nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (11/01/85)
> From: blickstein@tle.DEC (Dave Blickstein) > Of course this does have a slight indication of authenticity: The > person seems to be saying that it's only wrong to imply that music is > "bad" when the music really is "good" (according to Dougs definition I > suppose) but you just can't appreciate it. Exactly! Like Joni Mitchel makes good music. I just don't like her music much. I would never call her music bad. Joni Mitchel is a true artist. I just don't appreciate her art. But maybe that's just my problem. If some one else loves her music, that's perfectly fine with me, and I wouldn't try to convince them that there is anything wrong with liking it. Diversity is a good thing. Lionel Richie, on the other hand, makes bad music. He is not an artist. He is an opportunist and is in it for the money. If he could make it rich some other way, that's what he would be doing instead. His "music" is worthless and very probably brain-damaging and people who buy his albums are helping to starve real artists and wasting their time and minds. An analogy with food seems reasonable. I don't like asparagus. But is asparagus bad food? Of course not. Would I ever try to convince someone that they shouldn't be eating asparagus. Of course not. On the other hand, if I see someone living on a diet of Cool Aid, Coco Crispies, and Twinkies, and who smokes three packs of cigarettes a day, I might try to convince them that this is not a healthy lifestyle. This would atrophy the body. And Lionel Richie atrophies the mind. I've said all this before. I guess it needed to be said again. > P.S. I thought it worth mentioning that I'm writing this while listening > to "Never For Ever" for about the 12th time trying as best as I can to > learn to "appreciate" it, the result of having received recommendations > for Bush from more objective sources. Well, that's the only KB album that has songs on it that I don't like (like "Babooshka" -- blech. (Didn't expect me to say that, now did you?)), but it also has a couple of my favorites (like "Breathing"! Ooooh, what a song!). It is also her weakest album lyrically (but you don't care about lyrics, right?) You really don't have to try so hard, though, if you don't like her. It doesn't bother me if you don't. Just don't say she isn't good, and I don't care. "Chips of plutonium, twinkling in every lung" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)
lo@harvard.ARPA (Bert S.F. Lo) (11/02/85)
BE WARNED. THIS ARTICLE USES LANGUAGE THAT MAY CAUSE YOU TO FALL OFF YOUR CHAIR IN UNCONTROLLABLE GALES OF LAUGHTER. > An analogy with food seems reasonable. I don't like asparagus. But > is asparagus bad food? Of course not. Would I ever try to convince > someone that they shouldn't be eating asparagus. Of course not. On the > other hand, if I see someone living on a diet of Cool Aid, Coco > Crispies, and Twinkies, and who smokes three packs of cigarettes a day, > I might try to convince them that this is not a healthy lifestyle. This > would atrophy the body. And Lionel Richie atrophies the mind. > > Doug Alan > nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA) Your analogy isn't quite correct. Consider this situation: you and I both eat balanced meals. After dinner, you have a vitamin supplement while I eat my dessert. The fact is that most people don't center their "intellectual" stimu- lation around music just as most people don't center their diets around what they eat after dinner. So your "vitamin" is "better" than my "dessert" ? I get my "nutrition" elsewhere. So I'm not qualified to discuss "vitamins" ? That's not the sole topic of discussion here. We're here to discuss "food" in general. Let's get on with a new topic now, OK ? _____________________Bert S.F. Lo (lo@harvard.HARVARD.EDU)_____________________
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (11/02/85)
> From: lo@harvard.ARPA (Bert S.F. Lo) > Your analogy isn't quite correct. Consider this situation: you and I > both eat balanced meals. After dinner, you have a vitamin supplement > while I eat my dessert. Well for desert you could go eat some Ben & Jerry's icecream and listen to the B-52s, instead of eating a twinkie and listening to Lionel Richie. In that a twinkie has no nutritional value, it scarcely deserves to be called food. And in that Lionel Richie has no artistic value, what he produces scarcely deserves to be called music. If you're listening to bad music had no effect on me and others -- if it just resulted in the destruction of your own mind -- I wouldn't care much. But listening to Lionel Richie is much more analogous to smoking in a restaurant. Not only do you destroy your lungs by smoking, but you hurt mine too by making me breath your smoke. By listening to Lionel Richie, you raise him higher in the charts, forcing me to have to listen to his crud wherever