John VanSickle wrote:

> Although some genres produce nothing but junk, or have produced nothing 
> new since the first couple of albums by the first couple of artists.

Perhaps. Of course, one person's generic clones are another person's 
distinctive sounds. It's all pretty subjective.

For example, there are people who claim that all trance music sounds 
identical, or those who complain that every Enya song ever recorded 
sounds identical. (I saw a comment on Bash where somebody claimed that 
Enya sounds the same played backwards...)

Post a reply to this message

On 30-3-2010 10:25, Invisible wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
> 
>> Although some genres produce nothing but junk, or have produced 
>> nothing new since the first couple of albums by the first couple of 
>> artists.
> 
> Perhaps. Of course, one person's generic clones are another person's 
> distinctive sounds. It's all pretty subjective.

An important thing is whether you have heard enough of it to notice the 
differences. For many young persons used to listening to pop/rock or 
worse all violin concertos will sound the same.
Also reminds me of the story of a friend who lived some time in a 
japanese village. There was another european woman there. Most japanese 
could not keep them apart, eventhough one was long and blond and the 
other short and redhaired. As we all know, all chinese look the same 
(though not to Darren, who has only trouble with Aboriginals and Koreans).

I can't find the source but once I read a comment about two loreena 
mckennitt albums that it was the same music because on both albums she 
played piano and harp; on both albums there were instrumentals, ones 
with own lyrics and an old poem set to music. See: they are the same.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> 1% of 1950`s best still sounds awful when compared to 1% of 1790`s 
>> best. ;)
> 
> I remember reading a book wherein the protagonist was chatting and said 
> something along the lines of "I never bother to read a book that isn't 
> at least 100 years old and still popular."   The person he's talking to 
> says "doesn't that rather limit your options?"  The protagonist says 
> "Not really."

Consider that since the American Civil War something like 60,000 books 
about the war have been published.  Even if you cull the bottom 99%, you 
still have lots to read.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> I remember reading a book wherein the protagonist was chatting and said 
> something along the lines of "I never bother to read a book that isn't 
> at least 100 years old and still popular."

Popularity doesn't necessarily mean that something is good.

For example, apparently everybody thinks GEB is great. Personally, I 
read about 25% of it and then stopped out of sheer boredom.

Post a reply to this message

On 30-3-2010 15:08, Invisible wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> I remember reading a book wherein the protagonist was chatting and 
>> said something along the lines of "I never bother to read a book that 
>> isn't at least 100 years old and still popular."
> 
> Popularity doesn't necessarily mean that something is good.
> 
> For example, apparently everybody thinks GEB is great. Personally, I 
> read about 25% of it and then stopped out of sheer boredom.

That in no way proves or even suggests that it is not great. ;)

Post a reply to this message

>> For example, apparently everybody thinks GEB is great. Personally, I 
>> read about 25% of it and then stopped out of sheer boredom.
> 
> That in no way proves or even suggests that it is not great. ;)

It does rather suggest that it's not for everybody though.

Post a reply to this message

4bb1ff06$1@news.povray.org...
>>> For example, apparently everybody thinks GEB is great. Personally, I 
>>> read about 25% of it and then stopped out of sheer boredom.
>>
>> That in no way proves or even suggests that it is not great. ;)
>
> It does rather suggest that it's not for everybody though.

You mean it is not so popular or not so good?

Marc

Post a reply to this message

On 30-3-2010 15:39, Invisible wrote:
>>> For example, apparently everybody thinks GEB is great. Personally, I 
>>> read about 25% of it and then stopped out of sheer boredom.
>>
>> That in no way proves or even suggests that it is not great. ;)
> 
> It does rather suggest that it's not for everybody though.

yes, greatness of books, music and other arts is like the spin of an 
electron. You can not know what value it has without observing it.

Post a reply to this message

>>>> For example, apparently everybody thinks GEB is great. Personally, I 
>>>> read about 25% of it and then stopped out of sheer boredom.
>>> That in no way proves or even suggests that it is not great. ;)
>> It does rather suggest that it's not for everybody though.
> 
> You mean it is not so popular or not so good?

Everybody seems to think that GEB is this wonderful book that's really 
interesting to read. I did not find it so.

My point being that "greatness" or even "goodness" is not so easy to 
define. It's subjective.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> As we all know, all chinese look the same 
> (though not to Darren, who has only trouble with Aboriginals and Koreans).

It took me about a year or two before I could semi-reliably tell koreans 
from chinese from japanese.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Yes, we're traveling together,
   but to different destinations.

Post a reply to this message