I think, however, extremely small and specialized listservs like this one are a little antiquated (perhaps a little lute-like), not likely to draw attention from the general population of vandals, and may be more prone to flourish without moderation, where bigger, software-driven, openly public forums are more the current norm and more prone to require moderation thanks to flamers and trolls.
Best, Eugene At 11:17 AM 11/18/2008, Guy Smith wrote: >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 :-) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
