I'm not sure what the deal with "civility" is. I mean, are we to handle every utterance and statement with kid gloves?
Look, you can't throw out a sweeping and myopic generalization like "new music sucks" (which itself is an "uncivil" observation) and then expect a gentrified, socratic discussion among strangers. I don't think audiogon is the domain of sycophants. However strong a statement you start with is going to generate as equal or stronger statements in return.
With all due respect to Goose, Bryon, et al., and with the exception of a few responses involving mentions of death, etc., most of the responses have actually been pretty restrained. And my own comment that Goose's stone is gathering moss seems born out by his comment about his own musical frames of reference; e.g., the Stones, the Who, and the rest.
Seriously - the Stones, Beatles, Who, etc., started FIFTY FRICKIN' YEARS AGO. That doesn't diminish the power of their artistry or legacy in the least, but if one is pining away for the expressions of half a century ago, then one really seems to refuse to accept the inevitable change in musical paradigms and directions.
Yes, I say "accept". You don't have to like it, but you can't simply out-of-hand reject it as substandard. That shows true superficiality.
It's like saying "All rap sucks" or "All country sucks". Completely untrue. Yes, there's a lot of rap and country (and classical and jazz - I mean, how many decades back has jazz been set by smooth jazz and Kenny G?) that's pure marketing and image and stereotype and geared towards the here and now, not the far and yet unknown. But there're also a few rap and country artists who are every bit as important as Daltrey and Hendrix and Richards.
Look, you can't throw out a sweeping and myopic generalization like "new music sucks" (which itself is an "uncivil" observation) and then expect a gentrified, socratic discussion among strangers. I don't think audiogon is the domain of sycophants. However strong a statement you start with is going to generate as equal or stronger statements in return.
With all due respect to Goose, Bryon, et al., and with the exception of a few responses involving mentions of death, etc., most of the responses have actually been pretty restrained. And my own comment that Goose's stone is gathering moss seems born out by his comment about his own musical frames of reference; e.g., the Stones, the Who, and the rest.
Seriously - the Stones, Beatles, Who, etc., started FIFTY FRICKIN' YEARS AGO. That doesn't diminish the power of their artistry or legacy in the least, but if one is pining away for the expressions of half a century ago, then one really seems to refuse to accept the inevitable change in musical paradigms and directions.
Yes, I say "accept". You don't have to like it, but you can't simply out-of-hand reject it as substandard. That shows true superficiality.
It's like saying "All rap sucks" or "All country sucks". Completely untrue. Yes, there's a lot of rap and country (and classical and jazz - I mean, how many decades back has jazz been set by smooth jazz and Kenny G?) that's pure marketing and image and stereotype and geared towards the here and now, not the far and yet unknown. But there're also a few rap and country artists who are every bit as important as Daltrey and Hendrix and Richards.
