As I was writing a report and googling for something, I happened upon these words, which are described as "kinder, gentler cousins of Schadenfreude/epicaricacy": Fremdschämen (German); Myötähäpeä (Finnish)-
The kindler, gentler cousins of Schadenfreude, both these words mean something akin to “vicarious embarrassment.” Or, in other words, that-feeling-you-get-when-you-watch-Meet the Parents.

I wasn't familiar with the German word, so I looked it up in a couple of dictionaries / language sites. Fremdschämen is a verb meaning 'to cringe at something somebody else is doing'; I guess 'to be vicariously embarrassed' is OK, too. The word is composed of two parts fremd 'new; foreign; unknown' and schämen 'to be ashamed; blush' (related to English shame).

This seems the opposite of delight at another's misfortune.

got any info on that Finnish word? Or on the Finnish language in general? If I had seen that word ("Myotahapea") out of context I would have thought.. Egyptian? Greek?

Finnish

Finnish is related to Saami (Lapplandic), Estonian, a bunch of other Finno-Ugaric languages and more distantly Hungarian. The word in questions looks nothing like Greek or Egyptian. It has more cases for nouns than Latin, Greek, or Sanskrit. It's spelling system is pretty good. Words are pronounced as spelled.

Bethree, when I put Myötähäpeä into Google Translate, it says "contributing shame." Interesting.

quote:

that-feeling-you-get-when-you-watch-Meet the Parents

As indicated, if the word means "to be vicariously embarassed" that's really the opposite of something like Schadenfreude, which means "to take delight in another's misfortune". However, people do laugh at Meet the Parents, so there is an element of Schadenfreude for some people I suppose.

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
Finnish

Finnish is related to Saami (Lapplandic), .

That sounds directly related to Suomi, the Finnish word for Finland and/or the Finnish language.

hat sounds directly related to Suomi, the Finnish word for Finland and/or the Finnish language.

Yes. I had always assumed that.

Not too many links for that word... I enjoyed this one, where Formula 1 team Lotus race driver Heikki Kovaleinen sits in as drummer with Finnish metal band Nightwish at a band camp, forming what they call their "new band 'The Myotahapea' (The Cringe?). The result indeed might be called mutually embarrassing.

Ah, not that different from the old Monkees group. I hadn't thought about them for a long time, but they've been in the news with Davy Jones dying. They were meant to be spoofs, but somehow were expected to be better. Here is an interesting article, calling them "arguably the most underrated band in rock history." I am not sure about that, but they did get some undeserved criticism, I think.

I quite liked the Monkees at the time also. I knew they were a "manufactured" band, didn't write their own songs, and some didn't play their instruments, but they (or their producers) came up with some pretty good pop songs. As the article says, they did start writing and playing their own stuff in time, as well.

I just felt the Monkees got a bad rap. They were meant to be bad; that was the whole point of the TV show. And, even then, they had some great hits.

So, is it time for a reevaluation of the Monkees? I had a Monkees greatest hits album which I replaced with a CD. I didn't think they were the greatest group ever but I thought the music produced by the Monkees (or perhaps by the sessions musicians who actually made many of the earlier recordings) was good, feel-good pop music. I liked the Monkees and I liked the weird TV series.

I disagree that they were meant to be bad, though. They were, I think, meant to be exactly what they were, solid, middle-of-the-road, bounce-along pop music.

I disagree that they were meant to be bad, though. They were, I think, meant to be exactly what they were, solid, middle-of-the-road, bounce-along pop music.

I disagree that they were meant to be bad. They were simply a manufactured pop band, and they were meant (along with their TV show) to sell albums, and that's just what they did. Lots of 'em. Some of their songs were written by Neil Diamond. I read an article once that said that the Beatles and the Rolling Stones both thought that at least a part of what the Monkees were about was making fun of how a lot of pop bands are "manufactured" by the recording industry and other media. The TV show was modeled after Richard Lester's wonderful film, A Hard Day's Night. Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider, who were the major brains behind the Monkees, also were involved in the making of their only film: Head. It is a cult film, written by Jack Nicholson.

I don't remember the Monkees, but am relying on what I've been reading. I do realize that some of their songs were written by Neil Diamond, and the like. But many of the articles I have read said that they were bumbling musicians in the show (thus the "meant to be bad"). That is not saying that they were bad. I couldn't find the one article I wanted to find, but it says this in Wikipedia:

quote:

Rafelson and Schneider wanted the style of the series to reflect avant garde film techniques—such as improvisation, quick cuts, jump cuts, breaking the fourth wall, and free-flowing, loose narratives—then being pioneered by European film directors. Each episode would contain at least one musical "romp" which might have nothing to do with the storyline.

So actually it was quite innovative. The same Wikipedia article said that in retrospect the program looked like today's music videos. However, it was my impression (from what I've read) that the program was about musicians who definitely hadn't made it (thus my "meant to be bad").

We have multiple levels of reality.

Bottom Level (The internal reality of the show.)

There is a struggling (but good) band of musicians called "The Monkees" having wacky surreal adventures. Each character has a distinct character trope... Mike is the smart one (a la John Lennon), Davey is the cute one that the girls like (Paul), Mickey is the goofy one (Ringo), Peter is the quiet one (George).

On this level the band is entirely fictional and are supposed to be very good but not to have received their big break yet.

Next Level Up (the real band in the fictional show)

The real band were specifically created for the show. The only one that, initially at least, was especially musically talented, was Mike Nesmith though the others did become more accomplished over time. So at this level there was a not especially good real life band called the Monkees who were playing a fictionalised good version of themselves on TV.

Next Level (the fictional band in the real world)

The records, especially the early ones were mostly augmented by, or maybe replaced by some very high quality sessions musicians. The songs were often written by very talented song-writers. Who appears on the records is largely irrelevant as there were some very fine pop songs indeed produced by "the Monkees".

Top Level (the real band in the real world)

To an extent they were forced to become better musicians because the show was successful enough that they had to tour. You can fake it on tour and they may well have done so but it's a lot harder. As time went by they also fought a running battle to actually be the band they were supposed to be - insisting on writing and performing their own material. Much of this is also very good though to my mind is sometimes let down by a less crisp production than their earlier sound.

Top Level Plus One (the really real band in the real world.

When the Monkees reformed and toured the band wasn't Jones/Dolenz/Nesmith/Tork it was Jones/Dolenz/Boyce/Hart. Boyce and Hart were among the song-writers for the original Monkees, writing much of their best-known material, and also performed on some of their recordings.
The original four did get together in the 90s for another album and some live performances together in which they wrote and played everything themselves.



Hope that makes it all clearer.

Much.