The recusal of Whistlesmiths (was "Let's do it: Musican vs C

Whistle
1

Hello all,

JimR recently posted a response to the Musician vs. Collector thread that some thought was inappropriate. For those of you that don’t know JimR is Mr. Copeland’s right hand man. It was deemed inappropriate by some because of his position as a Whistlesmith.

I was recently told in an e-mail, after a small on-line skirmish, that I should hold my tongue or at least make it known that I am a whistlesmith so that people would know my bias when they read my posts.

In my discussions with other smiths I find this to be a common occurance. I find that most of us guard our posts so as not to step on another makers toes (a good thing) and that we often will not contribute to interesting threads (like the one that spawned this thread) so as not to be overt in our views (a good thing?).

At this time, the climate on the board tends to discourage the makers from posting. Perhaps this is because of some recent fallout involving a maker (believe it or not, I missed the whole thing until a week later). But it seems to me that this alienates a group of people that could really offer a lot to the board.

Well, I’ve got my own ideas on this, but maybe I’ll abbreviate this first post to let a few of you weigh in. I really am curious how folks see the climate of the board.

Erik

2

Hey Erik,

Well lets see. Maybe we could just have all of the whistlesmiths attach a red “WS” to their usernames so we could all be fairly warned!
I appreciate the input of the whistlesmiths out there and would hate to see that curtailed. Unfortunately, somebody will always get their knickers in a twist over something.
I have seen posts that I think bordered on disengenuous and self-serving. As an internet message board community, we have an effective way of dealing with that. Just ignore the post. If enough people agree with the quality of the content it will slowly sail off into archive land.
I think when we react and start flaming (or almost) we only serve to emphasize the offending post, giving it longer life.
I’ve notice that several whistlesmiths and venders who used to regularly post to the board haven’t recently and frankly, I miss their knowledge, wit and perspective.
I’ve seen enough of Dale’s and Rich’s judgement to leave it to them to address the truly inappropriate posts.

Vinny

3

Yes, the whistle makers are reading
this board–a fact worth keeping in mind,
I suppose. One of the good things about
civility is that they are more willing
to put in their two cents when issues
about their whistles are raised; obviously
they are less likely to do that if
they feel they’re dipping into a pool of
sharks.

On the other hand, we do need
to say what we think about
whistles. I don’t know if it’s
possible to find the right balance,
especially in this venue–with
new people appearing all the time.
One can say what one thinks in
a decent sort of way, of course.
That’s probably the best we
can do.

If I was seriously in business
making whistles I would be
very careful of posting here,
and of what I said, but I don’t think that would reflect
a defect of the board. This
board is a way that thousands of
people learn about new whistles,
and there’s a lot at stake.
But I wouldn’t recuse myself,
either. For one thing, it
sound obscene.

4

I’m with Vinny. I also miss the posts of these people, who in my opinion, have a lot to offer. One of the best posts in the other thread was by Brigitte Goldie. She made some very good points that had not previously been raised.

It’s too bad that some folk feel that they have the right to tell others when it is and is not appropriate for them to post. everyone has biases one way or another and it is only by letting everyone have their say that we will all learn.


\

Cheers

Gerry
Think before you Think before you Talk!

[ This Message was edited by: WhistlingGypsy on 2002-03-08 14:34 ]

5

Truly a little more charity would
go a long way. But I’m not gonna
hold my breath.

6

Just to be absolutely clear…

My comments about recusal and discretion are more about protecting the poster from accusations of partiality, not about preventing them from speaking.

Personally, opinions from all are welcome, I’m a big boy, i can handle it.

Do i not make myself mis-understood?
jb

7

Charity and civility are good. And yet, because we are having these discussions with time-delay and without looking at one another, some things need to be put in writing that otherwise could be expressed more subtly.

I like it that there are whistlesmiths on the board and I want to hear their opinions. Actually I wish whistlesmiths were a little more forward at times. If Jim R wrotes something in his post like “I hate cheapos, can’t stand the squeals and the bad tuning. Also they’re ugly, with their cheap plastic mouthpieces. That’s why I make Copelands,” I’d have no problem with it.

