Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Friday Political Thread: Special Kilted Edition
I wormed my way into another Inside Washington Weekly podcast over the weekend; the audio is here. Also,there is nothing political about this, but the thread over at the Onion AV Club review of Mike Myers' colostomy bag-cum-motion picture The Love Guru made me laugh a few times. Please turn your attention to when commenters come up with names for sequels. Some favorites: Love Guru 2: Shit Gets Real, Love Guru 2: Bigurious, Love Guru 2: Mumbai Drift, and Love Guru and Robin.
The Week in Brief
- Arizona became
the 20th state to say "Uh, no thanks" to REAL ID.
- Habeas Corpus was brought back to
life, and John McCain got pissed.
- A criminal surfaced to accuse
Barack Obama of breaking the law, then got arrested. (If you want
to see the video of the guy's lawyer bragging about his enormous
crotch, it's here.)
- Barack Obama destroyed the public
financing system.
- California gays got hitched.
- The Democrats caved on FISA, like
you knew they would.
Above the Fold
Not So Vast. Jonathan Martin has a must-read
piece on the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's agenda to stop Barack
Obama. Short take? There isn't one.
Conversations with more than a dozen Republican strategists find near unanimity in the belief that, at some point, there will be a real third-party effort aimed at Obama. But not one knows who will run it, who will pay for it, what shape it will eventually take or when such a group may form. More worrisome for Republicans who believe such an outside attack apparatus is essential to defeating Obama, some key individuals and groups who were being looked to for help say they won’t be involved.
This was, you'll recall, part of the rationale Obama gave for going off public financing: Scary Republican 527s. But if that argument was overblown in 2004 (lefty 527s actually spent more than right-wing ones, but lacked dynamite like the Swift Boat ads), it's utter vapor now. Even worse:
Richard Collins, a wealthy Dallas-based entrepreneur, bankrolled “StopHerNow," an entity set up to defeat the former First Lady.
“For six months, it’s been do we stop her, stop him or stop somebody else?” he notes.
“We spent 18 months and millions of dollars making 'Hillary The Movie,'" laments David Bossie, head of Citizens United and a longtime Clinton tormentor. “We’re incredibly proud, but the problem is the film has no relevance anymore.”
Hate to say I told you so.
Below the Fold
- J.H. Huebert
fails to pay his dues in the Cult of the Presidency.
- John Henke informs
Barack Obama that Islam doesn't give you cooties.
- Thoreau tells
Obama to sack up on FISA. (He kind of didn't.)
- Chris Cilliza ranks the 20 most
volatile House races. (if every seat on his list flipped, the
Democrats would gain a 244-191 overall majority.)
- Sarah Lai Stirland tells
the sordid tale of how bloggers ended the "career" of Obama
smear-er Larry Sinclair.
I stumbled across a video of Yes's "Onward" illustrated by
paintings of the Stations of the Cross. Is it Politics 'n' Prog
worthy? Ask Jesus, smart guy.
Bingo|6.20.08 @ 7:07PM|#
Weigel, you forgot to mention that would-be messiah Obama thinks
that its bad so when he's president he's going to make sure its
only used carefully.
So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.
See, warrantless wiretaps aren't so bad as long as the right people
are in charge of it! Right guys?
Fluffy|6.20.08 @ 7:10PM|#
Greenwald on Obama and FISA:
Nobody should be fooled by Obama's vow to work to remove telecom amnesty from this bill. Harry Reid is already acknowledging that this "effort" is likely to fail and is just pure political theater: Reid said: "Probably we can't take that out of the bill, but I'm going to try." The article continued: "Reid said the vote would allow those opposed to the liability protection to 'express their views.'"
We should continue to demand that amnesty is removed from the bill -- and fight it to the bitter end -- but this whole separate vote they'll have in the Senate on whether to remove amnesty is principally designed to enable Obama, once he votes to enact this bill, to say: "Well, I tried to get immunity out, and when I couldn't, I decided to support the compromise." It's almost certainly the case that Hoyer secured Obama's support for the bill before unveiling it.
Either way, Obama -- if amnesty isn't removed -- is going to vote for warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, and his statement today all but sealed the fate of this bill. There is no point in sugarcoating that, though we ought to continue to fight its enactment with a focus on removing amnesty in the Senate. Greg Sargent makes several good points about Obama's statement.
|6.20.08 @ 7:31PM|#
When John McCain campaign manager Rick Davis sent out an 11th-hour fundraising e-mail, he played what he thought was his strongest card: "There are many reasons to support John McCain, but as we approach this quarter's fundraising deadline Saturday at midnight, let me remind you of just one of them: John McCain is the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton." That was the prelude to a weak finance report and a staff purge that completed McCain's descent to hobbled dark horse.
Yes, David, you sure did tell us so! I only kid because I love
you.
|6.20.08 @ 7:35PM|#
Speaking of Harry Reid, he wonders why Bush hasn't rescinded the executive order against drilling offshore before berating Congress to repeal their ban. It's a good question.
Neu Mejican|6.20.08 @ 7:48PM|#
Given the discussion yesterday of the eroding state of culture
in today's world...and the posting of a Yes song...
I will pose a question regarding a topic that was raised in
yesterday's discussion...
Name a contemporary (let's say, post-Beatles) British composer/song
writer that you would consider a great talent.
It was suggested yesterday that "contemporary British music
sucks."
I found that an odd position to hold.
Thoughts?
stoneymonster|6.20.08 @ 7:55PM|#
NM: Richard Thompson. Steven Wilson. Probably dozens more if I thought about it.
|6.20.08 @ 8:11PM|#
food for thought
or to purge by:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080620/ap_on_el_pr/obama_hagel
Orange Line Special|6.20.08 @ 8:13PM|#
1. Congratulations to Weigel for finally asking someone a
question! OK, it was just of someone in no one's protection
(LarrySinclair), but it's a start. When fighting the power, you
have to start somewhere, right?
2. A minor flaw has been found in Reason's support for "a free
movement of people". Namely, it gives power to people like
this, or this, or
this.
3. Here's how Ron Paul
supporters could have an impact. And, no it doesn't involve
blimps. Rather, it involves the step none of them have been able to
figure out so far: showing millions of people how RP's opponents
aren't qualified. Not exactly a new idea, but a new idea to RP's
supporters.
4. This week's anti-prog applies to a lot of people
we know of.
Fluffy|6.20.08 @ 8:14PM|#
In that Newsweek poll, if you strip out the undecided there is
9% unaccounted for.
If McCain is only at 36, he better watch his back for that 9%
"Other" guy.
Anonymo the Anonymous|6.20.08 @ 8:19PM|#
NM: Ray Davies, Bowie, Townshend. Or are these guys so obvious you were implicitly excluding them by not mentioning them in the original post?
|6.20.08 @ 8:29PM|#
I don't get this: "J.H. Huebert fails to pay his dues in the
Cult of the Presidency."
Is that like, he's no longer in the cult? Do cults have dues?
|6.20.08 @ 8:29PM|#
NM, right off the top of my head, David Bowie and Morrissey (I might take some heat for that one...).
|6.20.08 @ 8:34PM|#
Speaking of music, some sad news in the jazz world this week:
Esbjörn Svensson died in a scuba diving accident. I don't know much
about contemporary jazz, but I came across an Esbjörn Svensson Trio
CD at my library, and was immediately hooked. They are/were a
fantastic group, led by his piano. He was only 44.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7456031.stm
Neu Mejican|6.20.08 @ 8:45PM|#
Anon the anon,
Or are these guys so obvious you were implicitly excluding them
by not mentioning them in the original post?
I was not excluding anyone.
I was interested in how one could hold the position that
"contemporary British music sucks."
Please don't limit yourself to rock or pop...or, for that matter,
more "serious" genres...anything is open for discussion.
Sparky,
I heard that...
Here's more info for those who haven't heard of him...
http://www.est-music.com/
Neu Mejican|6.20.08 @ 8:51PM|#
FWIW,
I am surprised by Duran Duran (nothing wrong with them, but not
really "great" in my estimation)
Brian Eno was the first name that popped into my head given that
the discussion was about "serious" music rather than "popular"
music.
But then the list proliferated quickly...
Neu Mejican|6.20.08 @ 8:54PM|#
Morrissey (I might take some heat for that
one...)
I believe that the Smith's recently were voted the "most important"
British band of the 80's by BBC's listeners.
Joy Division is more to my taste, but my wife would agree with
you.
|6.20.08 @ 9:03PM|#
Neu Mejican,
Well, greatness is a subjective thing, but would you not agree that
DD was extremely influential?
|6.20.08 @ 9:04PM|#
No way Obama has that big a lead over McCain.
McCain is a great candidate I think. He's stood up to Bush on many
of the areas that Bush is hated.
And, yes, the Dems will not pick a pro-life VP anytime soon. I
doubt the GOP will pick a pro-choice one anytime soon. People on
that issue don't give much.
Neu Mejican|6.20.08 @ 9:07PM|#
To emphasize this isn't just about rock...
http://daveholland.com/
Dave Holland is an outstanding figure in Jazz.
Gavin Bryars from the "classical" world.
|6.20.08 @ 9:07PM|#
"but would you not agree that DD was extremely
influential?"
You mean Daredevil? I really like Daredevil. I know some people see
him as a Batman rip-off, but the guy is blind, which strikes me as
a major twist.
One beef with Daredevil is how in the world would he ever hang with
someone like Spider-Man (who can lift 10+ tons?)?
Neu Mejican|6.20.08 @ 9:10PM|#
Well, greatness is a subjective thing, but would you not
agree that DD was extremely influential?
Putting aside the subjectivity of it all...I don't see DD as
influential as much as emblematic. In other words, they were a
popular version of other more underground trends, but (at the time)
didn't innovate as much as emulate.
The same can be said of much of Bowie's career, however, so there
ya go.
Neu Mejican|6.20.08 @ 9:12PM|#
I know some people see him as a Batman rip-off
Not a Batman rip-off, a Spiderman retread.
I always liked his comic books as a kid, however.
Neu Mejican|6.20.08 @ 9:13PM|#
And then there is the Welsch contribution to Cheeze...
http://www.tomjones.com/
|6.20.08 @ 9:14PM|#
One that would be very near the top of my list is Elvis
Costello.
Elton John's had has moments of greatness, although they've been
kind of few and far between.
I'd even include Phil Collins if his career had ended in the mid
1980s.
I'd also include Sting if his career had ended in the late
1990s.
John Wesley Harding is awesome.
So is Robyn Hitchcock.
I know some folks who swear by Billy Bragg, although he doesn't do
a ton for me.
Mark Knopfler has some pretty great songs, w/ Dire Straits and by
himself.
Nick Lowe too.
That's probably more names than I needed to type....
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.20.08 @ 9:30PM|#
No way Obama has that big a lead over McCain.
McCain is a great candidate I think. He's stood up to Bush on many
of the areas that Bush is hated.
I do think McCain's a pretty good candidate and in fact may have
been the only candidate the Republicans could have nominated who
would have a chance to win. The downside for him is that even
though he's a good candidate, he doesn't seem to be much of a
campaigner, whereas Obama is good at both. (On the other hand, for
example, Huckabee seems to be a good campaigner but a bad
candidate.)
That being said, I think you're probably right in that that poll is
an outlier. I won't be surprised, though, if the numbers do slowly
start creeping up.
|6.20.08 @ 9:32PM|#
I see him as different as Spider-man, who was always the
"teen-age" superhero. Murdock was just "a" guy, with no "real"
super-powers, whose parent was killed by the bad guys, all like
Bats.
And both him and Bats had pointy ears...
SO now I realize DD meant Duran Duran. I never liked them until
Ordinary World, which is great times 10.
|6.20.08 @ 9:34PM|#
SWDWTLHJ
Obama, McCain, whatever.
From past threads I know you read comics:
Daredevil, a Batman or Spider-man copy, or neither.
We're at war. Pick a side.
|6.20.08 @ 9:38PM|#
McCain has demonstrated his integrity, when his party was in power he stood up to them. I don't think Obama has done that....
No Name Guy|6.20.08 @ 9:39PM|#
MNG--
Another poll (Ispos) is Obama +7, Harris Interactive Obama +11.
Theres a definite move in his direction and a big loss of ground
for McCain. Go to fivethirtyeight.com and look at the map. Places
like IN, VA, and NC are becoming blue-ish.
I didn't think he would be this strong of a candidate but McCain
better try to move up soon or he will be Bob Dole Part II.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.20.08 @ 9:39PM|#
Honestly, MNG, you talk about a guy like Daredevil, he's pretty
derivative but I don't know that a clear case could be made to whom
he's more of an homage. Though if I had to guess, I'd say Stan Lee
was trying to recreate his Spider-Man success rather than to rip
off a character from another company.
Whatever Stan Lee's faults, ripping off DC never seemed to be among
them. (Now ripping off Kirby, that's another story.)
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.20.08 @ 9:43PM|#
No-Name Guy: I've been watching 538 lately too. Some of what's
going on on there is a bit surprising. The fact that all of the big
swing states (plus some) are currently at least barely blue was not
exactly what I expected at this point. I know this stuff is fairly
unreliable at this point, but I expected Virginia to turn blue
later if it did. (Though I guess I have been on record many times
saying that Virginia was going blue eventually - it's just a matter
of time.)
It looks like this could be a rough election for McCain.
|6.20.08 @ 9:46PM|#
No Name Guy-I see McCain as stronger than Dole
SWDWLHJ
I still say the blind thing makes him quite different. But the lack
of strength powers makes him more like Bats than Spidey.
Are you tired of the overplay that Wolverine gets? Screw that guy.
I saw a comic the other day where he knocked over the Thing. The
Thing could knock Wolverine into outer space...
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.20.08 @ 9:47PM|#
By the way, does anyone know if Dondero has denounced Barr as a "cut-and-runner" yet? I saw Barr's answer to the Iraq question on H&R today, and he sounds probably more in favor of pulling out immediately than even Obama.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.20.08 @ 9:49PM|#
MNG: I was always a fan of Wolverine, and I think they've done a
great job with him in the movies, but yeah, Wolverine and the X-Men
in general get too much press in the comics world.
By the way, the Thing is probably my favorite comics character
ever.
No Name Guy|6.20.08 @ 9:49PM|#
SWDWTLHJ-
I tend to follow the political predictions markets (like In-Trade)
more than pollsters and pundits because when people have an
interest in making money off of something, they tend to be more
accurate. The political predictions markets suscessfully predicted
the 2004 election--they got the final color of every single state
right and the spread in the popular vote.
Right now VA has a 60% chance of going blue according to the
markets, NC 48% chance.
|6.20.08 @ 9:56PM|#
I thought they kind of crapped on the Thing in the FF movies. He should have been stronger. He's a big Orange Monster for God's sake!
|6.20.08 @ 9:58PM|#
I grew up in Va. If they go Democratic I will dance naked in front of my house! No way that is going to happen...This is VIRGINIA you are talking about...
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.20.08 @ 9:59PM|#
NNG: Yeah how close NC was to switching was the bigger surprise
to me. Being a Virginia resident, I have a pretty good idea what
direction things are going here. I wasn't sure if it'd be 2008 or
2012 when VA finally turned blue, but living here it's pretty clear
that it's coming. NC was unexpected, though.
538 seems to be doing a lot of work on tryiong to get things right,
polls rated for past accuracy and so on. I guess we'll see how they
do when the time comes.
Probably the best i can see Obama doing is holding McCain to:
Arizona, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas,
Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee,
South Carolina.
There may be a couple of these that could turn blue but I think
they're pretty unlikely. I think there's a (very) outside chance
that Obama could take Georgia due to Barr as well as the other
factors that help him everywhere and in the south specifically this
year. I don't expect it, but I think it's not out of the
question.
I think the worst Obama could do is a narrow Gore-style or
Kerry-style loss.
No Name Guy|6.20.08 @ 10:01PM|#
MNG Virginia will end up being like Illinois--a state that would go strongly Republican if it were not for a huge metro area at its edge pulling it into the Democratic column. New York state is kinda like that, too.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.20.08 @ 10:04PM|#
MNG: Virginia's going Democratic, it's just a matter of time.
Every year NoVa is getting bigger and the Republican areas are
getting weaker. I realize that the Virginia Beach-Norfolk area is
still somewhat of a counterbalance but I don't think Virginia stays
red for long.
Actually, I thought the Thing was the best thing about the FF
movies (at least the first one). They had his character right and
he's really the interesting character in the FF. If they'd not
screwed up Doom so bad or if they'd spent more time on the Thing, I
might have liked that movie a lot more than I did.
|6.20.08 @ 10:05PM|#
"I think the worst Obama could do is a narrow Gore-style or
Kerry-style loss."
I expect that is EXACTLY what Obama will do. He's a TERRIBLE
candidate. Pure fluff, he is...Dems have some orgasmic fantasy
about electing the first black guy, and so have rejected all
reality based thinking.... It will hand McCain, who will be a good
president otherwise, the next SCOTUS choices, which will be
terrible...
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.20.08 @ 10:06PM|#
No Name Guy: Actually that's kind of how every state is. Urban areas pull them all Democratic while the more rural areas pull Republican. The only question is how the population stacks up in the various areas.
Nephilium|6.20.08 @ 10:06PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy:
Daredevil cannot be a recreation of Batman. Batman has no powers at
all, just the gadgets he makes. Batman's the peak of human
achievement. Daredevil is blind, and has the whole sonar sense
thing going for him.
And as for Neu Mejican's challenge about English music... there is
the whole second wave of ska to account for.
Nephilium... who is ruder then you.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.20.08 @ 10:12PM|#
MNG: I realize you have a low opinion of Obama as a candidate,
but I really think he's one of the best I've seen: a good speaker
who comes across as fair and though a clear partisan, not one in
the worst way. He's got a lot going for him. Republicans really
don't seem to have an easy time disliking him.
On the other hand, I think Clinton would have had a very tough
time. She's got a negative perception problem and she makes it easy
for the Republicans to turn out their voters (and I mean more than
just the "all Democrats are terrorists" guys).
In the end, it may just be a numbers game. joe had some primary
voting numbers early on, before either race had been finalized. The
numbers were pretty overwhelmingly Democratic this year. It may be
that the Democrats couldn't lose almost no matter who they
nominated.
|6.20.08 @ 10:18PM|#
What I think joe failed to mention is that closely contested
primary contests tend to bring people out.
Obama won many states in the primary that he has NO chance of
winning in the general election, and the guy is weak in states that
are usually Dem pick-ups (PA). The guy is a liberal indulgence.
They'll be sorry when their stupidity gives the GOP 2 more SCOTUS
picks!
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.20.08 @ 10:20PM|#
The FF movies were kinda botched. But I really did appreciate
the Commish's performance as the Thing.
For what it's worth:
Best Superhero Movies:
1. Batman Begins
2. Unbreakable
3. X-Men 2
4. Spider-Man 2
5. The Incredibles
6. Iron Man
7. Spider-Man 1
8. Superman 2
9. X-Men 1
10. Superman Returns
I also like the Incredible Hulk (the one that just came out),
Superman 1 and X-Men 3 (I know I'm probably in the minority on that
one). I may be missing a few others, but there aren't many more
that I didn't think were fatally flawed.
|6.20.08 @ 10:25PM|#
I liked X-man 3 (never understood the hate on it).
I'd put Spider-Man 1 higher (I would not rank the Incredibles, not
comicy book enough for me).
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.20.08 @ 10:25PM|#
MNG: These numbers were when the GOP nomination was still
anyone's game as well - they still had Romney and Huckabee both in
it. They were pretty overwhelming, like Obama had more votes than
did all GOP candidates combined kind of overwhelming. Clinton did
as well, if I recall right.
Also, I don't think Obama will have any trouble carrying PA. I
actually think McCain will have a lot more trouble carrying VA than
Obama will PA. The only swing state from the last two elections I
think McCain has a decent chance to carry is probably FL. And right
now, 538 even has Florida in the toss-up but slightly Obama
category.
I realize 538 is untested, but I think what they're doing looks
sound.
Nephilium|6.20.08 @ 10:27PM|#
Someone Who Should Really Get Tenure Already:
(Assuming I remember the losing your job part...)
I would myself rip Superman off of the list... (but I have a
personal distaste for Superman), and include the 1980's Batman.
Without that movie, the recreation of superhero movies wouldn't
have started... we wouldn't have had the really good cartoons that
came out after it... I'd also move Unbreakable down the
list...
I'm also rejoicing that we have enough good superhero movies that
we can argue about what the top ten are... :)
Nephilium
|6.20.08 @ 10:33PM|#
I'm also rejoicing that we have enough good superhero movies
that we can argue about what the top ten are... :)
TRUE DAT!
There was a time when Super-hero movies were unthinkable (other
than animation), we live in a blessed time!
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.20.08 @ 10:33PM|#
MNG: Actually, when I watched the Incredibles, I wished that the
Fantastic Four movie would have been more like it.
Nephilium:
Someone Who Should Really Get Tenure Already:
(Assuming I remember the losing your job part...)
You're telling me!
I would myself rip Superman off of the list... (but I have a
personal distaste for Superman), and include the 1980's Batman.
Without that movie, the recreation of superhero movies wouldn't
have started... we wouldn't have had the really good cartoons that
came out after it... I'd also move Unbreakable down the
list...
I was never very fond of the 1980s Batman, even the first one,
though it would obviously be a good bit higher than a lot of the
crap that's out there. Micheal Keaton was OK, but I really thought
Jack Nicholson somehow managed to be kind of dull and sleepy while
still chewing up the scenery - wooden and hammy at the same time. I
read one review that I though had the Burton Batman pegged exactly
- they called it "camp noir".
I expect The Dark Knight to be much better.
I'm also rejoicing that we have enough good superhero movies
that we can argue about what the top ten are... :)
QFT my man, QFT indeed!
Nephilium|6.20.08 @ 10:45PM|#
And to stay on the geek path... something that's amused me of
late is the number of comic book movies that people don't realize
are comic book movies. The biggest ones for this are Road to
Perdition (decent gangster movie, with one of the greatest hitman
concepts ever...), and From Hell. Sin City is another that some
people don't realize is a comic movie...
I have faith in the Dark Knight... and still have to make it out to
see the Incredible Hulk... I've never been much of a Hulk fan...
and after seeing the Ang Lee version (in which I understood what he
was going for... and it came close... but it landed in what
animators call the uncanny valley), I was ready to stay away. The
one thing drawing me in to see it is Ed Norton. I can't think of a
bad movie he's been in.
And as I said... Batman would get credit for Batman: TAS, Batman
Beyond, Justice League, Justice League Unlimited, the 90's X-Men
cartoon, and the 90's Spiderman cartoon. That's a healthy
legacy.
The one superhero movie in the works that I fear is the Thor movie
however. Weak character, almost no one knows anything about Norse
mythology anymore, and I myself am not a fan of the gods of myth
hero books.
Nephilium
Neu Mejican|6.20.08 @ 10:46PM|#
Worst super hero movie of all time?
The second Fantastic Four...such a shame, I always liked the Silver
Surfer.
Nephilium,
England's actual all about the "second wave:"
Punk, for instance, was very much revitalized by the second wave
that was started by The Damned, The Sex Pistols, Wire,
etc....
And then there is the British R&B...
They probably get credit for the first wave with Goth, however.
Neu Mejican|6.20.08 @ 10:48PM|#
I am looking forward to Hellboy more than the other super hero
movies this summer.
I saw Iron Man yesterday.
Not bad, but nothing to write home about.
Tangential Super Hero movie pick...the original PBS version of The
Lathe of Heaven...
That dude had a super power.
Lefty|6.20.08 @ 10:49PM|#
Here I come in a blaze of glory. Rat a tat tat. Rat a tat
tat.Rat a tat tat.Rat a tat tat.Rat a tat tat.Rat a tat tat.Rat a
tat tat.Rat a tat tat.Rat a tat tat.Rat a tat tat.Rat a tat tat.Rat
a tat tat.Rat a tat tat.Rat a tat tat.Rat a tat tat.Rat a tat tat.
To all you cosmopolitan libertarians where the fuck is Keith
Emerson on H&R? Have you no balls. Rat a tat tat.Rat a tat
tat.Rat a tat tat.Rat a tat tat.Rat a tat tat.Rat a tat tat.Rat a
tat tat.
OH MY WE KILLED KENNY in pursuit of real prog. Rat a tat tat.Rat a
tat tat. Firing in the AIR. Yes is always COOL. Bravo for ONWARD,
great cut. Rear guard action exiting. Rat a tat tat.Rat a tat
tat.Rat a tat tat.Rat a tat tat.Rat a tat tat.Rat a tat tat.Rat a
tat tat.
Machine smoking. Next time I come back Gotta be some Keith Emerson.
He is God!
Encore. Rat a tat tat. from a tired virtual AK-47!
Nephilium|6.20.08 @ 10:51PM|#
Neu Mejican:
I hereby subject you to watch the Punisher movies on a looping
repeat for 12 hours... :)
And the Goth scene (at least in my area) has no sense of roots... I
had a friend request a Siouxsie song at a goth club... to be told,
"We don't play that crap here."
Nephilium
NP|6.20.08 @ 10:54PM|#
Hey, Neu Mejican, I've already posted a response to your comments on the earlier thread so you can go read it if you're so inclined, but let me clarify again: I meant contemporary British classical music, not every type of music that's coming out of Britain. And I actually believe today's culture is in a great shape, thank you very much.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.20.08 @ 11:01PM|#
Nephilium, admittedly the ultimate legacy is pretty good, but
there was a lot of bad to go with it.
As far as the Incredible Hulk goes, it was OK. Much better than the
Ang Lee version (which I was hugely disappointed in because I like
Ang Lee's stuff a lot normally).
For non-superhero comic book movies, I was very impressed with Sin
City (especially Marv). From Hell, though, was a great comic and a
bad movie. Which seems to be the end result of most Alan Moore
comics.
Thomas|6.20.08 @ 11:07PM|#
So has IWW podcast stopped sounding like ass yet? I like their content I am just sick of listening to horrible audio.
|6.21.08 @ 12:53AM|#
Worst super hero movie of all time?
The second Fantastic Four...such a shame, I always liked the Silver Surfer.
The problem with "Worst Ever" lists is that most truly awful films
exist in well-deserved obscurity. I'm going to jump back into 80s
mode and go with Pumaman.
gahhhhh
Neu Mejican|6.21.08 @ 1:03AM|#
NP,
I'll respond to your response here...
If you lightened up a little, you would've noticed that my
inclusion of the Beatles in that sentence was clearly
tongue-in-cheek.
As was my response (old man).
And I meant "contemporary" in a broad sense, i.e., post-RK, and
obviously classical, as this [was] a thread on classical
music.
I realized that as well, but it is such an artificial distinction I
thought I would ignore it, particularly given your inclusion of, of
all bands, The Beatles as a potential exception to your claim that
contemporary British music sucks.
And sure, they're plenty of good British composers, if by
"good" you mean competent and thoroughly professional. But, again,
name me one British composer that will be mentioned alongside
Purcell and Britten centuries from now.
I have already said that Eno came immediately to mind. But you are
assuming that you can recognize from you vantage the competent from
the great while maintaining that only CENTURIES will determine
which is which.
You're free to speak up for these composers--I'll admit that I
do listen to some of 'em once in a while for the sake of
discovery--but to me life is too short to be wasted on justly
obscure materials.
So you are sort of an "anti-snob" in that you only listen to the
stuff that has been vetted by popularity?
I have already said, all that matters is what you like, so I have
no problem with whatever you want to deem "I like it" music. But
you are pretending that the pedestrian stuff you like is of higher
quality than the "justly obscure" stuff...I find there to be less
of a correlation between quality and popularity than that...even
when talking centuries old music.
As for the British pop music scene, of course I know there have
been more worthy British acts than pleasant fluff like
Coldplay.
Coldplay is the most offensive music I can think of.
But let me return to my earlier reference to the Beatles. After
all is said and done, what people remember the most about music is
great tunes.
No argument.
Much as we may decipher and discuss the cultural and
socioeconomic impact of the Sex Pistols (whom I actually love) and
the Clash, they will eventually be judged on purely musical value
after they and their most die-hard admirers are laid to rest and
make room for the next generations of bands and fans.
True, and those two examples, neither of whom are personal
favorites of mine, stand as good or better chance of being
remembered than the Beatles.
I may have mentioned the Beatles facetiously, but I have no
doubt that their music will outlast that of
the Smiths,[maybe]
Blur, [probably]
Pulp, [god I hope so]
or Oasis, [perhaps]
their most annoying imitators, [I submit for your consideration the
post-Beatles McCartney].
This is also why they will eventually outlive the Stones,
though I do admit that the latter are the greatest rock 'n' roll
band?
Again proving you are a cranky old man with no taste...and
prematurely so, it appears.
;^)
Neu Mejican (the shame faced t|6.21.08 @ 1:07AM|#
Copy edit
NM:
I have already said that Eno came immediately to mind. But you are
assuming that you can recognize from you vantage the competent from
the great while maintaining that only CENTURIES will determine
which is which.
NP:
You're free to speak up for these composers--I'll admit that I do
listen to some of 'em once in a while for the sake of
discovery--but to me life is too short to be wasted on justly
obscure materials.
NM:
So you are sort of an "anti-snob" in that you only listen to the
stuff that has been vetted by popularity?
I have already said, all that matters is what you like, so I have
no problem with whatever you want to deem "I like it" music. But
you are pretending that the pedestrian stuff you like is of higher
quality than the "justly obscure" stuff...I find there to be less
of a correlation between quality and popularity than that...even
when talking centuries old music.
NP:
As for the British pop music scene, of course I know there have
been more worthy British acts than pleasant fluff like
Coldplay.
NM:
Coldplay is the most offensive music I can think of.
NP:
But let me return to my earlier reference to the Beatles. After all
is said and done, what people remember the most about music is
great tunes.
NM:
No argument.
NP:
Much as we may decipher and discuss the cultural and socioeconomic
impact of the Sex Pistols (whom I actually love) and the Clash,
they will eventually be judged on purely musical value after they
and their most die-hard admirers are laid to rest and make room for
the next generations of bands and fans.
NM:
True, and those two examples, neither of whom are personal
favorites of mine, stand as good or better chance of being
remembered than the Beatles.
Neu Mejican|6.21.08 @ 1:08AM|#
Annnnnd scene,
end of the smug-off
Or is it?
Apologize to the all politics all the time crowd.
Neu Mejican (in mega post mode|6.21.08 @ 1:13AM|#
The problem with "Worst Ever" lists is that most truly awful
films exist in well-deserved obscurity.
But it is the high profile nature of the FF movie that amplifies
how bad it was...oh so, so, so, bad.
Elemenope|6.21.08 @ 1:46AM|#
Tangential Super Hero movie pick...the original PBS version
of The Lathe of Heaven...
That dude had a super power.
I never saw the PBS version, but the A&E version made me want
to spit.
Twas a good book, though.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:36AM|#
I have to laugh when Greenwald, thoreau and the rest of the
"Bush/Rove/telco execs are murdering bastards who should all be
indicted for war crimes!!1!!1!" left-libertarians discover no one
in power actually takes their histrionics seriously.
Meet your new boss, same as the old boss.
|6.21.08 @ 5:58AM|#
The problem with "Worst Ever" lists is that most truly awful
films exist in well-deserved obscurity.
Cinematic
Titanic extracted this fossilized turd,
sans Elvira's cleavageriffic presentation, from the bowels of some
movie warehouse.
It's a joyless, bitter, incomprehensible wreck of a film, so it
lends itself well to Cinematic Titanic's reincarnated MST3K-style
riffing.
NP|6.21.08 @ 7:43AM|#
Neu Mejican,
I don't know what counts as tongue-in-cheek in your book, but I
don't think most people would use that expression to describe
calling someone "a cranky old fart with no taste." And let me get
this straight: you knew I was being tongue-in-cheek, but you still
thought I was seriously touting the Beatles as an exception to the
sucky shape of contemporary British music? Anyway, we're not
strictly talking logic here so I'll just skip to our discussion on
music.
So you really think Eno--a self-proclaimed "non-musician" who is
best known for his ambient sound-pictures and for his work as a
producer--merits direct comparison with Purcell and Britten, eh?
And that the great stuff from the past--which is enjoyed and
respected not just by myself but by many other music lovers,
serious and casual, let alone scholars--is "pedestrian"? Look, NM,
if you can't appreciate Purcell's Dido and Aeneas and
Britten's Peter Grimes, not to mention the best of their
exquisite songs and instrumental works, then you simply have no ear
for music. I really don't know how else to put it.
And no, I'm not assuming anything. Anyone with a musical ear and
understanding can see that Beethoven's 9th symphony is better than
his 1st, or that Bach's solo violin and cello music probes deeper
than that of his future imitators, just as a vocal teacher can tell
a good singer from a bad one. And yes, "only" centuries are enough
for us to cull the very best from the pile. In this information age
the word (or sound) gets around quickly, and it's becoming
increasingly difficult for worthy music to escape our attention. I
suppose one could point to Bach as a glaring exception, but this
overlooks the fact that his music was actually well known and
respected by his contemporaries and succeeding generations of
musicians. (Of course, it was up to Mendelssohn to finally bring
the music to the public.) Downgrading relics still takes a while,
but these days discovering and in turn upgrading don't take as long
as it used to. Centuries provide enough time for objective analysis
and criticism.
Now let me respond to this profound observation:
I find there to be less of a correlation between quality and
popularity than that...even when talking centuries old
music.
Actually, NM, there is a strong correlation between quality and
sustained popularity. Sure, New Kids on the Block and
their ilk get to enjoy their 15 minutes of fame (or is that 15
months?), but centuries (sorry for using this word again) from now,
the "pedestrian" stuff I like and maybe some of the stuff you like
will have proved more popular over time. I should also stress that
this applies to such unpopular fare as the works of
late-period Beethoven or the Second Viennese School, as their
music, difficult as it is, still will be studied, played and
listened to by those who appreciate it, a fairly large group.
Music--and art in general--is a commodity; without
consumers or an audience it has no value. There may well be a few
works here and there that are known only to a small cohort of
cognoscenti and the most fanatic groupies, and it is their job to
bring the music to the broader public for popular acceptance. And
it's our job to listen and judge for ourselves, which is why I do
occasionally check out the works of newcomers and obscure
figures.
As for your evaluation (or devaluation) of the Beatles, I
don't know anyone with half a musical ear or any serious rock
critic who claims that either the the Sex Pistols or the Clash are
musically better than the Fab Four. And the Stones? Well, you did
agree that what eventually matters are great tunes, so let's look
at a few by the Stones that can compare with the best of their
rivals. "Satisfaction"? Sure. And maybe "Sympathy for the Devil"
and "Start Me Up" (which arguably isn't even the best song on
Tattoo You). And... what? Album-by-album comparison
doesn't favor the Stones much, either. The Beatles haven't outsold
the Stones for nothing, NW, and unless you can persuade me to take
your opinions more seriously than the popular and critical verdict,
let alone an objective analysis based on purely musical merits, I
think I'll stick to my current judgment. Do understand that I'm not
saying the Stones will be forgotten easily, only that in a two-way
zero-sum game the Beatles will prove victorious.
I may be younger (or older, as you apparently enjoy reminding me)
than you, NW, but I think I can tell who is crankier or who has
better taste or a better musical ear. And I don't know why you keep
saying I have no taste, 'cause on that earlier thread you
clarified, "I am not meaning to say that your taste is worse (or
better) than mine." But, again, we're not talking logic here so
I'll let that slide.
|6.21.08 @ 8:47AM|#
Mr. Nice Guy, if you're wrong about Obama, I'm going to track you down, ask you about it, tape your response and upload it to Youtube. If I'm wrong, you're more than welcome to do the same to me.
|6.21.08 @ 9:23AM|#
NM,
Name a contemporary (let's say, post-Beatles) British
composer/song writer that you would consider a great
talent.
Does Morrissey count as contemporary?
|6.21.08 @ 9:32AM|#
TallDave | June 21, 2008, 3:36am | #
I have to laugh when Greenwald, thoreau and the rest of the
"Bush/Rove/telco execs are murdering bastards who should all be
indicted for war crimes!!1!!1!" left-libertarians discover no one
in power actually takes their histrionics seriously.
Meet your new boss, same as the old boss.
I have to laugh when ToolDave and the rest of the "Endless War"
crowd spent years on end declaring that the Democrats are devoted
to surrendering to the terrorists, right up until they are about to
seize power, at which point they immediately flip flop to declaring
that there are no observable differences between the parties.
|6.21.08 @ 9:33AM|#
BTW, this is the third time Reason has assured us that telecom
amnesty was totally and beyond a shadow of a doubt going to
pass.
Maybe they'll even be right this time.
|6.21.08 @ 9:49AM|#
Speaking of English composers, A Flock of Seagulls is one of those rare bands that is way better than I initially thought they were. Amother example would be Human League.
|6.21.08 @ 10:01AM|#
All this talk of post-Beatles British music, and no one has
mentioned The Buzzcocks?
Singles Going Steady is a great album.
999 is a great band, too. Dismissed in their time for allegedly
jumping on the punk bandwagon, their stuff has held up a lot better
than that of their contemporaries.
|6.21.08 @ 10:02AM|#
I can only come up with 80s and 90s Brits.
They do seem to be in a bit of a lull these days.
|6.21.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Of course, there is "The Streets". His first two albums are good, and "The Irony of it All" is a great, great single.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 10:41AM|#
Daave is just trying to re-live the "glory days" (for his crowd) of 2002-2003.
dhex|6.21.08 @ 10:53AM|#
Name a contemporary (let's say, post-Beatles) British
composer/song writer that you would consider a great
talent.
david tibet of current 93.
i do like the kode 9 instrumental stuff a lot more than anything
else that fits under "dubstep" but the vocals on burial are shit.
(shite?)
Pablo Escobar|6.21.08 @ 10:58AM|#
People need to start distinguishing between 'racism' and 'racial
bigotry'.
Almost everyone's a racist. That's because racism can be good or
bad.
For example, to some people "good" racism = setting up a Department
of Black People to hand out welfare to blacks (aka affirmative
action programs)
"Bad" racism = lynching people because of the colour of their
skin
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 11:03AM|#
All this talk of post-Beatles British music, and no one has
mentioned The Buzzcocks?
I didn't find much to like between them and Oasis.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 11:07AM|#
For example, to some people "good" racism = setting up a
Department of Black People to hand out welfare to blacks (aka
affirmative action programs)
The problem with that is there's no real difference between a
program to help an ethnicity and a program that discriminates
against all the other ethnicities.
It would be better to move beyond race entirely, and help people on
the basis of economics and merit.
|6.21.08 @ 11:10AM|#
Pablo,
Racism is prejudice or oppression based on race. Promoting racial
equality and integration is neither, even if done in a manner that
takes race into account. It is, in fact, just the opposite of
racism.
What you're calling "good racism" is, in fact, racially-conscious
anti-racism. And, in a sense, isn't all anti-racism racially
conscious? If one is not conscious of race, how can one even
recognize that racial oppression or prejudice is occurring, and not
just random meanness wholly unrelated to race?
|6.21.08 @ 11:17AM|#
BTW, affirmative action isn't welfare, at least in this country.
It's desegregation.
Reparations checks could be called race-based welfare - it wouldn't
change anything except giving money to people, our society would be
just as segregated as before, and the structural forces that tend
to perpetuate that segregation would still be in place.
Contrast this with a program to seek out black candidates for
admissions slots or jobs. Such a program would have the effect of
making institutions that would otherwise be all white (or nearly
so) integrated, cause people to form social and professional
networks that cross racial and (to the extent there is still
segregation) community boundaries, and improve not just the net
wealth of the beneficiaries in the present, but their opportunity
in the furture. It's old "give a man a fish/teach him to fish"
difference, except instead of teaching someone to fish, you're
simply giving someone who can already fish a spot on the
riverbank.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 11:22AM|#
joe-
You left out the part about race-based affirmative action
increasing racial resentment and tension by its very existence.
|6.21.08 @ 11:26AM|#
That's because it's a myth, NNG.
In the real world, race relations are better now than they were
before affirmative action was implemented.
It's funny how the oh-so-sensitive worry themselves sick over the
people who go to college X instead of college Y, while it doesn't
occur to them that economic and geographic segregation and huge,
observable differences in opportunity, wealth, and quality of life
between the races might themselves cause racial resentment.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 11:33AM|#
joe, I think the most nefarious effects of racial affirmative action are whenever a black guy graduates from Harvard a lot of assholes can assume "oh, he got it because hes black!" whether this is true or not.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 11:37AM|#
(anecdote alert!)
My senior year of high school a black girl I was friends with got
into UVA. Instead of being happy, she actually cried because she
thought she got in just because she was black. She chose to go to a
less elite state school instead, because she didn't want to feel
like (in her words) she was "cheating".
|6.21.08 @ 11:39AM|#
NNG,
You don't think visible success by black people generated the same
response before affirmative action?
Racists are going to be racists regardless. But their kids are
going to be learning, living, and working alongside people of other
races, and racial ideology has a tough time surviving in such an
atmosphere.
Desegregation erodes the ability see people of other races as
"them," because "they" become our neighbors and classmates and
coworkers. They become us. If you're weighing the net result of
affirmative action even just in the realm of people's feelings, it
still comes out as a huge net gain for racial harmony.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 11:42AM|#
Joe I just want it to be classed based if we absolutely must
have it. That would lessen the racial tension and idiots could no
longer say "I didn't get that job cause I'm white!" if they are
poor themselves.
