son is 6, not mine.

I am bored with them. Not worht my while, my son is 25 and a MAN, so I don't care any longer, but about hypocrisia, I DO care :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PS. Celeste, parody does not necessarily have a particular text as basis, parody can be connected with a kind of (literaric) figure, a (literaric) style, motives, species. I took this (literaric) into brackets, because it can be found in different kinds of art.

You have a point here, Olga. But what would be parodized?

Here? Clearly a particular kind of literature developed especially in Germany of the 19. th century, called "Kuenstlerroman" or "Kuenstlernovelle" (a novel about an artist, "a story about an artist", if shorter).

And here we have some typical figures of it:

- sky full of stars (it means: closer to God or heaven that the average folk)

- mountains, an old tool to get closer to sky/heaven ("We build for him, the Pharao, a staircase, so that he can come to Heaven more quickly" - what was found on the papirus in the Cheops (Chufu) pyramid);

- the main hero remaning alone or even isolated from the other people,

not particularly understood by the rest of the world, what would like him to stay, where it was;

and, what I mentioned above:

- special gifts in the youngest days of life even

- loosing of dependencies (see the last verse of "Balanda", all the adjectives, "I am like a God, naked and shining"

- and this is the place of the parody: what does this perfect hero do? Whistling with slight irony and saying "geia sas, paidia". From Lykavitos (Lykavitos!!! this "Hill of volwes" and crowds, hill of "pandemonium" and expensive cafes) , not from Olymp and not even from Akropolis, seats of gods!

Whistling!!!

In the Polish language has the phrase "gwizdze na was", I whistle on you, just this meaning of slight indulgence.

Whistling!

Chapeau bas, Kyrie Hatzidaki.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From Lykavitos (Lykavitos!!! this "Hill of volwes" and crowds, hill of "pandemonium" and expensive cafes) , not from Olymp and not even from Akropolis, seats of gods!

Whistling!!!

In the Polish language has the phrase "gwizdze na was", I whistle on you, just this meaning of slight indulgence.

Whistling!

Chapeau bas, Kyrie Hatzidaki.

And chapeau bas to you too, dear Olga.

The hill is also a place from which the apostle preached to the Athenians (I don't remember the name of the rock in the Akropolis). :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The hill is also a place from which the apostle preached to the Athenians (I don't remember the name of the rock in the Akropolis). :rolleyes:

It is not Likavitos, it is Areopag under the Acropolis in the direction of Romaiki Agora (you know it better than me after living in Athens).

But not even Areopag, the place of old Athenian court is meant in the Xatzidakis' text.

PS. I owe a great lot of admiration to the Paulus' thoughts, what became mine in a time and were told for the first time just on Areopag in front of the court men.

And thanks for the compliments :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olga, once more I have to express my respect for your knowledge and for your ability to detect the (possible) meaning of various details of a text (and of a text as a whole).

[it would be really very very interesting to get to know your interpretations of lyrics by Elevtheriou (for example). :rolleyes: ]

But nevertheless for me remain fundamental questions:

- What's the matter with the four faces of Dalaras as Hatzidakis describes them (Dalaras' connection with tradition / his passion for songs / his "lover's relationship" with the audience / his "teleiologia" [whatever this may really mean] and his "tash gia ta astra" ["his reaching out towards the stars"])? That's also to understand in a "parodizing" and/or ironical way?? At least for the first two faces I cannot imagine it (as they are the only realistic and clear part of the whole story).

- And I continue to ask myself: What is the sense of telling us this story? Should it amuse us? Should it give us a new (unknown until then) impression of Dalaras? Should it give us the information on what is Hatzidakis' opinion about Dalaras? (The last one was my initial approach but after your and Celeste's comments about the parodistic/ironical character of the text it seems to be no longer the right approach.)

Why all this parodistic/ironical attitude instead of clearly saying what he thinks about Dalaras (or his concerts in the theatre, or Greek music in general, whatever )?

- And let's assume that your way of interpretation is right: Obviously Hatzidakis' text requires studies in history, literature, even religion etc.etc. in order to understand it (its metaphorical meanings etc.). How many people do have this (intellectual) background in order to understand the text?? Surely a very small minority. And I distrust this "elitistic" attitude of Hatzidakis which becomes evident (for example) in this story (and not only here). (I hope the word "elitistic" exists in English. In Greek it would be "elitistiko" or to my mind you could also say "koultouriariko". :D ) This distance (or even contempt) towards the simple, direct things (and people ?) and this distance to real(istic) life is one of the reasons why Hatzidakis seems so strange to me.

