Originally posted by DracoM
View Post
Doonelm
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
-
-
Magnificat
Originally posted by Chris Watson View PostIndeed. But uninformed anonymous vitriol, of which you are regularly guilty VCC, is not really acceptable.
I don't think any of my comments are vitriolic. I do have strong opinions on the cathedral music scene and I am not afraid to disturb that far too cosy little world however much those involved don't like it.
It seems that a lot of people on this message board do not like any choir to be criticised or the abilities of any DoM to be doubted but I am afraid the truth is that there are several in post at present who are very poor. The trouble is once appointments are made the people appointed are in post forever whether they turn out to be good , bad or indifferent ( unless there is some awful scandal ) and that in my opinion is no good for themselves, their choirs or their cathedrals.
VCC
Comment
-
Some points I‘d like to make:
The Choir is one of the most popular boards of the forum: it has been jostling for second place (with Performance) behind the general board, Platform 3. This is a measure of the amount of ‘traffic’ – people viewing it - most of whom are non registered guests of unknown identity. Given the restricted nature of the content it is a sign of the high level of public interest which the discussions here attract.
Many members, certainly, and guests, probably, are closely connected with the small world of professional choirs, religious and secular. Pseudonyms protect your privacy – both personal and professional - but they also mean that no one knows the credentials or connections of those who post their comments.
It is highly likely that individuals whose professional competence and performance are publicly discussed here will read the comments; so will their colleagues. It would be intolerable for them not to know who they are being criticised by - colleagues, rivals for jobs, enemies, potential employers. Nor will other readers know that. Some posters here have a vested interest in their praise; I do not know of the politics or rumours which might lie behind any criticism.
As a result, a rule of this board will be that the general professional (in)competence of individuals, their (un)suitability for appointments which they hold or hope to hold are not matters for debate.
To criticise performance and style, as I have said, as robustly as you like, is allowed.
Let's gt one thing completely clear.
Opinion and fair comment are not libellous full stop.
a) are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning
b) tend to disparage someone in his office, profession or trade
Expressing an ‘honest opinion’ is no absolute defence in cases of defamation where a statement is held to damage someone’s reputation.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Anna
Originally posted by Magnificat View Postbut I am afraid the truth is that there are several in post at present who are very poor. The trouble is once appointments are made the people appointed are in post forever whether they turn out to be good , bad or indifferent ( unless there is some awful scandal ) and that in my opinion is no good for themselves, their choirs or their cathedrals.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Anna View PostWell then, it seems there is a solution. Put yourself forward for DoM wherever you see failings. Perhaps one of them will accept you?
Comment
-
-
Are we able to get back on topic or is thread to be closed?
In the world of brass bands, for example, at a recent brass band contest, there have been several comments on 'twitter', that were made recentl;y which were rather abusive, racist and homophobic to, which, usually never hyappens. These were made by members of the brass band movement who obviously cannot take take results on the chin. These twitter posts have been handed over to the police whoi are looking at them now. So the people that posted them better be careful in the near future!
What i am saying is that if people wish to make comments about other people's talents of their work, or lack ofthem, its possible to trace you now, so if therre are any libelous actions, well.....
[EditAdd: BBM
I'm not too sure what the topic is! This will remain open for a day or so to give everyone who wants to respond to do so. It will then be closed and sink out of sight - though always visible to those who keep the Diversions URL.]
ffLast edited by french frank; 29-01-12, 19:06.Don’t cry for me
I go where music was born
J S Bach 1685-1750
Comment
-
-
Double Diapason
Originally posted by french frank View PostSome points I‘d like to make:
The Choir is one of the most popular boards of the forum: it has been jostling for second place (with Performance) behind the general board, Platform 3. This is a measure of the amount of ‘traffic’ – people viewing it - most of whom are non registered guests of unknown identity. Given the restricted nature of the content it is a sign of the high level of public interest which the discussions here attract.
Many members, certainly, and guests, probably, are closely connected with the small world of professional choirs, religious and secular. Pseudonyms protect your privacy – both personal and professional - but they also mean that no one knows the credentials or connections of those who post their comments.
It is highly likely that individuals whose professional competence and performance are publicly discussed here will read the comments; so will their colleagues. It would be intolerable for them not to know who they are being criticised by - colleagues, rivals for jobs, enemies, potential employers. Nor will other readers know that. Some posters here have a vested interest in their praise; I do not know of the politics or rumours which might lie behind any criticism.
As a result, a rule of this board will be that the general professional (in)competence of individuals, their (un)suitability for appointments which they hold or hope to hold are not matters for debate.
To criticise performance and style, as I have said, as robustly as you like, is allowed.
Finally, on libel: the relevant considerations here are whether the words published:
a) are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning
b) tend to disparage someone in his office, profession or trade
Expressing an ‘honest opinion’ is no absolute defence in cases of defamation where a statement is held to damage someone’s reputation.
Now lets forget all this and look forward to the next CE!
[Edit - As per my Private Message! ]
ffLast edited by french frank; 29-01-12, 20:29.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jean View PostI didn't see the original post, but before the thread is closed, may I just agree that no-one should make criticism of a personal nature from under cover of a pseudonym.
I would exculpate DD from the charge of making a personal criticism. He stated his view, as he saw things, on which I have no opinion. It could be true. But it might be disputable - indeed, responses showed that it was disputable.
My own unease relates to the function of this forum and areas where perhaps it's better for us not to venture. I've been consulting my old edition of McNae's Essential Law for Journalists which points out that newspapers seldom want to defend accusations of defamation because the whole area is very grey and they can't predict which way a judgement could go. Better to settle out of court than risk fighting a court battle and losing (NB the forum has no financial resources!). But, more than that: there are some contributions that seem ... ungenerous, shall we say. The Choir board is for enthusiasts who love the music and a positive, loving spirit is preferable.
A point that VCC made: yes, there are some members who bridle at criticism - perhaps because they are members of the choir concerned. That's understandable, even if the criticism is justified. We have to expect that - when so many members have been, at some point, closely involved in broadcasts: DoMs, organists, composers, choir members. You are all one community, though - and should be kind whenever possible.
I would rather the forum was seen as generous and encouraging rather than hypercritical perfectionists . But - I'm not really involved in that ...It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Magnificat
Originally posted by french frank View PostSome points I‘d like to make:
I do not know of the politics or rumours which might lie behind any criticism.
To criticise performance and style, as I have said, as robustly as you like, is allowed.
Finally, on libel: the relevant considerations here are whether the words published:
a) are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning
b) tend to disparage someone in his office, profession or trade
Expressing an ‘honest opinion’ is no absolute defence in cases of defamation where a statement is held to damage someone’s reputation.
FF,
Some points and questions in respect of the above:
1) I have made my position absolutely clear. I am concerned solely for the health of the Cathedral Choral Tradition which is not best served, in my view, by keeping apparently poorly performing professionals coasting along in a job for life. I am concerned about excellence rather than consistent mediocrity. I am not a professional musician so have no other axe to grind.
2) Are we to presume then that it is OK to say a Cathedral Choir is dire as this will not be the same as saying that the DoM is a poor choirtrainer?
Also if a cathedral states on its web - site that a newly appointed DoM is an outstanding choirtrainer would we be allowed to question that view at least in as much as the newly appointed DoM does not seem to have produced an outstanding cathedral choir elsewhere?
3) To say that a DoM is, in your opinion, a poor choirtrainer but a fine organist, as I did, is not libellous or defamatory in any way shape or form.
4) As regards the question of anonymity. It is not ideal but in my view anyone who wants to bandy their name about on the internet when they don't have to is as mad as those people who plaster their personal details all over the social networking sites. I agree that in these circumstances it would be fairer not to refer to the DoM by name if you wish to be critical.
VCC
Comment
-
VCC
Re [2] - IMHO the answer is no.
You and I both know of men and women who have had relatively little record as such trainers but achieve pretty OK results with choirs. I would be very, very chary of rushing to judgement, and I hope in my capacity as Host that you will not feel moved to do so in print whatever you may feel in private. There are ways and ways of indicating how a choir is being shaped, is responding, is achieving without resorting to an ad hominem approach.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Magnificat View Post1) I have made my position absolutely clear. I am concerned solely for the health of the Cathedral Choral Tradition which is not best served, in my view, by keeping apparently poorly performing professionals coasting along in a job for life. I am concerned about excellence rather than consistent mediocrity. I am not a professional musician so have no other axe to grind.2) Are we to presume then that it is OK to say a Cathedral Choir is dire as this will not be the same as saying that the DoM is a poor choirtrainer?Also if a cathedral states on its web - site that a newly appointed DoM is an outstanding choirtrainer would we be allowed to question that view at least in as much as the newly appointed DoM does not seem to have produced an outstanding cathedral choir elsewhere?3) To say that a DoM is, in your opinion, a poor choirtrainer but a fine organist, as I did, is not libellous or defamatory in any way shape or form.4) As regards the question of anonymity. It is not ideal but in my view anyone who wants to bandy their name about on the internet when they don't have to is as mad as those people who plaster their personal details all over the social networking sites.I agree that in these circumstances it would be fairer not to refer to the DoM by name if you wish to be critical.
I think it's a good thing to air these disagreements which will arise from time to time. Peace having been made with DD, I have assured him that no apology was required from him. This is merely a question of being clear about ground rules. It is an issue which has aroused objections in the past so there has been an advantage in clarifying.
As ever, I'm grateful to Hosts for helping to damp down the occasional flames of discord.
I'll close this thread this evening and let it sink into oblivion, but it's open for any further queries or comments until then.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
amateur51
Comment