OK, Labi, I'll be as happy as anyone to wrap this one. I've been -
still am - agreeing with you, after all, in general terms, that
everything's political (and if you look through the archives you'll
find that other listmembers over the past couple of years have said
more-or-less the same sort of thing: it's hardly controversial in this
space). That being so, given the rather aggressive tone of your post,
I wonder quietly how on earth you'd react if I or anyone else had the
timerity to disagree with you! I hope it's evident that I'm not a
machete man, nor an upholder of such even by default, nor am I
proposing that anyone has to read it from my book. Neanderthal, as you
say. Can't imagine how you might've thought that - I usually get
accused of too much openness / plurality!
Thanks too for your comments on rhythm, that you "feel it". As far as
I can see that's an approach not unrelated to that proposed by other
listmembers, myself included, so again, no cause for prickliness
there. After all these years I'm still stumbling towards my own
understanding of it, and loving the (stumbling) process. Like you I
have to feel for it each time: I have to learn the needs of each job
as it crops up. For me this not "arbitrary" as one listmember
proposed, but painstaking and deliberate. For others, I'm sure, it's
different, and if it works, good for them too - I like to hear them
uphold their own methods. One of the pleasures of this list - for all
the disagreements that go on - is the ability (at least in theory) to
learn from other viewpoints, and acknowledge the common ground between
disparate practices, even if they don't overlap 100% with ones own.
Welcome once more, Labi -
RC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|