On May 18, 3:55 pm, poisoned rose <
pros...@poissonedrose.com> wrote:
> The Bloomfield Buddy <
Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > It seems to me like you judge a lot of music "on principle" by sheer
> > > > > factual details, such as year of release, race, instruments included,
> > > > > whether it was popular, apparent genre, etc.
>
> > > > Not one of those details has ANY bearing on whether or not I like a
> > > > record.
>
> > > Ridiculous disingenuousness and/or lack of self-awareness.
>
> > Year of release - 1956 is my favorite year for music, but there are
> > also some of the worst records ever made that come from that year.
> > Things like "Garden Of Eden" by Joe Valino, and a whole host of shitty
> > pop covers of R&B and rock and roll.
>
> And if you're presented with almost anything from the past 30 years,
> you're predisposed to scorn it and all you want to know is whether it
> sounds like music "50 or 60 years old." Furthermore, you think I should
> be rejecting music just based on the musicians being younger than me.
I've heard enough of modern music to know I'm not gonna like hardly
anything from this era.
.
> Race - I can't stand records by Leslie Uggams, Herb Jefferies, Mel
> > Carter, Clint Holmes, and scores of other black acts.
>
> And you voice musical judgments based on race on an almost daily basis.
My judgments have nothing to do with what I like. As I've said several
times already, I have a problem with people who (virtually) only like
white music,
> The rest of your reply is more of the same. You also contradicted
> yourself...first saying none of those variables has "ANY bearing" on
> your opinion and then defending the ways they DO influence your opinions.
>
> You also have this pattern of denying things by citing tiny contrary
> examples. If you accused me of liking little beyond "white" music and I
> responded with "Hey, I like Public Enemy," that wouldn't be much of a
> counterargument, would it? But this is the sort of weak reasoning you
> frequently use.
>
> Anyway, I don't think you're really getting my top point. I was talking
> about you judging music "on principle." It's like you've pledged to this
> fierce crusade about what music is good and what music is bad, and any
> fresh music you hear has to fight its way past these "laws" you've set
> up for yourself.
By "fresh music" do you mean current music, or just music that I have
not heard before? Either way, yes, I am 55 years old and have
already identified in my mind what styles of music I like, and which I
don't like. As have you. You clearly are not interested much in music
from before the 60s, and you ckearly have no interest in the type of
music that was in the thread I started about Bob's radio show. I;m
sure every song on that list would be "fresh" to you, but I don't
think you have any interest in hearing any of them, do you?
> It's like the difference between me preaching about the superiority of
> "white rock" (which I don't do) and me just endorsing a bunch of acts
> that turn out to be white rockers. With me, the music comes first. With
> you, it seems like the rule does. For you, it's a "defeat" to have an
> opinion about a piece of music that violates your overall agenda. So,
> for the sake of your cause, you contort yourself into bizarre shapes and
> do things like impossibly claim your mind doesn't hear any lyrics, slam
> modern music you've never heard, etc.
My mind "hears" lyrics, I can cite the lyrics to thousands of songs. I
just don't process what those lyrics are trying to get across, I
memorize them phonetically, the same way I would memorize the sounds
of the instruments in an instrumental like "Green Onions."
I can recite the lyrics to several songs that are sung in other
languages that I don't inderstand, like "Nel Blu Di Pinto Di Blu" by
Domenico Modugno or "Sukiyaka" by Kyo Sakamoto. I;ve NEVER claimed to
not "hear" lyrics, I just don't process them as words and think about
what they mean.