rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/08/85)
It's so simple. Kate Bush is obviously the better and more important composer because she's better looking. By a long shot. Bach was a puffy old man who wore a powdered wig. Kate Bush is, well, beyond description by mere words. Isn't that the proper basis for judging music? I mean, Prince stinks because he looks funny, right? No need to even listen to his music to make a judgment there. Why bother? It's so obvious. And Michael Jackson's music stinks because he's effeminate. There, you didn't even have to waste your time listening to the music and making a reasoned decision about it! On the other hand, Arnold Schoenberg's music is great because of his unusual and interesting haircut. Never mind the way it sounds, that's irrelevant. On the other other hand, the Go-Go's are a bunch of girls from Los Angeles who dress funny, thus their music is of no consequence (eh, Marcel?). Why, this is as easy as judging the quality of a piece of music by the types of instruments used in playing it! (It's a good thing nobody does that :-) I am sure you will all want to thank me for this elegant and eloquent solution to the "Bach/Bush" question. You're welcome in advance. :-) -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (08/09/85)
> Kate Bush is obviously the better and more important > composer because she's better looking. Huh? > Isn't that the proper basis for judging music? I mean, Prince stinks > because he looks funny, right? No need to even listen to his music > to make a judgment there. Why bother? It's so obvious. And Michael > Jackson's music stinks because he's effeminate. There, you didn't even > have to waste your time listening to the music and making a reasoned > decision about it! On the other hand, Arnold Schoenberg's music is > great because of his unusual and interesting haircut. Never mind > the way it sounds, that's irrelevant. On the other other hand, the > Go-Go's are a bunch of girls from Los Angeles who dress funny, thus > their music is of no consequence (eh, Marcel?). Why, this is as > easy as judging the quality of a piece of music by the types of instruments > used in playing it! (It's a good thing nobody does that :-) > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Whatever the point of this article is (I don't know, please enlighten me, Rich) I better respond to it, since it mentions me by name. You may have missed what I said about the Go-Gos, but dressing funny was not part of it. Not being able to create and perform music of consequence was but looks and clothes were not. Just setting the record straight Marcel Simon
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/10/85)
>>Kate Bush is obviously the better and more important composer because she's >>better looking. > Huh? [MARCEL SIMON] Marcel, if you don't know serious musical criticism when you see it, with an inredibly objective basis for judgment behind it, you should not be posting to net.music at all. The above quote is just as serious an example of criticism as the last sentence was. (Get it?) >>On the other other hand, the >>Go-Go's are a bunch of girls from Los Angeles who dress funny, thus >>their music is of no consequence (eh, Marcel?). Why, this is as >>easy as judging the quality of a piece of music by the types of instruments >>used in playing it! (It's a good thing nobody does that :-) > Whatever the point of this article is (I don't know, please enlighten me, > Rich) ... To make a comment on the way some people judge music, as especially noted by the example I gave about criticisms about Prince (he looks slimy [to whom?], ergo his music stinks). > I better respond to it, since it mentions me by name. You may have missed > what I said about the Go-Gos, but dressing funny was not part of it. > Not being able to create and perform music of consequence was but looks > and clothes were not. No more or less "consequence" than your idol, Mr. Ellington. Oh come on, define "consequence". The Go-Go's had enough good music in their repertoire to label your judgment of them as sour grapes. Your remark about the Go-Go's was throwaway material and hardly the general subject of the article, though it seemed to tie in well with the notion of anybody who judges music based on non-musical characteristics. (Like "that uses a rhythm machine, therefore...") OK??? > Just setting the record straight I wasn't aware that it had ben warped... -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (08/13/85)
> > ME > > You may have missed > > what I said about the Go-Gos, but dressing funny was not part of it. > > Not being able to create and perform music of consequence was but looks > > and clothes were not. > > No more or less "consequence" than your idol, Mr. Ellington. Oh come on, > define "consequence". I define work of artistic consequence as having some degree of influence over work created later, by others, and as being able to withstand passing fashions and evoke appreciative emotions over long periods of time ("forever") I'd say Ellington meets those criteria and the Go-Go's don't. > The Go-Go's had enough good music in their > repertoire to label your judgment of them as sour grapes. If that is so, where are they now, and why did they suddenly disappear when the initial wave of hype washed over? > Your remark > about the Go-Go's was throwaway material and hardly the general subject > of the article, though it seemed to tie in well with the notion of > anybody who judges music based on non-musical characteristics. Offhand comment, but perfectly in keeping with the original article on Madonna, in net.women, which was about the lack of substance of same; quite similar in my mind to the Go-Go's situation. > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Marcel Simon
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/14/85)
> I define work of artistic consequence as having some degree of influence over > work created later, by others, and as being able to withstand passing > fashions and evoke appreciative emotions over long periods of time ("forever") > I'd say Ellington meets those criteria and the Go-Go's don't. [MARCEL] Good for you. You've also defined rhythm as THE most important element in music. So? That's your personal taste. And that's fine. >>The Go-Go's had enough good music in their >>repertoire to label your judgment of them as sour grapes. > If that is so, where are they now, and why did they suddenly disappear > when the initial wave of hype washed over? It's called breaking up. It's what happens when members of a group part company. I have no idea what sort of validity you were trying to impart for your argument with this. Let's call the whole thing off. -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (08/15/85)
