| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
swthiel
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 02 Apr 2005
Posts: 3967
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:32 pm Post subject: ethics vs. performance -- off-topic tangent |
 |
|
Argument carried over from the ethics vs. performance thread in the Jazz/Commercial forum.
| amazingmoris wrote: | | swthiel wrote: | | amazingmoris wrote: | | bilboinsa wrote: | Your first reply included the following: | Quote: | | ...For example, I would never play in a back-up band for Charles Manson or Barbra Streisand or Rosie O’Donnell or Adolph Hitler....
|
When you did that, Morris, again WADR, you put a specific political view into play. And quite frankly, you associated 4 people in a determinedly political way... |
It is bizarre and absurd that you claim that your original question can be answered in a non-political way.
If a person says that personal political beliefs *should* affect what jobs he takes, he *must* then explain why and how with examples. |
Morris,
You could have chosen to answer bilboinsa's question non-politically; it is possible to do so, as many people in this very thread have demonstrated. It's as simple as saying "There are people and organizations whose beliefs and actions I find reprehensible. I am so opposed to their beliefs and actions that I could not in good conscience do anything that supported them or that even had the appearance that I supported them." Your examples do not clarify your point, but they do have the potential to inflame the discussion, regardless of what your intent might have been.
I don't know what you do for a living, but I have to ask -- are there clients for whom you wouldn't work? If your employer assigned you a task that supported a cause with which you disagreed, would you resign (or be fired) rather than be associated with that cause? Please try to answer without injecting your own political or religious views. |
Baloney.
Public speaking 101 says that you first make a statement and then you give supporting examples.
That is what I did.
Without supporting examples you have an unsupported claim. |
Spare me the "Public speaking 101" stuff; a key element of my job is educating graduate and undergraduate students, selling research proposals to funding agencies, and presenting research results. I teach graduate student to do the same, and I press them hard when they make unsupported assertions. When I'm in the pulpit or leading an adult church school class, my job is to educate and exhort.
Consider the following statement, from my previous post: | Quote: | | There are people and organizations whose beliefs and actions I find reprehensible. I am so opposed to their beliefs and actions that I could not in good conscience do anything that supported them or that even had the appearance that I supported them. |
This is a personal decision; it does not require supporting evidence and is a perfectly clear response to the original post.
| Quote: | Then you say that I should explain how and why I exercise my political beliefs without actually mentioning my political and religious beliefs.
That would be like my telling you to describe your trumpet playing with the stipulation that you are forbidden to mention the trumpet. |
No. I asked two questions.
1) Are there clients for whom you wouldn't work in your day job? This is a yes/no question. I didn't ask you to identify any specific individuals or organizations for whom you would not work.
2) If your employer assigned you a task that supported a cause with which you disagreed, would you resign (or be fired) rather than be associated with that cause? This is a yes/no question. Again, I didn't ask you to identify any specific individuals or organizations for whom you would not work.
| Quote: | | All heck broke loose because of *one* humorous *sentence* I posted. |
No. The discussion stayed on a relatively even keel until another poster picked up on the Hitler thing, and until you upped the ante by bringing up a couple of issues that were important to you. You have further escalated in response to a post from the originator of this thread asking you to dial it back.
| Quote: | | People of opposing beliefs then jumped on me, such as Rich G posting several *paragraphs* about Nazis and SS (which the moderators strangely did not consider "political" so they left his post in the thread, apparently indicating that the Nazis were a toga party rather than a political party). |
Rich G did not advocate a political position. He pointed out the historical fact that some people survived the Holocaust by playing music for Nazis they almost certainly despised, and the powerful way that he learned that lesson. I find that to be an interesting perspective for this discussion.
| Quote: | If you and others cannot tolerate one humorous sentence without your angrily blowing up like a volcano, then you need to get a funny-bone transplant.
- morris |
You need to brush up on your geology and TH history -- this is nothing like a volcanic event. If you can't understand how your posts can be viewed as subtle issue advocacy, you might want to work on reviewing your writing more objectively. As a starting point, you might ponder that fact that there are plenty of people here who would be pleased to play in support of Rosie O'Donnell and Barbra Streisand and find the connection of them to Hitler and Manson distasteful. I'm not stating an opinion of who's "right" regarding these controversial figures (O'Donnell and Streisand -- the consensus about Hitler and Manson is pretty broad), I'm pointing out that the connection you made is as easily construed as flame bait as humor.
_________________
Steve Thiel |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dales
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2001
Posts: 521
Location: Cambridge, MA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Good luck. Morris is impervious to feedback. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swthiel
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 02 Apr 2005
Posts: 3967
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, yeah, I forgot ...
| amazingmoris wrote: | | ... describe your trumpet playing with the stipulation that you are forbidden to mention the trumpet. |
Quite doable.
I strive to play with the utmost musicality, with a clear, relaxed, resonant sound; you'd have to hear me play to judge my success in that area. The majority of my lesson time is spent working on a few key issues: consistent sound in all registers, connected playing, clear articulation, and greater expressiveness. I'm OK on technical passages, but I've been focusing on musicality over speed -- I sound much better on Tenderly than I do on Flight of the Bumblebee.
_________________
Steve Thiel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
amazingmoris
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 710
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:12 am Post subject: Re: ethics vs. performance -- off-topic tangent |
|
|
| swthiel wrote: | Argument carried over from the ethics vs. performance thread in the Jazz/Commercial forum.
| amazingmoris wrote: | | swthiel wrote: | | amazingmoris wrote: | | bilboinsa wrote: | Your first reply included the following: | Quote: | | ...For example, I would never play in a back-up band for Charles Manson or Barbra Streisand or Rosie O’Donnell or Adolph Hitler....
|
When you did that, Morris, again WADR, you put a specific political view into play. And quite frankly, you associated 4 people in a determinedly political way... |
It is bizarre and absurd that you claim that your original question can be answered in a non-political way.
If a person says that personal political beliefs *should* affect what jobs he takes, he *must* then explain why and how with examples. |
Morris,
You could have chosen to answer bilboinsa's question non-politically; it is possible to do so, as many people in this very thread have demonstrated. It's as simple as saying "There are people and organizations whose beliefs and actions I find reprehensible. I am so opposed to their beliefs and actions that I could not in good conscience do anything that supported them or that even had the appearance that I supported them." Your examples do not clarify your point, but they do have the potential to inflame the discussion, regardless of what your intent might have been.
I don't know what you do for a living, but I have to ask -- are there clients for whom you wouldn't work? If your employer assigned you a task that supported a cause with which you disagreed, would you resign (or be fired) rather than be associated with that cause? Please try to answer without injecting your own political or religious views. |
Baloney.
Public speaking 101 says that you first make a statement and then you give supporting examples.
That is what I did.
Without supporting examples you have an unsupported claim. |
Spare me the "Public speaking 101" stuff; a key element of my job is educating graduate and undergraduate students, selling research proposals to funding agencies, and presenting research results. I teach graduate student to do the same, and I press them hard when they make unsupported assertions. When I'm in the pulpit or leading an adult church school class, my job is to educate and exhort. ...
This is a personal decision; it does not require supporting evidence .... |
As I said, you contradict the basic principles of "persuasive speech" that are taught to every college student when you claim that supporting examples are not needed:
"Persuasive Speech Idea Checklist
...
Offer examples the public will recognize
..."
- http://www.speech-topics-help.com/persuasive-speech-idea.html
So why is an allegedly educated person violating such a basic principle?
By the way, you are raking me over the coals for posting positions that might offend some people.
Every one of your posts has a cross next to your name.
Some posters here in Trumpet Herald have posted that they *hate* the Church and Christianity.
So your cross offends them.
So practice what you preach and take that "offensive" cross down.
If it is OK for you to post that cross even though it offends some people, then it is OK for me to post a sentence about Rosie O'Donnel and Barbra Streisand that offends some people.
Unless you think that double standards are OK.
In my months here in Trumpet Herald I have witnessed many posts which mock Phil Driscoll as a criminal and mock President Bush as a moronic international criminal.
And that is considered OK here.
But when I post one sentence about Barbra Streisand and Rosie O'Donnel all heck breaks loose.
That is a stinking double standard.
Nothing is going to convince you to abandon your hypocrisy, so this is my last post on the subject.
- morris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
amazingmoris
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 710
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| swthiel wrote: | Oh, yeah, I forgot ...
| amazingmoris wrote: | | ... describe your trumpet playing with the stipulation that you are forbidden to mention the trumpet. |
Quite doable.
I strive to play with the utmost musicality, with a clear, relaxed, resonant sound; you'd have to hear me play to judge my success in that area. The majority of my lesson time is spent working on a few key issues: consistent sound in all registers, connected playing, clear articulation, and greater expressiveness. I'm OK on technical passages, but I've been focusing on musicality over speed -- I sound much better on Tenderly than I do on Flight of the Bumblebee. |
You just described singing, not trumpet playing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swthiel
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 02 Apr 2005
Posts: 3967
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| amazingmoris wrote: | As I said, you contradict the basic principles of "persuasive speech" that are taught to every college student when you claim that supporting examples are not needed:
"Persuasive Speech Idea Checklist
...
