classical lovers - which rock & pop can you enjoy?
Michael Mossey
I think that it is very interesting that in
genres that have quite a different aesthetic,
I can like some things very much.
So I'm curious to know in general: if you are the
kind of person who really responds to the
classical aesthetic---with its particular use of
subtlety and power, its way of employing or
avoiding repetition, its notion of what's tasteful
and what's "over the top", all areas in which
classical and pop can differ tremendously---which
rock and pop music can you enjoy?
I really like much Sting. For example, I just
listened to "The Soul Cages" today and found that
it is a moving and expressive work of art.
I like Led Zeppelin. In fact, when someone mentions
the word "funky," I usually think of (1) Led Zeppelin,
(2) J.S. Bach. They have a relation, really. Led
Zeppelin makes great phrase shapes, too.
And of course, the Beatles have something special going
on.
I like some soft rock singers such as Clair Marlo and
Kristin Banks (you can find some of their stuff on
mp3.com).
What else? It is particularly intersting to me to
hear from some stuffy old professor who secretly puts on
Tori Amos and dances in his closet. ;)
Regards,
Mike
mazzolata
> My heart is given to classical music, but
> I think that it is very interesting that in
> genres that have quite a different aesthetic,
> I can like some things very much.
>
> So I'm curious to know in general: if you are the
> kind of person who really responds to the
> classical aesthetic---with its particular use of
> subtlety and power, its way of employing or
> avoiding repetition, its notion of what's tasteful
> and what's "over the top", all areas in which
> classical and pop can differ tremendously---which
> rock and pop music can you enjoy?
>
> I really like much Sting. For example, I just
> listened to "The Soul Cages" today and found that
> it is a moving and expressive work of art.
I find Sting utterly loathsome, and I am as big a fan of rock as I am of
classical (and Jazz, Reggae, Cuban, African ...)
> I like Led Zeppelin. In fact, when someone mentions
> the word "funky," I usually think of (1) Led Zeppelin,
> (2) J.S. Bach. They have a relation, really. Led
> Zeppelin makes great phrase shapes, too.
Zeppelin were great at what they did ... but funky? Man, you need to git
yo'self some James Brown !
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ma chambre a la forme d'une cage
le soleil passe son bras par la fenetre
Brendan R. Wehrung
Brendan
Reference: http://www.sodapopstop.com/products/detail.cfm?link=407
--
Adam
<snip>
> What else? It is particularly intersting to me to
> hear from some stuffy old professor who secretly puts on
Well, I'm neither stuffy, old, not a professor, but here goes...
I find that "popular" music where the musical talent of the artists
is evident is far more satisfying than generic mass produced pop.
My recommendation for today is the Super Furry Animals, which I
have been listening to quite a lot of recently. Look out for the
album "Mwng", which is sung entirely in welsh, but has some really
good tracks.
--
<INSERT SIG HERE>
Christopher Eva
> My heart is given to classical music, but
> I think that it is very interesting that in
> genres that have quite a different aesthetic,
> I can like some things very much.
>
> So I'm curious to know in general: if you are the
> kind of person who really responds to the
> classical aesthetic---with its particular use of
> subtlety and power, its way of employing or
> avoiding repetition, its notion of what's tasteful
> and what's "over the top", all areas in which
> classical and pop can differ tremendously---which
> rock and pop music can you enjoy?
>
I love the music of The Carpenters. But the recording which is often
mentioned as their masterpiece - "Superstar" - isn't one I care for
that much; that orchestral intro, with the oboe and horns, is too
self-consciously classical; I like pop to be pop.
The other group I've been listening to a lot lately is Peter, Paul &
Mary. I was too young to be aware of them first time around, but I
recently bought the first three albums (1962-3), and they seem to me
to be absolutely superb - especially the third, "In the Wind".
I was a music student at Cambridge University during the punk era, and
many of the punk bands used to play at Cambridge Corn Exchange (around
1977). I remember a great evening with Richard Hell supporting the
Clash. Another evening a band called Penetration were playing. For
some reason I was carrying a couple of scores when I went along to the
Corn Exchange, with the result that 25 years later my copies of The
Rite of Spring and Monteverdi's Vespers still have on the cover the
signatures of Pauline, Rob and the rest of the band...
Christopher Eva
Peter T. Daniels
John Harrington
> I think that it is very interesting that in
> genres that have quite a different aesthetic,
> I can like some things very much.
>
> So I'm curious to know in general: if you are the
> kind of person who really responds to the
> classical aesthetic---with its particular use of
> subtlety and power, its way of employing or
> avoiding repetition, its notion of what's tasteful
> and what's "over the top", all areas in which
> classical and pop can differ tremendously---which
> rock and pop music can you enjoy?
None of it.
> I really like much Sting. For example, I just
> listened to "The Soul Cages" today and found that
> it is a moving and expressive work of art.
I find that rock is crap.
> I like Led Zeppelin. In fact, when someone mentions
> the word "funky," I usually think of (1) Led Zeppelin,
> (2) J.S. Bach. They have a relation, really. Led
> Zeppelin makes great phrase shapes, too.
>
> And of course, the Beatles have something special going
> on.
Yes, "special" in the sense of "special olympics". ;-)
> I like some soft rock singers such as Clair Marlo and
> Kristin Banks (you can find some of their stuff on
> mp3.com).
Soft rock, like all flavors of rock, is crap.
> What else? It is particularly intersting to me to
> hear from some stuffy old professor who secretly puts on
> Tori Amos and dances in his closet. ;)
Why?
John
Michael Haslam
> michae...@yahoo.com (Michael Mossey) wrote in message
news:<9badaf0.03082...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
>
> > I really like much Sting. For example, I just
> > listened to "The Soul Cages" today and found that
> > it is a moving and expressive work of art.
>
> I find that rock is crap.
Stop beating about the bush, John, and say what you really mean :-)
MJHaslam
mazzolata
Have to love his open-mindedness.
Daniel Kolle
>I find that rock is crap.
I find that you are an idiot.
--
-Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
Michael Mossey
For the same reason I would interested in seeing an orange
with a human thumb growing out the side, or coming across
a small island in the Pacific Ocean completely uninhabited
except for a Starbucks outlet---an interest in the unexpected.
Regards,
Mike
P.S. Okay, the Starbucks wouldn't be THAT surprising.
>
>
> John
Blip
that of society as a whole -- that is, I'll listen intensely to
something for a lttle while, and then I don't care if I never hear it
again. That happened with the Police, who I came to hate, and other
bands I still espect like Steve Miller, Talking Heads, and Patti
Smith.
The exceptions are Frank Zappa and Rickie Lee Jones, who, like my
favorite classical composers, I can return to again and again. What
these choices say about me, I don't know.
Right now I'm listening to a lot of Warren Zevon, whom I like for his
wit, but I can't predict if he'll hold my interest over time.
Constantin Marcou
----- Original Message -----
...> > So I'm curious to know in general: if you are the
> > kind of person who really responds to the
> > classical aesthetic---with its particular use of
> > subtlety and power, its way of employing or
> > avoiding repetition, its notion of what's tasteful
> > and what's "over the top", all areas in which
> > classical and pop can differ tremendously---which
> > rock and pop music can you enjoy?
