 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2025-10-30 22:41
Maybe he thought he was.
He seems to have gone a bit quiet as of late.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
Independent Woodwind Repairer
Single and Double Reed Specialist
Oboes, Clarinets and Saxes
NOT A MEMBER OF N.A.M.I.R.
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2025-10-30 23:07
In fact, in the last 48 hours the ICA has permanently banned him from membership (in light of recent abuse, he was previously under a 1 or 2 year suspension). He also stalks FB and forum such as this using fake IDs.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2025-10-30 23:47
I decided to delete the linked article about David Blumberg.
All of the negative comments and especially the picture began to convince me that the article had to be removed.
I slowly began to feel that that type of material simply doesn't belong on this BB.
Post Edited (2025-10-31 09:08)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: David H. Kinder
Date: 2025-10-31 02:58
I don't know enough about it all. I am in Blumberg's Facebook group. He has posted how others mocked him, made up fake profiles and offending pics, etc. No idea how it all started. I believe he said it's out of jealousy - and I must admit that when someone is at the top of their game, they easily become such a target... but again, I don't know how it all began or why the ICA would make such a decision.
Ridenour AureA Bb clarinet
Ridenour Homage mouthpiece
Vandoren Optimum Silver ligature (plate 1)
Vandoren Traditional #4 reeds
ATG System, Cordier Reed Trimmer, and A.L.E. Reed Balancer
|
|
|
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2025-10-31 03:45
I have no horse in this race.
That said, it is, IMO difficult for noteworthy people and brands in our or any space to have an internet presence.
Many lay low under the reality that to post, especially to a large enough and anonymous audience (or at least an audience having distance that's longer than an arm can punch someone in the nose) increases the odds considerably that some dissenter may respond in ways that might be less savvy than they'd risk in face to face discussion, critiquing things (sometimes because) they lack the aptitude to achieve.
It then becomes an exercise in discipline for the original poster to weigh the benefits of keeping hush and flying above the noise, or responding back in the belief that if they don't said noise will only get worse.
There's a vendor I'll keep nameless who once posted to the board more frequently, that I established an internet friendship with. It would incense him that no matter how hard he tried to please customers there were always some haters out there that would disparage the products that put food on his table.
It helped him to for me to remind him how many supporters he had, and how the vast majority reading liked, or had no issue with his products or need to respond.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2025-10-31 05:06
I tried to go through the voluminous (and extremely one-sided) info at the link provided by Dan (thanks for the link, Dan - I had no idea about any of this until you provided the link), but I couldn't make it all the way through. Social media is the cesspool that it is, and that's what it looked like to me.
For a person to take it to the point of creating websites to share the information seems a little overly excitable to me, and hints towards the possibility that there might be some underlying/unshared info (agenda?) beneath. I don't know the folks involved.
Maybe given enough information, I'd change my mind - but I'll say it again: Social media is a cesspool, and I have a tough time getting too excited about such interactions.
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
|
|
|
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2025-11-01 02:54
I'm not sure what was linked above etc re Blumberg, but I know this. He was always to me a bit annoying, however it was true that much of the information he imparted was also "good" or "useful", even if at times his motivation seemed self serving rather than altruistic.
In more recent years he has moved into the territory of abusing, stalking and threatening people (a number of whom I know, and trust to be giving an accurate account). At some point, a long time after I blocked him, he made a mild threat to me, nothing to be too stressed by but also so oddly out of proportion to the significance of our disagreement that it definitely was strange and unsettling. If I threaten someone, I'm not surprised by a threat in response. If all I do is make a mild commentary I expect the same in response- not a response that is escalating the level of disagreement to a more threatening level.
If he chose to do that IN PERSON he'd discover some truths quite quickly, but it's actually against the law of most countries to threaten to do that in writing.
Let's take another example....
Tom Ridenour, for example, was in the same boat- he imparted good and useful information, and it was a bit more apparent that his motivation WAS altruistic (this is of course in both cases open to interpretation). Tom, having somewhat iconclastic political and social views, also riled up a few people the wrong way but NEVER threatened, stalked or abused anyone. He is not banned anywhere, and still imparts his good and useful information.
Post Edited (2025-11-01 11:41)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2025-11-01 18:11
Chris P wrote:
> Maybe he thought he was.
