10 FYI's For McGoo

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

> My answer is twofold:  A)"...topic will continue until all is said". For
> Christ's sake, how much more can be said?  See my "dead horse"

Jim:

I see where you're coming from, however I also see more notes from other
people on the subject in this very same digest. These people, at least,
still have something to contribute. Fair enough, right? *I* can hardly
say "no more," having contributed a significant bulk of the material
myself. And I must respond to him from this digest! Before he teaches
our youth, there are some things he desperately needs to know! Look,
these are the people who will be in charge in the not-too-distant
future...when I'm too old and frail to take care of myself. I don't want
them fed a bunch of truth-twisting psuedo facts!

> B) "...start a topic", I did.  See Keith Moon bio-pic reference.

Good. I'm still not getting one digest a day, though. We need more
posts!

> My final disagreement lies in your reference to shoe sizes.  I WOULD
> rather discuss shoe sizes; could be Pete's, could be Emily's shoes.

To me it's not interesting, however you have a perfect right to have
such a discussion here and I will not complain. *I* would rather discuss
Art than shoe sizes. However, I definitely would NOT say: Don't discuss
Pete's feet! 
I DO apologize again to those who are not enjoying this thread, but
there have been many threads I haven't liked yet never commented. I just
pass them by, as I suggest you do with these. Then everybody wins, see?

> an opinion.  But when people shovel their opinions as fact, that's when
> it becomes a problem, as this poetry/art stuff has become.  Oh well...

I also read you here, and have tried my damnest to present facts on my
side...backing them up (or at least presenting backup material) each
time. Naturally, like anyone, I choose facts which best serve my
argument...I plead guilty of being human.

> In either case, please leave this mailing list.

Michael:

I think this is a bit too strong a reaction, don't you? As long as he's
in any way interested in The Who, I'd rather having him discussing or
thinking about the band than forgetting them for lack of information.

> hand, but an unsettling number of you have shown no interest in
> accepting a new idea.

McGoo:

First off, you are NOT TO BE INSULTED...or I'll kick your ass!
Anyway, you will never get someone to accept a "new idea" (I would argue
that this is not one, but whatever) by telling them what they like is
bad. Just a FYI.

> elitist.  Sure I have an absurd amount of education

Another FYI: This has been by no means proven out or even suggested by
your notes, I must say. If anything, you've more often defined what you
don't know. Some good advice: stick to what you know.
I have friends who have been or are professors (one now heads a
Washington "think tank"), and you my friend MAY BE one but certainly do
not come across like one at all.

> I will also add that your viscous attacks of my career were taken quite
> personally.

And you don't feel that by writing that the "English department was
still laughing" is in the same sort of vein or anything, I'd guess. As
Spock once said: "Sauce for the goose, Mr. Savvik..."
You could only feel insulted IF deep down part of you agreed with the
comment. Otherwise, what would it matter? I have not been insulted by
anything you've written, nor did I expect you to be.

> The mere fact that you assumed I am a poor teacher simply because you 
> dislike ONE of my theories

I think you've misread this, because it's more like how you present your
argument...surely something a lecturer must do well, wouldn't you say?
And you've done a ton of assuming yourself, you know...
FYI # 3: Great leaps of "logic" which are in sharp contrast with and
ignore established facts are no way to impress your opponent. Or any
intelligent college student, I might add...I mean, if *I* can get the
better of you...you, sir, are in trouble!

> Because when it comes to the arts (literature, music etc.) I seem to
> know far more than most of you.

"Seem to know?" Doesn't seem that way to me or even close to it!
You were blissfully unaware (if you don't like the term ignorant, which
is descriptive rather than insulting) of Tolkein and Townshend's massive
influence, just for two! Your lack of knowledge concerning (at least)
`60's society would call into question your knowledge of history, too.

> that's why I have musicians for friends.  And think I'm the fool because
> I like The Who.

Like I said, they failed an intelligence test. Not YOUR fault...although
you may want to consider lifting your standard a bit.

> Why Rock is not art:  A)It has no aesthetic goal.

