Jump to content
Mander Organs

Royal Albert Hall


alan taylor

Recommended Posts

More seriously, I also found Dame Gillian's registration in the 'Ad Nos', when she reduced (considerably) towards the end of the second loud section (just before the extended quiet passage). Surely (in addition to being against the (admittedly scanty) registration notes provided by the composer), this is against the spirit of the music? Is this what Jeremy Jones (Jun 23rd) meant?

Well, 23 June seems aeons ago, but yes, I had found DGWs recording of 'Ad nos' to be over-registered. As Will said about the concert, which unfortunately I was unable to attend due to a bout of vertigo and deafness in one ear (don't ask!), it seemed that DGW wanted to show off every stop on the organ, which is all very well, but perhaps not very satisfying from a musical standpoint.

 

Regrettably, my fears about DGWs ability to play on such a large instrument, based upon recent recitals of hers that I have attended at Armley and Bridgewater Hall, would appear to be born out by some of the post-concert comments. You get the best of DGW, which is very good indeed, when she is playing music from the Baroque or Classical repertoire, on small to medium sized mechanical action instruments.

 

By the way, some things in the RAH do shake when the organ is at full tilt. If you stand on the pavement close to the old RCO building during the daytime when full organ is being played, you can see the RAH windows shaking!

 

Jeremy Jones

London

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply
quote:

This is one of the reasons why pop music (for instance) works best when played loudly.  In addition, Popular music is deliberately designed to have a faster beat than anyone's natural pulse at rest.  It is a fact that if such music is played loudly enough, a listener's heart rate climbs to match it.  This becomes an active irritant to the old and a (legal) stimulus to the young.  I don't care for much pop music (still less for 'pop-style worship music) but at least there's one 'high' that is still legal.

 

A bit of an aside but for years I felt uneasy about the above sort of thing till my GCSE students gave me a 'cop out' for the whole pop music v classical discussion - they decided that rather than pop and classical there was just good and bad music. This allows all of us to like or dislike whatever we wish. I can now play them whatever I like and they will listen and give an opinion and the reverse for me...though not too loudly...except if it is DGW at the RAH.

 

AJJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

For what its worth I enjoyed the concert immensely. Dame Gillian always plays so musically and flexibly, so that even when the odd bit of balance is mis-judged (and at least 75% of that organ is impossible to balance from the console) or a few mishaps happen the musical intention and integrity of her playing is always there.

 

I wouldn't want to play music the way she does (even if I had the ability) but that doesn't invalidate her performance(s) or make me not want to hear her play live. I always learn something and there are always many things to admire (and envy!).

 

The programme was interesting and appealed to many people, otherwise they wouldn't have been there in such force. (Though that encore - to me it was just facile 2nd rate music)

 

As for the organ - well, it ciphered (on a C) on what sounded like one of the case pipes. As the piece in question is (nominally) in F it fitted in quite nicely and I think that many didn't even notice for ages that the sustained note was unintended, particularly in that quirky music. I think that it enhanced the piece if anything, and I bet Ives would have found it amusing (another 'musical' effect for him - like opposing marching bands - for him to include in his bag of tricks).

 

The organ sounded great. It certainly isn't a heap as one contributor to this site rather rudely described it (but then reading some of his other contributions I think it got off lightly ...). It's a very special sound. It's also interesting to see someone sounding off about the organ without bothering to be at the concert! The acoustic is remarkably clear and must be frightening to play, especially when you know that everyone else is hearing it much more clearly that you do!

 

Yes there was dodgy tuning, but then given the weather this week it's hardly surprising - it hasn't exactly been normal for this time of year. The organ in my church sounds foul at the moment because of the temperature changes. And how many people had been in the building all of that day for degree ceremonies? No wonder it was unpleasantly warm and humid in there. No doubt some perfectionists would have expected the tuner to then go in and re-tune the organ (probably all 9999 pipes worth) in the short period between DGW's brief rehearsal that day and the opening of the concert.

 

In an ideal world my requests to recitalists would be:

 

Could someone please play this organ for some length of time (say 5 minutes) without using reeds? There must be some fabulous flue choruses hidden in there (well, actually, I know there are!)

 

And even more, the Great reeds are rather overbearing. Given that is the case perhaps players could be encouraged to stop using them in every single piece. (Just twice in a concert would be more than enough). It just isn't exciting to hear them that much, just boring and shows poor judgment.

 

And one final thing, where I was sitting the Double Ophicleide is plenty loud enough!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Roffensis

At the end of the day Dame Gillian Weir is a national treasure, and one of the organ greats. I really do not know how old she is, but am guessing by now she must be in her mid 80s?, and I would like to have her technique when I am a similar age. There are other long established organists, and I particularly admire Francis Jackson among them, together with the great Allan Wicks, who also have given so much of their lives to the instrument and enriched our lives. I agree that some of Dame Gillian's finest recitals have been on smaller organs, such as the gem at Hexham Abbey, of which she is a master.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too was at Dame Gs recital and was in the upper circle bang opposite the organ. I think that though she was not on top form at first, she noticably improved in the second half. She may even have started off a little nervous, knowing that there were one or two rather self-opinionated people ready with their notebooks to fire off as soon as they got home. It didnt bother me in the least that there was a bit of out-of tuneness..... it is a very large instrument in a very busy building. The tuner simply doesnt have time to check through everything, especially with industrial hoovers to contend with and other delights.

 

The problem with recordings is that they can be put together in little bits, resulting in perfect performances. People hear these and expect the live playing to be the same.

 

Oh and there was the cypher............ so what? Someone said it took a long time to be stopped.... Good God, it was a Bourdon and most of the time she was playing loud. Not easy to find in the dark.

 

Generally speaking, the first half was OK and the second half apart from the one fluff in Nimrod was superb.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[i am right with p andy and P de vile..........the"irregularities" in the performance were just that, and didn't spoil the overall enjoyment of a fine evening.

 

I love the RAH organ, but I know there are those who don't. That's fine - whatever the reasons for likes and dislikes it is perfectly healthy - but let's not dismiss it out of hand. It is not a heap.

 

I am sure DGW is not in her eighties - but would not dream of guessing the age of a lady anyway. She may be better on small baroque tinklers but I wish i had 1/10th of her ability to master the Monster of South Ken. I just thought the poor girl was tired by the end.

 

Next recital is in June and i'll be there with my boots blacked and look forward to another good evening and every opportunity to hear the organ in between.

 

Will

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pierre's scheme does have flaws - there are some who wish to respect the right to privacy (because of their work, perhaps for an organbuilding firm or a teaching establishment, for example) and there are some who represent a company (including the moderator of the site).

 

Who knows - perhaps Edna is really called Gillian? (She's not. Don't worry.)

 

It seems any post started by Alan Taylor is doomed to end in tears... curse that Alan Taylor... does 'e float? is 'e a witch? shall we burn 'im?

 

It's sad that after the AP thread killed the conversation stone dead, we should have another threat to sensible conversation... and nothing to show but another couple of pages of cr*p to add to the 30 million or so already out there...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I cannot really comment, as I did not bother myself to treck down there to hear that organ. Bear in mind I am quite spoilt with Liverpool Cathedral and St Georges Hall, the latter which is the finest of the three. Pity there is not so much enthusiasm to have AP or SGH restored.

What exactly the justification is for restoring the RAH I don't know, it is not a fine sound at all. Having heard it prior to it's last rehash, I never have waxed lyrical about it. It always did sound "splashy" and "wirey" and does not have the "eclat" one would expect. Nor any majesty or grandness. It only has power, but that isn't anything to get excited about. So does a pneumatic drill. The 1926 work certainly did spoil it, and it must have been a nightmare to actually decide what to do with it tonally in the rebuild. It isn't musical, and on that I can comment, as it was apparently faithfully restored to it's previous sound. It will ever be a curiosity, and nothing more or less. It quite reminds me of an overgrown Harmonium. Fuzzy and way too brassy,and frankly quite vile. No ringing Diapasons, and no real musicality either. Sad, but at least there was a faithful restoration of what is there.

 

====================

 

I think a little fairness to all concerned would not go amiss. I'm sure that in an ideal world, with almost limitless means, Mander organs would have been more than happy to scrap the RAH organ and build anew, or at least restore it to the original Willis intention.

 

As I see it, there were three options. The organ either fell silent for all time, it could have been replaced by a super-duper digital or, as was the case, splendidly re-built so that what was there could at least be heard for what it was.

 

Always a child of its' time the moment Arthur Harrison got involved, the RAH organ may be brassy and loud, and perhaps it was never going to be the most musical of instruments whatever was done to it, but at least it is functioning, it is a real pipe-organ and for this we should be grateful.

 

It's interesting that Roffensis mentions Liverpool, and as he will know, the organ of St.George's Hall, in that fair city, suffered a little from the sort of Edwardian "super-charging" so beloved of the era, and many people now regard it as less good than the original; especially the big Tubas.

 

It's easy to be cynical, but considering the fact that individual benefactors seldom, if ever, write cheques to buy new organs these days, the re-build at the RAH is commendable and certainly better than the alternatives mentioned above.

 

MM

Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who, for professional reasons, might wish to use fancy names

could be allowed to do so with special agreement from the moderator.

He/She would then be known under their true names by the moderating team.

 

(It is this way Plenum runs).

 

There are always "this and/or that" things with any organ that might be questionnable;

but fact is, to criticize so lightheartly an organ like RAH's, moreover after a restoration that should be viewed as a milestone -to rescue what would have been condemned

as a hopeless thing no so long ago- and this, on the very site of the restorator, is something I cannot understand.

This is "to shot in one's own foot" not with a gun, rather a Tomahawk. If you want

british builders to go out of business, that's the way to go.

 

Best wishes,

Pierre

Link to post
Share on other sites
The people who, for professional reasons, might wish to use fancy names

could be allowed to do so with special agreement from the moderator.

He/She would then be known under their true names by the moderating team.

 

Indeed.

 

Anyway, "graffitti" on this board is being dealt with like graffitti anywhere: erased promptly and completely.

 

Moderator, Mander Organs

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Barry Oakley
There are always "this and/or that" things with any organ that might be questionnable;

but fact is, to criticize so lightheartly an organ like RAH's, moreover after a restoration that should be viewed as a milestone -to rescue what would have been condemned

as a hopeless thing no so long ago- and this, on the very site of the restorator, is something I cannot understand.

This is "to shot in one's own foot" not with a gun, rather a Tomahawk. If you want

british builders to go out of business, that's the way to go.

 

Best wishes,

Pierre

 

I could not agree more, Pierre.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Living where I do it was never likely that I was going to be able to be present for the recital, much to my regret, but it was hardly necessary to be there in order to take issue with some of the comments made on this thread.

 

1. The date of birth of Gillian Constance Weir is a matter of public record for those possessed of even so basic a reference work as Chambers Biographical Dictionary and Roffensis owes the lady an apology. Far more surprising is the fact that some manifest such considerable astonishment at the fact that there were some apparent errors or misjudgments in her playing. I have yet to attend a live recital at which the player delivered a 100% faultless performance and I have heard live not a few players who enjoy(ed) international reputations ! Surely those complaining did not allow themselves to expect the same level of accuracy to be found on a recording ? Recordings ought to be edited, it seems to me, because the serious fluffs in a live performance are no more tolerable on repeated hearing than would be the accidental going off of the fire alarm or the crash of a door allowed to slam by an inconsiderate latecomer . Heard live these are momentary annoyances which can be quickly forgotten. Those players like Cunningham and Melville Cook who enjoyed reputations for highly accurate playing made fewermistakes than others - not none ! It would be very interesting to know the views of Paul Derrett, a participant here who has made a number of highly acclaimed recordings, what his approach to the editing of his recordings is.

 

2. I tend to side with MM and Pierre in terms of the criticism of the organ itself. It seems that some on this thread are not paying enough regard to the difference between what is and what ought to be. Any car owner is surely fully conversant with the fact that complex machinery, however expensive, and however well made develops faults when taken from the box and used ! The RAH organ according to a number qualified to judge sounds and functions better than it has done for a very long time, which is not to say that it is , or should be expected to be, perfect. On the other hand the AP organ with which some unfavourably compare the RAH organ has not been heard live in the state in which it acquired its legendary status by anyone who was not alive in 1944 ! That certainly disqualifies me and I imagine a few others on this site. The RAH organ is: all that can be said of the AP organ is that it ought to be or we very much hope it will be again.

