Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-curium!jackson From: jackson@curium.DEC (Seth Jackson) Newsgroups: net.music Subject: Re: Good and bad music Message-ID: <2891@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 25-Jun-85 13:30:04 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.2891 Posted: Tue Jun 25 13:30:04 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 27-Jun-85 06:09:47 EDT Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: DEC Engineering Network Lines: 66 >> Obviously, formula music does scores low on some scale that is >> important to *you*, but calling it 'bad' is clearly wrong. >Are you saying that me saying "commercial, pop, formula trash music is >bad" is bad? How can you say this in light of what you've already said? No, I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying it's wrong (as in incorrect). >Goodness and badness are matters of subjectivity, just like everything, >including the "fact" that 1+1=2. It's just a lot easier to get people >to agree upon mathematical axioms than on moral axioms. One of my moral >axioms is "The degree to which the world is in a 'good' state is equal to >the degree to which people are intelligent, creative, and compassionate." >You seem to have the moral axiom "The degree to which the world is in a >'good' state is equal to the degree to which people are happy." Please >do tell me if I am misinterpreting you. If you hold this axiom, then we >will often disagree on ethical and aesthetic matters, but neither can >prove the other wrong, because we won't accept each other's axioms. I >know of course that I am the one who is right! OK, you are misinterpreting me. >> The fact of the matter remains - if there is an audience who >> appreciates music X, then music X is good music - TO THEM! It may not >> be good by *your* standards, but your standards only matter to you. >Well, I still disagree. Music (like post formula, pop, commercial, >trash music) that encourages stupidity, consistency, and lack of >compassion is good for no one. Of course this is my subjective opinion >on what "good" is. (And it's the right subjective opinion.) Ah, you are talking about goodness in a moral sense. This is a different issue from talking about goodness in terms of musical quality, which was the issue I was addressing. >>I should point out, though, that your view (if I have your view right) >>would lead us to the conclusion that we should put everybody in >>"pleasure" or "happiness" machines if we ever invent them. That way >>everyone can live out a perfectly safe and wonderfully happy life. What >>an abhorent thought! Well, since you have my view wrong, we don't have to worry about another Brave New World. My view is simply that you cannot place absolute judgments of "good" or "bad" on music (or anything else that is a matter of taste). Music that is bad to you is good to somebody else, and saying that it's bad because *you* don't like it is just closed-mindedness. > "I hold a cup of wisdom > But there is nothing within" Obviously. (Sorry, couldn't resist!) > Doug Alan Just a little more food for thought. There must be a fair number of musicians on this net. If top-40 music is so simple and formula, then any good musician should be able to write a top-40 hit. Try it. At worst, you'll see that's it's not that easy. At best, you'll get rich! __ "We used to play for silver, now we play for life..." Seth Jackson dec-curium!jackson