Re: Musical tastes and tasteless arguments

[Kaleidoscope <lawtonj@project4.computer-science.manchester.ac.uk>]

In <1991Jun19.164149.25140@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbema.att.COM (Neal R Caldwell, Ii) writes:

>>From article <9106190910.AA02366@greylady.uoregon.edu>, by stevev@greylady.uoregon.EDU (Steve VanDevender):

Bits deleted all over the place to make everyone else look a little 
unbalanced in their opinions.......

>> What I can't figure out, Richard, is why you think that Vickie
>> doesn't consider it a matter of opinion, that Vickie is not
>> allowing others room for disagreement, or that any other
>> reasonable reader is not going to consider musical taste and
>> music recommendations as matters of opinion no matter how the
>> author might word their posts.

>In many cases I would agree with you, Steve.  But I think it must be
>said that you can't say anything you please as ardently as you like 
>and then dodge critisism by saying it was all just a statement of
>opinion.  The abbreviation "IMO" is widely used on the net because most
>people realize that it is important to note that you understand 
>that something is a matter of opinion when dealing with sensitive 
>issues.

>It should be obvious to any Love-Hound that claiming that another
>artist has the same sort of magic and spirit as Kate is precisely such
>an issue.

This IMO (IMHO) thing really bugs me (but that's just my opinion) - surely
most people out there should be able to detect sarcasm, or opionated speech.
In fact it's rather obvious that when talking about music outside of just
analysing it's components then one MUST be making a subjective opinion.
Tell me exactly how do you make objective writing on music (or at least
objective and interesting writing). The best writing connected with music
I have read is inspired by the music, by the writers obsessions, by, oh
who cares. But they never say, 'in my humble opinion' - mostly because to
write like that you don't conside your opinion humble; you've just discov-
ered the best piece of music in the world, you want to communicate your love
for it to everyone - you aren't going to sit back & then say, 'but that's
just what I think, but I'd get a few other opinions first'. Do you notice
many 'real' reviewers (tell me the difference between me writing here, and
me being published in a newspaper?) declaring that the review is purely
their opinion & no one else's? No, because the nature of a review makes it
implicit that the writing is a personal opinion (I need a thesaurus with
different words for opinion in it!!!!). Sorry to flame at great length 
about this but it just seems stupid when the whole way we view the world
is subjective to try & insist we get closer to some 'real' truth.

I mean the fact that this newsgroup is based around people who think that
Kate is the most important musical artiste in the world shows that some
people have a pretty warped view of reality anyway (should I put a smiley
in here?). If we didn't have so many IMOs & :-) people might learn to read
what people are saying (and it might allow a little interesting ambiguity).

>Say someone here touts Artist X as the greatest thing since Kate Bush (in 
>that ever so useful hyperbolemic style).  A friend tells me that Artist X 
>sounds like someone abusing a chimpanzee with a garden rake.  Is it not 
>fair for me to point out my friend's opinion when explaining why I have
>not rushed out and bought the new Artist X release?

But hearing that would make me want to investigate - if the two views are
that extreme then there is likely to be something to the music that causes
such violent opinions. I tend to avoid stuff that is mundanely described by
everyone as OK - I mean I quite like Tania Tikaram's first LP but the general
reaction from everyone in the UK (and on gaffa/love-hounds) is such that I'm
hardly encouraged to investigate the later ones, when something like Happy
exists that I'm more likely to have a strong opinion, either way on - there's
every chance that the Tanita LP would be a waste of money as I have so much
music I already REALLY like, so it would never get played, but a 50/50 chance
(about, judging byt the opinions given here) I'd find Happy as exciting as
Kate.

>Is this suddenly members only with any citation of the opinions of
>outsiders to be viewed as subterfuge?  Does it depend on whether 
>they tow the line?

A point on which I really do agree, just to balance the flaming out. I guess
it might have been acceptable to have quoted a magazine review Richard, as
that's an accepted source.


Julian Lawton - University Of Manchester - England