Cello CD made in heaven [Archive]

Harry Lavo

October 24th 06, 01:55 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On 23 Oct 2006 18:32:00 -0700, " >
> wrote:
>
>
>>===============================
>>Paul says:
>>> It is not a matter of opinion as to whether the
>>> music of Mozart is more uplifting and rejuvenating to the human soul
>>> and of vastly great universal value than the outpourings of Metallica.
>>
>>And almost certainly it will still be played when Metallica is long
>>dead, buried and forgotten..
>>
>>I'll take my courage in my hands and say that of course you're right-
>>
>>But some think that it is a matter of proof and disproof like algebra..
>>And since I can not prove it for the sake of peace I'll be a coward and
>>let you speak out.
>>
>>Don't tell anyone.
>>Ludovic M...
>
> I well understand your abject fear, Ludo. It's fashionable these days
> to build "level playing fields" all over the place and pretend that
> excellence doesn't exist as a definable quality but that rather
> everything is a matter of taste. I disagree and will continue to
> disagree however vociferous the chorus of protest against me. I would
> have said once that we all know true musical excellence when we hear
> it whatever our "tastes", but I fear many young ears these days have
> forgotten (or never knew) its sound and begun to imagine that the
> music of the ephemeral populist time-wasters they chase after really
> does have merit and will last longer than the obligatory fifteen
> minutes. This is tragic and bodes ill for the future. Even here on
> RAO, where one expects a higher level of musical appreciation, I
> suspect many posters are already aiming nuclear missiles at my
> contention and planning to tell me (in a nice way, hopefully) to shut
> my snobbish mouth. Again, they'll have no effect on my certainties. I
> may not know much, but I know that some things are independent of
> opinion and don't rely for their sustenance on a certain number of
> people believing in them. And thank God for that.

I basically fall into that camp as well. I find it interesting, for
example, that some elements of music such as rythym have been found to have
been built into our brain at a very primitive level. I also believe Jung
was right when he identified certain patterns or archtypes that seem to
exist across cultures, amongst all humans. Their is much anthropological
and psychological evidence that this is true.

If you can accept these things, they suggest that their is a certain
propensity to aesthetic refinement built into the human soul (however you
want to define that). And if that is true, then artists who can tap that
aesthetic refinement in a truly elegant way will find some permanence, I
believe. While there are large cultural elements involved, and I do *not*
believe other cultures' music is inferior (they have their "classics" too)
or that all pop music is inferior, I do believe that Western classical
music's widespread appeal is based on aesthetic as well as cultural
acceptance among people whose interest and training in music raises music
from a background level to something important to their soul. And that that
appreciation is based to an important degree on that inbred aesthetic
refinement.

The term "music of the spheres" is appropriate, I believe.

George M. Middius

October 24th 06, 02:12 PM

paul packer said:

> >> I disagree. I believe there are absolute standards. It may be a matter
> >> of opinion as to whether Beethoven or Brahms, Bach or Vivaldi is the
> >> greater composer. It is not a matter of opinion as to whether the
> >> music of Mozart is more uplifting and rejuvenating to the human soul
> >> and of vastly great universal value than the outpourings of Metallica.

> >Not such a great example, Your Holiness. I know people who have
> >university educations and who are averse to all classical music.

> George, what are you telling me? I know people who have university
> educations who lack any shred of common sense and whose pronouncements
> are as much to be take note of as those of your average six-year-old.
> University educations are not a gateway to good taste and
> discrimination. I sometimes think the opposite is the case.

Point taken.

> >You might argue their souls are beyond redemption, and so their votes should
> >not be counted. But there it is -- no artistic truth is completely
> >universal.

> Artistic truth IS universal. The apprehension of it tends to be
> random, apparently unpredictable. and totally independent of the
> number of degrees one may happen to possess.

Elitism now? How unlike you.

It's my belief that an artist has an obligation to express his thoughts
or feelings in such a way that some reasonable number of esthetes can
apprehend them. If art is too vapid (white paint on a white canvas in a
white frame, say), the viewer's engagement is superficial and
short-lived, and the artist has not achieved much in the way of truth.

I think the best you can say of the best art is nearly universal. For
instance, I admire da Vinci's Mona Lisa, but it doesn't engage me
emotionally. Does that mean the artist failed, or that I'm an uncultured
boor, or perhaps something else?

A truth that is imperceptible is worthless. Granted, the fewer the
number of individuals who don't perceive it, the less weight should be
attached.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Harry Lavo

October 24th 06, 02:48 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 23 Oct 2006 18:32:00 -0700, " >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>===============================
>>>Paul says:
>>>> It is not a matter of opinion as to whether the
>>>> music of Mozart is more uplifting and rejuvenating to the human soul
>>>> and of vastly great universal value than the outpourings of Metallica.
>>>
>>>And almost certainly it will still be played when Metallica is long
>>>dead, buried and forgotten..
>>>
>>>I'll take my courage in my hands and say that of course you're right-
>>>
>>>But some think that it is a matter of proof and disproof like algebra..
>>>And since I can not prove it for the sake of peace I'll be a coward and
>>>let you speak out.
>>>
>>>Don't tell anyone.
>>>Ludovic M...
>>
>> I well understand your abject fear, Ludo. It's fashionable these days
>> to build "level playing fields" all over the place and pretend that
>> excellence doesn't exist as a definable quality but that rather
>> everything is a matter of taste. I disagree and will continue to
>> disagree however vociferous the chorus of protest against me. I would
>> have said once that we all know true musical excellence when we hear
>> it whatever our "tastes", but I fear many young ears these days have
>> forgotten (or never knew) its sound and begun to imagine that the
>> music of the ephemeral populist time-wasters they chase after really
>> does have merit and will last longer than the obligatory fifteen
>> minutes. This is tragic and bodes ill for the future. Even here on
>> RAO, where one expects a higher level of musical appreciation, I
>> suspect many posters are already aiming nuclear missiles at my
>> contention and planning to tell me (in a nice way, hopefully) to shut
>> my snobbish mouth. Again, they'll have no effect on my certainties. I
>> may not know much, but I know that some things are independent of
>> opinion and don't rely for their sustenance on a certain number of
>> people believing in them. And thank God for that.
>
> I basically fall into that camp as well. I find it interesting, for
> example, that some elements of music such as rythym have been found to
> have been built into our brain at a very primitive level. I also believe
> Jung was right when he identified certain patterns or archtypes that seem
> to exist across cultures, amongst all humans. Their is much
> anthropological and psychological evidence that this is true.
>
> If you can accept these things, they suggest that their is a certain
> propensity to aesthetic refinement built into the human soul (however you
> want to define that). And if that is true, then artists who can tap that
> aesthetic refinement in a truly elegant way will find some permanence, I
> believe. While there are large cultural elements involved, and I do *not*
> believe other cultures' music is inferior (they have their "classics" too)
> or that all pop music is inferior, I do believe that Western classical
> music's widespread appeal is based on aesthetic as well as cultural
> acceptance among people whose interest and training in music raises music
> from a background level to something important to their soul. And that
> that appreciation is based to an important degree on that inbred aesthetic
> refinement.
>
> The term "music of the spheres" is appropriate, I believe.

Damn MS Word keeps changing "there" to "their" on me. Sorry about that.

Eeyore

October 24th 06, 03:22 PM

Harry Lavo wrote:

> Damn MS Word keeps changing "there" to "their" on me. Sorry about that.

Why on earth are you using such a truly dreadful program ?

Graham

paul packer

October 24th 06, 03:32 PM

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:12:58 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >> I disagree. I believe there are absolute standards. It may be a matter
>> >> of opinion as to whether Beethoven or Brahms, Bach or Vivaldi is the
>> >> greater composer. It is not a matter of opinion as to whether the
>> >> music of Mozart is more uplifting and rejuvenating to the human soul
>> >> and of vastly great universal value than the outpourings of Metallica.
>
>> >Not such a great example, Your Holiness. I know people who have
>> >university educations and who are averse to all classical music.
>
>> George, what are you telling me? I know people who have university
>> educations who lack any shred of common sense and whose pronouncements
>> are as much to be take note of as those of your average six-year-old.
>> University educations are not a gateway to good taste and
>> discrimination. I sometimes think the opposite is the case.
>
>Point taken.
>
>> >You might argue their souls are beyond redemption, and so their votes should
>> >not be counted. But there it is -- no artistic truth is completely
>> >universal.
>
>> Artistic truth IS universal. The apprehension of it tends to be
>> random, apparently unpredictable. and totally independent of the
>> number of degrees one may happen to possess.
>
>Elitism now? How unlike you.

Reverse elitism, I'd have thought.

>It's my belief that an artist has an obligation to express his thoughts
>or feelings in such a way that some reasonable number of esthetes can
>apprehend them.

Stalin would have ammended that to say that the most lowly peasant
should apprehend art if it's true art. As usual he was wrong.

> If art is too vapid (white paint on a white canvas in a
>white frame, say), the viewer's engagement is superficial and
>short-lived, and the artist has not achieved much in the way of truth.

I'm not sure truth necessarily relies on the engagement of the viewer
or listener's interest. But then it depends whether you mean truth or
Truth.

>I think the best you can say of the best art is nearly universal. For
>instance, I admire da Vinci's Mona Lisa, but it doesn't engage me
>emotionally. Does that mean the artist failed, or that I'm an uncultured
>boor, or perhaps something else?

It depends what you understand of the artist's intent. If I told you
that Mona Lisa's smile reflected a universal truth, that its very
self-composure points the way to the real meaning of human evolution,
would that perk your interest? Of course you may not believe me,
probably wouldn't, but I think for at least a short time you'd take a
greater interest in that nice lady.

>A truth that is imperceptible is worthless. Granted, the fewer the
>number of individuals who don't perceive it, the less weight should be
>attached.

A truth may only be perceptable at a certain level, to which you must
rise if you wish to understand it. The number of people who believe or
perceive something does not make it true or untrue; it just is.
Consider education. How do you explain to an ignorant man the value of
education? If you say it has a refining effect, that will mean nothing
to him unless he already possesses some inate refinement. You've risen
sufficiently to understand both the obvious and subtle effects of
education, but you would have great difficulty explaining those
effects to the uneducated. We have organs of perceptions, but not all
our organs are equally developed individually or as a species, and
some organs are so subtle as not even to have been properly identified
yet, such as is illustrated by the capacity of certain individuals to
percieve music in terms of colour. Imagine trying to explain that to
the uninitiated.

George M. Middius

October 24th 06, 03:40 PM

Poopie brays stridently in the grip of high anxiety.

> > Damn MS Word keeps changing "there" to "their" on me. Sorry about that.

> Why on earth are you using such a truly dreadful program ?

How many years did it take you to figure out that Krooger is krazy?

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Jenn

October 24th 06, 03:52 PM

In article >,
(paul packer) wrote:

> On 23 Oct 2006 18:32:00 -0700, " >
> wrote:
>
>
> >===============================
> >Paul says:
> >> It is not a matter of opinion as to whether the
> >> music of Mozart is more uplifting and rejuvenating to the human soul
> >> and of vastly great universal value than the outpourings of Metallica.
> >
> >And almost certainly it will still be played when Metallica is long
> >dead, buried and forgotten..
> >
> >I'll take my courage in my hands and say that of course you're right-
> >
> >But some think that it is a matter of proof and disproof like algebra..
> >And since I can not prove it for the sake of peace I'll be a coward and
> >let you speak out.
> >
> >Don't tell anyone.
> >Ludovic M...
>
> I well understand your abject fear, Ludo. It's fashionable these days
> to build "level playing fields" all over the place and pretend that
> excellence doesn't exist as a definable quality but that rather
> everything is a matter of taste. I disagree and will continue to
> disagree however vociferous the chorus of protest against me. I would
> have said once that we all know true musical excellence when we hear
> it whatever our "tastes", but I fear many young ears these days have
> forgotten (or never knew) its sound and begun to imagine that the
> music of the ephemeral populist time-wasters they chase after really
> does have merit and will last longer than the obligatory fifteen
> minutes. This is tragic and bodes ill for the future. Even here on
> RAO, where one expects a higher level of musical appreciation, I
> suspect many posters are already aiming nuclear missiles at my
> contention and planning to tell me (in a nice way, hopefully) to shut
> my snobbish mouth. Again, they'll have no effect on my certainties. I
> may not know much, but I know that some things are independent of
> opinion and don't rely for their sustenance on a certain number of
> people believing in them. And thank God for that.

This is a very interesting topic. Obviously I spend my life performing
and promoting "classical" music, but I fully appreciate the other forms
as well. What is of interest when I speak to 18-22 year olds today is
that they are less interested (as a group) in music that "changes your
life". Popular music today is less about expressing basic, deep
emotions; music as art that raises questions and attempts to provide
answers about the nature of life and the universe. I know that I risk
sounding like my parents here, but even compared to the popular music of
my youth, popular music now seems to be more about lowlife activities
and criminal behavior. I guess it's part of the eternal question
concerning these matters: Does music reflect current society or does it
help to lead societal change? But beyond the content and style issues,
there are performance quality issues. The performance standards of so
much music now are just so much lower than in the past. Basic, absolute
standards such as intonation are just plain discounted. CSNY, The
Carpenters, John Denver, Joan Baez, Janis Ian, Peter Paul and Mary,
Bread, Jim Croce, et al sang and played IN TUNE and with generally good
tone quality. Those values, in general, seem discounted today. And of
course, I think that this relates to this generation's lack of interest
in quality home audio.

Harry Lavo

October 24th 06, 05:03 PM

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>
>> Damn MS Word keeps changing "there" to "their" on me. Sorry about that.
>
> Why on earth are you using such a truly dreadful program ?
>
> Graham
>

Actually I'm not....I'm using Outlook Express...but it ties to Word's
spelling checker/grammar checker, which is what causes the grief. I've just
been too lazy to go into this latest version and figure out how to turn it
off....which I did do once upon a time with an earlier version.

George M. Middius

October 24th 06, 06:46 PM

paul packer said:

> >> Artistic truth IS universal. The apprehension of it tends to be
> >> random, apparently unpredictable. and totally independent of the
> >> number of degrees one may happen to possess.

> >Elitism now? How unlike you.

> Reverse elitism, I'd have thought.

Maybe... if you value education over an artistically attuned soul.

> >It's my belief that an artist has an obligation to express his thoughts
> >or feelings in such a way that some reasonable number of esthetes can
> >apprehend them.

> Stalin would have ammended that to say that the most lowly peasant
> should apprehend art if it's true art. As usual he was wrong.

Hey, I know that tactic -- Scottie Terrierborg uses it too. What's it
called again?

> > If art is too vapid (white paint on a white canvas in a
> >white frame, say), the viewer's engagement is superficial and
> >short-lived, and the artist has not achieved much in the way of truth.

> I'm not sure truth necessarily relies on the engagement of the viewer
> or listener's interest. But then it depends whether you mean truth or
> Truth.

I have difficulty believing in absolutes in the realm of art.

> >I think the best you can say of the best art is nearly universal. For
> >instance, I admire da Vinci's Mona Lisa, but it doesn't engage me
> >emotionally. Does that mean the artist failed, or that I'm an uncultured
> >boor, or perhaps something else?

> It depends what you understand of the artist's intent. If I told you
> that Mona Lisa's smile reflected a universal truth, that its very
> self-composure points the way to the real meaning of human evolution,
> would that perk your interest? Of course you may not believe me,
> probably wouldn't, but I think for at least a short time you'd take a
> greater interest in that nice lady.

My point was that you might see such indications, but I don't. I see, at
best, the artist's projection of his own wishes; at worst, the lady's
serenity is completely fabricated.

> >A truth that is imperceptible is worthless. Granted, the fewer the
> >number of individuals who don't perceive it, the less weight should be
> >attached.
>
> A truth may only be perceptable at a certain level, to which you must
> rise if you wish to understand it. The number of people who believe or
> perceive something does not make it true or untrue; it just is.
> Consider education. How do you explain to an ignorant man the value of
> education? If you say it has a refining effect, that will mean nothing
> to him unless he already possesses some inate refinement. You've risen
> sufficiently to understand both the obvious and subtle effects of
> education, but you would have great difficulty explaining those
> effects to the uneducated. We have organs of perceptions, but not all
> our organs are equally developed individually or as a species, and
> some organs are so subtle as not even to have been properly identified
> yet, such as is illustrated by the capacity of certain individuals to
> percieve music in terms of colour. Imagine trying to explain that to
> the uninitiated.

I don't see the connection between an intangible (the value of education
to an uneducated person) and the Meaning Of Life. Nor between variations
in sensory acuity and The Origin Of The Universe.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

paul packer

October 25th 06, 04:47 AM

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:46:24 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >> Artistic truth IS universal. The apprehension of it tends to be
>> >> random, apparently unpredictable. and totally independent of the
>> >> number of degrees one may happen to possess.
>
>> >Elitism now? How unlike you.
>
>> Reverse elitism, I'd have thought.
>
>Maybe... if you value education over an artistically attuned soul.
>
>> >It's my belief that an artist has an obligation to express his thoughts
>> >or feelings in such a way that some reasonable number of esthetes can
>> >apprehend them.
>
>> Stalin would have ammended that to say that the most lowly peasant
>> should apprehend art if it's true art. As usual he was wrong.
>
>Hey, I know that tactic -- Scottie Terrierborg uses it too. What's it
>called again?

Terrierborgism.

>> > If art is too vapid (white paint on a white canvas in a
>> >white frame, say), the viewer's engagement is superficial and
>> >short-lived, and the artist has not achieved much in the way of truth.
>
>> I'm not sure truth necessarily relies on the engagement of the viewer
>> or listener's interest. But then it depends whether you mean truth or
>> Truth.
>
>I have difficulty believing in absolutes in the realm of art.

Try harder.

>> >I think the best you can say of the best art is nearly universal. For
>> >instance, I admire da Vinci's Mona Lisa, but it doesn't engage me
>> >emotionally. Does that mean the artist failed, or that I'm an uncultured
>> >boor, or perhaps something else?
>
>> It depends what you understand of the artist's intent. If I told you
>> that Mona Lisa's smile reflected a universal truth, that its very
>> self-composure points the way to the real meaning of human evolution,
>> would that perk your interest? Of course you may not believe me,
>> probably wouldn't, but I think for at least a short time you'd take a
>> greater interest in that nice lady.
>
>My point was that you might see such indications, but I don't. I see, at
>best, the artist's projection of his own wishes; at worst, the lady's
>serenity is completely fabricated.

What an old cynic you are, George. Why would old Leo fabricate
serenity? Why would the portrayal of perfect serenity engage him
anyway? Now there's an interesting question.

>> >A truth that is imperceptible is worthless. Granted, the fewer the
>> >number of individuals who don't perceive it, the less weight should be
>> >attached.
>>
>> A truth may only be perceptable at a certain level, to which you must
>> rise if you wish to understand it. The number of people who believe or
>> perceive something does not make it true or untrue; it just is.
>> Consider education. How do you explain to an ignorant man the value of
>> education? If you say it has a refining effect, that will mean nothing
>> to him unless he already possesses some inate refinement. You've risen
>> sufficiently to understand both the obvious and subtle effects of
>> education, but you would have great difficulty explaining those
>> effects to the uneducated. We have organs of perceptions, but not all
>> our organs are equally developed individually or as a species, and
>> some organs are so subtle as not even to have been properly identified
>> yet, such as is illustrated by the capacity of certain individuals to
>> percieve music in terms of colour. Imagine trying to explain that to
>> the uninitiated.
>
>I don't see the connection between an intangible (the value of education
>to an uneducated person) and the Meaning Of Life. Nor between variations
>in sensory acuity and The Origin Of The Universe.

If you live in a village in a slight valley, and you never go to the
top of the next hill, you'll never know what's beyond. I'm suggesting
there are truths, indeed whole vistas of experience and understanding,
only available to those able to raise their level of consciousness
sufficiently to perceive them. People can discuss, for instance,
whether there is or isn't a spiritual dimension, but it's all useless
speculation so long as they're standing completely in the physical
plain, like speculating from the valley whether there is or isn't a
village over the hill. I would just like people to leave room for the
possibility that their current organs of perception might be
refinable, or that other organs altogether might begin to develop and
give us a whole new view of existance. If you truly believe in
evolution, that shouldn't seem like such a weird concept.

paul packer

October 25th 06, 05:29 AM

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:52:41 GMT, Jenn
> wrote:

>> >
>> >Don't tell anyone.
>> >Ludovic M...
>>
>> I well understand your abject fear, Ludo. It's fashionable these days
>> to build "level playing fields" all over the place and pretend that
>> excellence doesn't exist as a definable quality but that rather
>> everything is a matter of taste. I disagree and will continue to
>> disagree however vociferous the chorus of protest against me. I would
>> have said once that we all know true musical excellence when we hear
>> it whatever our "tastes", but I fear many young ears these days have
>> forgotten (or never knew) its sound and begun to imagine that the
>> music of the ephemeral populist time-wasters they chase after really
>> does have merit and will last longer than the obligatory fifteen
>> minutes. This is tragic and bodes ill for the future. Even here on
>> RAO, where one expects a higher level of musical appreciation, I
>> suspect many posters are already aiming nuclear missiles at my
>> contention and planning to tell me (in a nice way, hopefully) to shut
>> my snobbish mouth. Again, they'll have no effect on my certainties. I
>> may not know much, but I know that some things are independent of
>> opinion and don't rely for their sustenance on a certain number of
>> people believing in them. And thank God for that.
>
>This is a very interesting topic. Obviously I spend my life performing
>and promoting "classical" music, but I fully appreciate the other forms
>as well. What is of interest when I speak to 18-22 year olds today is
>that they are less interested (as a group) in music that "changes your
>life". Popular music today is less about expressing basic, deep
>emotions; music as art that raises questions and attempts to provide
>answers about the nature of life and the universe. I know that I risk
>sounding like my parents here, but even compared to the popular music of
>my youth, popular music now seems to be more about lowlife activities
>and criminal behavior. I guess it's part of the eternal question
>concerning these matters: Does music reflect current society or does it
>help to lead societal change?

Good thoughts, Jenn. And they can be taken further. My feeling about
most popular entertainment these days is that its intention is to
stimulate the surface of the mind at the expense of anything deeper.
So movie are cut into 3 second shots, mostly close-ups, so that the
mind barely has time to take in one image before it's replaced with
the next. The plots are superficial with gaping holes, but the
rationale appears to be "keep it moving fast enough and they won't
notice". Movies and TV, even documentaries, are smothered with
crashing electronic background music that often resembles metal
palettes being dropped on a concrete floor, all to suggest some kind
of drama not otherwise evident and make certain there are no points of
quietness or repose. If you wonder why so many kids exhibit so-called
ADD and ADHD, you only have to look at what their developing brains
are constantly exposed to---and all that's without even taking account
of the actual message, which as you suggest is usually nasty, ugly and
often criminal. You can blame a person for making a wrong choice when
a choice exists, but for today's kids no choice exists; they never
hear good music, and though good films are available, they lack the
discrimination, which must be inculcated early, to recognise them as
superior--it's just old fogey stuff which to them moves much too
slowly. So the kids are no longer exposed to anything weighty,
anything worth protracted contemplation, so in time even the concept
of contemplating something at length becomes lost. Most kids today
(and not just kids) don't even understand the concept of music as art,
let alone film as art. Indeed, the whole concept of art itself is
being lost, because the very word art suggests a striving toward
something above common life, something instructive and energising, and
that's not a concept today's kids have been prepared to take in.

> But beyond the content and style issues,
>there are performance quality issues. The performance standards of so
>much music now are just so much lower than in the past. Basic, absolute
>standards such as intonation are just plain discounted. CSNY, The
>Carpenters, John Denver, Joan Baez, Janis Ian, Peter Paul and Mary,
>Bread, Jim Croce, et al sang and played IN TUNE and with generally good
>tone quality. Those values, in general, seem discounted today. And of
>course, I think that this relates to this generation's lack of interest
>in quality home audio.

Totally agree. I was listening recently to a CD of Burt Bacharach Love
Songs by the original performers (Dusty Sprignfield, Dionne Warwick
etc) and what beautiful songs they were, with meaningful lyrics,
expertly interpreted. Pop stuff, yes, but Beethoven by comparison with
today's fluff. Which makes you wonder what the kids will be listening
to in another 40 years, or will they be permanently deaf? Now there's
a thought for evolutionists. If the ears are constantly assailed by
loud, jarring music, will they begin to close up like flower petals,
so that future generations will have no ears at all?

(On that note, I recall that when I went to school most of the kids
had rather large, floppy ears. Today's kids have quite demur
shell-likes by comparison, which must certainly be less efficient. I
wonder if evolution is at work already).

[email protected]

October 25th 06, 07:31 AM

paul packer wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:46:24 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >paul packer said:
> >
> >> >> Artistic truth IS universal. The apprehension of it tends to be
> >> >> random, apparently unpredictable. and totally independent of the
> >> >> number of degrees one may happen to possess.
> >
> >> >Elitism now? How unlike you.
> >
> >> Reverse elitism, I'd have thought.
> >
> >Maybe... if you value education over an artistically attuned soul.
> >
> >> >It's my belief that an artist has an obligation to express his thoughts
> >> >or feelings in such a way that some reasonable number of esthetes can
> >> >apprehend them.
> >
> >> Stalin would have ammended that to say that the most lowly peasant
> >> should apprehend art if it's true art. As usual he was wrong.
> >
> >Hey, I know that tactic -- Scottie Terrierborg uses it too. What's it
> >called again?
>
> Terrierborgism.
>
> >> > If art is too vapid (white paint on a white canvas in a
> >> >white frame, say), the viewer's engagement is superficial and
> >> >short-lived, and the artist has not achieved much in the way of truth.
> >
> >> I'm not sure truth necessarily relies on the engagement of the viewer
> >> or listener's interest. But then it depends whether you mean truth or
> >> Truth.
> >
> >I have difficulty believing in absolutes in the realm of art.
>
> Try harder.
>
> >> >I think the best you can say of the best art is nearly universal. For
> >> >instance, I admire da Vinci's Mona Lisa, but it doesn't engage me
> >> >emotionally. Does that mean the artist failed, or that I'm an uncultured
> >> >boor, or perhaps something else?
> >
> >> It depends what you understand of the artist's intent. If I told you
> >> that Mona Lisa's smile reflected a universal truth, that its very
> >> self-composure points the way to the real meaning of human evolution,
> >> would that perk your interest? Of course you may not believe me,
> >> probably wouldn't, but I think for at least a short time you'd take a
> >> greater interest in that nice lady.
> >
> >My point was that you might see such indications, but I don't. I see, at
> >best, the artist's projection of his own wishes; at worst, the lady's
> >serenity is completely fabricated.
>
> What an old cynic you are, George. Why would old Leo fabricate
> serenity? Why would the portrayal of perfect serenity engage him
> anyway? Now there's an interesting question.
>
> >> >A truth that is imperceptible is worthless. Granted, the fewer the
> >> >number of individuals who don't perceive it, the less weight should be
> >> >attached.
> >>
> >> A truth may only be perceptable at a certain level, to which you must
> >> rise if you wish to understand it. The number of people who believe or
> >> perceive something does not make it true or untrue; it just is.
> >> Consider education. How do you explain to an ignorant man the value of
> >> education? If you say it has a refining effect, that will mean nothing
> >> to him unless he already possesses some inate refinement. You've risen
> >> sufficiently to understand both the obvious and subtle effects of
> >> education, but you would have great difficulty explaining those
> >> effects to the uneducated. We have organs of perceptions, but not all
> >> our organs are equally developed individually or as a species, and
> >> some organs are so subtle as not even to have been properly identified
> >> yet, such as is illustrated by the capacity of certain individuals to
> >> percieve music in terms of colour. Imagine trying to explain that to
> >> the uninitiated.
> >
> >I don't see the connection between an intangible (the value of education
> >to an uneducated person) and the Meaning Of Life. Nor between variations
> >in sensory acuity and The Origin Of The Universe.
>
> If you live in a village in a slight valley, and you never go to the
> top of the next hill, you'll never know what's beyond. I'm suggesting
> there are truths, indeed whole vistas of experience and understanding,
> only available to those able to raise their level of consciousness
> sufficiently to perceive them. People can discuss, for instance,
> whether there is or isn't a spiritual dimension, but it's all useless
> speculation so long as they're standing completely in the physical
> plain, like speculating from the valley whether there is or isn't a
> village over the hill. I would just like people to leave room for the
> possibility that their current organs of perception might be
> refinable, or that other organs altogether might begin to develop and
> give us a whole new view of existance. If you truly believe in
> evolution, that shouldn't seem like such a weird concept.

==============================

I hesitate to enter this debate for a good reason. Like most people I'm
a creature of my early years in a certain environment with its own set
of beliefs or if you prefer prejudices.

Rather than explain I'll try to convey the flavour.
A major Polish writer wrote once an influential book-length essay
entitled "In praise of snobbery". He contended that even if many of
those who bought "literature", went to chamber music concerts and
"serious" theatre plays mostly to keep up with the culture-snotty
Joneses, and be seen keeping up, their support was a blessing because
otherwise the artists would starve. "Elite" and "elitist" were not an
insult. It was taken for granted that good taste was and will always be
limited to a minority. Amongst other things a work of art requires
attention, concentration and distancing from the background noise. One
has to pay.. If you want to see all this as a survival of feudal
attitudes in a capitalist age you are in part right.

I do not think that this attitude was limited to the Central-
European fringe. Expressed or not it was prevalent in all of old
Europe, possibly less in England than on the Continent. The upper and
middle class were the taste-setters and on their part the rich felt
obligated to endow art galleries, support symhony orchestras and buy
"literature" even if some did not enjoy what they supported.

The egalitarian spirit of the New World may be a mixed blessing for
the Arts. The barometer readings are taken from popular ie. financial
success. The elite is no longer respected, let alone followed. The
notion that there are enduring cultural values is ridiculed by the same
people who think that all the "cultures" are equal and that preferrin
pop to an art gallery is all just a "snobbish", "elitist" personal
point of view

At best a skilful or lucky fashionista such as Warhol mnages to
substutute himself for a real cultural icon. On occasions an easy to
grasp image like Mona Lisa's smile holds the attention for one second
in competition with unceasing background noise..

There is no way to "prove" that the Iliad means more to humanity than
John (is it John?) Grisham (and in several wonderful translations is a
better read as well). The evidence that it is an inherent part of the
Western cultural ethos will not impress those who don't care either for
the Iliad or its progeny. But hopefully it will last as long as the
Western culture does. As I suppose will the Bible which used to be the
one source of "high literature that most people accessed..

Which in this atomic age may not be saying very much.
Ludovic Mirabel
Put in and take out my "the" and "a" as needed. Never managed to get
that quiite right. I grew up in a "no article" language,..

Jenn

October 25th 06, 04:21 PM

In article >,
(paul packer) wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:52:41 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> >
> >> >Don't tell anyone.
> >> >Ludovic M...
> >>
> >> I well understand your abject fear, Ludo. It's fashionable these days
> >> to build "level playing fields" all over the place and pretend that
> >> excellence doesn't exist as a definable quality but that rather
> >> everything is a matter of taste. I disagree and will continue to
> >> disagree however vociferous the chorus of protest against me. I would
> >> have said once that we all know true musical excellence when we hear
> >> it whatever our "tastes", but I fear many young ears these days have
> >> forgotten (or never knew) its sound and begun to imagine that the
> >> music of the ephemeral populist time-wasters they chase after really
> >> does have merit and will last longer than the obligatory fifteen
> >> minutes. This is tragic and bodes ill for the future. Even here on
> >> RAO, where one expects a higher level of musical appreciation, I
> >> suspect many posters are already aiming nuclear missiles at my
> >> contention and planning to tell me (in a nice way, hopefully) to shut
> >> my snobbish mouth. Again, they'll have no effect on my certainties. I
> >> may not know much, but I know that some things are independent of
> >> opinion and don't rely for their sustenance on a certain number of
> >> people believing in them. And thank God for that.
> >
> >This is a very interesting topic. Obviously I spend my life performing
> >and promoting "classical" music, but I fully appreciate the other forms
> >as well. What is of interest when I speak to 18-22 year olds today is
> >that they are less interested (as a group) in music that "changes your
> >life". Popular music today is less about expressing basic, deep
> >emotions; music as art that raises questions and attempts to provide
> >answers about the nature of life and the universe. I know that I risk
> >sounding like my parents here, but even compared to the popular music of
> >my youth, popular music now seems to be more about lowlife activities
> >and criminal behavior. I guess it's part of the eternal question
> >concerning these matters: Does music reflect current society or does it
> >help to lead societal change?
>
>
> Good thoughts, Jenn. And they can be taken further. My feeling about
> most popular entertainment these days is that its intention is to
> stimulate the surface of the mind at the expense of anything deeper.
> So movie are cut into 3 second shots, mostly close-ups, so that the
> mind barely has time to take in one image before it's replaced with
> the next. The plots are superficial with gaping holes, but the
> rationale appears to be "keep it moving fast enough and they won't
> notice". Movies and TV, even documentaries, are smothered with
> crashing electronic background music that often resembles metal
> palettes being dropped on a concrete floor, all to suggest some kind
> of drama not otherwise evident and make certain there are no points of
> quietness or repose. If you wonder why so many kids exhibit so-called
> ADD and ADHD, you only have to look at what their developing brains
> are constantly exposed to---and all that's without even taking account
> of the actual message, which as you suggest is usually nasty, ugly and
> often criminal. You can blame a person for making a wrong choice when
> a choice exists, but for today's kids no choice exists; they never
> hear good music, and though good films are available, they lack the
> discrimination, which must be inculcated early, to recognise them as
> superior--it's just old fogey stuff which to them moves much too
> slowly. So the kids are no longer exposed to anything weighty,
> anything worth protracted contemplation, so in time even the concept
> of contemplating something at length becomes lost. Most kids today
> (and not just kids) don't even understand the concept of music as art,
> let alone film as art. Indeed, the whole concept of art itself is
> being lost, because the very word art suggests a striving toward
> something above common life, something instructive and energising, and
> that's not a concept today's kids have been prepared to take in.

I agree, and it's a monster that feeds itself. As there is less demand
for quality, the market dictates that there is less things of quality
available. But I think that there IS a market out there for quality
artistic product. The classical music market, for example, is not
shrinking, though it is "graying" to some extent. Classical recording
sales remains at at 5% of the market (about the same as jazz), which is
where it has pretty much been for years. Sales are good when the
product is good and when it is priced correctly (see Naxos). I'm afraid
that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW IT (IMO) by not
teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through public
school music programs to LOVE good music and to be performers and
CONSUMERS for a lifetime. Too many program burn out kids by stressing
(a carefully considered choice of words) contests and competitions and
bad literature. When more kids in bands, orchestras, and choirs know
the music of Swearingen than they know Mozart, something is terribly
wrong. I and others speak out about this on the national level quite
often.

>
> > But beyond the content and style issues,
> >there are performance quality issues. The performance standards of so
> >much music now are just so much lower than in the past. Basic, absolute
> >standards such as intonation are just plain discounted. CSNY, The
> >Carpenters, John Denver, Joan Baez, Janis Ian, Peter Paul and Mary,
> >Bread, Jim Croce, et al sang and played IN TUNE and with generally good
> >tone quality. Those values, in general, seem discounted today. And of
> >course, I think that this relates to this generation's lack of interest
> >in quality home audio.
>
>
> Totally agree. I was listening recently to a CD of Burt Bacharach Love
> Songs by the original performers (Dusty Sprignfield, Dionne Warwick
> etc) and what beautiful songs they were, with meaningful lyrics,
> expertly interpreted. Pop stuff, yes, but Beethoven by comparison with
> today's fluff. Which makes you wonder what the kids will be listening
> to in another 40 years, or will they be permanently deaf? Now there's
> a thought for evolutionists. If the ears are constantly assailed by
> loud, jarring music, will they begin to close up like flower petals,
> so that future generations will have no ears at all?
>
> (On that note, I recall that when I went to school most of the kids
> had rather large, floppy ears. Today's kids have quite demur
> shell-likes by comparison, which must certainly be less efficient. I
> wonder if evolution is at work already).

VERY interesting! See the book "Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy" for an
interesting discussion on such things.

[email protected]

October 25th 06, 06:08 PM

wrote:
> paul packer wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:46:24 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
> > [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >paul packer said:
> > >
> > >> >> Artistic truth IS universal. The apprehension of it tends to be
> > >> >> random, apparently unpredictable. and totally independent of the
> > >> >> number of degrees one may happen to possess.
> > >
> > >> >Elitism now? How unlike you.
> > >
> > >> Reverse elitism, I'd have thought.
> > >
> > >Maybe... if you value education over an artistically attuned soul.
> > >
> > >> >It's my belief that an artist has an obligation to express his thoughts
> > >> >or feelings in such a way that some reasonable number of esthetes can
> > >> >apprehend them.
> > >
> > >> Stalin would have ammended that to say that the most lowly peasant
> > >> should apprehend art if it's true art. As usual he was wrong.
> > >
> > >Hey, I know that tactic -- Scottie Terrierborg uses it too. What's it
> > >called again?
> >
> > Terrierborgism.
> >
> > >> > If art is too vapid (white paint on a white canvas in a
> > >> >white frame, say), the viewer's engagement is superficial and
> > >> >short-lived, and the artist has not achieved much in the way of truth.
> > >
> > >> I'm not sure truth necessarily relies on the engagement of the viewer
> > >> or listener's interest. But then it depends whether you mean truth or
> > >> Truth.
> > >
> > >I have difficulty believing in absolutes in the realm of art.
> >
> > Try harder.
> >
> > >> >I think the best you can say of the best art is nearly universal. For
> > >> >instance, I admire da Vinci's Mona Lisa, but it doesn't engage me
> > >> >emotionally. Does that mean the artist failed, or that I'm an uncultured
> > >> >boor, or perhaps something else?
> > >
> > >> It depends what you understand of the artist's intent. If I told you
> > >> that Mona Lisa's smile reflected a universal truth, that its very
> > >> self-composure points the way to the real meaning of human evolution,
> > >> would that perk your interest? Of course you may not believe me,
> > >> probably wouldn't, but I think for at least a short time you'd take a
> > >> greater interest in that nice lady.
> > >
> > >My point was that you might see such indications, but I don't. I see, at
> > >best, the artist's projection of his own wishes; at worst, the lady's
> > >serenity is completely fabricated.
> >
> > What an old cynic you are, George. Why would old Leo fabricate
> > serenity? Why would the portrayal of perfect serenity engage him
> > anyway? Now there's an interesting question.
> >
> > >> >A truth that is imperceptible is worthless. Granted, the fewer the
> > >> >number of individuals who don't perceive it, the less weight should be
> > >> >attached.
> > >>
> > >> A truth may only be perceptable at a certain level, to which you must
> > >> rise if you wish to understand it. The number of people who believe or
> > >> perceive something does not make it true or untrue; it just is.
> > >> Consider education. How do you explain to an ignorant man the value of
> > >> education? If you say it has a refining effect, that will mean nothing
> > >> to him unless he already possesses some inate refinement. You've risen
> > >> sufficiently to understand both the obvious and subtle effects of
> > >> education, but you would have great difficulty explaining those
> > >> effects to the uneducated. We have organs of perceptions, but not all
> > >> our organs are equally developed individually or as a species, and
> > >> some organs are so subtle as not even to have been properly identified
> > >> yet, such as is illustrated by the capacity of certain individuals to
> > >> percieve music in terms of colour. Imagine trying to explain that to
> > >> the uninitiated.
> > >
> > >I don't see the connection between an intangible (the value of education
> > >to an uneducated person) and the Meaning Of Life. Nor between variations
> > >in sensory acuity and The Origin Of The Universe.
> >
> > If you live in a village in a slight valley, and you never go to the
> > top of the next hill, you'll never know what's beyond. I'm suggesting
> > there are truths, indeed whole vistas of experience and understanding,
> > only available to those able to raise their level of consciousness
> > sufficiently to perceive them. People can discuss, for instance,
> > whether there is or isn't a spiritual dimension, but it's all useless
> > speculation so long as they're standing completely in the physical
> > plain, like speculating from the valley whether there is or isn't a
> > village over the hill. I would just like people to leave room for the
> > possibility that their current organs of perception might be
> > refinable, or that other organs altogether might begin to develop and
> > give us a whole new view of existance. If you truly believe in
> > evolution, that shouldn't seem like such a weird concept.
>
> ==============================
>
> I hesitate to enter this debate for a good reason. Like most people I'm
> a creature of my early years in a certain environment with its own set
> of beliefs or if you prefer prejudices.
>
> Rather than explain I'll try to convey the flavour.
> A major Polish writer wrote once an influential book-length essay
> entitled "In praise of snobbery". He contended that even if many of
> those who bought "literature", went to chamber music concerts and
> "serious" theatre plays mostly to keep up with the culture-snotty
> Joneses, and be seen keeping up, their support was a blessing because
> otherwise the artists would starve. "Elite" and "elitist" were not an
> insult. It was taken for granted that good taste was and will always be
> limited to a minority. Amongst other things a work of art requires
> attention, concentration and distancing from the background noise. One
> has to pay.. If you want to see all this as a survival of feudal
> attitudes in a capitalist age you are in part right.
>
> I do not think that this attitude was limited to the Central-
> European fringe. Expressed or not it was prevalent in all of old
> Europe, possibly less in England than on the Continent. The upper and
> middle class were the taste-setters and on their part the rich felt
> obligated to endow art galleries, support symhony orchestras and buy
> "literature" even if some did not enjoy what they supported.
>
> The egalitarian spirit of the New World may be a mixed blessing for
> the Arts. The barometer readings are taken from popular ie. financial
> success. The elite is no longer respected, let alone followed. The
> notion that there are enduring cultural values is ridiculed by the same
> people who think that all the "cultures" are equal and that preferrin
> pop to an art gallery is all just a "snobbish", "elitist" personal
> point of view
>
> At best a skilful or lucky fashionista such as Warhol mnages to
> substutute himself for a real cultural icon. On occasions an easy to
> grasp image like Mona Lisa's smile holds the attention for one second
> in competition with unceasing background noise..
>
> There is no way to "prove" that the Iliad means more to humanity than
> John (is it John?) Grisham (and in several wonderful translations is a
> better read as well). The evidence that it is an inherent part of the
> Western cultural ethos will not impress those who don't care either for
> the Iliad or its progeny. But hopefully it will last as long as the
> Western culture does. As I suppose will the Bible which used to be the
> one source of "high literature that most people accessed..
>
> Which in this atomic age may not be saying very much.
> Ludovic Mirabel
> Put in and take out my "the" and "a" as needed. Never managed to get
> that quiite right. I grew up in a "no article" language,..
> ======================================

Correction:

The sentence:
> notion that there are enduring cultural values is ridiculed by the same
> people who think that all the "cultures" are equal and that preferrin
> pop to an art gallery is all just a "snobbish", "elitist" personal
> point of view

should read::

The
> notion that there are enduring cultural values is ridiculed by the same
> people who think that all the "cultures" are equal and that preferrin
> pop to an art gallery is all just another personal
> point of view

ScottW

October 25th 06, 10:26 PM

paul packer wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:46:24 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >paul packer said:
> >
> >> >> Artistic truth IS universal. The apprehension of it tends to be
> >> >> random, apparently unpredictable. and totally independent of the
> >> >> number of degrees one may happen to possess.
> >
> >> >Elitism now? How unlike you.
> >
> >> Reverse elitism, I'd have thought.
> >
> >Maybe... if you value education over an artistically attuned soul.
> >
> >> >It's my belief that an artist has an obligation to express his thoughts
> >> >or feelings in such a way that some reasonable number of esthetes can
> >> >apprehend them.
> >
> >> Stalin would have ammended that to say that the most lowly peasant
> >> should apprehend art if it's true art. As usual he was wrong.
> >
> >Hey, I know that tactic -- Scottie Terrierborg uses it too. What's it
> >called again?
>
> Terrierborgism.

Could you two become any more full of ****?

Anyway, since you obviously need help, Let me lay it out for you.

If a work of art or an art form was universally and forever
appreciated by all, it would
pervade all society and become mundane, consumed by its own
inevitable mediocrity.

When the snobs decide that society needs to be trained to aprove
and support what they like...art will stagnate and become repititous.
The classics will lose their grandeur being buried under generations
of the same.

And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
The world would be a lesser place for that.

>
> >> > If art is too vapid (white paint on a white canvas in a
> >> >white frame, say), the viewer's engagement is superficial and
> >> >short-lived, and the artist has not achieved much in the way of truth.
> >
> >> I'm not sure truth necessarily relies on the engagement of the viewer
> >> or listener's interest. But then it depends whether you mean truth or
> >> Truth.
> >
> >I have difficulty believing in absolutes in the realm of art.
>
> Try harder.

So much for preference. I'm sure we can all achieve the same
brain wave response to absolute art with the proper electrode
appropriately implanted.
Yours may need to be a bit larger as in the "prod" class.

