Re: not about the Moody Blues

[prs@oliven.atc.olivetti.com (Philip Stephens)]

In article <8704141956.AA08645@uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU> Love-Hounds writes:
>Really-From: hsu%uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU@a.cs.uiuc.edu (William Tsun-Yuk Hsu)
>
Bill:
>>>Uh-oh, my pet peeves... How do you DEFINE "normal" or "proper"? Who
>>>makes these "standards"? And why must music need a good reason to "pass
>>>beyond the bounds of what is normal or proper"? I would have no problems

Did I say it needed a reason?  Not what I meant to say, if I seemed to.

>>>with your statement had it been something like "I like what's normal and
>>>proper", but you claimed to like "weirdness". 

I should have mentioned in my previous reply that you and I are using two
different but correct definitions of "weird".  Yours is the colloquial
"startlingly or extraordinarily singular, odd, or queer: a weird getup";
mine is the first listed in the American College Dictionary (the one that
happens to be on my desk is all): "involving or suggesting the supernatural;
unearthly or uncanny: a weird scene, light, or sound".  We're both right.


>Phil:
>>My point is that *you* are defining your own normal and proper to reject my
>>taste, and defining outre in terms of violating what some people you hate
>>(you parents? teachers?) consider normal and proper.  Just another turn of 
>>the idiotic wheel.
>
Bill:
>Ummm... I never linked "normal and proper" with anyone's tastes. I have
>nothing against people liking music that's different from mine, but don't 
>point to a complex sound collage and say: THAT'S not music.

Are you imagining that I did?  Not so.  Such thoughts have occurred to me,
but I wouldn't utter it without at least the disclaimer "to me", implying
that I consider musicality a matter of taste, not an absolute.

>I believe that "normal and proper" are arbitrary standards imposed for a
>variety of reasons, and especially when I discuss something like music,
>I try not to be bound by preconceived ideas of what (normal and proper)
>music *should* be like. THAT'S what I was trying to say: (almost) nothing
>should be too outre/bizarre/unacceptable/violent (physically or emotionally) 
>if it works (in some vague sense) within the piece of music/art/fiction.
>(The "almost" gives me a convenient escape hatch for things like bigotry,
>racism, etc.)
>
>I also get on very well with my parents and my teachers.

I'm sorry I gave the impression of being more closed minded than I really am.
You are certainly welcome to make and/or listen to anything you like, as long
as I don't have to listen to stuff twice that I don't like.  (In principle, 
that is; in practice I don't have much choise in grocery stores etc, but that
aint YORE fault).

Bill:
>>>Hof has shown open-mindedness and sophistication in his appreciation of
>>>music. You have not. 
>
>Phil:
>>Meaningless statement.  I complained a little, and now you think you know
>>enough about me to pass judgement.  
>
Bill:
>All I said was "You have not SHOWN etc." No judgements passed; please parse
>sentence again. 

Sorry, my objection "Meaningless statement" was not to "You have not shown", 
I was saying that "has shown open-mindedness and sophistication" is 
meaningless, unless I know the person saying it well enough to know what 
they really mean.  I don't.  As for you passing judgement, that was the 
impression I had of your whole reply, not that particular sentence.  
Your present reply does not give so negative an impression.

Phil:
>>Considering what you have said (below)
>>about music you happen not to like, I don't think much of your perspective
>>on openness nor sophistication.  
>
Bill:
>I like/have liked a wide variety of music. [long list deleted]

Oh, so *that's* what you mean by open-minded.  Differing definitions again.
To me, open-minded means accepting and repectful of other people's
sensibilities, which your flames at the time did not seem to show.

>
>>So you're asking me to be trendy and not like the Moody Blues because they
>>are out of fashion, or because you personally don't like them. 
>
Bill:
>No, go ahead and like whatever you want. 

Likewise.  I guess I misunderstood your intent.

>No, go ahead and like whatever you want. Last time we had this '70s art
>rock debate in love-hounds, I promised not to repeat my position on the
>much-revered dinosaurs in this forum, so I won't. Send me email if
>you're interested. And good luck with Hof's tape...
>
>Bill

E-mail?  I respectfully decline.  Let's agree to disagree and leave it at
that.  I do intend to send for Hof's tape, as he has graciously replied in
the affirmative.

I'm not really as hostile as I sounded, I'm just grouchy sometimes, especially
when the pollen-count is high.  No permanent offense intended.


	- Phil		prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens)     {really oliven}
	or, if that fails:	{get to 'ames' somehow, then}!oliveb!prs 

Mail welcome, but my mailer seldom cooperates when I try to reply.