Klarinet Archive - Posting 000996.txt from 2000/11

From: "Amanda Wellentin" <littleslugger13@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Re: Caveats emptor v. majister
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:31:23 -0500

I was only wondering why you send all of this extra junk mail to me when I
was assured that it would be stickly information about clarinets not of what
other people are talking about. I dont really care about that other stuff.
I only want tips and such about clarinets, thank you!
Amanda Wellentin

>From: Neil Leupold <leupold_1@-----.com>
>Reply-To: klarinet@-----.org
>To: klarinet@-----.org
>Subject: [kl] Re: Caveats emptor v. majister
>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:12:27 -0800 (PST)
>
>I vascillate on whether to send this to the list, or to attempt
>a dialogue with Tony alone, for fear that what is said below will
>seem more like a post of the meta-"list" variety (as opposed to
>the meta-"post" variety). Read on, you'll see what I mean, and
>you may respond (or not) as you see fit.
>
>--- Tony Pay <Tony@-----.uk> wrote:
>
> > I think it's very important, though, to draw the distinction between
> > what is appropriate in one-to-one teaching, and what is appropriate on
> > the list. In one-to-one teaching, you have feedback, you know how what
> > you are doing with the student is working out. So if one approach
> > doesn't lead to the result, you can switch to another.
> >
> > Here, you have to give something like the complete picture, because
> > what's a valid system for one person may actually, if taken seriously,
> > be not a good thing for someone else to do.
>
>No belligerence here -- just a genuine response to the issue. One doesn't
>"have" to do anything of the sort on the list, with respect to providing a
>complete and objective picture of a given subject. I'm not merely
>referring
>to the technicality of Klarinet's "open forum" dynamic, although that also
>applies. Rather, it is a noble ideal, yes, to attempt to provide a fully
>rigorous exploration of a given subject and ensure that facts are clearly
>stated, and that the indefinite areas are portrayed as such, lest a reader
>be led to believe that their options are more severely limited than they
>may
>truly be. You're certainly good at that Tony, and it's clear that you en-
>deavor to take this comprehensive approach each time you make a statement
>on an issue, be it musical, technical, or otherwise, relative to your own
>understanding and experience. Those members of Klarinet who actually pos-
>sess that breadth of knowledge in a given area, I suspect, do not typically
>have sufficient time to sit down and "lay it all out." They're probably
>too busy teaching and performing and making a living. I have no idea how
>you personally find the time to submit so much verbiage to the list. Would
>you suggest that the others at your level find the time to be complete, or
>forever hold their piece?
>
>Incompleteness, in and of itself, is not detrimental unless it is misap-
>plied. This, of course, is where 'caveat emptor' enters the picture. I
>believe 'caveat majister' can only be a positive element in the communi-
>cative process on Klarinet -- in fact, I'm hard pressed to think of a man-
>ner in which it could incur damage. But you have to (yes, I'm asserting
>it)
>be realistic with respect to the context, much along the conceptual lines
>of
>your statement, "...there isn't any 'correct', except relative to the
>music."
>Relative to the context of Klarinet, what's 'correct' is that we have a
>very
>broad range of knowledge and experience -- from the absolute beginner, to
>the seasoned professional (800+, all told) -- and even those at the profes-
>sional end of the spectrum are not generally disposed to perform a brain
>dump
>in the name of objectivity and completeness.
>
>Also part of the Klarinet context is the value of all *other* members of
>the
>list -- the vast majority, in fact -- who compose the rest of that
>beginner-
>to-professional spectrum. Most of them (of which I am part) do not always
>possess a complete picture of the issues they're attempting to discuss, yet
>they endeavor to express themselves and help their fellow players. Would
>you
>suggest that they refrain from making such well-intended posts, for fear
>that
>they might mislead another member, for lack of a global perspective on the
>sub-
>ject in question? Such a mindset is positively subversive, for it
>contradicts
>the core purpose of Klarinet: to make available an open forum of discussion
>of
>clarinet-related topics, to enthusiasts at all levels. The operative
>expres-
>sions here are "open" and "all levels." Hence, relative to the Klarinet
>world,
>what is 'correct' is what upholds its core purpose at all times. I don't
>dis-
>agree with you that contributors to the list would best serve the community
>by
>carefully measuring their words in the context of prescriptive statements,
>especially with respect to issues that do not lend themselves to concrete
>answers, but they can only do so within their scope of knowledge. Not
>every-
>body has the knowledge or experience of a seasoned professional player. In
>fact, most of us do not. This does not rob what we say of value,
>subjective
>or not.
>
>Of great interest to me has been the phenomenon where those who approximate
>each other's apparent level of knowledge and/or playing ability seem to be
>the
>most productive and beneficial in communicating helpful ideas to each
>other:
>beginners-to-beginners, advanced amateurs to same, and professionals to
>pro-
>fessionals. You may disagree and say that there is so much misinformation
>flying around that nothing productive is taking place, but that may not be
>as important as you deem it to be. If I were a beginner, and somebody like
>yourself (Tony) were to offer me one of your usual erudite and
>comprehensive
>answers to my question, I'm as likely as not to be overwhelmed by the pro-
>cess of being told how make a clock when I simply asked you for the time.
>
>In the final analysis, I don't believe there is leeway relative to the
>nature
>of the forum. We are compelled by its fundamental purpose to work with the
>less
>academically rigorous environment of Klarinet, and accept that we can only
>truly
>caution members to read everything with a grain of cybersalt. We need the
>pro-
>fessionals to round out the list with their superior knowledge and
>experience,
>but they can not be allowed to dictate the tenor of all discussion, nor
>purport
>to leave the rest of the class behind, as it were. It is a community, one
>that
>is non-exclusive by design. Any suggestion or prescriptive statement which
>has
>the potential to jeopardize that non-exclusivity must, by definition of the
>list,
>by courteously declined.
>
>-- Neil
>
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
>http://shopping.yahoo.com/
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
>Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
>Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
>Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org
>

Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org