nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (05/01/85)
> From jcpatilla: > It amazes me that people can get so wrought up over a band [Jethro > Tull] that hasn't had an original thought since 1978 (some would say > never).-- > The case could be made that a fair percentage of this newsgroup is > mired in mediocrity and past glories. Why is this stuff mediocre? Because you don't like it? Well that's a god-awful stupid reason! Jethro Tull is certainly many many steps above most of the vapid, boring, uninspired, unintelligent, insulting, formula, pop commercial trash that pollutes the air-waves! They may not have forged a brand-new path of avante-guardeness through the jungle of music, but, then again, they didn't take a well-trodden path either. And what is this crap about being mired in past glories? Does art suddenly become invalid five years after it was created, or something? I must really be committing a henious crime when I listen to "The Rite of Spring" then! Your attitude is just as repugnant as the attitude of the people who claim that only classical music is worth listening to, and something isn't art unless it has survived a hundred years of weathering! > We have the devoted followers of a Dead band, the young men trying to > get into Kate's bush (pardon the vulgarity, Fred), the aural wallpaper > of Andreas Vollenwieder, and Rush, which (together with Triumph) must > be Canada's answer to acid rain. Well I'm not a Deadhead and can't properly support them, but your attack is certainly just another example of your narrow-mindedness. I don't know who Andreas Vollenwieder is, but what do you have against aural wallpaper? Brian Eno creates some wonderful aural wallpaper, and even tells you that that is what it is. Rush may have sold out, but they were (and still are even if they now produce crud) an intelligent and tallented band that does not deserve to be compared to the nadir-ish Triumph. And regarding Kate Bush, it's ironic that one who claims to be upset with mediocrity should resort to a bad, sophomoric, cliched, and inaccurate pun. About half of Kate Bush fans I know are female. How does Kate Bush relate to "past glories"? Her by far best album "The Dreaming", is also her most recent. How can you possibly insinuate that Kate Bush is mediocre? Perhaps you don't like her music, but that's a totally different thing. No one else (besides perhaps Peter Gabriel) creates music that is anything like Kate Bush's. Mediocre music doesn't get reviews like these (and notice that most of these stress not just quality, but originality, weirdness, unconventionality, and lack of mediocrity): "The Dreaming" can't even be spotted in the hills. It pulses with new shapes and guises, voices crawl over your ears and gnaw the brain like beautiful maggots. ... I don't care what they say, Kate Bush is a technicolor lighthouse in all the murky cover and boring crap. She deserves more from many quarters. Maybe you. --Zig Zag 1982 "Never for Ever" is a dangerous album because it unlocks the archetypical daemons and angels buried, but active in us all. --Rockbill 1984 It's about the only music I like that I can't dance to! --Zig Zag 1980 She allows you complete emotional release in the tenderness, the abrasiveness, the sadness, the madness -- all the possible extremes, and the subtleties between, can be found in that Voice... For she possesses the Voice that will enable to to live in a dream world, to experience such joy and pain. --Fred Mills 1982 This is what progressive rock might have become had it actually progressed, rather than congealing into the massed, lumbering cliches that came to distinguish its latterday forms. Oblivious to all fashions, Britain's Kate Bush has advanced into a musical area that's unquestionably her very own -- a kind of mystic and semi-inscrutable artsong that slowly draws you in and keeps you marveling at her unending invention and oblique, multilayered meaninings. --Musician 1983 ... she's the only female rocker out there doing anything original (or experimental).... -- Record I must have been waiting all my life for Kate Bush. She took me by surprise though, appearing unobtrusively in a pile of records -- played once and heard superficially as "weird noise".... I played the record ["The Dreaming"] again, it was perhaps, the most important musical decision I made all year.... A question reared up in me and demanded an answer -- Who is Kate Bush and where has she been all my life? -- RockBill Feb. 1983 > Not that there aren't also lots of people with different tastes - > we've seen Los Lobos, U2, John Cale, Einsturzende Neubatten (means > "collapsing new buildings", by the way) and dirge music discussed > also. So what's so much greater about these guys that places them in your non-mediocre category? Believe it or not, some of the people that like what you have claimed to be mediocre, also have varied enough tastes to range from Einsturzende Neubatten, Faust, Kraftwerk to Windam Hill, Pat Metheny to Pentangle to Roy Harper, Donovan, Neil Young to Invite the Spirit to The Residents, Tuxedomoon, Art Bears, Fred