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