Plus, I don't really think Barack Obama's daughters need
affirmative action, do you? They will probably be the children of
the President, for God's sake. Why do they get it when some white
kid from a trailer park doesn't?
|6.21.08 @ 11:43AM|#
I think it's regrettable so many years of anti-desegregation
propaganda have caused people like your friend to misundestand how
affirmative action works, NNG.
Universities show preference based on geography and income, too.
It's odd how dramatic the responses to those things differ. Nobody
thinks that admitting more poor kids to college is going to harm
their self-esteem or cause resentment - in fact, you see the same
people decrying race-based affirmative action calling for replacing
it with precisely those standards.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 11:46AM|#
Joe, it won't cause resentment because in the United States race is much, much, MUCH more of an explosive and toxic subject than class.
|6.21.08 @ 11:48AM|#
NNG, white people were saying that long before there was ever
any affirmative action going on.
How many times has Reason posted about the terrible, racist labor
unions perceiving the hiring of black people as a zero-sum loss for
white workers, from the late 1800s through WW2?
Racial resentment by white people who react badly to black people
"taking R jrbs" was most certainly not brought into the world by
affirmative action.
People predicted that the Civil Rights Act and other desegregation
efforts of the 50s and 60s would increase racial hostility in the
South, too. They didn't - in fact, by breaking down barriers, they
greatly improve race relations in the South.
|6.21.08 @ 11:53AM|#
NNG,
Plus, I don't really think Barack Obama's daughters need
affirmative action, do you? No. Since the connection between
race and socioeconomic status has been eroded by desgregation
efforts, affirmative action programs should, and have, adapted to
take this into account.
A qualified white kid "from a trailer park" does get affirmative
action, at least in college admissions, as do kids from places that
have traditionally been underrepresented or economically
disadvantaged. This is as it should be.
If a kid from a trailer park in West Virgnia and a kid from the
Hamptons, with even roughly equivalent grades, applied to the same
school in Philly, the poor kid would leave tire tracks across the
other kid's back.
Do you have a problem with that?
A better question would be, should Barack Obama's kids get
preference over George Bush's kids?
|6.21.08 @ 11:55AM|#
...assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Bush kids and
the Obama kids have roughly equivalent levels of academic
achievement.
Which...you know...
|6.21.08 @ 11:58AM|#
I was interested in how one could hold the position that
"contemporary British music sucks."
Nobody thinks British music "sucks". Perhaps you misread. Lets try
this
"contemporary British cuisine sucks".
Yep, that must have been it.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 12:00PM|#
George Bush's kids get affirmative action, too. Its called
legacy (which should be trashed too). So they'd probably end up
equal.
While they do consider class in college admissions, they don't
consider it in job applications while they do consider race and
gender.
As for de-segregation and racial resentment, how'd busing work for
you guys up in Mass? Not very well, huh? There ARE de-segregation
efforts whose costs outweigh the benefits.
|6.21.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Obama, McCain, whatever.
From past threads I know you read comics:
Daredevil, a Batman or Spider-man copy, or neither.
Definitely a Batman ripoff. Spidey is a teenager with super powers.
Daredevil (The Man Without Fear) no so much (that radar sense is
kink of hokey, is he blind or not?).
|6.21.08 @ 12:13PM|#
joe, No Name Guy, I appreciate you guys' viewpoints. From my own (myopic) viewpoint I've seen that some people in the so-called "black community" also look disdainfully on "integration" (see: selling out, acting white) and I wonder to what extent this phenomenon, along with its old counterpart among bigoted white people has done harm to African Americans.
|6.21.08 @ 12:14PM|#
While they do consider class in college admissions, they
don't consider it in job applications while they do consider race
and gender.
Job hirings are a bit different. Companies with affirmative action
programs are doing so to benefit themselves, by making sure they
have a diverse-enough workforce that they aren't limiting their
appeal to potential customers. It's not really the same question as
university admissions.
There ARE de-segregation efforts whose costs outweigh the
benefits. I don't doubt that. There have been successful and
unsuccessful efforts.
The failure of bussing in Massachusetts was that it was limited to
the City of Boston. The courts refused to do it fairly, and include
the nearby suburbs, so it was vastly overconcentrated on a
relatively small white population which, surpirse surprise, was
relatively poor.
The voluntary successor program, Metco, has worked a lot better,
because it does incorporate the burbs.
|6.21.08 @ 12:23PM|#
"Universities show preference based on geography and income,
too. It's odd how dramatic the responses to those things differ.
Nobody thinks that admitting more poor kids to college is going to
harm their self-esteem or cause resentment - in fact, you see the
same people decrying race-based affirmative action calling for
replacing it with precisely those standards."
People always react to classifications for government benefits that
are narrow with dislike. It makes sense to me. I'm not from
Appalachia nor am I poor, but I COULD be, and so to help someone in
that position seems fair. But to help someone because they are
black or Hispanic, well I'm never going to be that. So you've just
set up a government program to screw me, my kids, my loved ones,
etc.
"Racial resentment by white people who react badly to black people
"taking R jrbs" was most certainly not brought into the world by
affirmative action." True, but it does make their government
complicit in actually depriving them of actual jobs. In any
situation where there is certainly no affirmative action being
carried on, then a denied white applicant could speculate that his
race has hurt him in some way. But with affirmative action existing
he may speculate as to its effect on him in his particular denial,
but he can be certain that somewhere, in some cases, his government
is actually taking jobs from whites and giving them to minorities
because of their race. This gives a nice firm foundation to his
resentment (for example I don't think white people who think this
are "fools" as NNG says, they may be right).
|6.21.08 @ 12:23PM|#
Art P.O.G.,
I don't have anything useful to say about how black people perceive
selling out.
Haven't the foggiest. I'm not really one of these rah rah, culture
of inclusion, diversity seminar kind of guys. I'm all about
people's butts being in the chairs next to each other. And the
dorms. And the lounges.
And the banks.
They'll figure it out.
|6.21.08 @ 12:26PM|#
"Companies with affirmative action programs are doing so to benefit themselves, by making sure they have a diverse-enough workforce that they aren't limiting their appeal to potential customers." Well, that and PR. And to pre-empt any boycotts by civil rights groups or discrimination actions from governments. I think the benefits of the racially diverse corporation are overblown. Some foriegn corporations are not very diverse and they do just fine...
|6.21.08 @ 12:27PM|#
"The failure of bussing in Massachusetts was that it was limited
to the City of Boston. "
I think it had to do with telling parents they were going to force
their kids to go to schools that were seen as dangerous and
inadequate. That would make me oppose it.
|6.21.08 @ 12:31PM|#
And don't forget that if you are a minority AND of low income
AND from the geographical area favored, then you get preferred over
the white with the same income and origin...
I think the class based one makes the most sense. Low economic
means is more inherently thwarting of the kinds of things that open
up doors than merely being black, a woman or from a particular area
(there are people from Appalachia who do not encounter many
obstacles to success)
|6.21.08 @ 12:33PM|#
In Adarand for example the preference was to black contractors because being black created a rebuttable presumption of economic distress. Why not just make economic distress the criteria in the first place?
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 12:33PM|#
I think in an odd, backwards way de-seg is easier in the South
because of the larger numbers of black people. In the South, blacks
live in the suburbs and rural areas as well as the cities in large
numbers. In the North, by the very fact it has a smaller black
population, blacks are a very small minority in the 'burbs and
almost non-existent in rural areas (i.e., PA between Philly and
Pittsburgh or Vermont/New Hampshire).
You don't need busing in the South to have diverse schools. You
just need to draw a reasonable line on a map.
|6.21.08 @ 12:37PM|#
MNG,
Zero-sum thinking.
I understand the internal logic of what you're saying, and there
certainly do seem to be people who reaction, but on the ground,
exactly the opposite has happened, in terms of there being a
backlash against advancements in racial equality.
Objectively, race relations have gotten far better since
affirmative action programs proliferated. You're talking about a
"nice firm foundation" for people feeling racial resentment? We've
got one of those in this country, you know, and desegregation
efforts have greatly helped to undermine it, on both sides of the
racial divide.
Frankly, I think you are far more concerned with the "government
complicit" bit than the actual impact of affirmative action on race
relations in our society.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 12:38PM|#
Just for clarification, when I saw "rural areas" I'm talking about the Low Country and to a lesser extent the Piedmont. The Highlands in the South, of course, are just as lily-white as upper New England.
|6.21.08 @ 12:46PM|#
In the real world, race relations are better now than they
were before affirmative action was implemented.
In the real world, race relations were getting better
before affirmative action was implemented.
Correlation, causation etc.
|6.21.08 @ 12:46PM|#
Oh, yes, the all-powerful civil rights groups that control the
corporations. Gimme a freaking break, that is so ridiculous.
I think it had to do with telling parents they were going to
force their kids to go to schools that were seen as dangerous and
inadequate. ...which was a consequence of it being carried out
only within the City of Boston, and not including the
suburbs.
I think the class based one makes the most sense. Of
course you do. As you just explained, I'm not from Appalachia
nor am I poor, but I COULD be, and so to help someone in that
position seems fair. But to help someone because they are black or
Hispanic, well I'm never going to be that. you can put
yourself in the place of poor white people. You get that "there but
for the grace of God" sensation that you just don't get for people
from other races, and feel better about afirmative action programs
for them.
That's not a very good argument.
|6.21.08 @ 12:51PM|#
George Bush's kids get affirmative action, too. Its called
legacy (which should be trashed too).
Agreed. If your against race based affirmative action, you have to
oppose legacy preferences to be intellectually consistent.
But we all know that.
|6.21.08 @ 12:52PM|#
I don't have anything useful to say about how black people perceive selling out.
Whoops. I don't have anything useful to say about Affirmative Action, either. Unfortunately. I really would.
|6.21.08 @ 12:54PM|#
NNG,
I think in an odd, backwards way de-seg is easier in the South
because of the larger numbers of black people.
I agree with the first part, about the geographic integration, but
not about the absolute numbers. In the South, even during slavery,
black people were a common part of most white people's lives.
Racism there was about managing proximity. In the North, even in
places that have had large numbers of black people for generations,
the black neighborhoods were like the insular immigrant communities
that grew up during the same period.
The "lines on the map" in northern areas look very reasonable.
That's sort of the problem. The Boston busing experiment in the 70s
being a case in point.
|6.21.08 @ 12:56PM|#
On the more important topic of comic books being made into
movies -
When, in the name of all that is good and right, is
this classic comic going to be made into a blockbuster movie
franchise?
I ask, is there no justice?
|6.21.08 @ 1:00PM|#
joe
Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I am saying. A program like
Social Security is popular because while we all pay in, we can all
benefit from it. Now maybe I won't need it at all, but if I did I
could get it.
Income based affirmative action is like that. I could be poor. Race
based affirmative action is not. It has less to do with putting
myself in one groups shoes, it has to do with supporting something
that is at least theoretically open to help me and my loved ones
(as opposed to actually hurting them as the race based kind
would).
"Oh, yes, the all-powerful civil rights groups that control the
corporations." Corporations don't want bad press and yes they
humble themselves in front of civil rights groups all the
time.
"Objectively, race relations have gotten far better since
affirmative action programs proliferated." Since them, yes of
course. But because or despite of them? A lot else has been going
on...
Neu Mejican|6.21.08 @ 1:00PM|#
NP,
I see the smug-off wasn't over.
So you really think Eno--a self-proclaimed "non-musician" who
is best known for his ambient sound-pictures and for his work as a
producer--merits direct comparison with Purcell and Britten,
eh?
Yes. I would even contend his music is more important and has been
more widely influential among serious musicians.
Look, NM, if you can't appreciate Purcell's Dido and Aeneas and
Britten's Peter Grimes...then you simply have no ear for music. I
really don't know how else to put it.
Who said I didn't like Purcell or Britten?
I just said your comments indicated that you had pedestrian
taste...not that there is anything wrong with that.
Actually, NM, there is a strong correlation between quality and
sustained popularity.
Nope. You are just using this as you definition of "quality."
I don't know anyone with half a musical ear or any serious rock
critic who claims that either the the Sex Pistols or the Clash are
musically better than the Fab Four.
There have been plenty of serious rock critics who have made claims
along this line. Your point simply emphasizes the subjective nature
of musical criticism and the narrowness of your reading of
"serious" rock criticism.
let alone an objective analysis based on purely musical merits,
I think I'll stick to my current judgment.
How would this analysis be conducted?
What objective standard are you using for merit? (hint: you are
using the "I like it" meter like everyone else, you just fool
yourself into believing that this is not subjective).
And the Stones?
I was making fun of your claim that they were the greatest rock and
roll band...not saying they were better than The Beatles.
One of the few objective facts in music: The Stooges were the
greatest rock and roll band. Really, a serious music critic told me
so, so it must be true.
And I don't know why you keep saying I have no taste, 'cause on
that earlier thread you clarified, "I am not meaning to say that
your taste is worse (or better) than mine."
Because you list The Beatles, The Stones, and a couple of
mainstream classical composers as examples of great music. And
since the only metric of musical quality that matters (to me) is
how closely it matches my taste, you have demonstrated that you
have no taste (well some taste, you like Arvo Part)...and are out
of touch with todays musical market.
In this information age the word (or sound) gets around
quickly, and it's becoming increasingly difficult for worthy music
to escape our attention.
Or does it make harder for the quality stuff to rise above the
noise? [There's that damned empty word "quality" creeping into the
discussion]...I would contend that it is easier for music to find
its audience, but harder for an artist to obtain general/wide
recognition.
Anyone with a musical ear... just as a vocal teacher can tell a
good singer from a bad one.
You seem to be confusing technique with musical quality. These are
just as weakly correlated as "sustained" popularity and musical
quality. For instance, I feel that Ian Curtis of Joy Division was a
great vocalist, primarily due to his unmatched phrasing. But a
typical vocal teacher would not call him a good vocalist, primarily
due to his difficulty actually hitting a note in key.
I don't know what counts as tongue-in-cheek in your book, but I
don't think most people would use that expression to describe
calling someone "a cranky old fart with no taste."
Okay, it wasn't tongue in cheek...You can think of it as me "giving
you shit."
|6.21.08 @ 1:01PM|#
I'm not MAKING an argument about causation. I'm refuting
one.
OK. Do you accept that the effects of affirmative action on race
relations are unknown and unknowable?
Because they are.
Neu Mejican|6.21.08 @ 1:08PM|#
Art POG,
The Streets is a nice call. Among British hip-hop I am partial to
Tricky...I am not sure if The Go!Team count as hip-hop, but their
shit is infectious.
Dhex,
Current 93 is one of those bands I need to delve into more...they
bring to mind Coil, also, imho, great British composers of serious
music.
|6.21.08 @ 1:12PM|#
"If your against race based affirmative action, you have to
oppose legacy preferences to be intellectually consistent."
I agree with you.
IBut I knew a conservative guy who did oppose race based and even
income based affirmative action but supported legacy preferences.
His argument was basically that the legacy admits provide an
important institutional tool to sustain the educational institution
while also fostering committment to the institution (the kind you
get when someone says "for three generations we've been Harvard
folk"). He thought the school itself gained nothing from race or
income based affirmative action because he simply did not buy the
idea that race or class would, by themselves, add any intellectual
diversity to the institution.
|6.21.08 @ 1:14PM|#
J sub D
I agree with DD being more like Batman. I always thought it was
interesting when DD would sometimes scrap with Spidey. Spidey's
strength and reflexes are highly augmented (I've seen him pick up a
car and THROW it in the comics) and I can't see how even a highly
trained regular guy could hang for very long with that...Not
dissing on DD he's a great character, just saying...
Neu Mejican|6.21.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Speaking of English composers, A Flock of Seagulls is one of
those rare bands that is way better than I initially thought they
were. Amother example would be Human League.
WFMU has some Human League stuff you might like posted
http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2008/06/the-human-leagu.html
I could never get into either...although I recently discoverd, much
to my surprise, that Talk Talk developed into a pretty interesting
act...
joe,
Sounds like maybe you are in a lull ;^)
|6.21.08 @ 1:16PM|#
MNG,
If you were not born in West Virginia, you cannot suddenly become a
kid from West Virginia, or benefit from a an admissions program
that benefits people from the poor small towns of West Virgnian,
any more than you could benefit from a an admissions program that
benefits black kids. You just feel like you can relate.
J sub D,
I don't accept such a thing. I think desegregation makes race
relations better, and affirmative actions advances desegregation.
But, regardless, this is a second-order effect. Desegregation is
good, overcoming the entrenched effects that perpetuate segregation
and racial inequality is good. If there is a convincing case that
an effort to do so is causing some great to race relations, it
could militate against that effort. But no such convincing case can
be made based on the evidence, and in fact, there is a strong case
to be made otherwise.
|6.21.08 @ 1:18PM|#
"Amother example would be Human League."
Human League was prominently displayed in Don't Mess With the Zohan
which I saw this week. It was funnier than I thought it might
be.
|6.21.08 @ 1:20PM|#
But I knew a conservative guy who did oppose race based and
even income based affirmative action but supported legacy
preferences.
I know liberals who are dumbshits as well.
What can you do?
BTW, Economic AA gets an "I dunno, probably OK" from me. I know it
would be abused and mismanaged, but I'm not certain how high the
level of incompetency the administration of the program would
have.
|6.21.08 @ 1:20PM|#
Art POG,
I thought of something useful to say.
The the extent that black kids see black faces in the boardrooms,
the political offices, and the highlty-esteemed professional,
working hard in school and in the professional world will be less
likely to be seen as selling out.
|6.21.08 @ 1:22PM|#
Lemmee try that again.
To the extent that black kids see black faces in the boardroom, the
government, and the highly esteemed professions, working hard in
school and advancing in the professional world will be less likely
to be seen as selling out.
|6.21.08 @ 1:25PM|#
joe
Do you have to born in Appalachia? I thought you just had to be
"from" there. Is there a year limit that being in Appalachia would
"taint" your opportunities making preference for one
justified?
I do see your point.
Do you think set-aside programs like Adarand foster desegregation?
I thought the explicit understanding there was that race was a
proxy for economic need (a "rebuttable presumption").
So maybe we are not talking about the same thing with regard to the
policy justifications of affirmative action. You're arguing the
justification is desegregation. Would you support it if based on
"fairness" concerns?
I'm not sure I think harming a person based on their race to
advance a social goal of desegregation is justified.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 1:25PM|#
Do you accept that the effects of affirmative action on race
relations are unknown and unknowable?
I'll take it on faith that racism begets more racism.
let alone an objective analysis based on purely musical merits,
I think I'll stick to my current judgment. How would this analysis
be conducted?
I learned something about merit vs appearance last year that
applies to both music and race relations: there was a study done a
while back that changed how a lot of professional music auditions
were done. The study found that if the judges could see the
performers playing, they tended to rank them differently than if
they were judged from behind a curtain where they could only be
heard and not seen.
Now, if only job interviews and political campaigns could be done
the same way.
|6.21.08 @ 1:28PM|#
joe @1:20,
I agree with you. And it's all tied in to some current event, too.
I'll think of what it is. ;)
I'd like to see more black engineers, physicists, etc., too.
Attitudes do seem to be changing to some extent. I see rappers that
make being a geek or bookworm look cool. Anyway, I'm petitioning
for more R&B songs about quantum physics. ;)
Neu Mejican|6.21.08 @ 1:29PM|#
joe,
PJ Harvey is a fine choice...she's consistently good, and always
changing.
Gallon Drunk came out about the same time, and I think they put out
as close to a perfect rock album as anyone have ever produced in
"You, the Night...and The Music."
|6.21.08 @ 1:30PM|#
Now, if only job interviews and political campaigns could be done the same way.
Presidential candidates would probably be 35% uglier.
|6.21.08 @ 1:30PM|#
In the California prison system there was a policy to segregate prisoners based on race. It was put into place because of racially motivated attacks in the prisons. There we have two of what I think are the three major elements of racial preferences 1. racial classifications as the basis of official action 2. a desirable policy goal (the third which is not present is 3. harm to one group simply because of their race). SCOTUS struck it down I think. How do folks feel about that one?
|6.21.08 @ 1:38PM|#
"Presidential candidates would probably be 35% uglier."
The Daily Show book (which is hilarious btw, and I don't care much
for the show itself) had a gag about how TV has made people like
Abraham Lincoln unelectable today. But you know, I notice our
Presidents and pols are not always very good looking as is, so I
wonder if it has that effect so much
|6.21.08 @ 1:44PM|#
SCOTUS struck it down I think. How do folks feel about that one?
I think SCOTUS did all right. I think if everyone lives in "equal danger" as it were, things probably wouldn't change too much even if they segregated the prisoners. That's even ignoring my objection to racial segregation in general.
|6.21.08 @ 1:44PM|#
Concerning desegregation being easier to maintain in the deep
south due to historical proximity I would argue it a different
way.