 

3. I also agree with Pierre on the issue of pen names and am not persuaded by the reasons so far advanced for this practice (though I might be by others). The fact that people have jobs or work for companies in an area relevant to this site surely does not deprive them of their right to hold and express a personal, private opinion, provided of course it is made unequivocally apparent that the opinion expressed is a personal one and not associated with their professional position. That is what a right of individual free speech entails. If in modern Britain we no longer enjoy that right, we have no business going around the world foisting democracy on others which we do not practise ourselves. Not being permitted to speak is, of course, quite different from finding it embarassing to speak because of a certain lack of coherence of position, as, for example, would be the case with a clergyman who preached on the 7th Commandment on Sunday and on Monday was discovered checking into a hotel with a lady who was not his wife. That is certainly a reason why individuals would wish to shelter behind the cloak of anonymity : it does not follow automatically (though a convincing case might be made) that it is a sufficient reason to grant that wish.

 

 

Brian Childs

Link to post
Share on other sites

[

I have yet to attend a live recital at which the player delivered a 100% faultless performance and I have heard live not a few players who enjoy(ed) international reputations !

 

Ha-ha!!!

I couldn't agree more - I one heard Naji Haki playing Widor's Toccata at the RAH during a prom season years ago, and he practically had to stop 'cos he got into such a muddle.

 

It was just a shame that it was Nimrod where the main finger trouble occured on Wednesday and was so much more obvious for it. I still think the main problem was the DGW was trying too hard to demonstrate the organ rather than just play it.

 

Now, for me that is fine, and I can see why some people would sniff but let's remember that no one living has heard the organ put through its paces so well until this recent rebuild. Even Gilbert Benham in 1944 complained that "not one half" of the organ's resources were ever heard. So as somebody said - it was public money that went ito the rebuild, so let the public (of which body i include myself) would like to hear all these stops.

 

By the way - I have been trying to play Nimrod myself this afternoon on my 101 stop 1952 Compton and made a total bugger's (sorry moderator) muddle of it when trying to do it like the august Dame did. And to think i day-dreamed about standing in for her when she had a migraine.................................

 

will

Link to post
Share on other sites
3. I also agree with Pierre on the issue of pen names and am not persuaded by the reasons so far advanced for this practice (though I might be by others). The fact that people have jobs or work for companies in an area relevant to this site surely does not deprive them of their right to hold and express a personal, private opinion, provided of course it is made unequivocally apparent that the opinion expressed is a personal one and not associated with their professional position.

 

Brian Childs

 

Accurate but not necessarily fair. Go to Google right now and search for barker lever - results 4 and 5 on the list are from this board. Alexandra palace organ - same thing again. Osmond Taunton - number 2.

 

Material put into the public domain will inevitably be associated with the person putting it there, irrespective of any caveats you include about personal opinions; for example, on my (I thought) fairly innocuous post mentioning a Gordon Stewart recital at Romsey, I used the words "pub" and "drink" which my employers at the abbey frowned upon, apparently having stumbled across it in an internet search for Gordon's biog. Even now, six weeks after the event, "gordon stewart organ" on Google brings that message up in the first 8. Had it been done under an assumed name there couldn't have been any association and therefore no issue; as it was, it could have been reasonably assumed by anyone browsing this public site that this was how Romsey Abbey saw fit to advertise its events. Knuckles rapped, circumspection plugged in.

 

It's easy to say that views on here are private; but in the public domain they're just not, and accordingly it's in the interests of free speech that those who use assumed names and make worthy contributions to the conversation must be able to continue to do so. Amongst our best contributions on the board come from pcnd and various other assumed names. Forcing people to identify themselves will either drive valuable contributors away or bring an enforced gentility to the conversation - in both cases, working very firmly against free speech. We are talking here about a low-speed organ anoraks' chatroom with an audit trail - hardly a court of law...

 

As we have seen, if anything is said that shouldn't be, or that 99.5% of us find distasteful and highly irritating, we have moderators who act quickly to restore the balance - and therefore no problem.

 

And Nimrod is an incredibly tricky piece to get through - musically. DGW and the sounds she can create are the reason I and many others kept on playing - I was getting bored of all the C.H.Trevor and pedestrian pedal exercises by about age 15 until I came across her Scherzo CD and saw for the first time the light at the end of the tunnel. Musically, she puts fire into bellies; she is an amazing writer & communicator, whoever the audience, as demonstrated by the article reprints on her website I am always banging on about; and an unrivalled ambassador for the organ in every global sense of the word, worldwide and across ages/skills levels. She showed many kindnesses to me when I was younger, and to many others of my generation going to Oundle courses in the early 90's - hardly a job she would take for the money. She has stewarded the organ and its music in and out of several different fashions with consistency and integrity. So, there's my two cents - leave off this amazing, skilled, inspirational, hugely generous and monumentally talented person who is giving her best - we all have a hell of a lot more to learn from her than the difference between a couple of wrong notes. Get a Clavinova with midi input if you want the notes right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Democracy does not mean irresponsabilty; in Athens the democracy was

exerced "live" by men standing in front of their peers.

 

Anonymity equals irresponsability and impunity for whatever one may

happens to say; and this is not democratic because the victim(s) of

these sayings are helpless.

A forum is a public place so that we must behave like on a public place,

where nobody would have the idea to shout out "Hé, Mr Smith, you are

a cretin" -save with a barrel or two of beer too much- without fearing

and expecting problems.

"My freedom stops where the neighbourg's freedom begins" (Jean-Paul

Sartre).

 

Best wishes,

Pierre

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Anonymity equals irresponsability and impunity for whatever one may

happens to say."

 

Only the case if abuse is taking place - and we can all see, as was the case with our recently departed friend, when this is happening.

 

 

"A forum is a public place so that we must behave like on a public place"

 

If behaving as in a public place means respect and courtesy, then fine. It doesn't mean we all walk around the streets with name badges. The campaign against compulsory identity cards in this country centres on the right to individual privacy & freedom. I could have a conversation with you in a pub without knowing your name; why must I need to know it in here? Or am I supposed to keep a file on you?

 

If I say something illegal or inflammatory then I should reasonably be required to identify myself. Even with an assumed name, IP logging & email address verification will see to that. Until that happens, I think I should have every right to be a nonny mouse if I choose to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If behaving as in a public place means respect and courtesy, then fine.  It doesn't mean we all walk around the streets with name badges.  The campaign against compulsory identity cards in this country centres on the right to individual privacy & freedom.  I could have a conversation with you in a pub without knowing your name; why must I need to know it in here?  Or am I supposed to keep a file on you?

 

If I say something illegal or inflammatory then I should reasonably be required to identify myself.  Even with an assumed name, IP logging & email address verification will see to that.  Until that happens, I think I should have every right to be a nonny mouse if I choose to be.

 

Absolutely.

 

It would be virtually impossible in any case to check whether people were registering under their real names if the names used weren't obviously pseudonymous, short of making everybody turn up in person at Mander's works to register, with umpteen pieces of evidence of identity. None of you (apart from MusingMuso whom I have met an odd few times face to face) know whether my name is really what I claim it is and I don't suppose any of you care. Even if the moderators did know exactly who all the members were, the only additional leverage they would have would be the ability to send errant members a proper letter, on paper (why bother?) or turn up at their house (to give them a "friendly" word of advice perhaps?). What would be the point?

Link to post
Share on other sites

May I suggest the use of this board be restricted to posters

under their true names?

 

==================

 

Anonymity has the big advantage that even the most outrageous opinion can be expressed without fear of personal repercussion, save for being booted off a chat-board.

 

Thus, when I have variously suggested that Czech music knocks spots off English music, or that the Dutch are more academic/stylistically accurate in performance than almost all-comers, I don't have to be tarred with a brush held by silly old traditional "Brits" sitting at Harrison consoles and wearing expressions as if chewing a wasp!

 

If the full truth be known, I don't like England very much at all.

 

The problem with any sort of discussion board or list, is that they always have resident "gurus" and shameless self-promoters, who will stop at nothing to assert their superiority. Take them apart, or perhaps just criticise their assumptions, and one soon becomes the enemy.

 

Having got booted off a certain American list due to the fact that I savaged one such guru very publically, I realised that anonymity has advantages. I never mentioned the fact that the particular lunatic in mind had sent me a number of offensive off-list e-mails, vast duplicated e-mails and other offensive asides personally, but under the cover of a different e-mail address. He continues to assert that he is the most knowledgeable organ-builder America has ever known, but has yet to produce anything beyond a few extension organs and didn't even know that Compton had introduced electronics into pipe-organs back in the 30's.

 

Lists and chat-boards are full of people like this, and frankly, I have trodden in better. That said, the Mander board seems to be pleasantly free of this sort of thing.

 

MM

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Lists and chat-boards are full of people like this, and frankly, I have trodden in better. That said, the Mander board seems to be pleasantly free of this sort of thing."

 

Indeed, MM!

 

So we'd better work togheter so that it continues that way, isn't it?

 

What are the alternatives to true names? Must the moderators do

all the naughty job?

Any ideas?

 

Best wishes,

Pierre

Link to post
Share on other sites

The anonymity argument really only works for people who are known in the organ world - or perhaps employees of Mander Organs - and who want to express on the board outrageous views that they would never express face to face.

 

I am effectively anonymous even under my real name, whereas Paul Derrett isn't.

 

If LeatheredLips is as outrageous in the flesh as she is on here, posting under her real name wouldn't inhibit her. On the other hand, if she turns out to be Stephen Cleobury ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

We attended the recital last Wednesday, sitting half way down the circle, in the same seats as at the last concert. We attended all of the opening recitals, sitting in different parts/levels of the hall and found the circle the best level from which to hear the organ.

 

We too were very disappointed with last Wednesday’s efforts, putting to one side taste in music. A good deal of the music wasn’t to our taste (if I never hear the Elgar again it will be too soon)

 

The recitalist really wasn’t on good form, making absolutely no sense at all of the Ad nos, just playing the notes but without conveying any meaning to the audience. This organist is capable of producing great music. Unfortunately, she failed to do so this time. The second half of the recital was better. She had begun to find her form.

 

The boredom of the first half got me thinking about the difficulties of choosing and performing organ music on such an organ. What has been written for such an instrument? Think about the difficulty of adapting the music as written to the RAH organ. Yes, this can be done by only using a few of the available stops. But just imagine how annoyed organists in the audience would be if full organ wasn’t used at all.

 

Transcriptions would probably work best on the beast .But, who would want to listen to a whole recital of transcriptions? Yes, I do know that there are some such people who would...

 

This organ was designed around the idea of multi uses. Possibly solo organ pieces being the last on the list of probably use. It fulfils its various tasks very well indeed. But, to my mind this does leave a solo recitalist with a problem - a very large array of stops and little repertoire to play, unless the music of the composers is adapted for the RAH organ. This in itself will cause howls of rage from some. “You can’t use that chorus for Bach. Tubas in Vienne!!!!”

 

On the whole I thought that the registers, used during the recital, not well thought out. They certainly didn’t compare with the very careful registrations used in the opening recitals. Just think back to the demonstration given by Martin Baker. I also got fed up with hearing so much of the chorus reeds. Was it the 4ft chorus reeds that screamed so much? I am very thankful that the super octave coupler has been removed from the tubas. Though I feel these stops might benefit from a sub octave coupler. Also, were we hearing the chorus reeds without enough flues to back them?

 

The tuning problems didn’t bother me. On the whole, I think I prefer an organ to be a little out of tune. During the cipher I was waiting for the inside organ light to come on. Well done to the organ builder with the torch. The very fact that the hall is so well used and busy,must make the tuning the organ very difficult.

 

I thought the number in the audience very disappointing. Might not the lack of bums on seats make the hall authorities even less inclined to host organ recitals?

 

The idea that there was/is a pot of money and some kind of competition between restoration projects is very far from the mark. The RAH organ was restored because the RAH has excellent management. The board know what they are doing and have great vision. A very competent team was assembled to plan and oversee the work. There are no dark nights at the hall. It is used every day. The same cannot be said of the other venues mentioned.

 

Alan Taylor

(Who doesn’t want to sink or burn David C)

Link to post
Share on other sites

May I suggest the use of this board be restricted to posters

under their true names?