But after one of the more interesting recent discussions that also crossed into trad v. non-trad territory, he tells us to “take a break.” That’s not exactly an on-topic opinion and I share SteveJ’s view. It would have been different if JimR had actively participated in the discussion and tired of it. But since he hadn’t, the sense was more that he didn’t like that kind of discussion going on.

JimR is still entitled to tell us that he thinks it’s enough, but we may disagree and may tell him that it might look funny for a high-end smith to long for a break from a discussion that was, at least partially, about the comparative virtue of cheapos.

8

First, I don’t think JimR was trying to “curtail discussion”. It had allready curtailed itself, just as if everyone had taken a break for a day and went and played music. After days of frequent maybe hourly additions of fairly long posts, there had been no posts for over a day. Looks like everyone took a break, to me.

Second, his other statement in the post, simply underlined that much of the subject was about taste and with that there is no dispute, I assume leaving description and abundant diversity.

Third, I would hope that all the whistlesmiths continue to posts, just as I’d love to see alot of ‘recording artists’ return to post. Most, if not all the whistlesmiths are identified on the Main C&F Website, most use their own names, and include references to their websites, most list whistlemaking in their profile, along with their e-mail addresses, all public.
They definitely aren’t hiding their bias.

Fourth, suggesting that a whistlesmith, recuse themselves, doesn’t make sense because they don’t come across as representing anyone but themselves and thier opinions. Lawyers recuse themselves because they represent others’ interests. Judges recuse because they “judge” issues and have an obligation to do so fairly. They also have an obligation to help all parties accept and comply with the judgement. This latter obligation is where the appearance of bias applies. We haven’t elected or selected any of the whistlesmiths to be our judge or moderator.

Finally, the discussion that spawned this side topic was going fairly well because people were debating their values and tastes in music and issues. Most of the issues were related: Collector versus Player, Irish tradition music in Ireland versus other whistle music, learning approaches and a few other issues. I think one of the reasons that it was going well is we were busy discussing the issues and not the intensions of others. I think where we run into trouble is when we try to determine intent. Thats something no-one can know, we can only guess at. Heck, I’m not even sure of my own motivations for posting, let alone trying to figure out why someone else is posting. Granted sometimes it obvious, and we’ve seen that, but this time I don’t think it was. So unless its blatant and obvious; we do alot better sticking to the substance of what someone said. When it is blatent and obvious and non-constructive, usually ignoring it is the best way to deal with it.

Do I have some bias to appreciate the short, “take a break and play” comment? Yes, I am biased becaused I’ve alway thought it was about how you …

Enjoy Your Music,

Lee Marsh

[ This Message was edited by: LeeMarsh on 2002-03-08 16:45 ]

9

If I were a high end whistle maker who
followed these postings, I would have
by now had quite a few personal feelings.
This has been probably the
most sustained discussion of
high-end v. low end in human history.
Remember the silver thingie was a Copeland.

And being human I might at a certain
point finally cry out (perhaps unthinkingly):
‘No more, please! These matters
can never be settled. Let’s play
music–that’s what I really wanted
to help people do.’ That is not
an effort to curtail discussion,
which, as noted above, would be
folly (and inappropriate)–but
a cri de coeur. That’s the worst
case scenario for Jim R.'s posting,
in my view. Charity.
Not that we should stop the discussion,
of course.

[ This Message was edited by: jim stone on 2002-03-08 16:48 ]

[ This Message was edited by: jim stone on 2002-03-08 16:53 ]

10

If I read it right, most of you (apart from that incisive legal mind, Bloomfield) are telling me that my post telling Jim his post was inappropriate is inappropriate.

Would anyone care to opine (lovely American backformation from “opinion”) on the appropriateness of this?

Let me put it another way. Is it really appropriate for you to tell me I was being inappropriate in telling Jim he was inappropriate?

Please discuss. With any luck this thread will then not so much recuse itself (nice backformation - from “recusant”?) as recurse itself, or, to put it into Australian, disappear up its own backside. Unless it has its knickers in a twist, a factor that will make the above manoeuvre very difficult.

Facetiously yours,
Steve

11

I find it impossible to accept that the fact someone makes whistles means he shouldn’t speak his mind in this forum, that if he joins in the discussions this is somehow reprehensible. Such a position is so self-obviously unsupportable that it’s hardly worth the effort to refute.

