daemon@decwrl.UUCP (The devil himself) (11/04/85)
You know Doug, it's interesting how you've decided that Lionel Richie and
Madonna are just money grabbing opportunitists while Bushs morals are beyond
reproach.
Both Madonna and Richie have donated their time and money to charitable
efforts (Live Aid and USA for Africa (of which Richie was one of the principle
organizers)).
If Kate Bush is so popular in England why didn't she appear in Live Aid in
London? Why didn't she contribute to Band-Aid? Is it really that she isn't
really so popular and that she wasn't invited. Or was it that she just didn't
see fit to take the time off from her own pursuits? (These are obviously
presumptions, but I include them only to demonstrate that one can make
presumptions about Kate Bush just as easily as one can about Lionel Richie.)
Where was she?
I also found it interesting how you decided to quote most of a whole paragraph
of mine and then "forget" to include what it was leading up to. For your
benefit I'll restate it in the form of the question:
You've said that there are 3 categories of music:
1) Good music
2) Good music which you can't appreciate
3) Bad music
Now as I understand it, the distinction between "good" and "bad" music is based
on what your impressions of the motives, morals and philosophies of the artist
are. (Now this seems like about the nine hundredth inconsistency you've
exposed, as I can clearly recall you yelling "foul" whenever someone criticized
"good" music for reasons other than the music itself.). This also seems to
imply that "good" music can't be produced if the motive for producing it was
less than pure (according to your standards).
But my real question is, do you think it is at least POSSIBLE that the reason
why you label certain music as "bad" is ALSO because you can't appreciate it?
Doug, you aren't "Hounded by Love". You're blinded by it. All hostility
aside, I wish that you could see that. Rightly or wrongly, you come across as
a snobbish musical bigot. I am convinced that if Kate Bush is as artistically
devoted as you say, she would be embarressed by any association with your
opinions. I'm tempted to test that theory by sending her some of your
postings. You are doing her a disservice by espousing your negative slandering
side-by-side with accolades of her.
As an example, I suspect the reasons why people are posting all these
negative reviews of Kate Bush is two-fold: first to tick you off, and
second they are redirecting their dissaproval of you at Kate Bush. (C'mon,
aren't these among the reasons why you posted that "review" of Steve Morse?)
This is unfair to Kate Bush, and you can yell "foul" all you want, but the
more productive path would be to cool it for awhile.
Doug, I believe you to be a serious music fan who, like me, would like to
see all this non-musical, non-productive flaming stop so that we can bring
net.music back to music. I don't have the power to do that, but believe
it or not, YOU DO. The reason is simple. Although I know you don't like it,
you are (unintentionally) at the center of most of it.
I'm convinced it would stop if you (and I, and everyone else but it has to
start with you) would:
1. avoid discussing music you think is "bad", and avoid labeling
it as such.
2. not react when music you think is "good" is maligned by someones
opinion. There are no facts in reviews. Only opinions. It's
pointless to debate them and it breeds flames.
Dave Blickstein
(UUCP) {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-tle!blickstein
(ARPA) BLICKSTEIN%TLE.DEC@DECWRL.ARPAnessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (11/06/85)
> From: Dave Blickstein > You know Doug, it's interesting how you've decided that Lionel Richie > and Madonna are just money grabbing opportunitists while Bushs morals > are beyond reproach. It was indeed obvious just by listening to their "music", but I've read interviews with both Lionel Richie and Madonna where they come out and say as much. For example, this quote is by Lionel Richie from the issue of Rockbill that has KB on the cover (February 1983): I am not a studied musician. I am an opportunist. ... I believe that life is on a track, and all you have to do throughout your entire life is read the signs. > Both Madonna and Richie have donated their time and money to > charitable efforts (Live Aid and USA for Africa (of which Richie was > one of the principle organizers)). Whoopdie doo. It's also free publicity. Have either of them just quietly given money out of their pockets? > If Kate Bush is so popular in England why didn't she appear in Live > Aid in London? Why didn't she contribute to Band-Aid? She probably wasn't asked. She hasn't done a live concert for 5 years. She hardly seems like the most likely candidate for a live performance. > Is it really that she isn't really so popular and that she wasn't > invited. Was Pink Floyd asked? I doubt it. She only has mass popularity after she comes out with an album. Then she becomes a recluse and no one sees or hears from her for years. She was completely out of the limelight for nearly three years at the time of Live Aid. > Or was it that she just didn't see fit to take the time off from her > own pursuits? Perhaps that too? So what? Does she have to drop everything she's doing for a benefit that is already a guaranteed success. She could clearly make more productive use of her time. And she has done benefit concerts in the past. She did a concert with Peter Gabriel and Steve Harley to set up a trust fund for the family of someone that died, and she performed a song ("The Wedding List") for the Prince's Trust Rock Gala, which was some sort of Live Aid type benefit concert a few years back. She was backed by Phil Collins on drums and Pete Townsend on guitar. The backing musicians were just awful. (Of course they probably didn't have much time to practice.) Pete Townsend stood there looking confused and half-asleep. He didn't even wake up when the strap holding up KB's blouse broke and she had to sing the rest of the song holding her blouse up with her arm. Kate's singing was wonderful though. She also has a song ("Breathing") on the very recently released Greenpeace album. You won't find Madonna or Lionel on it -- I mean how much publicity is there for being on a Greenpeace album? > Now as I understand it, the distinction between "good" and "bad" music > is based on what your impressions of the motives, morals and > philosophies of the artist are. Actually not, unless they are apparent in the music. And in the case of Madonna and Lionel Richie they are, and they are reprehensible. Look, we had the whole "good music vs. bad music" debate months ago in net.music. It went on for weeks, and I don't want to have to repeat it all over. But I maintained that music is "good" to the degree which it inspires intelligent, creative, and compassionate thought in those who enjoy it. I fail to see either Madonna's or Lionel Richie's "music" doing that for any significant fraction of the people who enjoy it. Quite to the contrary. They probably go out and do things like vote for Reagan. > But my real question is, do you think it is at least POSSIBLE that the > reason why you label certain music as "bad" is ALSO because you can't > appreciate it? Anything's possible. But I have to be given a good reason to change my mind. If you want to prove to me that Madonna makes good music, give me evidence that lots of people who like her music are inspired by it to think intelligent, creative, and compassionate thoughts. All the evidence I see says the opposite. > I am convinced that if Kate Bush is as artistically devoted as you > say, she would be embarressed by any association with your opinions. Whether or not she personally agrees with them, if asked, she would certainly say she disagrees with them, because she won't ever insult anyone. When asked whether she likes any particular musician, she *always* says, "I think they're great". The only exception I've ever seen is when asked whether she likes Madonna. She said something like "I've never heard her because I don't listen to contemporary music." Right. As to being embarressed, I doubt it. Her favorite band of 1984 is Killing Joke -- not known for being totally unoffensive. And in one of her songs, she meets Sid Vicious in Rock 'n Roll Heaven. > I'm tempted to test that theory by sending her some of your postings. > You are doing her a disservice by espousing your negative slandering > side-by-side with accolades of her. Go ahead. I already wrote a letter to her telling her my feelings about "muscians" like Lionel Richie, Madonna, Olivia Newton-John, etc. > I'm convinced it would stop if you (and I, and everyone else but it has to > start with you) would: > 1. avoid discussing music you think is "bad", and avoid labeling > it as such. And just let harmful music overrun the world? > 2. not react when music you think is "good" is maligned by someones > opinion. If someone says some music is "bad", I want to know why they think it is harmful for me to listen to it -- as I have done for Madonna in great detail. If someone wants to say that Kate Bush's music is bad because she condones homosexuality in one of her songs and the Bible says that homosexuality is *evil*, that's much better than someone just coming out and saying her music is bad. And I'm not going to argue much in that case because at least it's apparent where the guy's coming from and most non-Christians are probably not going to find that a good reason for saying some music is bad. > There are no facts in reviews. Only opinions. It's pointless to > debate them and it breeds flames. There are no facts at all about anything at all. Only opinions. Thus it is pointless to debate anything. "Love has no meaning, not where they come from" Doug Alan
tomczak@harvard.ARPA (Bill Tomczak) (11/06/85)
>(Doug Alan) >>Dave Blickstein > >Look, we had the whole "good music vs. bad music" debate months ago in >net.music. It went on for weeks, and I don't want to have to repeat it >all over. But I maintained that music is "good" to the degree which it >inspires intelligent, creative, and compassionate thought in those who >enjoy it. I fail to see either Madonna's or Lionel Richie's "music" >doing that for any significant fraction of the people who enjoy it. >Quite to the contrary. They probably go out and do things like vote for >Reagan. So what about your postings Doug? Intelligent? Maybe. Creative? Yes, often in a bizarre fashion. Compassionate? I haven't done a careful study, but my impressions are of practically none. Well, I suppose 1.5 out of three isn't so bad. Guess I'll go buy a Kate Bush album. >> I am convinced that if Kate Bush is as artistically devoted as you >> say, she would be embarressed by any association with your opinions. I doubt she would really care all that much. >> You are doing her a disservice by espousing your negative slandering >> side-by-side with accolades of her. I'll second that. >> I'm convinced it would stop if you (and I, and everyone else but it has to >> start with you) would: > >> 1. avoid discussing music you think is "bad", and avoid labeling >> it as such. > It's all in how you say it. In general, it seems to me I've seen a serious disregard for what I consider one of the most important rules for posting. I don't remember the exact wording, but it uses as an example the fact that sarcasm doesn't come off all that well unless the poster is really careful. I've seen quite a lot of "Hey guys! I was kidding" apologies (well, not really apologies, many also came across as "You stupid slug! I was being sarcastic!") What's obvious to the poster is not alsways obvious to the reader. >And just let harmful music overrun the world? Poor Dougie! Musical heathens/barbarians are overrunning the world and KB is our last hope! :-) (Or should I take everything you write liberally sprinkled with invisible :-)s. How serious are you when you make statements like this?) > >> 2. not react when music you think is "good" is maligned by someones >> opinion. > >If someone says some music is "bad", I want to know why they think it is >harmful for me to listen to it -- as I have done for Madonna in great >detail. If someone wants to say that Kate Bush's music is bad because >she condones homosexuality in one of her songs and the Bible says that >homosexuality is *evil*, that's much better than someone just coming out >and saying her music is bad. And I'm not going to argue much in that >case because at least it's apparent where the guy's coming from and most >non-Christians are probably not going to find that a good reason for >saying some music is bad. However, you're making all of us Christians listen to this vileness and it's bad for my soul, the soul of the world and your own soul. :-) That's how I read one of your postings regarding the badness of some artists. (The Asparagus v. Twinkie law suit). Those folks will be able to use your own arguments against you. Though I'm sure you'd find a way out, you clever devil. bill tomczak@harvard.{HARVARD.EDU, UUCP}