> From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) > I define work of artistic consequence as having some degree of > influence over work created later, by others, and as being able to > withstand passing fashions and evoke appreciative emotions over long > periods of time ("forever") I'd say Ellington meets those criteria and > the Go-Go's don't. Marcel, does this mean that a great artist isn't great if they go unrecognized, and thus have little influence on others? Hogwash! Total and complete! >> [Rich Rosen:] The Go-Go's had enough good music in their repertoire >> to label your judgment of them as sour grapes. > If that is so, where are they now, and why did they suddenly disappear > when the initial wave of hype washed over? I'm not wild about the Go-Go's, but they did have a couple okay songs, like "Our Lips Our Sealed" and "This Town" (though they're nothing great). In any case, just because someone disappears doesn't mean they had no talent, so your argument is pretty silly. I can think of several true artists who disappeared into relative obscurity after massive popular success because they decided to transcend what they had been doing before, and this led to a great deal of popular rejection. Then again, I don't think this describes The Go-Go's. "I've turned my revolt into style" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (08/17/85)
>> I define work of artistic consequence as having some degree of influence over >> work created later, by others, and as being able to withstand passing >> fashions and evoke appreciative emotions over long periods of time ("forever") >> I'd say Ellington meets those criteria and the Go-Go's don't. [MARCEL] > > Good for you. You've also defined rhythm as THE most important element in > music. So? That's your personal taste. And that's fine. > I love your style, Rich. I post something. You ask for clarification. I give it. You can't find any valid argument against it, so you dismiss it as mere opinion. That's all it ever was, my man. And I never said that rhythm was the most important anything. Go back and re-read the archives on that debate. > It's called breaking up. It's what happens when members of a group part > company. I have no idea what sort of validity you were trying to impart for > your argument with this. Let's call the whole thing off. It's called exiting with your tail between your legs because you have nothing else to say, if you ask me Marcel Simon
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (08/17/85)
> Marcel, does this mean that a great artist isn't great if they go > unrecognized, and thus have little influence on others? Hogwash! Total > and complete! So how would you know that artist was great if he/she was so unrecognized? Implied in the phrase "great artist" is recognition, even if it comes belatedly, long after the artist's time. Recognition implies awareness of the artist's work (the giving pleasure "forever" I alluded to) and of its putative imfluence on that of others. Marcel Simon
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/18/85)
>>>I define work of artistic consequence as having some degree of influence over >>>work created later, by others, and as being able to withstand passing >>>fashions and evoke appreciative emotions over long periods of time >>>("forever"). I'd say Ellington meets those criteria and the Go-Go's don't. >>>[MARCEL] >>Good for you. You've also defined rhythm as THE most important element in >>music. So? That's your personal taste. And that's fine. > I love your style, Rich. I post something. You ask for clarification. I give > it. You can't find any valid argument against it, so you dismiss it as mere > opinion. That's all it ever was, my man. Given the number of times in the past you've tried to pass of your mere opinion as absolute fact (you've got rhythm, who could tell you anything more?). I don't know why we're arguing about the artistic merit of the GoGo's, because I frankly don't care. You seem to care that they be placed in the pile labelled "unworthy", but I really think it's a personal judgment call. > And I never said that rhythm was the most important anything. Go back and > re-read the archives on that debate. I quote: <332@mhuxr.UUCP> > Rhythm is at the core of all music. ... > I could go on, but I am sure you get the picture. Rhythm is at the core > of any successful music. Rhythm is the essential part of performance <<====== > because it is the only tool available across all types of musical > performance. <336@mhuxr.UUCP> > Harmony seeks to quantize music, a sound continuum, in [arbitrary] discrete > steps. Harmony establishes [arbitrary] rules about acceptable > and unacceptable relationships between notes. > > Rhythm, on the other hand, pervades all music. There can be aharmonic <<=== > and amelodic music, but there is no such thing as arrhythmic music. > Stating that the core of a piece is its harmonic content is like > saying that the meaning of a language is the way it is spelled. > These are *not* value judgements. I listen to a pretty wide range <<====== > of music, and these are the conclusions I reach. You disagree. Fine; > state your assumptions, observations and conclusions. Let us talk. > Save the value judgments on my assumptions, OK? Thus, we should not make value judgments about Marcel's assumptions being value judgments, whatever that means. "*the* essential part"? "*not* value judgments"? Whom are we kidding, Marcel? Next time you suggest that I read the archives, you should read them yourself. Tom Duff (among others) showed that there can be (and is) arhythmic music in the same sense that music can be said to be amelodic or aharmonic. Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to substantiate. >>It's called breaking up. It's what happens when members of a group part >>company. I have no idea what sort of validity you were trying to impart for >>your argument with this. Let's call the whole thing off. > It's called exiting with your tail between your legs because you have > nothing else to say, if you ask me I have plenty to say. And I just said it. I don't find the GoGo's worth arguing about as far as worth. You are the one who was insisting that they were ipso facto without artistic merit. You're the one who didn't answer what I just said. So much for tails between legs. -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr