From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Mar 22 2005 - 03:00:32 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 in Part I, I repeat all the questions
(every one) Platt tries to deny or shifts away in attempt to avoid. I restate
these, 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.
In Part II, I show all of all Platt's denials to me to be absurd, given the
permanence of the list, and his rhetorical shifts become not only visible, but
also very telling of a man unable to defend logically his analytical position.
So he resorts to distortion, shifts and dismissals.
Here's the sum, the full point-by-point response follows in Part II:
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"? 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?
I challenged Platt on his statement that "rock is degenerate", saying "Frank
Sinatra? Talk about getting the ol' sex drive going! How many young, nubile
teens lost their way because the chairman crooned them into it? Is Sinatra one
of your hippie trippie flower children responsible for the decay of the nation?
And Peggy Lee... don't even get me started... Sinatra and Miss Lee are
responsible for more sin! sin!! SIN!!! than those dang ol' Clash guys will ever
be." Similarly, Dan H. has called Platt to task on his indefensible
generalization, to which Platt has not yet responded.
Platt responded to me with: "If you can you find such blatantly sexual lyrics as
this ever sung by Frank Sinatra or Peggy Lee, let me know:", followed by a
quote of one song by Pete Pablo. Using this quote as ample evidence, Platt
states Bloom was "right on".
Conclusion: Only "blatant sexual lyrics" are degenerate. Songs with strong
sexual innuendo and suggestiveness are not degenerate.
Problems: (a) Platt uses one overtly sexual song to "prove" rock is degenerate
(blatantly sexual lyrics). However, at best all this does is prove some rock
songs are degenerate, leaving the case open that non-sexually blatant rock
songs are not degenerate. Platt refuses this, insisting that Pablo "proves" the
generalization that all rock is degenerate.(b) It lacks any type of critical
explaination as to why "overt" sexual references are "degenerate", while
"covert" sexual references are "not degenerate". What is the critical
differentiation between the two? (c) If "blatant sexual lyrics" are what
underlies degeneracy in some "rock" songs, it should logically underlie
degeneracy in all forms of media; including art and literature. This "proves"
that Henry Miller, Anais Nin and Pirsig are "degenerate", since there works
include blatant sexual descriptions and vivid recounting of sexual acts.
(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"?
In an earlier reply (March 18th), Platt responded to the same comment as above
("Sinatra and Miss Lee are responsible for more sin! sin!! SIN!!! than those
dang ol' Clash guys will ever be.") saying "One big difference: Frank and Peggy
could sing, and Bach and Mozart could compose music."
Conclusion: Songs with strong sexual content, innuendo and suggestiveness are
"not degenerate" if the singer "can sing" (or "compose").
Problems: (a) This post was in reference to the challenge that "rock" causes
"sex". In his defense, Platt makes it clear that songs that promote
promiscuity, or have historically been songs that caused teens to "give it up",
are "not degenerate" if the singer can sing. Thus, "promoting promiscuity" is
only a sign of degeneracy in "artistically inferior" songs (more on this in a
latter point). Why is promoting promiscuity acceptable if artistically
superior? (b) As above, it lacks critical differentiation between why strong
sexual content, innuendo and suggestiveness are "not degenerate", while overt
references are.
(3) 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?
I challenged Platt that Pirsig's sexual activities in Lila reflect a rejection
of Victorian sexual prudery.
Platt repsonded, contradicting his original premise that "blatant sexual lyrics"
were the foundation for "degeneracy", saying "(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."
Conclusion: Overt sexual references and strong sexual innuendo and
suggestiveness, as suggested by Platt earlier, are in fact "moot" in the charge
of degeneracy. "Rock" is degenerate because it "promotes promiscuity", and has
a "beat of sexual intercourse".
Problems: (a) As stated above, Sinatra and Miss Lee songs have historically
promoted sexual promiscuity to greater degrees than songs by The Clash.
Logically, this would mean that Sinatra and Peggy Lee are "degenerate", or at
the least "degenerate to a greater degree" than The Clash (or other non-sexual
rock bands). Platt refuses this, insisting still that only "rock" is
degenerate. (b) Bloom has stated, in the quote used by Platt to "prove" rock's
degeneracy, that Ravel's Bolero is a sexually "beat" song, that it is has the
"beat of sexual intercourse". If this "beat" is the reason for rock's
degeneracy, it would logically follow that Ravel's Bolero is degenerate. Platt
refutes this using the logic Ravel is "artistically superior" (more following).
(c) Rock's "beat" is left (conveniently) uncritically defined. Other musical
genres use "beats" emerging from, running parallel to, or culturally related to
"rock". I've presented a general list of some other genres, asking Platt for
clarification as to which are also "degenerate" (Bluegrass, Salsa, Jazz, Polka,
Swing, Country-Western, Reggae), and if not, why? How is a similar beat
"degenerate" in one musical genre, but not another? (d) What defines the
"beat"? Tempo? Metre? Progression? Chord? Instrument?
(4) 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".
As stated earlier, Platt offers the rebuttle "because it is artistically
superior", to charges as to why the "beat of sexual intercourse" is not
degenerate in Ravel, but is degenerate in rock.
Conclusion: The "beat of sexual intercourse" is only degenerate in "artistically
inferior music". In "artistically superior" music, the "beat of sexual
intercourse" is not degenerate at all.
Problems: (a) What critical differentiation do you use between "artistically
superior" and "artistically inferior"? Is it the use of certain instruments?
Chords? Harmonies? Is it something a panel of elitists determine? And what is
"artistically superior" and what not, Platt, should we ask you these things?
(b) In other posts, you use a similar excuse to justify strong sexual content
and innuendo in songs, for example "Fever", saying these are permissable
because "she can sing". You supposition then becomes "strong sexual content and
innuendo, the promotion of promiscuity and the beat of sexual intercourse are
degenerate only in artistically inferior musical styles". If not, how do you
escape this conclusion?
(5) Is it degenerate if it is done in private?
In response to a post by Erin, challenging Platt to justify his obsesssion with
sexual promiscuity, Platt rhetorically shifts the conversation, but proposes
that "degenerate activity" is only "degenerate" if "done outside one's head".
Erin: If it is then how is your obsession with promiscuity also not
degenerative?
Platt: What a priest or anyone else imagines and keeps to himself does no harm.
Erin: So if people privately listen to rock-n-roll it is not degenerative?
Platt has yet to answer this.
Conclusion: Strong sexual content, innuendo, and the beat of sexual intercourse
are only degenerate if listened to in public.
Problems: (1) This separates "degeneracy" from the object ("rock") and places it
on the activity of listening. This would contradict all of Platt's previous
claims that "rock's" degeneracy resides in some feature of the music.(2) Rock
is not degenerate, listening to certain things in public is a degenerative
activity. How does this avoid censorship? Why is listening to The Clash in
public degenerate, but listening to Peggy Lee's "Fever" not? Even with this
apparent divorcing of degeneracy from object to activity, Platt must
reformulate all the above critical problems into this new "framework".
My point by point reply to is in Part II. Note that don't expect much from this,
as all Platt does is deny what he has stated, or rhetorically shift the
conversation when he (must) realize he has no logical firmament on which to
stand.
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 - 03:05:06 GMT