I hate the early clappers but I like the venezuelan rum

Comments

[Fatherflot]

I like this whole posting while stoned thing and want to encourage more of it.

[verst]

Get a rum and coke buzz going before the performance starts then you wont notice the early clappers. If I was stoned, I just might think I was looking at a UFO.

Fatherflot, you're not partying with some of your female students are you? Cause if you are, I want in.

[Fatherflot]

Partying with my female students? Why yes, if by "partying," you mean writing discussion board messages like the following:

You make a very convincing case for your position. I find your reading to be detailed, attentive to nuance, and consistent. As for your question about the use of formal elements in the possibly interpolated sections, I don't think it would be considered unusual or deceptive in any way. These formal elements were still quite common for verse at the time the piece was written down. I think it's also worth noting that if there was a cleric adding the beginning and the ending, he may very well have been convinced that his additions were merely helpful hints to future readers for properly interpreting what he believed to be latent in the original poem. The very idea of the "original text" having some sort of special authority in and of itself would not have been quite thinkable. And bringing it closer to scripture would have been an admirable thing. As James Burke's essay on medieval media ecology shows, lots of interesting things happened in the process of copying manuscripts----elements that were originally meant as "notes on the text" could be copied by later scribes as if they were part of the "original text" all along. Biblical scholars discovered this issue a long time ago---what was the "original text" and what parts were "interpolated" by later editors, commentators, copyists? And if later comments were "divinely inspired" do they have any less right to be considered "part of the text" than the earlier parts?

All this points out how much of our attitudes towards texts is a result of certain modern conditions and assumptions. We give individual authors great respect and consideration---the text they create belongs to them and their individual genius. It has a right to be protected from tampering and respected in its original form and credited to the proper person. Such attitudes would have seemed vain and blasphemous to medieval clerics. There is only one true source of "authorship" after all!

[verst]

Fatherflot, I can't say I'm disappointed. At least you are being productive. BTW, that cultural criticism list that you posted has lots of food for thought. Probably of only peripheral interest to what you are working on but, Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture ( http://www.free-culture.cc/ ) may be worth reading since he discusses property and the commons mainly in reference to technology. Here is a lecture he gave too. ( http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail349.html )

[Fatherflot]

thanks verst---I'll check it out.

[verst]

For Free Culture available for free under the Creative Commons License use this link: http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/

[Listener Tim]

I thought Vashti was the best. And DB was a little disappointing.

[trouble]

Carnegie Hall is indeed an odd space to be seeing devendra banhart, vashti bunyan, vetiver, et al... But Vetiver shimmered and DB worked it, but alas wasn't on long enough to grow with the audience. The distance from performer to crowd was not in any of the bands favor, although I don't think vashti suffered from the lack of intimacy, she created her own. The fake beat box, turntable gesturing from the coco rosie entourage was truly sad.

[Listener Tim]

I thought DB might have been working that flask of his too long before he hit the stage solo. It's true that his performance was way too short. By his last track I was fully mesmerized.