I will grant that some whistle-makers have posted things on this board I thought were objectionable, as have others engaged in commercial enterprises – even me, sometimes, when I stopped and thought about it, and I’m not selling anything here – but it is ( or was ) a free country. My head is mounted on a swivel, just like everyone else’s. If I don’t like what I’m looking at, I turn it in another direction.

Freedom means that other people get to do things you disapprove of.

12

Personally I don’t think your post
was inappropriate. That means that
you shouldn’t have said what you did,
and I don’t think that. Jim R’s post
was a bit odd, I think–hard not
to feel there was some feeling behind
it, reading between the lines one
might well feel he’s had enough.
You were alive to that.

The question for me is how one interprets
that and how one responds to it. Telling
someone he shouldn’t have posted what he did
was an option, and not mistaken,
I think. And I think there are other alternatives, too. Best

13

On 2002-03-08 17:11, ndjr wrote:
I find it impossible to accept that the fact someone makes whistles means he shouldn’t speak his mind in this forum, that if he joins in the discussions this is somehow reprehensible. Such a position is so self-obviously unsupportable that it’s hardly worth the effort to refute.

Oh, hahahaha. That is just too rich. :slight_smile:

Tell me, who is proposing that “the fact someone makes whistles means he shouldn’t speak his mind in this forum”?

Mail me your address, I’ll send you a dictonary so you can refresh you memory on the (admittedly subtle) differences between “inappropriate” and “reprehensible”.

“Such a position is so self-obviously unsupportable that it’s hardly worth the effort to refute.” Yeah.

Don’t be mad, Neil. I usually enjoy your posts. They are insightful and balanced, but this one somehow came out a bit wrong. :slight_smile:

Jim has got it right again. Thanks, Jim, for your level-headed voice.

Edit/P.S.: Forgot to say that it is my impression Steve wouldn’t have minded if JimR had joined the discussion rather than recommended a break from it.

/bloomfield

[ This Message was edited by: Bloomfield on 2002-03-08 17:29 ]

14

Stephen - you make me laugh - in a good way :slight_smile:

But I see that the oft quothed quote (recursive and malformed from Poe - not the quote, but the ‘quothed’.) comes into play here: “It is not enough to be understood. You must also not be misunderstood.”

So let me clear up my thought… it wasn’t really directed at JimR’s statement and the posts that followed. That was merely the catalyst. I probably shouldn’t have used that as the example, since it (JimR’s statement) was besmirched for several reasons.

Erik

p.s. I’ll let this stew overnight and post some more tomorrow :slight_smile: I’m sleepy.

15

I cant imagine why anyone would feel that a Whistlemaker shouldnt speak up, I read Jim R’s post. And I didnt see anything wrong about it, If anything, I would have expected the makers to Join in. If not for the makers , Most of us would still be going through Whistles trying to find one that played.

Dan

16

I agree with those who’ve said they like and appreciate the posts and knowledge imparted by some of the whistlesmiths on the board. Some seem to stay entirely out of discussions of specific whistles, and even the high end/low end debate. Others don’t. Just like the rest of us. If you read the board for awhile, you’ll know who the whistle makers are, and you’ll also know who speaks honestly and who has an axe to grind.

Now, I see one possible drawback to whistle smiths being active on the board. I wonder how open a discussion we can have about a maker’s whistles when we know he’ll read all the remarks. I know that if I found a maker’s whistles to be crap, I’d hold my tongue rather than say so to the whole group.

I think the benefit vastly outweighs the possible drawback, though. I’ve mailed people offlist to ask about the whistles made by a frequent contributor, and I’ve had people mail me about some that they knew I had.

Charlie

17

On 2002-03-08 18:31, chas wrote:
Now, I see one possible drawback to whistle smiths being active on the board. I wonder how open a discussion we can have about a maker’s whistles when we know he’ll read all the remarks. I know that if I found a maker’s whistles to be crap, I’d hold my tongue rather than say so to the whole group.

I’m not sure about this; I think that if you’
ve got something genuine to say, you believe it, and you’re not saying it in order just to wound, why not just say it? Perhaps you could save someone the same mistake you made in your purchase!