> >
>
> I love the music of The Carpenters. But the recording which is often
> Mary. I was too young to be aware of them first time around, but I
> recently bought the first three albums (1962-3), and they seem to me
> to be absolutely superb - especially the third, "In the Wind".
Wow -- talk about retro! If you want to go that far back, you ought to try
the Butterfield Blues Band's "East/West" -- the title track (all
instrumental) is almost Bruckner-esque in its repeated rising climaxes
followed by exhausted lassitude.
It's interesting to see how many members of this group share my low
estimation of Sting -- a wannabe poseur.... (but don't you wish you had his
earning capacity!)
Bill Johnston
Tull, Led Zeppelin, the later Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc. I'll also
listen to some newer stuff- 80's Metallica, Nirvana for example.
Nothing equals classical music for me, but I like variety.
Particularly Jethro Tull, which is more musically interesting than
most rock- less repetitive, more varied sound. Think English folk +
70's hard rock, with dabs of classical and blues, featuring electric
guitar, piano, acoustic guitar, occasional strings, and of course some
very far out flute playing....
michae...@yahoo.com (Michael Mossey) wrote in message news:<9badaf0.03082...@posting.google.com>...
John Craton
> which rock and pop music can you enjoy?
I've been enamored of classical music since I was a child, and for the
longest time I had no appreciation of rock and pop at all. As I've grown
older (yes, I'm now officially "old"), I have come to appreciate it for what
it is.
I look at rock and popular music as what I call "candy music." Some of it is
quite enjoyable, but it doesn't really nourish me the way classical music
does. The way I look at it is that one can enjoy a Hershey's chocolate bar
immensely, but you wouldn't want to try to survive on nothing else. That's
why I believe so many of our young people are aesthetically malnourished --
they consume nothing but "candy music" day in and day out.
Having said that, I can admit to enjoying occasional moments of the popular
genres. I'm not at all up on much of what is current, hearing only momentary
fragments of the current fare on someone else's radio from time to time. But
of those pop artists I know, I can name Chris DeBurgh (doesn't seem to be
too popular anymore, but he wrote "Lady in Red" and many more and better
songs), Enya (I guess she fits this category), French singer Mylene Farmer,
and the Romanian pop singer Paula Seling. There actually were a number of
rock songs from the 1980's that I found engaging (your Sting was big back
then too), despite the fact that most of today's rock enthusiasts turn up
their noses at '80's music. (Maybe it's because it didn't really say
anything -- but that's one aspect that endeared it to me: it was just there
for enjoyment.) I'm almost embarrassed to admit it, but I also enjoyed some
of the music of Blondie and of shock-rocker Alice Cooper. They were very
funny, and it's too bad that a lot of kids took their music seriously. They
manifested a great deal of subtle tongue-in-cheek humor in their work.
It seems rarer that I find anything that strikes my fancy in today's
contemporary fare, and I have no use for rap whatever.
Those are my thoughts. I'd be eager to hear what other classicists enjoy in
the pop realm.
John Craton
crato...@insightbb.com
http://www.craton.net/studio
mazzolata
This thread, in general, reminds me of the old story of the blind men
and the elephant ...
PJ
(in message <9badaf0.03082...@posting.google.com>):
> which rock and pop music can you enjoy?
Hi
I used to listen to rock and pop exclusively but have found that today
classical music has so much more to offer. I think that the problem when I
listen to rock or pop now is that there is so little of what I have come to
call "content". Classical touches parts that rock or pop never seems to
reach.
What rock and pop music do I still occasionally listen to?
Morrissey and The Smiths. This is because of the wonderful lyrics of course
and much of The Smiths music is very neat.
Captain Beefheart. Here it is the inventiveness and ingenuity of the music,
as well as the disregard for conventions which appeals.
Even more occasionally:
Cabaret Voltaire
J.J. Cale
Todd Rundgren
Joni Mitchell
and others
The most impressive thing from the rock/pop sphere I've heard recently and
bought is Leaf Cutter John's "Microcontact" CD which is a computer music
thing, but it is excellent stuff.
--
Patrick
Brighton, England
Gordon Cameron
> I think that it is very interesting that in
> genres that have quite a different aesthetic,
> I can like some things very much.
>
> So I'm curious to know in general: if you are the
> kind of person who really responds to the
> classical aesthetic---with its particular use of
> subtlety and power, its way of employing or
> avoiding repetition, its notion of what's tasteful
> and what's "over the top", all areas in which
> classical and pop can differ tremendously---which
> rock and pop music can you enjoy?
>
Classical for me is the best, because of its structural scope and
harmonic/contrapuntal subtlety. I am aware of no pop composer(s) who
can stand beside J.S. Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Beethoven, and Schubert.
I think the classical "school" or "approach" or "system" or "set of
formal templates" (if such generalizing terms may be used) seems to
have been the best crucible for musical talent, shaping innate genius
into the most intriguing results. (Though Paul McCartney would have
made a hell of a lieder composer if he'd been born in Vienna in 1795.
:-) However, I adore much pop music (as well as jazz) and try not to
be a slave to categories. I think pop contains some magnificent,
vivid, joyous, *ballsy* music making, and it'd be a sad thing to cut
oneself off from that.
I like to listen to:
Beatles
Thomas Dolby
Pink Floyd
Level 42
Drifters
Police
Steely Dan
Abba
Temptations
Led Zeppelin
KLF
Iron Maiden
To name a few.
Oisk17
But I enjoy the popular music of the(roughly)first half of the 20th century
very much, from the operettas of Friml, Romberg and Herbert, to Gershwin,
Porter, Berlin, and Rogers and Hart, to the great Broadway shows .
I liked the folk music of the 60's as well, and still listen to it
occasionally.
Paul
Michael Danehy
that you're involved in, and I have a few things to add.
1.) Your posts indicate that classical has qualities that make you
prefer it to rock, while rock has qualities that make it 'crap.' But
from what I can tell, you have never been clear on what these
qualities are, only that even a six year old can tell the difference.
Nor have you made it clear why rock is absolutely inferior just
because you prefer other genres to it. On the one hand, you state that
it is all merely a matter of taste and opinion, on the other hand, you
act as if you have the final word on what is good music/art and what
is not. You go so far as to call other people brainwashed zombies due
to their differences in taste.
2.) While you are not clear on what you prefer about classical to all
possible rock musics, you have been clear about your distaste for
anything commercial. I'm sure that this is what it all boils down to.
Your smug satisfaction at having superior tastes to the peasants.
3.) The idea that only meticulously trained and practiced 'virtuosos'
are capable of worthwhile expression is an elitism that I despise.
Since you appear to have leftist leanings, you should despise it too.
Can't the common class have a voice too?
4.) If I had kids, I'd prefer them listen to death metal all day than
read your poisonously narrow minded and elitist posts.
Peter Allen
wrote:
Dunno who you're talking about, mate. Generally I like most mature
music, whatever the genre. Trouble is this group is
rec.music.classical, so the topics are likely to have a certain bias.
Death metal's a bit of a blind spot, I must admit, so I'm sorry for
your non-existent kids. At least give them King Crimson instead, so
they can hear meticulously trained and practised virtuosi, who can
improvise a new composition in concert to boot.
