On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:06:19 -0400, Warp wrote:

> one
> cannot reasonably claim that they don't show compositional talent.

Well, I disagree.  Most pop music in and of itself consists of very 
simple rhythm and not a lot of musical ingenuity, based on what I've 
heard.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/28/09 13:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 	It isn't, however, illegal. And I suspect it's not even
> "universally"
>> inappropriate (in terms of all of humanity).
>
> Um, some of the things he was accused of are in fact illegal.  That's why
> he went to court.

	I know - I was, however, referring to what we *know* rather than what 
he's been accused of.

> Well, you're entitled to do that.  I would deem those parents
> irresponsible at least to just think that it's OK to let their kids sleep
> over with him because he's a star.  It's naive to think that the stage

	Well, I think anyone who thinks it's OK to let their kids sleep over 
anyone's house merely due to stardom is irresponsible to an extent (not 
enough for the law, though).

	But was that the case? The parents had not spent time with MJ?

> Those who were willing to let their kids stay with him when they didn't
> know about him as a *person* might just as well have left their kids with
> some other stranger.  Just because someone is famous doesn't mean that

	Do you know that the parents didn't know him personally?


-- 
For a while, she had a boyfriend with a wooden leg. Then she broke it off.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On 06/28/09 14:16, somebody wrote:
> Correct. But *I* (as well the rest of society) can very well judge people
> for what I think they think.

	We all know you *can*. That was never under dispute.

-- 
For a while, she had a boyfriend with a wooden leg. Then she broke it off.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On 06/28/09 14:06, Warp wrote:
>    I must admit I haven't looked if MJ composed his songs himself, or whether
> he just performed them. AFAIK he personally composed at least *some* (if not
> most) of the songs he performed.

	Looking at the Thriller album, he did write some of the songs (at least 
the lyrics). Beat It and Billie Jean were written by him, for example. 
Some others as well.

	Looking at Bad, he wrote Bad, Smooth Criminal, and a bunch of others 
from that album.

	Too lazy to look at the rest. But it is clear that he did write some of 
his big hits.


-- 
For a while, she had a boyfriend with a wooden leg. Then she broke it off.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Well, I disagree.  Most pop music in and of itself consists of very 
> simple rhythm and not a lot of musical ingenuity, based on what I've 
> heard.

  Musical ingenuity does not necessarily have to be measured in technical
terms. There's also the subjective component to it.

  Even a simple tune can be really catchy. If someone composes such a tune,
one could argue that's music ingenuity at work.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:02:41 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Well, I disagree.  Most pop music in and of itself consists of very
>> simple rhythm and not a lot of musical ingenuity, based on what I've
>> heard.
> 
>   Musical ingenuity does not necessarily have to be measured in
>   technical
> terms. There's also the subjective component to it.

Of course.  And in my subjective opinion, pop music simply isn't complex 
enough or rich enough to meet my own criteria for "genius".

>   Even a simple tune can be really catchy. If someone composes such a
>   tune,
> one could argue that's music ingenuity at work.

Sure.  Sometimes simple is ingenious, but there's a difference between 
something simple that's ingenious and a three-chord wonder.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:49:51 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> On 06/28/09 13:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> 	It isn't, however, illegal. And I suspect it's not even
>> "universally"
>>> inappropriate (in terms of all of humanity).
>>
>> Um, some of the things he was accused of are in fact illegal.  That's
>> why he went to court.
> 
> 	I know - I was, however, referring to what we *know* rather than 
what
> he's been accused of.

What I know is what was in the few reports that I read.

>> Well, you're entitled to do that.  I would deem those parents
>> irresponsible at least to just think that it's OK to let their kids
>> sleep over with him because he's a star.  It's naive to think that the
>> stage
> 
> 	Well, I think anyone who thinks it's OK to let their kids sleep 
over
> anyone's house merely due to stardom is irresponsible to an extent (not
> enough for the law, though).

Exactly.

> 	But was that the case? The parents had not spent time with MJ?

According to the reports I had read, no, they hadn't spent time enough to 
know how he'd behave.  They were wowed by the "star factor" and that he 
wanted to spend time with their kid.

>> Those who were willing to let their kids stay with him when they didn't
>> know about him as a *person* might just as well have left their kids
>> with some other stranger.  Just because someone is famous doesn't mean
>> that
> 
> 	Do you know that the parents didn't know him personally?

According to the reports that I read, they didn't.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a47d5ce$1@news.povray.org...

> > Do you believe that it's all black and white? That if MR crossed a
certain
> > treshold (say, 12 episodes of racist rants per year) that you'd consider
him
> > a racist, but anything below that you would not? Can you honestly say
even a
> > single episode will not change your mind about him just a little bit?

> Nope. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
>
> I need a certain threshold before I will even _consider_ whether
> someone is a racist. That's not being binary.

You don't consider whether someone's a racist below a treshold, you consider
whether someone's racist above it. However you word it (and yes, I realize
the difference between X and considering the possibility of X), it's a
binary proposition.

> My threshold isn't "one incident" (at least in MR's case).

Is it 3, 5, 25? Why do I have a feeling you won't be willing to share that
treshold with us? :P

Personally, one incident is enough for me to entertain the notion, and I
don't have a problem with thinking that someone might be very mildly racist.
Of course the more incidents, the stronger my conviction is about the
strength of the racism, but I cannot really pinpoint a treshold. It's
entirely possible your mind works very differently in that respect.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a47c132@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:

> > The court may come to completely different conclusions if a partner in
sex
> > is 17.9 years as opposed to 18.1 years old. To me, that's more or less
> > meaningless, and I have a much more smooth judegement curve, which takes
> > into account the age differential between the partners.

>   You mean if a 45-yo has sex with a 18.1-yo, that's ok, but if he has
> sex with a 17.9-yo, that's not ok?

Possibly from a legal point. Not from my personal POV. That's the whole
point. Something does not have to be a (provable) crime for me to pass
unfavourable personal judgement. That the 45 yo was cleared by the court
because the partner happened to have their 18th birthday the day before
changes very little, if anything at all, for me.

That said, you can be fined the same parking fee whether you are 1 minute or
59 minutes over, and will not be fined if you are 15 seconds under. While
that's also a very binary "legal" judgement, it doesn't carry any moral
implications.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a47c1fb@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:

> > Correct. But *I* (as well the rest of society) can very well judge
people
> > for what I think they think.

>   Then you are being prejudiced, and judging people on appearances.

Appearance?

Post a reply to this message