I had the following e-mail from an anonymous visitor to my site - http://www.worldfiddlemusic.co.uk/ . I knew it was only a matter of time before I received something offensive (the internet and all that....), but what puzzled me was the person's motive for writing it. Was it someone with a strict mind for the 'pure drop' only, was it resentment, did they just want to annoy, or what? They simply filled in the feedback form, gave no name or e-mail address (except to say from WI, USA ). It's not in my nature to wind people up, but I seem to have done it to this one.
Any thoughts? (E-mail follows....)
*********************************************************
"You should not be presenting yourself as an experienced fiddler because you are clearly not. You're ornamentation is poor and inconsistant, you use mostly separate bows, the music has absolutely no flow. All you have the right to teach is correct posture. So get this ridiculous hobby of yours off the internet and leave the teaching for people who know what they're doing. What a disaster it would be if the future generation of Irish fiddlers played like you. I have nothing against beginning musicians, only those who suffer the delusion that they are good."
**************************************************************
*shrug* i'd say just take it for what it is and that's it, Jim. It's only one person's opinion, and obviously lots of people wouldn't agree with it.
As for motive, I'd say probably they think you stink, think you're doing the tradition harm, and they want you to take your site down. *grin*
You already know I don't think you stink, that I think the tradition has it in it to absorb all kinds of different styles, and I think it's great you've got the site up. I assume that you're going to find MY opinion much more important than this person's right? hehehe
Jim, I got an email just like that the other day. There's something in the water. Just steer well clear of these madmen and try to avoid getting poisoned yourself.
An observation, though: people who feel the need to attack other people's self-confidence are *always* lacking it themselves. There's nothing more infuriating to an insecure person than seeing someone *just like them* (by whatever standards they fear they are judged by everyone else) trucking along looking completely free of self-doubt. Once you understand this the attacks aren't nearly as effective.
I've been fending off these wackos since kindergarten. The only similarity they have is that it is always someone I've never even noticed before saying my very existence makes them angry, and that it's my fault.
I would also comment that the ability to play and the ability to teach are two different things altogether.
I'm not a filddler and the clips are too short for me to comment in any meaningful way on your playing but if you are teaching - keep it up. Students will always find their own way.
I know of a couple of great teachers over here that are not exactly genius players but they have produced some of the finest young talent in the country with some of their pupils winning the All ireland.
WI?
Isn't that the Women's Institute?
They come round here somtimes, setting up stalls by the lock, peddling their cakes and 'jam' to unsuspecting passers by, and posing for their wretched topless calendars (Yawn). Just tip us the wink and I'll go down with a couple of the lads and tip their trestles into the Thames .....
I must agree with Kerri, Robby and Zina. I wouldn't give any credence to anonymous criticism. If this guy really felt he had a valid point, why wouldn't he identify himself? Just like having a thick skin is necessary to get out and play this music, so is it needed to put yourself out on a website. BTW - I think your site is great! Keep up the good work.
Wisconsin? Probably has cheese and sausage of the arteries, especially one going to his brain, plus blood alcohol level off the meter (you go from blood alcohol level to alcohol blood level). I think you announced this web site here and I looked it over. I can give you the same feedback : its a great idea. Don't get discouraged. Best Wishes!
I'm a frequent visitor to your site and love it. I take private fiddle lessons but when I'm home and my teacher isn't there I use your site for a little refresher if needed.
There's an old saying......when the student is ready the teacher will appear. How true. Your site has helped me a great deal.
I always look forward to the updates to your site.
Thanks
Mary
Looks like a poison pen job to me, Jim. Bad-tempered, vindictive, and IMHO inaccurate. You have a great site and I think both your teaching method and your technical ability are just fine. Don't let him, her, or it get to you.
Motive? Insecurity, envy, bad hair incarnation, who knows? Don't worry about it, just keep on with what you've been doing.
I get email like that too I'm afraid, and from people who had to go to some trouble to even find out what my email address is.
See my post regarding Slashdot in the Slow mp3s For Learning thread, and there are a few other niche fields where I'm quite well known.
It's part and parcel of being a public personality I'm afraid. I don't like it much myself, contributing to my low "profile."
Nobody (sane) really likes to be hated, but just let the hate mail roll off your back the best you can. These people are *usually* harmless creeps resorting to such because in any actual face to face confrontation they'd just p** their pants.
Wait'll you start getting "groupies" though. Some of those people can be frickin' scary.
"I assume that you're going to find MY opinion much more important than this person's right?"
You and I are completely together on this one, Zina.
I'd have to echo Kerri's comments, and would add that he probably wears size 5 shoes and drives a Ford F350 4x4 crew cab......with dually's. Sheesh, get a life, Bub.
This past Sat I went to visit the new MOMA in NYC - this is the Museum of Modern Art. There are always some resentful people who walk around muttering "I could have done it and *better*. This is crap and should not be displayed etc". They are either jealous because someone else *actually* invested themselves in the process, promoted themselves and got to show their stuff, or they lack the understanding of why art is on display in the first place. Of course I am not calling this music modern art, but I see and hear this all the time and it really bothers me.
Jim - keep up the good work! The fact that you are putting this effort into the web site is not lost. Many people will benefit from it and your playing will too.
Jim, what you are doing for us is great. I've personally used your site on a number of occaisions and have already learned multitudes of things. I'm greatful there is someone out there who can deliver this kind of knowledge. Keep it up and forget about the idiots... hey! maybe it was that Seamus character with the flute and the big ego
You people have something against beer, cheese and sausage? Talk about poison pens!
If the writer of the email has such a problem with Jim's site, why not use that energy to create another site? If their opinion is that valued, then why not put it out there for all to see?
If that is not worth their effort, then leave Jim alone.
Since we're sharing, this is what I got the other day (thanks to the never-before-abused fact that people are able to contact me through my membership on this site):
The email was fairly long and detailed, but the jist of it was this:
"I don't really mind about the music itself, I've got a problem about your overall attitude. You really strike like someone who doesnt give a sh*te about other musicians' music."
And this is what I felt was the appropriate response:
"Your email is ridiculous. I hope you kept a copy of it so that if you ever grow up you can look back at and laugh at yourself.
Thanks for adding some excitement to an otherwise boring work day."
K
Anyway, that's what started it. Then it went on and on and on and on, and now it looks like I'm getting a free pint out of the deal. (goes to show you I know how to turn an ugly situation to my advantage).
In the end, the guy figured out that he is angry, frustrated, much too picky about the musical company he keeps, insecure about how he is perceived by "better" musicians, and that he lashed out at me a little more viciously than he intended. We had to work hard to get there, though. Too hard for my taste.
In the middle of it all I had this really wierd dream where I was at a session with every musician in the city whose playing blows me away. It was a WICKED session. Unbelievable. The music was incredible, and everyone was getting along. Then this really nice girl I know came up and said in an ominous voice "You know this won't last, don't you?"
Plus, the whole time, I wasn't wearing any pants, and Nicholas Williams kept shaking his head at me all full of pity and saying "Man, we've got to get you some underwear!"
LOL.
Also, my shoulder muscles are unusually tense and I've been having trouble sleeping. Look, what I'm trying to say is; this stuff hurts no matter how stupid it is to an objective outsider. When it happens to you, try dissociating a little and asking yourself what the effects have been. I have much more tension, fear, mistrust, sleeplessness, and insecurity after interacting this guy than I did before.
Now the question I'm asking myself is: Do I want to be a person who makes people feel these things? If not, there is no reason to integrate any of his attitudes, opinions, or criticisms into my world view. I'll stick with "live and let live".
Who appointed this jerk to the "Internet Police"? Be interesting to hear him/her play something. Just more "sp*m", Jim. Your site's great--thanks for all your efforts!
Mike
I spend hours winding people up, and it sometimes works, even got Jack Gilder calling me rude the other day. At my size and weight, and still as unmarked and handsome as Ali, I must have a talent for it.
But hate mail. There is only one reason for hate mail, and only one way to deal with this particular piece of hate mail.
Jim, you MUST learn how to cope with jealous people. The best way is usually a casual "How would you know" response. Works wonders on jealous people. And Jim, you yourself know the truth, and that's what matters.
Kerri, we'd NEVER criticize you for playing at our session with no pants.
Promise!
Jim, seriously though. If this bloke/blokette had the courage of his convictions, he'd have identified himself.
Your site is great, and is a fantastic complement to this one.
Mark
It is funny that this type of message is always ' anonymous'. If the sender was really a serious critic, surely he/she would be happy to leave a 'private' message and be willing to show you where you are going wrong......................if he/she thinks THEY are so much better, then why don't they set up a site to show it better.
Jim, for anyone who has a site you will get a few nutters replying, so concentrate on the hundreds of very happy and grateful people out there. It is a great site, and I recently passed it on to a friend of mine in china, who could never find a teacher out here...............so it is helping All corners of the world !!
Its just one persons opinion and nothing more. That person has a right to express their opinions just like the rest of us. This is what happens when you throw yourself to the mercy of the general public. You can't please all the people all the time.
If he/she really doesn't like the site or your playing then so what. I don't think anybody should be knocked for tendering an opinion even if they don't idenify themselves, after all hundreds of opinions are posted here each week from people with no profiles.
I have never listened to your site samples so I can't comment on how good or bad they may be. But if I thought that they are bad then I would let you know and indeed if I thought they are doing the tradition an injustice I would again let you know. I feel it is the responsibility of eveybody to give a true opinion wheather it is negitive or postive. How could you improve your site if you didn't get genuine critism?
The person who sent the mail to you seems to have very strong convictions about the music and you will find a lot like that and its no big deal.
John, I think yer man is fair game. We have equal rights to critique his communication style as he has to giving anonymous opinions about Jim's site.
Sure, everyone has a right to their opinion, but I disagree with the anonymity. If you are going to tell someone off directly, with mail to their "home", then take credit for it. Otherwise, you water down your statements by not putting your personal weight behind it. I value your opinion more because you have put your name behind it.
Also, I think that a place like this site is a little different, because it is more public, and a person has the opportunity to respond directly.
The mail was not sent to his home but only to a computer which hosts a website that Jim choose to put up to provide a service to internet users world wide. Like any service you will have the bad response and in this case the majority, good response.
Just because you have a user name "jode" and a few lines of text in your profile it doesn't make me know who you are. 99% of users on this site are indeed anomymous. How many people here would submit their email to jeremy's database if it was not a requirement of membership?
All websites are public as that is the very nature of the net and to suggest otherwise is maddness.
I first seen Jims site when he put it up late last year and I liked it, I will return there very soon to listen to the files to see if mister X has any merit to be a critic, if I don't like what I hear or think its inaccurate I will tell Jim, that much is certain.I have a slow connection so I don't tend to listen to anything on the net.
The point I was making is that one can voice any opinion about anything in the public domain and should not be battered to death for it. Freedom of speech is gareenteed to all free countries and so it should be. The guy who made the comments to jim "choose" to remain in the dark. This to, is his right as Jims site could or should have mandatory fields in the comment reply box. But seeing as it didn't then Mister X had a right to leave out his name and email.
"The point I was making is that one can voice any opinion about anything in the public domain and should not be battered to death for it. Freedom of speech is gareenteed to all free countries and so it should be."
To the extent to which I may be accused of "battering" this person I have done so entirely withing the confines of his own freedom of speech to batter Jim.
If I should so choose (and please note that I have made no statement that I do) to hold and voice the opinion that his lack of attaching an indentifying mark to his opinion is the act of a craven, that too is protected by the same rights that allow said person to hold and express the opinion that Jim isn't an experienced fiddler and that his site sucks.
The sword has two edges.
"Surly you don't think my real name is CompaqJohn?"
It is your real mark, and so long as you do not use it in an attempt commit an act of fraud in my state would count as a legally valid name, yes. The legal milage of your political local may vary.
Jim,
If I were to want to criticize you or anyone else, I would try and say what was wrong and what should be done in my opinion. This person is just taking a cheap shot and running for cover of anonymity. Yes, on a public website they have the right to do so.
You on the other hand feel worried that maybe some others feel like this too. And that is why it is important for me and so many others before me to reassure you that you are making a very positive contribution through your website.
If and when people outgrow what your site can offer they will hopefully be able to find a local teacher that can help them take the next step.
Keep up the good work.
BTW: I always thought Compaqjohn was Littlejohn's slightly bigger brother.
When I first read the critical email, I immediately waffled. They guy's entitled to his opinions, and at least he gave specifics--whether or not you agree with him, he was very clear about what he sees as the shortcomings in Jim's playing. If those criticisms were leveled at my playing (which indeed they could be), they'd sting like hell, but at least I'd have some meat to chew on, something specific to make my own decisions about whether my ornaments, bowing, and flow needed work. It may not be polite, but it's also not totally unconstructive criticism (assuming there's any accuracy in it).
What bothered me though was this guy's first line about Jim presenting himself as an experienced fiddler as though Jim is not. First off, I've listened to most of the samples on Jim's site and he's clearly an experienced fiddler, with plenty of solid and advanced bow and left-hand technique up his sleeve. His bow hold and fingering on rolls are different than what I use, but it's well within the typcial range of good fiddlers. His "style" sounds more Scottish than Irish to me, but there's nothing wrong with that either, especially since the site is called *world* fiddle music dot com.
Of course the clincher here is that no where on the site does Jim set himself up as some sort of amazing fiddle guru. Quite the contrary, his whole approach is very welcoming, humble and helpful, one fiddler to another, someone intent on sharing his passion for the music, which is the hallmark of a good teacher. And no doubt part of what attracts so many people to the site.
The critic apparently missed all that, and so his critique comes off as cruel simply because so much of it is off the mark, irrelevant.
Obviously your name is not CompaqJohn, but you have not hidden yourself on this site. If I cared to discover your name, I might be able to do so. And my use of a first name/nick name is hardly a shield that I hide behind. If you cared to find out who I am, you can find out who I am. Others have done so.
And my point is that we are having a conversation here, semi-anonymous yes, but still a conversation. We are free to speak and disagree with each other.
Yes, this person had a right to do what they did, but I just don't respect the way that it was done. In comparison, one may agree with some of Tansey's points, but not with the way he communicated them.
I suspect freedom of speech comes with a responsibility to speak in good faith. Those who speak irresponsibly tend to find their words ignored by all but tabloid readers and Fox news fans.
Of course, freedom of speech protects fanatics, carnival barkers, and--all too often--lying liars and the lies they tell. But that doesn't make lying and verbal assault morally acceptable.
For me, this whole thing comes down to the golden rule (no, *not* " do unto others before they do unto you" :-| ).
Why debate about the "freedom of speech" rights of a twit who comes up lines like "All you have the right to teach is correct posture." and "get this ridiculous hobby of yours off the internet".
The guy feels it's OK for him to insist the public shouldn't even be allowed to *see* Jim's website. It would be hypocritical in the extreme for the writer of this garbage to start whining about his own freedom of speech rights being trampled if we were to suggest he put a sock in it and mind his own business.
You can't expect criticism to be constructive when it's padded with such hateful language. I completely disagree that there is anything in there Jim might want to "sink his teeth into" (except maybe the guy's jugular vein).
(besides which, it's all purely academic since it's almost certainly a hit and run event. It's very likely the writer doesn't even know you're sticking up for him, or that the rest of us think he's an ass.)
Darn Kerri, I should have sent you anonymous emails, it would have saved me a pint I'm gonna have to learn to turn things around to keep away from reality, though, but that's after I fix my lack of maturity issue
Bet s/he finds out, at this point. Someone who lurks or posts here is bound to recognize him/her by place and description and/or when s/he describes (probably self-righteously, but I suppose you never know) how they took this guy on the Net down a peg. So we'll just have to see if they have the b*lls to come out with it. Personally, I don't have much patience or respect for people who insult, taunt, and run with little consequences to those acts.
Of course, I don't have patience or respect for people who insult and taunt or behave like boors even if they *do* understand there's consequences to those acts, as my mama brought me up to respect people who can get along with other people.
I mean, we all know this person is off-base in more ways than one. I wouldn't mind finding out who it is, as I'd personally love to consider putting their name on my list of people to avoid in meatspace.
Why debate freedom of speech--precisely because for it to have any meaning, we should insist that it apply to those with whom we most strongly disagree.
If you haven't been following the Ward Churchill debacle, google his name and see if his situation doesn't influence your thinking on whether freedom of speech applies even when the speech is harsh and hateful.
All I'm trying to say above is that even twits and hypocrits and zealots should have an opportunity to spew their nonsense, whether or not anyone listens. Because otherwise some "authority" gets to decide who's a twit and who's not. And people who have something useful to contribute would have no recourse when their turn came to be censored. Thank goodness we don't have to listen or pay any real heed to the twits, but lets also be glad that each of us gets to decide for ourselves who's a twit and who's a true oracle.
I think thick shin is needed and lack of sensitivity. Sure it was a crap way to mail anybody but one should not take it deeply. I have over the years been dished out my share of it, mostly on stage, delivered by drunks and the likes. When I was 19, I was chased around clonmel by the father of a girl I had beaten in competition in the fleadh, he wanted to break my fingers and shove the banjo in a very uncomfortable place. Thank god I could run in those days. He buys me pint now!
I give lessons to teenagers who will tell me that I'm teaching them wrong and haven't a clue and blame me for their boyfriends running off with their best friends and just about everything else that goes wrong. The end result, if all the people I teach, if only one could every play one tune right as a result of my tutition then that would make me very happy. My results are better that that though.
My full teaching challenge is to teach a All-Ireland Champion and I would die a very happy person. And if I don't then so what.
One persons opinion should not be take to deeply, one has to look a the bigger picture and this tread is a good start.
*sigh* Don't remind me about the whole Churchill thing, Will. I think there's some kind of lawsuit happening now with, I can't remember, it's either a state legislature or the alumni, threatening to sue for their tax/money back from the University.
Will writes: "All I'm trying to say above is that even twits and hypocrits and zealots should have an opportunity to spew their nonsense, whether or not anyone listens"
Careful, Will. If you're referring to Ward Churchill with these superlatives you're playing into the hands of a corporate media that is bent on demonizing someone for practicing “free speech.” Its very well known by folks on the left that corporate media is misrepresenting Ward Churchill's "free speech." Take a look at this statement by the man himself and compare it to what they're telling you he said.
"If you're referring to Ward Churchill with these superlatives. . ."
Well, it is unclear from Will's post just who he might have been refering to (he is entirely ambiguous in paragraph two, but implies Mr. Churchill in paragraph three), I'd have a hard time believing they applied to Mr. Churchill who is never particularly harsh or hateful and is articulate to a point that makes me a bit jealous, even when I find I don't agree with him. He is anything but a twit.
Bill O' Reilly, on the other hand, has made being harsh and hateful his trademark "style" and is a first class twit, even on those occasions when I agree with him.
So I find myself quite willing to read Mr. Churchill and ignore Mr. O'Reilly, if only based on facility with language and argumentation.
The above is my own opinion, of course, that of others may differ markedly.
So I shall fall back on sitting in the "Everybody from both sides is shooting at us" corner with Voltaire. I don't think it's a particularly wise place to position myself, but the company is first rate.
And from what he's written here I suspect that Will would at least agree with that.
Ahhh Wisconsin, that veritable hotbed of Irish music. How I miss the long nights and early mornings listening to experienced fiddlers ply their wares, eat sausage and discuss the merits of lumberjack shirts *sigh*.
Jim,
I don't normally put 'pen to paper', in threads on this site, mainly because most of them are over before I get to read them, and secondly because there are folks here who can comment from a much more informed standpoint.
However, on this occasion I would like to say a few things. Firstly, if the 'creep' thinks he's good enough. Why doesn't he/she put up a better site?
Secondly, and more importantly from my point of view. I hadn't picked up a fiddle since boring school fiddle lessons, eons ago. Having read through your site a few weeks ago, I was 'enthused' and picked up my Dad's old fiddle. So much so that I've now booked some fiddle lessons, and the mandolin and box have gone on the backburner for a while.
If nothing else please accept my gratitude, I think it's a wonderful resource, and I shall be referring to it regularly.
He does sound like Tansey though, I wonder if the WI USA is to throw you. And the way I feel about Tansey is that he's not the full shilling and so I wouldn't lose much sleep over anythinh he says.
And actually it's an anagram for I SAW U....which explains everything, so yes definitly your mysery man is Seamus Tansey..... because... eh...Tansey once said those words "I SAW U", or words like them, or thought about saying them..... or read them ...maybe.
"I'm gonna hafta learn to turn things around to keep away from reality, though..."
For the love of god, Guillaume, go back to the Chiff and Fipple. You said you wanted to know where I would be so you could get away from me. Well, here I am. Now get away from me.
I am sorry that you got such a crazy mail. Maybe the person who wrote it is just jealous that you had the energy and the guts to build up your site.
Anyway, I love it and I'll show it to my violin teacher (I finally found one!!) and I know that he'll love it, too.
Please keep up you excellent work!!
Christ, I find myself apologetically admitting that I live in WI, (Wisconsin)! And, it most assuredly wasn't me!!
I feel blessed with the generosity Jim has displayed, offered, etc. I have listened, watched and read the material you have made available on your site Jim, and it has been a help to me. Thank You numerous times over! Since I was passing out hugs here the other day, here's one for you and a big kiss on lips besides!
It's way too easy to resort to bad manners, foul language and suffer egotism through email and the internet, especially done anonymously. Anyone can present themselves as self important "experts". I make it a practice to ignore them.
As I said, your audio & video clips have been help a to this novice. I think your are a God.
Hey Deb! Don't worry about the Wisconsin references. Since it's the only clue as to who the guy is, it's no surprise people are slagging it off. It's a bit like people slagging me off for being a terrorist or something. I'm sure Wisconsin is lovely!
:¬)
You're completely right about the person hiding behind anonymity. We call them "keyboard hard-men". Usually they are low-lifes and haven't a clue what they're talking about. If the person in question had any mettle or dignity they'd be honest about their identity; then their "skills" could be put under scrutiny.
I think the phrase I was looking for was "hang their head in shame". Oh well, had a pint of Stella at lunchtime, that's my excuse. Wahey, it's Friday!!!!!
LOL Conan & BegF! I'm used to friendly slagging of Wisconsin. It's the norm from Chicago & Minneapolis, a requirement if you will, from opposing Pro Football teams & fans. It goes both ways!
In response to CompaqJohn's last post. I think you are correct, that people should develop thicker skins and be less sensitive to criticism. It would then make it easier for everyone to be a bit more honest with each other. The flip side being that people also need to figure out ways to critique each other without being overly rude about it.
Well, I guess I need to reply to that. Kerri and I had a lenghty email exchange, where I explained why I disliked her behavior in the sessions here in Montreal. A few things I said I were right, a few things I said werent. But I found out fast enough that nothing would go through her thick head, as she would answer with her own different criticism everytime. So at the end I decided that she would never get what I was trying to say and decided to leave it like that, trying to call for a truce, "admitting" politely to numerous things to show my good faith. We decided I was going to buy her a pint and leave it like that.
But there I see this thread, the "hate mail", and Kerri bringing the whole stuff again, even putting on quotes from my mail, and saying that at the end I was the one with issues. Well, to set the record straight, my emails didnt have anything to do with hate mail, I wasnt being anonymous and was being quite honnest with Kerri here. She can't handle some truth and her brain is conditioned to fight back and use what you said against you for self defence.
So, Kerri, I will gladly leave you "alone", but please just stop goin on everywhere complaining like a baby with your version of the facts and maybe it's your turn to be mature enough and leave it behind. I didnt want to bring the whole thing in the open but gee, mixing our conversations in a "hate mail" thread?
And Wisconsin is a pretty good place for Irish music. There's a nice scene in Madison, and Milwaukee is home to Irish Fest, or MilwaukeeFest as the Chicagoans call it. The Fest is an event worth checking out. In recent years, they have done a good job booking trad acts, and the sessions have awesome potential. There is also a summer school the week before the festival, and that can be great fun too. Danu are there this year, and Liz Carroll is performing and teaching fiddle in the summer school.
Hey Jack, I think you have me confused with someone else, er, someone shallow, right of center, and rather sheep-like.
If you actuially read my posts on this thread, I'm quite plainly citing Professor Churchill as one of the good guys who's being censored (and worse) for saying unpopular things that need to be said.
I agree Jode re: developing a thicker skin etc. But I certainly understand Jim’s request for input. Besides the time Jim has spent on the planning, playing/recording and developing the site. He has also spent a fair amount of coin to do so. I do a fair bit of video editing for the docs here. The equipment itself is very expensive. The software, the same. Then there is the learning. Getting down to editing takes a fair bit of time. I think Jim is looking for feedback as to whether it’s worth it in the end. I hope there has been enough encouragement Jim, to have keep on doing so. I have benefited quite a bit from all of your work.
I do want take the opportunity to thank everyone who contributed their sets to Jim’s generous section for the mighty craic. You all are grand to listen to! Thank you. Hopefully in the future I will be able to contribute something worthy enough to stand in with all of you! Bravo everyone!!
And thanks Jode for the good word on Milwaukee, being a Milwaukee citizen, it's nice to hear. If you come this year to the fest, I would love to meet you, as well as everyone else who comes. Deb.
I don't know of anyone who has ever been called a bully who truly thinks of themselves as a bad person. (Anybody else remember reading The Bully of Baker Street as a kid?) Most of us have displayed bully-ish behavior at some point or another, especially when our feelings are hurt or when we feel we may not be receiving our due. Just try to remember that when thinking of that e-mail, Jim, and roll on the day, as if you needed my advice. ;)
P.S. I read Ward's original essay on the chickens coming home to roost quite some time ago, before it attracted so much media attention. The reason I cited him in the first place is that his essay *is* harsh and hateful, far more so than Jim's rather mild-mannered critic. Ward makes no bones about it because his ire is directed at people who implement or support genocidal actions and policies. Strong language for the strongest of protests--nothing wrong with that (except that it will win you enemies).
Maybe the issue of whether an opinion is worded too harshly just depends on whether or not you agree with it. I think Micheal Moore is doing a great job of venting his opinion in his work - I love it. I'm a huge fan. On the other hand, I think Rush Limbaugh is intolerable and ought to be carefully concealed from the public eye. ;^)
Thank god it isn't up to me to decide. We'd all be wearing daisies in our hair, doing sidewalk paintings and throwing our lives away. The "Economy" would never recover.
Ok MM, I've got a hug from debwah that's very
valuable to me, but am willing to exchange for a shared pants-less dream. I reckon I could get a hug from Conan either, so if
your willing to trade.....
Just a point on what Compaqjohn said earlier re freedom of speech. I agree that if someone has an opinion they should have the right to express that opinion, regardless of what it is.
It is my personal opinion that the centre of the universe is a small ham sandwich.
Brings to mind something my mate Gary Duffy once said, "You have a right to an opinion, but your opinion is sh*te".
LOL - I Just love these rambling threads! Hate mail, stalkers, free speech, Milwaukee Fest, Michael Moore and Rushbo! What were we talking about? Oh yeah, Kerri's dreams, no Compaq's little brother, no - I'm all confused now!
I noticed somebody over at the Chiff and Fipple (I poke my head in there sometimes when they're having discussions about something I've written in here) has "My opinion is stupid and wrong." appearing with his signature on all his comments. I thought that was brilliant. Totally beats winking smileys, pants down.
Writing for a living compels me to wrestle with the tone/content see-saw every day. It's a never-ending learning experience. After more than 20 years, all I can say for sure is that no matter what tone you choose, it will be too harsh for some, and too soft for others. The more controversial your content is, the narrower will be the band of readers who find your tone "just right." And no matter how carefully you choose your words, someone will understand them to mean the opposite of what you intended.
So I think it's healthy to listen to people (especially those with whom you disagree) with one ear on the tone while the other ear processes the content. Just because someone speaks harshly doesn't mean they don't have a valid point (or that they do). And just because someone uses a calm, friendly tone doesn't mean they're not selling you down the river (that's called "diplomacy").
I do believe some of the pigs have flown from outer space to Wisconsin. One landed on my desk as a means to indicate to all and sundry when I would complete their project(s)....
Conán...Kraft singles?!?! If that's what you call a sandwich, then skip the ham and proceed directly to the open, half eaten can of Spam in the fridge, third shelf down, far back corner. Yes, that's the one, with something wriggling in the gelatinous mucous under the rim.
I think you're right, Will. I do learn a lot about myself by taking the time to discuss differences of opinion with people, even when I feel their wording is too strong. It's pretty difficult to see the validity of whatever points a person is using to strengthen their position when the final conclusion is "You're an idiot and you should be ashamed to be out in public."
Which is what Jim has to deal with. It's much healthier, I think, to just ignore people who feel they have to chase you down to deliver *their* opinion to *you*.
It's even healthier to actively seek the opinion of people you admire and respect and listen with a completely open mind.
Will, your battle with tone/content is admirable, and I think it should be taken up by everyone. Communication is a difficult thing, but we should not give up on trying our best.
But what are you saying here? Sounds like you agree that we should be less sensitive to harshness, and take things "with a grain of salt".
It also sounds like you are saying that we should look beyond the original message to interpret what the person is saying. To not always take things at face value, or react to the original statement too quickly.
I agree with these things, and that is why I said that a semi anonymous dialog is better than a one-off anonymous editorial. There is more context to a dialog. You have a better chance to make yourself understood, and a better chance to understand the arguments of others.
(OK, well, maybe not *completely* open. Then you're just tossing in the wind. I'm brutal to new ideas before I'll accept them. I just want to be certain my ideas are *mine*, you know?)
And, yuck. Wormy spam. You should be ashamed of yourself. I was just about to have lunch.
OK, I hear what you're saying, Jode. And I completely agree, if you're talking to a friend you don't want to lose, to a spouse, to someone you care about, someone you admire, or someone whose company you simply enjoy.
But to some angry eejit you don't even know? Honestly, what's the point of looking for wisdom in the screeching of stray cats in the night?
(Actually, I CAN see the point of that, now that I think of it...)
See I think it's really easy to disregard the "you're an idiot and should be ashamed to be out in public " part precisely because it's soooooo unreasonable it has no basis in reality. That's the least important part of Jim's critic's message. It's just a line drawn in the sand, which is the easiest of all lines to erase.
But that doesn't mean you necessarily want to dismiss offhand the stuff that's harder to take--the detailed critique of the actual playing. Poor ornaments and no flow. That's the sort of thing that would get under my skin, whether or not anyone else thought it was accurate. (Mind you, I'm not saying that it is accurate, but a burr in your shorts doesn't need good aim to be annoying or eventually revealing.)
"It's even healthier to actively seek the opinion of people you admire and respect and listen with a completely open mind." Well that's what Jim did here, right? So where's the beef?
They're mad...it's like eejits with road rage, but not as bad 'cos they're not going to kill someone....laugh at them, maybe even feel sorry for them because they're obvioulsy not quite right in the head, like what we are.....now, any one for a bean bath ?
Jode, Kerri, all I'm really saying is that the world's not always a pleasant place. It's up to each of us how we react to things like blunt, impersonal criticism. No one can make you a victim unless you let them. But dismissing people outright and patting yourself on the back for being better than them doesn't advance anyone's thinking.
Some people are better at voicing their anger and hatred than they are at articulating their underlying concerns and values. If you're confronted with someone like that, you can gauge whether or not you're in the mood to deal with it. If not, fine. Chances are they'll give you another opportunity sometime down the road, invited or not.
But when you are in the mood to deal with it, the ball is in your court. It's up to you to work past the rhetoric and vitriol (because they either won't or can't) so you can find those underlying concerns and values. And then you'll have something to talk about. Or at least to understand them better, even if they refuse to cooperate.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell. I'd still rather be a doubt-filled wise arse than a fool or fanatic, so I'll go on questioning things rather than risk being too sure of myself.
But Kerri, you did have a dialog. And you were able to come to a decision about the quality of input you were receiving. If it was a one-off anonymous email to this site, you could not be sure whom it was from. It could have been from the person who did communicate with you recently, or it could have been from me or Will. (Sorry Will - no slight intended.) How would you know how to take it?
Will, I'm saying the detailed critique gets under the skin *because* the overall message is "you're an idiot and you should be ashamed to be out in public."
Useful criticism feels GOOD. It doesn't get "under your skin" and eat away at you. It gets you excited about picking up your instrument and learning to play better. Example, a totally non-personal criticism of my guitar playing from a person I respect was "You should try to stick to really basic chords until you get the rhythm nailed down". My immediate reaction was "Ooh, good idea!" And I got excited about the possibility of being a good accompanist. I worked on it and the next time he saw me he said "Wow, I'm really impressed, actually."
A personal criticism of my guitar playing sounds more like "you suck at playing the guitar and EVERYBODY wonders why you bother." Not useful.
There's a difference between giving someone a few tips about their playing and using things that happen to be true (that I haven't quite got the knack of playing the guitar yet, or that Jim uses a lot of single bows) in order to accomplish the objective of making themselves feel so crappy about themselves and their playing that they'll give it up. That's dirty pool. And should be recognized as such.
Ahh... good, Will. I knew it must not say what it appeared to say. As Kevin points out, it was a bit unclear and ambiguous, but I had suspected I might have misinterpreted it since I was still running a fever at the time I read it. But since you brought the subject up, the link I provided may have been useful to anyone interested in such things anyway.
Jode, if I got that email and had no way of finding out who this person is, what kind of life they lead, or what their musical background and skill are, I would be shocked, then laugh, then come to the immediate conclusion it was sent by an out-of-work fiddle instructor with a very high opinion of himself who can't find students due to the fact that his communication style puts people off music altogether (gasp) that he's p*ssed off at me for giving away lessons for free, and that if I DID know a person who spoke to people in that tone of voice, I would not be interested in what he had to say.
Sure, and we've recognized (in spades) the dirty pool aspects of the email. But not all of it was dirty pool.
No one is arguing that the masked critic did the right thing or that his/her criticism were offered constructively. But it's there nonetheless and Jim has wondered aloud how to deal with it.
Obviously he can ignore it completely.
I'm not *insisting* that he or anyone else not ignore it. All I'm doing is *suggesting* an alternative, because life has a way of loosing these mudslides in front of us now and then. You (generic you) can continue walking around them every time if that suits you. Or when you're feeling energetic you can shovel your way through one or two.
I wish all criticism was delivered out of friendship and a desire to be constructive. But it's not. We can choose how to face that. I've found some value in digging through it sometimes, rather than simply avoiding it on principle.
OK Will, I get your point. If I were to receive such a message, it would make me take a look at my playing. And maybe even an anonymously received honest message is better than no message at all. And maybe a harsh, anonymous message is better than no message at all.
I'm just advocating for a different style of communication.
Hm. Interesting, Will. Maybe I'm just scared that if I let the ideas of people like this worm their way my head I will become more like them and less like the positive, encouraging people I love. I'm not as consistent as I would like to be. Sometimes I find myself thinking really snotty thoughts about someone at a session and I have to ask "Christ, where did that come from?" I always assumed I wasn't resisting the infiltration of other people's snotty thoughts enough, so I fight harder. Maybe I need to let them in completely and put some effort into transforming them into positive thoughts. (More Zen.)
There's a whole field of interest-based negotiation (which I work in a lot) that teaches these ideas, and the same stuff applies well to interpersonal relationships. Most of it boils down to focusing on interests (underlying values and concerns) rather than positions (lines drawn in the sand), and learning to hear those values and concerns even when they're buried in rhetoric or anger (all too often the case). And then reframing the problem or dispute in a way that lets you talk through it.
I'm not a guru of this stuff, just a messenger. Google Lawrence Susskind, Patrick Field, Roger Fisher, and William Ury to find their books on the public policy side of it, and David Schnarch or Carl Rogers for the interpersonal side.
Yep. Kerri, that's why I used Churchill as an example earlier. It's possible to make the same points in a way that might actually win converts. But Ward speaks as a Cherokee who stood with Russell Means and who knows first hand what it feels like to be under the government's night stick. So of course he sounds angry.
On the link I gave, go to his "response to critics" for a more cogent, reasoned summary of his points. He can be calm and articulate, but I suspect he had a purpose in using the flamethrower in the first essay.
I stand to be corrected on this but I’ve always understood it’s surprisingly difficult to cover your traces when sending an email. People who send anonymous emails think they’ve done it but there’s usually some data hidden there that gives a handle to an expert if there’s a need to track down the originator – as in law-enforcement situations.
I shouldn't worry about it, Jim. If this guy wasn't so sad and had the courage of his convictions he'd identify himself.
Trevor
Really, Jode? It wouldn't cross your mind to consider the possibility he's just some wacko having a bad day? I always feel like I need a *lot* of information about a person before I can really put what they're saying into perspective. Where are they from, how long have they been playing, who are they hanging out with, what makes them tick, how do they see the world and their own position in it, and most of all, do *I* believe, based on all the above information, they have anything useful to say.
Then again, I *needed* to develop these filters. The people that don't like my "attitude" (which hasn't changed since I was 3 years old - Jim has the proof!) have *always* been vicious with their comments in order to knock me down a peg or two. I was never happy while I felt I had to suppress my basic nature in order to please the critics and stop the attacks. (Ie. smile with my lips closed because they didn't approve of my teeth.)
I learned to consider poeple they are coming from *before* I look for value in their criticism. Nine times out of ten they are just angry with me for being me. I repeat, so what?
I've never in my life offered uninvited criticism to anyone (who is not a good friend who needs a kick in the pants.) I do see what you're saying Will (and Jode) but it seems like a hell of a lot of work for very little payoff to start questioning myself every time somebody makes a snippy remark.
Fact is, Kerri, I have thin skin and a lack of self confidence. So if someone sent me a harsh note about my playing, I would indeed take it personally.
But I would like a chance to respond, or to ask a clarifying question or two. And I would like to know the source of the comment to determine what weight to put on that comment.
About tracing email, it's pretty simple. Everyone has a unique "IP address" at a certain moment when connected to the internet. Most internet providers (ISP) have logs of what IP did what at a specific time. When you send an email, you actually connect to your ISP's mail server, which in turn will forward the email to the recipient's ISP' mail server. In standard POP/SMTP headers, you have the whole address route information, from source to target.
You *can't* spoof an IP address, but you can always use spywares/proxies who are located on different machines often without the computer owner's knowledge, connect to that machine and use it to send the email. This is what many spammers do.
But as a normal individual, if you send an email you can be traced back, but your ISP will only give information to the police, as the information is confidential.
Before you call the police, there's a much simpler solution for anonymous, unfriendly, but non-threatening, and unpublished email -- it's called "delete."
The tone of the comment you received seems presumptious and rude. The internet is open and free expression reigns supreme, for better or worse.
Your site is a great site, despite the fact that you have posted music files of traditional Irish music played by a non-traditional guitarist like me. ha ha!
A comparison from the guitar world: There are a zillion ideas, many outright opposites of each other, of what constitutes "correct" right hand technique. My opinion: Get a good tone, find what works best for you, try to achieve maximum results with minimum effort.
I once took a few lessons from a PhD guitarist. He proscribed certain changes for my right hand technique. The more I used his recommendations, the worse the sound was. I was really trying. Eventually, we were having a conversation, and I started casually, naturally playing the study in question. He interrupted his own comments to exclaim "that's it - that's the sound that you should have." At that moment, I was not following ANY of his advice for technique. I was using my natural technique that he had earlier told me was all wrong. While I respect and admire this gentleman's playing......that was the last lesson I took from him.
Personally, I think it's right to speak harshly (as Churchill does) of our policies and what our elected representatives do in our names when those things include bombing a country back into the stone age and then imposing sanctions for a decade so that innocent citizens (children!) can't get potable water or medical treatment, in hopes they'll rise up and overthrow their government. If a foreign power did that to Americans, we'd howl bloody murder (because that's what it is).
Jode, I too have a relatively thin skin. I find though, it gets thicker as time passes. The more you deal with pinheads, the thicker the skin. I'm most likely to ignore the kind of message Jim got as the individual didn't have the "equipment" to identify him/herself.
I would guess the person is most likely a lurker here. If you are and have read all of this, why not have guts to respond. You can avoid the backlash of emails by shutting off "send an email" through Jeremy's offering of editing your profile. It would be nice to hear from you.
On the other hand, you have the right to remain silent. Perhaps it would be better if you did.
I gave a hear to your playing the Cameronian Reel, and you can certainly play well enough to teach others. Your site's nothing but informative, I wasn't aware of it before this post actually!
"I wish I could, Jack. I'm lippy. I can't help myself. That's one of the reasons more reserved folks find me so infuriating."
Believe it or not, judging from my posting, I'm one of those more reserved folk. I think you'd be a good hang, although you might get infuriating in the long run.
"(And I support your right not to be put to death for supporting the right to be hateful)."
That’s right, Will -- when it happens to us it's "bloody murder," but when it happens to them, it's, "worth it" as Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, said on “60 Minutes.”
"I think it's right to speak harshly (as Churchill does) of our policies and what our elected representatives do in our names when those things include bombing a country back into the stone age. . ."
Ahhhhh, I missed this one.
I think, perhaps, I am drawing a fine distinction between "harsh" and "critical" that most people do not share. Perhaps it's my background in the sciences where ripping each other's hypothesis to shreds (sometimes quite viciously) is a friendly act between compatriots.
And Churchill comes out of a similar academic background where such deeply critical speech isn't thought of as particularly harsh so long as it stays impersonal.
A distinction is drawn between saying "That idea is the stupidist thing I've ever heard," and "You are stupid."
The former will be taken without insult. The latter will get you banned from the math tea, and possibly your career.
I'm curious, have you read Twain's essay "To the Person Sitting in Darkness"?:
Churchill's essay is harsh because it does get personal. He insults people left and right, calls them names, says the tecnocrats who died in the World Trade Center were "little Eichmans." Not gentle stuff. Harsh. Hate-filled. Indicative of Ward's anger and disgust with the whole situation.
But isn't Ward trying to explain why the US might be hated enough for someone to do something like fly passenger planes into skyscrapers? Isn't he trying to demonstrate what makes America hated in the Muslin world, rather than the writing being in itself, hateful?
A normal user going through a normal service provider can, of course, be traced.
A clever and malicious person with the right hardware and physical Internet access can do just about whatever he wants to. You can find articles online about how "phishers" are spoofing IP addresses.
Sure Jack, but among other things he calls Madeline Albright a "malignant toad," and reverses that charge that the 9/11 hijackers were cowards, saying in fact that the U.S. fighter pilots and ship-board computer jockies firing cruise missles at distant Baghdad deserved that label. Living in America, Churchill had to know how his words would come across. (Again, I agree with much of Churchill's analysis, but I do not accept these two particular assertions of his, among others.) There are "nicer" ways of getting these ideas across. So I have no problem characterizing his language as hateful. At the time, it sounds to me like he felt justified in writing that way. His response to critics (at the same link as I gave above) is much more measured--and to me all the more powerful because of it.
So it goes. It's a shame Churchill's words are being twisted and misappropriated, but the language he initially used invited that. We can hope that it creates some space for a more civil though no less impassioned public deliberation of the issues and what's at stake here.
I think it's dangerous (as well as morally wonky) to de-personalize other people with labels. Except for people who disagree with me, of course. They're all just stupid. *smirk*
I think you'd be a good hang too, Kevin, but I don't think anyone else would enjoy being around us if we got into a ripping good debate.
I'm all for expressing anger. I don't think that makes for a very good "finished product" though, as far as an essay is concerned. I usually try to filter out the inflammatory language before I speak if I'm trying to get an important idea across.
I do think Chompsky is very good at being enraged without leaving huge loopholes for tangential debates (like "hang on, you're saying Iraq is a major factor in the 9-11 attacks and there is ample evidence to the contrary." or "The motive of the Nazi's was genocide, whereas the motive of the US is global economic control. Apples and oranges.")
You know, tangential debates like this one. What were we supposed to be talking about again?
Which reminds me, my wife and I were talking about this over lunch today, because we both watched Churchill's forum on C-Span, and I mentioned what Jim's critic said in his last line, about "I have nothing against beginning musicians, only those who suffer the delusion that they are good." And Rose pointed out that the beginner's who don't suffer that delusion, at least to some degree, typically quit because the disappointment is just too much to take. "Isn't thinking you're good what gets you through the early stages?" she said.
And I had to agree. In fact, the delusion that I can play fiddle at all is what has kept me going a good quarter century now. And it doesn't apply to just music. "It's a bright sunny day," I tell myself each morning. "My kids are wonderful, my neighbors like me, and the world works well--we're all doing the best we can. I guess I can get out of bed after all."
Imagine if we were all realists, all the time. *shudder*
"There are "nicer" ways of getting these ideas across."
Thoreau simply refered to them as "wooden" men.
There are those who consider Thoreau as harsh and hateful as well, but I admit I can't see it. Ghandi and King Jr. have also been branded as "hateful."
Tell, me, why is Shirer's work considred one of the great works of journalistic literature and why was he never branded as "hateful," and at risk of his job?
Are not, say, Kerri's statements in this thread (or my own, for that matter. I'm not picking on Kerri) to be considered just as hateful if we apply the same standards to them? And I hardly think Kerri would brand herself as hateful.
And isn't, when you take Churchill's statement in the full context of his argument, rather than just as a snippet, made in order to make this very point, and the language he uses used because it is the language used by the people he is criticising?
And how about the Twain piece I linked to, where he gets directly personal by name?
"I think you'd be a good hang too, Kevin, but I don't think anyone else would enjoy being around us if we got into a ripping good debate."
Ah, but I imagine we might, ourselves, enjoy it immensely, so, as my dear, departed Granny used to say, "F*** 'em if they can't take a joke." I think that's an old Russian saying.
Of course we might well part infuriated with each other as well.
"I'm all for expressing anger."
I'm not very good at anger. The things that make most people angry simply make me sad.
"What were we supposed to be talking about again?"
And Zina - all this smirking, shrugging and grinning! And SNORTING to boot! I think you might just have an attitude problem! Wanna fight about it? Come on! I'm all primed up!
Will writes: "Sure Jack, but among other things he calls Madeline Albright a "malignant toad,"
Well, he was obviously referring to that candid comment she made on 60 Minutes to Leslie Stahl, which makes here very deserving of that title.
Will continues: "and reverses that charge that the 9/11 hijackers were cowards, saying in fact that the U.S. fighter pilots and ship-board computer jockies firing cruise missles at distant Baghdad deserved that label."
Maybe it's important in our corporate/Whitehouse media spin environment to point out the hypocrisy of calling US terrorists "brave" and "heroic" or in the case of foreign terrorists under our sponsorship as, "freedom fighters" while calling anything that doesn't represent our interests as "terrorist." Again, is it hate speech, or just too uncomfortably true?
Your granny was Russian? Mine is too. I wonder if that's a factor.
"I'm not very good at anger. The things that make most people angry simply make me sad."
Then you're too smart for your own good.
I should clarify that I think it should be expressed privately by writing in a journal, screaming at the moon, smashing up your bathroom scale, or taking up archery and putting pictures your ex-boyfriend in the middle of the bullseye.
There's a limited amount of sadness I can take before the anger kicks in. If I deal with it immediately, then I feel better.
I think it's useless as a method of interaction with fellow human beings.
Jack I don't disagree with you (and am puzzled why you're pulling out these points as if we do disagree on something there--wanna make sumpin of it? . As I said, Churchill no doubt felt justified in using the language he did. My point is simply that he's not likely to change the minds of people on the other side of the fence that way. I suspect he's talking there more to people who already share his basic values, to inform them, but also to rally their moral indignation.
I'm not saying he's wrong to do this, only that he used some language that many people would hear as hateful to do it. I'm sure the relatives of WTC victims don't appreciate hearing their lost loved ones labeled as "little Eichmans." As I said before, he had his reasons. But it's one thing to despise someone's behavior and all together another to plop a label on the person herself. Yes, America is guilty of labeling foreigners as less than human ("collateral damage," "evil doers," etc.), while putting her own citizens on a pedestal. But I think the irony Churchill generates by mimicking this tactic is less powerful than if he'd taken the high ground and simply pointed out the hypocrisy of our national behavior and language. Instead, he stooped to their level and consequently lost some of his potential audience, needlessly poked holes in his own moral kevlar, and in the end only spurred more of the same name-calling.
Of course I agree that Americans should be angry--outraged--at what's being done in their name. But surely learning how to channel that anger is at the heart of Churchill's own call for non-violent policies and interventions. Dehumanizing someone by calling them a malignant toad is one of the first steps to encouraging and accepting violence against them.
I want our current administration out as much as anyone, but violence is not the way--it's precisely the wrong approach because then we'd be using their sorry tactics to acheive our ends, and that's what's wrong at the root of this whole situation.
And my old fiddle belonged to an Irish fiddler who fled the Famine in 1850 and sold the fiddle to my great-great-grandfather in West Wales to get some money to live. Sad story, but true.
Trevor
You know, maybe it's a good thing he's generated some controversy with his language, otherwise his argument would pass completely un-noticed in the flood of propaganda americans are being exposed to.
It's not as if his *ideas* are new. I heard lots of people saying "Well, had to happen sooner or later" and "What did they expect?" in a discussion forum on September 12. Casually, intelligently articulating the connection between perpetrating violence abroad and suffering violence at home as a result as if it were obvious.
I couldn't help but notice how artfully these people's opinions were swept under the rug at the time. Now they are public again, where they ought to have been all along. If it took some strong language to bring this about, who am I to criticise?
I'm bailing on this one. Nobody's going to change anyone's mind, which is a tad ironic because just about everyone essentially agrees, it'll most probably end up with people losing their senses of humor, and the non-American members can't say anything on the subject without risking sounding rude to someone on the board somewhere. Come to think of it, neither can the American members. I've just never seen the sense of arguing politics for the sheer joy of it, mainly because I think politics is just filthy by definition anyway. Since I know it'll probably take the threat of firearms to get everyone to stop, I'm just going to take myself elsewhere.
Jaysus, and I didn't even realize we were arguing! You guys are so *sneaky* trying to come off as if you're just having a normal conversation about freedom of speech, when really we're all just clawing out each other's eyeballs! I feel so used!
I know, Will, I'm just adding to what you’re saying really.
Most Americans would find Churchill's speech "hateful" because they wouldn't understand the context of what he's talking about after having only been exposed to corporate media. And corporate media would want to demonize him because his message is uncomfortable for them. They can't allow him to destroy the myth that they rely on to keep Americans behind their spin. Have you ever wondered why we never see brilliant minds like Noam Chomsky anywhere on corporate media? In the modern world you don't have to round up intellectuals to build fascism -- you just cut off their access to mainstream media. For most Americans, if you don't hear it on TV right before the football game airs -- it's not true.
I didn't think we were talking politics as much as we're looking at how public discourse happens in this country. I'm still thinking about how all this applies to Jim and his critic. What's funny, is that Kerri just said it's okay for Churchill to generate some controvery with her language, but she's argued all along that Jim's critic was wrong for doing the same thing. Of course, the situations and issues at hand are completely different. But there are still human beings at the ends of both sets of labels, in both cases. So maybe not so different situations after all.
Which was my point when I joined in here, and will be my point as I leave for dinner....
Good point, Will. I think the difference is I have more respect for Churchill for making his statements in public, inviting a debate, rather than sending them in an anonymous email which was never intended to be read or discussed by anyone other than the target of the hate-filled language.
That kind of crosses the line into "harassment" territory in my books.
And I *did* say the discussion generated by Jim's decision to make the comment public has probably turned out to be a good thing for him and increase the number of people looking at his site.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is: If you can't say anything nice, say it in public at the top of your lungs.
Well, White Russian to be precise. From Minsk. I honestly don't know whether she was born in Belarus or America, as her parents are the immigrants of note. I'll have to ask me mum, that's her side of the family.
My father's side is SAR stuff. Massachusetts Colony from somewhere in the early 1630's and blood tinged with blue.
I'm a real Euromutt. French, English, Romanian, White Russian. . . and a Pole no one likes to talk about, with bits of Scot, Irish, Flemish and such if you dig under the tree a bit, and the whole Germanic/Norse line the above implies. Major royalty to people a serf could look down on in social class (". . .and everbody hates the Jews, but during, National Brotherhood Week. . .)
I "belong" to everybody and nobody, which is just fine from my "citizen of the world" point of view.
"I couldn't help but notice how artfully these people's opinions were swept under the rug at the time."
I wrote a piece along those lines as we were looking toward the invasion of Afghanistan that drew a lot of "America Bashing" ire my way from Americans, but also resulted in one of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me from a British investment banker:
"Kevin, you're a mensch."
"Then you're too smart for your own good."
Ye'll not be the first that's told me that, lass, and I'm fully expected to come to a bad end over it.
". . .and am puzzled why you're pulling out these points as if we do disagree on something there--wanna make sumpin of it?"
Well, it took me a couple of rounds to twig it, but what we're having here, and why I'm still involved in it, is a *meta*argument. We're arguing not about the ideas, but the ideas behind the ideas.
I'm afraid that's exactly my cup of tea.
". . .just about everyone essentially agrees. . ."
See above.
"Jaysus, and I didn't even realize we were arguing! "
Thank you, thank you, thank you, for the first real laugh of the day.
". . .and the non-American members can't say anything on the subject without risking sounding rude to someone on the board somewhere. Come to think of it, neither can the American members."
Indeed, but that's exaclty the issue we're talking about.
"I think politics is just filthy by definition anyway. . ."
I happen to agree whole heartedly, and I try to stay clear of the whole "Blue vs. Red" thing, being neither, but it is also, unfortunately, also inseperable from civil behavior.
This is so much fun. Just out of curiosity, what is the appropriate site for this type of conversation? I've seen a couple of forums where conversations like this are trying to happen, except nobody can spell. And wackos are always putting in their pointlless and depressing 2 cents worth (half price!)
"Well, your from Kanuckastann aniways!!! Go bakc to your iglue and let them towlheds learn what freedom!!!!!!"
(Not that I think they shouldn't have the right to express an opinion, of course. I just wonder where I can go to exercise my right not to listen to it.)
I just feel a little guilty is all. I think we're supposed to be arguing about whether a session is better in a corner or the center of a room, or wondering what to do when the rosin has started to eat away the finish on our fiddles.
Which reminds me, anyone know a talented but inexpensive flute maker? I have a friend looking for a fully keyed one, but she can't splash out a lot of dough. She's a very good flute player already with an extensive musical background.
kerri, what is 'inexpensive flute' to you?
i know a great builder, (i play one of his) who charges what i reckon a fair price. he isn't into commercialising his instruments, though many think he should.
his name's Geert Lejeune, he's from belgium (bruges).
i can give you his contact if you so which ...
mm
Love this thread! I played fiddle for a well-attended contra-dance last night; tight band, good caller and dancers, stimulating craic, and I wake up this morning only to wander into a virtual room full of interesting people engaged in stimulating and often funny conversation! Life is good...
Thanks for all your replies, guys. I didn't think this thread would grow the way it has done, but that can only be a good thing...people writing, communicating, sub-topics developing, humour, wit and all the rest. I've never been one to baulk at criticism of my playing and teaching (I've had some pretty abrasive stuff thrown at me over the years, similar to Compaqjohn's experiences, although I've never been chased down the street!!) There *was* something odd about the 'hate mail' that did get to me a bit though...and I'm still not sure why.
I respect Compaqjohn's comments about being upfront in any criticism, which I would welcome from anyone, especially if it's pointing out shortcomings. Nobody's perfect, as they say.
Ottery, you had me in stitches visualising you and the beer lads thowing the W.I's tables into the river!
I'm still continuing to update my site with tunes and techniques, as time permits. The general consensus is that it's helping people, and that's good enough for me.
Just in case the critic is watching, I've added a video clip to my homepage. It's a tune that contains *no* left hand ornamentation whatsoever.
I enjoy it too, Kerri, I'm glad there's a bit of tolerance for it here on the session.org (even though I think we only get away with it if it's after Jeremy's bedtime.) But in all fairness to him -- this isn't a political discussion site. I do appreciate it when bits and pieces of the world that surrounds us are allowed into the discussions, even though they sometimes have only abstract relevance.
Kerri asks: "Just out of curiosity, what is the appropriate site for this type of conversation?"
I've recently spent some time perusing the Chiff and Fipple site because I have some friends who contribute over there. It's very large and I haven't gotten involved -- until just recently. They have something called a "Poststructural Pub" that's open to just about any discussion. I had some interesting conversation over there with other musicians. I enjoy discussing these things with ITM musicians because I find them to be very intelligent and well informed for the most part, and of course we have the music in common. As good as my exchange over there was, there's something about the intimacy that I still prefer over here.
I'm not suggesting Jeremy create any new forums or anything, but I just want to let him know how much I enjoy it when the perimeters here are relaxed enough to allow us to talk about whatever comes up. Within reason of course.
"As good as my exchange over there was, there's something about the intimacy that I still prefer over here."
I know what you mean, Jack. I've invested a lot of time getting to know the people who post in this forum. I've known to Will and Zina longer than I've known *any* of the current company I keep. I have a mental image of their faces and I know where they live and what makes them tick. All that information makes a conversation more rewarding for me no matter what it's about. I tried a forum for fiction writers once, but as it turns out, writers only want to talk about writing. Which (for some reason) I thought was really bizarre (Although to be fair, that's what the forum was *for*).
There ought to be a movement to launch a bunch of hybrid forums like "a community for gynecologists who wish to discuss the finer points of cricket." But even if there was one for "Trad musicians who wish to discuss the ideas behind the ideas" I wouldn't go unless I could bring you all with me.
Among legion of starters, Jim, you are a finisher. Thanks for organizing, engineering and inducing contributions to mightycraiconline and virtualsession.
By the way, Jim: "There *was* something odd about the 'hate mail' that did get to me a bit though...and I'm still not sure why."
Because the overall message was that all your hard work and creativity motivated by nothing but selflessness and a love of music had been a waste of time, and that your project should be destroyed. Not improved. It wasn't criticism, it was meant to make you feel ashamed of yourself. That gets to me too.
Good on you, Jim, for forging ahead--your site does a world of good.
Hey maybe this'll be the push that finally gets me off my butt to record a track and send it to Jim (if I only had a machine to do it with). That'll give the masked critic a really juicy target for his slings and arrows, and we can all have a good laugh (cuz in 4 years here I've *never* presented myself under the delusion that I'm any good) *grin*
The value of this thread goes beyond its topic(s). I agree that thesession.org provides an intimacy among neighbors in this "community of interest" that's rare to non-existent on other forums. And this thread let us build even more intimate, well-rounded understandings of each other, which makes the music-oriented conversations even more rewarding.
It's wonderful that Jeremy has given us the lattitude to let this happen and to let the thread stand.
Kerri, spot on about the critic trying to shame Jim into hiding.
Of course Jim's a fine fiddler, "good enough" to be putting his examples and tunes on the web to help others. That's a no-brainer.
But it does return me to the critic's underlying concern (which I think is actually irrelevant to Jim's site and playing, but worth exploring, at least to debunk it). I'll frame it as a question:
Is the tradition of this music harmed by players who aren't "good enough" foisting themselves on others?
For me the answer is clear. Of course not. Even a small army of shoddy amateurs (that'd be us, *grin*) can't really detract from the music made by the even smaller platoon of genuinely talented players.
Plus, this music was passed on for generations by peat cutters, brick layers, ditch diggers, etc., who didn't have the time or pampered fingers to play as well as a Frankie Gavin or Matt Molloy or Mairtin O'Connor. And yet the musical standard is as high or higher, and perhaps more widespread among more players, than before. The lesson in that is that even less than stellar players can teach the music, even to people with more talent and ability (and the luxury of practicing 30 horus a week), and so the student improves on the teacher. (I've certainly had students surpass my playing.)
In short, I think the masked critic misses the point all together. This music isn't about perfection, or even a high degree of technical prowess. It's about expression and participation. Telling someone to stop because they're not doing it right is like telling an asthmatic to stop breathing because they're not doing it well. When what they both really need is for the critic to step way back and give them room to breathe.
(Again, I want to emphasize that I'm NOT comparing Jim's playing to an asthmatic's wheezing struggles. My post here isn't about Jim at all, but the larger question of technical competence in trad music.)
". . . if there was one for "Trad musicians who wish to discuss the ideas behind the ideas. . .""
". . .your project should be destroyed. Not improved. It wasn't criticism. . ."
This is what I've been dwelling on since reading Jim's last post this morning. There is only one, short sentence of actual criticism in the entire thing. The rest is simply invective. What criticism there is consists simply of statements, it is not constructive criticism because it offers no construction.
Statement 1:
"You're ornamentation is poor and inconsistant"
In what way is it poor? Jim cannot possibly do anything to improve his ornamentation in the mind of the writer until he knows what it is about his ornamentation that bothers.
The inconsistant bit I have a bit more trouble with, firstly because a foolish consistency shouldn't be encouraged, playing shouldn't be a mechanical thing, and secondly, because Jim has a great many *different* styles of music on his site, I would *hope* it was "inconsistant."
Again, the writer needs to elaborate on his point, because, as it stands, in the context of the site in question, it turns out to have no meaning.
Statement 2:
"you use mostly separate bows"
This is a pure statement of fact, and although it is true it leaves me waiting for the other shoe to drop. . .
"you use mostly separate bows". . ..and?
It just hangs there. Obviously the writer views this statement as a *perjoritive,* thus I think we can safely toss it into the invective pile.
Especially since, and this is the bit that really has me scratching my head over the thing, using mostly seperate bows is a recognized traditional style.
Statement 3:
"the music has absolutely no flow"
Ok, but, completely opposite to the previous statement, this statement is purely subjective. How can one possibly respond to it with anything other than, "Thank you for your input. Managment will take it under advisement."
So there we have it, that minority portion of the letter that deals in criticism actually only contains a minority portion of itself that deals in criticism, and has *absolutely nothing* constructive to say.
Leaving Jim with little option, even if he wished to take it seriously, but to ignore it.
But buried within the invective I find this bit interesting:
"So get this ridiculous hobby of yours off the internet. . ."
Well, so it seems the writer considers playing the violin a ridiculous hobby, a point of view I'm sure we all disagree with, and innately discounts any criticism he might have about fiddle playing.
I think, based on the evolution of this thread, it should be dedicated as the "Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin" thread. It is his 196th birthday today after all and this discourse seems fit the occasion
Sorry, maybe I should have put in a comment earlier, but it looks like everyone is (rightly) taking Jim's side here. Just to add I've actually played with Jim in session, and met him (obviously.) A fine fiddle player is Jim, and a decent guy also. Whoever wrote the offending email either can't recognise a good player or is a bit too much up themself, or is just mental. Whoever they are must be laughing if they saw this thread to see how much mileage their corrosive comments have obtained.
“What did the fiddle evolve from”?
Jack, I reckon that’s worth a new thread, if you’d like to start one. I’ve heard an interesting hypothesis that should get things going, especially among the musicologists/historians here.
Trevor
to be honest, jim, your style is not my favorite style, but then again even my favorite styles get old after a while. the variety of styles enhance the music, detract it. , but i love your site and i for one am very greatful that you have put it online. i dont think your ornamentation is sloppy or that your tunes have no flow! and i certainly do not think your style is bad.
i really dont mean to be insulting, at all. there are other musicians that are very famous that play ITM that i cant stand listening to, and i would rather listen to you any day.
i think you are a fine musician and that its people like you who try to spread the tradition and make it available to everyone that make the music great. i bet you that anonymous poster is just mad because he has not put up a fine site like yours and he's just pretending to himself its cuz you play differently than him.
his argument has no base, because as you say on your site:
"Anything you don't like, don't bother trying to learn. It's that simple. Just pick what you like, and enjoy the music!"
they're obviously not enjoying it as much as you are, and thats what its all about.
after all, there was a point... long in the past, when i'm sure people were heckling fiddlers, saying it wasnt a traditional instrument. the music changes, grows, and stays the same, all at the same time. i suppose part of that is dealing with people who will accept any style and people who will accept only their own.
If there's a lynch mob formed to take down this bustard who dissed our Jim, I've got an extra pitchfork if anyone needs it. It's got those barbed bits on the end, though, so they're tough (but fun!) to remove after pronging.
Jim, I love your site and like the little tutorials ... ok you´re (right used?) not THE FIDDLE GOD - but you never said you are and I´m sure (S)HE IS NOT AS WELL. So forget and keep on fiddling.
Just a note about the original e-mail I received - I checked with my service provider support to see if there was an entry in their server trace logs - there was, date and time-stamped to the exact second the nasty e-mail was sent.
It included the IP address of the machine from where it originated, which turned out to be a machine on the network of the University of Wisconsin. I sent the original mail plus a firm but civil e-mail of complaint to their 'abuse of resources'
department.
Pity the miscreant isn’t in the UK. I’m sure some of my session associates would be happy to explain the error of that behaviour face-to-face
Jim, if it’s not inconvenient, could you keep us up-to-date on the University of W's response? It should serve as a warning to others who may think of abusing the system.
I've had the same sort of mail sent my way from time to me regarding flutesite.com, after a while you get used to it, it's just more spam to be deleted.
I listened to several of your clips, and played along. I enjoyed your playing very much--if you ever find yourself in the old hills of central Arkansas, you'd be very welcome in our sessions!
Wow, I had a wonderfully busy weekend, otherwise I would have enjoyed continuing in this conversation. A couple of disparate points:
I browsed the Churchill article and need to go on record as saying that he paints with too broad a brush. My cousin died in the WTC. It was her last day as a temp there. She was a beautiful person and not a cell-phone-braying profiteer. She was a loving soul with an incredible voice.
And which University of WI was the source? Or do I really want to know? This conversation is striking close to home on several points. It could be a fun Milwaukee fest this year!
Hate mail (...almost)
Hate mail (...almost)
I had the following e-mail from an anonymous visitor to my site - http://www.worldfiddlemusic.co.uk/ . I knew it was only a matter of time before I received something offensive (the internet and all that....), but what puzzled me was the person's motive for writing it. Was it someone with a strict mind for the 'pure drop' only, was it resentment, did they just want to annoy, or what? They simply filled in the feedback form, gave no name or e-mail address (except to say from WI, USA ). It's not in my nature to wind people up, but I seem to have done it to this one.
Any thoughts? (E-mail follows....)
*********************************************************
"You should not be presenting yourself as an experienced fiddler because you are clearly not. You're ornamentation is poor and inconsistant, you use mostly separate bows, the music has absolutely no flow. All you have the right to teach is correct posture. So get this ridiculous hobby of yours off the internet and leave the teaching for people who know what they're doing. What a disaster it would be if the future generation of Irish fiddlers played like you. I have nothing against beginning musicians, only those who suffer the delusion that they are good."
**************************************************************
Jim
# Posted on February 10th 2005 by Worldfiddler
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
*shrug* i'd say just take it for what it is and that's it, Jim. It's only one person's opinion, and obviously lots of people wouldn't agree with it.
As for motive, I'd say probably they think you stink, think you're doing the tradition harm, and they want you to take your site down. *grin*
You already know I don't think you stink, that I think the tradition has it in it to absorb all kinds of different styles, and I think it's great you've got the site up. I assume that you're going to find MY opinion much more important than this person's right? hehehe
# Posted on February 10th 2005 by Zina Lee
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Jim, have you ever been to WI, USA? Consider the source, as they say. Long winters and too much cheese & sausage will cloud one's judgement.
I've learned a good deal from your site and have pionted others to it. Nothing but good to say here. Keep up the good work!
rgb
# Posted on February 10th 2005 by Robby B.
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Jim, I got an email just like that the other day. There's something in the water. Just steer well clear of these madmen and try to avoid getting poisoned yourself.
An observation, though: people who feel the need to attack other people's self-confidence are *always* lacking it themselves. There's nothing more infuriating to an insecure person than seeing someone *just like them* (by whatever standards they fear they are judged by everyone else) trucking along looking completely free of self-doubt. Once you understand this the attacks aren't nearly as effective.
I've been fending off these wackos since kindergarten. The only similarity they have is that it is always someone I've never even noticed before saying my very existence makes them angry, and that it's my fault.
Oh, well. Whatever. You can't please everybody.
# Posted on February 10th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I would also comment that the ability to play and the ability to teach are two different things altogether.
I'm not a filddler and the clips are too short for me to comment in any meaningful way on your playing but if you are teaching - keep it up. Students will always find their own way.
I know of a couple of great teachers over here that are not exactly genius players but they have produced some of the finest young talent in the country with some of their pupils winning the All ireland.
# Posted on February 10th 2005 by breandan
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
"....play your music to suite yourself and then your as good as anyone else"
-- Ed Haley
# Posted on February 10th 2005 by Robby B.
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
WI?
Isn't that the Women's Institute?
They come round here somtimes, setting up stalls by the lock, peddling their cakes and 'jam' to unsuspecting passers by, and posing for their wretched topless calendars (Yawn). Just tip us the wink and I'll go down with a couple of the lads and tip their trestles into the Thames .....
# Posted on February 10th 2005 by Ottery
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I must agree with Kerri, Robby and Zina. I wouldn't give any credence to anonymous criticism. If this guy really felt he had a valid point, why wouldn't he identify himself? Just like having a thick skin is necessary to get out and play this music, so is it needed to put yourself out on a website. BTW - I think your site is great! Keep up the good work.
Ken
# Posted on February 10th 2005 by RogueFiddler
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Gosh, if he thought that about your playing, what will he e-mail me when he stumbles across my site! I shudder in anticipation.....
Larry
# Posted on February 10th 2005 by Layers
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Wisconsin? Probably has cheese and sausage of the arteries, especially one going to his brain, plus blood alcohol level off the meter (you go from blood alcohol level to alcohol blood level). I think you announced this web site here and I looked it over. I can give you the same feedback : its a great idea. Don't get discouraged. Best Wishes!
# Posted on February 10th 2005 by CeolCairdeas
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Always ignore someone who writes ' you're' when he should use 'your' and can't spell 'inconsistent' correctly.
# Posted on February 10th 2005 by Lurcherjohn
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Hi Jim,
I'm a frequent visitor to your site and love it. I take private fiddle lessons but when I'm home and my teacher isn't there I use your site for a little refresher if needed.
There's an old saying......when the student is ready the teacher will appear. How true. Your site has helped me a great deal.
I always look forward to the updates to your site.
Thanks
Mary
# Posted on February 10th 2005 by Antikhntr
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Some people. Why even waste their time putting that up.
# Posted on February 10th 2005 by Why Bother?
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
With the WI origin, we can at least rule out the bould Seamus T! Besides he would have had the balls to sign it.
# Posted on February 10th 2005 by LongNote
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Looks like a poison pen job to me, Jim. Bad-tempered, vindictive, and IMHO inaccurate. You have a great site and I think both your teaching method and your technical ability are just fine. Don't let him, her, or it get to you.
Motive? Insecurity, envy, bad hair incarnation, who knows? Don't worry about it, just keep on with what you've been doing.
# Posted on February 10th 2005 by sara g
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I get email like that too I'm afraid, and from people who had to go to some trouble to even find out what my email address is.
See my post regarding Slashdot in the Slow mp3s For Learning thread, and there are a few other niche fields where I'm quite well known.
It's part and parcel of being a public personality I'm afraid. I don't like it much myself, contributing to my low "profile."
Nobody (sane) really likes to be hated, but just let the hate mail roll off your back the best you can. These people are *usually* harmless creeps resorting to such because in any actual face to face confrontation they'd just p** their pants.
Wait'll you start getting "groupies" though. Some of those people can be frickin' scary.
"I assume that you're going to find MY opinion much more important than this person's right?"
You and I are completely together on this one, Zina.
KFG
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by KFG
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I'd have to echo Kerri's comments, and would add that he probably wears size 5 shoes and drives a Ford F350 4x4 crew cab......with dually's. Sheesh, get a life, Bub.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by yonder
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
This past Sat I went to visit the new MOMA in NYC - this is the Museum of Modern Art. There are always some resentful people who walk around muttering "I could have done it and *better*. This is crap and should not be displayed etc". They are either jealous because someone else *actually* invested themselves in the process, promoted themselves and got to show their stuff, or they lack the understanding of why art is on display in the first place. Of course I am not calling this music modern art, but I see and hear this all the time and it really bothers me.
Jim - keep up the good work! The fact that you are putting this effort into the web site is not lost. Many people will benefit from it and your playing will too.
Avi
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by improziv
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Jim, what you are doing for us is great. I've personally used your site on a number of occaisions and have already learned multitudes of things. I'm greatful there is someone out there who can deliver this kind of knowledge. Keep it up and forget about the idiots... hey! maybe it was that Seamus character with the flute and the big ego
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by c_ya
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
You people have something against beer, cheese and sausage? Talk about poison pens!
If the writer of the email has such a problem with Jim's site, why not use that energy to create another site? If their opinion is that valued, then why not put it out there for all to see?
If that is not worth their effort, then leave Jim alone.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Jode
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Jode, that is now what I wish I'd written. Ya'll can ignore my previous post (i often mix up your and you're anyway, inconnssitontly).
Bravo.
KFG
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by KFG
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Who was it who said "no one's ever built a statue of a critic" ?
I also like "criticism comes easier than craftsmanship."
Shake it off Jim and get back to work. People are waiting for the next lesson.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Since we're sharing, this is what I got the other day (thanks to the never-before-abused fact that people are able to contact me through my membership on this site):
The email was fairly long and detailed, but the jist of it was this:
"I don't really mind about the music itself, I've got a problem about your overall attitude. You really strike like someone who doesnt give a sh*te about other musicians' music."
And this is what I felt was the appropriate response:
"Your email is ridiculous. I hope you kept a copy of it so that if you ever grow up you can look back at and laugh at yourself.
Thanks for adding some excitement to an otherwise boring work day."
K
Anyway, that's what started it. Then it went on and on and on and on, and now it looks like I'm getting a free pint out of the deal.
(goes to show you I know how to turn an ugly situation to my advantage).
In the end, the guy figured out that he is angry, frustrated, much too picky about the musical company he keeps, insecure about how he is perceived by "better" musicians, and that he lashed out at me a little more viciously than he intended. We had to work hard to get there, though. Too hard for my taste.
In the middle of it all I had this really wierd dream where I was at a session with every musician in the city whose playing blows me away. It was a WICKED session. Unbelievable. The music was incredible, and everyone was getting along. Then this really nice girl I know came up and said in an ominous voice "You know this won't last, don't you?"
Plus, the whole time, I wasn't wearing any pants, and Nicholas Williams kept shaking his head at me all full of pity and saying "Man, we've got to get you some underwear!"
LOL.
Also, my shoulder muscles are unusually tense and I've been having trouble sleeping. Look, what I'm trying to say is; this stuff hurts no matter how stupid it is to an objective outsider. When it happens to you, try dissociating a little and asking yourself what the effects have been. I have much more tension, fear, mistrust, sleeplessness, and insecurity after interacting this guy than I did before.
Now the question I'm asking myself is: Do I want to be a person who makes people feel these things? If not, there is no reason to integrate any of his attitudes, opinions, or criticisms into my world view. I'll stick with "live and let live".
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Who appointed this jerk to the "Internet Police"? Be interesting to hear him/her play something. Just more "sp*m", Jim. Your site's great--thanks for all your efforts!
Mike
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by MikeJV
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Kerri, how am going to stop from laughing if I ever end up sitting across from you at a session? What a dream!!!
It seems such a good lesson in itself to never take yourself or others too seriously.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Jode
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I spend hours winding people up, and it sometimes works, even got Jack Gilder calling me rude the other day. At my size and weight, and still as unmarked and handsome as Ali, I must have a talent for it.
But hate mail. There is only one reason for hate mail, and only one way to deal with this particular piece of hate mail.
Jim, you MUST learn how to cope with jealous people. The best way is usually a casual "How would you know" response. Works wonders on jealous people. And Jim, you yourself know the truth, and that's what matters.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by bodhran bliss
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
It could have been the loveliest dream of my life, except that everyone else *was* wearing pants.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Kerri, we'd NEVER criticize you for playing at our session with no pants.
Promise!
Jim, seriously though. If this bloke/blokette had the courage of his convictions, he'd have identified himself.
Your site is great, and is a fantastic complement to this one.
Mark
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Ottery
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
First she sleeps her way into the session, then she shows up without pants.
I have *got* to make a trip to Montreal.
KFG
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by KFG
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
In this particular dream, both.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
It is funny that this type of message is always ' anonymous'. If the sender was really a serious critic, surely he/she would be happy to leave a 'private' message and be willing to show you where you are going wrong......................if he/she thinks THEY are so much better, then why don't they set up a site to show it better.
Jim, for anyone who has a site you will get a few nutters replying, so concentrate on the hundreds of very happy and grateful people out there. It is a great site, and I recently passed it on to a friend of mine in china, who could never find a teacher out here...............so it is helping All corners of the world !!
it is a great site, keep it going !
KS
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by KS
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
bodhranbliss writes: "even got Jack Gilder calling me rude the other day"
Huh? How'd I get into this thread?
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Its just one persons opinion and nothing more. That person has a right to express their opinions just like the rest of us. This is what happens when you throw yourself to the mercy of the general public. You can't please all the people all the time.
If he/she really doesn't like the site or your playing then so what. I don't think anybody should be knocked for tendering an opinion even if they don't idenify themselves, after all hundreds of opinions are posted here each week from people with no profiles.
I have never listened to your site samples so I can't comment on how good or bad they may be. But if I thought that they are bad then I would let you know and indeed if I thought they are doing the tradition an injustice I would again let you know. I feel it is the responsibility of eveybody to give a true opinion wheather it is negitive or postive. How could you improve your site if you didn't get genuine critism?
The person who sent the mail to you seems to have very strong convictions about the music and you will find a lot like that and its no big deal.
On the chin or so they say.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by compaqjohn
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
John, I think yer man is fair game. We have equal rights to critique his communication style as he has to giving anonymous opinions about Jim's site.
Sure, everyone has a right to their opinion, but I disagree with the anonymity. If you are going to tell someone off directly, with mail to their "home", then take credit for it. Otherwise, you water down your statements by not putting your personal weight behind it. I value your opinion more because you have put your name behind it.
Also, I think that a place like this site is a little different, because it is more public, and a person has the opportunity to respond directly.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Jode
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Jode
The mail was not sent to his home but only to a computer which hosts a website that Jim choose to put up to provide a service to internet users world wide. Like any service you will have the bad response and in this case the majority, good response.
Just because you have a user name "jode" and a few lines of text in your profile it doesn't make me know who you are. 99% of users on this site are indeed anomymous. How many people here would submit their email to jeremy's database if it was not a requirement of membership?
All websites are public as that is the very nature of the net and to suggest otherwise is maddness.
I first seen Jims site when he put it up late last year and I liked it, I will return there very soon to listen to the files to see if mister X has any merit to be a critic, if I don't like what I hear or think its inaccurate I will tell Jim, that much is certain.I have a slow connection so I don't tend to listen to anything on the net.
The point I was making is that one can voice any opinion about anything in the public domain and should not be battered to death for it. Freedom of speech is gareenteed to all free countries and so it should be. The guy who made the comments to jim "choose" to remain in the dark. This to, is his right as Jims site could or should have mandatory fields in the comment reply box. But seeing as it didn't then Mister X had a right to leave out his name and email.
Surly you don't think my real name is CompaqJohn?
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by compaqjohn
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
"The point I was making is that one can voice any opinion about anything in the public domain and should not be battered to death for it. Freedom of speech is gareenteed to all free countries and so it should be."
To the extent to which I may be accused of "battering" this person I have done so entirely withing the confines of his own freedom of speech to batter Jim.
If I should so choose (and please note that I have made no statement that I do) to hold and voice the opinion that his lack of attaching an indentifying mark to his opinion is the act of a craven, that too is protected by the same rights that allow said person to hold and express the opinion that Jim isn't an experienced fiddler and that his site sucks.
The sword has two edges.
"Surly you don't think my real name is CompaqJohn?"
It is your real mark, and so long as you do not use it in an attempt commit an act of fraud in my state would count as a legally valid name, yes. The legal milage of your political local may vary.
KFG
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by KFG
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
And quit calling me Shirley.
KFG
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by KFG
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Jim,
If I were to want to criticize you or anyone else, I would try and say what was wrong and what should be done in my opinion. This person is just taking a cheap shot and running for cover of anonymity. Yes, on a public website they have the right to do so.
You on the other hand feel worried that maybe some others feel like this too. And that is why it is important for me and so many others before me to reassure you that you are making a very positive contribution through your website.
If and when people outgrow what your site can offer they will hopefully be able to find a local teacher that can help them take the next step.
Keep up the good work.
BTW: I always thought Compaqjohn was Littlejohn's slightly bigger brother.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Donough
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
When I first read the critical email, I immediately waffled. They guy's entitled to his opinions, and at least he gave specifics--whether or not you agree with him, he was very clear about what he sees as the shortcomings in Jim's playing. If those criticisms were leveled at my playing (which indeed they could be), they'd sting like hell, but at least I'd have some meat to chew on, something specific to make my own decisions about whether my ornaments, bowing, and flow needed work. It may not be polite, but it's also not totally unconstructive criticism (assuming there's any accuracy in it).
What bothered me though was this guy's first line about Jim presenting himself as an experienced fiddler as though Jim is not. First off, I've listened to most of the samples on Jim's site and he's clearly an experienced fiddler, with plenty of solid and advanced bow and left-hand technique up his sleeve. His bow hold and fingering on rolls are different than what I use, but it's well within the typcial range of good fiddlers. His "style" sounds more Scottish than Irish to me, but there's nothing wrong with that either, especially since the site is called *world* fiddle music dot com.
Of course the clincher here is that no where on the site does Jim set himself up as some sort of amazing fiddle guru. Quite the contrary, his whole approach is very welcoming, humble and helpful, one fiddler to another, someone intent on sharing his passion for the music, which is the hallmark of a good teacher. And no doubt part of what attracts so many people to the site.
The critic apparently missed all that, and so his critique comes off as cruel simply because so much of it is off the mark, irrelevant.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Obviously your name is not CompaqJohn, but you have not hidden yourself on this site. If I cared to discover your name, I might be able to do so. And my use of a first name/nick name is hardly a shield that I hide behind. If you cared to find out who I am, you can find out who I am. Others have done so.
And my point is that we are having a conversation here, semi-anonymous yes, but still a conversation. We are free to speak and disagree with each other.
Yes, this person had a right to do what they did, but I just don't respect the way that it was done. In comparison, one may agree with some of Tansey's points, but not with the way he communicated them.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Jode
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I suspect freedom of speech comes with a responsibility to speak in good faith. Those who speak irresponsibly tend to find their words ignored by all but tabloid readers and Fox news fans.
Of course, freedom of speech protects fanatics, carnival barkers, and--all too often--lying liars and the lies they tell. But that doesn't make lying and verbal assault morally acceptable.
For me, this whole thing comes down to the golden rule (no, *not* " do unto others before they do unto you" :-| ).
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Why debate about the "freedom of speech" rights of a twit who comes up lines like "All you have the right to teach is correct posture." and "get this ridiculous hobby of yours off the internet".
The guy feels it's OK for him to insist the public shouldn't even be allowed to *see* Jim's website. It would be hypocritical in the extreme for the writer of this garbage to start whining about his own freedom of speech rights being trampled if we were to suggest he put a sock in it and mind his own business.
You can't expect criticism to be constructive when it's padded with such hateful language. I completely disagree that there is anything in there Jim might want to "sink his teeth into" (except maybe the guy's jugular vein).
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
(besides which, it's all purely academic since it's almost certainly a hit and run event. It's very likely the writer doesn't even know you're sticking up for him, or that the rest of us think he's an ass.)
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Darn Kerri, I should have sent you anonymous emails, it would have saved me a pint
I'm gonna have to learn to turn things around to keep away from reality, though, but that's after I fix my lack of maturity issue 
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Azalin
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Bet s/he finds out, at this point. Someone who lurks or posts here is bound to recognize him/her by place and description and/or when s/he describes (probably self-righteously, but I suppose you never know) how they took this guy on the Net down a peg. So we'll just have to see if they have the b*lls to come out with it. Personally, I don't have much patience or respect for people who insult, taunt, and run with little consequences to those acts.
Of course, I don't have patience or respect for people who insult and taunt or behave like boors even if they *do* understand there's consequences to those acts, as my mama brought me up to respect people who can get along with other people.
I mean, we all know this person is off-base in more ways than one. I wouldn't mind finding out who it is, as I'd personally love to consider putting their name on my list of people to avoid in meatspace.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Zina Lee
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Why debate freedom of speech--precisely because for it to have any meaning, we should insist that it apply to those with whom we most strongly disagree.
If you haven't been following the Ward Churchill debacle, google his name and see if his situation doesn't influence your thinking on whether freedom of speech applies even when the speech is harsh and hateful.
All I'm trying to say above is that even twits and hypocrits and zealots should have an opportunity to spew their nonsense, whether or not anyone listens. Because otherwise some "authority" gets to decide who's a twit and who's not. And people who have something useful to contribute would have no recourse when their turn came to be censored. Thank goodness we don't have to listen or pay any real heed to the twits, but lets also be glad that each of us gets to decide for ourselves who's a twit and who's a true oracle.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
And there's all the difference in the world between standing up for what someone says and standing up for their right to say it.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I think thick shin is needed and lack of sensitivity. Sure it was a crap way to mail anybody but one should not take it deeply. I have over the years been dished out my share of it, mostly on stage, delivered by drunks and the likes. When I was 19, I was chased around clonmel by the father of a girl I had beaten in competition in the fleadh, he wanted to break my fingers and shove the banjo in a very uncomfortable place. Thank god I could run in those days. He buys me pint now!
I give lessons to teenagers who will tell me that I'm teaching them wrong and haven't a clue and blame me for their boyfriends running off with their best friends and just about everything else that goes wrong. The end result, if all the people I teach, if only one could every play one tune right as a result of my tutition then that would make me very happy. My results are better that that though.
My full teaching challenge is to teach a All-Ireland Champion and I would die a very happy person. And if I don't then so what.
One persons opinion should not be take to deeply, one has to look a the bigger picture and this tread is a good start.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by compaqjohn
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
*sigh* Don't remind me about the whole Churchill thing, Will. I think there's some kind of lawsuit happening now with, I can't remember, it's either a state legislature or the alumni, threatening to sue for their tax/money back from the University.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Zina Lee
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Will writes: "All I'm trying to say above is that even twits and hypocrits and zealots should have an opportunity to spew their nonsense, whether or not anyone listens"
Careful, Will. If you're referring to Ward Churchill with these superlatives you're playing into the hands of a corporate media that is bent on demonizing someone for practicing “free speech.” Its very well known by folks on the left that corporate media is misrepresenting Ward Churchill's "free speech." Take a look at this statement by the man himself and compare it to what they're telling you he said.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0201-05.htm
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
"If you're referring to Ward Churchill with these superlatives. . ."
Well, it is unclear from Will's post just who he might have been refering to (he is entirely ambiguous in paragraph two, but implies Mr. Churchill in paragraph three), I'd have a hard time believing they applied to Mr. Churchill who is never particularly harsh or hateful and is articulate to a point that makes me a bit jealous, even when I find I don't agree with him. He is anything but a twit.
Bill O' Reilly, on the other hand, has made being harsh and hateful his trademark "style" and is a first class twit, even on those occasions when I agree with him.
So I find myself quite willing to read Mr. Churchill and ignore Mr. O'Reilly, if only based on facility with language and argumentation.
The above is my own opinion, of course, that of others may differ markedly.
So I shall fall back on sitting in the "Everybody from both sides is shooting at us" corner with Voltaire. I don't think it's a particularly wise place to position myself, but the company is first rate.
And from what he's written here I suspect that Will would at least agree with that.
KFG
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by KFG
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Ahhh Wisconsin, that veritable hotbed of Irish music. How I miss the long nights and early mornings listening to experienced fiddlers ply their wares, eat sausage and discuss the merits of lumberjack shirts *sigh*.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Jim,
I don't normally put 'pen to paper', in threads on this site, mainly because most of them are over before I get to read them, and secondly because there are folks here who can comment from a much more informed standpoint.
However, on this occasion I would like to say a few things. Firstly, if the 'creep' thinks he's good enough. Why doesn't he/she put up a better site?
Secondly, and more importantly from my point of view. I hadn't picked up a fiddle since boring school fiddle lessons, eons ago. Having read through your site a few weeks ago, I was 'enthused' and picked up my Dad's old fiddle. So much so that I've now booked some fiddle lessons, and the mandolin and box have gone on the backburner for a while.
If nothing else please accept my gratitude, I think it's a wonderful resource, and I shall be referring to it regularly.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by -=cluiche=-
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Oh! and I don't like Sausages!!!!
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by -=cluiche=-
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I don't mind sausages myself.
He does sound like Tansey though, I wonder if the WI USA is to throw you. And the way I feel about Tansey is that he's not the full shilling and so I wouldn't lose much sleep over anythinh he says.
And actually it's an anagram for I SAW U....which explains everything, so yes definitly your mysery man is Seamus Tansey..... because... eh...Tansey once said those words "I SAW U", or words like them, or thought about saying them..... or read them ...maybe.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by BegF
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
"mystery man" not "mysery man" - but then again maybe.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by BegF
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
WOW - crazy post!!
I'm sorry to hear that Jim.
I love what you are doing.
fair play to you, and keep it up.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Hugo Chavez
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
"I'm gonna hafta learn to turn things around to keep away from reality, though..."
For the love of god, Guillaume, go back to the Chiff and Fipple. You said you wanted to know where I would be so you could get away from me. Well, here I am. Now get away from me.
:^P
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Hi Jim,
I am sorry that you got such a crazy mail. Maybe the person who wrote it is just jealous that you had the energy and the guts to build up your site.
Anyway, I love it and I'll show it to my violin teacher (I finally found one!!) and I know that he'll love it, too.
Please keep up you excellent work!!