Peter
______________________________________________________________
Dr Peter Allen (pdaN...@melbpcDOT.org.au)
Melbourne PC User Group
SPAM BLOCKS IN PLACE
______________________________________________________________
Michael Danehy
No, no, no. I wasn't replying to you. It was to someone named John
Harrington. I replied on dejanews to a post that was a few days old and now
the thread seems to be gone. Sorry.
Adam
Couldnt you have guessed from the words "poisonously narrow minded
and elitist posts"?
:-)
--
<INSERT SIG HERE>
Nicolai P. Zwar
> My heart is given to classical music, but
> I think that it is very interesting that in
> genres that have quite a different aesthetic,
> I can like some things very much.
>
> So I'm curious to know in general: if you are the
> kind of person who really responds to the
> classical aesthetic---with its particular use of
> subtlety and power, its way of employing or
> avoiding repetition, its notion of what's tasteful
> and what's "over the top", all areas in which
> classical and pop can differ tremendously---which
> rock and pop music can you enjoy?
I love just about everything Peter Gabriel has ever done, sometimes I
like to listen to (and have bought albums by) Sting, Tori Amos, The
Doors, The Beatles, Aimee Mann (more jazz than rock/pop, I guess)...
some more.
It also happens now and then that I like some pop(ular) songs that are
playing on MTV or the radio -- even some songs by Michael Jackson or
Madonna -- though I seldom actually go out of my way to purchase them.
--
Nicolai Zwar
Dr.Matt
Nicolai P. Zwar <NPZ...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>playing on MTV or the radio -- even some songs by Michael Jackson or
>Madonna -- though I seldom actually go out of my way to purchase them.
I've never gone out of my way to seek out pop at all. Never had to.
It's so ubiquitous, it finds me, sooner or later.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Nicolai P. Zwar
> In article <3F5475F...@bigfoot.com>,
> Nicolai P. Zwar <NPZ...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>playing on MTV or the radio -- even some songs by Michael Jackson or
>>Madonna -- though I seldom actually go out of my way to purchase them.
>
>
> I've never gone out of my way to seek out pop at all. Never had to.
> It's so ubiquitous, it finds me, sooner or later.
Yep. It's all around you, everywhere... no need to go out of your way
for it even _if_ you like it.
--
Nicolai Zwar
John Harrington
news:c188b967.03090...@posting.google.com...
> Hi, I hate to dredge up an old topic but I've been some of the threads
> that you're involved in, and I have a few things to add.
>
> 1.) Your posts indicate that classical has qualities that make you
> prefer it to rock, while rock has qualities that make it 'crap.'
Yes.
> But
> from what I can tell, you have never been clear on what these
> qualities are,
Why do you find it necessary that I *name* differences that presumably you
can hear just as well as I?
> only that even a six year old can tell the difference.
> Nor have you made it clear why rock is absolutely inferior just
> because you prefer other genres to it.
What other criterion should I use than my preferences?
> On the one hand, you state that
> it is all merely a matter of taste and opinion,
Why "on the other hand"? What other hand is there?
> on the other hand, you
> act as if you have the final word on what is good music/art and what
> is not.
I sure do, when it comes to my tastes. Who else has the final word on my
tastes, you?
> You go so far as to call other people brainwashed zombies due
> to their differences in taste.
Please cite the post, with google-groups reference.
> 2.) While you are not clear on what you prefer about classical to all
> possible rock musics, you have been clear about your distaste for
> anything commercial.
Nonsense. I am on record as being a great fan of The Simpsons and Futurama.
You can hardly get more commercial than that.
> I'm sure that this is what it all boils down to.
> Your smug satisfaction at having superior tastes to the peasants.
>
> 3.) The idea that only meticulously trained and practiced 'virtuosos'
> are capable of worthwhile expression is an elitism that I despise.
> Since you appear to have leftist leanings, you should despise it too.
> Can't the common class have a voice too?
Why shouldn't I value talented, intelligent, capable people who produce
works of beauty and subtlety? That said, if a complete ignoramus produced a
work of beauty, I would still love it. Not that he was a complete
ignoramus, but he was certainly unschooled, Mussorgsky wrote a number of
works I admire; ironically, he happens to be one of the few composers I
admire (or can think of) who was a member of the aristocracy (i.e., not "a
peasant" of some sort).
> 4.) If I had kids, I'd prefer them listen to death metal all day than
> read your poisonously narrow minded and elitist posts.
My mind appears to be more broad than yours. Yours cannot tolerate, for
example, anyone daring to say "<something you like> is crap". Mine can.
John
John Harrington
"Peter Allen" <pdaN...@melbpcDOT.org.au> wrote in message
news:3s38lvs6hrdbse4fu...@4ax.com...
Elitist!!
J
Michael Danehy
"John Harrington" <bear...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pl45b.6608$Lk5....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Michael Danehy" <dan...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:c188b967.03090...@posting.google.com...
> > Hi, I hate to dredge up an old topic but I've been some of the threads
> > that you're involved in, and I have a few things to add.
> >
> > 1.) Your posts indicate that classical has qualities that make you
> > prefer it to rock, while rock has qualities that make it 'crap.'
>
> Yes.
>
> > But
> > from what I can tell, you have never been clear on what these
> > qualities are,
>
> Why do you find it necessary that I *name* differences that presumably you
> can hear just as well as I?
I'd like to know what these differences are so that we can have a rational
discussion on
what about them makes rock such an inferior genre of music. I find that I
can enjoy much about a classical piece but if I hear a nice melody or some
such in a rock piece, I can enjoy that too. I don't understand what it is
about the genre that is so unappealing that you can't find anything good
about it whatsoever. An elucidation would help.
>
> > only that even a six year old can tell the difference.
> > Nor have you made it clear why rock is absolutely inferior just
> > because you prefer other genres to it.
>
> What other criterion should I use than my preferences?
It would be helpful in getting a dialogue going if you were more clear about
why you prefer some things to others. Aesthetic discussions are all about
such dialogue.
> > on the other hand, you
> > act as if you have the final word on what is good music/art and what
> > is not.
>
> I sure do, when it comes to my tastes. Who else has the final word on my
> tastes, you?
Of course not. My problem isn't your expression of your tastes, it's your
stating that others have been brainwashed by capitalism into enjoying what
_you_ believe is a worthless product, and stating such things repeatedly.
And you have said such things.. Here are your words. And you've said worse.
" Furthermore, I think that if you removed the constant
barrage of corporate propaganda, artificially bolstering rock "music",
people would be more likely to discover and turn to real music."
See? You've decided what real music is for everybody and have presume that
only because of propaganda
that others like what you dislike. You take this tone quite often.
>
> > 2.) While you are not clear on what you prefer about classical to all
> > possible rock musics, you have been clear about your distaste for
> > anything commercial.
>
> Nonsense. I am on record as being a great fan of The Simpsons and
Futurama.
> You can hardly get more commercial than that.
Here's where a fan of the theater and great literature will scold you for
subjecting yourself to garbage. If you can enjoy something on the Simpsons
even though it's an inferior medium to Shakespear, what prevents you from
enjoying anything in rock music?
>
> > I'm sure that this is what it all boils down to.
> > Your smug satisfaction at having superior tastes to the peasants.
