Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!EDDIE.MIT.EDU!Love-Hounds-request
From: Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.music.gaffa
Subject: not about the Moody Blues
Message-ID: <8704141956.AA08645@uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU>
Date: Tue, 14-Apr-87 14:56:03 EST
Article-I.D.: uicsrd.8704141956.AA08645
Posted: Tue Apr 14 14:56:03 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Apr-87 06:03:35 EST
Sender: daemon@eddie.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: Love-Hounds
Organization: Love-Hounds Anonymous
Lines: 66
Approved: nessus@eddie.mit.edu

Really-From: hsu%uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU@a.cs.uiuc.edu (William Tsun-Yuk Hsu)


>Really-From: prs@oliven.atc.olivetti.com (Philip Stephens)

Me:
>>Uh-oh, my pet peeves... How do you DEFINE "normal" or "proper"? Who
>>makes these "standards"? And why must music need a good reason to "pass
>>beyond the bounds of what is normal or proper"? I would have no problems
>>with your statement had it been something like "I like what's normal and
>>proper", but you claimed to like "weirdness". 

Phil:
>My point is that *you* are defining your own normal and proper to reject my
>taste, and defining outre in terms of violating what some people you hate
>(you parents? teachers?) consider normal and proper.  Just another turn of 
>the idiotic wheel.

Ummm... I never linked "normal and proper" with anyone's tastes. I have
nothing against people liking music that's different from mine, but don't 
point to a complex sound collage and say: THAT'S not music.

I believe that "normal and proper" are arbitrary standards imposed for a
variety of reasons, and especially when I discuss something like music,
I try not to be bound by preconceived ideas of what (normal and proper)
music *should* be like. THAT'S what I was trying to say: (almost) nothing
should be too outre/bizarre/unacceptable/violent (physically or emotionally) 
if it works (in some vague sense) within the piece of music/art/fiction.
(The "almost" gives me a convenient escape hatch for things like bigotry,
racism, etc.)

I also get on very well with my parents and my teachers.

Me:
>>Hof has shown open-mindedness and sophistication in his appreciation of
>>music. You have not. 

Phil:
>Meaningless statement.  I complained a little, and now you think you know
>enough about me to pass judgement.  

All I said was "You have not SHOWN etc." No judgements passed; please parse
sentence again. 

>Considering what you have said (below)
>about music you happen not to like, I don't think much of your perspective
>on openness nor sophistication.  

I like/have liked a wide variety of music. A (megabyte?) list of music
I've spent time with in the past few years is available on request (tho
why anyone would be interested in my mental masturbation is beyond me). It 
would probably include large chunks of the traditional classical repertory,
20th century "serious" music, bebop, some free jazz, cheesy '60s 
psychedelia, cheesy '80s psychedelia, '70s dinosaurs, pretentious '60s
experimental music, pretentious '80s experimental female singers, punk,
post-punk, hardcore, home-tape-noodlers, electronic/industrial music, etc.

>So you're asking me to be trendy and not like the Moody Blues because they
>are out of fashion, or because you personally don't like them. 

No, go ahead and like whatever you want. Last time we had this '70s art
rock debate in love-hounds, I promised not to repeat my position on the
much-revered dinosaurs in this forum, so I won't. Send me email if
you're interested. And good luck with Hof's tape...

Bill