Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!mit-eddie!nessus
From: nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Jethro Tull, Kate Bush, and jcp losingness
Message-ID: <4197@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-May-85 01:32:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.4197
Posted: Wed May  8 01:32:31 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 9-May-85 02:38:03 EDT
References: <268@osiris.UUCP> <4148@mit-eddie.UUCP> <10517@brunix.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 63

> From: ry@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell)

> In article <4148@mit-eddie.UUCP> nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) writes:

>>>    [jcp] The case could be made that a fair percentage of this
>>>    newsgroup is mired in mediocrity and past glories.

>>  [nessus] 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!

> [ry] 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.

...

> 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.

You're logic isn't so perfect either.  You've ignored the possibility
that there is music that I personally don't enjoy listening to, but
which I think has artistic merit.  This is indeed the case.  For
example, I personally don't enjoy listening to Steely Dan music, but I'm
not going to accuse someone that does enjoy listening to it of being
"mired in medicrity".  On the other hand, I believe that someone whose
favorite "musicians" are Lionel Richie, Olivia Newton John, and Journey
IS mired in mediocrity.

Jcp's message annoyed me because he decreed as mediocre Jethro Tull (who
I find to be fairly interesting, even if I don't enjoy all their stuff)
and Kate Bush (who I find to be the most original and interesting
musical artist I have ever heard [no one else even does videos anything
like hers]), without seeming to give any other reason than that he
doesn't like them.  I don't think "I don't like it" is a good enough
reason to slander someone's art.  I don't like broccoli, but I'm not
going to accuse it of not being a decent food.  On the other hand, I do
think cardboard is not a decent food.  Lionel Richie, et al., are
worthless musicians because what they create is uninspired,
unintelligent, insulting, formula, pop, and commercial.  Well, of course
this could be a matter of debate too, but I think it's a much better
reason than "I don't like it"!

How to judge quality and originality is always going to be of a
very subjective nature.  There is no absolute truth.  But somehow it
seems to me to be much more reasonable for a supposed critic to judge
something on the basis of his perception of its originality, quality,
complexity, simplicity, intelligence, emotional power, etc., rather than
just on whether he likes it or not.

			"My door was never locked
			 Until one day a trigger come -- cocking
			         (But now I've started learning how)
					I keep it shut"

			 Doug Alan
			  mit-eddie!nessus
			  Nessus@MIT-MC.ARPA