From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: My Ugly American post for the year....
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:41:10 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <NIALL.92Oct9022120@scheria.nmsu.edu>, niall@nmsu.edu (Niall Graham) writes:
> Gary Newell writes:
> >First of all I would need you to answer some questions. First off, you
> >seem to be implying that the quality of music was somehow better when one
> >could determine if a big band or blues artist was from a particular part
> >of the country. I'm sure you'd agree that this is simply your opinion.
> 
> I'd agree that the converse is simply yours.
> Now don't type words into my mouth.

Oh outraged one - why don't you simply make your point clear then rather than
sit back and say "I never siad that. You did." - IF this wasn't your point
then you had no point in your original post and it was even sillier than I
thought.

> >I would guess that others might point out that the things that made
> >one area unique from another did not suddenly disappear but rather with
> >increased access individuals were able to choose which techniques
> >and ideas they liked and which they did not - they were then able to
> >focus on an individual vision of what their music should be rather than be
> >bound by the limited resources and ideas present in their particular
> >area of the country. 
> It's patently obvious what happened.  
> You are merely describing the phenomenon.  

 Again - instead of whining why don't you try to enlighten me as to what
exactly your point was then. You chose the metaphor now explain the
nuances or shut up...

> Nowadays with their greater choice of "techniques and ideas" the 
> youth of America and elsewhere are "focusing their individual vision" 
> on drum machines and samplers.  

So what? Again - you imply a value judgement but seem to not want to admit it,
most likely because you realize it doesn't hold water...

> Is Vanilla Ice one of the visionaries you had in mind?

 Who the hell am I to say? Are you implying that there were never blues
or big band artists in the "good old days" you speak of who were less than
stellar in their work? Do you deny that some individuals today use 
modern technology to produce quality work? If not - then what is your
point?

> And which areas of the country are you accusing of 
> having limited resources and ideas?

 None - now. You spoke of some wonderful time in the past when music
was regional in flavor and when one could determine the area of origin
of a band or song due to this regionalism - I pointed out that since that time
technology has advanced and exposure to new/different styles and
techniques of music is available to all. I suggest that at the time
you speak, the large metropolitan areas of this country had resources
which enabled its musicians to have wider and easier access to more
techniques and styles than did musicians located in less developed areas.

> >Clearly this "homogenization" did more to empower the
> >individual in his search for a unique and to him/her superior form of
> >music than would have been done had this person been limited to only
> >the ideas that surrounded him/her.
> Your underlying assumption being that regions of the U.S.
> were in complete isolation before the overwhelming influence
> of television etc arrived.  

 Don't put words in my mouth wah wah wah... you chose the term "complete"
not I. There was a time where very few people would be recorded for
example - now a days many bands have records, many artists are able
to get recording time, I dare say that I can probably within a few
days get a hold of a recording by some obscure Boston club band if
I were to hear that they were doing something interesting. That was simply
not the case then - the likelyhood that musicians who were not 
major names would have an opportunity to influence others across the
country were much less likely. One need not have "complete isolation" 
in order to limit the ability of musicians to integrate new styles
and new work...

> There was plenty of access to other
> cultures in the past.   Regions weren't being bombarded with
> Hollywood view of the universe though.

 Weak. The use of the term "plenty" is a nice touch though. Your
view of music seems to be one of "the good old days" which is
your bias... I may agree with your bias but it still does not make
it anything more than a personal opinion of the state of music today...

> > So the problem I see with your views is that you make a value judgement that
> >implies that the result of homogenized cultures is somehow inferior to
> >that which one sees from cultures which are isolated or whose exposure
> >to outside cultures is limited. I don't buy that premise...
> I made no such assertion.  Again, you attempt to shove words into my mouth. 

Well, again you have more than enough opportunity to put some of your
own words in your mouth - just do it - you chose to use this metaphor
I assume it was for a purpose...

> I merely provided a plain example, chosen in the sincere
> but mistaken belief that you would be able to comprehend.

 Plain example of what? Last time I looked the discussion dealt with
cultures and the supposed massive American media machine which is
destroying said cultures around the world. You speak of "once upon a
time" and then go balistic when I choose to disagree with your bias.
Comprehend and believe are two very different things...

> Any other inference is the product of paranoia or malice.

 Or perhaps, just perhaps, I don't agree with you - strange concept huh? Sorry
I don't buy your argument - and if all you are claiming is that once
upon a time music was regional in flavor - then I must ask "so what?" 
Just about any new form of music that comes up starts out regional - it
happened with rock in the 50s and 60s it happened with the new wave of
the late 70's and 80's and it has happened with some of that weird
heavy-metal/punk./trash stuff that is around now. What is your point? If
you did not intend to adress the issue that was under discussion then I
really see how anyone could help but misinterpret your remarks as
anything other than an attempt to support the "American media is
destroying cultures and that is bad" argument that I reacted to. Malice
and paranoia have nothing to do with it...

> >> Gary Newell writes:
> >> >In three hundred years, should we be
> >> >attempting to keep cultures from developing in an effort to "preserve"
> >> >them? 
> >> Economic development, and preservation of culture are not
> >> irreconcilable objectives.  And there is no reason for
> >> you to suppose that they must be.
> > True - and in fact I do not.  I would say that those who argue in support of
> >laws which limit the import of ideas or foreign culture are the ones who
> >do not recognize that this is the case.
> 
> Laws?  I said nothing about laws.

Who said you did? Matthew (remember him - I was responding to him when you
chose to make your comments) applauded the French and Quebec for legal
attempts to limit influence from outside their culture - my remark
was addressed to him and others who responded as well.

> You can argue against any position you want here, as you often do.
> But please do so without attributing any of your delusional arguments 
> to me.  

 I guess I gave you more credit than I should have. I should have
simply said "this guy hasn't a clue and he really only wants to
make some inane point about big bands and blues" - sorry next time
I'll realize that you probably have no grand thought behind your ideas...


			gln