Gaffaweb >
Love & Anger >
1989-32 >
[ Date Index |
Thread Index ]
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
From: stewarte@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (The Man Who Invented Himself)
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 89 19:19:28 -0800
Subject: Re: Kate-echism XXIX.12.ii
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Organization: Burst Continuous Forms -- The Magazine that Becomes Dry and Wilts
References: <8912030003.AA17789@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: stewarte@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (breakfast surrealist)
For unknown reasons, Andrew (IED) Marvick felt compelled to pointificate as follows: >The _only_ >positive data we have about the placement of the laugh is to >be found in the _British_ edition of the CD. It constitutes the sole >legitimate source of information any of us has to go on. And _it_ >connects the laugh with _Love_and_Anger_. Any other supposition at >this stage--whether it should turn out to be correct or not--is made >without any tangible evidence at all. As far as I can tell, IED, this belief of yours -- that the British CD is more correct than the US version, or corresponding single -- is based on the assumption that it was supervised by Kate. I, for one, find it extremely far-fetched that an artist, even one as concerned with detail as Kate, actually oversees such a mundane part of the mastering process as the location of index points. Unless you have definitive inside information that she did supervise the indexing, I think we have to say that any supposition, one way or the other, is made without tangible evidence. IED also responds to Steve Tynor's quite rational comments thusly: > In regard to this idiotic trend among you and your ilk to criticize >a work of art like _The_Sensual_World_ via factually vapid, musically >ignorant and fundamentally boorish insults of both the music and those >who are capable of appreciating it: go right ahead. You convince no one >but yourselves. IED for one sees no hope of elucidating you and your >fellow fickle cynics about the myriad facets of _TSW_'s perfection. >If your ears can't perceive them, IED's words will go unheard, as well. >So go right ahead--continue to embarrass yourselves with your absurd >checklists of alleged "flaws" in _TSW_: you're just whistling away >in the dark void of your own ignorance. This is quite a textbook example of argumentem ad hominem, IED. You might has well have added a "your momma" to it. Factually vapid? Such as "I don't like it"? To declare that anything Kate does is perfect by definition is the true foolishness. I do not listen to Kate's music searching for flaws, but if there are things I do not like, I don't assume that it is my own ignorance or lack of taste. Such thinking is for the truly insecure, for whom having opinions of their own is just too intimidating. -- Stewart -- "Playing the banjo may make you stupid, but it's worth it." -- Matt Brocchini /* uunet!sco!stewarte -or- stewarte@sco.COM -or- Stewart Evans */