 |
BocelliOnline
Discussion Forum
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Melodie
Administrator
Joined: 01 Mar 2003
Posts: 1620
Location: Massachusetts
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 5:48 am Post subject: SOPRANOS ON THE HIGH NOTES |
 |
|
FROM THE AUSTRALIAN:
Why sopranos smile on high notes
By Matthew Westwood
January 10, 2004
Science has explained one of the marvels of an opera house - how sopranos hit high notes and make their voices soar above the sound of an orchestra.
A research team from the University of NSW in Sydney, after looking at how sopranos use the resonant spaces in the mouth and throat to amplify the voice, can also now explain why singers appear to smile or pull a face when they reach for high notes, and why the words in opera cannot always be understood. "People realise that something funny happens with sopranos, and it's very hard to understand them at the top of their range," biophysicist John Smith said.
Eight sopranos took part in the project, in which a 10mm plastic tube was placed on their bottom lip. Sound waves sent through the tube were used to measure changes of resonance in the vocal tract as they sang.
At the Sydney Opera House yesterday, soprano Cheryl Barker demonstrated some of the scientific secrets behind the singer's art. Barker was taking a break from rehearsals for the opera La Traviata, in which she plays Violetta, a fun-loving prostitute struck down by tuberculosis.
The first act of the opera includes the famous aria Sempre libera, in which Barker is required to sing a high D-flat - the note just below the highest in her vocal range.
Singing involves using a complex combination of muscles throughout the torso. In the mouth, Barker explained, one of the actions was to raise the soft palate into a dome shape - a movement that can look like a yawn or a smile. It was this action, she said, that made the words of an aria difficult to pronounce. "You have to create space in the roof of the mouth," she said. "The soft palate lifts up, and once you do that, it's hard to create the words."
Dr Smith conducted the study with physicist Joe Wolfe and a French soprano and physics student, Elodie Joliveau.
Barker said the study could help singers understand technical aspects of their work.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8360397%255E16947,00.html
___________________________________________________
FROM THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES:
When sopranos hit high notes, pronunciation takes nose-dive
January 8, 2004
BY JOSEPH B. VERRENGIA
Even opera buffs peek at the electronic subtitles when a diva rattles the chandelier with a soaring aria. It may sound beautiful. But what exactly is she singing?
Scientists say you shouldn't blame your uncultured ears for not being able to understand the lyrics, even those in English.
New measurements show that a soprano distorts her pronunciation when she opens her mouth wide and adjusts her vocal tract to hit the highest, loudest notes.
''It's not our ears,'' said Australian physicist Joe Wolfe. ''In some cases, the information simply is not there.''
Until now, scientists had difficulty explaining the effect, which is most pronounced in sopranos, who have the highest voices.
The best sopranos can sing nearly as loud as the roar of a jet engine. That not only helps them to be heard above a large orchestra; it also conveys the dark emotions that composers like Verdi and Wagner intended.
If the composer pushes high enough, singers must sacrifice intelligibility to make music.
Wolfe and others at the University of South Wales developed a method to measure this ''soprano's effect,'' which they described in a paper published in today's issue of the journal Nature.
The researchers used eight classically trained sopranos. A researcher struck an ascending scale of notes on a glockenspiel. The sopranos sang into a microphone to match the scales.
They usually lowered their jaws and opened their mouths in wide grimaces to hit the highest, loudest notes. Soon, the words they were singing became muddied.
Most of today's sopranos have conquered the diction challenge. One who didn't was the famously unintelligible Montserrat Caballe, a star of the 1960s and '70s who nonetheless was beloved by audiences for her glorious sound.
AP, with Wynne Delacoma contributing
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-opera08.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sj
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Posts: 55
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Melodie, Thanks for posting these interesting articles! I've always been bothered by the strange facial expressions of many sopranos :shock: --- now that I understand the physics behind it, it won't bother me so much.
sara |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scarpia
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 27
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sj wrote: | Melodie, Thanks for posting these interesting articles! I've always been bothered by the strange facial expressions of many sopranos :shock: --- now that I understand the physics behind it, it won't bother me so much.
sara |
Uh. . .if you ever take a look at some opera scores, you'll find that the composer has usually written those high notes in, and for a purpose. They usually come at the end of cadenzas whose endings would sound musically unresolved and unsatisfying without them. In Baroque and early 19th Century operas high notes were also part of the many ornamental passages that were an essential component of the musical style and fabric. Music is an art governed by forms, not by tone deaf scientists. Like too many "scientific studies" today this one is nonsesense and a waste of time.
People who are bothered that much by operatic conventions should realize that opera--and perhaps art as such--is simply not meant for them. They just don't get it. I don't always hear all the words with Blues, Jazz, Rock or Rap performers--or for that matter with choirs or Shakespearean actors. So what? Those of us who genuinely appreciate such art forms don't care if we miss a few words. And in opera they're
usually singing in a foreign language anyway. Those who insist on hearing every last word should look for some old Perry Como or Andy Williams records and make themselves happy.
Melodie, I don't know why you'd put such drivel on here. Isn't this supposed to be a site for fans of Andrea Bocelli and opera in general? There plenty of science sites. Besides what they're saying about sopranos could just as readily be applied to tenors: their voices are also unnatural compared to a normal speaking voice, and they sing plenty of high notes, which also distort the mouth and obscure some words. Why pick on sopranos? You can't have opera without them.  Opera fans have always loved high notes and always will.
Long live great music in whatever shape it takes! 
_________________
"If music be the food of love, play on"-Shakespeare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fantom
Joined: 17 Jan 2004
Posts: 235
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scarpia wrote: | Melodie, I don't know why you'd put such drivel on here. Isn't this supposed to be a site for fans of Andrea Bocelli and opera in general? There plenty of science sites. Besides what they're saying about sopranos could just as readily be applied to tenors: their voices are also unnatural compared to a normal speaking voice, and they sing plenty of high notes, which also distort the mouth and obscure some words. Why pick on sopranos? You can't have opera without them. Opera fans have always loved high notes and always will.
Long live great music in whatever shape it takes! |
I don't see any problem with Melodie posting this here. I thought it was interesting. Between reading the articles and your comments, I feel that I have learned something. What's wrong with that? Thank you for sharing.
_________________
Fantom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scarpia
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 27
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote= Opera fans have always loved high notes and always will.
Long live great music in whatever shape it takes! [/quote]
I don't see any problem with Melodie posting this here. I thought it was interesting. Between reading the articles and your comments, I feel that I have learned something. What's wrong with that? Thank you for sharing.[/quote]
What's wrong with that? Frankly, almost everything. I don't understand what you could possibly have thought was "interesting" about that study. It was all beside the point. My original argument was correct: nobody genuinely loves opera unless they also enjoy the high notes. However those high notes are produced; whatever mouth movements they require; and whatever effect those methods have on the words are all irrelevant to the art form. All that matters is the sound that results.
As I said before, "Opera fans have always loved high notes and always will." They also love Andrea Bocelli's high notes, even though he makes similar mouth movements to those of other singers and obscures some words in the process. No tenor or soprano can do otherwise when singing at the top of their range.
That's just the way it is with opera, like it or leave it. No scientific studies are ever going to prove or disprove the musical and theatrical reality of what opera is and why it continues to be more popular than ever. The poet W. H. Auden once wrote that an opera singer hitting a High C reminded him that human beings are not merely subject to the forces of determinism, but actually have free will.
So there is also an existential significance to opera singers' high notes. Perhaps that is why extraordinarily gifted high-note singers, like Dame Joan Sutherland, Luciano Pavarotti and, yes, Andrea Bocelli, have helped to make opera appeal to larger audiences than it ever did before. No scientists will ever be able to explain such a phenomenon. Only artists like Sutherland, Pavarotti, Bocelli and their admirers can explain it, or at least demonstrate it.
The next time a high note comes your way, don't cringe; relax and enjoy it. Opera is meant to be theatrically exciting, and high notes are part of the thrill. I've seen many opera performances in North America and Europe: in Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco, Montreal, Covent Garden, L'Opera, La Scala, the Rome Opera, the Wiener Staatsoper, Berlin, Bayreuth, etc., and I've never seen audiences do anything, after hearing a perfectly produced high B, C, D or E flat, except wildly applaud.
Best wishes,
Doug
_________________
"If music be the food of love, play on"-Shakespeare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fantom
Joined: 17 Jan 2004
Posts: 235
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scarpia wrote: |
What's wrong with that? Frankly, almost everything. I don't understand what you could possibly have thought was "interesting" about that study. It was all beside the point. My original argument was correct: nobody genuinely loves opera unless they also enjoy the high notes. However those high notes are produced; whatever mouth movements they require; and whatever effect those methods have on the words are all irrelevant to the art form. All that matters is the sound that results.
So there is also an existential significance to opera singers' high notes. .....Only artists like Sutherland, Pavarotti, Bocelli and their admirers can explain it, or at least demonstrate it.
The next time a high note comes your way, don't cringe; relax and enjoy it. Opera is meant to be theatrically exciting, and high notes are part of the thrill. I've seen many opera performances in North America and Europe: in Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco, Montreal, Covent Garden, L'Opera, La Scala, the Rome Opera, the Wiener Staatsoper, Berlin, Bayreuth, etc., |
I see nothing wrong with attempting to grasp the techniques involved in an opera singer hitting those high notes. A study of technique does not diminish my enjoyment one iota! I genuinely love opera and I also enjoy learning about it. The technique may be irrelevant to the art form, but it is also a necessary part of singing. You can't have one without the other. As a non-singer I find it interesting. The study that Melodie posted is just one little piece of the puzzle. I can't imagine why you found that so offensive.
I understand that all the technique in the world is nothing unless there is heart. That is why Bocelli is so special. He has it in abundance.
If you are attempting to intimidate me with your "credentials," sorry--I've experienced a few operas myself. I can assure you that I have never cringed at a well sung high note! Bring them on!
_________________
Fantom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Melodie
Administrator
Joined: 01 Mar 2003
Posts: 1620
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scarpia wrote: | Melodie, I don't know why you'd put such drivel on here. Isn't this supposed to be a site for fans of Andrea Bocelli and opera in general?
Long live great music in whatever shape it takes! |
Well, it's like this....
The title of this particular forum is WHAT'S OPERA, DOC?...the description is "a forum for learning, sharing and discussing opera-related topics". I think the published articles that I posted fall under the category of "learning...discussing...".
And in answer to your question - no, this isn't supposed to be a site for "fans of....opera in general". If that were the case, many of us - myself included - wouldn't be here.
An additional note - many of the forums you'll find here were created due to the diverse interests and many personalities of Andrea's fans.
Melodie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scarpia
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 27
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fantom wrote: |
I see nothing wrong with attempting to grasp the techniques involved in an opera singer hitting those high notes. A study of technique does not diminish my enjoyment one iota! I genuinely love opera and I also enjoy learning about it. The technique may be irrelevant to the art form, but it is also a necessary part of singing. You can't have one without the other. As a non-singer I find it interesting. The study that Melodie posted is just one little piece of the puzzle. I can't imagine why you found that so offensive.
I understand that all the technique in the world is nothing unless there is heart. That is why Bocelli is so special. He has it in abundance.
If you are attempting to intimidate me with your "credentials," sorry--I've experienced a few operas myself. I can assure you that I have never cringed at a well sung high note! Bring them on! |
Well, it's obviously time we wound up this argument. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree. I merely want to correct a few things you incorrectly attribute to me. I never said that "a study of technique" would "diminish" anyone's enjoyment of opera. I only said that a singer's technique is precisely an artistic, not a scientific, matter, and specifically a musical one. Otherwise singers would be trained at scientific institutions, not musical ones.
Furthermore technique varies widely both in kind and degree. No one in living memory had as much sheer vocal technique as the Australian soprano Dame Joan Sutherland. In a career of more than 40 years she sang more high notes than any other soprano, and higher notes than most sopranos sound secure on even when they can hit them. These included routinely rock solid High Ds and Es, and on some occasions F in alt. Though critics complained of her poor diction, her fans remain legion. Yet even she has never been able to teach her phenomenal technique to other singers, any more than Rembrandt or Picasso was able to train another great painter.
Andrea Bocelli acknowledges as his mentor the late, legendary Franco Corelli, who was almost entirely self-taught. Corelli based his technique on that of an earlier Italian star, Mario Del Monaco, also self-taught, who had mastered the ability to actually raise his larynx. This allowed him to produce high notes of tremendous force and "ring"--what Italians call "squillo." Corelli imitated Del Monaco but went a step further: he developed the ability to move his larynx both up and down, thus he was able to produce very soft as well as very loud effects on high notes. These singers developed these techniques on their own, without help from teachers, never mind scientists.
Does Bocelli also move his larynx? I don't know, though he certainly sounds like Corelli at times in both his sheer vocal power and melting pianissimi. Why don't you write and ask him, and while you're at it, ask how useful he would find scientific studies, like the one cited here. I know what sort of answer you will get. Every singer's technique is a highly personal matter that involves finding his own solutions to whatever vocal obstacles stand in the way of her/his own artistic ambitions. Only a minority ever succeed triumphantly in this individual struggle and go on to have great international careers, like those I have mentioned.
How many famous singers participated in this "study?" I'd be surprised if any of them has even a moderately successful career. I've been around enough universities to know that those who participate in most scientific studies are either medical patients or students who need the extra money they get. I think in this case they were voice students, and therefore would-be opera singers. This is unfortunate.
These students should be getting financial support so they can devote their time to working individually on their artistic technique full-time, as all great opera singers have had to do, instead of being used as guinea pigs. That's one of the things I found objectionable--but not "offensive," as you claim, since I'm not one of those being subjected to it. It's no skin off my vocal cords.
The other thing is a related one: a deterministic outlook is not a healthy influence on an opera singer. They have such a tough row to hoe, as it is, that they need all the confidence, in the power of their own free will and in their capacity for individual effort, insight and artistic accomplishment, that they can get. Treating them like lab rats will never help and may very well prove detrimental.
That's why I quoted Auden on the existential component of operatic performance. The same is true of classical stage actors or dancers. The great director Josef von Sternberg wrote the crucial difference between stage performers and screen performers is that the stage performer "must carry the destiny of his performance entirely his own hands." Opera singers, beyond actors, require an extra leap of faith, that those invisible tools of their art are going to obey their will, that their voices will not give out, that they will not crack on a high note, and numerous other factors that are not subject to scientific laws. You don't interrupt a man on a high wire to ask him how he does it, or he will probably fall.
If you really want to learn to appreciate operatic technique you'd be better off to read some of the many publications devoted to it by people in the business. I think you'll find, as I have, that there is no one right technique, that in fact there are about as many techniques as there have been great exponents of that art.
Finally, I certainly did not list any "credentials." Seeing a couple of hundred opera performances, as well as watching numerous rehearsals, would obviously not constitute credentials for anyone. My credentials as an academic and theatre historian--my degrees, research work, teaching, etc.--have nothing to do with my opera-going, aside from some knowledge of theatre architecture, staging, set and costume design. Outside of my own field I enjoy opera performances merely as a layman. When I cited places where I've seen performances, it was solely as a witness, and by way of observing that I'd never noticed any of those diverse audiences objecting to high notes that were well executed or complaining about not hearing the isolated words that accompanied those notes.
Well, that's all I ever want to add to this topic. I enjoy a good argument, but it's time to move on to other matters. Cheers.
Doug 
_________________
"If music be the food of love, play on"-Shakespeare.
Last edited by Scarpia on Sat Mar 25, 2006 6:20 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Willma
Joined: 07 Mar 2003
Posts: 863
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scarpia wrote: | | Fantom wrote: |
cringed at a well sung high note! Bring them on! |
I only said that a singer's technique is precisely an artistic, not a scientific, matter, and specifically a musical one. Otherwise singers would be trained at scientific institutions, not musical ones.
Doug |
I really enjoyed your post. Obviously you have a great passion for opera and to have a passion for anything is wonderul and contagious.
I have not been around many opera singers so am not familiar with their training and development; however, I beg to differ in one area. Technique is NOT artistry. It Is science. It is the delivery that is artistic. I have spent enough time in the halls of conservatories, at competitions and performances in the field of classical string to know that conservatories, every day, teach science. String players are highly trained, fine motor athletes whose muscle memory in hands and arms and backs allow them the freedom to attend to the delivery of artistic expressions. Without science and technique, there is no art but only chaos.
