" wrote in message
ink.net...


Perception is not the question, performance is. Either they perform some
audible function or not. People can perceive things that aren't really
happening, which is the case with Shakti Stones. The only known effect
they have is in the RF area, not at audible freqencies.


No, the ultimate purpose of an audio system is to provide a means to
play music for our enjoyment.
Perception is IT. Whay you enjoy
listening to and through is what counts

Jenn said:

Is teaching about the Revolutionary War less important now than it was
50 years ago?

The state of Kroofulness does not admit to the possibility of learning new
things.

Clyde Slick said:

No, the ultimate purpose of an audio system is to provide a means to
play music for our enjoyment.
Perception is IT. Whay you enjoy
listening to and through is what counts

For Mickey, audio has nothing to do with enjoyment. In fact, nothing in
Mickey's sad existence has anything to do with enjoyment.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...


Perception is not the question, performance is. Either they perform some
audible function or not. People can perceive things that aren't really
happening, which is the case with Shakti Stones. The only known effect
they have is in the RF area, not at audible freqencies.


No, the ultimate purpose of an audio system is to provide a means to
play music for our enjoyment.
Perception is IT. Whay you enjoy
listening to and through is what counts
Agreed, but if a device is marketed that can have no audible effect it is
fraud.

"SSJVCmag" wrote in message
...
: On 9/22/05 3:03 PM, in article teDYe.22433$zG1.10749@trnddc05, "DaveW"
: wrote:
:
: Scott Dorsey wrote:
: snip
:
: I remember being about nine years old and going through the Hirschorn museum
: in DC with my father.
:
: There was an exhibit from a fellow who took enemas of tempera paint and
: squirted them out on canvas.
:
:
: That's not art. That's fart.
:
: DAve
:
: Fine Art...
: F'art...

Yes, that's a very astute association, SSJVCart. It is my observation that there
are,
in fact, 3 newsgroups in the header up ^there. Think about it, i'm sure you know
we all can, if we want, trim those unnecessary crosspostings. You really rock,
dude.

Really, keep trying, you CAN get past this.
Just don't give up. We're pullin' for ya.
:-) ;-) 8--)

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:28:30 GMT, "
wrote:

I always urge people to spend as much as they can afford on speakers,
because they are the most important part of any system.

Said the defunct speaker "manufacturer".

Said the lazy ass waiter.

" wrote in message
k.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...


Perception is not the question, performance is. Either they perform
some audible function or not. People can perceive things that aren't
really happening, which is the case with Shakti Stones. The only known
effect they have is in the RF area, not at audible freqencies.


No, the ultimate purpose of an audio system is to provide a means to
play music for our enjoyment.
Perception is IT. Whay you enjoy
listening to and through is what counts
Agreed, but if a device is marketed that can have no audible effect it is
fraud.

Be more specific:
You mean no audible effect when proper torture protocols
are used.

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...

"SSJVCmag" wrote in message
...
: On 9/22/05 3:03 PM, in article teDYe.22433$zG1.10749@trnddc05, "DaveW"
: wrote:
:
: Scott Dorsey wrote:
: snip
:
: I remember being about nine years old and going through the Hirschorn
museum
: in DC with my father.
:
: There was an exhibit from a fellow who took enemas of tempera paint
and
: squirted them out on canvas.
:
:
: That's not art. That's fart.
:
: DAve
:
: Fine Art...
: F'art...

Yes, that's a very astute association, SSJVCart. It is my observation that
there
are,
in fact, 3 newsgroups in the header up ^there. Think about it, i'm sure
you know
we all can, if we want, trim those unnecessary crosspostings. You really
rock,
dude.

Really, keep trying, you CAN get past this.
Just don't give up. We're pullin' for ya.
:-) ;-) 8--)



SSJVCmag, doing what no other man has done
before (well, maybe with the exception of Bwian),
uniting objectivists and subjectivists with
one common enemy.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
k.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...


Perception is not the question, performance is. Either they perform
some audible function or not. People can perceive things that aren't
really happening, which is the case with Shakti Stones. The only known
effect they have is in the RF area, not at audible freqencies.


No, the ultimate purpose of an audio system is to provide a means to
play music for our enjoyment.
Perception is IT. Whay you enjoy
listening to and through is what counts
Agreed, but if a device is marketed that can have no audible effect it is
fraud.

Be more specific:
You mean no audible effect when proper torture protocols
are used.
I mean it is advertised as being able to do something that it is impossible
for it to do.

wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

I always urge people to spend as much as they can afford on speakers,
because they are the most important part of any system.

The implication here is that spending more on speakers will make your
system sound better. "As much as they can afford" suggests that there is
no practical limit to the improvement you can make in this fashion; that
the sound quality of your system ultimately depends on how much money you
spend on your speakers.

I don't believe either of these things. I've not noticed any correlation
between the price of speakers and their sound quality.

Have you listened to the Beolab 5?
$16,000 buys you a speaker that is nearly perfect down to 18 Hz.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
. com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Culture itslef will ultimately decide what is worth
preserving and what is not which I think is beyond
the control of man (or woman).

Of course, if that culture isn't educated enough to
appreciate the qualities of art-music, it's deciding
from ignorance.

This isn't about art in general or music in general.
It's about very specific music. Is it really art if
people have to be forced through elaborate
reprogramming exercises before they act like they
like it?

Wow! Talk about a bunch of presumptions! Your last
sentence contains several!

If you're brave, list 'em and address 'em

1. Forced?

possibly a synonym for "educated" above.

Two different ways of seeing education, I suppose.

Well, there are many ways to see education.

2. Elaborate reprogramming exercises?

again see "education"

Ditto my last comment.

3. ACT like they like it?

Obviously the subjects of the "education" exercises
didn't like the music they were being "educated" to like
before they were "educated".

In what way is that obvious?

That they needed to be "educated" to like it.

IOW, I like classical and certain kinds of traditional
music, but I realize that my grandchildren see the same
music from 50+ years later.

Is teaching about the Revolutionary War less important
now than it was 50 years ago?

I think so. Increasingly true the more recent the war. IOW
The Korean war has lost tremendous importance, as has WW2.

Arny Krueger wrote:

---



Krueger, I've noticed you seem to be posting nearly 24 hours a day 365
days a year.

Do you do anything else but blab on the internet?

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
k.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...


Perception is not the question, performance is. Either they perform
some audible function or not. People can perceive things that aren't
really happening, which is the case with Shakti Stones. The only
known effect they have is in the RF area, not at audible freqencies.


No, the ultimate purpose of an audio system is to provide a means to
play music for our enjoyment.
Perception is IT. Whay you enjoy
listening to and through is what counts
Agreed, but if a device is marketed that can have no audible effect it
is fraud.

Be more specific:
You mean no audible effect when proper torture protocols
are used.
I mean it is advertised as being able to do something that it is
impossible for it to do.

what?
it is advertised as possibly changing
your perceptions of musical playback, and
that is what it does, for some people.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
. com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Culture itslef will ultimately decide what is worth
preserving and what is not which I think is beyond
the control of man (or woman).

Of course, if that culture isn't educated enough to
appreciate the qualities of art-music, it's deciding
from ignorance.

This isn't about art in general or music in general.
It's about very specific music. Is it really art if
people have to be forced through elaborate
reprogramming exercises before they act like they
like it?

Wow! Talk about a bunch of presumptions! Your last
sentence contains several!

If you're brave, list 'em and address 'em

1. Forced?

possibly a synonym for "educated" above.

Two different ways of seeing education, I suppose.

Well, there are many ways to see education.

2. Elaborate reprogramming exercises?

again see "education"

Ditto my last comment.

3. ACT like they like it?

Obviously the subjects of the "education" exercises
didn't like the music they were being "educated" to like
before they were "educated".

In what way is that obvious?

That they needed to be "educated" to like it.

IOW, I like classical and certain kinds of traditional
music, but I realize that my grandchildren see the same
music from 50+ years later.

Is teaching about the Revolutionary War less important
now than it was 50 years ago?

I think so. Increasingly true the more recent the war. IOW The Korean war
has lost tremendous importance, as has WW2.


Right Arny. same with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus,
which occurred 2,000 years ago. Its just a faraway blip
in the history of mankind.

"Dr. Dolittle" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

---



Krueger, I've noticed you seem to be posting nearly 24 hours a day 365
days a year.

Do you do anything else but blab on the internet?

He eats corn flakes, trains teenage boys in his basement, and
records his hideous church choir.

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Dr. Dolittle" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

---



Krueger, I've noticed you seem to be posting nearly 24 hours a day 365
days a year.

Do you do anything else but blab on the internet?

He eats corn flakes, trains teenage boys in his basement, and
records his hideous church choir.



While you jerkoff to pictures of your grandmother.


Hit the ceiling yet, Sack'O'****? :-)

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Obviously the subjects of the "education" exercises
didn't like the music they were being "educated" to like
before they were "educated".

In what way is that obvious?

That they needed to be "educated" to like it.

But once they did, there was no turning back.

Stephen

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Dr. Dolittle" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

---



Krueger, I've noticed you seem to be posting nearly 24 hours a day 365
days a year.

Do you do anything else but blab on the internet?

He eats corn flakes, trains teenage boys in his basement, and
records his hideous church choir.



While you jerkoff to pictures of your grandmother.


Hit the ceiling yet, Sack'O'****? :-)


Whoop-Dee-Doo, Arny's crotch protector is back with us!

Clyde Slick wrote:

wrote in message

Hit the ceiling yet, Sack'O'****? :-)



Whoop-Dee-Doo, Arny's crotch protector is back with us!

Hahahah. That is actually very funny!

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
k.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...


Perception is not the question, performance is. Either they perform
some audible function or not. People can perceive things that aren't
really happening, which is the case with Shakti Stones. The only
known effect they have is in the RF area, not at audible freqencies.


No, the ultimate purpose of an audio system is to provide a means to
play music for our enjoyment.
Perception is IT. Whay you enjoy
listening to and through is what counts
Agreed, but if a device is marketed that can have no audible effect it
is fraud.

Be more specific:
You mean no audible effect when proper torture protocols
are used.
I mean it is advertised as being able to do something that it is
impossible for it to do.

what?
it is advertised as possibly changing
your perceptions of musical playback, and
that is what it does, for some people.
Bull****. Shakti Stones are advertised as having a physical effect, not an
emotional one.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:55:31 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:31:55 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

Given
that no component can be operated in isolation, but must be used with
other, necessarily imperfect components, surely the only review with
any real validity is a review of a complete system, the proviso being
that if the reader fails to duplicate that exact system in every
detail, the review is invalid.

Using those criteria for judgment, ALL reviews are invalid, since even
if you build the exact same system, you won't have the same room or
the same set of ears and biases.

Agreed.

The best you can hope for is a calibration with the reviewer. If you
find that reviewer fairly consonant with your viewpoints about audio,
or you somehow understand the descriptive language that they are
using, or you are simply entertained by their narrative, and you find
out that you are in agreement with their judgments after actually
using a piece of gear that they have reviewed, then the reviewer is
useful.

One should never take a review as anything but a rough guideline, or
possibly a way to narrow the field.

Exactly. Which is why I added:

That said, I enjoy reviews and use them as a guide, though not as a
bible. If reviewers from two or three different mags agree that a
component is exceptional, it probably is.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:04:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:



The Korean war has lost tremendous importance, as has WW2.

Not for those who were killed in them.

On 22 Sep 2005 11:04:51 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

There was an exhibit from a fellow who took enemas of tempera paint and
squirted them out on canvas.

My father claimed that this was not art, that it was disgusting, and that
anybody could do it. He was horrified that the artist was paid $250,000
for this work.

I asked if he would be willing to do this for $250,000, and he said that
not for a million dollars would he be willing to paint with an enema.
"That," I replied, "is what makes it art."

