Dixie Chicks show why Clear Channel must be broken up
Abelard2
but they could also be applied to the cartels that control the print and video
media as well. We live in a pretty Orwellian environment.
abelard2
the Davidsbündler site
http://members.aol.com/abelard2/dave.htm
Dr.Matt
Yeah, we wouldn't want any artists actually being able to withhold
their wares from non-paying customers, would we! That would be regulation
and government meddling, anti-libretarian and anti-capitalist!
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
"If it's not addressed to my address proper, it may be counted as spam"
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Bill wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> The above facts clearly illustrate how dangerous it is to democracy in the
> U.S. to allow one station, Clear Channel in this case, to have so much
> power. They have the power to have millions of people hear some performers
> and not other performers. Thus they have the power to make and break musical
> careers.
>
<snip>
> Clear Channel must be broken up.
But why single out just one monopoly? Practically ALL the media in
America is owned by a very few entities (most of them of conservative,
pro-establishment leanings). I don't know how they get around the
existing Anti-Trust Laws, which were set in place to AVOID one company
or group of companies monopolizing any sector of the American economy.
(I think that's what was used to break up "Ma Bell", and slap Bill
Gates's fingers - not too successfully.) However, invoking them seems
to be very selective, and legal "double-speak" appears to allow an awful
lot of activity that the average, non-lawyer citizen certainly perceives
as "monopoly", whatever the technical legality of it.
I agree with you - one of the cornerstones of our liberty is "freedom of
the press" (which nowadays includes radio, television and the Internet)
but so long as Americans sit still while their government enacts things
like the "Patriot Acts" (and the media remains largely silent on the
subject), that freedom appears very much in danger. I couldn't care
less about the "Dixie Chicks", and would never listen to them from
choice, any more than I would patronize an "adult" book store, but
that's what "liberty" is all about - the freedom to choose what you will
hear and read. "Without dissent, it's not America"
Thomas Muething
> I couldn't care
> less about the "Dixie Chicks", and would never listen to them from
> choice.
Have you ever listened to them at all?
Thomas
--
"There's just two things in this world that I can't stand. It's people
who are intolerant of other people's culture ... and the Dutch!"
(Michael Caine, in "Austin Powers: Goldmember")
Allen & Linda Tyler
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:
> Bill wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > The above facts clearly illustrate how dangerous it is to democracy in the
> > U.S. to allow one station, Clear Channel in this case, to have so much
> > power. They have the power to have millions of people hear some performers
> > and not other performers. Thus they have the power to make and break musical
> > careers.
> >
> <snip>
>
> > Clear Channel must be broken up.
>
> But why single out just one monopoly? Practically ALL the media in
> America is owned by a very few entities (most of them of conservative,
> pro-establishment leanings).
A. J. Liebling, who many years ago wrote about the press for the New Yorker, once
wrote "The only people who have freedom of the press are the ones who own one."
Very succinct and to the point, and apropos today.
Allen Tyler
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Thomas Muething wrote:
>
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>
> > I couldn't care
> > less about the "Dixie Chicks", and would never listen to them from
> > choice.
>
> Have you ever listened to them at all?
I was forced to when they were on a segment of a news broadcast the
other day. (What I said still stands.) If you had troubled to read the
rest of my post, instead of rushing into a knee-jerk reaction, you
would realize I was defending others' right to hear them. (I might
question the TASTE of those who choose to do so, but never their right.)
David S. Phipps
position of "power" is because their stations just happen to be popular
among the listeners. If they weren't highly rated, they would certainly not
have so many stations or so much power. Such high ratings ONLY come from a
responsive public. Sounds to me like you should be griping about the power
of the listening public. Oops, that's the market isn't it? Hmm, oh well,
sorry, but sometimes "majority rules" is just a bummer.
David Phipps
"Bill" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:b8ahgv$u4h$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> The Dixie Chicks have shown how dangerous it is for the United States
> government to allow one company, Clear Channel, to own so many radio
> stations (something like 1200).
>
> Here's why it is dangerous:
>
> Fact 1: Dixie Chicks make anti-Bush remark in a public forum which gets
> widely publicized.
>
> Fact 2: Clear Channel owns something like 1200 radio stations in the U.S.
>
> Fact 3: the highest Clear Channel execs have strong ties to the Bush
> administration and Clear Channel is based in Texas.
>
> Fact 4: Dixie Chicks rely on many of the stations Clear Channel owns
> (probably close to a hundred if not more) to get people to hear their
songs
> in the hope that some of those people will buy their record. Thus Clear
> Channel can severely hurt the Dixie Chicks financially by refusing to play
> their songs or play them less than they otherwise would if one of the
Dixie
> Chicks had not made the anti-Bush comment.
>
> Fact 5: many Clear Channel stations, unlike the Dixie Chicks, supported
the
> war by holding what were called "support the troops" rallies though the
> purpose was to show support for Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Clear
> Channel has a reputation for strong central control so it's likely these
> pro-war rallies were in some way encouraged by Clear Channel, or at the
very
> least, approved by Clear Channel. No Clear Channel stations held antiwar
> rallies.
>
> The above facts clearly illustrate how dangerous it is to democracy in the
> U.S. to allow one station, Clear Channel in this case, to have so much
> power. They have the power to have millions of people hear some performers
> and not other performers. Thus they have the power to make and break
musical
> careers.
>
> At the same time, they are a political player in that they support those
> politicians that vote in ways that are beneficial to Clear Channel (such
as
> voting to stop any restrictions on the number of stations one company can
> own overall or in one market).
>
> Thus they can easily cause some performers to lose millions in record
sales
> if those performers support causes and politicians that Clear Channel
> doesn't support. Thus if performers don't want this massive financial
loss,
> they have no choice but to either shut up or, better yet, actively support
> things and people that Clear Channel supports.
>
> Thus, because of the incredible power of Clear Channel in making and
braking
> careers, it's in the interests of all performers to show support for
> everything Clear Channel supports. This can include showing support for
> politicians that Clear Channel likes (perhaps this explains Dennis
Miller's
> pro-Bush, pro-war rantings). That support can be vocal and/or financial.
>
> And considering the money these performers make, *each* of those
performers
> in turn has great power to reward politicians and political causes - but
> only if they are ones Clear Channel supports (if they don't want to make
the
> 9,000,000 lb gorilla mad).
>
> There is no way that the Dixie Chicks won't take a massive financial loss
> because of the incredible power of Clear Channel to prevent millions of
> people from hearing them when those people put on their "local" country
> radio station.
>
> Thus not only does Clear Channel have a radio monopoly, they also have
> *incredible* political power.
>
> We must do all we can to break up the clearly dangerous radio monopoly
Clear
> Channel presently has. The Dixie Chicks have shown how dangerous the
> incredible financial and political power of Clear Channel is to democracy
in
> the U.S.
>
> Clear Channel must be broken up.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Abelard2
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
> I couldn't care
> less about the "Dixie Chicks", and would never listen to them from
> choice.
I've always been curious about how the gal that plays the fiddle would do, if
she applied her talents to Classical violin. Maybe she has had some training.
The vocalist mainly caterwauls, but what she said about Bush was entirely
appropriate.
Bill
"David S. Phipps" wrote
> Never mind that the ONLY reason that Clear Channel has acquired this
> position of "power" is because their stations just happen to be popular
> among the listeners.
Do you actually believe what you wrote above??? The way Clear Channel
acquired this power was by buying lots and lots, like over 1200, radio
stations.
> If they weren't highly rated, they would certainly not
> have so many stations or so much power.
I guess you do actually believe it since you wrote it twice. Well you're
wrong twice then.
> Such high ratings ONLY come from a
> responsive public. Sounds to me like you should be griping about the
power
> of the listening public. Oops, that's the market isn't it? Hmm, oh well,
> sorry, but sometimes "majority rules" is just a bummer.
Sorry you have your head so firmly up your ass when it comes to how Clear
Channel became a near-monopoly. It has nothing to do with the market of
listeners. And my argument had nothing to do with the market anyway. I
have no clue what the rationgs of each of CC's radio stations are. In many
places, it's moot in a way because CC owns most of the stations anyway in
those places.
Clear Channel pays NOTHING to the federal government for allowing CC to own
over 1,200 of these precious entities called radio stations, even though so
few radio stations (relatively speaking) are allowed to legally exist.
Monopolies with few exceptions tend to be bad for everyone except the owner
of the monopoly. Media monopolies are especially bad for democracies which
is why you see them in dictatorships and totalitarian governments.
Clear Channel's near-monopoly is bad for this country's democracy. It means
the government-allowed monopoly they have can be used, in effect, to control
to a large extent that government. One of the ways is by punishing those
performers who oppose the politicians and political causes that Clear
Channel supports.
Thus those performers who are approved by CC have the chance to make gobs of
money, some of which can be funneled to CC-approved politicians and
political causes while those who aren't CC-approved have a much more
difficult path in being equally successful (all things being equal such as
quality of product).
A second way CC can control government is to use the nice profits that
presumably most of their government-licensed radio stations generate each
year to reward those politicians who vote the way CC wants them to vote. CC
rewards a politician by 1) giving him/her lots of money or not giving
his/her opponent lots of money, 2) encouraging the CC audience (tens of
millions of voters) to adapt positions similar to that of politician whose
positions, of course, must be in agreement with those of CC.
Not only does Clear Channel to a large extent control the government of the
United States, they also control (using the ways mentioned above) many state
and local governments. If you don't have a problem with that, then you
should take a U.S. history class and learn about how revolutionary this
democratic-based government was when it was founded and why it is so specia
and needs to be preserved. Media monopolies are profoundly anti-democratic.
I repeat: Clear Channel must be broken up.
I'm most impressed with the responses to my post in this newsgroup. I
posted it to other music newsgroups and got a lot of CC sympathizers. It
wasn't encouraging so it was good to read this ng.
For some musical content, I mostly listen to the Grateful Dead but for a
reason I won't go into, I purchased about a month ago a CD of the Boston
Symphony (conducted by Erich Leinsdorf) in 1964 doing Stravinsky's Firebird
Suite and the Chicago Symphony (conducted by Seiji Ozawa) in 1968 doing
Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring. It's part of the RCA Silver Seal series.
What great music!!! If you want to take a wonderful musical trip, get this
one! So many musical things going on at once, yet they all blend together
nicely. Exceptional sound quality too.
Bill
Thomas Muething
>
> I was forced to when they were on a segment of a news broadcast the
> other day. (What I said still stands.) If you had troubled to read the
> rest of my post, instead of rushing into a knee-jerk reaction, you
> would realize I was defending others' right to hear them. (I might
> question the TASTE of those who choose to do so, but never their right.)
Easy now, easy. I just asked whether you know the music you condemn. In
most cases, people do so without having ever bothered to try to
understand what they condemn. I get it from your words that you listened
to them by accident, but didn't even try. So while you're pretending to
be "liberal", you are in fact abusive about these musicians' talent (and
I'm not a big fan of country music either), or lack of as you perceive it.
David S. Phipps
was just trying to get my fingers toned up. Explain to me where did Clear
Channel get the money to buy all those stations? Do you actually believe
that they just pulled money out of the air? Or maybe it was because
advertisers actually considered commercials on their stations a good
investment, enabling Clear Channel to buy more stations? Hello, simple
Marketing and Advertising 101! No, I am correct twice and you are the one
with your head in the wrong place. At least I don't have to use foul
language to make a point, but I suppose that's the best you can come up
with.
David Phipps
"Bill" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:b8dg59$5b8$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Peter T. Daniels
>
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>
> >
> > I was forced to when they were on a segment of a news broadcast the
> > other day. (What I said still stands.) If you had troubled to read the
> > rest of my post, instead of rushing into a knee-jerk reaction, you
> > would realize I was defending others' right to hear them. (I might
> > question the TASTE of those who choose to do so, but never their right.)
>
> Easy now, easy. I just asked whether you know the music you condemn. In
> most cases, people do so without having ever bothered to try to
> understand what they condemn. I get it from your words that you listened
> to them by accident, but didn't even try. So while you're pretending to
> be "liberal", you are in fact abusive about these musicians' talent (and
> I'm not a big fan of country music either), or lack of as you perceive it.
How could you possibly get this diatribe from anything Evelyn posted?
She said she "couldn't care less" about the DCs. How do you manipulate
that into "condemn"?
(BTW, Evelyn, reportedly they recently performed what I believe in the
vernacular is called a "kick-ass" rendition of "The Star-Spangled
Banner" to open some significant sports event or other. Such
appearances, as well as SNL, are the most likely opportunity some of us
have to hear pop music. [They also play Letterman, but I don't usually
stay up past the Top Ten or sometimes the Guest.])
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Dr.Matt
David S. Phipps <dphip...@hotmail.comnospam> wrote:
>of the listening public. Oops, that's the market isn't it? Hmm, oh well,
>sorry, but sometimes "majority rules" is just a bummer.
The unregulated market brings us 'magnetic therapy', snake oil,
slamming of phone rates, a Windows license fee for the purchase of
computer hardware with Linux installed etc. I'm a fan of free
markets--within limits. Unregulated free markets are NOT ruled by the
majority, they're ruled by panoploy.
Dr.Matt
David S. Phipps <dphip...@hotmail.comnospam> wrote:
>was just trying to get my fingers toned up. Explain to me where did Clear
>Channel get the money to buy all those stations? Do you actually believe
>that they just pulled money out of the air? Or maybe it was because
>advertisers actually considered commercials on their stations a good
>investment, enabling Clear Channel to buy more stations? Hello, simple
>Marketing and Advertising 101! No, I am correct twice and you are the one
>with your head in the wrong place. At least I don't have to use foul
>language to make a point, but I suppose that's the best you can come up
>with.
>
>David Phipps
So... if anybody acquires a monopoly in some market, it must be because buyers
demand it, right? Not because they started out with ten times the initial
capital of everybody else and undersold everybody else out of the business--
that NEVER happens... mmmm
Thomas Muething
>>
>
> How could you possibly get this diatribe from anything Evelyn posted?
How could she possibly get her diatribe from my question whether she had
ever heard the Dixie Chicks?
Abelard2
> Hello, simple
>Marketing and Advertising 101!
This stuff has destroyed more minds than crack cocaine.
Fred Krafcik
Bill wrote:
>
> "David S. Phipps" wrote
>
> Sorry you have your head so firmly up your ass when it comes to how Clear
> Channel became a near-monopoly. It has nothing to do with the market of
> listeners. And my argument had nothing to do with the market anyway. I
> have no clue what the rationgs of each of CC's radio stations are. In many
> places, it's moot in a way because CC owns most of the stations anyway in
> those places.
>
> Clear Channel pays NOTHING to the federal government for allowing CC to own
> over 1,200 of these precious entities called radio stations, even though so
> few radio stations (relatively speaking) are allowed to legally exist.
>
> Monopolies with few exceptions tend to be bad for everyone except the owner
> of the monopoly. Media monopolies are especially bad for democracies which
> is why you see them in dictatorships and totalitarian governments.
>
> Clear Channel's near-monopoly is bad for this country's democracy. It means
> the government-allowed monopoly they have can be used, in effect, to control
> to a large extent that government. One of the ways is by punishing those
> performers who oppose the politicians and political causes that Clear
> Channel supports.
Just a note, there are over 13,500 registered radio stations in the
United States. If CC has 1,200, that translates to under 9% of the
total number of radio stations. If 9% is considered a near-monopoly,
why aren't people clamoring for the breakup of Nokia, which has a
roughly 35.9% marketshare in the United States by phones sold? Or is
McDonald's safe, as it only takes roughly 8% of domestic market share
for fast-food? Then again, if 9% is really a near-monopoly, that should
more than cast aside any doubts on Bush's election, where he garnered
over 5x that percentage, pulling in a God-like 48%.
Fred
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Abelard2 wrote:
>
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>
> > I couldn't care
> > less about the "Dixie Chicks", and would never listen to them from
> > choice.
>
> I've always been curious about how the gal that plays the fiddle would do, if
> she applied her talents to Classical violin. Maybe she has had some training.
