The Logic Off Topic list

just a tritle (intentional) to catch y'all..

group one: you agree - music sucks these days - give the one (ONLY ONE!) 
predominant reason why you might believe this to be the case.

group two: huh? ;) and, as above, give one reason why you believe the premise that 
music sucks these days is untrue.

group three: since when were you allowed out? oh well, state your (ONE) case here.


please, be concise ;)

taking the piss allowed, provided it's funny and not only offensive.

On 6/6/03 5:21 PM, "highlandsource" <seranance@...> wrote:
> 
> group two: huh? ;) and, as above, give one reason why you believe the premise
> that 
> music sucks these days is untrue.

Group two. Music is great these days, as it always has been. I know some
great players and bands. It's the music business that sucks, cause those
great players aren't getting recorded and backed by the big companies. Those
companies are too busy hyping people that can't play.

Eric

Eric Lee wrote:
> On 6/6/03 5:21 PM, "highlandsource" <seranance@...> wrote:
>>
>> group two: huh? ;) and, as above, give one reason why you believe
>> the premise that music sucks these days is untrue.
>
> Group two. Music is great these days, as it always has been. I know
> some great players and bands. It's the music business that sucks, cause
> those great players aren't getting recorded and backed by the big
> companies. Those companies are too busy hyping people that can't play.
>
> Eric

Absolutely!
That\ufffds because the A&Rs don\ufffdt understand music anymore nor do (can) they
care.
Too much plastic.
Logic (and its companions) contributed to that trend unfortunately IMO...

Peter
---
http://www.merlinsound.de

Eric Lee wrote:
> On 6/6/03 5:21 PM, "highlandsource" <seranance@...> wrote:
>> 
>> group two: huh? ;) and, as above, give one reason why you believe
>> the premise that
>> music sucks these days is untrue.
> 
> Group two. Music is great these days, as it always has been. I know
> some great players and bands. It's the music business that sucks,
> cause those great players aren't getting recorded and backed by the
> big companies. Those companies are too busy hyping people that can't
> play. 


Hmm, I guess I sort of agree with this :))

Gert
www.waveworld.tv

Group One - Having said that, music has always sucked. For as long as I
remember, people have complained about the quality of music and playing, as
well as about the music industry. At the same time, there has always been
good music. It's a truism that most good music is never released.

Cheers,

Recky

-----Urspr\ufffdngliche Nachricht-----
Von: highlandsource [mailto:seranance@...]
Gesendet: Samstag, 7. Juni 2003 00:22
An: logic-ot@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: [L-OT] music sucks these days


just a tritle (intentional) to catch y'all..

group one: you agree - music sucks these days - give the one (ONLY ONE!)
predominant reason why you might believe this to be the case.

group two: huh? ;) and, as above, give one reason why you believe the
premise that
music sucks these days is untrue.

group three: since when were you allowed out? oh well, state your (ONE) case
here.


please, be concise ;)

taking the piss allowed, provided it's funny and not only offensive.





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Music never sucked. It doesn't have the ability to suck. Only the people
that compromise it's purpose and integrity suck.

teddybut

--- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, teddybut <kumpkin@e...> wrote:
> Music never sucked. It doesn't have the ability to suck. Only the people
> that compromise it's purpose and integrity suck.
> 
> teddybut

oh be semantically picky whydontcha ;)

purpose and integrity means so many different things to different people. 

"my purpose is to make as much money as possible, i'm clear about what i'm doing, i 
use music to enable my purpose, i feel a sense of integrity about what i'm doing and 
my purpose"

someone with an outlook like that can fairly claim no compromise and solid integrity 
- even if the music truly sucks.

(i'm betting it would ;)

On a fine day, 06-06-2003, highlandsource wrote:

>group one: you agree - music sucks these days - give the one (ONLY ONE!)
>predominant reason why you might believe this to be the case.
>
>group two: huh? ;) and, as above, give one reason why you believe 
>the premise that
>music sucks these days is untrue.
>
>group three: since when were you allowed out? oh well, state your 
>(ONE) case here.

Why does everyone so easily accept the underlying premise that music 
either sucks or doesn't suck?  I know the above is meant as a teaser, 
intended to trigger funny responses, but up till now everyone seems 
to take this rather seriously *and* accept said premise at the same 
time.  Weird, uh?

Possible answers:

1) Some music sucks for some people, while it doesn't for others, 
etc.  The premise is false and hence a definitive answer is 
impossible.

2) Who am I (who are you) to judge the quality of music?  Every 
pretense at an answer is sheer arrogance.

3) No form of art every sucks.  Even if it's "cheap" art (by 
whichever standard), then its existence probably helps to a.o. better 
define the boundaries of cheap versus non-cheap, and thus it fulfills 
a useful/meaningful purpose and helps "true art" to be even "more 
true".

4) Every culture gets the art it deserves.  If the art of our culture 
sucks, then it's only because the culture itself sucks -- which in 
turn says more about our collective "state of being" than it says 
about the art itself.  So if you say that music sucks, you ultimately 
judge yourself and not something outside yourself -- except if you're 
foolish or naive enough to believe that somehow you can place 
yourself outside your own culture.


Okay, I guess I've just placed myself in group three now, haven't I? :-))


-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra   h @ k n o w a r e . n l
Omega Art: http://www.omega-art.com/

> --- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, teddybut <kumpkin@e...> wrote:
>> Music never sucked. It doesn't have the ability to suck. Only the people
>> that compromise it's purpose and integrity suck.
>> 
>> teddybut
> 
> oh be semantically picky whydontcha ;)

ok I will! hahaha
> 
> purpose and integrity means so many different things to different people.

yes, for them personally, of course.

but not for music as an intangible entity, which is how you phrased the
question. Music's purpose is to communicate, right? We are not being
specific in what it is supposed to communicate because that's subjective.
Music's own integrity is above asthetics of individuals. Some people like
candy, some people like garlic, and most people like a little of both...
hence the term demographic. Music knows and shows when it has been used to
make a buck or no care was put into it's message, it shows it to us plain as
day. Then it's up to our own P and I whether that music communicates to us
personally or not. And then we are dumped into a demographic by the major
labels so they can continue to sell us the same thing over and over. weehaw.
> 
> "my purpose is to make as much money as possible, i'm clear about what i'm
> doing, i 
> use music to enable my purpose, i feel a sense of integrity about what i'm
> doing and 
> my purpose"

that would be that person's own purpose and integrity, not music's.
> 
> someone with an outlook like that can fairly claim no compromise and solid
> integrity 
> - even if the music truly sucks.

they can't claim that stuff about the music, they can only claim it within
their own personal P and I. They obviously don't even care about the music
at that point.

further-ly
My feeling is that there are artists that communicate their message so well
that not even the most slick $$ oriented producer could ruin their music.
Those are the gems of pop music.

tbut

Group 4: You're just listening to too much Top 40
                           
                                Steve

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com