James,
Everyone in this debate should read Matanya's blog entry for the day, it 
makes things clear and it is very well structured. First he explains the 
premisses - to have a bit of fun on the lute list , then he describes 
the execution - show the superiority of his wit and talent and 
guitaristic knowledge over Arthur (PhD)- and finally he draws the 
conclusions: he was the poor, hapless victim of "jackalls" and 
censorship. The main conclusion however is that the lute list is no 
longer a valid tool for anyone except the more "rabid" lute players who 
only play the lute and nothing else. 
Matanya's generation still believed that lute music was some kind of 
inferior province of the guitar repertoire. They have never accepted 
that our instrument has a life of its own, and that HIP allowed us to 
gain insights into that music that puts it de facto out of the scope of 
the guitar world. Matanya 's rantings against Arthur have indeed a 
deeper layer of meaning: M.O.'s inability to understand our musical 
universe.
Check the signs: his insistance on Arthur PhD is not inocuous.  His 
(M.O.s) edition of the Chilesotti book for guitar which  apparently  
precludes any other form of edition of that book. Matanya's  frantic 
efforts at claiming that since he produced an edition of Weiss for 
guitar, who in the world would ever need legibale tablature?  It's all 
there.
This is a fundamental point for lutenists: our music is not guitar 
music. S.L. Weiss was not a Baroque guitar composer. That point was made 
and proved more than a few decades ago, but Ophee keeps on trying to 
reverse the tide. His ideas are as valid as anyone's ideas were 40 years 
ago on that matter. 
The relationship betweeen classical guitar and the lute has undergone 
profound changes in the past 25 years. Some people will never accept 
those changes. They belong to the past. Inasnmuch as Arthur has produced 
significant lute music editions that are not mere guitar transcriptions, 
I can well understand Ophee's bitter sarcasms and why he, Arthur, would 
be a prime target. Many of you are too young to remember the situation 
30 years ago. Ophee's politics is a sad reminder of that period: 
lutenists, it was said, were failed guitar players. Lunatics at best. 
If you do not believe me, simply read Ophee's conclusion to this episode:

"How relevant this list can be to the great majority of its members, 
most of whom have come to the lute through the guitar, many of which 
play both instruments to this day, is something each will have to decide 
on their own. My opinion is that the moment any controversial challenges 
to the nomenklatura are disallowed, the lute list has outlived its 
usefulness for any one but the most rabid lute groupie."

But who are the great majority of the lists members if not lutenists? 
What is a "rabid lute groupie"? Well, simply it is you and me, and 
anyone who does not understand the inate superiority of the guitar over 
the lute. Someone who has decided to devote their sole attention to that 
inferior instrument. Read further: the lute list has outlived its 
usefulness!! How he wishes it were dead and gone...
This is a very sad state of affairs indeed for all but also and perhaps 
mostly for guitar players with an open mind. James, I hope you are one 
of those, and that you will see beyond the smoke screen: lutenists are 
not rabid lute groupies, they just have a genuine interest in their own 
stuff. And this lute list is far from dead, with and without Mr. Ophee's 
comments.
Alain


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>In a message dated 8/28/2005 8:47:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>As to his style: it is a small collection of journalistic cliches rehashed
>ad nauseam.
>
>
>  Probably; but I've been reading this list for the last three years or so, 
>and I don't recall your contributions to enlightenment so much either, apart 
>from the scathing one-liners.  I do think you're a very intelligent and no 
>doubt 
>talented individual; why can't we all just agree to disagree about Mantanya?  
>Why is this so important?  Being somewhat new to this list, am I missing 
>something regarding prior history?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>James
>
>--
>
>To get on or off this list see list information at
>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
>
>  
>


Reply via email to