jlg@lanl-a.UUCP (07/24/84)
>> The tone of his article is 'If you don't appreciate ALL music, you are a >> narrow minded snob.' But, reading through his articles, I get the feeling >> that he has an active dislike for quite a lot of classical music. >It would seem that having an active dislike for a lot of classical music is >wrong, but having an active dislike of ALL popular music is O.K. according >to Mr. Giles. I never even mentioned popular music, as can be seen by the preceeding quote! To say I have an active dislike for ANY of it, much less for ALL of it is reading something into my note that simply was not there. > The tone was that "whether or not you appreciate ALL music, if >you deride and belittle whole classes of music just because of some whim, some >elitist ideals, or whatever, THEN you are much more than just a narrow-minded >snob!" (In answer to Giles' speculations, I like what's good, I ignore what's >bad, and I despise bad stuff passed off as good, without regard for labels. >Good and bad are, of course, based on personal taste rather than prejudicial >labelling and stereotyping. Some people don't have time to decide for >themselves what their personal taste is, so they resort to labels. We call >such people "sheep".) Amazing! Just the point I made in my response to Mr. Rosen's survey. Musical taste is ENTIRELY subjective. I'm emphatically NOT one of those with no time to decide for himself. I'm not a "sheep" simply because i disagree with Mr. Rosen. >> By the way, there is nothing 'so-called' about classical music. It is >> music that has become classic. You could even apply an unambiguous, >> objective test to it - it is a classic if is is still widely performed >> one or more generations after it was written. This definition does not >> depend upon taste or point of view, and by this definition some of the >> popular music of today will eventually become classic! >"Classical" is a misnomer in that the term applies only to music from a certain >period (approx. the 18th century). Perhaps someone with some real knowledge >on the subject would be familiar with the exact dates and composers. As far >the "unambiguous" test: what about the work of the Beatles? Not old enough. >OK, how about the music of Stockhausen or Philip Glass or other recent >composers? Still too recent? I guess it's not classical, then. What about >African or East Asian music? That's certainly old enough! You mean, THAT's >not classical either? How come?? The point is, these labels are just ways for >YOU to pigeonhole, and as such they're absolutely meaningless. Yes, "Classical" is a term correctly applied to music of the mid- and late 18th century. It is also used as a generic term for orchestral and other musical form which aren't "popular". It is this second meaning I sought to clarify. I didn't say that I was completely satisfied with my proposed definition, only that it was unambiguous and objective. As I also pointed out, much popular music will someday be regarded as "classics" - if only because it begins to satisfy this criterion. >No one (not even me) wants to read either back-and-forth ad hominem nonsense >that Mr. Giles puts forth, or defenses against such nonsense by myself or >others. The only remark I made on my original note that could be regarded as ad hominem was the observation that Mr Rosen seems to post to the net only to encourage argument. His reply certainly leaves no question about who it is that uses ad hominem attacks most frequently (eg. 'yutzos' below). > Thus, I call upon Mr. Giles to either continue the discussion by mail >or else refrain from further nonsensical attacks entirely. I only submitted >this in the first place because I'm sick of getting my name dragged through >the dirt by yutzos who seem to make their living misquoting what I've said! What else can be said? ...!inhp4!cmcl2!lanl-a!jlg J.L. Giles