Mocqurray

[musicus]

I'm very interested in the technical discussion, though not the personal vituperation.

Quite. Address the argument, not the person. Many people find all this aggression very intimidating and are discouraged from participating, so please do rein it in.

[Gwyn]

Sorry. My Brummy is weak.

[NorthernTenor]

Many people find all this aggression very intimidating and are discouraged from participating

That's really rather the point, Musicus. CC is responding here to public insults from Paul. I sympathise, because I am familiar with the pattern, which is for someone to respond to Paul’s frequent aggression, which ranges from the passive variety to outright libel, and then for others to criticise the response while saying little or nothing about the constant to which it is directed – maybe at best suggesting some kind of moral equivalence between the aggressor and the one who bites back (I except the recent occasion on which his pettiness was thoroughly criticised, and am grateful to those concerned). Frankly, it astounds me that Paul has been given such leeway for so long. His comments here – in their tendency to lofty, self-aggrandising (though usually unsubstantiated) put-down, their questioning of the integrity of those with whom he disagrees, and their descent into personal vitriol – have an unwholesome influence on the intellectual and moral character of the board. I can only assume that the continued tolerance shown to him reflects both the patience of our long-suffering moderators and his elevated standing in certain circles, including the board’s sponsoring body, of which he is an honorary life member.

As for this sacred monster’s right to hide behind his pseudonym (to which Musicus refers on another thread): he forfeited that right a long time ago, when he began to insult and libel from behind it. I’m not surprised that he wants to maintain his anonymity – after all, a number of things he has said here would surely qualify as behaviour likely to bring his employer into disrepute – but I don’t see why we should play the game on his cowardly terms.

[musicus]

Well, we do try to moderate even handedly. We will try even harder.
The terms on which we play this game are not his, or yours, or mine, but the forum's, to which we all signed up on registering.

[quaeritor]

Well, quaeritor, speaking as the object of the personal vituperation whose side you do not wish to take, I hope you can understand me consequently not wishing to expose myself to possible further personal vituperation from Southern Comfort at your behest.

I have an uneasy feeling that somehow I seem to have ended up on the side of the bad guys - or is it just the perennial ambiguity of "whose"?

How about a PM, CC - I'd appreciate that.

Q

[Calum Cille]

Quaeritor, I uphold your right not to choose sides. You have made statement, in full view of the forum members, which shows your interest in the topic. I have used the evidence of your interest to counter Southern Comforter's assertion that my "boring diatribes ... do not encourage others to enter the arena". If you think that me quoting your interest in any further submissions from me would amount to you taking sides, and if you don't wish to take sides, you might like to show no further interest of that kind (in full view of the forum members) which I can then use to defend myself from Southern Comfort's erroneous assertion.

I don't know the reason for your request that I send you a private message, but if it is for me to send historical references to you, then I'm loathe to send such a message. Why? Because I presume that the purpose of this forum is for (fairly) public debate - someone please correct me if I'm wrong - and I have no inclination to see threads becoming places where someone who bullies with ad hominem attacks, gets to drive debate underground into private messaging where it ceases to be a public debate, if any debate at all. Consequently, I am not willing to be cowed into private messaging on this topic, even if you are (although I repeat that I don't know the reason for your request). Having had no reply from Southern Comfort regarding my last points, I consider the discussion with him over until there is such a reply. Moreover, I also do not wish to discuss the topic further on the thread with someone who thinks nothing of requesting that I throw myself to the wolf without being willing to lift a finger in my defence. Thank you, NorthernTenor, for your public show of sympathy.

Frankly, it astounds me that Paul has been given such leeway for so long. His comments here ... have an unwholesome influence on the intellectual and moral character of the board.

There can be no question of this. If we allow certain behaviour to persist on the part of one member, we should allow every other member to indulge in it or we run the risk of treating people inequitably. Should I be given anything but short shrift if I resorted to writing about Southern Comfort with the same kind of ad hominem, off-topic, fulsome paragraphs containing the same sort of matter that he has written about me?

I can only assume that the continued tolerance shown to him reflects both the patience of our long-suffering moderators and his elevated standing in certain circles, including the board’s sponsoring body, of which he is an honorary life member.

That perhaps explain why he feels it in his power to dole out such treatment to a mere nobody like me.

I don’t see why we should play the game on his cowardly terms.

Although his most recent outburst is not an example, Southern Comfort does have a custom of not naming people when talking about them deleteriously in paragraphs. I would be glad to see moderatorial disapproval of such behaviour on this forum.

[quaeritor]

I'm just a simple seeker for knowledge (well, in this thread anyway! - in other threads my tongue might just have strayed fleetingly into my cheek, but not this time.) - all I'd like is a reference to a publication (preferably brief, and in English) which outlines the alternative theory to the one I grew up with (which was the then "established" Solesmes theory of "every-note-is-equal"). I'd be equally well disposed to a similar reference to a publication presenting the defence (should there be one) of the old theory should anyone care to post one.

The PM thing, CC was just in deference to what I read as you wish not to draw any further fire by passing on anything further in open forum. Perhaps I misunderstood. I'm more than happy to keep it public.

If anyone else out there knows of examples of the kind of publications I would like to find, please help us out here.

Q

[Calum Cille]

The PM thing, CC was just in deference to what I read as you wish not to draw any further fire by passing on anything further in open forum. Perhaps I misunderstood. I'm more than happy to keep it public.

I'm happy to keep it public if you're happy for me to quote your (public) interest to Southern Comfort. Are you happy with that?

[Dom Perignon]

Just a few general points than I am concerned about.

I do not know who Southern Comfort is (nor, I suspect, does Musicus). We are not told of the identities behind pseudonyms and we try to work within the rules of the forum to the best of our abilities. Forum members must not try to 'out' the identities of those who post under pseudonyms. Further activities of that nature may well leave the poster the subject of sanction.

If someone posts a highly contentious view under a pseudonym, readers can take into account that fact in evaluating the comment. However, 'highly contentious' will only be tolerated if within the rules.

I also feel very insulted by any suggestion that Southern Comfort has been given more leeway than anyone else. I am very concerned about the way these types of debates (if that is the right word) are going. We try to give everyone as much leeway as we can, but if this constant bickering continues we will have to moderate with a heavier hand, and that would be very sad. This has generally been an easier forum to moderate than most others because, by and large, contributors have understood that it contributes a sharing of knowledge and views for the good of all who are interested and have operated within that spirit. Can we please stop and have a think about the way we are using the forum and consider whether or not the way in which debates are increasingly being carried on is helpful to interested persons generally.

[Calum Cille]

Forum members must not try to 'out' the identities of those who post under pseudonyms. ...

The Society of Saint Gregory does not operate in a societal vacuum. Paul Inwood's character is currently being tarnished by the antics of Southern Comfort for want of clarification. Any perception of Paul Inwood as Southern Comfort will surely spill out into real life, at least on my part, poor me. The forum then becomes de facto an agent for sullying Paul Inwood's character - how rightly or wrongly, the forum cannot currently know. Furthermore, any intense and undeserved hostility displayed by one member (such as Southern Comfort) to another on this forum (such as me) will surely spill out into real life. The forum then becomes de facto the agency for covert hostility. The forum may wish to consider a policy of outing anyone showing unwarranted hostility to others, for the sake of any innocent person's reputation and to protect the objects of the hostility.

I also feel very insulted by any suggestion that Southern Comfort has been given more leeway than anyone else.

I think the suggestion was that Southern Comfort was having an unwholesome influence on the forum and that, de facto, he must be being given too much leeway. This point of yours completely avoids the question of how others are treated by Southern Comfort, and the question of leeway to others has not been raised on this thread until you posted here.

... if this constant bickering continues we will have to moderate with a heavier hand ...

To view my self-defence from ad hominem attacks as indulgence in mere bickering is to make insufficient acknowledgment of the seriousness of Southern Comfort's repeated behaviour with me. Poor me, I neither expect moderators nor other members such as quaeritor to stand up for me when it happens (that is your prerogative) but I likewise have the prerogative of departing a forum which may not, in my view, apportion due seriousness to Southern Comfort's behaviour. Regardless of whether I continue as a member of this forum or not, poor me, the moderators should pay more attention to Southern Comfort's tendency to react to criticism with ad hominem attacks on other members' character. I treat Southern Comfort fairly. I don't engage in debate on a point and then suddenly start laying into his character because he doesn't agree with my viewpoint. Is he treating me the same way? No, poor me. That's not bickering, that's sheer animosity on the part of one person and one person only, and I'm not the source of it, poor me.

... and that would be very sad.

Let's wait and see, I say.

[quaeritor]

Oh dear!

Guess I'll try Google - those guys bruise less easily.

Q

[Calum Cille]

Guess I'll try Google - those guys bruise less easily.

Indeed - some people are so sensitive that they can't even bear to be mentioned on a thread they're already involved in. If you weren't happy for me to mention your (evident) interest in the topic to Southern Comfort, you could just have said so without the slight.

[HelenR]

Calum Cille

Quaeritor wrote "I'm just a simple seeker for knowledge (well, in this thread anyway! - in other threads my tongue might just have strayed fleetingly into my cheek, but not this time.) - all I'd like is a reference to a publication (preferably brief, and in English) which outlines the alternative theory to the one I grew up with (which was the then "established" Solesmes theory of "every-note-is-equal"). I'd be equally well disposed to a similar reference to a publication presenting the defence (should there be one) of the old theory should anyone care to post one."

Are you able to do this so that those of us who are interested in the topic can find out more?

Maybe we could have a new board set up " liturgy matters but petty squabbles come first"

[nazard]

I have never studied Gregorian Chant in any scholarly way, but I did sing it on a daily basis for some years. Our choirmaster then always said "Treat the Solesmes markings with a big pinch of salt," and produced results which I think are the sort of thing our Calum is talking about. It would be of great interest to me, as I sometimes get involved in passing my smithereen of chant knowledge on to others, if someone could point me at a book or website which describes a relatively flexible approach to chant, and recommend a few recordings of scholae who implement the technique well.

[keitha]

Nazard, rather like you, as a young organist at a Benedictine priory, I had a regular diet of chant. I learnt my stuff with the Liber Usualis, Antiphonale and Graduale, all in the Solemnes editions. I then came across the late, great (in my view, at least!) Dr Mary Berry and, after a few discussions with her and singing in a few performances and workshops directed by her, came to learn about other interpretations of the chant, and began to research it for myself. Being still young and enthusiastic for new ways of doing things, I introduced my choir to different ways of doing. All went well until we joined in bigger events or went to the monastery and Solemnes ruled. So I gave up.

Now that I am involved in a parish that has no particular Benedictine connections, I am now moving away from the Solemnes style (as are Solemnes, by the looks of it) and looking at more modern scholarship. I, to, would welcome some references.

For my part (and these may be a bit basic - I don't know), I would recommend 'Plainchant for everyone: An introduction to plainsong' (1979) ISBN 0-85402-076-4; and 'Cantors: a collection of Gregorian chants' (1979) ISBN 0-521-22149-8, both by Mary Berry (I think both are available via amazon, as may be some of her other books. She also founded the Schola Gergoriana of Cambridge -http://www.scholagregoriana.org/.

I suspect some may find the styles exhibited above a bit too 'conservative' - but they are, in my view, a good start.