 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-12-04 20:08
Just that I'd like to be able to trust what's written on this BBoard.
Of course, there are things that you don't need to trust: like, opinions about things -- though of course if those opinions are supported by argument, that helps.
Don't we want our factual statements here to be true?
I do.
And I refuse to be polite about it when they're not.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2008-12-04 20:12
Absolutely right, Tony, but I think the root problem (as with every other field of endeavour) is deciding what constitutes "fact" and what is "opinion".
For example, to a devout Christian person, everything in the Bible is "fact", whereas of course many of us don't consider it as such.
Sorry to mix religion with music, I probably should not go there!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: chris moffatt
Date: 2008-12-04 22:53
Tony: other than the physical characteristics of clarinets there are few if any objective facts, if there were the many statements on this board would not be at so much variance with one another. What we do see here is a great deal of opinion based mainly (it appears to me) on personal experiences. Surely this is the value of such a BB. Granted there are some confusions extant regarding the respective merits of certain horns or methods but these are due to misconceptions acquired by those of relatively little experience at the hands (probably an incorrect expression) of clarinet teachers who are themselves under-experienced and over opinionated. If this BB serves to disabuse some of these folks of some of their dubiously acquired notions of clarinet lore, then I think it a good thing. Also your experience is likely to differ from the experiences of others making what you "know" to be true different from what they "know" to be true. As in most matters your truth may not be my truth. There is however a need to be polite even kind, especially on the part of the more-experienced toward the less-experienced.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2008-12-04 23:12
I only take for a fact what has been reported independently by two or three different sources. A member's post here is an assertion, I can think "is that so.", and if it's important enough for me to know, I start digging.
In most of the cases it's not all that important, and when I don't know it is different than stated, I give the poster the benefit of doubt. If someone says the Vulcan Philharmonic Orchestra plays on Klingon instruments, yeah, okay, suits them fine, I'm not keen on a job there anyway. Gossip, interesting, but not earth-shattering. If not backed up by a newspaper clipping or some urls it's just party talk with wine and cheese crackers. (I am not a pro, hence my focus is perhaps a bit different)
This does not disburden us from being as precise as possible, and there is no excuse to lose our temper or our style, as much as I like the occasional good-humoured whacking with a Swiss Army Clarinet. Remember that people buy from people they like.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sambo 933
Date: 2008-12-04 23:24
This is, after all, a CLARINET board.... i mean so many things about the instrument are a matter of opinion gained from personal experience. The thing is that the experience from one person to the next (on certain subjects) is more often than not honestly different. For instance the ligature that one person is raving over for its excellent tone quality may be hated by another because he/she tried it and didn't like it one bit.
As far as out right false statements on this board these could be misinterpreted opinions. I have not noticed any, but maybe I will pay closer attention.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-12-05 01:32
I agree with Tony, we should always tell the truth. It seems to me though that just about everything I read on these posts are people’s opinions. That’s certainly what I do; I just give my opinion, I certainly hope that all others do.
Of course that only my opinion. ESP www.peabody.jhu.edu/457
Listen to a little Mozart, live performance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2008-12-05 01:48
Tony, what motivated your post to open this topic? Was it an earlier exchange under some other heading? I missed it.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2008-12-05 02:23
Tony:
Unless Mark and GBK fact check all posts, only self restraint of posters will lead to the sort of Board where only true facts and well reasoned and documented opinions populate its pages.
We all know this not going to happen (look at the state of professional journalism, what can we expect from amateur reporters of clarinet news?), which is why we are ever so thankful when you set the record straight.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2008-12-05 02:26
As a talk show host here in Atlanta often states: "You must know that a statement is true or verify it with sources known to be reliable, test it yourself with objective measurement criteria, or make a judgment about the truth of a statement from a preponderance of evidence from people whose opinions you trust" Where something can be tested with trusted measurement criteria the truth is obvious but where something subjective like art is involved one should never consider opinions of others as truth but merely the experience and opinion of the person. Hearsay should always be questioned unless the conversation or event was observed by the individual reporting it - and then there is always the filter of potential personal bias even with these accounts.
Gathering opinions is only that - conversation with no value of truth. This is not to discount discussion because it is healthy and interesting but "truth" should command a different level of evidence but may also cause us to further consider those opinions that we have elevated to a level near truth in our own minds.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2008-12-05 02:31
Sylvain wrote:
> Unless Mark and GBK fact check all posts, only self restraint
> of posters will lead to the sort of Board where only true facts
> and well reasoned and documented opinions populate its pages
As Mark and I have always said -
Anytime you post something, whether it be fact or opinion, be prepared to have it challenged.
...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2008-12-05 02:38
Sylvain wrote:
> Tony:
>
> Unless Mark and GBK fact check all posts, only self restraint
> of posters will lead to the sort of Board where only true facts
> and well reasoned and documented opinions populate its pages.
The point is ... it would fantastic for people to know what a "fact" is. We see a lot of people taking what their teacher says as fact, when it is only their teacher's opinion. When we're very young such blind faith is normal, but as we mature we would hope that a healthy skepticism would evolve. Unfortunately, sometimes it doesn't.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: chris moffatt
Date: 2008-12-05 02:51
having read back a bit and seen your exchange with "iceland clarinet" I have to say I sympathise with your point of view. That post was definitely not in the 'opinion' category. Interesting that his "info" came from his teacher.......this should have been qualified and not stated as fact. However it may be a good thing to treat persons a little more gently. There used to be an old music hall song "two lovely black eyes"......perhaps you know it?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2008-12-05 03:55
Not sure I was articulate or clear enough. My point is that hoping to have each and every one individual posters only write true statements (or a well argued opinion) is a lost cause. At the same time, it is too much to ask of the moderators to also be fact checkers, even if they wanted to, I doubt they could check every fact posted here.
A forum like this one only self regulates because of people like Tony who challenge statements of facts that are simply untrue. I commend him for it. We can only hope that enough posters care sufficiently about the truth to communicate when one post is factually wrong, and that among all this noise, valuable and correct knowledge can be gained from reading these pages.
Being "nice" about denouncing lies is irrelevant, although this is an opinion not a fact.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2008-12-05 05:04
Writing opinion as opinion is fine. Anyone can believe (or not) if they choose. Writing opinion as if it is fact is the problem. Some do this and don't realize.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevensfo
Date: 2008-12-05 06:08
-- "Anytime you post something, whether it be fact or opinion, be prepared to have it challenged." --
No, no, no. I think you're absolutely wrong!
Steve ;-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2008-12-05 07:38
It doesn't matter too much if the person writing the opinion as if it were fact is mistaken on that point. It should be clear enough to the reader that he is encountering opinion-as-fact (e.g. "Buffets are best"), and if the reader cannot tell the difference then that is their misfortune.
Where incorrect objective facts are conveyed and this proliferates misinformation then that could be a problem, if people trusted this Board always to be correct. Of course, they should not trust that. And they should not 100% trust that from the more expert members either.
As Ronald Reagan said (or recited) "Trust but verify".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MichaelR
Date: 2008-12-05 15:17
Perhaps True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society by Farhad Manjoo would be of interest. In it Farhad examines recent public events and, among other points, demonstrates the disjunction between truth and proof.
If proof doesn't support truth what are we left with?
It's well worth the check out from your library.
Disclaimer: I have no relationship with the author, publisher or any other entity that will gain by the sale of the book.
--
Michael of Portland, OR
Be Appropriate and Follow Your Curiosity
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2008-12-05 15:21
This thread reminds me of tossing a peanut into a pool of fish and watching the resulting turmoil. Way to go, Tony!!!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2008-12-05 15:32
I likened it to farting while leaving a crowded lift.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2008-12-05 15:39
"All I want is the facts, Mam", Sgt.Friday
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: johnniegoldfish
Date: 2008-12-05 15:48
Ah yes, said the high priest, I once knew what truth was and now I just am.
Please be polite, are we not clarinet players. When I read derision on this board, I wonder about the author, but not for long, as I quickly move onto positive people making positive posts.
Even though you are not using honey, you seem to be catching a lot of flies.
Ii seems my shoe is untied or are my laces just relaxing, who can really tell.
As you can see i've got too much time on my hands when I should have a clarinet on my hands.
See you in the funny papers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2008-12-05 15:51
Chris P wrote:
> "I likened it to farting while leaving a crowded lift."
One talks about truth, and one talks about farting. Next time someone tells a derogative lie about you, claims that you did something horrible you know for a fact you didn't do; let us know if farting is on your mind.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2008-12-05 15:58
Alright.
Although I don't even understand why you're taking offense considering the remark is not even directed at you.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2008-12-06 11:32)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-12-05 18:21
Chris M. said, "However it may be a good thing to treat persons a little more gently."
