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 2)
Message-ID: <926@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Jul-84 14:05:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.926
Posted: Fri Jul 27 14:05:14 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 10:42:25 EDT
References: <3917@tekecs.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 52

> First, the "original question" was a joke (see below for further discussion
> of this fact, which should have been obvious).

It wasn't obvious to those who followed it up with serious comments on the
subject.  I was apparently not alone, and my responses were directed at
particularly narrow-minded responses to your original article that were in a
serious vein.

> Which brings up an interesting point. What is snobbery but an attempt to feel
> one is better than those around you? What are Rich Rosen's snob attacks but
> an attempt on his part to feel he is better than (some of) those around him?
> (Those he calls snobs.) Don't answer that. 

This would serve as a very cute defense by snobs against anyone who attacks
snobbery.  Very nice, Jeff.  Some people attack snobbery because it is an
affront to anyone attempting to engage in serious artistic endeavor,
especially outside of channels "sanctioned" by the snobs themselves.  Since a
good deal of what I like comes from outside of those sanctioned channels,
anything to promote the deterioration of such hard-line restrictions (as to
what the sheep snobs will deign to listen to) would be worthwhile.

>> People who truly do listen to music based on its merits and not based on
>> their pre-defined labels ("That's XXX, hence it's ...") are eclectic and
>> openminded by the very nature of their rational means for choosing what
>> they like.
> What you say is true, as long as you don't make the mistake of
> defining "open-minded and eclectic" as "including what I like". 

I thought I *had* defined it as "not looking down on what anyone likes"  based
on one's preconceptions or labels.

> Anything whose major features are a steady 4/4 beat,
> a crooning vocalist, and a simple tune and/or a constant fortissimo bores me.
> It's quite possible that your favorite music is close enough to this (to *my*
> ear) that it will bore me too. Gee, that's too bad. Probably a lot of what I
> like bores you. Gee, that's too bad, too. I hope you agree that none of this
> says anything about whether we are open-minded or not.

The fact that you make an assumption that "it's quite possible" that my
favorite music fits your description does indeed say something about your
openmindedness, Jeff.  Read my last article (it's short, you can handle it :-)
delineating specifically the problem of people who have never listened to
elements of the "serious" (?) wing of so-called (by record store managers,
to aid in filing albums) popular music or rock music or whatever, lumping
together ALL popular music based on the minimal sample they hear on the radio.
Mention King Crimson, the Residents, Peter Gabriel, etc. and they deride it
(without hearing it) just as they might deride some ditty they heard on the bus
on the way in to work.  (Jeff, please keep the rest of this discussion in
private mail where it belongs.)
-- 
AT THE TONE PLEASE LEAVE YOUR NAME AND NET ADDRESS. THANK YOU.
						Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr