Re: Ken, you called?

[brownfld@rcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth R Brownfield)]

vickie@pilot.njin.net (Vickie Mapes) writes:
>Vickie>> In which alternate universe? (Besides gaffa & Ecto, I mean)
>First mistake, I jumped into the thread. Second mistake, I tried to
>make a joke. Third mistake, I forgot to use a smiley.

     That third one was the doozey.  ;)  Keep that first one in mind for
the end of this beast.

>Ken>>> If I say that Happy Rhodes' upper range is a near-dead-ringer
>Ken>>> for Kate's, is that an insult because I can't think of a single
>Ken>>> bloody singer that's similar to Black Francis? 
>Vickie>> No, of course not. Then again, Happy's upper range *is* a near-dead-
>Vickie>> ringer for Kate's, so this example isn't a good one.
>K>     In other words, what you're saying is that if Singer A is compared to
>K> Kate, and it's not a really accurate comparison (in who's mind?) then it
>K> _is_ insulting?  There's so much opinion in making comparisons that it can't
>K> be seriously considered as an insult, can it?  Opinions are these harmless
>K> little things that can only be harmful if there are contradictory facts.
>K> Which there aren't, in this case.
>I am *so* confused. Ken, you're jumping on me for something I never said.
>You can "in other words" all you like, but I never said, or meant, that

     Well, the "in other words" was meant to be "Is this what you mean?"
not "in other words, you're saying this bizarre thing that I'm misconstruing."
If that's not what you meant, please correct me, that's what I'm asking.
And for the Gods' sake, I didn't jump on you!

[...]
>Ken, what we have here is a massive case of miscommunication. I'll take
>the blame because I a)jumped into this discussion against my better
>judgement and b)didn't make it perfectly clear that...
>I  am  not  insulted  by  comparisons  between  Tori  and  Kate.

     Yes, I think you got caught up in the argument.  Sorry to bring you
down to such a low level.  ;)  But keep this in mind for the end of this
article, too.

[...]
>Do we understand each other here? Forget the insults part, forget the
>comparisons part. If you had said that Kate was an "admitted major
>influence" on Happy, I would gladly agree with you, because Happy has
>said so herself. But when you're talking aobut Tori, I'd say "show me
>the article/interview where Tori 'admitted' that Kate has been a 'major
>influence' on her style." I'm only taking you to task for attributing
>something to Tori that she never said, not *your opinion* that Kate has
>been an influence on Tori. Got it?

     Oh, I understand.  I'm just not sure that what Tori says is
necessarily going to be the truth.  Kate was never terribly clear and
concise.  ;)  Seriously, the only reason I was pushing the fact that I hear
Kate influences in Tori's music was for the comparisons and insulting
bit.  I have absolutely no factual evidence that Tori was influenced by Kate.
I find it very hard to believe that she wasn't, in my opinion (everyone
get out their salt-grain counters.)  But I also don't really expect a
singer today to come out and say she was influenced by Kate Bush.  I mean,
they're getting enough comparisons to Kate as it is, right?
     So while I plead ignorance, I refuse to believe the press, and to an
extent I have my doubts about what the artists say themselves.  Now,
Vickie, before you interpret that wrong, I'm not saying that Tori is
influenced by Kate, and that she's lying to the world!  All I'm saying is
that the "influenced by" judgment can only be made with the entire brain
contents of Tori.  Mind readers, anyone?  ;)  My opinion yes, there's
an influence.  In truth?  Only Tori knows, and maybe she doesn't realize it.

[...]
about 4I:
>Another mistake on my part. I did mean their music (everything in general,
>including vocals, lyrics and style) but didn't make that clear. "4I" is
>my own personal "genre" that I put my favorites into. When confusion
[...]

     All well and good, that clears that up.  Speaking of genres, though,
how many 4I artists are male?  While I am aware that your program focus is on
female performers (and don't short you for it,) I think this has some impact
on the talk about comparisons and sex differences (an argument that will
hopefully die, and that Vickie has absolutely no part in! :)

>K>>>  And owning her album, I'll say that anyone who denies the 
>K>>> hints and breezes of similarity is deluding themselves and ignoring 
>K>>> Tori's art.