Bravo Chris, I agree. We should all be "gentle" in our responses to each other. If someone states an opinion as fact and we know it to be false it is enough just to let them know by stating what is wrong with their statement and correcting it for all to read and learn. There is never a reason to be less than what Chris suggests. At least that's my opinion too. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-12-05 20:29
I think there's a little bit more to what Tony is getting at than fact vs. opinion or whether we verify what we post here.
You see, we don't all have to be walking encyclopedias of clarinet wisdom to make valuable posts worthy of trust. We just have be a little bit more introspective about what we are doing when we post. In fact, I think the vast majority of posts on here have the potential to be valuable, as long as they are constructed thoughtfully. What I mean by that is that when we post, we need to think carefully about what it is we are saying and where it came from. Then we need to make sure that that is reflected in the post itself. This promotes honesty and trust, and it's a part of what politeness in a discussion is all about. It's about being genuine and refraining from puffery.
I think what Tony is saying, in essence, is that when people demonstrate a lack of politeness by making and maintaining erroneous ex cathedra pronouncements, he reserves the right to shoot back in response. Indeed, there seems to be a fine line between politely expressing disapproval in a pontifical post and in making the OP feel personally attacked--sometimes so fine that the choice seems to come down between condoning the OP's behavior and offending the OP. I usually try hard to be diplomatic while still maintaining a commitment to truth and accuracy, but I must confess that I have fallen short in that endeavor a number of times, myself. I have my good days and bad days, too.
As I see it, there are several different categories of posts, each of which has its own merits when presented in an appropriate way. Some of these concern facts, others opinions, some are facts for one purpose and opinions for others, and still others are neither facts nor opinions. Here are some of these categories:
Hypotheses: A hypothesis is neither a fact nor an opinion. It is merely a statement that has not been ruled out and so it might be true. Hypotheses are valuable insomuch as they promote experimentation and research to verify their validity--I think the BBoard is a great place to test certain hypotheses because many times the collective knowledge of the BBoard is sufficient to reject an invalid hypothesis out of hand. Oftentimes, we blur the distinction between a hypothesis and an opinion, because we assume the person making the hypothesis believes the hypothesis to be true. We can also blur the distinction between a hypothesis and a fact because a hypothesis is something that has not been ruled out as false. For that reason, it's important to point out when something is only a hypothesis.
Experience/Observation: Experiences and observations are true facts to the extent that they relate what someone witnesses firsthand. However, what we report to others about experiences and observations most of the time are actually conclusions we draw from our experiences and observations--not the actual experiences and observations themselves. There is nothing wrong with this, per se, because it is often much easier to state things in a conclusory way. However, the problem arises when we don't point out that what we are stating is an interpretation of our own subjective experience, which may or may not be representative of a generally applicable truth. Instead of making a remark like, "Most people only own one Bb clarinet," we should be saying things like, "Most people I've encountered only own one Bb clarinet," if we are basing that statement on our own observation. Then we not only avoid an argument over who's right, but we might be led to discover new things such as who is more likely to own more than one Bb clarinet, etc.
Hearsay: Contrary to popular belief, the mere fact that something is hearsay doesn't make it unreliable. Practically everything we learn in school is hearsay, for instance. The problem with hearsay is that it is more difficult to verify, because the original source of the information might be unreliable or the person presenting the hearsay may have misunderstood the original information. Here is where peoples' opinions and statements made in a particular context become generalized truths. When you present hearsay information without qualifying it as hearsay (e.g., without saying something like "I read once that...") you are effectively setting yourself up for attack if what you mention turns out to be wrong or inapplicable in the context. Note that even books and other written publications are hearsay. Here is where fact-checking becomes important. Of course, if you reveal your source(s) for a particular statement, you are somewhat "less on the hook," as they say. Keep in mind, though, that just because someone famous said something at one time or another, it does not mean that they were necessarily right (in fact, that's usually a very weak argument for the accuracy of a statement). The best way to handle hearsay is to leave open the possibility that what you are presenting might be wrong or that you may have misunderstood what you heard or read.