I go. The music big business machine sees that people want crud and tries to force all other musicians into the mold of mediocrity so they will have a guaranteed steady income. And in the end real artists often either get forced to conform to the rest of the crud or end up in obscurity trying desperately to make enough money so they can continue their art. And no one is the winner. Every now and then, the forces of mediocrity fail to oppress creativity, and a real artist gets a chance at success. And in these cases, one should encourage them loudly, lest the forces of mediocrity always win. With food this isn't such a problem. Nutritional food will always be available because no one can live without his body. But for better or for worse, modern society has made it perfectly viable -- probably even easier -- for someone to live without a mind. "A mind is a terrible thing" :-) Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)
lo@harvard.ARPA (Bert S.F. Lo) (11/03/85)
> > From: lo@harvard.ARPA (Bert S.F. Lo) > > > Your analogy isn't quite correct. Consider this situation: you and I > > both eat balanced meals. After dinner, you have a vitamin supplement > > while I eat my dessert. > > Well for desert you could go eat some Ben & Jerry's icecream and listen > to the B-52s, instead of eating a twinkie and listening to Lionel > Richie. In that a twinkie has no nutritional value, it scarcely > deserves to be called food. And in that Lionel Richie has no artistic > value, what he produces scarcely deserves to be called music. Well, I guess we reach an impasse as I don't see any music-for-entertainment as being more ice cream/twinkies than any other. If we use the ice cream ana- logy, then the B-52's might be banana and Lionel Richie might be strawberry. Now I happen to hate to strawberry ice cream, whereas I sort of like banana ice cream, but that doesn't mean banana is better than strawberry, or that strawberry ice cream is less food than banana ice cream. In fact, my listening pleasures lean toward The Mood, Icehouse, B Movie etc. and my favourite flavour of ice cream is almond cream. As you may have noticed, almond cream isn't all that easy to find and very few stores carry it, whereas strawberry can be found just about anywhere. So what ? > If your listening to bad music had no effect on me and others -- if it just > resulted in the destruction of your own mind -- I wouldn't care much. > But listening to Lionel Richie is much more analogous to smoking in a > restaurant. Not only do you destroy your lungs by smoking, but you hurt > mine too by making me breath your smoke. By listening to Lionel Richie, > you raise him higher in the charts, forcing me to have to listen to his > crud wherever I go. I disagree with your analogy. I don't care for Lionel Richie either and I have successfully avoided listening to him. The situation is more analogous to smoking on the street. I may smell your smoke faintly as I pass you, but that's all. > The music big business machine sees that people > want crud and tries to force all other musicians into the mold of > mediocrity so they will have a guaranteed steady income. And in the end > real artists often either get forced to conform to the rest of the crud > or end up in obscurity trying desperately to make enough money so they > can continue their art. And no one is the winner. "Real artistry" has managed to stay alive so long. I really can't see it being completely consumed by big business. > Every now and then, the forces of mediocrity fail to oppress creativity, > and a real artist gets a chance at success. And in these cases, one > should encourage them loudly, lest the forces of mediocrity always > win. > > With food this isn't such a problem. Nutritional food will always be > available because no one can live without his body. But for better or > for worse, modern society has made it perfectly viable -- probably even > easier -- for someone to live without a mind. As I said before, I think most people get their minds from sources other than music and music is for their entertainment. > "A mind is a terrible thing" :-) > > Doug Alan > nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA) A question : What is "corporate rock" ? In the early years of this decade, groups like Journey and Styx were labelled "corporate rock" because they were putting out album after album of nearly identical songs that sold millions. Two years ago, just before Cyndi Lauper's "She's So Unusual" was released, she was called fun, bright, unusual, original. Now she's called corporate. How can that be ? She hasn't released a second album yet. So the same product that was being labelled unusual is now being labelled corporate. Is because it sold ? Is it because she's being imitated ? Does that make Prince not original also ? _____________________Bert S.F. Lo (lo@harvard.HARVARD.EDU)_____________________