Having been born and raised in Alabama and Mississippi, my
experience suggests that as a result of centuries of slavery and
social separation, blacks and whites are generally more willing to
live seperate but equal. There has been for a long long time
societal rules of engagement between the races.
I have heard other white folks say it like this: it ain't as bad
down here as it is in the north because down here the colored folk
know the rules.
Please don't see this as a justification, it is just an explanation
of the mindset still very prevalent here.
|6.21.08 @ 1:49PM|#
But you know, I notice our Presidents and pols are not always very good looking as is, so I wonder if it has that effect so much
Perhaps not, but it does affect grooming some. Otherwise, half the House of Representatives would grow handlebar mustaches and campaign wearing t-shirts with vulgar slogans printed on 'em.
|6.21.08 @ 1:51PM|#
MNG,
I imagine different universities have different language in their
admissions standards to keep Barack Obama from moving to West
Virginia so his kids can go to a school. (Hey, if the
anti-affirmative action people can throw out the names of black
celebrities to produce hypotheticals that bear no relation to
99.999% of how affirmative action works, so can I, dammit!)
Do you think set-aside programs like Adarand foster
desegregation? I think that contractor set-asides are becoming
seriously obsolete, outside of some absurd outliers. At this point,
I'd be happy with no contractor set-asides except as ordered by a
court because there is a long-running problem of racist cronyism in
a particular department or municipality. As a broad public policy,
the government doesn't have to take the lead in making business
available to minority-owned firms anymore.
Would you support it if based on "fairness" concerns? That
could mean a lot of different things, but of course I'd support
making things fair - like the example of breaking down long
standing habits of racist cronyism.
|6.21.08 @ 1:54PM|#
TallDave is shallow.
I'll take it on faith that racism begets more racism. Ah,
look, the "color-blind" version of "Creation demands a
Creator."
People who take a lot on faith tend to share the same intellectual
habits.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 2:04PM|#
Just for fun, I've been reading stuff in the NYT archive from
the run up to the Iraq War.
We were told that it would cost $1.7 billion, total! Including
reconstruction and occupation!
How much more has it cost to date?
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 2:08PM|#
To answer my on question, around $530 billion, and it hasn't
even ended yet.
It also doesn't count the amount of money we will have to spend on
injured vets.
|6.21.08 @ 2:14PM|#
NNG,
The guy who said that, Andrew Natsios, Bush's head of USAID, was a
very competent, accomplished administrator under Mitt Romney in
Massachusetts. And an honest one, too.
I remember thinking "Good pick" when they announced his
appointment.
I don't know what happened to that guy. I imagine the same "good
solider" routine that got so many decent Republicans to go
along.
|6.21.08 @ 2:18PM|#
In all fairness, No Name Guy, about 400 billion of that money went towards hiring people to tear down statues of Saddam, cleaning up all the flower petals and confetti thrown at our soldiers during all those "Thank You For Bringing Us Democracy" parades, and of course, building schools.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 2:21PM|#
Who thinks we would have been better off putting the pretender to the Iraqi throne back in Baghdad and giving them an semi-constitutional authoritarian (but business-friendly) monarchy like Dubai?
|6.21.08 @ 2:28PM|#
Human League was prominently displayed in Don't Mess With the Zohan which I saw this week. It was funnier than I thought it might be.
Sandler has excellent taste in music (as proved by "The Wedding Singer"). Even though most of his movies are kind of goofy, he's done some pretty damn good work, too (see "Punch Drunk Love").
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 2:36PM|#
Who thinks we would have been better off putting the
pretender to the Iraqi throne back in Baghdad and giving them an
semi-constitutional authoritarian (but business-friendly) monarchy
like Dubai?
That would have been even worse than the "benign neglect"
small-footprint strategy we had from 2003-2007.
How would such a monarchy have stayed in power? You need some
authority to be authoritarian. The old Iraqi Army was chosen for
its loyalty to Saddam; no help there. And Al-Sistani was insisting
on elections right from the start.
You would have had all the same problems we have now with the added
bonus of an illegitimate monarchy no one had voted for, instead of
the pluralist democracy they're evolving into now.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 2:39PM|#
Tall Dave, heres a pop quiz since war defenders love to compare
Iraq to South Korea:
What kind of government did South Korea have from 1945 to 1988?
I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Jeffersonian Democracy.
BTW, I'd much rather live in Dubai than Baghdad. How about you?
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 2:41PM|#
We were told that it would cost $1.7 billion, total!
Including reconstruction and occupation!
Another wonderful job of intel from the same CIA that was sure we'd
find WMD and missed the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union.
|6.21.08 @ 2:41PM|#
There was a story today on Weekend America on NPR about Barry
Cooper, the former drug cop who now tries to help people avoid drug
arrests (partly through his "Never Get Busted Again" videos). He
was the subject of a couple H&R threads 1-2 years ago. They
don't have an audio link to this particular story yet, but I assume
they will later today or tomorrow.
http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/06/19/drug_agent/
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 2:41PM|#
The army was Sunni. The King would have been Sunni. The army
would have gladly defended him if they were faced with the prospect
of Shia mob rule.
It also has the added bonus of pissing of giving no advantage
whatever to Iran.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 2:45PM|#
Tall Dave, nice try but in 1991 Bus the Greater was way more
honest about the potential costs of war. He prepared us for the
absolute worst scenario, and mercifully it turned out to be much
better than that.
Bush the Lesser gave us the most rosy unrealistic scenario possible
and turned out to be horribly wrong.
But a leader should always tell the people to assume the worst
possible outcome when undertaking something as weighty as war and
peace.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 2:47PM|#
What kind of government did South Korea have from 1945 to
1988?
A fairly autocratic (though economically liberal) democracy. It was
a military government run by the U.S. at first, which didn't work
well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_south_korea
On August 15, 1948 the Republic of Korea was formally
established, with Syngman Rhee as the first president, who was
elected the President ahead of Kim Koo in July 1948. With the
establishment of Rhee's government, de jure sovereignty also passed
into the new government. On September 9, 1948, the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea was established under Kim Il-Sung. The
investiture of the Rhee government followed the general election of
May 10, 1948. The country's first constitution had been promulgated
by the first National Assembly on July 17. It established a system
with a strong president, who was elected indirectly by the National
Assembly. While the government with Ministerial responsibilities
was originally considered, the opposition by a number of
politicians who was seeking power prevented its application in
favour of a Presidential Government.
On December 12, 1948, by its resolution 195 [1] in the Third
General Assembly, the United Nations recognized the Republic of
Korea as the sole legal government of Korea.
Around this time from 1945-1950, United States and South Korean
authorities carried out a land reform that retained the institution
of private property. They confiscated and redistributed all land
held by the Japanese colonial government, Japanese companies, and
individual Japanese colonists. The Korean government carried out a
reform whereby Koreans with large landholdings were obliged to
divest most of their land. A new class of independent, family
proprietors was created.
Rhee was supported in the elections by the Korea Democratic Party,
but neglected to include any of its members in his cabinet. In
retaliation, the members of the party formed a united opposition
Democratic Nationalist Party, and began to advocate a cabinet
system which would remove power from the president. This led to a
regrouping of the Rhee faction into the Nationalist Party, which
later became the Liberal Party, and remained Rhee's base throughout
his administration. The country's second parliamentary elections
were held on May 30, 1950, and gave the majority of seats to
independents.
BTW, I'd much rather live in Dubai than Baghdad. How about
you?
I'd much rather live here in IL than Dubai, and most Iraqis would
rather live under Maliki than Saddam Hussein.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Why do you think, Dave, that we supported an autocratic dictatorship in South Korea instead of holding one-person, one-vote elections while mouthing platitudes about freedom?
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 2:50PM|#
He prepared us for the absolute worst scenario, and
mercifully it turned out to be much better than that.
As I recall, many critics at the time insisted it would go much
worse than Bush I predicted.
And it ended up leading to a 17-year conflict, so I'm not sure how
well it actually turned out in the end. As with the 2003 toppling
of the regime, initial success bogged down.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 2:52PM|#
Why do you think, Dave, that we supported an autocratic
dictatorship in South Korea instead of holding one-person, one-vote
elections while mouthing platitudes about freedom?
We did hold elections. Read the wiki.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 2:57PM|#
I didn't say "elections". I said one person, one-vote elections.
The election of Rhee as President is widely believed to have been
rigged.
Also, he followed his own Constitution about as much as, say,
Stalin did. It was an authoritarian government. The next paragraph
talks about how he assumed total dictatorial government over South
Korea even before the war started.
Why do you think we supported him in that?
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 2:59PM|#
And was then promptly elected.
After the armistice, South Korea experienced political turmoil
under years of autocratic leadership of Syngman Rhee, which was
ended by student revolt in 1960. Throughout his rule, Rhee sought
to take additional steps to cement his control of government. These
began in 1952, when the government was still based in Busan due to
the ongoing war. In May of that year, Rhee pushed through
constitutional amendments which made the presidency a
directly-elected position. To do this, he declared martial law and
jailed the members of parliament whom he expected to vote against
it. Rhee was subsequently elected by a wide margin. He regained
control of parliament in the 1954 elections, and thereupon pushed
through an amendment to exempt himself from the eight-year term
limit.
Rhee wasn't a poster child for liberal democracy, but comparisons
to Stalin are hyperbolic.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:02PM|#
Also, unlike Stalin or Mao, who would have massacred the student
protestors without qualm, Rhee resigned.
The events of 1960, known as the April Revolution, were touched
off by the violent repression of a student demonstration in Masan
on the day of the presidential election, March 15. Initially these
protests were quelled by local police, but they broke out again
after the body of a student was found floating in the harbor.
Subsequently nonviolent protests spread to Seoul and throughout the
country, and Rhee resigned on April 26.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:02PM|#
And he was replaced with, what Dave? More military
government.
You still haven't answered the damn question. Why do you think the
United States favored an authoritarian government for South
Korea?
|6.21.08 @ 3:02PM|#
To answer my on question, around $530 billion, and it hasn't
even ended yet.
Nay, nay, Moosebreath, ;-)
I strongly suspect that the number you just quoted doesn't factor
in wear and tear on equipment, rehabilitation and disability costs
for our servicemen, etc. The numers I've seen (credible IMHO) are
~1 trillion. And counting.
What a bargain!
|6.21.08 @ 3:02PM|#
"Sparky, I find L.E.A.P. also to be fascinating."
Art-P.O.G.,
Yeah, they're pretty interesting. There was a guy who used to post
here regularly who was involved with them (I can't remember his
handle, but I'm pretty sure there was something about Florida in
it).
One of the H&R threads about Cooper was about how LEAP had
distanced itself from his videos, in part because they were
suspicious it was actually a sting to catch drug users.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/117569.html
|6.21.08 @ 3:03PM|#
"(I can't remember his handle, but I'm pretty sure there was
something about Florida in it)."
I think it was Steve in Clearwater.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:04PM|#
Why do you think the United States favored an authoritarian
government for South Korea?
Because it was better than Communism, of course. But it wasn't a
monarchy, or a dictatorship, any more than Venezuela is.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:06PM|#
Well Dave why didn't we insist that they become a Jeffersonian Democracy overnight? I mean, don't you think thats a reasonable expectation for a third world country ravaged by years of brutal occupation and warfare?
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:09PM|#
I don't think we're expecting Iraq to become a perfect Jeffersonian democracy. Hell, our own country doesn't meet that standard; you can't own a gun or smoke a joint in a lot of places.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:11PM|#
Really? Because I heard a lot of rhetoric about how it would
become "Belgium with oil" almost instantly in the run up to the
war.
But (once again) why do you think the United States favored an
authoritarian, autocratic government in South Korea (and Taiwan,
for that matter) initially over democracy?
ed|6.21.08 @ 3:12PM|#
Speaking of Austin Powers, the third one was the first I saw, and I didn't understand why people were laughing. My date whispered that I'd have to have seen the first two to understand. I would have whispered back that that was unfair, but knowing I'd been had, I settled into my sticky seat and prayed for a quick ending. So I suppose The Love Guru is for those who have never learned?
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:12PM|#
We did emphasize some rights even during our military occupation
of Korea.
The United States Army Military Government in Korea, also known
as USAMGIK, was the official ruling body of the southern half of
the Korean Peninsula from September 8, 1945 to August 15, 1948.
Many of the foundations for the modern South Korean system were
laid during this period
....
The freedom of the press guaranteed by USAMGIK led to an explosion
of media activity, primarily in the newspaper sector but also in
radio.
This period also saw the first flowering of Korean literature and
other aspects of Korean culture, which had been severely repressed
during the later years of the Japanese occupation. Journals of
Korean literature and thought began to circulate for the first time
in decades.
Perfect Jeffersonian democracy? No. But some basic rights. More or
less what we;re doing now in Iraq.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:13PM|#
why do you think the United States favored an authoritarian,
autocratic government in South Korea
I don't know that we "favored" it so much as we accepted it when it
happened.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:14PM|#
Dave, I wouldn't be worried about the government censoring what
I write in Iraq, mostly because the central government is comically
weak. It makes the Continental Congress look like the Roman
Empire.
I would, however, be terrified of a local Shia militia paying me a
visit at 3 am if I said something bad about Islam.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:15PM|#
"I don't know that we "favored" it so much as we accepted it
when it happened."
Um, we pretty much installed and sustained it. Why do you think
that is?
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:16PM|#
Why, then would we accept it? Probably because there was concern
around 1960 that S Korea would go Communist:
A military coup d'état(5.16 coup d'état) led by Major General
Park Chung-hee on May 16, 1961 put an effective end to the Second
Republic. Park was one of a group of military leaders who had been
pushing for the de-politicization of the military. Dissatisfied
with the cleanup measures undertaken by the Second Republic and
convinced that the current disoriented state would collapse into
communism, they chose to take matters into their own hands.
The military leaders promised to return the government to a
democratic system as soon as possible. On December 2, 1962, a
referendum was held on returning to a presidential system of rule,
which was allegedly passed with a 78% majority.[24] Park and the
other military leaders pledged not to run for office in the next
elections. However, Park ran for president anyway, winning narrowly
in the election of 1963.[25
It's a safe bet we were encouraging them to move towards
democracy.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:17PM|#
Dave, I wouldn't be worried about the government censoring
what I write in Iraq, mostly because the central government is
comically weak.
Ha. Tell that to Basra, Sadr City, Mosul, and Amara.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:17PM|#
And theres no similar concern that Iraq goes Shia theocratic?
Why not?
Didn't you see Malaki getting kissy-kissy with the President of
Iran?
|6.21.08 @ 3:17PM|#
So I suppose The Love Guru is for those who have never learned?
Looks like I'm going to have to skip it. OT, but Be Kind, Rewind was awesome.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:18PM|#
The central government is entirely dependent on semi-criminal
sectarian militias and tribal leaders. Thats not a mark of
strength.
It would be like the FBI having to depend on the Mafia to carry out
its operations.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:19PM|#
Well, this is what we "installed."
On August 15, 1948 the Republic of Korea was formally
established, with Syngman Rhee as the first president, who was
elected the President ahead of Kim Koo in July 1948. With the
establishment of Rhee's government, de jure sovereignty also passed
into the new government. On September 9, 1948, the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea was established under Kim Il-Sung. The
investiture of the Rhee government followed the general election of
May 10, 1948. The country's first constitution had been promulgated
by the first National Assembly on July 17. It established a system
with a strong president, who was elected indirectly by the National
Assembly.
Sounds a lot like Iraq, except for the strong President part
(Iraqis being understably wary of such).
|6.21.08 @ 3:20PM|#
I'll be in Iraq soon enough. Here's my plan.
1. Get deployed
2. Get internet in my billeting.
3. Post on Reason
4. ??????
5. Profit!!!
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.21.08 @ 3:20PM|#
I really wanted to see Be Kind Rewind, but it didn't
show up in our local theaters.
I should just be glad that No Country for Old Men and
There Will Be Blood did.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:20PM|#
Here:
The defining reality in Iraq is that there is no state. Because there is no state in Iraq, there is also no government. Orders issued in Baghdad have no impact because there are no state institutions to carry them out. Government institutions such as parliament and positions such as cabinet minister have no substance. Power comes from having a relationship with a militia, not a government office. The "Iraqi Security Forces" are groups of Shi'ite militias, which exist to fight other militias. They take orders from militia leaders, not the government. Government revenues are slush funds for militia leaders to pay their militiamen. The whole edifice Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus described exists only as a figment of the Bush administration's imagination.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:21PM|#
The central government is entirely dependent on
semi-criminal sectarian militias and tribal leaders. Thats not a
mark of strength.
Actually, Maliki has been attacking the militias, and garnering
approval across sects for it. Tribal leaders have been around for
millennia; exclusing them was one of our biggest mistakes.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:23PM|#
Dave, you pretend that Rhee actually followed his own
Constitution. He didn't.
We continued to fund his army and security apparatus despite that,
and made no demands that he reform.
So why didn't we demand he become a liberal democracy
overnight?
|6.21.08 @ 3:23PM|#
We went to war in Korea to keep the communist North from
conquering the South. Mission accomplished. That the government was
pretty messed up for decades after that is beside the point.
We went to war in Iraq for the purpose of bringing freedom and
democracy to that country, and a blossoming of liberal democracy
throughout the Middle East. The cost of that misadventure is now
measured in the hundreds of thousands of human lives and the
hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention the stalling of the
war against Al Qaeda. (Obviously, given what has just been
re-confirmed about the WMD and Saddam/al Qaeda intelligence being
distorted by the White House, that was just a pretext.)
If the Arab Spring promises used to justify this war don't come
true - if it ends up with military thugs like South Korea for
decades - then the war will be a failure on the terms its
proponents established.
Ha. Tell that to Basra, Sadr City, Mosul, and Amara. Every
single one of those places required massive US military firepower
to support the Iraqi force's efforts to prevent anti-government
militias from openly controlling the city. That's supposed to show
the strength of the central government?
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:23PM|#
Please, you're going to cite Buchananites at me?
Here, try this. Today's NYT:
Big Gains for Iraq Security, but Questions Linger
BAGHDAD - What's going right? And can it last?
Violence in all of Iraq is the lowest since March 2004. The two
largest cities, Baghdad and Basra, are calmer than they have been
for years. The third largest, Mosul, is in the midst of a major
security operation. On Thursday, Iraqi forces swept unopposed
through the southern city of Amara, which has been controlled by
Shiite militias. There is a sense that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal
al-Maliki's government has more political traction than any of its
predecessors.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:25PM|#
Yes Dave, I'm actually citing people who think like adults about foreign policy instead of Jacobin Trotskyists on crack. God forbid.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:26PM|#
Dave, you pretend that Rhee actually followed his own
Constitution. He didn't.
I hear the same complaint about Bush here everyday.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:27PM|#
Yes Dave, I'm actually citing people who think like adults
about foreign policy
So you're on board with their whole "Zionist conspiracy" deal?
Adults? Come on.
|6.21.08 @ 3:27PM|#
Actually, Maliki has been attacking the militias
Not the Badr Corps. Maliki has been buying the loyalty of one
Shiite militia as it fights another.
Please, you're going to cite Buchananites at me? They
can't possibly be right; they are on the record as predicting the
war would go badly.
Here, try this. Today's NYT: They're the ones that
published Judith Miller, right? Since when does ToolDave believe
the NYT?
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:27PM|#
Let me know when Bush orders massacres of protesting students
and imprisons his political opponents without trial, ok?
If Bush were Rhee, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama would be out of
office and under house arrest (at the least).
|6.21.08 @ 3:28PM|#
We can't listen to them! They're politics aren't right, so just ignore anything you read there.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:28PM|#
Please cite one article from TAC that talks about a "Zionist conspiracy".
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:30PM|#
Hell, find anything remotely anti-Semitic. Their archives are
online, it shouldn't be difficult if what you say is true.
Unless you never read the magazine.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:31PM|#
Let me know when Bush orders massacres of protesting
students and imprisons his political opponents without trial,
ok?
Well, keep in mind, FDR had interned 100,000 Japanese without trial
around Rhee's time. Expectations were lower then.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:32PM|#
Ah, well, then, this may enlighten you.
http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/buchanan.html
|6.21.08 @ 3:32PM|#
And, of course, the CIA and State Department, and everyone
except the political appointees in the Pentagon, were saying that
the $1.7b figure was absurd, there would be a long occupation and
insurgency, and that both would require massive investments.
But as we've learned, the CIA exists for the purpose of having the
White House's incorrect and dishonest intelligence attributed to
it.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:33PM|#
Buchanan, who opposed virtually every civil rights law and
court
decision of the last 30 years, published FBI smears of Martin
Luther King
Jr. as his own editorials in the St. Louis Globe Democrat in the
mid-1960s.
