First all many thanks to Wayne for his great work in these decades!
I totally agree about Facebook. It has nothing to do with the lute list as
we know it.
What about just a simple Google discussion group? It is very easy to
maintain, it is free and can keep all the past messages. Actually, it
I agree wholeheartedly with Ralf, David, Francesco, Martyn, and Ron Andrico
comments. I'd also like to thank Wayne for his many years of service, and
wish him a happy retirement.
In addition to any privacy, security, and 3rd party monetization concerns, it's
also important to remember that
Please do not take the suggestion about using Facebook to replace the
lite lis seriously. It was just a question that was asked and no
decision has been made to use it. I agree with all the comments about
Facebook being inappropriate as a replacement. I run a number of
non-profit
I second Francesco's remarks entirely. Especially
thanking Wayne and hoping we can continue with a
Google list rather than Facebook.
This list is much more serious, and importantly
less intrusive, platform for debate.
Best wishes to Wayne for the future,
David
At 15:19 +0200 4/9/20,
Well said Ron,
The lutelist format and its arrangement is clearly much more suited
for the proper and serious, but still enjoyable, exchange of views and
for sharing information. It may be seen by some as 'old fashioned'
(and
I'm not sure what this really means in this context
On 04.09.20 15:19, ftribi...@gmail.com wrote:
First all many thanks to Wayne for his great work in these decades!
+1 Same from here!
I totally agree about Facebook. It has nothing to do with the lute list as
we know it.
+1000!
What about just a simple Google discussion group? It is very
I'm guessing that it was an oversight to copy the entire lutelist with
this message thread, which shares some awkward ideas (and language).
Nevertheless, the personalities involved need to understand that there
abides an intelligent segment of participants on the lutelist who will
Jurgen,
While I think Google Groups has good mechanisms for sharing ideas and content
(without algorithm-based interference like FB has)...and aside from Google's
business model of harvesting data for search purposes, etc., the bigger
practical issue would be setting up the group to comply
Hi Tristan and all,
"Le Trésor d'Orphée" is a very popular print with players interested in
the music of the early 17th century, different from Vallet, Besard or
Ballard.
It is one of my frequent sources to perform from, but I would certainly
not qualify its difficulty "moderate" !!! For
The year 1600 saw the publication of "Le Trésor D'Orphée" by Antoine
Fracisque.
It's a very beautiful print so I made my own book and played through it.
That is one great album!
Apart from the innovation of alternate tunings, the music itself is amazing.
I thought I'd steer the attention to
I agree, some of the pieces require virtuosity.
But I found that the fingering is quite logical, and most pieces still
sound good when played slowly.
It's not a ride like Eysert, or Terzi Intabulations...
When I wrote 7c I meant: if you have less than required number of
diapasons, 7c is still
You're right Ron,
I didn't think the issue all the way to the end, I agree with your thoughts.
Let's think of something else that still doesn't cost any money.
Best,
Jurgen
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, September 4, 2020 6:49 PM, wrote:
> Jurgen,
>
> While I think Google
Ron--
Amen! Thank you!
Leonard Williams
-Original Message-
From: Ron Andrico
To: LSA Editor ; LSA President
; lutelist Net
Sent: Fri, Sep 4, 2020 7:59 am
Subject: [LUTE] Re: My web site
I'm guessing that it was an oversight to copy the entire lutelist
As much as I share the privacy concerns with google I wonder if that is of a
major concern for our discussion about lute music. Fronimo uses google groups
and it never occurred to me that google hijacked posts for advertisement
purposes. Follow and log users, yes, but then again...
‐‐‐
14 matches
Mail list logo
