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



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





This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.