Off: RE: Dio (also somewhat LONG)

[DRider]

pardon me Colin, but I find it difficult to take someone serious that wastes
bandwidth w/ a signature line that reads like yours............

of course, maybe it is meant to be a joke......
so I will give you the benefit of the doubt

I covered item 2) already

item 1)

critic - according to Webster's Dictionary:
a) a person who forms and expresses judgments of people or things according
to certain standards or values
b) such a person whose profession is to write or broadcast such judgments of
books, music, paintings, sculpture, plays, motion pictures, television
etc..., as for a newspaper.
c) a person who indulges in faultfinding and censure

what really gives anyone the right to pass judgment on someone else?

is anyone here employed in the manner outlined in b)??

so it would seem that c) applies to most people one this list, correct?

forgive me, if I am wrong - but aren't a person's likes and dislikes rather
arbitrary??

could it be that even these 'standards' may be arbitrary? at least to one
extent or another........

what about the concept of 'bias'?

> ....even someone who can neither sing nor play an instrument can discern
the relative merits of different artists.

Maybe so, maybe not.

Are you really trying to use this as a valid argument??

How many people hold critics in high regard?

How many people have learned to take what a critic says w/ a grain of salt?

How many people trust a critic? More than a used car salesman? Or less?

What's that saying...? "Opinions are like _ _ _holes." "Everyone's got one."

So to be a critic - a person just needs to have an opinion. Does that make
that person right?

There is another saying that is used about teachers:
"Those who - can't - teach". I have never thought that was true because to
be able
to teach something, a person must have a strong grasp on the subject matter,
as well as a good ability to convey that knowledge in an understandable way.
Of course, some teachers are better than others. However, IMHO the concept
applies more appropriately to critics. In other words: "those who -can't -
criticize".

Wouldn't the fact that someone played an instrument or sang or both, as well
as made records in the studio, and performed live in front of many different
audiences give them more credibility when criticizing another musical artist
than some armchair critic who has absolutely none of these experiences??

Anyone can listen to something and form an opinion. Whether that opinion is
based on anything significant or valid could be debatable. And whether
someone else trusts that opinion is entirely another thing. Not to mention,
the fact of whether that person can convey that opinion in an intelligent
and
articulate manner.

Some people thought that the song by Queensryche called "Silent Lucidity"
sounded like Pink Floyd. What does that tell you about that person?

The analogy here is the armchair quarterback. Here's a guy who has never
played football ever. He has just spent alot (probably too much) time in
front of the TV watching it being played by others.

Who would you rather listen to when it comes to the facts of football - him
or the guy that played for 10 years, won several championships and then
coached for 20 years??

To me - the answer is glaringly obvious.

The term is CREDIBLE. An experienced person by definition is more credible
than an inexperienced person.

If a performer was solely judged on their voice, Bob Dylan's career would
have been over years ago. Some critics hate him while other critics love
him.
Is a person supposed to believe what any one critic says or be an individual
and decide for themselves?

You will never convince me that some critic that states negative things
about a singer's voice does not have at least a part of themselves that
wishes
they could get up on stage and out-perform the person they are criticizing.
But they don't have the ability so they criticize instead.

There is something to be said for trying - even if you fail.

> For what it is worth, I feel that Ronnie is a decent vocalist who usually
manages to write and perform the most dreadful material, which damages
his reputation immensely.

This very well could be true!

However, he freely chose to make these decisions and only he has to live
w/ the consequences.

In the end - we all have the Right To Decide.

Peace,

Darrin

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin J Allen [mailto:colin at CALLEN18.FREESERVE.CO.UK]
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: Dio

A couple of points in response to this:

1. Darrin writes:  "I am just sayin -  give DIO his do!
none of those who bash him
could hit the notes that he does
none of you have been on the stage w/ Iommi, Cozy or Blackmore
nothing even remotely close
arms all worn in your chairs....."

Apart from commenting on the rather bizarre grammar, I would question the
logic of this argument; do you imply that one can only criticise an artist
if one has performed at the same level as that artist?  This is such obvious
nonsense; even someone who can neither sing nor play an instrument can
discern the relative merits of different artists.  For what it is worth, I
feel that Ronnie is a decent vocalist who usually manages to write and
perform the most dreadful material, which damages his reputation immensely.

2. Darrin writes: "c) an intelligent man would NEVER have the guts to make
such (homophobic) remarks to his face"

I can find nothing homophobic in the original remarks; this seems like a
ridiculous, if unfortunately typical, case of misrepresentation and
over-reaction.  I am also intrigued by the connection between intelligence
and "guts"; is there some previously undiscovered correlation between
intelligence and courage?

Colin

Please note that this electronic mail system is not intended to form any
legal contract or binding agreement. This is for information purposes only.
Please also note that this message should not be interpreted as any form of
valid information. You use the information contained in this message at your
own risk.