Klarinet Archive - Posting 000151.txt from 1998/01

From: Neil Leupold <nleupold@-----.edu>
Subj: RE: STOP THIS ARGUMENT
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 08:17:16 -0500

On Sun, 4 Jan 1998, Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu wrote:

> This unsigned note is seriously out of place on this list.

In your opinion, Dan, perhaps it is. And it's not just out
of place, but "seriously" out of place. So now we know how
Dan feels about it.

> Any musical topic directly or indirectly related to clarinet playing
> is appropriate

Is that so? Any topic of any kind, musical or not, could be made
to relate to clarinet playing if worded in such a way as to appear
as such. In MY opinion, there is a limit to just how far afield
we should go in stretching the relevance of "clarinet-related"
topics. The whole protracted discussion on the Nyquist and
Fourier Theorems, sampling rates, and other technical jiggery-
pokery, started out as a clarinet-related topic. Somebody asked
why clarinets recorded so poorly. Many dozens of messages
followed in response to the initial question, and then the
subject never went back to the clarinet again. It stayed in
the realm of physics and wave theory and, quite honestly, there
was just so much posturing and ego-defending going on. Finally
somebody got the hint to take it offline, because it was obvious
that the focus of the discussion was no longer significantly
concerned with clarinet performance, pedagogy, or scholarship.
I was the one who initially suggested that they take the dis-
cussion offline, and I was glad when they did.

> it is a breach of the intent of this list to
> attempt to quash a discussion simply because you are not interested
> in it.

That depends on how broadly you perceive the intent of this list, Dan.
I say perceive, not define, because neither you, nor I, nor anybody
else is in a position to singularly define that intent. The list is
collective, and what you're reading now is my contribution to that
cumulative perception, in response to your own. Both are valid, but
neither one is definitive in and of itself. And the person who de-
cided to let us know that he was tired of reading about women's rights
issues on a clarinet forum was offering us *his* perception. Since
Klarinet is an unmoderated forum, the only way we're going to gain
a definitive understanding of what the list's intent "should" be is
to take a formal poll, tally the results, and agree to abide by those
results. If somebody would like to volunteer their time and energy
to administrate such a poll, maybe we can resolve this issue once
and for all -- until another new person joins the list, at which
point we need to take the poll gain. You see what I'm getting at.
Such definition is completely elusive on an unmoderated list.

> The concept of gender/race/ethnic discrimination in symphony
> orchestras is very much a pertinent topic to this list and if
> you are annoyed by it, then feel free either to delete postings
> of that nature or else leave the list.

This is what disappoints me the most. The basic response when dis-
putes come up about what is appropriate fare for the list is almost
always, "If you don't like it, ignore it, or go to hell." We keep
losing members -- helpful, knowledgeable, interesting members --
due to the attitude "I'm going to say whatever I think and feel
with impunity, and I couldn't care less about whether or not you
stick around hear it." And then people leave. People are going
to argue and fight and disagree -- that's a simple fact. But I
really think we're defeating ourselves when we reach the point of
dismissing even a single member's participation (i.e.; sanctioning
the attitude that leaving the list should be a reasonable response),
because ultimately that single member could be you, and then the list
suffers for your absence. Nobody on the list is here expressly to
stir up shit. A few people have ventured into the circle with exactly
that mindset, and they were promptly pummeled with written requests to
go away. And they did. We don't have anybody on the list like that
now as far as I can determine.

> I neither know nor care about how alone you are in your view that this
> argument is getting annoying.

Fair enough, but that self-same logic can be just as easily turned
around and directed straight at you. You're a master devil's advocate,
Dan, and a lot of people find your logical needling a stimulating
addition to the flavor of the forum. Sometimes I find it annoying,
though, because you often cut down a position, and then fail to offer
an alternative to the position you just impugned. The person who
has just stated that the discrimination argument is annoying -- may-
be he is not alone. Since a formally defined policy of acceptable
discussion is not possible to establish on this list, we have to
proceed on the basis of general impression. That impression is de-
rived from submissions made by members of the general populace of the
list, including this one. We're can't figure out what "should" stay
and what "should" go without input from the members of the list itself.
It is a 100% subjective issue due to the lack of moderation. And we
can't know whether or not this person is alone in his view unless he
states it and others respond. That's what you did. That's what I'm
doing. Never mind whether or not you "care".

> And your statement that you are sure
> that you are not alone in your views is both gratuitous and
> unprovable.

It most certainly is provable. Just wait for subsequent responses.
We will know soon enough the proportion of people who would rather
the discussion were not explored in public. You've already responded.
The tally thus far: One vote from Dan to keep it going. One from
another member to continue it elsewhere.

Neil