Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!mit-eddie!gds
From: gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Oh, well.
Message-ID: <1021@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Dec-83 19:02:30 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.1021
Posted: Thu Dec  8 19:02:30 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 9-Dec-83 03:19:40 EST
References: <1018@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 16

I see that I have stumbled on the old argument of ... if it's
commericalized pop, it's worthless, as opposed to some more creative
forms of music which do not sell as well.  Some examples of this I have
cited in earlier issues ... read about jazz artists who go over to pop
to make money.  

The musical quality of the last Journey and Loverboy albums was rather
commercial, but sometimes it's more fun to hear music that makes you
feel good than doesn't move you, makes you depressed, or makes you
vomit.  

I know that I will probably receive lots of flames for this, but I tend
to rate music on how good it makes me feel, and not so much on what the
words are saying.  True, if the words are there they ought to mean
something but that meaning should be left up to the listeners of the
music rather than dictated by the writers of the music.