Skip to main content

I am not worthy - I'm worthless

One of the joys of writing a blog is that years later people can still discover the articles you wrote. Recently I've had an interesting comment on a post I wrote back in 2010 on why I'm not a great enthusiast for opera. I'd like to let you see Mr/Ms Anonymous' comment in all its glory:
Appalling ignorance of classical music (its history) in general, and of opera in particular. The author has NO feel for the genre, and how could he possibly understand the funding side of things unless he loved the music? He doesn't, and his ignorance fuels his rant of public support. In Europe, where opera companies and orchestras receive state funding, culture is appreciated with an understanding of its true value. Worthless article.  
Now I responded as follows:
Dear Anonymous, someone with your obvious cultural depth will obviously understand what 'ad hominem' means and why intelligent people regard it as the most pathetic form of argument.

I am also impressed with your psychic ability to deduce my ignorance or otherwise of the history of music from an item that isn't about the history of music. Marvellous.
... but I feel there are few more things I could have said. Apparently I have NO feel for the genre. I have NO feel for mud wrestling either, but what has that got to do with the price of fish? To have a 'feel' for something implies an emotional bias, which is hardly an ideal state to be in to make a dispassionate decision. And then we get to the real doozey. I can't understand the funding if I don't love the music. Presumably this is why most of us can't understand the funding of the E.U. - because we don't love it. Silly us.

I think even Anonymous would agree that most people don't love opera. So (s)he is saying that only a tiny minority can understand the funding. Is that a good argument for publically funding something? What's more (s)he says Europe provides state funding. Okay - so European countries are a good guide on how to operate finances? Three words: Greece, EU Budget.

All in all, you can't help but feel that Anonymous has not done opera any favours...
Labels:

Comments

  1. Anonymous5 July 2011 at 11:34

    Well, I had to look up ad hominem' on wikipedia, and found it amusing that they have the following example of abusive ad hominem; That Boris Godunov was the favorite opera of Joseph Stalin indicates the worthlessness of the opera.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
118 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more