>
> >> >I think the best you can say of the best art is nearly universal. For
> >> >instance, I admire da Vinci's Mona Lisa, but it doesn't engage me
> >> >emotionally. Does that mean the artist failed, or that I'm an uncultured
> >> >boor, or perhaps something else?
> >
> >> It depends what you understand of the artist's intent. If I told you
> >> that Mona Lisa's smile reflected a universal truth, that its very
> >> self-composure points the way to the real meaning of human evolution,
> >> would that perk your interest? Of course you may not believe me,
> >> probably wouldn't, but I think for at least a short time you'd take a
> >> greater interest in that nice lady.
> >
> >My point was that you might see such indications, but I don't. I see, at
> >best, the artist's projection of his own wishes; at worst, the lady's
> >serenity is completely fabricated.
>
> What an old cynic you are, George. Why would old Leo fabricate
> serenity? Why would the portrayal of perfect serenity engage him
> anyway? Now there's an interesting question.

Right up there with what really is the fuzz in your navel.

>
> >> >A truth that is imperceptible is worthless. Granted, the fewer the
> >> >number of individuals who don't perceive it, the less weight should be
> >> >attached.
> >>
> >> A truth may only be perceptable at a certain level, to which you must
> >> rise if you wish to understand it. The number of people who believe or
> >> perceive something does not make it true or untrue; it just is.
> >> Consider education. How do you explain to an ignorant man the value of
> >> education? If you say it has a refining effect, that will mean nothing
> >> to him unless he already possesses some inate refinement. You've risen
> >> sufficiently to understand both the obvious and subtle effects of
> >> education, but you would have great difficulty explaining those
> >> effects to the uneducated. We have organs of perceptions, but not all
> >> our organs are equally developed individually or as a species, and
> >> some organs are so subtle as not even to have been properly identified
> >> yet, such as is illustrated by the capacity of certain individuals to
> >> percieve music in terms of colour. Imagine trying to explain that to
> >> the uninitiated.
> >
> >I don't see the connection between an intangible (the value of education
> >to an uneducated person) and the Meaning Of Life. Nor between variations
> >in sensory acuity and The Origin Of The Universe.
>
> If you live in a village in a slight valley, and you never go to the
> top of the next hill, you'll never know what's beyond.

That would be the garbage dump....did you really need to know?

> I'm suggesting
> there are truths, indeed whole vistas of experience and understanding,
> only available to those able to raise their level of consciousness
> sufficiently to perceive them. People can discuss, for instance,
> whether there is or isn't a spiritual dimension, but it's all useless
> speculation so long as they're standing completely in the physical
> plain,

or have a line on some really clean acid.

> like speculating from the valley whether there is or isn't a
> village over the hill.

Which might be better than knowing there's a festering rotting
dump there growing larger due to your existence.

>I would just like people to leave room for the
> possibility that their current organs of perception might be
> refinable, or that other organs altogether might begin to develop and
> give us a whole new view of existance.

Paul seeks ascencion.

> If you truly believe in
> evolution, that shouldn't seem like such a weird concept.

Except this started with you advocationg intelligent design.
What do we do when we find out that in your efforts to preserve art,
you've destroyed it?

ScottW

MiNe 109

October 25th 06, 11:27 PM

In article om>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

>
> And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> The world would be a lesser place for that.

Nonsense. There it is, next to the orchestra in Days of Future Passed.

OTOH, how does one tell how well a Mellotron is played?

Stephen

Jenn

October 25th 06, 11:28 PM

ScottW wrote:
> And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> The world would be a lesser place for that.

WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe that?

Jenn

October 25th 06, 11:32 PM

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article om>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >
> > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> > The world would be a lesser place for that.
>
> Nonsense. There it is, next to the orchestra in Days of Future Passed.

One of the greatest R&R albums ever made, IMO.

Add to the list Strawberry Fields Forever, at least one Kinks album
that I can think of, several early Bee Gees cuts, etc. All well
performed, inventive music.

MiNe 109

October 25th 06, 11:47 PM

In article . com>,
"Jenn" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article om>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> >
> > Nonsense. There it is, next to the orchestra in Days of Future Passed.
>
> One of the greatest R&R albums ever made, IMO.
>
> Add to the list Strawberry Fields Forever, at least one Kinks album
> that I can think of, several early Bee Gees cuts, etc. All well
> performed, inventive music.

I read somewhere the intro to "Phenomenal Cat" (Kinks 'We Are the
Village Green') was a prerecorded Mellotron demo track.

Yep, there's lotso' Mellotron out there, and a bunch of it is on Soott's
beloved prog-rock recordings. Nothing snooty or elitist about prog-rock!
I like it and recently got a thrill (if not goosebumps) from seeing a
live ELP video of "Knife Edge" on YouTube.

Stephen

ScottW

October 26th 06, 02:36 AM

Jenn wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> > The world would be a lesser place for that.
>
> WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe that?

All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic instrument
then it is distracting to you.

ScottW

paul packer

October 26th 06, 03:41 AM

On 25 Oct 2006 14:26:56 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>paul packer wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:46:24 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
>> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >paul packer said:
>> >
>> >> >> Artistic truth IS universal. The apprehension of it tends to be
>> >> >> random, apparently unpredictable. and totally independent of the
>> >> >> number of degrees one may happen to possess.
>> >
>> >> >Elitism now? How unlike you.
>> >
>> >> Reverse elitism, I'd have thought.
>> >
>> >Maybe... if you value education over an artistically attuned soul.
>> >
>> >> >It's my belief that an artist has an obligation to express his thoughts
>> >> >or feelings in such a way that some reasonable number of esthetes can
>> >> >apprehend them.
>> >
>> >> Stalin would have ammended that to say that the most lowly peasant
>> >> should apprehend art if it's true art. As usual he was wrong.
>> >
>> >Hey, I know that tactic -- Scottie Terrierborg uses it too. What's it
>> >called again?
>>
>> Terrierborgism.
>
> Could you two become any more full of ****?

Only under tutorledge from you.

> Anyway, since you obviously need help, Let me lay it out for you.
>
> If a work of art or an art form was universally and forever
>appreciated by all, it would
>pervade all society and become mundane, consumed by its own
>inevitable mediocrity.

Who said a work of art must be " universally and forever
appreciated by all"? You must have dreamed that up under the influence
of the acid mentioned below. I'm simply suggesting that one must rise
to a certain level in order to appreciate true art.

>When the snobs decide that society needs to be trained to aprove
>and support what they like...art will stagnate and become repititous.
>The classics will lose their grandeur being buried under generations
>of the same.

Are you trying to prove that George and Shhh! are right in their name
calling, or was that just a momentary brain blip?

>And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
>the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
>The world would be a lesser place for that.
>
>
>>
>> >> > If art is too vapid (white paint on a white canvas in a
>> >> >white frame, say), the viewer's engagement is superficial and
>> >> >short-lived, and the artist has not achieved much in the way of truth.
>> >
>> >> I'm not sure truth necessarily relies on the engagement of the viewer
>> >> or listener's interest. But then it depends whether you mean truth or
>> >> Truth.
>> >
>> >I have difficulty believing in absolutes in the realm of art.
>>
>> Try harder.
>
> So much for preference. I'm sure we can all achieve the same
>brain wave response to absolute art with the proper electrode
>appropriately implanted.
>Yours may need to be a bit larger as in the "prod" class.

Please allow me to implant your electrode when the time comes. I know
just where to place it.

>> >> >I think the best you can say of the best art is nearly universal. For
>> >> >instance, I admire da Vinci's Mona Lisa, but it doesn't engage me
>> >> >emotionally. Does that mean the artist failed, or that I'm an uncultured
>> >> >boor, or perhaps something else?
>> >
>> >> It depends what you understand of the artist's intent. If I told you
>> >> that Mona Lisa's smile reflected a universal truth, that its very
>> >> self-composure points the way to the real meaning of human evolution,
>> >> would that perk your interest? Of course you may not believe me,
>> >> probably wouldn't, but I think for at least a short time you'd take a
>> >> greater interest in that nice lady.
>> >
>> >My point was that you might see such indications, but I don't. I see, at
>> >best, the artist's projection of his own wishes; at worst, the lady's
>> >serenity is completely fabricated.
>>
>> What an old cynic you are, George. Why would old Leo fabricate
>> serenity? Why would the portrayal of perfect serenity engage him
>> anyway? Now there's an interesting question.
>
> Right up there with what really is the fuzz in your navel.

I see you thinking is as deep as ever, Scott.

>> >> >A truth that is imperceptible is worthless. Granted, the fewer the
>> >> >number of individuals who don't perceive it, the less weight should be
>> >> >attached.
>> >>
>> >> A truth may only be perceptable at a certain level, to which you must
>> >> rise if you wish to understand it. The number of people who believe or
>> >> perceive something does not make it true or untrue; it just is.
>> >> Consider education. How do you explain to an ignorant man the value of
>> >> education? If you say it has a refining effect, that will mean nothing
>> >> to him unless he already possesses some inate refinement. You've risen
>> >> sufficiently to understand both the obvious and subtle effects of
>> >> education, but you would have great difficulty explaining those
>> >> effects to the uneducated. We have organs of perceptions, but not all
>> >> our organs are equally developed individually or as a species, and
>> >> some organs are so subtle as not even to have been properly identified
>> >> yet, such as is illustrated by the capacity of certain individuals to
>> >> percieve music in terms of colour. Imagine trying to explain that to
>> >> the uninitiated.
>> >
>> >I don't see the connection between an intangible (the value of education
>> >to an uneducated person) and the Meaning Of Life. Nor between variations
>> >in sensory acuity and The Origin Of The Universe.
>>
>> If you live in a village in a slight valley, and you never go to the
>> top of the next hill, you'll never know what's beyond.
>
> That would be the garbage dump....did you really need to know?

Or maybe you just see a garbage dump wherever you look.

>> I'm suggesting
>> there are truths, indeed whole vistas of experience and understanding,
>> only available to those able to raise their level of consciousness
>> sufficiently to perceive them. People can discuss, for instance,
>> whether there is or isn't a spiritual dimension, but it's all useless
>> speculation so long as they're standing completely in the physical
>> plain,
>
> or have a line on some really clean acid.

That remark explains a lot. Nothing much more to say really.

>> like speculating from the valley whether there is or isn't a
>> village over the hill.
>
> Which might be better than knowing there's a festering rotting
>dump there growing larger due to your existence.

Please remove your sunglasses. They're colouring your view of the
world.

>>I would just like people to leave room for the
>> possibility that their current organs of perception might be
>> refinable, or that other organs altogether might begin to develop and
>> give us a whole new view of existance.
>
>Paul seeks ascencion.

Which would appear to be the opposite direction to which you're
aspiring.

>> If you truly believe in
>> evolution, that shouldn't seem like such a weird concept.
>
> Except this started with you advocationg intelligent design.

But you'll note that I didn't say "The Theory of Evolution," merely
"evolution". That was deliberate. There's evolution in everything,
including consciousness.

> What do we do when we find out that in your efforts to preserve art,
>you've destroyed it?
>
>ScottW

You'll have to explain that one. If it's worth the effort.

paul packer

October 26th 06, 03:41 AM

On 25 Oct 2006 15:28:26 -0700, "Jenn" >
wrote:

>
>ScottW wrote:
>> And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
>> the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
>> The world would be a lesser place for that.
>
>WTF are you talking about?

A universal question indeed.

[email protected]

October 26th 06, 04:49 AM

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article om>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >
> > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> > The world would be a lesser place for that.
>
> Nonsense. There it is, next to the orchestra in Days of Future Passed.
>
> OTOH, how does one tell how well a Mellotron is played?
>
> Stephen

What is a mellotron and why should one know what it is.
Ludovic M

MiNe 109

October 26th 06, 05:35 AM

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article om>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> >
> > Nonsense. There it is, next to the orchestra in Days of Future Passed.
> >
> > OTOH, how does one tell how well a Mellotron is played?
> >
> > Stephen
>
> What is a mellotron and why should one know what it is.

It's a keyboard instrument that plays prerecorded tapes, sort of an
analogue sampler. Before synths got cheaper and easier to use, the
Mellotron could provide timbres not otherwise available.

There are many examples in pop music: Elton John "Daniel" for one.

Stephen

Jenn

October 26th 06, 06:54 AM

In article om>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> >
> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe that?
>
> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic instrument
> then it is distracting to you.
>
> ScottW

That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because you're
special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain purposes.
I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new and
different. Bach would have love them. I also don't think that they
imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is not what
a mellotron attempts to do. Got it?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 26th 06, 06:46 PM

A whole fresh new pile of Non Sequiturs from toopid. Woo hoo.

ScottW wrote:

> Could you two become any more full of ****?

Compared to what, toopid? You?

> Anyway, since you obviously need help, Let me lay it out for you.

Oh, this ought to be good. toopid offering 'help.' LOL!

> If a work of art or an art form was universally and forever
> appreciated by all, it would
> pervade all society and become mundane, consumed by its own
> inevitable mediocrity.

Let's look at the logical construct here, toopid, as it's a simple
'if...then' structure.

Does it necessarily follow that "If a work of art or an art form was
universally and forever appreciated by all, *then* it
would pervade all society and become mundane, consumed by its own
inevitable mediocrity."

I think most people above an IQ of, say, 55 would see that the
conclusion does not necessarily follow. We can therefore see that at
least one of your premises must be false. We can see that this is yet
another argument from you based on emotional appeal and not any
reasonable thought process.
[i]
> When the snobs decide that society needs to be trained to aprove
> and support what they like...art will stagnate and become repititous.
> The classics will lose their grandeur being buried under generations
> of the same.

Uh-oh! From one argument comes two conclusions!

I think you actually meant to make another (illogical) argument though.

"If the snobs decide that society needs to be trained to aprove (sic)
and support what they like...(sic) then art will stagnate and become
repititous. Further, [t]he classics will lose their grandeur being
buried under generations of the same.(sic)"

Like a good republican, you argue against some horrible future that
cannot be proven. Neither conclusion necessarily follows from the
premises.

This appears thus: If A, then B and C.

Or are you attempting to construct a chain argument of the type, 'if a
then b, if b, then c (and so on)?

It really doesn't matter. That would be equally as incorrect.

> And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> The world would be a lesser place for that.

troopid is trying to impose his opinion in an 'intellectual' and
'logical' way.

"If Jenn had her way [then] (i.e. implied) no one would have ever had
the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron. [Therefore](i.e.
implied) [t]he world would be a lesser place for that."

This could be constructed thus: If A, then B. A, therefore C.

So (according to toopid) if Jenn had her way, there would be no
well-played Mellotron, and as a direct result, the world would be a
lesser place. Does this really follow? LOL!

While the world *might* be a lesser place without having experienced a
well-played Mellotron, it is also just as possible that the world would
be a better place without having experienced it. We'll never know.

In fact, it appears that toopid is arguing that the world is a lesser
place right now. There are musical instruments that have not been
conceived of, invented, or played (well or poorly). We have not
experienced them at all. Therefore, the world is a lesser place.

Don't you just love toopid's 'logic' and how toopid cannot see 'logic'
if it punches him in the face?

He is, in fact, a moron.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 26th 06, 06:47 PM

ScottW wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> >
> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe that?
>
> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic instrument
> then it is distracting to you.

LMAO!

All your ranting, and it's actually about Jenn expressing an opinion?

god forbid, toopid!

What a mo-ron.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 26th 06, 06:51 PM

paul packer wrote:

> Are you trying to prove that George and Shhh! are right in their name
> calling, or was that just a momentary brain blip?

toopid's 'brain slips' are permanent, pervasive, and consistent.

A single intelligent comment from toopid is the only thing that could
qualify as a 'momentary brain slip.'

I have never seen one.

George M. Middius

October 26th 06, 08:13 PM

Shhhh! said:

> A single intelligent comment from toopid is the only thing that could
> qualify as a 'momentary brain slip.'
> I have never seen one.

I saw one... He called Krooger on some 'borg BS. Several times, in fact.

Realizing the truth about Krooger isn't really much of an IQ test, of
course.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[email protected]

October 26th 06, 10:14 PM

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > In article om>,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> > > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> > > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. There it is, next to the orchestra in Days of Future Passed.
> > >
> > > OTOH, how does one tell how well a Mellotron is played?
> > >
> > > Stephen
> >
> > What is a mellotron and why should one know what it is.
>
> It's a keyboard instrument that plays prerecorded tapes, sort of an
> analogue sampler. Before synths got cheaper and easier to use, the
> Mellotron could provide timbres not otherwise available.
>
> There are many examples in pop music: Elton John "Daniel" for one.
>
> Stephen

Thank you for the information.
Now that I know the question remains. Shall we have discussions about
talking dollies and music boxes next in this forum which was once about
audio and now is mostly about "other topics" and curios like the
Mellotrones?

Don't take offence. The question is not directed against you since you
explained only- and very lucidly at that.
Ludovic Mirabel.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 26th 06, 10:54 PM

George M. Middius wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > A single intelligent comment from toopid is the only thing that could
> > qualify as a 'momentary brain slip.'
> > I have never seen one.
>
> I saw one... He called Krooger on some 'borg BS. Several times, in fact.
>
> Realizing the truth about Krooger isn't really much of an IQ test, of
> course.

I must have missed that one.

But you are indeed correct: seing that Arny says several things per day
which are, (ahem) 'suspect' is not a true test of intelligence.

MiNe 109

October 26th 06, 11:06 PM

In article m>,
" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > In article om>,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> > > > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> > > > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> > > >
> > > > Nonsense. There it is, next to the orchestra in Days of Future Passed.
> > > >
> > > > OTOH, how does one tell how well a Mellotron is played?
> > > >
> > > > Stephen
> > >
> > > What is a mellotron and why should one know what it is.
> >
> > It's a keyboard instrument that plays prerecorded tapes, sort of an
> > analogue sampler. Before synths got cheaper and easier to use, the
> > Mellotron could provide timbres not otherwise available.
> >
> > There are many examples in pop music: Elton John "Daniel" for one.
> >
> > Stephen
>
> Thank you for the information.
> Now that I know the question remains. Shall we have discussions about
> talking dollies and music boxes next in this forum which was once about
> audio and now is mostly about "other topics" and curios like the
> Mellotrones?
>
> Don't take offence. The question is not directed against you since you
> explained only- and very lucidly at that.

How about Bang and Olufsen's new $1200 phone?

Stephen

ScottW

October 27th 06, 03:42 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
>> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
>> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
>> >
>> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe that?
>>
>> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic instrument
>> then it is distracting to you.
>>
>> ScottW
>
> That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because you're
> special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain purposes.
> I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new and
> different. Bach would have love them. I also don't think that they
> imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is not what
> a mellotron attempts to do.

Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art appreciation
in some misquided elitist fashion.
Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
further movement away from the so called classics.
There was a short program on one of the encore channels
recently on Hendrix and Band of Gypsys. All the reverence, I was
reminded of this debate and wondering if Hendrix
could have existed in a world trained to appreciate art according
to Packer.

ScottW

Jenn

October 27th 06, 06:32 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article om>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> Jenn wrote:
> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> >> >
> >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe that?
> >>
> >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic instrument
> >> then it is distracting to you.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because you're
> > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain purposes.
> > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new and
> > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think that they
> > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is not what
> > a mellotron attempts to do.
>
> Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
> lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art appreciation
> in some misquided elitist

Well, you're nothing if not predictable.

> fashion.
> Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
> further movement away from the so called classics.

Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your premise
is false. You're barking up the wrong tree in order to either create an
argument or because you are in some way sensitive to this issue. Please
remember that I make a not insignificant part of my income from playing
non-classical music; I can hardly be called an "elitist". Do I try to
turn people on to classical music? Sure. And folk music? Sure. And
rock music? Yes. And jazz? You bet. But I teach them to listen for
good performance values, expressive performance, musical values that
stand the test of time, etc. I think that there is a difference between
Beethoven/Miles/Dylan/Basie and Jessica Simpson. You would call that
"elitism" I guess. I don't.

Oh, and BTW, you did state a false premise vis-a-vis my opinion of
synths. If the truth matters to you, you should re-evaluate that.

paul packer

October 27th 06, 08:04 AM

On 26 Oct 2006 10:46:33 -0700, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:

>> If a work of art or an art form was universally and forever
>> appreciated by all, it would
>> pervade all society and become mundane, consumed by its own
>> inevitable mediocrity.
>
>Let's look at the logical construct here, toopid, as it's a simple
>'if...then' structure.
>
>Does it necessarily follow that "If a work of art or an art form was
>universally and forever appreciated by all, *then* it
>would pervade all society and become mundane, consumed by its own
>inevitable mediocrity."
>
>I think most people above an IQ of, say, 55 would see that the
>conclusion does not necessarily follow. We can therefore see that at
>least one of your premises must be false. We can see that this is yet
>another argument from you based on emotional appeal and not any
>reasonable thought process.
>[i]
>> When the snobs decide that society needs to be trained to aprove
>> and support what they like...art will stagnate and become repititous.
>> The classics will lose their grandeur being buried under generations
>> of the same.
>
>Uh-oh! From one argument comes two conclusions!
>
>I think you actually meant to make another (illogical) argument though.
>
>"If the snobs decide that society needs to be trained to aprove (sic)
>and support what they like...(sic) then art will stagnate and become
>repititous. Further, [t]he classics will lose their grandeur being
>buried under generations of the same.(sic)"

I'm glad you felt capable of deconstructing all this according to the
rules of logic; I'm afraid I was unable to divine any trace of logic
at all. Please feel free to follow after me through further
discussions with Scott deconstructing at will.

paul packer

October 27th 06, 08:47 AM

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:32:56 GMT, Jenn
> wrote:

>In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> > In article om>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jenn wrote:
>> >> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
>> >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
>> >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
>> >> >
>> >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe that?
>> >>
>> >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic instrument
>> >> then it is distracting to you.
>> >>
>> >> ScottW
>> >
>> > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because you're
>> > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain purposes.
>> > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new and
>> > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think that they
>> > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is not what
>> > a mellotron attempts to do.
>>
>> Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
>> lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art appreciation
>> in some misquided elitist
>
>Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
>
>> fashion.
>> Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
>> further movement away from the so called classics.
>
>Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your premise
>is false. You're barking up the wrong tree in order to either create an
>argument or because you are in some way sensitive to this issue.

Yes. I also don't recall mentioning the control of art appreciation or
anything along that line--far from it. So I can only assume Scott is
referring to a post of mine made in a parallel universe.

Arny Krueger

October 27th 06, 02:17 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,

> "ScottW" > wrote:

>> Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
>> lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art appreciation
>> in some misquided elitist

> Well, you're nothing if not predictable.

>> fashion.
>> Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
>> further movement away from the so called classics.

> Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your premise
> is false.

Well Jenn, you're trying to influence art appreciation, so your hands aren't
exactly clean.

Thanks again for showing that you lack what it takes to take responsibility
for your own actions.

>You're barking up the wrong tree in order to either create an
> argument or because you are in some way sensitive to this issue. Please
> remember that I make a not insignificant part of my income from playing
> non-classical music; I can hardly be called an "elitist".

OK, Porgy and Bess is not exactly classical music. But to the minds of many
if not most under-20s, it is pretty much the same thing to them. It's music
from their great-grandparent's youth, which isn't that much different in
their lives from music from their great-great-great grandparent's youth.

> Do I try to turn people on to classical music? Sure.

It's self-serving.

> And folk music?

That's self-serving, too.

> Sure. And rock music?

At this point, we can be talking about "your grandparent's music" again.

> Yes. And jazz?

"Your grandparent's music" again.

> You bet.

Then, there is the obvious pushing of "your grandparent's technology". (In
Jenn's case, vinyl and acoustic instruments).

> But I teach them to listen for good performance values, expressive
> performance, musical values that
> stand the test of time, etc.

That's just it, values don't really stand the test of time. They fade.

> I think that there is a difference between
> Beethoven/Miles/Dylan/Basie and Jessica Simpson. You would call that
> "elitism" I guess. I don't.

All of the above were just working musicians trying to make a buck and feed
their families.

> Oh, and BTW, you did state a false premise vis-a-vis my opinion of
> synths.

A claim that acoustic instruments should always be used in preference to
synths when the acoustic instruments are available comes to mind. Is that
elitisim? I don't know, but it sure is an attempt to give annuities to
people who are locked into what many consider to be obsolete instruments.

> If the truth matters to you, you should re-evaluate that.

Yes, Jenn likes to reduce everything to a black-and-white matter or morality
where her opinions are deified.

Arny Krueger

October 27th 06, 02:18 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:32:56 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>> > In article om>,
>>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Jenn wrote:
>>> >> > ScottW wrote:
>>> >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
>>> >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
>>> >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe
>>> >> > that?
>>> >>
>>> >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic
>>> >> instrument
>>> >> then it is distracting to you.
>>> >>
>>> >> ScottW
>>> >
>>> > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because you're
>>> > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain
>>> > purposes.
>>> > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new and
>>> > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think that they
>>> > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is not
>>> > what
>>> > a mellotron attempts to do.
>>>
>>> Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
>>> lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art appreciation
>>> in some misquided elitist
>>
>>Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
>>
>>> fashion.
>>> Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
>>> further movement away from the so called classics.
>>
>>Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your premise
>>is false. You're barking up the wrong tree in order to either create an
>>argument or because you are in some way sensitive to this issue.
>
> Yes. I also don't recall mentioning the control of art appreciation or
> anything along that line--far from it. So I can only assume Scott is
> referring to a post of mine made in a parallel universe.

Yep, everybody who disagrees with Paul lives in a different universe (from
Paul). Actually, I think that sums things up - except that Paul doesn't seem
to know that he's the one who lives in a very small, personalized universe.

Jenn

October 27th 06, 03:36 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
>
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
> >> lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art appreciation
> >> in some misquided elitist
>
> > Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
>
> >> fashion.
> >> Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
> >> further movement away from the so called classics.
>
> > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your premise
> > is false.
>
> Well Jenn, you're trying to influence art appreciation, so your hands aren't
> exactly clean.

Are history teachers trying to influence the knowledge of history? Are
English teachers trying to influence the usage of the language and
knowledge of literature? Sure.

>
> Thanks again for showing that you lack what it takes to take responsibility
> for your own actions.

lol

>
> >You're barking up the wrong tree in order to either create an
> > argument or because you are in some way sensitive to this issue. Please
> > remember that I make a not insignificant part of my income from playing
> > non-classical music; I can hardly be called an "elitist".
>
> OK, Porgy and Bess is not exactly classical music.

Yes it is.

> But to the minds of many
> if not most under-20s, it is pretty much the same thing to them. It's music
> from their great-grandparent's youth, which isn't that much different in
> their lives from music from their great-great-great grandparent's youth.

So?

>
> > Do I try to turn people on to classical music? Sure.
>
> It's self-serving.

lol So you promote certain performance parameters in computer and
recording quality because it's self-serving?

>
> > And folk music?
>
> That's self-serving, too.

See above.

>
> > Sure. And rock music?
>
> At this point, we can be talking about "your grandparent's music" again.
>
> > Yes. And jazz?
>
> "Your grandparent's music" again.

So what am I allowed to turn people on to, Arny? Rap? Contemporary
Christian? Punk? R&B? World? New Age? What am I allowed to do in
your ideal world?

>
> > You bet.
>
> Then, there is the obvious pushing of "your grandparent's technology". (In
> Jenn's case, vinyl and acoustic instruments).

I "push" people listening to whatever pleases them.

>
> > But I teach them to listen for good performance values, expressive
> > performance, musical values that
> > stand the test of time, etc.
>
> That's just it, values don't really stand the test of time. They fade.

You're free to listen to out of tune emotionless music if you wish to.

>
> > I think that there is a difference between
> > Beethoven/Miles/Dylan/Basie and Jessica Simpson. You would call that
> > "elitism" I guess. I don't.
>
> All of the above were just working musicians trying to make a buck and feed
> their families.

Of course that is among their goals. You're point?

>
> > Oh, and BTW, you did state a false premise vis-a-vis my opinion of
> > synths.
>
> A claim that acoustic instruments should always be used in preference to
> synths when the acoustic instruments are available comes to mind.

Yet another false premise, as I haven't claimed that.

> Is that
> elitisim? I don't know, but it sure is an attempt to give annuities to
> people who are locked into what many consider to be obsolete instruments.

People are free to chose, of course. I simply believe that if you want
something that sounds like a trumpet, you should use a trumpet because
nothing else sounds like a trumpet. If you want something that doesn't
sound like a trumpet, use that thing. The right tool for the job. I
feel the same about sugar, Coca-Cola, cotton, and Christmas tree scent.

>
> > If the truth matters to you, you should re-evaluate that.
>
> Yes, Jenn likes to reduce everything to a black-and-white matter or morality
> where her opinions are deified.

Thanks for your opinion.

Arny Krueger

October 27th 06, 03:43 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>>
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>> >> Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
>> >> lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art
>> >> appreciation
>> >> in some misquided elitist
>>
>> > Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
>>
>> >> fashion.
>> >> Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
>> >> further movement away from the so called classics.
>>
>> > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your
>> > premise
>> > is false.
>>
>> Well Jenn, you're trying to influence art appreciation, so your hands
>> aren't
>> exactly clean.
>
> Are history teachers trying to influence the knowledge of history?

There's a difference between trying to get more appreciation and trying to
enforce one's personal tastes on others.

> Are English teachers trying to influence the usage of the language and
> knowledge of literature?

Not many HS or college English English teachers trying to get everybody to
write or even primarily read Elizebethan or Victorian English.

Jenn

October 27th 06, 03:47 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> .
> >> com
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >>
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
> >> >> lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art
> >> >> appreciation
> >> >> in some misquided elitist
> >>
> >> > Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
> >>
> >> >> fashion.
> >> >> Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
> >> >> further movement away from the so called classics.
> >>
> >> > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your
> >> > premise
> >> > is false.
> >>
> >> Well Jenn, you're trying to influence art appreciation, so your hands
> >> aren't
> >> exactly clean.
> >
> > Are history teachers trying to influence the knowledge of history?
>
> There's a difference between trying to get more appreciation and trying to
> enforce one's personal tastes on others.

As what I do is more like the former, what's your point?

>
> > Are English teachers trying to influence the usage of the language and
> > knowledge of literature?
>
> Not many HS or college English English teachers trying to get everybody to
> write or even primarily read Elizebethan or Victorian English.

I presume that you are implying that I'm trying to "get everybody to
write or even primarily listen to classical music". Since that's not
true, your point is bogus.

Arny Krueger

October 27th 06, 03:51 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> .
>> >> com
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >>
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
>> >> >> lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art
>> >> >> appreciation
>> >> >> in some misquided elitist
>> >>
>> >> > Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
>> >>
>> >> >> fashion.
>> >> >> Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
>> >> >> further movement away from the so called classics.
>> >>
>> >> > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your
>> >> > premise
>> >> > is false.
>> >>
>> >> Well Jenn, you're trying to influence art appreciation, so your hands
>> >> aren't
>> >> exactly clean.
>> >
>> > Are history teachers trying to influence the knowledge of history?
>>
>> There's a difference between trying to get more appreciation and trying
>> to
>> enforce one's personal tastes on others.
>
> As what I do is more like the former, what's your point?

Ahh, Jenn's self-awareness problem comes to the forefront, again.

>> > Are English teachers trying to influence the usage of the language and
>> > knowledge of literature?
>>
>> Not many HS or college English English teachers trying to get everybody
>> to
>> write or even primarily read Elizebethan or Victorian English.

> I presume that you are implying that I'm trying to "get everybody to
> write or even primarily listen to classical music". Since that's not
> true, your point is bogus.

Excluded middle argument noted.

Jenn

October 27th 06, 03:56 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> .
> >> com
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> gy.
> >> >> com
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >>
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
> >> >> >> lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art
> >> >> >> appreciation
> >> >> >> in some misquided elitist
> >> >>
> >> >> > Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> fashion.
> >> >> >> Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
> >> >> >> further movement away from the so called classics.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your
> >> >> > premise
> >> >> > is false.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well Jenn, you're trying to influence art appreciation, so your hands
> >> >> aren't
> >> >> exactly clean.
> >> >
> >> > Are history teachers trying to influence the knowledge of history?
> >>
> >> There's a difference between trying to get more appreciation and trying
> >> to
> >> enforce one's personal tastes on others.
> >
> > As what I do is more like the former, what's your point?
>
> Ahh, Jenn's self-awareness problem comes to the forefront, again.

lol So you believe that I'm trying to "enforce my personal tastes on
others". In what way am I doing that?

>
> >> > Are English teachers trying to influence the usage of the language and
> >> > knowledge of literature?
> >>
> >> Not many HS or college English English teachers trying to get everybody
> >> to
> >> write or even primarily read Elizebethan or Victorian English.
>
> > I presume that you are implying that I'm trying to "get everybody to
> > write or even primarily listen to classical music". Since that's not
> > true, your point is bogus.
>
> Excluded middle argument noted.

OK, what IS your point three paragraphs up then?

Harry Lavo

October 27th 06, 04:03 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>
>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>> Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
>>> lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art appreciation
>>> in some misquided elitist
>
>> Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
>
>>> fashion.
>>> Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
>>> further movement away from the so called classics.
>
>> Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your premise
>> is false.
>
> Well Jenn, you're trying to influence art appreciation, so your hands
> aren't exactly clean.
>
> Thanks again for showing that you lack what it takes to take
> responsibility for your own actions.
>
>>You're barking up the wrong tree in order to either create an
>> argument or because you are in some way sensitive to this issue. Please
>> remember that I make a not insignificant part of my income from playing
>> non-classical music; I can hardly be called an "elitist".
>
> OK, Porgy and Bess is not exactly classical music. But to the minds of
> many if not most under-20s, it is pretty much the same thing to them. It's
> music from their great-grandparent's youth, which isn't that much
> different in their lives from music from their great-great-great
> grandparent's youth.
>
>> Do I try to turn people on to classical music? Sure.
>
> It's self-serving.
>
>> And folk music?
>
> That's self-serving, too.
>
>> Sure. And rock music?
>
> At this point, we can be talking about "your grandparent's music" again.
>
>> Yes. And jazz?
>
> "Your grandparent's music" again.
>
>> You bet.
>
> Then, there is the obvious pushing of "your grandparent's technology". (In
> Jenn's case, vinyl and acoustic instruments).
>
>> But I teach them to listen for good performance values, expressive
>> performance, musical values that
>> stand the test of time, etc.
>
> That's just it, values don't really stand the test of time. They fade.
>
>> I think that there is a difference between
>> Beethoven/Miles/Dylan/Basie and Jessica Simpson. You would call that
>> "elitism" I guess. I don't.
>
> All of the above were just working musicians trying to make a buck and
> feed their families.
>
>> Oh, and BTW, you did state a false premise vis-a-vis my opinion of
>> synths.
>
> A claim that acoustic instruments should always be used in preference to
> synths when the acoustic instruments are available comes to mind. Is
> that elitisim? I don't know, but it sure is an attempt to give annuities
> to people who are locked into what many consider to be obsolete
> instruments.
>
>> If the truth matters to you, you should re-evaluate that.
>
> Yes, Jenn likes to reduce everything to a black-and-white matter or
> morality where her opinions are deified.

Arny once again shows why he is a bastian of quality when it comes to audio
and musical issues.

paul packer

October 27th 06, 05:15 PM

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:51:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> I presume that you are implying that I'm trying to "get everybody to
>> write or even primarily listen to classical music". Since that's not
>> true, your point is bogus.
>
>Excluded middle argument noted.

Dear God, Arny, is that all you can say?

paul packer

October 27th 06, 05:17 PM

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:18:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:32:56 GMT, Jenn
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> > In article om>,
>>>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Jenn wrote:
>>>> >> > ScottW wrote:
>>>> >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
>>>> >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
>>>> >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe
>>>> >> > that?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic
>>>> >> instrument
>>>> >> then it is distracting to you.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ScottW
>>>> >
>>>> > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because you're
>>>> > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain
>>>> > purposes.
>>>> > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new and
>>>> > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think that they
>>>> > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is not
>>>> > what
>>>> > a mellotron attempts to do.
>>>>
>>>> Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
>>>> lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art appreciation
>>>> in some misquided elitist
>>>
>>>Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
>>>
>>>> fashion.
>>>> Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
>>>> further movement away from the so called classics.
>>>
>>>Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your premise
>>>is false. You're barking up the wrong tree in order to either create an
>>>argument or because you are in some way sensitive to this issue.
>>
>> Yes. I also don't recall mentioning the control of art appreciation or
>> anything along that line--far from it. So I can only assume Scott is
>> referring to a post of mine made in a parallel universe.
>
>Yep, everybody who disagrees with Paul lives in a different universe (from
>Paul). Actually, I think that sums things up - except that Paul doesn't seem
>to know that he's the one who lives in a very small, personalized universe.

You're on crack, Arnie. What you've said has nothing to do with the
fact that I didn't say what Scott imagines I said, or implied. So he's
totally wrong and your little rant here is totally beside the point.

As usual.

Jenn

October 27th 06, 05:53 PM

paul packer wrote:
>What you've said has nothing to do with the
> fact that I didn't say what Scott imagines I said, or implied. So he's
> totally wrong and your little rant here is totally beside the point.
>
> As usual.

Ditto.

[email protected]

October 27th 06, 06:16 PM

paul packer wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:18:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:32:56 GMT, Jenn
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>> ...
> >>>> > In article om>,
> >>>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> Jenn wrote:
> >>>> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >>>> >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> >>>> >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> >>>> >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe
> >>>> >> > that?
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic
> >>>> >> instrument
> >>>> >> then it is distracting to you.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> ScottW
> >>>> >
> >>>> > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because you're
> >>>> > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain
> >>>> > purposes.
> >>>> > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new and
> >>>> > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think that they
> >>>> > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is not
> >>>> > what
> >>>> > a mellotron attempts to do.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
> >>>> lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art appreciation
> >>>> in some misquided elitist
> >>>
> >>>Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
> >>>
> >>>> fashion.
> >>>> Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
> >>>> further movement away from the so called classics.
> >>>
> >>>Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your premise
> >>>is false. You're barking up the wrong tree in order to either create an
> >>>argument or because you are in some way sensitive to this issue.
> >>
> >> Yes. I also don't recall mentioning the control of art appreciation or
> >> anything along that line--far from it. So I can only assume Scott is
> >> referring to a post of mine made in a parallel universe.
> >
> >Yep, everybody who disagrees with Paul lives in a different universe (from
> >Paul). Actually, I think that sums things up - except that Paul doesn't seem
> >to know that he's the one who lives in a very small, personalized universe.
>
> You're on crack, Arnie. What you've said has nothing to do with the
> fact that I didn't say what Scott imagines I said, or implied. So he's
> totally wrong and your little rant here is totally beside the point.
>
> As usual.

====================================

This discussion repeats countless similar ones over the last few
hundred years.

Those who stay with the 3rd rate stuff in any of the arts including
music are always resentful of the "snobs". Deep down they feel they are
missing something and project their self-contempt on others who in
truth don't give a damn about the likes and dislikes of the admirers of
junk.

Far from proselytising the "snobs" rather like staying in their ivory
towers. They feel their preferences are a privilege and the best by
definition belongs to a small group. It is flaunting that feeling that
in turn can make them insufferable. Mea culpa- reminding Arny that
Monteverdi is Monteverdi not Monty Verdi. It does cause resentment and
complaints about "imposing preferences" while in fact I'd hate to share
my preferences with many of the rock concert less appetising attendees.
Ludovic Mirabel

ScottW

October 27th 06, 06:36 PM

Jenn wrote:
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> > > In article om>,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Jenn wrote:
> > >> > ScottW wrote:
> > >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> > >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> > >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> > >> >
> > >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe that?
> > >>
> > >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic instrument
> > >> then it is distracting to you.
> > >>
> > >> ScottW
> > >
> > > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because you're
> > > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain purposes.
> > > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new and
> > > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think that they
> > > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is not what
> > > a mellotron attempts to do.
> >
> > Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
> > lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art appreciation
> > in some misquided elitist
>
> Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
>
> > fashion.
> > Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
> > further movement away from the so called classics.
>
> Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your premise
> is false.

Your words,
" I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW IT
(IMO) by not
teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through public
school music programs to LOVE good music"

Are you denying your own words?

ScottW

George M. Middius

October 27th 06, 06:44 PM

Harry Lavo said:

> Arny once again shows why he is a bastian of quality when it comes to audio
> and musical issues.

If you read your Krooble, you would know that music is irrelevant to
audio.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

ScottW

October 27th 06, 06:50 PM

wrote:
> paul packer wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:18:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"paul packer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:32:56 GMT, Jenn
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>In article >,
> > >>> "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ...
> > >>>> > In article om>,
> > >>>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> >> Jenn wrote:
> > >>>> >> > ScottW wrote:
> > >>>> >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> > >>>> >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> > >>>> >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> > >>>> >> >
> > >>>> >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe
> > >>>> >> > that?
> > >>>> >>
> > >>>> >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic
> > >>>> >> instrument
> > >>>> >> then it is distracting to you.
> > >>>> >>
> > >>>> >> ScottW
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because you're
> > >>>> > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain
> > >>>> > purposes.
> > >>>> > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new and
> > >>>> > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think that they
> > >>>> > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is not
> > >>>> > what
> > >>>> > a mellotron attempts to do.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
> > >>>> lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art appreciation
> > >>>> in some misquided elitist
> > >>>
> > >>>Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
> > >>>
> > >>>> fashion.
> > >>>> Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
> > >>>> further movement away from the so called classics.
> > >>>
> > >>>Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your premise
> > >>>is false. You're barking up the wrong tree in order to either create an
> > >>>argument or because you are in some way sensitive to this issue.
> > >>
> > >> Yes. I also don't recall mentioning the control of art appreciation or
> > >> anything along that line--far from it. So I can only assume Scott is
> > >> referring to a post of mine made in a parallel universe.
> > >
> > >Yep, everybody who disagrees with Paul lives in a different universe (from
> > >Paul). Actually, I think that sums things up - except that Paul doesn't seem
> > >to know that he's the one who lives in a very small, personalized universe.
> >
> > You're on crack, Arnie. What you've said has nothing to do with the
> > fact that I didn't say what Scott imagines I said, or implied. So he's
> > totally wrong and your little rant here is totally beside the point.
> >
> > As usual.
>
> ====================================
>
While agree with you Ludovic let me point you
are being a snob yourself.
Lets just highlight the examples of your hypocrisy.

> This discussion repeats countless similar ones over the last few
> hundred years.
>
> Those who stay with the 3rd rate stuff

snob

> in any of the arts including
> music are always resentful of the "snobs". Deep down they feel they are
> missing something

snob...and totally wrong, they couldn't care less.

> and project their self-contempt on others who in
> truth don't give a damn about the likes and dislikes of the admirers of
> junk.

snob and also totally wrong as clearly exemplified by the words
of Jenn and Paul

>
> Far from proselytising the "snobs" rather like staying in their ivory
> towers.

snob, more often than not they're crying that classcal performers
don't enjoy the massive monetary benefits of pop performers.
They are denied their ivory tower they feel is their due.

> They feel their preferences are a privilege and the best by
> definition belongs to a small group. It is flaunting that feeling that
> in turn can make them insufferable.

not really snobber but clearly contradictory.

>Mea culpa- reminding Arny that
> Monteverdi is Monteverdi not Monty Verdi. It does cause resentment and
> complaints about "imposing preferences" while in fact I'd hate to share
> my preferences with many of the rock concert less appetising attendees.
> Ludovic Mirabel

I think this is eerily parallel to the objectivist subjectivist
argument
and simply boils down to respect of preference.
Some people have it, some don't.

ScottW

MiNe 109

October 27th 06, 07:02 PM

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > .com
> > > ...
> > > > In article om>,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Jenn wrote:
> > > >> > ScottW wrote:
> > > >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> > > >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> > > >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe
> > > >> > that?
> > > >>
> > > >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic instrument
> > > >> then it is distracting to you.
> > > >>
> > > >> ScottW
> > > >
> > > > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because you're
> > > > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain
> > > > purposes.
> > > > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new and
> > > > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think that they
> > > > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is not what
> > > > a mellotron attempts to do.
> > >
> > > Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
> > > lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art appreciation
> > > in some misquided elitist
> >
> > Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
> >
> > > fashion.
> > > Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
> > > further movement away from the so called classics.
> >
> > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your premise
> > is false.
>
> Your words,
> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW IT
> (IMO) by not
> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through public
> school music programs to LOVE good music"
>
> Are you denying your own words?

A tad confrontational, Scott. Perhaps she's denying her words mean what
you say they mean.

About Jimi Hendrix: he learned to play by immersing himself in a
environment that reinforced genre expectations. Hearing a symphony or
two would hardly constitute holding him back. Consider the
counter-examples of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis.

Stephen

ScottW

October 27th 06, 07:37 PM

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > Jenn wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > .com
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article om>,
> > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Jenn wrote:
> > > > >> > ScottW wrote:
> > > > >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> > > > >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> > > > >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe
> > > > >> > that?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic instrument
> > > > >> then it is distracting to you.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ScottW
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because you're
> > > > > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain
> > > > > purposes.
> > > > > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new and
> > > > > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think that they
> > > > > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is not what
> > > > > a mellotron attempts to do.
> > > >
> > > > Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
> > > > lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art appreciation
> > > > in some misquided elitist
> > >
> > > Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
> > >
> > > > fashion.
> > > > Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
> > > > further movement away from the so called classics.
> > >
> > > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your premise
> > > is false.
> >
> > Your words,
> > " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW IT
> > (IMO) by not
> > teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through public
> > school music programs to LOVE good music"
> >
> > Are you denying your own words?
>
> A tad confrontational, Scott. Perhaps she's denying her words mean what
> you say they mean.

I won't argue that a little clarity on Jenn's part would be
beneficial.

