Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site harvard.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!tomczak
From: tomczak@harvard.ARPA (Bill Tomczak)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: The good vs. the bad
Message-ID: <479@harvard.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 04:57:46 EST
Article-I.D.: harvard.479
Posted: Wed Nov  6 04:57:46 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 06:58:59 EST
References: <1241@decwrl.UUCP> <324@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Reply-To: tomczak@harvard.UUCP (Bill tomczak)
Organization: Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard
Lines: 72
Summary: 

>(Doug Alan)
>>Dave Blickstein

>
>Look, we had the whole "good music vs. bad music" debate months ago in
>net.music.  It went on for weeks, and I don't want to have to repeat it
>all over.  But I maintained that music is "good" to the degree which it
>inspires intelligent, creative, and compassionate thought in those who
>enjoy it.  I fail to see either Madonna's or Lionel Richie's "music"
>doing that for any significant fraction of the people who enjoy it.
>Quite to the contrary.  They probably go out and do things like vote for
>Reagan.

So what about your postings Doug?  Intelligent?  Maybe.  Creative?  Yes,
often in a bizarre fashion.  Compassionate?  I haven't done a careful
study, but my impressions are of practically none.  Well, I suppose
1.5 out of three isn't so bad.  Guess I'll go buy a Kate Bush album.

>> 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 doubt she would really care all that much.

>> You are doing her a disservice by espousing your negative slandering
>> side-by-side with accolades of her.

I'll second that.

>> 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.
>

It's all in how you say it.  In general, it seems to me I've seen a serious
disregard for what I consider one of the most important rules for posting.
I don't remember the exact wording, but it uses as an example the fact that
sarcasm doesn't come off all that well unless the poster is really careful.
I've seen quite a lot of "Hey guys! I was kidding" apologies (well, not really
apologies, many also came across as "You stupid slug!  I was being sarcastic!")
What's obvious to the poster is not alsways obvious to the reader.

>And just let harmful music overrun the world?

Poor Dougie!  Musical heathens/barbarians are overrunning the world and
KB is our last hope! :-)  (Or should I take everything you write liberally
sprinkled with invisible :-)s.  How serious are you when you make statements
like this?)

>
>>	2.  not react when music you think is "good" is maligned by someones
>>	    opinion.
>
>If someone says some music is "bad", I want to know why they think it is
>harmful for me to listen to it -- as I have done for Madonna in great
>detail.  If someone wants to say that Kate Bush's music is bad because
>she condones homosexuality in one of her songs and the Bible says that
>homosexuality is *evil*, that's much better than someone just coming out
>and saying her music is bad.  And I'm not going to argue much in that
>case because at least it's apparent where the guy's coming from and most
>non-Christians are probably not going to find that a good reason for
>saying some music is bad.

However, you're making all of us Christians listen to this vileness and it's
bad for my soul, the soul of the world and your own soul. :-)  That's how
I read one of your postings regarding the badness of some artists.  (The
Asparagus v. Twinkie law suit).  Those folks will be able to use your own
arguments against you.  Though I'm sure you'd find a way out, you clever
devil.

bill tomczak@harvard.{HARVARD.EDU, UUCP}