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 ****.

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

Mark

"John of Aix" wrote in message
...
Dave xxxx wrote:
Can someone please name this music

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

****?

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.

"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

:-))

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 ****.

No, some people just have **** taste in music. :-)


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:40:50 GMT, "Wally" 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 ****.

No, some people just have **** taste in music. :-)

That would be my daughter, then. At the age of not quite two she would
dance to anything. One day I flushed the loo and she started dancing
to that.

What? Of _course_ I remind her about it every time she's listening to
music that's "hers" but not "mine"

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 ****.

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 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.

"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!!

"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???

:-)

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.