Huckleby wrote:I did not say everyone should appreciate everything that others appreciate.
You are easily one of the least clear writers I've ever attempted communicating with in English then, cuz you sure as shit seem to be doing it yet again
when you say, "If you don't get one of the albums [in the Rolling Stone Top 500 list], it's probably your limitation." How does that statement NOT suggest that you believe everyone should like everything on that list? And what about when you say, "if you don't appreciate Indian Classical music, or Hank Williams, or Neil Diamond, or Gregorian chants, realize that the limitation is probably with you"? Again, doesn't that imply that you think everyone should appreciate all of those examples? What the fuck else could you possibly mean? And it's truly adorable that you say, "I was being somewhat facetious" about suggesting people who don't like certain styles, genres, or popular artists are somehow defective, and then in the very next sentence reiterate that you do
think people who don't like certain styles, genres, or popular artists are somehow defective. (I guess you did say "probably", and you also claimed that some stuff really does just stink, which raises the obvious question: which styles, genres, or popular artists is
it OK to dislike -- without being labeled as deficient or emotionally maladjusted -- according to The Huckleby Theory Of Music Appreciation?)
Prof. Wagstaff wrote:
I am utterly baffled how you can suggest someone's emotions
Huckleby wrote:That would be an odd thing for someone to suggest.
Well, if you didn't mean to suggest it, then why have you? Like when you write about an "inability to connect with the music emotionally"? What else can that mean except if you don't like some particular music, it's because your emotional response is wrong?
Huckleby wrote:I'm not sure why you think that music you can't appreciate is bad music.
It isn't that I can't appreciate certain music. It's that I don't like
certain music. I'm certainly capable of acknowledging the skill it takes to make your diaphragm and throat emit the noises that constitute opera singing. It's an impressive feat, to be sure, but it doesn't sound pleasing
to me. How can I be wrong about that? And how does the pleasure it has given to others have any bearing on how it sounds to me?
My position is as simple as not everything is for everyone. (Which I maintain is a good thing, what with there only being so many hours in your life available for doing all the stuff people have opinions about.) You seem to think otherwise, given your declarations about how people are wrong about their opinions. (You know, that thing you keep saying and then claiming you're not saying, which you seem to have done again
in the last quote.) And does this theory of yours apply only to music? Are people who won't eat broccoli broken? If someone doesn't think a joke is funny, does that mean they're defective? Do you think it's an "inability" to make an emotional connection with Urkel that has caused so many people to express the opinion that Family Matters
Prof. Wagstaff wrote:Really, I've tried... but you're a fucking joke, man.
That's one possible explanation of why you can't follow what I'm saying.
The explanation for why I can't follow you is that you are explaining your position very badly. Either that or (and more likely) your position makes no sense from the get-go, thereby defying any attempt to understand it. (Admittedly, I don't enjoy the noises Neil Diamond makes, so clearly I am defective.)
Maybe someone other than Huck can help me out here? Am I missing some insightful nuance in his seemingly contradictory (and insulting) statements?