malik@galaxy.DEC (Karl Malik ZK01-1/F22 1-1440) (05/13/85)
I posted this article a year or so ago. Given the current discussion about 'good' and 'bad' music, it seems appropriate to repost it. - Karl Subj: Music therapy Is there 'good' and 'bad' music? Who decides what's good and bad? Some sort of authority? Do we agree who they are? Does being popular make a piece good? Does lasting a long time make a piece good? Does making a lot of money make a piece good? Who set up these criteria? Did they consult you? What is gained by labeling a piece 'good' or 'bad'? Once you know a piece is 'good', what do you know? Is it comforting to like 'good' music? Do you like any 'bad' music? How does that make you feel? Have you ever argued with anyone about whether a piece, group, composer, etc., is 'good' or 'bad'? How often do you succeed in convincing them? How do you account for that? - Karl
jackson@curium.DEC (Seth Jackson) (05/14/85)
>I assume that music that is unoriginal and formula is bad. >I know I'm right, but there isn't any way I can prove it. And this is >just one of the many fustrating facts one has to learn to deal with. Of course there's no way you can prove it, because you're wrong. You are trying to place an objective judgment on a subjective matter. Obviously, formula music does scores low on some scale that is important to *you*, but calling it 'bad' is clearly wrong. If you say that music is bad, you are saying that it has no value. If something has no value, than nobody would give something of value to obtain it. Funny thing, though...an awful lot of people are exchanging something of value, namely money, to buy records that you would call bad. In fact, more people place value on 'bad' music than music that is 'good' by your standards. There must be something in that music that all these people find valuable, eh? I guess you haven't developed the ability to appreciate whatever it is. __ "Once in a while we get shown the light In the strangest of places if we look at it right" Seth Jackson dec-curium!jackson
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/15/85)
Thanks, we needed that.
PAWKA@nosc-tecr.ARPA (Pawka) (05/15/85)
When considering various musical tastes, one might well keep Dykstra's Law in mind: "Everybody is someone else's weirdo" MIke ------
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (05/16/85)
Seth Jackson sez:
If you say that music is bad, you are saying that it has no value.
If something has no value, than nobody would give something of value
to obtain it. Funny thing, though...an awful lot of people are
exchanging something of value, namely money, to buy records that
you would call bad. In fact, more people place value on 'bad'
music than music that is 'good' by your standards. There must be
something in that music that all these people find valuable, eh?
----
This assumes that people always do whats best for them on a rational basis. But we all know
how people frequently do things for IRRATIONAL reasons. Lemmings
are like that too :-).
For instance, if you hear a song enough times on the radio; there may be mechanisms
in your brain which makes you "lock onto" it, simply because it is familiar,
regardless of how uninteresting it is,
thus causing you to want to hear it again.
People also may buy music because they think it is "cool" to do so.
So the music may have "value" to them, but it is not valuable "as music",
rather as status enhancer.
--
larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate)
UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk
ARPA: lkk@mit-mcjeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (05/16/85)
> >I assume that music that is unoriginal and formula is bad. > > >I know I'm right, but there isn't any way I can prove it. And this is > >just one of the many fustrating facts one has to learn to deal with. > > Of course there's no way you can prove it, because you're wrong. You > are trying to place an objective judgment on a subjective matter. > Obviously, formula music does scores low on some scale that is > important to *you*, but calling it 'bad' is clearly wrong. Or calling it wrong is clearly bad, or bad is wrong is bad is... > If you say that music is bad, you are saying that it has no value. YOU said that - let's not put words in people's mouths, OK? > If something has no value, than nobody would give something of value > to obtain it. Funny thing, though...an awful lot of people are > exchanging something of value, namely money, to buy records that > you would call bad. Probably they are just being foolish. :-) Your theory seems to be: "If people will pay money for it, it must be a good thing." I guess Rosen was right about deadheads and materialism. > In fact, more people place value on 'bad' > music than music that is 'good' by your standards. There must be > something in that music that all these people find valuable, eh? More people always prefer what is mediocre to what is excellent - we can't all be knowledgeable about everything. > I guess you haven't developed the ability to appreciate whatever it > is. No, I never have been able to develop the ability to appreciate musical mediocrity. I know it's a terrible failing, but no matter how hard I try... <*grin*> Jeff Winslow
jackson@curium.DEC (Seth Jackson) (05/28/85)
