Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19981006201504.00b1b814@mail.swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 20:15:04 -0500
To: "Greg Lindahl" <lindahl@pbm.com>
From: Rex Deaver <rdeaver@swbell.net>
Subject: Re: minstrel: Bardic, Period, and assorted rantings...
Cc: minstrel@pbm.com
In-Reply-To: <199810042111.RAA29957@xkey.com>
References: <3.0.3.32.19981004120111.00ae18a8@mail.swbell.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-minstrel@rt.com
Precedence: bulk

At 05:11 PM 10/4/98 -0400, Greg Lindahl wrote:

>> But none of note.  Creativity has always been the mark of, and often
>> reserved to, the mastery of an art.
>
>I disagree, and I challenge you to prove your point.

A welcome challenge, indeed milord.  But first, we must define the
boundaries and bound the definitions, for I begin to suspect that our
failure to do so thus far has created most of the friction.

>Given that I have a lot of web resources oriented around period filk,
>and I talk about it on this list all the time, I would beseech you to
>talk with ME instead of someone you've made up and assigned opinions
>to. It's very hard to hold a discussion when we aren't talking to or
>about each other's actual ideas.

I am more than willing to believe that you are writing one thing and I am
reading another...and vice versa.  In fact I strongly suspect that is
exactly what is happening.  I know of no other remedy than to keep trying
till one or both of us makes the mental leap that renders all as clear as
crystal.

>> I apply these standards to no one.  I apply them to the art.
>
>Uh, I don't get the difference; you're saying that if people don't
>live up to your idea of the art, then they aren't a minstrel?

Let me try to clarify and see if we can start to bridge the communication gap.

Minstrel/bard/skald/scop/etc. is an amalgamation created within the SCA,
and perhaps earlier re-creation attempts like the pre-Raphaelites.  This is
not just a laziness, as so many other of our amalgams are :-) but based on
some commonalities.  Ulf Gunnarsson's list of what was respected more does
not come out of thin air.  Common characteristics of the Ideal(tm) of all
of them (these are how I think of them, don't get hung up on the shorthand
:-):

1) Performer - voice/presence/the ineffable
2) Poet/storyteller - capability to manipulate language
3) Composer - capability to manipulate music
4) Instrumentalist - capability to accompany and expand

and another which some may disagree with;

5) Professional - responsible to something more than self.
School/patron/order/brotherhood/audience/god/king/country/etc.

No doubt that some of these were more important in one tradition than
another, and some were virtually irrelevant.  And mastery of any of them
would be sufficient to gain praise and notoriety all by itself.  

But equally inarguable is that one who demonstrated mastery in *all* the se
areas would be held in the highest esteem, and would personify the
Ideal...the "full-grown" m/b/s/s

Can you be a m/b/s/s without being the ubermensche in all areas?  Of course
you can!  What a silly question :-)  

Can you be a m/b/s/s by doing one to exclusion of the others?  Of course not.

Mathurin

--
"Alas! all music jars when the soul's out of tune."
	 -- Miguel de Cervantes (1547-1616)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send email to majordomo@pbm.com containing
the words "unsubscribe minstrel". If you are subscribed to the digest version,
say "unsubscribe minstrel-digest". To contact a human about problems, send
mail to owner-minstrel@pbm.com