> >
> > 3.) The idea that only meticulously trained and practiced 'virtuosos'
> > are capable of worthwhile expression is an elitism that I despise.
> > Since you appear to have leftist leanings, you should despise it too.
> > Can't the common class have a voice too?
>
> Why shouldn't I value talented, intelligent, capable people who produce
> works of beauty and subtlety? That said, if a complete ignoramus produced
a
> work of beauty, I would still love it. Not that he was a complete
> ignoramus, but he was certainly unschooled, Mussorgsky wrote a number of
> works I admire; ironically, he happens to be one of the few composers I
> admire (or can think of) who was a member of the aristocracy (i.e., not "a
> peasant" of some sort).
It's possible to value beauty wherever it is to be found. There's more
beauty per capita in classical of course but there is some in rock. "Pet
Sounds" has moments of beauty, for me anywyay, even if it falls within the
rock genre.
>
> > 4.) If I had kids, I'd prefer them listen to death metal all day than
> > read your poisonously narrow minded and elitist posts.
>
> My mind appears to be more broad than yours. Yours cannot tolerate, for
> example, anyone daring to say "<something you like> is crap". Mine can.
Closed mindedness and elitism rub me the wrong way. Forgive me. BTW, you
stated in another post that human experience in music spoils it. Does that
make music superior to other forms of art because it's capable of
transcending human experience? I'd be interested in your philosophy on this.
From a Platonist point of view, maybe classical music really is the highest
art of all because it deals in the most abstract of beauty. I can understand
why you appreciate that. But can't there also be enjoyment of earthly things
in music as well? Rock music has a very sensual quality at times and that
can be enjoyable in a way that classical music can't be.
John Harrington
>
> "John Harrington" <bear...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:pl45b.6608$Lk5....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "Michael Danehy" <dan...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:c188b967.03090...@posting.google.com...
> > > Hi, I hate to dredge up an old topic but I've been some of the threads
> > > that you're involved in, and I have a few things to add.
> > >
> > > 1.) Your posts indicate that classical has qualities that make you
> > > prefer it to rock, while rock has qualities that make it 'crap.'
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > But
> > > from what I can tell, you have never been clear on what these
> > > qualities are,
> >
> > Why do you find it necessary that I *name* differences that presumably
you
> > can hear just as well as I?
>
> I'd like to know what these differences are so that we can have a rational
> discussion on
> what about them makes rock such an inferior genre of music.
They are those qualities which allow you to differentiate rock music, within
seconds, from classical music. Putting a name to those qualities is
pointless, not to mention impossible. You hear them as well as I do. How
you and I feel about them aesthetically is different, obviously, and not
reconcilable.
> I find that I
> can enjoy much about a classical piece but if I hear a nice melody or some
> such in a rock piece, I can enjoy that too. I don't understand what it is
> about the genre that is so unappealing that you can't find anything good
> about it whatsoever. An elucidation would help.
Those qualities that distinguish rock as a genre are what I find to be crap.
Therefore, no rock song ever composed or ever to be composed can be other
than crap. If it is, it is unidentifiable as rock, and, therefore, not
rock.
> >
> > > only that even a six year old can tell the difference.
> > > Nor have you made it clear why rock is absolutely inferior just
> > > because you prefer other genres to it.
> >
> > What other criterion should I use than my preferences?
>
> It would be helpful in getting a dialogue going if you were more clear
about
> why you prefer some things to others. Aesthetic discussions are all about
> such dialogue.
Dialogues about matters of opinion are useless. My only interest in this
debate is attempting to show you *how* I can have such an opinion, not why.
> > > on the other hand, you
> > > act as if you have the final word on what is good music/art and what
> > > is not.
> >
> > I sure do, when it comes to my tastes. Who else has the final word on
my
> > tastes, you?
>
> Of course not. My problem isn't your expression of your tastes, it's your
> stating that others have been brainwashed by capitalism into enjoying what
> _you_ believe is a worthless product, and stating such things repeatedly.
Cite the post where I said this.
> And you have said such things.. Here are your words.
The following are indeed my words.
> And you've said worse.
>
> " Furthermore, I think that if you removed the constant
> barrage of corporate propaganda, artificially bolstering rock "music",
> people would be more likely to discover and turn to real music."
>
> See? You've decided what real music is for everybody and have presume that
> only because of propaganda
> that others like what you dislike.
I did no such thing.
> You take this tone quite often.
I'm not responsible for hallucinations.
> >
> > > 2.) While you are not clear on what you prefer about classical to all
> > > possible rock musics, you have been clear about your distaste for
> > > anything commercial.
> >
> > Nonsense. I am on record as being a great fan of The Simpsons and
> Futurama.
> > You can hardly get more commercial than that.
>
> Here's where a fan of the theater and great literature will scold you for
> subjecting yourself to garbage.
And here's where I don't care.
> If you can enjoy something on the Simpsons
> even though it's an inferior medium to Shakespear, what prevents you from
> enjoying anything in rock music?
The comedy in Shakespeare is not superior to the comedy in The Simpsons.
Shakespeare's strength is not in making me laugh.
>
> >
> > > I'm sure that this is what it all boils down to.
> > > Your smug satisfaction at having superior tastes to the peasants.
> > >
> > > 3.) The idea that only meticulously trained and practiced 'virtuosos'
> > > are capable of worthwhile expression is an elitism that I despise.
> > > Since you appear to have leftist leanings, you should despise it too.
> > > Can't the common class have a voice too?
> >
> > Why shouldn't I value talented, intelligent, capable people who produce
> > works of beauty and subtlety? That said, if a complete ignoramus
produced
> a
> > work of beauty, I would still love it. Not that he was a complete
> > ignoramus, but he was certainly unschooled, Mussorgsky wrote a number of
> > works I admire; ironically, he happens to be one of the few composers I
> > admire (or can think of) who was a member of the aristocracy (i.e., not
"a
> > peasant" of some sort).
>
> It's possible to value beauty wherever it is to be found. There's more
> beauty per capita in classical of course but there is some in rock.
The qualities that make rock rock are ugly, therefore anything identifiable
as rock is ugly and therefore crap.
> "Pet
> Sounds" has moments of beauty, for me anywyay, even if it falls within the
> rock genre.
> >
> > > 4.) If I had kids, I'd prefer them listen to death metal all day than
> > > read your poisonously narrow minded and elitist posts.
> >
> > My mind appears to be more broad than yours. Yours cannot tolerate, for
> > example, anyone daring to say "<something you like> is crap". Mine can.
>
> Closed mindedness and elitism rub me the wrong way.
Though I admit to being an elitist, I'm not closed minded. If I were, I
would never have bothered to listen to rock critically, to play it, or to
know it well enough to appreciate what makes the genre distinct.
> Forgive me. BTW, you
> stated in another post that human experience in music spoils it. Does that
> make music superior to other forms of art because it's capable of
> transcending human experience? I'd be interested in your philosophy on
this.
> From a Platonist point of view, maybe classical music really is the
highest
> art of all because it deals in the most abstract of beauty.
What makes art art, what distinguishes it from other things, such as
politics, philosophy, science, sports, etc., is beauty. Beauty is always
abstract, even in representational painting and literature. By "abstract" I
mean abstract in the art theory sense--without reference to or dependency on
anything but itself. Meaning is the editorial part of art. It can be
transmitted as easily by telegram as it can by art. Beauty cannot be
transmitted by telegram.
> I can understand
> why you appreciate that. But can't there also be enjoyment of earthly
things
> in music as well? Rock music has a very sensual quality at times and that
> can be enjoyable in a way that classical music can't be.
And for yet another opinion: rock is crap.
John
Peter T. Daniels
Except that every time someone comes up with something that might be a
or the distinction (trying to do your homework for you), it's quickly
shown to be present in non-rock music as well, such as 4/4 time, or
electric guitars, or whatever.
BTW is Billy Joel's "Piano Man" a rock song? Is Paul Simon's "Graceland"
a rock song?
Michael Danehy
Not impossible. People often enjoy or hate things for reasons and said
reasons can be discussed. It is true that at a certain point of breaking it
down, you get to the simplest qualities and then it is only a matter of
one's values on whether those qualities are enjoyable, and those values may
be discussed. Your own values differ from my own I'm sure. :)
It seems to me now that you are not really being evasive about why you hate
rock and love classical. You just don't like something that is basic to the
rock style, that you can't exactly put in words, and that makes it ugly for
you. Bear in mind that the essence of rock is not ugly for everyone, that it
is not necessarily bad music (or even anti-music) for everyone merely
because it doesn't suit your tastes. Because you consider rock to be
anti-music, I'd want to know what is essential about music (if you can
elucidate it) that all rock music necessarily lacks. If the distinction is
so subtle that you can't explain then that's alright.
> > I find that I
> > can enjoy much about a classical piece but if I hear a nice melody or
some
> > such in a rock piece, I can enjoy that too. I don't understand what it
is
> > about the genre that is so unappealing that you can't find anything good
> > about it whatsoever. An elucidation would help.
>
> Those qualities that distinguish rock as a genre are what I find to be
crap.
> Therefore, no rock song ever composed or ever to be composed can be other
> than crap. If it is, it is unidentifiable as rock, and, therefore, not
> rock.
Even so, you can't acknowledge a nice melody, interesting texture, clever
playing, or anything in a rock
song just because you hate rock? Let's say that horror movies are a genre of
movie that I despise. I could still point to some movies like Psycho as
being good in some ways even if I don't care for horror at all. Disliking a
genre is not an excuse in itself to not be charitable at all towards
anything in the genre.
>
> > >
> > > > only that even a six year old can tell the difference.
> > > > Nor have you made it clear why rock is absolutely inferior just
> > > > because you prefer other genres to it.
> > >
> > > What other criterion should I use than my preferences?
> >
> > It would be helpful in getting a dialogue going if you were more clear
> about
> > why you prefer some things to others. Aesthetic discussions are all
about
> > such dialogue.
>
> Dialogues about matters of opinion are useless. My only interest in this
> debate is attempting to show you *how* I can have such an opinion, not
why.
I couldn't disagree more. Dialogues about matters of opinion help us to
clarify our own opinions and
contemplate our own and others' aesthetical values. I don't agree that it is
useless. You seem to go by a very restrictive philosophy of aesthetics at
least when it comes to talking about it.
>
> > > > on the other hand, you
> > > > act as if you have the final word on what is good music/art and what
> > > > is not.
> > >
> > > I sure do, when it comes to my tastes. Who else has the final word on
> my
> > > tastes, you?
> >
> > Of course not. My problem isn't your expression of your tastes, it's
your
> > stating that others have been brainwashed by capitalism into enjoying
what
> > _you_ believe is a worthless product, and stating such things
repeatedly.
>
> Cite the post where I said this.
>
> > And you have said such things.. Here are your words.
>
> The following are indeed my words.
>
> > And you've said worse.
> >
> > " Furthermore, I think that if you removed the constant
> > barrage of corporate propaganda, artificially bolstering rock "music",
> > people would be more likely to discover and turn to real music."
> >
> > See? You've decided what real music is for everybody and have presume
that
> > only because of propaganda
> > that others like what you dislike.
>
> I did no such thing.
What am I supposed to infer from your above quote? It's plain as day to me.
People everywhere aren't taking to real music (as if your tastes decide what
is real music) because of corporate propaganda. They're your words. Even if
you intended to not come off that way, you do.
>
> > You take this tone quite often.
>
> I'm not responsible for hallucinations.
>
> > >
> > > > 2.) While you are not clear on what you prefer about classical to
all
> > > > possible rock musics, you have been clear about your distaste for
> > > > anything commercial.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. I am on record as being a great fan of The Simpsons and
> > Futurama.
> > > You can hardly get more commercial than that.
> >
> > Here's where a fan of the theater and great literature will scold you
for
> > subjecting yourself to garbage.
>
> And here's where I don't care.
>
> > If you can enjoy something on the Simpsons
> > even though it's an inferior medium to Shakespear, what prevents you
from
> > enjoying anything in rock music?
>
> The comedy in Shakespeare is not superior to the comedy in The Simpsons.
> Shakespeare's strength is not in making me laugh.
And Mozart's strength isn't in making good dance music or other things that
rock does well. People can like things for different reasons without being
schizophrenic after all. We're multi-faceted.
Ugly for you, not everyone, which I'm sure you'll grant. Besides, even if
the rockness of rock is ugly, a melody isn't necessarily ugly just because
it happens to be in a rock song. Rock songs often even incorporate eg.
baroque style melodies used in classical works. Procol Harum's "Whiter Shade
of Pale" is somewhat similiar in structure to Bach's "Air On A G String." A
profanation, I'm sure, but a beautiful one. :)
>
> > "Pet
> > Sounds" has moments of beauty, for me anywyay, even if it falls within
the
> > rock genre.
> > >
> > > > 4.) If I had kids, I'd prefer them listen to death metal all day
than
> > > > read your poisonously narrow minded and elitist posts.
> > >
> > > My mind appears to be more broad than yours. Yours cannot tolerate,
for
> > > example, anyone daring to say "<something you like> is crap". Mine
can.
> >
> > Closed mindedness and elitism rub me the wrong way.
>
> Though I admit to being an elitist, I'm not closed minded. If I were, I
> would never have bothered to listen to rock critically, to play it, or to
> know it well enough to appreciate what makes the genre distinct.
Well, ok. I take it back then. I don't want to turn this into trivial debate
on who is 'closed minded.' Those never lead anywhere.
>
> > Forgive me. BTW, you
> > stated in another post that human experience in music spoils it. Does
that
> > make music superior to other forms of art because it's capable of
> > transcending human experience? I'd be interested in your philosophy on
> this.
> > From a Platonist point of view, maybe classical music really is the
> highest
> > art of all because it deals in the most abstract of beauty.
>
> What makes art art, what distinguishes it from other things, such as
> politics, philosophy, science, sports, etc., is beauty. Beauty is always
> abstract, even in representational painting and literature. By "abstract"
I
> mean abstract in the art theory sense--without reference to or dependency
on
> anything but itself. Meaning is the editorial part of art. It can be
> transmitted as easily by telegram as it can by art. Beauty cannot be
> transmitted by telegram.
We can descibe what is beautiful for us in simpler terms though. In
describing a beautiful
woman, I can discuss her eyes, symmetry of her features, etc.
>
> > I can understand
> > why you appreciate that. But can't there also be enjoyment of earthly
> things
> > in music as well? Rock music has a very sensual quality at times and
that
> > can be enjoyable in a way that classical music can't be.
>
> And for yet another opinion: rock is crap.
Fine. Nice talking to you, btw.
mazzolata
>
> And for yet another opinion: rock is crap.
>
And another opinion: John Harrington is an idiot.
John Harrington
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F551C...@worldnet.att.net...
Exactly. And yet meaningful distinctions exist, since in every case rock
can be told from classical without a peek at the program notes
> BTW is Billy Joel's "Piano Man" a rock song? Is Paul Simon's "Graceland"
> a rock song?
In both cases, those songs are instantly distinguishable from classical
music. Rock music overlaps many genres, and those that are close to rock
are crap, too. Rock does not overlap classical music. At all.
John
Peter T. Daniels
> > Except that every time someone comes up with something that might be a
> > or the distinction (trying to do your homework for you), it's quickly
> > shown to be present in non-rock music as well, such as 4/4 time, or
> > electric guitars, or whatever.
>
> Exactly. And yet meaningful distinctions exist, since in every case rock
> can be told from classical without a peek at the program notes
So it's maybe the venue?
> > BTW is Billy Joel's "Piano Man" a rock song? Is Paul Simon's "Graceland"
> > a rock song?
>
> In both cases, those songs are instantly distinguishable from classical
> music. Rock music overlaps many genres, and those that are close to rock
> are crap, too. Rock does not overlap classical music. At all.
I didn't ask you whether those songs are classical. I asked you whether
they are rock. Are those two songs rock, or are they not rock?
For extra credit, you may tell us whether Mr. Joels' album of Chopiniana
is classical. (I haven't heard any of it; it wasn't included in *Movin'
Out*.)
Mike Coldewey
classes of things: things that they like, things that they think are in good
taste, and things that the world or other people think are in good taste or
of high quality. I try not to because that way I never get caught trying to
assert that my opinion of quality is the same as my likes and dislikes, and
that either one of them is related to the opinions of other people.
For example, I don't particularly like Hamlet. I do, however, think that
it's a very great work, and apparently others think this way as well. I
feel the same way about the Rite of Spring and Beethoven's 9th Symphony. On
the other hand, I really like some works by Hindemith, but would never
elevate them to the same level as those of Stravinsky - I would always
concede that Stravinsky is, somehow, a "greater" composer - I just don't
like his stuff. But I would never say his music is worthless just because of
that. And I would never say that Hamlet is not a great play merely because,
by my own opinion of what makes a great play, it didn't fit my criteria.
It appears that Mr. Harrington seems to be making assertions ("... Rock is
crap ...") that are, first, undefined (what is "Rock" and what is meant by
"crap"? - it may seem obvious but it's not - both terms are ill-defined to
the point that there is no sense to that statement beyond " ... well, you
know what I mean ..."), but, second, are inarguable because they are value
judgements and cannot be verified objectively. This is not the same thing as
saying that values don't exist at all. They just don't exist on any
verifiable level that is subject to analysis. If I say "Hamlet is crap", the
correct response is not "no, it isn't", but "what do you mean by that?". If,
however, I say, so-and-so's performance of Hamlet was crappy because he
forgot so many of the lines that the narrative thread was lost, that still
doesn't mean much more than the first statement, but it's at least closer to
having some meaning because the implication is that saying the lines is
necessary for a good performance. If, though, I say,"I don't like Hamlet",
it means exactly that I don't like Hamlet and says absolutely nothing about
the play.
When Mr. Harrington says, however, "All rock is crap" he may be saying one
of two or three things, and it appears that he's trying to say all of them:
"I don't like any rock music", "I don't think rock music has any quality",
and "Rock music has no quality". And they're three different things that
are, really, unrelated. The first is about his likes and dislikes, the
second is about his (own) opinion of rock music's quality (or value, if you
prefer), the third is about the universal quality or value contained in rock
music, and if it's universal, it can be verified by some indendent criteria
other than the sum total of the opinions of people that know about the field
(of music). Now, if he's saying the first thing, no dispute; if he's saying
the second thing, then the followup question is "what do you mean?" or, more
to the point, "by what personal criteria do you evaluate rock music to
arrive at this conclusion?" - but a meaningful answer could be obtained (it
would be so generalized and probably not be tremendously informative, but
would have meaning). But the third assertion just doesn't make sense, at
least to me, unless it's shorthand for saying "In the opinions of people who
know about music, all rock is without quality or value". This still makes it
incumbent for some sort of citation; I for one don't accept argument from
authority as a basis for much of anything, and in the absence of some
knowledge that Mr. Harrington knows about the opinions of people who know
about music, his statement carries no weight and no meaning.
It's easy to dismiss this type of criticism as "De Gustibus Non Est
Disputandum", but for Mr. Harrington, there's actually quite a bit of
Disputandum, so much that I wouldn't be surprised if he preferred
disagreement and argument to discussion that may arrive at a point of
agreement or mutual edification.
Mike Coldewey
> John Harrington wrote:
>
> > > Except that every time someone comes up with something that might be a
> > > or the distinction (trying to do your homework for you), it's quickly
> > > shown to be present in non-rock music as well, such as 4/4 time, or
> > > electric guitars, or whatever.
> >
> > Exactly. And yet meaningful distinctions exist, since in every case
rock
> > can be told from classical without a peek at the program notes
I don't think this statement can be supported. If an instrumental version of
"A Whiter Shade of Pale" were played in a concert hall with the same
instrumentation as "Air on a G String" and presented as Bach, or the work of
one of Bach's sons or contemporaries, I believe that most people that
weren't familiar with either piece would not know the difference. To use the
example below, Billy Joel's solo piano works album is distinguishable from
the classical works that they use as models by an educated ear, but I
believe that if at least some of them were presented as previously
unrecorded works of, say, Faure or Chabrier, many people would not find much
in them to "uncover their disguises" at least without repeated hearings. I
could be wrong, but it would be an interesting experiment, and raises what
is (to me) a more interesting question: What amount of education and
familiarity does one need to have before one can tell the difference in
origin between the above works, or, say, the Warsaw Concerto and
Rachmaninoff's music?
If what you are saying is "to the educated person that is familiar with a
lot of both genres, it's easy to tell the difference between the pieces I
call rock and the pieces I refer to as classical, because I know those
pieces", then that's kind of a tautology: "I know the music I know well
enough to tell the difference between the pieces I classify as rock and
others." But to, say, a person unfamiliar with the music (say, a man from
Mars), what would you tell him that will serve as criteria for
distinguishing between the classifications? - without saying, in
effect,"Here's a list of rock songs and here's a list of classical works.
Memorize it and remember that all the rock is crap. I won't make a blanket
generalization about classical music".
Mike
John Harrington
news:bj4rv7$o...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> It seems to me that there are some people that appear to equate three
> classes of things: things that they like, things that they think are in
good
> taste, and things that the world or other people think are in good taste
or
> of high quality. I try not to because that way I never get caught trying
to
> assert that my opinion of quality is the same as my likes and dislikes,
and
> that either one of them is related to the opinions of other people.
> For example, I don't particularly like Hamlet. I do, however, think that
> it's a very great work, and apparently others think this way as well.
So what you're saying is that Hamlet is great, despite the fact that you
don't like it. Weird.
> I
> feel the same way about the Rite of Spring and Beethoven's 9th Symphony.
On
> the other hand, I really like some works by Hindemith, but would never
> elevate them to the same level as those of Stravinsky - I would always
> concede that Stravinsky is, somehow, a "greater" composer - I just don't
> like his stuff.
So you assign value where there is none. Why?
> But I would never say his music is worthless just because of
> that. And I would never say that Hamlet is not a great play merely
because,
> by my own opinion of what makes a great play, it didn't fit my criteria.
> It appears that Mr. Harrington seems to be making assertions ("... Rock is
> crap ...") that are, first, undefined (what is "Rock"
You can't be serious. Are you telling me you can't tell when you're
listening to "rock music" or something close to it?
> and what is meant by
> "crap"? -
"Crap" is a word known to most native English speakers.
> it may seem obvious but it's not
Apparently not to you.
> - both terms are ill-defined to
> the point that there is no sense to that statement beyond " ... well, you
> know what I mean ..."), but, second, are inarguable because they are value
> judgements and cannot be verified objectively.
Exactly.
> This is not the same thing as
> saying that values don't exist at all. They just don't exist on any
> verifiable level that is subject to analysis. If I say "Hamlet is crap",
the
> correct response is not "no, it isn't", but "what do you mean by that?".
Really? I would expect you to assert the correct questions would be "what
is Hamlet?" and "what is crap?"
> If,
> however, I say, so-and-so's performance of Hamlet was crappy because he
> forgot so many of the lines that the narrative thread was lost, that still
> doesn't mean much more than the first statement, but it's at least closer
to
> having some meaning because the implication is that saying the lines is
> necessary for a good performance. If, though, I say,"I don't like Hamlet",
> it means exactly that I don't like Hamlet and says absolutely nothing
about
> the play.
> When Mr. Harrington says, however, "All rock is crap" he may be saying one
> of two or three things, and it appears that he's trying to say all of
them:
> "I don't like any rock music", "I don't think rock music has any quality",
> and "Rock music has no quality". And they're three different things that
> are, really, unrelated. The first is about his likes and dislikes, the
> second is about his (own) opinion of rock music's quality (or value, if
you
> prefer), the third is about the universal quality or value contained in
rock
> music, and if it's universal, it can be verified by some indendent
criteria
indendent?
> other than the sum total of the opinions of people that know about the
field
> (of music). Now, if he's saying the first thing, no dispute; if he's
saying
> the second thing, then the followup question is "what do you mean?" or,
more
> to the point, "by what personal criteria do you evaluate rock music to
> arrive at this conclusion?" - but a meaningful answer could be obtained
(it
> would be so generalized and probably not be tremendously informative, but
> would have meaning). But the third assertion just doesn't make sense, at
> least to me, unless it's shorthand for saying "In the opinions of people
who
> know about music, all rock is without quality or value". This still makes
it
> incumbent for some sort of citation; I for one don't accept argument from
> authority as a basis for much of anything, and in the absence of some
> knowledge that Mr. Harrington knows about the opinions of people who know
> about music, his statement carries no weight and no meaning.
I have never claimed my opinions to be anything other than subjective.
> It's easy to dismiss this type of criticism as "De Gustibus Non Est
> Disputandum", but for Mr. Harrington, there's actually quite a bit of
> Disputandum, so much that I wouldn't be surprised if he preferred
> disagreement and argument to discussion that may arrive at a point of
> agreement or mutual edification.
I have never disputed any issue of taste.
John
John Harrington
> John Harrington wrote:
>
> > > Except that every time someone comes up with something that might be a
> > > or the distinction (trying to do your homework for you), it's quickly
> > > shown to be present in non-rock music as well, such as 4/4 time, or
> > > electric guitars, or whatever.
> >
> > Exactly. And yet meaningful distinctions exist, since in every case
rock
> > can be told from classical without a peek at the program notes
>
> So it's maybe the venue?
It's the genre.
> > > BTW is Billy Joel's "Piano Man" a rock song? Is Paul Simon's
"Graceland"
> > > a rock song?
> >
> > In both cases, those songs are instantly distinguishable from classical
> > music. Rock music overlaps many genres, and those that are close to
rock
> > are crap, too. Rock does not overlap classical music. At all.
>
> I didn't ask you whether those songs are classical. I asked you whether
> they are rock. Are those two songs rock, or are they not rock?
I would not deny they're rock. They're close enough to be crap.
> For extra credit, you may tell us whether Mr. Joels' album of Chopiniana
> is classical.
My mother-in-law has it, and made a point of playing it for me, and I would
say yes, it is definitely classical.
> (I haven't heard any of it; it wasn't included in *Movin'
> Out*.)
John
Mike Coldewey
> "Mike Coldewey" <No_Spam4m...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bj4rv7$o...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> > It seems to me that there are some people that appear to equate three
> > classes of things: things that they like, things that they think are in
> good
> > taste, and things that the world or other people think are in good taste
> or
> > of high quality. I try not to because that way I never get caught trying
> to
> > assert that my opinion of quality is the same as my likes and dislikes,
> and
> > that either one of them is related to the opinions of other people.
> > For example, I don't particularly like Hamlet. I do, however, think that
> > it's a very great work, and apparently others think this way as well.
>
> So what you're saying is that Hamlet is great, despite the fact that you
> don't like it. Weird.
But, in my experience, not unusual. I would bet that not everyone likes
every great work of art in equal measure, but there's a lot to be said for
differentiating one's pleasure derived from a work of art from one's opinion
of its quality. Right now I can't stand to hear Beethoven's 9th - but that
will probably change. It's not an uncommon occurence for people to dislike
Rite of Spring the first time and then suddenly or slowly grow to love it.
And then to dislike it. I go back and forth about Schubert's 9th myself. But
its value is not related to how well that person likes or dislikes it - and
all I'm doing is making the distinction because I find it very useful.
Others may not.
>
> > I
> > feel the same way about the Rite of Spring and Beethoven's 9th Symphony.
> On
> > the other hand, I really like some works by Hindemith, but would never
> > elevate them to the same level as those of Stravinsky - I would always
> > concede that Stravinsky is, somehow, a "greater" composer - I just don't
> > like his stuff.
>
> So you assign value where there is none. Why?
I differentiate between "what I like" and "what I think is of high value".
They sometimes coincide and sometimes they don't. Personally, for example, I
really dislike the music of the Rolling Stones, as well as the music of
Wagner. I think that they are both, high-quality examples of their genres.
By the flip side of the same token, I really like some music that I don't
think is of high quality. It gives me pleasure to hear it. I like some
movies that I think are crap (whoops!) and dislike some movies that I think
are high quality.
>
> > But I would never say his music is worthless just because of
> > that. And I would never say that Hamlet is not a great play merely
> because,
> > by my own opinion of what makes a great play, it didn't fit my criteria.