Frith to Kate Bush, Laurie Anderson, Peter Gabriel, Bill Nelson, Godley & Creme to African drumming, Bob Marley to Captain Beefheart to Pink Floyd, King Crimson to Tom Tom CLub, B52s to Sex Pistols, Red Lorry Yellow Lorry, Fade to Black, Joy Division, Bauhaus to Stravinsky. > But can we have more ? What about R&B ? Is anyone into the > Staple Singers or Sade' (pr. "Shar-day") ? Japanese jazz ? Surely > someone must have an opinion (pro or con) about Madonna ? Sunny Ade > and the African Beats ? Well if you want to see this stuff discussed why don't you post stuff about it rather than just being a jerk and insulting those whose interests are different than yours! (And sure, I have an opinion about Madonna: I'd rather eat bat guano than be subjected to one of her worthless songs. [Oh my, I can be obnoxious too! But I do disagree with everything I've ever heard Madonna do, musically, intellectually, and ethically.]) > Guess I should sit back now and let the flames roll in. Hop and > down all you want but I *promise* I won't reply to any letter that has > nothing better to say than to call my opinions 'moosepoop' (yes, I've > gotten some of those). I'd rather see the argument go on in the > newsgroup, liven things up a bit (seems awfully Dead around here...). But your opinions are moosepoop! "Go stick your head in a pig" Doug Alan mit-eddie!nessus Nessus@MIT-MC.ARPA
ry@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell) (05/05/85)
In article <4148@mit-eddie.UUCP> nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) writes: > >> The case could be made that a fair percentage of this newsgroup is >> mired in mediocrity and past glories. > >Why is this stuff mediocre? Because you don't like it? Well that's a >god-awful stupid reason! Jethro Tull is certainly many many steps above >most of the vapid, boring, uninspired, unintelligent, insulting, >formula, pop commercial trash that pollutes the air-waves! This is just one typical quote from an article that really raised my eyebrows. I've seen some pretty amusing acrobatics of logic in the fairly short time I've been reading the net, but this one takes the cake. I'm not in any way talking about the relative value of Jethro Tull, or any other particular music. Just the logic involved. >Why is this stuff mediocre? Because you don't like it? Well that's a >god-awful stupid reason! Ok, let's accept this as a basic premise, just for the sake of arguement. Be it established that personal opinion is not justified in bad-mouthing "stuff". Unless someone has some reason (*I* can think of none) for why music is in some way a special case, it seems reasonable that "stuff" could include anything in the realm of art or ideas. Given, then, that personal opinion is not allowable as a justification for criticism of "stuff", it follows that one of two things must be the case: 1) There is some *other* thing which does justify such criticism or 2) Such criticism is *never* justified. However, 1) is on pretty shaky ground. For just *what* would those "other" things be? And what determines the validity of any possible choice of "other"? It would have to be some absolute truth, and not personal opinion, since we have established that personal opinion is "a god-awful stupid reason!". But in fact, one would be hard pressed to find any absolute truths in this world. *Everything* is a matter of opinion. So we are left with: Theorem: Personal opinion is not justified in bad-mouthing "stuff". Corallary: Such criticism is *never* justified. >Jethro Tull is certainly many many steps above >most of the vapid, boring, uninspired, unintelligent, insulting, >formula, pop commercial trash that pollutes the air-waves! The prosecution rests. .... In summary, this person is saying, in effect, "If you don't like something that *I* like, then you are narrow-minded. If I don't like something *you* like, well, hey, obviously I'm right and you're wrong. ..... The only reason I bothered to post this at all is that the underlying question is one which has interested me for years, and net.music seems an appropriate forum for discussion. Being fairly new to the net, you will forgive me if I'm bringing up something which has been hashed to death, and, if so, spare me the flames and just tell me what, if anything, was concluded. The question is: Is there any absolute way to judge music, or is quality *always* a matter of opinion? And if there are any absolute standards, what are they? The reason this interests me is that my *gut* feeling is that there *are* absolute criterion for music; however, this position is damn-near impossible to defend. I cite an extreme example as a starting point: Consider two pieces of music. Let the first be a splendid performance of some "obvious" masterpiece. Let's say, Beethoven's Symphony #5 (and here we immediately hit the crux of the issue. Someone out there is going to say '*I* don't think the Fifth is an obvious masterpiece!'. To you I say, well, fine, just substitute something you do think is a masterpiece into the arguement). Let the second piece be a small boy banging two rocks together in straight quarter-notes. Here's the problem. What can one say regarding the relative merit of the two pieces? Is it unreasonable to say that the Beethoven (or whatever) is "better" then the "rock music" (ok, bad pun :))? Or is it just a matter of opinion? Every fibre of my body screams out: THE BEETHOVEN IS *BETTER* THAN THE SMALL BOY!!! ANYBODY WHO DOESN'T SEE THAT IS JUST PLAIN IGNORANT!! But that's not much of an argument, is it? It's not likely to convince the small boy, who's never heard the symphony (save the opening), knows nothing about symphonies (IGNORANT!!), and is having a just dandy time banging his rocks together in a monotonous, unimaginative fashion. So then the apparent answer, that many people give, is that its all relative, and subjective, and a matter of opinion. But my fibres still scream: ANYONE WHO SAYS THE ROCKS IS BETTER MUSIC IS JUST WRONG! JUST LIKE ANYONE WHO SAYS 2+2=5 IS JUST WRONG!!! So what's the answer?? Rich Yampell
DFUSER.KRAVITZ@MIT-XX.ARPA (Duddy) (05/07/85)
Rich, I believe I have a partial answer to your question about criteria of musical (anything, really) worthiness. This question is discussed in _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance_, by Robert Pirsig. What follows is my distillation of some of what he says. There are two ways of `seeing' any situation, a classic way and a romantic way. The classic ways involve adherence to particular forms which are merely customs developed by humanity during the past n millenia. Thus the "symphony" is a particular classic form (which doesn't mean it doesn't evolve) which musical works can be compared to on a relatively objective basis. The romantic ways involve unadulterated perceiving, a sort of pre-hearing if you will, in the case of music. This type of perception is what makes you pound your foot, snap your fingers, etc. Both ways of perceiving can lead to appreciation of music, chills down the spine, and other reactions. Something that adheres well to the classic form can be called beautiful (like an elegant proof), just as much as a passage that impresses you for some indescribable reason is beautiful. Don't get the idea from what I say that these two conceptions are seperate and incommensurable. They are intricately related, as you'll find out if you read the book. To summarize, there is some mainly objective criterion to evaluate music by, but this criterion is itself subjective despite the amount of agreement on it. (What makes the symphony form so great?) There also exists an equally valid (invalid) way to judge music (art, etc.) -- the romantic method. I hope this helps and that it creates some meaningful discussion. -- David Kravitz MIT Lab for Comp. Sci. Cambridge, MA -------
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (05/08/85)
> From: ry@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell) > In article <4148@mit-eddie.UUCP> nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) writes: >>> [jcp] The case could be made that a fair percentage of this >>> newsgroup is mired in mediocrity and past glories. >> [nessus] Why is this stuff mediocre? Because you don't like it? >> Well that's a god-awful stupid reason! Jethro Tull is certainly >> many many steps above most of the vapid, boring, uninspired, >> unintelligent, insulting, formula, pop commercial trash that >> pollutes the air-waves! > [ry] This is just one typical quote from an article that really raised my > eyebrows. I've seen some pretty amusing acrobatics of logic in the > fairly short time I've been reading the net, but this one takes the > cake. I'm not in any way talking about the relative value of Jethro > Tull, or any other particular music. Just the logic involved. ... > In summary, this person is saying, in effect, "If you don't like > something that *I* like, then you are narrow-minded. If I don't like > something *you* like, well, hey, obviously I'm right and you're wrong. You're logic isn't so perfect either. You've ignored the possibility that there is music that I personally don't enjoy listening to, but which I think has artistic merit. This is indeed the case. For example, I personally don't enjoy listening to Steely Dan music, but I'm not going to accuse someone that does enjoy listening to it of being "mired in medicrity". On the other hand, I believe that someone whose favorite "musicians" are Lionel Richie, Olivia Newton John, and Journey IS mired in mediocrity. Jcp's message annoyed me because he decreed as mediocre Jethro Tull (who I find to be fairly interesting, even if I don't enjoy all their stuff) and Kate Bush (who I find to be the most original and interesting musical artist I have ever heard [no one else even does videos anything like hers]), without seeming to give any other reason than that he doesn't like them. I don't think "I don't like it" is a good enough reason to slander someone's art. I don't like broccoli, but I'm not going to accuse it of not being a decent food. On the other hand, I do think cardboard is not a decent food. Lionel Richie, et al., are worthless musicians because what they create is uninspired, unintelligent, insulting, formula, pop, and commercial. Well, of course this could be a matter of debate too, but I think it's a much better reason than "I don't like it"! How to judge quality and originality is always going to be of a very subjective nature. There is no absolute truth. But somehow it seems to me to be much more reasonable for a supposed critic to judge something on the basis of his perception of its originality, quality, complexity, simplicity, intelligence, emotional power, etc., rather than just on whether he likes it or not. "My door was never locked Until one day a trigger come -- cocking (But now I've started learning how) I keep it shut" Doug Alan mit-eddie!nessus Nessus@MIT-MC.ARPA
