Off: the critic

[PETER WILKINSON]

interesting conversation....both of you are neither right or wrong..e.g.
drider quote 'experienced person by definition is more credible......' not
quite so. An illustration might be that of a few years ago when researchers
got a group of monkeys to splash paint all over canvasses. these were then
proudly shown at a private viewing to our leading art 'folk' and critics who
eulagised over them!!! do not forget that...perception and/or beauty is in
the eye/ear of the beholder/listener. this probably accounts for animated
discussions, heated debates, differing views....thus define objectively why
dio is a better singer than ozzy or visa versa. do not forget that 'critics'
need not be 'critical'.perhaps you need to consider the difference (if any?)
between a critic and a critique.

peter


>From: DRider <Farflung at COMCAST.NET>
>Reply-To: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List <BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET>
>To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET
>Subject: Off: the critic
>Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 07:59:42 -0400
>
>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

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of 56k? Get a FREE BT Broadband connection
http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband