nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (05/03/85)
["Space is what I need -- it's what I feed on"] > Now, see ? This sort of thing is not at all useful. Mr. Alan > blasts my opinions up and down and sidewise but cannot even manage to > be reasonable himself. Instead he carries on rather childishly in a way > that is not going to make me or anyone else take him seriously. Alot of > that goes on in the network - folks do alot of name-calling instead of > being rational and even-tempered. You weren't being very civil yourself! I try to manage to be both very reasonable and somewhat unreasonable (especially with people who are insulting me) at the same time. The points I make in my arguments are usually supported and rationally thought out. A few little insults are thrown in here and there just to add spice. After all, one gets more attention when one is shocking. Sex and violence sells! > The one interesting thing about his message was the long quotes > from numerous music critics to support his views. I know too many rock > critics personally to take any of them terribly seriously, I'm afraid. > Some critics are good and fair-minded, and others are very prejudiced > (which they often don't admit). Well, I will be one of the first to agree with you that reviews are of limitted usefulness. Often I can't tell at all whether I'd like an album from the review that is given. And sometimes I will run out and buy an album on the basis of bad review. For example, some reviewer called "Big Science" by Laurie Anderson "inorganic sludge". That was enough to make me go out and buy the album! It's a great album too. Another reviewer said about Peter Gabriel's "Security" something like "a nightmare of contorted rhythms and inhuman synthesizer noises". If I'd seen that review before I bought the album, I would have not been discouraged from buying it in the slightest. On the other hand, many reviews by people praising an album, would convince me not to buy the album. Something like "This album is great! It's super-slick, perfectly mixed, every note is technically perfect, and contains 27 super-catchy songs destined for the top ten!" would probably convince me not to buy this album. Many reviews that pan an album and many reviews that praise an album are seemingly done by people who never even listened to the album. From these reviews you can't tell anything. For example, I'm told that the NME said of Kate Bush's "Never for Ever" that it was all sugar coating with nothing inside. Now, maybe someone who didn't like Kate Bush's previous albums might make this claim about her previous albums (which were of a fantasy nature and decidedly unpolitical -- I'd disagree strongly about this being "nothing inside", but some people unfortunately seem to hold this opinion about fantasy). But someone who would say this about about "Never for Ever" clearly just didn't listen to it and was prejudiced against her by her previous albums. It contains songs about the evils of jealousy, the death of a dear friend, the contrast between the romantic image of Egypt and the suffering and poverty there, everyone's desire to back to the security and safety of the womb, the horrors of nuclear and conventional war, and pedophilia. Hardly "nothing inside"!!! Now about the reviews I used to support my point. I did not use them because they said the album was good, but because it seemed clear to me that all the reviewers had clearly listened to the album. I would have included derogatory reviews too, if they were written by someone who appeared to have listened to the album, but I don't have any. Someone once did say on net.music, though, that he thought "The Dreaming" was too experimental. So let that be known. But for you to tell me that "The Dreaming" is unoriginal and "trendy" (I just can't believe you said that!) is just saying to me "I have never listened to this album and I'm going to be an asshole by talking about things I know nothing about!" There is no way even the most ignorant critic could say something like "It pulses with new shapes and guises, voices crawl over your ears and gnaw the brain like beautiful maggots" (and that's a perfect description of the album!!!) about something that was unoriginal and trendy! I know of no fad for such music! Another quote was "... she's the only female rocker out there doing anything original (or experimental) ..." I certainly wouldn't agree that she's the only one, but I'd give most critics the benefit of the doubt that they can tell the difference between "trendy" and experimental! Another quote was by a critic who had never heard of Kate Bush, before he picked it out of a pile of records he had been sent to review and though he thought it was "weird noise" the first time he listened to it, felt that it was the most important music decision he made all year to give it a second listen. This hardly seems like someone who was prejudiced to give her a good review! One review was by someone seemed prejudiced against any music that wasn't dancable, yet thought Kate Bush's music so special that he had to like it, and another was by someone who seemed prejudiced against "progressive rock", yet loved "The Dreaming" anyway, even though he would classify it as "progressive rock". He also points out that in creating "The Dreaming", Kate Bush was "oblivious to all fashions". All this is very strong evidence that Kate Bush's music (especially "The Dreaming") is quite original and anything but "trendy"! And that you like to defame things you haven't even bothered to listen to and know nothing about! "The night doesn't like it Looks just like your face On the moon to me" Doug Alan mit-eddie!nessus Nessus@MIT-MC.ARPA