stevev@greylady.uoregon.EDU (Steve VanDevender) (06/19/91)
Vickie wrote: > She's NOT just another good singer. She's got the > same sort of magic and spirit that Kate has (though Kate *IS* God and always > will be!) and since Katefans do generally have open ears, minds and hearts, > many will feel that magic. It's only right that she be recommended to other > Kate Bush fans and it's only right that we be the ones to discover and > appreciate her before everyone else catches on. Richard Caldwell wrote directly underneath: >That's a very clever way to put it. You assert that the magic _is_ there >and that if we don't feel it it's our own fault. I'd say that's a matter >of opinion and from what I've seen not everyone agrees. >Maybe I was wrong. Maybe Happy Rhodes isn't a Kate-wanna-be, maybe she's >a Kate-you-want-her-to-be. You would probably be doing her a favor not to >saddle her with such high expectations. What I can't figure out, Richard, is why you think that Vickie doesn't consider it a matter of opinion, that Vickie is not allowing others room for disagreement, or that any other reasonable reader is not going to consider musical taste and music recommendations as matters of opinion no matter how the author might word their posts. I think you're being extremely unfair to Vickie and undermining your own argument by taking what must be reasonably interpreted as statements of subjective opinion and saying that Vickie is trying to claim them as facts. Vickie feels that there is magic in the music of Happy Rhodes, and says so without adding the always implied "but that's just my opinion." Even if you insist that we read the quote literally and then try to pick it apart as a failed statement of fact, she hedges sufficiently--"Katefans do _generally_ have open ears, minds, and hearts," "_many_ will feel that magic." She's not expecting everyone to agree, and indicates that people should be allowed to form their own opinions--she said "recommended to", not "forced upon". Where I see a strong opinion, you see an attempt to force you to think a certain way. Who says you have to take her statement that seriously, besides you? I also see a seeming failure to understand the way that people normally plug their favorite artists. Which is the more realistic album recommendation: a) "I just got the new album by the Outrageous Examples and my subjective experience was that I really enjoyed it. There is some possibility that others might enjoy it too and so I thought I might mention it, but of course you are free to ignore me." b) "The new album by the Outrageous Examples is _really *awesome*_. Go buy it now. I can't stop listening to this album and I bet you can't either. This is one of the best albums I've ever heard, almost as good as _The Dreaming_." I dunno about you, but I see more raves like b) than a), and they don't automatically turn me off. I have come to consider it conventional that people who really like something don't bother to say "well, that's just how I feel, you could feel differently"; in fact I consider saying so redundant. Perhaps some people leave it out because they actually don't bother to consider the difference between their opinions and objective reality, but I always look at a rave like b) as an enthusiastic statement of opinion, not an attempt to force an opinion down my throat or a dictate of musical correctness. We read a lot of other things without necessarily taking them literally, "Kate Bush is God" being a prime example. As I recall, this is called "hyperbole" and is apparently as dangerous to use around some people as another form of speech called "sarcasm". Richard also wrote: >Interestingly enough, one lurking reviewer dropped me a line >declaring my remark about synths to be "dead on". I'd love to see this lurking reviewer post his opinion, because I appreciate honest opinions. However, I consider citing one's private supporters a poor way to buttress an argument--at worst, an attempt to sway opinions by peer pressure ("all these people agree with me, so I must be right"); at best, a way to avoid finding any better way to explain oneself. I'd really like to see Happy Rhodes become more successful so she can get better synthesizers and instruments. I'm listening to _Rearmament_ right now and I have to admit that it, like all her other albums I've heard, has synthesizer sounds that have come to be considered primitive, even cheesy. However, I am really quite impressed by her ability to wring what she can out of those sounds. "The Perfect Irony" has that Casiotone sound others have spoken of, but it was also the most striking song I heard the first time I listened through _Rearmament_ and _Ecto_. The sounds are recognizably synthesized, which seems to have become taboo when everyone is striving to use synthesizers to sample and emulate real instruments, but she picks sounds that are appropriate and which carry her melodies, much as Wendy Carlos's synthesizer sounds in _Switched-On Bach_ work. Happy's best instrument is her voice, with her