Doonelm

[gurnemanz]

There has been a real attempt to utter the words of truce, for which many thanks.

I was an undergraduate in Durham 40 years ago and lived for three years within about 100 metres of the cathedral. The nave and cloisters constituted a short cut between my college and the library on Palace Green and I frequently called in to hear Evensong. I listened to the broadcast (not especially intently, I will admit) and not possessing much specialist knowledge or relevant critical acumen I do not really have anything to contribute, except to say that I have followed this thread with considerable interest, not to say astonishment, as it developed into something of a hornets' nest with the subsequent signs of truce mentioned by Draco.

[Magnificat]

Indeed. But uninformed anonymous vitriol, of which you are regularly guilty VCC, is not really acceptable.

Chris,

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

[french frank]

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.

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.

[Anna]

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.

Well then, it seems there is a solution. Put yourself forward for DoM wherever you see failings. Perhaps one of them will accept you?

[Lizzie]

Well then, it seems there is a solution. Put yourself forward for DoM wherever you see failings. Perhaps one of them will accept you?

Now there's a fascinating concept! I wouldn't want to hear CE from anywhere that would accept me to do ANYTHING and that's for sure! :grin:

[BBMmk2]

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.]

ff

[Vile Consort]

Well then, it seems there is a solution. Put yourself forward for DoM wherever you see failings. Perhaps one of them will accept you?

Dr Johnson's comment on carpenters and tables applies.

[Double Diapason]

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.



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.

All fair enough FF and thanks for taking the time to express all that. I do regret the personal nature of my original post and you were right to "bin" it. I will bear it in mind going forward.
Now lets forget all this and look forward to the next CE!


[Edit - As per my Private Message! ]

ff

[jean]

I 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.

[french frank]

I 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'm now comfortable that I've managed - belatedly - to close this thread to non-members (and thus to search engines), I'm happy for comments to continue.

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 ...

[Magnificat]

Some 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

[french frank]

VCC

Have to be up early in the morning. Will reply in full - thanks for your comments . And so to bed ...

[DracoM]

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.

[french frank]

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.

Well, yes, so be it. All I'm saying is that this particular forum is not the right place for you to carry out your one-man campaign(s). I'm very pleased that the board has attracted so many 'serving' professionals and I hope it proves a congenial meeting place for discussion and exchange of information.

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?

Correct. "I really do think this choir has become dire lately" is okay. Just leave it at that.

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?

No, thank you. The raison d'être of the board is really to discuss broadcast Choral Evensongs. There will be very few people who have a close enough knowledge of the circumstances of any appointment to make anything but an uninformed, one-sided comment. Avoid.

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.

I didn't say that it was. In fact, I said that the matter of libel was not my key concern but the atmosphere of the board. On libel, I was merely responding to your clear - but incorrect - understanding that an 'honest opinion' could not constitute a libel. It can.

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.

Possibly. I'm not, though, requesting members to reveal their names but to avoid very obviously targeting a professional by name and shooting him/her down by saying that they (members), as individuals, think they're seriously hopeless at their job.

I agree that in these circumstances it would be fairer not to refer to the DoM by name if you wish to be critical.

Fine. I would add to that that a House Rule of the board is now that criticism of individuals in connection with the specific appointment they hold, have held, may hold in the future is off limits. These are questions for others to deal with.


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.

[amateur51]

Re msg # 44, I think we're bloody lucky to have you frenchie!