However....note that some forms of "hearsay" are not really hearsay, depending on the context in which you are using the "hearsay." That context might not be clear, though, if you don't say something about it--I'm guilty of this one. Example: Let's say somebody who studied with Robert Marcellus states that Robert Marcellus taught that players should use the "teu" syllable. Since that person studied with Marcellus, the fact that Marcellus taught this concept is not hearsay--the fact is that he said it. On the other hand, if the person is using Marcellus's statement to show that what Marcellus said was right (i.e., it's right because Marcellus said so), that IS hearsay and is deserving of some scrutiny. For that reason, it is helpful to make it clear what the purpose of your hearsay is and where it came from. (also there is hearsay about hearsay, double hearsay, which could occur if I--who never met Marcellus in my life--said that Marcellus taught that something was the best way to do something for the purpose of holding that teaching as true)
Suggestions: Suggestions are neither facts nor are they full opinions. They are more akin to hypotheses. "Try this, it might work for you or it might not," should be the basic message of these types of posts. In responding to such posts, we need to recognize that suggestions are, in essence, hypotheses, so they are not statements about what is correct, objective truth. They are simply propositions (e.g., "This might work") that have not been disproved. The only meaningful responses to such a post are, "Yes it works," "I tried it and it doesn't," "That won't work because...," and "That will work, but it's a bad idea (or there are disadvantages) and here's why..." Anything else is just dogmatism (e.g., "That's not what so-and-so taught"), and that wastes everybody's time.
Notice I didn't say much about whether what someone posts is correct or not. That's actually not as important as it sounds. What is more important for establishing personal credibility is to be honest about where the statement comes from. We are all subject to misinformation, even from reliable sources. And sometimes we learn a lot from errors in posts, because they reveal prevalent misconceptions among people and help us to discover new ways of teaching others. What is most important is that we present what we have to say in a way that allows others to make a reasoned judgment about what they are reading.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-12-05 22:32
We could still be polite. I don't ever see a reason for being nasty to one another no matter how smart you are. There's more important things in this world than having to show someone up. Let's just all find a way to be polite when we tell someone that their wrong. Is there something wrong with that? This isn't rocket science, it an art form, loosen up. ESP
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
Post Edited (2008-12-06 13:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2008-12-06 10:27
"Experience/Observation: Experiences and observations are true facts to the extent that they relate what someone witnesses firsthand"
I have been mulling over the "Truth/Fact" thing for a couple of days now and I do know from experience that what we believe to be factual initially can be found to be non-factual with additional information. As one simple example, the case of the person who claimed his clarinet was cracked but later discovered it was only a surface grain marking.
I am always skeptical of claimed facts and wonder if we can ever know the Truth. No question is ever stupid.....but I sometimes wonder about the source.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2008-12-06 12:30
We may never get Revealed Truth in a blaze of golden glory, but, as a practical matter, when we want readers to think we're telling the truth, it's not that much trouble to cite the source. Whence came this information? Who's the authority? Who sez?
Though the best-quality research can't always settle a disagreement, I'm more likely to believe something Tony Pay writes from personal experience than I am to believe something Whoseyface Tyro writes from personal experience; I'm more likely to believe an assertion that somebody quotes from "The Cambridge Companion to the Clarinet" (where I can check it out for myself) than an assertion attributed to Wikipedia (where I can check it out one day but find out the next day that somebody's modified the article to say the opposite); I'm more likely to believe information from Wikipedia than an undocumented assertion; and I'm more likely to believe even the lowly undocumented assertion than I am to believe Shadow Cat.
To judge the validity of our information, we need to know where it's been.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2008-12-06 14:53
No matter what is said on the BB by "Whosyface Typo" (LOL) or the most eminent expert of our modern times, I will side with Ed P everytime about being respectful and polite in our responses. No need to try to sound pompious or point out how stupid anyone is--all we need is cival discussion and the relevant facts. This is a great place to learn no matter how much we think we know. Lets all be friends (except at the next audition--lol)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2008-12-06 15:21
A wise man, showing the complexity involved, has said:
“One should have a general attitude of welcoming to everybody.”
“I wish to propose for the reader’s favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.”
“I don’t believe in meekness.”
“It is a waste of energy to be angry with a man who behaves badly, just as it is to be angry with a car that won’t go.”
“Hatred of some sort is quite necessary—it needn’t be towards people. But without some admixture of hatred one becomes soft and loses energy.”
“The governors of the world believe, and have always believed, that virtue can only be taught by teaching falsehood, and that any man who knew the truth would be wicked. I disbelieve this, absolutely and entirely. I believe that love of truth is the basis of all real virtue, and that virtues based upon lies can only do harm.”