>
> About Jimi Hendrix: he learned to play by immersing himself in a
> environment that reinforced genre expectations.

He sure broke out of that and established his own genre.

> Hearing a symphony or
> two would hardly constitute holding him back.

Equating "hearing a symphony" to "teaching kids to love good music"
is a real stretch.
One must wonder if Hendrix teacher ever succeeding in teaching
him to love their idea of good music if he ever would have
developped his unique style.

> Consider the
> counter-examples of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis.

I've got a few Miles Davis CDs and they never seem to get into the CD
player.

ScottW

George M. Middius

October 27th 06, 08:25 PM

paul packer said:

> >> I presume that you are implying that I'm trying to "get everybody to
> >> write or even primarily listen to classical music". Since that's not
> >> true, your point is bogus.

> >Excluded middle argument noted.

> Dear God, Arny, is that all you can say?

Asked and answered.

Thank's Mr. Pocker for, admitting Mr. Peeker that you're debating-trade
license is out-of date LOt"S Mr. Porker.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Jenn

October 27th 06, 09:37 PM

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > .com
> > > ...
> > > > In article om>,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Jenn wrote:
> > > >> > ScottW wrote:
> > > >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> > > >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> > > >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe
> > > >> > that?
> > > >>
> > > >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic instrument
> > > >> then it is distracting to you.
> > > >>
> > > >> ScottW
> > > >
> > > > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because you're
> > > > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain
> > > > purposes.
> > > > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new and
> > > > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think that they
> > > > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is not what
> > > > a mellotron attempts to do.
> > >
> > > Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
> > > lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art appreciation
> > > in some misquided elitist
> >
> > Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
> >
> > > fashion.
> > > Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
> > > further movement away from the so called classics.
> >
> > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your premise
> > is false.
>
> Your words,
> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW IT
> (IMO) by not
> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through public
> school music programs to LOVE good music"
>
> Are you denying your own words?

Of course not. AND, I'm still not trying to "control art appreciation".

Jenn

October 27th 06, 09:49 PM

In article om>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > Jenn wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > digy
> > > > > .com
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > In article om>,
> > > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Jenn wrote:
> > > > > >> > ScottW wrote:
> > > > > >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> > > > > >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> > > > > >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe
> > > > > >> > that?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic
> > > > > >> instrument
> > > > > >> then it is distracting to you.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ScottW
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because
> > > > > > you're
> > > > > > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain
> > > > > > purposes.
> > > > > > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think that
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is not
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > a mellotron attempts to do.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
> > > > > lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art
> > > > > appreciation
> > > > > in some misquided elitist
> > > >
> > > > Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
> > > >
> > > > > fashion.
> > > > > Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
> > > > > further movement away from the so called classics.
> > > >
> > > > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your
> > > > premise
> > > > is false.
> > >
> > > Your words,
> > > " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW IT
> > > (IMO) by not
> > > teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through public
> > > school music programs to LOVE good music"
> > >
> > > Are you denying your own words?
> >
> > A tad confrontational, Scott. Perhaps she's denying her words mean what
> > you say they mean.
>
> I won't argue that a little clarity on Jenn's part would be
> beneficial.

I think that I've been perfectly clear. What would benefit YOU would be
a bit of reading comprehension.

>
> >
> > About Jimi Hendrix: he learned to play by immersing himself in a
> > environment that reinforced genre expectations.
>
> He sure broke out of that and established his own genre.

Just curious: what genre would that be?

MiNe 109

October 27th 06, 10:12 PM

In article om>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > Jenn wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > digy
> > > > > .com
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > In article om>,
> > > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Jenn wrote:
> > > > > >> > ScottW wrote:
> > > > > >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> > > > > >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> > > > > >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe
> > > > > >> > that?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic
> > > > > >> instrument
> > > > > >> then it is distracting to you.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ScottW
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because
> > > > > > you're
> > > > > > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain
> > > > > > purposes.
> > > > > > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think that
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is not
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > a mellotron attempts to do.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
> > > > > lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art
> > > > > appreciation
> > > > > in some misquided elitist
> > > >
> > > > Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
> > > >
> > > > > fashion.
> > > > > Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
> > > > > further movement away from the so called classics.
> > > >
> > > > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your
> > > > premise
> > > > is false.
> > >
> > > Your words,
> > > " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW IT
> > > (IMO) by not
> > > teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through public
> > > school music programs to LOVE good music"
> > >
> > > Are you denying your own words?
> >
> > A tad confrontational, Scott. Perhaps she's denying her words mean what
> > you say they mean.
>
> I won't argue that a little clarity on Jenn's part would be
> beneficial.
>
> >
> > About Jimi Hendrix: he learned to play by immersing himself in a
> > environment that reinforced genre expectations.
>
> He sure broke out of that and established his own genre.

Immersion leading to innovation. That's what Jenn wants for music in
general. Of course, Jimi didn't get that far away from blues/r&b.

> > Hearing a symphony or
> > two would hardly constitute holding him back.
>
> Equating "hearing a symphony" to "teaching kids to love good music"
> is a real stretch.

No, it isn't. Most music appreciation concepts, such as listening for
musical form, aren't genre specific.

> One must wonder if Hendrix teacher ever succeeding in teaching
> him to love their idea of good music if he ever would have
> developped his unique style.

That assumes that "good music" is somehow inimical to other genres. It
isn't.

> > Consider the
> > counter-examples of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis.
>
> I've got a few Miles Davis CDs and they never seem to get into the CD
> player.

Well, there you have it. Other people recognize the one-time Juilliard
student as an enormously important jazz innovator who assimilated
concepts from many sources, including the most cutting-edge post-war
classical music.

ScottW

October 28th 06, 01:11 AM

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> MiNe 109 wrote:
>> > In article . com>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Jenn wrote:
>> > > > In article >,
>> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> > > > >
>> > > > > digy
>> > > > > .com
>> > > > > ...
>> > > > > > In article om>,
>> > > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> Jenn wrote:
>> > > > > >> > ScottW wrote:
>> > > > > >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
>> > > > > >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
>> > > > > >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe
>> > > > > >> > that?
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic
>> > > > > >> instrument
>> > > > > >> then it is distracting to you.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> ScottW
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because
>> > > > > > you're
>> > > > > > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain
>> > > > > > purposes.
>> > > > > > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think that
>> > > > > > they
>> > > > > > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is not
>> > > > > > what
>> > > > > > a mellotron attempts to do.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
>> > > > > lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art
>> > > > > appreciation
>> > > > > in some misquided elitist
>> > > >
>> > > > Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
>> > > >
>> > > > > fashion.
>> > > > > Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
>> > > > > further movement away from the so called classics.
>> > > >
>> > > > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your
>> > > > premise
>> > > > is false.
>> > >
>> > > Your words,
>> > > " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW IT
>> > > (IMO) by not
>> > > teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through public
>> > > school music programs to LOVE good music"
>> > >
>> > > Are you denying your own words?
>> >
>> > A tad confrontational, Scott. Perhaps she's denying her words mean what
>> > you say they mean.
>>
>> I won't argue that a little clarity on Jenn's part would be
>> beneficial.
>>
>> >
>> > About Jimi Hendrix: he learned to play by immersing himself in a
>> > environment that reinforced genre expectations.
>>
>> He sure broke out of that and established his own genre.
>
> Immersion leading to innovation. That's what Jenn wants for music in
> general. Of course, Jimi didn't get that far away from blues/r&b.
>
>> > Hearing a symphony or
>> > two would hardly constitute holding him back.
>>
>> Equating "hearing a symphony" to "teaching kids to love good music"
>> is a real stretch.
>
> No, it isn't. Most music appreciation concepts, such as listening for
> musical form, aren't genre specific.
>
>> One must wonder if Hendrix teacher ever succeeding in teaching
>> him to love their idea of good music if he ever would have
>> developped his unique style.
>
> That assumes that "good music" is somehow inimical to other genres. It
> isn't.

Who decides what is good?...or more importantly who discourages
that which isn't?
Inspiration comes from many sources. I've read of so many artists
who claim Nick Drake was a tremendous influence yet he
remains unknown...and for good reason IMO.
>
>> > Consider the
>> > counter-examples of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis.
>>
>> I've got a few Miles Davis CDs and they never seem to get into the CD
>> player.
>
> Well, there you have it. Other people recognize the one-time Juilliard
> student as an enormously important jazz innovator who assimilated
> concepts from many sources, including the most cutting-edge post-war
> classical music.

Have what?...an example that good music isn't universally acclaimed as such?
Wow earth shattering news. Innovation and assimilation isn't an automatic
hits the spot for me.
I also don't really care for Beefarts Trout Mask Replica to the shagrine of
many admirers of innovation who couldn't care about Juillard.

ScottW

ScottW

October 28th 06, 01:18 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> > >
>> > > .com
>> > > ...
>> > > > In article om>,
>> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Jenn wrote:
>> > > >> > ScottW wrote:
>> > > >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
>> > > >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
>> > > >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe
>> > > >> > that?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic instrument
>> > > >> then it is distracting to you.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> ScottW
>> > > >
>> > > > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because you're
>> > > > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain
>> > > > purposes.
>> > > > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new and
>> > > > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think that they
>> > > > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is not what
>> > > > a mellotron attempts to do.
>> > >
>> > > Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
>> > > lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art appreciation
>> > > in some misquided elitist
>> >
>> > Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
>> >
>> > > fashion.
>> > > Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
>> > > further movement away from the so called classics.
>> >
>> > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your premise
>> > is false.
>>
>> Your words,
>> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW IT
>> (IMO) by not
>> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through public
>> school music programs to LOVE good music"
>>
>> Are you denying your own words?
>
> Of course not. AND, I'm still not trying to "control art appreciation".

Rather than telling us only that what you meant is different than what you said,
why don't you also go ahead and tell us what you meant to say?
Or is it a secret?

ScottW

ScottW

October 28th 06, 01:31 AM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Oct 2006 10:46:33 -0700, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
>
>
> I'm glad you felt capable of deconstructing all this according to the
> rules of logic; I'm afraid I was unable to divine any trace of logic
> at all. Please feel free to follow after me through further
> discussions with Scott deconstructing at will.

That is about the most complete admission of inability
to stand on one's own two feet I've ever read.

ScottW

Jenn

October 28th 06, 01:50 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article . com>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> Jenn wrote:
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> > >
> >> > > igy
> >> > > .com
> >> > > ...
> >> > > > In article om>,
> >> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Jenn wrote:
> >> > > >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> > > >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> >> > > >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> >> > > >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe
> >> > > >> > that?
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic
> >> > > >> instrument
> >> > > >> then it is distracting to you.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> ScottW
> >> > > >
> >> > > > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because
> >> > > > you're
> >> > > > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain
> >> > > > purposes.
> >> > > > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new and
> >> > > > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think that
> >> > > > they
> >> > > > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is not
> >> > > > what
> >> > > > a mellotron attempts to do.
> >> > >
> >> > > Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
> >> > > lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art
> >> > > appreciation
> >> > > in some misquided elitist
> >> >
> >> > Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
> >> >
> >> > > fashion.
> >> > > Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
> >> > > further movement away from the so called classics.
> >> >
> >> > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your premise
> >> > is false.
> >>
> >> Your words,
> >> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW IT
> >> (IMO) by not
> >> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through public
> >> school music programs to LOVE good music"
> >>
> >> Are you denying your own words?
> >
> > Of course not. AND, I'm still not trying to "control art appreciation".
>
> Rather than telling us only that what you meant is different than what you
> said,

Which is not what I told you. I'm clearly not trying to control art
appreciation, and I never said that I am.

> why don't you also go ahead and tell us what you meant to say?
> Or is it a secret?

Once again, just for you: There are all kinds of good music, IMV.
Additionally, good music shares some common qualities. In the area of
performance, one important quality is intonation. Do the performers
sing/play in tune? Another important quality is expressiveness. Does
the music touch you in some way? Then there is the area of the content
of the music. Does it make one think, consider, grow, laugh, etc? IMV,
if you have good performance and good content, it is good music. It can
be Mozart or Oingo Boingo.

That said, do I think that all music is equal? No, I don't.

By the way, it probably doesn't matter to you, but not only do I teach a
Classical Music Appreciation class, but I also teach a Jazz Appreciation
class, and an American Popular Music class.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 28th 06, 02:06 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Yep, everybody who disagrees with Paul lives in a different universe (from
> Paul). Actually, I think that sums things up - except that Paul doesn't seem
> to know that he's the one who lives in a very small, personalized universe.

LOL!

Arny, you really don't have a clue, do you.

toopid is so out-to-lunch here that it beggars description.

But it *is* nice to see Arny defending toopid.

LOL!

Jenn

October 28th 06, 02:10 AM

In article om>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > Yep, everybody who disagrees with Paul lives in a different universe (from
> > Paul). Actually, I think that sums things up - except that Paul doesn't seem
> > to know that he's the one who lives in a very small, personalized universe.
>
> LOL!
>
> Arny, you really don't have a clue, do you.
>
> toopid is so out-to-lunch here that it beggars description.
>
> But it *is* nice to see Arny defending toopid.
>
> LOL!

They are unified in their dislike of me.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 28th 06, 02:10 AM

Let's watch Arny build a strawman:

Arny Krueger wrote:
> OK, Porgy and Bess is not exactly classical music. But to the minds of many
> if not most under-20s, it is pretty much the same thing to them. It's music
> from their great-grandparent's youth, which isn't that much different in
> their lives from music from their great-great-great grandparent's youth.
>
> At this point, we can be talking about "your grandparent's music" again.

> "Your grandparent's music" again.

> Then, there is the obvious pushing of "your grandparent's technology". (In
> Jenn's case, vinyl and acoustic instruments).

With an ad hominem thrown in for good measure.

You're a swell guy, Arny. Everybody admires and respects you.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 28th 06, 02:41 AM

paul packer wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2006 10:46:33 -0700, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> If a work of art or an art form was universally and forever
> >> appreciated by all, it would
> >> pervade all society and become mundane, consumed by its own
> >> inevitable mediocrity.
> >
> >Let's look at the logical construct here, toopid, as it's a simple
> >'if...then' structure.
> >
> >Does it necessarily follow that "If a work of art or an art form was
> >universally and forever appreciated by all, *then* it
> >would pervade all society and become mundane, consumed by its own
> >inevitable mediocrity."
> >
> >I think most people above an IQ of, say, 55 would see that the
> >conclusion does not necessarily follow. We can therefore see that at
> >least one of your premises must be false. We can see that this is yet
> >another argument from you based on emotional appeal and not any
> >reasonable thought process.
> >[i]
> >> When the snobs decide that society needs to be trained to aprove
> >> and support what they like...art will stagnate and become repititous.
> >> The classics will lose their grandeur being buried under generations
> >> of the same.
> >
> >Uh-oh! From one argument comes two conclusions!
> >
> >I think you actually meant to make another (illogical) argument though.
> >
> >"If the snobs decide that society needs to be trained to aprove (sic)
> >and support what they like...(sic) then art will stagnate and become
> >repititous. Further, [t]he classics will lose their grandeur being
> >buried under generations of the same.(sic)"
>
>
> I'm glad you felt capable of deconstructing all this according to the
> rules of logic; I'm afraid I was unable to divine any trace of logic
> at all. Please feel free to follow after me through further
> discussions with Scott deconstructing at will.

This line of reasoning shows how toopid's 'mind' works very clearly.

It's really a mess, isn't it?

ScottW

October 28th 06, 02:44 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> > In article . com>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jenn wrote:
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> > >
>> >> > > igy
>> >> > > .com
>> >> > > ...
>> >> > > > In article om>,
>> >> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> Jenn wrote:
>> >> > > >> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> > > >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
>> >> > > >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
>> >> > > >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe
>> >> > > >> > that?
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic
>> >> > > >> instrument
>> >> > > >> then it is distracting to you.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> ScottW
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because
>> >> > > > you're
>> >> > > > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain
>> >> > > > purposes.
>> >> > > > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new and
>> >> > > > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think that
>> >> > > > they
>> >> > > > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is not
>> >> > > > what
>> >> > > > a mellotron attempts to do.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
>> >> > > lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art
>> >> > > appreciation
>> >> > > in some misquided elitist
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
>> >> >
>> >> > > fashion.
>> >> > > Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
>> >> > > further movement away from the so called classics.
>> >> >
>> >> > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your premise
>> >> > is false.
>> >>
>> >> Your words,
>> >> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW IT
>> >> (IMO) by not
>> >> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through public
>> >> school music programs to LOVE good music"
>> >>
>> >> Are you denying your own words?
>> >
>> > Of course not. AND, I'm still not trying to "control art appreciation".
>>
>> Rather than telling us only that what you meant is different than what you
>> said,
>
> Which is not what I told you. I'm clearly not trying to control art
> appreciation, and I never said that I am.

That is exactly what you'll be doing by teaching young children
to love "good" music.
>
>> why don't you also go ahead and tell us what you meant to say?
>> Or is it a secret?
>
> Once again, just for you: There are all kinds of good music, IMV.

A revelation....I guess that means there is all kinds of bad music
IYV as well.

> Additionally, good music shares some common qualities. In the area of
> performance, one important quality is intonation. Do the performers
> sing/play in tune?

So atonal music is out, what a shame.
Everytime you try to draw a box to define what is good, something
equally good is left out.

> Another important quality is expressiveness. Does
> the music touch you in some way?

Totally subjective. But I know a few people who
feel touched by what you described as "lowlife"
activities as it depicts what they endured in their youth.
Much in the way you probably appreciate the soundtrack to
Rocky Horror Picture Show.

>Then there is the area of the content
> of the music. Does it make one think, consider, grow, laugh, etc? IMV,
> if you have good performance and good content, it is good music.

So "I Like Big Butts" makes the cut? Amazing.

> It can
> be Mozart or Oingo Boingo.
>
> That said, do I think that all music is equal? No, I don't.
>
> By the way, it probably doesn't matter to you, but not only do I teach a
> Classical Music Appreciation class, but I also teach a Jazz Appreciation
> class, and an American Popular Music class.

One of my friends son has been through a few music appreciation classes
at the local CC. He's a prog fan so we share finds from time to time.
He's always analyzing for the attributes you mention and now seems oblivious
to the composite result. You start trying to define what is good
and what isn't and you miss that little intangible of what really makes
a song personally enjoyable. I don't know anyone who likes Devil
Doll and I'm sure you'd hate it and preach against it in your class as
a *******ization of some classical genre
and that would be a crime against humanity IMO.

ScottW

Arny Krueger

October 28th 06, 02:55 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...

> They are unified in their dislike of me.

Hmm we've got Jenn so close to a meltdown that she's spouting off conspiracy
theories. ;-)

Arny Krueger

October 28th 06, 02:58 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Your words,

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/dc8dea7be4a1a081

> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW IT (IMO)
> by not
> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through public
> school music programs to LOVE good music"

Hmm and who decides which music is good and which is bad?

Not the people themselves, but a bunch of music teachers.

> Are you denying your own words?

If she had a brain she't try to cancel her post/

Arny Krueger

October 28th 06, 02:59 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:

>> Your words,
>> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW IT
>> (IMO) by not
>> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through public
>> school music programs to LOVE good music"
>>
>> Are you denying your own words?

> Of course not. AND, I'm still not trying to "control art appreciation".

So who decides which music is good and which is not?

Jenn

October 28th 06, 02:59 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> .
> >> com
> >> ...
> >> > In article . com>,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Jenn wrote:
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > rod
> >> >> > > igy
> >> >> > > .com
> >> >> > > ...
> >> >> > > > In article
> >> >> > > > om>,
> >> >> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> Jenn wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> >> >> > > >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> >> >> > > >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I
> >> >> > > >> > believe
> >> >> > > >> > that?
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic
> >> >> > > >> instrument
> >> >> > > >> then it is distracting to you.
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> ScottW
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because
> >> >> > > > you're
> >> >> > > > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain
> >> >> > > > purposes.
> >> >> > > > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new
> >> >> > > > and
> >> >> > > > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think that
> >> >> > > > they
> >> >> > > > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is
> >> >> > > > not
> >> >> > > > what
> >> >> > > > a mellotron attempts to do.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
> >> >> > > lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art
> >> >> > > appreciation
> >> >> > > in some misquided elitist
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > fashion.
> >> >> > > Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
> >> >> > > further movement away from the so called classics.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your
> >> >> > premise
> >> >> > is false.
> >> >>
> >> >> Your words,
> >> >> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW IT
> >> >> (IMO) by not
> >> >> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through public
> >> >> school music programs to LOVE good music"
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you denying your own words?
> >> >
> >> > Of course not. AND, I'm still not trying to "control art appreciation".
> >>
> >> Rather than telling us only that what you meant is different than what you
> >> said,
> >
> > Which is not what I told you. I'm clearly not trying to control art
> > appreciation, and I never said that I am.
>
> That is exactly what you'll be doing by teaching young children
> to love "good" music.

Really? Do you carry this opinion to other aspects of life? For
example, are you in favor of teaching the kids to love one political
system (constitutional republic) over another (Communism)?

> >
> >> why don't you also go ahead and tell us what you meant to say?
> >> Or is it a secret?
> >
> > Once again, just for you: There are all kinds of good music, IMV.
>
> A revelation....I guess that means there is all kinds of bad music
> IYV as well.

Of course.

>
> > Additionally, good music shares some common qualities. In the area of
> > performance, one important quality is intonation. Do the performers
> > sing/play in tune?
>
> So atonal music is out, what a shame.
> Everytime you try to draw a box to define what is good, something
> equally good is left out.

You obviously don't know what intonation and atonality are. They are
unrelated.

>
> > Another important quality is expressiveness. Does
> > the music touch you in some way?
>
> Totally subjective. But I know a few people who
> feel touched by what you described as "lowlife"
> activities

When have I ever called anything "lowlife"? You shouldn't make things
up.

> as it depicts what they endured in their youth.
> Much in the way you probably appreciate the soundtrack to
> Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Sorry; I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence. Care to
explain?

>
> >Then there is the area of the content
> > of the music. Does it make one think, consider, grow, laugh, etc? IMV,
> > if you have good performance and good content, it is good music.
>
> So "I Like Big Butts" makes the cut? Amazing.
>
> > It can
> > be Mozart or Oingo Boingo.
> >
> > That said, do I think that all music is equal? No, I don't.
> >
> > By the way, it probably doesn't matter to you, but not only do I teach a
> > Classical Music Appreciation class, but I also teach a Jazz Appreciation
> > class, and an American Popular Music class.
>
> One of my friends son has been through a few music appreciation classes
> at the local CC.

Palomar?

> He's a prog fan so we share finds from time to time.
> He's always analyzing for the attributes you mention and now seems oblivious
> to the composite result. You start trying to define what is good
> and what isn't and you miss that little intangible of what really makes
> a song personally enjoyable. I don't know anyone who likes Devil
> Doll and I'm sure you'd hate it and preach against it in your class as
> a *******ization of some classical genre
> and that would be a crime against humanity IMO.

I've heard a few songs of theirs and I found them to be quite good. Why
are you sure that I hate them?

Jenn

October 28th 06, 03:06 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article . com>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> Your words,
> >> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW IT
> >> (IMO) by not
> >> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through public
> >> school music programs to LOVE good music"
> >>
> >> Are you denying your own words?
>
> > Of course not. AND, I'm still not trying to "control art appreciation".
>
> So who decides which music is good and which is not?

"Asked and answered."

Jenn

October 28th 06, 03:09 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> > Your words,
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/dc8dea7be4a1a081
>
> > " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW IT (IMO)
> > by not
> > teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through public
> > school music programs to LOVE good music"
>
> Hmm and who decides which music is good and which is bad?

"Asked and answered"/

>
> Not the people themselves, but a bunch of music teachers.

Incorrect.

>
> > Are you denying your own words?
>
> If she had a brain she't try to cancel her post/

Arny can't help himself; he HAD to include that gratuitous (not to
mention false) insult.

Jenn

October 28th 06, 03:09 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > They are unified in their dislike of me.
>
> Hmm we've got Jenn so close to a meltdown that she's spouting off conspiracy
> theories. ;-)

What conspiracy theory? Do you know what a conspiracy is?

ScottW

October 28th 06, 03:53 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your
>> >> >> > premise
>> >> >> > is false.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Your words,
>> >> >> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW IT
>> >> >> (IMO) by not
>> >> >> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through public
>> >> >> school music programs to LOVE good music"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Are you denying your own words?
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course not. AND, I'm still not trying to "control art appreciation".
>> >>
>> >> Rather than telling us only that what you meant is different than what you
>> >> said,
>> >
>> > Which is not what I told you. I'm clearly not trying to control art
>> > appreciation, and I never said that I am.
>>
>> That is exactly what you'll be doing by teaching young children
>> to love "good" music.
>
> Really? Do you carry this opinion to other aspects of life?

I don't ridiculously lump unrelated aspects of life.

> For
> example, are you in favor of teaching the kids to love one political
> system (constitutional republic) over another (Communism)?

I guess if if I had to choose, I'd rather teach them to love a republic
rather than hate it as our polemic educational systems seem to do
now. But in general, I'd rather just teach and let them choose
their loves on their own.

>
>> >
>> >> why don't you also go ahead and tell us what you meant to say?
>> >> Or is it a secret?
>> >
>> > Once again, just for you: There are all kinds of good music, IMV.
>>
>> A revelation....I guess that means there is all kinds of bad music
>> IYV as well.
>
> Of course.
>
>>
>> > Additionally, good music shares some common qualities. In the area of
>> > performance, one important quality is intonation. Do the performers
>> > sing/play in tune?
>>
>> So atonal music is out, what a shame.
>> Everytime you try to draw a box to define what is good, something
>> equally good is left out.
>
> You obviously don't know what intonation and atonality are. They are
> unrelated.

They don't need to be related for my argument...it was simply
left out, an omission. Perhaps this works better for you...if Ansermet had his
way atonal music would be out. Is he worthy of making such a choice?
Are you? Is anyone?
>
>>
>> > Another important quality is expressiveness. Does
>> > the music touch you in some way?
>>
>> Totally subjective. But I know a few people who
>> feel touched by what you described as "lowlife"
>> activities
>
> When have I ever called anything "lowlife"? You shouldn't make things
> up.

Reminding you of your own words is getting really tiresome.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/2f3daf2a69b0b08e?dmode=source&hl=en

" I know that I risk
sounding like my parents here, but even compared to the popular music of
my youth, popular music now seems to be more about lowlife activities
and criminal behavior."

>
>> as it depicts what they endured in their youth.
>> Much in the way you probably appreciate the soundtrack to
>> Rocky Horror Picture Show.
>
> Sorry; I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence. Care to
> explain?

No..suffice to say your lack of understanding supports
my contention that you, nor I, should be dictating to anyone
what is good.

>
>>
>> >Then there is the area of the content
>> > of the music. Does it make one think, consider, grow, laugh, etc? IMV,
>> > if you have good performance and good content, it is good music.
>>
>> So "I Like Big Butts" makes the cut? Amazing.
>>
>> > It can
>> > be Mozart or Oingo Boingo.
>> >
>> > That said, do I think that all music is equal? No, I don't.
>> >
>> > By the way, it probably doesn't matter to you, but not only do I teach a
>> > Classical Music Appreciation class, but I also teach a Jazz Appreciation
>> > class, and an American Popular Music class.
>>
>> One of my friends son has been through a few music appreciation classes
>> at the local CC.
>
> Palomar?

I think so as well as SDSU where he went on to.

>
>> He's a prog fan so we share finds from time to time.
>> He's always analyzing for the attributes you mention and now seems oblivious
>> to the composite result. You start trying to define what is good
>> and what isn't and you miss that little intangible of what really makes
>> a song personally enjoyable. I don't know anyone who likes Devil
>> Doll and I'm sure you'd hate it and preach against it in your class as
>> a *******ization of some classical genre
>> and that would be a crime against humanity IMO.
>
> I've heard a few songs of theirs and I found them to be quite good. Why
> are you sure that I hate them?

Most people just cringe at the lack of intonation on the vocals.
So which have you heard? Only Eliogabalus is readily available
through CD catalog sellers to my knowledge.
The others are only available through
prog outlets. A Dies Irae LP went for ~150 not long ago.
I've heard it has a leather cover.
I see a Girl who was Death starting at $80 on ebay
out of Israel. All I have are CDs...sniffle.

ScottW

MiNe 109

October 28th 06, 04:53 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> >> One must wonder if Hendrix teacher ever succeeding in teaching
> >> him to love their idea of good music if he ever would have
> >> developped his unique style.
> >
> > That assumes that "good music" is somehow inimical to other genres. It
> > isn't.
>
> Who decides what is good?...or more importantly who discourages
> that which isn't?

You're assuming music is taught as "good" and "bad" in the classroom.
There's little enough teaching time to cover basics to bother with
academic debates.

> Inspiration comes from many sources. I've read of so many artists
> who claim Nick Drake was a tremendous influence yet he
> remains unknown...and for good reason IMO.

The lack of a recent tour?

Inspiration is more likely to come from being exposed to music and
musicians. Even the most reclusive Nick Drake fan had to venture from
his ill-lit bedroom to the music store to get his first guitar strung
properly. Many more fans were turned on by friends, guitar teachers, etc.

> >> > Consider the
> >> > counter-examples of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis.
> >>
> >> I've got a few Miles Davis CDs and they never seem to get into the CD
> >> player.
> >
> > Well, there you have it. Other people recognize the one-time Juilliard
> > student as an enormously important jazz innovator who assimilated
> > concepts from many sources, including the most cutting-edge post-war
> > classical music.
>
> Have what?...an example that good music isn't universally acclaimed as such?
> Wow earth shattering news. Innovation and assimilation isn't an automatic
> hits the spot for me.

You've shown that your view of music education is colored by your
personal opinions of artists and recordings but not by an understanding
of what it is and how it is practiced.

The point has nothing to do with whether you like it or not.

> I also don't really care for Beefarts Trout Mask Replica to the shagrine of
> many admirers of innovation who couldn't care about Juillard.

So what? Zappa, is a better example. He was up on classical music as a
student and stressed music education.

Stephen

MiNe 109

October 28th 06, 04:55 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> > Additionally, good music shares some common qualities. In the area of
> > performance, one important quality is intonation. Do the performers
> > sing/play in tune?
>
> So atonal music is out, what a shame.

That word, it does not mean what you think it means.

Stephen

Jenn

October 28th 06, 05:09 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your
> >> >> >> > premise
> >> >> >> > is false.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Your words,
> >> >> >> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW IT
> >> >> >> (IMO) by not
> >> >> >> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through
> >> >> >> public
> >> >> >> school music programs to LOVE good music"
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Are you denying your own words?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Of course not. AND, I'm still not trying to "control art
> >> >> > appreciation".
> >> >>
> >> >> Rather than telling us only that what you meant is different than what
> >> >> you
> >> >> said,
> >> >
> >> > Which is not what I told you. I'm clearly not trying to control art
> >> > appreciation, and I never said that I am.
> >>
> >> That is exactly what you'll be doing by teaching young children
> >> to love "good" music.
> >
> > Really? Do you carry this opinion to other aspects of life?

>
> I don't ridiculously lump unrelated aspects of life.

And yet...

>
> > For
> > example, are you in favor of teaching the kids to love one political
> > system (constitutional republic) over another (Communism)?
>
> I guess if if I had to choose, I'd rather teach them to love a republic
> rather than hate it as our polemic educational systems seem to do
> now. But in general, I'd rather just teach and let them choose
> their loves on their own.

lol Which school systems teach hate of a republic?

>
> >
> >> >
> >> >> why don't you also go ahead and tell us what you meant to say?
> >> >> Or is it a secret?
> >> >
> >> > Once again, just for you: There are all kinds of good music, IMV.
> >>
> >> A revelation....I guess that means there is all kinds of bad music
> >> IYV as well.
> >
> > Of course.
> >
> >>
> >> > Additionally, good music shares some common qualities. In the area of
> >> > performance, one important quality is intonation. Do the performers
> >> > sing/play in tune?
> >>
> >> So atonal music is out, what a shame.
> >> Everytime you try to draw a box to define what is good, something
> >> equally good is left out.
> >
> > You obviously don't know what intonation and atonality are. They are
> > unrelated.
>
> They don't need to be related for my argument...it was simply
> left out, an omission.

lol No, you said that atonal music is out after my statement about
intonation.

> Perhaps this works better for you...if Ansermet had
> his
> way atonal music would be out.

1. What do you mean by "out"?
2. What evidence do you have of EA's feelings on the topic?

> Is he worthy of making such a choice?
> Are you? Is anyone?

Depends on what you mean by "out".

> >
> >>
> >> > Another important quality is expressiveness. Does
> >> > the music touch you in some way?
> >>
> >> Totally subjective. But I know a few people who
> >> feel touched by what you described as "lowlife"
> >> activities
> >
> > When have I ever called anything "lowlife"? You shouldn't make things
> > up.
>
> Reminding you of your own words is getting really tiresome.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/2f3daf2a69b0b08e?dmode=so
> urce&hl=en

Yeah, you're right. I thought that I had said "unlawful" or something.
So what I was referring to was activities like shooting cops, raping
women, etc. How do you feel about that?

>
> " I know that I risk
> sounding like my parents here, but even compared to the popular music of
> my youth, popular music now seems to be more about lowlife activities
> and criminal behavior."
>
> >
> >> as it depicts what they endured in their youth.
> >> Much in the way you probably appreciate the soundtrack to
> >> Rocky Horror Picture Show.
> >
> > Sorry; I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence. Care to
> > explain?
>
> No..suffice to say your lack of understanding supports
> my contention that you, nor I, should be dictating to anyone
> what is good.

LOL I see.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >Then there is the area of the content
> >> > of the music. Does it make one think, consider, grow, laugh, etc? IMV,
> >> > if you have good performance and good content, it is good music.
> >>
> >> So "I Like Big Butts" makes the cut? Amazing.
> >>
> >> > It can
> >> > be Mozart or Oingo Boingo.
> >> >
> >> > That said, do I think that all music is equal? No, I don't.
> >> >
> >> > By the way, it probably doesn't matter to you, but not only do I teach a
> >> > Classical Music Appreciation class, but I also teach a Jazz Appreciation
> >> > class, and an American Popular Music class.
> >>
> >> One of my friends son has been through a few music appreciation classes
> >> at the local CC.
> >
> > Palomar?
>
> I think so as well as SDSU where he went on to.
>
> >
> >> He's a prog fan so we share finds from time to time.
> >> He's always analyzing for the attributes you mention and now seems
> >> oblivious
> >> to the composite result. You start trying to define what is good
> >> and what isn't and you miss that little intangible of what really makes
> >> a song personally enjoyable. I don't know anyone who likes Devil
> >> Doll and I'm sure you'd hate it and preach against it in your class as
> >> a *******ization of some classical genre
> >> and that would be a crime against humanity IMO.
> >
> > I've heard a few songs of theirs and I found them to be quite good. Why
> > are you sure that I hate them?
>
> Most people just cringe at the lack of intonation on the vocals.
> So which have you heard? Only Eliogabalus is readily available
> through CD catalog sellers to my knowledge.
> The others are only available through
> prog outlets. A Dies Irae LP went for ~150 not long ago.
> I've heard it has a leather cover.
> I see a Girl who was Death starting at $80 on ebay
> out of Israel. All I have are CDs...sniffle.

I think that we're talking about 2 different acts.

Jenn

October 28th 06, 05:12 AM

In article >,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > >> One must wonder if Hendrix teacher ever succeeding in teaching
> > >> him to love their idea of good music if he ever would have
> > >> developped his unique style.
> > >
> > > That assumes that "good music" is somehow inimical to other genres. It
> > > isn't.
> >
> > Who decides what is good?...or more importantly who discourages
> > that which isn't?
>
> You're assuming music is taught as "good" and "bad" in the classroom.
> There's little enough teaching time to cover basics to bother with
> academic debates.
>
> > Inspiration comes from many sources. I've read of so many artists
> > who claim Nick Drake was a tremendous influence yet he
> > remains unknown...and for good reason IMO.
>
> The lack of a recent tour?
>
> Inspiration is more likely to come from being exposed to music and
> musicians. Even the most reclusive Nick Drake fan had to venture from
> his ill-lit bedroom to the music store to get his first guitar strung
> properly. Many more fans were turned on by friends, guitar teachers, etc.
>
> > >> > Consider the
> > >> > counter-examples of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis.
> > >>
> > >> I've got a few Miles Davis CDs and they never seem to get into the CD
> > >> player.
> > >
> > > Well, there you have it. Other people recognize the one-time Juilliard
> > > student as an enormously important jazz innovator who assimilated
> > > concepts from many sources, including the most cutting-edge post-war
> > > classical music.
> >
> > Have what?...an example that good music isn't universally acclaimed as such?
> > Wow earth shattering news. Innovation and assimilation isn't an automatic
> > hits the spot for me.
>
> You've shown that your view of music education is colored by your
> personal opinions of artists and recordings but not by an understanding
> of what it is and how it is practiced.
>
> The point has nothing to do with whether you like it or not.
>
> > I also don't really care for Beefarts Trout Mask Replica to the shagrine of
> > many admirers of innovation who couldn't care about Juillard.
>
> So what? Zappa, is a better example. He was up on classical music as a
> student

He was at the end too. Do you know his "Dog Breath Variations"?

> and stressed music education.

MiNe 109

October 28th 06, 05:21 AM

In article

om>,
Jenn > wrote:

Me:
> Zappa, is a better example. He was up on classical music as a
> > student
>
> He was at the end too. Do you know his "Dog Breath Variations"?

I've heard some of the London Symphony recordings but not to the point
of familiarity. My surface impression was of a complexity similar to his
big rock bands.

I'll add that to the huge list of "things to listen to".

Stephen

[email protected]

October 28th 06, 07:33 AM

ScottW wrote:
> wrote:
> > paul packer wrote:
> > > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:18:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"paul packer" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:32:56 GMT, Jenn
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>In article >,
> > > >>> "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ...
> > > >>>> > In article om>,
> > > >>>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> >> Jenn wrote:
> > > >>>> >> > ScottW wrote:
> > > >>>> >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> > > >>>> >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> > > >>>> >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> > > >>>> >> >
> > > >>>> >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe
> > > >>>> >> > that?
> > > >>>> >>
> > > >>>> >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic
> > > >>>> >> instrument
> > > >>>> >> then it is distracting to you.
> > > >>>> >>
> > > >>>> >> ScottW
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because you're
> > > >>>> > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain
> > > >>>> > purposes.
> > > >>>> > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new and
> > > >>>> > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think that they
> > > >>>> > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is not
> > > >>>> > what
> > > >>>> > a mellotron attempts to do.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
> > > >>>> lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art appreciation
> > > >>>> in some misquided elitist
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> fashion.
> > > >>>> Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
> > > >>>> further movement away from the so called classics.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your premise
> > > >>>is false. You're barking up the wrong tree in order to either create an
> > > >>>argument or because you are in some way sensitive to this issue.
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes. I also don't recall mentioning the control of art appreciation or
> > > >> anything along that line--far from it. So I can only assume Scott is
> > > >> referring to a post of mine made in a parallel universe.
> > > >
> > > >Yep, everybody who disagrees with Paul lives in a different universe (from
> > > >Paul). Actually, I think that sums things up - except that Paul doesn't seem
> > > >to know that he's the one who lives in a very small, personalized universe.
> > >
> > > You're on crack, Arnie. What you've said has nothing to do with the
> > > fact that I didn't say what Scott imagines I said, or implied. So he's
> > > totally wrong and your little rant here is totally beside the point.
> > >
> > > As usual.
> >
> > ====================================
> >
> While agree with you Ludovic let me point you
> are being a snob yourself.
> Lets just highlight the examples of your hypocrisy.
>
> > This discussion repeats countless similar ones over the last few
> > hundred years.
> >
> > Those who stay with the 3rd rate stuff
>
> snob
>
> > in any of the arts including
> > music are always resentful of the "snobs". Deep down they feel they are
> > missing something
>
> snob...and totally wrong, they couldn't care less.
>
>
> > and project their self-contempt on others who in
> > truth don't give a damn about the likes and dislikes of the admirers of
> > junk.
>
> snob and also totally wrong as clearly exemplified by the words
> of Jenn and Paul
>
> >
> > Far from proselytising the "snobs" rather like staying in their ivory
> > towers.
>
> snob, more often than not they're crying that classcal performers
> don't enjoy the massive monetary benefits of pop performers.
> They are denied their ivory tower they feel is their due.
>
> > They feel their preferences are a privilege and the best by
> > definition belongs to a small group. It is flaunting that feeling that
> > in turn can make them insufferable.
>
> not really snobber but clearly contradictory.
>
> >Mea culpa- reminding Arny that
> > Monteverdi is Monteverdi not Monty Verdi. It does cause resentment and
> > complaints about "imposing preferences" while in fact I'd hate to share
> > my preferences with many of the rock concert less appetising attendees.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
>
> I think this is eerily parallel to the objectivist subjectivist
> argument
> and simply boils down to respect of preference.
> Some people have it, some don't.
>
> ScottW

ScottW says:
This discussion repeats countless similar ones over the last few
hundred years.

Those who stay with the 3rd rate stuff in any of the arts including
music are always resentful of the "snobs". Deep down they feel they are
missing something and project their self-contempt on others who in
truth don't give a damn about the likes and dislikes of the admirers of
junk.

Far from proselytising the "snobs" rather like staying in their ivory
towers. They feel their preferences are a privilege and the best by
definition belongs to a small group. It is flaunting that feeling that
in turn can make them insufferable. Mea culpa- reminding Arny that
Monteverdi is Monteverdi not Monty Verdi. It does cause resentment and
complaints about "imposing preferences" while in fact I'd hate to share
my preferences with many of the rock concert less appetising attendees.
Ludovic Mirabel

====================================

ScottW says:
> While agree with you Ludovic let me point you
> are being a snob yourself.
> Lets just highlight the examples of your hypocrisy.
>
I'm not only a snob and proud of it but I'm a misunderstood snob.

I made two postings in unashamed praise of what many call snobbery and
I'm accused of "hipocrisy". Better a dozen snobs who visit art
galleries and read Dostoyevski than...here feel free to fill in.

Yes I prefer certain things in music, lterature and art and nothing
would put me off more than hearing that some individuals I prefer to
loathe share my tastes. If you want an extreme example the disgusting
"hero" of Burgess's "Clockwork Orange" adored Beethoven and Der Fuhrer
loved Wagner. It sort of puts one off Wagner, doesn't it.

I'm such a snob that I regret not appreciating some of the things one
shold like: I have blind spot for ballet, sculpture, Mahler and Brahms
and ambitious jazz. I like quite a few pop things: Louis Armstrong, a
French singer-composer Charles Trenet (he wrote a world hit "La Mer"
which is very far down his achievement in French). I welcomed rock
because thr Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin etc. were an antidote to
Tin-Pan- Alley slush but I must confees that 90% of it since the early
days I find very tiring (boom-boom-boom) and turn it off after 15
minuites.

I'm such a snob that I can hardly stay with 90% of best sellers and
turn to Salman Rushdie (a great poet writing prose) with relief. I
won't list the many prestigious American novelists that I can not stay
with beyond the first 40 pages. The only consolation is that America
being America discovers a genius every two years and all one has to do
is to wait the next one out.

Asked and answered.
Ludovic Mirabel

paul packer

October 28th 06, 11:15 AM

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:31:11 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>> On 26 Oct 2006 10:46:33 -0700, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm glad you felt capable of deconstructing all this according to the
>> rules of logic; I'm afraid I was unable to divine any trace of logic
>> at all. Please feel free to follow after me through further
>> discussions with Scott deconstructing at will.
>
>That is about the most complete admission of inability
>to stand on one's own two feet I've ever read.

I take help wherever it's offering. I have no desire to become
hopelessly mired in your "logic".

paul packer

October 28th 06, 11:41 AM

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:59:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
>> In article . com>,
>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>> Your words,
>>> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW IT
>>> (IMO) by not
>>> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through public
>>> school music programs to LOVE good music"
>>>
>>> Are you denying your own words?
>
>> Of course not. AND, I'm still not trying to "control art appreciation".
>
>So who decides which music is good and which is not?

We'll let you decide, Arny. We trust you. :-)

ScottW

October 28th 06, 04:50 PM

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> >> One must wonder if Hendrix teacher ever succeeding in teaching
>> >> him to love their idea of good music if he ever would have
>> >> developped his unique style.
>> >
>> > That assumes that "good music" is somehow inimical to other genres. It
>> > isn't.
>>
>> Who decides what is good?...or more importantly who discourages
>> that which isn't?
>
> You're assuming music is taught as "good" and "bad" in the classroom.
> There's little enough teaching time to cover basics to bother with
> academic debates.

Your changing the discussion between what is and
what was suggested.

>
>> Inspiration comes from many sources. I've read of so many artists
>> who claim Nick Drake was a tremendous influence yet he
>> remains unknown...and for good reason IMO.
>
> The lack of a recent tour?
>
> Inspiration is more likely to come from being exposed to music and
> musicians. Even the most reclusive Nick Drake fan had to venture from
> his ill-lit bedroom to the music store to get his first guitar strung
> properly. Many more fans were turned on by friends, guitar teachers, etc.
>
>> >> > Consider the
>> >> > counter-examples of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis.
>> >>
>> >> I've got a few Miles Davis CDs and they never seem to get into the CD
>> >> player.
>> >
>> > Well, there you have it. Other people recognize the one-time Juilliard
>> > student as an enormously important jazz innovator who assimilated
>> > concepts from many sources, including the most cutting-edge post-war
>> > classical music.
>>
>> Have what?...an example that good music isn't universally acclaimed as such?
>> Wow earth shattering news. Innovation and assimilation isn't an automatic
>> hits the spot for me.
>
> You've shown that your view of music education is colored by your
> personal opinions of artists and recordings but not by an understanding
> of what it is and how it is practiced.
>
> The point has nothing to do with whether you like it or not.

