Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brunix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!ry
From: ry@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Jethro Tull, Kate Bush, and jcp losingness
Message-ID: <10517@brunix.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 4-May-85 23:26:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: brunix.10517
Posted: Sat May  4 23:26:59 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 8-May-85 04:01:36 EDT
References: <268@osiris.UUCP> <4148@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Reply-To: ry@nancy.UUCP (Anonymous                 (actually Rich Yampell))
Distribution: net
Organization: Brown University Computer Science
Lines: 110
Summary: 

In article <4148@mit-eddie.UUCP> nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) writes:
>
>> The case could be made that a fair percentage of this newsgroup is
>> mired in mediocrity and past glories.
>
>Why is this stuff mediocre?  Because you don't like it?  Well that's a
>god-awful stupid reason!  Jethro Tull is certainly many many steps above
>most of the vapid, boring, uninspired, unintelligent, insulting,
>formula, pop commercial trash that pollutes the air-waves!


This is just one typical quote from an article that really raised my
eyebrows.  I've seen some pretty amusing acrobatics of logic in the
fairly short time I've been reading the net, but this one takes the
cake.  I'm not in any way talking about the relative value of Jethro
Tull, or any other particular music.  Just the logic involved.

>Why is this stuff mediocre?  Because you don't like it?  Well that's a
>god-awful stupid reason!

Ok, let's accept this as a basic premise, just for the sake of arguement.
Be it established that personal opinion is not justified in bad-mouthing
"stuff".  Unless someone has some reason (*I* can think of none) for why
music is in some way a special case, it seems reasonable that "stuff" could
include anything in the realm of art or ideas.

Given, then, that personal opinion is not allowable as a justification for
criticism of "stuff", it follows that one of two things must be the case:

1)	There is some *other* thing which does justify such criticism
or
2)	Such criticism is *never* justified.


However, 1) is on pretty shaky ground.  For just *what* would those
"other" things be?  And what determines the validity of any possible
choice of "other"?  It would have to be some absolute truth, and not
personal opinion, since we have established that personal opinion is
"a god-awful stupid reason!".  But in fact, one would be hard pressed
to find any absolute truths in this world.  *Everything* is a matter of
opinion.

So we are left with:

Theorem:
	Personal opinion is not justified in bad-mouthing "stuff".

Corallary:
	Such criticism is *never* justified.


>Jethro Tull is certainly many many steps above
>most of the vapid, boring, uninspired, unintelligent, insulting,
>formula, pop commercial trash that pollutes the air-waves!

The prosecution rests.

....

In summary, this person is saying, in effect, "If you don't like something
that *I* like, then you are narrow-minded.  If I don't like something *you*
like, well, hey, obviously I'm right and you're wrong.

.....

The only reason I bothered to post this at all is that the underlying
question is one which has interested me for years, and net.music seems an
appropriate forum for discussion.  Being fairly new to the net, you will
forgive me if I'm bringing up something which has been hashed to death,
and, if so, spare me the flames and just tell me what, if anything, was
concluded.  The question is:

Is there any absolute way to judge music, or is quality *always* a matter
of opinion?  And if there are any absolute standards, what are they?

The reason this interests me is that my *gut* feeling is that there *are*
absolute criterion for music; however, this position is damn-near impossible
to defend.  I cite an extreme example as a starting point:

Consider two pieces of music.  Let the first be a splendid performance of
some "obvious" masterpiece.  Let's say, Beethoven's Symphony #5 (and here
we immediately hit the crux of the issue.  Someone out there is going to
say '*I* don't think the Fifth is an obvious masterpiece!'.  To you I say,
well, fine, just substitute something you do think is a masterpiece into
the arguement).

Let the second piece be a small boy banging two rocks together in straight
quarter-notes.

Here's the problem.  What can one say regarding the relative merit of the
two pieces?  Is it unreasonable to say that the Beethoven (or whatever) is
"better" then the "rock music" (ok, bad pun :))?  Or is it just a matter
of opinion?

Every fibre of my body screams out:  THE BEETHOVEN IS *BETTER* THAN THE
SMALL BOY!!!  ANYBODY WHO DOESN'T SEE THAT IS JUST PLAIN IGNORANT!!

But that's not much of an argument, is it?  It's not likely to convince the
small boy, who's never heard the symphony (save the opening), knows nothing
about symphonies (IGNORANT!!), and is having a just dandy time banging his
rocks together in a monotonous, unimaginative fashion.

So then the apparent answer, that many people give, is that its all
relative, and subjective, and a matter of opinion.  But my fibres still
scream:  ANYONE WHO SAYS THE ROCKS IS BETTER MUSIC IS JUST WRONG!  JUST
LIKE ANYONE WHO SAYS 2+2=5 IS JUST WRONG!!!

So what's the answer??

			Rich Yampell