Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!EDDIE.MIT.EDU!Love-Hounds-request From: Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.music.gaffa Subject: Re: not about the Moody Blues Message-ID: <8704152200.AA29551@oliven.ATC.OLIVETTI.COM> Date: Wed, 15-Apr-87 17:00:40 EST Article-I.D.: oliven.8704152200.AA29551 Posted: Wed Apr 15 17:00:40 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 17-Apr-87 05:16:08 EST Sender: mrose@eddie.MIT.EDU Reply-To: Love-Hounds Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Lines: 116 Keywords: Sorry this is so long, but I want to clarify... Approved: nessus@eddie.mit.edu Really-From: prs@oliven.atc.olivetti.com (Philip Stephens) In article <8704141956.AA08645@uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU> Love-Hounds writes: >Really-From: hsu%uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU@a.cs.uiuc.edu (William Tsun-Yuk Hsu) > Bill: >>>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 Did I say it needed a reason? Not what I meant to say, if I seemed to. >>>with your statement had it been something like "I like what's normal and >>>proper", but you claimed to like "weirdness". I should have mentioned in my previous reply that you and I are using two different but correct definitions of "weird". Yours is the colloquial "startlingly or extraordinarily singular, odd, or queer: a weird getup"; mine is the first listed in the American College Dictionary (the one that happens to be on my desk is all): "involving or suggesting the supernatural; unearthly or uncanny: a weird scene, light, or sound". We're both right. >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. > Bill: >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. Are you imagining that I did? Not so. Such thoughts have occurred to me, but I wouldn't utter it without at least the disclaimer "to me", implying that I consider musicality a matter of taste, not an absolute. >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. I'm sorry I gave the impression of being more closed minded than I really am. You are certainly welcome to make and/or listen to anything you like, as long as I don't have to listen to stuff twice that I don't like. (In principle, that is; in practice I don't have much choise in grocery stores etc, but that aint YORE fault). Bill: >>>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. > Bill: >All I said was "You have not SHOWN etc." No judgements passed; please parse >sentence again. Sorry, my objection "Meaningless statement" was not to "You have not shown", I was saying that "has shown open-mindedness and sophistication" is meaningless, unless I know the person saying it well enough to know what they really mean. I don't. As for you passing judgement, that was the impression I had of your whole reply, not that particular sentence. Your present reply does not give so negative an impression. Phil: >>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. > Bill: >I like/have liked a wide variety of music. [long list deleted] Oh, so *that's* what you mean by open-minded. Differing definitions again. To me, open-minded means accepting and repectful of other people's sensibilities, which your flames at the time did not seem to show. > >>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. > Bill: >No, go ahead and like whatever you want. Likewise. I guess I misunderstood your intent. >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 E-mail? I respectfully decline. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that. I do intend to send for Hof's tape, as he has graciously replied in the affirmative. I'm not really as hostile as I sounded, I'm just grouchy sometimes, especially when the pollen-count is high. No permanent offense intended. - Phil prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) {really oliven} or, if that fails: {get to 'ames' somehow, then}!oliveb!prs Mail welcome, but my mailer seldom cooperates when I try to reply.