Sure it does...if I like it, its good, no matter what the experts
say. If you like, its good to you as well unless the so called
experts have managed to imprint your preference.

>
>> I also don't really care for Beefarts Trout Mask Replica to the shagrine of
>> many admirers of innovation who couldn't care about Juillard.
>
> So what? Zappa, is a better example. He was up on classical music as a
> student and stressed music education.

Thanks for that robotic and repititous response, but you are wrong.
There is no better or worse examples. They are different examples
of musicians who travelled different paths.

ScottW

ScottW

October 28th 06, 05:09 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your
>> >> >> >> > premise
>> >> >> >> > is false.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Your words,
>> >> >> >> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW IT
>> >> >> >> (IMO) by not
>> >> >> >> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through
>> >> >> >> public
>> >> >> >> school music programs to LOVE good music"
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Are you denying your own words?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Of course not. AND, I'm still not trying to "control art
>> >> >> > appreciation".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Rather than telling us only that what you meant is different than what
>> >> >> you
>> >> >> said,
>> >> >
>> >> > Which is not what I told you. I'm clearly not trying to control art
>> >> > appreciation, and I never said that I am.
>> >>
>> >> That is exactly what you'll be doing by teaching young children
>> >> to love "good" music.
>> >
>> > Really? Do you carry this opinion to other aspects of life?
>
>>
>> I don't ridiculously lump unrelated aspects of life.
>
> And yet...
>
>>
>> > For
>> > example, are you in favor of teaching the kids to love one political
>> > system (constitutional republic) over another (Communism)?
>>
>> I guess if if I had to choose, I'd rather teach them to love a republic
>> rather than hate it as our polemic educational systems seem to do
>> now. But in general, I'd rather just teach and let them choose
>> their loves on their own.
>
> lol Which school systems teach hate of a republic?

You should have heard the crap my kid got in a government
class a few years ago from a raving Aztlan teacher.
His teacher straight out was advocating Ca. be returned to Mex.

>
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> why don't you also go ahead and tell us what you meant to say?
>> >> >> Or is it a secret?
>> >> >
>> >> > Once again, just for you: There are all kinds of good music, IMV.
>> >>
>> >> A revelation....I guess that means there is all kinds of bad music
>> >> IYV as well.
>> >
>> > Of course.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > Additionally, good music shares some common qualities. In the area of
>> >> > performance, one important quality is intonation. Do the performers
>> >> > sing/play in tune?
>> >>
>> >> So atonal music is out, what a shame.
>> >> Everytime you try to draw a box to define what is good, something
>> >> equally good is left out.
>> >
>> > You obviously don't know what intonation and atonality are. They are
>> > unrelated.
>>
>> They don't need to be related for my argument...it was simply
>> left out, an omission.
>
> lol No, you said that atonal music is out after my statement about
> intonation.

What part of omission is confusing?
All I see now is obfuscation as you are determined
to claim you didn't mean students should be taught what to love.

>
>> Perhaps this works better for you...if Ansermet had
>> his
>> way atonal music would be out.
>
> 1. What do you mean by "out"?

Discouraged.

> 2. What evidence do you have of EA's feelings on the topic?

Wikipedia

>
>> Is he worthy of making such a choice?
>> Are you? Is anyone?
>
> Depends on what you mean by "out".

Oh brother....and you're a teacher?
I'm gonna be out if we have to discuss the simple
meaning of 3 letter words.

>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > Another important quality is expressiveness. Does
>> >> > the music touch you in some way?
>> >>
>> >> Totally subjective. But I know a few people who
>> >> feel touched by what you described as "lowlife"
>> >> activities
>> >
>> > When have I ever called anything "lowlife"? You shouldn't make things
>> > up.
>>
>> Reminding you of your own words is getting really tiresome.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/2f3daf2a69b0b08e?dmode=so
>> urce&hl=en
>
> Yeah, you're right. I thought that I had said "unlawful" or something.
> So what I was referring to was activities like shooting cops, raping
> women, etc. How do you feel about that?

You need to ask? ...but all pop music isn't about that.
M&M sometimes explores his own past and abuse.
Some of the only rap music I could ever say I liked.

>
>>
>> " I know that I risk
>> sounding like my parents here, but even compared to the popular music of
>> my youth, popular music now seems to be more about lowlife activities
>> and criminal behavior."
>>
>> >
>> >> as it depicts what they endured in their youth.
>> >> Much in the way you probably appreciate the soundtrack to
>> >> Rocky Horror Picture Show.
>> >
>> > Sorry; I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence. Care to
>> > explain?
>>
>> No..suffice to say your lack of understanding supports
>> my contention that you, nor I, should be dictating to anyone
>> what is good.
>
> LOL I see.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >Then there is the area of the content
>> >> > of the music. Does it make one think, consider, grow, laugh, etc? IMV,
>> >> > if you have good performance and good content, it is good music.
>> >>
>> >> So "I Like Big Butts" makes the cut? Amazing.
>> >>
>> >> > It can
>> >> > be Mozart or Oingo Boingo.
>> >> >
>> >> > That said, do I think that all music is equal? No, I don't.
>> >> >
>> >> > By the way, it probably doesn't matter to you, but not only do I teach a
>> >> > Classical Music Appreciation class, but I also teach a Jazz Appreciation
>> >> > class, and an American Popular Music class.
>> >>
>> >> One of my friends son has been through a few music appreciation classes
>> >> at the local CC.
>> >
>> > Palomar?
>>
>> I think so as well as SDSU where he went on to.
>>
>> >
>> >> He's a prog fan so we share finds from time to time.
>> >> He's always analyzing for the attributes you mention and now seems
>> >> oblivious
>> >> to the composite result. You start trying to define what is good
>> >> and what isn't and you miss that little intangible of what really makes
>> >> a song personally enjoyable. I don't know anyone who likes Devil
>> >> Doll and I'm sure you'd hate it and preach against it in your class as
>> >> a *******ization of some classical genre
>> >> and that would be a crime against humanity IMO.
>> >
>> > I've heard a few songs of theirs and I found them to be quite good. Why
>> > are you sure that I hate them?
>>
>> Most people just cringe at the lack of intonation on the vocals.
>> So which have you heard? Only Eliogabalus is readily available
>> through CD catalog sellers to my knowledge.
>> The others are only available through
>> prog outlets. A Dies Irae LP went for ~150 not long ago.
>> I've heard it has a leather cover.
>> I see a Girl who was Death starting at $80 on ebay
>> out of Israel. All I have are CDs...sniffle.
>
> I think that we're talking about 2 different acts.

Oh....that's a shame.
This is what I'm talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_Doll
You can find a few mp3s on the web
or CDs at Big Balloon Music.

ScottW

ScottW

October 28th 06, 05:16 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > paul packer wrote:
>> > > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:18:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >"paul packer" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:32:56 GMT, Jenn
>> > > >> > wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>>In article >,
>> > > >>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> ...
>> > > >>>> > In article om>,
>> > > >>>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> >> Jenn wrote:
>> > > >>>> >> > ScottW wrote:
>> > > >>>> >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
>> > > >>>> >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
>> > > >>>> >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
>> > > >>>> >> >
>> > > >>>> >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I believe
>> > > >>>> >> > that?
>> > > >>>> >>
>> > > >>>> >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic
>> > > >>>> >> instrument
>> > > >>>> >> then it is distracting to you.
>> > > >>>> >>
>> > > >>>> >> ScottW
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because
>> > > >>>> > you're
>> > > >>>> > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain
>> > > >>>> > purposes.
>> > > >>>> > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are new
>> > > >>>> > and
>> > > >>>> > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think that
>> > > >>>> > they
>> > > >>>> > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is not
>> > > >>>> > what
>> > > >>>> > a mellotron attempts to do.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
>> > > >>>> lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art
>> > > >>>> appreciation
>> > > >>>> in some misquided elitist
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>> fashion.
>> > > >>>> Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
>> > > >>>> further movement away from the so called classics.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your
>> > > >>>premise
>> > > >>>is false. You're barking up the wrong tree in order to either create
>> > > >>>an
>> > > >>>argument or because you are in some way sensitive to this issue.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Yes. I also don't recall mentioning the control of art appreciation or
>> > > >> anything along that line--far from it. So I can only assume Scott is
>> > > >> referring to a post of mine made in a parallel universe.
>> > > >
>> > > >Yep, everybody who disagrees with Paul lives in a different universe
>> > > >(from
>> > > >Paul). Actually, I think that sums things up - except that Paul doesn't
>> > > >seem
>> > > >to know that he's the one who lives in a very small, personalized
>> > > >universe.
>> > >
>> > > You're on crack, Arnie. What you've said has nothing to do with the
>> > > fact that I didn't say what Scott imagines I said, or implied. So he's
>> > > totally wrong and your little rant here is totally beside the point.
>> > >
>> > > As usual.
>> >
>> > ====================================
>> >
>> While agree with you Ludovic let me point you
>> are being a snob yourself.
>> Lets just highlight the examples of your hypocrisy.
>>
>> > This discussion repeats countless similar ones over the last few
>> > hundred years.
>> >
>> > Those who stay with the 3rd rate stuff
>>
>> snob
>>
>> > in any of the arts including
>> > music are always resentful of the "snobs". Deep down they feel they are
>> > missing something
>>
>> snob...and totally wrong, they couldn't care less.
>>
>>
>> > and project their self-contempt on others who in
>> > truth don't give a damn about the likes and dislikes of the admirers of
>> > junk.
>>
>> snob and also totally wrong as clearly exemplified by the words
>> of Jenn and Paul
>>
>> >
>> > Far from proselytising the "snobs" rather like staying in their ivory
>> > towers.
>>
>> snob, more often than not they're crying that classcal performers
>> don't enjoy the massive monetary benefits of pop performers.
>> They are denied their ivory tower they feel is their due.
>>
>> > They feel their preferences are a privilege and the best by
>> > definition belongs to a small group. It is flaunting that feeling that
>> > in turn can make them insufferable.
>>
>> not really snobber but clearly contradictory.
>>
>> >Mea culpa- reminding Arny that
>> > Monteverdi is Monteverdi not Monty Verdi. It does cause resentment and
>> > complaints about "imposing preferences" while in fact I'd hate to share
>> > my preferences with many of the rock concert less appetising attendees.
>> > Ludovic Mirabel
>>
>> I think this is eerily parallel to the objectivist subjectivist
>> argument
>> and simply boils down to respect of preference.
>> Some people have it, some don't.
>>
>> ScottW
>
> ScottW says:
> This discussion repeats countless similar ones over the last few
> hundred years.
>
> Those who stay with the 3rd rate stuff in any of the arts including
> music are always resentful of the "snobs". Deep down they feel they are
> missing something and project their self-contempt on others who in
> truth don't give a damn about the likes and dislikes of the admirers of
> junk.
>
> Far from proselytising the "snobs" rather like staying in their ivory
> towers. They feel their preferences are a privilege and the best by
> definition belongs to a small group. It is flaunting that feeling that
> in turn can make them insufferable. Mea culpa- reminding Arny that
> Monteverdi is Monteverdi not Monty Verdi. It does cause resentment and
> complaints about "imposing preferences" while in fact I'd hate to share
> my preferences with many of the rock concert less appetising attendees.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
> ====================================
>
> ScottW says:
>> While agree with you Ludovic let me point you
>> are being a snob yourself.
>> Lets just highlight the examples of your hypocrisy.
>>
> I'm not only a snob and proud of it but I'm a misunderstood snob.
>
> I made two postings in unashamed praise of what many call snobbery and
> I'm accused of "hipocrisy". Better a dozen snobs who visit art
> galleries and read Dostoyevski than...here feel free to fill in.
>
> Yes I prefer certain things in music, lterature and art and nothing
> would put me off more than hearing that some individuals I prefer to
> loathe share my tastes. If you want an extreme example the disgusting
> "hero" of Burgess's "Clockwork Orange" adored Beethoven and Der Fuhrer
> loved Wagner. It sort of puts one off Wagner, doesn't it.
>
> I'm such a snob that I regret not appreciating some of the things one
> shold like: I have blind spot for ballet, sculpture, Mahler and Brahms
> and ambitious jazz. I like quite a few pop things: Louis Armstrong, a
> French singer-composer Charles Trenet (he wrote a world hit "La Mer"
> which is very far down his achievement in French). I welcomed rock
> because thr Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin etc. were an antidote to
> Tin-Pan- Alley slush but I must confees that 90% of it since the early
> days I find very tiring (boom-boom-boom) and turn it off after 15
> minuites.
>
> I'm such a snob that I can hardly stay with 90% of best sellers and
> turn to Salman Rushdie (a great poet writing prose) with relief. I
> won't list the many prestigious American novelists that I can not stay
> with beyond the first 40 pages. The only consolation is that America
> being America discovers a genius every two years and all one has to do
> is to wait the next one out.

Sounds to me like Paul and Jenn may put at risk the only consolation.

ScottW

ScottW

October 28th 06, 05:43 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:31:11 -0700, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 26 Oct 2006 10:46:33 -0700, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm glad you felt capable of deconstructing all this according to the
>>> rules of logic; I'm afraid I was unable to divine any trace of logic
>>> at all. Please feel free to follow after me through further
>>> discussions with Scott deconstructing at will.
>>
>>That is about the most complete admission of inability
>>to stand on one's own two feet I've ever read.
>
> I take help wherever it's offering. I have no desire to become
> hopelessly mired in your "logic".

You and sssshhhh make a pretty couple, albeit totally intolerant.

ScottW

MiNe 109

October 28th 06, 05:46 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> >> One must wonder if Hendrix teacher ever succeeding in teaching
> >> >> him to love their idea of good music if he ever would have
> >> >> developped his unique style.
> >> >
> >> > That assumes that "good music" is somehow inimical to other genres. It
> >> > isn't.
> >>
> >> Who decides what is good?...or more importantly who discourages
> >> that which isn't?
> >
> > You're assuming music is taught as "good" and "bad" in the classroom.
> > There's little enough teaching time to cover basics to bother with
> > academic debates.
>
> Your changing the discussion between what is and
> what was suggested.

You assumed the term "good music" meant something that would have
stifled Jimi Hendrix and otherwise slow expression and innovation. As
Jenn points out, the term can cover all styles and objective standards
can be taught.

Those standards need not be perjoritave. For instance, I had a classmate
who couldn't stand the Beatles because they sang "out of tune." Well, I
can objectively hear that, but that doesn't make theirs bad music. Of
course, it didn't hurt to have the classically-trained George Martin
available to understand what the Beatles as songwriters and performers
were trying to express.

> >> Inspiration comes from many sources. I've read of so many artists
> >> who claim Nick Drake was a tremendous influence yet he
> >> remains unknown...and for good reason IMO.
> >
> > The lack of a recent tour?
> >
> > Inspiration is more likely to come from being exposed to music and
> > musicians. Even the most reclusive Nick Drake fan had to venture from
> > his ill-lit bedroom to the music store to get his first guitar strung
> > properly. Many more fans were turned on by friends, guitar teachers, etc.
> >
> >> >> > Consider the
> >> >> > counter-examples of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis.
> >> >>
> >> >> I've got a few Miles Davis CDs and they never seem to get into the CD
> >> >> player.
> >> >
> >> > Well, there you have it. Other people recognize the one-time Juilliard
> >> > student as an enormously important jazz innovator who assimilated
> >> > concepts from many sources, including the most cutting-edge post-war
> >> > classical music.
> >>
> >> Have what?...an example that good music isn't universally acclaimed as
> >> such?
> >> Wow earth shattering news. Innovation and assimilation isn't an automatic
> >> hits the spot for me.
> >
> > You've shown that your view of music education is colored by your
> > personal opinions of artists and recordings but not by an understanding
> > of what it is and how it is practiced.
> >
> > The point has nothing to do with whether you like it or not.
>
> Sure it does...if I like it, its good, no matter what the experts
> say. If you like, its good to you as well unless the so called
> experts have managed to imprint your preference.

That's what I thought you meant. You realize there is a profession of
music education with scientific studies to guide what is taught in the
classroom? It's not "my opinion is better than your opinion" although my
money's on the professionals.

> >> I also don't really care for Beefarts Trout Mask Replica to the shagrine
> >> of
> >> many admirers of innovation who couldn't care about Juillard.
> >
> > So what? Zappa, is a better example. He was up on classical music as a
> > student and stressed music education.
>
> Thanks for that robotic and repititous response, but you are wrong.
> There is no better or worse examples. They are different examples
> of musicians who travelled different paths.

If by "robotic" you mean "consistent," thank you. No music ed, no Zappa.
No Zappa, no Beefheart.

Stephen

MiNe 109

October 28th 06, 05:51 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> >> >> One of my friends son has been through a few music appreciation classes
> >> >> at the local CC.
> >> >
> >> > Palomar?
> >>
> >> I think so as well as SDSU where he went on to.

Too bad he didn't notice SDSU's innovative electronic music program.

Stephen

MiNe 109

October 28th 06, 05:53 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

Ludo:
> > I'm such a snob that I can hardly stay with 90% of best sellers and
> > turn to Salman Rushdie (a great poet writing prose) with relief. I
> > won't list the many prestigious American novelists that I can not stay
> > with beyond the first 40 pages. The only consolation is that America
> > being America discovers a genius every two years and all one has to do
> > is to wait the next one out.
>
> Sounds to me like Paul and Jenn may put at risk the only consolation.

Applying your argument against music education to creative writing would
be a greater danger to "the only consolation."

Stephen

Jenn

October 28th 06, 06:01 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >> > paul packer wrote:
> >> > > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:18:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >"paul packer" > wrote in message
> >> > > ...
> >> > > >> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:32:56 GMT, Jenn
> >> > > >> > wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>>In article >,
> >> > > >>> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> .prodigy.com
> >> > > >>>> ...
> >> > > >>>> > In article
> >> > > >>>> > om>,
> >> > > >>>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> >> Jenn wrote:
> >> > > >>>> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> > > >>>> >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
> >> > > >>>> >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> >> > > >>>> >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> >> > > >>>> >> >
> >> > > >>>> >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I
> >> > > >>>> >> > believe
> >> > > >>>> >> > that?
> >> > > >>>> >>
> >> > > >>>> >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic
> >> > > >>>> >> instrument
> >> > > >>>> >> then it is distracting to you.
> >> > > >>>> >>
> >> > > >>>> >> ScottW
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because
> >> > > >>>> > you're
> >> > > >>>> > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain
> >> > > >>>> > purposes.
> >> > > >>>> > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are
> >> > > >>>> > new
> >> > > >>>> > and
> >> > > >>>> > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think
> >> > > >>>> > that
> >> > > >>>> > they
> >> > > >>>> > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is
> >> > > >>>> > not
> >> > > >>>> > what
> >> > > >>>> > a mellotron attempts to do.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
> >> > > >>>> lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art
> >> > > >>>> appreciation
> >> > > >>>> in some misquided elitist
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>> fashion.
> >> > > >>>> Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
> >> > > >>>> further movement away from the so called classics.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your
> >> > > >>>premise
> >> > > >>>is false. You're barking up the wrong tree in order to either
> >> > > >>>create
> >> > > >>>an
> >> > > >>>argument or because you are in some way sensitive to this issue.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Yes. I also don't recall mentioning the control of art appreciation
> >> > > >> or
> >> > > >> anything along that line--far from it. So I can only assume Scott
> >> > > >> is
> >> > > >> referring to a post of mine made in a parallel universe.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Yep, everybody who disagrees with Paul lives in a different universe
> >> > > >(from
> >> > > >Paul). Actually, I think that sums things up - except that Paul
> >> > > >doesn't
> >> > > >seem
> >> > > >to know that he's the one who lives in a very small, personalized
> >> > > >universe.
> >> > >
> >> > > You're on crack, Arnie. What you've said has nothing to do with the
> >> > > fact that I didn't say what Scott imagines I said, or implied. So he's
> >> > > totally wrong and your little rant here is totally beside the point.
> >> > >
> >> > > As usual.
> >> >
> >> > ====================================
> >> >
> >> While agree with you Ludovic let me point you
> >> are being a snob yourself.
> >> Lets just highlight the examples of your hypocrisy.
> >>
> >> > This discussion repeats countless similar ones over the last few
> >> > hundred years.
> >> >
> >> > Those who stay with the 3rd rate stuff
> >>
> >> snob
> >>
> >> > in any of the arts including
> >> > music are always resentful of the "snobs". Deep down they feel they are
> >> > missing something
> >>
> >> snob...and totally wrong, they couldn't care less.
> >>
> >>
> >> > and project their self-contempt on others who in
> >> > truth don't give a damn about the likes and dislikes of the admirers of
> >> > junk.
> >>
> >> snob and also totally wrong as clearly exemplified by the words
> >> of Jenn and Paul
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Far from proselytising the "snobs" rather like staying in their ivory
> >> > towers.
> >>
> >> snob, more often than not they're crying that classcal performers
> >> don't enjoy the massive monetary benefits of pop performers.
> >> They are denied their ivory tower they feel is their due.
> >>
> >> > They feel their preferences are a privilege and the best by
> >> > definition belongs to a small group. It is flaunting that feeling that
> >> > in turn can make them insufferable.
> >>
> >> not really snobber but clearly contradictory.
> >>
> >> >Mea culpa- reminding Arny that
> >> > Monteverdi is Monteverdi not Monty Verdi. It does cause resentment and
> >> > complaints about "imposing preferences" while in fact I'd hate to share
> >> > my preferences with many of the rock concert less appetising attendees.
> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >>
> >> I think this is eerily parallel to the objectivist subjectivist
> >> argument
> >> and simply boils down to respect of preference.
> >> Some people have it, some don't.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > ScottW says:
> > This discussion repeats countless similar ones over the last few
> > hundred years.
> >
> > Those who stay with the 3rd rate stuff in any of the arts including
> > music are always resentful of the "snobs". Deep down they feel they are
> > missing something and project their self-contempt on others who in
> > truth don't give a damn about the likes and dislikes of the admirers of
> > junk.
> >
> > Far from proselytising the "snobs" rather like staying in their ivory
> > towers. They feel their preferences are a privilege and the best by
> > definition belongs to a small group. It is flaunting that feeling that
> > in turn can make them insufferable. Mea culpa- reminding Arny that
> > Monteverdi is Monteverdi not Monty Verdi. It does cause resentment and
> > complaints about "imposing preferences" while in fact I'd hate to share
> > my preferences with many of the rock concert less appetising attendees.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> > ====================================
> >
> > ScottW says:
> >> While agree with you Ludovic let me point you
> >> are being a snob yourself.
> >> Lets just highlight the examples of your hypocrisy.
> >>
> > I'm not only a snob and proud of it but I'm a misunderstood snob.
> >
> > I made two postings in unashamed praise of what many call snobbery and
> > I'm accused of "hipocrisy". Better a dozen snobs who visit art
> > galleries and read Dostoyevski than...here feel free to fill in.
> >
> > Yes I prefer certain things in music, lterature and art and nothing
> > would put me off more than hearing that some individuals I prefer to
> > loathe share my tastes. If you want an extreme example the disgusting
> > "hero" of Burgess's "Clockwork Orange" adored Beethoven and Der Fuhrer
> > loved Wagner. It sort of puts one off Wagner, doesn't it.
> >
> > I'm such a snob that I regret not appreciating some of the things one
> > shold like: I have blind spot for ballet, sculpture, Mahler and Brahms
> > and ambitious jazz. I like quite a few pop things: Louis Armstrong, a
> > French singer-composer Charles Trenet (he wrote a world hit "La Mer"
> > which is very far down his achievement in French). I welcomed rock
> > because thr Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin etc. were an antidote to
> > Tin-Pan- Alley slush but I must confees that 90% of it since the early
> > days I find very tiring (boom-boom-boom) and turn it off after 15
> > minuites.
> >
> > I'm such a snob that I can hardly stay with 90% of best sellers and
> > turn to Salman Rushdie (a great poet writing prose) with relief. I
> > won't list the many prestigious American novelists that I can not stay
> > with beyond the first 40 pages. The only consolation is that America
> > being America discovers a genius every two years and all one has to do
> > is to wait the next one out.
>
> Sounds to me like Paul and Jenn may put at risk the only consolation.
>
> ScottW

How? By saying that performing in tune is better?

ScottW

October 28th 06, 06:08 PM

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> One must wonder if Hendrix teacher ever succeeding in teaching
>> >> >> him to love their idea of good music if he ever would have
>> >> >> developped his unique style.
>> >> >
>> >> > That assumes that "good music" is somehow inimical to other genres. It
>> >> > isn't.
>> >>
>> >> Who decides what is good?...or more importantly who discourages
>> >> that which isn't?
>> >
>> > You're assuming music is taught as "good" and "bad" in the classroom.
>> > There's little enough teaching time to cover basics to bother with
>> > academic debates.
>>
>> Your changing the discussion between what is and
>> what was suggested.
>
> You assumed the term "good music" meant something that would have
> stifled Jimi Hendrix and otherwise slow expression and innovation. As
> Jenn points out, the term can cover all styles and objective standards
> can be taught.

Hendrix was groundbreaking....

>
> Those standards need not be perjoritave. For instance, I had a classmate
> who couldn't stand the Beatles because they sang "out of tune." Well, I
> can objectively hear that, but that doesn't make theirs bad music.

Jenn apparently disagrees.

> Of
> course, it didn't hurt to have the classically-trained George Martin
> available to understand what the Beatles as songwriters and performers
> were trying to express.
>
>> >> Inspiration comes from many sources. I've read of so many artists
>> >> who claim Nick Drake was a tremendous influence yet he
>> >> remains unknown...and for good reason IMO.
>> >
>> > The lack of a recent tour?
>> >
>> > Inspiration is more likely to come from being exposed to music and
>> > musicians. Even the most reclusive Nick Drake fan had to venture from
>> > his ill-lit bedroom to the music store to get his first guitar strung
>> > properly. Many more fans were turned on by friends, guitar teachers, etc.
>> >
>> >> >> > Consider the
>> >> >> > counter-examples of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've got a few Miles Davis CDs and they never seem to get into the CD
>> >> >> player.
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, there you have it. Other people recognize the one-time Juilliard
>> >> > student as an enormously important jazz innovator who assimilated
>> >> > concepts from many sources, including the most cutting-edge post-war
>> >> > classical music.
>> >>
>> >> Have what?...an example that good music isn't universally acclaimed as
>> >> such?
>> >> Wow earth shattering news. Innovation and assimilation isn't an automatic
>> >> hits the spot for me.
>> >
>> > You've shown that your view of music education is colored by your
>> > personal opinions of artists and recordings but not by an understanding
>> > of what it is and how it is practiced.
>> >
>> > The point has nothing to do with whether you like it or not.
>>
>> Sure it does...if I like it, its good, no matter what the experts
>> say. If you like, its good to you as well unless the so called
>> experts have managed to imprint your preference.
>
> That's what I thought you meant. You realize there is a profession of
> music education with scientific studies to guide what is taught in the
> classroom? It's not "my opinion is better than your opinion" although my
> money's on the professionals.

Scientific studies to guide art....
What's next? Computer programs writing music?

ScottW

Jenn

October 28th 06, 06:09 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> .
> >> com
> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so
> >> >> >> >> > your
> >> >> >> >> > premise
> >> >> >> >> > is false.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Your words,
> >> >> >> >> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW
> >> >> >> >> IT
> >> >> >> >> (IMO) by not
> >> >> >> >> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through
> >> >> >> >> public
> >> >> >> >> school music programs to LOVE good music"
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Are you denying your own words?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Of course not. AND, I'm still not trying to "control art
> >> >> >> > appreciation".
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Rather than telling us only that what you meant is different than
> >> >> >> what
> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >> said,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Which is not what I told you. I'm clearly not trying to control art
> >> >> > appreciation, and I never said that I am.
> >> >>
> >> >> That is exactly what you'll be doing by teaching young children
> >> >> to love "good" music.
> >> >
> >> > Really? Do you carry this opinion to other aspects of life?
> >
> >>
> >> I don't ridiculously lump unrelated aspects of life.
> >
> > And yet...
> >
> >>
> >> > For
> >> > example, are you in favor of teaching the kids to love one political
> >> > system (constitutional republic) over another (Communism)?
> >>
> >> I guess if if I had to choose, I'd rather teach them to love a republic
> >> rather than hate it as our polemic educational systems seem to do
> >> now. But in general, I'd rather just teach and let them choose
> >> their loves on their own.
> >
> > lol Which school systems teach hate of a republic?
>
> You should have heard the crap my kid got in a government
> class a few years ago from a raving Aztlan teacher.
> His teacher straight out was advocating Ca. be returned to Mex.

And therefore "our polemic educational systems" seem to teach hate of
republics?

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> why don't you also go ahead and tell us what you meant to say?
> >> >> >> Or is it a secret?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Once again, just for you: There are all kinds of good music, IMV.
> >> >>
> >> >> A revelation....I guess that means there is all kinds of bad music
> >> >> IYV as well.
> >> >
> >> > Of course.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > Additionally, good music shares some common qualities. In the area
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > performance, one important quality is intonation. Do the performers
> >> >> > sing/play in tune?
> >> >>
> >> >> So atonal music is out, what a shame.
> >> >> Everytime you try to draw a box to define what is good, something
> >> >> equally good is left out.
> >> >
> >> > You obviously don't know what intonation and atonality are. They are
> >> > unrelated.
> >>
> >> They don't need to be related for my argument...it was simply
> >> left out, an omission.
> >
> > lol No, you said that atonal music is out after my statement about
> > intonation.
>
> What part of omission is confusing?
> All I see now is obfuscation as you are determined
> to claim you didn't mean students should be taught what to love.

YOU connected intonation and atonality, not me.

>
> >
> >> Perhaps this works better for you...if Ansermet had
> >> his
> >> way atonal music would be out.
> >
> > 1. What do you mean by "out"?
>
> Discouraged.
>
> > 2. What evidence do you have of EA's feelings on the topic?
>
> Wikipedia

So EA isn't allowed his opinion? It would simply be an opinion, after
all.

>
> >
> >> Is he worthy of making such a choice?
> >> Are you? Is anyone?
> >
> > Depends on what you mean by "out".
>
> Oh brother....and you're a teacher?

Yeah; you want to go into the awards that I've won?

> I'm gonna be out if we have to discuss the simple
> meaning of 3 letter words.

"Out" can mean lots of things, Scott. Should he be allowed to BAN it?
No, of course not. Can he have an opinion? Of course.

>
> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > Another important quality is expressiveness. Does
> >> >> > the music touch you in some way?
> >> >>
> >> >> Totally subjective. But I know a few people who
> >> >> feel touched by what you described as "lowlife"
> >> >> activities
> >> >
> >> > When have I ever called anything "lowlife"? You shouldn't make things
> >> > up.
> >>
> >> Reminding you of your own words is getting really tiresome.
> >>
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/2f3daf2a69b0b08e?dmode
> >> =so
> >> urce&hl=en
> >
> > Yeah, you're right. I thought that I had said "unlawful" or something.
> > So what I was referring to was activities like shooting cops, raping
> > women, etc. How do you feel about that?
>
> You need to ask? ...but all pop music isn't about that.

Of course. What's your point? Did I ever say that all pop music is bad
or anything like that? No. In fact I went out of my way to indicate
the opposite.

> M&M sometimes explores his own past and abuse.
> Some of the only rap music I could ever say I liked.
>
> >
> >>
> >> " I know that I risk
> >> sounding like my parents here, but even compared to the popular music of
> >> my youth, popular music now seems to be more about lowlife activities
> >> and criminal behavior."
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> as it depicts what they endured in their youth.
> >> >> Much in the way you probably appreciate the soundtrack to
> >> >> Rocky Horror Picture Show.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry; I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence. Care to
> >> > explain?
> >>
> >> No..suffice to say your lack of understanding supports
> >> my contention that you, nor I, should be dictating to anyone
> >> what is good.
> >
> > LOL I see.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >Then there is the area of the content
> >> >> > of the music. Does it make one think, consider, grow, laugh, etc?
> >> >> > IMV,
> >> >> > if you have good performance and good content, it is good music.
> >> >>
> >> >> So "I Like Big Butts" makes the cut? Amazing.
> >> >>
> >> >> > It can
> >> >> > be Mozart or Oingo Boingo.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That said, do I think that all music is equal? No, I don't.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > By the way, it probably doesn't matter to you, but not only do I
> >> >> > teach a
> >> >> > Classical Music Appreciation class, but I also teach a Jazz
> >> >> > Appreciation
> >> >> > class, and an American Popular Music class.
> >> >>
> >> >> One of my friends son has been through a few music appreciation classes
> >> >> at the local CC.
> >> >
> >> > Palomar?
> >>
> >> I think so as well as SDSU where he went on to.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> He's a prog fan so we share finds from time to time.
> >> >> He's always analyzing for the attributes you mention and now seems
> >> >> oblivious
> >> >> to the composite result. You start trying to define what is good
> >> >> and what isn't and you miss that little intangible of what really makes
> >> >> a song personally enjoyable. I don't know anyone who likes Devil
> >> >> Doll and I'm sure you'd hate it and preach against it in your class as
> >> >> a *******ization of some classical genre
> >> >> and that would be a crime against humanity IMO.
> >> >
> >> > I've heard a few songs of theirs and I found them to be quite good. Why
> >> > are you sure that I hate them?
> >>
> >> Most people just cringe at the lack of intonation on the vocals.
> >> So which have you heard? Only Eliogabalus is readily available
> >> through CD catalog sellers to my knowledge.
> >> The others are only available through
> >> prog outlets. A Dies Irae LP went for ~150 not long ago.
> >> I've heard it has a leather cover.
> >> I see a Girl who was Death starting at $80 on ebay
> >> out of Israel. All I have are CDs...sniffle.
> >
> > I think that we're talking about 2 different acts.
>
> Oh....that's a shame.
> This is what I'm talking about.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_Doll
> You can find a few mp3s on the web
> or CDs at Big Balloon Music.

Who I was talking about was: http://www.devil-doll.com/newmain.html
A student gave me a CD of some of their songs.

Arny Krueger

October 28th 06, 07:37 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> They are unified in their dislike of me.
>>
>> Hmm we've got Jenn so close to a meltdown that she's
>> spouting off conspiracy theories. ;-)
>
> What conspiracy theory?

Guess. I quoted a sentence with 7 words in it. Can you devine my meaning
from that, or do I have to eliminate some words?

> Do you know what a conspiracy is?

Not at all, since I'm not your student, Mistress Jenn. ;-)

Arny Krueger

October 28th 06, 07:38 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>> ...
>>> In article
>>> . com>,
>>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>>>> Your words,
>>>> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and
>>>> continue to BLOW IT (IMO) by not
>>>> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go
>>>> through public school music programs to LOVE good
>>>> music"
>>>>
>>>> Are you denying your own words?
>>
>>> Of course not. AND, I'm still not trying to "control
>>> art appreciation".
>>
>> So who decides which music is good and which is not?
>
> "Asked and answered."

I knew you lacked the guts and candor it would take to answer this
question.+

MiNe 109

October 28th 06, 08:22 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> One must wonder if Hendrix teacher ever succeeding in teaching
> >> >> >> him to love their idea of good music if he ever would have
> >> >> >> developped his unique style.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That assumes that "good music" is somehow inimical to other genres.
> >> >> > It
> >> >> > isn't.
> >> >>
> >> >> Who decides what is good?...or more importantly who discourages
> >> >> that which isn't?
> >> >
> >> > You're assuming music is taught as "good" and "bad" in the classroom.
> >> > There's little enough teaching time to cover basics to bother with
> >> > academic debates.
> >>
> >> Your changing the discussion between what is and
> >> what was suggested.
> >
> > You assumed the term "good music" meant something that would have
> > stifled Jimi Hendrix and otherwise slow expression and innovation. As
> > Jenn points out, the term can cover all styles and objective standards
> > can be taught.
>
> Hendrix was groundbreaking....

In a recognized genre. "Voodoo Child" is a blues, his chord voicings are
right out of gospel, his special effects are built on previous guitar
players, etc. Innovation through immersion.

Right now, the danger is children aren't taught to listen to *any*
music. No immersion, no innovation.

> > Those standards need not be perjoritave. For instance, I had a classmate
> > who couldn't stand the Beatles because they sang "out of tune." Well, I
> > can objectively hear that, but that doesn't make theirs bad music.
>
> Jenn apparently disagrees.

I don't think so.

> > Of
> > course, it didn't hurt to have the classically-trained George Martin
> > available to understand what the Beatles as songwriters and performers
> > were trying to express.
> >
> >> >> Inspiration comes from many sources. I've read of so many artists
> >> >> who claim Nick Drake was a tremendous influence yet he
> >> >> remains unknown...and for good reason IMO.
> >> >
> >> > The lack of a recent tour?
> >> >
> >> > Inspiration is more likely to come from being exposed to music and
> >> > musicians. Even the most reclusive Nick Drake fan had to venture from
> >> > his ill-lit bedroom to the music store to get his first guitar strung
> >> > properly. Many more fans were turned on by friends, guitar teachers,
> >> > etc.
> >> >
> >> >> >> > Consider the
> >> >> >> > counter-examples of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I've got a few Miles Davis CDs and they never seem to get into the
> >> >> >> CD
> >> >> >> player.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well, there you have it. Other people recognize the one-time
> >> >> > Juilliard
> >> >> > student as an enormously important jazz innovator who assimilated
> >> >> > concepts from many sources, including the most cutting-edge post-war
> >> >> > classical music.
> >> >>
> >> >> Have what?...an example that good music isn't universally acclaimed as
> >> >> such?
> >> >> Wow earth shattering news. Innovation and assimilation isn't an
> >> >> automatic
> >> >> hits the spot for me.
> >> >
> >> > You've shown that your view of music education is colored by your
> >> > personal opinions of artists and recordings but not by an understanding
> >> > of what it is and how it is practiced.
> >> >
> >> > The point has nothing to do with whether you like it or not.
> >>
> >> Sure it does...if I like it, its good, no matter what the experts
> >> say. If you like, its good to you as well unless the so called
> >> experts have managed to imprint your preference.
> >
> > That's what I thought you meant. You realize there is a profession of
> > music education with scientific studies to guide what is taught in the
> > classroom? It's not "my opinion is better than your opinion" although my
> > money's on the professionals.
>
> Scientific studies to guide art....
> What's next? Computer programs writing music?

You must be aware of experiments in that area. However, you're changing
the subject from music education. If you prefer it to be unscientific
and based on what you personally like, that's your choice.

Stephen

MiNe 109

October 28th 06, 08:33 PM

In article

om>,
Jenn > wrote:

Scott:
> > >> Perhaps this works better for you...if Ansermet had
> > >> his way atonal music would be out.
> > >
> > > 1. What do you mean by "out"?
> >
> > Discouraged.
> >
> > > 2. What evidence do you have of EA's feelings on the topic?
> >
> > Wikipedia
>
> So EA isn't allowed his opinion? It would simply be an opinion, after
> all.

It didn't stop him from this:

http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=2996805

Sure, Stravinsky was hardly a Darmstadt type, but what would the casual
listener make of the Symphonies of Winds?

Stephen

Harry Lavo

October 28th 06, 09:06 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
...
>
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>>> >> One must wonder if Hendrix teacher ever succeeding in teaching
>>> >> him to love their idea of good music if he ever would have
>>> >> developped his unique style.
>>> >
>>> > That assumes that "good music" is somehow inimical to other genres. It
>>> > isn't.
>>>
>>> Who decides what is good?...or more importantly who discourages
>>> that which isn't?
>>
>> You're assuming music is taught as "good" and "bad" in the classroom.
>> There's little enough teaching time to cover basics to bother with
>> academic debates.
>
> Your changing the discussion between what is and
> what was suggested.
>
>>
>>> Inspiration comes from many sources. I've read of so many artists
>>> who claim Nick Drake was a tremendous influence yet he
>>> remains unknown...and for good reason IMO.
>>
>> The lack of a recent tour?
>>
>> Inspiration is more likely to come from being exposed to music and
>> musicians. Even the most reclusive Nick Drake fan had to venture from
>> his ill-lit bedroom to the music store to get his first guitar strung
>> properly. Many more fans were turned on by friends, guitar teachers, etc.
>>
>>> >> > Consider the
>>> >> > counter-examples of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis.
>>> >>
>>> >> I've got a few Miles Davis CDs and they never seem to get into the
>>> >> CD
>>> >> player.
>>> >
>>> > Well, there you have it. Other people recognize the one-time Juilliard
>>> > student as an enormously important jazz innovator who assimilated
>>> > concepts from many sources, including the most cutting-edge post-war
>>> > classical music.
>>>
>>> Have what?...an example that good music isn't universally acclaimed as
>>> such?
>>> Wow earth shattering news. Innovation and assimilation isn't an
>>> automatic
>>> hits the spot for me.
>>
>> You've shown that your view of music education is colored by your
>> personal opinions of artists and recordings but not by an understanding
>> of what it is and how it is practiced.
>>
>> The point has nothing to do with whether you like it or not.
>
> Sure it does...if I like it, its good, no matter what the experts
> say. If you like, its good to you as well unless the so called
> experts have managed to imprint your preference.
>
>>
>>> I also don't really care for Beefarts Trout Mask Replica to the shagrine
>>> of
>>> many admirers of innovation who couldn't care about Juillard.
>>
>> So what? Zappa, is a better example. He was up on classical music as a
>> student and stressed music education.
>
> Thanks for that robotic and repititous response, but you are wrong.
> There is no better or worse examples. They are different examples
> of musicians who travelled different paths.
>
> ScottW

Is there not good and bad writing? Does anything go so long as somebody
pronounces it "good"? No rules of grammar? No spelling? No clarity of
meaning? No eloquence of expression?

George M. Middius

October 28th 06, 09:19 PM

The Krooborg is kornered again.

> Can you devine

Ick! Krooglish!

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

George M. Middius

October 28th 06, 09:56 PM

MiNe 109 said:

> > >> Sure it does...if I like it, its good, no matter what the experts
> > >> say. If you like, its good to you as well unless the so called
> > >> experts have managed to imprint your preference.

> > > That's what I thought you meant. You realize there is a profession of
> > > music education with scientific studies to guide what is taught in the
> > > classroom? It's not "my opinion is better than your opinion" although my
> > > money's on the professionals.

> > Scientific studies to guide art....
> > What's next? Computer programs writing music?

> You must be aware of experiments in that area. However, you're changing
> the subject from music education. If you prefer it to be unscientific
> and based on what you personally like, that's your choice.

I hope you weren't surprised to learn that ScottW has no understanding
of education. I'd venture to say such has been obvious to all of Usenet
for many years.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

George M. Middius

October 28th 06, 09:58 PM

Harry Lavo said:

> > Thanks for that robotic and repititous response, but you are wrong.
> > There is no better or worse examples. They are different examples
> > of musicians who travelled different paths.

> Is there not good and bad writing?

No cos if ScottW doesnt understand you its you're fault.

> No rules of grammar? No spelling? No clarity of
> meaning? No eloquence of expression?

If you were a fly on ScottW's wall right now, you'd see him pounding his
fists on his keyboard and crying tears of frustration.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

MiNe 109

October 28th 06, 10:26 PM

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > >> Sure it does...if I like it, its good, no matter what the experts
> > > >> say. If you like, its good to you as well unless the so called
> > > >> experts have managed to imprint your preference.
>
> > > > That's what I thought you meant. You realize there is a profession of
> > > > music education with scientific studies to guide what is taught in the
> > > > classroom? It's not "my opinion is better than your opinion" although my
> > > > money's on the professionals.
>
> > > Scientific studies to guide art....
> > > What's next? Computer programs writing music?
>
> > You must be aware of experiments in that area. However, you're changing
> > the subject from music education. If you prefer it to be unscientific
> > and based on what you personally like, that's your choice.
>
> I hope you weren't surprised to learn that ScottW has no understanding
> of education. I'd venture to say such has been obvious to all of Usenet
> for many years.

But he knows what he likes, which more important.

Stephen

George M. Middius

October 28th 06, 10:42 PM

MiNe 109 said:

> > I hope you weren't surprised to learn that ScottW has no understanding
> > of education. I'd venture to say such has been obvious to all of Usenet
> > for many years.

> But he knows what he likes, which more important.

And apparently it's the only aspect of music worth talking about.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Sander deWaal

October 28th 06, 10:50 PM

George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
said:

>The Krooborg is kornered again.

>> Can you devine

>Ick! Krooglish!

I noticed that, too.

I think it's a Freudian slip.
He knows that Jenn is his intellectual, moral, emotional and musical
superior (there are most probably more fields, but let's start with
this), and he somehow subconsciously thinks of her as some kind of
deity.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

George M. Middius

October 28th 06, 11:08 PM

Sander deWaal said:

> >The Krooborg is kornered again.

> >> Can you devine

> >Ick! Krooglish!

> I noticed that, too.

