Off: the critic

[DRider]

previously I said:

> The term is CREDIBLE. An experienced person by definition is more credible
> than an inexperienced person.

also the analogy you use between Ozzy and Dio is one I already used before
this topic of "critic" ever came up.

I did not say that "a person"  ANY person could not criticize.......

I just said a person that has had the experiences themselves
may have more credibility than a person who has not had those
experiences. And personally, I think a person that gets out and does "it"
has a bit more room to talk than a person who just sits around talking
about doing it......hence the armchair......

I am a licensed professional geologist......

next, you will be telling me that your arguments on evolution theory (for
example) are just as credible as mine

sure maybe you are well versed on this specific topic through your own
personal hobbies and education - but chances are - you are not - which is
the point

I have run sound for bands a time or two, but I don't think that I have had
the experience or the knowledge that you have on the topic. Therefore, you
are probably more credible on that topic which would give you the potential
to criticize another soundman's performance more than me. Sure I could say
that the mix needs more vocals etc, but you might know the brand of mixer
etc that was being used and be able to go into much more fine detail than me
or even walk up to the mixer itself and turn a few knobs to fix the
problem....

if you were running sound at a show - I certainly would not walk up and tell
you how to do your job

just as you would not try to criticize one of my technical reviews written
on the migration of a groundwater chlorinated solvent plume

D

----- Original Message -----
From: "Colin J Allen" <colin at CALLEN18.FREESERVE.CO.UK>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Dio (also somewhat LONG)


> 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