"Brown Sugar" needs to be banned!

Music news, rumors, what you're listening to, how you're listening to it and whether it's all on the up-and-up.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9601
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: "Brown Sugar" needs to be banned!

Postby rabble » Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:14 pm

Huckleby wrote:
Prof. Wagstaff wrote: There is nothing "rare" about Lawrence Welk's talent, for example. It's exactly because he was a pandering lame-o that he was popular to begin with.


pandering to what? To people's emotions? He had ability to move people and get them moving?

this is too funny! Shake your moneymaker, Professor.

No, he's right. Welk was very good at pandering. Mitch Miller was way better than Lawrence Welk but Welk is the one who went on and on and on.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 10524
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: "Brown Sugar" needs to be banned!

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Sun Oct 27, 2013 10:02 pm

Huckleby wrote:
Prof. Wagstaff wrote: this notion you have that everyone should always appreciate anything that others already appreciate is pretty goofy
That's not what I'm saying.

Well, then you've done a piss-poor job of explaining yourself, cuz it sure seems to me that you've said exactly that several times this thread. In fact, it seems like you're still saying it.
Huckleby wrote:I advocate for a high level of self-doubt when you don't like something. In most cases it is your own inability to connect with the music emotionally. When you are talking about music that has touched a huge number of people and endured, it's you.
How is this statement not exactly what I said you were saying above? And where the fuck do you get off telling people if they don't "get" music that others like, it's due to some emotional defect on their part? Not only am I unable to grasp how someone's opinion about music can be wrong, I am utterly baffled how you can suggest someone's emotions are incorrect.

Huckleby wrote:Sophisticated, highly developed musical tastes don't necessarily lead you to all the best music. "Sophistication" can lead to a narrowing and blinding, a preference for particular styles.
What the fuck does "sophistication" have to do with anything? I've certainly never argued my taste was sophisticated, nor have I ever suggested it was "highly developed." You're just throwing words around now. And I'm again confused by your suggestion that having preferences is some kind of defect. I've never met anyone without preferences, nor would I want to. Someone without preferences is in a coma.

Huckleby wrote:Rolling Stones top 500 albums

222. The Neil Diamond Collection, Neil Diamond

For fuck's sake, are you seriously citing as "evidence" for your cockamamie theory a ranking of albums according to Rolling Stone?
Really, I've tried... but you're a fucking joke, man.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9947
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: "Brown Sugar" needs to be banned!

Postby Huckleby » Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:44 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote: How is this statement not exactly what I said you were saying above?

I did not say everyone should appreciate everything that others appreciate. We all have our prejudices and limits. And some musicians and songs simply stink.

Prof. Wagstaff wrote: And where the fuck do you get off telling people if they don't "get" music that others like, it's due to some emotional defect on their part?

I was being somewhat facetious.
But yes, 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.

Prof. Wagstaff wrote: I am utterly baffled how you can suggest someone's emotions are incorrect.

That would be an odd thing for someone to suggest.

Prof. Wagstaff wrote: What the fuck does "sophistication" have to do with anything?

That's a fair point, it might be irrelevant.
I'm not sure why you think that music you can't appreciate is bad music. Unsophisticated listeners can be just as narrow-minded as music mavens. But I know that "discerning listeners" often discern their way into tunnel vision.

Prof. Wagstaff wrote: For fuck's sake, are you seriously citing as "evidence" for your cockamamie theory a ranking of albums according to Rolling Stone?

I would suggest that 100% of the albums on that list have a lot of musical value. They are selected by a large panel of people who appreciate music. If you don't get one of the albums on the list, it's probably your limitation.

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.
Last edited by Huckleby on Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9947
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: "Brown Sugar" needs to be banned!

Postby Huckleby » Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:51 pm

rabble wrote: Welk was very good at pandering.


What does pandering mean, if not appealing to people's emotions?

Music is communication, and very primal. Welk is obviously connecting to the reptile brain of many people.

Maybe your guy Mitch Miller is good in a different way. But they both succeed.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 10524
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: "Brown Sugar" needs to be banned!

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:19 am

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 are incorrect.
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 sucks?

Huckleby wrote:
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?

bdog
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4184
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: "Brown Sugar" needs to be banned!

Postby bdog » Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:54 am

Girlfriends barfed on boyfriends. Kids barfed on their parents. A fat lady barfed in her purse. The Donnelley twins barfed on each other, and the Women's Auxiliary barfed all over the Benevolent Order of Antelopes. And Lardass just sat back and enjoyed what he'd created-a complete and total barf-o-rama!


Kudos swimmy.

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9601
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: "Brown Sugar" needs to be banned!

Postby rabble » Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:18 am

Huckleby wrote:
rabble wrote: Welk was very good at pandering.


What does pandering mean, if not appealing to people's emotions?

Music is communication, and very primal. Welk is obviously connecting to the reptile brain of many people.

Maybe your guy Mitch Miller is good in a different way. But they both succeed.

No. NO! Welk was a poser, a traitor to the music. Blithely bewildering his audiences with all that "A one a and a two a" stuff. He was the Andy Williams of waltz.

Mitch Miller wouldn't compromise his music so Welk won the war but Mitch was the artist. A large group of male ex alcoholics in suits, standing in formation, belting out "Be kind to your web footed friends!" is the epitome of rock and roll!

minicat
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4538
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002 1:22 pm
Contact:

Re: "Brown Sugar" needs to be banned!

Postby minicat » Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:39 am

Huckleby wrote:Rolling Stones top 500 albums

222. The Neil Diamond Collection, Neil Diamond

(it's a ten-year-old list, but there have been hundreds of thousands of rock albums)



Confucius say, "Beware of top 'album' lists that include singles collections, particularly when created by fashion magazines."

scratch
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:00 pm

Re: "Brown Sugar" needs to be banned!

Postby scratch » Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:29 am

Two thoughts occur to me about this thread:

1. Huck seems to me to be saying that if one doesn't like a particular style of music or a particular artist it might be incumbent on that discerning listener to consider the possibility that the music or artist is just fine, but not the discerning listener's cup of tea. Mrs Scratch employs this rhetorical option when our conversation turns to Paul McCartney. I make it easy for her, though, by embracing Lee Scratch Perry as my favorite musician. The amount of crap released by Scratch or by those who steal his stuff is significant, but to me is more than made up for by his best stuff, of which there is also a lot available (an advantage of a 50+ year recording career). One way or another, though, nothing makes up for drek like Silly Love Songs, but objectively stating an airtight case for its universal cruddiness isn't easy. I prefer to agree with Prof. W in general without enunciating it every time the subject comes up. Not worth the effort to me.

2. On any other forum I've ever experienced, swimmingupstream and her cloying little allegories would be denounced as the work of a sock puppet or a mult. With so many aspiring creative writers in and around Madison anything is possible, but some of her details are so precious that it seems to me to be fiction. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Besides, for all many of you know, I could be a Blaska sock puppet.

Whaddaya know about this, dogBoy? Is swimmingupstream the work of one of your pals who is no longer allowed to trod this message board? And swimmy, real or fake, you're a gem.

O.J.
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3852
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:13 am

Re: "Brown Sugar" needs to be banned!

Postby O.J. » Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:47 am

scratch wrote: And swimmy, real or fake, you're a gem.


It's a near certainty that this is trollery, but one of the more creative and benign examples I've seen on this board. Well played, swimmy.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9947
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: "Brown Sugar" needs to be banned!

Postby Huckleby » Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:47 pm

scratch wrote:1. Huck seems to me to be saying that if one doesn't like a particular style of music or a particular artist it might be incumbent on that discerning listener to consider the possibility that the music or artist is just fine, but not the discerning listener's cup of tea.


Ya, that's the long and short of it.

Of course there is more wisdom to be garnered by discerning readers from my erudite, deeply-thought posts. I'm not giving up on improving Professor Wagstaff, I accept my burden. "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" -Luke 12:48

scratch wrote: 2. On any other forum I've ever experienced, swimmingupstream and her cloying little allegories would be denounced as the work of a sock puppet or a mult. With so many aspiring creative writers in and around Madison anything is possible


These thoughts have crept into the back of my mind too, but I quickly suppress them. I've developed such enjoyable sexual fantasies about swimming that I'm loath to let them go. You know, the sexy, repressed librarian with the awkward eyeware, wanting only for my gentle touch and patience to bring-out the animal within her.

Clearly, Westsidegal is similarly besotten.

Michael Patrick
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4262
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 8:56 am
Location: Around here somewhere
Contact:

Re: "Brown Sugar" needs to be banned!

Postby Michael Patrick » Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:50 pm

scratch wrote:2. On any other forum I've ever experienced, swimmingupstream and her cloying little allegories would be denounced as the work of a sock puppet or a mult. With so many aspiring creative writers in and around Madison anything is possible, but some of her details are so precious that it seems to me to be fiction.


Ya think?

swimmingupstream wrote:I am still very close with Noel and his brothers, Mitchell and Marshall. I talk to each of them on the phone every week or two even though they are very busy young people.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 10524
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: "Brown Sugar" needs to be banned!

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:56 pm

Huckleby wrote:
scratch wrote:1. Huck seems to me to be saying that if one doesn't like a particular style of music or a particular artist it might be incumbent on that discerning listener to consider the possibility that the music or artist is just fine, but not the discerning listener's cup of tea.


Ya, that's the long and short of it.


Uh... seems to me that's been my argument. Not all music is for everyone. Huck keeps saying that anyone who dislikes a genre is somehow faulty. In fact, he just did it again.
Huckleby wrote:I'm not giving up on improving Professor Wagstaff

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9947
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: "Brown Sugar" needs to be banned!

Postby Huckleby » Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:58 pm

rabble wrote: No. NO! Welk was a poser, a traitor to the music. Blithely bewildering his audiences with all that "A one a and a two a" stuff. He was the Andy Williams of waltz.


There are criteria by which you can say that Lawrence Welk and Andy Williams are schmucks. There are criteria by which you can say Wagner is boring as hell.

I'm not criticizing your tastes. Just asking you to recognize that they are subjective.

I hate Bing Crosby. Yet I love Frank Sinatra's crooning from same era. Go figger.

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9601
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: "Brown Sugar" needs to be banned!

Postby rabble » Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:00 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:Huck keeps saying that anyone who dislikes a genre is somehow faulty. In fact, he just did it again.
Huckleby wrote:I'm not giving up on improving Professor Wagstaff

I think he has a reasonable shot at it. I'm not sure why he thinks it's a prize worth attaining but he might have a chance.


Return to “General Music”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests