ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/zorn-list/archive/v02.n680

Internet Message Format | 1999-06-15 | 21KB

From: [e-mail] (Zorn List Digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Zorn List Digest V2 #680
Reply-To: zorn-list
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


Zorn List Digest       Wednesday, June 16 1999       Volume 02 : Number 680



In this issue:
-
       Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections
       Re: $4.95, too good to be true??
       Re: collections
       Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections
       Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections
       dialectics on material
       Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections
       Dead weight - was record collections

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:48:18 -0400
From: Perfect Sound Forever <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections

On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:30:21 -0400, "David J. Keffer" <[e-mail]> did
proclaim:

> My advice is to abandon all pretense of disguising the motivation for
> a record collection and embrace it for what it is:  an unquestioning
> susceptibility to the brainwashing inherent in having been raised in a
> society of consumers for the dual purposes of comsumption and
> propagation of future generations of consumers.
>

Whoa dude, that's heavy...  Opens up a nice ol' can o' worms about why the hell we
like music.  Don't think that Charlie Manson was a Beatles fan just 'cause he was a
consumer.  Some friends of mine buy Barry White records and they're more
interested in booty than any kinda consumer fetish.  The ATF blasted Tibetian
chants at David Koresh and the Branch Davidians not 'cause they wanted to help the
local economy.  Victor Jara, Woody Guthrie and Thomas Mapfumo did a little more for
their fans than getting them to spend cash- inspired quite a few of them to take up
alms and arms.

And so it goes...

J
- --
Perfect Sound Forever
online music magazine
[e-mail]
http://www.furious.com/perfect



- -

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:02:12 GMT
From: Scott Handley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: $4.95, too good to be true??

I actually gave them a call; they said 4-6 _WEEKS_!  Aaaaghh!  I suppose
that's the catch for a crazy deal.

- ---s

>FWIW, I placed my order for 10 CD's on  the 3rd of june and heard
>nothing til today when I received the following;
>
>
>
>To our loyal customer:
>
...We apologize for the delay, and wanted you to know that
>your
>business and patience is appreciated.



_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

- -

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:05:33 -0500
From: Eric Saidel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: collections

Lang Thompson wrote:
>
> Umberto Eco had some kind of wiseguy answer to people who ask if he's read
> all the books he has but of course I've forgotten it since it wasn't that
> funny.  His point, however, was that these books are his tools and that
> nobody would ask a mechanic if he uses all those various sockets or
> wrenches.  Use the word "library" instead of "collection" and see if people
> catch the difference in intention.  (Personally I prefer "my stuff.")
>

I don't remember the exact quote either, but it was more serious than
funny, and less of a tools remark than an "I love books" remark.
Something like: "It's the books that you haven't read, that are filled
with the potential of future reading, that are worth gathering about
you."

I'm all for it.

- - eric

- -

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:12:39 -0400
From: Mike Chamberlain <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections

David J. Keffer wrote:
>

> However highly constricted you may think my use of the word library is,
> it is generally accepted meaning.

Not on this list apparently.

 Don't you think that it is odd
> for you to look back to 1913 to find some reference which might put
> your position in a better light.  From my point of view, you are reaching
> where ever you can to justify an untenable position.

What is untenable about Joseph's position?  I have a Newbury House
Dictionary of American English, intended primarily for reference by
people learning English as a second language.  Published in 1996, the
definition of library reads: 1 a collection of books and other reference
materials (ex. The couple has a library of novels and reference books in
their house.) 2  a building that houses books and other reference
materials.  (ex. Public libraries are found all over the USA.)

Note that the first definition does not imply that public access is
inherent to the meaning of the word.  The example in the second
definition specifies a type of library, "public," which by clear
implication presupposes the notion of a private library.

Your move.

> Furthermore, once you begin to use personal attacks against the writer
> on the opposite side of the argument, namely myself, by criticizing my
> vocabulary, your arguments lose merit.  You are no longer relying
> upon the strength of reason.  Instead, you have resorted to mud-slinging,
> which, among many other things, is not a virtue and only serves
> to undermine your overall position.

Is this not also an ad hominem attack?  Stick to the argument please.
The basis of his argument is not a personal attack.  Regard the personal
attack as an addendum.
>

>
> I see.  So what you are saying is that since the next person who
> enters the record store is going to stash the record away unlistened-to into
> a locked, private collection, you should do it first.  Your telepathy
> is no different than mine; yours is just more pessimistic.

Mr. Zitt implied nothing of the sort.  He only said that you can't know
how the next potential buyer will use the recording he might purchase.
Besides which, by buying a recording (and now this is my argument), I am
depriving nobody of anything.  If someone else comes in the store and
wants to buy it, and it isn't in the rack, then he can order it from the
store, who will be only too happy to order him a copy.  And the artist
and the record company benefit.

Oh, and since when have we been talking about "locked" collections?  The
people that I know who are serious record collectors are very happy to
lend their recordings out to trusted friends.

> Fair enough, composers, DJs, critics can claim records as tools.
> I already agreed to precisely the same thing about Eco.
> But you have flown off the handle and missed the point.  The point
> was that, if the records are not listened to, they are wasted.
>
> And, I do mean livelihood as financial subsistence.  Read the
> paragraph again. I am talking about the difference between
> a mechanic's tools and a private record collection.  Substitute
> the words "financial subsistence" in for livelihood and see
> if the sentence makes any more sense to you.

This, sir, is a very restricted and pessimistic view of livelihood.
>
> The point of my post was this guy was trying to make more noble
> record collecting by comparing it to other things, like tools.
> I was simply pointing out the flaw in the comparison.

I make some of my livelihood by writing about music.  I also do some
unpaid radio broadcasting.  My recordings and books are used as tools,
even if, in some cases, I have not listened to an item for some time.
They are there to be used if needed.  They are tools, in a sense, and it
makes not a whit of difference that they are not used to maintain me and
mine at a subsistence level.  That may change in the future, should I
decide to give up my regular line of work and try my handing at
full-time journalism.  Then I would surely learn about living at a
subsistence level.

>  The
> vast majority of record collectors do not rely on their record
> collection for financial subsistence, especially since a record
> collection is the product of discretionary income, which rules
> out the possibility that the collector is living on a subsistence
> level anyway.
>
And so?

> >> My advice is to abandon all pretense of disguising the motivation for
> >> a record collection and embrace it for what it is:  an unquestioning
> >> susceptibility to the brainwashing inherent in having been raised in a
> >> society of consumers for the dual purposes of comsumption and
> >> propagation of future generations of consumers.

Sort of takes the fun out of it, doesn't it?

> "Francesco Martinelli" wrote
>
> >second, your argument is rough and historically flawed:
>
> My argument is rough because I am not making it for a Ph.D. thesis,
> I am making it for the freaking Zorn list.

Lame excuse.

> My definition of
> the word library is historically flawed because I am not using
> it in a historical sense.  I am using it in today's vernacular,
> as people typically do.

Well, it is an impoverished use of the term.

- --Mike


>
> -

- -

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:18:49 -0500
From: Eric Saidel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections

Jeez, you sure are harsh.  A bit off the mark too, it seems to me.

"David J. Keffer" wrote:
>
> >From: Lang Thompson <[e-mail]>
> >Subject: collections
> >
> >Umberto Eco had some kind of wiseguy answer to people who ask if he's read
> >all the books he has but of course I've forgotten it since it wasn't that
> >funny.  His point, however, was that these books are his tools and that
> >nobody would ask a mechanic if he uses all those various sockets or
> >wrenches.  Use the word "library" instead of "collection" and see if people
> >catch the difference in intention.  (Personally I prefer "my stuff.")
>
> I think these two comparisons between record collections and libraries or
> tools
> are flawed arguments made in an effort to justify compulsive materialism.
> An attempt is made to transfer the value of libraries or tools to
> record collections, but the transfer is erroneous.
>
> Clearly a personal collection is not a library.  If we look up the definition
> of the word library, we find that an intrinsic element of a library is the
> fact that material can be accessed or borrowed by some body of people.
> The public-service purpose of a library is lacking in a personal collection
> of books or music.

Well, this is one definition of a library.  Another is a collection - as
it is typically used to refer to large private and public collections of
books.  It seems a perfect fit to use it to refer to collections of
music as well, public or private.

>
> Just as clearly, the tools of a mechanic are not a "collection"; tools
> are not a luxury item, the way a record collection most certainly is.
> The comparison would be legitimate if the record collector relied
> upon the listening of any element of his/her collection to maintain
> their livelihood, which I doubt anyone on this list would claim.

This really depends on what you mean by livelihood.  If you mean making
money, then presumably it is not true that most of us make money from
our collection, and even those of us who do do not support ourselves
through the use of our collection.  However, Zorn - remember, he's the
guy who supposedly buys 4-5 discs a day, and whose collection is so big
some people are in a dither - does make his living from his collection
in a very concrete way.  If you don't think so, you need to go back and
listen to the man's music.  And I would suggest that this definition of
livelihood is much too narrow: try instead the need that most of us have
for our collections, to maintain our living - without music most of us
would find life much paler.  That's what my collection does for me, it
allows me to listen to and have access to good music.

>
> Now for Eco, his books may be his tools.  Very well.  See the paragraph
> above on tools.  But they are useless tools unless read.  I maintain my
> original position that the acquisition of 4 or 5 cds per day for years
> and years necessarily results in an unlistenable amount of music, which
> is useless.

No, they are not useless tools unless read.  They are useless tools
unless accessable.  Do you think that the tool that the mechanic has but
rarely, if ever, has the opportunity to use is useless?  No.  It's only
useless if he has need for it and it's not there.  Part of it's use is
in being there, ready to use.

I still don't understand what you'd have us do.  You speak as if there
are a limited number of recordings and by buying a disc we're depriving
others of the opportunity to listen to it.  But (1) the only way they're
going to listen to it is if they buy it - something you'd have them not
do as well, and (2) the only way the music is going to exist is if we
support the artists who make it ... by buying their discs!

Better the world be filled with obsessive collectors - and consequently
musicians who are better rewarded financially - than there be no
collectors.

>
> My advice is to abandon all pretense of disguising the motivation for
> a record collection and embrace it for what it is:  an unquestioning
> susceptibility to the brainwashing inherent in having been raised in a
> society of consumers for the dual purposes of comsumption and
> propagation of future generations of consumers.

yadda yadda yadda.

- - eric

- -

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:26:48 -0400
From: Matthew Ross Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: dialectics on material

According to Merriam-Webster (www.m-w.com):

Library
1 a : a place in which literary, musical, artistic, or reference materials (as
books, manuscripts, recordings, or films) are kept for use but not for sale
b : a collection of such materials

Useful
1 : capable of being put to use; especially : serviceable for an end or purpose
2 : of a valuable or productive kind <do something useful with your life>

Collection
1 : the act or process of collecting
2 a : something collected; especially : an accumulation of objects gathered
for study, comparison, or exhibition or as a hobby b : GROUP, AGGREGATE c : a
set of apparel designed for sale usually in a particular season

Livelihood
1 : means of support or subsistence
2 obsolete : the quality or state of being lively


My own observation: I collect records and CDs as a way to be exposed to new
music. They serve as a way to feed my ears, to influence (either good or bad)
my compositional intentions, to soothe my baby's cries, to entertain. I always
prefer live music over recorded music, but as a busy person with a 3-month old
baby, recorded music is often the only way I can enjoy it. I would disagree
that my collecting has anything to do with pure materialism; I save that for
stuff like my techie toys. Collecting music is a very serious activity for me
(and as a performer and composer, I can even use it as a tax write off).

I agree with Eco here. The amassing of music opens the potential and
possibilities of listening. I don't know (and will not attempt to guess) what
Zorn's intentions are with such a large collection. The
mechanic:tools::collector:records analogy is probably more applicable to the
collector who uses the records as a proponent of her craft (e.g. composer, DJ,
critic, reviewer, etc.).