Good reviews and open (but polite) speech I think will drive up the quality of whistle making in general, and I must say that most of the makes here seem to see criticism as an opportunity if not to improve designs, but at least understand their customer base more!

Richard

18

On 2002-03-08 17:21, Bloomfield wrote:

Tell me, who is proposing that “the fact someone makes whistles means he shouldn’t speak his mind in this forum”?

In the thread from which this was derived, JimR offered his rather mild sentiments on a topic, and was told in essence by StevieJ that he shouldn’t have done so based on his occupation as a whistle-maker. It seems rather plain to me.

Mail me your address, I’ll send you a dictonary so you can refresh you memory on the (admittedly subtle) differences between “inappropriate” and “reprehensible”.

I’ll save you the trouble. It happens that I’m well acquainted with the difference. Here’s what my dictionary gives for the word “reprehensible,” which is derived from:

rep’re-hend’, v.t.; 1. To make charge of fault against; to reprimand; reprove; chide; blame; censure.

Definition two is archaic and does not apply.

To be brief, I said exactly what I intended to say, and described matters accurately. StevieJ did make a charge of fault against, did reprimand, reprove, chide, blame, and censure, JimR.

“Such a position is so self-obviously unsupportable that it’s hardly worth the effort to refute.” Yeah.

I’m glad we agree.

Don’t be mad, Neil. I usually enjoy your posts. They are insightful and balanced, but this one somehow came out a bit wrong. > :slight_smile:

No, I got it right, dead on the mark. I’m not angry, just frustrated at being misunderstood.

Something that may be worth explaining is that I live and work in a university environment. Nowadays, people with inconvenient opinions are routinely silenced in such places, and I’ve developed an extremely short fuse with regard to those who think of themselves as the Thought Police.

Let the man speak, and let his words stand or fall of their own merit. Why are we even considering whether or not whistle-makers should do this? There’s no question here.

19

Sorry to cause such a stir. I, like most here, do own and play whistles from least expensive to high-end. I still have most of my Generations purchased in 1972 or so.

My partner Michael, still has the first Clarke he dissected (well un-soldered) to figure out what makes this marvelous instrument tick. And this provided him with the inspiration to make whistles, certainly making the world a little bit better place.

I will admit that I refrain from posting in a lot of discussions, mainly because I don’t want to appear biased. In fact, I’m not! I select an instrument to suit my mood and the situation. Sometimes I really appreciate the tone of my Copelands, and some times I require a more mellow tone.

I thought my post about “taste” was on target. After reading the back and forth about not-expensive whistles vs. expensive ones, I felt, as some others do, that this topic in general is getting a bit worn. Personally, I enjoy discussions about the music and playing so much more.

Finally, I follow this board, when I can, to listen to what this community is saying. And that is time for me to shut-up and listen closely so I can learn where to make improvements. During a visit to Chris Abell’s shop, he mentioned to me that the Internet community is one of many “worlds” of musicians out there and that he try’s to listen to all his customers, many of whom don’t even have computers. Can you believe that!

[ This Message was edited by: jimr on 2002-03-09 00:50 ]

20

Just by way of comparison with other boards in a not dissimilar position:

Charlie Derrington posts on The Mandolin Cafe, Chris Watson posts on the Fender Discussion Page and they seem to have survived the experience without too many battle scars.

Charlie posts as a private individual who has worked for Gibson for many years and knows a lot about Gibson products and mandolin making and playing. The Mandolin Cafe gets no financial support from Gibson that I’m aware of. Chris posts as a spokesperson for Fender and the FDP is (in part) supported financially by Fender. Both seem fairly fair and even handed in their comments and will share their knowledge where appropriate.

The Mandolin Cafe is very lightly moderated (similar to this board), but the FDP is very very heavily moderated and the owner has no hesitation deleting posts that don’t sit well with his interests or politics… but it’s his board so I can live with that. I just don’t post there any more but I do wander through and read the posts.

If whistle makers (and sellers) have a positive contribution to the board I’d welcome them, but as a newbie to the board I’d appreciate anyone with a direct commercial interest identifying themselves as such so I know who they are and what they represent. What I really dislike is seeing threads such as a current thread on the Mandolin Cafe entitled “Retail comments / complaints - check here!” which has the potential to become a huge sledge-fest.