Newsgroups: bit.listserv.allmusic
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:12:40 EST
From:         "Michael H. Bloom" <MHB@MITVMA.BITNET>
Subject:      Epistemology 'R Us

From:         gmgettie@THAMA1.APGEA.ARMY.MIL
Subject:      ALLMUSIC compilation tape

> Has there ever been an ALLMUSIC compilation tape made?

I believe there was one made in 1991 some time-- it was just before I joined.

> 22 songs, 20 of them I've never heard before. I will be buying *atleast*
> 5 new CDs because of listening to this tape. It is a brilliant idea.

It'd be easier for the metal list; they're thematically oriented. An ALLMUSIC
compilation would range from Queensryche to Orlando di Lasso to Lightnin'
Hopkins-- and while I would dig it, I suspect some of our local special
interest groups would cringe.

From:         Leonard Watkins <ISTS024@UABDPO.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: ALLMUSIC compilation tape

> Let's see the heavy metal tape was $4 .....hm...hm.....Does that mean they
> pay you $4 to listen to it or do you pay them $4 to listen to it.............
> either way you got ripped off...(just some lame humor).....:-)..L.W.

Ipse dixit. Not only is it lame, Lenny, this is the kind of slope-browed
one-liner that gets you talked about.

From:         Dave <USTS060@RUST1.DPO.UAB.EDU>
Subject:      Fave Xmas tunes

>     David Malbuff (sorry I deleted yer post before I decided to
> respond) correctly stated the real heart of Lenny's question and
> consequently the source of artistic debate for the past few years.
> The heart of this debate (as paraphrased by me) is:  Why
> is it that some symbols and images are sacred and others not and who
> determines whose are sacred?

"Sacred" has a specific meaning: an object of religious reverence. Now, one
of the things artists do is document the human condition, which has problems.
And entrenched religions are responsible for more than their share of these
problems (especially when you consider what they *claim* to stand for), so
if art didn't take on religion on occasion, it wouldn't be doing its job.

The other generalization I think it's fair to make about art is that it deals
with the manipulation of symbols. Now, when you start to mess with religion,
you very quickly begin to run into people who can't seem to distinguish the
symbol from the concept the symbol stands for-- something artists do all the
time as a matter of course. So if I tear up a photo of a Pope or urinate on
a crucifix, it's a much harsher statement in the language of religion than
in the language of art-- which I think is something to blame religion for.
Same deal with patriotism, BTW: the moment you tell me I can't burn the flag
is the moment the flag deserves it, because then the ideals the flag stands
for evaporate and the flag becomes just a piece of cloth in a dorky pattern.

Artists do have concepts they hold in comparable reverence, and they include
a lot of the things I revere: freedom of speech, unimpeded use of language
and symbol, political independence, etc. If Jesse Helms had written a book,
"Piss First Amendment," and launched it out into the marketplace of ideas,
I think the net response in the artistic community would have been "What an
ugly bunch of ideas," but very few people would have objected to its being
written or published or sold-- just like the ACLU says American Nazis have
the right to their parade. But Helms cheated and invoked government power,
and took it out of the realm of civilized debate and into the realm of law,
which (sorry Marsha) really isn't civilized :-)

From:         Leonard Watkins <ISTS024@UABDPO.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Lenster and the Big Guy

> I have a problem with a bottle of piss being art, if that's art you should
> have seen the masterpiece i dropped this morning.

If you can get someone to believe your turds are art, then I can't disprove
it. It's been the better part of a century since Marcel Duchamp hung a urinal
in a museum and convinced Paris it was art. (The French have been weird ever
since :-) But I know something about Duchamp's justification for calling the
urinal art; I don't know anything about yours. You should post your grant
proposal :-)

Zappa says all you need to do to make art is arrange something and put a
frame around it. You might also want to study John Cage's writings.

> I personally have no problem with an artist (applied lightly) wants to stick
> a bullwhip in his ass and call it art, but being a taxpayer i don't want to
> fund his perverted excursions.................L.W.

Ah, now here you begin to get into one of the most interesting public policy
questions about art, IMHO. Let me first of all remind you that it has been
estimated that your average American kid sees myriads of murders and acts of
violence on TV the time he's 18. Now is this really good for the children of
America? Is this the lesson you want your kids to absorb? Is this the lesson
God wants your kids to absorb? (Hint: why didn't King David build the Temple
in Jerusalem? Why did God insist on putting it off until Solomon's reign?)

But according to the religious right and its cats' paws in power, that's all
well and good-- but the most basic symbol and expression of love between man
and woman, the whole "be fruitful and multiply" bit, is verboten. What kind
of logic is that, that we show death and torture and hide love and pleasure?
What kind of lesson do we expect kids to draw from it? And how hypocritical
is it to subsequently be surprised at the current level of gang violence?

Of course, I don't necessarily get off on having a leather probe up my ass,
nor do I expect most people to agree with Mapplethorpe on this one-- and I
certainly remember enough freshman biology to understand that the bullwhip
has nothing to do with being fruitful and multiplying :-) But here we have
your canonical slippery slope. I prefer to make the Mapplethorpe photos
available to them as want them, even though I don't find them interesting
(I don't really care for any of his work, the pictorial values of fashion
photography being rather opaque to me), so I can get the nude GIFs of Amy
Denio that do get me off :-)

I don't insist that the taxpayer pay for it. But if there's going to be any
taxpayer-funded art at all, I insist that the decisions on what to fund be
made by people with artistic expertise rather than politicians, who simply
don't know what they're doing and will make stupid decisions-- not unlike
how if scientists had been allowed to override the political appointees in
NASA, the space shuttle wouldn't have blown up.

From:         David Malbuff <SPGDAM@UCCVMA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Lenster and the Big Guy

> So if there's room for Danzig (or Serrano, for that matter) in your world,
> is there room for Skrewdriver, too?

Well, there's another slippery slope: the extent to which your speech is a
goad for actions which are clearly harmful-- the "fire in a crowded theatre"
problem (which, BTW, was an asshole decision: the defendant was exercising
his Constitutional right to free speech to convince people not to register
for the draft, and Oliver Wendell Holmes decided the supply of cannon fodder
was an overriding social benefit).

I confess that I feel a lot better about Skrewdriver now that I've been
told they decided the National Front was just using them and broke away.
Wert, you're free to provide further details.

From:         Leonard Watkins <ISTS024@UABDPO.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Lenster and the Big Guy

> I couldn't agree more, i just hate the use of a man of "color" as an example
> because even though it was needed to get the point across, whenever you say
> any thing of that nature you become branded as a racist, which i am not...L.W.

Methinks thou dost protest too much. Len, the first things I can remember
you saying when you first made yourself known to ALLMUSIC were that the
blues was the apex of human emotion and that you had to be black to play
it properly. As soon as you set up skin color as a prerequisite for some
other human function, you're saying you believe there is meaning in racial
distinctions, by definition. You don't have to beat people up to be racist,
all you have to do is believe there's some sort of innate difference beyond
melanin production. Sorry, Len, but that's the exact definition of racism.

From:         Leonard Watkins <ISTS024@UABDPO.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Lenster and the Big Guy

> Keep in mind this was not a "racial" statement by any means, One album cover
> or song would not be a society it would just be some deranged rock-band
bashing
> minorities (women,.....etc). I agree that God can defend himself, but if you
> respect and beleive in someone you will usually come to their defense, whether
> they need it or not...............L. "My Car Died" W.

God doesn't need your defense, He's all-powerful. And am I reading too much
into, say, the Sermon on the Mount if I say that Jesus would much rather you
come to the defense of those that can't defend themselves?

Here in my office we're having a somewhat parallel discussion on a related
topic, so I may be mixing my arguments here. Consider it the spirit of the
season :-)

From:         Another message from Rosemary! <RWARREN@TOPAZ.CONCORDIA.CA>
Subject:      Re: Glass and Christmas music (not related!!! Ugh,
              what a thought! )

Why shouldn't Glass be used as Xmas music? One of the things that drew me
to minimalism in the first place was that it sounded kinda churchy...

> on a more secular note, i also enjoy "Jingle Bell Rock",

Have you ever heard the flip side of the original Bobby Helms (no relation
to Jesse, I trust) single? It's called "Captain Santa Claus and his Reindeer
Space Patrol," and the premise is that the sleigh breaks and the elves cobble
together a rocket ship so Santa can deliver his payload of toys in a timely
fashion. It's got great sound effects-- I think they simulated the takeoff
by flushing a microphone down the studio toilet. It's a hoot!

More recently, I'm surprised to discover how much I like _MAS! A Caribbean
Christmas Party_, a compilation on Rykodisc of seasonal songs from places
where they just don't have white Christmases :-) There's reggae star Jacob
Miller's version of "Deck the Halls," where he wants them decked with ganja;
there's Lord Nelson's calypso about throwing a big party for Santa; there's
a tune by Claudette et Ti Pierre about how Santa's largesse never seems to
make it to Haiti, a gorgeous tune; there's self-taught Bahamian guitarist
Joseph Spence's version of "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" that's got Mark
Ribot beat at his own game; etc.

Hmm, did I talk about both of these already?

From:         Jeff Preston <bt979@CLEVELAND.FREENET.EDU>
Subject:      Re: This page is unintentionally left blank

>   Not to be argumentative with the Bloomster, but _Shadows & Light_ contains
> NO cheese, and is, in fact, 100% cholesterol-free. Maybe a sprinkling of
> saccharin, but absolutely dairy-free. Tastes great, less bloating, too.

Balderdash. Pat Metheny plays on that record. He's schlager to the core.