Hi Jim.
Having studdied easthetics, I'll only agree to that reservedly, sinse the
problem with that sort of thinking is you end up in a state where everything
is opinion and there is absolutely no way of classifying anything as good or
bad musically, thus meaning all that jimmy hendrics, John williams, or any
other "good musician" you can name ever did was convince a lot of people to
like him, not actually achieved anything individual as a player or a
composer that was worth more than the acclamation of others.
By this logic, the most generic, musically fowl and horribly manufactured
pop group you could imagine would be worth more than any virtuoso, simply
because they had good advertising and nothing more.
Myself, I recognize there are certain styles of music that I do not
individually enjoy but might still have performers and composers in that
style that are technically, or by virtue of uniqueness worth while in
themselves, ---- such as Jaz, blues or country, even if they don't strike me
as individually worth while.
There is however a range of music I'd considder as just technically bad,
either because it is badly played and executed, or as generic, because it
has little difference to what has gone before, and these are standards that
go beyond just individual taste.
Sinse however I think a full discussion of the easthetics of music is a
little offtopic for this list, I'll stop here.
Beware the grue!
Dark.
---
Gamers mailing list __ [email protected]
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [email protected].
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected].
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to [email protected].
