Re: Re-posting of private e-mail exchange between Steve and Andy

[Jon Drukman <jsd@GAFFA.MIT.EDU>]

I know I promised that I wouldn't continue this any further, but I'm
breaking the promise because a) there are points here that warrant
rebuttal and b) at the end of this posting, I will accede to most of
the demands of the readership and call a truce to this ridiculous
fighting.  Maybe.

In article <8912071947.AA18338@EDDIE.MIT.EDU> IED0DXM@OAC.UCLA.EDU writes:
>I do think you
>should know, however, that the present "flame-war" (for want of a
>better term) that you have found so hard to take is actually rather
>mild in comparison to many others that we've had in Love-Hounds over
>the last four years. I'm pretty sure Jon Drukman (who's been with us
>since the beginning, too) would tell you the same thing.

I haven't actually been here since the beginning, but I've been here
for a long time now (three years and three months).  Indeed, this
"war" is incredibly civilized in comparison to the Ancient Days Of
Yore.  Fortunately, most of the truly reprehensible members of the
lovehound community have moved to pastures greener.  Thank god.

>It really
>depends on one's perspective: to you (and no doubt to many of the
>relative newcomers to the group) the current controversy must seem
>a bit shocking; but to me and to Drukman, Doug Alan and Joe Turner
>(to name some of the rare Love-Hounds readers who have survived
>since the early days), it is the last year or so in Love-Hounds that
>seems bizarre--for its atmosphere of good will and bonhomie--not
>vice versa. In fact, I suspect that one prime motivation
>of Jon's for posting the things he's been saying recently has
>been deliberately to start a fight with IED (he knows exactly
>how to get my goat)--perhaps just for old time's sake.

Conflict is part of any good society.  Things would be rather
static and uninteresting without it.  If there were no debate in
this group, you'd get a letter once a week from someone saying
something like "Kate was played on the radio 47 times today." or
"I have a new interview to submit, here it is." or "My dog
exploded while I was listening to The Dreaming."  In other words,
it would be purely an informational service.  Maybe some people
want this.  Perhaps we could adopt a convention like on funky-list
where stuff that isn't relevant to music is labeled UF (unfunky)
in the subject line.  We could put "KTD" for "KaTe Discussion"
or "KTI" for "KaTe Information."

As for my motives in my recent postings, I must admit that I have a
certain amount of interest in seeing how strong reactions can run
through the LH community, but this is not my prime motivation.  I
honestly believe that Kate's output of late has not been up to the
rigorous standard we've come to expect of her.  If we are simply to be
spoon-fed this second-rate material and just sit still and not
complain about it, then we deserve all the less-than-sterling stuff
that we are getting.  Of course, this argument has one major flaw in
it, and I'll save IED the trouble of pointing it out: we have no
control whatsoever over what Kate does.  We can buy it or not buy it,
and frankly, I'm so in love with Kate's art that I'll buy it no matter
what it is.  But I refuse to rationalize (for example) the removal of
approximately 43 seconds of material (not the one minute that IED
erroneously provides, and yes I've double checked this fact, thank you
very much) from "Be Kind To My Mistakes" as an improvement.  Of
course, as has already been pointed out copious times, I PERSONALLY DO
NOT CONSIDER IT, IN MY OPINION, to be an improvement.  The very fact
that I have to take such pains to point the subjective nature of these
views out angers me greatly.  It should be understood implicitly.  I
have said a million times in the past, and will continue to say it,
that EVERYTHING is subjective concerning art.  The point is, it
shouldn't have to be explicitly pointed out in every posting.  It just
wastes time. 

>     So noted. But I _too_ would consider it ridiculous to criticize
>someone for stating so straightforward and _self-aware_ an expression
>of personal taste. I have never had any beef with people who make
>statements like that. The problem is that almost _no-one_ in Love-Hounds
>ever says something that honest.
[...]
>     Jon, for example, has made any number of statements in
>recent weeks which impugn (to use your excellent word!) Kate
>both as an artist and as a person; whereas in fact it is
>quite plain that the only real basis he has for his dislike of
>the new work is his own (rather limited) personal taste.

Blah blah blah.  Show me one concrete textual example of me asserting
my opinions as objective truth.  Occasionally, I may qualify my
opinions as the word of God, but I think any intelligent reader could
tell that my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek. 

>Even worse,
>he thinks that his judgement is based on profound musical knowledge--
>and worse, on authoritative knowledge of Kate's work and career--whereas
>the truth, as I have repeatedly shown, is that Jon knows very little
>not only about Kate's music and career, but about music in general!

I really wish you would demonstrate this to me.  I will be the first
to admit that six years of formal piano training and three years
dabbling in modern musical production is not a "profound musical
knowledge." Maybe I don't know much about music in general.  Your
discussion of the classical roots of "Reaching Out" left me in the
dark.  It still has no bearing on my opinions.  Never once have I
claimed that there was an intrinsic quality that makes "Reaching Out"
bad.  I don't like the way it sounds.  The style in which it is
performed may be traceable back to Gregorian chanting for all I care.
It still annoys me. 

>     Now I'll make this promise: the _minute_ Jon admits
>that his judgement of Kate's work is solely a result of his own
>taste, and that he doesn't really have any concrete support for that
>judgement, IED will make a pledge not to bother Love-Hounds again
>about Jon's infantile musical bug-a-boos (not in so many words!);
>and I'll also admit that I can be a bit hasty to flame when I see
>criticism of Kate's work.

Look, I never claimed otherwise, and I'm really quite offended that
you have superimposed your own nasty assumptions on my innocuous
prose, but if it will stop this stupid back and forth pointlessness,
then I admit flat out, unreservedly, and without qualifications, that
my judgement of Kate's work is solely a result of my own taste.  I
only hope that you have enough self-esteem to do the same. 

"It is this that brings us together."


+---------------------- Is there any ESCAPE from NOISE? ----------------------+
|  |   |\       | jsd@gaffa.mit.edu |      "Suck on this,                     |
| \|on |/rukman | jsd@umass.bitnet  |       planet of noise bimbo!"           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+