"We were among Hoover's conduits to the American people," he
boasted (Right
from the Beginning, p. 283).
Buchanan referred to Capitol Hill as "Israeli-occupied
territory."
(St. Louis Post Dispatch, 10/20/90)
Writing of "group fantasies of martyrdom," Buchanan challenged
the
historical record that thousands of Jews were gassed to death by
diesel
exhaust at Treblinka: "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon
monoxide
to kill anybody." (New Republic, 10/22/90) Buchanan's columns have
run in
the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight, the German-American National PAC
newsletter
and other publications that claim Nazi death camps are a
Zionist
concoction.
I could go on, but read it yourself.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Find something in TAC, Dave. Something anti-semitic.
Specifically, mention of a "Zionist conspiracy".
I'm waiting.
You might want to read their archives from '03. They've been way,
way more accurate than say NR, which proclaimed in 2005 on its
cover "WE'RE WINNING!"
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:36PM|#
Easy enough. March 2003:
The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten
something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and
associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a
rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question
directly to Richard Perle: "Can you assure American viewers ...
that we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal
for American security interests? And what would be the link in
terms of Israel?"
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:37PM|#
Again, you've obviously never read the damn
magazine.
No, I don't read magazines published by people like Buchanan. If
David Duke puts out a magazine, I won't need to read it either.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:38PM|#
Nothing was mentioned about a "Zionist conspiracy". I'm still
waiting.
Was the late Tim Russert an anti-semite by your standards too,
Dave? Hes the one who asked the question!
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:38PM|#
More?
Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the
campaign. When these "Buchananites toss around
'neoconservative'-and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen-it
sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is 'Jewish
conservative.'" Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate
attachment to Israel is a "key tenet of neoconservatism." He also
claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush
"sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of
Commentary magazine, the neocon bible." (For the uninitiated,
Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the
monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:40PM|#
I want direct articles from the magazine, not commentary by war
apologists. Where was a "Zionist conspiracy" mentioned?
I know war supporters like to hysterically throw around accusations
of anti-semitism, but this has to be a record.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.21.08 @ 3:42PM|#
Back to the affirmative action discussion, I don't get why
people have never understood about the poor white advantage to top
schools. Being from West Virginia, nearly one generation out of the
mines on my mom's side (obviously she wasn't a coal mine employee,
but her brothers and father were) and with my scores and so on, I'm
sure I could have gone to any University I'd wanted. I eventually
decided that going to a state school for free was better for my
parents than trying to pay to go to an Ivy League or
whatever.
I suppose there is something to be said for legacy admissions and
that sort of thing. The way I've always thought of it, it's sort of
a symbiosis: the rich legacy kids (and their parents) pay full
tuition and donate and therefore keep the school open, the poorer
scholarship kids make sure that the schools reputation and thus the
degrees it offers retain their value. It's easy to resent the
mediocre or worse students attending a good school just because
their parents "own the color blue" as Chris Rock would say, but
they provide some service too, even if it doesn't seem very noble
to anyone.
Of course with the size of endowments being what they are at some
schools now, this excuse for the legacy may no longer hold as much
water as it once did.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:42PM|#
Neither are the people at TAC.
Do you read NR by any chance Dave?
Bill Buckley opposed civil rights laws and was against hiring a Jew
to be his successor because he wasn't Christian. I guess we should
discount everything from them, too.
Also, you've still refused to refute (or even read) the article.
You'd rather change the subject and toss around accusations of
anti-semitism instead. Yeah, thats the ticket.
Theres really nothing else to discuss.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:42PM|#
NNG,
Those quotes are right from AmCon. Here's another:
The radical Zionist right to which Perle and Feith belong is
small in number but it has become a significant force in Republican
policy-making circles. It is a recent phenomenon, dating back to
the late 1970s and 1980s, when many formerly Democratic Jewish
intellectuals joined the broad Reagan coalition. While many of
these hawks speak in public about global crusades for democracy,
the chief concern of many such "neo-conservatives" is the power and
reputation of Israel.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:44PM|#
I never called anyone an anti-Semite, I said Buchananites are
unserious people who toss around "Zionist conspiracy"
theories.
The article is easily refuted. Spend about five minutes here and
see what the ISF are accomplishing.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Do you really deny the presence of an Israeli lobby in the
federal government, Dave?
Thats not conspiracy (in fact its quite open, theres AIPAC). It is
a lobby, however. Its like any other lobby, and saying it exists is
not being anti-semitic. Its stating a fact.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:45PM|#
Do you read NR by any chance Dave?
Nope. I'm not a fan of the dead trees. I get my editorials from
from RCP, spanning everything from The Nation to the Weekly
Standard.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:46PM|#
Yeah, all those unserious people who predicted the war would go
badly, that there may not be any WMDs, and that it would cost far
more than predicted and inflame anti-American sentiment around the
world.
What a bunch of whackos!
I'm sorry, Dave, but the only people that 28%ers get to call
"unserious" are flat-earthers and evolution deniers.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:47PM|#
Of course Israel has a lobby. That's a little different than denying mass murder at Treblinka and claiming we went to Iraq at Israel's behest because the Jews control the government.
|6.21.08 @ 3:48PM|#
Of course with the size of endowments being what they are at some schools now, this excuse for the legacy may no longer hold as much water as it once did.
With tuition costs the way they are, I think your argument still holds a lot of water.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:49PM|#
Yeah, all those unserious people who predicted the war would
go badly, that there may not be any WMDs, and that it would cost
far more than predicted and inflame anti-American sentiment around
the world.
Let's see those predictions we wouldn't find WMD.
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:50PM|#
I'm sorry, Dave, but the only people that 28%ers get to call
"unserious" are flat-earthers and evolution deniers.
You mean the 28% that oppposed the war? I agree.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:52PM|#
You could start with Scott Ritter and Hans Blix.
The myth that there was no one who thought Saddam Hussein had lost
his WMD capacity is another Big Lie of the war apologists.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:52PM|#
You really think your view is still in the majority? Wow.
Are you on Vicodin or something?
|6.21.08 @ 3:53PM|#
TallDave, saying that disagreement with his politics is evidence
of racism?
No way!
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:53PM|#
Are Ritter and Blix at AmCon?
Too bad the CIA didn't listen to them, I guess.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:54PM|#
FWIW I thought there wouldn't be any because I believe the federal government can't do anything right, so of course it would get the intelligence wrong.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:55PM|#
They were, you know, actual weapons inspectors from the
U.N.
But we were all told the U.N. was irrelevant, and that to say
otherwise was "French".
TallDave|6.21.08 @ 3:55PM|#
You really think your view is still in the majority?
Wow.
Obviously I used the past tense.
Since you're degenrating into nonsensical ad hominems, I'll leave
you with joe.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 3:59PM|#
Lets review:
Citing an article from a magazine that has been very prescient
about foreign policy and the effect of the Iraq War over the past
five years? Bad! Anti-semitic!
Citing some chicken hawk war blog that most likely predicted we'd
find caches of WMD, be greeted as liberators, and that the war
would pay for itself? Good! Reliable source!
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 4:00PM|#
And then there are the predictions that we'd have $20/barrel oil thanks to the war. Ah, memories!
|6.21.08 @ 4:01PM|#
Oh, thank goodness. I thought this damn Iraq-cum-South Korea
debate would never end.
New Order is not only a great post-Beatles English band, but their
classic song "Love Vigilantes" is one of the greatest troop-themed
songs ever written.
|6.21.08 @ 4:03PM|#
See also: Pink Floyd's Final Cut album and Kate Bush's
song "Army Dreamers".
better than Toby Keith!
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 4:03PM|#
The debate will end when the Republican Party realizes (hoepfully after Barr throws the election) that people want a serious, adult foreign policy. Not some ideological-driven nonsense about "Freedom agendas" and "World War IV" and the "Twilight struggle".
|6.21.08 @ 4:06PM|#
I know I'm missing quite a few, but if you can think of great
military songs post-Vietnam onwards, please list.
"Bunker Soldiers" by Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark just occured
to me.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.21.08 @ 4:06PM|#
Art, you might be right, tuition is getting pretty crazy. I'm
glad free tuition at my school is part of my deal. If, you know, I
ever have kids.
And really isn't almost anything better than Toby Keith?
|6.21.08 @ 4:09PM|#
"The Rooster" by Alice in Chains and "One" by Metallica.
I'm glad free tuition at my school is part of my deal. If, you know, I ever have kids.
Good stuff.
And really isn't almost anything better than Toby Keith?
Yes.
|6.21.08 @ 4:18PM|#
People who still defend the invasion and occupation of Iraq as
the "right thing to do" are very difficult to converse with. A
trillion and counting, 4,000+ U.S. dead, tens of thousands of U.S.
servicemen and women crippled for life, ~100,000 dead Iraqis, five
years after the end of hostilities the electricity and plumbing
still doesn't work, ethnic cleansing in various neighborhoods of
various cities, and on and on and on.
The Iraqis had their election, but still can't walk across town
without fear of being killed. The army and police forces are
riddled with members who's loyalty to the elected government is
secondary at best.
The United State's reputation around the world has plummeted since
this exhibition of GWB's "humbler" foreign policy.
All of the above are facts. To still aver
that invading was the right, moral or intelligent decision requires
a denial of reality that approaches delusional at a minimum. I can
discuss argue with someone who says "We fucked up but we need to
stay to minimze the negative repurcussions of our policy".
I don't even bother with those who still think it was a moral or
good decision. Like the truthers, they are beyond reasoning
with.
Episiarch|6.21.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Are you on Vicodin or something?
Yes, why? Oh, you were talking to Dave.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 4:25PM|#
J Sub D, I agree that its worth talking to people who say "we fucked up but leaving fast might be worse, we should look at all options". Hell I'm sympathetic to that. Its the 100 years occupation/THE SURGE!!! people that really piss me off.
Kolohe|6.21.08 @ 4:31PM|#
Alice in Chains is one of my favorite bands.
The Rooster is not only their worst song, it is the most terrible
thing in the whole 1990's non-Disney musical universe.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 4:33PM|#
The Rooster is not only their worst song, it is the most terrible thing in the whole 1990's non-Disney musical universe.
Worse than the start of "Bling bling" horseshit materialism
hip-hop?
|6.21.08 @ 4:55PM|#
Really? "The Rooster" touches me (but not in a sexual way). No
accountin' for taste, I suppose. "Them Bones" is perfect.
Worse than the start of "Bling bling" horseshit materialism hip-hop?
Worst shit ever. Somewhat mitigated by the fact that the song "Bling, Bling" was actually sort of humorous and the fact that the trend was somewhat contemporaneous with the emergence of artists like Outkast, Aesop Rock, Jedi Mind Tricks, et al.
|6.21.08 @ 5:01PM|#
Speaking of weird, this has got to be one of the strangest
homebrew Obama campaign videos I've seen yet:
http://www.youtube.com/user/fightthetruth
Neu Mejican|6.21.08 @ 5:05PM|#
"Uncommon Valor" by Jedi Mind Tricks
"Johnny Walker's Lament" by DJ Krush featuring Anticon
Neu Mejican|6.21.08 @ 5:08PM|#
Re: Kate Bush,
The album The Dreaming is her outstanding work in my
opinion, but The Hounds of Love and the newest one are
also fine work.
|6.21.08 @ 5:15PM|#
The Hounds of Love is the only Kate Bush album I actually own, but I'm going to have to check out more of her stuff.
Neu Mejican|6.21.08 @ 5:24PM|#
"Pull out the Pin" is another Kate Bush war themed song (off of
The Dreaming).
It is about Vietnam, so I am not sure it counts for your list of
post-Vietnam songs, but it's a great tune.
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 5:31PM|#
Tom, people who make videos like that should have their voting rights removed.
|6.21.08 @ 5:35PM|#
Well, "The Rooster's" about the 'Nam, too. I just meant recorded after the Vietnam War, 'cause everybody knows those iconic songs ("War" by Edwin Starr, "Fortunate Son" by CCR, et al.)from the era.
Speaking of Aesop Rock|6.21.08 @ 5:39PM|#
The lines "You won't be laughing when the buzzards drag your brother's flags to rags/You won't be laughing when your front lawn is spangled with epitaphs" always struck me as terrifying and ominous, especially coming from an album released in 2000.
|6.21.08 @ 5:46PM|#
re: Ace Rock
Yeah, that and System of a Down's "Chop Suey" were extremely
prescient.
Speaking of literacy, I wish your average teenager were more
interested in Aesop Rock, Cannibal Ox, you know Alternative hip
hop, abstract and Avanthop. I really think shit like Soulja Boy
makes people more stupid when listened to in excess.
Ever hear Lupe Fiasco's "Dumb It Down"? It kind of makes me wonder
how much stupid pop is pushed because it genuinely sells (large
market) or pushed for more cynical reasons.
|6.21.08 @ 5:52PM|#
I've heard rap every bit as complex and ambitious as prog rock, but while there are many artists working in a really challenging style, few are extremely popular. Anyway, I like the internet because I can discover so many great artists that get little radio play.
Kolohe|6.21.08 @ 6:19PM|#
Worse than the start of "Bling bling" horseshit materialism
hip-hop?
I was never that much into hip-hop, but as far as I can tell, that
is a creature of the ought's, not the 90's.
It was the post-grunge anti-neu metal counter-pop 'purity' of
hip-hop in the 90's that led to it's mainstream acceptance, which
in turn has led to its current 'disco' phase.
Now, as a caveat I am the world's worst culture critic. I seem to
be a big fan - or at least, do not possess of viceral dislike - of
massed produced commodities that have has the edges shorn off from
their original manifestation.
For example, I like Linkin Park, the prequel's to Dune written by
his son, and How I Met Your Mother.
|6.21.08 @ 6:28PM|#
which in turn has led to its current 'disco' phase.
Although I'm not a big fan of disco (to say the least), disco and punk had a baby, and it was the most beautiful thing ever.
Romster|6.21.08 @ 6:34PM|#
A day late, but re: Great English music, Stone Roses. Also, Noel Gallagher. I will not debate the Stone Roses as brilliant, but I could be convinced Gallagher is not, provided the person telling me this has listened to Oasis B sides from the early career.
Kolohe|6.21.08 @ 6:59PM|#
Art-
Ok, I didn't know you were talking about a specific song, I thought
you were referring to a general trend. I never heard of it
before.
But I was wrong anyway. The worst song of the 90's in any genre was
by Robert Van
Winkle who clinched the award right out of the starting
gate.
My error was that despite graduating high school in '91, I tend to
think of anything from that summer on as 'the 90's' and anything
before graduation as 'the 80's' (Likewise, anything from Y2K to
9/11 is still mentally put in the 90's bin)
No Name Guy|6.21.08 @ 7:06PM|#
Kolohe, I humbly submit to you that Limp Bizkit was as bad, if not worse than Vanilla Ice.
Neu Mejican|6.21.08 @ 7:32PM|#
NNG,
Vanilla Ice and Limp Biquick are, for all intents and purposes, the
exact same musical act...no?
A difference without a distinction.
It's like arguing which is worse, Loverboy or Poison? There is no
point.
|6.21.08 @ 7:55PM|#
Ok, I didn't know you were talking about a specific song, I thought you were referring to a general trend. I never heard of it before.
No, you are correct about the timeframe of the general trend, I was merely pointing out that its provenance was arguably still in the mixed bag of the '90s.
Vanilla Ice and Limp Biquick are, for all intents and purposes, the exact same musical act...no?
While the general obnoxiousness of Limp Bizkit and Vanilla Ice are indeed nigh equivalent, I offer the following halfhearted defense of Limp Bizkit: at least they had members with musical talent, i.e. Wes Borland and DJ Lethal. Vanilla Ice is a great evil. I could easily compile a list of 100 white MCs of tremendous talent, yet I bet Vanilla Ice is one of the 5 most famous Caucasion rappers of all time.
|6.21.08 @ 8:22PM|#
It's a good thing I scrolled up, Art. I thought you were
throwing out the Cranberries as an example of a good post-Beatles
British band, and I was going to have to go all Dropkick
Murphys on you butt.
As for Mr. Van Winkle, I submit the following:
"Police are on the scene
You know what I mean?
They passed me up
Cold running on the dope fiends."
Imagine, a white rapper who brags about the police leaving him
alone and going after the other guys isn't respected in the hip-hop
world. Didn't see that coming.
|6.21.08 @ 8:23PM|#
In fact, Soulja Boy Tell Em and Hurricane Chris are so bad, I think the record industry must hate black people.
|6.21.08 @ 8:28PM|#
Cranberries as an example of a good post-Beatles British band, and I was going to have to go all Dropkick Murphys on you butt.
No, it's impossible to miss their Irishness. They're like a leprechaun leaning against a Blarney stone while reading James Joyce.
Didn't see that coming.
And they had the nerve to say Ice wasn't
authentic!
|6.21.08 @ 8:30PM|#
They're like a leprechaun leaning against a Blarney stone
while reading James Joyce.
I see you've met my cousins.
|6.21.08 @ 8:33PM|#
I see you've met my cousins.
lol. So, really, do the Catholics and Protestants of Ireland not hate one another as badly anymore?
|6.21.08 @ 8:43PM|#
Beats me.
The Catholics of Springfield, Mass seem to get along pretty well
with them.
|6.21.08 @ 10:35PM|#
blech. James Joyce is overlong and unreadable. Reading Finnegan's Wake is like, 3 days I want back.
Apaulogist|6.21.08 @ 10:48PM|#
What's with the blasphemy parade? First the Russert Cartoon and
now this Jesus video. In a secular society like this one, religion
is a friend of liberty (and I say that as an agnostic). The enemy
of my enemy and all that.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block103.html
|6.21.08 @ 10:52PM|#
I could never actually read "Naked Lunch" (even though a friend had a book of Burroughs quotations that were brilliant).
|6.21.08 @ 10:55PM|#
Apaulogist,
Look, dude, the Yes video was awesome. If anything, though, it
seemed to lack enough images of the Son of Man holding a baby
velociraptor.
|6.21.08 @ 11:28PM|#
First the Russert Cartoon and now this Jesus video. In a
secular society like this one, religion is a friend of
liberty
Riiiight. Just look at all those open atheists, and what with all
the special privileges the faithless get!
|6.22.08 @ 12:00AM|#
"In a secular society like this one, religion is a friend of
liberty"
That's one of the more bizarre statements I've seen here. But then,
Apaulaogist is a very special poster. And by special, I mean either
delusional or dishonest.
"James Joyce is overlong and unreadable. Reading Finnegan's Wake is
like, 3 days I want back."
The only Joyce I've read was Portrait of the Artist (in high
school, upon pain of class failure), but I enjoyed it. Not enough
to read more by him, mind you, but it wasn't bad. Way better than
another book we read that semester, The Good Earth. That crap won
Buck a Nobel Prize...?!?
highnumber|6.22.08 @ 12:00AM|#
This is too long to wade entirely through right now, but
someone, I think joe, was having trouble thinking of great British
bands from this century: the Libertines, Arctic Monkeys, and Art
Brut, to name just a few.
If you like the Jam, Buzzcocks, the Smiths, Wire, you'll find
plenty to like with these guys, too.
|6.22.08 @ 12:18AM|#
I have to echo the sentiment that Duran Duran is one of the
greater British bands, post Beatles.
And no one mentioned Led Zeppelin? WTF?
Neu Me;jican|6.22.08 @ 12:32AM|#
I could never actually read "Naked Lunch" (even though a
friend had a book of Burroughs quotations that were
brilliant).
The trick to reading Burroughs is first to listen him reading his
writing for awhile...and then when you read him, "hear" it in his
voice.
Without the prosody and timbre of his voice in your head his stuff
just doesn't work.
Neu Mejican|6.22.08 @ 12:37AM|#
blech. James Joyce is overlong and unreadable. Reading
Finnegan's Wake is like, 3 days I want back.
That's harsh.
'
Particularly coming from someone who reveres Ayn Rand's
books.
I ain't a Joyce Fan (I prefer Brian O'Nolan), but it would be a
hard call to choose between Finnegan's Wake or Fountainhead...or
water-boarding.
|6.22.08 @ 12:42AM|#
Ever spoken to anyone from Belfast?
Naw. I was asking out of genuine curiosity. What are you trying to suggest?
The trick to reading Burroughs is first to listen him reading his writing for awhile
I'll have to try that. After all, Hunter S. Thompson's work kicks ass if you imagine Johnny Depp doing a Raoul Duke voice the whole time. And the whole time I read "Breakfast of Champions" I imagined a mugging Bruce Willis playing Dwayne Hoover.
highnumber|6.22.08 @ 1:18AM|#
The impression I have been given from speaking to Belfasters (Belfastions?) is that the majority of folks get along quite nicely, but there is a minority of hooligans on both sides who like to rabblerouse. Apart from them, Catholics and Protestants form friendships and congregate without troubles. This is anecdotal information to be sure, but in regard to that sort of situation, I believe that to be no less reliable than the sources of the violence and the sensationalist media.
NP|6.22.08 @ 8:01AM|#
NM,
(Warning to other H&Rers: long post follows)
So you still wanna stick up for Eno, eh? Ok, let's leave aside the
fact that your claim would draw derisive snickers from a healthy
percentage of music instructors on the planet. (I'd also wager that
given his good taste in general Eno himself would object, but I
digress.) Since we've already agreed what matter in music are great
tunes, name me just three or four tunes by Eno that you think will
still be heard along with the best of Purcell and Britten in the
distant future. (I'm being pretty generous here, 'cause Purcell
alone wrote dozens more, if not hundreds.) Eno may seem more
important and influential now, NW, but do remember that we're
talking long term, not just the next decade or two. (And just out
of curiosity, you do know that Eno produced Coldplay's latest
album, right? You know, "the most offensive music" in your
book?)
Now let me respond to this:
Who said I didn't like Purcell or Britten?
I just said your comments indicated that you had pedestrian
taste...not that there is anything wrong with that.
I knew you were gonna pull this one. Go back and reread your
comments. You clearly said "pedestrian stuff." And just the fact
that you consider Eno more important than Purcell and Britten shows
you don't regard the latter two very highly.
And sorry to contradict you again, NW, but yes, there is a strong
correlation between quality and sustained popularity.
(Note that I didn't say anything about the definition of
quality.) I suppose you could counter that this rule doesn't apply
to newcomers (including recently resurrected works) or any junk
that might still be played in the offing, but that's why I
emphasized the "sustained" part. Great music lives on, regardless
of genre, while lesser music is gradually forgotten, again
regardless of genre. Unless you wanna contend that a piece of music
can be said to be of high quality with only a hundred or two
listeners in the long term, which I'll give no more
consideration than it deserves.
As for information technology's role in contemporary music, you're
right that today it's harder for an artist to obtain wide
recognition, but you also apparently haven't thought much about
this issue. No one today has the time to listen to every record out
there, so music, just like any other field of human endeavor, is
increasingly becoming specialized: Rock critics cover rock, jazz
critics cover jazz, classical critics cover classical, world music
critics cover world music, and so on. It's in fact a welcome change
in our Long Tail society, as worthy artists around the globe not
only get discovered but also recognized by experts in their own
field, and likewise people can now focus on what they want and make
informed choices based on the critical and informational sources
they trust. Wide recognition is hard to come by these days not
because it's "harder for the quality stuff to rise above the
noise," as you put it, but because "the quality stuff" has already
been brought to light through our advanced tech and communication
and there is so much of it to choose from in an unprecedented
variety of genres. To not have recognized this is, I must say,
rather "pedestrian."
What else? Ah, yes, the technique-vs.-artistry question. I love it
when people bring this up, 'cause it's just as valid as the false
dichotomy between style and substance. Look, NW, if you think
technique/craftsmanship and artistry/quality are so weakly
correlated, just look at your own example, which you used to argue
that Ian Curtis is "a great vocalist" due to "his unmatched
phrasing." (You do know phrasing is part of a technique, right?) A
degree of technique or craftsmanship is necessary for any "quality"
music. But let's assume technique and quality are indeed weakly
correlated. Do we still somehow recognize "quality" regardless of
the level of technique? Of course we do. Janis Joplin or Callas in
her declining years didn't have what we'd call a flawless technique
or even an attractive voice, but most critics agree that the
artistry was still there. And even the general public with
untrained ears can see that the finalists on American Idol
are better than most contestants at early stages. Now a complete
lack of subjectivity is admittedly impossible in any criticism, but
only a fool would argue that there's nothing objective behind these
assessments. (Just an aside: Ian Curtis doesn't hold a candle to
Ella Fitzgerald in phrasing.)
And no, there have not been plenty of serious rock critics who
claim that the Sex Pistols or the Clash are better than the Fab
Four musically. Most critics in fact agree that Never
Mind the Bollocks owes its success not to a great set of tunes
(there isn't any, and I say this as a fan) but to possibly the most
fun and daring middle-finger-in-the-air lese-majesté in
rock history. I thought we already agreed that whatever cultural
relevance a band may have doesn't matter in the end? And sure, a
critic or two may say that the Stooges or some other band are the
greatest rock 'n' roll act ever, but the overall critical consensus
for the past decades has been that the title belongs to either the
Beatles or the Stones.
This actually accentuates my point about objective analysis and
criticism. When a new recording of mainstream classical fare (say,
Chopin nocturnes) comes out, critics generally agree as to the
artistic qualify of the recording. The same is true for criticism
of premiere works by contemporary composers, though admittedly to a
lesser degree as it takes time to discern the good and the bad and
some of the former may get mixed up with the latter and vice versa
(again my emphasis on sustained popularity). And what
about rock criticism, where there is less emphasis on purely
musical value? There's still plenty of agreement, as evinced by the
near universal acclaim for, among recent examples, M.I.A.'s
Kala. And of course there's even more agreement on the
"pedestrian stuff" like the Beatles and the Stones.
So what does this say about objectivity? It's that wide critical
consensus is the only objective measure of artistic quality. I may
think Luciana Souza has a damn lovely voice, or that Alfred Cortot
is a better Schumann interpreter than most, but I have no way of
knowing whether either observation is valid until I find a
sufficient number of people who agree with me. (Of course expert
opinion should count extra, but especially more so in classical and
jazz which require a great deal of formal training.) I also think
most of Radiohead is self-absorbed crap, but much as I'd like to
think I'm right I currently have no objective way to validate my
judgment because many critics and listeners obviously don't buy it.
Musical criticism isn't simply a matter of "I like it," NW. I
actually prefer a lot of popular fluff to more "serious" stuff, but
that doesn't mean I consider the former better music than the
latter. (As you may know, many classical listeners can't stand most
of Wagner's music, but they don't dispute its greatness.) Those of
us who are attentive listeners don't just subjectively say
whether we like a piece of music or not; we also try to judge, as
objectively as possible, whether the artist, say, performs
naturally or oversings, or if the piece has a catchy tune or runs
too long, and so on. Then we measure our opinions and observations
against others' so we can objectively evaluate them, and
of course experienced listeners or those with training will
generally have better judgment than most. This is what I mean by
objective analysis and criticism.
I think I'm ready to comment on our most fundamental disagreements,
NW. Now I know it's unfair to criticize nonclassical music due to
its lack of triple fugues, high Cs or fourteen-note melismas, and
in fact I argued expressly against such spurious evaluation on an
earlier thread (no, not that one, another one before). Eno, the
Pogues and others are great artists in their own right, and so are,
by different standards, Handel and Stravinsky. (I should also add
that the "lighter" stuff should have its own standards as well,
e.g., Mozart serenades and the Spice Girls.) And I certainly don't
expect everyone to understand the most rarefied works of Bach,
Beethoven, Brahms and other dead white males from the past. But
when you say Eno is more Important and influential than Purcell and
Britten, you not only judge the two composers by false standards,
but you also show your lack of understanding of their music.
There's a reason why children's music lessons or conservatory
programs mostly consist of, yes, "mainstream" classical music, or
why a work like the Mozart Requiem can move even those listeners
normally indifferent to anything involving an orchestra, and it
ain't just some "pedestrian" tradition. It's that, by purely
musical standards (this is where all that formal stuff
should be taken into account), classical music is considered the
best there is, and its very best reaches the level of spiritual and
emotional depth that other types of music do not aspire to.
Let me end with a few words on rock 'n' roll. If anything, rock 'n'
roll (at least of the "original" kind--I'm using a narrow
definition here) represents irreverence, rebellion, and screw-'em
rejection of anything holy and traditional (which is, btw, why it's
absurd to compare rock and classical to begin with). But these
extramusical gimmicks get old quickly without the support of
(again) great tunes, 'cause most listeners couldn't care less about
some rants by middle-aged juveniles (ditto with the formal aspect
of music). I say the Beatles will outlive most other rock bands not
only because I like their music (subjective), but because I can't
think of any other band with a comparable number of songs that so
many people know and love, and with all those record sales to boot
(objective). Maybe you're right that there are other bands more
worthy of our attention, but so far the Beatles have stood the test
of time, just as Hank Williams has remained better known than
pretty much anyone else whose career lasted as long as his.
Sustained popularity and wide critical consensus may not
prove artistic quality, but they are the best measures,
and should a superior band emerge their artistic merit will have
been measured accordingly.
That's all I've gotta say. Maybe there are a few points you haven't
made yet that are more persuasive than the ones you have, and if
that's the case I would like to hear 'em. If not, hopefully you'll
acknowledge at least some of my points and I think I'll return to
consuming some more pedestrian and even some non-pedestrian
stuff.
Fluffy|6.22.08 @ 9:04AM|#
NP,
We can't really judge the survivability of the Beatles yet, because
their original audience is still alive and buying records.
I would say that the "Beatles generation" extends down to people my
age, because even though I'm too young to have been around when
they were a group, I'm old enough to remember hearing all their
solo career stuff on the radio in first release. And the solo
career stuff at least advertised the group stuff.
But as listeners get younger than me, the Beatles get less and less
relevant. There's a "Great Forgetting" coming as the Baby Boom
starts to die. The cultural signposts of the boomers will be
consigned to the ash bin of history. Unfortunately, a great part of
the culture from before the Baby Boom will disappear along
with it. The people ten or fifteen years younger than me just don't
care about it.
dhex, neologician to the super|6.22.08 @ 11:27AM|#
mejican, yeah, coil were something else.
with current 93 you gotta get past the initial shock of what the
hell is wrong with his voice. persona fav is of ruine or some
blazing star. the new one (black ships ate the sky) is pretty neat,
though, so long as you like hymns.
|6.22.08 @ 11:46AM|#
But as listeners get younger than me, the Beatles get less and
less relevant. There's a "Great Forgetting" coming as the Baby Boom
starts to die. The cultural signposts of the boomers will be
consigned to the ash bin of history. Unfortunately, a great part of
the culture from before the Baby Boom will disappear along with it.
The people ten or fifteen years younger than me just don't care
about it.
Fluffy,
The Beatles are 20-30 more recent than Glenn Miller, the Dorsey
brothers, Cab Calloway Artie Shaw et al. Their (big bands, swing)
original fans are dead or in nursing homes, yet the music lives on
with multitudes of fans. I confidently predict that the Beatles and
some of the other Rock 'n' Roll giants will receive the same
respect and adulation when I'm a doddering old man.*
I'll even take bets on it.
* According to Billboard I was born at the precise beginning of the
Rock 'n' Roll era. Rock around the Clock was #1 when I rudely
entered the world.
|6.22.08 @ 11:48AM|#
Oops.
I was supposed to put that first paragraph in italics or
blockquotes. Oh well, perfection, sometimes even basic competence,
still eludes me.
NP|6.22.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Fluffy,
Yours is a valid point, but as someone who's apparently younger
than you, and who actually didn't get to hear a single thing by the
Fab Four till his teens (if you can believe it), I can say without
any hint of nostalgia that a bunch of Beatles tunes are just damn
catchy. Of course we don't know how our music scene will look like
decades from now, but based on my own listening experience and the
current critical consensus, I think it safe to say for now that the
Beatles will outlive most other rock acts.
When I say something like this I usually get a few questions along
the following lines. (No, Fluffy, you didn't ask me. I'm just
feelin' groovy, baby.)
So if the Beatles or any other band get forgotten, or if others
get bumped up, does that mean the artistic quality of their music
changed?
- Yes.
How can the quality of a same work ever change? You mean the
"Eleanor Rigby" I listened to a few years ago is not the same one
I'm listening to right now?
- This is actually a good point 'cause a surprising number of
people don't know how to respond to it. To this I just say: Look,
if the work allows only one interpretation, it's probably not worth
our time and attention to begin with.
Another musical example: Say you're a pianist. You take a Beethoven
sonata and play it a couple of times in front of an audience. None
of your performances are the same, what the audience hears isn't
the same, but it's still the same sonata.
But that's different from listening to prerecorded music. A
machine is different from a human.
- Another good point, and now we're getting into ontological
quandaries that frankly nobody sane needs to care about. Hence my
emphasis on sustained popularity and wide critical consensus.
Look, what you hear from even prerecorded music can change any
time. Your sound system doesn't produce the same sounds every time.
Your daily sleeping patterns and surroundings can affect your
hearing. Maybe yesterday you felt blue but today you were red, so
that might have created different perceptions. Just drop this
metaphysical nonsense and again focus on the popularity and
consensus. They're really the only objective measures of quality.
If you think most other people are full of crap, you can just keep
listening to your thing, and if you feel so strong about it you can
start spreading the word.
And now let me have a little more fun in the end and give you a
literary example:
The sun shines. The clouds are white. The sky is blue.
This doesn't allow much room for interpretation. Baudelaire
couldn't blather like this even when he was stone-cold sober.
Next...
The sensuous sun casts its daily affliction. O hapless soul! To love, and to die, I drink the gentle clouds, and turn my gaze into the luminous heavens.
Now he's getting drunk again (or high, or maybe both--I don't think
he ever really knew what he was doing). You can actually see this
could be a work of prosody. And you can clearly see that this has a
better chance of being included in a prose poem collection than the
pedestrian (sorry for using this word again, NM) scribble above.
This is what I mean by objective criticism. You somehow
know this would better qualify as poetry, and you also know most
people would agree. Hopefully this clarifies my point a bit
further.
NP|6.22.08 @ 12:18PM|#
Uh... just to be safe, I was not born at the precise beginning of the rock & roll era. Damn keyboards.
|6.22.08 @ 12:49PM|#
I have to say it again: I am stunned and terrified that we're
talking about British Rock, and I am still the only to mention Led
Zeppelin.
Come on folks...greatest rock band yet. Let's get on the stick.
VM|6.22.08 @ 1:00PM|#
C'mon, guys, why am I the first to mention Led
Zeppelin????
[keed, keed]
[runs off ere the wrath of Randian descends]
|6.22.08 @ 1:05PM|#
hmm, VM...I think I have the perfect song for your neck of the
woods:
"When the Levee Breaks".
(oooh, too soon?)
Neu Mejican|6.22.08 @ 2:00PM|#
First, to the thread, I would like to apologize for inspiring
NP's wall of text.
NP,
Despite all the words in your wall of text, you just repeat
yourself.
You have yet to come within shouting distance of recognizing the
flaw in your position. But at least you state it clearly this
time.
It's that, by purely musical standards (this is where all that
formal stuff should be taken into account), classical music is
considered the best there is, and its very best reaches the level
of spiritual and emotional depth that other types of music do not
aspire to.
Leaving aside a discussion of what other types of music aspire to
(that statement is pure elitist crap, and untrue on its face),
quality is not a quantifiable characteristic of music. Any attempt
to come up with a way to compare the quality ("pure musical
stadards," "artistry," whatever you want to call it) will fail
because the concept is inherently without scale.
e.g., the technique/quality discussion...If I say, as a trained
musician, that you are wrong, Ella Fitzgerald's main weakness is
her phrasing (an aspect of technique, of course), there is no
possible way to resolve our dispute. Sure you could go get a gang
that agrees with you and I could gather a gang that agrees with me
and we could count heads, but that wouldn't be a metric of
something else. There is no scale we can use to rate the quality of
her phrasing. Some aspects can be measured, of course, we can agree
that EF has good pitch because their is a scale for measuring that
aspect of her technique.
Musical influence, which is part of what you are talking about when
you talk about "greatness" is, on the other hand, theoretically
measurable in the long run, but is distinct from the scale-free
concept of quality. My contention that Eno is more influential than
Britten or Purcell could be disputed with some careful study, but
my sense is that the musical innovations Eno has brought into the
market over the last 35 years have been incorporated into the
musical output of more musicians and more musical output than
anything produced by Britten or Purcell. Hell, in your own
discussion you dropped the term "ambient," a genre named and
fleshed out by Eno and his collaborators.
In the end, however, when you trot out meaningless phrases like
"musically better" all you do is highlight how little you
understand about the artistic endeavor or the human reaction to it
by the audience.
And I certainly don't expect everyone to understand the most
rarefied works of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms...Then we measure our
opinions and observations against others' so we can objectively
evaluate them, and of course experienced listeners or those with
training will generally have better judgment than most.
I laughed out-loud at those...sorry that's just funny.
so music, just like any other field of human endeavor, is
increasingly becoming specialized
I don't really disagree with anything you are saying on this topic.
I think we're just talking past each other. The point was that
since you are using some sort of wide consensus as a bootstrap to
define quality/greatness, the larger output available today has
fractured the market..."the noise" was just the term I was using to
describe this fracturing.
I am still more smug than you are, but that last couple of posts
was a valiant attempt.
Neu Mejican|6.22.08 @ 2:08PM|#
a literary example:
Am I the only one that found the first example more artistically
worthy than the second?
Dude you are a fucking riot.
Les|6.22.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Just drop this metaphysical nonsense and again focus on the
popularity and consensus. They're really the only objective
measures of quality.
By this standard (consensus of whom?), Madonna is better than Joni
Mitchell, Elton John is better than Tom Waits, and "Gladiator" is
better than "Miller's Crossing."
Saying that your taste in art is "objective" is like saying your
religion is proved by science.
|6.22.08 @ 3:15PM|#
as a matter of fact, one could argue that popularity is a good measure of decent music, but not excellent music. That is, if the popularity of a thing is akin to a bell curve.
Episiarch|6.22.08 @ 3:19PM|#
You know, sometimes I feel a bit dorky talking about
Battlestar Galactica or Star Trek frequently.
However, I can always count on the music nerds to take a music
discussion so obscenely seriously that I never need feel dorky
again, as you all have utterly cornered that market.
Thank you for this service.
|6.22.08 @ 3:21PM|#
whatevs, Epi...don't you have some Twelfth Cyclone or some such nonsense to track down?
Neu Mejican|6.22.08 @ 3:26PM|#
Ayn R,
I don't think the bell-curve thing works.
I think popularity is orthogonal to quality since quality is pegged
to an individual's subjective judgment. And the "consensus of
experts" that NP wants to use is nothing but a subset of
popularity-- a double fallacy of sorts: popularity among the
authorities?
Episiarch|6.22.08 @ 3:29PM|#
don't you have some Twelfth Cyclone
It's cylon!
(runs off crying like a music nerd who has been informed that
Pavement sucks)
Neu Mejican|6.22.08 @ 3:37PM|#
as you all have utterly cornered that
market.
I submit for your consideration:
1) Political polls and their meaning
2) What makes a true [libertarian, socialist, authoritarian]
3) Discussions of literature
4) Tech talk [computers, cars, whatever]
5) Farscape
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0a/Foxtrotfarscape.jpg)
|6.22.08 @ 3:41PM|#
I think popularity is orthogonal to quality since quality is
pegged to an individual's subjective judgment.
Something I've wrestled with for a while. Do you think that the
issue of "taste" ultimately leads to subjectivity in all
philosophical discussions (aesthetics being a branch of
philosophy).
Of course, I suppose one could say that "quality ! = necessarily
better", but that would be a strange argument to make.
It's cylon!
Do they name these cylons after men and women, depending on the
year? That's the crux, right there.
Episiarch|6.22.08 @ 3:44PM|#
NM, do you really think you're doing yourself any favors on the dork front by linking to Foxtrot?
Neu Mejican|6.22.08 @ 4:01PM|#
Epi...
Revel in the dorkness, for the bright light of hip is a blinding
light.
Neu Mejican|6.22.08 @ 4:09PM|#
Ayn Randian,
Something I've wrestled with for a while. Do you think that the
issue of "taste" ultimately leads to subjectivity in all
philosophical discussions (aesthetics being a branch of
philosophy).
It seems that any discussion of the "quality" of an aesthetic
experience is going to be subjective at its core, but I wouldn't go
as far as saying their are no objective
qualities/characteristics/aspects for consideration in
aesthetics...but in the end these are purely descriptive. They
don't provide a basis for objective ranking.
Not sure that answers your question.
Certainly "philosophy" has room for both the objective and
subjective, no?
|6.22.08 @ 4:24PM|#
Indeed it does, but by subjective I mean that in it's most basic
sense: that the genesis for a moral/ethical (or, conversely, an
immoral/unethical decision) should be left entirely to the subject
to determine, with reality as the arbiter of whether he was
correct.
Of course (and this is just navel-gazing, so feel free to ignore),
I start to wonder if "reality" doesn't entail the
judgements and actions of others around us, and whether those
should be taken into account prior to taking an action or making a
qualitative judgement.
Back to the topic, however, when you say this:
I wouldn't go as far as saying their are no objective
qualities/characteristics/aspects for consideration in
aesthetics...but in the end these are purely descriptive. They
don't provide a basis for objective ranking.
do you mean to say that "objectively, there are things of higher
quality...however, this is a just a descriptor, not a value
judgement of the quality of the thing"? Because how does one say
that something is simultaneously of a higher quality, yet not
"better" at the same time? It seems that we'd have to divorce
"higher quality" from "better"...
Neu Mejican|6.22.08 @ 4:33PM|#
do you mean to say that "objectively, there are things of
higher quality...however, this is a just a descriptor, not a value
judgement of the quality of the thing"? Because how does one say
that something is simultaneously of a higher quality, yet not
"better" at the same time? It seems that we'd have to divorce
"higher quality" from "better"...
No, I was clearly not clear.
You can talk about "louder" "redder" "more precise" "on-pitch"
things like that, and these characteristics can be ranked
objectively, but that ranking is only descriptive.
Is a redder color "better" than a more muted one? Is a cleaner
recording "better" than a noisier one? When talking about the
aesthetic quality that is an entirely subjective judgment. The
descriptive differences don't map onto a ranking of artistic
quality.
|6.22.08 @ 4:37PM|#
And to get the thread (sort of) back on track: how was everyone
negligent in mentioning Depeche Mode?
and on purely personal grounds, how far on the sexual spectrum
would it push me if I confessed a love for Dead or Alive?
Hopefully not too far...I already iron my jeans.
Neu Mejican|6.22.08 @ 4:38PM|#
To tie back to the discussion with NP...
"more popular"
"more critically acclaimed"
"more influential"
These are descriptive, and (variably) quantifiable, but they do not
provide a way to rank the "pure musicality" or "quality" of a
piece.
Episiarch|6.22.08 @ 4:51PM|#
I already iron my jeans
Once again, please note my comments above reagrding dorks. You are
in Steve Urkel territory with the jeans thing.
Now what it says about your sexuality I can't say. Are they assless
jeans?
|6.22.08 @ 4:56PM|#
Now what it says about your sexuality I can't say. Are they
assless jeans?
I'd tell you, but I am already concerned that I have too much
sexual power and I would unfairly move you down
the spectrum if I told you that.
I do, however, wear "Sex Panther"...It's illegal in nine
countries.
|6.22.08 @ 4:56PM|#
Bah! It's all angels and heads of pins. Here is what you need to
know about quality.
If I like it it's quality stuff. If I don't, it's sub-standard
crap.
There are exceptions. I occasionally like stuff that really
is crap. Black Sabbath comes immediately to mind.
NP|6.22.08 @ 5:10PM|#
NM,
My, my. So you're pissed, eh? Since I see I've wasted my time
giving you a fairly respectful response (given your barrage of ad
hominems, clichés and immature dismissals), I'll just expose the
weaknesses of what you apparently considered your counterarguments
and go find something better to do.
...quality is not a quantifiable characteristic of
music.
When did I say that? Oh, right. I didn't.
If I say, as a trained musician, that you are wrong, Ella
Fitzgerald's main weakness is her phrasing (an aspect of technique,
of course), there is no possible way to resolve our dispute. Sure
you could go get a gang that agrees with you and I could gather a
gang that agrees with me and we could count heads, but that
wouldn't be a metric of something else. There is no scale we can
use to rate the quality of her phrasing. Some aspects can be
measured, of course, we can agree that EF has good pitch because
their is a scale for measuring that aspect of her
technique.
Again, when did I say there is some kind of a scale that could be
used to rate artistic quality? And if you asked, say, most of the
music critics at major publications and a few other available
professional musicians (not just one or two individuals, I should
add) about EF's or anyone else's phrasing and there was no clear
consensus one way or the other, then no, there would be no
objective way to rate it, which was actually my point. In this case
you just go with the side you trust more. In fact this is what we
do with our many decisions in life: We often ask others close to us
for advice, which rarely turns out to be unanimous, and we pick
what we think is the best. There are just fewer players
involved.
But there is clear consensus on Sgt. Pepper,
Beethoven's 9th or, yes, EF's phrasing. Critics may cavil here and
there, but very few argue it's actually bad, and in this
case one can objectively say the music or technique merits our
attention and admiration. So...
90-10 => Super
80-20 => Yeah
70-30 => Pretty good
60-40 => Maybe
50-50 => Nah
As for EF's pitch, anyone who bothered to read my post carefully
would've noticed that this was not the type of measurement I had in
mind, or that a half ignoramus knows one can easily measure it with
today's tech. And I don't know whether you intended to concede that
your Ian Curtis example was unapt, but credit where it's due, I
suppose.
And unlike you, NM, I'm honest enough to acknowledge any missteps,
and you're right, I can see we were largely talking past each
other. But I don't think there's any "fracturing" to speak of.
There are more people specializing in various musical genres than
ever before, and if anything wide consensus is easier to
come by today. Reputation (of the good kind) is what you get when
you start selling more than just a few records and performing at
some place other than the streets; consensus is what you get when
there are a majority of those specialists who give you a thumbs-up
or -down. The biggest stars do suffer diminishing sales and maybe
reputation, but everyone else benefits.
I also should've said other types of music attempt to
aspire to the artistic depth of classical music, but I know you'll
still attack that as elitist. So tell ya what: I don't understand
your music, you don't understand mine. I'm fine with that. And I'm
also not persuaded that Eno will prove more influential than
Purcell and Britten in the long run, but I see we're never
gonna agree on this issue.
Oh, and that second "literary" example is actually straight from
Baudelaire. I just transposed a few words and threw in a Milton
reference, but no one can be knowledgeable in everything, I
guess.
Nice try, though. And I don't know whether you actually think being
smug gives one some type of credibility, but considering the mighty
intelligence of your response I'll let you think whatever you
want.
No Name Guy|6.22.08 @ 5:15PM|#
Religions are friends of liberty, if you mean in the same way that labor unions are friends of liberty.
No Name Guy|6.22.08 @ 5:15PM|#
As for this being a "secular society" that really depends very much on where you live in a country as big and diverse as the USA.
VM|6.22.08 @ 5:26PM|#
since nobody has brought this up, didja know that Sex Panther is
sung by Led Zeppelin?
50% of the time they rock every time.
Why has it taken so long to bring that up?
Viking Shat|6.22.08 @ 5:41PM|#
You know, Robert Plant, member of one of the best bands
(surprisingly unmentioned in this hier thread), Led Zeppelin, was
considered to play the role of Kahn and Sulu in one episode!
I'm surprised that this hasn't been mentioned before. Ron Burgundy
reported on this.
Led Zeppelin also was considering a rock opera to the Fountainhead,
thus starting an aquatic style of "spurt rock" and "spray rock" and
"jet rock", but Mr. Steven Crane was busy.
NP|6.22.08 @ 5:45PM|#
Les,
Check out my latest post. Hopefully you'll see what I mean.
Ayn_Randian,
Let me again stress again that sustained or
long-term popularity is a good measure of artistic
quality. Of course they'll always be one-hit wonders or others who
enjoy 15 minutes of fame, so that's why I emphasize that
"sustained" part. And by "sustained" I mean centuries, not just a
decade or two.
|6.22.08 @ 6:02PM|#
NP - by that standard you cannot evaluate any music made after,
say, the 1800s. Unless you want to pull out your crystal ball and
say that bands like the Beatles or Led Zeppelin are going to be
popular 100 years from now, but hell, I can do that ad no one is
going to be around to call me on it.
We need some way to measure quality without resorting to
popularity, if for the mere fact that you are at least defining
quality as "long-term popularity", and I am not going to be around
that long. So I think it's best to deal in the here and now.
|6.22.08 @ 6:03PM|#
Of course they'll always be one-hit wonders or others who
enjoy 15 minutes of fame, so that's why I emphasize that
"sustained" part. And by "sustained" I mean centuries, not just a
decade or two.
I call horsefeathers. You contend that music penned after 1808 can
not be judged for quality. You do realize the amount of work that
includes? Everything ever recorded, all of Copland, Brahms,
Tchaikovsky works cannot be judged for artistic quality by that
criterion.
My system is better. And it's B/S.
Democrat Shill Physics Prof|6.22.08 @ 6:13PM|#
I'm glad Barack Obama will have warrantless wiretap powers. He won't abuse them on people for their Islamic Faith. He will wiretap the dangerous gun owning fundies who oppose a woman's right to chose and the right to marriage for all.
No Name Guy|6.22.08 @ 6:15PM|#
To the above poster-
After defending Bush having these powers for eight years, I'll
enjoy watching you shit your pants.
NP|6.22.08 @ 6:21PM|#
Ayn_Randian & J sub D,
Ha ha. I think you guys are taking my definition way too literally.
If you go back and look at my earlier posts I say that there's a
strong correlation between sustained popularity and
artistic quality. And I suppose two or three centuries is an awful
long time in this information age, so change that to today's life
expectancy, which Wikipedia tells me is a tad below 80 years.
Better?
Also there's another measure for those newer artists and works you
just mentioned: wide critical consensus. Take a look at my last
post and hopefully you guys can figure out what I mean without
additional explanation.
VM|6.22.08 @ 6:23PM|#
oh, and this band, Led Zeppelin ended up abandoning nautical themes, as they simply couldn't get a Händel on the water music...
|6.22.08 @ 6:35PM|#
NP - there's value in deferring to experts, but I don't believe
you should peg quality to a "consensus", lest you get some
Emperor's New Clothes shit goin' down.
For further reference, see: George Lucas.
No Name Guy|6.22.08 @ 7:18PM|#
When the Republican Party proves its worthy of governing again, I'll be open to returning. But not before then.
NP|6.22.08 @ 7:37PM|#
AR,
First, when I say critical consensus I don't mean consensus by
experts only. In an earlier post I say only that expert judgment
should count extra, and I also cites American Idol where
even the general public with untrained ears can pick the good
(finalists) from a rowdy pile (early contestants).
And the reason why I use wide critical consensus as a measure of
quality is that it's the only objective one. Take vision, for
example. You see a chair in front of you, as clearly as you can in
broad daylight. But your whole family and neighbors say the chair's
not there, and it goes on like that for a few days. At that point
you would reasonably begin to doubt your "observation." (Just to be
anal I should also add that you were not allowed to touch the chair
in this example.)
Ditto with music criticism. You may think Led Zeppelin is the best
band ever, or I may think Boulez's music is pure pretentious
nonsense, but if everyone around us said otherwise then we'd
clearly start having doubts. That's why wide critical consensus is
the only objective measure of artistic quality. Now you're
right that consensus doesn't prove quality, which is why I
also use sustained popularity as an additional measure.
And the "sustained" part shouldn't be taken too literally. If
popularity, say, makes up just 5% of artistic quality today and
consensus the rest, then a year from now it'll be 10-90. Five years
from now, 20-90. Ten years, 35-90. And so on. Now again this is
only a guide; there's no clear "scale" Neu Mejican talked about
earlier. I also used this semi-facetious chart for consensus (for
vs. against):
90-10 => Super
80-20 => Yeah
70-30 => Pretty good
60-40 => Maybe
50-50 => Nah
In the "Super" category there would be pretty much all the
predictable stuff: the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Beethoven, Ellington,
Hank Williams, Robert Johnson, and so on. In the "Yeah" category
below you'd see (I'm assessing their entire oeuvre, BTW) Elton
John, Eric Clapton, Stan Getz, etc. You see where I'm coming
from.
So yeah, I think both consensus and popularity combined are good
measures of music. Let me know what you think.
NP|6.22.08 @ 7:40PM|#
Darn, I've been writing way too much today. Make that "five years from now, 15-85. Ten years, 20-80."
Neu Mejican|6.22.08 @ 9:15PM|#
NP,
Not pissed. Amused.
a fairly respectful response
You've been about as respectful as I...your condescending tone was
the main reason for me teasing you about your positions. The whole
"I'm more smug than you" routine is a comment on the smug elitism
dripping from your posts...but it is made in good humor (at least
from my perspective). Being a smug bastard myself, I give a lot of
room for the behavior in others.
No offense is intended.
So a couple reactions:
one can objectively say the music or technique merits our
attention and admiration.
Nope. The admiration and attention is a subjective response that
results from listening to the music. It doesn't matter what others'
subjective experience of that music is, the "merit" one assigns is
inherent in their interaction with the work ...there is no way to
"objectify" that response at the level of groups of individuals.
Certainly people allow the opinions of others to modify their
subjective experience, but that doesn't take the admiration or
attention out the subjective realm.
And I don't know whether you intended to concede that your Ian
Curtis example was unapt, but credit where it's due, I
suppose.
Nope. A very apt counter-example to your claim that a voice teacher
can tell you objectively if you are a good singer or not. S/he can
describe many things about your singing, but that opinion about
whether you are a good singer or not is just subjective impression
with no objective reality.
and if anything wide consensus is easier to come by
today
What do you base this claim on? I guess will have to agree to
disagree on that one.
I also should've said other types of music attempt
to aspire to the artistic depth of classical music, but I
know you'll still attack that as elitist.
That would be because it doesn't change the basic misguided claim
in any way and makes it no more accurate.
So tell ya what: I don't understand your music, you don't
understand mine. I'm fine with that.
I understand your music fine...what an odd thing to claim. We
disagree on the relative merits of the music, but that has nothing
to do with one of us "understanding" it better than the other. It
has to do with us having a different subjective response to
it.
...no one can be knowledgeable in everything, I
guess.
Clearly you are making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about the
overlap (or lack thereof) in our knowledge base...really, I'm
having no trouble keeping up.
And the reason why I use wide critical consensus as a measure
of quality is that it's the only objective one.
But... it's not objective at all...maybe you are not clear on what
the term means. I hadn't considered that (although your Led Zep
example above seems to indicate that you have a least a vague
sense...).
It doesn't matter how many subjective opinions you combine, you
can't get them to add up to an objective, mind-independent truth.
It just doesn't work like that. And adding in other tangential
parameters ("sustained popularity") doesn't help as they are
orthogonal to the thing you are trying to measure.
I'll give you the last word:
I said "quality is not a quantifiable characteristic of
music."
You responded:
When did I say that [it was]?
Oh, right. I didn't.
This,however seems to me a claim that musical quality is
quantifiable...your words:
I think both consensus and popularity combined are good
measures of music
Neu Mejican|6.22.08 @ 9:29PM|#
JsubD,
If I like it it's quality stuff. If I don't, it's sub-standard
crap.
You've got it just right.
Objectively, you are a more sophisticated music critic than
NP.
%^)
NP|6.23.08 @ 1:06PM|#
NM,
I may be a lot of things, but smug or elitist (more on this "elite"
part later) ain't one of 'em. Let's go back and see how this
tête-à-tête got started.
When I made that "contemporary British music sucks" comment, I did
it with the same seriousness with which I say to a friend that the
only good thing about McDonald's is their Dollar Menu: almost none
at all, and without any ill will whatsoever. But you took
my comment personally and called me "a cranky old fart with no
taste," so I responded that there's no contemporary British
classical composer who can challenge Purcell and Britten
(a view I think even you'll agree with). That's how this whole
thing got started. I'll admit that my then and future responses
have been condescending at times, but I was never smug, at least
not intentionally. However cranky and condescending I get I always
try to be open-minded, and when someone points out flaws in my
arguments I acknowledge them and try to respond with better
counterarguments.
Anyway, I don't wanna drag this catfight out for too long (for
obvious reasons) and I'm guessing you don't either, so I'll try to
make this post as short, comprehensive and civil as I can. Let me
say in advance that any smugness you may perceive in this post will
be inadvertent.
I think we actually may been talking past each other, NM, 'cause
your definition of "objective" seems to differ from mine. I'm not
using the term "objective" as in "objective reality"; in fact I
pretty explicitly said earlier that I couldn't care less about such
ontological stuff, at least when discussing something useful. And
you're right that millions of like subjective opinions don't add up
to some mind-independent truth, but again this is not what I mean
by "objective." By "objective" I mean something like "fair,"
"impartial" and such, as in "objective reporter." Here's how our
dear friend Merriam-Webster defines it:
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Of course, the key phrase here is "without distortion by personal
feelings, prejudices, or interpretations." That's a pretty tall
order for anyone, hence my use of wide critical consensus and
sustained popularity as benchmarks. I'm not sure whether you still
would disagree with me on this objectivity issue, but just in
case…
Let's compare these two ledes on the same news item:
"On his first day in office, President Bush signed a controversial
bill that reignited the abortion debate."
"On his first day in office, President Bush signed an anti-choice
bill that was contrived to spellbind the ultra-right-wing lunatics
in his own sexist party."
Now obviously the second lede is an extreme example-not even
The Nation would use such charged language for
reporting--and we know this not just because of our own views but
also through our readings, conservations and other types of
communication-IOW, our interactions with others. If the
vast majority of us did in fact encounter such charged language in
our everyday lives then the mild first lede would seem alien to
us.
That's why I use wide critical consensus as an objective
(again, more "impartial" than "mind-independent" in meaning)
measure of artistic quality. Much as I'd like to belittle Radiohead
(I promise this is the last time I'll mention them for this
discussion), the current critical consensus is that their music
isn't just self-indulgent nonsense, that it's "high" pop/rock. That
doesn't mean I can't dispute this common judgment-as I've already
pointed out, there's no precise "scale" of quality we can derive
from mere consensus-only that I'll have to persuade more than just
a small group of friends before I can reasonably say this
"consensus" isn't so consensual anymore.
As for sustained popularity, I actually use it merely as a
supplement to critical consensus. As I noted above popularity
should play a very small role in our judgment of any new or newly
discovered works, and for most of our rock veterans-the Beatles,
the Stones, Led Zeppelin, and other usual suspects-and for other
music from corresponding eras, the "sustained" element isn't strong
enough yet for popularity to serve as a good measure of quality,
either. The best of the more long-standing music, though, enjoys
both wide critical consensus and sustained popularity, and
for this reason I think we can say that the artistic quality of
such music is pretty damn high.
Now let me clarify what I mean by "measures" of artistic quality.
As I've said already I don't claim that consensus and popularity
can be used to rate music, say, on a scale of 1 to 10. But, again,
works like Sgt. Pepper or Beethoven's 9th symphony do enjoy more
critical consensus and popularity than, say (you see I like using
"say" as an adverb), Pulp's Freaks and Beethoven's own
1st. Again we really can't quantify the degrees of this
gap in consensus and popularity, but we can still see the gap
is there. I chose "measures" instead of some other vague
term like "standards" because that would've made my point even more
confusing, and I hope I've clarified it this time.
I also think consensus and popularity can be a good measure of
technique as well. Critics and trained or even untrained listeners
almost always agree on the technical merits of a performer, and as
for popularity, who in their right mind would say they listen to
Paganini's caprices or Art Tatum only for the "artistry"? 'Nuff
said. And going back to your voice teacher example, I recognized
that those with trained ears, voice teachers (of course) included,
are best suited to judge the finer points of technique, but I also
said that they can generally see the artistry behind the technical
cloak. Technique, like training, is only a means to an end, and the
end is, yes, artistry or "quality." That's why I said that most
music critics and professionals can still see Janis Joplin or
late-period Callas as great artists despite their less-than-perfect
technique and voice, and why a completely lousy (technically
speaking, of course) performance, however talented the performer
may be, is an artistic failure. Technique alone doesn't guarantee
artistic excellence, but an adequate level of the former is
required for the latter. That was the point I was trying to
make.
Finally, I might not have phrased it properly when I said consensus
is easier to come by today. Here's what I meant to say. When you
have three critics and two or even all three of 'em approve a new
album, that may count as "consensus" but still doesn't tell us much
'cause there's an awful small number of participants involved. My
guess is that only a generation ago there weren't too many people
covering, say, Mbalax or Nueva canción music, at least not in North
America, and those who were covering it here probably had
superficial knowledge of the music to begin with so I don't think
their "consensus" should count much. But today there are more
specialists working in particular genres, so any consensus that
arises now is probably trustworthy. Of course reputation
is still hard to come by, but not so much for consensus.
(I think I've already highlighted the difference between the two.)
Hopefully you'll find that an adequate explanation.
I'll stop now to give you some time to respond (and for me to get
some other stuff done). I'll comment on my supposed "elitism"
later, and maybe on some music I enjoyed recently to end this
discussion on a positive note. (You may be surprised to find that
my taste isn't so pedestrian after all...)
Neu Mejican|6.23.08 @ 1:45PM|#
NP,
Like I said.
My comments were in the spirit of giving you a hard time for the
superior attitude that allows you to feel that there is some
objective/unbiased reality to your impression (to paraphrase) that
"classical music is the pinnacle of musical achievement with more
emotional depth and sophistication than other musical forms."
I am sure you listen to lots of non-pedestrian music, but the
examples you choose as examples of "quality music" are all obvious,
pedestrian choices. This seems due to your belief that an impartial
judgment of musical quality is somehow related to popularity or
critical consensus. But popularity and notice by the critics is a
complex process that involves luck as much as talent making it a
piss poor measure for comparing two pieces of music/two artists.
