RE: musical genres

[Alex Lubet <lubet001...>]

Given that even those registering the anti-genre argument (and citing as 
problematic a handful of obvious crossovers and fusions) use terms most of 
us would associate with genres in their threads.  If the Klezmatics don't 
play klezmer why do they use a group name that clearly indicates that that 
is precisely what they do?  If we never speak of genres, what is the 
alternative?  Without taxonomy conversations about music or anything else 
would be vastly more complicated and difficult, in addition to which 
hunters would have no one to stuff their kills.



At 06:19 AM 5/6/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>didnt woody allen use that argument??
>
>all men are mortal
>socrates is a mortal
>therefore
>all men are socrates
>
>
>avi
>
>--- Seth Rogovoy <seth(dot)rogovoy (at) verizon(dot)net> wrote:
> > > So Bernstein's Mass gets lumped into the same
> > category as
> > > John Cage- and if I decide that I hate modern
> > classical on
> > > the basis of John Cage (not me
> > > personally) then I can assume the Bernstein will
> > be similar?
> >
> > Why would you make that assumption?
> >
> > Why would you assume that if C (Cage) is a subset of
> > A (modern
> > classical), and if
> > B (Bernstein) is a subset of A, that C=B?
> > or that C=A, as you seem to posit in your line of
> > thinking?
> >
> >
> > ---------------------- jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org
> > ---------------------+
> >