Re: Bluesharp Tone

[Ron/datadigr <rdg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I hate to flog a dead horse but...

Friday, January 24, 2003, 6:31:46 PM, Robb wrote:

RB> It means, ~having  more than one meaning~, and that is
RB> exactly what has  gone awry with this thread. Everyone
RB> feels comfortable  to take whatever definition they want
RB> to make their point.

And that's a problem because???? Your suggestion, as helpully as you
may intend it, is simply to take the one of the four or five meanings
in, say, the list you found, and you ask of us that it only
be used as _you_ would wish--so it's clear in _your_ head. Cool.

But that's not a problem with the thread. The problem with the thread
is your insistence that, among the varied meanings, you only wish us
use and mean the one you want, and to agree that the tone that you
feel is good is the "objectively" good tone. Our refusal to do that
bugs you for some reason.

RB> Some, for who knows what reason, are using it?s
RB> ambiguity to suggest that ~diatonic harp tone can
RB> NEVER [as in, ~I Dare You To Cross This Line~] be
RB> limited to saying there is any true good or bad tone~

Sure there can be good or bad tone, really truly good or bad
tone--it's just that _you_ don't get to define it for everyone. No one
does.

Do you know what a dyslexic is? Do you know what colour blindness is?
What makes you think that everyone's ears and hearing (let alone
taste) is so similar (when other senses, like vision run a real bell
curve) that an objective "good tone for everyone" is even
possible to describe, let alone attain. We all _hear_ differently,
Robb.

And then even those times when we might be hearing things exactly the
same way, we don't always _like_ the same thing. Now, just answer
this...why in the world should someone be told that they have to
describe a sound they don't _like_ as "good tone"???

Ron/datadigr