_________________
Although, in his life, he was often called the imbecile from Illinois, history has proven otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fantom
Joined: 17 Jan 2004
Posts: 235
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Willma wrote: | | I have not been around many opera singers so am not familiar with their training and development; however, I beg to differ in one area. Technique is NOT artistry. It Is science. It is the delivery that is artistic. I have spent enough time in the halls of conservatories, at competitions and performances in the field of classical string to know that conservatories, every day, teach science. String players are highly trained, fine motor athletes whose muscle memory in hands and arms and backs allow them the freedom to attend to the delivery of artistic expressions. Without science and technique, there is no art but only chaos. |
Yes, that is what I was trying to say, but you said it much better. Thank you.
To Scarpia, "credentials" was a poor choice of words on my part. Sometimes people attempt to intimidate by implying that their opinions are more valid because of their experience, etc. Perhaps that was not the case with you.
I've enjoyed this exchange and I think your suggestion "to agree to disagree" is a good one.
_________________
Fantom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scarpia
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 27
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Willma wrote: |
I really enjoyed your post. Obviously you have a great passion for opera and to have a passion for anything is wonderul and contagious.
I have not been around many opera singers so am not familiar with their training and development; however, I beg to differ in one area. Technique is NOT artistry. It Is science. It is the delivery that is artistic. I have spent enough time in the halls of conservatories, at competitions and performances in the field of classical string to know that conservatories, every day, teach science. String players are highly trained, fine motor athletes whose muscle memory in hands and arms and backs allow them the freedom to attend to the delivery of artistic expressions. Without science and technique, there is no art but only chaos. |
Thank you for your kind comments, Willma. But while I respect your opinion, I must still disagree with it. I think you're confusing artistic training and discipline with science. What you say about string players could apply equally to other "motor athletes," such as baseball players, swimmers and high jumpers, as well as to actors, ballet dancers and sculptors. Are all of these a matter of "science"? Many of us study science, but very few of us become artists, and even fewer become internationally famous artists.
As I tried to point out before, the techniques that great opera singers, such as Corelli, Pavarotti, and Bocelli, develop in order to order to be capable of expressing their artistic ideas are as individual as they themselves are. In 1840, for example, tenors sang very differently than they do today. I once attended a musical lecture by Richard Bonynge, C.B.E., who has filled many roles in the world of opera: as the husband and coach of the great coloratura soprano Dame Joan Sutherland; as the mentor of Pavarotti; as an internationally acknowledged authority on singing voices; and as an expert on the history of opera. Maestro Bonynge observed that mid 19th Century tenors sounded like baritones and sang the high notes in "falsetto." That, too, was a technique, yet it produced a very different tenor sound than what we're used to today.
Don't forget, opera has changed, and singers have changed along with it. Violins haven't changed, but singers' voices, whether they sing opera, musical comedy, jazz or rock, have changed dramatically, and so have the techniques that have produced their voices. Caruso altered our idea of what a tenor should be by adapting his voice to the popular operas of his day: those of the later Verdi, of Puccini, and of the "verismo" composers. Unlike earlier tenors, he decided to carry the voice from the chest into the head. Thus, falsetto became out of date, and a new singing technique for tenors came into being. It's still with us.
So, you see, voices are not the same as violins, which don't vary to the extent that voices do and are not part of a human being as voices are. A performing artist IS his/her instrument. Singers' techniques ARE part of their artistry; in fact, they are inseparable from it, just as singers are inseparable from their voices. Neither their techniques nor their artistry are a matter of science. Remember, science is based on experiments that are repeatable, but singers and their voices can NOT be exactly reproduced; otherwise the result would be that they would all sound the same, just as a scientific procedure always yields identical results.
But, in reality, at least to sensitive ears, individual voices all sound quite different and distinguishable from each other. Andrea Bocelli does not sound like his acknowledged mentor, Franco Corelli. Frank Sinatra does not sound like his model, Bing Crosby, either.
Female voices and singing techniques have also gone through various changes over time, and their voices and techniques also differ from each other. Compare Joan Sutherland with Birgit Nilsson: two completely different artists and techniques, individually developed for divergent musical demands, the one for late 18th Century Mozart and early 19th Century bel canto, the other for late 19th Century Wagner and early 20th Century Richard Strauss.
So there isn't just one singing technique for everyone. Furthermore, since technique is essential to an individual singer's art, technique and art really can't be separated. They are part and parcel of the same thing. Finally, vocal techniques vary from one singer to another, together with their artistic interests and expression, and they also change over time. Too many imponderables go into the formation of great vocal artists. Therefore, singing is not a science, nor can it ever become one. (Thank God it can't! We have too much science and too little humanism, and too little art, as it is.)
If you still doubt what I'm saying and/or want to learn more about the art of singing, you might want to check out the following websites, which are some of my favourites:
Opera Italiana (http://www.operaitaliana.com), a non-profit society for preserving historic opera records, has numerous recordings of singers that go back to the turn of the century, allowing you to hear, not only how vocal techniques have changed since 1900, but also how much they have varied from one singer to another. For a small monthly fee you can even download them and keep them or burn them onto a CD, as I have. Try comparing Caruso with Alessandro Bonci for examples of widely differing techniques, and I think you'll see what I mean.
The Bel Canto Society (http://www.belcantosociety.org). This is another non-profit society, run by Stefan Zucker, who's listed in the Guinness Book of Records as "The World's Highest Tenor!" His voice is not for all tastes, but he is a renowned expert on singing styles and techniques. He has many insightful things to say on these subjects, both on his site and in his "Opera Fanatic" magazines, which you can order for about $5.00 apiece. You don't need to be a fanatic to enjoy them, however. I've found them extremely informative.
There is also a lively and instructive forum on opera that's accessible through Yahoo's user groups: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.opera. You need to be a registered member to participate, and I should also issue a warning: some racy individuals hang around this forum, so the language can get rather foul at times. But otherwise there are many knowlegeable members and lots of animated discussions.
Operaphile (http://operaphile.com) is a once popular site that has only recently been re-established. It's moderated, and I've noticed some fans from other sites have begun to reappear there. However, it's too soon to say whether it will be successful.
Thanks again for your comments. Opera is indeed one of my passions. If you want any further information on the subject, please feel free to contact me at [email protected]. Best wishes and keep listening!
Doug McCallum
theatre historian
_________________
"If music be the food of love, play on"-Shakespeare.
Last edited by Scarpia on Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:28 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scarpia
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 27
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fantom wrote: |
To Scarpia, "credentials" was a poor choice of words on my part. Sometimes people attempt to intimidate by implying that their opinions are more valid because of their experience, etc. Perhaps that was not the case with you.
I've enjoyed this exchange and I think your suggestion "to agree to disagree" is a good one. |
Hi, Fantom,
No, it was certainly not my intention to intimidate anyone. It was just as I said in my previous post: to serve as a mere witness. Oh my, sometimes I think that communicating this way produces more misunderstandings than actually talking--not that talking doesn't create confusions as well. I'm truly sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.
You're absolutely right: it really was an enjoyable exchange. I sure enjoyed it. You really forced me to think a lot more about an art form I love, but maybe I'm liable to take too much for granted. Thank you for making me think for a change! I don't believe it'll do me any harm!
In these tense times it's not so easy to have a good, friendly argument as it used to be. Hope we'll have another chance to "chew the fat." (I put that last expression in quotes since I'm a Canadian, so it's not actually native to us Canucks, up here in the frozen north. Brrrrr!).
Anyhow, thanks for the valuable and genuinely interesting conversation. You've given me a lot to mull over. BTW, you can always contact me any time at [email protected]. Despite our disagreement on this subject, you sound like a sympathetic soul. And once again, please accept my apology for any misunderstanding I created. Best wishes to you.
Yours sincerely,
Doug
_________________
"If music be the food of love, play on"-Shakespeare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Melodie
Administrator
Joined: 01 Mar 2003
Posts: 1620
Location: Massachusetts
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
trevorj :: theme by ~// TreVoR \\~
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
