From Oeivind Idsoe Sent Mon, Jan 5th 1998, 23:45
From Oeivind Idsoe Sent Mon, Jan 5th 1998, 23:45
H James Harkins wrote: > Gil and SM's rants depend on an assumption that, on its face, is a little > silly. Basically, it's that the underground music scene is SO IMPORTANT > that to support the scene requires ALL of one's time and material > resources. Well, never mind how important it is in general, but I'm pretty sure the so-called "underground scene" would not have been so healthy as I think it is if it hadn't been for crazy people whose life depend on getting hold of release X by artist Y. If everyone was as bored and lazy as the mainstream we would just go to the nearest record shop and buy whatever was available, and trust me: local record shops here in Norway are not a pretty sight. Of course, the underground scene doesn't require all of one's time and material resources, but surely you agree that people who listen to stuff from Mego, A-musik, Mille Plateaux etc. spend a little more time and effort than the average listener. > Can we have just a little perspective PLEASE? This is something we do to > pass the time. Nothing more, nothing less. This does not encapsulate the > whole future of humankind. This is not the answer to the planet's ills. > It's *fun*. When it becomes your whole life, that's when the trouble > starts... then you start to see these ridiculous moral imperatives to die > of vitamin deficiency eating nothing but ramen noodles so you can save > money and buy another couple of Mego records this month (I know, nobody's > asked anybody to do that--it's called reductio ad absurdum...). OK, so Gil was a bit silly, and now you are being a bit silly. Music creates meaning, and meaning in various forms and shapes makes life worth living. This doesn't mean it "encapsulates the whole future of mankind", but it may, to a certain extent, constitue an important part of *some* human's life. The day it becomes everything, of course, is the day one lives and dies by music, and that's probably not a good thing. But I've always thought that people with a healthy amount of obsessive interest for something, be it music, film, art, soccer, are the most interesting ones to talk to and get to know better; they have strong opinions and often original views, and can often make an otherwise boring and 'polite' conversation turn into a spectactle of heated arguments. Those, on the other hand, who reduce everything to "it's just <whatever>" prove -- through the word "just" -- that they haven't really understood what makes many humans tick. If music is "just" music how come so many people are into it, obsessed by it, discuss it on this list? Eating is "just eating" but I'm sure cooks exchange heated (!) words if they possess the right amount of artistic temperament. Sex is "just sex" but that doesn't mean it hasn't got its ups'n'downs...and is therefore more than just sex. The "just" remark is indeed reductio ad absurdum and therefore not particularly fruitful. > It's only MUSIC. It's part of life, and one way or another, we'll find > ways to keep making good noise. It's music, alright, but not only just music. That's my point, I think; healthy obsession rather than "oh well". /Oeivind/