Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-curium!jackson
From: jackson@curium.DEC (Seth Jackson)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Good and bad music
Message-ID: <2469@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Jun-85 09:10:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.2469
Posted: Tue Jun  4 09:10:53 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 21:44:43 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 54

>>All these arguments that attempt to prove that X is bad music are simply
>>absurd.
>>Once again, I state that pop music and other kinds as well have something
>>to offer. If you don't like the music, it's not because the music is bad,
>>it's because you have not learned to appreciate what's good about it. But,
>>as one wise prophet once said, "You ain't gonna learn what you don't want
>to know."

>Well, here's something to think about.  Up until about a year and a
>half ago, I probabaly hadn't heard 5 GD songs in my life.  When I was in
>10th grade, all the music I listened to was top 40 radio.  Why?  Because
>I didn't know any better.  I hadn't been exposed to what I now consider
>good music.  I didn't have the musical maturity to listen to works
>that didn't give instant (simple) satisfaction.  
>	Nowadays I couldn't stand to listen to top-40 radio.  WHY?  Because
>I've 
>experienced what good really is, and now the other stuff is awful by
>comparison.
>	By your logic there is no difference in quality between
>McDonalds and fine french cuisine; Laverne and Shirley and Macbeth; 
><insert random pop trash> and the Dead.  Now I wouldn't say
>a priori that such is rediculous, but I would expect that the
>level of satisfaction attained by the latter of each pair is much higher.

The original statement that I responded to was an assertion that top 40/pop
music is "bad" music. You and I both happen to enjoy music that's more 
intellectually stimulating than top 40. On the other hand, there are 
many people who enjoy top 40 and listen to the Dead or whomever and 
think that *it's* trash. Obviously, those people are looking for 
something different than you or I; something that top 40 offers 
that the Dead, etc. does not.

The Laverne and Shirley/MacBeth analogy is a good one. MacBeth is clearly
a superior work if you base your judgment on the criterion of intellectual
challenge. However, if you choose the criterion of 1/2 hour of light-hearted
entertainment, then Laverne and Shirley is the superior work. Therefore,
even though I personally find that show to be an insult to my intelligence,
I am wrong when I make statements that the show is bad (usually stronger 
words are used!). The show has something to offer that many people find
to be of value, and, therefore, by certain measures, not only is it a 
good show, it's better than MacBeth.

The point of this discussion is that it's futile to use your own set 
of criteria to judge all situations. Sometimes they simply don't apply.
As a certain wise prophet said long ago, 

"Talk about your plenty, talk about your ills
 One man gathers what another man spills."
__

"We used to play for silver, now we play for life..."

				Seth Jackson
				dec-curium!jackson