not anti-synth

[Jody Stecher]

Ning won't allow me to comment on the Moseying Around thread so I'm continuing here in a new one. Sylvia, if you substitute "guitar" or "glockenspiel" or whatever non-banjo you like for "synthesizer"  you will see what I am getting at. I'm not against synthesizers and neither am I talking about them. I am talking about the diluting effects on quality that comes from attempts to popularize something. My examples were not meant to be taken literally or taken seriously.

[Mike Moss]

There can be several causes to the lack of popularity of a musical genre, and it not being "dumbed down" enough is only one of them -- there are other causes, such as lack of exposure, lack of interest from the professional music community, lack of commercially available good recordings, learning resources and sheet music...

Whereas I tend to agree on your comment on the majority of modern "rubbish" music (which is, in my view, the ugliest result of what happens when you subject art to the laws of the market), there are many musical phenomena which have increased in popularity, even in modern times, without a decline in musicianship.

As a matter of fact, there are some brilliant examples of a considerable increase in standards in genres which have become more popular lately; for instance, Early Music has progressed by leaps and bounds in the last 30 years; reproduction instruments are becoming increasingly available and better in quality, the standards of performance are very high, even among amateurs, the old repertoire is becoming increasingly well known and available, and there is a small but very successful niche market around a repertoire of baroque, renaissance and medieval music which had fallen into complete obscurity not too long ago. There are plenty of good, Historically Informed Performances commercially available under several labels of pieces which had often never been recorded until recently. How is that not progress?

I don't think anybody here wants to "change" Classic Banjo, in its music or its essence, by butchering it with the trappings of dumbed down "pop" music -- as you pointed out earlier, it would simply stop being Classic Banjo. But I do believe that Classic Banjo has had such poor exposure ever since it left the mainstream that many potential Classic banjoists have ignored it because they probably didn't even know it existed. The "underground" network of Classic Banjo may have kept it alive with small-scale journals, publications and rallies, but for how long? The internet offers us a chance to promote Classic Banjo for what it is -- without having to incorporate synths or removing trio parts. 

Some of the best music forums on the web are actually quite large -- look at Delcamp, the main online reference for classical guitar. It's a large and popular forum, but the standards of musicianship and politeness are very high, and they don't play Sor with synthesizers.

Just my 2p's worth.

[Sylvia]

Hi Jody, maybe I should have read your post a bit later in the morning, I may not have misunderstood it then.

I'm not really sure that popularization does dilute quality, will have to think about that and maybe listen/read other peoples opinions before I come down one way or the other.   It would be  nice to hear what other people think.

 Don't understand though why Ning wouldn't let you continue under the other heading.

[thereallynicelady]

My main aim in the Just Moseying Around post was certainly not to 'dumb down' Classic Banjo, nor was it an attempt to popularise it. In my own way I wanted to promote Classic Banjo by helping to increase the offerings of the existing members so helping to improve musicianship and knowledge. To many the playing of the banjo is a hobby, to others a profession, to others a cursory interest. By posting in this forum the wants of all the members may be addressed.

I feel another discussion coming on but that's for another day!

[Jody Stecher]

I agree with everything that has been written in reply to what I've said. Unfortunately most of it seems to have  in reply to what I was thought to have meant rather than to what I intended to convey. I will now drop everything but my initial point which was the context in which my lesser points were made and which caused a diversion. Here it is again:  I think nothing is to be gained and much is to be lost by admonishing site visitors who do not wish to post to behave differently and by branding them as lurkers. 

[Tom Morrison]

I agree with Jody regarding the "Lurkers" brand.  As a newbie I learn more by reading the various posts, not feeling obligated to make commenst about things which I  know little or nothing.

[Mike Moss]

For the record, "lurking" and "lurker" are not negative terms -- they simply mean "to follow a forum without posting". As a matter of fact, lurking is often advisable when one hasn't had enough time to observe the netiquette or rules of a certain forum or website (people who are behaving inappropriately are often told to "lurk more").

[Jody Stecher]

In the real world, the non-virtual, non-internet world that many or most of us live in, the world that includes the dictionary,  "lurk" implies malice, ambush,  threat, and evil intent. It means hiding with the intent to do harm. If that's not "negative" what is? 

Not speaking when having nothing to say is simply good manners and common sense . I recognize and acknowledge the good intentions of the Very Nice Lady. All the same, exhortations to comment when one does not wish to or else be  branded as a skulking ne'er-do-well at best and "a ruthless killer" (so says the dictionary) at worst, is, in my opinion, not a good idea.

Here's what one dictionary says followed by the opinion of a  thesaurus:

lurk |lərk|verb [ intrans. ](of a person or animal) be or remain hidden so as to wait in ambush for someone or something : a ruthless killer still lurked in the darkness.• (of an unpleasant quality) be present in a latent or barely discernible state, although still presenting a threat : fear lurks beneath the surface | [asadj. ] ( lurking) he lives with a lurking fear of exposure as a fraud.• [ intrans. ] read communications on an electronic network without making one's presence known.ORIGIN Middle English : perhaps from lour + the frequentative suffix -k(as in talk).

lurk  verb   is someone lurking in the bushes? skulk, loiter, lie in wait, lie low, hide,conceal oneself, take cover, keep out of sight.

[Mike Moss]

When in doubt, ask NetLingo:

Definition of Lurk

To read messages in a newsgroup or a chat room or on a social networking site or a blog without ever posting or replying yourself.

Definition of Lurker

One who lurks; a visitor to a newsgroup, chat room, blog, or social networking site who only reads other people's posts, but never posts his or her own comments, thus remaining anonymous.

The fact that the word has a different use in the real world is irrelevant: this is being used in an internet context, not a real-world context; otherwise, "trolls" would actually be supernatural beings from Norse mythology, "flame wars" would involve real Napalm, and "forums" would be open spaces in ancient Roman cities.

I think everyone who used the word "lurker" here knew perfectly well what this word means in this context, and thus cannot be accused of brandishing anyone as "a ruthless killer".

[Jody Stecher]

I have composed several responses but they are inadequate responses to the proposition that real world meanings have no relevance. So I'll just say that I disagree. 

[Trapdoor2]

To go totally netspeak:

+1 Mike.

However...IMNSFHO, the term "lurker" still has a whiff of negativity in that the term is most often used in opposition to "contributor". Frankly, I would rather lurkers continue to lurk and enjoy the site as opposed to contributing empty "Hi, I'm here! I have nothing to say but I'm willing to repeat it ad naseum." stuff.

 

So...while I'm in agreement with Mike, definition-wise, I'm also in agreement with Jody in that attempted behavioural modification via chivving ain't particularly productive.

[Jody Stecher]

My comments have addressed not what the word means to those who wrote it but to those who read it. 

I think everyone who used the word "lurker" here knew perfectly well what this word means in this context, and thus cannot be accused of brandishing anyone as "a ruthless killer".

[Mike Moss]

Jody Stecher said:

My comments have addressed not what the word means to those who wrote it but to those who read it. 

Fair enough, but that is only valid as long as those who read it were not aware of the meaning of the word meant in this context; now that it has been cleared up, what's the point of this dispute? Once the meaning of "lurker" in this context has been made clear, attacking the word's other definition is just a straw man fallacy, as in misrepresenting others' positions.