     Well, you hadn't denied hints and breezes yet, and I did say
"anyone."  ;)  My wording lacked eloquence, it implies that if you don't
hear Kate influences, you're a dolt.  Which is NOT what I meant to say.  Feh.
Open foot.  No offense intended.
     Keep in mind that English has no plural form of you.

>K>     None at all?  Zero?  No sense of influence?  Tori's musical style
>K> was created with an entire lack of outside influence?  Feh.
>Watch that sarcasm Ken. Yes, of course Tori's musical style was created
>with the help of outside influences. Bartok and Robert Plant. 

     Robert Plant?  Hmm, have to spin that Tori CD again...
     Was that all?  Is that all Tori said, or knows about, and all the
people that have had any influences at all?  Now the reason I'm being
cantankerous about this is that I want to make sure you understand what
I mean to say.  What I'm trying to get across is not that "my opinion that
Tori was influenced by Kate is an undeniable fact," but rather that NO one
knows exactly, for sure, and completely, what influenced Tori.  Or ANY
other artist.  I've learned from being cynical at what Kate has said in the
past.  ;)  And that Tori may be influenced by music she's heard, but doesn't
make the connection.  That's my theory and experience, anyway.
     And I think you agree with me?  So ta da, end of that haggard subject.

[...]
>K>  My opinion of similarity (and the
>K> opinion of "journalists") has no limiting or insulting properties. 

>*I* never said it did.

     No, I know that, but the way you jumped in did kindof imply a side.
Which is unfortunate (but I still hate you!  :-)  Ignore what I said, it
was rather obviously not aimed at you (or anyone in particular besides the
other side of the argument on the whole.)

[...]
>K>  You're putting some kind of "=" sign between two names.

>I have no idea what you mean.

     Replace "You're" with "The other side of this argument is".  I was
implying that comparisons do not translate directly to an "="or "<" sign,
but on the (tres) grand scale of the argument, not our discussion.

>K> This can be limiting if the reader finds the writer's opinion to
>K> be incorrect and thus misrepresenting an artist (a certain form of an
>K> insult, I guess,) but IN AND ONLY IN THE OPINION OF THE _READER_.
>I still have no idea what you mean, or what it has to do with anything
>I said. 

     Well, it has to do with the insulting stuff.  Unpopular opinions
of artist influences are not insults.  Throw it on the pile that already
says "irrelevant to our discussion."  ;)

>K>     So I can't argue against the possible fact that you are insulted by
>K> comparisons to Tori and Kate.  That's your prerogative.
>I just want to know one thing. Where, in my original post, did you get
>the idea that comparisons between Tori and Kate insulted me? Show me,
>point it out, make it clear to me why you said this. (though yeah, I
>noticed you said "possible") 

     When I was in the "insults/comparisons argument mindset" and you
responded to my note in that string, I assumed you were involved in the
argument, and your (big quote marks) "defense" of Tori made me assume your
position.
     So basically, what I said is irrelevant if you were completely
ignoring the argument string.  Which makes me think that maybe jumping
in without a lot of notes that you didn't want to be, and were not involved
in the argument was a bit of a mistake.  I'm sorry, but there was no
evidence that should have warned me to the contrary.  I'm sorry that the
confusion happened, but I see no reason to apologize for what I said.  I
will however, in the future, only read what you say, completely independent
of the context.  Which is probably worse, come to think of it.

>K>  But saying that
>K> the person who made the comparison is being a pecker is rediculous.
>Now Ken, I've waited a day and counted to 120,000, but it hasn't helped.
>I'm still furious at this.
>WHEN DID I CALL ANYONE A "PECKER" AND WHY WOULD YOU SAY THAT I DID?

