rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/22/84)
> Read allegra!dep's article again. No > reference was made to any specific kind of music (except in the presumably > facetious bug-killer line). All he said was, most people prefer mediocrity > to excellence. Do you really want to dispute that? Exactly my point. The original question was "Why isn't classical music popular?" Stating that most people prefer mediocrity (a statement with which I, unfortunately, agree) in relation to the original question implies, quite directly, that mediocrity = popular music, excellence = classical music. The manure level in that set of equations exceeds government safety limits. > Is the kind of "popular" music I described the only kind there is? Is it > even the kind *you* like? In fact, you'd probably condemn it as mindless > just as quickly as dep or I would. So stop screaming. > By the way, for anybody who missed it, my original article *was* a joke. > If you thought I was aiming at a serious, or even semi-serious putdown of > all non-classical music, take some chalk, go to the blackboard, and write > "I will not be paranoid" 500 times. Thank you. Your article (and the others that followed) implied that, indeed, that *was* the only kind of popular music there is. This assumption seems to take up residence in the minds of a number of people (those who prefer not to think?). As for your article being a joke (doesn't that label apply to most of your articles? :-), it certainly showed no indications of being even intended to be humorous. So why don't YOU go to the chalkboard and write, 1000 times, "I will denote my sarcastic remarks as such..." Thank you. > Why do most people not prefer excellence? There's no mystery about it and > there's NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. Think of how many things there are to know > in this world. Think of all the different kinds of human endeavors there are. > The vast majority of us are good at only a few. A little arithmetic on this > shows that, in any particular field, only a few will really know what is > excellent. Does that mean the others shouldn't get what they want? Of course > not. But does that mean that those who *do* appreciate excellence should have > to put up with cries of "snob!snob!" whenever they talk about what they like? Again, the specious logic appears. Appreciating excellence = liking classical music. Not preferring excellence = liking popular music. As I've already said 100 times, so many of the so-called classical "buffs" I've known are ONLY familiar with "top 40" classical music (they may not own "The Akron Philharmonic Plays the Favorite Classical Hits of Our Time", but their mentality and knowledge comes pretty close). People don't get called "snob" just because they happen to like something above the normal level of lowest common denominator appreciation (at least not by me). They DO get called "snob" when, because of their supposedly higher tastes, they feel they can look down their noses and berate other tastes. (Hope that answers Martin Taylor's question about what the definition of a snob is.) People who truly do listen to music based on its merits and not based on their pre-defined labels ("That's XXX, hence it's ...") are eclectic and openminded by the very nature of their rational means for choosing what they like. Those who define their tastes (in music, art, people, ...) based on labels are the ones who, as someone else said, prefer not to think. And "not think" they do. Very well. -- It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
abgrady@dciem.UUCP (Brian Grady) (08/15/84)
From utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr Sat Jul 21 17:23:01 1984 Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP Path: dciem!utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.music,net.music.classical Subject: Jeff Winslow's reaction to my over(?)reaction Message-ID: <899@pyuxn.UUCP> Date: Sat, 21-Jul-84 17:23:01 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxn.899 Posted: Sat Jul 21 17:23:01 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 22-Jul-84 05:41:22 EDT References: <3908@tekecs.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 58 >Exactly my point. The original question was "Why isn't classical music >popular?" Stating that most people prefer mediocrity (a statement with which >I, unfortunately, agree) in relation to the original question implies, >quite directly, that mediocrity = popular music, excellence = classical >music. The manure level in that set of equations exceeds government safety >limits. Actually, one of the nice things about old classical music is that we've had lots of centuries to weed out a lot of the junk that was composed for money by people with minimal inspiration. I really couldn't say if it's true or not, but maybe the classical music we hear today has stood the test of time. It's like the 'best of the 70's' weekends you get on rock stations from time to time. We select what we like and think is really *good*, and ignore much of the rest.