The daily Kate-echism is extended to more and more L-Hs...hosannah!

[IED0DXM%UCLAMVS.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU]

Woah, there, dogies!

First, IED would like to thank |>oug for his
valiant defense of IED's recent posting re
Kevin's comments. This was unexpected and
gratifying, and his points were extremely apt.

Now, however, Kevin's defender, one Joe Slime, has returned
fire, and it looks from the calibre of his weapon
as though IED has a more formidable
opponent this time. In fact, amid the
usual misspellings, grammatical inelegancies and
clumsy expressions of animus, Mr. Slime has actually
contrived to communicate a feeble glimmer of primeval
thought (hopelessly flawed, of course, but worthwhile nonetheless)!
Since our editor has left the scene for a while,
IED will have to defend himself for the time being.

>OK, I have a question for you, which is a more versitile instrument?

>    a) a guitar
>    b) a drum

>The answer in my opinion is very dependent on what one values in an instrument
>and one's personal cultural experiences.  Are you going to tell me that the
>only valid way to evaluate these instruments/voices is relative to Classical
>European culture?  Take a few moments to consider before you answer.

Hold on. IED is taking them.




Hold on.




Hold on.




OK.

>Now, think about Kate VS. Elvis.

WOW! IED, having taken the time recommended for the
contemplation of Mr. Slime's penetrating observation, is still reeling
from the shock of revelation.

Apparently it is your opinion, Mr. Slime, that all forms of judging
quality are invalid. If, as you propose, there is no intrinsic,
provable difference in quality between the range of expression
obtainable from a Stradivarius and that which a banjo offers, then
it must follow that there is no intrinsic difference between a
good banjo and a bad banjo -- or between a Stradivarius violin and a
Sears model, or between any two instruments. This is an inescapable
extension of your argument, and one which brings its fundamental
fault into plain view. The root of your idea is something like this:

   "Duh, everyt'ing is good in its own way! It all depends on
    de guy's point of vioo."

Your opinion harmonizes well with the so-called phenomenological
school of psychology, which can be summarized by the assertion:

   "Duh, nobuddy is really insane. Everybuddy is sane in deir own way!"

I leave you in their hands.

>My point is that they are entirely different instruments and such direct
>comparisons do not prove anything.  In addition, I would say that you have
>been taught to think of a violin as a "better" instrument than a "banjo".
>AN insturment (or voice) should NOT be judged only in relation to its
>application to Classical Music.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that the only kind of music we've
been discussing is that which has evolved directly out of Western musical
tradition, let's look at the immediate issue.
Remember, first of all, that we have been discussing the versatility
of the instrument, not whether the respective instruments'
sounds are more or less beautiful. No doubt there are some poor
tin-eared listeners who prefer the sound of the banjo above that of
any other instrument. There is no doubt of any kind, however,
that a Strad is a more versatile instrument than a banjo.
This is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. Obviously, this type
of comparison does not necessarily hold when applied to other
instruments. (You have presented the completely inappropriate
alternative comparison between the guitar, a stringed instrument,
and the drum, a percussive instrument, which IED ignores as irrelevant,
since the extrapolation that there must, or must not, be a
qualitative difference between a drum and a guitar is specious,
and was not suggested by IED's original comparison at all.) A banjo
may be many people's favorite instrument. It may be very charming
to listen to. It may even have a certain limited range of expression.
But a banjo is not capable of producing the range of sounds that
a good violin is capable of producing. Both are stringed instruments,
but the banjo was developed more or less at the tail-end of the
stringed instrument's evolution -- an evolution which is very widely
thought to have peaked in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth
centuries. Now, it is possible to imagine a fairly faithful imitation
of the banjo's sound played by a talented violinist on a Strad; but
the banjo, even when put in the hands of a master banjoist,
is utterly incapable of sounding like a violin. Since
the issue here is not quality but versatility, IED rests his case.

As for IED's having been "taught" to prefer one sound over another,
this is partially true. Once again, your basic prejudice against
cultural education emerges. Everyone's taste is affected by the
influence of his environment; and this is not always for the best.
To decide, in reaction to this fact, that no-one's taste has any
more merit than anyone else's, and that a culture is no more capable
of judging the value of its own art than a foreign culture -- in
short, that all critical judgment of art is without value -- to decide
this is stupid.

>>> Andy, I'll have to agree with you here.  One should not listen to
>>> her music with expectations, but rather with reservations.

>>And why's that Kyle?

>Because I find her voice quite annoying at times!

A perfect example of sloppy thinking. It would be fair of you
to say: "I listen to Kate's voice with reservations, because
I find her voice quite annoying at times." To suggest that
"one" SHOULD listen to it with "reservations" simply because
YOU find it annoying is silly. You're mistaking this personal
taste of yours -- which you developed alone, in a vacuum, unaffected
by any such foul influence as "teaching" -- for the basis of a valid
argument.

> Must I refer to myself in the third person?

Once again, IED is really very sorry that his references to
himself in the third person annoy some of the readers of
this publication; and he will refrain from making the obvious
remarks that suggest themselves in regard to Mr. Slime's
means of identifying himself.

> Worship before the "perfect" Kate?

It wouldn't hurt. Clearly you are someone in
need of salvation.

-- Andrew Marvick