Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Volume
Message-ID: <356@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Jun-85 18:45:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.356
Posted: Tue Jun 18 18:45:07 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Jun-85 05:30:24 EDT
References: <4450@mit-eddie.UUCP> <353@mhuxr.UUCP> <1099@pyuxd.UUCP>
Distribution: net.music
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 66

> > > Doug Alan 
> > > I despise acoustic instruments.
> > Marcel Simon
> > I agree with you 100%. Keep up the good work!
> That's a lie, Marcel!  You believe that rhythm is "where it's at".  Which is
> it, Marcel?  Which of you, Doug or you, has the absolute answer?  I've got
> to know!!!!
> Rich Rosen

Well, I would not want to keep you in suspense, would I? (:-)

Actually, I meant that. Alan started from an axiom, to wit, "volume is
the most important" and the rest of his argument follows from there. If you
accept his axiom, there is no flaw in his reasoning. So he is right.
And I agree with him.

The key here, obviously, is to accept his axiom. Since axioms, by definition,
cannot be proven or disproven, they are either all true  or all false.
I'd rather take the approach that they are all true.

In appreciating something as subjective as music, all we can have are opinions.
They can be invalid if they are not consistent with their own assumptions.
Barring that, they are valid. Naturally, my assumptions will be radically
different from someone else's. The result is passionate argument. I
happen to like passionate argument, whether on the subject of sports,
music, or whatever.

Discussion/argument, however heated, is great fun. I have spent many
hours in hot exchange on the relative merits of the Mingus-Dolphy vs
the Parker-Gillespie vs the Coleman-Cherry bands. I love controversial
postings, they get people's opinions and assumptions out.
Then we really learn what makes them kick, *why* they love or hate a particular
genre, piece or musician. Safe, "informative" postings are fine,
but I don't believe anyone will rush out to buy an album just because
of "information" someone posted on it. If that same piece moves someone to make
outrageous statements, there must be something in it to awaken such passion,
and I'll check it out (like Kate Bush, whose music I know little about,
but whom I will definitely investigate)

Controversy tends to lead to ad hominem flames, unfortunately. I don't quite
understand where the "I don't agree with you, therefore you are an asshole"
logic pattern comes from, but it does have inhibitory results. Who wants to get
into a shouting match with someone who jumps straight to parents' marital
status, total number of brain cells, etc. Much less fun.

This net is an exciting forum for free exchange of opinions, mine, Rosen's,
Alan's or anyone else's. It is exciting because all these opinions
ultimately enrich our perspective on the whole of music, which none of us
can grasp.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Now, on Alan's axiom on volume:
It makes good sense. After all, music with no volume is inaudible. Inaudible
music  may not even exist (that is a debate for net.philosophy. If a piece
is played in the desert by a deaf musician, does it exist? :-)

When Alan speaks of "the louder the better," I assume he means the greater
the dynamic range between loud and soft notes. Since great dynamic
range implies great rhythmic diversity, Alan's axiom thus rejoins mine.
No wonder I agree with him!

Maybe he an I can get together and form a band. Let's see, it would have
no drum machines and no acoustic intruments. I bet we'd make great music!

Marcel Simon