Alain, You can eat at our table! (Especially duck with asparagus and porcini, like yesterday...). RT
> 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 > > > > > > > > > >