He glared pretty hard at me.
--scott

Of course. That's because what you said made no sense.

Clyde Slick said:

Krueger, I've noticed you seem to be posting nearly 24 hours a day 365
days a year.

Do you do anything else but blab on the internet?

He eats corn flakes, trains teenage boys in his basement, and
records his hideous church choir.

He also to goes to weekly Nerdcon meetings in Detroit with a bunch of
other wingnuts. We're not sure if he takes Continuing Ed courses in the
"debating trade".

One thing he never does is learn how to design Web sites.

paul packer said:

The Korean war has lost tremendous importance, as has WW2.

Not for those who were killed in them.

Turdborg is practicing his God complex again.

paul packer said:

One should never take a review as anything but a rough guideline, or
possibly a way to narrow the field.

Exactly. Which is why I added:

That said, I enjoy reviews and use them as a guide, though not as a
bible. If reviewers from two or three different mags agree that a
component is exceptional, it probably is.

I agree with Mr. Weil, but not with you.

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
k.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...


Perception is not the question, performance is. Either they perform
some audible function or not. People can perceive things that
aren't really happening, which is the case with Shakti Stones. The
only known effect they have is in the RF area, not at audible
freqencies.


No, the ultimate purpose of an audio system is to provide a means to
play music for our enjoyment.
Perception is IT. Whay you enjoy
listening to and through is what counts
Agreed, but if a device is marketed that can have no audible effect it
is fraud.

Be more specific:
You mean no audible effect when proper torture protocols
are used.
I mean it is advertised as being able to do something that it is
impossible for it to do.

what?
it is advertised as possibly changing
your perceptions of musical playback, and
that is what it does, for some people.

Bull****. Shakti Stones are advertised as having a physical effect, not an
emotional one.


"Music reproduction is clearer, with more liquidity, dynamics and focus.
The improved inter-transient silence allows the listener to hear ambient
cue information essential for accurate perception of stage depth, width
and unwavering imaging."

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:16:58 -0400, Clyde Slick wrote:

Bull****. Shakti Stones are advertised as having a physical effect, not an
emotional one.


"Music reproduction is clearer, with more liquidity, dynamics and focus.
The improved inter-transient silence allows the listener to hear ambient
cue information essential for accurate perception of stage depth, width
and unwavering imaging."

Well, that reads like a claim of an actual physical effect to me.

d

Clyde Slick said:

Bull****. Shakti Stones are advertised as having a physical effect, not an
emotional one.

"Music reproduction is clearer, with more liquidity, dynamics and focus.
The improved inter-transient silence allows the listener to hear ambient
cue information essential for accurate perception of stage depth, width
and unwavering imaging."

No test data... no wonder Mickey's confused.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 01:08:21 GMT, "Dr. Dolittle"
wrote:

Krueger, I've noticed you seem to be posting nearly 24 hours a day 365
days a year.

Do you do anything else but blab on the internet?

Yes, he oils his joints and tests his circuits.

Obviously only a robot could post 24 hours a day 365 days a year.

Don Pearce said:

Bull****. Shakti Stones are advertised as having a physical effect, not an
emotional one.

"Music reproduction is clearer, with more liquidity, dynamics and focus.
The improved inter-transient silence allows the listener to hear ambient
cue information essential for accurate perception of stage depth, width
and unwavering imaging."

Well, that reads like a claim of an actual physical effect to me.

Hi Don! Did you just get home from the hospital? Sounds like you were born
yesterday. Happy birthday.

paul packer said:

Krueger, I've noticed you seem to be posting nearly 24 hours a day 365
days a year.

Do you do anything else but blab on the internet?

Yes, he oils his joints and tests his circuits.
Obviously only a robot could post 24 hours a day 365 days a year.

You underestimate cyborgs.

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:16:58 -0400, Clyde Slick wrote:

Bull****. Shakti Stones are advertised as having a physical effect, not
an
emotional one.


"Music reproduction is clearer, with more liquidity, dynamics and focus.
The improved inter-transient silence allows the listener to hear ambient
cue information essential for accurate perception of stage depth, width
and unwavering imaging."

