Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.music,net.music.classical Subject: On Winslow's remarks (part 1) Message-ID: <923@pyuxn.UUCP> Date: Fri, 27-Jul-84 12:45:39 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxn.923 Posted: Fri Jul 27 12:45:39 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 10:32:52 EDT References: <3918@tekecs.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 68 >> Michael made NO claims about "the end of music". He referred to classical >> [sic] music being dead. > Usually, when something is dead, that's the end of it. :-) I should have *asterisked* the word classical to point it out to you. There is a large difference between the death of music and the death of classical music... > Personally, I'm proud of my "classicocentric mentality" and I make no apology > for it. ... but apparently not to you. >> Look at the number of people in this very newsgroup >> (paragon of openmindedness that it is :-) who detest or at best ignore >> 20th century music. Your belief that when Michael said that classical music >> was dead he had implied that all music was dead reveals a classicocentric >> mentality... [see above; he's proud of it; is he a white supremacist, too?] > Um, just what do you mean by 20th century music, hmmm? Oh dear, you're letting > your whatever-centricity show :-) No, I'm letting *their* whatever-centricity show. (I don't mean anything other than "music composed in the 20th century" when I referred to people in this newsgroup remarking as they have about whole classes of music composed in this century as being not to their liking.) > By the way, what is this "serious" music? Is there "frivolous" music too? :-) It would seem that certain people feel they can make that delineation based on convenient labels, instruments used, composer's date of birth, ... > Well, nomenclature is a problem, isn't it? now will you please have a little > more apparent sympathy for people who try to use all these terms, classical, > popular, serious, light, etc. ? And not be so willing to take offense at the > way they are used? On the contrary, I take *great* offense when any of them are used, since their only purpose seems to be delineate "classes" of music (and their associated worths in the minds of certain sheepish people who'd rather have the labels make the decisions as to what they like instead of doing it themselves). >>> While you're at it, you might inform us as to just exactly what wonderful >>> innovations and new schools of thought exist in the music *you* like. >>> And if you tell me "well, now they use a thingamajig instead of the dead >>> instruments classical musicians use" I'll crack up with laughter. >> And if *you* tell *me* "well, *now* serious composers use a tone row as a >> means of organizing a process of composition instead of the dead tonal styles >> that they used to use...", then I'll get to laugh, too :-) > No, I would never say that. Well, *I* would never say what you expected Michael or me to say. Imagine, just judging the music by what it sounds like (of course, that might involve listening to it) rather than on pre-moistened labels. What a great idea... Naah! > Notice that Rich did not mention any of the new ideas that I asked Michael > to enumerate. Oh well, perhaps Michael will. Or maybe there aren't any :-) What's funny is that Jeff didn't bother to mention any new ideas or innovations either. Talk about pots and kettles... -- WHAT IS YOUR NAME? Rich Rosen WHAT IS YOUR NET ADDRESS? pyuxn!rlr WHAT IS THE CAPITAL OF ASSYRIA? I don't know that ... ARGHHHHHHHH!