> From: bil <[log in to unmask]>
>> No, that is your rather simplistic rendering of it. While my preferences
>> are obvious they are based on quite a lot of personal experience,
>> participation in debate, consultation with other musicians and close
> hard to know where to begin. i'm sorry if i've distilled it to that level.
> the tone of your text is quite combative.
The tone of my argument is straight to the point because I don't have the
time or inclination to flap about. I don't see this medium as a means of
socialising and don't want to use it as such.
> when i write a message i write,
> hi Harry, when you write, it's "No, this is your rather simplistic
> rendering", must be challenging being the itm judge and jury, it's certainly
> challenging entering into a discussion in this environment, but i do enjoy
> it, discussion that is.
Again, I cannot be expected to pander to every individuals style of
correspondence. If you don't like my attitude to this then don't read my
mails. If you take something as impersonal as a reasonable email from a
stranger on a public forum personally then I would suggest that you are more
risible than me. I don't take any of this stuff, CCE, Arts council, music
debate particularly personally and I respond accordingly.
> discussion is not debate. if you feel i am
> debating you, i'm failing to effectively discuss the topic, which i would
> attribute to my own communication issues and the peculiarities of the forum
> in which it takes place.
You offered counter arguments to some of mine and I countered back. Yes,
that's debate. What is wrong with it? Its hardly new to this list.
> seems i get from your messages alot of negativity, in looking back to the
> thread topic, it's about funding traditional arts and not cce or the arts
> council. i apologise, for highlighting the negativity or feeding it, i
> would prefer to be more positive, if however rooted in reality.
You seem to take a lot of negativity from my messages. That would be your
> orgs build there own stars to validate themselves. there are certainly
> people who use cce, npu, wcss or any other other org of oppurtunity as
> vechiles for funding their careers their agendas or their egos and there's
> nothing wrong with that. this is likely the case with the arts council as
> well. this may seem critical, but it's not meant to be negative. criticism
> is inherently constructive, how we internalize it or how we use it makes it
> constructive or destructive.
You would have to be more specific for me to comment (i.e. name names). As
far as I'm concerned that is an unfair assumption to make on both
organisations parts as I doubt you really know any of the individual people
involved. Is that unreasonable or negative of me, or you?
>> I'm not a one for joining organisation because I can. I haven't seen them
>> in action, or in an action that has given me reason to have any particular
> well i just thought i'd ask, twasn't a personal attack.
It wasn't taken as one I assure you.
> while this
> can be a bad thing it is a sign, at least to me of alot of caring, passion
> and redundancy.
Yes, there is huge goodwill towards ITM from those who hold it dear and a
lot of people who are willing to help organise events, teachers etc. This is
good. I don't know any critic of Senator Murphy who has a problem with
people wanting to get involved for the sake of the traditional arts.
> there's far to much nationalistic crap currently going
> on on-list. i don't see how it's productive and it certainly is divisive.
I wasn't being flippant. There is no corresponding Arts Council type
structure in the US, and didn't Bush cut arts funding with his much rattled
sabre? I don't take that as a reflection on the US as a nation.
> ah, glad to hear that i'm talking to somebody on the board of npu, i'm a
> member, shocking but i do it out of respect for someone. i'm sure npu would
> take funds from just about any source to futher their aims, which i support
> their right to do. however, money comes with strings whether it be money
> from the arts council, cce, guiness or even memebers. Perhaps, npu should
> view their aims in a more mercenary way so as to increase funding. npu
> could trade mark "piper's club" and go about franchising (perhaps chartering
> is a better word) all the various piping clubs popping up everywhere. in
> this way they could use the cce model to acquire additional funding by
> monopolizing upipes and the consolidation of orgs.
Totally against the spirit of the organisation. I can't believe that
somebody who recently warned on the dangers and negative side of money is
suggesting this. We don't own piping, we don't want to own piping. The
funding arts situation (particularly the new situation) in this country
thankfully means that we don't have to do anything so compromising to the
memory of our founders who gave so freely of their time and talents.
> i have no experience with npu nor do i wish to muddy their waters, however
> dues are quite cheap and production of the mailings and other activities
> reduces the funding potential associated with membership dues.
Membership will never raise big money given the service that NPU strive to
give its members. Again, NPU don't need to ,and don't want to, rely on its
members pockets. It wants to be as approachable and accessible as possible
> i would
> think they'd have a donation button on their website at least one more
> promeniently placed. it would be nice if they were more active in housing
> and hosting piping information on there website, as it is they put there
> irons in different fires and that's understandable, it's hard to compete
> with uilleannobession.com or chiffandfipple in terms of being the virtual
> piping destinaton of choice. instead of mailing An Piobaire to members of
> the private club they should pop it up on their website as pdf and freely
> distribute it,
So we go back from being a cut throat mercenary, money grabbing organisation
to giving away our society newsletter for free... I see. The NPU web site is
undergoing a major reworking. A digitisation project is under way that
eventually will see material, old journals, mags and archive material on the
> might further their aims.
> when an org becomes to funds
> driven it suffers in other ways. whether you agree or not, is unimportant,
> it does set a tone of self-righteousness, which is understandable in these
> times. There are alot of competing entities, not just in the piping world
> but in itm and the arts in general. npu must compete with other piping clubs
> for members it's a small pool really and that's certainly part of the
> problem in regards to funding, too many competing orgs and to few sources of
NPU does not want to set up, or contribute to, a culture of competition with
other piping organisations. It has always been geared towards co-operation
and facilitation. Again, I suggest that you know little or nothing of the
funding situation and its implications to NPU. NPU has three staff, a
handful of volunteers, and several hundreds of advisors like yourself who
are willing to talk at length and do little else. I've heard it all before.
> i will trash your tone and seeming
> arrogance as i would do with anyone. you write very well and i enjoy your
> presence on list very much.
As stated, I've no time for email love-ins other than the odd statement of
regard to people I know personally and the general statement of regard at
the end of my every post. If that's arrogant then I would suggest that you
are expecting to much from this medium, or me at least.
When I state that I have knowledge of something it is simply to qualify
statements that I make, nothing else. Maybe the pursuit of knowledge seems
arrogant when the alternative is hearsay, conjecture and assumption.
> you may certainly continue
> to belittle me, as i am an insignificant twit. but in a discussion such as
> this it's nothing but macheesemo and reflects badly upon you, whether you
> want to accept that or not is your call and your legacy.
I don't know you. Why would I want to belittle you? I'm simply suggesting
that the information that you post on this hitherto quite well defined topic
is not based on any insight or particularly relevant knowledge on your part.
Is that so hard for you to grasp in a rational way?
> yeah yeah senator big hair, don't underestimate him, yet why the "far from
> invincible" it's not a war, though you appear to wage one.
Politically invincible. Again, it might help if you dispel the image
seemingly in your head of me as some sort of cultural paramilitary activist.
Activist is not a bad word. Invincible is not thoroughly suggestive of war.
> i've worked for the music in my own ways, i don't
> feel the need to justify or validate myself, i see no reason for you to feel
> the need to either.
With talk like that you run the risk of offending me. And that would be
unfortunate. Control yourself.
Remember when you sent me an email off-list that was personal and
condescending and I asked you not to contact me off-list again because I
wouldn't do it to you? Well, try debating or discussing the actual factual
on-topic content of my posts here, staying away from the personal stuff and
we might just have ourselves a way of being productive.