I could continue with various other remarks, but let's stop here for the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
- And I continue to ask myself: What is the sense of telling us this story? Should it amuse us? Should it give us a new (unknown until then) impression of Dalaras? Should it give us the information on what is Hatzidakis' opinion about Dalaras?

From all of this a bit, Michael.

An example from an another part of our world, a story for a good night, δεν μπορώ πιά....

1985 in a small city Arnstadt in Thuringen/Germany a new monument for Johann Sebastian Bach was made.

But, as Bach was living there, he was just a 18 years old organist, who was given his first "adult" place of work in the church there.

Therefore it was not repeated, what we see on most Bach's pictures (protruding jaw he really had, and - Michael, hilf - ein pausbackiges Gesicht - and eyes of an elderly short-sighted man).

Nothing of this. A boy-Bach is sitting on an organ bank and .playing invisible organ.

His fingers are moved like on the keyboard, but his upright legs on the unvisible pedals make an impression, he literally - Michael, hilf wieder - schlenkert mit den Beinen, als ob er besondere Freude daran haette.

And, as the monument is a very low one, the children can play with the figure perfectly.

But just imagine, what indignant reactions this monument caused at first.

And now almost everybody is pleased with having such a sculpture there...

A pity do not have a scanner. Or maybe you knbow this and can scan this here, please?

As Hatzidakis was writing his text, the situation was at least similar: a ca. 20 years boy entering his adult life as an artist. Or a bit later.

Αnd Hatzidakis' opinion? I think, proud of being a ruler in the imaginatory kingdom, where stars like this one can be born......

Ps. MIchael, "sollen" and "amusieren" passen nicht unbedingt gut zueinander. Wenn "sollen", dann nicht "amusieren" und umgekehrt.

Und wenn Du den "Club der toten Dichter" mal gesehen hast, da habe ich ein paar Worte fuer Dich rausgesucht. Aber nicht mehr heute (gut, es bleben noch 4 MInuten). Spaeter....... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for a mistake in the years: I saw somewhere in this topic the date 1970 and I mixed it up, as if it were the real date of the recording. It was of course 1988.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
- And I continue to ask myself: What is the sense of telling us this story? Should it amuse us? Should it give us a new (unknown until then) impression of Dalaras? Should it give us the information on what is Hatzidakis' opinion about Dalaras? (The last one was my initial approach but after your and Celeste's comments about the parodistic/ironical character of the text it seems to be no longer the right approach.)

Why all this parodistic/ironical attitude instead of clearly saying what he thinks about Dalaras (or his concerts in the theatre, or Greek music in general, whatever )?

- And let's assume that your way of interpretation is right: Obviously Hatzidakis' text requires studies in history, literature, even religion etc.etc. in order to understand it (its metaphorical meanings etc.). How many people do have this (intellectual) background in order to understand the text?? Surely a very small minority. And I distrust this "elitistic" attitude of Hatzidakis which becomes evident (for example) in this story (and not only here). (I hope the word "elitistic" exists in English. In Greek it would be "elitistiko" or to my mind you could also say "koultouriariko". :D ) This distance (or even contempt) towards the simple, direct things (and people ?) and this distance to real(istic) life is one of the reasons why Hatzidakis seems so strange to me.

I could continue with various other remarks, but let's stop here for the moment.

First of all, Michael it seems obvious to me-but I may be wrong- that the 4 faces merge into one with To Eliniko Prosopo tou...That is, it seems to me that the author considers this record and the shows at the Sirion, a moment of perfection, when the different aspects of Dalaras, his four voices, merge into a perfect Whole.

As from what you said that I quoted, come on Michael! If you want things put directly, you shouldn't read artistic works, but journalistic texts. That's one of the differences between let's say, good poetry and bad poetry (not the only one). If it hadn't been so poetic, the way he says things, we wouldn't be discussing it. Poetry and art in general is about what the artist wants to convey but it is also about what you want to interpret or feel. It's about the emotion that is not always explainable, wordable (if this word exists).

By saying that this kind of art is for an elite, well, maybe yes, maybe not. The parody, taken in its literary concept, is always for an elite.

Let me give you an example which is quite fresh in my memory. At University, a couple of months ago, I had to study the book Moon Palace by Paul Auster. If you take it at a 1st level, you read a story about a guy who is searching his identity, the father figure, and so on. To put it shortly. If you have the necessary cultural background, you'll see that it's a parody of the American Transcendentalist tradition, particularly Thoreau and being a parody doesn't mean that Auster is making a plagiarism of Thoreau's Walden. Precisely because he is ironic about it, he pays tribute to it and when one gets this dimension, one sees that after all, this book is about the existence of new frontiers in the american landscape, not only the wilderness of Thoreau's time, the far West, but -the book ends when he gets to the Pacific Coast with all its symbolic dimension- also the widerness inherent of life in a city like New York.

What I'm trying to say, very clumsily indeed, is that you don't need a degree in Art to understand and feel a work of whichever artistic area but, if you don't have the sufficient knowledge, you'll get only a glimpse of it or you'll have the reaction of those hillbillies who, when they see an abstract painting, say: My 3 year old could do that!

This is not contempt towards the people, Michael, neither to direct things. It's more like: if you need to understand more, you need to educate yourself, progress.

Anyway, this thing comes a long way. The french symbolists, Mallarmé for example, considered that when something was too popular, therefore easily understood, it wasn't art. That's a point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As Hatzidakis was writing his text, the situation was at least similar: a ca. 20 years boy entering his adult life as an artist. Or a bit later.

Αnd Hatzidakis' opinion? I think, proud of  being a ruler in the imaginatory kingdom, where stars like this one can be born....

You corrected it already by yourself, Olga: Dalaras was almost 40 years old when the concerts in the theatre "Seirios" took place.

As for the beginning of Dalaras' career: May be that I am wrong, but as far as I know, Hatzidakis did not play such an important role. (As we know, decisive for Dalaras' further development where his meetings with other composers: Proud could be for example our beloved Kougioumtzis. But I think he is too modest for such feelings. :D)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manos Xatzidakis and Stavros Koujoumtzis in Giorgos Dalaras career: of course, I can only agree (Quote: "Koujoumtzis ekane Dalara...) But, if GD performing in the Syrio theatre made the first one like the ruler of heaven with stars, this is a very positive experience, I think, and nobody must be jealous.

"Our beloved Koujoumtzis"..... how I would like to know him προσώπικα!!!

Or at least get one of his books to read.

Or at least know, how is he doing and what songs is he going to give us in the future.

Btw. it seems to be, that the "Enas kompos" belongs to Giorgos Dalaras' favourites, if we can judge after the number of it's arrangements, including this from the mentioned recording..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The french symbolists, Mallarmé for example, considered that when something was too popular, therefore easily understood, it wasn't art. That's a point of view.

Yes, that's the attitude that seem to have various artists (and "artists") and their audience too: In order to be good poetry (or literature or also films) it has to be understandable only with great difficulties or understandable not at all. And in the field of music: In order to be music with "quality" it must be boaring (no characteristic melodies, no characteristic ryhthm etc.) (There are various examples in the field of Greek music too, but I will not refer to any names or song titles at the moment. :D )

And you, Celeste, also write:

If you want things put directly, you shouldn't read artistic works, but journalistic texts. That's one of the differences between let's say, good poetry and bad poetry (not the only one).

I, for my part, have a different conception about art / quality in poetry / quality in music etc. And I have to disagree with your opinion: There are enough examples that art can also be something realistic, clearly understandable. In order to avoid to get too far off topic, I will only refer to Lefteris Papadopoulos: The meaning of his lyrics is usually completely clear although often his songs are written in a quite poetical way. The same applies to many other lyrics-writers (from Eftyhia Papagiannopoulou up to Andonis Andrikakis and Panos Falaras). (A special case is Manos Elevtheriou but that is not the place and moment to discuss about this unique personality.)

Surely you can say that the taste of people is different. Of course. But I do not like the snobism of the "koultouriarides" (those who believe that they are the only ones who know what "real" art means etc.). I, for my part, am not willing to pretend that the work XY (a song, a text, whatever) is good only because it is something artificial or because it is written by someone who has the fame to be an important artist. And I think it must be allowed to say that I do not like a certain (type) of text, song etc. - and even call it nonsense - without being obliged to consider myself a fool (whose lack of intelligence etc. is the reason for his opinion). (Geske, that's no reproach towards you. I say it in general. :rolleyes: )

And in order to return to Hatzidakis and his story: Too artificial, too much "l'art pour l'art", too much bombast and "kitsch" (meant by the author ironical or not ironical - no difference to me), too much vanity and coquetry from the side of Hatzidakis. These are the main reasons why I do not like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Our beloved Koujoumtzis"..... how I would like to know him  προσώπικα!!!