cv@linus.UUCP (Chris J. Valas) (05/08/85)
-=- In article <10517@brunix.UUCP> ry@nancy.UUCP (Anonymous (actually Rich Yampell)) writes: (Prior to this, he and Doug Alan trade insults about each other's tastes.) And *then*: > >Is there any absolute way to judge music, or is quality *always* a matter >of opinion? And if there are any absolute standards, what are they? > >The reason this interests me is that my *gut* feeling is that there *are* >absolute criterion for music; however, this position is damn-near impossible >to defend. > > >So what's the answer?? > > Rich Yampell The question is "What is quality, and how can we recognize it?" The answer, of course, has been pondered by such notables as Socrates, Hume, Kant, et al. Ad infinitum, one might add. For an *intelligent*, in-depth discussion (and possible solution) of the issue, everyone go back and re-read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" before the net fills up with half-considered, *boring* crap written by theorizing dilettantes. I'd love to discuss this, but it's *not* an issue which will be easily resolved. The danger here is that we may *all* end up trading insults. Considering the veritable tidal wave of dissention this may provoke, you should consider moving the forum to net.philosophy, or perhaps dev/null. -=- On a non-philosophical note, recognition of quality in music is moot, since most of us only listen to things we *like*. I 'recognize' the quality of Beethoven's Fifth; I 'prefer' to listen to Mission of Burma. Call me a savage, but please, do it through the mail.... Chris J. Valas {decvax,utzoo,philabs,security,allegra,genrad}!linus!cv -=- "To the depths of the ocean where our hope sank, Waiting for you..." -=-
ry@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell) (05/09/85)
David-- an extremely interesting response. I shall have to ponder this some. In any case, you have done a good thing, by refueling my desire to read that book. I have heard it recommended many times, and keep meaning to read it, but have never quite gotten to it. rich
ry@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell) (05/10/85)
Doug Alan recently posted a response to my criticism of his logic in a previous article. I'm too lazy to figure out just which quotes to include, so I'll trust everyone to remember what we were talking about. I just wanted to say that I found his response much more lucid than his original posting, and consequently, his position much more reasonable. In the response he explains some things that were assumed and implied in the original. So, Doug, thank you; and now I'd like to ask you a question. This is *the* question for me. It is *the* question that I want an answer for myself, so I want to see if your answer makes sense to me. It is *the* reason I brought this whole mess up: You make a very interesting analogy between food and music. With food, however, we can judge between broccoli and cardboard based on extremely obvious, objective, and universal agreed concepts of nutrition and health and so forth. Just what are you going to use as criterion for doing so in music? You mention various things, such as complexity, emotion, etc. but that is a long, varied, and in some cases contradictory list? Exactly what is on it, and moreover, how do you claim that these things are objectively and obviously proper criterion? You see, the thing is, I *AGREE* with you about *ALL* of it, but am constantly chagrinned by the fact that I have no valid retort to anyone who disputes a given criterion, one which I feel is obvious. What it all boils down to is that unless some way is found to define objective proper musical criteria, we are forced to accept the position that cardboard is, in fact, just as good as broccoli, and, moreover, just as good as Hunan Crispy Whole Fish [or substitute your favourite food here]. Rich Yampell
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (05/10/85)
> Jcp's message annoyed me because he decreed as mediocre........ > ........than that he doesn't like them.... > > Doug Alan > mit-eddie!nessus > Nessus@MIT-MC.ARPA I refuse to debate further with Mr. Alan since he can't do so without twisting arguments around and calling names, but I want to point out that I find it VERY amusing that he has just "naturally" assumed that I am male. Jody Catherine Patilla -- jcpatilla "'Get stuffed !', the Harlequin replied ..."