> I think it's a Freudian slip.
> He knows that Jenn is his intellectual, moral, emotional and musical
> superior (there are most probably more fields, but let's start with
> this), and he somehow subconsciously thinks of her as some kind of
> deity.

Jenn is not just nature's way of growing grapes.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Sander deWaal

October 28th 06, 11:31 PM

George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
said:

>> >The Krooborg is kornered again.

>> >> Can you devine

>> >Ick! Krooglish!

>> I noticed that, too.

>> I think it's a Freudian slip.
>> He knows that Jenn is his intellectual, moral, emotional and musical
>> superior (there are most probably more fields, but let's start with
>> this), and he somehow subconsciously thinks of her as some kind of
>> deity.

>Jenn is not just nature's way of growing grapes.

Sour grapes, at that.

I noticed something else, too: the Freudian slip is wrapped up in a
spelling error, or in Krooglish if you prefer.

Well, who knows what it means, my DeKoder has been on the fritz ever
since last week, when it OD'd on the barrage of Kroopostings.

LoT:'S! ;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[email protected]

October 28th 06, 11:53 PM

Signal wrote:
> " > wrote:
>
> >I'm not only a snob and proud of it...
>
> Snobbery is not a positive attribute, it's a character flaw. Why are
> you *proud* of having personality flaws.
> -
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

+++++++++++++

Nothing without a definirion.
Snobbery is what the semiliterate attribute to those who happen to like
things they can't conceive of anyone genuinely liking. l always drove
the cheapest car that would get me where I wanted to go. I lived in the
smallest house that my kids could grow up in without us getting under
each other feet. I did not research my ancestry for glory or status.

On the other hand I spent what I cold on travel, books. paintings I
liked and could afford. .

Since such pursuits are not those of the majority I'm resigned to the
company of minority.who do not bore me and whom I do not bore.

That's the kind of snob I am.
Ludovic Mirabel

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 29th 06, 12:14 AM

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> wrote:
>
> > MiNe 109 said:
> >
> > > > >> Sure it does...if I like it, its good, no matter what the experts
> > > > >> say. If you like, its good to you as well unless the so called
> > > > >> experts have managed to imprint your preference.
> >
> > > > > That's what I thought you meant. You realize there is a profession of
> > > > > music education with scientific studies to guide what is taught in the
> > > > > classroom? It's not "my opinion is better than your opinion" although my
> > > > > money's on the professionals.
> >
> > > > Scientific studies to guide art....
> > > > What's next? Computer programs writing music?
> >
> > > You must be aware of experiments in that area. However, you're changing
> > > the subject from music education. If you prefer it to be unscientific
> > > and based on what you personally like, that's your choice.
> >
> > I hope you weren't surprised to learn that ScottW has no understanding
> > of education. I'd venture to say such has been obvious to all of Usenet
> > for many years.
>
> But he knows what he likes, which more important.

Pertaining to music, I'd agree.

Pertaining to other areas, for example foreign policy or military
affairs, I'd have to disagree.

I don't think toopid can make those distinctions.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 29th 06, 12:18 AM

ScottW wrote:
> "paul packer" > wrote in message

> > I take help wherever it's offering. I have no desire to become
> > hopelessly mired in your "logic".
>
> You and sssshhhh make a pretty couple, albeit totally intolerant.

So I should 'tolerate' your homophobia and other warped views simply
because you hold them?

I think not.

LOL!

George M. Middius

October 29th 06, 01:08 AM

Signal said:

> >I'm not only a snob and proud of it...

> Snobbery is not a positive attribute, it's a character flaw. Why are
> you *proud* of having personality flaws?

Keep in mind that Ludo is not a native speaker of English. He may not be
aware of the word's negative connotations.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Jenn

October 29th 06, 01:23 AM

In article >,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article
>
> om>,
> Jenn > wrote:
>
> Scott:
> > > >> Perhaps this works better for you...if Ansermet had
> > > >> his way atonal music would be out.
> > > >
> > > > 1. What do you mean by "out"?
> > >
> > > Discouraged.
> > >
> > > > 2. What evidence do you have of EA's feelings on the topic?
> > >
> > > Wikipedia
> >
> > So EA isn't allowed his opinion? It would simply be an opinion, after
> > all.
>
> It didn't stop him from this:
>
> http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=2996805
>
> Sure, Stravinsky was hardly a Darmstadt type, but what would the casual
> listener make of the Symphonies of Winds?
>
> Stephen

Once of the GREAT works, IMO. And EA's is one of three great
recordings, joining DeWaart/Netherlands Wind Ensemble and
Fennell/Eastman Wind Ensemble.

Jenn

October 29th 06, 01:24 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >> ...
> >>> In article
> >>> . com>,
> >>> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Your words,
> >>>> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and
> >>>> continue to BLOW IT (IMO) by not
> >>>> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go
> >>>> through public school music programs to LOVE good
> >>>> music"
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you denying your own words?
> >>
> >>> Of course not. AND, I'm still not trying to "control
> >>> art appreciation".
> >>
> >> So who decides which music is good and which is not?
> >
> > "Asked and answered."
>
> I knew you lacked the guts and candor it would take to answer this
> question.+

I'll remember this response next time you use this phrase.

Jenn

October 29th 06, 01:24 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >> ...
> >>
> >>> They are unified in their dislike of me.
> >>
> >> Hmm we've got Jenn so close to a meltdown that she's
> >> spouting off conspiracy theories. ;-)
> >
> > What conspiracy theory?
>
> Guess. I quoted a sentence with 7 words in it. Can you devine my meaning
> from that, or do I have to eliminate some words?
>
> > Do you know what a conspiracy is?
>
> Not at all, since I'm not your student, Mistress Jenn. ;-)

Feel better now, Arny?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 29th 06, 01:28 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > They are unified in their dislike of me.
>
> Hmm we've got Jenn so close to a meltdown that she's spouting off conspiracy
> theories. ;-)

I can see why you were defending toopid.

You use the same 'logic.'

paul packer

October 29th 06, 01:41 AM

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:08:41 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>Signal said:
>
>> >I'm not only a snob and proud of it...
>
>> Snobbery is not a positive attribute, it's a character flaw. Why are
>> you *proud* of having personality flaws?
>
>Keep in mind that Ludo is not a native speaker of English. He may not be
>aware of the word's negative connotations.

Or....he may not care.

paul packer

October 29th 06, 01:44 AM

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 00:31:12 +0200, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

>George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>said:
>
>
>>> >The Krooborg is kornered again.
>
>
>>> >> Can you devine
>
>
>>> >Ick! Krooglish!
>
>
>>> I noticed that, too.
>
>>> I think it's a Freudian slip.
>>> He knows that Jenn is his intellectual, moral, emotional and musical
>>> superior (there are most probably more fields, but let's start with
>>> this), and he somehow subconsciously thinks of her as some kind of
>>> deity.
>
>
>>Jenn is not just nature's way of growing grapes.
>
>
>Sour grapes, at that.
>
>I noticed something else, too: the Freudian slip is wrapped up in a
>spelling error, or in Krooglish if you prefer.
>
>Well, who knows what it means, my DeKoder has been on the fritz ever
>since last week, when it OD'd on the barrage of Kroopostings.

I hope you're giving Arnie due credit for having improved considerably
in the last two or three years, Sander. If you look back over old
Arnie posts I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

paul packer

October 29th 06, 01:50 AM

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:58:44 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>If you were a fly on ScottW's wall right now, you'd see him pounding his
>fists on his keyboard and crying tears of frustration.

So whatever you do don't fly onto his keyboard.

Incidentally, George, your observation assumes Scott feels a lack. I
see no evidence of that, He seems to me as confident of his spelling
and keyboard skills as of his cognitive and reasoning abilities. Where
are the tears of frustration?

George M. Middius

October 29th 06, 02:28 AM

Shhhh! said KrazyBorg:

> > Hmm we've got Jenn so close to a meltdown that she's spouting off conspiracy
> > theories. ;-)

> I can see why you were defending toopid.
> You use the same 'logic.'

Disagreed.™ LoT"s. Scooter is obtuse, dull-witted, illogical; Krooger
is whack, loony tunes, a nutjob. The incidental congruence of Scottie's
stupidity and Krooger's kraziness is only superficial.

To make my point more clearly, suppose Scottie said something similar to
what Krooger said. Wouldn't you suspect that he was just lashing out in
a fit of peevishness? The difference is that once Krooger says something
inane like that, he believes it to be "fact". Krooger is so far gone
that he actually believes everything he says is the absolute truth, and
every contradiction he encounters is a "lie". No joke.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

George M. Middius

October 29th 06, 02:30 AM

paul packer said:

> >> >I'm not only a snob and proud of it...

> >> Snobbery is not a positive attribute, it's a character flaw. Why are
> >> you *proud* of having personality flaws?

> >Keep in mind that Ludo is not a native speaker of English. He may not be
> >aware of the word's negative connotations.

> Or....he may not care.

I'm with Ludo insofar as not caring if some lowbrow like Scottie
Terrierborg calls me a snob. Not too long ago, in fact, I mentioned that
our fleabag friend was on a permanent rag about "elitism". He denied it.
Now look at his recent sputtering on the subject.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

George M. Middius

October 29th 06, 02:31 AM

paul packer said:

> >If you were a fly on ScottW's wall right now, you'd see him pounding his
> >fists on his keyboard and crying tears of frustration.

> So whatever you do don't fly onto his keyboard.

Mangled metaphor noted. You probably meant to say don't let your
keyboard get into his fly.

> Incidentally, George, your observation assumes Scott feels a lack. I
> see no evidence of that, He seems to me as confident of his spelling
> and keyboard skills as of his cognitive and reasoning abilities. Where
> are the tears of frustration?

I sense them. You need to listen more closely.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Sander deWaal

October 29th 06, 10:42 AM

(paul packer) said:

>I hope you're giving Arnie due credit for having improved considerably
>in the last two or three years, Sander. If you look back over old
>Arnie posts I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

The spelling may have improved a bit (most likely thanks to some
spell-checking program he snatched from one of his "client's" PCs),
the bad intent and sociopathical behaviour pattern is still there.

AFAIC, nothing to be cheering about.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

paul packer

October 29th 06, 01:45 PM

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:42:55 +0100, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

(paul packer) said:
>
>
>>I hope you're giving Arnie due credit for having improved considerably
>>in the last two or three years, Sander. If you look back over old
>>Arnie posts I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
>
>
>The spelling may have improved a bit (most likely thanks to some
>spell-checking program he snatched from one of his "client's" PCs),
>the bad intent and sociopathical behaviour pattern is still there.
>
>AFAIC, nothing to be cheering about.

I was referring to grammar and spelling--and perhaps "word
power"--only. I wasn't suggesting Arnie was a different person.

[email protected]

October 29th 06, 05:07 PM

paul packer wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:42:55 +0100, Sander deWaal >
> wrote:
>
> (paul packer) said:
> >
> >
> >>I hope you're giving Arnie due credit for having improved considerably
> >>in the last two or three years, Sander. If you look back over old
> >>Arnie posts I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
> >
> >
> >The spelling may have improved a bit (most likely thanks to some
> >spell-checking program he snatched from one of his "client's" PCs),
> >the bad intent and sociopathical behaviour pattern is still there.
> >
> >AFAIC, nothing to be cheering about.
>
>
> I was referring to grammar and spelling--and perhaps "word
> power"--only. I wasn't suggesting Arnie was a different person.

Give Arny his due. Making mincemeat of his ignorance coupled with
unselfconscious self-promoting keeps half of this forum in postings. He
has at least this to be proud of..
Ludovic Mirabel

ScottW

October 29th 06, 05:36 PM

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> Ludo:
>> > I'm such a snob that I can hardly stay with 90% of best sellers and
>> > turn to Salman Rushdie (a great poet writing prose) with relief. I
>> > won't list the many prestigious American novelists that I can not stay
>> > with beyond the first 40 pages. The only consolation is that America
>> > being America discovers a genius every two years and all one has to do
>> > is to wait the next one out.
>>
>> Sounds to me like Paul and Jenn may put at risk the only consolation.
>
> Applying your argument against music education

You really can't stay within the bounds of the disagreement.
I don't oppose music education.

ScottW

ScottW

October 29th 06, 05:37 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > paul packer wrote:
>> >> > > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:18:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >"paul packer" > wrote in message
>> >> > > ...
>> >> > > >> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:32:56 GMT, Jenn
>> >> > > >> > wrote:
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>>In article >,
>> >> > > >>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> > > >>>>
>> >> > > >>>> .prodigy.com
>> >> > > >>>> ...
>> >> > > >>>> > In article
>> >> > > >>>> > om>,
>> >> > > >>>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> > > >>>> >> Jenn wrote:
>> >> > > >>>> >> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> > > >>>> >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever had
>> >> > > >>>> >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
>> >> > > >>>> >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
>> >> > > >>>> >> >
>> >> > > >>>> >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I
>> >> > > >>>> >> > believe
>> >> > > >>>> >> > that?
>> >> > > >>>> >>
>> >> > > >>>> >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic
>> >> > > >>>> >> instrument
>> >> > > >>>> >> then it is distracting to you.
>> >> > > >>>> >>
>> >> > > >>>> >> ScottW
>> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> > > >>>> > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you, because
>> >> > > >>>> > you're
>> >> > > >>>> > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for certain
>> >> > > >>>> > purposes.
>> >> > > >>>> > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are
>> >> > > >>>> > new
>> >> > > >>>> > and
>> >> > > >>>> > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think
>> >> > > >>>> > that
>> >> > > >>>> > they
>> >> > > >>>> > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way, is
>> >> > > >>>> > not
>> >> > > >>>> > what
>> >> > > >>>> > a mellotron attempts to do.
>> >> > > >>>>
>> >> > > >>>> Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible opportunity
>> >> > > >>>> lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art
>> >> > > >>>> appreciation
>> >> > > >>>> in some misquided elitist
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>>Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>>> fashion.
>> >> > > >>>> Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
>> >> > > >>>> further movement away from the so called classics.
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>>Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your
>> >> > > >>>premise
>> >> > > >>>is false. You're barking up the wrong tree in order to either
>> >> > > >>>create
>> >> > > >>>an
>> >> > > >>>argument or because you are in some way sensitive to this issue.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Yes. I also don't recall mentioning the control of art appreciation
>> >> > > >> or
>> >> > > >> anything along that line--far from it. So I can only assume Scott
>> >> > > >> is
>> >> > > >> referring to a post of mine made in a parallel universe.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >Yep, everybody who disagrees with Paul lives in a different universe
>> >> > > >(from
>> >> > > >Paul). Actually, I think that sums things up - except that Paul
>> >> > > >doesn't
>> >> > > >seem
>> >> > > >to know that he's the one who lives in a very small, personalized
>> >> > > >universe.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > You're on crack, Arnie. What you've said has nothing to do with the
>> >> > > fact that I didn't say what Scott imagines I said, or implied. So he's
>> >> > > totally wrong and your little rant here is totally beside the point.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > As usual.
>> >> >
>> >> > ====================================
>> >> >
>> >> While agree with you Ludovic let me point you
>> >> are being a snob yourself.
>> >> Lets just highlight the examples of your hypocrisy.
>> >>
>> >> > This discussion repeats countless similar ones over the last few
>> >> > hundred years.
>> >> >
>> >> > Those who stay with the 3rd rate stuff
>> >>
>> >> snob
>> >>
>> >> > in any of the arts including
>> >> > music are always resentful of the "snobs". Deep down they feel they are
>> >> > missing something
>> >>
>> >> snob...and totally wrong, they couldn't care less.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > and project their self-contempt on others who in
>> >> > truth don't give a damn about the likes and dislikes of the admirers of
>> >> > junk.
>> >>
>> >> snob and also totally wrong as clearly exemplified by the words
>> >> of Jenn and Paul
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Far from proselytising the "snobs" rather like staying in their ivory
>> >> > towers.
>> >>
>> >> snob, more often than not they're crying that classcal performers
>> >> don't enjoy the massive monetary benefits of pop performers.
>> >> They are denied their ivory tower they feel is their due.
>> >>
>> >> > They feel their preferences are a privilege and the best by
>> >> > definition belongs to a small group. It is flaunting that feeling that
>> >> > in turn can make them insufferable.
>> >>
>> >> not really snobber but clearly contradictory.
>> >>
>> >> >Mea culpa- reminding Arny that
>> >> > Monteverdi is Monteverdi not Monty Verdi. It does cause resentment and
>> >> > complaints about "imposing preferences" while in fact I'd hate to share
>> >> > my preferences with many of the rock concert less appetising attendees.
>> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >>
>> >> I think this is eerily parallel to the objectivist subjectivist
>> >> argument
>> >> and simply boils down to respect of preference.
>> >> Some people have it, some don't.
>> >>
>> >> ScottW
>> >
>> > ScottW says:
>> > This discussion repeats countless similar ones over the last few
>> > hundred years.
>> >
>> > Those who stay with the 3rd rate stuff in any of the arts including
>> > music are always resentful of the "snobs". Deep down they feel they are
>> > missing something and project their self-contempt on others who in
>> > truth don't give a damn about the likes and dislikes of the admirers of
>> > junk.
>> >
>> > Far from proselytising the "snobs" rather like staying in their ivory
>> > towers. They feel their preferences are a privilege and the best by
>> > definition belongs to a small group. It is flaunting that feeling that
>> > in turn can make them insufferable. Mea culpa- reminding Arny that
>> > Monteverdi is Monteverdi not Monty Verdi. It does cause resentment and
>> > complaints about "imposing preferences" while in fact I'd hate to share
>> > my preferences with many of the rock concert less appetising attendees.
>> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >
>> > ====================================
>> >
>> > ScottW says:
>> >> While agree with you Ludovic let me point you
>> >> are being a snob yourself.
>> >> Lets just highlight the examples of your hypocrisy.
>> >>
>> > I'm not only a snob and proud of it but I'm a misunderstood snob.
>> >
>> > I made two postings in unashamed praise of what many call snobbery and
>> > I'm accused of "hipocrisy". Better a dozen snobs who visit art
>> > galleries and read Dostoyevski than...here feel free to fill in.
>> >
>> > Yes I prefer certain things in music, lterature and art and nothing
>> > would put me off more than hearing that some individuals I prefer to
>> > loathe share my tastes. If you want an extreme example the disgusting
>> > "hero" of Burgess's "Clockwork Orange" adored Beethoven and Der Fuhrer
>> > loved Wagner. It sort of puts one off Wagner, doesn't it.
>> >
>> > I'm such a snob that I regret not appreciating some of the things one
>> > shold like: I have blind spot for ballet, sculpture, Mahler and Brahms
>> > and ambitious jazz. I like quite a few pop things: Louis Armstrong, a
>> > French singer-composer Charles Trenet (he wrote a world hit "La Mer"
>> > which is very far down his achievement in French). I welcomed rock
>> > because thr Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin etc. were an antidote to
>> > Tin-Pan- Alley slush but I must confees that 90% of it since the early
>> > days I find very tiring (boom-boom-boom) and turn it off after 15
>> > minuites.
>> >
>> > I'm such a snob that I can hardly stay with 90% of best sellers and
>> > turn to Salman Rushdie (a great poet writing prose) with relief. I
>> > won't list the many prestigious American novelists that I can not stay
>> > with beyond the first 40 pages. The only consolation is that America
>> > being America discovers a genius every two years and all one has to do
>> > is to wait the next one out.
>>
>> Sounds to me like Paul and Jenn may put at risk the only consolation.
>>
>> ScottW
>
> How? By saying that performing in tune is better?

By making blankent statements that constrain something as
boundaryless as art.

ScottW

ScottW

October 29th 06, 05:39 PM

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> One must wonder if Hendrix teacher ever succeeding in teaching
>> >> >> >> him to love their idea of good music if he ever would have
>> >> >> >> developped his unique style.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > That assumes that "good music" is somehow inimical to other genres.
>> >> >> > It
>> >> >> > isn't.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Who decides what is good?...or more importantly who discourages
>> >> >> that which isn't?
>> >> >
>> >> > You're assuming music is taught as "good" and "bad" in the classroom.
>> >> > There's little enough teaching time to cover basics to bother with
>> >> > academic debates.
>> >>
>> >> Your changing the discussion between what is and
>> >> what was suggested.
>> >
>> > You assumed the term "good music" meant something that would have
>> > stifled Jimi Hendrix and otherwise slow expression and innovation. As
>> > Jenn points out, the term can cover all styles and objective standards
>> > can be taught.
>>
>> Hendrix was groundbreaking....
>
> In a recognized genre. "Voodoo Child" is a blues, his chord voicings are
> right out of gospel, his special effects are built on previous guitar
> players, etc. Innovation through immersion.
>
> Right now, the danger is children aren't taught to listen to *any*
> music. No immersion, no innovation.
>
>> > Those standards need not be perjoritave. For instance, I had a classmate
>> > who couldn't stand the Beatles because they sang "out of tune." Well, I
>> > can objectively hear that, but that doesn't make theirs bad music.
>>
>> Jenn apparently disagrees.
>
> I don't think so.
>
>> > Of
>> > course, it didn't hurt to have the classically-trained George Martin
>> > available to understand what the Beatles as songwriters and performers
>> > were trying to express.
>> >
>> >> >> Inspiration comes from many sources. I've read of so many artists
>> >> >> who claim Nick Drake was a tremendous influence yet he
>> >> >> remains unknown...and for good reason IMO.
>> >> >
>> >> > The lack of a recent tour?
>> >> >
>> >> > Inspiration is more likely to come from being exposed to music and
>> >> > musicians. Even the most reclusive Nick Drake fan had to venture from
>> >> > his ill-lit bedroom to the music store to get his first guitar strung
>> >> > properly. Many more fans were turned on by friends, guitar teachers,
>> >> > etc.
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Consider the
>> >> >> >> > counter-examples of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I've got a few Miles Davis CDs and they never seem to get into the
>> >> >> >> CD
>> >> >> >> player.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Well, there you have it. Other people recognize the one-time
>> >> >> > Juilliard
>> >> >> > student as an enormously important jazz innovator who assimilated
>> >> >> > concepts from many sources, including the most cutting-edge post-war
>> >> >> > classical music.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Have what?...an example that good music isn't universally acclaimed as
>> >> >> such?
>> >> >> Wow earth shattering news. Innovation and assimilation isn't an
>> >> >> automatic
>> >> >> hits the spot for me.
>> >> >
>> >> > You've shown that your view of music education is colored by your
>> >> > personal opinions of artists and recordings but not by an understanding
>> >> > of what it is and how it is practiced.
>> >> >
>> >> > The point has nothing to do with whether you like it or not.
>> >>
>> >> Sure it does...if I like it, its good, no matter what the experts
>> >> say. If you like, its good to you as well unless the so called
>> >> experts have managed to imprint your preference.
>> >
>> > That's what I thought you meant. You realize there is a profession of
>> > music education with scientific studies to guide what is taught in the
>> > classroom? It's not "my opinion is better than your opinion" although my
>> > money's on the professionals.
>>
>> Scientific studies to guide art....
>> What's next? Computer programs writing music?
>
> You must be aware of experiments in that area. However, you're changing
> the subject from music education.

The subject wasn't music education..it was preference education.

> If you prefer it to be unscientific
> and based on what you personally like, that's your choice.

What I don't want is art to become defined by science.

ScottW

ScottW

October 29th 06, 05:44 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> .
>> >> com
>> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so
>> >> >> >> >> > your
>> >> >> >> >> > premise
>> >> >> >> >> > is false.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Your words,
>> >> >> >> >> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to BLOW
>> >> >> >> >> IT
>> >> >> >> >> (IMO) by not
>> >> >> >> >> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through
>> >> >> >> >> public
>> >> >> >> >> school music programs to LOVE good music"
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Are you denying your own words?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Of course not. AND, I'm still not trying to "control art
>> >> >> >> > appreciation".
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Rather than telling us only that what you meant is different than
>> >> >> >> what
>> >> >> >> you
>> >> >> >> said,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Which is not what I told you. I'm clearly not trying to control art
>> >> >> > appreciation, and I never said that I am.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That is exactly what you'll be doing by teaching young children
>> >> >> to love "good" music.
>> >> >
>> >> > Really? Do you carry this opinion to other aspects of life?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I don't ridiculously lump unrelated aspects of life.
>> >
>> > And yet...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > For
>> >> > example, are you in favor of teaching the kids to love one political
>> >> > system (constitutional republic) over another (Communism)?
>> >>
>> >> I guess if if I had to choose, I'd rather teach them to love a republic
>> >> rather than hate it as our polemic educational systems seem to do
>> >> now. But in general, I'd rather just teach and let them choose
>> >> their loves on their own.
>> >
>> > lol Which school systems teach hate of a republic?
>>
>> You should have heard the crap my kid got in a government
>> class a few years ago from a raving Aztlan teacher.
>> His teacher straight out was advocating Ca. be returned to Mex.
>
> And therefore "our polemic educational systems" seem to teach hate of
> republics?
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> why don't you also go ahead and tell us what you meant to say?
>> >> >> >> Or is it a secret?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Once again, just for you: There are all kinds of good music, IMV.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A revelation....I guess that means there is all kinds of bad music
>> >> >> IYV as well.
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Additionally, good music shares some common qualities. In the area
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > performance, one important quality is intonation. Do the performers
>> >> >> > sing/play in tune?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So atonal music is out, what a shame.
>> >> >> Everytime you try to draw a box to define what is good, something
>> >> >> equally good is left out.
>> >> >
>> >> > You obviously don't know what intonation and atonality are. They are
>> >> > unrelated.
>> >>
>> >> They don't need to be related for my argument...it was simply
>> >> left out, an omission.
>> >
>> > lol No, you said that atonal music is out after my statement about
>> > intonation.
>>
>> What part of omission is confusing?
>> All I see now is obfuscation as you are determined
>> to claim you didn't mean students should be taught what to love.
>
> YOU connected intonation and atonality, not me.

Noting an omission is not to create a connection.

>
>>
>> >
>> >> Perhaps this works better for you...if Ansermet had
>> >> his
>> >> way atonal music would be out.
>> >
>> > 1. What do you mean by "out"?
>>
>> Discouraged.
>>
>> > 2. What evidence do you have of EA's feelings on the topic?
>>
>> Wikipedia
>
> So EA isn't allowed his opinion? It would simply be an opinion, after
> all.

Not if it became the mantra of music appreciation education.

ScottW

ScottW

October 29th 06, 05:48 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> (paul packer) said:
>
>
>>I hope you're giving Arnie due credit for having improved considerably
>>in the last two or three years, Sander. If you look back over old
>>Arnie posts I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
>
>
> The spelling may have improved a bit (most likely thanks to some
> spell-checking program he snatched from one of his "client's" PCs),
> the bad intent and sociopathical behaviour pattern is still there.
>
> AFAIC, nothing to be cheering about.

AFAIC? Beware your own slipperly slope.

Surely you guys have something a tad more substantive to
bring to the table than trashing yet another thread with
the rare interesting subject for Arny bashing?

ScottW

ScottW

October 29th 06, 05:52 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> One must wonder if Hendrix teacher ever succeeding in teaching
>>>> >> him to love their idea of good music if he ever would have
>>>> >> developped his unique style.
>>>> >
>>>> > That assumes that "good music" is somehow inimical to other genres. It
>>>> > isn't.
>>>>
>>>> Who decides what is good?...or more importantly who discourages
>>>> that which isn't?
>>>
>>> You're assuming music is taught as "good" and "bad" in the classroom.
>>> There's little enough teaching time to cover basics to bother with
>>> academic debates.
>>
>> Your changing the discussion between what is and
>> what was suggested.
>>
>>>
>>>> Inspiration comes from many sources. I've read of so many artists
>>>> who claim Nick Drake was a tremendous influence yet he
>>>> remains unknown...and for good reason IMO.
>>>
>>> The lack of a recent tour?
>>>
>>> Inspiration is more likely to come from being exposed to music and
>>> musicians. Even the most reclusive Nick Drake fan had to venture from
>>> his ill-lit bedroom to the music store to get his first guitar strung
>>> properly. Many more fans were turned on by friends, guitar teachers, etc.
>>>
>>>> >> > Consider the
>>>> >> > counter-examples of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I've got a few Miles Davis CDs and they never seem to get into the CD
>>>> >> player.
>>>> >
>>>> > Well, there you have it. Other people recognize the one-time Juilliard
>>>> > student as an enormously important jazz innovator who assimilated
>>>> > concepts from many sources, including the most cutting-edge post-war
>>>> > classical music.
>>>>
>>>> Have what?...an example that good music isn't universally acclaimed as
>>>> such?
>>>> Wow earth shattering news. Innovation and assimilation isn't an automatic
>>>> hits the spot for me.
>>>
>>> You've shown that your view of music education is colored by your
>>> personal opinions of artists and recordings but not by an understanding
>>> of what it is and how it is practiced.
>>>
>>> The point has nothing to do with whether you like it or not.
>>
>> Sure it does...if I like it, its good, no matter what the experts
>> say. If you like, its good to you as well unless the so called
>> experts have managed to imprint your preference.
>>
>>>
>>>> I also don't really care for Beefarts Trout Mask Replica to the shagrine of
>>>> many admirers of innovation who couldn't care about Juillard.
>>>
>>> So what? Zappa, is a better example. He was up on classical music as a
>>> student and stressed music education.
>>
>> Thanks for that robotic and repititous response, but you are wrong.
>> There is no better or worse examples. They are different examples
>> of musicians who travelled different paths.
>>
>> ScottW
>
> Is there not good and bad writing? Does anything go so long as somebody
> pronounces it "good"?

In art...yes.

> No rules of grammar? No spelling? No clarity of meaning?

In art? You now demand clarity of meaning in art?
I guess Dylan sucks.

> No eloquence of expression?

Subjective.

ScottW

ScottW

October 29th 06, 05:58 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:58:44 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>
>
>>If you were a fly on ScottW's wall right now, you'd see him pounding his
>>fists on his keyboard and crying tears of frustration.
>
>
> So whatever you do don't fly onto his keyboard.
>
> Incidentally, George, your observation assumes Scott feels a lack. I
> see no evidence of that, He seems to me as confident of his spelling
> and keyboard skills

I don't put much emphasis on spelling and keyboard skills.

>as of his cognitive and reasoning abilities. Where
> are the tears of frustration?

Only thing I find frustrating is how willing so many are to
intentionally misinterpret my words to score a point rather than
engage in exchange of ideas and perspective.

It gets to the point where if you're not interested in meaningful
exchange of ideas and live here for ridicule (like George), I just
pass. I feel no shame in failing to respond to every paragraph
of every post.

ScottW

[email protected]

October 29th 06, 06:13 PM

George M. Middius wrote:
> paul packer said:
>
> > >> >I'm not only a snob and proud of it...
>
> > >> Snobbery is not a positive attribute, it's a character flaw. Why are
> > >> you *proud* of having personality flaws?
>
> > >Keep in mind that Ludo is not a native speaker of English. He may not be
> > >aware of the word's negative connotations.
>
> > Or....he may not care.
>
> I'm with Ludo insofar as not caring if some lowbrow like Scottie
> Terrierborg calls me a snob. Not too long ago, in fact, I mentioned that
> our fleabag friend was on a permanent rag about "elitism". He denied it.
> Now look at his recent sputtering on the subject.

Thank you George.

The accusation of "elitism" and "snobbery' in the area of taste
preferences is often a cover up for insecurity.and self--doubt. You
don't hear a physicist or a poet calling those who know Boston Socks
scores by heart snobs or elitist.. When only the monks could read and
write their achievement was respected- when everyone can read and write
(just)- the semiliterate think that the literate must be posturing.
They can not conceive that people could really *like* poetry, serious
theatre, "classical" music etc On their part some elitist snobs like
being provocative. My favourite example: Lord Reith the first Governor
of the British public- subsidized radio/TV said to those who criticized
some of the programs as being too elitist to be popular (I paraphrase
from memory).: "I don't care what THEY like. THEY'd better learn to
like what we think is good for them"
..
Now for a little pedantry. " Snob " has the same meaning in most
European languages. It is shorthand for s(ine)(= without) nob(ilitate)
and was used originally to humble the social -climbing nouveaux rich .
The practical Brits recognised the harmlessness and started ennobling
influential climbers on annual basis.

Did the snobs do any harm? Not a few considered support for "high
culture" and disregard for pop preferences as a mark of having arrived
and disposed of their money accordingly. Do you really think that the
Rockfellers, the Vanderbilts the Norton Simons and the Gettys cared all
that much for painting and sculpture? And who cares what they *really*
felt.?

And who cares if their cultural snobbery was a "character flaw" Mr.
Signal? We all should have that kind of character flaw (and money to
match it).
Ludovic Mirabe

MiNe 109

October 29th 06, 07:15 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > Ludo:
> >> > I'm such a snob that I can hardly stay with 90% of best sellers and
> >> > turn to Salman Rushdie (a great poet writing prose) with relief. I
> >> > won't list the many prestigious American novelists that I can not stay
> >> > with beyond the first 40 pages. The only consolation is that America
> >> > being America discovers a genius every two years and all one has to do
> >> > is to wait the next one out.
> >>
> >> Sounds to me like Paul and Jenn may put at risk the only consolation.
> >
> > Applying your argument against music education
>
> You really can't stay within the bounds of the disagreement.
> I don't oppose music education.

Unless it presents music you don't like? What was all the about if
that's the case?

Stephen

MiNe 109

October 29th 06, 07:19 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> >> Scientific studies to guide art....
> >> What's next? Computer programs writing music?
> >
> > You must be aware of experiments in that area. However, you're changing
> > the subject from music education.
>
> The subject wasn't music education..it was preference education.

That's a problem as there's always a presentation bias.

> > If you prefer it to be unscientific
> > and based on what you personally like, that's your choice.
>
> What I don't want is art to become defined by science.

That's abstract enough for practical music educators to sagely ignore.

Stephen

Sander deWaal

October 29th 06, 07:36 PM

"ScottW" > said:

>Surely you guys have something a tad more substantive to
>bring to the table than trashing yet another thread with
>the rare interesting subject for Arny bashing?

Like bashing liberals in almost every thread you post in?

If you like, I'll put "OT" in front of any Arny-trashing post I make.
Arny sure will like the idea of being an "off-topic" subject in an
audio forum, LoT;'S! ;-)

While I don't claim to be a saint, I do sometimes post about audio,
and sometimes even take the time to help people, like with getting
their platter loose from their turntable for instance......

It's a long time ago I saw something like a helpful audio post from
you, but I must say that I mostly skip over your posts.

Just resume your usual uplifting liberal bashing, from now on I'll
reward *every* "ScottW" post with a quick strike of the "N" key.

Sheesh.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

ScottW

October 29th 06, 07:46 PM

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> > Ludo:
>> >> > I'm such a snob that I can hardly stay with 90% of best sellers and
>> >> > turn to Salman Rushdie (a great poet writing prose) with relief. I
>> >> > won't list the many prestigious American novelists that I can not stay
>> >> > with beyond the first 40 pages. The only consolation is that America
>> >> > being America discovers a genius every two years and all one has to do
>> >> > is to wait the next one out.
>> >>
>> >> Sounds to me like Paul and Jenn may put at risk the only consolation.
>> >
>> > Applying your argument against music education
>>
>> You really can't stay within the bounds of the disagreement.
>> I don't oppose music education.
>
> Unless it presents music you don't like?

You always see things in a mirror, i.e., completely backwards?

> What was all the about if
> that's the case?

The pitfalls of
teaching people to love good music.

ScottW

ScottW

October 29th 06, 08:01 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > said:
>
>
>>Surely you guys have something a tad more substantive to
>>bring to the table than trashing yet another thread with
>>the rare interesting subject for Arny bashing?
>
>
> Like bashing liberals in almost every thread you post in?

Are you trying to equate liberals with Arny?
They might not appreciate that.

>
> If you like, I'll put "OT" in front of any Arny-trashing post I make.

How about AT? Might as well be specific and you might
have an other than Arny OT comment of interest.

> Arny sure will like the idea of being an "off-topic" subject in an
> audio forum, LoT;'S! ;-)
>
> While I don't claim to be a saint, I do sometimes post about audio,
> and sometimes even take the time to help people, like with getting
> their platter loose from their turntable for instance......

You are without a doubt one of the most helpful people on this group
in spite of the Arnyitis you've come down with :).
BTW, It woudn't come loose and I'll say again...it makes zero sense
to me to ship it in place and risk all the shock load to the bearing
unless its pressed on. So, I'm playing it safe and leaving it alone.

>
> It's a long time ago I saw something like a helpful audio post from
> you, but I must say that I mostly skip over your posts.
>
> Just resume your usual uplifting liberal bashing, from now on I'll
> reward *every* "ScottW" post with a quick strike of the "N" key.

Getting a tad sensitive...aren't you?

ScottW

Jenn

October 29th 06, 08:10 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> Only thing I find frustrating is how willing so many are to
> intentionally misinterpret my words to score a point rather than
> engage in exchange of ideas and perspective.

You too, huh?

Jenn

October 29th 06, 08:14 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> .
> >> com
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> gy.
> >> >> com
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so
> >> >> >> >> >> > your
> >> >> >> >> >> > premise
> >> >> >> >> >> > is false.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Your words,
> >> >> >> >> >> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to
> >> >> >> >> >> BLOW
> >> >> >> >> >> IT
> >> >> >> >> >> (IMO) by not
> >> >> >> >> >> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through
> >> >> >> >> >> public
> >> >> >> >> >> school music programs to LOVE good music"
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Are you denying your own words?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Of course not. AND, I'm still not trying to "control art
> >> >> >> >> > appreciation".
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Rather than telling us only that what you meant is different than
> >> >> >> >> what
> >> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >> >> said,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Which is not what I told you. I'm clearly not trying to control
> >> >> >> > art
> >> >> >> > appreciation, and I never said that I am.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That is exactly what you'll be doing by teaching young children
> >> >> >> to love "good" music.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Really? Do you carry this opinion to other aspects of life?
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't ridiculously lump unrelated aspects of life.
> >> >
> >> > And yet...
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > For
> >> >> > example, are you in favor of teaching the kids to love one political
> >> >> > system (constitutional republic) over another (Communism)?
> >> >>
> >> >> I guess if if I had to choose, I'd rather teach them to love a
> >> >> republic
> >> >> rather than hate it as our polemic educational systems seem to do
> >> >> now. But in general, I'd rather just teach and let them choose
> >> >> their loves on their own.
> >> >
> >> > lol Which school systems teach hate of a republic?
> >>
> >> You should have heard the crap my kid got in a government
> >> class a few years ago from a raving Aztlan teacher.
> >> His teacher straight out was advocating Ca. be returned to Mex.
> >
> > And therefore "our polemic educational systems" seem to teach hate of
> > republics?
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> why don't you also go ahead and tell us what you meant to say?
> >> >> >> >> Or is it a secret?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Once again, just for you: There are all kinds of good music, IMV.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> A revelation....I guess that means there is all kinds of bad music
> >> >> >> IYV as well.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Of course.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Additionally, good music shares some common qualities. In the
> >> >> >> > area
> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> > performance, one important quality is intonation. Do the
> >> >> >> > performers
> >> >> >> > sing/play in tune?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So atonal music is out, what a shame.
> >> >> >> Everytime you try to draw a box to define what is good, something
> >> >> >> equally good is left out.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You obviously don't know what intonation and atonality are. They are
> >> >> > unrelated.
> >> >>
> >> >> They don't need to be related for my argument...it was simply
> >> >> left out, an omission.
> >> >
> >> > lol No, you said that atonal music is out after my statement about
> >> > intonation.
> >>
> >> What part of omission is confusing?
> >> All I see now is obfuscation as you are determined
> >> to claim you didn't mean students should be taught what to love.
> >
> > YOU connected intonation and atonality, not me.
>
> Noting an omission is not to create a connection.

I don't understand why you won't admit that you connected the two. It's
no sin to not understand the difference. I said: "Do the performers
sing/play in tune?" You responded with: "So atonal music is out, what
a shame."

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Perhaps this works better for you...if Ansermet had
> >> >> his
> >> >> way atonal music would be out.
> >> >
> >> > 1. What do you mean by "out"?
> >>
> >> Discouraged.
> >>
> >> > 2. What evidence do you have of EA's feelings on the topic?
> >>
> >> Wikipedia
> >
> > So EA isn't allowed his opinion? It would simply be an opinion, after
> > all.
>
>
> Not if it became the mantra of music appreciation education.

Which it's not, so you have no point.

Jenn

October 29th 06, 08:15 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> One must wonder if Hendrix teacher ever succeeding in teaching
> >> >> >> >> him to love their idea of good music if he ever would have
> >> >> >> >> developped his unique style.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > That assumes that "good music" is somehow inimical to other
> >> >> >> > genres.
> >> >> >> > It
> >> >> >> > isn't.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Who decides what is good?...or more importantly who discourages
> >> >> >> that which isn't?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You're assuming music is taught as "good" and "bad" in the classroom.
> >> >> > There's little enough teaching time to cover basics to bother with
> >> >> > academic debates.
> >> >>
> >> >> Your changing the discussion between what is and
> >> >> what was suggested.
> >> >
> >> > You assumed the term "good music" meant something that would have
> >> > stifled Jimi Hendrix and otherwise slow expression and innovation. As
> >> > Jenn points out, the term can cover all styles and objective standards
> >> > can be taught.
> >>
> >> Hendrix was groundbreaking....
> >
> > In a recognized genre. "Voodoo Child" is a blues, his chord voicings are
> > right out of gospel, his special effects are built on previous guitar
> > players, etc. Innovation through immersion.
> >
> > Right now, the danger is children aren't taught to listen to *any*
> > music. No immersion, no innovation.
> >
> >> > Those standards need not be perjoritave. For instance, I had a classmate
> >> > who couldn't stand the Beatles because they sang "out of tune." Well, I
> >> > can objectively hear that, but that doesn't make theirs bad music.
> >>
> >> Jenn apparently disagrees.
> >
> > I don't think so.
> >
> >> > Of
> >> > course, it didn't hurt to have the classically-trained George Martin
> >> > available to understand what the Beatles as songwriters and performers
> >> > were trying to express.
> >> >
> >> >> >> Inspiration comes from many sources. I've read of so many artists
> >> >> >> who claim Nick Drake was a tremendous influence yet he
> >> >> >> remains unknown...and for good reason IMO.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The lack of a recent tour?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Inspiration is more likely to come from being exposed to music and
> >> >> > musicians. Even the most reclusive Nick Drake fan had to venture from
> >> >> > his ill-lit bedroom to the music store to get his first guitar strung
> >> >> > properly. Many more fans were turned on by friends, guitar teachers,
> >> >> > etc.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Consider the
> >> >> >> >> > counter-examples of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I've got a few Miles Davis CDs and they never seem to get into
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> CD
> >> >> >> >> player.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Well, there you have it. Other people recognize the one-time
> >> >> >> > Juilliard
> >> >> >> > student as an enormously important jazz innovator who assimilated
> >> >> >> > concepts from many sources, including the most cutting-edge
> >> >> >> > post-war
> >> >> >> > classical music.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Have what?...an example that good music isn't universally acclaimed
> >> >> >> as
> >> >> >> such?
> >> >> >> Wow earth shattering news. Innovation and assimilation isn't an
> >> >> >> automatic
> >> >> >> hits the spot for me.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You've shown that your view of music education is colored by your
> >> >> > personal opinions of artists and recordings but not by an
> >> >> > understanding
> >> >> > of what it is and how it is practiced.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The point has nothing to do with whether you like it or not.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sure it does...if I like it, its good, no matter what the experts
> >> >> say. If you like, its good to you as well unless the so called
> >> >> experts have managed to imprint your preference.
> >> >
> >> > That's what I thought you meant. You realize there is a profession of
> >> > music education with scientific studies to guide what is taught in the
> >> > classroom? It's not "my opinion is better than your opinion" although my
> >> > money's on the professionals.
> >>
> >> Scientific studies to guide art....
> >> What's next? Computer programs writing music?
> >
> > You must be aware of experiments in that area. However, you're changing
> > the subject from music education.
>
> The subject wasn't music education..it was preference education.

Most music educators that I know don't engage in "preference education".