I know your (and my own) estimation for him. Therefore I wrote it this way. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[i, for my part, have a different conception about art / quality in poetry / quality in music etc. And I have to disagree with your opinion: There are enough examples that art can also be something realistic, clearly understandable. In order to avoid to get too far off topic, I will only refer to Lefteris Papadopoulos: The meaning of his lyrics is usually completely clear although often his songs are written in a quite poetical way. The same applies to many other lyrics-writers (from Eftyhia Papagiannopoulou up to Andonis Andrikakis and Panos Falaras). (A special case is Manos Elevtheriou but that is not the place and moment to discuss about this unique personality.)

Surely you can say that the taste of people is different. Of course. But I do not like the snobism of the "koultouriarides" (those who believe that they are the only ones who know what "real" art means etc.). I, for my part, am not willing to pretend that the work XY (a song, a text, whatever) is good only because it is something artificial or because it is written by someone who has the fame to be an important artist. And I think it must be allowed to say that I do not like a certain (type) of text, song etc. - and even call it nonsense - without being obliged to consider myself a fool (whose lack of intelligence etc. is the reason for his opinion). (Geske, that's no reproach towards you. I say it in general. :D )

And in order to return to Hatzidakis and his story: Too artificial, too much "l'art pour l'art", too much bombast and "kitsch" (meant by the author ironical or not ironical - no difference to me), too much vanity and coquetry from the side of Hatzidakis. These are the main reasons why I do not like it.

Michael, realistic Art and non realistic Art can perfectly coexist. You just cannot dismiss a work just because it's difficult to understand. And I'm not a koultouriarides! There are lots of artists who are quite easily understandable and who will leave their imprint in history. For example, I don't know if you are familiar with Jacques Brel's or George Brassens's music, but they are of this kind and IMHO among the best french composers and singers (sorry, Brel was belgian).

I love the song Paraponemena Logia and - well, let's not forget that my knowledge of Greek is extremely limited- only when I heard it in Sergiani ston Kosmo did I get the full range of it (I knew it before from the album Ta Tragouda Mou). So, you see, without a certain knowledge of Greek History, you won't understand its context. (I hope, I understood well enough the content of the 1st mentioned album, or else, I'm making a fool of myself. :rolleyes: )

And by the way, even realistic art could be taken and understood more profoundly than it seems at first sight. But also, it's Ok if one doesn't want to reach the other meanings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one last exmple to finish my argument and I'm going to invade Olga's territory. There's a painting called Nude Descending a Staircase by Marcel Duchamp. It is realist because what you see is what you get, a nude woman descending a staircase. ( I use the term realist not as an art school's concept but as something one understands, as opposed to abstract). However, if you know that the conceptual background of this painting has to do with a new epistemology, that is a new way of understanding the world, you'll know that when the painter painted this scene, he was going against a traditional concept in the visual Arts that had to do with the vision people had of a painting as something seen through a window and therefore frozen in space. Well, here we have a new concept: trying to freeze time in the visual arts, hence a woman not on a staircase but in the middle of a movement. So a temporal dimension was achieved and that was quite revolutionary. All modernism sprang from new concepts, not only this one, that gave birth to important works of art like Ulysses, The Waste Land, Guernica and so on. You cannot dismiss the importance of these pieces just because they aren't easily apprehended.

Yes, you have to know that Einsteins's new theories, Quantic physics, Freud's concepts explain all that. All is related.

But at the same time, you can look at the referred painting and see only a beautiful (or not) naked woman descending the stairs. And this is OK as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are lots of artists who are quite easily understandable and who will leave their imprint in history. For example, I don't know if you are familiar with Jacques Brel's or George Brassens's music, but they are of this kind and IMHO among the best french composers and singers (sorry, Brel was belgian).

I do not speak French, but from the very few things I know about their work: Yes, I could imagine that this would be a type of art I appreciate (if I knew the language etc.).

[off topic: And as you mentioned French names: For example I prefer the art of making films by Rohmer or Sautet to the artificial style of Thodoros Aggelopoulos. (Though the two songs with Dalaras in his films are wonderful.)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the artificial style of Thodoros Aggelopoulos. (Though the two songs with Dalaras in his films are wonderful.)

