Well, stated, Gary. I agree. Igor, in particular, seemed a very minor irritation and a rather superficial provocateur. Even though I rarely agreed with his posts, they did sometimes make me chuckle. I'd rather delete the occasional irritant with a simple keystroke then banish it along with my ideals.
Best, Eugene At 05:56 AM 11/18/2008, gary digman wrote: > I have to say, I'm not sure I agree with this policy of banning > people from posting on the lutelist. I know that some people engage > in ad hominem arguing, name calling, insults etc., but it seems to > me one can always use the delete button to eliminate postings one > finds objectionable. I regard this as the price of freedom, and I > value freedom. > The lutelist has become noticeably less dynamic and, for me, > less interesting since Danyel, Matanya, et.al have been eliminated > from the list. Some dissonance is essential to give the music life. > Too much consonance and things become watered down and static. When > Charles Ives was writing his string quartets, he reportedly wrote > little dialogues between the instruments in the margins of the > manuscript, and, in one, he had one of the violins say to the > other, "What's the matter, are you one of those white-livered > weaklings who can't stand up and face a good dissonance like a man?" > How many people have to be offended before someone gets > banned from the list? It seems to me only two or three. I'm always > startled by posters who refer to the lutelist as "my list" or "our > list" as if this forum belonged to a select group of insiders whose > job it is to police the list and make sure it conforms to the > vision of this group of insiders. I think the list is more vibrant > and robust when it's treated as a public forum in which "a hundred > flowers bloom and a hundred thoughts contend." So I say buck up, > keep the lutelist open and free and use the delete button if > someone crosses the line. > >Best to All, >Gary > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob MacKillop" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Lute List" <[email protected]> >Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 12:57 AM >Subject: [LUTE] The Online Lute Player > > >> Sorry this is so long... >> >> >> >> The recent Igor = The Devil thread has been gnawing away at me. He >> might have been clumsy in the way he expressed himself, but he was >> entitled to his view. However, he has highlighted the topic of the >> Online Lute Player, and what one might expect that to be, and that is >> what I would like to turn our attention to. >> >> >> >> In the days before YouTube, one would have expected a degree of >> professional standard from a recording artist (setting aside personal >> preference for one artist over another). Professional reviewers >> (rightly or wrongly) saw it as part of their job to inform their >> readers of who was hot and who was not, and why they thought so. >> YouTube has blown all that away. Someone who has just picked up his/her >> first guitar and decides to pluck it with a banana (not you, Val!), can >> reach an audience of thousands within days. You, the watcher-listener, >> have to make up your own mind whether something is 'good' or not. You >> can watch the video or not. I imagine Igor (and he is not alone) would >> like to see a return to a situation where one would expect a >> professional standard of performance and presentation. But that just >> isn't going to happen - well, I can't see any signs of it at the >> moment. >> >> >> >> David Taylor has raised two interesting points: 1. These videos give an >> insight into how the lute/guitar is actually played, and 2. the >> professionals are waiting until they can completely control the >> production process before submitting their 'performances' for public >> scrutiny (they can already do this, of course, if they have enough >> money or their record company are willing to pay for it). >> >> >> >> It would be wonderful if we could hear how the average lute player >> played in the 16th/17th centuries. We tend to assume that someone like >> Mary Burwel or Logy or some other high-profile amateur, would play well >> (within our present-day aesthetics). We have lute players today copying >> right-hand positions from paintings of amateurs who, for all we know, >> might have sounded terrible to their contemporaries. YT allows us to >> hear how (dare I say?) 'ordinary' people at the start of the 21st >> century played. That will be of use to future researchers, I'm sure. >> >> >> >> I consider myself as a semi-professional player. I have CD recordings >> and play concerts. Some years have been more busy than others, but I >> have never been in a position to make a living exclusively from lute >> playing. A few weeks ago the reality of who my audience is was brought >> home to me. I recorded the video of me playing the so-called >> archguitar. I did that early in the morning. I uploaded it, and then >> left the house to play a lunchtime concert in the local church in >> Edinburgh during the Edinburgh International Festival when the >> population of the city almost doubles. Bearing in mind that I have had >> three number one CDs in the Scottish classical charts, I might have >> been expected to get a decent-sized audience. There were six people. >> And that included my wife, daughter and the guy who opened the church >> doors. Three people paid - all pensioners, and therefore paid the lower >> rate - and two of them were blind. Why do I mention this? Well, their >> companion spent the entire time talking them through what I looked >> like, what the instrument looked like, what the church looked like, >> etc, etc - while I was playing. The point of all this? By the time I >> returned home, ninety minutes after leaving the house, the video had >> over 200 plays. >> >> >> >> Earlier this week, when I added up all my video plays from YT, Vimeo >> and my own web pages, I was surprised to learn I had over 16,000 plays >> in just a few months. How many concerts would I have to play to reach >> so many people? These figures are not special - many of our lute-video >> contributors could mention similar figures. There is no money in it, of >> course, but at least there is the satisfaction that someone somewhere >> is listening and hopefully enjoying the music. >> >> >> >> The downside? Even though the concert I played that lunchtime was on >> the face of it a negative experience, my wife and daughter stated that >> they had never heard me play so well. Why? I think there were two >> contributing factors - the acoustics were marvelous, and opened up for >> me subtleties in the music I never imagined were there - I was >> experiencing the music afresh, and that inspired me. And, there is a >> HUGE difference between playing to an audience, no matter how small, >> and playing to a camera. >> >> >> >> So, I for one will continue making mp3 files and videos, because I know >> there are people who get something positive out of it, and I will >> continue to try to play concerts even though I live in a country which >> has no interest whatsoever in Early Music. >> >> >> >> And I hope that my lute-playing colleagues do so too, no matter what >> their 'standard'. I am in their audience. >> >> >> >> Rob MacKillop >> >> [1]www.songoftherose.co.uk - free mp3 files and videos :-) >> >> >> >> PS I've just remembered...it is interesting to note the difference >> between my acoustic guitar audience and my Early Music audience: I have >> a 'donations' button on various pages. The Acoustic guitar pages >> (Scottish/Celtic stuff - some of it arrangements of Scottish lute >> pieces) has had enough hits to allow me to purchase an instrument. The >> Song of the Rose site - lute and baroque guitar - has raised only six >> pounds. Enough to buy two first strings. Don't worry, this is not a >> criticism, just a humorous observation :-) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >>References >> >> 1. http://www.songoftherose.co.uk/ >> >> >>To get on or off this list see list information at >>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1795 - Release Date: >11/17/2008 5:24 PM >
