Ivan wrote:
" Dave xxxx" wrote in
message .uk...
Can someone please name this music

http://members.cox.net/transam57/lights.wmv

many thanks


You're the bloke down the bottom of my cul-de-sac, who lives in the
house with the with vulgar flashing Christmas lights and mega sound
system, and I'm the miserable old ****er who because I complained to
the local council, is now being branded in the Sun as 'Scrooge'!

More power to your elbow Mr Disgusted of Bognor. Can I have your
autograph?

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 ****.

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..

"Bob E" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mark R Penn wrote:
There's no such thing as "****" music...

Joke:

Took the family to the zoo last weekend.
They only had one animal: a dog.
It was a ****zu.


:-)

Ooh! A cross-posted joke!! Just the ticket!! :-)

Here's one I found the other day (From the 'Firstfoot.com' site Glossary of
Scottisg slang)) while I wuz looking something up - it had me in stitches
and has 'stayed with me'!! (Loose connection -animal followup..)


The worst, the VERY WORST insult you can give a Scots woman is to call her a
cow. All other sweary words pale into insignificance beside this
most-powerful of derogatory terms.

"Please Miss, Magrit-Anne said a bad word"

"What did she say Condoleeza?, you can spell it out if you don't want to
swear."

"She said ah wis a ****in' C.O.W. Miss."

True story as telt tae CJ by his maw, only the names huv been chinged fur
comedy purposes

:-))

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.

Mark

"Michael Calwell" fac@fac 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 ****.

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.

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 ****.

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

"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!!

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.

"Keith G" wrote
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!!


Quite rather???

:-)