Dear Alain, dear all, thank you very much, Alain, for your explanation. Knowing the background clarifies the foreground.
But even if MO's aggressivity has a reason that makes it understandable, that does not imply we have to tollerate it. Saludos from Barcelona, Manolo Laguillo Alain Veylit wrote: >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 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > --
