smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Josh Chasin" <jchasin@nyc.rr.com> |
| Subject | Re: Henley |
| Date | Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:12:51 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (3.2 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
I'm not entirely sure I'd even call all these examples hypocritical, Jim.
Maybe more paradoxical. And I've learned that embracing paradox can be good.
----- Original Message -----
From: "synchro1" <synchro1@ix.netcom.com>
To: <audities@smoe.org>; <audities@smoe.org>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: Henley
> I am not disagreeing with anything you have written below but want to take
a moment for a tangential thought.
>
> I find there is a tendency to confuse hypocrisy for inaccuracy. Hypocrisy
probably reflects badly on the character of the hypocrite; it does *not*
prove or disprove whatever hypocritical assertion that person is making.
>
> Example: many pundits made a point of connecting Jesse Jackson's fathering
of an illegitimate child with his well-known marital/ethical counseling of
Bill Clinton. It certainly makes him appear hypocritical; it doesn't
invalidate the concept of faithfulness or mean his counsel was wrong.
>
> Example 2: I am against the death penalty 100%. But if my wife was
cruelly murdered, I would scream for the criminal to be put to death.
Hypocritical? Yup. But it does not mean my being against the death penalty
is "wrong"; does not mean it is right, either.
>
> It appears to me that the "gotcha" tactic of uncovering hypocrisy has
replaced the true exchange and testing of ideas.
>
> I think a little hypocrisy is an essential ingredient in staying sane. We
all practice it in many ways.
>
> A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
>
> I contradict myself? I contain multitudes.
>
> In other words, I think Don Henley's observations have merit in and of
themselves. But since he gets his forum because of his own place in modern
music, he opens himself up to the charge of hypocrisy.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Not Lame <popmusic@notlame.com>
> Sent: Feb 20, 2004 10:27 AM
> To: audities@smoe.org
> Subject: Henley
>
> > First off, who says that the Eagles themselves made that arrangement?
> > I'd be willing to bet that it was done by the label.
>
> His manager set that up......but of course, approved by the band members.
> The label of the band has next to *no* control over what the band
> wants..they are free agents and a label working the band basically bow to
> the interests and demands of the band and their manager. They are an
> exception to the rule of labels running roughshod over artists' concerns
in
> the name of commerce.
> >
> > Second off, he makes his living selling his music, why shouldn't he
> > be interested in money?
>
> It's fine for hm to make a (good) living...guys like Jason, myself and
> others have no problem w/ that.......go for it, Don, buddy.
>
> But *please* lay off taking yet another pedestal of personal opinion that
> makes him look virtuous to those who don't know any better with such
issues
> and, more importantly, where his actions are entirely contradictory to the
> argument he puts forth.
>
> He's been very much part(granted a small part w/ the exclusives to the Big
> Box retailers) of the problems confronting small retailers o f music---the
> retailers who helped connect this band to his audience 20/30 years ago.
>
> Peace,
> Bruce
> @ Not Lame
>
>
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.