Well, that reads like a claim of an actual physical effect to me.



Reads like a perceptive effect to me.

"paul packer" wrote in message


That said, I enjoy reviews and use them as a guide,
though not as a bible. If reviewers from two or three
different mags agree that a component is exceptional, it
probably is--which however doesn't change what I've said
above.

First off really bad gear is rare, and even bad gear either
gets good reviews or gets mentioned with the warts magically
reviewed. Cases in point would be the Bosendorfer speakers,
and just about any SET.

If reviewers from 2-3 different magazines agree that a
component is exceptional, it may just indicate that it has
been well-marketed to reviewers.

Besides, there's another meaning to exceptional. Know what
an "exceptional child" is?

Even the best gear must be used with sympathetic
equipment,

This is yet another marketing concept that has been elevated
to audiophool truth. The need for equipment to be
"sympathetic" among itself real indicates design weaknesses.
I get speakers that are sympathetic with rooms, and SETs
that by chance correct for speakers, and cartridges that
need to be matched to arms. I don't get CD players that need
to be matched with preamps, or preamps that need to be
matched with amps.

The whole realm of audiophoolery is up and arms against what
is arguably the best generaly-purpose equipment matching
component around - the equalizer. That's because dealers
know that unlike a lot of the snake oil they unleash on the
market, equalizers can actually make things sound different
and better. If I was a dealer I'd much rather sell Mpingo
disks than equalizers. Equalizers are powerful enough to
make a difference. Mpingo disks can only improve cash flow.

and I strongly suspect that over the years
I've sold a lot of good equipment I should have kept and
tried to match better. This is where an experienced
dealer is probably of more use than a reviewer.

It takes a fairly brain-dead and imperceptive individual to
be helped by your typical dealer, particularly if the
dealer's that have been dominent on RAO over the years is
any guide. What sounds good to the average dealer has a lot
to do with margins and age of stock.

Incidentally, one other area where reviews have their
limitations is in their failure to tell you how reliable
something is likely to be.

In fact almost all reviews get written even before the
infant mortality period is over. Then there's the mortality
of equipment with real world use, which typically hasn't
even started when the ragazine is published.

In the end, this is vastly
more important than minute differences in sound quality.

Now that we can agree on. Anytying that produces really
pretty good sound is better than something that's broken.
OTOH, something that produces bad sound is arguably improved
by being broken. ;-)

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:04:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:



The Korean war has lost tremendous importance, as has
WW2.

Not for those who were killed in them.

True, those who were killed in those wars found the wars to
be irrelevant, once they were dead.

BTW Paul, your skills at making irrelevant, senseless posts
in the style of Weil, Sackman and Middius seems to be
*improving*, if that can be called improving. It can't.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 08:43:46 -0400, Clyde Slick wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:16:58 -0400, Clyde Slick wrote:

Bull****. Shakti Stones are advertised as having a physical effect, not
an
emotional one.


"Music reproduction is clearer, with more liquidity, dynamics and focus.
The improved inter-transient silence allows the listener to hear ambient
cue information essential for accurate perception of stage depth, width
and unwavering imaging."

Well, that reads like a claim of an actual physical effect to me.



Reads like a perceptive effect to me.

Read again - it claims "improved inter-transient silence". That is a
quantifiable, physical effect.

d

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:53:40 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

Don Pearce said:

Bull****. Shakti Stones are advertised as having a physical effect, not an
emotional one.

"Music reproduction is clearer, with more liquidity, dynamics and focus.
The improved inter-transient silence allows the listener to hear ambient
cue information essential for accurate perception of stage depth, width
and unwavering imaging."

Well, that reads like a claim of an actual physical effect to me.

Hi Don! Did you just get home from the hospital? Sounds like you were born
yesterday. Happy birthday.

Thank you, George. As it happens I am feeling particularly young and
vigorous today. This evening I'm going to a 21st birthday party (no, not
mine) at a rather nice club in central London so that is just as well.

