From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Mar 22 2005 - 03:19:21 GMT
Part III continues my point by point rebuttle to Platt's vapid logic:
> > 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"!! I take it making absurd, indefensible claims, and
then being "annoyed" that ones "logic" is demonstrated to be flawed and vapid
is your idea of "intellectual", and so you rebuke critical inquiry this way.
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.
Note: If this ends up redundant, I apologize. My initial post (all three parts
in one email) did not go through after almost 24 hours, so I am resending
everything as these three parts.
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 - 04:21:30 GMT