Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.music,net.music.classical Subject: Settling the JSB/KB controversy once and for all Message-ID: <1446@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Thu, 8-Aug-85 10:17:26 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1446 Posted: Thu Aug 8 10:17:26 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 23:10:58 EDT Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 23 Xref: linus net.music:7626 net.music.classical:847 It's so simple. Kate Bush is obviously the better and more important composer because she's better looking. By a long shot. Bach was a puffy old man who wore a powdered wig. Kate Bush is, well, beyond description by mere words. Isn't that the proper basis for judging music? I mean, Prince stinks because he looks funny, right? No need to even listen to his music to make a judgment there. Why bother? It's so obvious. And Michael Jackson's music stinks because he's effeminate. There, you didn't even have to waste your time listening to the music and making a reasoned decision about it! On the other hand, Arnold Schoenberg's music is great because of his unusual and interesting haircut. Never mind the way it sounds, that's irrelevant. On the other other hand, the Go-Go's are a bunch of girls from Los Angeles who dress funny, thus their music is of no consequence (eh, Marcel?). Why, this is as easy as judging the quality of a piece of music by the types of instruments used in playing it! (It's a good thing nobody does that :-) I am sure you will all want to thank me for this elegant and eloquent solution to the "Bach/Bush" question. You're welcome in advance. :-) -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr