Noise pollution (flame)
p. chrzanowski
I didn't much care for pop music when I was a teen, and I still don't.
I am FED UP with having others musical preferences forced on me.
This flame is about *NOISE* :
* At work * Around here people play portable radios, car radios with
12v. power supplies, home stereos, etc. in offices and labs.
Most turn it down when asked -- but (1) I really don't want it
down, I want it OFF, and (2) I'm fed up with constantly
having to ask.
* At play * Around here, all the city owned swimming pools are
equipped with metal horn loudspeakers -- the better to
blare top 40 MOR music with. The park district people
respond "but most people using the pools like it".
Maybe so, but it is my pool too - I pay taxes to
maintain and operate it.
* At home * My city gov't thinks it's a great idea to allow
the merchants assoc. to hire rock bands to play in
city parking lots -- LOUD, you can hear it over a
mile away. I don't LIKE being forced out of my home
by city hall.
Joseph M. Dakes
> I am FED UP with having others musical preferences forced on me.
Are you suggesting that you want your musical preferences forced on others?
> * At play * Around here, all the city owned swimming pools are
> equipped with metal horn loudspeakers -- the better to
> blare top 40 MOR music with. The park district people
> respond "but most people using the pools like it".
> Maybe so, but it is my pool too - I pay taxes to
> maintain and operate it.
Big whoop! So do the other people that use the pool. Remember this is a
democracy, majority rules. If you don't like it move somewhere else.
> * At home * My city gov't thinks it's a great idea to allow
> the merchants assoc. to hire rock bands to play in
> city parking lots -- LOUD, you can hear it over a
> mile away. I don't LIKE being forced out of my home
> by city hall.
It is a great idea. It gives kids something to do and it keeps them amused.
And again here, its a democracy. If you don't like it vote for other
city leaders.
Joseph M. Dakes
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Reading, PA
rduxb!jmd
Dewayne Perry
I think that you might want to go a bit easy on the "majority rules"
stuff. The complaint is similar to objecting to inhaling the results of
other peoples health-destroying habits. The minorities have rights
to be protected from incursions by the majority.
Whatever you want to do to yourself in private is fine by me, but
when it affects someone else, the matter becomes radically more
complicated.
By the way, the original flame implied nothing about inflicting his
own preferences on other people, merely being very tired of being
constantly afflicted by something he did not care for.
Noise polution is as bad as air polution.
What is wrong with a little peace and quiet - Dewayne Perry
David Elliott
>> I didn't much care for pop music when I was a teen, and I still don't.
>> I am FED UP with having others musical preferences forced on me.
>
>Are you suggesting that you want your musical preferences forced on others?
>
If he didn't say that, you can assume that he isn't suugesting it. There
is nothing wrong with saying "I don't like people forcing their tastes
on me".
>> * At play * Around here, all the city owned swimming pools are
>> equipped with metal horn loudspeakers -- the better to
>> blare top 40 MOR music with. The park district people
>> respond "but most people using the pools like it".
>> Maybe so, but it is my pool too - I pay taxes to
>> maintain and operate it.
>
>Big whoop! So do the other people that use the pool. Remember this is a
>democracy, majority rules. If you don't like it move somewhere else.
>
There are cities in this country that would disagree with you. When I
was in college, the city had a noise ordinance. You could get arrested
for being too loud.
People have the right to happiness, and happiness includes quiet. Isn't
disturbing the peace still illegal in many places?
>> * At home * My city gov't thinks it's a great idea to allow
>> the merchants assoc. to hire rock bands to play in
>> city parking lots -- LOUD, you can hear it over a
>> mile away. I don't LIKE being forced out of my home
>> by city hall.
>
>It is a great idea. It gives kids something to do and it keeps them amused.
>And again here, its a democracy. If you don't like it vote for other
>city leaders.
There's no democracy involved here at all. Cities don't hold elections to
say "let's let rock bands play in parking lots". I agree that the idea is
not a bad one. It does keep kids off the streets and out of the way of
other people, but you can do the same thing by having free or cheap indoor
concerts.
You keep saying "if you don't like the way things are, vote to change them".
I don't know about your city, but it takes 4 years to get rid of a marginally
bad president and various other offices. At best, you can elect new city
officials once every two years. An official has to be pretty criminal to be
thrown out before his term of office is up.
How can it be a democracy if the problems we have now can't get solved for
two years.
Now, if YOU want to allow me to come over to your house and play the
Residents' "Not Available" through a 200-watt P.A. system, then send me
some money. I show you something about forcing musical preferences on
someone.
>
> Joseph M. Dakes
> AT&T Bell Laboratories
> Reading, PA
> rduxb!jmd
David Elliott
j...@alice.uucp
the "majority rules" article. My own reaction to that
same article was disgust, in fact I was disgusted enough to
not reply for fear of flaming, at least initially.
The writer of the "majority rules" article made several completely
unjustified statements, among them the completely false statement
that the writer of the noise polution article was trying to impose
his (or her) own preferences upon the general population.
In addition, the style of writing, and the use of language,
was deliberately emotional, clearly seeking to belittle
the original writer without mercy or consideration,
and seemed to me to show a total
lack of understanding of the initial complaint, as well as
a total (and quite selfish) disregard for the original poster.
One of the most significant problems of the modern day
United States is the compulsion (some call it, perhaps
justifiably, "tyranny") of the majority. This compulsion
is evident in music, popular entertainment, and most of all, in television
programming.
This sort of compulsion has been spreading in influence for
quite a while, and it is clear that at some point the rights of
the individual must be defended, if the individual is to have
any right to opinions/actions/preferences that differ from the
majority's. The second writer's attitudes show no understanding
of that problem, and in fact actively worsen the problem by
belittling the writer who goes against the popular trend of
the day.
In the original article, there were three complaints:
The first was involving work, where the use of personal
stereos, etc, was creating a work environment that was
counterproductive from the writer's viewpoint. This interference
with his work environment is detrimental to him, his (or her)
family, and to the company that he works for, hence the problem is
clearly of significant extent, over the long run.
The second poster's total disregard for
the first poster's complaint is simply uncalled for, even if the second
poster feels that the other individuals are being infringed upon
by the first individual's complaints and actions. A more constructive
path would be to for the second writer to point out his or her
beliefs and argue for/using those beliefs.
The second complaint involved a public place, where
the first poster complains about the use of Muzak (tm, by the way)
at a swimming pool. (s)He details the results of a complaint
to the management. While the management's position is supportable,
if they indeed have information to support their position, the
writer is completely justified in asking for a change. If, of course,
the management is PRESUMING that the "noise" is justified, then
the writer may have more complaint than is clear from the
posting. The second writer, perhaps predictably, makes an emotional
point that seems mostly devoid of meaning.
FINALLY: THE THIRD COMPLAINT:
The third complaint involves the INVASION of the
writer's property. It's clear to me that this involves
the abridgement of the writer's constitutional right
to self-determination and happiness. I simply cannot understand
why the second poster can even pretend that the writer of the
first posting is unreasonable, since the rock concerts are
affecting the individual's actions and well-being inside of
his (her) own home. While it is well withing my imagination
to conceive of a person who is overly sensitive to the
sounds that penetrate his (her) dwelling, I can, and will not,
assume that such is the case. The second writer writes from the
presumtion that anyone complaining about noise from outside the home
must be unjustified. As any city dweller knows, that presumtion
is simply false.
I contend that this exchange is a clear, and relatively noise-free
demonstration of the abuse of a public forum, i.e. nutnoise, or
netnews, as it is commonly known by. I am compelled by honesty
to point out that this exhange is by NO MEANS THE WORST SUCH
example. I am using it because, and ONLY because, the
path of discussion and rhetoric is clear.
Many individuals have asked why questions of substance are
rarely argued, and this exchange shows that whenever questions
of substance are raised, the destructive, ad hominem attacks
from other "participants" so pollute the ?pages? that serious
discussion is essentially prohibited by the resulting emotional
upheavals.
NUTNEWS: Clean up or give up.
--
SUPPORT SECULAR TEDDY-BEAR-ISM.
"From the cradle to the grave, from the cradle to the grave..."
(ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
Baker
> > I am FED UP with having others musical preferences forced on me.
>
> Are you suggesting that you want your musical preferences forced on others?
>
> > * At play * Around here, all the city owned swimming pools are
> > equipped with metal horn loudspeakers -- the better to
> > blare top 40 MOR music with. The park district people
> > respond "but most people using the pools like it".
> > Maybe so, but it is my pool too - I pay taxes to
> > maintain and operate it.
>
> Big whoop! So do the other people that use the pool. Remember this is a
> democracy, majority rules. If you don't like it move somewhere else.
So being a democracy (subject for another chain of flames) entitles the
majority to force itself on minorities does it? Interesting. I would
also be interested in knowing the democratic process used to decide to
install music playing equipment. Was it voted for by the pool users do
you think? Personally, I would recommend the original poster to take
some wirecutters with him to the pool next time.
> > * At home * My city gov't thinks it's a great idea to allow
> > the merchants assoc. to hire rock bands to play in
> > city parking lots -- LOUD, you can hear it over a
> > mile away. I don't LIKE being forced out of my home
> > by city hall.
>
> It is a great idea. It gives kids something to do and it keeps them amused.
> And again here, its a democracy. If you don't like it vote for other
> city leaders.
And again here, I doubt if anyone voted for rock music in city parking
lots. It is interesting to note that the merchants don't pay bands to
play in their parking lots, I guess that would drive too many customers
away.
It is a great pity the constitution doesn't guarantee a few useful things
like freedom FROM religion and freedom FROM the pursuit of other peoples'
happiness, but then what can you expect from a bunch of slaveowners anyway.
Just so that nobody points their flamethrowers in the wrong direction, please
note that I am not the original poster, who probably has things of his own to
say. However, I do agree with him. I also object to loud music from cars
and ghetto blasters.
Paul Wilcox-Baker.
M.RINDSBERG
> > > I am FED UP with having others musical preferences forced on me.
> > Are you suggesting that you want your musical preferences forced on others?
> > > * At play * Around here, all the city owned swimming pools are
> > > equipped with metal horn loudspeakers -- the better to
> > > blare top 40 MOR music with. The park district people
> > > respond "but most people using the pools like it".
> > > Maybe so, but it is my pool too - I pay taxes to
> > > maintain and operate it.
> > Big whoop! So do the other people that use the pool. Remember this is a
> > democracy, majority rules. If you don't like it move somewhere else.
> So being a democracy (subject for another chain of flames) entitles the
> majority to force itself on minorities does it? Interesting. I would
> also be interested in knowing the democratic process used to decide to
> install music playing equipment. Was it voted for by the pool users do
Do you vote for individual actions of the congress, or do you vote for
the congresspeople to represent you.
> you think? Personally, I would recommend the original poster to take
> some wirecutters with him to the pool next time.
THIS is against the law.
> > > * At home * My city gov't thinks it's a great idea to allow
==========----+
|
The city gov't which you and your neighbors voted for.
c...@lanl.arpa
>
> What is wrong with a little peace and quiet - Dewayne Perry
I'm convinced that many (if not most) of the people I see (and hear!)
are as afraid of silence as most seem to be of darkness.
I couldn't agree more -- The old saying that "Your rights end at the
tip of my nose" applies at least as much to my eardrums.
If you want to run the streets naked, knock your self out; I don't
have to look at you. But when you walk/drive the streets with your
stereo turned up to the threshold of pain, I *will* hear it no matter
how hard I try not to. If you want to ruin *your* ears, that is your
business but I'm damned if I want you to ruin *mine*. The same thing,
obviously, applies to loud exhaust systems on vehicles.
--
All opinions are mine alone...
Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
c...@lanl.arpa
WILLIAMS
> The first was involving work, where the use of personal
> stereos, etc, was creating a work environment that was
> counterproductive from the writer's viewpoint. This interference
From *the writer's* viewpoint! How about this: The ten other
people enjoying the music are doing their work at a somewhat
higher efficiency since they are fighting boredom via the music.
One guy is affected negatively. So it seems to me that "The Co."
is better off WITH music.
> with his work environment is detrimental to him, his (or her)
> family, and to the company that he works for, hence the problem is
> clearly of significant extent, over the long run.
Detrimental to his family too? So he doesn't like music
and goes home and beats the wife and kids? :-)
> posting. The second writer, perhaps predictably, makes an emotional
> point that seems mostly devoid of meaning.
See final paragraph in this posting!
> first posting is unreasonable, since the rock concerts are
> affecting the individual's actions and well-being inside of
> his (her) own home. ...
I think that once again society as a whole is better
off by having a night with a neighborhood rock concert with
something for several hundred kids to do vs. having a quiet
night for one guy who doesn't like it. Shouldn't the rule be
to do whatever is better for society AS A WHOLE? I think it's
kind of a neat idea.
Now about the people who complain about poor logic:
Sure, it's very easy to point out fallacious reasoning and
invalid logic (emotional statements, personal attacks, hasty
generalizations, etc.) in most any argument except those
very carefully planned and executed. But here in net.flame
it's standard operational procedure to get a little hot and
do some name-calling. It'd be so dry reading perfectly logical
arguments, and not much fun either. I like it just the way it
is!
1
1 1
1 2 1 Doug Williams
1 3 3 1 AT&T Bell Labs
1 4 6 4 1 Reading, PA
1 5 10 10 5 1 mhuxt!rduxb!daw1
1 6 15 20 15 6 1
PS: The first person to point out all ten logic errors in my posting
wins a free 1986 Corvette (wiper blade refill). Hah!
Paul Hahn
>> I am FED UP with having others musical preferences forced on me.
>
>Are you suggesting that you want your musical preferences forced on others?
I don't think he is, unless you want to call silence music.
(No, I don't want to get into a discussion about John Cage.)
>> * At play * Around here, all the city owned swimming pools are
>> equipped with metal horn loudspeakers -- the better to
>> blare top 40 MOR music with. The park district people
>> respond "but most people using the pools like it".
>> Maybe so, but it is my pool too - I pay taxes to
>> maintain and operate it.
>
>Big whoop! So do the other people that use the pool. Remember this is a
>democracy, majority rules. If you don't like it move somewhere else.
>
>> * At home * My city gov't thinks it's a great idea to allow
>> the merchants assoc. to hire rock bands to play in
>> city parking lots -- LOUD, you can hear it over a
>> mile away. I don't LIKE being forced out of my home
>> by city hall.
>
>It is a great idea. It gives kids something to do and it keeps them amused.
>And again here, its a democracy. If you don't like it vote for other
>city leaders.
Does your idea of democracy state that if 51% of us decide
to infringe on the rights of the other 49% that is all fine and
dandy? "Majority rule" should not be absolute by any means.
--pH
/*
* "What you mean `we', paleface?"
*/
Dataspan Inc
Tolerating other people's annoying faults is what public means...
Fran Liebowitz (sp)?
Why work up such a stink about popular music. Instead, put your energy
into hating the musical equivalent of velvet Elvis posters...background music!!
Delivered fresh to your local (elevator, lobby, restaurant, retail store..)
business via the SCA of an FM station. I just purchased an SCA receiver for
a client who receives UNC football and his ABC Contemporary Radio feeds
via SCA, and you wouldn't believe how paranoid the receiver manufacturers
are about background music piracy (they must be joking, arent they??)...
