nessus@mit-eddie.ARPA (11/02/85)
From: nessus (Doug Alan) > From: schneider@2littl.DEC > You said "I hate rock 'n roll".... > But now you say "Rock" doesn't mean rock 'n roll. This inventing of > semantics on the fly makes it one tough term to nail down. Well I dunno. Maybe I was just brainwashed by the music teachers I had in elementary school, but they told me that "rock 'n' roll" refers to a style that became popular in the fifties and was made popular by Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, et al, while "rock" refers to a style that was spun off from "rock 'n' roll', became popular in the sixties and was made popular at first mostly by The Beatles. > My assumption was that this includes the Beatles, but excludes "art" > rock. The Beatles didn't do art rock??? Are you trying to upset me? > I think you have a contempt for music which is too popular or (oh, how > shall I put it?) "pop" music. Eh? But of course it pays never to be > too adamant and leave room for exceptions, doesn't it? I have contempt for music which is too popular? The three artists/groups that I have been fanatical about are The Beatles, Pink Floyd, and Kate Bush. The first two are probably the two most successful groups ever. And the third, if not well-known in the U.S., in England is a house-hold name just as much as The Beatles, and probably the most successful female musician in England. What I do have contempt for is formulaic, commercial music that exists merely so some people can make a buck. Also I'm not wild about anything that is excessively mainstream. > [Doug has expressed a preference for music which is designed to be listened > to in a dark room with headphones.] I never said that. I said "I'd rather listen to music in a pitch black room with headphones on while sitting on a sub-woofer, than go out dancing." That's not saying I think the music should be designed for listening to that way. I like listening to dance music that way too. It just has to have something else to hold my interest other than just being danceable. > .... but that's not what the Beatles were into doing. I also have, of > course, listened in solitude, but the fact remains they were in a > period of Social experimentation and were "turning on". I don't see why you say that listening to music that way implies not being socially aware. I just like to be able to concentrate on the music I listen to without distractions. If I went to see the movie "The Killing Fields", I'd prefer to see it in a dark, quiet movie theatre with a large screen and a 70 mm dolby quadraphonic magnetic sound print, rather than dance around in front of a TV showing it at a noisy party. If you'd rather see it that way, go ahead. And if you'd rather dance around to "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds", go right ahead too. But I'd prefer to listen to it with headphones. "Look for the girl with the sun in her eyes" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)