(Of course my position is that the only valid comparison is "I like
this one better. What do you think?")
FWIW, I don't think "impartial" really saves your position. It is
less wrong than the stricter sense of objective, but the idea that
I can give an impartial/objective opinion about something as
subjective as musical taste/musical quality is just absurd on its
face.
So if you want to say that Ella Fitzgerald has wider critical
acclaim than Ian Curtis, you are stating something that is
accurate. If you want to take the next step to say that makes her a
"better" vocalist, you are talking nonsense.
The flaw comes from this misunderstanding, I think
Technique alone doesn't guarantee artistic excellence, but an
adequate level of the former is required for the latter.
This is a tautology. Some undefinable "technique" is required for a
quality performance, but the only way to judge whether that
technique is adequate is to judge the "artistic excellence." If the
work is judged "excellent" then the technique must be adequate, but
there is no independent judgment of the technique that will help
you predict the artistic quality you want to measure. Whatever
technique produces the artistically excellent experience you are
having (subjective experience that it is) must be adequate
technique...even if it doesn't meet a single independent standard
you may carry around in your head for what "correct" technique
is.
You just can't pull the subjective response out of the context of
the experience in any meaningful or unbiased way.
I started this discussion by saying that musical snobbery has its
place in the development of music. It helps to promote certain ways
of thinking about and creating music...it helps fund and support
developing genres and provides endless hours of entertaining
debate, but those who practice it need to recognize, at least
intermittently, that they are just talking out their ass and trying
to justify their subjective taste.
"I think this is better than that" does not occupy the same
semantic space as "this is better than that" and, despite the fact
that we use the second as a shorthand for the first, it is
important to recognize that there is a difference.
A suggestion for an interesting musical experience, if you can find
it, Edzayawa...(Nigeria, 1973). There will be no critical consensus
on it, and it is as far from popular as anything you could come
across. I like it, and I think other people would too...using
JsubD's infallible metric of quality, that makes it high quality
music...important, and even great.
I feel smug because I know about this obscure piece of
music...that, it seems to me, is a reasonable smugness for a music
fan to have. I don't feel smug because my taste is better than
those who don't/wouldn't like it.
NP|6.23.08 @ 11:50PM|#
NM,
I still think we're largely talking past each other, 'cause most of
your objections are based on misunderstanding and I actually mostly
agree with the rest of your last comments.
Of course popularity and notice by critics involve luck as much as
talent, but like I said, in this information age it's becoming
increasingly difficult for anyone to not get noticed.
Obviously time plays a role here, which is why I stressed the
"sustained/long-term" element. And when people say a certain song
is great, they really mean to say that the song is great among
those that are already known or have been noticed. There may well
be better songs that haven't been discovered, and for these songs
it would be wrong to use popularity and consensus as measures of
quality. I thought I've already acknowledged this limitation.
For example, I recently downloaded an
album by this accordionist named Cathrin Pfeifer. I think it's
damn charming and entertaining, much more so than many other
bestsellers I've heard, and I believe that given more airplay and
distribution this album could become a bestseller itself. But I
certainly wouldn't use popularity and consensus to judge its
quality 'cause this music's not well known yet and I couldn't find
any full-length English reviews of the album. In this case I have
no problem with J sub D's metric of quality: I just relied on my
subjective listening experience to arrive at my judgment, and my
judgment is that it's damn fine music.
Anyway let's look at the real source of our misunderstanding. The
reason why I keep insisting on objective measures of quality is
precisely because everyone's opinion is, yes, subjective.
Note that I've never said anyone (this includes the experts) can
give an objective opinion about quality, just that
consensus and popularity can serve as objective measures
of quality (again, for well-known music). I've actually made this
distinction to avoid making the mistake, which you yourself
mentioned, of conflating "I think this is better than that" with
"this is better than that." IOW, we actually agree with each
other on this point. Maybe I didn't explain my position
clearly enough, but I can see this is where the real
misunderstanding was.
That said I do wanna make a distinction between opinion and
judgment. When good critics review something, they don't just say
"I like this" or "I hate this," which is just an opinion,
but something like "The rubatos are too contrived" or "This guy's
singing about a holiday party, but the song is over 10 minutes long
and the tempo drags on and on… yeah, some party-at a cemetery,"
which is judgment. This is why I say critics and experts'
judgment should count extra in the realm of critical consensus:
They critique music based not merely on opinions but also on their
learning, observations and objective (impartial) assessment of the
music in question. Of course any judgment is still in the end
subjective, but I'd still argue that judgment is more "objective"
than mere opinions.
As for your criticism of my technique/artistry claim, I'm rather
surprised by your assertion that technique is undefinable, 'cause
you said yourself that phrasing is "an aspect of technique." But
it's true that phrasing is a more "subjective" technical aspect
than pitch, so let's put phrasing and other such technical aspects
in the "style" basket and define technique as hitting the right
pitch or note, a definition I think most people, including you,
would accept. Now, one could claim that this definition would
matter only in genres like classical and jazz where technique plays
a relatively important role, but I'd dispute such a claim with
this: Being unable to hit a precise E is not the same thing as
hitting an A when you're supposed to hit a D. Imagine someone
"performing" like that throughout a whole piece, and the pitch
discrepancies would be so great as to make the piece unrecognizable
and thus unable to communicate. So yes, an adequate level of
technique is necessary for artistry because without it there
would be no art to begin with. And of course I'd refer to
critical consensus to judge stylistic devices like phrasing.
Just a short comment on this before I continue:
I feel smug because I know about this obscure piece of
music...that, it seems to me, is a reasonable smugness for a music
fan to have.
My definition of smugness is being so self-satisfied that one's
unable to evaluate his/her views critically and admit any mistakes
when confronted with better arguments, but if what you said above
is your definition I've got no problem with that. I can't see how
anyone who cares about learning could avoid being smug according to
your definition.
Now let me address my supposed "elitism" or snobbery. You've been
mentioning my "obvious, pedestrian" musical examples, and you're
right, they were mostly obvious and pedestrian. But I actually
chose those pedestrian examples intentionally, not just because I
like the music but because I wanted any potential readers of my
posts to recognize them. I used those examples to make my
points easier, not to show any elitism on my part. And if you think
about it pedestrianism and elitism are almost polar opposites of
each other. Do note that pretty much all the examples Ayn_Randian
and J sub D gave on this thread were pedestrian themselves (unless
you consider Duran Duran and Depeche Mode non-pedestrian
choices).
You also apparently found this particular statement elitist:
I certainly don't expect everyone to understand the most
rarefied works of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and other dead white
males from the past.
But I don't think it's necessarily elitist for me to say that, just
as I don't think it elitist for someone to say he doesn't expect
most of contemporary avant-garde music to be understood by
everyone. Bach's Art of Fugue and Beethoven's late music
are supposed to be difficult, most of Cecil Taylor's music is
supposed to be difficult. These works aim "higher" (not necessarily
an elitist idea), and they are not supposed to be as easy as Count
Basie or even many of Bach's and Beethoven's own works. Of course
many such works are also pretentious nonsense (IMO), but without
this "elitism" there would be no "serious" music to begin with,
which I don't think you and I want.
Let me now tackle my statement that "classical music is the
pinnacle of musical achievement with more emotional depth and
sophistication than other musical forms." In the same paragraph
where I said this I mentioned the Mozart Requiem. I strongly
believe it's the most frightening and awe-inspiring music ever
written (I say this as someone who finds Mozart mostly too polite),
and that it represents the highest musical expression humanly
possible. I consider it as one of the, yes, "rarefied works." And I
know there are many others like me who enjoy both classical and
pop/rock music and hold the same belief. So I do
think-subjectively, yes-that those who don't share my belief don't
understand the music.
Now you said that there's a difference between understanding and
agreeing on the relative merits of music, but is there really a
substantive difference? You don't think the Mozart Requiem isn't
that great, so I feel or subjectively think you
don't understand the music. I don't think Brian Eno is one of the
"immortals," so you say I don't understand his music. To paraphrase
a cliché: understanding is in the eye of the beholder. But I did
not mean to say that my taste is better than yours or that
you don't understand "serious" music, which indeed would have been
elitist. Heck, I wouldn't be offended if some hip-hop fans told me
that I don't understand their music, 'cause hip-hop ain't my strong
suit. Just so you know I was actually trying to be civil and
respectful when I wrote that "classical is da bomb" paragraph
'cause I did feel my tone was too condescending earlier. As for my
claim that other genres do not reach the artistic depth of
classical music, let me acknowledge that this was in fact a
subjective statement and I shouldn't have included it in the
paragraph.
Which brings to my last point. When I wrote that classical is the
most "sophisticated" of all music I was judging it by its own
standards. Here I was using the traditional definition of
music: melody, harmony, rhythm, and form. And I think even you'd
agree that by these standards classical music is indeed the most
sophisticated music out there (except for the rhythm part, where
Eastern music generally prevails over Western music). Now you may
counter that Eno should be judged by different standards 'cause his
music is about ambient texture and atmosphere (very broadly
speaking), and you know what, you'd be right. Similarly, classical
music would actually be considered bad by the standards of
traditional folk music, where simplicity of technique and
expression is a virtue. Every musical genre should be judged by its
own standards. This is why I disputed your claim that Eno is more
important than Purcell and Britten, and why I said Ella Fitzgerald
is better than Ian Curtis in phrasing (by critical acclaim, which
you seem to acknowledge), not that she was the better
vocalist.
I hope we can agree on at least some of these points. And just to
end this discussion on a humorous note, let me repeat one of my
previous questions: What do you think of Eno producing Coldplay's
latest album? I'm interested in what you have to say about
that.
Neu Mejican|6.24.08 @ 12:16PM|#
What do you think of Eno producing Coldplay's latest album?
I'm interested in what you have to say about that.
Smart move on his part. It will fund a lot of more interesting work
in the future.
John Sayles was the main screen writer for The Mummy...for
similar reasons. Doesn't bother me a bit.
Here I was using the traditional definition of music: melody,
harmony, rhythm, and form. And I think even you'd agree that by
these standards classical music is indeed the most sophisticated
music out there (except for the rhythm part, where Eastern music
generally prevails over Western music
Nah, I don't agree. Even by those standards. There are folk musics
in many cultures that match the best classical music in
"sophistication." And that ignores modern "non-classical" music of
many genres that easily encompass the range of classical music
along each of those parameters.
Every musical genre should be judged by its own
standards.
Nah. Music is judged by the listener in the moment. The only
standard that matters is the internal subjective experience of the
audience. Anything else is just academic navel gazing.
It is the activity of "judging" music in this way that is my main
beef with your position. The attempt to rank and classify seems
inherent in everything you are saying and I find it antithetical to
music. Maybe this is just due to my formative years as a musician
being forced to play in music competitions. The concept of music as
sport always seemed ridiculous to me...
I'm rather surprised by your assertion that technique is
undefinable
I didn't say it was undefinable. I said that your statement was a
tautology. It still is. Attempts to describe technique are attempts
to define/describe the undefinable, which is the "artistry." They
answer a question: How'd did the artist pull off that artistry? But
it is the artistry that comes first (and it is a interactive
process involving both the output of the musician and the
life-history of the listener). The attempts to set standards for or
describe technique are secondary and academic. When artistry is
achieved, the technique involved in the output side of this
interaction may or may not conform to the artificial standards set
for technique. It is the standards that are imperfect in this case,
not the technique. The standards will need to be adjusted to
capture the phenomenon they are trying to describe. But unless they
take into account the listener's history (and how could they, I
can't imagine), they will remain imperfect descriptors of the
artistry.
This is why I say critics and experts' judgment should count
extra in the realm of critical consensus: They critique music based
not merely on opinions but also on their learning, observations and
objective (impartial) assessment of the music in question. Of
course any judgment is still in the end subjective, but I'd still
argue that judgment is more "objective" than mere
opinions.
I think the word objective is not the right word here. If you want
to say that a critic is able to make explicit what is left implicit
to the non-expert I would agree with you. But that explicit opinion
(judgment) is no more objective than the implicit reaction of the
novice listener.
The role of criticism, imho, is actually not about coming to
consensus nor in any way distinguishing between good and bad music.
It is about attempt to make explicit those aspects of the music
that may remain implicit without the discussion. (You may say this
is an attempt to make the subjective objective, but that is a
project that will always fail).
This process of explication can enhance the subjective experience
of listeners who care to take part in the discussion, but it does
not make the judgment of those in the discussion more valid than
the judgment of those who decide to go with their gut.
Like I said from the start. There was never animosity from my side
of this discussion. And I am sure we, in real life, could have a
long conversation about the music that we individually (and
subjectively) find worthy. We'd certainly disagree about a lot of
it. But I am sure we'd agree about a good deal.
As long as you don't try and convince me that The Beatles nor The
Stones nor The Clash nor The Sex Pistols are somehow objectively
better than their less well-known and less well critically
acclaimed counterparts, I won't try and knock you off your high
horse. If you instead try and convince me why YOU like those acts,
then I think we'd have a good discussion.
I hope you take the time to read this response.
Another act to check out (You may be familiar as this is more in
your realm, I think): Stephen Scott
http://www.coloradocollege.edu/Dept/MU/People-Scott.asp
Neu Mejican|6.24.08 @ 12:49PM|#
RE: I didn't say it was undefinable.
Okay, looking back I did use those exact words...but I didn't
intend to imply that technique was undefinable...in the sense that
you couldn't describe technique and set standards. I intended to
highlight that the relationship between technique and artistry was
not one of dependency. What is undefinable is "adequate technique."
Hopefully my second attempt was more clear.
NP|6.25.08 @ 10:31AM|#
NM,
(Not sure if you'll get to read this post, but here goes.)
This actually has been a pretty good discussion. I feel like we've
covered enough ground for a short treatise here. The funny thing
is, this back-and-forth could've been a lot shorter if I debated
someone less knowledgeable. I could see you were an
erudite guy so I assumed you'd naturally understand what I meant
without me spelling it out. Too bad a good part of our discussion
had to be wasted on talking past each other.
Now a couple of points on your last comments…
Of course there's lots of music around the globe that can match or
surpass classical music in each of the parameters. I guess the
standards I used here are what some oxymoronically call "musical
science": counterpoint, formal models, etc. But I see that I made
the very mistake of judging other musical genres by different
standards that I warned against later in the same paragraph.
(One amusing anecdote: I once played the Mozart Requiem to a friend
who's at best a casual classical listener. He got totally blown
away and listened to pretty much nothing else but the requiem for
weeks on end. And I thought I was an
admirer… But I think he's going thru the inevitable "Why the hell
would you wanna listen to anything else?" phase… he'll come to his
senses eventually.)
As for the technique/artistry issue, I guess we should've
distinguished from the start between creation and execution.
Obviously I've been more concerned with the latter, but let me deal
with the creative aspect briefly. One may have brilliant musical
ideas, but without education and training, which we may call
craftsmanship (the creative counterpart of "technique"), he/she
cannot express them in any communicable ways, hence no "art" or
"artistry" (more on this later). Let me also note I'm presupposing
the art or artistry of the creation in question.
Back to execution. I actually agree that it's impossible to define
something like "adequate technique" to everyone's satisfaction. But
it's also true that most of us can see, again, that not hitting a
precise E occasionally is more "adequate" than hitting an A when
aiming for a D all the time. Of course we rarely encounter a
performance that bad, but in such cases we can both
intuitively and rationally recognize the technique is "inadequate."
In more subtle cases there indeed would be more disagreement as to
what constitutes "adequate technique," but again I meant to
establish not the proper confines of "adequate technique" but the
necessary role technique itself plays in communicating the artistry
of any creation, not to mention that of the execution itself.
Which brings us to the even more elusive notion of "art" or
"artistry." Now this is a complex subject and we certainly could go
on and on discussing what constitutes art, so instead of futile
definitions I'll just toss off a couple of examples. We all know
the Moonlight Sonata (1st movement) is supposed to sound
somber and reverberant, so if we heard it dispatched within two
minutes, staccato throughout or without any use of the sustain
pedal we'd reasonably say we just heard a poor performance.
Similarly, metal fans would reasonably snigger when they heard
Metallica's "One" performed without anything but a voice as strong
as a cat's meow. We can make these judgments based on, as you said,
our life-history and listening experience.
But life-history and experience alone don't explain how most of us
somehow would agree that Joan Baez has a beautiful voice and Janis
Joplin didn't even if we didn't know who they are. Nor do they
explain how, again, we can see that the finalists on American
Idol are somehow better performers than most of the earlier
contestants even though they often perform songs in new
arrangements that are alien to us. This suggests-not
proves, but suggests-that most of us have an
innate musicality that allows us to make these judgments
intuitively. We cannot express such an intangible, but we can
somehow feel it is there. I'd say that this intangible, along with
our life-history and experience, allows us to appreciate "art" or
"artistry." And since we somehow find "Greensleeves" and Maria
Callas superior to other comparable tunes and sopranos,
respectively, I'd say that they are great art and possess great
artistry. This definition won't satisfy everyone, but just as we
can feel love and detect love in others without knowing exactly
what love is, I think we can appreciate and recognize art or
artistry without a strict definition. And I think you and many
others would understand what I mean with or without accepting my
definition at face value.
Now let me address the opinion/judgment issue, I didn't mean to
claim that critics' judgment should count more than a non-expert's
just because they're more able to "make explicit what is
[generally] left implicit." In fact any of us can exercise
judgment as long as, like I said, we critique music based not
merely on our own opinions but also on our learning, observations,
life-history and experience (added), and objective/impartial
assessment of the music in question. I say critics and experts'
judgment should count extra not just because they can explicate
better than most others but also because they have more learning,
life-history and listening experience. And I do think judgment is
more "objective" (again, impartial) than mere opinions, but I'd
grant that this may not be the best word choice (I'll go with
"impartial" then). But I don't think "those who go with their gut"
can really be said to exercise judgment, unless you meant to say
they do their own explication without deferring to critics and
other experts.
And FWIW I actually agree that the main purpose of music criticism
is to, again, make explicit the aspects of the music that may
remain implicit to its readers. So why do I still insist on ranking
and judging music? Well, like you said yourself it's great
entertainment. But seriously, we rank and judge music because
life is short and there's a lot more music than we can listen to in
our lifetime. Even the very best artists produce a fair chunk
of junk, so I don't see anything wrong with heeding the current
critical consensus and focusing on the good stuff first, at least
among the well-known music. And if anything, distinguishing between
the good and the bad among mainstream music gives us more time and
opportunities to listen to the less-known, non-mainstream but
worthy music like Edzayawa and Cathrin Pfeifer. Let me repeat that
I don't think critical consensus and popularity should be used to
judge any music which the general public hasn't had a chance to
listen to and appreciate.
Finally, I still gotta say every musical genre should be judged by
its own standards. It's fair to critically compare U2's Achtung
Baby with R.E.M.'s Automatic for the People not just
because they both enjoy similar critical consensus and popularity
but also because they're music of the same (broadly speaking)
genre. But it'd be absurd to compare either with, say, any Indian
raga music: Not only are they of very different nature, the latter
uses different scales (or modes) from those of Western
music. (Of course, I wouldn't object if one tried to compare, say,
two Hindustani classical musicians of similar stature.) And like I
said above I wouldn't think it proper to critique rock or tango
(antiguo, not nuevo) music by such "classical"
standards as three-part counterpoint or the sonata form. You're
right that what eventually matters is the listener's subjective
experience, but critical consensus and popularity can still be used
to judge and compare the quality of similarly known and acclaimed
music in the same genre.
I think that's really it. Hopefully we can agree some more this
time, and if not I hope you'll at least understand why I hold my
views and positions.
Neu Mejican|6.25.08 @ 11:05AM|#
Joan Baez has a beautiful voice and Janis Joplin
didn't
Janis Joplin had an indisputably beautiful voice.
Based on an impartial assessment, of course. Just look at the
critical consensus and album sales.
;^)
objective/impartial assessment of the music in
question
I still say that while you can describe music objectively
along many parameters, once you are judging it/assessing it/placing
value on it you are in the realm of the subjective. Any attempt to
"objectively" value the music will fail.
NP|6.25.08 @ 12:11PM|#
NM,
Janis Joplin had an indisputably beautiful voice.
Based on an impartial assessment, of course. Just look at the
critical consensus and album sales.
No offense, but I think that may well be your best response so far
(on this thread).
Seriously, though, Baez's voice is a gift. One of the best I've
heard.
And yeah, "objective" is prolly not the best word to use 'cause
people might interpret it in the most strict sense. Guess I'll
settle for "impartial" in later discussions.
Again this was a good chat (if I can call it that). Here's hoping
that on later threads we'll actually talk about music
itself rather than this dry aesthetic stuff.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245