From: bil@burka..aix.kingston.ibm.com (Igor Belchinskiy)
Subject: Expert vs. Authority Re: Leave Vysotsky alone! (was Re: A blasphemy...)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 14:57:25 GMT
Organization: Be. I am.

In article <1992Nov6.190823.17178@husc3.harvard.edu> verbit@coolidge.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky) writes:
>In article <1992Nov05.211007.15640@watson.ibm.com> bil@burka..aix.kingston.ibm.com (Igor Belchinskiy) writes:
>>In article <92310.125601VABHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <VABHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>>>Anybody, any person, and Shnittke also may say anything he wants. Even he said
>>>what you wrote, it wouldn't reflect on my opinion, that he's music is good.
>
>>You are so generous :-) Yet Shnitke sounded as responsible person.
>
>Responsible for what? Vysotsky's music? What a funny idea!

for his own words.

>Or you meant that they both are contained in Cthulhu? 
>Well, it could happen that he ate them both, together
>with Krishna and Jesus Christ...
>

Side remark: Misha, what may you know about Cthulhu?
Necronomicon isn't a toy - so, please, be responsible too.

>BTW, all writers of music are divided on ones who know
>the notes (how to read a score) and ones who don't. The
>opinions of one who knows (Shnitke) on one who doesn't 
>(Vysotsky) is as worthless as an opinion of, say, Andrei 
>Makarevich on, say, Bruckner. These are different genres.
>For example, Shnitke often says that he does not
>understand anything in jazz. Why I will believe that his
>opinion on grass-roots urban folk music is worth something?
>He never wrote a song someone *could* sing, has he?
>He wrote a score to a some Taganka performace and
>film, I know. The songs there could be worth something
>from the classical point of view (I doubt :), but
>nevertheless you could never see a KSP-fan singing
>this song, nor a taxi driver playing its tape.

Difference as between math and arithmetic in shop?
Now what if some math expert sees some primitive yet
original method of calculation how much is 2x2?
Is it permissable to use reference to his opinion instead of 
long, dull, detailed analysis? Especially if it's enough
just mention the fact in given context?

>One more note: the arguments like "Shnitke says Vysotsky is a
>great musician" and "Korzhavin likes his poetry" are typical
>for scs collective consiousness. 

Where is the first argument? Who told you that the second worth anything?
>Why on the earth you need
>to judge Vysotsky by whatever these (for someone, highly esteemed)
>people wrote? Could you just buy a boombox and *listen*
>to his songs? Don't you have your own opinion? Do you
>believe that everybody should like someone if (sigh)
>Shnitke does? 
I don't need. I could. I have. I don't believe. All that doesn't
matter because you missed the point. Which is very simple -
there are subjective feelings and objective entities. "X dislike Vysotsky"
is subjective (i.e., I dislike Vysotsky, or I dislike your hastiness).
While "music by Vysotsky is trivial crap" is a try
of objective assertion on objective entity. 
So I quoted an opinion of distinguished expert in this field, 
which contradicts the original assertion - balancing this way entity image
(which doesn't have that much connection with reality, anyway).
Maybe, Moshe the Green would agree to fog further the above discussed subject
for you.

>That's called authoritarian complex:
>people cannot imagine that everybody can have different
>opinion than them. If someone does, they are trying
>to persuade him by mention of esteemed people who
>are thinking the same as they, or by calling him names.

Methinks, you dost protest too much.
Kneejerk reflex again, isn't it?

>I *hate* Sovietic mentality sometimes :).

Which in turn is equivalent to call reinvent bike every time and everywhere.
Good approach in math or formalized natural sciences. Good luck :-)
>
>Misha.

Just in case - substantial poetic contribution:
	Gvozdi by delat' iz etih ludei,
	Krepche by ne bylo v mire gvozdei.

 -igor