You've spoken to each and every songwriter about this, I take it?
Otherwise, you're blowing hot air. 
FYI # 4: These are the sort of statements which get you in trouble!

> B)The music has no progression.

This is untrue, and is easily proven wrong. Listen to a Chuck Berry song
and then a Gentle Giant or King Crimson song, and you'll see what I mean
(even 20 years ago). Rock music as a creative force pretty much died in
the `80's, and it was limping even then...so you'll have to do a little
research not just turn on a radio.

> Rock is the same music today that it was in 1958.

You get an F. You see, it's foolish statements like this which make
people question your ability as a teacher! And that you don't SEE this
already makes it even more true!

> with their careers.  As I said before, rock lost all chance of becoming
> an artistic medium when The Beatles appeared.

Listen to the stereo mix of PET SOUNDS and THEN tell me Rock isn't Art!
You're just dead wrong!
And off-the-list your assignment is to explain why The Beatles ruined
Rock for Art.

> Hmmm, now we are insulting my poor friends.  Among other things, that is
> truly immature.  I'm disappointed.

I have not insulted ANYONE here, not even YOU. I'm giving you an
If/Then. IF they think The Who are not serious music, THEN they are
ot-Nay oo-Tay ight-Bray (if you get my meaning). Not an insult. A fact.
I could never consider any so-called musician "serious" if they don't
understand Rock music and its impact. They could be no better than Muzak
performers. Fakers. Paper clowns. Like Mitch Miller and his comment
about RnR music.
Mitch WHO?
THAT is my point! Look him up, PLEASE, and find out what I'm talking
about here!

> I never said that such a time existed, because it hasn't happened yet.

Then you should have understood what I said, especially since you're
claiming to be an historian!

> slipped down to the maturity level of an eight year old again.  I hate
> it when that happens.

Why it happens at all is what you should be worried about.

> You need to stop with the childish insults here.

No insult, it's just that if you're going to make a point have some
facts at your disposal instead of making a general sort of claim! 
FYI # 5: You didn't!

>  I can email you a list of everything I know, if you wish.

FYI # 6: It doesn't say much about your knowledge if you can fit it all
in one EMail!

> I think you have a point.  I am no expert, but that is why I have
> musicians for friends.  They think you are wrong.

See the intelligence test remark above. On this, I am not giving an
opinion. I'm giving you a fact. If you or your friends lack the ability
to understand or realize this fact, it does not make it any less a fact. 
FYI # 7: *I* did not create this fact, I merely pass it along to you.

> He agrees with me, I believe his opinion is more accurate than yours.

Hey, we all make mistakes! What was that you said about "assuming?" I
feel confident I've studied Rock music (which involves all music,
really) longer than he has studied music, as it's been a good 28 years
so far. And his so-called opinions are utter foolishness while mine are
by the least standard POSSIBLE. I'd say that gives me the edge, wouldn't
you?

> He also is unbiased towards The Who, something you are clearly not.

Non Sequitur. I'm talking about Rock music in general, not just The Who.

> This was the biggest insult of them all.  I'm a Democrat.

FYI # 8: And that was OBVIOUSLY a joke!

> Prior to this email, I can distinctly recall THREE times when I said
> that I don't teach literature.  You need to learn to read, pal.

I read it, but you DO TEACH do you not? Or do you think students take
only ONE SINGLE COURSE in college?
Have you ever even SEEN a college?

> I guess you saw the movie.

Long after I'd read the book, and several others by Irving, thanks. As a
matter of fact, I don't know that the movie even has that part in it.

> If you are going to respond to this email, I suggest you read it first.

Oh, you really thought you had me here, didn't you? Too bad. I think
that important early scene should have been set in Vienna, as in the
book, rather than NYC...don't you agree? Or have YOU read it?

> To all of those who want me burned, hanged, committed or otherwise

I think you're overreacting here. You've been caught out and are now
scrambling for cover (a military reference for ya). There's no shame in
that, really.
FYI # 9: Don't take it all so seriously! You'll live longer!
FYI # 10: The Civil War was not about slavery, as you indicate, but
about economics. Another chink in your historic armour...

-- 

                      Cheers                ML