I agree in principal, but in practice, I don't. I've been hanging out on groups like this for around 20 years (starting with USENET in the mid eighties), and I've seen a number of groups effectively destroyed by flamers, trolls, netloons, and what have you, who basically highjack the group for their own interests.
In principal, folks could just ignore them and they would give up, but that's not what happens in practice. Instead, the flamewars thrive, folks who are contributing substantively to the group decide they don't need this BS and quit, lowering the signal/noise even further until the group is effectively dead. This isn't theory, I've seen it happen more than once. I think Wayne understands this dynamic quite well, and is trying to manage the group to keep it healthy. He's hardly been excessive about it. In the years I've been on this list, he's only blocked a relative handful of folks, most of whom were contributing nothing substantive to the group at all. Guy -----Original Message----- From: Eugene C. Braig IV [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 7:09 AM To: gary digman; lutelist Subject: [LUTE] Re: The Online Lute Player 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 >
