Dio (also somewhat LONG)

[Colin J Allen]

Having waded through Darrin's post, I would like to reply to the few
substantive points contained therein:

1. Having listed 3 definitions of "critic", you choose to ignore definition
a), which is surely the most relevant here and have decided that most people
on this list "indulge in faultfinding and censure".  An interesting
conclusion but, unfortunately, one that is not supported by the evidence;
read, for example, Jill's post on the Alfresco Mantis/Harvey/MQB gig.

2. Your arguments around the subject of criticism: I am rather surprised
that you do not seem to be able to see that criticism (as per definition a))
can be applied by people who have not performed at the same level as the
person or people being criticised.  Let us examine an example based around
two Black Sabbath vocalists: Ozzy Osbourne and Ronnie James Dio.  As a
non-singer myself, it is apparent to me that, as a singer, Dio is better (in
absolute terms) than Ozzy at the art of singing (does Ozzy actually sing?).
That is an act of criticism by a non-singing, non-performing observer and is
based on a knowledge of the art of singing. Why do I need to have performed
on stage in front of 20000 people to draw that conclusion?

On a lighter note, in reply to your analogy with sports commentators, I will
only say "Mark Lawrenson"!  This will probably be lost on all non-Brits:).

Colin

Please note that this electronic mail system is not intended to form any
legal contract or binding agreement. This is for information purposes only.
Please also note that this message should not be interpreted as any form of
valid information. You use the information contained in this message at your
own risk.

----- Original Message -----
From: "DRider" <Farflung at COMCAST.NET>
To: <BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 11:16 PM
Subject: Off: RE: Dio (also somewhat LONG)


> pardon me Colin, but I find it difficult to take someone serious that
wastes
> bandwidth w/ a signature line that reads like yours............
>
> of course, maybe it is meant to be a joke......
> so I will give you the benefit of the doubt
>
> I covered item 2) already
>
> item 1)
>
> critic - according to Webster's Dictionary:
> a) a person who forms and expresses judgments of people or things
according
> to certain standards or values
> b) such a person whose profession is to write or broadcast such judgments
of
> books, music, paintings, sculpture, plays, motion pictures, television
> etc..., as for a newspaper.
> c) a person who indulges in faultfinding and censure
>
> what really gives anyone the right to pass judgment on someone else?
>
> is anyone here employed in the manner outlined in b)??
>
> so it would seem that c) applies to most people one this list, correct?
>
> forgive me, if I am wrong - but aren't a person's likes and dislikes
rather
> arbitrary??
>
> could it be that even these 'standards' may be arbitrary? at least to one
> extent or another........
>
> what about the concept of 'bias'?
>
> > ....even someone who can neither sing nor play an instrument can discern
> the relative merits of different artists.
>
> Maybe so, maybe not.
>
> Are you really trying to use this as a valid argument??
>
> How many people hold critics in high regard?
>
> How many people have learned to take what a critic says w/ a grain of
salt?
>
> How many people trust a critic? More than a used car salesman? Or less?
>
> What's that saying...? "Opinions are like _ _ _holes." "Everyone's got
one."
>
> So to be a critic - a person just needs to have an opinion. Does that make
> that person right?
>
> There is another saying that is used about teachers:
> "Those who - can't - teach". I have never thought that was true because to
> be able
> to teach something, a person must have a strong grasp on the subject
matter,
> as well as a good ability to convey that knowledge in an understandable
way.
> Of course, some teachers are better than others. However, IMHO the concept
> applies more appropriately to critics. In other words: "those who -can't -
> criticize".
>
> Wouldn't the fact that someone played an instrument or sang or both, as
well
> as made records in the studio, and performed live in front of many
different
> audiences give them more credibility when criticizing another musical
artist
> than some armchair critic who has absolutely none of these experiences??
>
> Anyone can listen to something and form an opinion. Whether that opinion
is
> based on anything significant or valid could be debatable. And whether
> someone else trusts that opinion is entirely another thing. Not to
mention,
> the fact of whether that person can convey that opinion in an intelligent
> and
> articulate manner.
>
> Some people thought that the song by Queensryche called "Silent Lucidity"
> sounded like Pink Floyd. What does that tell you about that person?
>
> The analogy here is the armchair quarterback. Here's a guy who has never
> played football ever. He has just spent alot (probably too much) time in
> front of the TV watching it being played by others.
>
> Who would you rather listen to when it comes to the facts of football -
him
> or the guy that played for 10 years, won several championships and then
> coached for 20 years??
>
> To me - the answer is glaringly obvious.
>
> The term is CREDIBLE. An experienced person by definition is more credible
> than an inexperienced person.
>
> If a performer was solely judged on their voice, Bob Dylan's career would
> have been over years ago. Some critics hate him while other critics love
> him.
> Is a person supposed to believe what any one critic says or be an
individual
> and decide for themselves?
>
> You will never convince me that some critic that states negative things
> about a singer's voice does not have at least a part of themselves that
> wishes
> they could get up on stage and out-perform the person they are
criticizing.
> But they don't have the ability so they criticize instead.
>
> There is something to be said for trying - even if you fail.
>
> > For what it is worth, I feel that Ronnie is a decent vocalist who
usually
> manages to write and perform the most dreadful material, which damages
> his reputation immensely.
>
> This very well could be true!
>
> However, he freely chose to make these decisions and only he has to live
> w/ the consequences.
>
> In the end - we all have the Right To Decide.
>
> Peace,
>
> Darrin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin J Allen [mailto:colin at CALLEN18.FREESERVE.CO.UK]
> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 6:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Dio
>
> A couple of points in response to this:
>
> 1. Darrin writes:  "I am just sayin -  give DIO his do!
> none of those who bash him
> could hit the notes that he does
> none of you have been on the stage w/ Iommi, Cozy or Blackmore
> nothing even remotely close
> arms all worn in your chairs....."
>
> Apart from commenting on the rather bizarre grammar, I would question the
> logic of this argument; do you imply that one can only criticise an artist
> if one has performed at the same level as that artist?  This is such
obvious
> nonsense; even someone who can neither sing nor play an instrument can
> discern the relative merits of different artists.  For what it is worth, I
> feel that Ronnie is a decent vocalist who usually manages to write and
> perform the most dreadful material, which damages his reputation
immensely.
>
> 2. Darrin writes: "c) an intelligent man would NEVER have the guts to make
> such (homophobic) remarks to his face"
>
> I can find nothing homophobic in the original remarks; this seems like a
> ridiculous, if unfortunately typical, case of misrepresentation and
> over-reaction.  I am also intrigued by the connection between intelligence
> and "guts"; is there some previously undiscovered correlation between
> intelligence and courage?
>
> Colin
>
> Please note that this electronic mail system is not intended to form any
> legal contract or binding agreement. This is for information purposes
only.
> Please also note that this message should not be interpreted as any form
of
> valid information. You use the information contained in this message at
your
> own risk.
>