>
> He seems to have gone a bit quiet as of late.
>
I don't believe this thread has quite reached the level of character assassination that would require closing it, but it certainly qualifies as character-based discussion regarding a (mostly former) contributor to the BBoard and could be interpreted as violating the 2nd of the BBoard's Rules (see Help/Rules above),
"No ad hominem attacks (discuss the question/answer, not the person. Sometimes it's hard to separate the two - discretion is the better part of valor)."
Did something specific prompt this mention of David? His last post here that comes up in the Search utility was in 2005.
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
Author: RBlack
Date: 2025-11-02 01:01
The ICA’s banning him from events is what brought it up.
They did this in response to him harassing and/or threatening multiple members of the ICA. If you’re curious about this, you can pretty easily research more specific details of these issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Tom Piercy
Date: 2025-11-02 01:50
Tom Piercy
Post Edited (2025-11-02 15:51)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2025-11-02 09:53
Dear BB members,
Whether David Blumberg is still relevant or not is...irrelevant.
To some he is and to others he is not. There is simply no right or wrong answer here.
To me, this kind of discussion has a very slippery slope that leads to defamation. Any kind of communication that causes harm to one's reputation is defined as defamation. That is why I removed the link to an article that had numerous negative comments about him. It took me a while to fully realize how wrong I was to post it in the first place. mea culpa.
I believe that none of us knows or understands precisely what is and was going on in David Blumberg's life...and even if we did, it still would be wrong to discuss his behavior because...David Blumberg is not here to defend himself.
Just my opinion...
|
|
|
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2025-11-02 18:00
Dan Shusta wrote:
> Any kind of communication that causes harm
> to one's reputation is defined as defamation.
Not to be pedantic Dan, or does it have anything to do with the individual this thread is focused on, but I think this is a relevant point:
The perfect legal (and moral) defense against defamation is the truth. We're allowed (and again this is spoken in generalities and is not directed at the person that is this thread's subject of which I have no connection or beef), dare I say we're encouraged, for the purposes of making the dirt bags of this world more accountable, and make them and others appreciate the costs of engaging in bad acts, all while making that world a better place, to point out bad actors.
I sense that you'd agree. 
Of course, and with good reason, the bboard has rules against ad hominem (character) based attacks for not the least of reasons that we are at are best debating aspects of our clarinet opinions and choices, not the character of the person bringing forth such arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2025-11-02 19:17
“ Of course…that we are at are best debating aspects of our clarinet opinions and choices, not the character of the person bringing forth such arguments.”
Quite true, yet there are more than a few topics here that have little or nothing to do with clarinet playing and/or music making, etc. Social issues; philosophical musings; uneducated, uninformed or unknowing personal opinions of various unrelated (or very loosely related, perhaps) subjects brought up for god-knows-what reasons. Maybe there are those that need to see their name here to have a sense of self-importance as part of this so-called clarinet world? 🤷🏻♂️
It’s personally frightening to me that I’d much rather see yet another thread on ligatures than some of this extraneous nonsense. 🙄😂
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2025-11-02 22:20
SecondTry,
<..."for the purposes of making the dirt bags of this world more accountable.."
There...now you, on a public forum read all over the world, just called David Blumberg a dirt bag. I believe that's character assassination. Now, I also believe you've gone all the way down the slippery slope to breaking one of the BB rules. It's true...you didn't distinctively mention his name, however, isn't this thread entirely about David Blumberg?
<..."to point out bad actors." (Another character assassination?)
<"I sense that you'd agree."
Nope. At the expense of a possible defamation lawsuit, no, I don't agree with you. I believe that we need to be very careful about how we define another person.
Freedom of speech does have its limitations. Libel lawsuits have proven that.
Again, just my opinion...
|
|
|
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2025-11-02 22:40
lmliberson wrote:
> It’s personally frightening to me that I’d much rather see
> yet another thread on ligatures than some of this extraneous
> nonsense. 🙄😂
I'd only object that extraneous and nonsense shouldn't necessarily be bound together in this way. What is extraneous to the purposes of this BBoard - e.g. IMO Blumberg's behavior at ICA and their response to it - isn't necessarily nonsensical, however inappropriate it may be here.
And, of course, you can't really draw a line between nonsense and some of the discussion that occurs regularly here about ligatures (or reeds or reed break-in, etc...). The fact that it appears here appropriately, however uselessly, differentiates it, I think, from the extraneous discussions you're describing.
As to David Blumberg, I don't know him personally. He was a local clarinet performer and teacher in my area of suburban Philadelphia for many years. I've known other players who performed with him, and I've played in some of the same ensembles since his having left our area. So, I know who he is and a little about him. But he has had no effect that I know of here on the BBoard is many years, so I think the opprobrium this thread has tended to generate about him is inappropriate. His problems with the ICA don't seem to affect this BBoard one way or another and discussion of his offenses there, IMO, should remain there.
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
Author: David H. Kinder
Date: 2025-11-02 22:57
Is this type of conversation relevant or not?
I'm in the insurance and financial services industry. In this industry, we (try to) foster trust with the public at large to encourage engagement with (whom I would hope to be) ethical financial professionals to help people do a better job and enhance their financial situation through advice and our products, services, and contracts.
In my industry, when someone is brought up on charges, it becomes a big deal. Why? Because regulators need to foster trust with the public that 'bad actors' will be caught and how they can be 'on guard' against being a victim themselves of unscrupulous 'actors'.
In light of this, I've also seen the Code of Ethics of many organizations in my industry. Only one mentions honorable conduct at their live, in-person events. (Makes me wonder what happened to make this a rule?)
All that being said...
It's not like the ICA is a regulator of everything related to the world of the Clarinet. Being a member does give access to that market and the ability to communicate with current members.
Clarinetists don't need additional rules that the law doesn't already have.
Being a member of the ICA can be considered a privilege, not a right, and therefore membership is subject to approval and sanction, etc.
In my industry, the CFP board tries to be a regulator of everyone who has CFP marks, however, they usually act in hindsight after regulators have already done their processes. They can't arrest you - they can only remove your right to display their 'marks'.
Bottom line:
If there's a problem, you don't go to the ICA (or to the CFP board). You call the police and you launch a real investigation and press charges. You call people who can arrest people.
The ICA may make a decision based on whatever was shown to them, but all they can do is ban/revoke membership.
If he, or ANYBODY, is a real danger... make a police report.
Ridenour AureA Bb clarinet
Ridenour Homage mouthpiece
Vandoren Optimum Silver ligature (plate 1)
Vandoren Traditional #4 reeds
ATG System, Cordier Reed Trimmer, and A.L.E. Reed Balancer
|
|
|
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2025-11-03 02:23
Dan Shusta wrote:
> SecondTry,
>
> <..."for the purposes of making the dirt bags of this world
> more accountable.."
>
> There...now you, on a public forum read all over the world,
> just called David Blumberg a dirt bag.
In no way did I call any particular person a dirt bag, certainly not Blumberg.
Go back and read.
In fact I went out of my way to expressly say that this was in no way directed towards the person this thread was talking about, and my comments would thus be seen by any reasonable person as speaking in generalities with no one person in mind.
Tell me, what part of this below, which I wrote, do you not understand?
"and again this is spoken in generalities and is not directed at the person that is this thread's subject of which I have no connection or beef"
How ironic is this? See if you can get your arms around this:
In an effort to point me out, again incorrectly, as attacking the character of a particular person, which I expressly did not do, you actually attacked my character.
But don't worry, it's so utterly obvious that you didn't read, or have a reading comprehension problem that in the absence of bad intent I don't think you were nefarious.
You're welcome.
> It's true...you didn't distinctively mention his name,
It's irrelevant whether I mentioned his name or not. Who I was talking about, so clearly the subject of this thread, whether I say his name or not, was someone I expressly said that my comments didn't apply to.
If Blumberg was here himself he likely wouldn't, or at least shouldn't have issue with my post.
> however, isn't this thread entirely about David Blumberg?
I could not care if it is or isn't. I made it crystal clear I was talking in abstract. I wasn't being passive aggressive. I expressly said I don't know the man nor have a beef with him. Are you dense, trolling?
> Nope. At the expense of a possible defamation lawsuit, no, I
> don't agree with you.
Wow, you don't get it. What you wrote immediately above is what is called an opinion. You're allowed to have one. You don't risk defamation claims for having one.
If it's negatively directed at a person it may get you in trouble on this bboard but not under the law. Do you understand this?
And while that sentence doesn't get you in trouble, wrongly calling someone, like me a defamer, excuse me a character assassinator, could. Let me help you on a defense, not that you're in trouble. Here goes, ready, this is in your voice per se, maybe when you read it it will help you understand:
"It was so obvious that SecondTry was not targeting any person in his comments, as any reasonable person could see, that the only thing I did here was make myself look stupid, not tarnish his reputation."
I'm not passive aggressive Dan. If I put someone down there going to know about it, as I did here with you.
And as far as this board not promoting character attacks is concerned, which I strongly agree with in nearly all cases, fairness would dictate people's right to defend against such attacks like yours, even if it may feel like your feet, rather than your ideas are being held to the fire here.
I believe that we need to be very careful
> about how we define another person.
And you think I don't...? If a person has evidence that someone is acting nefariously and they speak out about it this improves our world. False accusations of same make it worse and potentially actionable. It's that simple, and precisely way truth is a perfect defense against libel or slander.
> Freedom of speech does have its limitations.
It does, and you should understand better where that limitation lies. Our freedom of speech in fact doesn't even technically exist (I'll explain). It's a product of case law that itself emerged out of our founding father's belief in "an open exchange of ideas." And that right for us to debate does not extend to a point where it denies other people basic rights (the proverbial illegality of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater where no such fire exists or negatively labelling someone without justification.)
But nefarious actors are not intended to be protected, quite the opposite. Our law, which is not a spectator sport, in fact compels us to speak up so as to disincentivize such behavior.
Unbelievable. I expressly said my comments don't apply to person "X," I don't know him or have a beef with him and you say, "you just defamed person "X."
You may need a nap before you respond here.
Post Edited (2025-11-03 02:33)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2025-11-03 03:52
SecondTry,
At the bottom of my posting which you quote, I wrote: 'Again, just my opinion...'
Per the following article, I don't have to defend my opinion:
https://www.mickmel.com/you-dont-need-to-defend-your-opinion/
You wrote that I attacked you. Obviously I don't see it that way, However, because you feel that way, I will tell you publicly, I apologize.
You also attacked my intelligence in several places. For those attacks, I will simply say: I forgive you.
Now, can there be peace between us?
Just my opinions...
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2025-11-03 04:02
If memory serves, the beginnings of the argument between Mr. Blumberg and Ms. Needleman seemed fairly trivial. Now this thread seems in danger of becoming one of those ontology-recapitulates-phylogeny things.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2025-11-03 04:16
Quote:
Now this thread seems in danger of becoming one of those ontology-recapitulates-phylogeny things.
Or at the very least, a thread that will cause me to seek my dictionary!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2025-11-03 05:28
Dan, this is an opinion: The Yankees will win the world series next year.
This is not an opinion but fiction: The sun rotates around the earth.
You did the latter. Please don't do it again. It is fact that I disparaged nobody, not your opinion that I did, not unless you're not in your right mind.
I did write that you attacked me. That wasn't an opinion. You accused me of character assassination. It is fact, not opinion that I singled no person out in a post that you said I attacked someone in. No reasonable person reading my post would disagree.
And I did attack your intelligence in several places and stand by that. But it was done for two reasons: you attacked me first, and any reasonable person reading my post that you took issue with would conclude no person was being single out in it. It's not your opinion that I did, it's some form of poor reading on your part or diminished capacity if you think I did.
Taking stabs at someone on the board is wrong. Taking stabs at someone who wrongly takes stabs at you is fair game; in fact it can help to incentivize it not happening again.
The correct answer here was to say, "I read your post wrong. sorry."
Post Edited (2025-11-03 05:45)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2025-11-03 05:43
Philip Caron wrote:
> If memory serves, the beginnings of the argument between Mr.
> Blumberg and Ms. Needleman seemed fairly trivial. Now this
> thread seems in danger of becoming one of those
> ontology-recapitulates-phylogeny things.
What?
Ontology recapitulates phylogeny is a proven fallacy that claims that the evolutionary development of an organism can be traced by observing the embryonic stages it goes thru.
It's use here in any context is as off as the theory itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2025-11-03 06:31
OK, I think the flames have gotten hot enough. I've closed the thread.
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