If you would care to try again with the birthday greetings when February
comes round, that would be very nice.

d

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 08:43:46 -0400, Clyde Slick wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:16:58 -0400, Clyde Slick wrote:

Bull****. Shakti Stones are advertised as having a
physical effect, not an
emotional one.


"Music reproduction is clearer, with more liquidity,
dynamics and focus. The improved inter-transient
silence allows the listener to hear ambient cue
information essential for accurate perception of stage
depth, width and unwavering imaging."

Well, that reads like a claim of an actual physical
effect to me.



Reads like a perceptive effect to me.

Read again - it claims "improved inter-transient
silence". That is a quantifiable, physical effect.

The question that Art seems to sputter out trying to answer
is:

If it is just a perceptive effect, why bother to try to
obtain it by buying equipment?

What Art needs is a audiophool magazine that tells him his
existing stereo provides exceptional clarity , with more
liquidity, dynamics and focus. The ragazine should say that
your stereo provides improved inter-transient silence that
allows the listener to hear ambient cue information
essential for accurate perception of stage depth, width and
unwavering imaging.

Trouble is, the non-existent ad revenues from such a
magazine would push its price way beyond what Art can
afford, given that Art foolishly spent all that money on
equipment. ;-)

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
. com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Culture itslef will ultimately decide what is worth
preserving and what is not which I think is beyond
the control of man (or woman).

Of course, if that culture isn't educated enough to
appreciate the qualities of art-music, it's deciding
from ignorance.

This isn't about art in general or music in general.
It's about very specific music. Is it really art if
people have to be forced through elaborate
reprogramming exercises before they act like they
like it?

Wow! Talk about a bunch of presumptions! Your last
sentence contains several!

If you're brave, list 'em and address 'em

1. Forced?

possibly a synonym for "educated" above.

Two different ways of seeing education, I suppose.

Well, there are many ways to see education.

Of course.

2. Elaborate reprogramming exercises?

again see "education"

Ditto my last comment.

3. ACT like they like it?

Obviously the subjects of the "education" exercises
didn't like the music they were being "educated" to like
before they were "educated".

In what way is that obvious?

That they needed to be "educated" to like it.

Everyone is "educated" to like whatever they like: classical music, rap,
wine....


IOW, I like classical and certain kinds of traditional
music, but I realize that my grandchildren see the same
music from 50+ years later.

Is teaching about the Revolutionary War less important
now than it was 50 years ago?

I think so. Increasingly true the more recent the war. IOW
The Korean war has lost tremendous importance, as has WW2.

Gee, I think that it's just as important now to learn about those events
as it ever was.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
. com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Culture itslef will ultimately decide what is worth
preserving and what is not which I think is beyond
the control of man (or woman).

Of course, if that culture isn't educated enough to
appreciate the qualities of art-music, it's deciding
from ignorance.

This isn't about art in general or music in general.
It's about very specific music. Is it really art if
people have to be forced through elaborate
reprogramming exercises before they act like they
like it?

Wow! Talk about a bunch of presumptions! Your last
sentence contains several!

If you're brave, list 'em and address 'em

1. Forced?

possibly a synonym for "educated" above.

Two different ways of seeing education, I suppose.

Well, there are many ways to see education.

Of course.

2. Elaborate reprogramming exercises?

again see "education"

Ditto my last comment.

3. ACT like they like it?

Obviously the subjects of the "education" exercises
didn't like the music they were being "educated" to like
before they were "educated".

In what way is that obvious?

That they needed to be "educated" to like it.

Everyone is "educated" to like whatever they like: classical music, rap,
wine....


IOW, I like classical and certain kinds of traditional
music, but I realize that my grandchildren see the same
music from 50+ years later.

Is teaching about the Revolutionary War less important
now than it was 50 years ago?

I think so. Increasingly true the more recent the war. IOW
The Korean war has lost tremendous importance, as has WW2.

Gee, I think that it's just as important now to learn about those events
as it ever was.

Something about "those who fail to heed history, are bound to.........".