Re: Phase II

[Mike Machnik <mike_m@apollo.com>]

In article <8905232039.AA15033@sparcy.arc.UUCP> arc!ken@apple.com writes:
>        Actually, the coherent reason was in my posting, but I didn't
>spell it out word for word; since some require that, here it is.  I am
>getting tired of seeing a posture masquerading as "tastes".  Only a
>posture, is reducible to a formula.  When Joy Division first came out,
>I would read that sort of posturing frequently in NME.  The clue here
>is not the 9s and 10s, it's the 0s and 1s ("zero means that you detest
>the artist - you would rather have several of your appendages ripped
>off than listen to them" - from Phase II instruction).  This posture
>has as its essential elements that any older musicians are
>automatically "dinosaurs", and that only the newer artists (who rip
>off the older ones) are "cool".

    Ken, let's see if I can get it through your thick skull
    this time around.

    First, I don't read NME.  Never have.  I don't give a damn what
    they or anyone else says about JD or any new/old artists.  Why
    should I?  I don't read it, and I don't have access to it.  All
    I know about it is what people quote from it on the net (and
    that's not much).

    I like what I like, because I like it.  It's as simple as that.
    I'm not some 14-year-old who thinks Paul McCartney's first band
    was Wings (or that he was never in a band).  I have heard, many
    times, the music which I voted against.  How many times have
    you listened to 'Abbey Road', Ken?  I'll bet I've listened to
    it several hundred times.  The same goes for 'Relayer', 'Trilogy',
    and 'To Our Children's Children's Children' (though I still
    do like "Gates of Delirium").  At one time I liked many of
    these artists.  I still have most of their albums.  A few years
    ago, I got sick of listening to the same old stuff over and over
    and started looking for newer material.  How much have you
    heard of the music I gave my *best* ratings to, Ken?  Are you
    as qualified as I am?

    I think I have heard enough of these artists to know whether 
    or not I like them.  In fact, if you read my followup, you know
    that I used to like many of the ones I voted down.  A person's
    tastes change as he moves through life.  Or are yours stagnant?

    I like some music.  I don't like others.  But unlike a number of
    people, I don't claim to hate types of music I am unfamiliar with.
    For example, I don't like heavy metal.  But I do have a number
    of HM albums from when I used to like it (along with the other
    bands I voted down).  

    I never said any of this music was worthless, and I don't criticize
    other people's tastes.  People like what they like.  There's
    nothing wrong with that.  Or is there, Ken?

>        For example, Simple Minds are not bad artists (I have a few of
>their albums), but they are not worthy of "worship... they can do
>wrong".  Plus the band members a) probably have all the "0"s and "1"s
>in their record collections, since they were influenced by all those
>artists, and b) some of their albums were produced by Steve Hillage,
>an old-fogey "dinosaur" who has been slagged in the media (ever seen
>"The Young Ones"?) for being the "Grateful Dead" [="0"] of the UK.

    I don't care if Kerr has every Dead album and plays them
    24 hours a day.  I DO NOT like the Grateful Dead.  In fact, I
    can't stand them.  I like Simple Minds - in fact, just as most people
    here might list Kate as their favorite artist, I would list
    Simple Minds.  I do not "worship" them (no, I do not "worship"
    any human being...except perhaps Bobby Orr :-), but they are
    my favorite band.  That is why I gave them a 10.  Perhaps I
    bent the rules a bit.  

    If you had bothered to peruse my list a bit more closely, you
    would have noticed that one of the artists I gave a '1' to was
    Tracy Chapman.  A "dinosaur", eh, Ken?  Kind of negates your
    entire argument, doesn't it?

>        I think the Phase II compiler should throw out scores below 4;
>being really opposed to some art form is either a posture or it means
>that you don't really understand it.  [4 is what you might give
>something that you thoroughly understand, but find mediocre (given the
>implications for one's appendages of a zero!).]

    You're full of sh*t.  The idea was to state how much you liked an
    artist.  Your brilliant idea would throw off all of the results.
    Example: if ten people reply to this, and one REALLY worships the
    Grateful Dead and travels everywhere with them and gives them a 10,
    and the other 9 are fans of "80s" music, can't stand the Dead,
    and give them 1's and 2's, those scores would be thrown out
    according to your compiler and the result would be one score of
    10.  The average would be 10.  Therefore, the average of rating
    208 groups would be, in part, that the 10 people, on average,
    worship the Grateful Dead.  Remember, the original rules said
    not to rate an artist you knew nothing about (and presumably
    these non-ratings would be ignored in calculating the final
    average so as not to affect the average).  

    Of course, if those nine were totally unfamiliar with the Dead
    and thus didn't rate them, we'd get the same result...but at
    least the way it is set up, those who don't like them have
    as much of a chance to be counted as those who do, thus 
    increasing the probability of a more accurate representation
    of the whole.  We can say (in the above example) that of those
    familiar with the Dead, the average score was 10.  That could
    not be said in your model.

    Ken, did you *really* graduate from Surfin' State U?  :-)

>In article <106140@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> you write:
>>>       Oh, Sun...that *would* explain it.  Try sending your messages
>>>       via a different route next time.  :-)
>>Mike,
>>
>>What does Sun have to do with this?
>
>	Because being "anti-Sun" is the "posture" of this Apollo employee.
 
    Open your eyes, Ken.

    Right after my words about Sun is something called a smiley.  Know
    what that is?  Did you ever think that perhaps that was intended
    to be a JOKE?  Only one Sun employee apparently took a bit of offense
    at that, and I quickly replied to him, explaining my intent.  The
    rivalry between Sun and Apollo has resulted in many anti-Sun 
    and anti-Apollo jokes (the key word here is JOKE).  In fact, I'm
    partly Polish - and I laugh just as hard at a Polish joke as 
    anyone else.

    Do you leave your sense of humor at home when you go to work?

>	[This is not a flame; I am writing this on an Apollo DN-3000.
>I just wanted to point out this posturing which, in general, is based
>more on being opposed than being in favor of anything positive.]

    What is this continued flap about posturing?  I've never heard
    of such a phenomenon.  Is this a SoCal type of thing?   I showed
    your comments to a friend of mine, and she laughed long and hard,
    since she knows that if anything I am one of the greatest
    optimists around.  I think it is utterly hilarious how you
    try to practice your net.psychology (undoubtedly also a degree obtained
    from Surfin' State U).  Please, Ken, stop.  I can't handle it.
    My sides are splitting.

    BTW, it doesn't matter to me that you're writing on a DN3000.  So am I.
    If someone attacks me unjustifiably, I am going to defend myself.

    Again, I don't think many others want to read this.  You attacked me
    for sending a reply meant for one person to the entire group; then,
    you turn around and do the same thing.  I only sent this message to
    the group because I believe I deserve an equal opportunity to answer
    what you said.  If you have anything to add, my mailbox is waiting.


    - mike