 |
 |
Just got a backchannel from someone signing himself "Pip Sidney", saying that he was all in favour of a widening of the bounds of what can be considered to be aural art. He asked me to pass this on to the list:
"Is it the lyric that most displeaseth? ...Certainly, I must confess mine own barbarousness; I never heard the old song of Percy and Douglas, that I found not my heart moved more than with a trumpet; and yet it is sung but by some blind crowder, with no rougher voice than rude style ... "
Also had an email from some nutter calling himself Arsebottle or Ass'n'tottie or something, complaining that he had pointed out some time ago that not everything written in verse was poetry, and it all came down to the use of metaphor, and ...
At that point, I deleted his email. Boring old fart. I'm going to put him on my Blocked Senders list.
Robin
On 23 October 2016 at 18:30 Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
This has been a common reaction. But the Academy I think doesn't have that option. The categories are fixed by the terms of the bequest, no? Lots of folks in the sciences would also like to see an expansion of categories. Me, I think these prizes are counterproductive. But we're stuck with them.
-----Original Message-----
>From: David Lace <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Oct 23, 2016 1:15 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: a bit much
>
>Maybe the Nobel committee should create a "songwriting" category to avoid this -- assuming such a category would make sense, depending as it does on the assumption that songs and poetry are indeed separate art forms, something which has yet to be established in the various discussions we are having here.