These perceptions are prompted by what I've seen. - - Those who take the kind of approach followed by the original correspondent - and by the reinforcements he soon had to call in from two European countries when I responded in ways he didn't want me to, or expect me to - clearly thrive on competition and discord disguised as "critiques" and, by their approaches, seem to find a very real kind of relief, and even relish, in trying to denigrate the work of others when something doesn't accord with their own sensibilities, conclusions, opinions, or viewpoints - or information (from whatever sources). There are positive, constructive, earnest ways to disagree - and there are parasitic, destructive, and capricious ways, too. His enlistment of further support from his European colleagues - William Jurgenson and Paul Poletti in Germany and Holland, respectively - only points up this seemingly insane fixation they have with insisting that only they know best. I believe this speaks for itself, and most people would probably agree.
Someone lets loose on March 3 with arrogant and clearly contentious comments masquerading as constructive commentary and positive debate - and when I reply in kind two days later, and offer reasons why the correspondent is being imprudent, petty, frivolous and even foolish, accusations by him (and soon, his associates) of things like mud-slinging, name-calling, and finger-pointing are leveled at ME for responding - and for responding in a way they didn't like. What they say, and the way in which they say it, is justified and correct - while when I reply in like manner, they call it "invective." They can say and do it - but we cannot. I must admit that the logic of this escapes me.
What seems to agitate them most is the taste I've given them of their own medicine. For the sake of balance and symmetry (surely we all aim for fairness and parity), I made certain that my communication(s) to them took the same form as theirs to me. (For me to have done otherwise might not have been equitable). Perhaps they expected me to respond meekly and apologetically, as their students might, in the face of such gargantuan authority. The nature of my response is what surprised them, and this is what annoys them: that I didn't agree with their disagreements, and that I - not they - decided how I would react, which again was not the way they wanted me to. If their approaches exemplify the sense of fairness and reasoning that's characteristic of such "experts" and others in academe, it speaks ill of the scholastic community. It certainly speaks ill of anyone who subscribes to such pretentiousness. Additionally, because I responded more strongly than they had wanted or expected me to, they now harp on ". . .the tone and content of my rebuttal. They spoke in typical (i.e., entirely predictable) "schoolmaster" fashion - while I surprised, disturbed and shocked them by having responded in an entirely untypical (that is, unpredictable) way which they found alarming - and for that very reason. So they wanted, so they got.
One of the colleagues proposed that my statements are ". . .long on snide remarks about teachers brow-beating students, authoritative figures talking down their noses to the 'great unwashed,' stupid critics who relish in tearing apart performers. . ." and so on. Some people define a "snide" remark as anything that sheds a negative light on them - and especially when what's said happens to be true. Certainly I alluded to such personalities - we all know that mentality - but the descriptions as given above are not mine. They're his. - Though he was unable to spell my name correctly it was he who crystallized in near-elegant terms precisely what I was suggesting. This, too, seems very noteworthy, and for his perception on this point I owe him a debt of thanks.
". . .I don't think any additional response from the Alamo is merited," says the original correspondent. But I DO think so - and that's the point. He may not "think" it's merited - but the question remains: does that mean it isn't merited? He should be advised that I'll make any reference to the Alamo that I feel is warranted - that's my decision, not his - the more so, since those of us closer to it in spirit than he see it as infinitely more than just a historic structure, a museum, or the tourist attraction he might visit: it's a tangible and conceptual symbol reminding us all that those who perished there were as alive then as we are today.
If my work is as worthless as the correspondent and his colleagues claim, why, then, are they so adamant in protesting it? Why, too, have their vehement objections not been proposed by others? If what I've done is so marginal and insignificant, why, then, do they make such a fuss over it? If my work is so unworthy of comment, why, then, were reinforcements called in? I have only a couple of good, sharp Bowies, yet they send in several 18-pounders.
He also states, "After the smoke has cleared, it should be plain that the heavy artillery has been ineffectual. . ." At long last, it seems the correspondent is correct here, for a change: the heavy artillery he had to call in from two European locations was entirely ineffectual. It doesn't take that much imagination to hear them now pounding the table in frustration. He needed help. I don't - and certainly not his kind.
I also find it extremely interesting that his colleagues made certain not to miss an advertising opportunity by offering specifics about - and even photos of - their respective musical instrument businesses. As a purely rhetorical question: What does this tell us?
". . .and Jeffrey Dane has done nothing to address my original objections to his article," claims the original correspondent with a positively palpable conceit, smug but laughable, that shines right through his sentence. Forgive me, but he is totally wrong. He just doesn't get it, and I will say this only once: I've addressed everything I consider worthy of being addressed. That's my prerogative, and is for me - not them - to decide. I'll respond on MY terms, not on his terms or as others want me to or think I should - and perhaps most important of all, I'll respond to what matters most, not to what matters least. What most warrants comment by me is decided by me, not by others according to their rules. They have the right to focus on what they think is important. It may surprise them to learn that others have that same right.
Moreover, I won't validate their niggling inanity by perpetuating their kind of nonsense. - - He and his colleagues, on the other hand, totally ignored many of the points I, myself, raised, because what I said didn't suit their needs - and/or because for them to have addressed those matters would have been, let us say, "inconvenient" (read: embarrassing for them). If my responses haven't satisfied him (or his associates), he's welcome to bestow the honor of his contentions on someone else, and to eternalize his childish conflicts without me. If he doesn't like the way I approach this matter, that's good - because I didn't like the way he had approached it in the first place. Perhaps next time he'll remember this, and think thrice before acting as he did. He's not dealing with his students now.
Of the correspondent's innumerable pronouncements, many are convoluted and quite inconsistent but one in particular warrants notice, to wit: "As always, I welcome all comments, favorable or critical." Surely he's joking. Based on what's transpired here in these pages in the past several weeks, confusion, disorientation and even audacity are evident features of his intrusive manner, also to wit: (1) he offered a "critique" of my work, and (2) in my responding comments to it, I disagreed with him. Did he then welcome my comments?? - or did he, instead, send out a nearly world-wide plea for help from associates? He's fooling no-one and most would see right through this "parting shot" comment of his as being absolutely preposterous. I prefer the more gentlemanly approach whenever possible, so I will say that his remark about welcoming "all comments, favorable or critical" appears to be somewhat contradictory and I must admit I'm a bit confused by it. As I informed one of his colleagues not long ago, someone is going to have to explain the logic of that remark to me - and they're going to have to explain it to me very, very carefully.
The stance taken by the correspondent and his associates suggests to me that they'd feel entirely at home in a society where a mere accusation is tantamount to an immediate guilty verdict - a verdict rendered solely by the accuser and those with whom he or she may be in collusion. I freely acknowledge that I may be wrong about this, but I don't think so. Our own past is peppered and shamed by events that correspond to this concept, occasional attempts at which obviously continue to this day but which reach as far back as the abominations now known as the Salem witch hunts. This point, however, may fall on ears deafer than Beethoven's.
In any case, it's very clear to me what he wants, but he has no clue about the proper and sensible way of getting it. They might claim that the nature of their approaches, their motivation, etc., doesn't matter. For them to make such a claim would reveal much about them. I daresay it does matter, for it can determine the very outcome of a situation. I feel he should give this matter some earnest thought.
The long and the short of it is that I've had enough exposure in my life to the questionable practices of the arrogant and self-important, and I see absolutely no reason why I should tolerate them at any time. Unlike them, I can't speak for others. I can speak only for myself, but I'd probably be correct in venturing the educated guess that most people don't need the repulsiveness of that kind of nonsense - any more than I need another coronary. I've decided that I'll use whatever time I have left in the pursuit of more sensible, positive, and personally profitable undertakings - like researching and writing articles - rather than spend precious time and energy playing into the hands of people at least one of whose raison d' etre is to bedevil others with overbearing approach and insolent nature. But I'm older now, they're probably younger and maybe they are right after all. Who knows?.
While some of what the original correspondent claims is so (the specific number of keys on a certain piano, for example), much of it is not. I'm unable to get involved in further exchanges of this nature, particularly when their self-assumed pedestal-placement is so manifestly questionable, aggressive, and even obnoxious - characteristics, as just one example, of the garden-variety "executive secretary" who delights in plaguing co-workers in positions of lesser authority. The reasons - and my reasons satisfy me - are that I just don't have the time for it, or, frankly, even the inclination at this point in my life. I certainly no longer have the physical constitution for it. They may not understand this, but you will - and better than anyone else I know.
I can easily foresee them and a few others objecting to my decision and the reasons for it. They're free to call this whatever they want to - and I'm certain they will. Mind you, they're going to - especially when my considered reasons don't accord with their wishes, needs, intentions, motives, and expectations. One needn't be clairvoyant to anticipate this. Mark it well. There will be no end to this from them. The contentious may have the last word, but I'll have the last laugh.
Granted, these are my opinions - but they're not mine exclusively. Many others would share them. Another article from me should soon be forthcoming, on what topic I'm not yet certain. Collusion among autograph dealers; age discrimination, often practiced but rarely if ever acknowledged officially (except in litigation); experiencing the aftermath of open-heart surgery and attendant coronary bypass, arguably the most invasive kind of operation; another "Points to Ponder"; a piece on Texian music of the 1836 era ( - with, please note, a discussion of some of the instruments of that period. . . .); an article about the 1889 cylinder recording of Brahms at the piano, playing his Hungarian Dance Nr.1 - these pieces and others are on my agenda. All I need is time.
Others can waste their time if they want to. They will not waste mine. I won't allow it. They might hope that I just give up researching, writing and publishing. If so, I hope they're holding their breath. Finis.
Jeffrey Dane
