the critic

[Colin J Allen]

I also feel that your geology analogy misses the point; we are discussing
criticism of performance and ability of an artist, not criticism of opinion
and argument; that is a completely different domain where specialised
knowledge is important and criticism made without it is less valid than
criticism made with it.  I hope that you see the difference between the two.
While I feel free to criticise an artist on their performance or ability, I
do not feel free to criticise arguments and opinions unless I have at least
a good working knowledge of the subject.

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: Thursday, August 28, 2003 12:59 PM
Subject: Off: the critic


> 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
>