 

==================

 

Anonymity has the big advantage that even the most outrageous opinion can be expressed without fear of personal repercussion, save for being booted off a chat-board.

 

I wonder whether this is true in all circumstances. Should your "outrageous opinion" for example take the form of one "glorifying terrorism" I doubt it would be very long before the annonymous saloon cars with their smartly dressed young occupants were calling at your door to invite you to accompany them to a place (unspecified)for a discussion of your views, while their techie friends started an in depth investigation of the contents of your computer.

 

Anonymity on-line (as others have pointed out) is a relative and not an absolute thing.

 

Nick Bennett has pointed out that "anonymity" is actually not about whether a person uses their name (real or invented is immaterial): it is about whether they have a public reputation attached to that name. John Wayne, Cary Grant and Doris Day did not start out known thus but subsequently acquired a public reputation under those names. Nick Bennett is anonymous because he does not have such a general public reputation (though I imagine there is a local one), and so am I. Paul Derrett is different , being well known to those regularly visiting this site. On the other hand he might be entirely anonymous on a site devoted to fly fishing (unless he has that as a hobby or there are several members in common).

 

Internet chatrooms are not the same as face to face encounters in the pub, where whether I know your real name or not I am fully aware of the person to whom I am talking, and am able to make use of all the other non-verbal hints to establishing meaning and judging character which are denied in a virtual conversation. Whilst unlikely to be a problem on this board, the need to create offences dealing with "grooming" of young children by persons with certain proclivities is itself the clearest possible indication of the fact that the environment here is different and requires different rules .

 

Arguments about enforcement tend to miss the point. All rules from the law of the land to the conventions of this board ONLY work because they are generally obeyed because of their status as rules - not because they are enforced. No system can achieve 100% compliance, but one that is not overwhelmingly self-enforcing is in a very bad way . The reason that we do not have more theft and more murders than we do has far more to do with the fact that people voluntarily refrain from such conduct than with the repressive efforts of the constabulary. If it were a rule on this site that people had to register under their own name, then I am quite confident most would do that. Some might leave rather than do so, but I would be prepared to wager that those who would even consider deliberately creating a false identity for themselves would constitute a tiny percentage of the membership.

 

Brian Childs

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Internet chatrooms are not the same as face to face encounters in the pub, where whether I know your real name or not I am fully aware of the person to whom I am talking, and am able to make use of all the other non-verbal hints to establishing meaning and judging character which are denied in a virtual conversation. Whilst unlikely to be a problem on this board, the need to create offences dealing with "grooming" of young children by persons with certain proclivities is itself the clearest possible indication of the fact that the environment here is different and requires different rules"

 

(Quote)

 

Here I think we have the point.

 

If we were in that pub togheter, and you would not know my name, I'd still have

to take responsibility for that broken bottle I'd have thrown you in the face, be it

with yourself if you were still able to do so -for instance by receiving a chair on my head- or by someone else -the gentlemen cited above, this time with another kind

of vehicle-.

Experience shows whenever a person is known by at least the owner or moderator

of a discussion board devoted to a matter that's supposed to interest civilized people, this person behaves correctly.

Would you wish Mr Mander to know you are a clown? I think the people who would not care would never surf here, simply because they aren't interested with organs.

 

Best wishes,

Pierre

Link to post
Share on other sites

(Quote from Pierre Lauwers)

 

Would you wish Mr Mander to know you are a clown? I think the people who would not care would never surf here, simply because they aren't interested with organs.

 

====================

 

 

This board should not stoop into "clownism."

 

It's not long since we had a British Prime Minister who had a clown as a father.

 

I've been pondering the possibility that Stephen Cleobury may be "Leathered Lips,"

but decided (after a half-pint of beer), that such is not possible for a variety of reasons.

 

However, mistaken identity can take curious tiwsts and turns. When I was in America, I recall over-hearing a conversation between students. What I thought I heard was, "Yeah man! Marilyn Mason is a great musician."

 

When I added my two cent's worth and agreed that Dr Marilyn Mason was a very good lady musician, I received several, simultaneous psychopathic stares, before one of them replied, "Marilyn Manson is a guy!"

 

As for Nick Bennett's local reputation, I couldn't possibly comment, but it's probably much better than mine!

 

MM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...