rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/27/84)
>> Michael made NO claims about "the end of music". He referred to classical >> [sic] music being dead. > Usually, when something is dead, that's the end of it. :-) I should have *asterisked* the word classical to point it out to you. There is a large difference between the death of music and the death of classical music... > Personally, I'm proud of my "classicocentric mentality" and I make no apology > for it. ... but apparently not to you. >> Look at the number of people in this very newsgroup >> (paragon of openmindedness that it is :-) who detest or at best ignore >> 20th century music. Your belief that when Michael said that classical music >> was dead he had implied that all music was dead reveals a classicocentric >> mentality... [see above; he's proud of it; is he a white supremacist, too?] > Um, just what do you mean by 20th century music, hmmm? Oh dear, you're letting > your whatever-centricity show :-) No, I'm letting *their* whatever-centricity show. (I don't mean anything other than "music composed in the 20th century" when I referred to people in this newsgroup remarking as they have about whole classes of music composed in this century as being not to their liking.) > By the way, what is this "serious" music? Is there "frivolous" music too? :-) It would seem that certain people feel they can make that delineation based on convenient labels, instruments used, composer's date of birth, ... > Well, nomenclature is a problem, isn't it? now will you please have a little > more apparent sympathy for people who try to use all these terms, classical, > popular, serious, light, etc. ? And not be so willing to take offense at the > way they are used? On the contrary, I take *great* offense when any of them are used, since their only purpose seems to be delineate "classes" of music (and their associated worths in the minds of certain sheepish people who'd rather have the labels make the decisions as to what they like instead of doing it themselves). >>> While you're at it, you might inform us as to just exactly what wonderful >>> innovations and new schools of thought exist in the music *you* like. >>> And if you tell me "well, now they use a thingamajig instead of the dead >>> instruments classical musicians use" I'll crack up with laughter. >> And if *you* tell *me* "well, *now* serious composers use a tone row as a >> means of organizing a process of composition instead of the dead tonal styles >> that they used to use...", then I'll get to laugh, too :-) > No, I would never say that. Well, *I* would never say what you expected Michael or me to say. Imagine, just judging the music by what it sounds like (of course, that might involve listening to it) rather than on pre-moistened labels. What a great idea... Naah! > Notice that Rich did not mention any of the new ideas that I asked Michael > to enumerate. Oh well, perhaps Michael will. Or maybe there aren't any :-) What's funny is that Jeff didn't bother to mention any new ideas or innovations either. Talk about pots and kettles... -- WHAT IS YOUR NAME? Rich Rosen WHAT IS YOUR NET ADDRESS? pyuxn!rlr WHAT IS THE CAPITAL OF ASSYRIA? I don't know that ... ARGHHHHHHHH!
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/27/84)
> First, the "original question" was a joke (see below for further discussion > of this fact, which should have been obvious). It wasn't obvious to those who followed it up with serious comments on the subject. I was apparently not alone, and my responses were directed at particularly narrow-minded responses to your original article that were in a serious vein. > Which brings up an interesting point. What is snobbery but an attempt to feel > one is better than those around you? What are Rich Rosen's snob attacks but > an attempt on his part to feel he is better than (some of) those around him? > (Those he calls snobs.) Don't answer that. This would serve as a very cute defense by snobs against anyone who attacks snobbery. Very nice, Jeff. Some people attack snobbery because it is an affront to anyone attempting to engage in serious artistic endeavor, especially outside of channels "sanctioned" by the snobs themselves. Since a good deal of what I like comes from outside of those sanctioned channels, anything to promote the deterioration of such hard-line restrictions (as to what the sheep snobs will deign to listen to) would be worthwhile. >> 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. > What you say is true, as long as you don't make the mistake of > defining "open-minded and eclectic" as "including what I like". I thought I *had* defined it as "not looking down on what anyone likes" based on one's preconceptions or labels. > Anything whose major features are a steady 4/4 beat, > a crooning vocalist, and a simple tune and/or a constant fortissimo bores me. > It's quite possible that your favorite music is close enough to this (to *my* > ear) that it will bore me too. Gee, that's too bad. Probably a lot of what I > like bores you. Gee, that's too bad, too. I hope you agree that none of this > says anything about whether we are open-minded or not. The fact that you make an assumption that "it's quite possible" that my favorite music fits your description does indeed say something about your openmindedness, Jeff. Read my last article (it's short, you can handle it :-) delineating specifically the problem of people who have never listened to elements of the "serious" (?) wing of so-called (by record store managers, to aid in filing albums) popular music or rock music or whatever, lumping together ALL popular music based on the minimal sample they hear on the radio. Mention King Crimson, the Residents, Peter Gabriel, etc. and they deride it (without hearing it) just as they might deride some ditty they heard on the bus on the way in to work. (Jeff, please keep the rest of this discussion in private mail where it belongs.) -- AT THE TONE PLEASE LEAVE YOUR NAME AND NET ADDRESS. THANK YOU. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr