Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decwrl!daemon
From: daemon@decwrl.UUCP (The devil himself)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: The good vs. the bad
Message-ID: <1241@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 15:51:17 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.1241
Posted: Mon Nov  4 15:51:17 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 23:32:19 EST
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 73

You know Doug, it's interesting how you've decided that Lionel Richie and
Madonna are just money grabbing opportunitists while Bushs morals are beyond
reproach.

Both Madonna and Richie have donated their time and money to charitable
efforts (Live Aid and USA for Africa (of which Richie was one of the principle
organizers)).

If Kate Bush is so popular in England why didn't she appear in Live Aid in
London? Why didn't she contribute to Band-Aid?   Is it really that she isn't
really so popular and that she wasn't invited.   Or was it that she just didn't
see fit to take the time off from her own pursuits?  (These are obviously
presumptions, but I include them only to demonstrate that one can make
presumptions about Kate Bush just as easily as one can about Lionel Richie.)
Where was she? 

I also found it interesting how you decided to quote most of a whole paragraph
of mine and then "forget" to include what it was leading up to.   For your
benefit I'll restate it in the form of the question:

You've said that there are 3 categories of music:

	1)  Good music
	2)  Good music which you can't appreciate
	3)  Bad music

Now as I understand it, the distinction between "good" and "bad" music is based
on what your impressions of the motives, morals and philosophies of the artist
are.   (Now this seems like about the nine hundredth inconsistency you've
exposed, as I can clearly recall you yelling "foul" whenever someone criticized
"good" music for reasons other than the music itself.).   This also seems to
imply that "good" music can't be produced if the motive for producing it was
less than pure (according to your standards).

But my real question is, do you think it is at least POSSIBLE that the reason
why you label certain music as "bad" is ALSO because you can't appreciate it?

Doug, you aren't "Hounded by Love".   You're blinded by it.   All hostility
aside, I wish that you could see that.   Rightly or wrongly, you come across as
a snobbish musical bigot.   I am convinced that if Kate Bush is as artistically
devoted as you say, she would be embarressed by any association with your
opinions.   I'm tempted to test that theory by sending her some of your
postings.  You are doing her a disservice by espousing your negative slandering
side-by-side with accolades of her.

As an example, I suspect the reasons why people are posting all these
negative reviews of Kate Bush is two-fold:  first to tick you off, and
second they are redirecting their dissaproval of you at Kate Bush.  (C'mon,
aren't these among the reasons why you posted that "review" of Steve Morse?)
This is unfair to Kate Bush, and you can yell "foul" all you want, but the
more productive path would be to cool it for awhile.

Doug, I believe you to be a serious music fan who, like me, would like to
see all this non-musical, non-productive flaming stop so that we can bring
net.music back to music.   I don't have the power to do that, but believe
it or not, YOU DO.   The reason is simple.  Although I know you don't like it,
you are (unintentionally) at the center of most of it.

I'm convinced it would stop if you (and I, and everyone else but it has to
start with you) would:

	1.  avoid discussing music you think is "bad", and avoid labeling
	    it as such.

	2.  not react when music you think is "good" is maligned by someones
	    opinion.  There are no facts in reviews.  Only opinions.   It's
	    pointless to debate them and it breeds flames.

	Dave Blickstein

(UUCP)  {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-tle!blickstein

(ARPA)  BLICKSTEIN%TLE.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA