By the way, just to demonstrate my negligible writing skills, I deliberately omitted a possessive and began sentences with 'and' and 'but' just to annoy Howard. How did I do? RA > Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:48:54 +0000 > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > From: [email protected] > Subject: [LUTE] Re: (Not) OT: Music in church > > Wow. Howard probably has the most facile command of written (American) > English of anyone contributions I've read on this list. And I'm no > slouch when it comes to the lumpy run-on sentence, posted post-haste > and proofed in rueful retrospect. But now I'm confused. Did you mean > this? > "One can only speculate that Church officials acted upon the > assumption that, > although general audiences would PAY to hear early sacred music > performed well in > non-liturgical concert settings, there was no evident support by the > majority of > the Church's present and potential congregation for continued > liturgical use > of the antiquated repertory." > RA > > Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:12:34 -0700 > > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > From: [email protected] > > Subject: [LUTE] Re: (Not) OT: Music in church > > > > Howard, > > "They" refers to Church officials. I wrote informally without > > drafting. This wording would have expressed my meaning more clearly: > > "Church officials apparently came to the conclusion that, although > > general audiences were then beginning to demonstrate their > willingness > > to PAY to hear this music performed well in a secular milieu for > > purposes of aesthetic enjoyment, the continued practical usage of the > > identical or equivalent repertoire in a liturgical context would none > > the less be repellent to the majority of the Church's then-present > > congregation as well as a hinderance to the task of new member > > recruitment." > > Chris > > --- On Thu, 3/15/12, howard posner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > From: howard posner <[email protected]> > > Subject: [LUTE] Re: (Not) OT: Music in church > > To: "Lute Dmth ([email protected])" <[email protected]> > > Date: Thursday, March 15, 2012, 10:54 AM > > > > On Mar 15, 2012, at 5:56 AM, Christopher Wilke wrote: > > > Church officials apparently came to the conclusion that, although > > people where willing to PAY to hear this music performed well, they > > found it's use in the original context off-putting. > > Your definition of "people" changed in mid-sentence, because the > > audience for early music is not the same thing as "the people on > whose > > attendance in church the Catholic Church depends for its existence." > > Your sentence actually meant: > > "Church officials apparently came to the conclusion that, although > > thousands of persons, many of them non-Catholics, were willing to PAY > > to hear this music performed well, hundreds of millions of Catholics > > found its use in the original context off-putting." > > The change might not seem so paradoxical when your terms are defined. > > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > -- > > > > References > > > > 1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > -- >
--
