Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site randvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!david
From: david@randvax.ARPA (David Shlapak)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Real slime vs. Real music
Message-ID: <1611@randvax.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 3-Jan-84 20:55:46 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.1611
Posted: Tue Jan  3 20:55:46 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Jan-84 02:28:24 EST
References: <203@astrovax.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 34


    To tss@astrovax ---

    I hate to interpret other folks' words, but my impression is that you
    and tekig!david are talking past each other.

    I understood david to be arguing that just because a piece of music
    is of recent vintage and its composer is not dead does not mean
    it is not "real music (a term I abhore, by the by)."

    I understand you to be arguing that the experience of music is independent
    of its age or style and is, much like the reading of a fine book,
    a meeting of two minds, one belonging to the author and the other
    to the audience.

    So where, may I ask is the disagreement?

    The enjoyment of music is an entirely subjective experience and I
    am frankly tired of being told by critics and other self-professed
    experts that certain forms (or styles, or periods) are inherently
    and objectively superior to others.  My musical tastes run from
    pre-Gregorian chants through McCoy Tyner to the Go-Gos and I
    don't consider any of it more "real" than any other.  Even those
    styles that are personally not to my liking (gospel & bluegrass)
    I cannot condemn as "junk" or "slime."  Like you said, the composer,
    even in these forms, is trying to say something; I just don't
    care for the medium or the message...THAT DOESN'T MAKE HIM OR HIS
    WORK IN ANY WAY INFERIOR...chacun a son gout...

    Rock on...

    From the shores of Babylon hard by the leper colony,

						--- das