Anyway, I got to thinking about background music once again during all
this, walked in my local Burger King yesterday only to hear a fine rendition
of "Every Little Thing She Does is Magic" and "All She Wants to Do is Dance"
by the Phenobarbitol Philharmonic, Valium Quaalude, Conductor. Talk about
an invasion of privacy? MUZAK (tm) actually makes "behavioural modification"
claims for their brand of background music. Their tunes are precisely
selected for tempo, spectral composition, length, etc. to increase worker
productivity and the "urge to purchase." MUZAK is also scientifically blended
so that average persons would not tend to listen to it.
However, this Burger King (the one which tests the dielectric absorption
of every cheeseburger) had an "inferior" background music. One which was
cranked LOUD and sounded HORRIBLE. Why should the public be subjected to
large amounts of hiss, 10% THD, severe crossover distortion, the annoying
"splat" of an SCA carrier muting which isn't adjusted correctly, and a
narrowband signal which is worse than AM ? I get particularly p**ed off
when I hear some mellow song (like Dan Fogelberg) which has been remixed
for the Buick Estate Wagon crowd. Why should an intimate dinner with my
spouse at a fine restaurant be interrupted by an SCA receiver which can't
distinguish between the neon "Beer" sign at the 7-Eleven down the street, and
the 67 kHz signal from the station?
When you are in your favourite establishment, you can tell Muzak
brand background music (oops, stimulus progression) by the fact that they
break for 90 seconds on the quarter hours. Listen, as the local chatter
level in the establishment rises at least 10-15 dB after these breaks.
WHY DON'T BACKGROUND MUSIC VENDORS USE RECORDINGS OF THE GREAT CLASSICAL
REPERTOIE or, for that matter, jazz and the original rock 'n roll/country/soul
songs which they rip off anyway? Broadcast with DBX noise reduction ,
and deliver background music without severe compression and
peak limiting.
Rock and roll bands in city parks are transient affairs. Houses in the
country are made just for people who can't stand noisy neighbours, and there
are private swim clubs where Dee Snider isn't cranked to 110 dBA. However,
unless one can afford the luxury of several personal servants and wants to
stay inside a Sonex-padded room forever, you have to endure (or be manipulated
by) background music.
Now...about people who expect me to work when a 60 Hz hum is roaring
from an about-to-be-smoked fluorescent lamp ballast....grrrrr
David Anthony
DataSpan, Inc
Dan Bidinger
if this country was run by 'majority rules' then there would be no such
thing as the U. S. Senate.
Art Winterbauer
>> I am FED UP with having others musical preferences forced on me.
>
>Are you suggesting that you want your musical preferences forced on others?
I think he was merely suggesting that he is sick and tired of having pushy
cretins force-feed their noisy tripe onto his ear-pans, my friend.
>
And in reply to the complaint about music being broadcast at a local
swimming pool....
>
>Big whoop! So do the other people that use the pool. Remember this is a
>democracy, majority rules. If you don't like it move somewhere else.
>
>> .... I don't LIKE being forced out of my home
>> by city hall.
>
>It is a great idea. It gives kids something to do and it keeps them amused.
>And again here, its a democracy. If you don't like it vote for other
>city leaders.
>
> Joseph M. Dakes
> AT&T Bell Laboratories
> Reading, PA
> rduxb!jmd
You sound like the good ol' boys down in Mississippi when blacks
complained a few years back about racial discrimination. "Well, why
don'tchall just go somewhere else, then?" Cheeze, these airheads
now come in stereo, and at 80 db!
Art
j...@alice.uucp
NUT.FLAME.
This has been hashed over and over again, if you want to
flame, RE-ADDRESS the <intercoursing> note!
And keep it out of net.music.classical, goddamnit.
P.S. I DO have the right to not be invaded by other's music,
and you'd better accept it, or somebody will call you, someday.
JJ
--
SUPPORT SECULAR TEDDY-BEAR-ISM.
"... who stole the keeshka, someone call the cops!"
(ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
Joseph M. Dakes
> was in college, the city had a noise ordinance. You could get arrested
> for being too loud.
>
> People have the right to happiness, and happiness includes quiet. Isn't
> disturbing the peace still illegal in many places?
