Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site harvard.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!tomczak
From: tomczak@harvard.ARPA (Bill Tomczak)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Instrumental vs. vocal popular music
Message-ID: <361@harvard.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 18-Sep-85 13:26:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: harvard.361
Posted: Wed Sep 18 13:26:54 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 09:58:56 EDT
References: <1477@brl-tgr.ARPA> <607@grkermi.UUCP>
Reply-To: tomczak@harvard.UUCP (Bill tomczak)
Distribution: net
Organization: Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard
Lines: 26
Summary: 

>Andrew Rogers...

>...in the early days of rock, it wasn't the lyrics that parents >and
other self-appointed meddlers objected to - it was that JUNGLE BEAT!
>(According to one survey, 34% of all juvenile delinquents had listened
to >negro music at least once!)

And before that there was something immoral about swing (the parents of
the swing generation were used to the one-step and suchlike.  Swinging
the rhythm destroyed the sense of "beat' for them).

I've done a lot of work in the last 5-6 years with folk music from
Europe and I see all the same problems expressed differently.  Some
group of people develop a common aesthetic for a particular kind of
music.  They come across another group who've developed a totally
different aesthetic.  Both aesthetics (for some reason I don't think I
completely understand yet) can't be allowed to exist simultaneously
(one is "right" and one is "wrong").  So each group gets snagged on
some group of philosophical concepts that "prove" their aesthetic is
the "correct" one.  If you can bring God and morals into it so much the
better.  Then you don't have to take responsibility for your own,
narrow, human perspective ("it's God's will" and all that...).

Adding my own irrelevancies.....

Bill Tomczak@harvard.{ARPA, UUCP}


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com