The recusal of Whistlesmiths (was "Let's do it: Musican vs C

chas · Post by **chas** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 5:31 pm

I agree with those who've said they like and appreciate the posts and knowledge imparted by some of the whistlesmiths on the board. Some seem to stay entirely out of discussions of specific whistles, and even the high end/low end debate. Others don't. Just like the rest of us. If you read the board for awhile, you'll know who the whistle makers are, and you'll also know who speaks honestly and who has an axe to grind.

Now, I see one possible drawback to whistle smiths being active on the board. I wonder how open a discussion we can have about a maker's whistles when we know he'll read all the remarks. I know that if I found a maker's whistles to be crap, I'd hold my tongue rather than say so to the whole group.

I think the benefit vastly outweighs the possible drawback, though. I've mailed people offlist to ask about the whistles made by a frequent contributor, and I've had people mail me about some that they knew I had.

Charlie

DrRichard · Post by **DrRichard** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 9:27 pm

On 2002-03-08 18:31, chas wrote:
Now, I see one possible drawback to whistle smiths being active on the board. I wonder how open a discussion we can have about a maker's whistles when we know he'll read all the remarks. I know that if I found a maker's whistles to be crap, I'd hold my tongue rather than say so to the whole group.

I'm not sure about this; I think that if you'
ve got something genuine to say, you believe it, and you're not saying it in order just to wound, why not just say it? Perhaps you could save someone the same mistake you made in your purchase!

Good reviews and open (but polite) speech I think will drive up the quality of whistle making in general, and I must say that most of the makes here seem to see criticism as an opportunity if not to improve designs, but at least understand their customer base more!

Richard

ndjr · Post by **ndjr** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 11:27 pm

On 2002-03-08 17:21, Bloomfield wrote:

Tell me, who is proposing that "the fact someone makes whistles means he shouldn't speak his mind in this forum"?

In the thread from which this was derived, JimR offered his rather mild sentiments on a topic, and was told in essence by StevieJ that he shouldn't have done so based on his occupation as a whistle-maker. It seems rather plain to me.

Mail me your address, I'll send you a dictonary so you can refresh you memory on the (admittedly subtle) differences between "inappropriate" and "reprehensible".

I'll save you the trouble. It happens that I'm well acquainted with the difference. Here's what my dictionary gives for the word "reprehensible," which is derived from:

rep're-hend', v.t.; 1. To make charge of fault against; to reprimand; reprove; chide; blame; censure.

Definition two is archaic and does not apply.

To be brief, I said exactly what I intended to say, and described matters accurately. StevieJ did make a charge of fault against, did reprimand, reprove, chide, blame, and censure, JimR.

"Such a position is so self-obviously unsupportable that it's hardly worth the effort to refute." Yeah.

I'm glad we agree.

Don't be mad, Neil. I usually enjoy your posts. They are insightful and balanced, but this one somehow came out a bit wrong.

No, I got it right, dead on the mark. I'm not angry, just frustrated at being misunderstood.

Something that may be worth explaining is that I live and work in a university environment. Nowadays, people with inconvenient opinions are routinely silenced in such places, and I've developed an extremely short fuse with regard to those who think of themselves as the Thought Police.

Let the man speak, and let his words stand or fall of their own merit. Why are we even considering whether or not whistle-makers should do this? There's no question here.

jimr · Post by **jimr** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 11:47 pm

Sorry to cause such a stir. I, like most here, do own and play whistles from least expensive to high-end. I still have most of my Generations purchased in 1972 or so.

My partner Michael, still has the first Clarke he dissected (well un-soldered) to figure out what makes this marvelous instrument tick. And this provided him with the inspiration to make whistles, certainly making the world a little bit better place.

I will admit that I refrain from posting in a lot of discussions, mainly because I don't want to appear biased. In fact, I'm not! I select an instrument to suit my mood and the situation. Sometimes I really appreciate the tone of my Copelands, and some times I require a more mellow tone.

I thought my post about "taste" was on target. After reading the back and forth about not-expensive whistles vs. expensive ones, I felt, as some others do, that this topic in general is getting a bit worn. Personally, I enjoy discussions about the music and playing so much more.

Finally, I follow this board, when I can, to listen to what this community is saying. And that is time for me to shut-up and listen closely so I can learn where to make improvements. During a visit to Chris Abell's shop, he mentioned to me that the Internet community is one of many "worlds" of musicians out there and that he try's to listen to all his customers, many of whom don't even have computers. Can you believe that!

[ This Message was edited by: jimr on 2002-03-09 00:50 ]

Mastersound · Post by **Mastersound** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 2:14 am

Just by way of comparison with other boards in a not dissimilar position:

Charlie Derrington posts on The Mandolin Cafe, Chris Watson posts on the Fender Discussion Page and they seem to have survived the experience without too many battle scars.

Charlie posts as a private individual who has worked for Gibson for many years and knows a lot about Gibson products and mandolin making and playing. The Mandolin Cafe gets no financial support from Gibson that I'm aware of. Chris posts as a spokesperson for Fender and the FDP is (in part) supported financially by Fender. Both seem fairly fair and even handed in their comments and will share their knowledge where appropriate.

The Mandolin Cafe is very lightly moderated (similar to this board), but the FDP is very very heavily moderated and the owner has no hesitation deleting posts that don't sit well with his interests or politics... but it's his board so I can live with that. I just don't post there any more but I do wander through and read the posts.

If whistle makers (and sellers) have a positive contribution to the board I'd welcome them, but as a newbie to the board I'd appreciate anyone with a direct commercial interest identifying themselves as such so I know who they are and what they represent. What I really dislike is seeing threads such as a current thread on the Mandolin Cafe entitled "Retail comments / complaints - check here!" which has the potential to become a huge sledge-fest.

tuaz · Post by **tuaz** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 2:45 am

I don't have a problem with whistlemakers posting, nor with them not stating their status. They're just fellow and equal members of this community. If their own sense of honour makes them declare their self-interest in a particular topic, better still. It can only increase the regard people have for them.

I'm only uncomfortable about overt or thinly-veiled commercial posts.

ErikT · Post by **ErikT** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 6:48 am

A couple of things:

Some interesting thoughts. Thanks everyone for posting.

For myself, I try to limit my whistle critiques to mass produced whistles. Since they are generally considered two different animals, this seems a fair division to me. Afterall, I am a bit of a collector - but not really high end whistles, though I have some. I collect very inexpensive whistles - I like my African, Yugoslavian, Hungarian, Peruvian, Polish, Israeli, Romanian, Chinese, and Indian (etc) whistles as much as I like any of my more expensive ones (like an Oak or Generation). To me, they seem to have more character (as far as collecting is concerned) than that developed when compressing plastic in a mold. That said, I have a fair number of those too

Oh alright, I've got a lot of them!

I also don't mind commenting on technique (though my advice is pretty worthless in the Irish realm) and areas of other such opinions. But I try to keep silent, or at least positive, when another maker's whistles are in question.

Even in general I suppose we tend to be nice to people when we know that they're listening. Knowing that makers are listening and participating certainly has an effect on the polity of the board. We are more likely to temper our comments than we might be otherwise. This is both good and bad.

It is good in that it fosters polite communication. Rather than swearing up and down about the rotten whistle that was just received, we probably speak more kindly.

This is bad in that this kindness sometimes masks systemic problems within the whistle or the quality of customer service, etc. Like Jim, I would prefer that the exchange take place in an honest way so that I can learn what I can without having to peel off two layers of kindness to get to the issue. I'm not advocating rudeness, however. It is one thing to say, "I believe there is a problem with such and such," but quite another to say, "What a worthless whistle - a bird couldn't make this piece of junk sing."

Over at woodenflute there are several makers that are very active. Their flutes are rarely discussed and when they are I don't really hear any negative comments. Perhaps they're just that good, or perhaps there is some level of openness sacrificed when the makers have a large voice within the community. (They also tend to have less discussions on the equipment than we do, so maybe that influences things as well).

Well, I don't know that I added much to this discussion, but to summarize my thoughts, I tend to treat the forum this way: If your mother bakes a cake and leaves out the sugar I don't know anyone that would shout, "You're a worthless cook!" More likely you would point out her mistake gently and then laugh about it later. If she continued to do it and every cake she made tasted like salted paper, you'd probably stop eating them and would let your friends know that while you love your mom, they probably shouldn't eat her cake either. But all done in a spirit of love. (but then I AM a Bible thumper)

Erik

[ This Message was edited by: ErikT on 2002-03-09 07:50 ]

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 8:02 am

I think one can say pretty straightforwardly
what's the matter with a whistle in
a matter of fact way. The high end
of Acme whistles is quite shrill, the
bell note weak, and the C sharp is
flat. That's why I don't like em.

That sort of report is to be encouraged,
for the benefit of all--of course
such a report may be controversial,
also to the benefit of all. I would
like more of that.

I leave it to whistlesmiths to decide
when they should or shouldn't post--
as far as I'm concerned as long as
they stay within Dale's guidelines,
it's fine with me; indeed, welcome.

And what I would hope, given all
this intelligence from all involved,
is that we'll put the best construction
we can on what people post, err on
the side of inclusion, err on the
side of not questioning people's
motives--unless something really
egregious is going on. My 2 cents.

Mack.Hoover · Post by **Mack.Hoover** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 8:32 am

When you enlarge the hole the pitch goes higher. Lowering the pitch is a trade secret.

Mack

ndjr · Post by **ndjr** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 9:43 am

On 2002-03-09 -9:02, jim stone wrote:

And what I would hope, given all
this intelligence from all involved,
is that we'll put the best construction
we can on what people post, err on
the side of inclusion, err on the
side of not questioning people's
motives--unless something really
egregious is going on. My 2 cents.

I've always thought it was rude to take offense when none was intended.

Kelhorn Mike · Post by **Kelhorn Mike** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 10:59 am

With "Susato" brand whistles now being over
50% of our total business I feel it is
important to monitor this board and see
what people are saying and I do so 3 to
4 times a week and I do care and hear what people are saying about our whistles and
some other topics on the board are of
interest to me as well. I'm all for
a very open forum and it seems it has
been for the most part. I don't post a
lot but if I feel misinformation is
circulating and it certainly does at
times I will speak out. We all should
just think hard about what we say in
a public forum and how we say it
before we say it. I know it's terribly
idealistic of me human nature being
what it is but let's all try to keep
ego's in check. My 3 cents worth.

Kelhorn Mike

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 11:10 am

Neil, a quick OT comment
on your earlier post about people
with inconvenient views getting silenced
in academia--my conservative political
and social views nearly
cost me my job. My wife, also a philosopher,
has kept her views secret from her
colleagues. Sad that
the place we have reserved as an oasis
for free discussion is arguably the
single most dangerous place
in the USA to think for oneself! Best

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 1:14 pm

On 2002-03-09 00:27, ndjr wrote:

Something that may be worth explaining is that I live and work in a university environment. Nowadays, people with inconvenient opinions are routinely silenced in such places, and I've developed an extremely short fuse with regard to those who think of themselves as the Thought Police.

Does it strike anybody else as ironic that it is SteveJ who gets saddled with a Thought-Police tag here?

Steve was responding to JimR, who had not participated once in a 7-page thread and who was now telling us to take a break from it. Steve did not "make a charge of fault against, reprimand, reprove, chide, blame, and censure"

against JimR, but merely said:

StevJ wrote:
On 2002-03-08 00:59, jimr wrote:
It's time to take a break and play some music.
Jim Rementer
Excuse me, Jim, but your post would appear to be an attempt to curtail the discussion. Coming from you, in view of the nature of the discussion, this is hardly appropriate.

It's hard to put it any more mildly, I think. Neil, if you are concerend about the free expression of opinions it seems to me that you should welcome SteveJ sentiment to not take a break from an interesting discussion, simply because it might be unwelcome to a high-end whistlesmith.

(It also seems to me that an unhampered flow of ideas is encouraged by reserving strong terms, like reprehend, for strong cases. A mouse is not an elephant even though both are quadruped land-dwelling mammals.)

Two general points:
1) I like it when whistlesmiths post and I encourage them to do more of it and not to worry about saying something they shouldn't: The board can make up it's own mind as this little episode shows. I particularly like substantive posts.
2) The verb "recuse" has consistently been used incorrectly here. Only judges are either recused by their peers or recuse themselves. I would hope that whistlesmiths and judges are not set in one on this board.

_________________
/bloomfield

[ This Message was edited by: Bloomfield on 2002-03-09 14:20 ]

ErikT · Post by **ErikT** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 1:41 pm

Actually, anyone who might be in a position of a conflict of interest can recuse themselves. Sitting on town boards as an architect I have had to officially recuse myself from debates inwhich I might have a vested interest.

In this case, whistlemakers on a whistle board do indeed have a vested interest as architects on planning boards often do as well.

Erik

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 1:50 pm

This is really a wild tangent, I realize. But Anglo-American legal terminology reserves "recuse" for judges. That does not mean that others do not have conflicts of interests that would disqualify them or lead to their abstaining from votes. IIRC, German uses the term Befangenheit exclusively for judges. (and interestingly, but also iirc, German judges cannot recuse themselves but must be recused by the court.) But after the ebay-transcription discussion I'd rather not get into a legal discussion.

_________________
/bloomfield

[ This Message was edited by: Bloomfield on 2002-03-09 14:52 ]