Well obviously the city from which the original poster lives doesn't have
a noise ordinance or turned their back on it for one night to allow the
band to play. He did say the city council sponsered it:
> >> * At home * My city gov't thinks it's a great idea to allow
> >> the merchants assoc. to hire rock bands to play in
> >> city parking lots -- LOUD, you can hear it over a
> >> mile away. I don't LIKE being forced out of my home
> >> by city hall.
> You keep saying "if you don't like the way things are, vote to change them".
> I don't know about your city, but it takes 4 years to get rid of a marginally
> bad president and various other offices. At best, you can elect new city
> officials once every two years. An official has to be pretty criminal to be
> thrown out before his term of office is up.
> How can it be a democracy if the problems we have now can't get solved for
> two years.
Well, who voted for them in the first place? The majority, perhaps?
> Now, if YOU want to allow me to come over to your house and play the
> Residents' "Not Available" through a 200-watt P.A. system, then send me
> some money. I show you something about forcing musical preferences on
> someone.
Thanx, but no thanx. Me and my roommate's 300W PA are quite adequate. Ask
our neighbors...ask their neighbors...ask their...:-)
> David Elliott
Todd Jones
But I too am FED UP with having others musical preferences forced on me.
>
> I didn't much care for pop music when I was a teen, and I still don't.
> I am FED UP with having others musical preferences forced on me.
>
> This flame is about *NOISE* :
>
> * At work * Around here people play portable radios, car radios with
> 12v. power supplies, home stereos, etc. in offices and labs.
> Most turn it down when asked -- but (1) I really don't want it
> down, I want it OFF, and (2) I'm fed up with constantly
> having to ask.
> * At play * Around here, all the city owned swimming pools are
> equipped with metal horn loudspeakers -- the better to
> blare top 40 MOR music with. The park district people
> respond "but most people using the pools like it".
> Maybe so, but it is my pool too - I pay taxes to
> maintain and operate it.
Don't forget:
* Boom Boxes * Designed to offend those whose musical tastes vary
from the boom boxer.
* Muzak while being put on hold * This is this ultimate piss-off.
When I am holding, I hate listening to two-hundred bored
musical never-beens butchering a Lennon/McCartney tune.
There's more, too
-todd jones
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
Jeff Winslow
> Tolerating other people's annoying faults is what public means...
> Fran Liebowitz (sp)?
>
> Why work up such a stink about popular music. Instead, put your energy
>into hating the musical equivalent of velvet Elvis posters...background music!
Right on!
> WHY DON'T BACKGROUND MUSIC VENDORS USE RECORDINGS OF THE GREAT CLASSICAL
> REPERTOIE or, for that matter, jazz and the original rock 'n roll/country/soul
> songs which they rip off anyway?
NO, NO, NO! ALL background music is evil! As much as I love, say, Mahler's
6th symphony, I'd probably get indigestion if I tried to listen (I mean
LISTEN) to it at dinner. Music is for listening! Dinner is for eating, and
never the twain should meet (says I).
When I don't want to listen to music I want *silence*!
MUZAK is a communist plot, anyway...
Jeff Winslow
Ron Natalie <ron>
> NUT.FLAME.
>
you are referring to something. "Site" means locate or location.
-Ron
c...@lanl.arpa
> > officials once every two years. An official has to be pretty criminal to be
> > thrown out before his term of office is up.
> > How can it be a democracy if the problems we have now can't get solved for
> > two years.
>
> Well, who voted for them in the first place? The majority, perhaps?
Ah, yes!
But how is one to know the position that a politician will take on
*all* issues until the issue arises?
What if the opponent was vastly worse?
What if the overwhelming majority of citizens present at (eg)
town/county meeting favor one possibility but the council votes the
exact opposite because *they* *"KNOW"* that the *real* majority who
didn't attend the meeting *would* *want* them to?
More specific to the noise polution problem, what fraction of the
public do you think really know how serious a problem it is?
c...@lanl.arpa
There sure is!
Don't forget the twits that play "music" for you when they put you on
*hold* (and over an audio system never intended for music).
And cars & trucks with loud exhaust systems...
And those damnable dirt bikes, especially those with the two stroke
engines...
RIIIINNNNGGGGIIIIDIIIINNNNNGGGGDDIIIIINNNNNNGGGGGDIIIIINNNNGGG
AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
Barth Richards
>Now, if YOU want to allow me to come over to your house and play the
>Residents' "Not Available" through a 200-watt P.A. system, then send me
>some money. I show you something about forcing musical preferences on
>someone.
That would be nice. Could you also bring a copy of The Residents MOLE SHOW
LIVE?
Thanks.
Barth Richards
Tellabs, Inc.
Lisle, IL
"Our time has come, age of the hammerheads
This is our mission, to be the DALEKS
of God"
-Shriekback, "Hammerheads"
from the album OIL AND GOLD
Todd Jones
> into hating the musical equivalent of velvet Elvis posters...background music!!
> Delivered fresh to your local (elevator, lobby, restaurant, retail store..)
Don't forget the lovely dulcet tones we are inundated with when put
on hold. This is the most obnoxious by far!
> Anyway, I got to thinking about background music once again during all
> this, walked in my local Burger King yesterday only to hear a fine rendition
> of "Every Little Thing She Does is Magic" and "All She Wants to Do is Dance"
> by the Phenobarbitol Philharmonic, Valium Quaalude, Conductor. Talk about
> an invasion of privacy? MUZAK (tm) actually makes "behavioural modification"
> claims for their brand of background music.
The literature they give to prospective clients is hilarious! They claim
that the music is arranged in "ascending psychological thrusts" to increase
productivity and sooth raw nerves. I'm not sure what they mean by "APT",
but it sounds perverted to me.
> Their tunes are precisely
> selected for tempo, spectral composition, length, etc. to increase worker
> productivity and the "urge to purchase." MUZAK is also scientifically blended
> so that average persons would not tend to listen to it.
Except for subliminal listening, which brings up another point: This may
be urban folklore, but I am told Muzak (and others) provides a means
of encoding subliminal messages such as "psst, better put that back, pal!
if you're caught stealing it's all over!" for department stores and
"mmm, that looks delicious. go ahead and pig out, but hurry!" for fast
food joints.
> WHY DON'T BACKGROUND MUSIC VENDORS USE RECORDINGS OF THE GREAT CLASSICAL
> REPERTOIE or, for that matter, jazz and the original rock 'n roll/country/soul
> songs which they rip off anyway? Broadcast with DBX noise reduction ,
> and deliver background music without severe compression and
> peak limiting.
Because with the exception of sensitive types like you and me, it is largely
ignorable on a conscious level while it is (allegedly) doing its evil work
of subjugating and propagandizing us like so many Skinner-boxed rats. :-).
> David Anthony
> DataSpan, Inc
It's about d*mn time someone spoke up against this pervasive, evil and
clearly communist-inspired plot to turn our brains into so much oatmeal!
I dare anyone to defend this musical mockery monikered as "Muzak."
|||||||
|| ||
-X O-O X- Todd Jones
\ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd
| ~ |
|___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
Linda Seltzer
> * Muzak while being put on hold * This is this ultimate piss-off.
> When I am holding, I hate listening to two-hundred bored
> musical never-beens butchering a Lennon/McCartney tune.
Any AT&T management people out there who can do something about this?
R.GRANTGES
I'm not 100% sure of this but I believe:
1) Music on hold was invented elsewhere, not by Bell.
2) Choice of music is up to the owner of the PBX equipment.
--
"It's the thought, if any, that counts!" Dick Grantges hound!rfg
Samurai Cat
>>
>> WHY DON'T BACKGROUND MUSIC VENDORS USE RECORDINGS OF THE GREAT CLASSICAL
>> REPERTOIE or, for that matter, jazz and the original rock 'n roll/country/soul
>> songs which they rip off anyway?
