"Mark R Penn" wrote in message
...
Well I don't like Rick Astley, but I'd say he's of equal value (don't know
about quality), because he "touches" people who Mozart doesn't. In that
sense, Mozart failed for some people, while Astley succeeded, even though
I personally can't see why.

Now I agree there's no doubt that Mozart touches more people, is
technically more skilled, more innovative and etc etc etc, but that wasn't
my point. To say anything that someone likes and which hurts noone is
"****" is insulting to those people, and shows a lack of respect for
diversity.



Calling someone else's taste in music '****' is no more than an expressed
personal opinion, if somewhat extreme. I have *no* problem with other
people's taste in music - what surprises me is the amount of music I used to
like I now regard as **** and the amount of music I used to regard as **** I
now quite rather like!!

In article , Mark R Penn wrote:
Well I don't like Rick Astley, but I'd say he's of equal value (don't know
about quality), because he "touches" people who Mozart doesn't.

Mozart's music has been "touching" people, and inspiring other composers, for
a quarter of a millennium, long before Mr Astley's grandparents were born, and
will probably continue long after everyone who has ever heard of him is dust.
Mozart's music has been played as originally written for a conventional
orchestra, adapted for pop groups, television adverts, film music, lift music
or even telephone ring tones. Not everyone will like all of these adaptations,
but one way or another, Mozart touches everyone. He is known throughout the
entire globe. There is absolutely no comparison. Who is/was Rick Astley
anyway?

In that
sense, Mozart failed for some people, while Astley succeeded, even though I
personally can't see why.

Possibly because some people haven't had the opportunity or haven't bothered
to listen properly to some real music?

Rod.

Michael Calwell wrote:
Mark R Penn wrote:
There's no such thing as "****" music, just music you don't like or
can't connect with. If it connects with even a tiny percentage of
people, then it's done it's job and so obviously isn't ****.

What utter horse manure. Is Rick Astley of equal quality to Mozart

Well perhaps to his fans he is.

just because some people like it? Not all people's tastes are equal.

Of course not but in the end it is a question of who is the arbiter of
taste. I tend to agree with you that there is a measure of 'quality' and
while ill-defined it is nevertheless real. But at the same time, those
in that camp should always remain aware of the fact that plenty of
artists are not recognized by their peers, so we should always be open
to new stuff.
However for this particular piece I found it wanting on all levels,
rhythmic, melodic, orchestration etc, and for me those are quite enough
criteria to say it is junk..

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:57:13 +0000, Michael Calwell fac@fac wrote:

What utter horse manure. Is Rick Astley of equal quality to Mozart just
because some people like it? Not all people's tastes are equal.

Doesn't "equal" rather suggest something measurable? I don't think
that's possible.

Because a person is capable of appreciating things on what they might
term a "higher plane" should not mean they can't also enjoy something
more trivial. This can apply to almost any field, can't it? If you're
appreciative of the best haute cuisine around, can't you enjoy your
fish'n'chips occasionally? Can't you enjoy Shakespeare _and_ The Bill
(or Buffy)? Does the ability and sensitivity and - I dunno, "soul"? -
to appreciate Mozart and Rautavaara make it impossible for you to find
that piece fun and to play it a second time? (I just did)

FWIW I used to like Rick Astley, but it's not a value judgement, and
it didn't minimise my respect for Mozart and Rautavaara et al. What's
he doing now? (Rick Astley, not Al)

lff

Posting here as Mark R Penn, maybe..................??????????????

"Linda Fox" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:57:13 +0000, Michael Calwell fac@fac wrote:

What utter horse manure. Is Rick Astley of equal quality to Mozart just
because some people like it? Not all people's tastes are equal.

Doesn't "equal" rather suggest something measurable? I don't think
that's possible.

Because a person is capable of appreciating things on what they might
term a "higher plane" should not mean they can't also enjoy something
more trivial. This can apply to almost any field, can't it? If you're
appreciative of the best haute cuisine around, can't you enjoy your
fish'n'chips occasionally? Can't you enjoy Shakespeare _and_ The Bill
(or Buffy)? Does the ability and sensitivity and - I dunno, "soul"? -
to appreciate Mozart and Rautavaara make it impossible for you to find
that piece fun and to play it a second time? (I just did)

FWIW I used to like Rick Astley, but it's not a value judgement, and
it didn't minimise my respect for Mozart and Rautavaara et al. What's
he doing now? (Rick Astley, not Al)

lff

Mark R Penn wrote:
There's no such thing as "****" music, just music you don't like or
can't connect with. If it connects with even a tiny percentage of
people, then it's done it's job and so obviously isn't ****.

Hmm, that's an "is it art" debate. Of course when one says 'this is X',
that always means *I* think this is X, or at least that is the only
acceptable view, tastes and colours etc...


To suggest otherwise just shows a lack of understanding of what music
is for. It's not about technical ability or anything like; it's about
communicating with people.

Well, IMHO anyway

I agree up to a point, if you like it, fine, but nevertheless one can
have a judgement on the thing. Melodically it had nothing at all going
for it, in its 'orchestration' no more, in its rhythm, completely
hackneyed and ordinary, only in its pomposity did it get a silver medal.
In my opinion therefore, it was ****.

Well you did state it as an absolute, and I'm afraid I find it insulting to
see a comment like that in response to someone who, presumably, likes the
music enough to ask about it here. What right does anyone have to question
his taste?

But of course I accept that you probably didn't mean it that way.

Mark

"John of Aix" wrote in message
...
Mark R Penn wrote:
There's no such thing as "****" music, just music you don't like or
can't connect with. If it connects with even a tiny percentage of
people, then it's done it's job and so obviously isn't ****.

Hmm, that's an "is it art" debate. Of course when one says 'this is X',
that always means *I* think this is X, or at least that is the only
acceptable view, tastes and colours etc...


To suggest otherwise just shows a lack of understanding of what music
is for. It's not about technical ability or anything like; it's about
communicating with people.

Well, IMHO anyway

I agree up to a point, if you like it, fine, but nevertheless one can
have a judgement on the thing. Melodically it had nothing at all going
for it, in its 'orchestration' no more, in its rhythm, completely
hackneyed and ordinary, only in its pomposity did it get a silver medal.
In my opinion therefore, it was ****.

Mark R Penn wrote:
Well you did state it as an absolute,

No I didn't actually, I wrote "****?" , note the question mark, and I
was being slightly humorous, as while I didn't like the mlusic, I expect
some do and I'm fine with that. The thread then took off from there as
they do.

On 24/11/05 20:50, in article ,
"Mark R Penn" wrote:

There's no such thing as "****" music, just music you don't like or can't
connect with
How about naff then?
:-)

I couldn't hear/see it all its a winbloze media thing and so was very jerky
and wouldn't load

Never mind . . .

Ian
--
Homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/ianmoff
Find a better way of life - www.marillion.com
Do your ears a favour - www.radioparadise.com

In article ,
Ian Moffatt wrote:
I couldn't hear/see it all its a winbloze media thing and so was very
jerky and wouldn't load

Downloaded here as text. ;-)

--
*And don't start a sentence with a conjunction *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.