"Nil" <rednoise+news@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in a message
> "It's blue. I don't like blue, so it sucks."
> Invalid.
Valid.
> That cannot be correct.
It cannot be anything but correct. It is a matter of opinion and taste, not
science.
> You're preference is irrelevant to anyone but yourself.
Correct. Thus, it cannot be invalid or wrong.
> Your preference says nothing about the music's true value.
Music has no true value. It's entertainment.
>> "It sucks, therefore, I don't like it"
> "It's blue. Blue sucks, therefore I don't like it."
> Invalid. That cannot be proved. It may "suck" TO YOU PERSONALLY, but
> that doesn't mean it "sucks" in general.
Valid. It is a matter of opinion and taste. If I think it sucks, I am right.
If you think it does not suck, you are also correct.
>> "Any number of people can prove that a certain music, Zappa's for
>> example, sucks, has no value and is of little or no interest."
> Invalid. How can they prove that?
I imagine the same way you intended to prove it has value and is of
interest - by collecting some number of opinions from others. You would then
somehow believe a group of opinions, once large enough, creates fact. It
doesn't. It's just a group of opinions.
> They can't. For one thing, the best "any number of people"
> can do is prove that they don't like it. But that doesn't prove
> that it has no value in general, only to them personally. If other
> people find value in it, then the presence of value is proved.
If one group of people finds no value, it is not proved, but if another
group of people finds value, it is proved. This makes sense to you?
>> ...are all as valid an assessment of what Zappa did
> No, those are all invalid.
That's just your opinion. Your opinion is not valid on this topic.
>> as is the claim "Any number of people can prove that a certain music,
>> Zappa's for example, has value and interest."
> That's valid. It's very easy to prove the existence of something if you
> can point to it. It's not really possible to prove the NON-existence of
> something because it might where you haven't looked yet.
Nope. You're just collecting a group of opinions. I can assure you, you can
find a group of people to emphatically state Zappa's work sucked.
> And if it's existence has been shown, well, you've lost the argument
> already. In
> other words, Frank's music has been clearly shown to have interest and
> value.
It has also been clearly shown to suck and have no value. What's your point?
> That can't be convincingly argued against. The worst anyone can
> say against it is "I personally don't like it", or "I don't get it."
The *worst* anyone can say is "I like it & I get it". ... as they point to
their Zappa collection, right next to their shit in a jar sculpture.
> Personally, I get some of it, and I don't get some of it.
Everyone gets it. It's an attempt at musical entertainment. It fails
miserably. Some people get that it fails miserably, some are impressed by
their ability to claim to see the art in a turd, some people actually like
it.
> So, what, I should condemn all of his music as "sucking"
> because some of it is hard to take?
Nope. You should like whatever you like. Dislike whatever you dislike, and
not be concerned if anyone else agrees or disagrees. Being nothing more than
an opinion, you can never be wrong in the opinion you have of what *you*
like or don't like.