Well, instrumentalists - "pop" OR classical - can't entirely "fake it",
they have to be able to actually PLAY their instrument. Everyone has a
voice - good, bad or indifferent - and far too many people assume that
"training" is unnecessary for singing. ("Pop singing, that is - any who
seriously contemplate singing opera know better.)
>
> The vocalist mainly caterwauls, but what she said about Bush was entirely
> appropriate.
....And, whether or not you agree with her, refusing her the right to
say it smacks too much of censorship! (Which we are not supposed to
have, in America.)
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Thomas Muething wrote:
>
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>
> >
> > I was forced to when they were on a segment of a news broadcast the
> > other day. (What I said still stands.) If you had troubled to read the
> > rest of my post, instead of rushing into a knee-jerk reaction, you
> > would realize I was defending others' right to hear them. (I might
> > question the TASTE of those who choose to do so, but never their right.)
>
> Easy now, easy. I just asked whether you know the music you condemn. In
> most cases, people do so without having ever bothered to try to
> understand what they condemn. I get it from your words that you listened
> to them by accident, but didn't even try. So while you're pretending to
> be "liberal", you are in fact abusive about these musicians' talent (and
> I'm not a big fan of country music either), or lack of as you perceive it.
I have heard enough of what passes for "music" among the general public
nowadays to know I dislike most of it - why should I waste my time
deliberately listening to it? (Particularly when it's classical music
whose broadcast existence is threatened, these days - pop "artists" will
continue to pollute the airwaves, whether or not I listen to them.)
Brendan R. Wehrung
The question isn't only how many stations, but how much of the population
isreached/indfluenced by media conglomerates. One that owns 300 stations
in the top 50 markets of the U.S. (assuming they are all well listened to)
can have a disproportionate affect on the next presidential election if
they choose to slant news during a primary. Not yet, but think of Fox and
their current "news" operation.
Brendan
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Thomas Muething wrote:
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > How could you possibly get this diatribe from anything Evelyn posted?
>
> How could she possibly get her diatribe from my question whether she had
> ever heard the Dixie Chicks?
"Diatribe"? Clearly, you did NOT read what I posted! (Or are you that
severely lacking in the ability to comprehend what you read?) So far as
I'm concerned, the "Dixie Chicks", along with my reference to adult
bookstores, merely served as examples of unwarranted censorship. Just
because *I* don't care for them doesn't mean you shouldn't. As I said
elsewhere, such a preference may lead me to question your musical taste,
but not your right to listen to whatever kind of "music" you prefer.
(Also, as I told you, I HAVE "heard" them - albeit unwillingly - and see
no reason to waste my time listening to any more, when I have so many
CD's of REAL singers to listen to, instead.) If you think it makes you
some sort of "unbiased" hero, to post to a classical music group then
complain when a classical music-lover professes distaste for some "pop"
performer, you're even more clueless than I thought!
Ryan Tanaka
There's your condemnation right there: "polluting the airwaves" pretty
much speaks for itself.
Ryan
John Harrington
> In article <20030425104408...@mb-m23.aol.com>,
> Abelard2 <abel...@aol.comspamless> wrote:
> >"Bill" nos...@nospam.com's arguments concerning Clear Channel are compelling,
> >but they could also be applied to the cartels that control the print and video
> >media as well. We live in a pretty Orwellian environment.
> >
> >
> >abelard2
> >the Davidsbündler site
> >http://members.aol.com/abelard2/dave.htm
>
> Yeah, we wouldn't want any artists actually being able to withhold
> their wares from non-paying customers, would we!
Artist don't need the help of the government to do that.
> That would be regulation
> and government meddling, anti-libretarian and anti-capitalist!
No, it's just the sort of things hypocritical libertarians and
capitalists would love.
J
Dr.Matt
John Harrington <jbay...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>fie...@millipede.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote in message
>news:<lscqa.3530$XR3.1...@news.itd.umich.edu>...
>> In article <20030425104408...@mb-m23.aol.com>,
>> Abelard2 <abel...@aol.comspamless> wrote:
>> >"Bill" nos...@nospam.com's arguments concerning Clear Channel are compelling,
>> >but they could also be applied to the cartels that control the print
>and video
>> >media as well. We live in a pretty Orwellian environment.
>> >
>> >
>> >abelard2
>> >the Davidsbündler site
>> >http://members.aol.com/abelard2/dave.htm
>>
>> Yeah, we wouldn't want any artists actually being able to withhold
>> their wares from non-paying customers, would we!
>
>Artist don't need the help of the government to do that.
The government has already given away all music free to anybody who
wants to republish it with a prayer at the beginning--or broadcast
it in a restaurant.
Copyright law exists largely because artists very much DO need the
help of a government to do that. Remember: artists are artists, not
armies... "We're entertainers, not politicians..." etc.
>> That would be regulation
>> and government meddling, anti-libretarian and anti-capitalist!
>
>No, it's just the sort of things hypocritical libertarians and
>capitalists would love.
Ah, copyright law is due to libertarians and capitalists? Interesting.....
I wanna hear Milton Friedman's take on this, just for laughs...
>
>J
John Harrington
news:adIqa.3580$XR3.1...@news.itd.umich.edu...
> In article <b97c7d0a.03042...@posting.google.com>,
> John Harrington <jbay...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >fie...@millipede.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote in message
> >news:<lscqa.3530$XR3.1...@news.itd.umich.edu>...
> >> In article <20030425104408...@mb-m23.aol.com>,
> >> Abelard2 <abel...@aol.comspamless> wrote:
> >> >"Bill" nos...@nospam.com's arguments concerning Clear Channel are
compelling,
> >> >but they could also be applied to the cartels that control the print
> >and video
> >> >media as well. We live in a pretty Orwellian environment.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >abelard2
> >> >the Davidsbündler site
> >> >http://members.aol.com/abelard2/dave.htm
> >>
> >> Yeah, we wouldn't want any artists actually being able to withhold
> >> their wares from non-paying customers, would we!
> >
> >Artist don't need the help of the government to do that.
>
> The government has already given away all music free to anybody who
> wants to republish it with a prayer at the beginning--or broadcast
> it in a restaurant.
> Copyright law exists largely because artists very much DO need the
> help of a government to do that. Remember: artists are artists, not
> armies... "We're entertainers, not politicians..." etc.
I have no problem witholding my wares from non-paying customers when I want
to. I don't know what your problem is.
> >> That would be regulation
> >> and government meddling, anti-libretarian and anti-capitalist!
> >
> >No, it's just the sort of things hypocritical libertarians and
> >capitalists would love.
>
> Ah, copyright law is due to libertarians and capitalists? Interesting.....
> I wanna hear Milton Friedman's take on this, just for laughs...
I didn't say that it was "due" to them. I said it was the sort of thing the
hypocritical ones would love.
Run of the mill libertarians are all against big gubmint when it
inconveniences them and silent when it benefits them and/or is convenient to
their right wing ideology. For example, where are the libertarians nowadays
while Ashchrist is imprisoning people for secret reasons and throwing away
the key? Kinda an eerie silence, eh?
John
Thomas Muething
>
> pop "artists" will continue to pollute the airwaves
I rest my case. :-)
Maybe you're just too old. Could that be it?
Dr.Matt
Piracy. Wake up and smell the roses, John, piracy is alive and real and
rampant.
>> >> That would be regulation
>> >> and government meddling, anti-libretarian and anti-capitalist!
>> >
>> >No, it's just the sort of things hypocritical libertarians and
>> >capitalists would love.
>>
>> Ah, copyright law is due to libertarians and capitalists? Interesting.....
>> I wanna hear Milton Friedman's take on this, just for laughs...
>
>I didn't say that it was "due" to them. I said it was the sort of thing the
>hypocritical ones would love.
>
>Run of the mill libertarians are all against big gubmint when it
>inconveniences them and silent when it benefits them and/or is convenient to
>their right wing ideology. For example, where are the libertarians nowadays
>while Ashchrist is imprisoning people for secret reasons and throwing away
>the key? Kinda an eerie silence, eh?
Okay, well, you've taken the libertarian riff and run with it. I only spoke
for the rights of musicians.
http://www.musicunited.org/ <---no affiliation with libertarian party
John Harrington
news:JjQqa.3584$XR3.1...@news.itd.umich.edu...
> In article <U4Jqa.43841$4P1.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> John Harrington <bear...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> The government has already given away all music free to anybody who
> >> wants to republish it with a prayer at the beginning--or broadcast
> >> it in a restaurant.
> >> Copyright law exists largely because artists very much DO need the
> >> help of a government to do that. Remember: artists are artists, not
> >> armies... "We're entertainers, not politicians..." etc.
> >
> >I have no problem witholding my wares from non-paying customers when I
want
> >to. I don't know what your problem is.
>
> Piracy. Wake up and smell the roses, John, piracy is alive and real and
> rampant.
Ahem. Arrrrr. Avast ye!
J
John Harrington
"Thomas Muething" <tmuethingBUGGE...@t-online.de> wrote in
message news:3EABAD8B...@t-online.de...
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>
> >
> > pop "artists" will continue to pollute the airwaves
>
>
> I rest my case. :-)
>
> Maybe you're just too old. Could that be it?
That, or she has taste.
J
Thomas Muething
>
> That, or she has taste.
Must be the age thing.
John Harrington
> John Harrington wrote:
>
> >
> > That, or she has taste.
>
> Must be the age thing.
I'm putting my money on the chimp thing.
J
John Harrington
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
> So while you're pretending to
> be "liberal", you are in fact abusive about these musicians' talent
What talent is that?
J
Ryan Tanaka
one of the the worst choices someone can make.
Ryan
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Thomas Muething wrote:
>
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>
> >
> > pop "artists" will continue to pollute the airwaves
>
> I rest my case. :-)
>
> Maybe you're just too old. Could that be it?
Maybe YOU'RE just posting to the wrong newsgroup, could THAT be it?
(This IS "rec.music.classical", in case you hadn't noticed.) Whether
you love them, hate them or (like me) just don't give a damn, the "Dixie
Chicks" don't even PRETEND to be classical artists, so why must you
insist upon touting their virtues here?
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Ryan Tanaka wrote:
>
> Out of all the things to be snobbish about, I think music is probably
> one of the the worst choices someone can make.
Is it "snobbish" to prefer one type of music over another? Or to object
when people post their praise for performers of "pop" music on a
classical music group, then complain when the resident posters fail to
"appreciate" their choice of "artists"? How much patience would posters
to a popular music newsgroup show anyone from here who insisted upon
posting there about opera and/or symphony orchestras?
The initial point of this thread had to do with performers' rights to
express their opnions in public, without censorship - not whether or not
classical music lovers must like or choose to listen to a particular
"pop" music group. Just because I do not choose to listen to popular
music (which is certainly within my rights) does not mean I deny you the
right to listen to it. I certainly am under NO obligation to LIKE your
choice, and I have a perfect right to express my opinion of it.
(Especially in light of the fact that you are posting your remarks to a
newsgroup devoted to CLASSICAL - not popular - music!)
Thomas Muething
>
> Is it "snobbish" to prefer one type of music over another?
1. Yes it is, if "preference" implies that one type of music is
inherently superior to the "not-preferred" type - which your postings
indicate very clearly.
> Or to object
> when people post their praise for performers of "pop" music on a
> classical music group
2. The OP did not praise the Dixie Chicks, he was merely referring to
them being denied the right to free speech.
> How much patience would posters
> to a popular music newsgroup show anyone from here who insisted upon
> posting there about opera and/or symphony orchestras?
3. Presumably more than vice-versa, since there are no John Harringtons
and Matthew But-Teppers on pop-music ngs.
BTW: The Dixie Chicks are excellent protagonists of the type of music
they have chosen.
Thomas Muething
>
> Maybe YOU'RE just posting to the wrong newsgroup, could THAT be it?
> (This IS "rec.music.classical", in case you hadn't noticed.)
I'm a "resident poster" here (as well as in r.m.c.r.), in case YOU
haven't noticed.
> Whether
> you love them, hate them or (like me)
See, that's just my point. You listened to them once, by accident, and
you've made up your mind that you hate them. How very shallow.
I hated Schoenberg when I listened to his works first, but I didn't
let that discourage me from listening to it again. And then I liked his
music a whole lot.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>
> >
> > Maybe YOU'RE just posting to the wrong newsgroup, could THAT be it?
> > (This IS "rec.music.classical", in case you hadn't noticed.)
>
> I'm a "resident poster" here (as well as in r.m.c.r.), in case YOU
> haven't noticed.
>
> > Whether
> > you love them, hate them or (like me)
>
> See, that's just my point. You listened to them once, by accident, and
> you've made up your mind that you hate them. How very shallow.
Once again, how do you get from "couldn't care less" (her correct
answer, which you snipped) to "hate"?
> I hated Schoenberg when I listened to his works first, but I didn't
> let that discourage me from listening to it again. And then I liked his
> music a whole lot.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Peter T. Daniels
>
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>
> >
> > Is it "snobbish" to prefer one type of music over another?
>
> 1. Yes it is, if "preference" implies that one type of music is
> inherently superior to the "not-preferred" type - which your postings
> indicate very clearly.
What in her postings "indicates" that?
> > Or to object
> > when people post their praise for performers of "pop" music on a
> > classical music group
>
> 2. The OP did not praise the Dixie Chicks, he was merely referring to
> them being denied the right to free speech.
Which was seconded by Evelyn.
> > How much patience would posters
> > to a popular music newsgroup show anyone from here who insisted upon
> > posting there about opera and/or symphony orchestras?
>
> 3. Presumably more than vice-versa, since there are no John Harringtons
> and Matthew But-Teppers on pop-music ngs.
>
> BTW: The Dixie Chicks are excellent protagonists of the type of music
> they have chosen.
Evidently you don't know what "protagonist" means.
Thomas Muething
>
> What in her postings "indicates" that?
Well, how about: "these days - pop "artists" will
continue to pollute the airwaves"
Not pejorative enough for you?
>
> Evidently you don't know what "protagonist" means.
You can use the term in that context, as in "leading protagonist".
Thomas Muething
>
> Once again, how do you get from "couldn't care less" (her correct
> answer, which you snipped) to "hate"?
After all, this isn't the first time she has voiced her "opinion" on pop
music:
How about:
"Does she sing real music, or just "pop"?"
(Nov. 7,2002)
"(At least it's real music, not "pop" noise!)"
(Sept. 26, 2002)
"And she was decidedly NOT a singer of trashy "pop" music!"
(with reference to Celine Dion - no faviorite of mine either, but the
type of pop she sings isn't "trashy") (Apr. 9, 2002)
I could go on. There's a whole barrel lot of postings in which her snide
and condescending attitude towards pop music is more than obvious.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >
> > What in her postings "indicates" that?
>
> Well, how about: "these days - pop "artists" will
> continue to pollute the airwaves"
>
> Not pejorative enough for you?
>
> >
> > Evidently you don't know what "protagonist" means.
>
> You can use the term in that context, as in "leading protagonist".
Not in English, you can't; and "leading protagonist," moreover, is
redundant.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Thomas Muething wrote:
>
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>
> >
> > Is it "snobbish" to prefer one type of music over another?
>
> 1. Yes it is, if "preference" implies that one type of music is
> inherently superior to the "not-preferred" type - which your postings
> indicate very clearly.
You really ARE an idiot, aren't you? Of COURSE I look upon my preferred
type of music as superior - if I didn't, I wouldn't prefer it, would I?
(I also happen to believe there is a good deal of objective evidence to
support my position, as do most people who have seriously STUDIED
music.) Unless you have a king-sized inferiority complex regarding your
own choices, why should that bother you? You are certainly entitled to
differ (although I doubt you'll get much support for the superiority of
"pop" music on a classical music newsgroup), so let it rest.
(Especially since you have entirely missed the POINT, both of the
initial post by the OP, and that of my response!)
>
> > Or to object
> > when people post their praise for performers of "pop" music on a
> > classical music group
Well, it certainly reveals their intelligence! (Or lack thereof.)
>
> 2. The OP did not praise the Dixie Chicks, he was merely referring to
> them being denied the right to free speech.
Precisely the point I was making, in my initial post - and defending
their right to same! (Is it your reading comprehension, your attention
span or simply your IQ that is subnormal?)
>
> > How much patience would posters
> > to a popular music newsgroup show anyone from here who insisted upon
> > posting there about opera and/or symphony orchestras?
>
> 3. Presumably more than vice-versa, since there are no John Harringtons
> and Matthew But-Teppers on pop-music ngs.
I assume YOU know what you're saying in the above, but I doubt anyone
else here does! Except for the occasional troll like you, I doubt that
ANYONE here posts to pop-music groups. ....Why should we, if we have no
interest in the genre? (Unless by accident, if some cretin has set up a
string of un-noticed cross-posts.) Too bad you don't show the same
restraint, anent classical groups.
>
> BTW: The Dixie Chicks are excellent protagonists of the type of music
> they have chosen.
Well bully for them! Although I don't think you mean "protagonists" -
the word makes no sense in the context you use it. ("Proponents",
maybe?) However, they do not even CLAIM to be classical artists, thus
have the intelligence not to post to a classical newsgroup - would one
could say the same for you! (P-L-O-N-K!)
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Thomas Muething wrote:
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >
> > Once again, how do you get from "couldn't care less" (her correct
> > answer, which you snipped) to "hate"?
>
> After all, this isn't the first time she has voiced her "opinion" on pop
> music:
And will continue to do so, as long as clueless cretins like you insist
upon making this a forum for something it is not! You like pop music,
fine - that's your prerogative. But when you require that those of us
who dislike it MUST share your views, and claim that if we do not, it is
only because we haven't listened to enough of it, you're way, WAY out of
line! (Certainly, if we dislike it, we have the right to say so -
vehemently - as we do about music that actually BELONGS in these
discussions!) Your allusion to being a "convert" to Schoenberg's music
has no relevance - no one who knows anything about classical music
argues that he was not a consummate musician, and even his most
passionate supporters do not claim that those who dislike his music do
so only because they've not listened to it! I'm perfectly willing to be
"converted" to a composer whose music I do not care for - I've yet to
appreciate the virtues of Messiaen, for example - that doesn't mean I
don't continue to try.
But to claim that something like the "Dixie Chicks" are on a par with
these great masters is simply ludicrous! Their musicianship is
rudimentary, and most pop singers (including theirs) are an affront to
the ears (and the throat muscles) of anyone who has ever studied
singing.
Ryan Tanaka
the air-waves" seems pretty clear to me.
This sort of comment irks me a bit because I know a lot of very
intelligent people who listen to pop-music and...I know, I know, it
might sound unbelievable but they happen to enjoy it. For most people
it usually takes some time getting used to listening to classical
music (unless they happen to grow up with it) and they may not have
the interest in that investment.
Ryan
Thomas Muething
>
> And will continue to do so, as long as clueless cretins like you insist
> upon making this a forum for something it is not!
It was the OP, not me. But I'm not joining a lynching mob led by some
narrow old wench.
>
> But to claim that something like the "Dixie Chicks" are on a par with
> these great masters is simply ludicrous!
Wow! That you get from listening to them ONCE, by accident? Forgive me
for pronouncing your "opinion" shallow. How could I have been so rash. :-)
I rest my case.
Thomas Muething
> Out of all the things to be snobbish about, I think music is probably
> one of the the worst choices someone can make.
I apologize on behalf of Ms. Evelyn Vogt etc. etc.
Thomas Muething
>
> Not in English, you can't; and "leading protagonist," moreover, is
> redundant.
No, it's a pleonasm.
Funny how you somehow don't comment on Evelyn Vogt etc.etc.'s
"polluting the airwaves". Is it pejorative or not?
Thomas Muething
>
- and far too many people assume that
> "training" is unnecessary for singing. ("Pop singing, that is - any who
> seriously contemplate singing opera know better.)
Now I get it: Your Ken B. Lane's older sister. :-)
Thomas Muething
>
> You really ARE an idiot, aren't you? Of COURSE I look upon my preferred
> type of music as superior - if I didn't, I wouldn't prefer it, would I?
A tragic case: confusing an emotionally-based preference with a factual
superiority.
Get it, wench: There is good and bad music in ANY genre. No genre is per
se superior to another.
> (I also happen to believe there is a good deal of objective evidence to
> support my position, as do most people who have seriously STUDIED
> music.)
Other narrow old wenches? Not too many great composers thought so.
> I assume YOU know what you're saying in the above, but I doubt anyone
> else here does! Except for the occasional troll like you, I doubt that
> ANYONE here posts to pop-music groups. ....Why should we, if we have no
> interest in the genre?
It's not like it happens every day. So you can be a bit more tolerant of
people who do stray occasionally, like the OP. But tolerance, I get from
your rantings against pop music (and, btw, no quotation marks are
needed), doesn't rank on your list.
Thomas Muething
>
> You really ARE an idiot, aren't you?
Btw. I'm not. But you're one narrow old sicko.
Raymond Hall
news:3EADAEB1...@earthlink.net...
|
|
| Thomas Muething wrote:
| >
| > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
| >
| > >
| > > Once again, how do you get from "couldn't care less" (her correct
| > > answer, which you snipped) to "hate"?
| >
| > After all, this isn't the first time she has voiced her "opinion" on pop
| > music:
|
| And will continue to do so, as long as clueless cretins like you insist
| upon making this a forum for something it is not! You like pop music,
| fine - that's your prerogative. But when you require that those of us
| who dislike it MUST share your views, and claim that if we do not, it is
| only because we haven't listened to enough of it, you're way, WAY out of
| line! (Certainly, if we dislike it, we have the right to say so -
| vehemently - as we do about music that actually BELONGS in these
| discussions!) Your allusion to being a "convert" to Schoenberg's music
| has no relevance - no one who knows anything about classical music
| argues that he was not a consummate musician, and even his most
| passionate supporters do not claim that those who dislike his music do
| so only because they've not listened to it! I'm perfectly willing to be
| "converted" to a composer whose music I do not care for - I've yet to
| appreciate the virtues of Messiaen, for example - that doesn't mean I
| don't continue to try.
Well, if Messiaen is beyond you, why bother keep trying.
| But to claim that something like the "Dixie Chicks" are on a par with
| these great masters is simply ludicrous! Their musicianship is
| rudimentary, and most pop singers (including theirs) are an affront to
| the ears (and the throat muscles) of anyone who has ever studied
| singing.
Nobody is claiming that the Dixie Chicks are remotely on the level of the
great masters of all genres, including classical, rock, jazz and popular.
But you seem to be implying that the Dixie Chicks are representative of the
best in pop music, and using the term 'pop music' in a sort of generically
general and obviously disparaging way.
Ever heard of Frank Sinatra, or Ella Fitzgerald, or George Michael or Tony
Bennett? Ever compared their diction, breath control and use of intelligent
lyrics, with the strangulated noises that emanate from singers such as D F-D
or Peter Pears, and others of the same ilk?
Perhaps if you did, you wouldn't appear quite as elitist about music,
despite your claims not to be so. I should book up for the next Ozzie
Osbourne tour coming your way, and you might be pleasantly surprised, and
meet a better type of person alongside you in the audience as well <g>
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
See You Tamara (Ozzy Osbourne)
Ray, Taree, NSW
Eusebius7
> No genre is per
>se superior to another.
I hope it will not be construed as agreement with Evelyn, when I say that
Classical Music, properly understrood, is not a genre, but rather, a science.
eusebius7
occasional contributor to the Davidsbuendler site:
http://members.aol.com/buendler
Thomas Muething
> I hope it will not be construed as agreement with Evelyn, when I say that
> Classical Music, properly understrood, is not a genre, but rather, a science.
Any art form is.
Dr.Matt
Eusebius7 <euse...@aol.comDELETE> wrote:
>Thomas Muething tmuethingBUGGE...@t-online.de wrote:
>
>> No genre is per
>>se superior to another.
>
>I hope it will not be construed as agreement with Evelyn, when I say that
>Classical Music, properly understrood, is not a genre, but rather, a science.