Jenn

October 29th 06, 08:16 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> >
> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > paul packer wrote:
> >> >> > > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:18:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >"paul packer" > wrote in message
> >> >> > > ...
> >> >> > > >> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:32:56 GMT, Jenn
> >> >> > > >> > wrote:
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>>In article >,
> >> >> > > >>> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> > > >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> ews
> >> >> > > >>>> .prodigy.com
> >> >> > > >>>> ...
> >> >> > > >>>> > In article
> >> >> > > >>>> > om>,
> >> >> > > >>>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> > > >>>> >
> >> >> > > >>>> >> Jenn wrote:
> >> >> > > >>>> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> > > >>>> >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever
> >> >> > > >>>> >> > > had
> >> >> > > >>>> >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
> >> >> > > >>>> >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> >> >> > > >>>> >> >
> >> >> > > >>>> >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I
> >> >> > > >>>> >> > believe
> >> >> > > >>>> >> > that?
> >> >> > > >>>> >>
> >> >> > > >>>> >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic
> >> >> > > >>>> >> instrument
> >> >> > > >>>> >> then it is distracting to you.
> >> >> > > >>>> >>
> >> >> > > >>>> >> ScottW
> >> >> > > >>>> >
> >> >> > > >>>> > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you,
> >> >> > > >>>> > because
> >> >> > > >>>> > you're
> >> >> > > >>>> > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for
> >> >> > > >>>> > certain
> >> >> > > >>>> > purposes.
> >> >> > > >>>> > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are
> >> >> > > >>>> > new
> >> >> > > >>>> > and
> >> >> > > >>>> > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think
> >> >> > > >>>> > that
> >> >> > > >>>> > they
> >> >> > > >>>> > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way,
> >> >> > > >>>> > is
> >> >> > > >>>> > not
> >> >> > > >>>> > what
> >> >> > > >>>> > a mellotron attempts to do.
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible
> >> >> > > >>>> opportunity
> >> >> > > >>>> lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art
> >> >> > > >>>> appreciation
> >> >> > > >>>> in some misquided elitist
> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> > > >>>Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> > > >>>> fashion.
> >> >> > > >>>> Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
> >> >> > > >>>> further movement away from the so called classics.
> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> > > >>>Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your
> >> >> > > >>>premise
> >> >> > > >>>is false. You're barking up the wrong tree in order to either
> >> >> > > >>>create
> >> >> > > >>>an
> >> >> > > >>>argument or because you are in some way sensitive to this issue.
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> Yes. I also don't recall mentioning the control of art
> >> >> > > >> appreciation
> >> >> > > >> or
> >> >> > > >> anything along that line--far from it. So I can only assume
> >> >> > > >> Scott
> >> >> > > >> is
> >> >> > > >> referring to a post of mine made in a parallel universe.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >Yep, everybody who disagrees with Paul lives in a different
> >> >> > > >universe
> >> >> > > >(from
> >> >> > > >Paul). Actually, I think that sums things up - except that Paul
> >> >> > > >doesn't
> >> >> > > >seem
> >> >> > > >to know that he's the one who lives in a very small, personalized
> >> >> > > >universe.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > You're on crack, Arnie. What you've said has nothing to do with the
> >> >> > > fact that I didn't say what Scott imagines I said, or implied. So
> >> >> > > he's
> >> >> > > totally wrong and your little rant here is totally beside the
> >> >> > > point.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > As usual.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ====================================
> >> >> >
> >> >> While agree with you Ludovic let me point you
> >> >> are being a snob yourself.
> >> >> Lets just highlight the examples of your hypocrisy.
> >> >>
> >> >> > This discussion repeats countless similar ones over the last few
> >> >> > hundred years.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Those who stay with the 3rd rate stuff
> >> >>
> >> >> snob
> >> >>
> >> >> > in any of the arts including
> >> >> > music are always resentful of the "snobs". Deep down they feel they
> >> >> > are
> >> >> > missing something
> >> >>
> >> >> snob...and totally wrong, they couldn't care less.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > and project their self-contempt on others who in
> >> >> > truth don't give a damn about the likes and dislikes of the admirers
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > junk.
> >> >>
> >> >> snob and also totally wrong as clearly exemplified by the words
> >> >> of Jenn and Paul
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Far from proselytising the "snobs" rather like staying in their ivory
> >> >> > towers.
> >> >>
> >> >> snob, more often than not they're crying that classcal performers
> >> >> don't enjoy the massive monetary benefits of pop performers.
> >> >> They are denied their ivory tower they feel is their due.
> >> >>
> >> >> > They feel their preferences are a privilege and the best by
> >> >> > definition belongs to a small group. It is flaunting that feeling
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > in turn can make them insufferable.
> >> >>
> >> >> not really snobber but clearly contradictory.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Mea culpa- reminding Arny that
> >> >> > Monteverdi is Monteverdi not Monty Verdi. It does cause resentment
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > complaints about "imposing preferences" while in fact I'd hate to
> >> >> > share
> >> >> > my preferences with many of the rock concert less appetising
> >> >> > attendees.
> >> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >> >>
> >> >> I think this is eerily parallel to the objectivist subjectivist
> >> >> argument
> >> >> and simply boils down to respect of preference.
> >> >> Some people have it, some don't.
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >> >
> >> > ScottW says:
> >> > This discussion repeats countless similar ones over the last few
> >> > hundred years.
> >> >
> >> > Those who stay with the 3rd rate stuff in any of the arts including
> >> > music are always resentful of the "snobs". Deep down they feel they are
> >> > missing something and project their self-contempt on others who in
> >> > truth don't give a damn about the likes and dislikes of the admirers of
> >> > junk.
> >> >
> >> > Far from proselytising the "snobs" rather like staying in their ivory
> >> > towers. They feel their preferences are a privilege and the best by
> >> > definition belongs to a small group. It is flaunting that feeling that
> >> > in turn can make them insufferable. Mea culpa- reminding Arny that
> >> > Monteverdi is Monteverdi not Monty Verdi. It does cause resentment and
> >> > complaints about "imposing preferences" while in fact I'd hate to share
> >> > my preferences with many of the rock concert less appetising attendees.
> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >> >
> >> > ====================================
> >> >
> >> > ScottW says:
> >> >> While agree with you Ludovic let me point you
> >> >> are being a snob yourself.
> >> >> Lets just highlight the examples of your hypocrisy.
> >> >>
> >> > I'm not only a snob and proud of it but I'm a misunderstood snob.
> >> >
> >> > I made two postings in unashamed praise of what many call snobbery and
> >> > I'm accused of "hipocrisy". Better a dozen snobs who visit art
> >> > galleries and read Dostoyevski than...here feel free to fill in.
> >> >
> >> > Yes I prefer certain things in music, lterature and art and nothing
> >> > would put me off more than hearing that some individuals I prefer to
> >> > loathe share my tastes. If you want an extreme example the disgusting
> >> > "hero" of Burgess's "Clockwork Orange" adored Beethoven and Der Fuhrer
> >> > loved Wagner. It sort of puts one off Wagner, doesn't it.
> >> >
> >> > I'm such a snob that I regret not appreciating some of the things one
> >> > shold like: I have blind spot for ballet, sculpture, Mahler and Brahms
> >> > and ambitious jazz. I like quite a few pop things: Louis Armstrong, a
> >> > French singer-composer Charles Trenet (he wrote a world hit "La Mer"
> >> > which is very far down his achievement in French). I welcomed rock
> >> > because thr Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin etc. were an antidote to
> >> > Tin-Pan- Alley slush but I must confees that 90% of it since the early
> >> > days I find very tiring (boom-boom-boom) and turn it off after 15
> >> > minuites.
> >> >
> >> > I'm such a snob that I can hardly stay with 90% of best sellers and
> >> > turn to Salman Rushdie (a great poet writing prose) with relief. I
> >> > won't list the many prestigious American novelists that I can not stay
> >> > with beyond the first 40 pages. The only consolation is that America
> >> > being America discovers a genius every two years and all one has to do
> >> > is to wait the next one out.
> >>
> >> Sounds to me like Paul and Jenn may put at risk the only consolation.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > How? By saying that performing in tune is better?
>
> By making blankent statements that constrain something as
> boundaryless as art.
>
> ScottW

OK. You are free to enjoy out of tune music. I have no problem with
that.

ScottW

October 29th 06, 08:17 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>
>> Only thing I find frustrating is how willing so many are to
>> intentionally misinterpret my words to score a point rather than
>> engage in exchange of ideas and perspective.
>
> You too, huh?

Yeah and I don't mean to claim I am immune.
There is a bit of a line between demanding clarity
and intentional distortion.

ScottW

MiNe 109

October 29th 06, 08:20 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Ludo:
> >> >> > I'm such a snob that I can hardly stay with 90% of best sellers and
> >> >> > turn to Salman Rushdie (a great poet writing prose) with relief. I
> >> >> > won't list the many prestigious American novelists that I can not stay
> >> >> > with beyond the first 40 pages. The only consolation is that America
> >> >> > being America discovers a genius every two years and all one has to do
> >> >> > is to wait the next one out.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sounds to me like Paul and Jenn may put at risk the only consolation.
> >> >
> >> > Applying your argument against music education
> >>
> >> You really can't stay within the bounds of the disagreement.
> >> I don't oppose music education.
> >
> > Unless it presents music you don't like?
>
> You always see things in a mirror, i.e., completely backwards?

The opposite of you, maybe: I'm fair-minded, liberal, and a trained
musician and music teacher.

> > What was all the about if
> > that's the case?
>
> The pitfalls of teaching people to love good music.

None!

Stephen

ScottW

October 29th 06, 08:29 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> .
>> >> com
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >>
>> >> >> gy.
>> >> >> com
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so
>> >> >> >> >> >> > your
>> >> >> >> >> >> > premise
>> >> >> >> >> >> > is false.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Your words,
>> >> >> >> >> >> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and continue to
>> >> >> >> >> >> BLOW
>> >> >> >> >> >> IT
>> >> >> >> >> >> (IMO) by not
>> >> >> >> >> >> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that go through
>> >> >> >> >> >> public
>> >> >> >> >> >> school music programs to LOVE good music"
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Are you denying your own words?
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Of course not. AND, I'm still not trying to "control art
>> >> >> >> >> > appreciation".
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Rather than telling us only that what you meant is different than
>> >> >> >> >> what
>> >> >> >> >> you
>> >> >> >> >> said,
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Which is not what I told you. I'm clearly not trying to control
>> >> >> >> > art
>> >> >> >> > appreciation, and I never said that I am.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That is exactly what you'll be doing by teaching young children
>> >> >> >> to love "good" music.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Really? Do you carry this opinion to other aspects of life?
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't ridiculously lump unrelated aspects of life.
>> >> >
>> >> > And yet...
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > For
>> >> >> > example, are you in favor of teaching the kids to love one political
>> >> >> > system (constitutional republic) over another (Communism)?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I guess if if I had to choose, I'd rather teach them to love a
>> >> >> republic
>> >> >> rather than hate it as our polemic educational systems seem to do
>> >> >> now. But in general, I'd rather just teach and let them choose
>> >> >> their loves on their own.
>> >> >
>> >> > lol Which school systems teach hate of a republic?
>> >>
>> >> You should have heard the crap my kid got in a government
>> >> class a few years ago from a raving Aztlan teacher.
>> >> His teacher straight out was advocating Ca. be returned to Mex.
>> >
>> > And therefore "our polemic educational systems" seem to teach hate of
>> > republics?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> why don't you also go ahead and tell us what you meant to say?
>> >> >> >> >> Or is it a secret?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Once again, just for you: There are all kinds of good music, IMV.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> A revelation....I guess that means there is all kinds of bad music
>> >> >> >> IYV as well.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Of course.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Additionally, good music shares some common qualities. In the
>> >> >> >> > area
>> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > performance, one important quality is intonation. Do the
>> >> >> >> > performers
>> >> >> >> > sing/play in tune?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So atonal music is out, what a shame.
>> >> >> >> Everytime you try to draw a box to define what is good, something
>> >> >> >> equally good is left out.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You obviously don't know what intonation and atonality are. They are
>> >> >> > unrelated.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They don't need to be related for my argument...it was simply
>> >> >> left out, an omission.
>> >> >
>> >> > lol No, you said that atonal music is out after my statement about
>> >> > intonation.
>> >>
>> >> What part of omission is confusing?
>> >> All I see now is obfuscation as you are determined
>> >> to claim you didn't mean students should be taught what to love.
>> >
>> > YOU connected intonation and atonality, not me.
>>
>> Noting an omission is not to create a connection.
>
> I don't understand why you won't admit that you connected the two. It's
> no sin to not understand the difference. I said: "Do the performers
> sing/play in tune?" You responded with: "So atonal music is out, what
> a shame."

Except I knew the difference. Apparently they were two semantcally linked
to accept as example that you can't define all things that make art good.
That is the point...if you wish to continue arguing wether or not I
intentionally
connected the two, have at it. It was not my intent and it isn't
relevant to the point.

>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> Perhaps this works better for you...if Ansermet had
>> >> >> his
>> >> >> way atonal music would be out.
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. What do you mean by "out"?
>> >>
>> >> Discouraged.
>> >>
>> >> > 2. What evidence do you have of EA's feelings on the topic?
>> >>
>> >> Wikipedia
>> >
>> > So EA isn't allowed his opinion? It would simply be an opinion, after
>> > all.
>>
>>
>> Not if it became the mantra of music appreciation education.
>
> Which it's not, so you have no point.

Once again...don't confuse what is with the possibilities of what was
suggested.
I have no problem with music education...I have a big problem with
teaching students to love good music. You can offer them understanding
but you must allow them to reach their own conclusions on what to love.
Anything else..and music will no longer be an art form.
It will be scientifically analyzed, rules defined for greatness, and soon
the massively parallel processors will have crunched every possible
note combination for every know combination of instruments
according to the rules of goodness just as
they have mapped the human genome.

ScottW

ScottW

October 29th 06, 08:40 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>> The subject wasn't music education..it was preference education.
>
> Most music educators that I know don't engage in "preference education".

Yet you said they were blowing it in failing to do so.

ScottW

ScottW

October 29th 06, 08:41 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> ups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > paul packer wrote:
>> >> >> > > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:18:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > >"paul packer" > wrote in message
>> >> >> > > ...
>> >> >> > > >> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:32:56 GMT, Jenn
>> >> >> > > >> > wrote:
>> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> > > >>>In article >,
>> >> >> > > >>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >> > > >>>
>> >> >> > > >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >> > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > >>>> ews
>> >> >> > > >>>> .prodigy.com
>> >> >> > > >>>> ...
>> >> >> > > >>>> > In article
>> >> >> > > >>>> > om>,
>> >> >> > > >>>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> >> > > >>>> >> Jenn wrote:
>> >> >> > > >>>> >> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> >> > > >>>> >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have ever
>> >> >> > > >>>> >> > > had
>> >> >> > > >>>> >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played mellotron.
>> >> >> > > >>>> >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
>> >> >> > > >>>> >> >
>> >> >> > > >>>> >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that I
>> >> >> > > >>>> >> > believe
>> >> >> > > >>>> >> > that?
>> >> >> > > >>>> >>
>> >> >> > > >>>> >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an acoustic
>> >> >> > > >>>> >> instrument
>> >> >> > > >>>> >> then it is distracting to you.
>> >> >> > > >>>> >>
>> >> >> > > >>>> >> ScottW
>> >> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> >> > > >>>> > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you,
>> >> >> > > >>>> > because
>> >> >> > > >>>> > you're
>> >> >> > > >>>> > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for
>> >> >> > > >>>> > certain
>> >> >> > > >>>> > purposes.
>> >> >> > > >>>> > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that are
>> >> >> > > >>>> > new
>> >> >> > > >>>> > and
>> >> >> > > >>>> > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't think
>> >> >> > > >>>> > that
>> >> >> > > >>>> > they
>> >> >> > > >>>> > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the way,
>> >> >> > > >>>> > is
>> >> >> > > >>>> > not
>> >> >> > > >>>> > what
>> >> >> > > >>>> > a mellotron attempts to do.
>> >> >> > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > >>>> Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible
>> >> >> > > >>>> opportunity
>> >> >> > > >>>> lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art
>> >> >> > > >>>> appreciation
>> >> >> > > >>>> in some misquided elitist
>> >> >> > > >>>
>> >> >> > > >>>Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
>> >> >> > > >>>
>> >> >> > > >>>> fashion.
>> >> >> > > >>>> Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion and
>> >> >> > > >>>> further movement away from the so called classics.
>> >> >> > > >>>
>> >> >> > > >>>Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so your
>> >> >> > > >>>premise
>> >> >> > > >>>is false. You're barking up the wrong tree in order to either
>> >> >> > > >>>create
>> >> >> > > >>>an
>> >> >> > > >>>argument or because you are in some way sensitive to this issue.
>> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> > > >> Yes. I also don't recall mentioning the control of art
>> >> >> > > >> appreciation
>> >> >> > > >> or
>> >> >> > > >> anything along that line--far from it. So I can only assume
>> >> >> > > >> Scott
>> >> >> > > >> is
>> >> >> > > >> referring to a post of mine made in a parallel universe.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > >Yep, everybody who disagrees with Paul lives in a different
>> >> >> > > >universe
>> >> >> > > >(from
>> >> >> > > >Paul). Actually, I think that sums things up - except that Paul
>> >> >> > > >doesn't
>> >> >> > > >seem
>> >> >> > > >to know that he's the one who lives in a very small, personalized
>> >> >> > > >universe.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > You're on crack, Arnie. What you've said has nothing to do with the
>> >> >> > > fact that I didn't say what Scott imagines I said, or implied. So
>> >> >> > > he's
>> >> >> > > totally wrong and your little rant here is totally beside the
>> >> >> > > point.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > As usual.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ====================================
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> While agree with you Ludovic let me point you
>> >> >> are being a snob yourself.
>> >> >> Lets just highlight the examples of your hypocrisy.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > This discussion repeats countless similar ones over the last few
>> >> >> > hundred years.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Those who stay with the 3rd rate stuff
>> >> >>
>> >> >> snob
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > in any of the arts including
>> >> >> > music are always resentful of the "snobs". Deep down they feel they
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > missing something
>> >> >>
>> >> >> snob...and totally wrong, they couldn't care less.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > and project their self-contempt on others who in
>> >> >> > truth don't give a damn about the likes and dislikes of the admirers
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > junk.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> snob and also totally wrong as clearly exemplified by the words
>> >> >> of Jenn and Paul
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Far from proselytising the "snobs" rather like staying in their ivory
>> >> >> > towers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> snob, more often than not they're crying that classcal performers
>> >> >> don't enjoy the massive monetary benefits of pop performers.
>> >> >> They are denied their ivory tower they feel is their due.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > They feel their preferences are a privilege and the best by
>> >> >> > definition belongs to a small group. It is flaunting that feeling
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > in turn can make them insufferable.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> not really snobber but clearly contradictory.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Mea culpa- reminding Arny that
>> >> >> > Monteverdi is Monteverdi not Monty Verdi. It does cause resentment
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > complaints about "imposing preferences" while in fact I'd hate to
>> >> >> > share
>> >> >> > my preferences with many of the rock concert less appetising
>> >> >> > attendees.
>> >> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think this is eerily parallel to the objectivist subjectivist
>> >> >> argument
>> >> >> and simply boils down to respect of preference.
>> >> >> Some people have it, some don't.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ScottW
>> >> >
>> >> > ScottW says:
>> >> > This discussion repeats countless similar ones over the last few
>> >> > hundred years.
>> >> >
>> >> > Those who stay with the 3rd rate stuff in any of the arts including
>> >> > music are always resentful of the "snobs". Deep down they feel they are
>> >> > missing something and project their self-contempt on others who in
>> >> > truth don't give a damn about the likes and dislikes of the admirers of
>> >> > junk.
>> >> >
>> >> > Far from proselytising the "snobs" rather like staying in their ivory
>> >> > towers. They feel their preferences are a privilege and the best by
>> >> > definition belongs to a small group. It is flaunting that feeling that
>> >> > in turn can make them insufferable. Mea culpa- reminding Arny that
>> >> > Monteverdi is Monteverdi not Monty Verdi. It does cause resentment and
>> >> > complaints about "imposing preferences" while in fact I'd hate to share
>> >> > my preferences with many of the rock concert less appetising attendees.
>> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >> >
>> >> > ====================================
>> >> >
>> >> > ScottW says:
>> >> >> While agree with you Ludovic let me point you
>> >> >> are being a snob yourself.
>> >> >> Lets just highlight the examples of your hypocrisy.
>> >> >>
>> >> > I'm not only a snob and proud of it but I'm a misunderstood snob.
>> >> >
>> >> > I made two postings in unashamed praise of what many call snobbery and
>> >> > I'm accused of "hipocrisy". Better a dozen snobs who visit art
>> >> > galleries and read Dostoyevski than...here feel free to fill in.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes I prefer certain things in music, lterature and art and nothing
>> >> > would put me off more than hearing that some individuals I prefer to
>> >> > loathe share my tastes. If you want an extreme example the disgusting
>> >> > "hero" of Burgess's "Clockwork Orange" adored Beethoven and Der Fuhrer
>> >> > loved Wagner. It sort of puts one off Wagner, doesn't it.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm such a snob that I regret not appreciating some of the things one
>> >> > shold like: I have blind spot for ballet, sculpture, Mahler and Brahms
>> >> > and ambitious jazz. I like quite a few pop things: Louis Armstrong, a
>> >> > French singer-composer Charles Trenet (he wrote a world hit "La Mer"
>> >> > which is very far down his achievement in French). I welcomed rock
>> >> > because thr Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin etc. were an antidote to
>> >> > Tin-Pan- Alley slush but I must confees that 90% of it since the early
>> >> > days I find very tiring (boom-boom-boom) and turn it off after 15
>> >> > minuites.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm such a snob that I can hardly stay with 90% of best sellers and
>> >> > turn to Salman Rushdie (a great poet writing prose) with relief. I
>> >> > won't list the many prestigious American novelists that I can not stay
>> >> > with beyond the first 40 pages. The only consolation is that America
>> >> > being America discovers a genius every two years and all one has to do
>> >> > is to wait the next one out.
>> >>
>> >> Sounds to me like Paul and Jenn may put at risk the only consolation.
>> >>
>> >> ScottW
>> >
>> > How? By saying that performing in tune is better?
>>
>> By making blankent statements that constrain something as
>> boundaryless as art.
>>
>> ScottW
>
> OK. You are free to enjoy out of tune music. I have no problem with
> that.

I thank-you..and Ringo thanks you..and Neil thanks you...and countless
others thank-you.

ScottW

ScottW

October 29th 06, 08:51 PM

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Ludo:
>> >> >> > I'm such a snob that I can hardly stay with 90% of best sellers and
>> >> >> > turn to Salman Rushdie (a great poet writing prose) with relief. I
>> >> >> > won't list the many prestigious American novelists that I can not
>> >> >> > stay
>> >> >> > with beyond the first 40 pages. The only consolation is that America
>> >> >> > being America discovers a genius every two years and all one has to
>> >> >> > do
>> >> >> > is to wait the next one out.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sounds to me like Paul and Jenn may put at risk the only consolation.
>> >> >
>> >> > Applying your argument against music education
>> >>
>> >> You really can't stay within the bounds of the disagreement.
>> >> I don't oppose music education.
>> >
>> > Unless it presents music you don't like?
>>
>> You always see things in a mirror, i.e., completely backwards?
>
> The opposite of you, maybe: I'm fair-minded, liberal, and a trained
> musician and music teacher.
>
>> > What was all the about if
>> > that's the case?
>>
>> The pitfalls of teaching people to love good music.
>
> None!

Feeling omnipotent today?

ScottW

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 29th 06, 09:01 PM

George M. Middius wrote:
> Shhhh! said KrazyBorg:
>
> > > Hmm we've got Jenn so close to a meltdown that she's spouting off conspiracy
> > > theories. ;-)
>
> > I can see why you were defending toopid.
> > You use the same 'logic.'
>
> Disagreed.™ LoT"s. Scooter is obtuse, dull-witted, illogical; Krooger
> is whack, loony tunes, a nutjob. The incidental congruence of Scottie's
> stupidity and Krooger's kraziness is only superficial.
>
> To make my point more clearly, suppose Scottie said something similar to
> what Krooger said. Wouldn't you suspect that he was just lashing out in
> a fit of peevishness? The difference is that once Krooger says something
> inane like that, he believes it to be "fact". Krooger is so far gone
> that he actually believes everything he says is the absolute truth, and
> every contradiction he encounters is a "lie". No joke.

Fair points all.

The point is that both use 'logic' that falls outside the boundaries of
logic.

The fact that one of them is really, really crazy vs. one of them being
really really dumb is not the issue. The lack of any recognizable logic
is the link that binds them.

What I think you're bringing up is where each of these two fall on the
Evilometer. Even though toopid tends to hate whole classes of people
and Arny directs his insanity generally at individuals, Arny wins the
Evilometer contest hands down. Arny's evil seems generated from within;
toopid's evil seems to be parroted from people like Medved, et al.
Further, Arny will intentionally twist logic and be deceitful, as evil
people are wont to do. toopid just doesn't 'get it' and seems incapable
of thinking clearly for himself.

And I also agree: toopid is not crazy, just really stupid.

So my scorecard looks like this:

Arny: Crazy, evil from within, illogical, deceitful, hateful.

toopid: Dumb, evil from without, illogical, dumb, hateful.

Jenn

October 29th 06, 09:08 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> .
> >> com
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> ups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > paul packer wrote:
> >> >> >> > > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:18:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > >"paul packer" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> > > ...
> >> >> >> > > >> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:32:56 GMT, Jenn
> >> >> >> > > >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> >> > > >>>In article >,
> >> >> >> > > >>> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> >> > > >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> >> >> > > >>>> message
> >> >> >> > > >>>> news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-C14316.22545025102006@newsclstr0
> >> >> >> > > >>>> 2.n
> >> >> >> > > >>>> ews
> >> >> >> > > >>>> .prodigy.com
> >> >> >> > > >>>> ...
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > In article
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > om>,
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >> Jenn wrote:
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >> > > And worse...if Jenn had her way no one would have
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >> > > ever
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >> > > had
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >> > > the opportunity to appreciate a well played
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >> > > mellotron.
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >> > > The world would be a lesser place for that.
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >> >
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >> > WTF are you talking about? What makes you think that
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >> > I
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >> > believe
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >> > that?
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >>
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >> All that ranting that if it doesn't sound like an
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >> acoustic
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >> instrument
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >> then it is distracting to you.
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >>
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >> ScottW
> >> >> >> > > >>>> >
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > That's not what I said, Scott. Once more just for you,
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > because
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > you're
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > special: I like synths. They are excellent tools for
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > certain
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > purposes.
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > I think that they can sound neat when making sounds that
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > are
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > new
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > and
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > different. Bach would have loved them. I also don't
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > think
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > that
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > they
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > imitate acoustic instruments very well. Which, by the
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > way,
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > is
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > not
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > what
> >> >> >> > > >>>> > a mellotron attempts to do.
> >> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> >> > > >>>> Which is why I chose it as an example of a possible
> >> >> >> > > >>>> opportunity
> >> >> >> > > >>>> lost when mere mortals like you and Paul try to control art
> >> >> >> > > >>>> appreciation
> >> >> >> > > >>>> in some misquided elitist
> >> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> >> > > >>>Well, you're nothing if not predictable.
> >> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> >> > > >>>> fashion.
> >> >> >> > > >>>> Interesting that all attempts have resulted in rebellion
> >> >> >> > > >>>> and
> >> >> >> > > >>>> further movement away from the so called classics.
> >> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> >> > > >>>Except that I'm not trying to "control art appreciation" so
> >> >> >> > > >>>your
> >> >> >> > > >>>premise
> >> >> >> > > >>>is false. You're barking up the wrong tree in order to
> >> >> >> > > >>>either
> >> >> >> > > >>>create
> >> >> >> > > >>>an
> >> >> >> > > >>>argument or because you are in some way sensitive to this
> >> >> >> > > >>>issue.
> >> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> >> > > >> Yes. I also don't recall mentioning the control of art
> >> >> >> > > >> appreciation
> >> >> >> > > >> or
> >> >> >> > > >> anything along that line--far from it. So I can only assume
> >> >> >> > > >> Scott
> >> >> >> > > >> is
> >> >> >> > > >> referring to a post of mine made in a parallel universe.
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > >Yep, everybody who disagrees with Paul lives in a different
> >> >> >> > > >universe
> >> >> >> > > >(from
> >> >> >> > > >Paul). Actually, I think that sums things up - except that Paul
> >> >> >> > > >doesn't
> >> >> >> > > >seem
> >> >> >> > > >to know that he's the one who lives in a very small,
> >> >> >> > > >personalized
> >> >> >> > > >universe.
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > You're on crack, Arnie. What you've said has nothing to do with
> >> >> >> > > the
> >> >> >> > > fact that I didn't say what Scott imagines I said, or implied.
> >> >> >> > > So
> >> >> >> > > he's
> >> >> >> > > totally wrong and your little rant here is totally beside the
> >> >> >> > > point.
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > As usual.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > ====================================
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> While agree with you Ludovic let me point you
> >> >> >> are being a snob yourself.
> >> >> >> Lets just highlight the examples of your hypocrisy.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > This discussion repeats countless similar ones over the last few
> >> >> >> > hundred years.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Those who stay with the 3rd rate stuff
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> snob
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > in any of the arts including
> >> >> >> > music are always resentful of the "snobs". Deep down they feel
> >> >> >> > they
> >> >> >> > are
> >> >> >> > missing something
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> snob...and totally wrong, they couldn't care less.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > and project their self-contempt on others who in
> >> >> >> > truth don't give a damn about the likes and dislikes of the
> >> >> >> > admirers
> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> > junk.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> snob and also totally wrong as clearly exemplified by the words
> >> >> >> of Jenn and Paul
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Far from proselytising the "snobs" rather like staying in their
> >> >> >> > ivory
> >> >> >> > towers.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> snob, more often than not they're crying that classcal performers
> >> >> >> don't enjoy the massive monetary benefits of pop performers.
> >> >> >> They are denied their ivory tower they feel is their due.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > They feel their preferences are a privilege and the best by
> >> >> >> > definition belongs to a small group. It is flaunting that feeling
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > in turn can make them insufferable.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> not really snobber but clearly contradictory.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Mea culpa- reminding Arny that
> >> >> >> > Monteverdi is Monteverdi not Monty Verdi. It does cause
> >> >> >> > resentment
> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> > complaints about "imposing preferences" while in fact I'd hate to
> >> >> >> > share
> >> >> >> > my preferences with many of the rock concert less appetising
> >> >> >> > attendees.
> >> >> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I think this is eerily parallel to the objectivist subjectivist
> >> >> >> argument
> >> >> >> and simply boils down to respect of preference.
> >> >> >> Some people have it, some don't.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ScottW says:
> >> >> > This discussion repeats countless similar ones over the last few
> >> >> > hundred years.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Those who stay with the 3rd rate stuff in any of the arts including
> >> >> > music are always resentful of the "snobs". Deep down they feel they
> >> >> > are
> >> >> > missing something and project their self-contempt on others who in
> >> >> > truth don't give a damn about the likes and dislikes of the admirers
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > junk.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Far from proselytising the "snobs" rather like staying in their ivory
> >> >> > towers. They feel their preferences are a privilege and the best by
> >> >> > definition belongs to a small group. It is flaunting that feeling
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > in turn can make them insufferable. Mea culpa- reminding Arny that
> >> >> > Monteverdi is Monteverdi not Monty Verdi. It does cause resentment
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > complaints about "imposing preferences" while in fact I'd hate to
> >> >> > share
> >> >> > my preferences with many of the rock concert less appetising
> >> >> > attendees.
> >> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ====================================
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ScottW says:
> >> >> >> While agree with you Ludovic let me point you
> >> >> >> are being a snob yourself.
> >> >> >> Lets just highlight the examples of your hypocrisy.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > I'm not only a snob and proud of it but I'm a misunderstood snob.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I made two postings in unashamed praise of what many call snobbery
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > I'm accused of "hipocrisy". Better a dozen snobs who visit art
> >> >> > galleries and read Dostoyevski than...here feel free to fill in.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes I prefer certain things in music, lterature and art and nothing
> >> >> > would put me off more than hearing that some individuals I prefer to
> >> >> > loathe share my tastes. If you want an extreme example the disgusting
> >> >> > "hero" of Burgess's "Clockwork Orange" adored Beethoven and Der
> >> >> > Fuhrer
> >> >> > loved Wagner. It sort of puts one off Wagner, doesn't it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm such a snob that I regret not appreciating some of the things one
> >> >> > shold like: I have blind spot for ballet, sculpture, Mahler and
> >> >> > Brahms
> >> >> > and ambitious jazz. I like quite a few pop things: Louis Armstrong, a
> >> >> > French singer-composer Charles Trenet (he wrote a world hit "La Mer"
> >> >> > which is very far down his achievement in French). I welcomed rock
> >> >> > because thr Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin etc. were an antidote to
> >> >> > Tin-Pan- Alley slush but I must confees that 90% of it since the
> >> >> > early
> >> >> > days I find very tiring (boom-boom-boom) and turn it off after 15
> >> >> > minuites.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm such a snob that I can hardly stay with 90% of best sellers and
> >> >> > turn to Salman Rushdie (a great poet writing prose) with relief. I
> >> >> > won't list the many prestigious American novelists that I can not
> >> >> > stay
> >> >> > with beyond the first 40 pages. The only consolation is that America
> >> >> > being America discovers a genius every two years and all one has to
> >> >> > do
> >> >> > is to wait the next one out.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sounds to me like Paul and Jenn may put at risk the only consolation.
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >> >
> >> > How? By saying that performing in tune is better?
> >>
> >> By making blankent statements that constrain something as
> >> boundaryless as art.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > OK. You are free to enjoy out of tune music. I have no problem with
> > that.
>
> I thank-you..and Ringo thanks you..and Neil thanks you...and countless
> others thank-you.
>
> ScottW

Well, there is out of tune and there is out of tune ;-)

MiNe 109

October 29th 06, 09:10 PM

MiNe 109

October 29th 06, 09:11 PM

MiNe 109

October 29th 06, 09:14 PM

In article

om>,
Jenn > wrote:

> Well, there is out of tune and there is out of tune ;-)

According to a Stereophile article or review, there's an amp out there
that makes the flute solo in "California Dreamin'" sound musical.

Stephen

ScottW

October 29th 06, 09:14 PM

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The subject wasn't music education..it was preference education.
>> >
>> > Most music educators that I know don't engage in "preference education".
>>
>> Yet you said they were blowing it in failing to do so.
>
> What if instead of taking her literally in hopes of scoring debating
> points you looked at the implications of her statement?

We've had lots of back and forth here.
If Jenn wanted to clarify here statement she has had ample
opportunity to do so.

ScottW

MiNe 109

October 29th 06, 09:17 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> .
> >> com
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> The subject wasn't music education..it was preference education.
> >> >
> >> > Most music educators that I know don't engage in "preference education".
> >>
> >> Yet you said they were blowing it in failing to do so.
> >
> > What if instead of taking her literally in hopes of scoring debating
> > points you looked at the implications of her statement?
>
> We've had lots of back and forth here.
> If Jenn wanted to clarify here statement she has had ample
> opportunity to do so.

Use your capacity to argue both sides for good instead of evil.

Stephen

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 29th 06, 09:57 PM

ScottW wrote:
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "ScottW" > said:
> >
> >
> >>Surely you guys have something a tad more substantive to
> >>bring to the table than trashing yet another thread with
> >>the rare interesting subject for Arny bashing?
> >
> >
> > Like bashing liberals in almost every thread you post in?
>
> Are you trying to equate liberals with Arny?
> They might not appreciate that.

Duh.

> > If you like, I'll put "OT" in front of any Arny-trashing post I make.
>
> How about AT? Might as well be specific and you might
> have an other than Arny OT comment of interest.

In that case, could you please post 'MB,' 'LB' and 'HB' in lieu of the
far-too-general 'OT' that you use in your subject lines?

> > Just resume your usual uplifting liberal bashing, from now on I'll
> > reward *every* "ScottW" post with a quick strike of the "N" key.
>
> Getting a tad sensitive...aren't you?

Or perhaps sick of your hypocrisy.

Once again, you try to attribute causation using illogic.

Moron.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 29th 06, 10:00 PM

ScottW wrote:
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> > Is there not good and bad writing? Does anything go so long as somebody
> > pronounces it "good"?
>
> In art...yes.

If everything is 'good' then nothing is.

There's the decline into the mundane and boring that you were worried
about.

> > No rules of grammar? No spelling? No clarity of meaning?
>
> In art? You now demand clarity of meaning in art?
> I guess Dylan sucks.

Duh.

> > No eloquence of expression?
>
> Subjective.

Don't you wish, toopid. LOL!

Harry Lavo

October 29th 06, 10:15 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> . ..

<snip>

>>> Sure it does...if I like it, its good, no matter what the experts
>>> say. If you like, its good to you as well unless the so called
>>> experts have managed to imprint your preference.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I also don't really care for Beefarts Trout Mask Replica to the
>>>>> shagrine of
>>>>> many admirers of innovation who couldn't care about Juillard.
>>>>
>>>> So what? Zappa, is a better example. He was up on classical music as a
>>>> student and stressed music education.
>>>
>>> Thanks for that robotic and repititous response, but you are wrong.
>>> There is no better or worse examples. They are different examples
>>> of musicians who travelled different paths.
>>>
>>> ScottW
>>
>> Is there not good and bad writing? Does anything go so long as somebody
>> pronounces it "good"?
>
> In art...yes.

I would suggest that this is not true...if it is truly good, it will stand
the test of time and aesthetic scrutiny. There is always somebody who
thinks almost anything is "good" at some point in time. But time will tell.

>
>> No rules of grammar? No spelling? No clarity of meaning?
>
> In art? You now demand clarity of meaning in art?
> I guess Dylan sucks.

If you are serious, you are taking the analogy too literally. By this, I
mean that in any "art" one of the factors that ultimately seperates "good"
from "not so good" is discipline, within a given aesthetic standard. The
very best artists may invent their own discipline, but they are true to it.
Part of the "appreciation" of art is appreciation of the aesthetic structure
the artist has chosen, and his skill and discipline in executing against it.

>
>
>> No eloquence of expression?
>
> Subjective.

But derived from the above, not at random.

Harry Lavo

October 29th 06, 10:26 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
...
>
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > In article >,
>>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>> >> ...
>>> >> > In article >,
>>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Ludo:
>>> >> >> > I'm such a snob that I can hardly stay with 90% of best sellers
>>> >> >> > and
>>> >> >> > turn to Salman Rushdie (a great poet writing prose) with relief.
>>> >> >> > I
>>> >> >> > won't list the many prestigious American novelists that I can
>>> >> >> > not stay
>>> >> >> > with beyond the first 40 pages. The only consolation is that
>>> >> >> > America
>>> >> >> > being America discovers a genius every two years and all one has
>>> >> >> > to do
>>> >> >> > is to wait the next one out.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Sounds to me like Paul and Jenn may put at risk the only
>>> >> >> consolation.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Applying your argument against music education
>>> >>
>>> >> You really can't stay within the bounds of the disagreement.
>>> >> I don't oppose music education.
>>> >
>>> > Unless it presents music you don't like?
>>>
>>> You always see things in a mirror, i.e., completely backwards?
>>
>> The opposite of you, maybe: I'm fair-minded, liberal, and a trained
>> musician and music teacher.
>>
>>> > What was all the about if
>>> > that's the case?
>>>
>>> The pitfalls of teaching people to love good music.
>>
>> None!
>
> Feeling omnipotent today?
>
> ScottW

He's simply saying that the knowledge gained from instruction in music has
value in all fields of music (like being able to read music, understand
rythym, understand form, etc), but will also lead to appreciation of the
intellectual musical elegance created by many of the European traditions'
esteemed composers (which is why they are esteemed). Thus its a win-win
situation.

[email protected]

October 29th 06, 11:03 PM

Jenn wrote:
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> > In article >,
> > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > >> >> ...
> > >> >> > In article >,
> > >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> One must wonder if Hendrix teacher ever succeeding in teaching
> > >> >> >> >> him to love their idea of good music if he ever would have
> > >> >> >> >> developped his unique style.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > That assumes that "good music" is somehow inimical to other
> > >> >> >> > genres.
> > >> >> >> > It
> > >> >> >> > isn't.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Who decides what is good?...or more importantly who discourages
> > >> >> >> that which isn't?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > You're assuming music is taught as "good" and "bad" in the classroom.
> > >> >> > There's little enough teaching time to cover basics to bother with
> > >> >> > academic debates.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Your changing the discussion between what is and
> > >> >> what was suggested.
> > >> >
> > >> > You assumed the term "good music" meant something that would have
> > >> > stifled Jimi Hendrix and otherwise slow expression and innovation. As
> > >> > Jenn points out, the term can cover all styles and objective standards
> > >> > can be taught.
> > >>
> > >> Hendrix was groundbreaking....
> > >
> > > In a recognized genre. "Voodoo Child" is a blues, his chord voicings are
> > > right out of gospel, his special effects are built on previous guitar
> > > players, etc. Innovation through immersion.
> > >
> > > Right now, the danger is children aren't taught to listen to *any*
> > > music. No immersion, no innovation.
> > >
> > >> > Those standards need not be perjoritave. For instance, I had a classmate
> > >> > who couldn't stand the Beatles because they sang "out of tune." Well, I
> > >> > can objectively hear that, but that doesn't make theirs bad music.
> > >>
> > >> Jenn apparently disagrees.
> > >
> > > I don't think so.
> > >
> > >> > Of
> > >> > course, it didn't hurt to have the classically-trained George Martin
> > >> > available to understand what the Beatles as songwriters and performers
> > >> > were trying to express.
> > >> >
> > >> >> >> Inspiration comes from many sources. I've read of so many artists
> > >> >> >> who claim Nick Drake was a tremendous influence yet he
> > >> >> >> remains unknown...and for good reason IMO.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > The lack of a recent tour?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Inspiration is more likely to come from being exposed to music and
> > >> >> > musicians. Even the most reclusive Nick Drake fan had to venture from
> > >> >> > his ill-lit bedroom to the music store to get his first guitar strung
> > >> >> > properly. Many more fans were turned on by friends, guitar teachers,
> > >> >> > etc.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> > Consider the
> > >> >> >> >> > counter-examples of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis.
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> I've got a few Miles Davis CDs and they never seem to get into
> > >> >> >> >> the
> > >> >> >> >> CD
> > >> >> >> >> player.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > Well, there you have it. Other people recognize the one-time
> > >> >> >> > Juilliard
> > >> >> >> > student as an enormously important jazz innovator who assimilated
> > >> >> >> > concepts from many sources, including the most cutting-edge
> > >> >> >> > post-war
> > >> >> >> > classical music.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Have what?...an example that good music isn't universally acclaimed
> > >> >> >> as
> > >> >> >> such?
> > >> >> >> Wow earth shattering news. Innovation and assimilation isn't an
> > >> >> >> automatic
> > >> >> >> hits the spot for me.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > You've shown that your view of music education is colored by your
> > >> >> > personal opinions of artists and recordings but not by an
> > >> >> > understanding
> > >> >> > of what it is and how it is practiced.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > The point has nothing to do with whether you like it or not.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Sure it does...if I like it, its good, no matter what the experts
> > >> >> say. If you like, its good to you as well unless the so called
> > >> >> experts have managed to imprint your preference.
> > >> >
> > >> > That's what I thought you meant. You realize there is a profession of
> > >> > music education with scientific studies to guide what is taught in the
> > >> > classroom? It's not "my opinion is better than your opinion" although my
> > >> > money's on the professionals.
> > >>
> > >> Scientific studies to guide art....
> > >> What's next? Computer programs writing music?
> > >
> > > You must be aware of experiments in that area. However, you're changing
> > > the subject from music education.
> >
> > The subject wasn't music education..it was preference education.
>
> Most music educators that I know don't engage in "preference education".
===========================

I'm at a loss to understand why you're so defensive about teaching
people that there is some alternative to the "music" they get every day
on TV, radio, supermarket and even 'phone. They don't need you to like
pop-and pap- they find their own way to it from the age of three. And
if you admire excellence in jazz oor blues surely Beethoven's last
quartets are a different kind of excellence and your students should be
told that.

No, I'm only pretending that I don't know why. It is the fear of being
named snob or elitist if you don't think thall the "cultures" are
equally good, all kinds of aesthetic choices are valid if "sincere" all
the pseudo- democratic claptrap pervading the North American sociology
and education departments.

Democracy is or should be about excellence- at least as much as
dictatorships and the tinpot governments put in place by the Army and
the police lauding art that is "useful to the people".
Ludovic Mirabel

paul packer

October 30th 06, 12:10 AM

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 09:58:08 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:58:44 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
>> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you were a fly on ScottW's wall right now, you'd see him pounding his
>>>fists on his keyboard and crying tears of frustration.
>>
>>
>> So whatever you do don't fly onto his keyboard.
>>
>> Incidentally, George, your observation assumes Scott feels a lack. I
>> see no evidence of that, He seems to me as confident of his spelling
>> and keyboard skills
>
> I don't put much emphasis on spelling and keyboard skills.
>
>>as of his cognitive and reasoning abilities. Where
>> are the tears of frustration?
>
>Only thing I find frustrating is how willing so many are to
>intentionally misinterpret my words to score a point rather than
>engage in exchange of ideas and perspective.

I agree with this with the exception that often one finds the gap of
disagreement is just too great and further discussion is pointless. I
wish more people would recognise that point and break off earlier.

ScottW

October 30th 06, 12:30 AM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> > Is there not good and bad writing? Does anything go so long as somebody
>> > pronounces it "good"?
>>
>> In art...yes.
>
> If everything is 'good' then nothing is.

I meant to say anything goes and people are left to decide.

>
> There's the decline into the mundane and boring that you were worried
> about.

Exactly. Miracle.

ScottW

ScottW

October 30th 06, 12:40 AM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Sure it does...if I like it, its good, no matter what the experts
>>>> say. If you like, its good to you as well unless the so called
>>>> experts have managed to imprint your preference.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I also don't really care for Beefarts Trout Mask Replica to the shagrine
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> many admirers of innovation who couldn't care about Juillard.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what? Zappa, is a better example. He was up on classical music as a
>>>>> student and stressed music education.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for that robotic and repititous response, but you are wrong.
>>>> There is no better or worse examples. They are different examples
>>>> of musicians who travelled different paths.
>>>>
>>>> ScottW
>>>
>>> Is there not good and bad writing? Does anything go so long as somebody
>>> pronounces it "good"?
>>
>> In art...yes.
>
> I would suggest that this is not true...if it is truly good, it will stand the
> test of time and aesthetic scrutiny.

