Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ucbvax!EDDIE.MIT.EDU!Love-Hounds-request
From: Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.music.gaffa
Subject: Re: Eno and discrete arguments
Message-ID: <8702200537.AA07729@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 20-Feb-87 00:37:20 EST
Article-I.D.: EDDIE.8702200537.AA07729
Posted: Fri Feb 20 00:37:20 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Feb-87 02:38:52 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: Love-Hounds@EDDIE.MIT.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 29
Approved: love-hounds@eddie.mit.edu

Really-From: nessus (Doug Alan)

>> [Me:] So, you're accusing Eno of lying on his liner notes for
>> *Discrete Music*, where he explicitly states that the album was an
>> exercise in setting up a system and then letting it run with the
>> tape recorder going and no further intervention on his part?

> [Rob Rosen:] I said "often," not "ALWAYS."  You're apparently
> extrapolating YOUR cognitive processes onto MY statements.

Then, Mr. Rosen, what has been the point of all your recent postings?
I said that "SOME" of Eno's works were nearly uncrafted.  You then
posted a response saying that this is balderdash, that you won't let
your idol be trod upon and that Eno is a master craftsman (I never
contradicted this).  So, I post a response saying that some of Eno's
work was *definitely* largely uncrafted, because it was intentionally
uncrafted.  You then follow up this with your statement that much of
Eno's work is "often" mistaken for being intentionally uncrafted, when
indeed it is painstakingly crafted to sound like it is uncrafted.

From this, am I supposed to be able to derive that you are conceeding
my point?  Your use of "often" is supposed to make it clear that you
do understand that some of Eno's work was indeed largely uncrafted?  I
think not.

			"Infect me with your love
			 Nurse me into sickness"

			 |>oug