>Seth Jackson sez: >If you say that music is bad, you are saying that it has no value. >If something has no value, than nobody would give something of value >to obtain it. Funny thing, though...an awful lot of people are >exchanging something of value, namely money, to buy records that >you would call bad. In fact, more people place value on 'bad' >music than music that is 'good' by your standards. There must be >something in that music that all these people find valuable, eh? >---- > > >This assumes that people always do whats best for them on a rational basis. But we all know >how people frequently do things for IRRATIONAL reasons. Lemmings >are like that too :-). > >For instance, if you hear a song enough times on the radio; there may be mechanisms >in your brain which makes you "lock onto" it, simply because it is familiar, >regardless of how uninteresting it is, >thus causing you to want to hear it again. > > >People also may buy music because they think it is "cool" to do so. >So the music may have "value" to them, but it is not valuable "as music", >rather as status enhancer. >-- >larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) Yes, it's possible that people do any or all of the above, but do really believe that that's the case for all or most people who like pop music? Are you willing to concede that some people buy that music because they actually like it? All these arguments that attempt to prove that X is bad music are simply absurd. You can create all the theories and hypotheses you want, but they still will have no bearing on reality. The fact of the matter remains - if there is an audience who appreciates music X, then music X is good music - TO THEM! It may not be good by *your* standards, but your standards only matter to you. Once again, I state that pop music and other kinds as well have something to offer. If you don't like the music, it's not because the music is bad, it's because you have not learned to appreciate what's good about it. But, as one wise prophet once said, "You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know." __ "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right" Seth Jackson dec-curium!jackson
jackson@curium.DEC (Seth Jackson) (06/04/85)
>>All these arguments that attempt to prove that X is bad music are simply >>absurd. >>Once again, I state that pop music and other kinds as well have something >>to offer. If you don't like the music, it's not because the music is bad, >>it's because you have not learned to appreciate what's good about it. But, >>as one wise prophet once said, "You ain't gonna learn what you don't want >to know." >Well, here's something to think about. Up until about a year and a >half ago, I probabaly hadn't heard 5 GD songs in my life. When I was in >10th grade, all the music I listened to was top 40 radio. Why? Because >I didn't know any better. I hadn't been exposed to what I now consider >good music. I didn't have the musical maturity to listen to works >that didn't give instant (simple) satisfaction. > Nowadays I couldn't stand to listen to top-40 radio. WHY? Because >I've >experienced what good really is, and now the other stuff is awful by >comparison. > By your logic there is no difference in quality between >McDonalds and fine french cuisine; Laverne and Shirley and Macbeth; ><insert random pop trash> and the Dead. Now I wouldn't say >a priori that such is rediculous, but I would expect that the >level of satisfaction attained by the latter of each pair is much higher. The original statement that I responded to was an assertion that top 40/pop music is "bad" music. You and I both happen to enjoy music that's more intellectually stimulating than top 40. On the other hand, there are many people who enjoy top 40 and listen to the Dead or whomever and think that *it's* trash. Obviously, those people are looking for something different than you or I; something that top 40 offers that the Dead, etc. does not. The Laverne and Shirley/MacBeth analogy is a good one. MacBeth is clearly a superior work if you base your judgment on the criterion of intellectual challenge. However, if you choose the criterion of 1/2 hour of light-hearted entertainment, then Laverne and Shirley is the superior work. Therefore, even though I personally find that show to be an insult to my intelligence, I am wrong when I make statements that the show is bad (usually stronger words are used!). The show has something to offer that many people find to be of value, and, therefore, by certain measures, not only is it a good show, it's better than MacBeth. The point of this discussion is that it's futile to use your own set of criteria to judge all situations. Sometimes they simply don't apply. As a certain wise prophet said long ago, "Talk about your plenty, talk about your ills One man gathers what another man spills." __ "We used to play for silver, now we play for life..." Seth Jackson dec-curium!jackson
lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) (06/05/85)
From Seth Jackson: > >The Laverne and Shirley/MacBeth analogy is a good one. MacBeth is clearly >a superior work if you base your judgment on the criterion of intellectual >challenge. However, if you choose the criterion of 1/2 hour of light-hearted >entertainment, then Laverne and Shirley is the superior work. Therefore, >even though I personally find that show to be an insult to my intelligence, >I am wrong when I make statements that the show is bad (usually stronger >words are used!). The show has something to offer that many people find >to be of value, and, therefore, by certain measures, not only is it a >good show, it's better than MacBeth. > Okay, here's another analogy. Think of the attitudes of various people toward the concept of "love". Little children think of it as 'icky mushiness', teenagers as 'sex', and many adults as 'a mutually supportive relationship' (or somesuch). Most people who've experienced the last kind of "mature" love would say that it is superior to two previous views. But holders of the two previous ones would look at "mature" love as perhaps silly and tiresome. But what you will probably find is that most anyone who has been in the third stage has probably been in the previous two as well, but NOT THE VICE VERSA. You might use this criterion for musical quality as well. How many people do you know who have gone from being dead-heads to top-40 fans. I know plenty who've gone the vice versa route. -larry kolodney My new address: ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk
jackson@curium.DEC (Seth Jackson) (06/13/85)
>>The Laverne and Shirley/MacBeth analogy is a good one. MacBeth is clearly >>a superior work if you base your judgment on the criterion of intellectual >>challenge. However, if you choose the criterion of 1/2 hour of light-hearted >>entertainment, then Laverne and Shirley is the superior work. The show has >>something to offer that many people find >>to be of value, and, therefore, by certain measures, not only is it a >>good show, it's better than MacBeth. >> >Okay, here's another analogy. Think of the attitudes of various people >toward the concept of "love". Little children think of it as >'icky mushiness', teenagers as 'sex', and many adults as 'a mutually >supportive relationship' (or somesuch). Most people who've experienced the >last kind of "mature" love would say that it is superior to two previous >views. But holders of the two previous ones would look at "mature" love >as perhaps silly and tiresome. But what you will probably find is that >most anyone who has been in the third stage has probably been in the previous >two as well, but NOT THE VICE VERSA. > You might use this criterion for musical quality as well. How many >people do you know who have gone from being dead-heads to top-40 fans. >I know plenty who've gone the vice versa route. > >-larry kolodney People who desire intellectual challenge or soulfulness or whatever will gravitate towards music with those characteristics. This will tend to happen as people grow older and develop the capacity to appreciate those things. But, on the other hand, there are plenty of people who grow older and do *not* become Deadheads or lovers of jazz or classical music, because those kinds of music do not have what those folks are looking for, whereas middle-of-the-road or top 40 *does*. Face it. You are never going to prove that top 40 or any kind of music is bad. All you can ever prove is that *you* don't like it. And even then, what you might really be proving is that you're too much of an elitist to allow yourself to enjoy the simple pleasure that pop music has to offer. This is not meant as a personal flame, but rather as a spark to cause you (and others) to examine your motivation for wanting to insist that pop is "bad" and that the music you like is "better". -- "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right" Seth Jackson dec-curium!jackson
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (06/13/85)
{Why is this line here anyway?}
> [Me] It's not so clear to me that there is any such thing as an
> objective criterion for anything. Most people accept that 1+1=2, but
> is this really true? It's really just an assumption that most of us
> make. If someone says, no 1+1=3, then there isn't much you can say to
> them, except to call them names and refuse to argue with them.
...
> I know I'm right, but there isn't any way I can prove it. And this is
> just one of the many fustrating facts one has to learn to deal with.
> [Seth Jackson] Of course there's no way you can prove it, because
> you're wrong. You are trying to place an objective judgment on a
> subjective matter.
I don't know how you could say that I'm trying to place an objective
judgement on anything, when I already said that it is my belief that
there no such thing as objective judgement at all.
With any system of "knowledge", you have to start off with axioms.
There is no way to prove one's axioms. From the axioms, one can then
prove things, but the truth of any conclusion is contingent upon the
truth of the axioms. Since one can have no way of proving one's axioms,
what one's axioms are is totally subjective, and thus all knowledge
derived from the axioms is subjective.
> Obviously, formula music does scores low on some scale that is
> important to *you*, but calling it 'bad' is clearly wrong.
Are you saying that me saying "commercial, pop, formula trash music is
bad" is bad? How can you say this in light of what you've already said?
Goodness and badness are matters of subjectivity, just like everything,
including the "fact" that 1+1=2. It's just a lot easier to get people
to agree upon mathematical axioms than on moral axioms. One of my moral
axioms is "The degree to which the world is in a 'good' state is equal to
the degree to which people are intelligent, creative, and compassionate."
You seem to have the moral axiom "The degree to which the world is in a
'good' state is equal to the degree to which people are happy." Please
do tell me if I am misinterpreting you. If you hold this axiom, then we
will often disagree on ethical and aesthetic matters, but neither can
prove the other wrong, because we won't accept each other's axioms. I
know of course that I am the one who is right!
> The fact of the matter remains - if there is an audience who
> appreciates music X, then music X is good music - TO THEM! It may not
> be good by *your* standards, but your standards only matter to you.
Well, I still disagree. Music (like post formula, pop, commercial,
trash music) that encourages stupidity, consistency, and lack of
compassion is good for no one. Of course this is my subjective opinion
on what "good" is. (And it's the right subjective opinion.)
I should point out, though, that your view (if I have your view right)
would lead us to the conclusion that we should put everybody in
"pleasure" or "happiness" machines if we ever invent them. That way
everyone can live out a perfectly safe and wonderfully happy life. What
an abhorent thought!
"I hold a cup of wisdom
But there is nothing within"
Doug Alan
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP
nessus@mit-eddie.ARPArlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/15/85)
> Face it. You are never going to prove that top 40 or any kind of > music is bad. All you can ever prove is that *you* don't like it. > And even then, what you might really be proving is that you're too > much of an elitist to allow yourself to enjoy the simple pleasure > that pop music has to offer. This is not meant as a personal flame, > but rather as a spark to cause you (and others) to examine your > motivation for wanting to insist that pop is "bad" and that the > music you like is "better". [SETH JACKSON] The one thing you may be able to prove is the shoddiness surrounding certain elements and instances of the music. I'm referring to industry music, music designed not by musicians but by managers and salesmen geared for sales, flaunting the singer's looks or some such nonsensical attribute rather than the music, or designed to copy directly from an existing successful piece of music, involving a straight uninspired "lift" rather than a "respectful" quote or a significant embellishment on the original. Examples of the first might include Wham! or Rick Springfield, examples of the second might include Phil Collins' theft of 1999 in Pseu-Pseudomusico (Susudio). Note that this doesn't discredit the genre: examples of this may or may not exist to some degree in various musical genres. In fact, I defy anyone to define the Top-40 "style" of music. Top-40 is defined as whatever is selling at the moment, and as time goes on EVEN the American public learns to like a new and different thing (if it's packaged right!). If anything, one can only hope to prove that Top-40 is the most prominent "genre" of the sorts of business manipulation just mentioned, but this hardly defames the music itself. Only low quality can do that. (and what's THAT you may ask...) -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (06/17/85)
Seems to me that Seth Jackson is saying nothing more profound than, "If you don't have any criteria for judgement, you can't say a piece of music is good or bad". Once you do have such criteria, judgements may easily be made. Even Mr. Jackson allowed that some pieces of music were better for "entertainment", and others were better for a deeper enjoyment. An analogy involving similar judgements was made with "Laverne and Shirley" and "Macbeth". The judgements are subjective, but if a fair number of knowledgeable people agree on them over time, they are not unreasonable. I rarely classify music as "good" and "bad". I say "interesting" and "boring". A piece of music can be boring for two reasons - I understand what's going on in it immediately (to the point of almost being able to predict it) or I can't grasp it at all and I'm not in the mood to try. It's pretty easy to distinguish these two cases. To me, music of the first kind is about as "bad" as it gets. I would be hard pressed to call this an objective judgement, though. Jeff Winslow
jlowrey@ssc-vax.UUCP (J L Owrey) (06/19/85)
> >Okay, here's another analogy. Think of the attitudes of various people > >toward the concept of "love". > >most anyone who has been in the third stage has probably been in the previous > >two as well, but NOT THE VICE VERSA. > >-larry kolodney > > People who desire intellectual challenge or soulfulness or whatever > will gravitate towards music with those characteristics. > > Face it. You are never going to prove that top 40 or any kind of > music is bad. All you can ever prove is that *you* don't like it. And I thought you were a Deadicated gdead fan, seth... Now the "NOT THE VICE VERSA" is an interesting point. The indication that people are moving around the "wheel of life" is the passage through various phases or rites (eg., their current totemic animal on the Medicine Wheel) without fixation on any one phase or rite. This continual motion represents evolution, growth and/or development. A question may then be asked as to whether the gdead has become a fixation (an LSD imprint, as Timothy Leary would have said) for many fans. However many feel that it is the very lack of fixation on any particular music form that makes the dead so popular with their audiences. The gdead are continually evolving their music - contiually exploring, eg., the continual introduction of new percussion forms by the two drummers. Another interesting point is not just the possibility of "NOT THE VICE VERSA" but of "either/or and both." I, myself, have found myself moving back and forth between the gdead and the moodies for some time now (even though I have seen the moodies only twice in concert, and the dead many times). In fact, in times of great solitude (alone on a high mountian or deep in the wilderness) I have had moody blues lyrics come to mind far more often than gdead lyrics. So at least in this instance it appears to be a case of not just "NOT THE VICE VERSA" but "EITHER/OR AND BOTH." yours truly, (not to be on the net for three months LOA) jlowrey
todd@SCINEWS.UUCP (Todd Jones) (06/22/85)
> > Face it. You are never going to prove that top 40 or any kind of > > music is bad. All you can ever prove is that *you* don't like it. > > And even then, what you might really be proving is that you're too > > much of an elitist to allow yourself to enjoy the simple pleasure ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ You said it, not me! > > that pop music has to offer. This is not meant as a personal flame, > > but rather as a spark to cause you (and others) to examine your > > motivation for wanting to insist that pop is "bad" and that the > > music you like is "better". [SETH JACKSON] > > The one thing you may be able to prove is the shoddiness surrounding > certain elements and instances of the music. I'm referring to > industry music, music designed not by musicians but by managers and > salesmen geared for sales, flaunting the singer's looks or some such > nonsensical attribute rather than the music, or designed to copy > directly from an existing successful piece of music, involving a > straight uninspired "lift" rather than a "respectful" quote or a > significant embellishment on the original. Examples of the first > might include Wham! or Rick Springfield, examples of the second > might include Phil Collins' theft of 1999 in Pseu-Pseudomusico (Susudio). > Note that this doesn't discredit the genre: examples of this may or may > not exist to some degree in various musical genres. In fact, I defy > anyone to define the Top-40 "style" of music. Top-40 is defined as whatever While you can't define a "style" of Top-40 music, you can find common aspects in pop music. Production techniques ensure that this music sounds optimal through little bitty car stereo speakers. This is achieved by utilizing a lot of dynamic compression. Top-40 music often imitates itself-look at all the Prince clones on MTV (Madonna clones to follow). Top-40 music usually relies on established formats. Too great an artistic risk and you stiff. > is selling at the moment, and as time goes on EVEN the American public > learns to like a new and different thing (if it's packaged right!). If > anything, one can only hope to prove that Top-40 is the most prominent > "genre" of the sorts of business manipulation just mentioned, but this > hardly defames the music itself. Only low quality can do that. (and what's Pop music isn't bad, but there is bad pop music. Jazz isn't bad, but there is bad Jazz. Baroque music isn't bad, but there is bad Baroque music. Disco music isn't bad, but there is bad Disco music. Rap music isn't bad, but there is bad Rap music. > "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr ||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | _ | |___|
jackson@curium.DEC (Seth Jackson) (06/25/85)
>> Obviously, formula music does scores low on some scale that is >> important to *you*, but calling it 'bad' is clearly wrong. >Are you saying that me saying "commercial, pop, formula trash music is >bad" is bad? How can you say this in light of what you've already said? No, I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying it's wrong (as in incorrect). >Goodness and badness are matters of subjectivity, just like everything, >including the "fact" that 1+1=2. It's just a lot easier to get people >to agree upon mathematical axioms than on moral axioms. One of my moral >axioms is "The degree to which the world is in a 'good' state is equal to >the degree to which people are intelligent, creative, and compassionate." >You seem to have the moral axiom "The degree to which the world is in a >'good' state is equal to the degree to which people are happy." Please >do tell me if I am misinterpreting you. If you hold this axiom, then we >will often disagree on ethical and aesthetic matters, but neither can >prove the other wrong, because we won't accept each other's axioms. I >know of course that I am the one who is right! OK, you are misinterpreting me. >> The fact of the matter remains - if there is an audience who >> appreciates music X, then music X is good music - TO THEM! It may not >> be good by *your* standards, but your standards only matter to you. >Well, I still disagree. Music (like post formula, pop, commercial, >trash music) that encourages stupidity, consistency, and lack of >compassion is good for no one. Of course this is my subjective opinion >on what "good" is. (And it's the right subjective opinion.) Ah, you are talking about goodness in a moral sense. This is a different issue from talking about goodness in terms of musical quality, which was the issue I was addressing. >>I should point out, though, that your view (if I have your view right) >>would lead us to the conclusion that we should put everybody in >>"pleasure" or "happiness" machines if we ever invent them. That way >>everyone can live out a perfectly safe and wonderfully happy life. What >>an abhorent thought! Well, since you have my view wrong, we don't have to worry about another Brave New World. My view is simply that you cannot place absolute judgments of "good" or "bad" on music (or anything else that is a matter of taste). Music that is bad to you is good to somebody else, and saying that it's bad because *you* don't like it is just closed-mindedness. > "I hold a cup of wisdom > But there is nothing within" Obviously. (Sorry, couldn't resist!) > Doug Alan Just a little more food for thought. There must be a fair number of musicians on this net. If top-40 music is so simple and formula, then any good musician should be able to write a top-40 hit. Try it. At worst, you'll see that's it's not that easy. At best, you'll get rich! __ "We used to play for silver, now we play for life..." Seth Jackson dec-curium!jackson