“Truth is a shining goddess, always veiled, always distant, never wholly approachable, but worthy of all the devotion of which the human spirit is capable.”
“I found one day in school a boy of medium size ill-treating a smaller boy. I expostulated, but he replied: ’The bigs hit me, so I hit the babies; that’s fair.’ In these words he epitomized the history of the human race.”
All from Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), a seeker of truth along with many other things.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sarah Elbaz
Date: 2008-12-06 18:00
It is easier to walk in a mine field than to talk about the truth.
But I do agree with Tony and Lelia that there is only One truth.
If it wasn't that way , there was no truth.
sarah
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: giuliano
Date: 2008-12-06 18:08
Truth is a relative thing
Always adjustable to reality
(Sidsel Endresen - Truth)
The clarinet world is beyond "truth": people do things differently and they work (or not) exactly the same.
And I'd say the same thing about music in general, because people hear (and live) music differently.
Thus, it's great to read so many different opinions here, and no truth at all.
Imho, of course.
Giuliano Forghieri
Nubilaria Clarinet Ensemble, arranger, clarinet, Eb clarinet
Accademia Musica Insieme, founder, arranger, clarinet
www.musicengraving.it
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetist04
Date: 2008-12-07 01:36
This thread went from one of a point Tony's been trying to make for the 10 or however many years I've been on this board to one that made me bust out laughing (the fart thing and Chris' response made me actually laugh out loud) to this aesthetic philosophical conversation...
On a topic such as the Concertgebouw's clarinet type which seems to have been a precipitating factor in all this, all Tony, myself, and a few others ask is that you verify your knowledge particularly when you claim it as truth. This was not an artistic question or one requiring an ambiguous response.
On the other hand, with conversations about artistry which, we can all agree, are not black and white, there's something to be said for challenging the accepted norm. What makes artists famous? Bringing something new to the genre -- Picasso, Beethoven, Bach, Berg, Einstein, Darwin, etc.
When we get these responses that tear into other people in a derogatory way, not only does it say something about the person attacking, it also makes this board intolerable to read, limiting its readership, more-so limiting who contributes, and leaves one with the question of why we are getting so worked up about things so trivial.
Post Edited (2008-12-07 01:37)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-12-07 01:59
I don't care how much one knows about facts and the "truth". When one insults another on this BB for stating their opinion, perhaps thinking they're stating the truth, it diminishes one's self in the eyes of all. There is never a reason to insult someone on this BB. If you can't state your case or opinion, right or wrong, politely, you have no right to be stating you opinion at all. For Pete sake, can't we all be civil and polite and still be clarinet players? That includes all the intellectuals as well.
ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda ★2017
Date: 2008-12-07 02:06
Why do we get worked up about trivial things, indeed? Amen!
It's a waste of time to attempt to be the self-appointed "truth police".
In life, once we realize that people express their opinions and/or experience as they understand it that point of their lives, we can relax more when hearing them express themselves. At times it's good to challenge an assertation with an "Oh that's interesting! How did you know that? Where did you learn that?" in order to find out if we need to get on board or rather that the person should check his facts better. We can't be so arrogant as to believe that we know everything and that everyone else is wrong if they differ with us. This is a chance to learn!
Of course, when writing here it's not a bad idea to follow up a statement of "fact" with a source reference. I remember being challenged here on the BB about a statement I made that grapefruit interfered with some medications, and having to refer the readers to the info sheet provided by the pharmacy. Later I've read the same information about other meds, not just the one I'd been prescribed back then.
Even then, science finds that its cherished, long held beliefs sometimes have to be relegated to the shredder as updated research comes along. So what's considered true in one period of time can change. Cheers to the one who knows that "truth" before the rest of the world does!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2008-12-07 03:59
Tony Pay states: ''Don't we want our factual statements here to be true?''
This is somewhat of a tautology. I was of the understanding that factual statements ARE true.
MRN states: ''I think what Tony is saying, in essence, is that when people demonstrate a lack of politeness by making and maintaining erroneous ex cathedra pronouncements, he reserves the right to shoot back in response.''
Does he believe Tony Pay to be the fount of knowledge then?
Brenda states: ''Of course, when writing here it's not a bad idea to follow up a statement of "fact" with a source reference.''
An admirable idea, in theory, to qualify one's statements with lists of references but one can then just imagine the length of some of these posts, were this to become the norm.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryder
Date: 2008-12-07 14:31
Clarinetist04 wrote:
"On a topic such as the Concertgebouw's clarinet type which seems to have been a precipitating factor in all this, all Tony, myself, and a few others ask is that you verify your knowledge particularly when you claim it as truth. This was not an artistic question or one requiring an ambiguous response."
I think, and believe several people will agree with me here (opinion), that most of this fuss comes from the harsh response Tony used when a simple correction would have done just fine and not offend anyone.
I agree completely with Ed P.'s opinions on the topic:
"We could still be polite. I don't ever see a reason for being nasty to one another no matter how smart you are. There's more important things in this world than having to show someone up. Let's just all find a way to be polite when we tell someone that their wrong. Is there something wrong with that? This isn't rocket science, it an art form, loosen up."
____________________
Ryder Naymik
San Antonio, Texas
"We pracice the way we want to perform, that way when we perform it's just like we practiced"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2008-12-07 17:09
Re: "I refuse to be polite about it when they're not".... This a silly comment. It costs nothing to be civil and it's unlikely that anyone posting here is intentionally trying to provide incorrect or misleading information. There will always be gray areas. Get over it, or start your own bulletin board where you can control the level of accuracy that you seem to need.
If you want to be perceived as a professional, then act like one.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2008-12-07 17:16
Must be lonely at the top, but that doesn't mean having to be bitter or arrogant.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-12-08 09:28
Just a few comments:
Mike made the most penetrating analysis; Nitai put the essential point in a nutshell; Mark Charette gave the most thought-provoking characterisation of the complexity of acting effectively in the world, via Bertrand Russell. Lots of others said pertinent things.
On the other hand, some of you reminded me of the man who screamed, "If there's one thing I can't STAND, it's INTOLERANCE!!" Others demonstrated not only their own rudeness, but what I'd call their very own brand of smug, gloating rudeness.
For some people, the axis: polite behaviour/impolite behaviour coincides with the axis: good behaviour/bad behaviour; just as for some people, the axis: dark clarinet sound/bright clarinet sound coincides with the axis: good clarinet sound/bad clarinet sound.
I find I require a richer palette, both in life and clarinet playing.
Sorry (or not) about that.
Tony
Post Edited (2008-12-08 10:17)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-12-08 14:25
Ed Palanker wrote:
<<Let's just all find a way to be polite when we tell someone that their wrong. Is there something wrong with that? This isn't rocket science, it an art form, loosen up.>>
I agree that people need to try to be polite (and like I said, I try, even if I'm not always successful)--but I also think that what might be considered impolite in one context might the most appropriate response in another. As Tony said, these things are not always black and white. And sometimes there's more to the story than may be immediately apparent.
In the above-mentioned Concertgebouw thread, for instance, Iceland Clarinet made a rather specific sort of statement about the Concertgebouw audition rules, which turned out to be completely false. Now if I remember correctly, the Concertgebouw has been so far unsuccessful in locating someone for that position in previous auditions, so the last thing they need now is for someone to start a rumor that non-Wurlitzer players need not apply, seeing as that kind of a rule would essentially rule out the vast majority of potential applicants (including even some Dutch players, I imagine). I don't know much about EU or Dutch labor and antitrust law, but I suspect that having a restrictive sort of rule like that might even be prohibited by law.
So in this case, Iceland's post could actually have had a negative effect on the audition process itself. If the right guy for the job decides not to audition because he thinks it's a lost cause after reading that post, that would be a *really bad thing.* Goodness knows how many folks they auditioned last time only to not find what they were looking for!
So, you see, a simple, "That's not quite right," just wasn't going to cut it in this case. And although Iceland didn't like hearing it and got defensive about it, I don't think it was rude of Tony to tell Iceland not to post stuff he didn't know about--it was a serious matter, which necessitated a firm response. It became all the more serious when Iceland became defensive about it and started to act like he had some kind of inside information. But I think Tony's admonition applies to us all. Too many people read this board for people to be that reckless with what they post, because sometimes what they say may have serious real-world ramifications.
Post Edited (2008-12-08 14:31)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-12-08 17:42
So we now have an "appropriate rudeness" which is appropriately politically incorrect for the situation. I think it depends how far you go with the rudeness. There should be enough to show the intensity of feeling the author has but not enough to indicate irrational anger. This is particularly significant when dealing with internet communication that is international. Only use a small mallet and save the big one for your subordinates. (I jest)
For my part I haven't found a clarinetist who utilizes both bright and dark sounds in the classical sphere. It sounds good in theory but I haven't heard it yet. (not in Mozart anyway)
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bmcgar ★2017
Date: 2008-12-08 20:59
<butt in>
Anger (and one of its ramifications, intentional rudeness) comes from nowhere other than from the belief that people MUST act as we think they SHOULD.
Ain't gonna happen.
S/he who suffers most is almost always the angry one, not the object of the anger.
B.
(Ducking for cover.)
</butt in>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2008-12-08 23:06
IMO anger and rudeness only diminish the person giving it and in no way influence the intented individual and lead to extended threads about the philosophy of "truth".
L. Omar Henderson
Post Edited (2008-12-08 23:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-12-09 00:01
John Price wrote:
>> For my part I haven't found a clarinetist who utilizes both bright and dark sounds in the classical sphere. It sounds good in theory but I haven't heard it yet. (not in Mozart anyway).>>
But I, and many others, do it all the time. The sort of local variation of tone colour that you use to show an appoggiatura, for example, has a bright sound at the beginning of the gesture and a dark sound at the end. And there are slower variations of the same sort.
Think of how we speak. Even a mellow-sounding voice contains all sorts of bright incidents.
It's why I take issue with Ed Palanker's 'tongue-position' instruction.
Bruce wrote:
>> Anger (and one of its ramifications, intentional rudeness) comes from nowhere other than from the belief that people MUST act as we think they SHOULD.
>>
>> Ain't gonna happen.
>>
>> S/he who suffers most is almost always the angry one, not the object of the anger.>>
First, I don't know how 'anger' got in here. If you're talking about me, I was at no time angry with Iceland Clarinet (I forget his real name) in the sense that I was out of control. I simply thought he should be taught a lesson, and was therefore less than polite about his behaviour in posting irresponsibly -- and more importantly, then trying to justify himself. That's all.
He sent me a couple of emails, one of them quoting a non-fan of mine who was pleased that he'd "told Tony Pay in no uncertain terms where you stand with him - that's made my day!"
But, where he stands with me is nowhere, yet. Everything he's posted so far has been simply designed to call attention to HIM, rather than to what he says. That's why he got into trouble about the Concertgebouw -- he didn't bother to check up, because the CONTENT of his post wasn't important enough to him.
Second, I don't agree that people won't be influenced by all this. I bet that Iceland Clarinet -- and perhaps one or two other people -- will think twice in the future before making an assertion here that they're unsure about.
Scientists have a sort of training in this. They get hauled over the coals by their colleagues when they make assertions that they have no good reason for making; so if you ask a scientist (I have several very high powered scientist friends) a question to which they don't have an answer, they say, "I don't know."
I think that that sort of behaviour has value in the world. I try my best to emulate those friends. (Incidentally, at least one of them is a professional-level performing musician.)
L. Omar Henderson wrote:
>> IMO anger and rudeness only diminish the person giving it and in no way influence the intented individual lead to extended threads about the philosophy of "truth".>>
I don't really understand this; but to the extent that I do, I think I answered it in my responses above to the other two posters.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryder
Date: 2008-12-09 01:04
Mr. Pay wrote:
"I find I require a richer palette, both in life and clarinet playing.
Sorry (or not) about that."
Then please enlighten us as to why you converse with those of us who do not qualify for a "richer palette." I must be missing something here.
____________________
Ryder Naymik
San Antonio, Texas
"We pracice the way we want to perform, that way when we perform it's just like we practiced"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-12-09 01:59
[Edit - I started writing this before Tony wrote his last post above, left, then came back and hit post, so I hadn't read Tony's post first. Sorry if what I say here seems a bit redundant in light of his post ]
The point I was trying to make with regard to the Concertgebouw thread was that there is a difference between simply telling someone that they've got their facts wrong and telling someone not to pass something off as fact that they themselves ought to know is unreliable.
Iceland should have known better than to post something based on old hearsay and pass it off as being part of the current audition rules. This is was something that he could have easily verified before posting, and it's something where there is a definite answer one way or the other--there is no debate to be had--the rules are what they are. Alternatively, as my really long post above suggested, he could have initially admitted that what he heard was old secondhand information in need of verification--but that's not what he did. He passed it off as a current fact.
I don't think it is rude, per se, to tell someone who has made a post like that not to make posts like that again, as those kinds of posts are the genesis of harmful rumors. That's all Tony told Iceland at first, yet Iceland still felt compelled to call Tony arrogant and rude. And of course, the whole thread went downhill from there.
I'm not advocating that people be rude to each other--or even rude in differing degrees--quite to the contrary, I think we should all do our best to get along.
But I do think that people need to be a little more careful sometimes about what they post, especially when it comes to things that really matter like current audition rules. And to that end, people sometimes need to be reminded to be careful--politely, of course--but I think such reminders are often necessary. I don't think simply telling someone that something they said is incorrect is enough for them to get the message to be more careful next time--I think people sometimes need to be explicitly told to be careful about what they post. When I said "firm response," that's what I meant.
Firmness and rudeness are not the same thing. You can be firm without being rude or impolite--teachers, lawyers, and judges do it all the time.
The problem--and I've been guilty of this, myself, I'll admit--is that sometimes some of us are so sensitive to criticism that we feel attacked whenever anyone makes an unsolicited suggestion or (gasp!) disagrees with something we've done or said. Something that was merely intended to be advice or constructive criticism can easily be misconstrued as a personal attack on here. In the Concertgebouw thread, it didn't take much for Tony to be accused of arrogance and rudeness, and I don't think that was fair, regardless of the way the rest of the thread unfolded. As Ed P. said, we need to loosen up around here!
I'll have to let Tony speak for himself, but I'd tend to think that's what he's referring to when he says that he refuses to be polite about it when people don't bother to get their facts straight. He intends to continue to remind people to check their facts, and calling him impolite for doing so (which, unfortunately, is bound to happen on here because we clarinetists are such a sensitive lot) isn't going to stop him.
And why should it? After all, even the BBoard rules talk about this sort of thing:
"Factual information about existing companies is welcome; make sure that you're using verifiable information, not just guesses."
Post Edited (2008-12-09 02:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2008-12-09 02:31
In a parting comment I would paraprase the Tao de Ching - "The sage accepts less than is due and does not blame or punish: For harmony seeks agreement Where justice seeks payment." and "Yet here are three treasures That I cherish and commend to you: The first is compassion, By which one finds courage. The second is restraint, By which one finds strength. And the third is unimportance. By which one finds influence. Those who are fearless, but without compassion, Powerful, but without restraint, Or influential, yet important, Cannot endure", and " Compassion is the finest weapon and best defence. If you would establish harmony, Compassion must surround you like a fortress. Therefore: A good soldier does not inspire fear: A good fighter does not display aggression: A good conqueror does not engage in battle: A good leader does not excercise authority. This is the value of unimportance: This is how to win the cooperation of others: This is how to build harmony."
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bmcgar ★2017
Date: 2008-12-09 03:20
Tony,
I wasn't referring to you or your posts in the least. On top of that, your position is correct, in my opinion.
I was referring to other "personalities" on the list (not necessarily this thread) who drag the whole thing down with their anger, their pretensions, and their thinly veiled insults when their authority is challenged or their facts questioned.
Everyone (except they) know who they are.
B.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-12-10 00:45
Quote by Chris P
"Must be lonely at the top, but that doesn't mean having to be bitter or arrogant."
Below are a few of my own that I use now and then to make my point.
1- An opened mind is a terrible thing to waste.
2 -There is never only one way to do anything on the clarinet.
(There’s more than one way to skin a cat, this applies well to the clarinet.)
3- If you disagree with what a person says it doesn’t mean that they’re wrong and you're right
4- Just because you can’t do it the way someone else does it does not mean it can’t be done correctly their way. This applies to playing and teaching as well.
5- Using a wrong terminology does not make a statement wrong; it simply means that the wrong terminology was used.
6- A person that thinks that their way is the only way is far to closed-minded.
7- It’s easier to find fault in a person if you’re looking for it, or their playing, than it is to find the positive.
8- No on is always correct about everything. (though some think they are)
9- If the truth is so important how come so many people believe that the holly bible is the truth and nothing but the truth. If it is actually the truth where did all the fossils come from? (This is not a comment to those that believe, it is simply an example of what is and what is not the truth.)
10- The truth is sometimes what a person wants to believe it is.
11- It’s really only a lie if the person telling it knows that to be the truth. (Though I do agree people should check their facts when stating something other than their opinion.)
12- Life is too short to be so nasty.
ESP
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
Post Edited (2008-12-10 03:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
