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

["Dave Murray" <dmurray777@xxxxxxx>]

JR Ross:
> No, it means that I am not singing as defined by that context.   That's 
> the key word: context.  I can obviously sing, but not in the  context of a 
> choir or the like.  It's not "at that level", it's  rather that I am not 
> doing it within the given context.

You must have never been is one of the country churches in the Ozarks that I 
was in in my youth. I have no doubt that you could sing with them. Would you 
tell the nice small church Baptists that they are "not singing" because they 
are not at the level that you set for singing of choirs? Your context 
implies a certain level, that you set.

JR Ross:
> Of course you're driving, but are you racing?  Note the difference.   You 
> are driving, but in the context of Nascar, you aren't driving.

You've never seen me drive to work :0)

JR Ross:
> Part of the problem is that we use the same word for all of this.   "Play" 
> is a great verb, but the fact that both Allen Iverson and I  "play" 
> basketball seems to be more than a bit over-arching.

Why? My daughter plays basketball on a girls JV team. She's no Allen 
Iverson. Would you say that she is not playing basketball? I'm not trying to 
be argumentative, but I think that you should consider that what you are 
calling context is setting the bar at an elite level and then saying that 
people who don't make it to that level are not doing what they are doing at 
all. Play is a verb, as you say. It does not imply the level of play without 
other words to establish that.

I play the harmonica. No doubt, my playing is poor and would not approach 
your standards. But telling me that I am not playing the harp because I'm 
not at the level that you establish is actually insulting. I'm a bit too 
thick skinned to care, but it is. There is no flame in that.

Peace and music,
Dave