     Hehehehehehehe... I can just picture you sitting at the Amiga (still?)
and raging at me.  :)  Now, I see no "you said" or "But because you said"
in that sentence.  By pecker, I meant that the people who think comparisons
(regardless of sex) were insulting are basically calling the people
making the comparisons dolts, insensitive.  Peckers.  I ask you to pardon
my choice of emotionally charged insult-example.  But please admit that
it's hard to believe I would say that to you for no reason.  Am I such
the devil, all of the sudden?  Has my demeanor over the net become some
perverse, evil form of my demeanor in person?
     Again, I assumed you were part of the argument, as you observed.  My
whole post is going to be making that assumption (and realize that a lot of
my arguments were not aimed at you at all, but the original argument you
accidentally hopped into.)

[...]
>I never called anyone a "pecker" and I think that this is where you owe
>me an apology for putting words in my mouth. Something I never said,
>meant, or thought.

     Well, I will apologize if you were hurt, but I never directed that
statement to any one specific person.  You misunderstood (again, because you
were an unwilling participant in the argument.  I understand that, please
realize that's what happened and account for that in what I posted in the
past!)

>K>     What seems to have slipped under the rug is that people's opinions are
>K> their opinions.  Disagreeing with said opinions does not make the opinions
>K> evil.
>Fine! I agree! I never said anything about anyone else's opinions. You
>however, seem to be outraged at *my* opinion that Kate and Tori are not
>very similar. Sheesh!

     Uh, I never said that this applied to you.  The argument, remember?
     And I'm not outraged, I am vehemently arguing my case.  If you aren't
involved in the argument, why are you even paying attention to it?  I have
no problem with your "opinion" in the all-inclusive general sense.  But
when you brought up factual evidence for Tori's influences, I think your
opinion was based on possibly flawed information.  That is _ALL_ I am
implying.  That is MY opinion.  Flushable at any time.

>K> It's every person's right not to
>K> like Tori or Happy, or OH MY GOD, EVEN KATE!!!! *gasp*  Not liking
>K> an artist, and criticizing their music is an expression of opinion.
>Absolutely. But what does this have to do with anything I said?

     Nothing.

[...]
>K>     Are you giving the same respect to peoples' honest opinions?
>Yes, I am. Are you?

     Yes I am, are you?  :-)

>K> Please keep in mind that the force of my argument was really pressed 
>K> over the edge, if you will, by flatulent burblings of sexism and male
>K> chauvanist pig-dominated societies, et.al. 
>I don't really care. It's not an excuse to jump to conclusions about me,
>read things into my post that weren't there, put words into my mouth,
>disregard my opinions, and assume all kinds of things about me that simply
>aren't true. My vagueness isn't an excuse for you either. You assumed
>too much and jumped on me for no reason.

     This last paragraph is patently false.  If it's just upset "ravings"
then no problem.  But you explained and apologized for jumping into an
argument that you wanted no part of.  While I am sorry that the mess you
have helped create occurred, you're also putting some words and
implications in my mouth.  Disregarding your opinions!  Gads, even if I
WAS disregarding your opinions, what is the definition of opinion anyway!
     Everything to do with the comparisons/insults was part of the
Argument.  If you wish to apologize for getting involved, and then move
what happened over into the realm of (obviously and explainably absent)
personal insult, that's not really fair to me either, is it?  Do you really
think I would eat you up for no apparent reason?
     I'm insulted, and I think you need to apologize to me!  ;)
     Seriously.  I'm not going to apologize for the argument I was involved
in, or any statements I made.  I can only make nice and apologize that you
were emotionally distraught by it.  But then again, I thought you already
blamed it on circumstance?
     I made assumptions of your side and point of view in regard to the
argument you contributed to, but I find no reason that should have stopped
me.  Better informed, I now know that you were not and are not involved in
that article thread.  If you had said that in the first place (as you
regretted earlier in your post) this all would have been avoided.
     So why the bad karma?

>Vickie


--
                                                        Ken.
(217) 352-5679                                   brownfld@uiuc.edu