有一次,谭子对我说:“我就搞不明白,为什么那么多写罗大佑的文章,都是在说他的歌词如何如何,却不提他的音乐?”我仔细看了看他的表情,确信他是迷惑而不是嘲讽之后,才开始低头想。我不敢肯定是不是有关罗大佑的大多数文章都在讨论他的歌词——因为当时谭子发感慨的背景只是李皖的一篇东西,最多还有对从前的一些模糊印象,以及我们聊天的把柄。我们都远远算不上博览。而那些精心研究音乐的人也许一直把文章写在我们读不到的地方。这完全可能,不承认就是自欺欺人……然而答案这么简单,会使闲聊无法进行下去,显得很没有意思。你看,聊天就是这样:不断地制造问题或者伪问题,以满足继续的需要——双方(如果谈话在两个人之间进行)都应该知趣,领会或者装作领会了问题的深刻性,并竭力提供有趣的答案。有趣的标准并不限于机智、幽默、或者真正的深刻。事实上,只要它能自圆其说,同时又不流干简陋,也就够了。在场者的 Once, Tanzi said to me: “I could not understand why so many articles written by Luo are saying how his lyrics do not mention his music?” I looked at him carefully His face, convinced that he was confused rather than ridicule, began to bow to think. I’m not sure if most of the articles about Luo are discussing his lyrics - because at that time Tan Zaifa’s background was just a piece of Li and Wan’s articles, and at most there was some vague impression of the past and the handle of our chatting. We are far from being an Expo. And those who study music carefully may keep writing articles that we can not read. This is entirely possible, do not admit that it is self-deception ... ... However, the answer is so simple, will chat can not go on, it seems very boring. You see, chatting is like this: Constantly creating problems or counterfeit problems to meet continuing needs - Both parties (if the conversation is between two people) should know, understand, or pretend to understand the depth of the problem and try Provide interesting answers. Interesting standards are not limited to wit, humor, or real depth. In fact, as long as it can be self-justifying, while not running out of simple, it is enough. Present