[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Keller Williams / jam bands/ rc50

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Miko Biffle" <biffoz@arczip.com>
> I'm just questioning some of the so-called obvious assertions you're 
> writing
> reams about.  I don't buy the no-talent, anyone-can-do-it theory.

I never claimed that anyone had no talent. You must be referring to 
or misrepresenting my points to conveniently, albeit fallaciously refute 

What is obvious is that what Keller was doing, the actual playing part, is 
that many, many multi-instrumentalists could do if they chose to do so. 
Note, I don't
mean the effort part in getting the following and crowed, etc.  What is 
oblivious, at least to
me, is that if you establish your own set of criteria for success, go out 
and perform
according to those criteria, then of course you are achieving 
success...because it follows
logically from the criteria.   Anyone can define success in anyway they 
want, and therefore
if they claim success according to those criteria, you can't deny that 
of success, only the criteria.
In short, I proposed one set of criteria from which I thought Keller 
anything special.
Other folks suggested another set of criteria, which led to the 
contrary...and I accepted this
based on the criteria. So, what obvious part do you not get here?  I agree 
with you, and
now you are arguing with the way I agree with you?  Puzzling.  How far do 
you want to
propagate the debate here?

> DO believe it's all about integrity and that insincerity is the slippery
> foundation that will destroy anything in it's path.

Good for you. That's one set of criteria you use to evaluate...but it's not
an objective algorithm for truth. Anyone is entitled to disagree with you
based on another set of rules. Note, before you leap into an other ad
hominem, I'm not suggesting I disagree with you here...unless you want
to argue that I can't agree with you in "that way". . :)

I'm not calling you a
> fakir-I'm completely convinced of your creativity and honesty.  I'm just
> debating what you're calling obvious; that there's more to this simple 
> stuff
> than we really think.

Well, maybe now that I've explained what I think is obvious, you will 
with my approach here. It's like me arguing that tomatoes are bad because 
the way they taste, and then someone saying tomatoes are good because they
like the way they taste. What is obvious here is that there are two 
different sets
of criteria being used to derive contradictory statements, just like there 
many sets of criteria to define musical success. Once we understand those
criteria, then it's easy to understand why people draw the conclusions they
do from them. Once you explained yourself and why you thought Keller was
successful....I immediately got it....no convincing required.  But, heck, 
multitask all day long if you want to practice arguing with semantics.