From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Mon Mar 21 2005 - 04:46:25 GMT
All,
While Platt attempts universal denials and (surprirse surprise) yet more
rhetorical shifts, Arlo ponders why anyone would attempt such a strange move
considering the permanence of the list.
Before anyone else reads, please note that I try not to repeat all the questions
(every one) Platt tries to deny or shifts away in attempt to avoid. I restate
these briefly in the beginning, as Platt has no critical definition or
consistency to his (or Bloom's) so-called "logic". I've asked for it, he
refuses to provide it. Not surprising, really, given his position, but I
thought I'd state this upfront... you know, for the record.
Here's the sum, the full point-by-point response follows:
What Platt has responded to with only denies and rhetorical shifts.
(1) Are "overt sexual lyrics" (as Platt states on March 19th) the reason for the
"degeneracy of rock"?
(2) Are "strong sexual themes and innuendos", such as Peggy Lee's Fever
acceptable (as Platt stated on March 18th) acceptable because they are either
"covert" or the performer "can sing"?
(3) Are all rock songs sexual because of a quote of Pete Pablo (see his March
19th post)? Why is The Clash's "White Man in Hammersmith Palais" degenerate?
(4) If it is the "beat of sexual intercourse", do you feel Bluegrass, Jazz,
Reggae, Swing, Polka, Salsa and Country-Western degenerate as well? If not,
what critical differentiation are you making between the "beat" of "rock" and
the "beat" of these other genres?
(5) Bloom (a quote provided by Platt) states that Ravel's Bolero is a very
strongly sexually "beat" song. I.e., it has the "beat of sexual intercourse".
If it is the beat, why do you exempt this? You do state below "because it is
artistically superior". Are you saying that "artistically superior" music with
strong sexual themes and the "beat of sexual intercourse" are okay. What
critical differentiation do you use between "artistically superior" and
"artistically inferior"? (Please take critical note of this question, as I know
the answer, and likely does everyone else who's thought about Platt's
contradictions, his condemnation of some sexual songs, his exemption of others,
and his lack of critical ennunciation of his divisions.)
(6) Are "overt sexual references" in other media a foundation for calling those
media "degenerate"? Or, specifically, the individual work of art or literature.
For example, Pirsig's Lila describes a graphic sexual encounter, right down to
her mounting him, with a bar whore. He does not apologize for this, nor state
it was wrong, giving the impression that to Pirsig the encounter was not
immoral at all. Does this make Lila "degenerate literature"? If not, why?
Here's my point-by-point reply.
> Arlo writes:
> > (1) Last time you explicitly stated it was the "overt sexual lyrics" that
"proved" (using Bloom's vapid logic) the "degeneracy of rock".
>
> Wrong.
Right. On March 19th, Platt responded to my post saying "If you can you find
such blatantly sexual lyrics as this ever sung by Frank Sinatra or Peggy Lee,
let me know".
This post challenged Platt on why Peggy Lee's "Fever" was exempt from his call
of "degeneracy". This makes the explicit statement that "overty sexual lyrics"
are degenerate, but strong sexual innuendo and reference, as in "Fever", are
"not degenerate".
So, rather than deal with the critical charge, Platt attempts to deny what he
said.
Please note that Platt has not attempted to reply to (1) why "overt" sexual
themes (blatantly sexual lyrics) are degenerate, while sexually suggestive
lyrics (such as "Fever") are not, or (2) nor why non-sexual themed songs are
still "degenerate".
For the record, then Platt, is it "overt sexual lyrics" or not? Are sexually
suggestive songs not degenerate? And non-sexual rock songs exempt? Please
clarify these positions.
> > (2) You explicitly stated that songs with strong sexual innuendo or
> > suggestiveness were "okay" by saying Peggy Lee was not degenerate at all.
>
> Wrong.
Right. See above. Furthermore, you stated (in defense of sexually suggestive
songs (such as "Fever") or music that promotes sexual promiscuity such as
Sinatra on March 18th, "One big difference: Frank and Peggy could sing, and
Bach and Mozart could compose music." This clearly indicates that "degeneracy"
is allowed if the person "can sing".
Please note that Platt has not responded to my question as to why The Clash's
"White Man in Hammersmith Palais" is degenerate, while Peggy Lee's "Fever" is
not. According to the "logic" he presented to date, this a completely
contradictory position.
Please clarify this position, Platt. Are sexually themed songs permissable if
the artist can "sing"? For the record, if sexual themes and promotion of sexual
promiscuity are the reason for "degeneracy", why do you exempt Peggy Lee? Is it
because "she can sing"?
> > (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.
>
> Wrong.
Right. On March 19th, Platt responded to a challenge that not all rock was
sexual. He replied with a quote from "Pete Pablo - "Freak-a-Leak" video", and
then in the very next sentance said this quote proved Bloom was "right on".
Laughable logic, to be sure. But right there in the permanent media of the
list.
What's the matter Platt, are you too old to remember that the list is permanent?
> > (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"?
>
> Like Satchmo said when asked to define jazz, "If they don't know, you
> can't tell 'em."
Platteral shift. Platt please clarify, which of these musical genres are also
"degenerate": Bluegrass, Salsa, Polka, Jazz, (and let me add) Country -Western.
Why?
For the record, is only "rock" degenerate? If it has nothing to do with the
lyrics, as you suggested last time through in contradiction to your original
post, and it is the "beat", how to you critically separate "rock" from Salsa?
Bluegrass? Jazz? Swing? Country? Is it the metre? Is it the instruments? Is it
the tempo? The chords?
> > 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.
>
> Irrelevant considering the ubiquity of rock.
