[Harp-L] The best harp player?

[Snaruhn@xxxxxxx]

Hi,

the most questionable thread about the best harp player
started with Stevie Wonder´s recent performance as everybody
knows and caused a lot of more or less clever comments.

I hesitated to spend my 2 cts into the soup until Vern 
and Joe had their little disput about this "IMO", sometimes 
"diminished" to "IMHO".   

Joe:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
 No one should have to add IMO to anything on this list.
 IMO is  assumed. Even if someone is quoting someone else
 that 'other' person  should be assumed as IMO also. 
 Even if you have proof, it's STILL  IMO. Why? Because things
 that had heretofore been accepted as fact have been 
 proven wrong  later. Sooo, the safest thing is: EVERYTHING  is IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well, Joe, I agree that "IMO" is a pleonastic phrase our both
languages has a lot of like "to appear personally" or "the repeat it
once again" ect.  However, I also agree with Vern:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
By assuming that everything is an opinion, you are arbitrarily ruling out 
statements of fact on harp-l and severely curtailing the range of possible 
communication..  Even if the writer is mistaken,  he should be allowed to 
make a statement as fact.  Then if you have contradictory evidence, you can 
present it in an effort to clarify what is true and what is not.  The 
important thing is to keep the discussion about facts dispassionate and free 
of personal insults.  No one should have their feelings hurt when someone 
presents an opposing argument to a statement of fact.  The truth exists 
independently of what anyone thinks about it and it can be eventually found 
by examining the evidence.  The problem arises when someone interprets a 
challenge to their factual statement as a personal insult.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Of course, a scientific fact is an objective statement. So, Joe, you
can´t say that "everything is an opinion". However, sometimes there
are problems to define a "statement of fact". Let´s take our planet earth.

Before Kopernikus found out that the planets move around the sun 
the geocentric system was considered a "scientific fact". One can
now start a long palaver about the definition of "science" but that
doesn´t answer the question why scientific theories constantly
have to be adjusted, corrected or even abolished because they
doesn´t correspond to the facts. But it can also happen that the 
facts had been simply misinterpreted as in the mentioned example.
The "fact" of sunrises and sunsets was clearly understood as the 
journey of the sun around the earth.  
   
Well, what has that all to do with the " best harp player"? A lot of.

Who holds the world-record in 100 meters is doubtless the best
until another one runs faster, of course, provided a stopwatch of
the same precision is applied. Nonetheless, the measured time 
is only a relative "matter of fact" because the "absolute time"
can´t be measured.

But not all sport champions are found out by means of time or
length measuring as facts. A lot of champions are ascertained by 
referees with their often questionable decisions (the many scandals
in figure skating e.g.). This finally leads to the subject question.

There are no physical measuring instruments to classify an artist
but only the complete scale of human irrationalism. It`s relative easy
to distinguish good and better harp players but the more reputation
a player achieves the more the audience is split to nominate a
champion.

Apropos, champion. In former times the harmonica event in Trossingen 
every 4th year was called the World Harmonica Championship and 
Festival. Nowadays it´s a harmonica festival only, Hmmh! 
   
Once, when talking about Larry Adler a harp friend said: Larry Adler, yes,
but his brother Jerry is better than him. Isn´t that funny?

And the same goes for the FAQ for the best harp - there are only good
harps,   IMO!!   

Siegfried







    
    



-