Which ones are they? And where recorded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You just cannot dismiss a work just because it's difficult to understand.

Of course not (always), Celeste. Only when I have the impression that its difficult character is "l' art pour l'art" / "maniera" ("Manierismus" - I don't know if in English there is the word "manierism") / an attempt to show that its creator is more "cultivated" than the mass and his work is (only) for an elite. (Perhaps I should quote in another topic some other sentences of Hatzidakis which give me exactly this impression about him.)

For the moment only two sentences by the famous lyrics-writer Lefteris Papadopoulos (from an interview with the periodical "Difono", some years ago). After criticizing certain lyrics of one of his (female) colleagues (Lina Nikolakopoulou), he says:"Εγώ θέλω το τραγούδι να ναι χειροπιαστό, ουσιαστικό. Τότε πιστεύω ότι μπορεί να είναι και πραγματικά ομαδικό και να αντέξει στον χρόνο."

=

"I want the songs [he refers to their lyrics] to be something concrete, substantial. Then I believe that they can be really for the community and continue to exist during the times."

[No good tranlsation but I think the meaning is clear.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Of course not (always), Celeste. Only when I have the impression that its difficult character is "l' art pour l'art" / "maniera" ("Manierismus" - I don't know if in English there is the word "manierism") / an attempt to show that its creator is more "cultivated" than the mass and his work is (only) for an elite. (Perhaps I should quote in another topic some other sentences of Hatzidakis which give me exactly this impression about him.)

i don't know if I agree with your definition, Michael but that would lead to a further discussion on Art and this is maybe not the place. But you would be right to open a new topic on Hadzidakis. I think there's one about him called: Hadzidakis, 8 years later...

Let's conclude: whether we like or not the text (I do, you seemingly don't), we can both agree that To Eliniko Prosopo... is beautifully sung.

:music:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you would be right to open a new topic on Hadzidakis. I think there's one about him called: Hadzidakis, 8 years later...

Theoretically you are right, Celeste. But I would not like to start an own topic (nor to [mis]use Francois' topic about Hatzidakis) in order to make critical remarks about this artist (or also about his main lyrics-writer, Nikos Gatsos). It would be interesting, yes. But many people would see it simply as provocation from my side (remember some reactions within this topic here). If other people start to write something about him (for example about Hatzidakis) that I cannot agree with that's different. Because then they give me an occasion and I see no reason to keep secret my own point of view. :D

Let's conclude: whether we like or not the text (I do, you seemingly don't), we can both agree that To Eliniko Prosopo... is beautifully sung. :razz:

Yes. :razz:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Theoretically you are right, Celeste. But I would not like to start an own topic (nor to [mis]use Francois' topic about Hatzidakis) in order to make critical remarks about this artist (or also about his main lyrics-writer, Nikos Gatsos). It would be interesting, yes.

Michael, please, do feel free to post in my topic about Hadjidakis (this is the way we write his name in France). Everybody is entitled to have his opinions on such composer or such lyricist. I'd be delighted to understand why people do not appreciate some artists as much as I appreciate them. :D You can also open your own topic, of course.

But this post is "off topic" :razz: Sorry about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Είχα καιρό να το ακούσω το «Ελληνικό πρόσωπο», και τώρα που μπήκε μεσ' το cdplayer δεν λέει να φύγει...

Μόλις τώρα κατάλαβα κάτι λίγο περίεργο, λίγο αστείο: για μένα, αυτές είναι οι πρωτότυπες εκτελέσεις αυτών των τραγουδιών.

Ο δίσκος αυτός υπήρχε όχι μόνο πρώτος αγαπημένος μου του Νταλάρα, αλλά και πρώτη μου γνωριμία (και αγάπη) με το ελληνικό τραγούδι... τα ελληνικά την Ελλάδα. Τότε. Που ο δίσκος ήταν καινούργιος κι εγώ, νεαρή. Τώρα που έχω μάθει τις «κλασσικές» ερμηνείες του «έχω ένα καφενέ», του «άσε με πάλι να σου πω», του «ζορικός», καταλαβαίνω πόσο αλλιώτικος είναι. Πως παρουσίαζε γνωστά τραγούδια σε καινούργια εμφάνιση, με άλλη άποψη. Περιθωριακός σχεδόν θα λεγόταν.

Στα δικά μου τ' αυτιά όμως, είναι θεμέλιος. Για πάντα.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0