>
>NO, NO, NO! ALL background music is evil! As much as I love, say, Mahler's
>6th symphony, I'd probably get indigestion if I tried to listen (I mean
>LISTEN) to it at dinner. Music is for listening! Dinner is for eating, and
>never the twain should meet (says I).
Amen! Picture, if you will, entering a MacDonald's and ordering dinner, only
to get the Mozart Requiem with your fries and Filet-O-Fish(*).
("Dies irae!" <crunch, smack, slurp> "Dies illa!" <chew, chew, gobble, belch>)
I don't think my brain could take the strain.
>
>When I don't want to listen to music I want *silence*!
>
>MUZAK is a communist plot, anyway...
>
> Jeff Winslow
Not Communist, Jeff, but Satanist. Listen to those strings and harps
BACKWARDS some time....
:- Ben.
(*) Filet-O-Fish is a trademark of whoever owns MacDonald's
--
=======
: Ben : ..!decvax!yale!goetter goe...@yale-comix.ARPA
("We are not in the Eighth Dimension. We are over New Jersey.")
R.GRANTGES
When the wife and I were in jolly old england this summer, one of the
culture shocks was classical muzak in the fast food chains. I was so
carried away I even taped some in a wimpies.
rp...@uiucuxa.cso.uiuc.edu
[ O Line-eater, don't mung my text! ]
Probably one of the best ways to isolate yourself from the trash they call
"Muzak" is to invest in a personal stereo. Then you can provide yourself with
the background MUSIC of your choice!
Russell J. Price
{ ihnp4, pur-ee, convex }!uiucdcs!uiucuxa!rp321
rp...@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU
Linda Seltzer
adapts a tune by, for example, the Beatles, or by Stevie Wonder, or by Leonard
Bernstein (West Side Story), then the composer receives a royalty not for
every tape, but for every PERFORMANCE. Each time the recording is played in
any store the composer gets a royalty. Many musicians become
quite wealthy because of the adaptations of their songs.
Linda Seltzer
I want to make clear that I used the above composers' names as an example
and I have no information on whether these particular people have actually
profited from or dealt with Muzak (my citation of Stevie Wonder's music
as an example was probably incorrect).
These are the kinds of people whose songs might be used by Muzak.
Paul W. Karber
Technical correction; When Muzak adapts a tune whoever owns the RIGHTS
to that tune receives a royalty. Thus whenever Muzak plays a tune
adapted from the Beatles, Michael Jackson makes money. Paul McCartney
on the other hand owns the rights to all songs from West Side Story.
--
Of course I could be wrong.
siesmo!rochester!ccice5!ccice2!pwk (Paul W. Karber)
John Slasher Wersan III
>
> > David Anthony
> > DataSpan, Inc
>
> |||||||
> || ||
> -X O-O X- Todd Jones
> \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd
> | ~ |
> |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
Nice graphic
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR AUTOMAG *** <-- Go ahead line-eater...
What's worse is, what is the person who thought up MUZAK(tm.)
thinking of next!?!?!?
THIS SCARES ME!!!!!!!!
I say we start up a ban MUZAK(tm.) petition now!!!!!
Put me down as against MUZAK(tm.)
--
John Wersan
UUCP : {decvax,dual,rocksanne,rocksvax}!sunybcs!daemen!wersan
inhp4!kitty!daemen!wersan
"Any statements made are not mine, this computer has me mistaken
for someone else, of lower intelligence."
"The doctor said I had dain bramage...
But my friends don't know what 'dat shit is"
THE PALE AVENGER
>Technical correction; When Muzak adapts a tune whoever owns the RIGHTS
>to that tune receives a royalty. Thus whenever Muzak plays a tune
>adapted from the Beatles, Michael Jackson makes money. Paul McCartney
>on the other hand owns the rights to all songs from West Side Story.
>Of course I could be wrong.
And I was too! Well only partially. After I posted this I went home
and checked my sources. Michael Jackson only purchased the rights
to Beatle songs published between 63 and 67. In 67 the Beatles formed
Apple records and started keeping the rights to their songs.