 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-05-27 02:12
I recently made a long post. I did so because I thought that making it shorter would diminish its value.
People have suggested that it wasn't read 'because it was too long'.
Is that really true? Do we not read 'long posts'?
Further, how it might be relevant to clarinet playing appeared only late in the post.
Was that rather the reason it 'wasn't read'?
Indeed, WAS it in fact not read, or was that just the opinion of one or two people?
Or something else?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bruno
Date: 2014-05-27 02:47
I managed to read a little past the first pp before losing interest. I wanna talk about playing the clarinet!
I write books too and I know how boring off-topic writing can be.
As we say in the literary business; "Avoid cliches like the plague!"
bruno>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2014-05-27 02:51
I have lots of time, so read them long or short, if of interest.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2014-05-27 03:46
I read long posts that have content interesting to me.
It is lack of paragraphing that is the huge turn-off for me. That is rude, because it greatly increases the effort a reader has to make to read it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph Katz
Date: 2014-05-27 03:49
It was a really interesting and thoughtful post but I didnt read it all. Working my way through one of George Soros' books right now, slowly. Soros is an admirer of Karl Popper, and it takes me a while to process it all. Ask in another week.
Post Edited (2014-05-27 04:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2014-05-27 04:02
Quoting your recent long post:
"Of course, there may be people who disagree, and anyway find that it’s too long.
To them I say: please just skip it, rather than complain."
Sounded to me like you only wanted to talk to people who already agree with you. So, as you requested, I skipped it.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2014-05-27 04:53
I see no problem with long posts. If something needs to be said then what matter if the post is long or short. If people find it interesting then they will read it, if not then they'll ignore it. Reading posts is optional.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-05-27 05:31
>> Sounded to me like you only wanted to talk to people who already agree with you. So, as you requested, I skipped it. >>
Unwilling to engage:-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-05-27 05:51
>> I managed to read a little past the first pp before losing interest. I wanna talk about playing the clarinet!
I write books too and I know how boring off-topic writing can be.
As we say in the literary business; "Avoid cliches like the plague!">>
I'd seriously considered buying your book -- before reading a few of your posts.
Perhaps I thought it would have been off-topic?-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-05-27 05:59
Quote:
>> Sounded to me like you only wanted to talk to people who already agree with you. So, as you requested, I skipped it. >>
Unwilling to engage:-)
Tony It's the IDEAS that are important, no?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-05-27 06:44
>> Tar baby.
Not interested.>>
Well, you'll say that forever, I suppose.
What I think it means is that though we have much in common, you're unwilling to clarify what we DON'T have in common.
I find that a pity particularly for the participants here.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-05-27 07:21
Given our major dissention: suppose you were willing to say something like:Quote:
Though Kell's performance of the Stravinsky obviously is beyond the pale, he nevertheless shows the pallid performers of the customary canon what they should be considering.
What they do is: follow the instructions.
What he shows they might do is rather: to make vivid the world BEHIND the notes.
That they need not change what is written -- as Kell himself does -- is up to them to discover. How would that change our relationship?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bruno
Date: 2014-05-27 07:42
A very interesting thread! The OP asked for opinions presumably to learn the feelings of others, then when he got them he felt obligated to dispute every one who gave him an answer that he didn't care for.
Sic transit gloria mundi !
bruno>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-05-27 07:56
Well, we crossed posts.
I'll still search, every now and then, for these publications in which you claim you elucidate the concept of Aural Poetic.
But here, as they say, forget you.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2014-05-27 08:31
Kell our major dissention?
Nah--at least not from my perspective. Think whatever you want about his playing--I really don't care.
Not sure what you're driving at Tony. If you have clear question for me, feel free to ask.
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2014-05-27 09:13
Generally, not that many people read very long posts on forums, blogs, etc.
This is common now so not surprising.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-05-27 10:37
In the modern world of text messages, truncated sentences, absence of punctuation and sound- bites, it is refreshing to have a text that gives you something to sink your teeth into. How long can one go one talking about barrels and pads?
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Funfly
Date: 2014-05-27 15:26
I managed to read most of it and it gave a very interesting perspective.