>
I understand you, and I disagree. Music is an art. Science is the process
of getting at truth. Arts aren't about getting at truth, but ratehr creating
certain illusions.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
"If it's not addressed to my address proper, it may be counted as spam"
Eusebius7
wrote:
>
>
>> I hope it will not be construed as agreement with Evelyn, when I say that
>> Classical Music, properly understrood, is not a genre, but rather, a
>science.
>
>
Excellent. We agree. But, I hope you will also recognize that "pop" music is no
art form (although, it may provide raw material for one, as "folk" music often
has).
Thomas Muething tmuethingBUGGE...@t-online.de wrote: >Eusebius7
wrote:
>
>
>> I hope it will not be construed as agreement with Evelyn, when I say that
>> Classical Music, properly understrood, is not a genre, but rather, a
>science.
>
>
>Any art form is.
Excellent. We agree. But, I hope you will also recognize that "pop" music is no
art form (although, it may provide raw material for one, as "folk" music often
has).
fie...@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
>I understand you, and I disagree. Music is an art. Science is the process
>of getting at truth. Arts aren't about getting at truth, but ratehr creating
>certain illusions.
We do indeed disagree. When the arts aren't about getting at truth, but rather
creating certain illusions, you can bet your booties that fascism is brewing.
Art liberates when it gets at truth; it can also be used to enslave, when it
lies.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
You misunderstand my objection to Mr. Muething's remarks. Of COURSE
some people like both, and that's their right. Others do not, looking
upon it as a poor substitute for what we consider "real" music, and
that's OUR right. However, the fact remains that this is a CLASSICAL
music newsgroup. The "Dixie Chicks" are performers of popular music,
are perfectly content to remain so, and make no claim to be anything
else! To argue that rec.music.classical is a proper venue to discuss
their music is sheer stupidity! ....Bad enough we are from time-to-time
flooded with posts about "crossover" performers like CC, et al (who at
least perform "classical" music, however badly.)
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Raymond Hall wrote:
>
>
> Well, if Messiaen is beyond you, why bother keep trying.
Because musicians whom I respect apparently find great worth in his
music, so there must be something there that I'm not hearing.
Thomas Muething
> To argue that rec.music.classical is a proper venue to discuss
> their music is sheer stupidity! ....
Burn them, burn them I say!
Dr.Matt
Exactly the opposite. Fascisms always demand a "realism"; art is its own
thing and goes its own way. And none of these things have anything to
do with
>Art liberates when it gets at truth; it can also be used to enslave, when it
>lies.
>
Art can do neither. The appearance that it can do one or the other is
an illusion. Science also can do neither, though it provides data for
engineering which can do both. Truth can be used to enslave.
>eusebius7
>occasional contributor to the Davidsbuendler site:
>http://members.aol.com/buendler
Jaakko Mäntyjärvi
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>
>> To argue that rec.music.classical is a proper venue to discuss
>> their music is sheer stupidity! ....
>
> Burn them, burn them I say!
"And what else do you burn?"
"MORE witches!"
--
Regards,
Jaakko Mäntyjärvi
Helsinki, Finland
"Nil significat nisi oscillat. Du vap. Du vap. Du vap."
Steven Forrest
Dr.Matt <fie...@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
>In article <20030429111332...@mb-m20.aol.com>,
>Eusebius7 <euse...@aol.comDELETE> wrote:
>>We do indeed disagree. When the arts aren't about getting at truth, but
>>rather creating certain illusions, you can bet your booties that fascism
>>is brewing.
>
>Exactly the opposite. Fascisms always demand a "realism";
Matt, I suspect you know this already (since you put "realism"
in quotes): when fascist (or socialist) dictators use the word
"realism", they don't mean it. (Just as dictators ruling over
the People's Democratic Republic of So-and-so have no intention
of allowing democracy or republicanism. Dictatorial "realism"
is an Orwellian term which means its opposite.) The demand for
"realism" is really a demand for conformity to the fascist (or
socialist) lie.
You may be right (or wrong) that art has nothing to do with truth,
but this example does nothing to support your position.
-Steve
Steven Forrest
Thomas Muething <tmuethingBUGGE...@t-online.de> wrote:
>EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>>
>> You really ARE an idiot, aren't you? Of COURSE I look upon my preferred
>> type of music as superior - if I didn't, I wouldn't prefer it, would I?
>
>A tragic case: confusing an emotionally-based preference with a factual
>superiority.
>
>Get it, wench: There is good and bad music in ANY genre. No genre is per
>se superior to another.
Of music in a given genre, which do you prefer, the good or the bad?
-Steve
Dr.Matt
When people demand realism from art, they're always demanding
conformity to a lie.
Ryan Tanaka
1. Music is to express an idea.
2. Music for the aural experience.
It can go both ways depending on the composer. Some wrote music that
was deliberately abstract (like Debussy for one); while others,
especially those who were using music for political purposes, tried to
make the message as clear as possible to "convey" something.
I seriously doubt the effectiveness of music in finding the "truth";
in terms of expressing ideas literary sources are much more effective
since they're more likely to be comprehendable to more people. When
was the last time a musician reshaped philosophical values on a grand
scale? While musicians can certainly be involved in politics or
philosophy, like any other art form it seems to play a minor role, if
any. Wether or not you agree with this, you have to admit that the
benefits are pretty abstract at best.
When you read music history it's almost always how society shaped the
music that was produced in that era. Has it ever gone the other way
around?
Ryan
Eusebius7
>When people demand realism from art, they're always demanding
>conformity to a lie.
There is a fallacy of composition here. "Realism" and "Truth" are two entirely
different concepts. That's sort of implicit in your cited comment. I never
suggested that art should conform to "realism", but rather, that it should be
truthful.
Eusebius7
>When you read music history it's almost always how society shaped the
>music that was produced in that era. Has it ever gone the other way
>around?
Music history, especially nowadays, should be taken with a grain of salt, to
put it mildly. My personal sense is that the music/society question is
analogous to the chicken/egg question. However, I might suggest that JS Bach
personally changed the society he lived in -- and the more egregiously banal
and enraged pop music that was introduced in the '60s, certainly changed the
society into which it was introduced.
Ryan Tanaka
been around stopped the war in Iraq? There were numerous anti-facist
operas and pieces written prior to WWII but that didn't stop them
either.
Larger forces are at work and music usually has no power in stopping
or even slowing any of them down. In terms of reshaping how society
thinks, that's a big *maybe* considering that there are so many
possibilities for reasons in changes in social conciousness.
In any case it would be very hard to argue your case on solid grounds.
Are we talking politics to begin with, or is your idea more a
philosophical one?
Ryan
Ryan Tanaka
problem with you is that you've more than once implied that people who
listenen to pop music were somehow less intelligent.
I'm guessing you don't come in contact with too many intelligent
people who listens to pop music, which might be why you have such
contempt for them. I know a lot of people, including relatives and
friends, who are very good in their field, (engineers, researchers,
teachers, etc.) but don't listen to classical music because they're
just not interested.
If that wasn't what you were implying then you might want to work on
your articulation because that's how you come across.
Ryan
Raymond Hall
|
|
| Raymond Hall wrote:
| >
|
| >
| > Well, if Messiaen is beyond you, why bother keep trying.
|
| Because musicians whom I respect apparently find great worth in his
| music, so there must be something there that I'm not hearing.
Well worth persisting in the effort in my opinion. The Turangalila Symphony
isn't that long (about 80 minutes) and should be no problem to those who
listen to Mahler and Bruckner symphonies. A chance to hear the Ondes
Martinot as well. Vingt Regards is a wonderful piano piece, as is
L''ascension for orchestra and which is also written for organ.
Avoid his Catalogue d'oiseaux at the beginning. The Messiaen sound comes
across as uniquely bitter-sweet (sweet and sour), or vinegary and honey
tasting, but he does touch definite spiritual depths for many people. The
Turangulila Symphony is a good start, but then you have probably tried all
of the above stuff. But his music is an experience that only adds to our
understanding of great music. Without him, there would be a definite void.
Abelard2
>Perhaps, but as an example, has any of the anti-war songs that has
>been around stopped the war in Iraq? There were numerous anti-facist
>operas and pieces written prior to WWII but that didn't stop them
>either.
