Solipsistic Aesthetics

[Robert Stanzel <apollo!rps>]

>But just as obviously, the latter challenge (which IED DID make)
>can, theoretically, be discussed at great length, and with the
>promise of real insight on the part of all parties, since such
>matters as intricacy of melodic structure, layers of sonic information,
>the multivalence of symbols in lyrics, etc. can all be compared and
>gauged with a high degree of objectivity, and WITHOUT raising the
>boring and insoluble question of whether such intricacy is GOOD
>or BAD, NECESSARY or UNNECESSARY, VALUABLE or WORTHLESS, etc.

You're right that these matters can be discussed at great length; this
list demonstates that amply.  However, few, if any, of these
discussions have proven your conclusion that a high degree of
objectivity is involved.  How often have we seen a discussion
terminated with "You're right, the {eg, Durutti Column's} music really
does have the {most intricate melodic structure, etc}"?  After we've
all had our say, we end up viewing the insights others have offered
through our own filters -- as witness:

>But the issue was the relative complexity and multiplicity of
>meaning in Eno's lyrics to KATE's; IED, at any rate, can't
>really find too much depth of meaning in the majority of Eno's
>lyrics, whereas the words in The Dreaming and HoL are laced with
>symbols, hidden personae, dramatic situations, and syntactical
>mysteries that are -- for about the first time in rock music --
>entirely free of bombast and pretension.

You may not, IED, but quite a few of us out there can (the number is
immaterial).  Likewise, lots of people find Kate full of pretension;
eg, I find parts of the second half of HoL bombastic.  (Define
bombastic?  No way.  Remember those personal filters.)  My point is
that you can't just state the above as facts and trust us to agree
that it's the Truth.  There's no Truth in aesthetic matters.

Rob Stanzel             UUCP:  ...{decvax!wanginst, mit-eddie}!apollo!rps
-------