From: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org (shindell-list-digest) To: shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Subject: shindell-list-digest V8 #34 Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org Sender: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk shindell-list-digest Wednesday, March 1 2006 Volume 08 : Number 034 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [RS] RE: shindell-list-digest V8 #33 ["Kevin Bohrer" ] [RS] Re: LFOTD/RS Interview ["John McDonnell" ] Re: [RS] Re: LFOTD/RS Interview [rongrittz@aol.com] Re: [RS] Re: LFOTD/RS Interview ["Chris Foxwell" ] Re: [RS] Re: LFOTD/RS Interview ["Chris Foxwell" ] Re: [RS] Re: LFOTD/RS Interview [keny7744@comcast.net (Ken Yavit)] [RS] Re: Is this the right room for an Argument? ["John McDonnell" Subject: [RS] RE: shindell-list-digest V8 #33 I already posted this on the Dar list, but I know there are a lot of Dar fans on this list as well. I find myself with 2 extra tickets to the 3/12 Dar show w/John Gorka at the Scottish Rite Auditorium in Collingswood, New Jersey. The tickets are Orchestra RC, Row E, Seats 102 and 104. These are right on the aisle and are absolute center stage. You can check out the seat location using the seating chart here: http://www.ccparks.com/srseating.html I am looking to sell these for what I paid (face value plus fees). Please contact me as soon as possible so we can arrange the details. In case of multiple responses, the first one I receive via email will get the tickets. Thanks, Kevin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 12:16:34 -0500 From: "John McDonnell" Subject: [RS] Re: LFOTD/RS Interview Hi All, Adam and Chris seem unconvinced by the claim that the couples are different, but if you listen to the interview, that's a tough row to hoe. RS says that he uses the cab driver as "the bridge"...like "the unifying principle" ....."between different moments in different peoples' lives." I suppose, then the question is how much stock you put in authorial intention. I think viewing the couples as the same as opposed to different potentially changes the song in a significant way, but not necessarily in a way that would diminish it. John McD. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:49:13 -0500 From: rongrittz@aol.com Subject: Re: [RS] Re: LFOTD/RS Interview >> I think viewing the couples as the same as opposed to different potentially changes the song in a significant way, but not necessarily in a way that would diminish it. << As much as it makes for a more "pat" story, perhaps a little more poetic, having them be the same couple makes the song somewhat less believeable, less something I'd expect from Richard. Ron ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 12:52:24 -0500 From: "Chris Foxwell" Subject: Re: [RS] Re: LFOTD/RS Interview On 3/1/06, John McDonnell wrote: > > Hi All, > > Adam and Chris seem unconvinced by the claim that the couples are > different, > but if you listen to the interview, that's a tough row to hoe. RS says > that > he uses the cab driver as "the bridge"...like "the unifying principle" > ....."between different moments in different peoples' lives." > > I suppose, then the question is how much stock you put in authorial > intention. I think viewing the couples as the same as opposed to > different > potentially changes the song in a significant way, but not necessarily in > a > way that would diminish it. Well...I wouldn't say that I am "unconvinced" by the claim. It's not like I listen to the interview and try to find some alternate interpretation of what Richard is saying, to support a different claim. Richard says that they are the same couple, and so the same couple they are...for him, and for most listeners (I would guess). When discussing the song with non-listserv people, I always say that "officially" they are different couples, but privately--well, not so privately, I guess ;) --I see a certain beauty in having them be the same couple, and that often informs my own personal interpretation. Just semantics, I guess. I just don't see it as an issue of being convinced or unconvinced. Arguments rarely succeed in swaying perceptions that are purely aesthetic in nature, and that's what this is: it's not that I reject Richard's argument for the couples being different--as if he needs to make an argument at all! Rather, I hear the explanation, and I agree with it--as if it's up to me to agree!--but I'm just personally more affected by a different take, so that's what I hear. - --Chris - -- "We were born in a dark age out of due time (for us). But there is this comfort: otherwise we should not know, or so much love, what we do love. I imagine the fish out of water is the only fish to have an inkling of water." - --J.R.R. Tolkien ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 13:05:22 -0500 From: "Chris Foxwell" Subject: Re: [RS] Re: LFOTD/RS Interview On 3/1/06, Chris Foxwell wrote: > Richard says that they are the same couple, and so the same couple they > are...for him, and for most listeners (I would guess). > Er...oops. I got mixed up there. I meant to say "Richard says that they are *different *couples, and so *different* couples they are...", etc. D'oh. - --Chris - -- "We were born in a dark age out of due time (for us). But there is this comfort: otherwise we should not know, or so much love, what we do love. I imagine the fish out of water is the only fish to have an inkling of water." - --J.R.R. Tolkien ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 18:37:22 +0000 From: keny7744@comcast.net (Ken Yavit) Subject: Re: [RS] Re: LFOTD/RS Interview When I was learning this song, I didn't have the benefit of knowing what Richard has said about the song, that they were two different couples. I listened to the song over and over, and then started practicing it with the