I just came across this video tour of the shop where I used to work, which appears to have been posted just last year. A quick forum search seems to indicate it hasn’t been posted here yet, so here you go, I figure it might be interesting some.
It’s actually a fairly long video covering some interesting and rarely seen parts of the process used at the shop, but there are still a great many steps you won’t see. However, for those who watch and listen closely, and who are interested, there are things to be gleaned from the video.
That is a great video. I got to watch it when it was first posted (paddler turned me onto it) and it was a treat. There was indeed much to glean! I was sorry not to see more of the details of the process, but I understand why they would limit the detail around proprietary processes, tooling, etc.. Nonetheless, lots of good stuff to be seen.
I particularly love the somewhat hodge-podge layout of the premises. Makes me feel right at home. I remember seeing photos from the workshop of Tobias Manke (headjoint maker). His website no longer shows the tour photos of the showroom and workshop, but it was unlike anything I’ve ever seen–it really looked like a laboratory of some kind. Gleaming white surfaces and shiny machines. I half expected to see a centrifuge with test tubes in it. Impossible to discern any evidence of work actually being done there . They probably scrubbed the place from floor to ceiling before taking photos, but even so it looked like a strange and sterile place to work–not my cup of tea at all! Whereas the Von Heune workshop felt wonderfully cozy, despite being pretty spacious. What a great place to have studied flute-craft.
Personally I remain convinced that the evolution of any endeavour should be meticulously documented, and have devised a rather ingenious manner by which to achieve this. When one is starting any project, one corner of the room that has been chosen for the fabrication process is decided upon as point of departure.
From there it is all downhill, as they say, with no further effort whatsoever nescessary. Each new stage of manufacture is carried out at the border of the previous effort, which is left as is, and so gradually working one’s way outwards across the room one is left with the whole sequence available for detailed perusal. Only craftsmen (and possibly craftswomen also, although they do tend to be more obsessed with a regimented tidiness) are able to fully understand, in my opinion, how any tool or part can be directly located in the resulting workshop canvas, and so the need to keep its order undisturbed by outside influences of whatever kind. The resulting burden of misunderstanding, of even the mildest accusatory look of reclusiveness or personal rejection, all being part of the toil of producing anything of any value whatsoever, which otherwise tends towards being quite enjoyable for anyone who has found a constructive spirit.
I’m not sure I followed all of that. Starting out it seems that you are speaking to the value of a particular type of organization within a shop. Conceptually, it is an interesting notion, though in practice I’m not sure how many crafts persons would conceive in that particular way. If you have a notion to be a flute maker and you have a preconception of the method you would like to employ, then perhaps you could systematically lay out your shop in such a way as to facilitate a very methodical sequence of activities. Correct me if I have misunderstood your description.
If one is a hobbyist, or if one is a production facility of a certain kind, such an approach might be very efficient. However, speaking as someone who makes a wide variety of woodwinds in a very limited space (16x24 shop), and who always has a bunch of different projects in different states of production, such an approach would be insupportable. And while the methodical method you describe might give the maker a certain vantage point from which to view their process, it is rather idealized, and certainly not a prerequisite for efficient methods.
But I lost you at this point:
It’s a bit abstract, and despite numerous readings, I could make nothing of “The resulting burden of misunderstanding, of even the mildest accusatory look of reclusiveness or personal rejection”
It was tongue in cheek Geoffrey, I was speaking about my own form of “hodge-bodge” layout and “justifying” the merits of that
The resulting burden of misunderstanding is from those who look at the premises as only somewhere someone escapes to, or who are upset for feeling they are rejected from it. It isn’t always that way round though, I could easily imagine someone being told “…how about you try to finish off that flute you were making dear ?”.
It was subtly written maybe but the change in style of writing, I thought, might give away the jest of it.
Not just you I should think, but the speaking of English and any related mischievous scribbling is still permitted as far as I know.
