Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!plutchak
From: plutchak@uwmacc.UUCP (Joel Plutchak)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Jethro Tull retraction and flame
Message-ID: <1007@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Apr-85 10:41:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1007
Posted: Tue Apr 30 10:41:25 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-May-85 06:39:38 EDT
References: <268@osiris.UUCP>
Reply-To: plutchak@uwmacc.UUCP (Joel plutchak)
Distribution: net
Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center
Lines: 52

In article <268@osiris.UUCP> jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) writes:
>
>He got the basic idea from Rahsaan Roland
>Kirk, from whom he stole most of his style too. Nothing original about
>singing into a flute - fife players in this country were doing it 100
>years ago, and it was done in Africa long before that.
>It amazes me that people
>can get so wrought up over a band that hasn't had an original thought
>since 1978 (some would say never). The case could be made that a fair
>percentage of this newsgroup is mired in mediocrity and past glories.
>	Guess I should sit back now and let the flames roll in. Hop and
>down all you want but I *promise* I won't reply to any letter that has
>nothing better to say than to call my opinions 'moosepoop' (yes, I've
>gotten some of those). I'd rather see the argument go on in the
>newsgroup, liven things up a bit (seems awfully Dead around here...).
>-- 
>jcpatilla
   Since I think it was a response to my posting that got you all the flames,
I thought I'd put in a few words.
   You seem awfully down on Mr. Anderson.  I realize that he may not be the
most original flautist around, and I agree that the earlier music was much
better than what we've seen lately (the last Tull album I really enjoyed was
Minstrel in the Gallery).  But, I ask in all earnestness, what does lack of
"originality" in flute technique have to do with enjoyment of music?  I don't
know that I've EVER experienced anything truly original, be it in music, 
politics, philosophy, etc.  What originality seems to mean to most people is
"something I personally have never encountered before" (and there's *plenty*
of that in MY life...).
   That brings me to the my second disagreement with your posting.  Just 
because some of us enjoy older music now just as much as we did back then
does NOT mean that we don't listen to newer music (speaking for myself, of
course, although I'm sure I can find some agreement with this).  I enjoy
older Tull, older Pink Floyd, older Yes, old Eric Clapton (Cream, Blind
Faith, etc)... the list goes on and on.  I also enjoy XTC, King Crimson
(it is a very different band these days), Madness, a bit of Black Flag-type
music every now and again, and other new (not necessarily original) music.
The older music brings me as much enjoyment as the new, and will probably
continue to do so.  When the enjoyment stops, I'll take several hundred
pounds of albums and stereo equipment to the used stores and get enough
money back for a cabin in the north woods, where I'll live with only the
sounds of nature for the rest of my life (:-).
   I find your postings enjoyable and interesting, and I thank you for
your invitation to discuss them (moosepoop or not).  Now, do you have
any newer music you can recommend to me, knowing a bit about my current
tastes?  One of the reasons I read nets like this one is to get
recommendations on new music (although I've been so busy reading books
mentioned in SF-lovers that I've not been to the record stores in a 
while, but I'll get there eventually).
                       -joel plutchak

"Shut your face or I'll tear out your windpipe and make you eat it."
 (Thanks and apologies to SKZB).