[mod.music.gaffa] not about the Moody Blues

Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU.UUCP (04/14/87)

Really-From: hsu%uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU@a.cs.uiuc.edu (William Tsun-Yuk Hsu)


>Really-From: prs@oliven.atc.olivetti.com (Philip Stephens)

Me:
>>Uh-oh, my pet peeves... How do you DEFINE "normal" or "proper"? Who
>>makes these "standards"? And why must music need a good reason to "pass
>>beyond the bounds of what is normal or proper"? I would have no problems
>>with your statement had it been something like "I like what's normal and
>>proper", but you claimed to like "weirdness". 

Phil:
>My point is that *you* are defining your own normal and proper to reject my
>taste, and defining outre in terms of violating what some people you hate
>(you parents? teachers?) consider normal and proper.  Just another turn of 
>the idiotic wheel.

Ummm... I never linked "normal and proper" with anyone's tastes. I have
nothing against people liking music that's different from mine, but don't 
point to a complex sound collage and say: THAT'S not music.

I believe that "normal and proper" are arbitrary standards imposed for a
variety of reasons, and especially when I discuss something like music,
I try not to be bound by preconceived ideas of what (normal and proper)
music *should* be like. THAT'S what I was trying to say: (almost) nothing
should be too outre/bizarre/unacceptable/violent (physically or emotionally) 
if it works (in some vague sense) within the piece of music/art/fiction.
(The "almost" gives me a convenient escape hatch for things like bigotry,
racism, etc.)

I also get on very well with my parents and my teachers.

Me:
>>Hof has shown open-mindedness and sophistication in his appreciation of
>>music. You have not. 

Phil:
>Meaningless statement.  I complained a little, and now you think you know
>enough about me to pass judgement.  

All I said was "You have not SHOWN etc." No judgements passed; please parse
sentence again. 

>Considering what you have said (below)
>about music you happen not to like, I don't think much of your perspective
>on openness nor sophistication.  

I like/have liked a wide variety of music. A (megabyte?) list of music
I've spent time with in the past few years is available on request (tho
why anyone would be interested in my mental masturbation is beyond me). It 
would probably include large chunks of the traditional classical repertory,
20th century "serious" music, bebop, some free jazz, cheesy '60s 
psychedelia, cheesy '80s psychedelia, '70s dinosaurs, pretentious '60s
experimental music, pretentious '80s experimental female singers, punk,
post-punk, hardcore, home-tape-noodlers, electronic/industrial music, etc.

>So you're asking me to be trendy and not like the Moody Blues because they
>are out of fashion, or because you personally don't like them. 

No, go ahead and like whatever you want. Last time we had this '70s art
rock debate in love-hounds, I promised not to repeat my position on the
much-revered dinosaurs in this forum, so I won't. Send me email if
you're interested. And good luck with Hof's tape...

Bill

Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU.UUCP (04/16/87)

Really-From: prs@oliven.atc.olivetti.com (Philip Stephens)



In article <8704141956.AA08645@uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU> Love-Hounds writes:
>Really-From: hsu%uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU@a.cs.uiuc.edu (William Tsun-Yuk Hsu)
>
Bill:
>>>Uh-oh, my pet peeves... How do you DEFINE "normal" or "proper"? Who
>>>makes these "standards"? And why must music need a good reason to "pass
>>>beyond the bounds of what is normal or proper"? I would have no problems

Did I say it needed a reason?  Not what I meant to say, if I seemed to.

>>>with your statement had it been something like "I like what's normal and
>>>proper", but you claimed to like "weirdness". 

I should have mentioned in my previous reply that you and I are using two
different but correct definitions of "weird".  Yours is the colloquial
"startlingly or extraordinarily singular, odd, or queer: a weird getup";
mine is the first listed in the American College Dictionary (the one that
happens to be on my desk is all): "involving or suggesting the supernatural;
unearthly or uncanny: a weird scene, light, or sound".  We're both right.


>Phil:
>>My point is that *you* are defining your own normal and proper to reject my
>>taste, and defining outre in terms of violating what some people you hate
>>(you parents? teachers?) consider normal and proper.  Just another turn of 
>>the idiotic wheel.
>
Bill:
>Ummm... I never linked "normal and proper" with anyone's tastes. I have
>nothing against people liking music that's different from mine, but don't 
>point to a complex sound collage and say: THAT'S not music.

Are you imagining that I did?  Not so.  Such thoughts have occurred to me,
but I wouldn't utter it without at least the disclaimer "to me", implying
that I consider musicality a matter of taste, not an absolute.

>I believe that "normal and proper" are arbitrary standards imposed for a
>variety of reasons, and especially when I discuss something like music,
>I try not to be bound by preconceived ideas of what (normal and proper)
>music *should* be like. THAT'S what I was trying to say: (almost) nothing
>should be too outre/bizarre/unacceptable/violent (physically or emotionally) 
>if it works (in some vague sense) within the piece of music/art/fiction.
>(The "almost" gives me a convenient escape hatch for things like bigotry,
>racism, etc.)
>
>I also get on very well with my parents and my teachers.

I'm sorry I gave the impression of being more closed minded than I really am.
You are certainly welcome to make and/or listen to anything you like, as long
as I don't have to listen to stuff twice that I don't like.  (In principle, 
that is; in practice I don't have much choise in grocery stores etc, but that
aint YORE fault).

Bill:
>>>Hof has shown open-mindedness and sophistication in his appreciation of
>>>music. You have not. 
>
>Phil:
>>Meaningless statement.  I complained a little, and now you think you know
>>enough about me to pass judgement.  
>
Bill:
>All I said was "You have not SHOWN etc." No judgements passed; please parse
>sentence again. 

Sorry, my objection "Meaningless statement" was not to "You have not shown", 
I was saying that "has shown open-mindedness and sophistication" is 
meaningless, unless I know the person saying it well enough to know what 
they really mean.  I don't.  As for you passing judgement, that was the 
impression I had of your whole reply, not that particular sentence.  
Your present reply does not give so negative an impression.

Phil:
>>Considering what you have said (below)
>>about music you happen not to like, I don't think much of your perspective
>>on openness nor sophistication.  
>
Bill:
>I like/have liked a wide variety of music. [long list deleted]

Oh, so *that's* what you mean by open-minded.  Differing definitions again.
To me, open-minded means accepting and repectful of other people's
sensibilities, which your flames at the time did not seem to show.

>
>>So you're asking me to be trendy and not like the Moody Blues because they
>>are out of fashion, or because you personally don't like them. 
>
Bill:
>No, go ahead and like whatever you want. 

Likewise.  I guess I misunderstood your intent.

>No, go ahead and like whatever you want. Last time we had this '70s art
>rock debate in love-hounds, I promised not to repeat my position on the
>much-revered dinosaurs in this forum, so I won't. Send me email if
>you're interested. And good luck with Hof's tape...
>
>Bill

E-mail?  I respectfully decline.  Let's agree to disagree and leave it at
that.  I do intend to send for Hof's tape, as he has graciously replied in
the affirmative.

I'm not really as hostile as I sounded, I'm just grouchy sometimes, especially
when the pollen-count is high.  No permanent offense intended.


	- Phil		prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens)     {really oliven}
	or, if that fails:	{get to 'ames' somehow, then}!oliveb!prs 

Mail welcome, but my mailer seldom cooperates when I try to reply.