From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sun Mar 20 2005 - 15:59:03 GMT
Platteral Shift #973:
> Your blessing of Pirsig's ruttish escapade with Lila reflects the high
> value you place on promiscuous sex which rock n' roll encourages, whether
> the lyrics are explicit or not. Rock wouldn't be anything without its beat
> of sexual intercourse.
>
Despite a valient rhetorical play, I'm not falling for it, Platt. And luckily,
emails are a "permanent media", to be referenced anytime.
(1) Last time you explicitly stated it was the "overt sexual lyrics" that
"proved" (using Bloom's vapid logic) the "degeneracy of rock".
(2) You explicitly stated that songs with strong sexual innuendo or
suggestiveness were "okay" by saying Peggy Lee was not degenerate at all.
(3) To "prove your point" you provided a quote of sexual lyrics from one song by
Peta Pablo, then patted yourself on the back for this "logic", despite my
challenge that it was an indefensible generalization.
(4) I challenged you that Bloom's (and your own) argument was critically vacant,
specifically on two charges, (a) it lacks any critical definition, for example,
would Bluegrass, Salsa or Polka, or Jazz also be "degenerate"?, and (b) it
lacks contextual relation with other media, for example, why are "overtly
sexual themes" in some rock songs enough for you to launch into a tirade
against "rock", but "overtly sexual themes" in literature (Henry Miller, Anais
Nin, de Sade) or art (nudes) not making you launch into tirades against books
and painting.
(5) I offered you the "out" of making your charge be against things that are
"vulgar sexual references", which would place you square in step with the
Victorians. Your entire "argument" is a ventriliquation of Rigel's described
Victorian prudery, in fact. Are you saying, then, that you admit to siding with
Victorian prudery? Note that this still does not relieve the gaps of critical
logic in your argument, but it does bring clarity to what you are attacking.
Now, above, in an attempt to rhetorically shift the focus from any critical
examination of your (or Bloom's') vapid logic, you only serve to make your own
case even more weak.
You state: (it's the) promiscuous sex which rock n' roll encourages, whether the
lyrics are explicit or not.
(6) You have, to remind everyone again, stated explicitly that strong sexual
innuendo or suggestiveness is no cause for concern. I had mentioned two posts
ago Sinatra and Lee (specifically her "Fever"), and all the sexual activity it
encouraged, and how many teens "gave it up" after being crooned by the Chairman
or Miss Lee. Your response was that there was nothing wrong with their songs,
because there lyrics were not overt like Pete Pablo. To point: Are you claiming
The Clash's "White Man in Hammersmith Palais", a song about '70s youth race
relations in London, "encourages promiscuous sex" while Mozart, Sinatra's
crooning or Peggy Lee "do not"? If you wanted to have sex, Platt, what music
would you put on?
(7) Now you come back (still lacking a critical definition of "rock 'n' roll")
and condemn it for promoting promiscuous sex regardless of its lyrical content.
Why then are Lee's songs that have historically promoted promiscuous sex
exempt? I had further offered the challenge that more people are getting laid
right now to Mozart than The Clash. If "degeneracy" is a function of promoting
sex, Mozart and Sinatra and Peggy Lee are more guilty than bands like The Clash
or The Ramones (or Toby Keith). To point: Peggy Lee's "Fever" encouraged, and
caused, a lot of promiscous sex back then, and continues to today (I know many
people who "use it" as a sexual mood setting song). Why is it immune to your
argument?
Furthermore, you state: Rock wouldn't be anything without its beat of sexual
intercourse.
(8) The same "beat" drives Bluegrass, Jazz, the Blues, Swing, Salsa, Polka
(just listen to Das Furlines out of Wisconsin), Reggae and most world music.
I've been waiting for this, and while I won't point out, yet, the obvious
upper-tier critical divide seperating "all this" from the songs you "exempt", I
will say it is quite visible to anyone with an understanding of muscial roots
and cultural foundations. But, please clarify, as this is part of your lack of
critical definition, which of these "other" musical genres with "beats" either
rooted in, running parallel to, or culturally related to, "rock 'n' roll" are
also "degenerate". Is Salsa degenerate? Bluegrass? Jazz? the Blues? Swing?
Polka? Reggae? World Music in general?
(9) Bloom laughably offer Ravel's Bolero as the one classical piece students are
familiar with, due to its sexual progression. If Ravel has a "beat of sexual
intercourse", I take it you condemn it with as much vehemence as you do "rock
'n' roll"? If no, why not?
(10) If Ravel, a classical work, has a beat of sexual intercourse, as Bloom
states, then it would seem to anyone capable of logical thought that this
condemned "beat" is something that can be found in any musical genre, and the
argument is really an argument against "sex" and not "rock". How do you respond
to this? Isn't it really a matter of Victorian sexual repression? Seems to me
so.
Finally, I "bless Pirsig" for being human, for not falling prey to prudish
Victorian attempts to repress "vulgar" biological Quality. While you trumpet
sexual repression (and Victorian morality) in your condemnation of "sex"
(masquarading as a condemnation of "rock"), Pirsig is out there living and
having fun, drinking with his buddies, getting laid, dancing and thumbing his
nose at your prudery. I'm with him, Platt, no two ways about it. Like I said,
philosophy aside, I'd much rather hang out with Pirsig than Rigel. From your
statements above, I take it you'd rather spend an evening with Rigel,
condemning sex and degeneracy and dreaming of a return to Victorian prudery.
As for the rest of your attempt to rhetorically shift the dialogue, I'll get to
it when you provide clarity to the points above.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 20 2005 - 17:09:42 GMT