On Jul 7, 3:03 am, "John P." <Jo...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Flinstoneyerfired" <mmu...@onlink.net> wrote in a message
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Yes. Maybe a bad analogy, but, the Millennium Star diamond is, possibly,
> >> the
> >> most valuable in the world. There may be another diamond worth billions
> >> of
> >> dollars, still buried deep within the earth. Buried there within the
> >> earth,
> >> it has zero value. Similarly, music which is never known cannot have
> >> value
> >> in any way.
> > That really depends on how you view music. I say that it has value
> > since the person who wrote it was moved to write it. I know that this
> > is not always true, but people don't normally spend time creating
> > something that they think is crap, unless they're getting paid to make
> > a jingle or-lol- a Britney Spears song. The fact that it is unheard
> > does not mean it doesn't have value, IMHO. It may also have
> > therapeutic value to whoever wrote it.
>
> Well... having value to the person who wrote it would indicate a very
> limited value. For it to have value outside of that, it has to be known.
What if that person was Jeffrey Dahmer and the music managed to heal
him somehow? What if the writer of the music is moved enough by it
that he doesn't commit suicide and discovers the cure for cancer? I
know- I'm a complete dipshit, but who knows what music has been able
to do in the lives of other people. I only know what it's done for me-
not that I'm capable of writing anything that is of value. I think it
exists without the listener as a kind of spirit and that when it is
heard, it can perform miracles. I think I have to believe that.
>
> Though I can think of an instance where that would not be true. ... An
> artist writes a song and shares it with one other person. It includes unique
> elements and ideas. The second person writes a song influenced by the first
> song. This second song is heard by a greater number of people who are then
> influenced or inspired in some way. The value of the second song was derived
> from the first, giving the first greater value, even though it is unknown.
>
> Confused yet? :-)
No- that's a better example of what I was trying to say, actually.
>
> >> I get your point. Does music that *I* haven't heard lack value?
> >> Certainly.
> >> If I have not heard it, it cannot have value to me. For example, one way
> >> in
> >> which music may have value to me would be in teaching me something with
> >> would further my own musical abilities. If I have not heard it, it is
> >> impossible it would do that.
> > Ah, yes, but there is maybe a renown composer you haven't heard. Does
> > his music lack value? I say no, because other people value it.
>
> Right. It lacks value to me, because I don't know it, but it has a value to
> others, and possibly to music in general.
That's all I was trying to say.
>
> > The same goes for stuff I haven't heard- it doesn't lack value
> > because you haven't heard it!
>
> To be sure I'm clear... it lacks value to me, because I can't likely be
> influenced by what I don't know. ... but, yes, it does have value overall.
I have had the comfort of music all my life- it has been there when no
one else has. I'm not the only one.
>
> >> Does music that no one has heard lack value. Of course, like the still
> >> buried diamond, it has to be shared to have value. Obviously, it would
> >> have
> >> to have been heard by at least one person - the person who wrote it, so,
> >> it
> >> could have value to that person, but, it cannot contribute in any greater
> >> sense unless and until it is known.
> > Can a piece of music have value if you are the only one who has heard
> > it? Can that have a benefit to others? I think so, especially if it
> > imparts a sensibility that is contemplative or infectious.
>
> I think a limited audience means a limited value. It has to be known to some
> larger degree, to have a greater value. At some point, although not known by
> everyone, a piece can be known to a sufficient number of people it will have
> value to music in general. (An example being a piece that is the basis for
> some new style of music - years later, people writing that style of music
> may have no knowledge of the first piece, thus, it has value to them, even
> though they don't know it)
It's all about how we view the word value. There's many different
kinds of value- you have described one kind. I spoke about another
kind- there are others. Music can teach, it can inform, it can
accompany and set the mood for other activities, yadda yadda yadda ad
infinitum.
>
> >>> How do we know that Zappa wouldn't have become a
> >>> composer and his works left for someone to discover
> >>> decades later?
> >> How is that relevant?
> > It was my attempt to step outside of the machine which is the music
> > industry. Rather than getting a recording contract, I mean. Rather far-
> > fetched.
>
> Interesting how he was forced to work with a system with which he disagreed
> and which he disliked.
What's interesting is that consumers accepted that system up until
Napster.
>
> >> Might we similarly ask how we know Zappa might not have found a cure for
> >> cancer if he had devoted himself to that field rather than music?
> > Actually, that's the point- we don't know what would have happened had
> > he not become popular- maybe he would have embraced Judaism and become
> > a rabbi.
>
> Then he'd have big ears, instead of a big nose.
>
> Sorry... that's a Rabbit, not a Rabbi. :-)
He already had big mears- ho, boo hiss!
>
> >> Being popular may not be the measure of relevance, but, relevance would
> >> certainly hinge on some degree of popularity (going back to a buried
> >> diamond
> >> cannot have value).
> > Again, if you base that strictly on music that is within the
> > mainstream, that is true, sadly. What gives me pause about that idea
> > is that I have to ask myself of the music that is being created right
> > now, what will be remembered? It's kind of a crass way to look at it
> > that I find pretty revolting. The music in no way reflects popular
> > culture.
>
> I doubt there will be much of any music made after the late 1970's to date,
> that will still be remembered for any length of time. Here it is 2008 and we
> still have 70's bands selling out arena's. How many '80's or 90's bands can
> do that?
I think we basically agree on most of this stuff.
>
> >> I'm sure I risk incurring some wrath here in saying this, but I was never
> >> much of a Beatles fan. I thought they were overrated. I especially
> >> thought
> >> that of John Lennon.I think much of their success and acclaim was the
> >> result
> >> of a right place, right time situation.
> > You think they're overrated, but you would agree that the music lives
> > on, right?
>
> Yes... and that it was important, influential and of significant value.
I myself was never a fan of the early Beatles stuff until I started to
listen more objectively- very well constructed music, IMHO.
>
> > I feel the same way about people who claim to like the (IMHO) garbage
> > that is being foisted off as music- autotuned, overproduced pablum
> > being spoon-fed to morons. That's MHO.
>
> I have to say I may like some of that garbage. Some times, music just needs
> to be fun. Some times a rockin' tune just needs to be rockin'. Even if it
> isn't particularly creative, even if it isn't something likely to last or
> influence much of anyone else.
Lol- me, too- I never excluded myself from that premise and rarely do.
I'm no superior being. I can even dig dance music when I'm (gasp)
dancing.
>
> Look at Kiss... not terribly proficient musicians (generally), fairly simple
> tunes based on mostly cliché themes, wearing clown suits... but they did
> some kick ass jams (Detroit Rock City) that have survived time, and put on a
> hell of a stage show.
I love Kiss- Ace rules! What people never really got about them was
that they made some pretty kickass tunes, although their hit/miss
ratio got a lot lower on albums like Love Gun (IMHO).
>
> Sometimes the value is in the simple fact they are entertaining for right
> now, at this moment.
I agree.
>
> >> The same became true of Zappa. I had been somewhat of a Zappa fan for a
> >> period of time, then, at some point, for some reason, perhaps something
> >> he
> >> said in an interview, made me decide I didn't like him personally. Maybe
> >> it
> >> was just that I quit using illicit drugs and saw him in a different
> >> light...
> >> don't know.
> > I don't care what he was like as a person, to be honest. If you like a
> > wide variety of music, the music you like has it's share of assholes,
> > too as does mine.
>
> That's just me... I can't enjoy music coming from someone I don't personally
> like. It's not a good way to be, but, it's reality.
I used to think that Gene Simmons was one of the most arrogant,
egotistical SOBs to ever dress up as a demon. Then, I watched his show
"Family Jewels"- most of that stuff is contrived, IMHO. He's actually
a pretty nice guy. A lot of the stuff you read in the papers or in
books should be taken with a grain of salt. A lot of people don't deal
with that stuff very well at all.
>
> > It took me a long time to be able to listen to music without drugs. I
> > listen to less psychedelic stuff and less really heavy stuff. Cheech
> > and Chong aren't the same straight.
>
> I still do a lot of drugs... just that I now have prescriptions for them.
> :-D
Ha- I'm right there with you.
>
> >> On the flip side, there is some really, really, *really* bad stuff out
> >> there. Some people seem so extremely tone deaf, they have no concept how
> >> bad
> >> their stuff sucks. I am often reminded of the Blues Traveler song
> >> "Runaround", where he is essentially complaining about people telling him
> >> something he did was good, just because they were his friend, rather than
> >> giving him honest feedback on which he could improve.
> > There's a lot of junk, yeah- but even that can teach or tell us
> > something.
>
> Yeah... if nothing else, you listen to your own stuff and try to make sure
> it sounds *nothing* like that! :-D
That's right! LOL!
>
> >> Equally disturbing is the trend I see among some teens &
> >> twenty-somethings
> >> where they have heard about the 60's and they try to pretend they are
> >> doing
> >> something similar. In the 60's, most "hippies" were fairly well educated
> >> on
> >> the topics they were protesting. Too many "kids" now, latch onto a slogan
> >> they think makes them a radical, and cannot intelligently discuss even
> >> the
> >> basics of the topic.
> > The revisionism is terrifying! The seventies being viewed as a great,
> > hip time to be alive- definitely doesn't jibe with my experience.
>
> Oh man... the 70's were great for me. I was a teenager, I was a rock star,
> too many women, a cool car... it was all just one big party up until it came
> to a screeching halt in 1981. :-)
If I had it all to do again- I would be fourteen when 1970 hit- I was
actually seven. I would have done more drugs, more women and taken
more chances. It's probably a good thing that I don't have it to do
over again.
>
> >> Isn't it? How about the message being "This is what we've become" (as a
> >> society)? Isn't the simple fact that she became hugely popular a message
> >> in
> >> itself?
> > Yeah, but who's the one with the message? Not Britney! It's the record
> > company! People now buy whatever shit gets advertised and marketed the
> > most effective way. It renders any message irrelevant. the message is
> > "buy this shit".
>
> I'd still do her in that school girl outfit. ;-)
If she showed me her shaved beaver in that outfit I'd hit that in a
heartbeat-lol.
>
> >>> More in the past, since sex symbols now constitute the majority of
> >>> music superstars. That just tells us that a twelve year old girl has
> >>> the prepubescent hots for the Jonas brothers.
> >> Which would seem to tell you something, eh?
> > It tells me that any music I make is about as relevant to the music
> > buying public as a 1954 DeSoto.
>
> So... use your sexy bod to sell your music! LOL!
Yup- and on it goes....
Mike
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
