jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (07/24/84)
Every action begets an equal and opposite reaction... Rich: > 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. First, the "original question" was a joke (see below for further discussion of this fact, which should have been obvious). Secondly, most of any particular type of music is mediocre. Classical music, however, is mostly from long ago (as you are so fond of pointing out) so the worst of it has been blissfully forgotten. popular music is not so fortunate. Thus, averaged over all examples still listened to today, I would guess the above equations are quite accurate, regardless of government standards. But I don't think they're particularly significant. note: Anyone taking this statement for a specific condemnation of the music they like best will be abused soundly. It is not so meant. Really! Third, and most important: You agree that most people prefer mediocrity. You agree that classical music is not popular, no? So *you* go ahead and put two and two together. I withdraw. I think this is worth repeating, and I stand by it 100%: >> 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. Really! I would be grateful if you would point out just what it was about my article that implied that there is only one kind of popular music. I sure can't read anything like that into it. And the fact that I never meant to imply that renders all of your statements in the line of "Jeff thinks all popular music mediocre, all classical music excellent" meaningless. > 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. You yourself, not so long ago, got very upset (as you usually do :-)) with people who took an article of yours seriously when you did not intend it that way. (If we had more disk space, I might even be able to reprint it.) Think back and have a little more understanding. Now, for those of you who still don't believe it (and who are crazy enough to be reading this), a guide to "indications of being intended to be humorous". It assumes that you have read enough of my articles to be familiar with their style. If a new Usenet reader had not gotten the joke, I would feel apologetic, but I think Rich has read enough of my stuff to know better. 1. Title contains phrase - "new theory!!!" Does that look serious to you? 2. My mockery of a certain kind of popular music far exceeds anything I have ever said in seriousness about it. 3. At the end of the article, "Then again..." meant to suggest, "If I were actually exerting my brain power over this thing... (I wouldn't bother)" 4. The whole theory is so obviously preposterous (as was pointed out, plenty of cars don't have a noise problem, and people don't really choose their music based on whether they can hear it in a car, etc. etc.) that you, Rich Rosen, personally and nefariously insult my intelligence (as well as your own) by assuming I would advance such a thing seriously. ( :-) on adjectives and parenthetical clause.) I challenge you to a duel ( :-) on entire sentence). Residents vs. Mahler's 6th at 20 paces and 140 decibels. (guess what symbol goes here. very good!) me again: >> 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? Rich: > Again, the specious logic appears. Appreciating excellence = liking > classical music. Not preferring excellence = liking popular music. I reprinted my entire paragraph so everyone can see just how much Rich is reading into my statements when in fact it's not there. Reader, do you see anything about *any* kind of music in my paragraph? It was meant as a general discussion which places a limit on the appropriateness of Rich's "snob" attacks. probably I overreacted, in that he probably didn't exceed that limit. If so I apologize. But I can just as easily imagine Rich saying approximately the same thing as I did in response to being called a snob because he won't stoop to Duran Duran. 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. > As I've already said 100 times,... It doesn't improve with age :-) > 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). I know people like this, too. Like I said, appreciation of excellence is unusual. In any sphere of human knowledge. If you think this is the mentality of the typical classical listener, you have a few prejudices to expunge, believe me. > 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). I'm glad to hear that, but it's hard to tell sometimes. > They DO get called "snob" when, because of their supposedly higher tastes, > they feel they can look down their noses and berate other tastes. Such as when you berate people who think Duran Duran is wonderful? What about Barry Manilow? Have you never said an unkind word about people who like this stuff? > 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. People do not use rational means to choose what they like (just why, in rational terms, do you like the Residents?). But that's beside the point - your statement loses nothing if the word "rational" is dropped. 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". For example, I like many different kinds of music, from early chants to Schoenberg to lesser known composers working today (myself included - gotta get one absolute unknown in there), folk musics from various parts of the world, North Indian "classical" music, etc. You can't say that isn't eclectic (and you didn't, I know). Most Baroque music bores me. Most Johann Strauss bores me. Most of the so-called popular music played on the radio these days bores me. 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. Jeff Winslow