- --
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | m - a - t - t - h - e - w | r - o - s - s | d - a - v - i - s | |
| | http://www.artswire.org/mrd | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | http://www.metatronpress.com  | http://www.artswire.org/comma | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

- -

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:26:48 -0400
From: Joseph Zitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections

On Wed, Jun 16, 1999 at 09:06:14AM -0400, David J. Keffer wrote:

> However highly constricted you may think my use of the word library is,
> it is generally accepted meaning.  Don't you think that it is odd
> for you to look back to 1913 to find some reference which might put
> your position in a better light.  From my point of view, you are reaching
> where ever you can to justify an untenable position.

Error #1: Guessing about methods without evidence. As it happens, I
did a multidictionary search on the Web, and that was the very first
definition in the very first dictionary that came up.

> I would like to point out, although I feel it is redundant, that
> my original arguments were not directed as a personal attack toward anyone.
> They were posed as a philosophical argument.  You may also note
> that at the end of my post, I include myself as a record collector,
> although one who listens to every record he gets.)  I do not
> exempt myself from my comments.

That one attacks a class of which one is a member does not remove the
fact of the attack.

> I see.  So what you are saying is that since the next person who
> enters the record store is going to stash the record away unlistened-to into
> a locked, private collection, you should do it first.  Your telepathy
> is no different than mine; yours is just more pessimistic.

Error #2: I base my point on the open realization that I know nothing of
the motivations of the next person.

> And, I do mean livelihood as financial subsistence.  Read the
> paragraph again. I am talking about the difference between
> a mechanic's tools and a private record collection.  Substitute
> the words "financial subsistence" in for livelihood and see
> if the sentence makes any more sense to you.

Error #3: This is based on the subsistence that the mechanic with
tools must earn subsistence from them. That argument would lead
to the belief that the many people who work on cars on weekends
and have day jobs in different areas have no right to own their
wrenches.

> I was simply pointing out the flaw in the comparison.

Note that in almost all discourse an attempt to disguise a
statement by restating it as "simply" an instance of a more
general statement signals an attempt to obscure a critical
meaning of the original statement.

> Again, your suggestion of a pitiable state of mind on my part
> does not further the strength of your argument.  You again
> resort to character attacks.  Maybe you have mud-slinging on the
> mind because you have been living in Washington D.C. too long.

This assumes knowledge of how long I have been in DC. And my
statement was not ad-hominem because it would apply to anyone
who held that sad belief.

> My argument is rough because I am not making it for a Ph.D. thesis,
> I am making it for the freaking Zorn list.  My definition of
> the word library is historically flawed because I am not using
> it in a historical sense.  I am using it in today's vernacular,
> as people typically do.

Except that, as has been shown, they don't.

- --
| [e-mail]          http://www.metatronpress.com/~jzitt |
| Latest Solo CD: Gentle Entropy         http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt |
| Comma: Voices of New Music    Silence: the John Cage Discussion List |
| Next Comma Performance:   June 19, 6 PM, Art-O-Matic, Washington, DC |

- -

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:18:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Orange <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dead weight - was record collections

in the liner notes to metal machine music, lou reed writes (paraphrasing)
that "no one has listened to this all the way through, not even me," and
further that it was not meant to be.  start anywhere you like he sez...

i prefer to do so by taking full advantage of the strict stereo
separation: listen to one side at a time, first with one channel turned
down completely, then again with the other channel turned down completely,
then again with both together...

t.




- -

------------------------------

End of Zorn List Digest V2 #680
*******************************


 To unsubscribe from zorn-list-digest, send an email to
       "[e-mail]"
 with
       "unsubscribe zorn-list-digest"
 in the body of the message.

 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

 A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
 subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "zorn-list-digest"
 in the commands above with "zorn-list".

 Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from ftp.xmission.com, in
 pub/lists/zorn-list/archive.  These are organized by date.

 Problems? Email the list owner at [e-mail]