In the past, I have rigorously refrained from this sort of discussion on
the list, preferring instead action behind the scenes.  However, on the
theory that some airing of tangential matters is healthy for the list, and
at the urging of long-time subscribers to loosen the reins a bit (both to
lessen my load and allow the community to grow and mature), I have decided
to respond to this in a way that listmembers might find unusual.

John Dalmas writes in response to Christine Labroche:

>>I have also learnt how and when not to speak out of turn (on the MCML).
>
>In other words, Ms. LaBroche is saying she "knows her place," and suggests
>I should know mine.

You do Christine the same injustice you have others on the list.  No one
is talking about subservience or deference.  What was being addressed is
reputation based on past and ongoing contribution.  Steve and many others
have spent years building a reputation on the net.  Unlike the "real" world
where prestige is measured by looks or education or income or any of dozens
of other superficial factors, in electronic forums reputation is built
solely on what you write.  In this context, it should be easy to see that
the condescending, belligerent, and insultingly presupposing (in fact,
bigoted) tone you adopt when addressing us all is doing nothing to further
your "place" in this community.

>This points exactly to the smugness called attention to by my post.

Another example of childish name-calling.  Please make up your mind.  Are
we smug or are we unquestioning acolytes?  I don't see how we can be both
in this situation.

>When I first encountered the list, I said: Oh Boy, here is a free-for-all...

"Unclear on the concept" is the phrase that leaps immediately to mind.

>...forum on CM where opinions can be exchanged and debated, and no one
>list member or list members are exalted above everyone else, ...

As stated above, the perceived value of a particular listmember's
contributions is a function of both reputation, built on a history of
participation, as well as what is written in any given post.  This is how
any society works.  If you were expecting an uncritical anarchy here, you
are deluding yourself.

>...or are to be approached as sacred cows.

More unsubstantiated name-calling.  If you want to maintain any credibility
at all, you'll have to be more specific.  Collectively, we here on MCML
have a long history of goring any sacred cow that brazenly wander into
view, so you'll have to work very hard to be persuasive on this claim.

>Judging from the private e-mail I received after my post, a number of list
>members feel strongly otherwise, and have chosen a particular one on the
>list to be the arbiter of their taste.

Nonsense.  This is simply a lie.  I know because I've received much of
the same complaints you have, and I know the people on this list pretty
well.  This appears to be an attempt on your part to play the role of the
beleaguered skeptic.  Be honest.  What people are complaining about is your
tone and your predilection towards insulting and baseless accusations.  It
has nothing to do with "arbiters of taste".

>Moreover, they demand no one dare place doubt in their minds about whom
>they have chosen.

Another falsehood.  Not one single person wrote anything of the sort,
privately or publicly.  You are simply making this up.

>Passionate devotees these, where I might have thought such passion would
>be reserved for the music.

So, now you would tell us in which directions we should channel our
passion? We all feel passionately about music, whatever our tastes.
Even the most casual observer can easily perceive that.  Perhaps these
passions don't follow the artistic, social or political agendas of all
listmembers, but that's life.  As they say: take a pill; get over it.

>Actually, there is nothing evil with wanting someone to tell you what to
>think ...

No, but there is something fundamentally evil in the supposition that
people who dare disagree with you have no integrity, and must be parroting
the opinions of others.

>...  Arbiters offer a welcome security of opinion where there is only
>insecurity.

So, now were are insecure.  I'll add that to the list.

>But Geez, give me a break!

We've all been giving you a break.  We were hoping you would settle down
and begin to respect the fact that others have opinions.  It seems you are
immune to the council of your peers, preferring to keep your own.  That's
fine, but be aware that were here to discuss music and exercise our musical
passions, not pay homage to your pronouncements.

>I don't feel I have to be on the list myself for the purpose of looking
>for an arbiter, or that the rules for joining the club should require
>acceptance of your arbiter as my arbiter.

You have offered no evidence for your assertion in this regard.  What
you have been called on are simple issues of fairness, consideration, and
respect.  Willful bores who gratuitously insult guests and host alike have
no right to be surprised if they are asked to leave the party.

>...  There is no such thing as "out of turn" when it comes to honest
>inquiry.

There is such as thing as mistaking righteousness for arrogance.  No
one is telling you what to think.  No one is telling you how to behave.
What we are telling you is that we will not tolerate the levels of
disrespect and discourtesy shown in your posts of late.

Now, hold onto your pants, here's the musical content of this post.
My experience with Lipatti has been very similar to Steve's.  Generally,
I think he is a fine pianist, but much too reserved for my tastes.
This makes his performances, by and large, mediocre.  Don't even get
me started on such icons as Schnabel or Gould.  These are my informed
opinions, and I'm sticking by them.  But I'm not deluded enough to think
they are, or should be, universal opinions.

I can gore just about any other scared cow you'd care to present as well.
I just usually don't see the point.

Dave
[log in to unmask]
http://www.classical.net/