NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/music/misc/28137

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-22 | 19.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!mars.caps.maine.edu!maine.maine.edu!murph
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Sunday, 22 Nov 1992 14:07:22 EST
From: M.A. Murphy <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.music.misc
Subject: Re: Ray Shea Goes Ballistic (was Re: Top 10 bands of all time)
References: <cubsfan.722207274@camelot> <leo.722248971@galaxy>
 <falcon.722284661@camelot> <[e-mail]> <falcon.722310430@camelot>
 <[e-mail]> <falcon.722386637@camelot>
 <[e-mail]> <falcon.722431750@camelot>
 <[e-mail]>
Lines: 383

Ok.  My turn...
I've finally caught up on this thread - here are some of my thoughts (read
that OPINIONS, if you will).

>From: [e-mail] (David Baggett)
>Subject: Re: Ray Shea Goes Ballistic (was Re: Top 10 bands of all time)
>Date: 20 Nov 92 06:24:42 GMT
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (dx) writes:
>>But the whole point is that it's *fun* to read these posts.  It's what
>>makes Usenet-life worth living, isn't it?
>
>You actually sounded reasonable until you got past this paragraph.
>
>
>But I *do* get the impression that this group is dominated by a small
>cadre of people who consider themselves musically superior to everyone
>else here, and feel it appropriate to crap all over anyone who says
>something that goes contrary to their opinions, or *GOD FORBID* doesn't
>follow standard typographical conventions.
>

The cadre of people you refer to *DO* differ from a random 'joe poster'.
Dominate the newsgroup? I think not.  The difference here is one of
philosphy as much as anything.  Rather than posting a list of ten bands
and considering it as some absolute benchmark, the people who make up
this 'cadre' would be more apt to post a list of 10 things and ask
a question such as 'These are 10 things that have really blown my
skirt up recently.  Can anyone tell me about similar things?'  They'd
probably also present some sort of brief discourse as to what they
liked the most about each band/artist/recording so that whoever wished
to respond would have some basis for doing so.  The original poster
merely stated his list and was unwilling, when asked relatively
politely, to drop some knowledge.  The difference, if I may be so bold
as to state this as incontrovertible fact (it's a small joke, son),
is that we *actively* seek out a huge variety of music.  The original
poster, based on his list and his admitted (willing) ignorance, is
obviously willing to take what he is spoon-fed by commercial radio as
gospel concerning the state of 'pop' music.  I hereby state that this
listener is wholly underinformed (note that this is not the same as
uninformed).  There is so much music released in the U.S. (and around
the world) that the small amount of music that his world exposes him
to makes up no more than the point on the tip of the iceberg.  If
he chooses to remain underinformed, then we can do nothing about that.
If he wishes to ask the question 'these are my top 10 favorite bands,
what else is out there that I may like?', then there are many of us
that frequent this newsgroup who would be willing to suggest artists
or recordings for the listener to check out.  I don't expect someone
else to agree with my opinion all the time, but I know enough to
make educated suggestions to people who are looking for information.
What they do with those suggestions after that is their business.

>From: [e-mail] (Ray Shea)
>Subject: Re: Ray Shea Goes Ballistic (was Re: Top 10 bands of all time)
>Date: 19 Nov 92 19:49:34 GMT
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Baggett) writes:
>>Just for the sake of argument, who, exactly, do *you* think is
>>qualified to choose 10 bands as "the best?"  I hope you're not going to
>>suggest that *your* musical knowldege is broad enough to do that.  And
>>if you have a problem with the basic concept, why involve yourself in
>>the discussion at all?
>
>*Because* I have a problem with the basic concept.  I don't think *anyone*
>is qualified to choose 10 bands as "the best", and when a person who
>claims to be will also willingly admit that he is almost completely ignorant
>of the large majority of artists who have created and shaped American
>popular music, well then I feel I should comment.

Based on the discussion in this thread, I feel that Ray is infinitely
more qualified than Silverman to create a 10 best bands list.  However,
like Ray, I also believe that no one is qualified to do this.  There is
no way for anyone to listen to everything that is released in even a
particular year, much less everything that's ever been released.  And
even if it were possible, such a list would have no objective value.
It would still be purely subjective.

>
>This is all getting away from my main point, which is that any list of
>top ten bands that does not *any* black artists at all demonstrates a
>profound ignorance of the subject at hand.  Silverman *admitted* that
>he was for the most part unfamiliar with "black" music.  I really would
>like for Silverman to go out and listen to some of this stuff; he's missing
>out.  Instead he dismisses it with "I have Bob Marley's greatest hits...it's
>pretty good".

Which is the root problem here.  It's not Silverman's taste that's
being question, but his attitude.  If you're just going to dismiss
immense cornerstones of music history out of hand, then why bother
to post in the first place.  If you've got some reasonable thought
processes going on behind your 'opinion', then please give us a little
something more to chew on.

>>Shakespeare's later work?  Personally, I'd have no problem putting
>>Shakespeare above Chaucer.  Quality of art is not the same as
>>contribution to the genre.
>
>Sure, but you've read *both*.  Saying, for example, that George Thorogood's
>"Bad to the Bone" is the greatest blues-rock ever recorded, when you've
>never even heard Muddy Waters' "Mannish Boy" and when you don't consider
>Muddy Waters even relevant to the discussion is just plain ignorant.

What he said!  Again, this is the root of the whole discussion. Ignorance
and an (apparent) unwillingness to expand one's horizons.

>>First of all, given the fact that you've said little about your own
>>musical exposure in this thread, you shouldn't expect any one else to
>>view *your* opinions as worthwhile either (to us, anyway).
>
>In this thread?  Oh sorry.  I should've saved all my other articles from
>the past 6 years.  Maybe I should list my record/CD collection in my .sig?
>

Yes, Yes!  And I'll do that with mine, too!  My database has a list of
all the songs on my albums as well.  If I post a few times with
that .sig (currently at 76,000+ songs) do you think I'll get flamed? :-)

>>Second, how do you define "sufficiently broad?"  I'm quite sure that
>>I'd fit into your little category and I don't find the original
>>poster's statement to be patently ludicrous.  The guys are good
>>musicians.
>
>They are indeed excellent on their instruments.  That to me is only a
>small part of what makes a good musician.  Performance, feeling, composition,
>vision, something to *say*, damnit.  Sorry, I'll put Coltrane up there over
>Rush any day.

I do find the original statement to be patently ludicrous.  Not because
of the groups mentioned (I happend to like most of the groups to at
least some degree), but because the post had no foundation to base those
conclusions on.  The list *is* EXTREMELY narrow in scope - had the poster
said something useful about his reasoning to begin with, we all would
have realized that he was underinformed (musically challenged?) and
ignored his post for what it was - wasted bandwidth.  Instead, when
asked for some substance, the poster got upset and whined.  The rest
is history.

>From: [e-mail] (Michael Silverman)
>Subject: Re: Ray Shea Goes Ballistic (was Re: Top 10 bands of all time)
>Date: 20 Nov 92 15:13:12 GMT
>
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>
>>Look, we can sit back and let noise pollution, which is already
>>quite bad, kill this group, or we can try and do something about it.
>>If the noise polluters are too numerous and too obstinate to shut up,
>>rec.music.misc is doomed.  However, if Ray Shea and others can prevail,
>>we might just be able to have an interesting newsgroup.
>
>If people like Ray Shea ever take over this newsgroup, then we all
>might as well kill it, because people like him, who jump on
>everything they disagree with, and strike at people unprovoked
>are the kind of people who shouldn't post to news until they become
>civilized in their behavior. A constructive flame (or
>constructice criticism ) is fine, but Ray seems to just
>enjoy turning his little flamethrower on full blast and
>shooting randomly at those he disagrees with.

Randomly?!?  I thought he was extremely precise and accurate with
his flamethrower.  What didn't you like about the way Ray asked you
to explain yourself and back up your opinion?  Was it the way he stuck
out his tongue and waggled his fingers when he asked it?  Or was it when
he hollered with glee 'made you look' when he so caustically pointed out
that your foundation was missing?

I think the best thing you can do in the future, if you are so sensitive
about your posts and opinions, is to read postings a couple of times,
step back and take a deep breath, and then reply to the post.
Hopefully you'll post something with thought behind it rather than
posting excessive verbiage containing epithets like the
completely-fact-based 'prejudiced bastard', etc.
   ***** Warning - judicious use of smileys in the above paragraph is
   *****           recommended.

>From: [e-mail] (D. Nathan Hood)
>Subject: Re: Ray Shea Goes Ballistic (was Re: Top 10 bands of all time)
>Date: 20 Nov 92 18:37:41 GMT
>
>In <leo.722248971@galaxy> [e-mail] (Leo Breebaart) writes:
>
>>I think that in this particular debate Ray Shea's opinions *are*
>>superior to yours, and that's precisely why I am arguing against you
>>in this thread. Do you really really really believe that every opinion
>>is always just as valid, and just as deserving of respect as every
>>other opinion?
>
>yes... you are one of those closed minded people i was talking about
>earlier... _how_ can you think that Mr. Shea's opinions are more valid that
>Mr. Silverman's... probably just because you agree with Mr. Shea's... i

In this case, sides are irrelevant.  Based upon what I have seen in
both this thread and throughout my years on the net, Mr. Shea's opinions
have infinitely more validity concerning music than Mr. Silverman's.

Now, if you wish to discuss only the 10 bands that Mr. Silverman brought
up, then I'd have to say that their opinions would be weighted a little
more closely together.  However, I would wager that Mr. Shea could
tell Mr. Silverman many things, about the bands and the music, that
would add vastly to Mr. Silverman's knowledge, especially regarding
the evolution of the music that led up to those bands sound(s).  If
Mr. Silverman does not wish to know these things, then he should just
go away.  This newsgroup is (largely) about knowledge and dissemination
of that knowledge and information.  We are here to learn.  I know that
I can learn something from Ray Shea's postings (when they are not flames,
anyway - when they are, there is usually something going on that at least
adds to the amusement quotient in the newsgroup).  His attitude towards
the world of music is similar to mine.  I don't expect to agree with
him, but I do find his postings (both informational and opinions)
useful.  I hope that people out there have found some of mine useful
as well.

If you were building a bomb and had as your consultants RS and MS, RS
having 10 years of experience in electronics and chemicals, etc and MS
having seen nitro-glycerine (is this supposed to be hyphenated?) from
a distance once, to whose opinion would you give more validity?

Gee, I think I'll take all my advice from someone who admits he knows
little and is unwilling to learn more.  Yea, that's the ticket!

>From: [e-mail] (D. Nathan Hood)
>Subject: Re: Ray Shea Goes Ballistic (was Re: Top 10 bands of all time)
>Date: 20 Nov 92 19:12:33 GMT
>
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ray Shea) writes:
>
>
>>Well, by definition, everything here is an opinion.  But if you're going
>>to post your opinion, you should be prepared to back it up.  Mr. Silverman
>>could not back up his opinion, so he got abusive instead.  And if someone
>>gets in my face, well, I'm gonna get right back in theres.
>
>i am not saying that mike is faultless... but sometime opinions are _very_
>difficult to back up and sometimes you can't put your finger on why you
>like somthing... sometimes it is a 'gut' feeling...

Fine.  Then he should have said someting like that rather than hurling
unfounded epithets.  Is this from the school of thought that 'the
best defense is a good offense'?  If so, then you're going to get
thrashed, son.

>
>>I was yapping at him for not sufficiently backing up his opinions; he
>>displayed his ignorance of black music (no problem, nobody's born with
>>this info) and then proceeded to dismiss it as unimportant.  But how does
>>he *know* it's unimportant when he freely admits he hasn't even *heard* it?
>>*This* is ignorance, it's annoying, and when it's splayed out all over
>>r.m.m., then it's open to criticism.  Tough.

Which, again, is the real root of this entire discussion.

>
>agreed...
>
>>Well, maybe if people tried to *learn* something from this newsgroup, there
                                  ^^^^^

Well, gee...  This is why *I* read this newsgroup.  I'd like to think
that most of the rest of us read it for this reason, too.

>>wouldn't be so many flamewars.  People think I'm some kind of bad guy for

>From: [e-mail] (Ray Shea)
>Subject: Re: Ray Shea Goes Ballistic (was Re: Top 10 bands of all time)
>Date: 20 Nov 92 19:22:43 GMT
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Baggett) writes:

>>But I *do* get the impression that this group is dominated by a small
>>cadre of people who consider themselves musically superior to everyone
>>else here
>
>I for one don't consider myself musically superior to a lot of people.  Yes,
>I know more about music than a lot of people here...I've been a DJ for ten
>fucking years, I ought to.  I *enjoy* telling people about music they haven't
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>discovered yet.  And I *enjoy* hearing from people about music I haven't
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>discovered yet.  There's gobs of people here who know a hell of a lot more
>about some kinds of music than I do (Jim Hori, Clayton, Eli, Andy) and
>I don't get flamed by them because I don't spout off like some kind of
>expert when I'm not.

This is what this newsgroup is for, ideally.  I've only been a DJ for
5 years and I've been writing about music in various print forms for
6 years.  There is a wealth of music out there, new and old, that I
have not heard.  The people in this 'cadre' are the ones most likely
to recommend or describe something that I'm interested in pursuing.
It is this willingness to seek things that sets these people apart
from your generic 'joe poster'.  A generic 'joe poster's apparent
ignorance is not an issue (we all have to start somewhere) - the
unwillingness to move beyond that ignorance is the whole issue.
If a posting neither expands nor seeks knowledge, then what is
the point?  The post (and the few initial followups) were not designed
for useful discussion.  Things have ended up in this state, which has
had its amusing moments and also worthwhile commentary, but I'm sure
that this was never the original poster's intention - if he had any
real intention at all - remember, he was just bored.  I hope we've
made his life worth living, now. :-)

>
>>No, I get the sense that this group is dominated by a "fuckwad" of
>>snobs, frankly, who are killing any chance for reasonable discussion of
>>*anything* in a group that has a broad charter.

Gee, I thought Ray asked for a reasonable discussion in a reasonable
manner.  And all Silverman did was piss and moan.

>From: [e-mail] (D. Nathan Hood)
>Subject: Re: Ray Shea Goes Ballistic (was Re: Top 10 bands of all time)
>Date: 21 Nov 92 01:47:10 GMT
>
>no.. that isn't true at all... opinions can be changed... i have a fairly
>extensive music collection (compared to most that i know) and the music i
 ^^^^^^^^^
This means nothing to me/us - we have no basis for determining how
extensive your collection is.  You don't need to list the entire thing,
but a few choice examples or numbers would be useful.

>listen to tends to shift from time to time.. this means that my opinions
>are changing and when people are exposed to new forms of music (or other
>ideas for that matter) they might find one that they like... that is tha
>validity of discussion...

Imagine that.  And just imagine for a moment that this really happens
on this newsgroup.  And then imagine that there are those of us out here
who really use this newsgroup just for this purpose.  Now imagine the
effect of someone who is unwilling to listen to other opinions that
*MAY* affect his own opinion.  Gee, might that person get (rightly)
flamed?  Imagine that...

Please, if you need to be told the above is sarcastic, then reread
the paragraph with that in mind.  Thank you.  You've been most kind.

>From: [e-mail] (D. Nathan Hood)
>Subject: Re: Ray Shea Goes Ballistic (was Re: Top 10 bands of all time)
>Date: 21 Nov 92 01:52:57 GMT
>
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Swiston) writes:
>
>>In <falcon.722284661@camelot> [e-mail] (D. Nathan Hood) writes:
>
>>This argument stems not from anyone rejecting anyone else's
>>opinions out of hand, but rather from Ray Shea questioning
>>Silverman's list of the "Top 10 bands of all time".
>>Ray's whole point is that if you're going to make such broad
>>claims about your *opinions* (eg, the "all time" part), then
>>you should have a decent foundation of *fact* upon which to
>>base your *opinion*.  Silverman admitted that he had no such
>>foundation, and then stated that his lack was irrelevant.
>>I must say I am not surprised at the contents of his list,
>>however; it was EXACTLY what I would expect from the average
>>Bradley student.
>
>he was merely expressing the bands that he thought were the top ten bands
>of all time... there is nothing wrong with that... when he couldn't back it
>up he got jumped on... ok Mike why do you like your favorite band... why do
>you think that they are the best or anyband for that matter... for me it is
>a vewry subjective evaluation... i cannot always put my finger on why i
>like something... and it is very possible that neither could mike...

Of course it's subjective.  And there are plenty of situations where words
are not sufficient to describe one's feeling or explain an opinion.  But
did Mr. Silverman say anything like that?  No.  He called Ray names.
A perfectly reasonable response to that oh-so-unreasonable question?  NOT!

This has gotten overly long.  Such is life, though.  If you don't
like it, then maybe I'll post my list of 76,000+ song titles.
(It's a joke, son, it's a joke!)

I've addressed things in a couple of spots that overlap.  I hope
you won't hold it against me.

So, are we ever going to find out why Mr. Silverman thinks his choices
are the top 10 bands of all time?
-------

                                            Murph

                                            Michael A. Murphy
                                            [e-mail]

If you do not understand my silence
you will not understand my words.