The uses of technology

[Rob Sharer]

Then why drag me into it? Honestly, you'd think the scientifically-minded would be able to assemble a more clear expression of what they're trying to say. I'm having trouble discerning most of the "arguments" here.

No, David, Julia and I are in complete agreement here. Playing long notes and putting your flute through spectral analysis are two different things. One depends on the ear, the other is, well, what is it?

Wasn't comparing your view with Julia's, that quote from Cotter contradicted what Julia said.

[m31]

The following technology has benefited all of us immensely as musicians:

- CDs, mp3s
- The Internet: itunes, Youtube, p2p downloading (tch tch tch)
- Metronomes
- Tuners
- Slow down programs
- PCs / Macs / Linux boxes
- MP3 players, iPods
- cars and other forms of transportation

So if I drive a car then I have to accept the whole canon? This argument is weak. The existence of this stuff is no kind of recommendation for a technologically-focused approach to playing the wooden flute, as opposed to a more organic, music-focused approach such as I am advocating for.

Even the flute itself is a tool; the music exists quite independently of what you're holding in your hands. Obsessing too much about the mechanics of flute-playing is putting the cart before the horse.


Rob

Where did I recommend technology in lieu of teachers, flute friends, sessions, live performance, hajj to Ireland, and beer? We have more choices is all.

Fine if your flute journey must be vegan.

[Rob Sharer]

Fine if your flute journey must be vegan, but don't be bringing your bible to another man's church

I'm sorry, I thought this was an open discussion forum. And let's leave religion out of it, shall we?

I have been speaking out recently because it seems very fashionable hereabouts of late to turn every thread into some sort of pseudo-scientific jargon-fest. Add to that the threads whose agenda seems to be co-option and codification of adjectives, various ways to re-invent the wheel, and po-faced over-mystification of quite simple topics, and I imagine I shall continue to have plenty to say, in my capacity as a perfectly ordinary flute-player who chooses to participate here.


Rob

[m31]

I thought this was an open discussion forum

Agreed! So to that end there are no objections to continue with posting pseudo-scientific gobbledygook -- and corresponding rebuttals of course. Potentially much more interesting than another flute for sale.

[david_h]

Then why drag me into it? Honestly, you'd think the scientifically-minded would be able to assemble a more clear expression of what they're trying to say. I'm having trouble discerning most of the "arguments" here.

Sigh.

Julia was mentioned as the source for the quote because I had not gone back to the original source.
You then dragged Juilia into it by saying you agreed with Julia.
I then pointed out that Julia's quote from Cotter disagreed with what Julia had said because that was relevant to you saying you agreed with Julia.

And I was dragging Cotter into it because your statement was just that, a statement of opinion, not an "argument" . When someone makes dogmatic statements it is hard to question them in a way that cannot be regarded as 'personal sniping'.

[Rob Sharer]

Sigh.

Julia was mentioned as the source for the quote because I had not gone back to the original source. I was dragging Cotter into it because your statement was just that, a statement of opinion, not an "argument" .

When someone makes dogmatic statements it is hard to question them in a way that cannot be regarded as 'personal sniping'.

I think flutlfry may have started this discussion because the other one was getting a bit heated.

David, you and I have indulged in exactly ZERO discussion about this or other versions of this debate. Far as I can tell, you've been stalking me around the forum, adding pissy comments here and there whenever I write something you don't like. I find it ironic that you of all people should be coming after me for sniping.


Rob

[I.D.10-t]

I think flutlfry may have started this discussion because the other one was getting a bit heated.

I thought it was a fork to allow a thread on terms continue without being totally hijacked by the question of relevance of technology, especially technology involved in measuring.

Ooo, just thought of a word, nasal.

[david_h]

Sigh again.

Rob. I am trying to point out that the reason you think people, including me, are sniping at you may be that you keep making statments containing no supporting logic and therefore which can only be replied to by disagreeing with you rather than your argument.

I don't want to trawl back through the threads (thoguh I will if I have to) but, rather than me stalking you, you have been repeatedly popping up in threads where people, including me, have been happily discussing something that you find esoteric and irrelevant and then making comments that contribute nothing to the thread.

I you happen to think that any reference to luddites is aimed at you then that is your problem.

[Julia Delaney]

...it seems very fashionable hereabouts of late to turn every thread into some sort of pseudo-scientific jargon-fest.

That's because it is easier to talk about playing than actually to play well. I suspect that for most posters here, discussing the issue in terms of "scientific jargon" substitutes for time with the flute in hand and to the mouth.

Rob plays beautifully and I think that should be factored into whatever he says. I haven't heard those on the "scientific?" "objectivist?" side of the issue play, so I couldn't say. But I guarantee you that neither Eamonn Cotter nor Matt Molloy (nor Catherine McEvoy, Mike Rafferty, Dr. Colin Hamilton, Garry Shannon, Harry Bradley, Seamus Tansey, et. al. ) have ever done the kinds of spectral analyses of playing adumbrated here. Does anybody think doing so would improve their playing? Do they need it? It might be fun and rewarding in itself but I doubt it makes one a better player. On the net, however, it's easy to claim expertise where none exists, and to make claims suggesting the necessity of understanding the practical implications of theoretical approaches to our music. Jesus... I'm talking like that now.

If what I say seems to be contradictory, and thus dismissed out of hand, so be it. I couldn't care less that you've caught me out. It's your loss.

[Rob Sharer]

Sigh again.

Spare us your world-weariness. Meanwhile, sniping was YOUR word, not mine. What you call "popping up" is what I might call participation. Am I not entitled to my say, regardless of subject, who started the thread or who is participating? Who the hell are you to tell me to keep to my corner?


Rob

[I.D.10-t]

Doesn't this all boil down to what is extraneous information, what is not, and where the lines should be drawn?

Does the history of a tune help one play?
Does knowing the lyrics that were mated with a tune help playing?
Does knowing the history of flute construction aid in playing?
Does it matter what kind of dance some people do to a tune?
Does knowing how the bagpipes are played help playing of the flute?
Does knowing how to read the dots or ABC really contribute anything?

I can see both sides of the argument on whether this knowledge could be helpful or be trivial.

[LorenzoFlute]

Technology may help your playing, or not. Either way, I'm interested in what Terry et all have to say on the matter. I'm aware that people can say what they want on this forum, but maybe sometimes it would be nice to just read a post without having people objecting about its utility (and not about it being right or not), so that then an answer to that will come and all the thread will be hijacted. And people interested in the topic will have to read everything in the hope of finding something interesting hidden somewhere through the off-topic posts...

[david_h]

Meanwhile, sniping was YOUR word, not mine.

My apologies, I miss-remembered, the term was "mean-spirited badgering" and was directed at me by you in a recent discussion.

[Julia Delaney]

Yes Rob, please control your mean-spirited badgers!

Jesus...

[Clinton]