There was a thread somewhere here at chiff about the difference in meanings from across the pond, but in truth you would have to be familiar with both the tone and the sense of jest I am using for it to make proper sense. I don’t know, I have also heard people complain that everything is too serious nowadays, no wrongfun allowed, that everyone is triggered and hypersensitive, that subtle inuendo has been abolished and so on …but I also have some american friends who are very funny at times (even there I might have to explain funny as meaning making us laugh and not out of ridicule of them )… though they left the states quite a while back… but I know they just do not understand certain concepts characteristic of England… just a different wavelength as it were, and even where they are able to picture what a person is saying in the above context they don’t have the base knowledge of why it might be at all funny… I mean not even that recognition that someone is even just trying to make a joke or isn’t being completely serious, whereas others familiar will sense immediately and no matter what is being said that there is an element of jest. It’s no-one’s fault.
I’m afraid you might have taken my misunderstanding as being somehow censorious or critical, and that was not my intent. There is no question of whether personal humor or personal style of expression (or the speaking of English) are “permitted”. And I would like to say that the above sentence that I quoted from your reply does come across as a little bit snarky and sarcastic, even if it is clothed in “humor” . It reminds me a bit of Basil Faulty of Faulty Towers fame, responding to an American who complained about the narrow highways in England: “…yes, well most of the English cars have steering wheels”). Sarcasm, while a common humorous device, is also often rather barbed and meant to poke the recipient in some fashion. I agree with you that there is a lot of hyper-sensitivity about, and that certain types of humor are less in favor as a result, but my own generation precedes this cultural shift. I’m far from being a dour or serious person
And I’m most emphatically not criticizing your post, merely trying to pay you the courtesy of understanding it. And as for interpreting the written word, I would suggest (hopefully also without offense) that it was your syntax and the way you structured your sentences that threw me, not my inability to interpret humor. I’m not blind to the subtle nuances of humor in most forms, though I agree that shades of tone and other subtleties don’t always translate well in writing–hence the value of nanohedron’s suggestions about emoji use . And your follow-up explanation does highlight that your original post was based in part upon what I could only call an implicit (not explicit) “inside joke” that was not perceptible in the subtext: "those who look at the premises as only somewhere someone escapes to, or who are upset for feeling they are rejected from it. It isn’t always that way round though, I could easily imagine someone being told “…how about you try to finish off that flute you were making dear ?”. Clearly I could never have guessed that this was what was in your mind in the original post. But I also know that on forums there is a very conversational way of speaking, and a lot of times folks hammer out a reply and hit the submit button, and posts go up “warts and all”. I was a forum admin for many years on a different site and I’ve seen how often this practice leads to misunderstandings . So when I misunderstood your intended meaning it was directly related to the fact that I couldn’t make sense of a couple of sentences and sought clarification. Even now, as I try to clarify my own meaning I’m conscious of how finicky that process might be (and potentially inflammatory, which is why I’m keen to explain myself).
So no offense is intended by any of this. And I don’t wish to make a mountain from a molehill, either, but I wished to both understand and be understood since I had already (perhaps mistakenly) entered into a dialog about it.
“I would like to say that the above sentence that I quoted from your reply does come across as a little bit snarky and sarcastic..”
That is exactly what I mean, or what you say you don’t mean. There is a “competition” that is known to exist, the notion of an inferiority on the part of america or americans, particularly cultural, which is played out as something along the lines of an arrogant superiority on the part of the british. So I joke about it, because really we are past that I think? I mean American is not English, and an uptight Brit not having that understood is quite funny, if you very dare ? (Note there is an element of jest in that sentence)
I’m actually laughing (ok, smiling) at that whole show, at both sides of it , but instead you seem on guard for if I am causing offence. For example, of an American in Fawlty Towers, he is COMPLAINING of the highways… ! … and he receives an appropriate reply. Though the whole scene is prepared beforehand to cast a certain light on Americans, there is a reason for that and why it is found acceptable as funny, to the British at least . The UK has, and often still tries to, defend itself from Americanisation.
This brings to mind Charles Dickens and his reception by, and view of, the US, which was turbulent, if not also pointedly precise on some matters.
I did not set that phrase on language though as a trap, just a ponderable, to see how it was received, because I don’t find any difficulty mildly or subtly mocking some English attitudes, though not being American I would not mock any offence taken by you. In fact I much appreciate the sincerity and length of your reply, which was why I bothered and bother to explain.
I don’t take you for being dour at all
I have spent a fair amount of time on different forums over the years, and in fact would always use an /s tag, but the thing is here I wasn’t being sarcastic… it is actually how my workshop (if it could be called one), and order of work, is . If I gave a wink it would seem a bit too cozy or odd, so I didn’t include that either. I could have done so for the phrase on language, but decided to leave it open.
The point is maybe , artistic license and all, that I write in the language or style I feel to at that moment. I try not to be misunderstood, but the text is not for those who might misunderstand but for those who might appreciate what is written. I am not a “popularity” sort of person, but don’t mean to offend either…I will set people thinking though, play the polemicist or take a slightly controversial stance…and a reader would not know, but the interpretation would be something of a reflection of their own position and not nescessarily of my making, because I try to and tend to leave any conclusion open.
“Even now, as I try to clarify my own meaning I’m conscious of how finicky that process might be (and potentially inflammatory, which is why I’m keen to explain myself).”
I’m really not much the sort to lose my temper or take offence, quite the opposite, but (unfortunately for some maybe, not meaning you ) I will tend to keep anyone to a point in debate, and sometimes that ends in frustration or humiliation for the other. I don’t mind being corrected at all, but I will argue out the attempt fully beforehand.
“So no offense is intended by any of this.”
No offense was taken at all, I just felt a bit guilty seeing you try to understand what I had written, hoping I hadn’t sort of made an embarrassment of you in some way (and that is not meant in any adhom sort of way).
“And I don’t wish to make a mountain from a molehill, either, but I wished to both understand and be understood since I had already (perhaps mistakenly) entered into a dialog about it.”
Without asking or questioning then a meaning would remain unknown I suppose ? I could easily imagine a less than friendly response some might reply with though, if they felt misinterpreted. That is the funny thing though, some just don’t seem able to stand the idea that anyone else might read what is written differently, and so they immediately take offence as if that new interpretation was a personal attack. That is one reason people tend to end up at odds with each other online, they are in direct contact with others but without the various queues that would govern a conversation, say at a table with people recently introduced.
So from my part it is no worries any of this… well… actually… the picture of trying to explain a joke to someone in a scene in Finding Nemo comes to mind… but then I think what I wrote must have raised a smile for someone somewhere, or if not now then another day, so even that .
I’m only highlighting the above quote for the sake of brevity, since quoting the entire post would just take up a lot of space…
There is no doubt that even among people who share the same language there can be tremendous disconnects in communication. Given my own background I can’t subscribe to the idea that this is based upon anything to do with British versus American cultural differences, and illustrating why that is would just create another cumbersome and off-topic post to further baffle my fellow forum members . You seem to be emphasizing this cultural difference as being important in this instance, but I don’t find the reasoning convincing, and I don’t think that challenging that notion is going to yield any greater understanding. It would be something for a private conversation and not a protracted digression in this setting (i.e. not going to be interesting reading for anyone else and will simply create a massive detour).
But reading your post does remind me that more words does not necessarily mean better understanding (and I’m speaking about my own posts as well). My entire rationale behind this detour from the topic was to try to understand your original post, which I took to be a serious description of something related to the topic of workshops, production methods, etc.. Your explanation of the humor that was intended didn’t necessarily make it any more understandable to me, and quite possibly (given the subjective nature of humor and the limits of the written word) no amount of explanation would make it clearer. And that is perfectly acceptable.