Although it was in my opinion a bit like studying your bellybutton, I do however consider it valuable that someone would look this deep into things.
I remember when I taught judo that some techniques were very quickly accomplished but their simplicity in execution was as a result of hours of study, not only of the physical aspects of the technique but of the mental theory behind it.
So study in depth is always required in order to understand and eventually simplify a technique and this must apply to clarinet.
It's also nice to discuss something other than reeds and mouthpieces.
Often my own responses to posts might may seem flippant but I feel it is contributing to any discussion if the mood is lightened and also if another point of view is offered in order to generate response. Everyone needs to be taken to task and if they make a statement and it's up to them to defend their views. (don't you hate it when you disagree with someone in a post and all they do is reply with personal abuse?).
So long posts, if they contain good stuff, must continue. They are there to be read or not depending on the interest of the viewer. At least you have an interested and reactive group, I have just written and published a book on such an obscure subject that virtually no-one has bought a copy! - now that's really sad.
Martyn Thatcher Mature Student Cheshire U.K.
Clarinet - Yamaha SE Custom
Alto Sax - Yamaha YAS 480
Guitar - Yamaha FG 375-S
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2014-05-27 17:56
Depends on the topic (assuming a given audience.) Some points need broad support, hence more words. Keep it as short & simple as possible - but no shorter or simpler.
Length by itself is rarely a problem for me as a reader. Style can be. But I make allowances for posters I value; if they are on a topic I care about, I'll read every word. Tony Pay is one of them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-05-28 00:44
The irony is that, it seems to me, you posted the full article after you started a couple of threads on the same basic ideas that seemed to generate a lot of misunderstanding. When you posted the more complete context, people complained about its length, complexity and tangential nature to discussion of clarinet.
Best thing if someone doesn't have the interest to read and try to digest a post - any post by any writer - is to just click back to Go to Top and read some other thread. SOMEone else may be interested.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bubalooy
Date: 2014-05-29 02:01
Mr. Pay, You play much better than I do, and I like reading about your insights into playing the music. I read every word you post, but don't always respond. It doesn't matter, I think, if many people don't read your posts, or don't read them completely. They are valuable to the people who do. I also appreciate that much of what you write is about getting to the soul of the music. How do we make the expression of the music work. This is far more interesting to me than equipment.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JKL
Date: 2014-05-29 17:19
The 18year old Goethe wrote to his sister, picking up this sentence from Cicero: "because I have no time to write you a short letter, I write you a long one".
Goethe wrote also: "The urge of a profound view requires laconism" (Der Drang einer tiefen Anschauung erfordert Lakonismus).
There is a law of "declining appeal" for the reader or the listener. A thirsty person enjoys the third glass of water less than the first.
Writing broadly you a in danger to write unsystematicly and unstructured. Writing shortly you are forced to think the problem through thoroughly to give your thoughts the most effective shape.
JKL
Post Edited (2014-05-29 17:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-05-29 17:39
Like all these things, it depends on whom you are talking to. The same is true of clarinet instruction: some people need to use more air, others less air.
Strunk and White say, "Omit needless words."
But you have to include the needful ones.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2014-05-29 18:20
I wonder how long this thread is going to meander into oblivion for.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2014-05-29 18:24)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-05-29 18:38
That's an interesting share, Chris.
I was talking to someone about your work the other day; of course, I've never encountered any of your work myself, and probably never will.
They said you were good at 'making things look shiny'.
Is that the 'complete rebuild'? Or something else?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2014-05-29 20:13
As Judith Butler says, "The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power."
As should be obvious her analysis hypostatizes the hegemonic instantiation of tonal surfaces (i.e., notes) underlying Benedetto Croce's quasi-aesthetic modello, leading inevitably to Sokal's work on transformative hermeneutics. This in turn naturally implies the meta-understanding that Butler's quasi-analysis is simply a retransmogrification of Bateson's non-coercive behavior modification activity in certain sub-traumatic infantile supra-conscious experiences and behavior.
This clear and purely normative line of analysis should satisfy any thinking person's understanding of Bateson. If anyone has remaining questions or doubts, I refer them to Susan's and Wojciech's comments (in Bantu and Polish, respectively) in a discussion on another board, with which readers will no doubt be familiar.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2014-05-29 20:35
Ken Shaw wrote:
> As Judith Butler says, "The move from a structuralist account
> in which capital is understood to structure social relations in
> relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power
> relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and
> rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the
> thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of
> Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as
> theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the
> contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed
> conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites
> and strategies of the rearticulation of power."
But, as Thomas Basboll said in "More Stylistic Exercise: rereading Butler" about this quote:
"It is possible to defend the famous "difficulty" of the sort of style we are dealing with here by suggesting that it truly turns reading into an activity. Indeed, we have here seen what sort of activities lie in wait for the willing reader. Butler has, we might argue, encouraged us to think this sentence all the way through (we have tried to do that just now) instead of "sparing us the trouble of thinking for ourselves," as Wittgenstein put it. I don't propose to settle the debate, but I will suggest that she has also spared herself the trouble of editing the text. Indeed, by day, that's my job, and I do it happily, but I recommend that the aspiring researcher plan the reader's activities a bit more kindly.
But there is another argument for writing this way. I have said in a previous post that there are times when you want to make your points one at a time, by parataxis, and there are times when you want to make a single gesture of a series of points, employing hypotaxis. The extreme hypotaxis of Butler's sentence indicates the intention to make just such a gesture. Indeed, her sentence is a vast exercise in subordination. After all, a revolution is not accomplished by a series of small careful steps but by a rush"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2014-05-29 20:38
Tony - I take the effort to return any instrument I service or rebuild in a condition far better than when it first comes to me, so that includes polishing the silver plate to make it all shiny. If it doesn't look any different the time it leaves me compared to what it was like previously, then that's not the whole job done - so as well as doing all the remedial work, the cosmetic work is simply the finishing touch so things should play as good as they look.
I've never had any complaints with my work and have plenty of returning and satisfied customers, although it has to be said I've had criticism from people with preconceived ideas who I've never done any work for, so that's hardly justifiable.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2014-05-30 12:55)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FDF
Date: 2014-05-31 00:03
Tony said, "I recently made a long post. I did so because I thought that making it shorter would diminish its value."
Shakespeare had Polonius say,
"This business is well ended.
My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
Why day is day, night night, and time is time,
Were nothing but to waste night, day and time.
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief: your noble son is mad:
Mad call I it; for, to define true madness,
What is't but to be nothing else but mad?
But let that go."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-05-31 00:14
That was about what HE might have wanted to say.
You don't get this stuff about 'different contexts', do you?
Tony
Post Edited (2014-05-31 00:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-05-31 01:56
If you want to say something about a particular case, it makes no sense to quote a great writer about some OTHER case, don't you see?
OK, you could say that you don't see the point of what *I* said. And you could have said WHY you don't see the point of what I said.
But you didn't. And, not surprisingly, I'm totally unimpressed by the fact that you piggyback on YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF SHAKESPEARE to NOT make whatever point you might have made.
Do you think you establish any credentials by your ability to quote?
I'm fighting a battle here. I don't need anodyne irrelevancies, however poetic.
Tony
Post Edited (2014-05-31 02:14)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2014-06-01 15:32
So Shakespeare wrote "...brevity is the soul of wit..."
So why did he take 11 lines to say "your noble son is mad"?
That is the sort of post I find really tiresome!
Post Edited (2014-06-01 15:33)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2014-06-01 15:55
"Brevity" is good as it encourages the writer to "condensate" an hour of thinking into a line of wisdom. But it also bears the danger of creating a simplified "management summary" where most traces of the thinking process behind a "condensed idea" are lost, leaving the reader wondering how on earth could the writer come to such a conclusion.
I generally like the approach where a complex idea is rephrased in layperson's words, without omitting crucial details. But I see this approach doesn't do well with more philosophical and in-depth oeuvres. Whether these are best presented on a compuer screen rather than in some printed form is probably a matter of personal taste.
I prefer, even on a computer screen, a typograpically more pleasing form, with proper indentation, white space and paragraph formatting.
In a nutshell - long posts don't fare well on short screens.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