> > It appears that Mr. Harrington seems to be making assertions ("... Rock
is
> > crap ...") that are, first, undefined (what is "Rock"
>
> You can't be serious. Are you telling me you can't tell when you're
> listening to "rock music" or something close to it?
>
I don't think that's what I said. I know when I am. I'm saying that, since
you're the person saying that rock is crap, I don't know what you classify
as rock. It may be that I'm not the only one that could use some more
definition on this matter.
> > and what is meant by
> > "crap"? -
>
> "Crap" is a word known to most native English speakers.
But I don't know what YOU mean by it in regards to "some music that you
label as rock".
>
> > it may seem obvious but it's not
>
> Apparently not to you.
Exactly. I don't think it's a lot to ask for you to define your terms more
precisely. "Crap" isn't probably too hard to figure out, but it wouldn't
hurt to be more precise, since it's a multi-layered metaphor - do you mean
that rock music, like fertilizer, furnishes nutrients to the planted fields
of our creative musical endeavors, or that it is a waste product of our
consumer age, or that it is brown and smelly, or that it is hard to discern
a regular shape because it's so malleable, or .... just useless and devoid
of value, to be disposed of and avoided because it's universally unpleasant.
But what anybody (especially you) means by "rock music" is, to me, not
obvious. To me, like crap, much rock music seems to stink less after it gets
old.
>
> > - both terms are ill-defined to
> > the point that there is no sense to that statement beyond " ... well,
you
> > know what I mean ..."), but, second, are inarguable because they are
value
> > judgements and cannot be verified objectively.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > This is not the same thing as
> > saying that values don't exist at all. They just don't exist on any
> > verifiable level that is subject to analysis. If I say "Hamlet is crap",
> the
> > correct response is not "no, it isn't", but "what do you mean by that?".
>
> Really? I would expect you to assert the correct questions would be "what
> is Hamlet?" and "what is crap?"
Yes, I think those questions would follow. I would then need to define my
terms. "Hamlet" is easier to define than "rock music". I think if I were to
say that "is crap" is equivalent to "has no merit or value"
independent.
>
> > other than the sum total of the opinions of people that know about the
> field
> > (of music). Now, if he's saying the first thing, no dispute; if he's
> saying
> > the second thing, then the followup question is "what do you mean?" or,
> more
> > to the point, "by what personal criteria do you evaluate rock music to
> > arrive at this conclusion?" - but a meaningful answer could be obtained
> (it
> > would be so generalized and probably not be tremendously informative,
but
> > would have meaning). But the third assertion just doesn't make sense, at
> > least to me, unless it's shorthand for saying "In the opinions of people
> who
> > know about music, all rock is without quality or value". This still
makes
> it
> > incumbent for some sort of citation; I for one don't accept argument
from
> > authority as a basis for much of anything, and in the absence of some
> > knowledge that Mr. Harrington knows about the opinions of people who
know
> > about music, his statement carries no weight and no meaning.
>
> I have never claimed my opinions to be anything other than subjective.
Is the phrase "rock is crap" purely your opinion? Is it the equivalent of
"In my opinion, rock is crap"? And, to you is there a semantic difference at
all - a difference in meaning intended and conveyed - between the two
sentences? There's a big difference to me - if I say "In my opinion, the
music of Yanni is crap" I'm saying something very different from "The music
of Yanni is crap". They may both be true, and to a lot of people, it may be
a distinction without a difference, but not to me.
It may be that we disagree about the distinctions between "what one likes",
"what one thinks is of high and low value", and "the percieved intrinsic
value of a work of art as agreed on by a large number of people". If you
were to accept the distinctions, where would you put your statement? Are you
saying "I don't like the music I classify as rock", or are you saying "I
don't think that rock has any value, based on what I think is good and bad
music", or are you saying "Intrinsically, rock has no merit whatsoever". If
it's the third thing, then, assuming that you won't live forever, what basis
can the rest of us evaluate a new piece of music to determine if it's rock
music, and therefore merit-free, after you're gone?
>
> > It's easy to dismiss this type of criticism as "De Gustibus Non Est
> > Disputandum", but for Mr. Harrington, there's actually quite a bit of
> > Disputandum, so much that I wouldn't be surprised if he preferred
> > disagreement and argument to discussion that may arrive at a point of
> > agreement or mutual edification.
>
> I have never disputed any issue of taste.
>
I haven't either. How do you differentiate "this is what I like" from "this
is good stuff"? I love potato chips, but I won't eat 'em (well, almost
never) because they're bad for me.
It seems to me that many of the worthwhile discussions on this newsgroups
are centered around issues of taste. What I tried to communicate is that,
for me, taste, opinion and value are different things.
Mike
Ryan Tanaka
Radiohead, Gorillaz,...as much as their music is made of a joke I
think Linkin Park would be quite listenable if they got rid of their
whiny lyrics.
Amon Tobin, Squarepusher, +various electronic musicians
Aesop Rock -best rap I've heard so far, which is to say, not much.
Electro-pop music might become one of the genres that bridges the gap
between "music" and "noise" (as quoted from John Cage) in the pop
realm, which could potentially spark more interest in New Music.
I sometimes go in listening sprees; basically listening to random
songs on sites like mp3.com or ampcast.com. Most of the songs range
in the poop->medeocre category, but there's usually at least 1 or 2
unique aspects of the music if nothing else...which I can steal ideas
from. Thank god I'm in control of the length of time I have to
listen!
> My heart is given to classical music, but
> I think that it is very interesting that in
> genres that have quite a different aesthetic,
> I can like some things very much.
>
> So I'm curious to know in general: if you are the
> kind of person who really responds to the
> classical aesthetic---with its particular use of
> subtlety and power, its way of employing or
> avoiding repetition, its notion of what's tasteful
> and what's "over the top", all areas in which
> classical and pop can differ tremendously---which
> rock and pop music can you enjoy?
>
> I really like much Sting. For example, I just
> listened to "The Soul Cages" today and found that
> it is a moving and expressive work of art.
>
> I like Led Zeppelin. In fact, when someone mentions
> the word "funky," I usually think of (1) Led Zeppelin,
> (2) J.S. Bach. They have a relation, really. Led
> Zeppelin makes great phrase shapes, too.
>
> And of course, the Beatles have something special going
> on.
>
> I like some soft rock singers such as Clair Marlo and
> Kristin Banks (you can find some of their stuff on
> mp3.com).
>
> What else? It is particularly intersting to me to
> hear from some stuffy old professor who secretly puts on
> Tori Amos and dances in his closet. ;)
>
> Regards,
> Mike
grantco
> In article <3F5475F...@bigfoot.com>,
> Nicolai P. Zwar <NPZ...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >playing on MTV or the radio -- even some songs by Michael Jackson or
> >Madonna -- though I seldom actually go out of my way to purchase them.
>
> I've never gone out of my way to seek out pop at all. Never had to.
> It's so ubiquitous, it finds me, sooner or later.
Unfortunately the good (or at least interesting and uncommercial) rock
music does not find the listener not looking for it. There's a whole
great catalog of unique and interesting rock music which is not
usually heard by the average person unless they intentionally search
it out.
Its like one believing that Kenny G stands for great jazz as much as
Limp Bisquit stands for great rock. The best is of course less popular
and usually more interesting and original...