Jocelyn Wang replies to me:

>>How do you know that you are no pseudo-intellectual mistaking the
>>intellectuals for pseudo-intellectuals? (See where labeling leads to?)
>
>How ironic that you condemn labeling while labeling me as a labeler.

No no, things are more complicated: you are the one who claimed
to be a master labeler, being able to distinguish intellectuals from
pseudo-intellectuals.  I did not label you as a pseudo-intellectual but
only doubted that you really are able to do this feat of distinguishing.
I don't know if you are intellectual or pseudo-intellectual and, to be
honest, I don't care a lot.  This is what I wanted to tell you.  (So I
am a pseudo-labeler, if you like.)

>>The old pop music-bashing again.  Can't we love classical music without
>>finding other kinds of music shallow?
>
>Shallowness lies in content, not genre.  Pop, being what it is, is more
>predisposed toward shallowness than classical, but there was an abundance
>of shallow classical music written, as well.  Time has filtered much of it
>away, though.

I doubt that pop music as a whole is more predisposed toward shallowness.
A lot of classical music that has not been filtered is pretty shallow in
content, but highly sophisticated in form.  Yes, if pop music is bad it is
awfully shallow.  But this is the same thing with classical music, too.
It is even a worse case: shallowness under pretentious disguise.

As to the question of listening historically or not I deal with this in a
post answering Walter Meyer.

Robert, the pseudo-wannebe-historically-correct-listening-intellectual