Music that is didactic, is not truthful.
abelard2
the Davidsbündler site
http://members.aol.com/abelard2/dave.htm
Dr.Matt
Eusebius7 <euse...@aol.comDELETE> wrote:
>fie...@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
>
>>When people demand realism from art, they're always demanding
>>conformity to a lie.
>
>There is a fallacy of composition here. "Realism" and "Truth" are two entirely
>different concepts. That's sort of implicit in your cited comment. I never
>suggested that art should conform to "realism", but rather, that it should be
>truthful.
But art isn't even the kind of thing which can be truthful or lie.
The best it can do is create a nearly unshakable illusion of deep meaning.
Dr.Matt
Abelard2 <abel...@aol.comspamless> wrote:
> yid...@hotmail.com (Ryan Tanaka):
>
>>Perhaps, but as an example, has any of the anti-war songs that has
>>been around stopped the war in Iraq? There were numerous anti-facist
>>operas and pieces written prior to WWII but that didn't stop them
>>either.
>
>Music that is didactic, is not truthful.
The only thing that music can be "didactic" about is music.
The quintessential didactic work is WTC.
Nicolai P. Zwar
> If you dislike certain kinds of music, thats fine. I think everyone's
> problem with you is that you've more than once implied that people who
> listenen to pop music were somehow less intelligent.
>
> I'm guessing you don't come in contact with too many intelligent
> people who listens to pop music, which might be why you have such
> contempt for them. I know a lot of people, including relatives and
> friends, who are very good in their field, (engineers, researchers,
> teachers, etc.) but don't listen to classical music because they're
> just not interested.
That is very very true. There is no assertive relationship between
somebody's intelligence and his musical taste. I know quite a few people
who couldn't care less about classical music and practically only listen
to pop music, yet whose intelligence is without question.
--
Nicolai Zwar
"There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of
others."
Niccolo Machiavelli
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
"Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:
>
> Ryan Tanaka wrote:
> > If you dislike certain kinds of music, thats fine. I think everyone's
> > problem with you is that you've more than once implied that people who
> > listenen to pop music were somehow less intelligent.
> >
> > I'm guessing you don't come in contact with too many intelligent
> > people who listens to pop music, which might be why you have such
> > contempt for them. I know a lot of people, including relatives and
> > friends, who are very good in their field, (engineers, researchers,
> > teachers, etc.) but don't listen to classical music because they're
> > just not interested.
I never questioned their intelligence, and if they've no wish to cure
their ignorance, that's their affair. However, posting about popular
music to a classical music newsgroup, then expressing indignation when
one's gaffe is pointed out, does not argue too well for the intelligence
of SOME pop music aficionados, does it?
Phil Wood
the internet or interactive TV. Those taking part were asked a few basic
questions to enable the measurement of relative IQ against certain criteria.
Six options were given for your favourite music - Classical, Opera, Rock,
Jazz, Pop & Dance and Country. The results showed that classical music
lovers had the highest IQ, then Jazz, then Rock, Opera, and Country with Pop
& Dance last.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/testthenation/results/index.shtml
Of course this mainly means that the average classical music lover taking
part was better at taking IQ tests - not the exactly the best measure of
intelligence!
Phil
Ryan Tanaka
well, so it might not TOTALLY out of context (although I'm not sure in
what context you're talking about), but again...you're basing your
opinion on the few people here who are assholes and also happen to
listen to pop music. Do you honestly know some people whom are very
intelligent yet listen only to pop? Because I do.
I'm kind of taking a risk in asking personal observations, since
people on the net often lie their ass off to try to prove a point, but
hey...what can ya do.
I'd be careful on your choice of words too. "Curing their ignorance"
just has "Look at me I am a snob" written all over it.
Ryan
Brendan R. Wehrung
Highly intelligent people usually claim they don't watch much TV. Is that
also true of classicl music lovers?
Brendan
Carrie and Midnight
news:b97ecp$s7j$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "Phil Wood" (n...@filz.screaming.net) writes:
> > "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:3EB6A953...@earthlink.net...
>
> also true of classicl music lovers?
>
> Brendan
I don't have a TV! I haven't had one for the last 8 years out of choice (I
am 25 as most of you know) I choose not to have one when I left home.
However, that doesn't mean that I don't watch it if I am at my brothers
house, or somewhere that does have one... :o) I have enough to do with my
practising without the added distraction of TV, the computer is bad enough!
--
Carrie and Midnight
www.btinternet.com/~midnightlyons
http://community.webshots.com/user/carriephlyons
Ryan Tanaka
good in comparison to others. But bottom line no matter what you do
it's still just a stereotype and if you allow it to pre-judge people
before you treat them as individuals then the joke is on you.
You can still have people who listen to classical who are dumb as a
brick and people who listen to pop who are very intelligent etc. If
you know enough people then I'm sure you can think of examples of
both.
Ryan
Nicolai P. Zwar
I know I can.
David Magda
> People LOOOOOOOOVE using statistics especially when it makes them
> look good in comparison to others. But bottom line no matter what
Did you know that 74.3% of all statistics are made up?
:>
--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Phil Wood wrote:
>
> Last night the BBC in the UK ran an IQ test - over 200,000 took the test via
> the internet or interactive TV. Those taking part were asked a few basic
> questions to enable the measurement of relative IQ against certain criteria.
> Six options were given for your favourite music - Classical, Opera, Rock,
> Jazz, Pop & Dance and Country. The results showed that classical music
> lovers had the highest IQ, then Jazz, then Rock, Opera, and Country with Pop
> & Dance last.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/testthenation/results/index.shtml
>
> Of course this mainly means that the average classical music lover taking
> part was better at taking IQ tests - not the exactly the best measure of
> intelligence!
Also, one would have to know how valid the test-scores were - without
supervision, there would be any number of ways to "fake" one's replies,
even if the controls were rigid enough to prevent any single person
taking it more than once. Anyway, let's face it, any IQ test
administered using the written word is automatically a measure of
reading ability, before it can measure anything else. (Some illiterate
savages may have extremely high IQ's, but reading is a learned skill,
and one which they have not been taught, so they'd no doubt perform
miserably on a standard IQ test.)
So far as correlation of IQ with music goes ("Mozart Makes you Smarter"
notwithstanding), people tend to like what is familiar to them, which
has nothing to do with their basic intelligence. (Since public schools
in the U.S. pretty much abandoned teaching music in the grades nearly a
generation ago, and since contemporary movie scores tend more and more
to the current trends in pop music, kids just don't get exposed to the
classics as they did when I was their age.)
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Oh go soak your head! No one who knows anything about the technical
aspects of music is likely to argue that classical music is not far more
complicated and "intellectual" than most pop music (even if they are pop
musicians themselves - many of whom DO have academic degrees in music).
Nor that, since our schools no longer teach music in the grades, the
average person grows up knowing anything about "serious" music. If they
know nothing about it, they are ignorant in that field by definition.
That's not "snobbishness", it's simple fact. There are many areas in
which I lack knowledge, but just because I am ignorant of the finer
points in their area of study, I don't accuse those who DO have training
and knowledge in them of being "snobs". Have you ever actually STUDIED
music theory and harmony and history? If you could point to your own
genuine degrees in music, and provide concrete examples of pop music
that measures up to classical from a technical standpoint, your argument
might be credible. (But that ain't gonna happen.)
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Carrie and Midnight wrote:
>
> "Brendan R. Wehrung" <ck...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:b97ecp$s7j$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > "Phil Wood" (n...@filz.screaming.net) writes:
> > > "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3EB6A953...@earthlink.net...
> >
> > Highly intelligent people usually claim they don't watch much TV. Is that
> > also true of classicl music lovers?
> >
> > Brendan
>
> I don't have a TV! I haven't had one for the last 8 years out of choice (I
> am 25 as most of you know) I choose not to have one when I left home.
> However, that doesn't mean that I don't watch it if I am at my brothers
> house, or somewhere that does have one... :o) I have enough to do with my
> practising without the added distraction of TV, the computer is bad enough!
I use mine mostly for watching opera videos! Once in a while there's
something decent (meaning to my taste) on PBS, and A & E has a Monday
night "Mystery Theater" which plays all the wonderful British Poirot and
Miss Marple and Inspector Morse episodes that either never made it to
PBS, or I missed seeing. Aside from that, even with umpteen cable
channels, there STILL isn't much I consider worth watching. (We don't
get Ovation in my area, which I gather does show some stuff I'd regard
as worthwhile.)
Eusebius7
>There are many areas in
>which I lack knowledge, but just because I am ignorant of the finer
>points in their area of study, I don't accuse those who DO have training
>and knowledge in them of being "snobs". Have you ever actually STUDIED
>music theory and harmony and history? If you could point to your own
>genuine degrees in music, and provide concrete examples of pop music
>that measures up to classical from a technical standpoint, your argument
>might be credible.
However, the most important difference between Classical and popular music is
not technical -- it is moral.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Eusebius7 wrote:
>
> However, the most important difference between Classical and popular music is
> not technical -- it is moral.
I think that's too broad a generalization. Granted, the lyrics to some
pop songs are crude and offensive, but how do you judge the "morality"
of a piece of instrumental music? (If you judge by the composer's
morals, there are quite a few classical ones who were not exactly fine,
upstanding models to emulate, either.)
Ryan Tanaka
and say, more "intellectual" on some level. Rationalize it all you
want, I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you.
Again, my speculation is that you don't come in contact too often with
people who listen to pop music and who also happen to be intelligent.
(Since you didn't deny it the first time...) To me, your tone of voice
and the choice of words you use comes off as snobbish, and I will
almost *guarantee* you that if you talk that way in setting outside of
musical circles that's the impression that you're going to make on
people. Right now you're arguing that you're not being snobbish
dispite the fact that myself and a few others think you are. In other
words, you're trying to tell us what to feel. From a social
standpoint that just doesn't work!
After you consider what people generally get out of music, which is
entertainment, "elevating" yourself for your taste of music becomes
more and more absurd. I can think of lots of other reason to be
overtly-proud, like being educated, or being rich, or having a lot of
respect, or having a lot of power etc. At least those things have an
outward product that's tangible. But telling people that you're
somehow a better person for enjoying the things you enjoy is almost as
bad as getting snooty about your favorite food or drink. Or maybe
your favorite masterbatory technique.
In the end, you have to think to yourself, "Will anyone give a fuck?".
While some musicians go ga-ga over themselves for their superior
knowledge of music, what exactly does that skill do for the rest of
society? Has any of the Beethoven Sonatas cured anyone's cancer? Has
any orchestra been successful in stopping any wars? At least
scientists' and researchers' efforts go into a pool of information
that may eventually become useful for future generations...the only
thing learning about music would allow you to do is learn how to make
better music.
So going back to the pop music thing again, pop music entertains more
people than classical music ever did. So despite classical musicians
being more technically skilled in music, they've failed to connect to
the average person. In that respect pop music has succeeded, and
therefore has value. (Although admittedly the value of individual
songs may not last that long.)
And yes, I do have training in theory and harmony. I'm a composer...I
think I do have a need to know that stuff. :p Listen to much Boulez?
If you want complex that would be the way to go I think.
Ryan
Peter T. Daniels
Do you _really_ want more Larouchie screeds?
Remember, you asked for it, so _you_ have to try to read it (and refute
it).
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Ryan Tanaka wrote:
>
> I actually agree with you that classical music as a whole is complex
> and say, more "intellectual" on some level. Rationalize it all you
> want, I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you.
>
> Again, my speculation is that you don't come in contact too often with
> people who listen to pop music and who also happen to be intelligent.
> (Since you didn't deny it the first time...)
P-L-O-N-K!
Carrie and Midnight
Good for you Evelyn! I was thinking that right about the time I got the word
"masturbation".
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Fortunately, I have the option of scrolling past posts I don't want to
read! (8-D} I'd forgotten this was our resident Larouchie, since he/she
does sometimes have something worthwhile to say about music.
Ryan Tanaka
> "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3EB9B47D...@earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > Ryan Tanaka wrote:
> > >
> > > I actually agree with you that classical music as a whole is complex
> > > and say, more "intellectual" on some level. Rationalize it all you
> > > want, I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you.
> > >
> > > Again, my speculation is that you don't come in contact too often with
> > > people who listen to pop music and who also happen to be intelligent.
> > > (Since you didn't deny it the first time...)
> >
> > P-L-O-N-K!
>
> Good for you Evelyn! I was thinking that right about the time I got the word
> "masturbation".
What the heck does plonk mean?
Coby Beck
"Ryan Tanaka" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8db67b6f.03050...@posting.google.com...
http://www.xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/kill_file_harmful.txt
An explanation and an opinion on its usage. I didn't write it but agree
with it.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Peter T. Daniels
There's at least three of them ...
Dr.Matt
There's at least one of them. Last I checked, the other two appear
to be sock puppets.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Carrie and Midnight wrote:
>
> "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3EB9B47D...@earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > Ryan Tanaka wrote:
> > >
> > > I actually agree with you that classical music as a whole is complex
> > > and say, more "intellectual" on some level. Rationalize it all you
> > > want, I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you.
> > >
> > > Again, my speculation is that you don't come in contact too often with
> > > people who listen to pop music and who also happen to be intelligent.
> > > (Since you didn't deny it the first time...)
> >
> > P-L-O-N-K!
>
> Good for you Evelyn! I was thinking that right about the time I got the word
> "masturbation".
Oh, I plonked him long before I got that far! Idiots like him are
impervious to logic, and once an idea takes residence in what they use
for brains, nothing short of dynamite will dislodge it.(;-D}
Ryan Tanaka
> > What the heck does plonk mean?
>
> http://www.xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/kill_file_harmful.txt
>
> An explanation and an opinion on its usage. I didn't write it but agree
> with it.
Interesting read. I don't mind being pointed out as being wrong, but
if you're going to just ignore what I'm saying...:(
Ryan
Ryan Tanaka
> > What the heck does plonk mean?
>
> http://www.xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/kill_file_harmful.txt
>
> An explanation and an opinion on its usage. I didn't write it but agree
> with it.
I think it's interesting that people even utilize the killfile
function; if they were innecessantly spamming the board then that
might be different, but really, Is it THAT hard to skip over threads?
I mean, hell, all it takes is moving the mouse a couple pixels over.
Another problem I see with it is that say she kill-files me and I'm
having another discussion about a topic with someone else that she
might be interested in. Won't she lose the context of what we're
talking about?
Is not hearing what someone has to say really worth that much?
Ryan
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:
>
> Oh go soak your head! No one who knows anything about the technical
> aspects of music is likely to argue that classical music is not far more
> complicated and "intellectual" than most pop music (even if they are pop
> musicians themselves - many of whom DO have academic degrees in music).
> Nor that, since our schools no longer teach music in the grades, the
> average person grows up knowing anything about "serious" music. If they
> know nothing about it, they are ignorant in that field by definition.
>
> That's not "snobbishness", it's simple fact. There are many areas in
> which I lack knowledge, but just because I am ignorant of the finer
> points in their area of study, I don't accuse those who DO have training
> and knowledge in them of being "snobs". Have you ever actually STUDIED
> music theory and harmony and history? If you could point to your own
> genuine degrees in music, and provide concrete examples of pop music
> that measures up to classical from a technical standpoint, your argument
> might be credible. (But that ain't gonna happen.)
Of course you are right. There are probably many folks who think they
"understand" music on an intuitive level. They may, but as you imply, there
is no substitute for the conservatory.
On the other hand, I've always thought that "popular" music is more
important for how it reflects the culture in which it arose, or embodies a
political, ethnic or social ethos. In other words, stripped of the
technical demands of a more technical standard, "popular" music reflects
extramusical values that one is less likely to see reflected in music of the
conservatory, especially in the past 50 years or so.
This doesn't make one or the other better or worse; it just suggests to
me that measuring some intrinsic value using any one yardstick isn't useful,
except perhaps for bragging rights.
That's a totally different issue (bragging rights, that is) that I find
personally very sad.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
http://www.dentaltwins.com