Platteral shift. Please clarify why you condemn "rock" for sexual themes in some
songs, and yet refuse to make the charge in other media. Or are you suggesting
that "rock" is more "ubiquitous" than books? Can you defend this position, or
are you hoping to deny in it later posts too?
Please answer the question.
> > (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.
>
> Show me where Rigel said anything about rock.
Platteral shift. Rigel clearly promotes sexual prudery in the dialogue, which
underlies your argument. Please clarify, are "sexual themes" in literature, art
and music "okay" in the reference is not "vulgar" in the Victorian sense? If
not, in what other way do you critically divide "acceptable sexual reference"
(such as Henry Miller or Peggy Lee) from "degenerate sexual reference"?
Point: Is Pirsig's Lila an example of "degenerate" media because it describes a
graphic and vivid sexual encounter, out of wedlock, with a bar whore, an
encounter which Pirsig does not apologize for or state "was wrong".
Is the overt sexual reference okay "because Pirsig can write"? If Pete Pablo
wrote a song about Pirsig's fucking a bar whore, would that be "degenerate"?
Why? Is it because Pirsig includes non-sexual referneces as well? Why then is
The Clash's "White Man in Hammersmith Palais" degenerate as it contains
absolutely no sexual references?
> > (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.
>
> Wrong.
Right. See above and the March 18th post. In my charge to the sexual themes and
innuendo, as well as the promiscuity created by their music, of Sinatra and Lee
you state "If you can you find such blatantly sexual lyrics as this ever sung
by Frank Sinatra or Peggy Lee, let me know."
Are you now saying that there is something degenerate about Sinatra and Peggy
Lee for their sexual innuendo and suggestiveness, and for the promiscuity they
created among teens of the time (and now)? If no, why not?
> > 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?
>
> I don't need music to have sex.
Platteral shift. If "sexual themes" (overt or otherwise) are your foundation for
"degeneracy", why is Peggy Lee's Fever (a very sexual song) not degenerate,
while The Clash's "White Man in Hammersmith Palais" (a completely non-sexual
song) degenerate?
Please answer the question(s). Since more people are getting laid to Peggy Lee
and Sinatra than The Clash, and more teens have "given it up" because of
Sinatra and Lee than The Clash, why are The Clash "degenerate" but Sinatra and
Lee are not?
> > (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?
>
> Apparently you've done a lot of field study of promiscuous sex.
Platteral shift. Please note for the record that either Platt is unable to
defend his "logic" or hoping that his rhetorical shifts will appease. They
won't.
I restate, please answer the question.
> > 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?
>
> Like Satchmo said, if you don't know a rock beat when you hear it, I
> can't tell you.
Platteral shift. Once again. No surprise, really. But I'll ask again, please
answer the question. Which of these musical genres are also "degenerate". Which
ones are not? Why?
> > (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?
>
> Because it's artistically superior.
So, are you saying that "artistically superior" music can have sexual themes and
it is no problem?
You contradict yourself again, no big surprise really. But you are coming closer
to revealing your true division between music you "condemn as degenerate" and
music you "exempt from this charge". Keep going, Platt, maybe you'll find the
chutzpah to just come right out and say it.
But for now, I'll take you at your words. Artisically superior songs with a
strong sexual beat, sexual theme and promoting promiscuity, such as Bolero, are
"okay". While artistically inferior songs with the same beat, the same theme,
and the same promotion of promiscuity are degenerate. Is this correct?
> > (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.
>
> No, it's not a matter of Victorian sexual repression. And since you're
> hung up on "Victorian sexual repression," I assume you have no problems
> with hippie free love.
Platteral shift, into a phony Platteral dichotomy. This rhetorical device won't
work this time, my friend. How do you respond to the question of non-sexually
themed rock songs, such as The Clash's "White Man.." or The Ramones "Bonzo Goes
to Bitburg"... or Willie Nelson's "Blue Moon of Kentucky"? Are they degenerate?
If so, why? If not, why not?
If, using Bloom, the "beat of sexual intercourse" can be found in any genre, why
condemn only what you call "rock". Why not swing?
Finally, what defines this "beat"? Specific metre or tempo? Use of certain
instruments? Is "Blue Moon of Kentucky" degenerate? If not, why? It has the
same "beat" as most "rock" songs?
> > 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.
>
> If your idea of a quality life is bar-hopping and picking up barflies, far
> be if from me to criticize. But, your pseudo-intellectual defense of rock
Platteral shift. Again.
Notice how to every charge and challenge, Platt denies what he said, shifts to
conversation to avoid having to answer critical questions, and then calls my
posts "pseudo-intellectual"!!
Very, very sad, on your part, Platt. You deny what you've said, refuse to answer
any questions, use rhetorical shifts to avoid critical analysis, and try to
cover for this with such a shift.
Now, if you would please answer the questions and respond to my critical points.
> (I refuse to call it music) strikes me as a telling proof of Pirsig's
> statement, "In the battle of society against biology, the new twentieth
> century intellectuals have taken biology's side." And he added, "The
> result is social catastrophe."
>
The vapid and completely uncritical "argument" you've laid out can't be defended
with an irrelevant quote of Pirsig's.
But I'll play this one. Why is rock "biology", while Bluegrass, Salsa, Jazz,
Polka, Reggae, country-western, etc. not? Why are the sexual themes of Peggy
Lee not "biological"? Why is Bolero's "beat of sexual intercourse" not
"biologcial"? Why is Pirsig's graphically vivid descriptions of his sexual
encounter not "biological"? Shouldn't "social" quelch all of these equally? If
not, why not?
Not that I expect you to answer this. My prediction; more denials, more shifts,
followed by another patting yourself on the back.
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 : Tue Mar 22 2005 - 02:26:21 GMT