David, you and I have indulged in exactly ZERO discussion about this or other versions of this debate. Far as I can tell, you’ve been stalking me around the forum, adding pissy comments here and there whenever I write something you don’t like. I find it ironic that you of all people should be coming after me for sniping.
Rob
I think flutlfry may have started this discussion because the other one was getting a bit heated.
I thought it was a fork to allow a thread on terms continue without being totally hijacked by the question of relevance of technology, especially technology involved in measuring.
Ooo, just thought of a word, nasal.
Sigh again.
Rob. I am trying to point out that the reason you think people, including me, are sniping at you may be that you keep making statments containing no supporting logic and therefore which can only be replied to by disagreeing with you rather than your argument.
I don’t want to trawl back through the threads (thoguh I will if I have to) but, rather than me stalking you, you have been repeatedly popping up in threads where people, including me, have been happily discussing something that you find esoteric and irrelevant and then making comments that contribute nothing to the thread.
I you happen to think that any reference to luddites is aimed at you then that is your problem.
…it seems very fashionable hereabouts of late to turn every thread into some sort of pseudo-scientific jargon-fest.
That’s because it is easier to talk about playing than actually to play well. I suspect that for most posters here, discussing the issue in terms of “scientific jargon” substitutes for time with the flute in hand and to the mouth.
Rob plays beautifully and I think that should be factored into whatever he says. I haven’t heard those on the “scientific?” “objectivist?” side of the issue play, so I couldn’t say. But I guarantee you that neither Eamonn Cotter nor Matt Molloy (nor Catherine McEvoy, Mike Rafferty, Dr. Colin Hamilton, Garry Shannon, Harry Bradley, Seamus Tansey, et. al. ) have ever done the kinds of spectral analyses of playing adumbrated here. Does anybody think doing so would improve their playing? Do they need it? It might be fun and rewarding in itself but I doubt it makes one a better player. On the net, however, it’s easy to claim expertise where none exists, and to make claims suggesting the necessity of understanding the practical implications of theoretical approaches to our music. Jesus… I’m talking like that now.
If what I say seems to be contradictory, and thus dismissed out of hand, so be it. I couldn’t care less that you’ve caught me out. It’s your loss.
Spare us your world-weariness. Meanwhile, sniping was YOUR word, not mine. What you call “popping up” is what I might call participation. Am I not entitled to my say, regardless of subject, who started the thread or who is participating? Who the hell are you to tell me to keep to my corner?
Rob
Doesn’t this all boil down to what is extraneous information, what is not, and where the lines should be drawn?
Does the history of a tune help one play?
Does knowing the lyrics that were mated with a tune help playing?
Does knowing the history of flute construction aid in playing?
Does it matter what kind of dance some people do to a tune?
Does knowing how the bagpipes are played help playing of the flute?
Does knowing how to read the dots or ABC really contribute anything?
I can see both sides of the argument on whether this knowledge could be helpful or be trivial.
Technology may help your playing, or not. Either way, I’m interested in what Terry et all have to say on the matter. I’m aware that people can say what they want on this forum, but maybe sometimes it would be nice to just read a post without having people objecting about its utility (and not about it being right or not), so that then an answer to that will come and all the thread will be hijacted. And people interested in the topic will have to read everything in the hope of finding something interesting hidden somewhere through the off-topic posts…
My apologies, I miss-remembered, the term was “mean-spirited badgering” and was directed at me by you in a recent discussion.
Yes Rob, please control your mean-spirited badgers!
Jesus…
Let’s expand the scope a bit. Is it any more un/acceptable to discuss
- Rudallphilia
- Olwellmania
- Wilkes-waiting-lists
- Ebay price watch?
How do these make a better player? If anything, these are the topics that give the false impression that a pricey or big-name flute makes the player.
That’s because it is easier to talk about playing than actually to play well. I suspect that for most posters here, discussing the issue in terms of “scientific jargon” substitutes for time with the flute in hand and to the mouth.
Well you’re reading these threads too right? FWIW, sometimes I practice while reading this forum.
It all falls under the umbrella term “Flute Forum” though doesn’t it.