From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Mar 23 2005 - 02:31:04 GMT
In for a penny ...
Ham, Arlo et al, I actually think analysis of the attractions of (rock
or beat) music is actually a very interesting subject - music
appreciation is probably a stronger suit than philosophy in my case
:-)
I went to see Joe Satriani last night. (Greatest living rock
guitarist, anybody ?)
3 hours solid rock, not one lyric in sight (so no overt or covert
sexual references). Musical virtuosity, but always with a beat driving
the song along. Predominantly male audience, not the slightest hint of
sexual thrusting or arousal in anyones' enjoyment or content. . But
boy - the crowd went wild.
(Read Minsky BTW)
Musical enjoyment is visceral, the emotions are derived from visceral
motions of bodily tissue, nothing to do with sex, better than sex.
Different sins of the flesh, Platt.
Let me tell you a story. Back in the late 70's when Saturday Nigt
Fever came out, me and my "true" rock pals were disgusted that disco
should get so popular and get so much airtime, etc. So we said, how
come ? Actually we spotted all sorts of resonances in the beats and
bass harmonics - striding pace whilst walking down the sidewalk,
intestines pulsating, thoracic cavity resonating, shivers down ma
backbone ...
Get with the beat, over and above any artistic / aesthetic value.
Sex is no more significant here than in any other walk of life - hey
cue good title for a song ....
Ian
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:03:33 -0500 (EST), Arlo J. Bensinger
<ajb102@psu.edu> wrote:
> Ham,
>
> You say:
>
> > Music was never meant to be dissected and scrutinized for its
> > socio-political implications. It is an art form -- pure and simple -- and
> > it's obvious to me that
>
> But then you immediately say:
>
> your antagonists have neither the artistic
> > sensitivity nor the disposition to regard its elements as anything but
> > expressions of sexual debauchery, social rebellion, and general violence.
>
> I regard each musical song I hear as a unique representation of expression. Some
> I like, some I find disgusting. Many I appreciate for their social commentary,
> and many I appreciate because they are just fun (and as an adult in this
> nation, I am allowed to have fun, no?)
>
> Some rock I like, some I don't. Some polka I like, some I don't. Some
> "classical" I like, some I don't. Whatever my personal position on any
> particular "song", I am smart enough not to make idiotic claims than a
> particular genre is "degenerate" simply because I don't like it.
>
> Such vapid generalizations, such as saying "all bluegrass is degenerate, but all
> swing is not", only reveals deeper motives than honest critical inquiry.
>
> You write:
> > People who are predisposed to read "sex" into a hearing of Ravel's Bolero or
> Orff's Carmina Burana have no more appreciation of music than a dog has for
> Shakespeare's Sonnets.
>
> Thank you for your criticism of Bloom. I think you are dead on. Since he makes
> such a fuss about the "sex" in Bolero, it only indicates he has no appreciation
> of music. Thanks.
>
>
> You write:
> One should be able to enjoy the classics for the
> > sensual values they offer, not to affirm whatever innuendos may have been
> attributed to them by the critics.
>
> Why only "the classics"? Why not rock, bluegrass, jazz, salsa, the blues? Are
> only "the classics" exempt from criticism?
>
>
> You write:
> If your preference is for rock-and-roll
> > or heavy metal junkies, let's hope there's enough musical sense to discern the
> artistic merits. Otherwise, why bother?
>
> Agree. I am able to discern the artistic merits of The Clash or The Ramones. I
> am also able to discern the artistics mertis of Tommy Dorsey, Peggy Lee and
> Mozart.
>
>
> > It's one thing to put down religion and personal belief-systems in a
> > philosophical forum, but quite another to perpetuate a debate as to the
> > sordid affairs of the composers or the "political messages" they are
> > purported to be sending. That's not only childish, but totally beneath the
> > dignity of philosophical discourse;
>
> Who's doing this? I am only asking critical questions in response to Platt's
> assertation. His answers (or lack thereof) trap him in contradiction. That's
> "bad" for a philosophical discussion forum?
>
> You write:
> > Just for the record (vinyl or CD -- pardon the pun), and inasmuch as we have
> been chastised as "Victorians", my musical tastes range from popular show
> music, through the ballads of the '40s and '50s, and even include a (very) few
> young 'rebel' singers of the 'punk' variety. My favorite is the amazingly
> talented Alanis Morissette
>
> If you enjoy "the beat of sexual intercourse", you are obviously not a Victorian
> but a hippie, trippie flower child. :-)
>
> Sorry, couldn't resist. Honestly, though, why do you rage against "rock" but
> then purport to enjoy Morissette? I don't understand.
>
>
> You write:
> > Really, though, Platt -- can we dispense with the "punk rock" squabbling and
> get back to something at least remotely related to the subject at hand?
>
> Platt is bringing this back to the MOQ saying "rock is biological", and should
> be condemned as such. Do you think so? Is bluegrass? Swing? Jazz? Salsa? Polka?
> Why? Why not?
>
>
> > Thank you, Platt.
> > We shall overcome!
>
> Only if you can answer critical challenges to logical incoherent and vapid
> charges. You can't make assinine comments and then complain when they are
> challenged. You can't say "all rock is degenerate", and then say the statement
> can't be critically analyzed because "rock is an art form".
>
> You can't make sweeping generalizations about the "beat of sexual intercourse",
> but exempt the same beat in a song mentioned by the very person who's "logic"
> who hold so dear.
>
> These tricks may work on talk radio. But not here.
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Wed Mar 23 2005 - 02:54:19 GMT