jackson@curium.DEC (Seth Jackson) (06/25/85)
>Seems to me that Seth Jackson is saying nothing more profound than, "If >you don't have any criteria for judgement, you can't say a piece of >music is good or bad". Well, that's close. What I'm saying is that you can judge music against certain criteria, but you can't put an absolute label of "good" or "bad" on a piece of music. If there is some criteria by which SOMEBODY judges the music to be good, then the music is good -- to that person. Essentially what it all boils down to is that it's just a matter of taste, and we run into trouble when we start to believe that our personal tastes are absolute truths. __ "We used to play for silver, now we play for life..." Seth Jackson dec-curium!jackson
steiny@idsvax.UUCP (Don Steiny) (06/26/85)
> > Just a little more food for thought. There must be a fair number of > musicians on this net. If top-40 music is so simple and formula, then > any good musician should be able to write a top-40 hit. Try it. At worst, > you'll see that's it's not that easy. At best, you'll get rich! > > Seth Jackson > dec-curium!jackson Writing the song is just a tiny tiny part of making a top 40 hit. The marketing is enormous and expensive. John Fogerty, now, that guy can crank out top 40 hits. He has it wired. pesnta!idsvax!steiny Don Steiny - Computational Linguistics 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0832
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (06/26/85)
["Pablo Picaso was never called an asshole"] > From jackson@curium.DEC (Seth Jackson) >> [Me] Well, I still disagree. Music (like post formula, pop, >> commercial, trash music) that encourages stupidity, consistency, and >> lack of compassion is good for no one. Of course this is my >> subjective opinion on what "good" is. (And it's the right >> subjective opinion.) > Ah, you are talking about goodness in a moral sense. This is a > different issue from talking about goodness in terms of musical > quality, which was the issue I was addressing. Forget that I ever mentioned morals. Morals are just to help you determine what "good" actions are. My theory about goodness, applies just as well to music as to actions. It applies to everything that you might want to stick the label "good" or "bad" on. Music that encourages mind rot is "bad". Books that encourage mind rot are "bad". Actions that encourage mind rot are "bad", etc. The quality of anything at all, in my opinion, is "good" to the degree to which it encourages intelligence, creativity, and compassion. > Well, since you have my view wrong, we don't have to worry about another > Brave New World. We already live in Brave New World. Just look around you. Top-40 music and TV sitcoms are soma! > My view is simply that you cannot place absolute judgments > of "good" or "bad" on music (or anything else that is a matter of taste). > Music that is bad to you is good to somebody else, and saying that it's > bad because *you* don't like it is just closed-mindedness. I'm not saying any music is bad because I don't like it! I've said on numerous occasions that I respect lots and lots of music that I don't particulalry like, so I wish you'd stop putting these repugnant words in my mouth. I am saying that music that encourages stupidity, lack of originality, and lack of compassion is bad. That has nothing to do with whether I like it or not. Such music is bad for the listener, and therefore the music is bad!!! > Just a little more food for thought. There must be a fair number of > musicians on this net. If top-40 music is so simple and formula, then > any good musician should be able to write a top-40 hit. Try it. At worst, > you'll see that's it's not that easy. At best, you'll get rich! Who ever said it was easy? Doing handstands isn't easy either, but it's hardly an art form. Brainwashing people isn't (exceptionally) easy, but that doesn't make it good. "I saw a lion & a snake Each killed the other From their bodies bred a horde of scorpions Which overran the world Their venom was Democracy" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (06/27/85)
>>>"pleasure" or "happiness" machines if we ever invent them. > > Well, since you have my view wrong, we don't have to worry about another > Brave New World. You missed his allusion here; it's to Paul Simon's song about Top 40 music, "The Big Bright Green Pleasure Machine." "You've seen it advertised in Life! You'll feel just fine!" -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 "Bu, jbj! Oyhr fxvrf! Oneguvr Ohetref! Tveyf*!!!" *Qba'g oynzr zr, Fbcuvr, vg'f whfg n dhbgr (ersrerapr gb na byq fbat, nyfb).