Cheers
Sue
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by fiddlinsue
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Christ, I find myself apologetically admitting that I live in WI, (Wisconsin)! And, it most assuredly wasn't me!!
I feel blessed with the generosity Jim has displayed, offered, etc. I have listened, watched and read the material you have made available on your site Jim, and it has been a help to me. Thank You numerous times over! Since I was passing out hugs here the other day, here's one for you and a big kiss on lips besides!
It's way too easy to resort to bad manners, foul language and suffer egotism through email and the internet, especially done anonymously. Anyone can present themselves as self important "experts". I make it a practice to ignore them.
As I said, your audio & video clips have been help a to this novice. I think your are a God.
Shamefully from Wisconsin, Deb.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Agnes Nutter
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
And if I ever run into this person, I will slap the crap out of them!
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Agnes Nutter
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Hey Deb! Don't worry about the Wisconsin references. Since it's the only clue as to who the guy is, it's no surprise people are slagging it off. It's a bit like people slagging me off for being a terrorist or something. I'm sure Wisconsin is lovely!
:¬)
You're completely right about the person hiding behind anonymity. We call them "keyboard hard-men". Usually they are low-lifes and haven't a clue what they're talking about. If the person in question had any mettle or dignity they'd be honest about their identity; then their "skills" could be put under scrutiny.
He or she should hide their head in shame.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I still say he's not from Wisconsin,
I still like sausages.
And now I want one of dem hugs.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by BegF
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I think the phrase I was looking for was "hang their head in shame". Oh well, had a pint of Stella at lunchtime, that's my excuse. Wahey, it's Friday!!!!!
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
LOL Conan & BegF! I'm used to friendly slagging of Wisconsin. It's the norm from Chicago & Minneapolis, a requirement if you will, from opposing Pro Football teams & fans. It goes both ways!
Of course you both have hugs! Deb.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Agnes Nutter
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
And they should hide, I'm on the look out now!
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Agnes Nutter
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
A character from another discussion board is pursuing Kerri across this one!
Jim is a God!
Has anyone read "At Swim Two Birds" ?
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Bren
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Yes, and if you have a peek at his history, he seems to have nothing to contribute to our discussions but personal criticism of me.
I feel so... important!
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
In response to CompaqJohn's last post. I think you are correct, that people should develop thicker skins and be less sensitive to criticism. It would then make it easier for everyone to be a bit more honest with each other. The flip side being that people also need to figure out ways to critique each other without being overly rude about it.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Jode
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Well, I guess I need to reply to that. Kerri and I had a lenghty email exchange, where I explained why I disliked her behavior in the sessions here in Montreal. A few things I said I were right, a few things I said werent. But I found out fast enough that nothing would go through her thick head, as she would answer with her own different criticism everytime. So at the end I decided that she would never get what I was trying to say and decided to leave it like that, trying to call for a truce, "admitting" politely to numerous things to show my good faith. We decided I was going to buy her a pint and leave it like that.
But there I see this thread, the "hate mail", and Kerri bringing the whole stuff again, even putting on quotes from my mail, and saying that at the end I was the one with issues. Well, to set the record straight, my emails didnt have anything to do with hate mail, I wasnt being anonymous and was being quite honnest with Kerri here. She can't handle some truth and her brain is conditioned to fight back and use what you said against you for self defence.
So, Kerri, I will gladly leave you "alone", but please just stop goin on everywhere complaining like a baby with your version of the facts and maybe it's your turn to be mature enough and leave it behind. I didnt want to bring the whole thing in the open but gee, mixing our conversations in a "hate mail" thread?
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Azalin
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
And Wisconsin is a pretty good place for Irish music. There's a nice scene in Madison, and Milwaukee is home to Irish Fest, or MilwaukeeFest as the Chicagoans call it. The Fest is an event worth checking out. In recent years, they have done a good job booking trad acts, and the sessions have awesome potential. There is also a summer school the week before the festival, and that can be great fun too. Danu are there this year, and Liz Carroll is performing and teaching fiddle in the summer school.
http://www.irishfest.com/index.htm
And yes, I grew up in Milwaukee, and no, I did not write that email.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Jode
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
LOL!
I don't know, Guillaume, it just seemed relevant at the time. I can't for the life of me imagine why.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Hey Jack, I think you have me confused with someone else, er, someone shallow, right of center, and rather sheep-like.
If you actuially read my posts on this thread, I'm quite plainly citing Professor Churchill as one of the good guys who's being censored (and worse) for saying unpopular things that need to be said.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I agree Jode re: developing a thicker skin etc. But I certainly understand Jim’s request for input. Besides the time Jim has spent on the planning, playing/recording and developing the site. He has also spent a fair amount of coin to do so. I do a fair bit of video editing for the docs here. The equipment itself is very expensive. The software, the same. Then there is the learning. Getting down to editing takes a fair bit of time. I think Jim is looking for feedback as to whether it’s worth it in the end. I hope there has been enough encouragement Jim, to have keep on doing so. I have benefited quite a bit from all of your work.
I do want take the opportunity to thank everyone who contributed their sets to Jim’s generous section for the mighty craic. You all are grand to listen to! Thank you. Hopefully in the future I will be able to contribute something worthy enough to stand in with all of you! Bravo everyone!!
And thanks Jode for the good word on Milwaukee, being a Milwaukee citizen, it's nice to hear. If you come this year to the fest, I would love to meet you, as well as everyone else who comes. Deb.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Agnes Nutter
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I don't know of anyone who has ever been called a bully who truly thinks of themselves as a bad person. (Anybody else remember reading The Bully of Baker Street as a kid?) Most of us have displayed bully-ish behavior at some point or another, especially when our feelings are hurt or when we feel we may not be receiving our due. Just try to remember that when thinking of that e-mail, Jim, and roll on the day, as if you needed my advice. ;)
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Zina Lee
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
P.S. I read Ward's original essay on the chickens coming home to roost quite some time ago, before it attracted so much media attention. The reason I cited him in the first place is that his essay *is* harsh and hateful, far more so than Jim's rather mild-mannered critic. Ward makes no bones about it because his ire is directed at people who implement or support genocidal actions and policies. Strong language for the strongest of protests--nothing wrong with that (except that it will win you enemies).
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Ahh, that would be Compac John re: reasons for input/thicker skin. I really must read a little more carefully.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Agnes Nutter
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Yep, and Deb, I have not missed one Irish Fest yet, so I will be there with bells on!
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Jode
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Kerri, you've made it !!!
You've got your own stalker !
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by BegF
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Maybe the issue of whether an opinion is worded too harshly just depends on whether or not you agree with it. I think Micheal Moore is doing a great job of venting his opinion in his work - I love it. I'm a huge fan. On the other hand, I think Rush Limbaugh is intolerable and ought to be carefully concealed from the public eye. ;^)
Thank god it isn't up to me to decide. We'd all be wearing daisies in our hair, doing sidewalk paintings and throwing our lives away. The "Economy" would never recover.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
and leaving our pants at home for sessions?
sorry, couldn't resist ...
mm
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by MM
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I thought stalkers were less intrusive.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
(Yeah, maarten, if you ever want to see me at a party only half dressed, just drop in on one of my dreams).
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Ok MM, I've got a hug from debwah that's very
valuable to me, but am willing to exchange for a shared pants-less dream. I reckon I could get a hug from Conan either, so if
your willing to trade.....
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by BegF
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Just a point on what Compaqjohn said earlier re freedom of speech. I agree that if someone has an opinion they should have the right to express that opinion, regardless of what it is.
It is my personal opinion that the centre of the universe is a small ham sandwich.
Brings to mind something my mate Gary Duffy once said, "You have a right to an opinion, but your opinion is sh*te".
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
LOL - I Just love these rambling threads! Hate mail, stalkers, free speech, Milwaukee Fest, Michael Moore and Rushbo! What were we talking about? Oh yeah, Kerri's dreams, no Compaq's little brother, no - I'm all confused now!
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by RogueFiddler
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I noticed somebody over at the Chiff and Fipple (I poke my head in there sometimes when they're having discussions about something I've written in here) has "My opinion is stupid and wrong." appearing with his signature on all his comments. I thought that was brilliant. Totally beats winking smileys, pants down.
uh... I mean HANDS down.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
What are we wasting our time here for ?
There's a small ham sandwich at the centre of the universe
with my name on it !!!
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by BegF
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
In fact, I want a baseball cap that says that so I can wear it during arguments, but still refuse to ever back down.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Writing for a living compels me to wrestle with the tone/content see-saw every day. It's a never-ending learning experience. After more than 20 years, all I can say for sure is that no matter what tone you choose, it will be too harsh for some, and too soft for others. The more controversial your content is, the narrower will be the band of readers who find your tone "just right." And no matter how carefully you choose your words, someone will understand them to mean the opposite of what you intended.
So I think it's healthy to listen to people (especially those with whom you disagree) with one ear on the tone while the other ear processes the content. Just because someone speaks harshly doesn't mean they don't have a valid point (or that they do). And just because someone uses a calm, friendly tone doesn't mean they're not selling you down the river (that's called "diplomacy").
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Does this ham sandwhich come with honey mustard or raspberry chipotle chutney? Whole wheat or pumpernickel?
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Butt out Harmon.
Hands off my sandwich !
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by BegF
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Well Einstein reckoned it was Dijon mustard, Hawking figures it to be homemade mayo and my own very personal theory points towards it consisting of:
2 slices honey wheat bread
2 thin tomato slices
6 thin cucumber slices
6 slices OSCAR MAYER Deli Style Shaved Smoked Ham
1 KRAFT 2% Milk Singles
Of course, I could be wrong but the people at KRAFT (tm) seem to agree...
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Lads, lads, no fighting now. There's enough for everyone, as it's the size of the state of Wisconsin (now there's a coincidence)
They really do have huge pigs in space.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
...and in Chipp&Fipple
(will I get into trouble for that ?)
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by BegF
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
" winking smileys, pants down."
Another image swims into view, not totally unconnected to ham sandwiches.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Bren
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
lol. I think you will get in trouble for that, but not here. They prefer to have their conversations about this site over there.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
BegF, you sandwich is safe, thanks to Bren's infelicitous image-mongering. I'll not be having ham for lunch today, thank you....
*grin*
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I do believe some of the pigs have flown from outer space to Wisconsin. One landed on my desk as a means to indicate to all and sundry when I would complete their project(s)....
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Agnes Nutter
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Yeah, ugh! Put me right off my offal and giblets.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Conán...Kraft singles?!?! If that's what you call a sandwich, then skip the ham and proceed directly to the open, half eaten can of Spam in the fridge, third shelf down, far back corner. Yes, that's the one, with something wriggling in the gelatinous mucous under the rim.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Kinda gone off the idea of anything with mayo myself.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by BegF
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Harsh language indeed. Without freedom of speech, see what we'd be missing?
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
lol @ DebWah
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Hehe Will you've just inadvertently conjured up my mental picture of what is to be found at the other side of a wormhole, i.e. the worm
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I think you're right, Will. I do learn a lot about myself by taking the time to discuss differences of opinion with people, even when I feel their wording is too strong. It's pretty difficult to see the validity of whatever points a person is using to strengthen their position when the final conclusion is "You're an idiot and you should be ashamed to be out in public."
Which is what Jim has to deal with. It's much healthier, I think, to just ignore people who feel they have to chase you down to deliver *their* opinion to *you*.
It's even healthier to actively seek the opinion of people you admire and respect and listen with a completely open mind.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Will, your battle with tone/content is admirable, and I think it should be taken up by everyone. Communication is a difficult thing, but we should not give up on trying our best.
But what are you saying here? Sounds like you agree that we should be less sensitive to harshness, and take things "with a grain of salt".
It also sounds like you are saying that we should look beyond the original message to interpret what the person is saying. To not always take things at face value, or react to the original statement too quickly.
I agree with these things, and that is why I said that a semi anonymous dialog is better than a one-off anonymous editorial. There is more context to a dialog. You have a better chance to make yourself understood, and a better chance to understand the arguments of others.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Jode
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
(OK, well, maybe not *completely* open. Then you're just tossing in the wind. I'm brutal to new ideas before I'll accept them. I just want to be certain my ideas are *mine*, you know?)
And, yuck. Wormy spam. You should be ashamed of yourself. I was just about to have lunch.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Gotta run to lunch, I hear Smiley's has a lovely open face ham sandwich, something you can really pant over.
And Conan, please, keep that cheesefood off the sandwich! Those WI folks are cheeseheads, not cheesefood heads!
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Jode
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
mmmmm....open face club sandwedge...
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by BegF
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Yup, us cheeseheads take our cheese seriously!
If I knew Monty Python would be invited to lunch, I'd have baked a cake, or should that be baked beans????
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Agnes Nutter
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Jode, I can't change the make-up of the universe! Some people may think I'm God, but I'm not really :¬)
Well, gotta go. 5.30 over here, the weekend starts now! Tunes to learn, wine to drink, ass to scratch.
All the best
C
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
OK, I hear what you're saying, Jode. And I completely agree, if you're talking to a friend you don't want to lose, to a spouse, to someone you care about, someone you admire, or someone whose company you simply enjoy.
But to some angry eejit you don't even know? Honestly, what's the point of looking for wisdom in the screeching of stray cats in the night?
(Actually, I CAN see the point of that, now that I think of it...)
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
See I think it's really easy to disregard the "you're an idiot and should be ashamed to be out in public " part precisely because it's soooooo unreasonable it has no basis in reality. That's the least important part of Jim's critic's message. It's just a line drawn in the sand, which is the easiest of all lines to erase.
But that doesn't mean you necessarily want to dismiss offhand the stuff that's harder to take--the detailed critique of the actual playing. Poor ornaments and no flow. That's the sort of thing that would get under my skin, whether or not anyone else thought it was accurate. (Mind you, I'm not saying that it is accurate, but a burr in your shorts doesn't need good aim to be annoying or eventually revealing.)
"It's even healthier to actively seek the opinion of people you admire and respect and listen with a completely open mind." Well that's what Jim did here, right? So where's the beef?
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
They're mad...it's like eejits with road rage, but not as bad 'cos they're not going to kill someone....laugh at them, maybe even feel sorry for them because they're obvioulsy not quite right in the head, like what we are.....now, any one for a bean bath ?
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by BegF
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
hey, this is how a thick-skinned fiddler looks like! and its canada! (thanks walter for the link)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v320/walter23/darthfiddler-brighter.jpg
mm
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by MM
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Jode, Kerri, all I'm really saying is that the world's not always a pleasant place. It's up to each of us how we react to things like blunt, impersonal criticism. No one can make you a victim unless you let them. But dismissing people outright and patting yourself on the back for being better than them doesn't advance anyone's thinking.
Some people are better at voicing their anger and hatred than they are at articulating their underlying concerns and values. If you're confronted with someone like that, you can gauge whether or not you're in the mood to deal with it. If not, fine. Chances are they'll give you another opportunity sometime down the road, invited or not.
But when you are in the mood to deal with it, the ball is in your court. It's up to you to work past the rhetoric and vitriol (because they either won't or can't) so you can find those underlying concerns and values. And then you'll have something to talk about. Or at least to understand them better, even if they refuse to cooperate.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell. I'd still rather be a doubt-filled wise arse than a fool or fanatic, so I'll go on questioning things rather than risk being too sure of myself.
(P.S. My opinion is wrong and stupid. ;o)
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
But Kerri, you did have a dialog. And you were able to come to a decision about the quality of input you were receiving. If it was a one-off anonymous email to this site, you could not be sure whom it was from. It could have been from the person who did communicate with you recently, or it could have been from me or Will. (Sorry Will - no slight intended.) How would you know how to take it?
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Jode
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
No beef. I'm saying it was a healthy thing to do.
Will, I'm saying the detailed critique gets under the skin *because* the overall message is "you're an idiot and you should be ashamed to be out in public."
Useful criticism feels GOOD. It doesn't get "under your skin" and eat away at you. It gets you excited about picking up your instrument and learning to play better. Example, a totally non-personal criticism of my guitar playing from a person I respect was "You should try to stick to really basic chords until you get the rhythm nailed down". My immediate reaction was "Ooh, good idea!" And I got excited about the possibility of being a good accompanist. I worked on it and the next time he saw me he said "Wow, I'm really impressed, actually."
A personal criticism of my guitar playing sounds more like "you suck at playing the guitar and EVERYBODY wonders why you bother." Not useful.
There's a difference between giving someone a few tips about their playing and using things that happen to be true (that I haven't quite got the knack of playing the guitar yet, or that Jim uses a lot of single bows) in order to accomplish the objective of making themselves feel so crappy about themselves and their playing that they'll give it up. That's dirty pool. And should be recognized as such.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Nice photo mm. D'ya suppose he's playing "Kick the World Before You" or "The Dark Side of the Moor" (http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display.php/2951), or the Darth Haired Girl?
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Ahh... good, Will. I knew it must not say what it appeared to say. As Kevin points out, it was a bit unclear and ambiguous, but I had suspected I might have misinterpreted it since I was still running a fever at the time I read it. But since you brought the subject up, the link I provided may have been useful to anyone interested in such things anyway.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Jode, if I got that email and had no way of finding out who this person is, what kind of life they lead, or what their musical background and skill are, I would be shocked, then laugh, then come to the immediate conclusion it was sent by an out-of-work fiddle instructor with a very high opinion of himself who can't find students due to the fact that his communication style puts people off music altogether (gasp) that he's p*ssed off at me for giving away lessons for free, and that if I DID know a person who spoke to people in that tone of voice, I would not be interested in what he had to say.
Then again, I have incredibly thick skin.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Sure, and we've recognized (in spades) the dirty pool aspects of the email. But not all of it was dirty pool.
No one is arguing that the masked critic did the right thing or that his/her criticism were offered constructively. But it's there nonetheless and Jim has wondered aloud how to deal with it.
Obviously he can ignore it completely.
I'm not *insisting* that he or anyone else not ignore it. All I'm doing is *suggesting* an alternative, because life has a way of loosing these mudslides in front of us now and then. You (generic you) can continue walking around them every time if that suits you. Or when you're feeling energetic you can shovel your way through one or two.
I wish all criticism was delivered out of friendship and a desire to be constructive. But it's not. We can choose how to face that. I've found some value in digging through it sometimes, rather than simply avoiding it on principle.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
OK Will, I get your point. If I were to receive such a message, it would make me take a look at my playing. And maybe even an anonymously received honest message is better than no message at all. And maybe a harsh, anonymous message is better than no message at all.
I'm just advocating for a different style of communication.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Jode
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Jack, to be clear in my earlier post I should have inserted Churchill's name after "people who have something useful to contribute." My bad.
Churchill's essay, which is not pleasant reading even if you agree with his underlying values, can be found here:
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Hm. Interesting, Will. Maybe I'm just scared that if I let the ideas of people like this worm their way my head I will become more like them and less like the positive, encouraging people I love. I'm not as consistent as I would like to be. Sometimes I find myself thinking really snotty thoughts about someone at a session and I have to ask "Christ, where did that come from?" I always assumed I wasn't resisting the infiltration of other people's snotty thoughts enough, so I fight harder. Maybe I need to let them in completely and put some effort into transforming them into positive thoughts. (More Zen.)
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
There's a whole field of interest-based negotiation (which I work in a lot) that teaches these ideas, and the same stuff applies well to interpersonal relationships. Most of it boils down to focusing on interests (underlying values and concerns) rather than positions (lines drawn in the sand), and learning to hear those values and concerns even when they're buried in rhetoric or anger (all too often the case). And then reframing the problem or dispute in a way that lets you talk through it.
I'm not a guru of this stuff, just a messenger. Google Lawrence Susskind, Patrick Field, Roger Fisher, and William Ury to find their books on the public policy side of it, and David Schnarch or Carl Rogers for the interpersonal side.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Yep. Kerri, that's why I used Churchill as an example earlier. It's possible to make the same points in a way that might actually win converts. But Ward speaks as a Cherokee who stood with Russell Means and who knows first hand what it feels like to be under the government's night stick. So of course he sounds angry.
On the link I gave, go to his "response to critics" for a more cogent, reasoned summary of his points. He can be calm and articulate, but I suspect he had a purpose in using the flamethrower in the first essay.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I stand to be corrected on this but I’ve always understood it’s surprisingly difficult to cover your traces when sending an email. People who send anonymous emails think they’ve done it but there’s usually some data hidden there that gives a handle to an expert if there’s a need to track down the originator – as in law-enforcement situations.
I shouldn't worry about it, Jim. If this guy wasn't so sad and had the courage of his convictions he'd identify himself.
Trevor
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by lazyhound
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Really, Jode? It wouldn't cross your mind to consider the possibility he's just some wacko having a bad day? I always feel like I need a *lot* of information about a person before I can really put what they're saying into perspective. Where are they from, how long have they been playing, who are they hanging out with, what makes them tick, how do they see the world and their own position in it, and most of all, do *I* believe, based on all the above information, they have anything useful to say.
Then again, I *needed* to develop these filters. The people that don't like my "attitude" (which hasn't changed since I was 3 years old - Jim has the proof!) have *always* been vicious with their comments in order to knock me down a peg or two. I was never happy while I felt I had to suppress my basic nature in order to please the critics and stop the attacks. (Ie. smile with my lips closed because they didn't approve of my teeth.)
I learned to consider poeple they are coming from *before* I look for value in their criticism. Nine times out of ten they are just angry with me for being me. I repeat, so what?
I've never in my life offered uninvited criticism to anyone (who is not a good friend who needs a kick in the pants.) I do see what you're saying Will (and Jode) but it seems like a hell of a lot of work for very little payoff to start questioning myself every time somebody makes a snippy remark.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Fact is, Kerri, I have thin skin and a lack of self confidence. So if someone sent me a harsh note about my playing, I would indeed take it personally.
But I would like a chance to respond, or to ask a clarifying question or two. And I would like to know the source of the comment to determine what weight to put on that comment.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Jode
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
re: Tracing email. Would that it were true, Trevor, but a clever person can spoof the traceback information.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Bob himself
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
About tracing email, it's pretty simple. Everyone has a unique "IP address" at a certain moment when connected to the internet. Most internet providers (ISP) have logs of what IP did what at a specific time. When you send an email, you actually connect to your ISP's mail server, which in turn will forward the email to the recipient's ISP' mail server. In standard POP/SMTP headers, you have the whole address route information, from source to target.
You *can't* spoof an IP address, but you can always use spywares/proxies who are located on different machines often without the computer owner's knowledge, connect to that machine and use it to send the email. This is what many spammers do.
But as a normal individual, if you send an email you can be traced back, but your ISP will only give information to the police, as the information is confidential.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Azalin
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Before you call the police, there's a much simpler solution for anonymous, unfriendly, but non-threatening, and unpublished email -- it's called "delete."
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I wish I could, Jack. I'm lippy. I can't help myself. That's one of the reasons more reserved folks find me so infuriating.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
". . .his essay *is* harsh and hateful. . ."
Well, like I said, others may disagree, but I will support your right to do so until my death.
KFG
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by KFG
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
(And I support your right not to be put to death for supporting the right to be hateful).
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I hate when that happens.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Jim,
The tone of the comment you received seems presumptious and rude. The internet is open and free expression reigns supreme, for better or worse.
Your site is a great site, despite the fact that you have posted music files of traditional Irish music played by a non-traditional guitarist like me. ha ha!
A comparison from the guitar world: There are a zillion ideas, many outright opposites of each other, of what constitutes "correct" right hand technique. My opinion: Get a good tone, find what works best for you, try to achieve maximum results with minimum effort.
I once took a few lessons from a PhD guitarist. He proscribed certain changes for my right hand technique. The more I used his recommendations, the worse the sound was. I was really trying. Eventually, we were having a conversation, and I started casually, naturally playing the study in question. He interrupted his own comments to exclaim "that's it - that's the sound that you should have." At that moment, I was not following ANY of his advice for technique. I was using my natural technique that he had earlier told me was all wrong. While I respect and admire this gentleman's playing......that was the last lesson I took from him.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by ceciltguitar
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Personally, I think it's right to speak harshly (as Churchill does) of our policies and what our elected representatives do in our names when those things include bombing a country back into the stone age and then imposing sanctions for a decade so that innocent citizens (children!) can't get potable water or medical treatment, in hopes they'll rise up and overthrow their government. If a foreign power did that to Americans, we'd howl bloody murder (because that's what it is).
Sigh. I think I hear a tune asking to be played.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Jode, I too have a relatively thin skin. I find though, it gets thicker as time passes. The more you deal with pinheads, the thicker the skin. I'm most likely to ignore the kind of message Jim got as the individual didn't have the "equipment" to identify him/herself.
I would guess the person is most likely a lurker here. If you are and have read all of this, why not have guts to respond. You can avoid the backlash of emails by shutting off "send an email" through Jeremy's offering of editing your profile. It would be nice to hear from you.
On the other hand, you have the right to remain silent. Perhaps it would be better if you did.
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Agnes Nutter
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I gave a hear to your playing the Cameronian Reel, and you can certainly play well enough to teach others. Your site's nothing but informative, I wasn't aware of it before this post actually!
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Kevin Rietmann
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
"I wish I could, Jack. I'm lippy. I can't help myself. That's one of the reasons more reserved folks find me so infuriating."
Believe it or not, judging from my posting, I'm one of those more reserved folk. I think you'd be a good hang, although you might get infuriating in the long run.
"(And I support your right not to be put to death for supporting the right to be hateful)."
Awwwwwwww, group hug.
"I hate when that happens."
Ruins your whole day, that does.
KFG
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by KFG
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
That’s right, Will -- when it happens to us it's "bloody murder," but when it happens to them, it's, "worth it" as Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, said on “60 Minutes.”
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
"I think it's right to speak harshly (as Churchill does) of our policies and what our elected representatives do in our names when those things include bombing a country back into the stone age. . ."
Ahhhhh, I missed this one.
I think, perhaps, I am drawing a fine distinction between "harsh" and "critical" that most people do not share. Perhaps it's my background in the sciences where ripping each other's hypothesis to shreds (sometimes quite viciously) is a friendly act between compatriots.
And Churchill comes out of a similar academic background where such deeply critical speech isn't thought of as particularly harsh so long as it stays impersonal.
A distinction is drawn between saying "That idea is the stupidist thing I've ever heard," and "You are stupid."
The former will be taken without insult. The latter will get you banned from the math tea, and possibly your career.
I'm curious, have you read Twain's essay "To the Person Sitting in Darkness"?:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR/sitting.html
Compare and contrast to Churchill.
". . .try to achieve maximum results with minimum effort."
And that, my friend, is a PhD dissertation, in full.
KFG
# Posted on February 11th 2005 by KFG
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Ok, I read it -- where's my diploma?
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Churchill's essay is harsh because it does get personal. He insults people left and right, calls them names, says the tecnocrats who died in the World Trade Center were "little Eichmans." Not gentle stuff. Harsh. Hate-filled. Indicative of Ward's anger and disgust with the whole situation.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
But isn't Ward trying to explain why the US might be hated enough for someone to do something like fly passenger planes into skyscrapers? Isn't he trying to demonstrate what makes America hated in the Muslin world, rather than the writing being in itself, hateful?
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Email tangent:
A normal user going through a normal service provider can, of course, be traced.
A clever and malicious person with the right hardware and physical Internet access can do just about whatever he wants to. You can find articles online about how "phishers" are spoofing IP addresses.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Bob himself
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Sure Jack, but among other things he calls Madeline Albright a "malignant toad," and reverses that charge that the 9/11 hijackers were cowards, saying in fact that the U.S. fighter pilots and ship-board computer jockies firing cruise missles at distant Baghdad deserved that label. Living in America, Churchill had to know how his words would come across. (Again, I agree with much of Churchill's analysis, but I do not accept these two particular assertions of his, among others.) There are "nicer" ways of getting these ideas across. So I have no problem characterizing his language as hateful. At the time, it sounds to me like he felt justified in writing that way. His response to critics (at the same link as I gave above) is much more measured--and to me all the more powerful because of it.
So it goes. It's a shame Churchill's words are being twisted and misappropriated, but the language he initially used invited that. We can hope that it creates some space for a more civil though no less impassioned public deliberation of the issues and what's at stake here.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I think it's dangerous (as well as morally wonky) to de-personalize other people with labels. Except for people who disagree with me, of course. They're all just stupid. *smirk*
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Zina Lee
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I think you'd be a good hang too, Kevin, but I don't think anyone else would enjoy being around us if we got into a ripping good debate.
I'm all for expressing anger. I don't think that makes for a very good "finished product" though, as far as an essay is concerned. I usually try to filter out the inflammatory language before I speak if I'm trying to get an important idea across.
I do think Chompsky is very good at being enraged without leaving huge loopholes for tangential debates (like "hang on, you're saying Iraq is a major factor in the 9-11 attacks and there is ample evidence to the contrary." or "The motive of the Nazi's was genocide, whereas the motive of the US is global economic control. Apples and oranges.")
You know, tangential debates like this one. What were we supposed to be talking about again?
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I'd say that that's probably very correct, Ker. *smirk*
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Zina Lee
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Jim's ability to wind people up, I think....
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Which is pretty good, judging from all the hits on this thread.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Which reminds me, my wife and I were talking about this over lunch today, because we both watched Churchill's forum on C-Span, and I mentioned what Jim's critic said in his last line, about "I have nothing against beginning musicians, only those who suffer the delusion that they are good." And Rose pointed out that the beginner's who don't suffer that delusion, at least to some degree, typically quit because the disappointment is just too much to take. "Isn't thinking you're good what gets you through the early stages?" she said.
And I had to agree. In fact, the delusion that I can play fiddle at all is what has kept me going a good quarter century now. And it doesn't apply to just music. "It's a bright sunny day," I tell myself each morning. "My kids are wonderful, my neighbors like me, and the world works well--we're all doing the best we can. I guess I can get out of bed after all."
Imagine if we were all realists, all the time. *shudder*
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
We could still be happy, but it would be a lot more work.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
"There are "nicer" ways of getting these ideas across."
Thoreau simply refered to them as "wooden" men.
There are those who consider Thoreau as harsh and hateful as well, but I admit I can't see it. Ghandi and King Jr. have also been branded as "hateful."
Tell, me, why is Shirer's work considred one of the great works of journalistic literature and why was he never branded as "hateful," and at risk of his job?
Are not, say, Kerri's statements in this thread (or my own, for that matter. I'm not picking on Kerri) to be considered just as hateful if we apply the same standards to them? And I hardly think Kerri would brand herself as hateful.
And isn't, when you take Churchill's statement in the full context of his argument, rather than just as a snippet, made in order to make this very point, and the language he uses used because it is the language used by the people he is criticising?
And how about the Twain piece I linked to, where he gets directly personal by name?
"I think you'd be a good hang too, Kevin, but I don't think anyone else would enjoy being around us if we got into a ripping good debate."
Ah, but I imagine we might, ourselves, enjoy it immensely, so, as my dear, departed Granny used to say, "F*** 'em if they can't take a joke." I think that's an old Russian saying.
Of course we might well part infuriated with each other as well.
"I'm all for expressing anger."
I'm not very good at anger. The things that make most people angry simply make me sad.
"What were we supposed to be talking about again?"
Hate mail, so we're actually on topic. Go figure.
KFG
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by KFG
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
And Zina - all this smirking, shrugging and grinning! And SNORTING to boot! I think you might just have an attitude problem! Wanna fight about it? Come on! I'm all primed up!
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Will writes: "Sure Jack, but among other things he calls Madeline Albright a "malignant toad,"
Well, he was obviously referring to that candid comment she made on 60 Minutes to Leslie Stahl, which makes here very deserving of that title.
Will continues: "and reverses that charge that the 9/11 hijackers were cowards, saying in fact that the U.S. fighter pilots and ship-board computer jockies firing cruise missles at distant Baghdad deserved that label."
Maybe it's important in our corporate/Whitehouse media spin environment to point out the hypocrisy of calling US terrorists "brave" and "heroic" or in the case of foreign terrorists under our sponsorship as, "freedom fighters" while calling anything that doesn't represent our interests as "terrorist." Again, is it hate speech, or just too uncomfortably true?
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
makes HER very deserving of that title.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Your granny was Russian? Mine is too. I wonder if that's a factor.
"I'm not very good at anger. The things that make most people angry simply make me sad."
Then you're too smart for your own good.
I should clarify that I think it should be expressed privately by writing in a journal, screaming at the moon, smashing up your bathroom scale, or taking up archery and putting pictures your ex-boyfriend in the middle of the bullseye.
There's a limited amount of sadness I can take before the anger kicks in. If I deal with it immediately, then I feel better.
I think it's useless as a method of interaction with fellow human beings.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
lol, david.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
By the way, my Great Grand-uncle was one of Mark Twain's close friends. (useless trivia, but true)
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Um... OK Jack.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
s'true... what, you think I'm makin it up?
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Jack I don't disagree with you (and am puzzled why you're pulling out these points as if we do disagree on something there--wanna make sumpin of it?
. As I said, Churchill no doubt felt justified in using the language he did. My point is simply that he's not likely to change the minds of people on the other side of the fence that way. I suspect he's talking there more to people who already share his basic values, to inform them, but also to rally their moral indignation.
I'm not saying he's wrong to do this, only that he used some language that many people would hear as hateful to do it. I'm sure the relatives of WTC victims don't appreciate hearing their lost loved ones labeled as "little Eichmans." As I said before, he had his reasons. But it's one thing to despise someone's behavior and all together another to plop a label on the person herself. Yes, America is guilty of labeling foreigners as less than human ("collateral damage," "evil doers," etc.), while putting her own citizens on a pedestal. But I think the irony Churchill generates by mimicking this tactic is less powerful than if he'd taken the high ground and simply pointed out the hypocrisy of our national behavior and language. Instead, he stooped to their level and consequently lost some of his potential audience, needlessly poked holes in his own moral kevlar, and in the end only spurred more of the same name-calling.
Of course I agree that Americans should be angry--outraged--at what's being done in their name. But surely learning how to channel that anger is at the heart of Churchill's own call for non-violent policies and interventions. Dehumanizing someone by calling them a malignant toad is one of the first steps to encouraging and accepting violence against them.
I want our current administration out as much as anyone, but violence is not the way--it's precisely the wrong approach because then we'd be using their sorry tactics to acheive our ends, and that's what's wrong at the root of this whole situation.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
And my old fiddle belonged to an Irish fiddler who fled the Famine in 1850 and sold the fiddle to my great-great-grandfather in West Wales to get some money to live. Sad story, but true.
Trevor
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by lazyhound
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
You know, maybe it's a good thing he's generated some controversy with his language, otherwise his argument would pass completely un-noticed in the flood of propaganda americans are being exposed to.
It's not as if his *ideas* are new. I heard lots of people saying "Well, had to happen sooner or later" and "What did they expect?" in a discussion forum on September 12. Casually, intelligently articulating the connection between perpetrating violence abroad and suffering violence at home as a result as if it were obvious.
I couldn't help but notice how artfully these people's opinions were swept under the rug at the time. Now they are public again, where they ought to have been all along. If it took some strong language to bring this about, who am I to criticise?
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Likewise, I reckon Jim's website has gotten more hits in the last two days than in the whole of last year.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
That'd be my *diet* coke habit, actually.
"Moral kevlar" -- heh. That's priceless.
I'm bailing on this one. Nobody's going to change anyone's mind, which is a tad ironic because just about everyone essentially agrees, it'll most probably end up with people losing their senses of humor, and the non-American members can't say anything on the subject without risking sounding rude to someone on the board somewhere. Come to think of it, neither can the American members. I've just never seen the sense of arguing politics for the sheer joy of it, mainly because I think politics is just filthy by definition anyway. Since I know it'll probably take the threat of firearms to get everyone to stop, I'm just going to take myself elsewhere.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Zina Lee
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Sure, it creates a space for public deliberation. But it also makes it easier for his critics to dismiss him *and* the ideas.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Jaysus, and I didn't even realize we were arguing! You guys are so *sneaky* trying to come off as if you're just having a normal conversation about freedom of speech, when really we're all just clawing out each other's eyeballs! I feel so used!
