Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unccvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!unccvax!dsi
From: dsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Instrumental vs. vocal popular music
Message-ID: <294@unccvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Sep-85 11:15:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: unccvax.294
Posted: Sun Sep 15 11:15:17 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Sep-85 04:50:16 EDT
References: <1477@brl-tgr.ARPA>, <1480@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: UNC-Charlotte
Lines: 24


     There is, however, a problem with this.  At least since the 11th century,
religious-zealots-turned-music-critics have had a problem with certain 
"riffs","chords","(musical *)phrasing" or whatever you want to call it. 
The purpose of music then was supposedly to keep your mind firmly rooted in
the somber and depressing things that would happen to you if you stepped off
God's path.  With the development of music as entertainment rather than a
tool for religious indoctrination, came the ancestors of jerks like Ms. Gore
of the PMCC. 

     I did not, BTW, see the Zappa-Gore-Osmond thing on TV last night, but
am informed that the PMCC's representative made a very poor showing for her
position.

     Supposing that we all woke up tomorrow and 85% of the music on radio
was nonvocal, I am sure that these bagfarts like Ms. Gore would find something
prurient about the "beat" or "chords", and would go on to bitch and carp 
about "undue gaiety" just like those jokers in the Middle Ages. I submit
that since the PMCC has had (most likely) less music training than even I
have had (which is very little) they certainly aren't qualified to make
judgements as to the musical meaning of music.

David Anthony
DataSpan, Inc


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com