Re: [Harp-L] re: shortly chromatic 3

["Dave Murray" <dmurray777@xxxxxxx>]

> I think that it needs definition.  Terms are not pre-defined.  I can 
> sing, but I can't sing, if you get my drift.  I literally can sing,  but 
> if I were to try singing with a choir it would become quite  obvious that 
> I can't "sing" as they define it.  I think "play" is the  same here.

The Buddha said that we suffer because we crave what we can not satisfy. The 
people who raise the bar are the ones who accept the misery and frustration 
of seeking to do what others say that they can not, and to seek perfection. 
My world is a richer place because they do what they do, and because I can 
be satisfied with something less than unachievable perfection.

This whole discussion is certainly valid, but I do think that we should 
celebrate these people, and not just criticize. I'm not attacking you or 
your point of view, but I would disagree that our world is binary with a 
requirement to trip some flag to trigger a Boolean change of state from 
isn't to is. You are singing, it's just that your singing doesn't reach a 
level that you think is appropriate. That doesn't make you "not singing", 
just "not singing at that level."

> Mostly because I think definitions are worth discussing.  I think  that 
> it's important how this is defined.  It makes a lot of  difference to how 
> the topic is understood.  Secondly, because I can  do both: discuss the 
> definition of what "playing chromatically" means  and debate the failings 
> of this particular style in this context.  In  part because the two are 
> separate issues--related, but distinct.

Debating the failings is valid. To claim that someone isn't playing 
chromatically, or isn't singing (at all) because they don't achieve some 
level that you expect seems a bit much to me. I couldn't win the Daytona 
500, but I drive every day. Am I not driving because I can't win at Daytona?

Peace and music,
Dave