I read somewhere that something like 80% of human communication is non-verbal, which (if accurate) underlines the difficulties that come about when people try to communicate using nothing but written words.
So, as long as all is well and no unintended offense given, that is great. Sometimes that is the best we can hope for
I wonder that, too . It does rather remind me of exchanges I’ve had with customers in China and Taiwan where we are both relying on a translator app. Lot’s of odd sentences and missed meanings. Takes a lot of patience!
"…and so the need to keep its order undisturbed by outside influences of whatever kind. The resulting burden of misunderstanding…[generated by that nescessary exclusion of outside influence ]… [the burden above mentioned] of even the mildest accusatory look of reclusiveness [a look that accuses reclusiveness, obviously due to the exclusive nature of the premises ] or personal rejection [obviously due to personal exclusion] , all being part of the toil of producing anything of any value whatsoever [because it is a weight to carry] , which otherwise [producing anything of any value whatsoever] tends towards being quite enjoyable for anyone who has found a constructive spirit.
It’s frigging English !
A Man’s A Man For A’ That
Robert Burns
Is there for honest Poverty
That hings his head, an’ a’ that;
The coward slave—we pass him by,
We dare be poor for a’ that!
For a’ that, an’ a’ that.
Our toils obscure an’ a’ that,
The rank is but the guinea’s stamp,
The Man’s the gowd for a’ that.
What though on hamely fare we dine,
Wear hoddin grey, an’ a that;
Gie fools their silks, and knaves their wine;
A Man’s a Man for a’ that:
For a’ that, and a’ that,
Their tinsel show, an’ a’ that;
The honest man, tho’ e’er sae poor,
Is king o’ men for a’ that.
Ye see yon birkie, ca’d a lord,
Wha struts, an’ stares, an’ a’ that;
Tho’ hundreds worship at his word,
He’s but a coof for a’ that:
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
His ribband, star, an’ a’ that;
The man o’ independent mind
He looks an’ laughs at a’ that.
A prince can mak a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, an’ a’ that;
But an honest man’s abon his might,
Gude faith, he maunna fa’ that!
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
Their dignities an’ a’ that;
The pith o’ sense, an’ pride o’ worth,
Are higher rank than a’ that.
Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a’ that,)
That Sense and Worth, o’er a’ the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an’ a’ that.
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
It’s coming yet for a’ that,
That Man to Man, the world o’er,
Shall brothers be for a’ that.
I feel it’s time to point out that I didn’t have any trouble with it. Seemed like perfectly good English to me. Might not be your neighborhood’s English, so maybe that’s how the tongue-in-cheek aspect gets lost for some, but sure as I write this: Not all.
Okay, I’ll make a last stab at communication, just in the spirit of finicky-ness
Indeed, the words are English words. And it’s possible that no one had much trouble with it. But it’s also possible that a lot of people “skim” when they read, and perhaps because they suspected you were being tongue-in-cheek, they didn’t expect it to make sense. A bit like reading Lewis Carrol. Because I didn’t get the tongue-in-cheek vibe, I was reading quite intently, trying to understand the entire post, I took note when I ran into that last sentence and was unable to connect the dots. My English comprehension is (if it is not immodest to say so) excellent. I do a lot of reading, I’ve done a lot of writing, and I generally know my way around grammar, syntax, etc.. So when I read that sentence about six times and kept scratching my head, I felt pretty confident that there was something amiss. But I do think it is significant that for the above to have clear meaning you had to provide footnotes within the brackets. If you take those away, your meaning is much less apparent–in fact I would argue that it is entirely absent. I would find it interesting to have some editor examine the quoted sentence without the benefit of those footnotes.
“Even the mildest accusatory look of reclusiveness or personal rejections, all being part of the toil of producing anything of any value whatsoever , which otherwise tends towards being quite enjoyable for anyone who has found a constructive spirit.”
To my eye, that sentence is awkward and incomplete. Without the footnotes it’s meaning is obscure. The middle of the sentence is parenthetical (as in qualifying the first part of the sentence), so if we remove it we have this:
“Even the mildest accusatory look of reclusiveness or personal rejections, which otherwise tends towards being quite enjoyable for anyone who has found a constructive spirit.”
I was unable to grasp what you were trying to say there, and I don’t think it’s because I’m particularly obtuse (debatable)
But you yourself revealed in a previous post WHY the above footnotes are necessary. I’ll explain, but first I’ll provide a brief example.
I was with a friend at one point and we were in company with some other people and my friend made a joke. His joke was referential, meaning that it hinged on a reference to a popular character from a sit-com on T.V. Anyone familiar with the sit-com would immediately get the joke. Unfortunately, his audience was not familiar with it and the joke was just gibberish to them. He was quite amused and thought it very droll, because he knew what was in his head, but they did not. They could tell that he was making a joke. It was obvious that what he was saying was meant to be humorous, but they didn’t get the joke.
When I was unable to glean your meaning, you provided this clarification: The resulting burden of misunderstanding is from those who look at the premises as only somewhere someone escapes to, or who are upset for feeling they are rejected from it. It isn’t always that way round though, I could easily imagine someone being told “…how about you try to finish off that flute you were making dear ?”.
It’s like your original post was a cipher, and a few posts later you provided the key. So yes, you have been speaking English all along, but I would respectfully suggest that it was the structure of your English that was lacking in clarity, coupled with a certain assumption that your audience could read your mind. They are English words, but the way you put them together matters. It was just like my friend’s joke about the sit-com. He knew what he was referencing, so it made perfect sense. In this case, you knew that you were positing the potential existence of some outside viewer who can “look at the premises as only somewhere someone escapes to” or “who are upset by feeling they are rejected from it” and so to you it seemed clear. But as mentioned previously, for some random person reading that sentence, what are the odds that they will guess anything about these premises being seen as a place of escape, or somewhere that someone feels rejected from? That’s a bit of a leap.
So this was my point all along regarding your observations about cultural differences. My entire point was that I was not stumbling over the meaning of your words because you were exhibiting subtle, tongue-in-cheek English humor that might not be as obvious to Americans. I was stumbling over your actual syntax as described above. I grew up on a steady and immersive diet of all things English (my parents were Anglophiles). From the time I was in grade school it was all Monty Python, P.G. Wodehouse, and every BBC show that would get air time over here. So “English humor” is not something I have to stretch to comprehend, rather it is the foundation of my own sense of humor.
And the reason that I was taking pains to explain myself was because I had the sensation that my failure to get the joke, even after you explained yourself, might have made you feel that you were being censored. Your remarks did rather give that impression: “…but the speaking of English and any related mischievous scribbling is still permitted as far as I know.” This is fairly mild in the world of sarcasm, and is probably meant to be a humorous “quip”. But my point is that sarcasm, even in it’s mildest form, is meant to convey a taunt of some kind (by definition). It’s a type of hitting back, sort of reverse-ridicule. A bit of reductio ad absurdum, suggesting that by my not understanding you, that I am somehow saying you shouldn’t be allowed to speak English or express humor. That was what I was pointing to when I quoted that Faulty Towers episode. It wasn’t whether his remark was the appropriate way to deal with a complaining American, it was whether that bit of sarcasm was a way of expressing irritation.
Anyway, I’ll let it be now for the sake of the OP, which is why we all came here in the first place. I would venture that if any further discussion or clarification is desired, it can be done via PM, otherwise this thing can just grow and grow.
. They probably scrubbed the place from floor to ceiling before taking photos, but even so it looked like a strange and sterile place to work–not my cup of tea at all! Whereas the Von Heune workshop felt wonderfully cozy, despite being pretty spacious. What a great place to have studied flute-craft.