acoustic guitar runner-up. Given that it should hardly seem surprising that some of my favorite Happy songs are just guitar and voice--"Would That I Could", "Moonbeam Friends", "The Revelation". One wonders how Kate Bush's songs would sound if she had to play all the instruments herself. It is no surprise that Happy must settle for sparse instrumentation and simple melodies when she cannot afford to hire many outside musicians and must arrange everything for only those instruments she can play herself. Ah well, I probably nauseate those of you insular types who only want to hear of Kate. So for some Kate news, I will also throw in that I may have hooked another person on Kate; he's got my CDs and seems very enthusiastic. Given that he has all of _Never For Ever_, _The Dreaming_, _Hounds of Love_, and _The Sensual World_, it seems unimaginable that he won't get infatuated by at least one of them. By the way, that last statement was _hyperbole_--it's entirely possible that this guy may not like any of them and I certainly won't claim that I was speaking absolute truth that you all must agree with. But then again, no one gets flamed for using hyperbole about Kate. Steve VanDevender stevev@greylady.uoregon.edu "Bipedalism--an unrecognized disease affecting over 99% of the population. Symptoms include lack of traffic sense, slow rate of travel, and the classic, easily recognized behavior known as walking."
nrc@cbema.att.COM (Neal R Caldwell, Ii) (06/19/91)
>From article <9106190910.AA02366@greylady.uoregon.edu>, by stevev@greylady.uoregon.EDU (Steve VanDevender): > Vickie wrote: >> She's NOT just another good singer. She's got the >> same sort of magic and spirit that Kate has (though Kate *IS* God and always >> will be!) and since Katefans do generally have open ears, minds and hearts, >> many will feel that magic. It's only right that she be recommended to other >> Kate Bush fans and it's only right that we be the ones to discover and >> appreciate her before everyone else catches on. > > Richard Caldwell wrote directly underneath: >>That's a very clever way to put it. You assert that the magic _is_ there >>and that if we don't feel it it's our own fault. I'd say that's a matter >>of opinion and from what I've seen not everyone agrees. > What I can't figure out, Richard, is why you think that Vickie > doesn't consider it a matter of opinion, that Vickie is not > allowing others room for disagreement, or that any other > reasonable reader is not going to consider musical taste and > music recommendations as matters of opinion no matter how the > author might word their posts. In many cases I would agree with you, Steve. But I think it must be said that you can't say anything you please as ardently as you like and then dodge critisism by saying it was all just a statement of opinion. The abbreviation "IMO" is widely used on the net because most people realize that it is important to note that you understand that something is a matter of opinion when dealing with sensitive issues. It should be obvious to any Love-Hound that claiming that another artist has the same sort of magic and spirit as Kate is precisely such an issue. Further, I think we do have a difference of opinion on just how Vickie intended the above remark. > Vickie feels that there is magic > in the music of Happy Rhodes, and says so without adding the > always implied "but that's just my opinion." Even if you insist > that we read the quote literally and then try to pick it apart as > a failed statement of fact, she hedges sufficiently--"Katefans do > _generally_ have open ears, minds, and hearts," "_many_ will feel > that magic." This is what tilted me away from accepting this as an innocent statement of opinion. Vickie doesn't hedge one bit on her statement that Happy is NOT just another singer and that she has the same sort of style and magic as Kate Bush. "Generally" and "many" don't have anything to do with Happy, they are applied to Katefans. What she hedges on is her audience's ability to feel this magic, not it's existence. To me it sounds like she's saying that it IS there but not everybody is open enough to perceive it. If this was not her intent then I was mistaken and I apologize. > Richard also wrote: >>Interestingly enough, one lurking reviewer dropped me a line >>declaring my remark about synths to be "dead on". > > I'd love to see this lurking reviewer post his opinion, because I > appreciate honest opinions. However, I consider citing one's > private supporters a poor way to buttress an argument--at worst, > an attempt to sway opinions by peer pressure ("all these people > agree with me, so I must be right"); at best, a way to avoid > finding any better way to explain oneself. I hope he will. But not everyone is comfortable posting netnews. Not everyone can even post to the mailing list. In fact this item arrived through another service completely (even though he does have net access). Say someone here touts Artist X as the greatest thing since Kate Bush (in that ever so useful hyperbolemic style). A friend tells me that Artist X sounds like someone abusing a chimpanzee with a garden rake. Is it not fair for me to point out my friend's opinion when explaining why I have not rushed out and bought the new Artist X release? Is this suddenly members only with any citation of the opinions of outsiders to be viewed as subterfuge? Does it depend on whether they tow the line? "Don't drive too slowly." Richard Caldwell AT&T Network Systems att!cbnews!nrc nrc@cbnews.att.com
lawtonj@project4.COMputer-science.manchester.ac.UK (Kaleidoscope) (06/21/91)
In <1991Jun19.164149.25140@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbema.att.COM (Neal R Caldwell, Ii) writes: >>From article <9106190910.AA02366@greylady.uoregon.edu>, by stevev@greylady.uoregon.EDU (Steve VanDevender): Bits deleted all over the place to make everyone else look a little unbalanced in their opinions....... >> What I can't figure out, Richard, is why you think that Vickie >> doesn't consider it a matter of opinion, that Vickie is not >> allowing others room for disagreement, or that any other >> reasonable reader is not going to consider musical taste and >> music recommendations as matters of opinion no matter how the >> author might word their posts. >In many cases I would agree with you, Steve. But I think it must be >said that you can't say anything you please as ardently as you like >and then dodge critisism by saying it was all just a statement of >opinion. The abbreviation "IMO" is widely used on the net because most >people realize that it is important to note that you understand >that something is a matter of opinion when dealing with sensitive >issues. >It should be obvious to any Love-Hound that claiming that another >artist has the same sort of magic and spirit as Kate is precisely such >an issue. This IMO (IMHO) thing really bugs me (but that's just my opinion) - surely most people out there should be able to detect sarcasm, or opionated speech. In fact it's rather obvious that when talking about music outside of just analysing it's components then one MUST be making a subjective opinion. Tell me exactly how do you make objective writing on music (or at least objective and interesting writing). The best writing connected with music I have read is inspired by the music, by the writers obsessions, by, oh who cares. But they never say, 'in my humble opinion' - mostly because to write like that you don't conside your opinion humble; you've just discov- ered the best piece of music in the world, you want to communicate your love for it to everyone - you aren't going to sit back & then say, 'but that's just what I think, but I'd get a few other opinions first'. Do you notice many 'real' reviewers (tell me the difference between me writing here, and me being published in a newspaper?) declaring that the review is purely their opinion & no one else's? No, because the nature of a review makes it implicit that the writing is a personal opinion (I need a thesaurus with different words for opinion in it!!!!). Sorry to flame at great length about this but it just seems stupid when the whole way we view the world is subjective to try & insist we get closer to some 'real' truth. I mean the fact that this newsgroup is based around people who think that Kate is the most important musical artiste in the world shows that some people have a pretty warped view of reality anyway (should I put a smiley in here?). If we didn't have so many IMOs & :-) people might learn to read what people are saying (and it might allow a little interesting ambiguity). >Say someone here touts Artist X as the greatest thing since Kate Bush (in >that ever so useful hyperbolemic style). A friend tells me that Artist X >sounds like someone abusing a chimpanzee with a garden rake. Is it not >fair for me to point out my friend's opinion when explaining why I have >not rushed out and bought the new Artist X release? But hearing that would make me want to investigate - if the two views are that extreme then there is likely to be something to the music that causes such violent opinions. I tend to avoid stuff that is mundanely described by everyone as OK - I mean I quite like Tania Tikaram's first LP but the general reaction from everyone in the UK (and on gaffa/love-hounds) is such that I'm hardly encouraged to investigate the later ones, when something like Happy exists that I'm more likely to have a strong opinion, either way on - there's every chance that the Tanita LP would be a waste of money as I have so much music I already REALLY like, so it would never get played, but a 50/50 chance (about, judging byt the opinions given here) I'd find Happy as exciting as Kate. >Is this suddenly members only with any citation of the opinions of >outsiders to be viewed as subterfuge? Does it depend on whether >they tow the line? A point on which I really do agree, just to balance the flaming out. I guess it might have been acceptable to have quoted a magazine review Richard, as that's an accepted source. Julian Lawton - University Of Manchester - England
brownfld@ux1.cso.uiuc.EDU (Kenneth R Brownfield) (06/21/91)
stevev@greylady.uoregon.EDU (Steve VanDevender) writes: >Vickie wrote: >> She's NOT just another good singer. She's got the >> same sort of magic and spirit that Kate has (though Kate *IS* God and always >> will be!) and since Katefans do generally have open ears, minds and hearts, >> many will feel that magic. It's only right that she be recommended to other >> Kate Bush fans and it's only right that we be the ones to discover and >> appreciate her before everyone else catches on. >Richard Caldwell wrote directly underneath: >>That's a very clever way to put it. You assert that the magic _is_ there >>and that if we don't feel it it's our own fault. I'd say that's a matter >>of opinion and from what I've seen not everyone agrees. >>Maybe I was wrong. Maybe Happy Rhodes isn't a Kate-wanna-be, maybe she's >>a Kate-you-want-her-to-be. You would probably be doing her a favor not to >>saddle her with such high expectations. >What I can't figure out, Richard, is why you think that Vickie >doesn't consider it a matter of opinion, that Vickie is not Did he say he didn't? My reader must be broken. >allowing others room for disagreement, or that any other >reasonable reader is not going to consider musical taste and >music recommendations as matters of opinion no matter how the >author might word their posts. If I said, as others have in the past, that "Kate sucks rocks," do you think I would have more than a tenth of my original body mass? Do you not think I would be torched into an all new plane of Hell reserved for just my bloody remaining body parts? Take the above paragraph, replace "Kate" with "Happy" and the entire clause works fine. This is warped, and is far too widespread here. Not that gaffa isn't wonderful, of course. Nothing's perfect. Happy is great. But _no one_ is great enough for this mess. >I think you're being extremely unfair to Vickie and undermining >your own argument by taking what must be reasonably interpreted >as statements of subjective opinion and saying that Vickie is >trying to claim them as facts. [...]. Isn't it unfair to criticize him, for the exact same reason? Subjective opinion. Do you think Richard is upset (preferrably another similar word) with Vickie? It's hard enough to understand what emotions are behind the numbers of the Net without losing objectivity. If he read it that way, and it _can_ indeed be read that way, that's his right. Are "Magic" and "Spirit" now universally applicable? When someone says "No, that band is better than that," which "She's NOT just another good singer" can translate to, it means "You are wrong." PERIOD. This is the problem with discussing music. Vickie probably didn't mean it that way, but how do you tell when that evaluation fits the running discussion? Richard may have been a bit quick to the gun, but it's not unnecessary deadly force. In sum: "I think you're being extremely unfair to [Richard] and undermining your own argument by taking what must be reasonably interpreted as statements of subjective opinion and saying that [Richard] is trying to claim them as facts." -- quoted by me without permission. Flames are better hypocrisy-free, methinks. I'm afraid I haven't (nor do I intend to) read the remainder of this article. However, I think everyone who has this problem should stop, carefully place the chip on your shoulder in a safe place (a nuclear sewage treatment plant near you, for instance) and post normally. Seriously, let's put Happy in the group of all the other artists that fall under gaffa, and treat her like any other. As I see it, she's no more special than any other artist that falls under the very rough category of rec.music.gaffa. It's what matters to a specific person and _only_ that specific person that counts: Happy matters a lot more to Vickie than to me, but it doesn't matter here except in _purely_ objective terms. Recommandations based on similar tastes are fine/wonderful, but preaching (harsh word, but the only one I can think of off hand (echo preaching | thesaurus)) without regard to the breadth of the tastes here can be annoying to those who don't share the same tastes. I think Richard has a point: Happy discussion is very "She is amazing" based. "Stunning," "Beautiful." Saying anything else and you get hit with The Dunce Stick (Copyright 1991 by K Brownfield. ;-) I bet quite a few people on gaffa who have listened to Happy don't post their less-than-Vickie- like experience just so they don't cause a flame war. Is it ridiculous that this _should_ be the case, or is it just me? And it is the case, have no doubt. Just for reference, I don't have even the slightest grudge or bad feeling against anyone here (except envy for Jon's guts regarding his Happy review. :-) -- Ken. Kenneth R. Brownfield brownfld@uiuc.edu Computing Services Office uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!brownfld University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. (finger for more info.)
rickt@well.UUCP (Rick Thompson) (06/23/91)
In article 9106190910.AA02366@greylady.uoregon.edu Steve VanDevender writes: >Richard also wrote: >>Interestingly enough, one lurking reviewer dropped me a line >>declaring my remark about synths to be "dead on". >I'd love to see this lurking reviewer post his opinion, because I >appreciate honest opinions. However, I consider citing one's OK. Here he is. Richard asked me if I thought Happy relied heavily on synthesizers and was otherwise sparsely instrumented. I replied that I thought that was "dead on the money." You seem to think so, too, since you also write: >_Rearmament_ right now and I have to admit that it, like all her >other albums I've heard, has synthesizer sounds that have come to >be considered primitive, even cheesy. However, I am really quite [Stuff deleted] >instruments herself. It is no surprise that Happy must settle >for sparse instrumentation and simple melodies when she cannot I mailed that commentary privately to Richard because 1) I hated to contribute to the deluge of Happy/unHappy messages here; 2) It was in the context of offering to give away my copy of the _Warpaint_ CD, and I thought it was impolite to make such a private offer in public; and 3) The e-mail on that service is free to me, which r.m.g is not. In any case, my saying that Happy's music seems largely synth-based and sparsely instrumented isn't much of a review. Nor does Richard need to call on "private supporters," since _you yourself_ concede this. If he was trying to trash Happy, he probably would have excerpted the portion of my message that called _Warpaint_ "unobjectionable enough, but basically boring," instead. One last point, since I seem to dropped out of my preferred lurk mode: harsh though it may sound, neither Happy's lamentable finances, nor her past personal problems make her music sound any better to me. If it bores me, it does. If other people find beauty there, then I'm glad for them, but even knowing that the artist is working under the most limited conditions can't make me enjoy music I don't enjoy. Insular as it may sound, I think I'd prefer Kate with only a piano to Happy with an unlimited budget for instrumentation. ================================================================= | rickt@well.sf.ca.us | "And I don't know when | | J. R. Thompson (Rick) | But just saying it could | | Upstate NY | even make it happen..." |
brownfld@ux1.cso.uiuc.EDU (Kenneth R Brownfield) (06/26/91)
lawtonj@project4.COMputer-science.manchester.ac.UK (Kaleidoscope) writes: >This IMO (IMHO) thing really bugs me (but that's just my opinion) - surely >most people out there should be able to detect sarcasm, or opionated speech. >In fact it's rather obvious that when talking about music outside of just >analysing it's components then one MUST be making a subjective opinion. >Tell me exactly how do you make objective writing on music (or at least >objective and interesting writing). The best writing connected with music >I have read is inspired by the music, by the writers obsessions, by, oh >who cares. But they never say, 'in my humble opinion' - mostly because to >write like that you don't conside your opinion humble; you've just discov- >ered the best piece of music in the world, you want to communicate your love >for it to everyone - you aren't going to sit back & then say, 'but that's >just what I think, but I'd get a few other opinions first'. Do you notice IMHO is not sarcastic. It's there for it's exact purpose. You can take it sarcastically if you want, but I've never seen it expressed sarcastically. You have a point on the "subjective comments should be assumed" subject, but the point you missed is that 1) what's the line between subjective and objective? When I say "Artist A sucks" should this be considered objective or subjective without any other contextual support? In other words, Vickie's words could be taken as thought they were meant to be objective. When it's mixed with the Happy Rhodes subject line, people are going to get a bit paranoid. If she meant it objectively, I have a problem with it. Otherwise, it was intented to be subjective, it's fine by me. This is not rec.music.objective. >many 'real' reviewers (tell me the difference between me writing here, and >me being published in a newspaper?) declaring that the review is purely >their opinion & no one else's? No, because the nature of a review makes it >implicit that the writing is a personal opinion (I need a thesaurus with >different words for opinion in it!!!!). Sorry to flame at great length >about this but it just seems stupid when the whole way we view the world >is subjective to try & insist we get closer to some 'real' truth. Reviews _are_ indeed assumed to be subjective, but that's what a review is. Vickie's tone was not that of a review, like it or not. She loves Happy Rhodes, and it shows. I don't hold it against her _at all_, but passion for an artist (Kate Bush, perhaps?) can get in the way of objectivity. This isn't a sin, it just needs to be avoided. >I mean the fact that this newsgroup is based around people who think that >Kate is the most important musical artiste in the world shows that some >people have a pretty warped view of reality anyway (should I put a smiley Not entirely, but pretty on-the-mark. >in here?). If we didn't have so many IMOs & :-) people might learn to read >what people are saying (and it might allow a little interesting ambiguity). This is wrong. I will never accept "you didn't read it right" when the "reading" is typed, on a page in front of you. Written language is far from specific, and it is not the fault of _anyone_ to misinterpret it. Telling someone that they misinterpreted a paragraph is like telling someone that they can only interpret a poem or music one way. Netnews isn't as richly developed as poetry, but the argument applies to anything written. >>Say someone here touts Artist X as the greatest thing since Kate Bush (in >>that ever so useful hyperbolemic style). A friend tells me that Artist X >>sounds like someone abusing a chimpanzee with a garden rake. Is it not >>fair for me to point out my friend's opinion when explaining why I have >>not rushed out and bought the new Artist X release? >But hearing that would make me want to investigate - if the two views are >that extreme then there is likely to be something to the music that causes >such violent opinions. I tend to avoid stuff that is mundanely described by >everyone as OK - I mean I quite like Tania Tikaram's first LP but the general >reaction from everyone in the UK (and on gaffa/love-hounds) is such that I'm >hardly encouraged to investigate the later ones, when something like Happy >exists that I'm more likely to have a strong opinion, either way on - there's >every chance that the Tanita LP would be a waste of money as I have so much >music I already REALLY like, so it would never get played, but a 50/50 chance >(about, judging byt the opinions given here) I'd find Happy as exciting as >Kate. That's fine, it's your opinion, and it's your belief. Expressing this belief is worthless because it's different for everyone. I'm not referring to what you just said, what I mean is that Vickie's post was an expression of a belief of this same nature with a disturbing tendency towards correctness. _Tendency_. IMO. >>Is this suddenly members only with any citation of the opinions of >>outsiders to be viewed as subterfuge? Does it depend on whether >>they tow the line? >A point on which I really do agree, just to balance the flaming out. I guess >it might have been acceptable to have quoted a magazine review Richard, as >that's an accepted source. The word "Review" is indeed a good indicator of subjectivity, a word known better in UseNet as IMHO. >Julian Lawton - University Of Manchester - England -- Ken. Kenneth R. Brownfield brownfld@uiuc.edu Computing Services Office uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!brownfld University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. (finger for more info.)