IEDSRI Translation

[DSearch@aol.com]

IEDSRI made a number of interesting points in "Excessive rabidity vs.
excessive rapidity?", a response to my recent post.  It is unfortunate,
however, that his post was composed in an alien tongue, making it difficult
to take in the full extent of the communication.  As a public service to
Lovehounds readers, a translation of IED's salient points is provided below:

<< If one wants to say, for example, that "Experiment IV [is] a bit
pretentious," or that "Lionheart isn't quite as strong [as TKI]," one has a
perfect right to do so, of course; but what value can the skeptical reader
attach to such judgments in the total absence of substantive, substantiating
argument?>>

Here, IED asserts the following:
1.  A person has the right to express his or her impressions of art (such as
recorded music) or the response such art invokes in the eyes and ears of the
beholder.  That is, except for...
2.  All reactions to works of art must be intellectual in nature.  Emotional
or intuitive responses are not valid.  Judgments and opinions only, if you
please, and make damn sure you come to this court with adequate supporting
evidence or your case will be thrown out.

A "substantive, substantiating argument" to support one's gut-level response
to music?  Any reader looking for reasons to justify subjective impressions
of art might be well advised to first examine his own pretensions -- er,
perspective in the matter. :)

<< Anyway, an artistic misfire by an artist of Kate Bush's caliber would
certainly be as interesting and even artistically nourishing as the finest
work we could ever hope to receive from any other living artist. >>

This is an atypically straightforward assertion by IED.  However, I for one
would be interested in the "substantive, substantiating argument" in support
of it.  Alas, it seems more likely we'll have to settle for the trademark
sweeping declaration encased in amusing highbrow hokum.  

<< Ooh!  A city by Kate Bush!  It's a fabulous concept!  It sounds like an
absolutely terrific thing -- what would lead you to think such a project
might not be worthwhile? Surely not quibbling objections about a lack of
training in urban planning, engineering, architecture, etc. -- surely Kate
Bush could afford technical advisors. >>

A typically humorous IEDism.  I smile every time I read it.  As to the point
being made, Kate can also afford record producers and engineers.  As well as
experienced video directors.  Funding is not the issue.  As much as I love
Kate -- and, believe me, I do -- her management style would most likely
dictate using her bass player to design the city's sewer system. :)

<< ..."critical" Love-Hounds postings... are, more often than not, too-hasty
expressions of the writers' fleeting personal preferences... ...everyone has
an equal right to a voice in the public information-stream; but that doesn't
mean that we should... all spill our ids out into that already roiling
current armed with a false confidence that whatever we say must be of value
simply because we have said it... Have our customs of public discourse really
declined to such an extent that any writer's pronouncement about any subject
at all must be received with perfect equanimity.. no matter how flippant or
flimsy that pronouncement might be?>>

Here, IED has concluded that he either doesn't like or agree with my original
comments.  Additionally, not only does he consider my points to be invalid,
he is implying that they are the product of a lesser intellect because they
are different than his own.  Or the criteria I used as the basis for my
comments were different than and thus inferior to his own.  He does it
charmingly, but make no mistake -- this _is_ his communication.

To this I say:  

Fuck you. 

:)

<<IED thanks you for your wonderfully intriguing questions and comments,
David,
and means no disrespect -- honest.>>

Here, IED makes a vain attempt to dress up his covert insults with
platitudes.  "Knife, what knife, I didn't stick any knife in your back, you
silly thing, you!"  Cute.  But deadly.  As John Lennon (who was, of course,
no Kate) sang, "First you must learn how to smile as you kill."  You've
learned exceedingly well, Andy.

<< IED... one who still tends to come down on people like a ton of bricks,
however gentle he tries to be... >>

It's not a matter of gentle vs. harsh or abrasive.  This is a situation where
someone is taking cheap shots while trying to convince everyone they're not.

You're welcome to attack me, Andy, if that's what you feel compelled to do.
 This is an open forum.  You're within your rights to be a shit here.
 However, common courtesy would dictate you be a clean and straightforward
shit, not a sneaky one.

Your intellect and your literate, entertaining style are enviable gifts.  You
undermine them and yourself when you resort to stealth tactics.

-- David Reff