Offer examples the public will recognize
..."
- http://www.speech-topics-help.com/persuasive-speech-idea.html
So why is an allegedly educated person violating such a basic principle? |
Is there a reasonably intelligent English-speaking adult who would not understand the following statement without further elaboration? | Quote: | | There are people and organizations whose beliefs and actions I find reprehensible. I am so opposed to their beliefs and actions that I could not in good conscience do anything that supported them or that even had the appearance that I supported them. |
This statement goes directly to the question originally posed in the discussion; how one handles that situation does depends on a fundamental personal choice -- do I work for anyone who's willing to pay or do I filter the work I accept through my own values? One's choice in this situation is not determined by one's political or religious views and values, it is determined by how one chooses to live those views and values.
| amazingmorris wrote: | | By the way, you are raking me over the coals for posting positions that might offend some people. |
No. I am suggesting that the examples you chose to use were inflammatory and that you could have chosen not to use them and still have clearly communicated your response to the original poster.
| amazingmorris wrote: | Every one of your posts has a cross next to your name.
Some posters here in Trumpet Herald have posted that they *hate* the Church and Christianity.
So your cross offends them.
So practice what you preach and take that "offensive" cross down. |
The judicious use of religious symbols as avatars and the judicious use of scripture verses in signatures is an accepted practice. If it were a violation of the usage guidelines, I would have heard about it. Signatures like Crazy Nate's have been around for quite a while without causing controversy. Further, nobody complained about your endorsement of Nate's signature, and indeed, the moderators let it stand.
| Quote: | If it is OK for you to post that cross even though it offends some people, then it is OK for me to post a sentence about Rosie O'Donnel and Barbra Streisand that offends some people.
Unless you think that double standards are OK. |
First, your sentence wasn't about O'Donnell and Streisand, it was about O'Donnell and Streisand and Hitler and Manson. There's a big difference between saying that you wouldn't play in a band backing up Streisand and likening Streisand to Hitler or Manson.
You have also mischaracterized my response. What I said was,
| swthiel wrote: | | I'm pointing out that the connection you made [Hitler/Manson/O'Donnell/Streisand] is as easily construed as flame bait as humor. |
Moving along ...
| Quote: | In my months here in Trumpet Herald I have witnessed many posts which mock Phil Driscoll as a criminal and mock President Bush as a moronic international criminal.
And that is considered OK here.
But when I post one sentence about Barbra Streisand and Rosie O'Donnel all heck breaks loose.
That is a stinking double standard. |
You have also -- if you've been paying careful attention -- noticed a lot of threads mocking Phil Driscoll and President Bush have been pulled by the moderators. Also, you posted more than a sentence about Streisand and O'Donnell (and that sentence is still up in the original thread, by the way). You also chose to invoke the specifics of the O'Donnell's and Streisand's positions, and you chose (in material deleted from the thread) to make a statement about another hot button issue.
It wasn't your "one sentence" that caused "all heck to break loose;" it was how you chose to respond to the moderators' intervention in the thread and the original posters request that the discussion of his question not venture in to politics.
| Quote: | Nothing is going to convince you to abandon your hypocrisy, so this is my last post on the subject.
- morris |
I suppose I'll find some way to live with that outcome ... even though you chose not to respond to the two yes or no questions I posed previously.
_________________
Steve Thiel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swthiel
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 02 Apr 2005
Posts: 3967
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| amazingmoris wrote: | | swthiel wrote: | Oh, yeah, I forgot ...
| amazingmoris wrote: | | ... describe your trumpet playing with the stipulation that you are forbidden to mention the trumpet. |
Quite doable.
I strive to play with the utmost musicality, with a clear, relaxed, resonant sound; you'd have to hear me play to judge my success in that area. The majority of my lesson time is spent working on a few key issues: consistent sound in all registers, connected playing, clear articulation, and greater expressiveness. I'm OK on technical passages, but I've been focusing on musicality over speed -- I sound much better on Tenderly than I do on Flight of the Bumblebee. |
You just described singing, not trumpet playing. |
Thank you! Lyrical, vocal-like playing is one of the goals my teacher and I work towards. I assure you, however, that I was not describing my singing. You'd need to hear me to decide how well I meet these goals, and how accurately I'd describing my performance.
