Subject: Re: aesthetic judgement
Subject: Tanya Donelly's solo album
Subject: Re: Counting Crowes
Subject: Re: Counting Crowes
Subject: Xymox CD-Single
Subject: Re: 4AD-L Digest - 19 Dec 1996 to 20 Dec 1996
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 21:07:32 -0800
No musical content.
naor wrote:
>imagine you are looking at a picture of bambi. let's say that you think it's
>beautiful. the fact that you find it beautiful is not connected to your
>*personal*
>needs. you are not about to eat it or ride on it's back. in that case, the
>beauty
>"must" (according to kant) be a property of the object. and everyone would
>have to
>agree about it.
Well, if that's what Kant said I've lost respect for him (but this is the
kind of shabby sleight of hand that too many philosophers try to pull.)
The fact that the object's "beauty" isn't related to my explicit
biological needs (what you called "personal") doesn't mean that the
beauty is more than something I read into it. For instance, I may have a
"beauty need" that is fulfilled by that object, and my "beauty need" is
not connected to more physical needs like food or transportation.
However, this in no way implies that any two people's beauty needs are
similar and can be fulfilled by the same objects.
Jeez, and I never even studied philosophy formally; but I like to think
about things rigorously and with attention to the underlying symbology
beneath the verbal expression. For instance, in the above argument
(whether it's in Kant's original or your explanation) the problem is with
the word "personal". It's initially used to refer to a physical drive.
But then later its negation is taken to mean "impersonal" or "universal",
which absolutely doesn't follow if you look at the concepts under the
words.
But then again Kant was German, and German is a pretty confusing
language...
--Jens (who still finds Objective-C repellent, regardless of what
transactions his employer of record may have recently entered into)
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 00:12:11 -0800
According to Tanya's US label Reprise/WB, she is still recording songs
for her solo debut album. A worldwide Reprise and 4AD release of June
has been set. Hopefully there will be one or two EPs in the meantime...
Jeff Keibel
Scarborough, ON
CANADA
[email protected]
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 00:38:52 -0800
Matthew T DeBellis answered the "name the 4AD song in Singles" question:
> The Answer: Pixies "Dig For Fire" in the store scene. I heard it, and > me an
a couple of friends started cheering in the audience.
>
> Do i win anything????
Well, sadly I just gave away my last copy of "Lilliput"...
Which Robert DeNiro movie features the song "Iceblink Luck" in it?? I
rented a movie called "Bad Boys" a while back and it was a really
cheaply repackaging of the movie "Valley Girl". How many times is
Modern English's "I Melt With You" used during the course of that
movie? Which Nicole Kidman movie features a song from The Wolfgang
Press?? Which movie, "Twister" or "Mallrats" makes more effective use
of Belly's "Broken"?? The song "Pump Up The Volume" wasn't used in the
movie of the same name but what other 4AD group was??
Jeff Keibel
Scarborough, ON
CANADA
[email protected]
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 01:13:49 EST
"Pump Up the Volume" = once again, Pixies "Wave of Mutilation (UK Surf)"
Here's an easy one:
What 4ad group's music is featured in the movie "Party Girl"??