Herb Levy <herb@eskimo.com> wrote:
Basing any part of one's argument with Bloom's ideas on the fact that he dissed your taste in music is as pointless as starting a fist fight because somebody doesn't like your shoes. These details may pull your chain, but they aren't an important part of what's screwed up about Bloom's book. To repeat what I wrote earlier,
I see I did not menage to make myself more clear. I'll try again then. The facs that he 'dissed' rock is not a problem for me (he somehows equals rock and the work of the frakfurt school, having Marcuse as an example). But he goes far beyond dissing. He does not say that rock is not good music, he says that it's something that is an effect of immature sexual disires. Such opinions are the problem - and they are stated without use of ANY musical or psychological analysis! Had he said the same things about hip-hop, that I do not listen to, I'd be equally disgusted. Saying that one does not like some kind of music, or that it's plain bad, is not a problem. Explaining that it's morally harmful is offense. (again) Don't you think so? If I say that some kind of sexual activity are uninteresting, it's OK. If I go on to say they are not real sex, one would want me to exlain what I mean and to have some really good arguments. If I write a book where I explain that it's morally harmful and disgusting, without use of any kind of psychological (or else) research, I'm a self confident and offensive. Marcin