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I know, Will, I'm just adding to what you’re saying really.
Most Americans would find Churchill's speech "hateful" because they wouldn't understand the context of what he's talking about after having only been exposed to corporate media. And corporate media would want to demonize him because his message is uncomfortable for them. They can't allow him to destroy the myth that they rely on to keep Americans behind their spin. Have you ever wondered why we never see brilliant minds like Noam Chomsky anywhere on corporate media? In the modern world you don't have to round up intellectuals to build fascism -- you just cut off their access to mainstream media. For most Americans, if you don't hear it on TV right before the football game airs -- it's not true.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Yea, who's arguing?
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I didn't think we were talking politics as much as we're looking at how public discourse happens in this country. I'm still thinking about how all this applies to Jim and his critic. What's funny, is that Kerri just said it's okay for Churchill to generate some controvery with her language, but she's argued all along that Jim's critic was wrong for doing the same thing. Of course, the situations and issues at hand are completely different. But there are still human beings at the ends of both sets of labels, in both cases. So maybe not so different situations after all.
Which was my point when I joined in here, and will be my point as I leave for dinner....
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
"...*his* language...."
Geesh, now I've gone and given the poor guy an operation....
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Good point, Will. I think the difference is I have more respect for Churchill for making his statements in public, inviting a debate, rather than sending them in an anonymous email which was never intended to be read or discussed by anyone other than the target of the hate-filled language.
That kind of crosses the line into "harassment" territory in my books.
And I *did* say the discussion generated by Jim's decision to make the comment public has probably turned out to be a good thing for him and increase the number of people looking at his site.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is: If you can't say anything nice, say it in public at the top of your lungs.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Discussing politics, playing tunes, having a few drinks -- all part of the "craic" for me
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
"If you can' t say anything nice, say it in public at the top of your lungs."
Lol, I want that on a t-shirt. First clause on the front, second clause on the back.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
"Your granny was Russian?"
Well, White Russian to be precise. From Minsk. I honestly don't know whether she was born in Belarus or America, as her parents are the immigrants of note. I'll have to ask me mum, that's her side of the family.
My father's side is SAR stuff. Massachusetts Colony from somewhere in the early 1630's and blood tinged with blue.
I'm a real Euromutt. French, English, Romanian, White Russian. . . and a Pole no one likes to talk about, with bits of Scot, Irish, Flemish and such if you dig under the tree a bit, and the whole Germanic/Norse line the above implies. Major royalty to people a serf could look down on in social class (". . .and everbody hates the Jews, but during, National Brotherhood Week. . .)
I "belong" to everybody and nobody, which is just fine from my "citizen of the world" point of view.
"I couldn't help but notice how artfully these people's opinions were swept under the rug at the time."
I wrote a piece along those lines as we were looking toward the invasion of Afghanistan that drew a lot of "America Bashing" ire my way from Americans, but also resulted in one of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me from a British investment banker:
"Kevin, you're a mensch."
"Then you're too smart for your own good."
Ye'll not be the first that's told me that, lass, and I'm fully expected to come to a bad end over it.
". . .and am puzzled why you're pulling out these points as if we do disagree on something there--wanna make sumpin of it?"
Well, it took me a couple of rounds to twig it, but what we're having here, and why I'm still involved in it, is a *meta*argument. We're arguing not about the ideas, but the ideas behind the ideas.
I'm afraid that's exactly my cup of tea.
". . .just about everyone essentially agrees. . ."
See above.
"Jaysus, and I didn't even realize we were arguing! "
Thank you, thank you, thank you, for the first real laugh of the day.
". . .and the non-American members can't say anything on the subject without risking sounding rude to someone on the board somewhere. Come to think of it, neither can the American members."
Indeed, but that's exaclty the issue we're talking about.
"I think politics is just filthy by definition anyway. . ."
I happen to agree whole heartedly, and I try to stay clear of the whole "Blue vs. Red" thing, being neither, but it is also, unfortunately, also inseperable from civil behavior.
KFG
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by KFG
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
We're all just toys in Kevin's conjectural playpen.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I don't think that's an *entirely* accurate statement in this *particular* thread.
Here I think I'd choose the word "tools."
"I feel so used!"
See?
KFG
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by KFG
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
We need more treads like this, it has to be the best one since Xmas.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by compaqjohn
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Ok, we're uh... tools in Kevin's conjectural tool box. (Doesn't sound as good.)
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Well, if you go over to the ethnomusicology thread I don't think the word "toys" would be *entirely* inaccurate.
KFG
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by KFG
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
This is so much fun. Just out of curiosity, what is the appropriate site for this type of conversation? I've seen a couple of forums where conversations like this are trying to happen, except nobody can spell. And wackos are always putting in their pointlless and depressing 2 cents worth (half price!)
"Well, your from Kanuckastann aniways!!! Go bakc to your iglue and let them towlheds learn what freedom!!!!!!"
(Not that I think they shouldn't have the right to express an opinion, of course. I just wonder where I can go to exercise my right not to listen to it.)
I just feel a little guilty is all. I think we're supposed to be arguing about whether a session is better in a corner or the center of a room, or wondering what to do when the rosin has started to eat away the finish on our fiddles.
Which reminds me, anyone know a talented but inexpensive flute maker? I have a friend looking for a fully keyed one, but she can't splash out a lot of dough. She's a very good flute player already with an extensive musical background.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
kerri, what is 'inexpensive flute' to you?
i know a great builder, (i play one of his) who charges what i reckon a fair price. he isn't into commercialising his instruments, though many think he should.
his name's Geert Lejeune, he's from belgium (bruges).
i can give you his contact if you so which ...
mm
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by MM
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Love this thread! I played fiddle for a well-attended contra-dance last night; tight band, good caller and dancers, stimulating craic, and I wake up this morning only to wander into a virtual room full of interesting people engaged in stimulating and often funny conversation! Life is good...
Larry
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Layers
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Thanks for all your replies, guys. I didn't think this thread would grow the way it has done, but that can only be a good thing...people writing, communicating, sub-topics developing, humour, wit and all the rest. I've never been one to baulk at criticism of my playing and teaching (I've had some pretty abrasive stuff thrown at me over the years, similar to Compaqjohn's experiences, although I've never been chased down the street!!) There *was* something odd about the 'hate mail' that did get to me a bit though...and I'm still not sure why.
I respect Compaqjohn's comments about being upfront in any criticism, which I would welcome from anyone, especially if it's pointing out shortcomings. Nobody's perfect, as they say.
Ottery, you had me in stitches visualising you and the beer lads thowing the W.I's tables into the river!
I'm still continuing to update my site with tunes and techniques, as time permits. The general consensus is that it's helping people, and that's good enough for me.
Just in case the critic is watching, I've added a video clip to my homepage. It's a tune that contains *no* left hand ornamentation whatsoever.
I thank you again for all your support.
Jim
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Worldfiddler
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
...well....just one bit, but if you blink you'll miss it!
Jim
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Worldfiddler
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I enjoy it too, Kerri, I'm glad there's a bit of tolerance for it here on the session.org (even though I think we only get away with it if it's after Jeremy's bedtime.) But in all fairness to him -- this isn't a political discussion site. I do appreciate it when bits and pieces of the world that surrounds us are allowed into the discussions, even though they sometimes have only abstract relevance.
Kerri asks: "Just out of curiosity, what is the appropriate site for this type of conversation?"
I've recently spent some time perusing the Chiff and Fipple site because I have some friends who contribute over there. It's very large and I haven't gotten involved -- until just recently. They have something called a "Poststructural Pub" that's open to just about any discussion. I had some interesting conversation over there with other musicians. I enjoy discussing these things with ITM musicians because I find them to be very intelligent and well informed for the most part, and of course we have the music in common. As good as my exchange over there was, there's something about the intimacy that I still prefer over here.
I'm not suggesting Jeremy create any new forums or anything, but I just want to let him know how much I enjoy it when the perimeters here are relaxed enough to allow us to talk about whatever comes up. Within reason of course.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
"As good as my exchange over there was, there's something about the intimacy that I still prefer over here."
I know what you mean, Jack. I've invested a lot of time getting to know the people who post in this forum. I've known to Will and Zina longer than I've known *any* of the current company I keep. I have a mental image of their faces and I know where they live and what makes them tick. All that information makes a conversation more rewarding for me no matter what it's about. I tried a forum for fiction writers once, but as it turns out, writers only want to talk about writing. Which (for some reason) I thought was really bizarre (Although to be fair, that's what the forum was *for*).
There ought to be a movement to launch a bunch of hybrid forums like "a community for gynecologists who wish to discuss the finer points of cricket." But even if there was one for "Trad musicians who wish to discuss the ideas behind the ideas" I wouldn't go unless I could bring you all with me.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
That's true, Kerri, when I picture you I see those lovely fangs... amazing isn't it?
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
And I see you in your fedora and tight leather pants with your chest all greased up, surrounded by handsome dancing boys. It is amazing.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
KERRI!!! you promised that you'd only talk about THAT in our private emails!!! :-o
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Among legion of starters, Jim, you are a finisher. Thanks for organizing, engineering and inducing contributions to mightycraiconline and virtualsession.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by joesmith
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
By the way, Jim: "There *was* something odd about the 'hate mail' that did get to me a bit though...and I'm still not sure why."
Because the overall message was that all your hard work and creativity motivated by nothing but selflessness and a love of music had been a waste of time, and that your project should be destroyed. Not improved. It wasn't criticism, it was meant to make you feel ashamed of yourself. That gets to me too.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Good on you, Jim, for forging ahead--your site does a world of good.
Hey maybe this'll be the push that finally gets me off my butt to record a track and send it to Jim (if I only had a machine to do it with). That'll give the masked critic a really juicy target for his slings and arrows, and we can all have a good laugh (cuz in 4 years here I've *never* presented myself under the delusion that I'm any good) *grin*
The value of this thread goes beyond its topic(s). I agree that thesession.org provides an intimacy among neighbors in this "community of interest" that's rare to non-existent on other forums. And this thread let us build even more intimate, well-rounded understandings of each other, which makes the music-oriented conversations even more rewarding.
It's wonderful that Jeremy has given us the lattitude to let this happen and to let the thread stand.
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Kerri, spot on about the critic trying to shame Jim into hiding.
Of course Jim's a fine fiddler, "good enough" to be putting his examples and tunes on the web to help others. That's a no-brainer.
But it does return me to the critic's underlying concern (which I think is actually irrelevant to Jim's site and playing, but worth exploring, at least to debunk it). I'll frame it as a question:
Is the tradition of this music harmed by players who aren't "good enough" foisting themselves on others?
For me the answer is clear. Of course not. Even a small army of shoddy amateurs (that'd be us, *grin*) can't really detract from the music made by the even smaller platoon of genuinely talented players.
Plus, this music was passed on for generations by peat cutters, brick layers, ditch diggers, etc., who didn't have the time or pampered fingers to play as well as a Frankie Gavin or Matt Molloy or Mairtin O'Connor. And yet the musical standard is as high or higher, and perhaps more widespread among more players, than before. The lesson in that is that even less than stellar players can teach the music, even to people with more talent and ability (and the luxury of practicing 30 horus a week), and so the student improves on the teacher. (I've certainly had students surpass my playing.)
In short, I think the masked critic misses the point all together. This music isn't about perfection, or even a high degree of technical prowess. It's about expression and participation. Telling someone to stop because they're not doing it right is like telling an asthmatic to stop breathing because they're not doing it well. When what they both really need is for the critic to step way back and give them room to breathe.
(Again, I want to emphasize that I'm NOT comparing Jim's playing to an asthmatic's wheezing struggles.
My post here isn't about Jim at all, but the larger question of technical competence in trad music.)
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
". . . if there was one for "Trad musicians who wish to discuss the ideas behind the ideas. . .""
". . .your project should be destroyed. Not improved. It wasn't criticism. . ."
This is what I've been dwelling on since reading Jim's last post this morning. There is only one, short sentence of actual criticism in the entire thing. The rest is simply invective. What criticism there is consists simply of statements, it is not constructive criticism because it offers no construction.
Statement 1:
"You're ornamentation is poor and inconsistant"
In what way is it poor? Jim cannot possibly do anything to improve his ornamentation in the mind of the writer until he knows what it is about his ornamentation that bothers.
The inconsistant bit I have a bit more trouble with, firstly because a foolish consistency shouldn't be encouraged, playing shouldn't be a mechanical thing, and secondly, because Jim has a great many *different* styles of music on his site, I would *hope* it was "inconsistant."
Again, the writer needs to elaborate on his point, because, as it stands, in the context of the site in question, it turns out to have no meaning.
Statement 2:
"you use mostly separate bows"
This is a pure statement of fact, and although it is true it leaves me waiting for the other shoe to drop. . .
"you use mostly separate bows". . ..and?
It just hangs there. Obviously the writer views this statement as a *perjoritive,* thus I think we can safely toss it into the invective pile.
Especially since, and this is the bit that really has me scratching my head over the thing, using mostly seperate bows is a recognized traditional style.
Statement 3:
"the music has absolutely no flow"
Ok, but, completely opposite to the previous statement, this statement is purely subjective. How can one possibly respond to it with anything other than, "Thank you for your input. Managment will take it under advisement."
So there we have it, that minority portion of the letter that deals in criticism actually only contains a minority portion of itself that deals in criticism, and has *absolutely nothing* constructive to say.
Leaving Jim with little option, even if he wished to take it seriously, but to ignore it.
But buried within the invective I find this bit interesting:
"So get this ridiculous hobby of yours off the internet. . ."
Well, so it seems the writer considers playing the violin a ridiculous hobby, a point of view I'm sure we all disagree with, and innately discounts any criticism he might have about fiddle playing.
So we may all safely ignore it.
KFG
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by KFG
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
". . . if there was one for "Trad musicians who wish to discuss the ideas behind the ideas. . .""
Hmmmmmmmmmm, lost a sentence in the above:
I think it possible I might show up. (insert non-emoticon smiley here)
KFG
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by KFG
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I think, based on the evolution of this thread, it should be dedicated as the "Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin" thread. It is his 196th birthday today after all and this discourse seems fit the occasion
# Posted on February 12th 2005 by RogueFiddler
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
What did the fiddle evolve from?
# Posted on February 13th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Sorry, maybe I should have put in a comment earlier, but it looks like everyone is (rightly) taking Jim's side here. Just to add I've actually played with Jim in session, and met him (obviously.) A fine fiddle player is Jim, and a decent guy also. Whoever wrote the offending email either can't recognise a good player or is a bit too much up themself, or is just mental. Whoever they are must be laughing if they saw this thread to see how much mileage their corrosive comments have obtained.
# Posted on February 13th 2005 by Nick Splease
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
“What did the fiddle evolve from”?
Jack, I reckon that’s worth a new thread, if you’d like to start one. I’ve heard an interesting hypothesis that should get things going, especially among the musicologists/historians here.
Trevor
# Posted on February 13th 2005 by lazyhound
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
to be honest, jim, your style is not my favorite style, but then again even my favorite styles get old after a while. the variety of styles enhance the music, detract it. , but i love your site and i for one am very greatful that you have put it online. i dont think your ornamentation is sloppy or that your tunes have no flow! and i certainly do not think your style is bad.
i really dont mean to be insulting, at all. there are other musicians that are very famous that play ITM that i cant stand listening to, and i would rather listen to you any day.
i think you are a fine musician and that its people like you who try to spread the tradition and make it available to everyone that make the music great. i bet you that anonymous poster is just mad because he has not put up a fine site like yours and he's just pretending to himself its cuz you play differently than him.
his argument has no base, because as you say on your site:
"Anything you don't like, don't bother trying to learn. It's that simple. Just pick what you like, and enjoy the music!"
they're obviously not enjoying it as much as you are, and thats what its all about.
after all, there was a point... long in the past, when i'm sure people were heckling fiddlers, saying it wasnt a traditional instrument. the music changes, grows, and stays the same, all at the same time. i suppose part of that is dealing with people who will accept any style and people who will accept only their own.
# Posted on February 13th 2005 by daiv
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
If there's a lynch mob formed to take down this bustard who dissed our Jim, I've got an extra pitchfork if anyone needs it. It's got those barbed bits on the end, though, so they're tough (but fun!) to remove after pronging.
# Posted on February 13th 2005 by Q
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Jim, I love your site and like the little tutorials ... ok you´re (right used?) not THE FIDDLE GOD - but you never said you are and I´m sure (S)HE IS NOT AS WELL. So forget and keep on fiddling.
# Posted on February 13th 2005 by crannog
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Just a note about the original e-mail I received - I checked with my service provider support to see if there was an entry in their server trace logs - there was, date and time-stamped to the exact second the nasty e-mail was sent.
It included the IP address of the machine from where it originated, which turned out to be a machine on the network of the University of Wisconsin. I sent the original mail plus a firm but civil e-mail of complaint to their 'abuse of resources'
department.
Now back to work on the site......
Jim
# Posted on February 13th 2005 by Worldfiddler
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Pity the miscreant isn’t in the UK. I’m sure some of my session associates would be happy to explain the error of that behaviour face-to-face
Jim, if it’s not inconvenient, could you keep us up-to-date on the University of W's response? It should serve as a warning to others who may think of abusing the system.
Trevor
# Posted on February 13th 2005 by lazyhound
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
I've had the same sort of mail sent my way from time to me regarding flutesite.com, after a while you get used to it, it's just more spam to be deleted.
I listened to several of your clips, and played along. I enjoyed your playing very much--if you ever find yourself in the old hills of central Arkansas, you'd be very welcome in our sessions!
--James
# Posted on February 14th 2005 by beardflute
Re: Hate mail (...almost)
Wow, I had a wonderfully busy weekend, otherwise I would have enjoyed continuing in this conversation. A couple of disparate points:
I browsed the Churchill article and need to go on record as saying that he paints with too broad a brush. My cousin died in the WTC. It was her last day as a temp there. She was a beautiful person and not a cell-phone-braying profiteer. She was a loving soul with an incredible voice.
And which University of WI was the source? Or do I really want to know? This conversation is striking close to home on several points. It could be a fun Milwaukee fest this year!
# Posted on February 14th 2005 by Jode