By whom? How do you define passing aesthetic
scrutiny? So much in music I have find good and worthy
has fallen into obscurity, never will it survive the test
of time.

I wonder if the whole copyrights thing tends to alter the
rules for tests of time today over the era of Beethoven etc.

> There is always somebody who thinks almost anything is "good" at some point
> in time. But time will tell.
>
>>
>>> No rules of grammar? No spelling? No clarity of meaning?
>>
>> In art? You now demand clarity of meaning in art?
>> I guess Dylan sucks.
>
> If you are serious, you are taking the analogy too literally. By this, I mean
> that in any "art" one of the factors that ultimately seperates "good" from
> "not so good" is discipline,

Absurd... so many countless exceptions. Look at Page and Richards.
So many ways to describe them but disciplined? I think not.

> within a given aesthetic standard. The very best artists may invent their own
> discipline, but they are true to it. Part of the "appreciation" of art is
> appreciation of the aesthetic structure the artist has chosen, and his skill
> and discipline in executing against it.

How many buy music based upon its discipline?
I find that whole concept chilling and stifling in creativity.

ScottW

ScottW

October 30th 06, 12:46 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jenn wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > In article >,
>> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> > >> ...
>> > >> > In article >,
>> > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> > >> >> ...
>> > >> >> > In article >,
>> > >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >> >> One must wonder if Hendrix teacher ever succeeding in teaching
>> > >> >> >> >> him to love their idea of good music if he ever would have
>> > >> >> >> >> developped his unique style.
>> > >> >> >> >
>> > >> >> >> > That assumes that "good music" is somehow inimical to other
>> > >> >> >> > genres.
>> > >> >> >> > It
>> > >> >> >> > isn't.
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> Who decides what is good?...or more importantly who discourages
>> > >> >> >> that which isn't?
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > You're assuming music is taught as "good" and "bad" in the
>> > >> >> > classroom.
>> > >> >> > There's little enough teaching time to cover basics to bother with
>> > >> >> > academic debates.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Your changing the discussion between what is and
>> > >> >> what was suggested.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > You assumed the term "good music" meant something that would have
>> > >> > stifled Jimi Hendrix and otherwise slow expression and innovation. As
>> > >> > Jenn points out, the term can cover all styles and objective standards
>> > >> > can be taught.
>> > >>
>> > >> Hendrix was groundbreaking....
>> > >
>> > > In a recognized genre. "Voodoo Child" is a blues, his chord voicings are
>> > > right out of gospel, his special effects are built on previous guitar
>> > > players, etc. Innovation through immersion.
>> > >
>> > > Right now, the danger is children aren't taught to listen to *any*
>> > > music. No immersion, no innovation.
>> > >
>> > >> > Those standards need not be perjoritave. For instance, I had a
>> > >> > classmate
>> > >> > who couldn't stand the Beatles because they sang "out of tune." Well,
>> > >> > I
>> > >> > can objectively hear that, but that doesn't make theirs bad music.
>> > >>
>> > >> Jenn apparently disagrees.
>> > >
>> > > I don't think so.
>> > >
>> > >> > Of
>> > >> > course, it didn't hurt to have the classically-trained George Martin
>> > >> > available to understand what the Beatles as songwriters and performers
>> > >> > were trying to express.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> >> Inspiration comes from many sources. I've read of so many artists
>> > >> >> >> who claim Nick Drake was a tremendous influence yet he
>> > >> >> >> remains unknown...and for good reason IMO.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > The lack of a recent tour?
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Inspiration is more likely to come from being exposed to music and
>> > >> >> > musicians. Even the most reclusive Nick Drake fan had to venture
>> > >> >> > from
>> > >> >> > his ill-lit bedroom to the music store to get his first guitar
>> > >> >> > strung
>> > >> >> > properly. Many more fans were turned on by friends, guitar
>> > >> >> > teachers,
>> > >> >> > etc.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >> >> > Consider the
>> > >> >> >> >> > counter-examples of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis.
>> > >> >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> >> I've got a few Miles Davis CDs and they never seem to get into
>> > >> >> >> >> the
>> > >> >> >> >> CD
>> > >> >> >> >> player.
>> > >> >> >> >
>> > >> >> >> > Well, there you have it. Other people recognize the one-time
>> > >> >> >> > Juilliard
>> > >> >> >> > student as an enormously important jazz innovator who
>> > >> >> >> > assimilated
>> > >> >> >> > concepts from many sources, including the most cutting-edge
>> > >> >> >> > post-war
>> > >> >> >> > classical music.
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> Have what?...an example that good music isn't universally
>> > >> >> >> acclaimed
>> > >> >> >> as
>> > >> >> >> such?
>> > >> >> >> Wow earth shattering news. Innovation and assimilation isn't an
>> > >> >> >> automatic
>> > >> >> >> hits the spot for me.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > You've shown that your view of music education is colored by your
>> > >> >> > personal opinions of artists and recordings but not by an
>> > >> >> > understanding
>> > >> >> > of what it is and how it is practiced.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > The point has nothing to do with whether you like it or not.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Sure it does...if I like it, its good, no matter what the experts
>> > >> >> say. If you like, its good to you as well unless the so called
>> > >> >> experts have managed to imprint your preference.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > That's what I thought you meant. You realize there is a profession of
>> > >> > music education with scientific studies to guide what is taught in the
>> > >> > classroom? It's not "my opinion is better than your opinion" although
>> > >> > my
>> > >> > money's on the professionals.
>> > >>
>> > >> Scientific studies to guide art....
>> > >> What's next? Computer programs writing music?
>> > >
>> > > You must be aware of experiments in that area. However, you're changing
>> > > the subject from music education.
>> >
>> > The subject wasn't music education..it was preference education.
>>
>> Most music educators that I know don't engage in "preference education".
> ===========================
>
> I'm at a loss to understand why you're so defensive about teaching
> people that there is some alternative to the "music" they get every day
> on TV, radio, supermarket and even 'phone.

You are at a loss because that isn't at all what I expressed
concern about.
Its about teaching people what they should love.

> They don't need you to like
> pop-and pap- they find their own way to it from the age of three. And
> if you admire excellence in jazz oor blues surely Beethoven's last
> quartets are a different kind of excellence and your students should be
> told that.
>
> No, I'm only pretending that I don't know why. It is the fear of being
> named snob or elitist if you don't think thall the "cultures" are
> equally good, all kinds of aesthetic choices are valid if "sincere" all
> the pseudo- democratic claptrap pervading the North American sociology
> and education departments.
>
> Democracy is or should be about excellence-

Borderline fascist statement. Democracy is about freedom,
freedom to choose.

ScottW

John Atkinson

October 30th 06, 01:36 AM

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article
>
> om>,
> Jenn > wrote:
> > Well, there is out of tune and there is out of tune ;-)
>
> According to a Stereophile article or review, there's an amp out there
> that makes the flute solo in "California Dreamin'" sound musical.

What can I say? There's no accounting for taste -- although I suspect
the flautist was the only one in tune on the session, the Mommas and
the Papas in general reminding me of the old Beecham saw: The
oboist attempts to play an A. Beecham turns to the orchestra and
says "Gentlemen, take your pick."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[email protected]

October 30th 06, 02:11 AM

ScottW wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Jenn wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> > > In article >,
> >> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> > >> ...
> >> > >> > In article >,
> >> > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> > >> >> ...
> >> > >> >> > In article >,
> >> > >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> >> >> One must wonder if Hendrix teacher ever succeeding in teaching
> >> > >> >> >> >> him to love their idea of good music if he ever would have
> >> > >> >> >> >> developped his unique style.
> >> > >> >> >> >
> >> > >> >> >> > That assumes that "good music" is somehow inimical to other
> >> > >> >> >> > genres.
> >> > >> >> >> > It
> >> > >> >> >> > isn't.
> >> > >> >> >>
> >> > >> >> >> Who decides what is good?...or more importantly who discourages
> >> > >> >> >> that which isn't?
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> > You're assuming music is taught as "good" and "bad" in the
> >> > >> >> > classroom.
> >> > >> >> > There's little enough teaching time to cover basics to bother with
> >> > >> >> > academic debates.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Your changing the discussion between what is and
> >> > >> >> what was suggested.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > You assumed the term "good music" meant something that would have
> >> > >> > stifled Jimi Hendrix and otherwise slow expression and innovation. As
> >> > >> > Jenn points out, the term can cover all styles and objective standards
> >> > >> > can be taught.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Hendrix was groundbreaking....
> >> > >
> >> > > In a recognized genre. "Voodoo Child" is a blues, his chord voicings are
> >> > > right out of gospel, his special effects are built on previous guitar
> >> > > players, etc. Innovation through immersion.
> >> > >
> >> > > Right now, the danger is children aren't taught to listen to *any*
> >> > > music. No immersion, no innovation.
> >> > >
> >> > >> > Those standards need not be perjoritave. For instance, I had a
> >> > >> > classmate
> >> > >> > who couldn't stand the Beatles because they sang "out of tune." Well,
> >> > >> > I
> >> > >> > can objectively hear that, but that doesn't make theirs bad music.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Jenn apparently disagrees.
> >> > >
> >> > > I don't think so.
> >> > >
> >> > >> > Of
> >> > >> > course, it didn't hurt to have the classically-trained George Martin
> >> > >> > available to understand what the Beatles as songwriters and performers
> >> > >> > were trying to express.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >> >> Inspiration comes from many sources. I've read of so many artists
> >> > >> >> >> who claim Nick Drake was a tremendous influence yet he
> >> > >> >> >> remains unknown...and for good reason IMO.
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> > The lack of a recent tour?
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> > Inspiration is more likely to come from being exposed to music and
> >> > >> >> > musicians. Even the most reclusive Nick Drake fan had to venture
> >> > >> >> > from
> >> > >> >> > his ill-lit bedroom to the music store to get his first guitar
> >> > >> >> > strung
> >> > >> >> > properly. Many more fans were turned on by friends, guitar
> >> > >> >> > teachers,
> >> > >> >> > etc.
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> >> >> > Consider the
> >> > >> >> >> >> > counter-examples of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis.
> >> > >> >> >> >>
> >> > >> >> >> >> I've got a few Miles Davis CDs and they never seem to get into
> >> > >> >> >> >> the
> >> > >> >> >> >> CD
> >> > >> >> >> >> player.
> >> > >> >> >> >
> >> > >> >> >> > Well, there you have it. Other people recognize the one-time
> >> > >> >> >> > Juilliard
> >> > >> >> >> > student as an enormously important jazz innovator who
> >> > >> >> >> > assimilated
> >> > >> >> >> > concepts from many sources, including the most cutting-edge
> >> > >> >> >> > post-war
> >> > >> >> >> > classical music.
> >> > >> >> >>
> >> > >> >> >> Have what?...an example that good music isn't universally
> >> > >> >> >> acclaimed
> >> > >> >> >> as
> >> > >> >> >> such?
> >> > >> >> >> Wow earth shattering news. Innovation and assimilation isn't an
> >> > >> >> >> automatic
> >> > >> >> >> hits the spot for me.
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> > You've shown that your view of music education is colored by your
> >> > >> >> > personal opinions of artists and recordings but not by an
> >> > >> >> > understanding
> >> > >> >> > of what it is and how it is practiced.
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> > The point has nothing to do with whether you like it or not.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Sure it does...if I like it, its good, no matter what the experts
> >> > >> >> say. If you like, its good to you as well unless the so called
> >> > >> >> experts have managed to imprint your preference.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > That's what I thought you meant. You realize there is a profession of
> >> > >> > music education with scientific studies to guide what is taught in the
> >> > >> > classroom? It's not "my opinion is better than your opinion" although
> >> > >> > my
> >> > >> > money's on the professionals.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Scientific studies to guide art....
> >> > >> What's next? Computer programs writing music?
> >> > >
> >> > > You must be aware of experiments in that area. However, you're changing
> >> > > the subject from music education.
> >> >
> >> > The subject wasn't music education..it was preference education.
> >>
> >> Most music educators that I know don't engage in "preference education".
> > ===========================
> >
> > I'm at a loss to understand why you're so defensive about teaching
> > people that there is some alternative to the "music" they get every day
> > on TV, radio, supermarket and even 'phone.
>
> You are at a loss because that isn't at all what I expressed
> concern about.
> Its about teaching people what they should love.
>
> > They don't need you to like
> > pop-and pap- they find their own way to it from the age of three. And
> > if you admire excellence in jazz oor blues surely Beethoven's last
> > quartets are a different kind of excellence and your students should be
> > told that.
> >
> > No, I'm only pretending that I don't know why. It is the fear of being
> > named snob or elitist if you don't think thall the "cultures" are
> > equally good, all kinds of aesthetic choices are valid if "sincere" all
> > the pseudo- democratic claptrap pervading the North American sociology
> > and education departments.
> >
> > Democracy is or should be about excellence-
>
> Borderline fascist statement. Democracy is about freedom,
> freedom to choose.
>
> ScottW

=============================
I said:
> > I'm at a loss to understand why you're so defensive about teaching
> > people that there is some alternative to the "music" they get every day
> > on TV, radio, supermarket and even 'phone.
>
ScottW. responds:

"> You are at a loss because that isn't at all what I expressed
> concern about.
> Its about teaching people what they should love.

It appears I had the wrong address: I attributed to Jenn what I gather
you had said.

My apologies to both of yoiu. Now that YOU clarified that ithe views
"expressed" were yours I'm no longer at a loss. On the contrary. My
apologies to both of you.

And for the record: teaching English literature is about what "they
should love". Alas, too often love's labours lost. Teaching music (or
any art) is either about what they should love or else is utterly
pointless- they get kitsch, advertising posters and Sunday
editioncartoon folder without any help from the teacher.
Ludovic Mirabel

ScottW

October 30th 06, 02:23 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Jenn wrote:
>> >> In article >,
>> >> "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> > > In article >,
>> >> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> > >> ...
>> >> > >> > In article >,
>> >> > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> > >> >> ...
>> >> > >> >> > In article >,
>> >> > >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> > >> >> >
>> >> > >> >> >> >> One must wonder if Hendrix teacher ever succeeding in
>> >> > >> >> >> >> teaching
>> >> > >> >> >> >> him to love their idea of good music if he ever would have
>> >> > >> >> >> >> developped his unique style.
>> >> > >> >> >> >
>> >> > >> >> >> > That assumes that "good music" is somehow inimical to other
>> >> > >> >> >> > genres.
>> >> > >> >> >> > It
>> >> > >> >> >> > isn't.
>> >> > >> >> >>
>> >> > >> >> >> Who decides what is good?...or more importantly who
>> >> > >> >> >> discourages
>> >> > >> >> >> that which isn't?
>> >> > >> >> >
>> >> > >> >> > You're assuming music is taught as "good" and "bad" in the
>> >> > >> >> > classroom.
>> >> > >> >> > There's little enough teaching time to cover basics to bother
>> >> > >> >> > with
>> >> > >> >> > academic debates.
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> Your changing the discussion between what is and
>> >> > >> >> what was suggested.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > You assumed the term "good music" meant something that would have
>> >> > >> > stifled Jimi Hendrix and otherwise slow expression and innovation.
>> >> > >> > As
>> >> > >> > Jenn points out, the term can cover all styles and objective
>> >> > >> > standards
>> >> > >> > can be taught.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Hendrix was groundbreaking....
>> >> > >
>> >> > > In a recognized genre. "Voodoo Child" is a blues, his chord voicings
>> >> > > are
>> >> > > right out of gospel, his special effects are built on previous guitar
>> >> > > players, etc. Innovation through immersion.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Right now, the danger is children aren't taught to listen to *any*
>> >> > > music. No immersion, no innovation.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> > Those standards need not be perjoritave. For instance, I had a
>> >> > >> > classmate
>> >> > >> > who couldn't stand the Beatles because they sang "out of tune."
>> >> > >> > Well,
>> >> > >> > I
>> >> > >> > can objectively hear that, but that doesn't make theirs bad music.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Jenn apparently disagrees.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I don't think so.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> > Of
>> >> > >> > course, it didn't hurt to have the classically-trained George
>> >> > >> > Martin
>> >> > >> > available to understand what the Beatles as songwriters and
>> >> > >> > performers
>> >> > >> > were trying to express.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >> >> Inspiration comes from many sources. I've read of so many
>> >> > >> >> >> artists
>> >> > >> >> >> who claim Nick Drake was a tremendous influence yet he
>> >> > >> >> >> remains unknown...and for good reason IMO.
>> >> > >> >> >
>> >> > >> >> > The lack of a recent tour?
>> >> > >> >> >
>> >> > >> >> > Inspiration is more likely to come from being exposed to music
>> >> > >> >> > and
>> >> > >> >> > musicians. Even the most reclusive Nick Drake fan had to venture
>> >> > >> >> > from
>> >> > >> >> > his ill-lit bedroom to the music store to get his first guitar
>> >> > >> >> > strung
>> >> > >> >> > properly. Many more fans were turned on by friends, guitar
>> >> > >> >> > teachers,
>> >> > >> >> > etc.
>> >> > >> >> >
>> >> > >> >> >> >> > Consider the
>> >> > >> >> >> >> > counter-examples of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis.
>> >> > >> >> >> >>
>> >> > >> >> >> >> I've got a few Miles Davis CDs and they never seem to get
>> >> > >> >> >> >> into
>> >> > >> >> >> >> the
>> >> > >> >> >> >> CD
>> >> > >> >> >> >> player.
>> >> > >> >> >> >
>> >> > >> >> >> > Well, there you have it. Other people recognize the one-time
>> >> > >> >> >> > Juilliard
>> >> > >> >> >> > student as an enormously important jazz innovator who
>> >> > >> >> >> > assimilated
>> >> > >> >> >> > concepts from many sources, including the most cutting-edge
>> >> > >> >> >> > post-war
>> >> > >> >> >> > classical music.
>> >> > >> >> >>
>> >> > >> >> >> Have what?...an example that good music isn't universally
>> >> > >> >> >> acclaimed
>> >> > >> >> >> as
>> >> > >> >> >> such?
>> >> > >> >> >> Wow earth shattering news. Innovation and assimilation isn't
>> >> > >> >> >> an
>> >> > >> >> >> automatic
>> >> > >> >> >> hits the spot for me.
>> >> > >> >> >
>> >> > >> >> > You've shown that your view of music education is colored by
>> >> > >> >> > your
>> >> > >> >> > personal opinions of artists and recordings but not by an
>> >> > >> >> > understanding
>> >> > >> >> > of what it is and how it is practiced.
>> >> > >> >> >
>> >> > >> >> > The point has nothing to do with whether you like it or not.
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> Sure it does...if I like it, its good, no matter what the experts
>> >> > >> >> say. If you like, its good to you as well unless the so called
>> >> > >> >> experts have managed to imprint your preference.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > That's what I thought you meant. You realize there is a profession
>> >> > >> > of
>> >> > >> > music education with scientific studies to guide what is taught in
>> >> > >> > the
>> >> > >> > classroom? It's not "my opinion is better than your opinion"
>> >> > >> > although
>> >> > >> > my
>> >> > >> > money's on the professionals.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Scientific studies to guide art....
>> >> > >> What's next? Computer programs writing music?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > You must be aware of experiments in that area. However, you're
>> >> > > changing
>> >> > > the subject from music education.
>> >> >
>> >> > The subject wasn't music education..it was preference education.
>> >>
>> >> Most music educators that I know don't engage in "preference education".
>> > ===========================
>> >
>> > I'm at a loss to understand why you're so defensive about teaching
>> > people that there is some alternative to the "music" they get every day
>> > on TV, radio, supermarket and even 'phone.
>>
>> You are at a loss because that isn't at all what I expressed
>> concern about.
>> Its about teaching people what they should love.
>>
>> > They don't need you to like
>> > pop-and pap- they find their own way to it from the age of three. And
>> > if you admire excellence in jazz oor blues surely Beethoven's last
>> > quartets are a different kind of excellence and your students should be
>> > told that.
>> >
>> > No, I'm only pretending that I don't know why. It is the fear of being
>> > named snob or elitist if you don't think thall the "cultures" are
>> > equally good, all kinds of aesthetic choices are valid if "sincere" all
>> > the pseudo- democratic claptrap pervading the North American sociology
>> > and education departments.
>> >
>> > Democracy is or should be about excellence-
>>
>> Borderline fascist statement. Democracy is about freedom,
>> freedom to choose.
>>
>> ScottW
>
> =============================
> I said:
>> > I'm at a loss to understand why you're so defensive about teaching
>> > people that there is some alternative to the "music" they get every day
>> > on TV, radio, supermarket and even 'phone.
>>
> ScottW. responds:
>
> "> You are at a loss because that isn't at all what I expressed
>> concern about.
>> Its about teaching people what they should love.
>
> It appears I had the wrong address: I attributed to Jenn what I gather
> you had said.
>
> My apologies to both of yoiu. Now that YOU clarified that ithe views
> "expressed" were yours I'm no longer at a loss. On the contrary. My
> apologies to both of you.
>
> And for the record: teaching English literature is about what "they
> should love".

Is that why I hated that class? I always rebel
against mind control.

> Alas, too often love's labours lost. Teaching music (or
> any art) is either about what they should love or else is utterly
> pointless-

So in the art class you advocate...they show good art and give
you a candy...bad art is accompanied by electroshock.
No wonder you don't care for rock :).

ScottW

Jenn

October 30th 06, 02:25 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> I wonder if the whole copyrights thing tends to alter the
> rules for tests of time today over the era of Beethoven etc.

How might that be true?

Jenn

October 30th 06, 02:30 AM

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > >> ...
> > > >> > In article >,
> > > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > >> >> ...
> > > >> >> > In article >,
> > > >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> One must wonder if Hendrix teacher ever succeeding in
> > > >> >> >> >> teaching
> > > >> >> >> >> him to love their idea of good music if he ever would have
> > > >> >> >> >> developped his unique style.
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > That assumes that "good music" is somehow inimical to other
> > > >> >> >> > genres.
> > > >> >> >> > It
> > > >> >> >> > isn't.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Who decides what is good?...or more importantly who
> > > >> >> >> discourages
> > > >> >> >> that which isn't?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > You're assuming music is taught as "good" and "bad" in the
> > > >> >> > classroom.
> > > >> >> > There's little enough teaching time to cover basics to bother
> > > >> >> > with
> > > >> >> > academic debates.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Your changing the discussion between what is and
> > > >> >> what was suggested.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > You assumed the term "good music" meant something that would have
> > > >> > stifled Jimi Hendrix and otherwise slow expression and innovation.
> > > >> > As
> > > >> > Jenn points out, the term can cover all styles and objective
> > > >> > standards
> > > >> > can be taught.
> > > >>
> > > >> Hendrix was groundbreaking....
> > > >
> > > > In a recognized genre. "Voodoo Child" is a blues, his chord voicings
> > > > are
> > > > right out of gospel, his special effects are built on previous guitar
> > > > players, etc. Innovation through immersion.
> > > >
> > > > Right now, the danger is children aren't taught to listen to *any*
> > > > music. No immersion, no innovation.
> > > >
> > > >> > Those standards need not be perjoritave. For instance, I had a
> > > >> > classmate
> > > >> > who couldn't stand the Beatles because they sang "out of tune."
> > > >> > Well, I
> > > >> > can objectively hear that, but that doesn't make theirs bad music.
> > > >>
> > > >> Jenn apparently disagrees.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think so.
> > > >
> > > >> > Of
> > > >> > course, it didn't hurt to have the classically-trained George Martin
> > > >> > available to understand what the Beatles as songwriters and
> > > >> > performers
> > > >> > were trying to express.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> >> Inspiration comes from many sources. I've read of so many
> > > >> >> >> artists
> > > >> >> >> who claim Nick Drake was a tremendous influence yet he
> > > >> >> >> remains unknown...and for good reason IMO.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > The lack of a recent tour?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Inspiration is more likely to come from being exposed to music
> > > >> >> > and
> > > >> >> > musicians. Even the most reclusive Nick Drake fan had to venture
> > > >> >> > from
> > > >> >> > his ill-lit bedroom to the music store to get his first guitar
> > > >> >> > strung
> > > >> >> > properly. Many more fans were turned on by friends, guitar
> > > >> >> > teachers,
> > > >> >> > etc.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> > Consider the
> > > >> >> >> >> > counter-examples of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis.
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> I've got a few Miles Davis CDs and they never seem to get
> > > >> >> >> >> into
> > > >> >> >> >> the
> > > >> >> >> >> CD
> > > >> >> >> >> player.
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > Well, there you have it. Other people recognize the one-time
> > > >> >> >> > Juilliard
> > > >> >> >> > student as an enormously important jazz innovator who
> > > >> >> >> > assimilated
> > > >> >> >> > concepts from many sources, including the most cutting-edge
> > > >> >> >> > post-war
> > > >> >> >> > classical music.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Have what?...an example that good music isn't universally
> > > >> >> >> acclaimed
> > > >> >> >> as
> > > >> >> >> such?
> > > >> >> >> Wow earth shattering news. Innovation and assimilation isn't an
> > > >> >> >> automatic
> > > >> >> >> hits the spot for me.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > You've shown that your view of music education is colored by your
> > > >> >> > personal opinions of artists and recordings but not by an
> > > >> >> > understanding
> > > >> >> > of what it is and how it is practiced.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > The point has nothing to do with whether you like it or not.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Sure it does...if I like it, its good, no matter what the experts
> > > >> >> say. If you like, its good to you as well unless the so called
> > > >> >> experts have managed to imprint your preference.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > That's what I thought you meant. You realize there is a profession
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > music education with scientific studies to guide what is taught in
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > classroom? It's not "my opinion is better than your opinion"
> > > >> > although my
> > > >> > money's on the professionals.
> > > >>
> > > >> Scientific studies to guide art....
> > > >> What's next? Computer programs writing music?
> > > >
> > > > You must be aware of experiments in that area. However, you're changing
> > > > the subject from music education.
> > >
> > > The subject wasn't music education..it was preference education.
> >
> > Most music educators that I know don't engage in "preference education".
> ===========================
>
> I'm at a loss to understand why you're so defensive about teaching
> people that there is some alternative to the "music" they get every day
> on TV, radio, supermarket and even 'phone.

I don't think that I'm defensive about it. It's simply not my job in
the education part of my career to convince people to change their
preferences. I present the facts, show my passion, and the students
take it from there.

> They don't need you to like
> pop-and pap- they find their own way to it from the age of three. And
> if you admire excellence in jazz oor blues surely Beethoven's last
> quartets are a different kind of excellence and your students should be
> told that.

Be assured that they ARE told that, but not in a "my music is better
than your music" kind of way.

Jenn

October 30th 06, 02:31 AM

In article >,
"Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In article >,
> >> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>
> >>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> > In article >,
> >>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >>> >> ...
> >>> >> > In article >,
> >>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Ludo:
> >>> >> >> > I'm such a snob that I can hardly stay with 90% of best sellers
> >>> >> >> > and
> >>> >> >> > turn to Salman Rushdie (a great poet writing prose) with relief.
> >>> >> >> > I
> >>> >> >> > won't list the many prestigious American novelists that I can
> >>> >> >> > not stay
> >>> >> >> > with beyond the first 40 pages. The only consolation is that
> >>> >> >> > America
> >>> >> >> > being America discovers a genius every two years and all one has
> >>> >> >> > to do
> >>> >> >> > is to wait the next one out.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Sounds to me like Paul and Jenn may put at risk the only
> >>> >> >> consolation.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Applying your argument against music education
> >>> >>
> >>> >> You really can't stay within the bounds of the disagreement.
> >>> >> I don't oppose music education.
> >>> >
> >>> > Unless it presents music you don't like?
> >>>
> >>> You always see things in a mirror, i.e., completely backwards?
> >>
> >> The opposite of you, maybe: I'm fair-minded, liberal, and a trained
> >> musician and music teacher.
> >>
> >>> > What was all the about if
> >>> > that's the case?
> >>>
> >>> The pitfalls of teaching people to love good music.
> >>
> >> None!
> >
> > Feeling omnipotent today?
> >
> > ScottW
>
> He's simply saying that the knowledge gained from instruction in music has
> value in all fields of music (like being able to read music, understand
> rythym, understand form, etc), but will also lead to appreciation of the
> intellectual musical elegance created by many of the European traditions'
> esteemed composers (which is why they are esteemed). Thus its a win-win
> situation.

True, IMO.

ScottW

October 30th 06, 02:39 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>
>> I wonder if the whole copyrights thing tends to alter the
>> rules for tests of time today over the era of Beethoven etc.
>
> How might that be true?

Could Beethoven prevent others from performing his works
without compensation?

When people had to hear it live to hear it at all was that
a factor in influencing a works surviving the test of time?

I'm just wondering if anything created today can actually
survive the "tests of time" or if the rules have changed?

We get our fill of it and as the kids say..."I'm over it".

ScottW

[email protected]

October 30th 06, 02:39 AM

Signal wrote:
> " > wrote:
>
> >> > >> >I'm not only a snob and proud of it...
> >>
> >> > >> Snobbery is not a positive attribute, it's a character flaw. Why are
> >> > >> you *proud* of having personality flaws?
> >>
> >> > >Keep in mind that Ludo is not a native speaker of English. He may not be
> >> > >aware of the word's negative connotations.
> >>
> >> > Or....he may not care.
> >>
> >> I'm with Ludo insofar as not caring if some lowbrow like Scottie
> >> Terrierborg calls me a snob. Not too long ago, in fact, I mentioned that
> >> our fleabag friend was on a permanent rag about "elitism". He denied it.
> >> Now look at his recent sputtering on the subject.
> >
> >Thank you George.
> >
> >The accusation of "elitism" and "snobbery' in the area of taste
> >preferences is often a cover up for insecurity.and self--doubt. You
> >don't hear a physicist or a poet calling those who know Boston Socks
> >scores by heart snobs or elitist.. When only the monks could read and
> >write their achievement was respected- when everyone can read and write
> >(just)- the semiliterate think that the literate must be posturing.
> >They can not conceive that people could really *like* poetry, serious
> >theatre, "classical" music etc On their part some elitist snobs like
> >being provocative. My favourite example: Lord Reith the first Governor
> >of the British public- subsidized radio/TV said to those who criticized
> >some of the programs as being too elitist to be popular (I paraphrase
> >from memory).: "I don't care what THEY like. THEY'd better learn to
> >like what we think is good for them"
> >.
> >Now for a little pedantry. " Snob " has the same meaning in most
> >European languages. It is shorthand for s(ine)(= without) nob(ilitate)
> >and was used originally to humble the social -climbing nouveaux rich .
> >The practical Brits recognised the harmlessness and started ennobling
> >influential climbers on annual basis.
> >
> >Did the snobs do any harm? Not a few considered support for "high
> >culture" and disregard for pop preferences as a mark of having arrived
> >and disposed of their money accordingly. Do you really think that the
> >Rockfellers, the Vanderbilts the Norton Simons and the Gettys cared all
> >that much for painting and sculpture? And who cares what they *really*
> > felt.?
> >
> >And who cares if their cultural snobbery was a "character flaw" Mr.
> >Signal? We all should have that kind of character flaw (and money to
> >match it).
>
> If you were to say looking down your nose at others is a desirable
> quality, who am I to argue? I'm neither wealthy, nor a member of the
> elite.
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
=========================
Mr. Signal says:
"If you were to say looking down your nose at others is a desirable
quality, who am I to argue? I'm neither wealthy, nor a member of the
elite."

The perception of being "looked down at" is in the eye of the beholder.
Calling names is the beholder's way of dealing with his insecurities..

In any walk of life it is the deprived who feel that they are being
looked down on and it is they who decide whom to call a snob or an
elitist. Could it be that many of those snobs and elitists don't look
down or up- they are busy following their interest to the best of their
ability.. If that earns them the epithets they take it as an unintended
tribute,

Whenever I admired a gifted skier on the ski hill someone was bound to
say: "If I practiced as much as he does I would be just as good or
better"
Ludovic Mirabel

[email protected]

October 30th 06, 02:50 AM

Jenn wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > Jenn wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > >> ...
> > > > >> > In article >,
> > > > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > >> >> ...
> > > > >> >> > In article >,
> > > > >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> >> One must wonder if Hendrix teacher ever succeeding in
> > > > >> >> >> >> teaching
> > > > >> >> >> >> him to love their idea of good music if he ever would have
> > > > >> >> >> >> developped his unique style.
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > That assumes that "good music" is somehow inimical to other
> > > > >> >> >> > genres.
> > > > >> >> >> > It
> > > > >> >> >> > isn't.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Who decides what is good?...or more importantly who
> > > > >> >> >> discourages
> > > > >> >> >> that which isn't?
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > You're assuming music is taught as "good" and "bad" in the
> > > > >> >> > classroom.
> > > > >> >> > There's little enough teaching time to cover basics to bother
> > > > >> >> > with
> > > > >> >> > academic debates.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Your changing the discussion between what is and
> > > > >> >> what was suggested.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > You assumed the term "good music" meant something that would have
> > > > >> > stifled Jimi Hendrix and otherwise slow expression and innovation.
> > > > >> > As
> > > > >> > Jenn points out, the term can cover all styles and objective
> > > > >> > standards
> > > > >> > can be taught.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hendrix was groundbreaking....
> > > > >
> > > > > In a recognized genre. "Voodoo Child" is a blues, his chord voicings
> > > > > are
> > > > > right out of gospel, his special effects are built on previous guitar
> > > > > players, etc. Innovation through immersion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right now, the danger is children aren't taught to listen to *any*
> > > > > music. No immersion, no innovation.
> > > > >
> > > > >> > Those standards need not be perjoritave. For instance, I had a
> > > > >> > classmate
> > > > >> > who couldn't stand the Beatles because they sang "out of tune."
> > > > >> > Well, I
> > > > >> > can objectively hear that, but that doesn't make theirs bad music.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Jenn apparently disagrees.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think so.
> > > > >
> > > > >> > Of
> > > > >> > course, it didn't hurt to have the classically-trained George Martin
> > > > >> > available to understand what the Beatles as songwriters and
> > > > >> > performers
> > > > >> > were trying to express.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> >> Inspiration comes from many sources. I've read of so many
> > > > >> >> >> artists
> > > > >> >> >> who claim Nick Drake was a tremendous influence yet he
> > > > >> >> >> remains unknown...and for good reason IMO.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > The lack of a recent tour?
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > Inspiration is more likely to come from being exposed to music
> > > > >> >> > and
> > > > >> >> > musicians. Even the most reclusive Nick Drake fan had to venture
> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > >> >> > his ill-lit bedroom to the music store to get his first guitar
> > > > >> >> > strung
> > > > >> >> > properly. Many more fans were turned on by friends, guitar
> > > > >> >> > teachers,
> > > > >> >> > etc.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> >> > Consider the
> > > > >> >> >> >> > counter-examples of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis.
> > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> >> I've got a few Miles Davis CDs and they never seem to get
> > > > >> >> >> >> into
> > > > >> >> >> >> the
> > > > >> >> >> >> CD
> > > > >> >> >> >> player.
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > Well, there you have it. Other people recognize the one-time
> > > > >> >> >> > Juilliard
> > > > >> >> >> > student as an enormously important jazz innovator who
> > > > >> >> >> > assimilated
> > > > >> >> >> > concepts from many sources, including the most cutting-edge
> > > > >> >> >> > post-war
> > > > >> >> >> > classical music.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Have what?...an example that good music isn't universally
> > > > >> >> >> acclaimed
> > > > >> >> >> as
> > > > >> >> >> such?
> > > > >> >> >> Wow earth shattering news. Innovation and assimilation isn't an
> > > > >> >> >> automatic
> > > > >> >> >> hits the spot for me.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > You've shown that your view of music education is colored by your
> > > > >> >> > personal opinions of artists and recordings but not by an
> > > > >> >> > understanding
> > > > >> >> > of what it is and how it is practiced.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > The point has nothing to do with whether you like it or not.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Sure it does...if I like it, its good, no matter what the experts
> > > > >> >> say. If you like, its good to you as well unless the so called
> > > > >> >> experts have managed to imprint your preference.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > That's what I thought you meant. You realize there is a profession
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > music education with scientific studies to guide what is taught in
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > classroom? It's not "my opinion is better than your opinion"
> > > > >> > although my
> > > > >> > money's on the professionals.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Scientific studies to guide art....
> > > > >> What's next? Computer programs writing music?
> > > > >
> > > > > You must be aware of experiments in that area. However, you're changing
> > > > > the subject from music education.
> > > >
> > > > The subject wasn't music education..it was preference education.
> > >
> > > Most music educators that I know don't engage in "preference education".
> > ===========================
> >
> > I'm at a loss to understand why you're so defensive about teaching
> > people that there is some alternative to the "music" they get every day
> > on TV, radio, supermarket and even 'phone.
>
> I don't think that I'm defensive about it. It's simply not my job in
> the education part of my career to convince people to change their
> preferences. I

>
>
> > They don't need you to like
> > pop-and pap- they find their own way to it from the age of three. And
> > if you admire excellence in jazz oor blues surely Beethoven's last
> > quartets are a different kind of excellence and your students should be
> > told that.
>
> Be assured that they ARE told that, but not in a "my music is better
> than your music" kind of way.

=====================================

Jenn says:
> I present the facts, show my passion, and the students
> take it from there.

And:

> Be assured that they ARE told that, but not in a "my music is better
> than your music" kind of way.

I am assured about it all including the fact that you win friends and
influence people without being provocative like
Ludovic Mirabel tends to be.

MiNe 109

October 30th 06, 03:19 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I wonder if the whole copyrights thing tends to alter the
> >> rules for tests of time today over the era of Beethoven etc.
> >
> > How might that be true?
>
> Could Beethoven prevent others from performing his works
> without compensation?

While there were no performing royalties as such, large works required
orchestral parts which were the property of Beethoven, his publisher(s),
or whoever commissioned the piece. Some premiers were presented as
"Acadamies," yielding something like a movie opening-night payoff.

There was also no market for playing someone else's music as such. The
modern piano recital of Clara Schumann and Lizst came later.

Beethoven and his publishers had strategies to assure return from
investment. Some works were published by subscription, so his return was
assured before the pirates did their thing. His publishers in turn
arranged publication in other cities. Derivative works such as
arrangements for piano or other small domestic ensemble could
disseminate a piece that would likely only have a full performances.

> When people had to hear it live to hear it at all was that
> a factor in influencing a works surviving the test of time?
>
> I'm just wondering if anything created today can actually
> survive the "tests of time" or if the rules have changed?
>
> We get our fill of it and as the kids say..."I'm over it".

Until it's revived. Who would have guessed the output of Abba and The
Four Seasons would sustain Broadway hits?

Stephen

[email protected]

October 30th 06, 03:21 AM

ScottW wrote:
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>>> Sure it does...if I like it, its good, no matter what the experts
> >>>> say. If you like, its good to you as well unless the so called
> >>>> experts have managed to imprint your preference.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I also don't really care for Beefarts Trout Mask Replica to the shagrine
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>> many admirers of innovation who couldn't care about Juillard.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So what? Zappa, is a better example. He was up on classical music as a
> >>>>> student and stressed music education.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for that robotic and repititous response, but you are wrong.
> >>>> There is no better or worse examples. They are different examples
> >>>> of musicians who travelled different paths.
> >>>>
> >>>> ScottW
> >>>
> >>> Is there not good and bad writing? Does anything go so long as somebody
> >>> pronounces it "good"?
> >>
> >> In art...yes.
> >
> > I would suggest that this is not true...if it is truly good, it will stand the
> > test of time and aesthetic scrutiny.
>
> By whom? How do you define passing aesthetic
> scrutiny? So much in music I have find good and worthy
> has fallen into obscurity, never will it survive the test
> of time.
>
> I wonder if the whole copyrights thing tends to alter the
> rules for tests of time today over the era of Beethoven etc.
>
>
> > There is always somebody who thinks almost anything is "good" at some point
> > in time. But time will tell.
> >
> >>
> >>> No rules of grammar? No spelling? No clarity of meaning?
> >>
> >> In art? You now demand clarity of meaning in art?
> >> I guess Dylan sucks.
> >
> > If you are serious, you are taking the analogy too literally. By this, I mean
> > that in any "art" one of the factors that ultimately seperates "good" from
> > "not so good" is discipline,
>
> Absurd... so many countless exceptions. Look at Page and Richards.
> So many ways to describe them but disciplined? I think not.
>
> > within a given aesthetic standard. The very best artists may invent their own
> > discipline, but they are true to it. Part of the "appreciation" of art is
> > appreciation of the aesthetic structure the artist has chosen, and his skill
> > and discipline in executing against it.
>
> How many buy music based upon its discipline?
> I find that whole concept chilling and stifling in creativity.
>
> ScottW
===================
ScottW says

> I wonder if the whole copyrights thing tends to alter the
> rules for tests of time today over the era of Beethoven etc.

I'm not absolutely sure of what you're saying but... if the sense is
that Beethoven's survival in music history is due to lax cop[yright
lawas then you're announcing a concept of art history so revolutionary
and original that it would require a pen better than mine to render it
justice.

Think of Homer, Plato, the poetry of Horace and go on through the ages.
No copyright to kill those guys in human memory. The mind staggers.
Ludovic Mirabel

..

MiNe 109

October 30th 06, 03:23 AM

In article . com>,
"John Atkinson" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article
> >
> > om>,
> > Jenn > wrote:
> > > Well, there is out of tune and there is out of tune ;-)
> >
> > According to a Stereophile article or review, there's an amp out there
> > that makes the flute solo in "California Dreamin'" sound musical.
>
> What can I say? There's no accounting for taste -- although I suspect
> the flautist was the only one in tune on the session, the Mommas and
> the Papas in general reminding me of the old Beecham saw: The
> oboist attempts to play an A. Beecham turns to the orchestra and
> says "Gentlemen, take your pick."

Yes, the vibrato story! Probably a dig against French oboe style.

Too bad the Ma&Pa original tapes aren't available, although a
pitch-correction would introduce philosophical problems.

Stephen

MiNe 109

October 30th 06, 03:32 AM

In article >,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> Derivative works such as
> arrangements for piano or other small domestic ensemble could
> disseminate a piece that would likely only have a full performances.

Make that "a few full performances."

Stephen

Jenn

October 30th 06, 03:37 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>
> >> The subject wasn't music education..it was preference education.
> >
> > Most music educators that I know don't engage in "preference education".
>
> Yet you said they were blowing it in failing to do so.
>
> ScottW

OK.... I should have known that I was being a little too "inside
baseball" about this. No offense intended to you or anyone else; just
as everyone else has information about their profession that is
difficult to understand by outsiders when not enough information is
presented, I'm guilty of presuming that my specialized knowledge is
known to others.

Here's what I was speaking of:
We have thousands of young (high school and younger) singers and players
participating in school music performance programs every year in this
country. According to my personal experience in hearing these groups in
clinic situations and in adjudicating contests (such as those Arny has
written of), and according to a great deal of formal research in this
area, a large majority of school ensembles rehearse a minimal amount of
music; music that doesn't challenge the kids technically,
intellectually, or emotionally. They do this in order to have the best
chance of winning a contest and/or being note-perfect for the concert
the parents and school administration will hear. Education suffers, but
teacher popularity gains and trophies are won. Instead of
playing/singing classical music that will mean something to them in the
long run and that will lead them to further investigation of well
written music (Mozart, Beethoven, Whitacre, Zappa), they play classical
music of, for example, Swearingen, that is easy to put together, is
non-offensive to anyone, and doesn't challenge anyone in any way (but it
can be "perfected" and it can therefore win the contest.) We lead them
to a great fount of an amazing variety of great art, and we give them
lukewarm sugar water. Then, from my POV, we wonder why "Sugar Sugar"
and "My Humps" make people rich while Whitacre and those great indie
acts I suspect you love struggle along in relative obscurity.

I hope that I've been more clear this time.

Jenn

October 30th 06, 03:41 AM

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 30th 06, 07:21 AM

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> >
> >> > Is there not good and bad writing? Does anything go so long as somebody
> >> > pronounces it "good"?
> >>
> >> In art...yes.
> >
> > If everything is 'good' then nothing is.
>
> I meant to say anything goes and people are left to decide.

People do decide.

> > There's the decline into the mundane and boring that you were worried
> > about.
>
> Exactly. Miracle.

Except that's not what you were saying. You were arguing against
teaching an appreciation of what 'good' is. Here, let me remind you:

"If a work of art or an art form was universally and forever
appreciated by all, it would
pervade all society and become mundane, consumed by its own
inevitable mediocrity."

That is very, very different from what I said above.

"When the snobs decide that society needs to be trained to aprove
and support what they like...art will stagnate and become repititous.
The classics will lose their grandeur being buried under generations
of the same."

There is a very large difference between something that is appreciated
by all as good, and something where there is no good or bad, or where
everything is good.

It appears that we are agreeing on a point that was never made.

paul packer

October 30th 06, 10:42 AM

On 29 Oct 2006 18:50:45 -0800, " >
wrote:

>I am assured about it all including the fact that you win friends and
>influence people without being provocative like
>Ludovic Mirabel tends to be.

You're not provocative, Ludo; you simply have the courage of your
convictions. Personally I think it needs more people to stand up and
say, "Well, I know this is a democracy and the custom is to say that
the lowbrow choice is as valid as the highbrow, but frankly the
lowbrow is crap and won't offer the intellectual or spiritual
sustenance you and everyone else needs, and that if you don't
eventually move on and develop a taste for the better stuff something
in you will be forever stunted." I don't know if that's what you've
been saying or not, but I'm saying it now.

Arny Krueger

October 30th 06, 02:11 PM

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> Too bad the Ma&Pa original tapes aren't available,

Is that known to be absolutely true?

> although a pitch-correction would introduce philosophical
> problems.

Since it was recorded in analog, there is a fair possibility that the
recording equipment was suffering from poor maintenance.

Arny Krueger

October 30th 06, 02:25 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .
>>>> com
>>>> ...
>>>>> In article
>>>>> . com>,
>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Your words,
>>>>>> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and
>>>>>> continue to BLOW IT (IMO) by not
>>>>>> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that
>>>>>> go through public school music programs to LOVE good
>>>>>> music"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you denying your own words?
>>>>
>>>>> Of course not. AND, I'm still not trying to "control
>>>>> art appreciation".
>>>>
>>>> So who decides which music is good and which is not?
>>>
>>> "Asked and answered."
>>
>> I knew you lacked the guts and candor it would take to
>> answer this question.+
>
> I'll remember this response next time you use this phrase.

Thanks jenn for admitting that over the past year or more you've been
posting here, you've cribbed most if not all of your more
intelligent-sounding retorts from me.

Jenn

October 30th 06, 03:24 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>> y.
> >>>> com
> >>>> ...
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> . com>,
> >>>>> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Your words,
> >>>>>> " I'm afraid that people in MY field have and
> >>>>>> continue to BLOW IT (IMO) by not
> >>>>>> teaching those thousands and thousands of kids that
> >>>>>> go through public school music programs to LOVE good
> >>>>>> music"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Are you denying your own words?
> >>>>
> >>>>> Of course not. AND, I'm still not trying to "control
> >>>>> art appreciation".
> >>>>
> >>>> So who decides which music is good and which is not?
> >>>
> >>> "Asked and answered."
> >>
> >> I knew you lacked the guts and candor it would take to
> >> answer this question.+
> >
> > I'll remember this response next time you use this phrase.
>
> Thanks jenn for admitting that over the past year or more you've been
> posting here, you've cribbed most if not all of your more
> intelligent-sounding retorts from me.

I hope that you feel better now.

George M. Middius

October 30th 06, 03:44 PM

Jenn said:

> > Only thing I find frustrating is how willing so many are to
> > intentionally misinterpret my words to score a point rather than
> > engage in exchange of ideas and perspective.

> You too, huh?

Irony noted but wasted.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

George M. Middius

October 30th 06, 03:49 PM

paul packer said:

> Personally I think it needs more people to stand up and
> say, "Well, I know this is a democracy and the custom is to say that
> the lowbrow choice is as valid as the highbrow, but frankly the
> lowbrow is crap and won't offer the intellectual or spiritual
> sustenance you and everyone else needs, and that if you don't
> eventually move on and develop a taste for the better stuff something
> in you will be forever stunted." I don't know if that's what you've
> been saying or not, but I'm saying it now.

Seconded.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

ScottW

October 30th 06, 05:38 PM

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > ScottW wrote:
> > >> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> > >
> > >> > Is there not good and bad writing? Does anything go so long as somebody
> > >> > pronounces it "good"?
> > >>
> > >> In art...yes.
> > >
> > > If everything is 'good' then nothing is.
> >
> > I meant to say anything goes and people are left to decide.
>
> People do decide.
>
> > > There's the decline into the mundane and boring that you were worried
> > > about.
> >
> > Exactly. Miracle.
>
> Except that's not what you were saying.

I see you want to argue so badly you're going redefine my side.
Go ahead, you can now debate yourself.
Will you let us know who wins? On second thought I'm sure you've
predetermined the
outcome.

ScottW

George M. Middius

October 30th 06, 07:09 PM

Jenn said:

> > Thanks jenn for admitting that over the past year or more you've been
> > posting here, you've cribbed most if not all of your more
> > intelligent-sounding retorts from me.

> I hope that you feel better now.

Everybody who did not laugh at Krooger's klaim should immediately check
into a rehab center.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

MiNe 109

October 30th 06, 07:12 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Too bad the Ma&Pa original tapes aren't available,
>
> Is that known to be absolutely true?

It's certainly true of the mono hit version.

As I understand it, the master was generated by ping-ponging the backing
tracks for vocals and sweetening. (The studio only had three- and
four-track machines.) So a sub-master might not have the additional
overdubbed part only, but rather the new part, the existing track and an
increasing amount of hiss.

To make matters worse, the original track was recorded for a Barry
McGuire album with the MaPas singing back-up. The hit was McGuire's
track with a new lead vocal plus the infamous flute "toodle-toodle" as
McGuire called it.

> > although a pitch-correction would introduce philosophical
> > problems.
>
> Since it was recorded in analog, there is a fair possibility that the
> recording equipment was suffering from poor maintenance.

I wouldn't blame analog for a cheap-ass record company cutting corners
on maintenance, but if the tape machines weren't in synch, an in-tune
performance would record off-pitch. Besides, it was all analog in the
60s.

Stephen

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 30th 06, 10:03 PM

ScottW wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > > >
> > > > ScottW wrote:
> > > >> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > >> > Is there not good and bad writing? Does anything go so long as somebody
> > > >> > pronounces it "good"?
> > > >>
> > > >> In art...yes.
> > > >
> > > > If everything is 'good' then nothing is.
> > >
> > > I meant to say anything goes and people are left to decide.
> >
> > People do decide.
> >
> > > > There's the decline into the mundane and boring that you were worried
> > > > about.
> > >
> > > Exactly. Miracle.
> >
> > Except that's not what you were saying.
>
> I see you want to argue so badly you're going redefine my side.
> Go ahead, you can now debate yourself.
> Will you let us know who wins? On second thought I'm sure you've
> predetermined the
> outcome.

Gosh, toopid, why did you cut off your quotes? And why would I provide
your quotes if I am 'trying to redifine' what you said?

If you meant something else, why didn't you just say something else?

Or does everybody need to keep asking you questions like this?

"toopid, when you said, "When the snobs decide that society needs to be
trained to aprove (sic) and support what they like...(sic) art will
stagnate and become repititous. The classics will lose their grandeur
being buried under generations of the same.(sic)" did you mean "When
the snobs decide that society needs to be trained to aprove (sic) and
support what they like...(sic) art will stagnate and become repititous.
The classics will lose their grandeur being buried under generations of
the same.(sic)" or did you mean something else? When you said, ""If a
work of art or an art form was universally and forever
appreciated by all, it would pervade all society and become mundane,
consumed by its own
inevitable mediocrity." did you mean... (etc.)?"

Is this your latest debating trade tactic? Sorry, it just looked like
more of your illogic. In fact, that's what it still looks like.

LOL!

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 30th 06, 10:24 PM

George M. Middius wrote:
> Jenn said:
>
> > > Only thing I find frustrating is how willing so many are to
> > > intentionally misinterpret my words to score a point rather than
> > > engage in exchange of ideas and perspective.
>
> > You too, huh?
>
> Irony noted but wasted.

LOL

ScottW

October 30th 06, 10:35 PM

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > > ScottW wrote:
> > > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > > > oups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > ScottW wrote:
> > > > >> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > >> > Is there not good and bad writing? Does anything go so long as somebody
> > > > >> > pronounces it "good"?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In art...yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > If everything is 'good' then nothing is.
> > > >
> > > > I meant to say anything goes and people are left to decide.
> > >
> > > People do decide.
> > >
> > > > > There's the decline into the mundane and boring that you were worried
> > > > > about.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly. Miracle.
> > >
> > > Except that's not what you were saying.
> >
> > I see you want to argue so badly you're going redefine my side.
> > Go ahead, you can now debate yourself.
> > Will you let us know who wins? On second thought I'm sure you've
> > predetermined the
> > outcome.
>
> Gosh, toopid, why did you cut off your quotes? And why would I provide
> your quotes if I am 'trying to redifine' what you said?

Seems to be your latest bent...I say something, you say that means
something else,
I say no, you rant on yes (with way more words than necessary I might
add).... it no longer is about what I said but how I said it and what
you want it to mean and yada yada yada.... same 'ol boring **** but it
seems all your capable of.

Lets start a new topic cuz the last one has gotten lost.
Tell me how this is all wrong.

Grass grows in dirt.

ScottW

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 30th 06, 11:33 PM

ScottW wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

> > Gosh, toopid, why did you cut off your quotes? And why would I provide
> > your quotes if I am 'trying to redifine' what you said?
>
> Seems to be your latest bent...I say something, you say that means
> something else,

LOL! Whatever you say, dear.

> I say no, you rant on yes (with way more words than necessary I might
> add)....

But used properly.

> it no longer is about what I said but how I said it and what
> you want it to mean and yada yada yada.... same 'ol boring **** but it
> seems all your capable of.

No, it's about what you said. Period.

It appears that the issue is one of you not being able to say what you
mean.

> Lets start a new topic cuz the last one has gotten lost.
> Tell me how this is all wrong.
>
> Grass grows in dirt.

How about this: "Some people are not as smart as others."

You and I could discuss that one for years. LOL!

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 30th 06, 11:35 PM

George M. Middius wrote:
> Jenn said:
>
> > > Thanks jenn for admitting that over the past year or more you've been
> > > posting here, you've cribbed most if not all of your more
> > > intelligent-sounding retorts from me.
>
> > I hope that you feel better now.
>
> Everybody who did not laugh at Krooger's klaim should immediately check
> into a rehab center.

Has Jenn really cribbed most if not all of her more
intelligent-sounding retorts from Arny?

I think that anybody who understood WTF Arny said should check in.

paul packer

October 31st 06, 12:19 AM

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:00:33 +0000, Signal > wrote:

(paul packer) wrote:
>
>>>I am assured about it all including the fact that you win friends and
>>>influence people without being provocative like
>>>Ludovic Mirabel tends to be.
>>
>>You're not provocative, Ludo; you simply have the courage of your
>>convictions. Personally I think it needs more people to stand up and
>>say, "Well, I know this is a democracy and the custom is to say that
>>the lowbrow choice is as valid as the highbrow, but frankly the
>>lowbrow is crap and won't offer the intellectual or spiritual
>>sustenance you and everyone else needs, and that if you don't
>>eventually move on and develop a taste for the better stuff something
>>in you will be forever stunted." I don't know if that's what you've
>>been saying or not, but I'm saying it now.
>
>Why do I get the impression that you two are a couple of old fogies?

Don't worry, when you become one yourself you'll realize how much you
didn't know.

Then again, if you stick with the instant gratification stuff now, you
may not.

[email protected]

October 31st 06, 06:18 PM

Signal wrote:
> (paul packer) wrote:
>
> >>I am assured about it all including the fact that you win friends and
> >>influence people without being provocative like
> >>Ludovic Mirabel tends to be.
> >
> >You're not provocative, Ludo; you simply have the courage of your
> >convictions. Personally I think it needs more people to stand up and
> >say, "Well, I know this is a democracy and the custom is to say that
> >the lowbrow choice is as valid as the highbrow, but frankly the
> >lowbrow is crap and won't offer the intellectual or spiritual
> >sustenance you and everyone else needs, and that if you don't
> >eventually move on and develop a taste for the better stuff something
> >in you will be forever stunted." I don't know if that's what you've
> >been saying or not, but I'm saying it now.
>
> Why do I get the impression that you two are a couple of old fogies?
> :-)
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
===========================

Paul aptly articulated why the old fogies reading their old books,
listening to the old music and looking at old paintings contribute to
serve the one redeeming feature of the human pest: its works of art and
thought.

Could you in turn tell us what kind of youth you represent, what are
their works.and for what reason one would want to get acquainted with
them.
Ludovic Mirabel

>
>
>
>
>
> --

sock-it-to-me

October 31st 06, 09:35 PM

wrote:

> > >>I am assured about it all including the fact that you win friends and
> > >>influence people without being provocative like
> > >>Ludovic Mirabel tends to be.
> > >
> > >You're not provocative, Ludo; you simply have the courage of your
> > >convictions. Personally I think it needs more people to stand up and
> > >say, "Well, I know this is a democracy and the custom is to say that
> > >the lowbrow choice is as valid as the highbrow, but frankly the
> > >lowbrow is crap and won't offer the intellectual or spiritual
> > >sustenance you and everyone else needs, and that if you don't
> > >eventually move on and develop a taste for the better stuff something
> > >in you will be forever stunted." I don't know if that's what you've
> > >been saying or not, but I'm saying it now.
> >
> > Why do I get the impression that you two are a couple of old fogies?
> > :-)
>
> Paul aptly articulated why the old fogies reading their old books,
> listening to the old music and looking at old paintings contribute to
> serve the one redeeming feature of the human pest: its works of art and
> thought.

Guess what, you don't have to be a fogey to appreciate or contribute
to the world of art.

> Could you in turn tell us what kind of youth you represent, what are
> their works.and for what reason one would want to get acquainted with
> them.

I could, but I suspect it would be a futile exercise.

George M. Middius

October 31st 06, 10:35 PM

sock-it-to-me said:

> > Could you in turn tell us what kind of youth you represent, what are
> > their works.and for what reason one would want to get acquainted with
> > them.

> I could, but I suspect it would be a futile exercise.

We could start with the porn industry. They'd be nowhere without young
people.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

MiNe 109

November 1st 06, 12:04 AM

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote:

> sock-it-to-me said:
>
> > > Could you in turn tell us what kind of youth you represent, what are
> > > their works.and for what reason one would want to get acquainted with
> > > them.
>
> > I could, but I suspect it would be a futile exercise.
>
> We could start with the porn industry. They'd be nowhere without young
> people.

Hence the new abstinence program for twenty-somethings:

www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-30-abstinence-message_x.htm

Stephen

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 1st 06, 02:55 AM

Jenn wrote:

> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message

> > > "ScottW" > wrote:

> > >> I guess if if I had to choose, I'd rather teach them to love a republic
> > >> rather than hate it as our polemic educational systems seem to do
> > >> now. But in general, I'd rather just teach and let them choose
> > >> their loves on their own.
> > >
> > > lol Which school systems teach hate of a republic?
> >
> > You should have heard the crap my kid got in a government
> > class a few years ago from a raving Aztlan teacher.
> > His teacher straight out was advocating Ca. be returned to Mex.
>
> And therefore "our polemic educational systems" seem to teach hate of
> republics?

Bingo.

And now you understand toopid's 'logic,' such as it is.

LMAO!

paul packer

November 1st 06, 06:26 AM

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:35:36 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>sock-it-to-me said:
>
>> > Could you in turn tell us what kind of youth you represent, what are
>> > their works.and for what reason one would want to get acquainted with
>> > them.
>
>> I could, but I suspect it would be a futile exercise.
>
>We could start with the porn industry. They'd be nowhere without young
>people.

And that doesn't worry you?

paul packer

November 1st 06, 06:26 AM

On 31 Oct 2006 10:18:15 -0800, " >
wrote:

>Could you in turn tell us what kind of youth you represent, what are
>their works.and for what reason one would want to get acquainted with
>them.
>Ludovic Mirabel

To whom is this adressed?

[email protected]

November 1st 06, 06:49 AM

sock-it-to-me wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > > >>I am assured about it all including the fact that you win friends and
> > > >>influence people without being provocative like
> > > >>Ludovic Mirabel tends to be.
> > > >
> > > >You're not provocative, Ludo; you simply have the courage of your
> > > >convictions. Personally I think it needs more people to stand up and
> > > >say, "Well, I know this is a democracy and the custom is to say that
> > > >the lowbrow choice is as valid as the highbrow, but frankly the
> > > >lowbrow is crap and won't offer the intellectual or spiritual
> > > >sustenance you and everyone else needs, and that if you don't
> > > >eventually move on and develop a taste for the better stuff something
> > > >in you will be forever stunted." I don't know if that's what you've
> > > >been saying or not, but I'm saying it now.
> > >
> > > Why do I get the impression that you two are a couple of old fogies?
> > > :-)
> >
> > Paul aptly articulated why the old fogies reading their old books,
> > listening to the old music and looking at old paintings contribute to
> > serve the one redeeming feature of the human pest: its works of art and
> > thought.
>
> Guess what, you don't have to be a fogey to appreciate or contribute
> to the world of art.
>
> > Could you in turn tell us what kind of youth you represent, what are
> > their works.and for what reason one would want to get acquainted with
> > them.
>
> I could, but I suspect it would be a futile exercise.
==============================

Dear Mr. "Sock-it-to-me". I'm glad to hear a response from someone so
combative ( if one can trust your chosen nickname).

I asked politely:
> > Could you in turn tell us what kind of youth you represent, what are
> > their works.and for what reason one would want to get acquainted with
> > them

And you answer:
> I could, but I suspect it would be a futile exercise.

How disppointing! I can see that you would not want to waste your
talents and your knowledge just on the little me but Mr. Sock this is
a public forum. Think of all those innocents waiting anxiously to find
out what the youth (you are the youth, aren't you?) cherishes and is
ready to share with the human- kind. Obviously something that will at
least equal if not surpass all that old-fashioned rubbish that the old
fogeys call Western civilisation..

Out with it Mr. Sock!
Ludovic Mirabel

[email protected]

November 1st 06, 06:59 AM

paul packer wrote:
> On 31 Oct 2006 10:18:15 -0800, " >
> wrote:
>
>
> >Could you in turn tell us what kind of youth you represent, what are
> >their works.and for what reason one would want to get acquainted with
> >them.
> >Ludovic Mirabel
>
> To whom is this adressed?

To dear young Mr. Signal who called you and me a couple of old fogeys
(Look back in wonder)
Ludovic M.

paul packer

November 1st 06, 11:18 AM

On 31 Oct 2006 22:59:26 -0800, " >
wrote:

>
>paul packer wrote:
>> On 31 Oct 2006 10:18:15 -0800, " >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Could you in turn tell us what kind of youth you represent, what are
>> >their works.and for what reason one would want to get acquainted with
>> >them.
>> >Ludovic Mirabel
>>
>> To whom is this adressed?
>
>To dear young Mr. Signal who called you and me a couple of old fogeys
>(Look back in wonder)
>Ludovic M.

Funny, even in debating Signal I wasn't thinking of him as young. He
did after all use the words "Sex Pistols" and "excellent" in the same
sentence, suggesting he must be in his 40s. Perhaps he'd like to
enlighten us.

George M. Middius

November 1st 06, 12:38 PM

paul packer said:

> >> > Could you in turn tell us what kind of youth you represent, what are
> >> > their works.and for what reason one would want to get acquainted with
> >> > them.

> >> I could, but I suspect it would be a futile exercise.

> >We could start with the porn industry. They'd be nowhere without young
> >people.

> And that doesn't worry you?

I don't get the point of your question. I think you're overlaying
something from your back-of-the-stove thoughts that wasn't designated as
one of the pots needing attention.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[email protected]

November 1st 06, 05:33 PM

George M. Middius wrote:
> paul packer said:
>
> > >> > Could you in turn tell us what kind of youth you represent, what are
> > >> > their works.and for what reason one would want to get acquainted with
> > >> > them.
>
> > >> I could, but I suspect it would be a futile exercise.
>
> > >We could start with the porn industry. They'd be nowhere without young
> > >people.
>
> > And that doesn't worry you?
>
> I don't get the point of your question. I think you're overlaying
> something from your back-of-the-stove thoughts that wasn't designated as
> one of the pots needing attention.
> ========================

Don't blame Paul. There seems to be a competition going on between
Msrs. Signal and Sock as to who represents the "youth". But both of
them refused, so far, to instruct the OAPs as to what "youth" has on
the plate on offer.

Let alone which decade of "youth" they belong to.
Ludovic Mirabel
..
..
>
>
>
> --
>

Sander deWaal

November 1st 06, 06:15 PM

" > said:

>Don't blame Paul. There seems to be a competition going on between
>Msrs. Signal and Sock as to who represents the "youth". But both of
>them refused, so far, to instruct the OAPs as to what "youth" has on
>the plate on offer.

>Let alone which decade of "youth" they belong to.
>Ludovic Mirabel

You got to work on your perception skills, Ludovic.
Socky is a sockpuppet by another Paul, who likes to emit a "signal"
every now and then in RAO.

Still don't get it? ;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

George M. Middius

November 1st 06, 06:28 PM

Sander deWaal said:

> You got to work on your perception skills, Ludovic.
> Socky is a sockpuppet by another Paul, who likes to emit a "signal"
> every now and then in RAO.

Hiding behind Goggle™ is proof of something. Where's my "debating trade"
handbook so I can look it up?

> Still don't get it? ;-)

Anybody who does get it should give it back pronto.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 1st 06, 11:50 PM

ScottW wrote:

> Borderline fascist statement. Democracy is about freedom,
> freedom to choose.

Unless you're gay, a person of color, want an abortion, aren't
christian, or a host of other issues that your 'freedom-loving' bands
of conservative idiots want to control.

I see now that you're actually very liberal. So why didn't you just say
so? Why do you cover it up by pretending to support bushie?

paul packer

November 2nd 06, 05:19 AM

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 07:38:48 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >> > Could you in turn tell us what kind of youth you represent, what are
>> >> > their works.and for what reason one would want to get acquainted with
>> >> > them.
>
>> >> I could, but I suspect it would be a futile exercise.
>
>> >We could start with the porn industry. They'd be nowhere without young
>> >people.
>
>> And that doesn't worry you?
>
>I don't get the point of your question.

It doesn't worry you that young people are among the biggest customers
of the porn industry?

George M. Middius

November 2nd 06, 01:51 PM

paul packer said:

> >> >We could start with the porn industry. They'd be nowhere without young
> >> >people.

> >> And that doesn't worry you?

> >I don't get the point of your question.

> It doesn't worry you that young people are among the biggest customers
> of the porn industry?

I doubt that's true. Anyway, I was talking about the performers.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

MiNe 109

November 2nd 06, 08:40 PM

In article >,
Signal > wrote:

> (paul packer) wrote:
>
> >I'm simply suggesting that one must rise
> >to a certain level in order to appreciate true art.
>
> That old chestnut, eh.

It's the same reason some use speaker stands.

Stephen

George M. Middius

November 2nd 06, 08:48 PM

MiNe 109 said:

> > >I'm simply suggesting that one must rise
> > >to a certain level in order to appreciate true art.

> > That old chestnut, eh.

> It's the same reason some use speaker stands.

What does that say about under-floor subwoofers?

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[email protected]

November 2nd 06, 10:20 PM

Signal wrote:
> " > wrote:
>
> >
> >George M. Middius wrote:
> >> paul packer said:
> >>
> >> > >> > Could you in turn tell us what kind of youth you represent, what are
> >> > >> > their works.and for what reason one would want to get acquainted with
> >> > >> > them.
> >>
> >> > >> I could, but I suspect it would be a futile exercise.
> >>
> >> > >We could start with the porn industry. They'd be nowhere without young
> >> > >people.
> >>
> >> > And that doesn't worry you?
> >>
> >> I don't get the point of your question. I think you're overlaying
> >> something from your back-of-the-stove thoughts that wasn't designated as
> >> one of the pots needing attention.
> >> ========================
> >
> >Don't blame Paul. There seems to be a competition going on between
> >Msrs. Signal and Sock as to who represents the "youth". But both of
> >them refused, so far, to instruct the OAPs as to what "youth" has on
> >the plate on offer.
> >
> >Let alone which decade of "youth" they belong to.
> >Ludovic Mirabel
>
> It isn't necessary for age to be a factor, Luddie. It's possible to be
> eclectic at any age. My wife's mother enjoys listening to Shabba Ranks
> and Radiohead of an evening, she's in her 80s.

==================================
> Mr. Signallie says:

> It isn't necessary for age to be a factor, Luddie. It's possible to be
> eclectic at any age. My wife's mother enjoys listening to Shabba Ranks
> and Radiohead of an evening, she's in her 80s.

Have to agree with you. Taste does not change much with age. Did she
listen to Dorsey's Big Band and Tony Bennett when she was younger or
was iSt. Matthew's Passion and Beethoven's quartet #131.

We shan't discuss hers (or yours) reading list or should we?
Yours Luddie

P.S.I assume one has to add a funny termination to first names iin
order to keep up with the raw youth.

>
>
>
>
>
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

George M. Middius

November 2nd 06, 10:30 PM

said:

> P.S.I assume one has to add a funny termination to first names iin
> order to keep up with the raw youth.

Last names work even better. Even the Krooborg agrees with that.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[email protected]

November 2nd 06, 10:30 PM

Signal wrote:
> (paul packer) wrote:
>
> >Funny, even in debating Signal I wasn't thinking of him as young. He
> >did after all use the words "Sex Pistols" and "excellent" in the same
> >sentence, suggesting he must be in his 40s. Perhaps he'd like to
> >enlighten us.
>
> Why is my age relevant?
>
> Well you are not that far out, and I suppose it's true that my
> generation were freed of the mental shackles that restricted the
> listening choices of a good proportion of our elders.
>
> ===========================================

I'd suggest that the same proportion (large majority) of the population
who listened to crooners now listen to rap. Same kind of people too.
Ludovic Mirabel
>
>
>
> --

George M. Middius

November 2nd 06, 11:49 PM

Signal said:

> Ludovic - you ascribe the word "excellence" to music that suits your
> preferences, and "pap" or "3rd rate" to that which you are *unable to
> appreciate* (perhaps through no fault of your own). All I am doing is
> pointing that, by doing so, you are acting like a prima donna. Don't
> shoot the messenger!

Which genres of music are more an acquired taste, and which less?

I don't agree with the viewpoint that certain forms of art require more
work, or more study, to appreciate. You can gain more understanding
through study, of course. Suppose we ran an experiment on the inculcation
of music appreciation: Take a hundred die-hard fans of classical and a
hundred who only listen to rap or hip-hop (I'm not sure what the
difference is....). Switch their playlists. Which group would be more
likely to run screaming from the room within the first day?

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Alan S

November 2nd 06, 11:57 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> George M. Middius wrote:
>> paul packer said:
>>
>> > >> > Could you in turn tell us what kind of youth you represent, what
>> > >> > are
>> > >> > their works.and for what reason one would want to get acquainted
>> > >> > with
>> > >> > them.
>>
>> > >> I could, but I suspect it would be a futile exercise.
>>
>> > >We could start with the porn industry. They'd be nowhere without young
>> > >people.
>>
>> > And that doesn't worry you?
>>
>> I don't get the point of your question. I think you're overlaying
>> something from your back-of-the-stove thoughts that wasn't designated as
>> one of the pots needing attention.
>> ========================
>
> Don't blame Paul. There seems to be a competition going on between
> Msrs. Signal and Sock as to who represents the "youth". But both of
> them refused, so far, to instruct the OAPs as to what "youth" has on
> the plate on offer.

Well, my 13 year old really liked the frozen Jimmy Dean sausage and
biscuits, does that help?

> Let alone which decade of "youth" they belong to.
> Ludovic Mirabel
> .
> .

MiNe 109

November 3rd 06, 12:16 AM

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > >I'm simply suggesting that one must rise
> > > >to a certain level in order to appreciate true art.
>
> > > That old chestnut, eh.
>
> > It's the same reason some use speaker stands.
>
> What does that say about under-floor subwoofers?

I'm not here to help anyone's self-esteem problems.

Stephen

George M. Middius

November 3rd 06, 01:33 AM

Signal said:

> >Which genres of music are more an acquired taste, and which less?
> >
> >I don't agree with the viewpoint that certain forms of art require more
> >work, or more study, to appreciate. You can gain more understanding
> >through study, of course. Suppose we ran an experiment on the inculcation
> >of music appreciation: Take a hundred die-hard fans of classical and a
> >hundred who only listen to rap or hip-hop (I'm not sure what the
> >difference is....). Switch their playlists. Which group would be more
> >likely to run screaming from the room within the first day?

> Probably the die-hard classical music listeners, as they have a
> limited ability to bear a wide range of music.

I agree with your choice, but for an entirely different reason.

:-)

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

paul packer

November 3rd 06, 02:39 AM

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 08:51:52 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >> >We could start with the porn industry. They'd be nowhere without young
>> >> >people.
>
>> >> And that doesn't worry you?
>
>> >I don't get the point of your question.
>
>> It doesn't worry you that young people are among the biggest customers
>> of the porn industry?
>
>I doubt that's true. Anyway, I was talking about the performers.

And that doesn't worry you either?

paul packer

November 3rd 06, 02:44 AM

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:49:45 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>Signal said:
>
>> Ludovic - you ascribe the word "excellence" to music that suits your
>> preferences, and "pap" or "3rd rate" to that which you are *unable to
>> appreciate* (perhaps through no fault of your own). All I am doing is
>> pointing that, by doing so, you are acting like a prima donna. Don't
>> shoot the messenger!
>
>Which genres of music are more an acquired taste, and which less?
>
>I don't agree with the viewpoint that certain forms of art require more
>work, or more study, to appreciate. You can gain more understanding
>through study, of course. Suppose we ran an experiment on the inculcation
>of music appreciation: Take a hundred die-hard fans of classical and a
>hundred who only listen to rap or hip-hop (I'm not sure what the
>difference is....). Switch their playlists. Which group would be more
>likely to run screaming from the room within the first day?

I believe the point Ludo is making is not necessarily that one form of
art requires more work or study to appreciate, though I believe it
does, but rather that one requires a calmer, more reflective frame of
mind to assimilate. One speaks to a deeper level of the human psyche
than the other. One appeals to finer instincts than the other. One
inspires more noble, generous feelings than the other. Or perhaps Ludo
may wish to correct me.

paul packer

November 3rd 06, 02:49 AM

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 20:07:30 +0000, Signal > wrote:

(paul packer) wrote:
>
>>I'm simply suggesting that one must rise
>>to a certain level in order to appreciate true art.
>
>That old chestnut, eh.

A conundrum you've no doubt pondered for many hours through many
sleepless nights while simultaneously listening to your "Best of the
Sex Pistols" CD (all three minutes of it) and watching "Saw 2" on your
wide-screen plasma. :-)

George M. Middius

November 3rd 06, 03:19 AM

Signal said:

> >> >Which group would be more
> >> >likely to run screaming from the room within the first day?

> >> Probably the die-hard classical music listeners, as they have a
> >> limited ability to bear a wide range of music.

> >I agree with your choice, but for an entirely different reason.
> >:-)

> Let's have it then. Sock it to me.

Rap is an execrable substitute for real music. I hate -- HATE it.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

George M. Middius

November 3rd 06, 03:19 AM

paul packer said:

> >> >> >We could start with the porn industry. They'd be nowhere without young
> >> >> >people.

> >> >> And that doesn't worry you?

> >> >I don't get the point of your question.

> >> It doesn't worry you that young people are among the biggest customers
> >> of the porn industry?

> >I doubt that's true. Anyway, I was talking about the performers.

> And that doesn't worry you either?

Of course not. Why should it?

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

ScottW

November 3rd 06, 03:21 AM

paul packer wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:49:45 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Signal said:
> >
> >> Ludovic - you ascribe the word "excellence" to music that suits your
> >> preferences, and "pap" or "3rd rate" to that which you are *unable to
> >> appreciate* (perhaps through no fault of your own). All I am doing is
> >> pointing that, by doing so, you are acting like a prima donna. Don't
> >> shoot the messenger!
> >
> >Which genres of music are more an acquired taste, and which less?
> >
> >I don't agree with the viewpoint that certain forms of art require more
> >work, or more study, to appreciate. You can gain more understanding
> >through study, of course. Suppose we ran an experiment on the inculcation
> >of music appreciation: Take a hundred die-hard fans of classical and a
> >hundred who only listen to rap or hip-hop (I'm not sure what the
> >difference is....). Switch their playlists. Which group would be more
> >likely to run screaming from the room within the first day?
>
> I believe the point Ludo is making is not necessarily that one form of
> art requires more work or study to appreciate, though I believe it
> does, but rather that one requires a calmer, more reflective frame of
> mind to assimilate.

Old farts want to kick back and relax to their music.
Kids want to get the party started.
Its that simple.

> One speaks to a deeper level of the human psyche
> than the other. One appeals to finer instincts than the other. One
> inspires more noble, generous feelings than the other. Or perhaps Ludo
> may wish to correct me.

Nah, you nailed the bs snob appeal segment.

ScottW

paul packer

November 3rd 06, 05:13 AM

On 2 Nov 2006 19:21:13 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>> I believe the point Ludo is making is not necessarily that one form of
>> art requires more work or study to appreciate, though I believe it
>> does, but rather that one requires a calmer, more reflective frame of
>> mind to assimilate.
>
> Old farts want to kick back and relax to their music.
> Kids want to get the party started.
> Its that simple.

IT is, Scott? Or........?

[email protected]

November 3rd 06, 06:56 AM

Signal wrote:
> " > wrote:
>
> >> >Funny, even in debating Signal I wasn't thinking of him as young. He
> >> >did after all use the words "Sex Pistols" and "excellent" in the same
> >> >sentence, suggesting he must be in his 40s. Perhaps he'd like to
> >> >enlighten us.
> >>
> >> Why is my age relevant?
> >>
> >> Well you are not that far out, and I suppose it's true that my
> >> generation were freed of the mental shackles that restricted the
> >> listening choices of a good proportion of our elders.
> >>
> >> ===========================================
> >
> >I'd suggest that the same proportion (large majority) of the population
> >who listened to crooners now listen to rap. Same kind of people too.
>
> I see you went out of your way to select a subset of people who are
> diverse in their listening habits. John Peel used to play both genres
> on his popular radio show, which no doubt must be confusing for you.
>
> Ludovic - you ascribe the word "excellence" to music that suits your
> preferences, and "pap" or "3rd rate" to that which you are *unable to
> appreciate* (perhaps through no fault of your own). All I am doing is
> pointing that, by doing so, you are acting like a prima donna. Don't
> shoot the messenger!
>
============================
Signal says:

Ludovic - you ascribe the word "excellence" to music that suits your
> preferences, and "pap" or "3rd rate" to that which you are *unable to
> appreciate* (perhaps through no fault of your own

Of vourse I do. Doesn't everyone? We're all defined by our preferences.
I believe ("believe" means I have no evidence) that our preferences are
innate just like our abilities. For instance - nothing like
introspection - I have some aptitude for languages and am, was and will
be a mathematical moron. I started going to symphony concerts at the
age of 16- no one took me there or encouraged me. I just got bored with
pop.

"Got bored " is the operative word. I'm perfectly able to appreciate
the early black and the 60s, 70s white rock but it is hard to sit down
and LISTEN for longer than 20 minutes even to the best- like the early
Rolling Stones. "Listen" is the operative word. Who listens, really
listens,to pop. ScottW with his unfailing taste for the lowest common
denominator calls it sitting back and relaxing". It is qite obvious
that he doesn't have the foggiest notion of what serious music is
about. Let's say it enforces at least as much concentration and
attention as serious literature or serious theatre or even serious
philiosophy. You experience it or you don't.

Yes, 90% of pop does not demand or deserve attention or to put it
simply is repetittive and tiresome.. The genius, what the Greeks called
Daemon, is missing. I already said that some "classics" like Brahms,
Mahler and Brueckner get past me- some synapse in my frontal lobes is
missing. (On the other hand, to be honest, deep down I believe that I
like the best- doesn't everyone?- and that Brahms Mahler and Brueckner
lack something).

The point of this long- winded dissertation is that we're talking to
each other across a wide , wide ravine. I am not interested in
converting or evangelising anybody. But I don't feel the need to scream
"young fogeys " after anyone in the schoolyard, whatever I may think of
them and of their taste.

Maybe because I don't feel envious or humiliated by their preferences
and believe they deserve each other.
Ludovic Mirabel

ScottW

November 4th 06, 05:02 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Signal wrote:
>> " > wrote:
>>
>> >> >Funny, even in debating Signal I wasn't thinking of him as young. He
>> >> >did after all use the words "Sex Pistols" and "excellent" in the same
>> >> >sentence, suggesting he must be in his 40s. Perhaps he'd like to
>> >> >enlighten us.
>> >>
>> >> Why is my age relevant?
>> >>
>> >> Well you are not that far out, and I suppose it's true that my
>> >> generation were freed of the mental shackles that restricted the
>> >> listening choices of a good proportion of our elders.
>> >>
>> >> ===========================================
>> >
>> >I'd suggest that the same proportion (large majority) of the population
>> >who listened to crooners now listen to rap. Same kind of people too.
>>
>> I see you went out of your way to select a subset of people who are
>> diverse in their listening habits. John Peel used to play both genres
>> on his popular radio show, which no doubt must be confusing for you.
>>
>> Ludovic - you ascribe the word "excellence" to music that suits your
>> preferences, and "pap" or "3rd rate" to that which you are *unable to
>> appreciate* (perhaps through no fault of your own). All I am doing is
>> pointing that, by doing so, you are acting like a prima donna. Don't
>> shoot the messenger!
>>
> ============================
> Signal says:
>
> Ludovic - you ascribe the word "excellence" to music that suits your
>> preferences, and "pap" or "3rd rate" to that which you are *unable to
>> appreciate* (perhaps through no fault of your own
>
> Of vourse I do. Doesn't everyone? We're all defined by our preferences.
> I believe ("believe" means I have no evidence) that our preferences are
> innate just like our abilities. For instance - nothing like
> introspection - I have some aptitude for languages and am, was and will
> be a mathematical moron. I started going to symphony concerts at the
> age of 16- no one took me there or encouraged me. I just got bored with
> pop.
>
> "Got bored " is the operative word. I'm perfectly able to appreciate
> the early black and the 60s, 70s white rock but it is hard to sit down
> and LISTEN for longer than 20 minutes even to the best- like the early
> Rolling Stones.

Who said early Stones is "the best" Rock from the era?
My God man...that was the golden era of progressive rock!
You're skipping some bands that may very well appeal
to you as they had wonderful musicians in bands
like Genesis & King Crimson or the Italian Prog
like PFM to name a few well recognized and easily
available.

> "Listen" is the operative word. Who listens, really
> listens,to pop.

What is pop today? Anything that isn't classical
or jazz?

Is Sara McLachlan pop?

> ScottW with his unfailing taste for the lowest common
> denominator calls it sitting back and relaxing". It is qite obvious
> that he doesn't have the foggiest notion of what serious music is
> about. Let's say it enforces at least as much concentration and
> attention as serious literature or serious theatre or even serious
> philiosophy. You experience it or you don't.

Wow...could get any more arrogant and self consumed?
You actually deserved being bound to a single genre
with your panties tightly up you ass.

>
> Yes, 90% of pop does not demand or deserve attention or to put it
> simply is repetittive and tiresome.. The genius, what the Greeks called
> Daemon, is missing.

You're in no position to judge anything beyond classical.
You are ignorant of the subject if you stopped listening
at early Stones and I find arrogance rationalized by ignorance
most repulsive.

ScottW

paul packer

November 5th 06, 02:54 AM

On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 09:02:11 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

> I find arrogance rationalized by ignorance
>most repulsive.
>
>ScottW

So what's the answer? Suicide?

ScottW

November 5th 06, 02:56 AM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 09:02:11 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>> I find arrogance rationalized by ignorance
>>most repulsive.
>>
>>ScottW
>
> So what's the answer? Suicide?

Banish him to Oz.

ScottW

paul packer

November 5th 06, 03:59 AM

On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 18:56:01 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 09:02:11 -0800, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I find arrogance rationalized by ignorance
>>>most repulsive.
>>>
>>>ScottW
>>
>> So what's the answer? Suicide?
>
>Banish him to Oz.
>
>ScottW

No, I meant your suicide.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 5th 06, 05:24 AM

paul packer wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 18:56:01 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 09:02:11 -0800, "ScottW" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I find arrogance rationalized by ignorance
> >>>most repulsive.
> >>>
> >>>ScottW
> >>
> >> So what's the answer? Suicide?
> >
> >Banish him to Oz.

> No, I meant your suicide.

LOL!

If toopid did that, whose nose would I tweak?

[email protected]

November 5th 06, 06:09 AM

ScottW wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Signal wrote:
> >> " > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >Funny, even in debating Signal I wasn't thinking of him as young. He
> >> >> >did after all use the words "Sex Pistols" and "excellent" in the same
> >> >> >sentence, suggesting he must be in his 40s. Perhaps he'd like to
> >> >> >enlighten us.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why is my age relevant?
> >> >>
> >> >> Well you are not that far out, and I suppose it's true that my
> >> >> generation were freed of the mental shackles that restricted the
> >> >> listening choices of a good proportion of our elders.
> >> >>
> >> >> ===========================================
> >> >
> >> >I'd suggest that the same proportion (large majority) of the population
> >> >who listened to crooners now listen to rap. Same kind of people too.
> >>
> >> I see you went out of your way to select a subset of people who are
> >> diverse in their listening habits. John Peel used to play both genres
> >> on his popular radio show, which no doubt must be confusing for you.
> >>
> >> Ludovic - you ascribe the word "excellence" to music that suits your
> >> preferences, and "pap" or "3rd rate" to that which you are *unable to
> >> appreciate* (perhaps through no fault of your own). All I am doing is
> >> pointing that, by doing so, you are acting like a prima donna. Don't
> >> shoot the messenger!
> >>
> > ============================
> > Signal says:
> >
> > Ludovic - you ascribe the word "excellence" to music that suits your
> >> preferences, and "pap" or "3rd rate" to that which you are *unable to
> >> appreciate* (perhaps through no fault of your own
> >
> > Of vourse I do. Doesn't everyone? We're all defined by our preferences.
> > I believe ("believe" means I have no evidence) that our preferences are
> > innate just like our abilities. For instance - nothing like
> > introspection - I have some aptitude for languages and am, was and will
> > be a mathematical moron. I started going to symphony concerts at the
> > age of 16- no one took me there or encouraged me. I just got bored with
> > pop.
> >
> > "Got bored " is the operative word. I'm perfectly able to appreciate
> > the early black and the 60s, 70s white rock but it is hard to sit down
> > and LISTEN for longer than 20 minutes even to the best- like the early
> > Rolling Stones.
>
> Who said early Stones is "the best" Rock from the era?

I did. Just to be accomodating I'll qualify: a personal preference
arrived at by not a very impressive study Just a casual acquaintance
with what my kids listened to and attempted to sing and play: The
Beatles, The Beach Boys, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Rod Stewart (I liked
him) , Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Chicago, Sly and.., Joan Baez (like
some of hers) Some others I forgot the names of..

> My God man...that was the golden era of progressive rock!
> You're skipping some bands that may very well appeal
> to you as they had wonderful musicians in bands
> like Genesis & King Crimson or the Italian Prog
> like PFM to name a few well recognized and easily
> available.
>
I heard Genesis and King Crimson and it was not to my taste. I refused
to listen to "progressive" stuff. The name for me is offputting.
Progressive jazz is bad enough. I like things in pop simple and noisy
(but not boom boom noisy) . This was rock's refreshing quality after
years of crooning Tin Pan Alley emetic wonders..

> > "Listen" is the operative word. Who listens, really
> > listens,to pop.
>
> What is pop today? Anything that isn't classical
> or jazz?
>
> Is Sara McLachlan pop?
>
Bored me to tears. But, please do not damn me to hell for that. Once
more - it is all personal

> > ScottW with his unfailing taste for the lowest common
> > denominator calls it sitting back and relaxing". It is qite obvious
> > that he doesn't have the foggiest notion of what serious music is
> > about. Let's say it enforces at least as much concentration and
> > attention as serious literature or serious theatre or even serious
> > philiosophy. You experience it or you don't.
>
> Wow...could get any more arrogant and self consumed?
> You actually deserved being bound to a single genre
> with your panties tightly up you ass.

Mon cher ScottW. It was not me who wrote the nonarrogant, noninsolent,
childish opinion about "old farts sitting back and reaxing" while "kids
go partying"

I listen mostly to the genre that appeals to me. Do tell how many
genres you're familiar with- with examples, recommendations, choices
etc. Is Schonberg you favourite or is it (desperately boring)
minimalist Reich.? You prefer Henze, Penderecki, Nono or Berio? All of
them your contemporaries Mr. ScottW.

Don't blame me, dear man - I have my own way of responding in kind.

But if you truly do listen, concentrating fully to King Crimson who am
I to argue- I'll just say that you must have aproblem , concentrating
amongst the howling rock concert audiences.

> > Yes, 90% of pop does not demand or deserve attention or to put it
> > simply is repetittive and tiresome.. The genius, what the Greeks called
> > Daemon, is missing.
>
> You're in no position to judge anything beyond classical.
> You are ignorant of the subject if you stopped listening
> at early Stones and I find arrogance rationalized by ignorance
> most repulsive.
> ScottW.

I didn't stop. I tried this and that (eg. Bowie) and found it
unrewarding. You're a sensitive soul so easily upset by others
arrogance and ignorance. Life must be hard on you. Especially life in
the RAO.

Am I wrong guessing that eg. Penderecki, (who I feel wrote one
masterpiece St. Luke's Passion), is no acquaintance of yours. Ignorance
is in the eye of the beholder.
Regards Ludovic Mirabel

I do not feel like engaging in an endless RAO polemic like the one you
hold with Mr. Ssssh.
If you answer I may or may not continue