From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #172 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, April 30 1998 Volume 07 : Number 172 Today's Subjects: ----------------- re: self-indulgence [Eb ] piano!!!???!! [tanter ] Re: piano!!!???!! [Bayard ] thanks! [Bayard ] If I may interject.... [Dede Davis ] Re: piano!!!???!! [Bret ] Lou Reed PBS special [hal brandt ] SF sister greeting [Carole Reichstein ] Re: Lou Reed PBS special [nicastr@idt.net (Ben)] re: self-indulgence [nicastr@idt.net (Ben)] Re: If I may interject.... [nicastr@idt.net (Ben)] long song [dmw ] re: SF Gig Report [David G Skoglund ] Re: avian tidbits [Terrence M Marks ] Re: more petulance [nicastr@idt.net (Ben)] Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #171 [Danielle ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #170 [james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Di] re: more softballs [Eb ] gallinulidae [james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan)] Music recommendation [Mark_Gloster@3com.com] Re: long song [nicastr@idt.net (Ben)] Re: gallinulidae [Christopher Gross ] gamh set-list [woj spice ] Re: long song [MARKEEFE ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #171 [nicastr@idt.net (Ben)] Re: more petulance [nicastr@idt.net (Ben)] re: more softballs [nicastr@idt.net (Ben)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:39:46 -0700 From: Eb Subject: re: self-indulgence >Ben wrote: > >>Well, hopefully, my writings (here, and webwise) might have accomplished >>this, but very well. And it seems apparent that like most chord-counters, >>you place minimal emphasis on the ability to appreciate lyrics, historical >>context and various other textural/conceptual intangibles as a component of >>music criticism (not to mention verbal eloquence), but never mind that for >>now. Just understand that most of the below information has little bearing >>upon whether or not my opinions carry weight...in my opinion. >Your attempts to portray me as a souless "chord counter" are becoming >infuriating. I don't know what I can do to make you believe me, but you are >totally mistaken in making this generalization. It seems that you believe >musical competence equals an inability to appreciate other qualities in >music, which is just rediculous. But I have addressed this several times >before, it seems that I lack the skills to make my point clear, or you are >only haring what you want to hear in my posts. Well, thanks much for ignoring the rest of my post, which took *far* more time to write than I cared to spend. Not to mention that I don't like posting about my personal life. And, um, how could I believe that "musical competence equals an inability to appreciate other qualities in music," since I'm obviously "musically competent" myself? I think your arguments are pooping out, at this point. Eb PS I see you didn't take Danielle's advice about the spell-checker. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:34:55 -0400 From: tanter Subject: piano!!!???!! I told you guys....him and a piano. That's all he needs to be great.... Marcy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:54:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: Re: piano!!!???!! On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, tanter wrote: > I told you guys....him and a piano. That's all he needs to be great.... we're still talking about Eb, right? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:53:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: thanks! wow, thanks to all the fegs who wrote to wish me a happy birthday. i am filled with love for all fegs. i love all male fegs as my brothers, even, or perhaps especially, eb. Technically I suppose Mike G. and Nick are my uncles, but only b/c they're so much wiser than i. And I consider all feg females my sisters, except for those of you upon whom i have crushes, if any. (Hey Surreal Posse-- how do I apply for membership?) I'm going to write back to each of you, but it could take me a while. And when Eb showed up on my doorstep with 2 dozen roses, well, that just about took the (birthday) cake. I'll see those of you who are going at the Quailparty-- and if you're not, WHY NOT? you're not going to let a few thousand miles stand btw you and your fegmania, are you?? think about the total amount of time (and company money!) you've spent here and weigh that against the time and money it'll cost to get the Quail's. gratefully, =b ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:02:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Dede Davis Subject: If I may interject.... At the risk of being subjected to a flaming that will leave little more than a small area of smoking asphalt (much like the parents at the end of "Time Bandits"), I would like to say that I, for one, am heartily sick and tired of Eb and Ben's Grateful Dead discussion. Yes, I immediately delete said posts as soon as I receive them, but enough is enough. You gentlemen could *at least* have the consideration to take the discussion off-list if you wished to continue it, but it seems to me to have degraded into an "am not!...are too!" type argument. " 'The time has come,' the Walrus said, 'to talk of many things..."; the Grateful Dead not being one of them. Perhaps some posts on the order of these: Eb: "I do not like the Grateful Dead." Ben: "I do like the Grateful Dead." Eb: "Bully for you." Ben: "And you." The rest of the Fegs: "THANK YOU!" == Dede "Out of boredom/ I decided/ I'd get with it"--MCC _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:23:01 -0500 (CDT) From: Bret Subject: Re: piano!!!???!! At 04:54 PM 4/30/98 -0400, you wrote: > > >On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, tanter wrote: > >> I told you guys....him and a piano. That's all he needs to be great.... > >we're still talking about Eb, right? Bayard, absofuckingloutly perfect! I blew OJ (wait, let me rephrase that one) I spat juice all over my desk on that one, perceft, classic. sorry to waste space with that, I just wanted to quote it to ensure it is seen again. - -b ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 15:44:48 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: Lou Reed PBS special Don't miss this one! (Check your local listings) It's very well done. Too bad they didn't interview Robyn who would have had plenty of eloquent things to say, but I guess he's not a New Yawker and wouldn't have fit thematically. Anyway, see this if you like Lou. /hal ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:56:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Carole Reichstein Subject: SF sister greeting ...Thanks to everybody who chimed in with their great reports on both the movie and the great gig. Jeme levitated during Robyn's piano rendition of "Flavor of Night?" Geez! I would've too! ..did anyone have prawns during the Mr. Feg dinner? ..anyone catch the Tim Keegan/balding producer guy cameos during the flick? More SF stories please! The list needs some Robyn distraction! Oh, and if anyone (Chris? Jeme? Eddie) in SF sees my sister Karen, tell her hi for me, that yes, I'm jealous, and to have a good time at Alcatraz! :) All for now Carole ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:40:15 -0500 From: nicastr@idt.net (Ben) Subject: Re: Lou Reed PBS special >Don't miss this one! (Check your local listings) >It's very well done. Too bad they didn't interview >Robyn who would have had plenty of eloquent things >to say, but I guess he's not a New Yawker and wouldn't have >fit thematically. Anyway, see this if you >like Lou. > >/hal Yeah, I saw most of this last night. It was so good I decided to watch it instead of Howard Stern's "Worst Breasts Contest" on the E! network. But I have to dismiss Lou Reed because of his use of simple chords, of course. :) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:35:36 -0500 From: nicastr@idt.net (Ben) Subject: re: self-indulgence >And, um, how could I believe that "musical competence equals an inability >to appreciate other qualities in music," since I'm obviously "musically >competent" myself? Because you said: "Regarding the extended analysis of the D minor - F# minor transition...I think you proved my point rather well about how diving too deeply into theoretical knowledge can easily make you lose sight of the forest for the trees." and... "And it seems apparent that like most chord-counters, you place minimal emphasis on the ability to appreciate lyrics, historical context and various other textural/conceptual intangibles as a component of music criticism (not to mention verbal eloquence)" as well as... "And by the way, as far as I'm concerned, there's DEFINITELY a point at which theoretical musical knowledge taints one's perception of pop-rock music." It seems you have met the ultimate opponent in this debate, yourself. >PS I see you didn't take Danielle's advice about the spell-checker. Blame my e-mail software, which has no spell check. Pointing out my typing/spelling mistakes has no bearing on the subjects at hand. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:48:43 -0500 From: nicastr@idt.net (Ben) Subject: Re: If I may interject.... >At the risk of being subjected to a flaming that will leave little >more than a small area of smoking asphalt (much like the parents at >the end of "Time Bandits"), I would like to say that I, for one, am >heartily sick and tired of Eb and Ben's Grateful Dead discussion. >Yes, I immediately delete said posts as soon as I receive them, but >enough is enough. You gentlemen could *at least* have the >consideration to take the discussion off-list if you wished to >continue it, but it seems to me to have degraded into an "am >not!...are too!" type argument. " 'The time has come,' the Walrus >said, 'to talk of many things..."; the Grateful Dead not being one of >them. Perhaps some posts on the order of these: > >Eb: "I do not like the Grateful Dead." >Ben: "I do like the Grateful Dead." >Eb: "Bully for you." >Ben: "And you." >The rest of the Fegs: "THANK YOU!" I disagree with this argument because of two things: 1. Other listmembers have added their own comments to this discussion, both on list and to me in private e-mails, so there are a number of people who obviously are interested in the discussion. As for those who aren't interested , that brings me to the 2nd point... 2. If you " immediately delete said posts as soon as I (you) receive them" then how can you make any comment about our debate? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:25:30 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: long song the full title of christine lavin's "regretting what i said...[many deletions]... but after going out with me for two years you should know that i don't like surprises" takes roughly half the length of the song to say. you can listen to it on lavin's _future fossils_ record. so here's a really really stoopid question: if one accepts, as was posited, that 99 percent of jazz musicians are better improvisers than the g... d...., why bother listening to them? why not just listen to some good jazz, if good improvisation is what you want? ...usually when this sort of question crosses my mind, i spend the next few weeks listening to nothing by mozart, beethoven and bach, and the odd bit of thelonious monk, of course... - -- d. np lvb/tokyo string quartet _late string quartests_ - - oh,no!! you've just read mail from doug = dmayowel@access.digex.net - - and dmw@mwmw.com ... get yr pathos at http://www.pathetic-caverns.com/ - - new reviews! tunes, books, flicks, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 15:52:18 -0500 (CDT) From: David G Skoglund Subject: re: SF Gig Report Sounds magical. Who's got the DAT? :) David Skoglund email: david.g.skoglund-2@tc.umn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:42:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence M Marks Subject: Re: avian tidbits > (and no offece meant but i thought Syd broke up b/c of too many acid > hits... am i misunderstanding you?) He did. But Pink Floyd let him go because he was unstable and unreliable (and because he kept stealing Roger's cigarettes). I wouldn't call it improvisation or jamming. It's jamming when the band gets together and decides "Ok, this middle bit is in the key of A. We'll play with it until the audience gets board". It isn't jamming when the guitarist decides to play the middle bit in F# and finds it amusing that the other band members didn't quite catch on. Terrence Marks normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 03:28:05 -0500 From: nicastr@idt.net (Ben) Subject: Re: more petulance >And what have you done for the list, hm? I'm willing to wager that if we >both unsubscribed, a lot more people would miss me than you. Certainly you have done more for the list than I have. You've made some reccomendations for CD's that a lot of people have enjoyed. On the other hand you seem to have pissed off just about everyone on the list at one time or another. >Stupid, ignorant...whatever. Either way, you're desperately throwing stones >when you know nothing about how much I do or don't know about music theory. >You're also equating not liking the Dead with having an inferior musical >background, which of course is 100% bullsheet. I've already responded to this comment several times, so I won't again. >And by the way, as far as >I'm concerned, there's DEFINITELY a point at which theoretical musical >knowledge taints one's perception of pop-rock music. Judging pop-rock by >jazz/classical standards of academic sophistication and complexity is a >MAJOR mistake, and I see this miscalculation all the time amongst proggies. >(And occasionally, amongst Fegs.) I agree that judging pop-rock by jazz/classical standards of academic sophistication and complexity is a major mistake if it has no relevance to why you like the music. If I judged music solely on these terms (which I must do if I am a proggie, right?) I would not own any Buzzcocks, T-Rex, country records, or anything else so "simple". Your argument that I do this has no basis. >Well, I also knew that the Great Quail, one of the chief Deadheads on the >list, would read my comments and just laugh them off. As he did. Just as >I'll laugh off any time he gushes about how great Phish and Rush are. Maybe next time instead of laughing, try to have an intelligent discussion about your difference of opinion. It won't hurt. >Zzzzzzzz. Well, just be thankful that I don't correct your spelling mistakes. Sorry, I am just a stoopid kid after all. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 12:34:48 -0700 From: Danielle Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #171 >From Mr Godwin: > PS There is a hilarious bit in 'The Five Pennies" where Danny Kaye (as Red > Nichols) says to Louis Armstrong(?): "When you jam, it doesn't happen > every time. But if you wrote the notes down, it would be guaranteed to > happen exactly the same every performance!", thus inventing > non-improvisational jazz (a concept similar to decaffeinated coffee). Argh! I love this movie, cloying though it is! I have the LP soundtrack! I have the video! I choke up during the title track! Yes, I am completely pathetic. But it just goes to show that no matter how obscure the reference, you can guarantee that someone else knows something about the subject, whatever it is... Succinct corroboration of Eb's post: uh, yeah, Ben. He really *does* play the piano very well. And as Ed and Susan and even Eb himself said, that shouldn't make any difference to whether his arguments carry weight. You're getting dangerously close to offending me with this 'you've got to have theoretical knowledge to have a credible musical opinion' implication. I'm as ignorant as they come. (Not proud, in fact rather regretful... but isn't listening a skill too? Someone please tell me it is...) >From Bayard: > I don't think Eb means to push buttons, I think he just lacks certain > filters most of us have built-in. Dunno if I agree with this. But hell, psychoanalysis of Eb is always fun, no? I'm sure he *loves* it. Also: > I don't care much for the generalization about Tori's male > fans either (though I'm not one.) Yeah, guilty. But if anyone can prove otherwise to me, I'll happily concede the point. It's just that most of her rabid web-based fans seem to be single boys (mainly because there is a greater proportion of single boys on the internet). So maybe I have a warped view... >From Ben: > Sorry, Danielle, but I'm not going to use name calling, although it may be > entertaining to you. So shut up, you stupid bitch. :) (JUST KIDDING!!!! > Hehehe, funny, right? Uhh... put down the chainsaw, Danielle....) I said 'battle of wits', not 'moronic insults lifted from usenet'. ;) Danielle, whose weapon of choice is not a chainsaw ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 12:46:28 +1200 From: james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan) Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #170 > Although not a comic strip, I'd strongly recommend the comic-style >art of Edward Gorey to any feg. Anybody know if this guy's still >alive/producing? oh I definitely secoond that one! Ex-Fegmaniax member Cheri Chenoweth introduced me to "Amphigorey" last year - an excellent book in a very Edwardian-surreal sort of way. James Dignan___________________________________ You talk to me Deptmt of Psychology, Otago University As if from a distance ya zhivu v' 50 Norfolk Street And I reply. . . . . . . . . . Dunedin, New Zealand with impressions chosen from another time steam megaphone (03) 455-7807 (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:59:38 -0700 From: Eb Subject: re: more softballs Ben reached: >>And, um, how could I believe that "musical competence equals an inability >>to appreciate other qualities in music," since I'm obviously "musically >>competent" myself? > >Because you said: > > "Regarding the extended analysis of the D minor - F# minor transition...I >think you proved my point rather well about how diving too deeply into >theoretical knowledge can easily make you lose sight of the forest for the >trees." >and... >"And it seems apparent that like most chord-counters, you place minimal >emphasis on the ability to appreciate lyrics, historical context and >various other textural/conceptual intangibles as a component of music >criticism (not to mention verbal eloquence)" >as well as... >"And by the way, as far as I'm concerned, there's DEFINITELY a point at >which theoretical musical knowledge taints one's perception of pop-rock >music." > >It seems you have met the ultimate opponent in this debate, yourself. No, sorry. You're really straining yourself hard now. There's a big difference between disapproving of "musical competence" and disapproving of diving so deeply into theoretical whizz-bang that you forget the big picture and lose sight of a song's less cerebral, non-textbook virtues. And the latter is exactly what the above statements point out. There are no arguments against "musical competence" above. Also, you've done nothing to rebut my second comment -- you still seem to think that a critic is nothing if he doesn't rank musical complexity first amongst his criteria. I mean, you're doing *nothing* to change my opinion of the Dead. Did I say that I don't like the band because their music is so simple? Nope. I had totally different reasons. So why are you nagging me about their music's sophistication? And by the way, you don't want to be called a chord-counter, you shouldn't respond by posting 8K's worth of beat-by-beat analysis of 30 seconds of instrumental music. Not a real good strategy. If you REALLY wanted to lose that chord-counting label, you would post positive evidence to the contrary regarding your tastes, instead of taking feeble swipes at me. Eb, wondering if Dede finds the more prevalent comic-strips thread just as intrusive and irrelevant ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 12:58:03 +1200 From: james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan) Subject: gallinulidae >Gallinule section >I'm a bit fuzzy about whether gallinules and gallinaceous birds are one >and the same. In the UK we have two gallinules, the moorhen and the coot, >both small freshwater birds with big palmate feet which can actually walk >on lily pads. The moorhen has a red and yellow nose bit, the coot is a bit >larger (sort of small duck size) and has a white nose bit (there is >probably a technical term for the nose bit). In India they have a much >bigger gallinule, chicken size, but recognisably the same thing - maybe >similar to the NZ bird? yeah, the Pukeko (overseas known as the Egyptian Gallinule (!)) is about chicken-sized, but otherwise looks a lot like a moorhen. they live in swampy ground and are particularly common on the plains of the central South Island and (IIRC) around the Waikato river in the North I. We also have another, extremely rare gallinule-like bird called the Takahe or Notornis. There are only about 50 of them left, and they all live in the rugged SW corner of the South Island and on Stewart Island. >...They are different. and I'd like to extend my apologies to several of >the birds on the list, I did not really intend to blow anyone's cover >(What makes you think I wasn't talking about John Partridge?) wasn't he played by David Cassidy? James PS - belated condiments to Bayard! James Dignan___________________________________ You talk to me Deptmt of Psychology, Otago University As if from a distance ya zhivu v' 50 Norfolk Street And I reply. . . . . . . . . . Dunedin, New Zealand with impressions chosen from another time steam megaphone (03) 455-7807 (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:31:57 -0700 From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com Subject: Music recommendation Please page down at the following location to read the last review. I didn't write it. I didn't pay to have it written. I wouldn't change a word. He used the RH word. This is a good week to be me. I think I'll do it some more. http://www.gdtimes.com/pages/cover.htm - -markg questions? comments? vomints? rubrshrk@tigermonkey.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:43:44 -0500 From: nicastr@idt.net (Ben) Subject: Re: long song >if one accepts, as was posited, that 99 percent of jazz musicians are >better improvisers than the g... d...., why bother listening to them? why >not just listen to some good jazz, if good improvisation is what you want? Because good improvisation is not what I want, I want to listen to music that is emotional and effects me emotianally in some respect. Weather this is listening to John Coltrane weave an incredible and heartfelt solo, or Syd Barrett struggling through one of his many beautifully shattered post-Floyd songs doesn't matter. I listen to the Dead mostly because they are a truly *fun* band to listen to, and they even have a few songs that I find to be very touching. If they played the same songs the same way every night, I would still enjoy them. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:27:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: gallinulidae On Fri, 1 May 1998, James Dignan wrote: > >Gallinule section > >I'm a bit fuzzy about whether gallinules and gallinaceous birds are one > >and the same. In the UK we have two gallinules, the moorhen and the coot, > >both small freshwater birds with big palmate feet which can actually walk > >on lily pads. The moorhen has a red and yellow nose bit, the coot is a bit > >larger (sort of small duck size) and has a white nose bit (there is > >probably a technical term for the nose bit). In India they have a much > >bigger gallinule, chicken size, but recognisably the same thing - maybe > >similar to the NZ bird? > > yeah, the Pukeko (overseas known as the Egyptian Gallinule (!)) is about > chicken-sized, but otherwise looks a lot like a moorhen. they live in > swampy ground and are particularly common on the plains of the central > South Island and (IIRC) around the Waikato river in the North I. We also > have another, extremely rare gallinule-like bird called the Takahe or > Notornis. There are only about 50 of them left, and they all live in the > rugged SW corner of the South Island and on Stewart Island. I'm sorry, but I am reminded irresistibly of the excerpts from _Darwin's Quails_ that Jon Fetter was good enough to post for us a few weeks ago. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:33:17 -0400 From: woj spice Subject: gamh set-list the chap who swiped robyn's written setlist sent this to me last night. anyone who was there, please feel free to correct and fill in. +w >My girlfriend managed to snag the set list. I'll try to decipher >Robyn's writing oin the new tune names... > >4/29/98 Great American Music Hall, S.F. > >Cheese Alarm >Chinese Bones - Aquarium >Shuffling O.T. >Balloon Man >Trilobyte >B. Girl >I Used to Love You - Sense Me (?) >Flavour of Might >Dechirico St. >Armor of Love (? hard to read R.'s writing) >E. Cream >Thundering > >Encores > >Adirahan >Gnome (Yes - the Pink Floyd Song, on guitar and then piano) >Airtonomy (?) >B. Queen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:39:25 EDT From: MARKEEFE Subject: Re: long song In a message dated 98-04-30 19:31:52 EDT, you write: << if one accepts, as was posited, that 99 percent of jazz musicians are better improvisers than the g... d...., why bother listening to them? why not just listen to some good jazz, if good improvisation is what you want? >> Well, I feel completely neutral about the Dead, but I could wanting to listen to them rather than jazz on an odd occasion -- their style of improvisation is different enough from most jazz that, regardless of the quality of the performances, you just can't get the Grateful Dead *sound* without listening to the Dead. - ------Michael K., who likes to listen to "American Beauty" every now and again. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:50:09 -0500 From: nicastr@idt.net (Ben) Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #171 >Succinct corroboration of Eb's post: uh, yeah, Ben. He really *does* >play the piano very well. And as Ed and Susan and even Eb himself said, >that shouldn't make any difference to whether his arguments carry >weight. You're getting dangerously close to offending me with this >'you've got to have theoretical knowledge to have a credible musical >opinion' implication. I'm as ignorant as they come. (Not proud, in fact >rather regretful... but isn't listening a skill too? Someone please tell >me it is...) I don't know how many times I have to say it, but I DO NOT THINK YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE TO HAVE A CREDIBLE MUSICAL OPINION. Once again, I DO NOT THINK YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE TO HAVE A CREDIBLE MUSICAL OPINION. I DO NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT. Have I made myself clear? :) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:02:49 -0500 From: nicastr@idt.net (Ben) Subject: Re: more petulance >Ben wraught: >>Certainly you have done more for the list than I have. You've made some >>reccomendations [sic] for CD's that a lot of people have enjoyed. On the >>other >>hand you seem to have pissed off just about everyone on the list at one >>time or another. > >As any critic worth his salt does. > Are you saying that in order to be a good critic, one must offend people every once and a while? I have read a number of critics who manage to do wonderful reviews of music without being offensive. >Well, that's the first legitimate evidence you've offered in your defense >(though the gap between prog and T. Rex really isn't so wide). > How so? >>Maybe next time instead of laughing, try to have an intelligent discussion >>about your difference of opinion. It won't hurt. > >Oh, so you're saying I'm stoopid yet again. Broken record? No, here's a broken record. YOU ARE NOT STUPID YOU ARE NOT STUPID YOU ARE NOT STUPID YOU ARE NOT STUPID YOU ARE NOT STUPID YOU ARE NOT STUPID. I consider "laughing off" somebody's opinion (at least publicly) without making an attempt to intelligently back up such an act is offensive and obnoxious, but not stupid (or even stoopid). You see, in this situation of an internet mailing list, it is so easy purposely offend someone and not have to take any responsibility for it. Say you were on a panel of music critics doing a TV show watched by millions, and one of the critics said "I think Celine Dion is the greatest performer of the century". Would you laugh at them and then walk off, refusing to back yourself up? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:19:42 -0500 From: nicastr@idt.net (Ben) Subject: re: more softballs >No, sorry. You're really straining yourself hard now. There's a big >difference between disapproving of "musical competence" and disapproving of >diving so deeply into theoretical whizz-bang that you forget the big >picture and lose sight of a song's less cerebral, non-textbook virtues. And >the latter is exactly what the above statements point out. There are no >arguments against "musical competence" above. Also, you've done nothing to >rebut my second comment -- you still seem to think that a critic is nothing >if he doesn't rank musical complexity first amongst his criteria. Then let me say this, I could care less weather or not a critic has an ounce of understanding of musical complexity. Nearly all the reviews of music I read have nothing to say about "musical complexity" which is great. I think it's irrelevant to one's overall enjoyment of music. Do you really think I make my choices of what I listen to based solely on how complex it is?!?! The music I love the most is anything but complex. >I mean, >you're doing *nothing* to change my opinion of the Dead. Did I say that I >don't like the band because their music is so simple? Nope. I had totally >different reasons. So why are you nagging me about their music's >sophistication? > First of all, that lengthy review was posted at your request for me to display that I had musical competence, something you required proof to believe. It was the most relevent way to our discussion that I could think of doing. I want to make it clear now that I consider the debate over the quality of the Dead's music to be a, umm... Dead topic. (sorry, I know that was uncalled for :) ) >And by the way, you don't want to be called a chord-counter, you shouldn't >respond by posting 8K's worth of beat-by-beat analysis of 30 seconds of >instrumental music. Not a real good strategy. If you REALLY wanted to lose >that chord-counting label, you would post positive evidence to the contrary >regarding your tastes, instead of taking feeble swipes at me. Tell me then, want kind of evidence would it take for me to lose your brand of "Chord Counter" or "proggie"? ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #172 *******************************