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (05/12/85)
["It's not the bullet that kills -- it's the hole"] >> Jcp's message annoyed me because he decreed as mediocre........ >> ........than that he doesn't like >> >> Doug Alan > I refuse to debate further with Mr. Alan since he can't do so without > twisting arguments around and calling names, but I want to point out > that I find it VERY amusing that he has just "naturally" assumed that > I am male. > Jody Catherine Patilla I have made no such assumption about which sex you are, and am very opposed to any form of sexism or racism. I admit that I slipped into using "he" to refer to someone of unknown sex as I was taught is the grammatically correct thing to do. I actually find this usage of "he" objectional, but it does creep into my writing when I'm not careful. In the future, I will use "it", to refer to you and others in a pronoun. Some people find this objectionable, but I don't. I find "he or she" particularly offensive because it emphasizes sexual difference rather than de-emphasizing it. It also leaves out weird aliens and sentient computers. In any case, I don't want to start a debate on removing sexism from the English language in net.music. Don't you think it ironic that you should complain about me allegedly assuming that you are male, while you have clearly assumed that I am male? I appologize for any name-calling I have made at your expense. I realize that sometimes I act like an offensive asshole. I find it strange though, that you cannot realize that you too have been offensive, especially considering the large number of people who have told you that you offended them. Personally, I'd rather be called a jerk or an asshole than have it said that I'm "mired in mediocrity". I find it objectional that you feel compelled to defame other people's tastes just because they don't agree with your own, without giving any more reason than that. I'm sorry that you feel I have twisted your arguments around. I react to what I think you have said. If you feel that I am misinterpreting you, then please tell me what I have wrong. You have said to me that you find Kate Bush's music "vapid and trendy". Well I can't really argue with you about "vapid". You have the right to your opinion (even if it is the wrong opinion). But to call Kate Bush "trendy" is just plain wrong. Kate Bush is about as untrendy as someone can get. She doesn't care at all what the current fad or style in music is -- she is a perfectionist who goes through great pains to get her music to sound EXACTLY the way SHE wants it to sound, not as others say or think her music should sound. (I could quote numerous interviews and articles to support this, but I won't.) Do you really think Kate Bush is trendy? Why? Or you are just saying this to piss me off? Douglanessa Alan mit-eddie!nessus Nessus@MIT-MC.ARPA
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (05/12/85)
> From Rich Yampell: > You make a very interesting analogy between food and music. With > food, however, we can judge between broccoli and cardboard based on > extremely obvious, objective, and universal agreed concepts of > nutrition and health and so forth. Just what are you going to use as > criterion for doing so in music? You mention various things, such as > complexity, emotion, etc. but that is a long, varied, and in some > cases contradictory list? Exactly what is on it, and moreover, how do > you claim that these things are objectively and obviously proper > criterion? 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 assume that music that is unoriginal and formula is bad. Maybe someday I'll try to prove that listening to pop, commercial, formula trash atrophies the brain, but until then if someone claims to me that unoriginality and formula in music are good things, I can no more prove them wrong than if they claim that 1+1=3. I can vomit on them, though! 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. > What it all boils down to is that unless some way is found to define > objective proper musical criteria, we are forced to accept the > position that cardboard is, in fact, just as good as broccoli, and, > moreover, just as good as Hunan Crispy Whole Fish [or substitute your > favourite food here]. No we don't! We can assert as an axiom that Swa La Chow Chow is better than cardboard, and blow away anyone that refuses to accept our axiom! We've already done that for 1+1=2. "I hold a cup of wisdom but there is nothing within" Doug Alan mit-eddie!nessus Nessus@MIT-MC.ARPA
cv@linus.UUCP (Chris J. Valas) (05/13/85)
-=- In article <317@osiris.UUCP> jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) writes: >> Jcp's message annoyed me because he decreed as mediocre........ >> ........than that he doesn't like them.... >> >> Doug Alan >> mit-eddie!nessus >> Nessus@MIT-MC.ARPA > > I refuse to debate further with Mr. Alan since he can't do so >without twisting arguments around and calling names, but I want to point >out that I find it VERY amusing that he has just "naturally" assumed that >I am male. > >Jody Catherine Patilla > Dirty pool, Jody. Your case is dismissed on the grounds of entrapment. It doesn't work for the FBI either... Chris J. Valas {decvax,utzoo,philabs,security,allegra,genrad}!linus!cv -=- "This is not my beautiful wife...."
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/14/85)
I suppose that this isn't really the place to discuss it, but 1+1=2 by the definition of 1, 2, +, =.