I have a different set of issues regarding my singing (like developing a usable falsetto and vibrato), but the description above is not about my singing. In lessons, my teacher and I almost never discuss gear, we primarily discuss sound and music.
I should probably take some voice lessons to work through the fundamental issues.
_________________
Steve Thiel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lmf
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 20 May 2007
Posts: 2190
Location: Indiana USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi,
Why does every argument have to have political and religious overtones in the first place, especially when they share a negative context?
Why does it have to occur in the context of playing an instrument?
Best wishes!
Lloyd |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arpeggio
Veteran Member
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 153
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
You guys must be great players to have so much time available for railing at one another on TH.
I guess I'm not that good -- I need to spend time practicing.
There comes a time when it's clear that one person is simply never going to convince the other that his/her opinion is right. Each person is entitled to his/her own opinion, and very strong opinions often simply aren't up for being changed. Not that opinions aren't important -- they are. Yet the reality is that endless fist-pounding isn't going to do much.
It's a good time to resume doing something constructive, like playing the trumpet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tptfrbrains
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 1375
Location: Moers, Germany
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Arpeggio wrote: | You guys must be great players to have so much time available for railing at one another on TH.
I guess I'm not that good -- I need to spend time practicing.
There comes a time when it's clear that one person is simply never going to convince the other that his/her opinion is right. Each person is entitled to his/her own opinion, and very strong opinions often simply aren't up for being changed. Not that opinions aren't important -- they are. Yet the reality is that endless fist-pounding isn't going to do much.
It's a good time to resume doing something constructive, like playing the trumpet. |
That's pretty smug Arpeggio. swthiel's points were right on the money, and how much he practices has nothing to do with the points he made, and is none of our business.
amazingmoris spends a lot of time on this site embroiled in incendiary dialogue - when someone answers him clearly, and without losing his cool he should be applauded, and not belittled.
Go practice. Leave the others to their posting. Be happy.
r. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arpeggio
Veteran Member
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 153
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, neither smug nor belittling.
I'll applaud anyone for
(a) good playing,
(b) clear writing,
(c) thoughtful, careful reading,
(d) having responsible principles by which to live, and
(e) allowing others to have their own responsible principles.
I could add (f), good cooking, I suppose 
As such, I have no problem with any of the people who have posted on this thread.
In my opinion, this thread now contains more non-musical issues than musical ones. Additionally, it seems clear now that many on this thread are unlikely to change opinions as a result of postings. Still, of course, it's anyone's prerogative to continue should they wish.
Taking a tacet now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tptfrbrains
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 1375
Location: Moers, Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Arpeggio wrote: | Actually, neither smug nor belittling.
I'll applaud anyone for
(a) good playing,
(b) clear writing,
(c) thoughtful, careful reading,
(d) having responsible principles by which to live, and
(e) allowing others to have their own responsible principles.
I could add (f), good cooking, I suppose
As such, I have no problem with any of the people who have posted on this thread.
In my opinion, this thread now contains more non-musical issues than musical ones. Additionally, it seems clear now that many on this thread are unlikely to change opinions as a result of postings. Still, of course, it's anyone's prerogative to continue should they wish.
Taking a tacet now. |
Seems to me that you might want to applaud Steve for (b) through (e) and assume he works just as hard as you on (a).
r. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richardwy
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Posts: 4308
Location: Casper, WY - The Gotham of the Prarie
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dales wrote: | | Good luck. Morris is impervious to feedback. |
This has been my conclusion as well. Not happily either because Morris evidently is excited about all things trumpet.
There's a sort of insularity, for want of a better expression, my Dad called it "tunnel vision," G. K. Chesterton has some wonderful expressions for it with really useful comments too. Useful in any age or for anyone of any age group.
I've seen many of Morris' posts from beginning to end. Seen them turn, Morris cry "foul," and then the whole thing repeat itself in another thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richardwy
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Posts: 4308
Location: Casper, WY - The Gotham of the Prarie
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Arpeggio wrote: | | Each person is entitled to his/her own opinion |
I couldn't let this one pass. And please, Arpeggio, try not to take it personally. What you wrote is considered true and above questioning.
I very much like what Sam Johnson said:
Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it. Martyrdom is the test.
My own opinion, to which I guess conventional wisdom entitles me, is the only thing to which we are entitled is to treat one another justly. The rest is twaddle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Rowe
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 5364
Location: Chincoteague, Virginia
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some interesting points to be made here, regarding this THread ....
Namely, some people evidently have too much time on their hands.
Yogi Robt 
_________________________________
"Ax me 'bout Ebonics". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