chords provided on Ron's chord pages. For the longest time, I couldn't get through the song without getting choked up, and for me the couple were the same in the first and second verses. It had poetry and spiritual poignancy with it being the same couple. So for me, even though Richard has said that they are two couples, for me the power of the song is in the couples being the same. Ken Yavit -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Chris Foxwell" > On 3/1/06, John McDonnell wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > Adam and Chris seem unconvinced by the claim that the couples are > > different, > > but if you listen to the interview, that's a tough row to hoe. RS says > > that > > he uses the cab driver as "the bridge"...like "the unifying principle" > > ....."between different moments in different peoples' lives." > > > > I suppose, then the question is how much stock you put in authorial > > intention. I think viewing the couples as the same as opposed to > > different > > potentially changes the song in a significant way, but not necessarily in > > a > > way that would diminish it. > > > Well...I wouldn't say that I am "unconvinced" by the claim. It's not like I > listen to the interview and try to find some alternate interpretation of > what Richard is saying, to support a different claim. Richard says that > they are the same couple, and so the same couple they are...for him, and for > most listeners (I would guess). When discussing the song with non-listserv > people, I always say that "officially" they are different couples, but > privately--well, not so privately, I guess ;) --I see a certain beauty in > having them be the same couple, and that often informs my own personal > interpretation. > > Just semantics, I guess. I just don't see it as an issue of being convinced > or unconvinced. Arguments rarely succeed in swaying perceptions that are > purely aesthetic in nature, and that's what this is: it's not that I reject > Richard's argument for the couples being different--as if he needs to make > an argument at all! Rather, I hear the explanation, and I agree with it--as > if it's up to me to agree!--but I'm just personally more affected by a > different take, so that's what I hear. > > --Chris > > -- > "We were born in a dark age out of due time (for us). But there is this > comfort: otherwise we should not know, or so much love, what we do love. I > imagine the fish out of water is the only fish to have an inkling of water." > --J.R.R. Tolkien ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 17:03:40 -0500 From: "John McDonnell" Subject: [RS] Re: Is this the right room for an Argument? Hi All, Chris wrote: >>Arguments rarely succeed in swaying perceptions that are purely aesthetic in nature, and that's what this is: it's not that I reject Richard's argument for the couples being different--as if he needs to make an argument at all!<< I'll adopt the Michael Palin definition of an argument as a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition--which describes much of the discussion we had about whether the couples were the same or not. RS is not making an argument but a statement which may or may not color one's interpretation of the song. When I said that the difference may not diminish the song, it seems clear that although RG finds it less than what he expects, Ken's obvious connection with the song would indicate that it still retains its power to move. Aesthetically, therefore, the song itself is not diminished. John McD. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 17:57:18 -0500 From: "Chris Foxwell" Subject: Re: [RS] Re: Is this the right room for an Argument? On 3/1/06, John McDonnell wrote: > > > I'll adopt the Michael Palin definition of an argument as a connected > series > of statements intended to establish a proposition--which describes much of > > the discussion we had about whether the couples were the same or not. RS > is > not making an argument but a statement which may or may not color one's > interpretation of the song. When I said that the difference may not > diminish the song, it seems clear that although RG finds it less than what > he expects, Ken's obvious connection with the song would indicate that it > still retains its power to move. Aesthetically, therefore, the song > itself > is not diminished. Heh, I love that skit. It's all semantics, though. Call it whatever you'd like--that's not how I was using the word "argument", but bickering about it doesn't accomplish anything--I'm just saying that Richard's explication of why he sees the couples as being different doesn't lessen the beauty that I, and Ken, and perhaps others, see in them being the same. I see Richard's point, and I agree that it's a powerful interpretation, but since his point introduced nothing that I wasn't already aware of, it didn't change anything for me...regardless of whether you call it arguing, elaborating, defending, emphasizing, or anything else. (If his point constituted "new data", then of course it could effect a change in one's view, but that's not the scenario that I am describing.) I'm not sure there's too much more to be said here. Richard has had his say, and that's that. How that influences a given person's interpretation of the song...well, that's for that person to figure out. I guess we could move to the larger issue of authorial intent and control, but I'd bow out of that. It's a rather tired debate, with little to be gained, in my opinion. - --Chris - -- "We were born in a dark age out of due time (for us). But there is this comfort: otherwise we should not know, or so much love, what we do love. I imagine the fish out of water is the only fish to have an inkling of water." - -- J.R.R. Tolkien ------------------------------ End of shindell-list-digest V8 #34 **********************************