Wki Theremin Page For Second Gen / Modern Thereminists

[i]"Personally, folks such as Uncle Howie, Peter, et al, deserve more than a blurb. I know that Uncle is a very modest man, but his contributions and encouragement to all of us should not go unnoticed."[/i]

I agree! .. But the above is the whole problem summed up in a single paragraph - WE (those on Levnet, TW and the few other forums where nutters like us gather) are NOT unbiased, impartial "observers" - we tend to get a bit passionate at times, we tend to argue with each other at times, we tend to 'promote' or 'demote' each other, and take sides in conflicts between other members of our 'group'.. And IF it is left up to us, these group dynamics WILL be reflected on the Wiki page - and the whole thing will become (or continue to be..) an absurd farce..

Also - There are players who do not participate in our on-line 'games' .. and these players SHOULD have just as much oppertunity of appearing on the Wiki page (if they are "worthy") as those of us who spend our spare time talking on-line about who is "worthy".. I do NOT believe that a tie-up or collaboration between "US" and Wiki is particularly healthy - sure, its almost inevitable - BUT, IF "we" are going to be the main influence on what appears in Wiki, I feel we need to be EXTREMELY hard on ourselves about it - Any whiff of "insider dealing" will otherwise soon become a stink.

I personally do not believe it is possible to avoid a stink unless active players are excluded.. Alternatively, perhaps an [b]additional[/b] set of severe conditions could be applied...[i] "Must have been actively and publicly involved with the Theremin for a minimum of 20 years" [/i] for example.

Problem: anyone can edit wikipedia, including the ill-informed.

Solution: [i]anyone[/i] can edit wikipedia, including the well informed. Do you feel strongly enough about this to take wikipedia's advice and be bold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold)?


Problem: so-and-so should be mentioned, but he's not mentioned in a book, journal or newspaper article.

That's a trickier one. One could propose changing the wikipedia rules to accommodate so-and-so but... well think of it like this - speed limits are usually bunk - sometimes it is possible to drive faster than the speed limit and be perfectly safe, sometimes driving at well below the speed limit is still dangerous, but can you devise a different speed law that is simple enough for people to understand, observe and enforce and that works better than the present system?

The problem here is not with wikipedia - wikipedia only reflects what is written in books etc. The problem is that if so-and-so deserves his place in history, he should be mentioned somewhere. "Oh, but history itself will decide." More bunk. There is no Avatar Of History, no grand personification in the sky charting our progress in flaming words with a quill of gold and handing them down for all to read. Just people. People decide who will live on in history by writing books and journal articles etc.

Again, the solution is obvious - do you feel motivated enough to pick up where Glinsky left off?

Moaning is easy.

FredM wrote:

There are players who do not participate in our on-line 'games' .. and these players SHOULD have just as much oppertunity of appearing on the Wiki page (if they are "worthy") as those of us who spend our spare time talking on-line about who is "worthy"..

**********************

So who decides who is "worthy"?

No one in our little cabal of self-appointed arbiters is going to agree on this. That is part of what makes discussion so much fun. Hell, if we all agreed there'd be no discussion at all.

One thing that is painfully obvious is that standards of musicianship for precision thereminists are quite different outside the theremin community than they are inside the community.

Take the best live theremin performance you can find from the most accomplished and/or popular theremin player in the world, play it for a professional violinist, wait for the laughter to die down, and then ask for an honest appraisal.

I have often seen performances that would be unacceptable from a singer or from someone playing any traditional instrument, enthusiastically applauded by theremin enthusiasts when offered on a theremin.

To qualify as a "thereminist", all you have to do is own a theremin. Your degree of skill on the instrument doesn't enter into it - yet with traditional instruments it does. You would hardly refer to someone as a "pianist" or a "guitarist" simply because he or she owned an instrument. With the theremin, you're a "thereminist" right out of the box!

Ever since the theremin was introduced in 1929, it has been promoted as the instrument on which (as the RCA pamphlet said) "...anyone, without musical knowledge or training of any sort; anyone, without tiresome or extended practice...anyone, can make exquisitely beautiful music."

There are those who believed that in 1929, and there are those who continue to believe it today because their own ears permit them to believe it. Since no practice or acquired skill is necessary to play the instrument, you can be a "thereminist" instantly. Whereas, in order to be a "cellist", "saxophonist" or "flutist", you would have to study for several years.

So what is my point?

My point is that the same musical standards should be applied to theremin playing as are applied to the playing of other instruments BUT THEY ARE NOT and they never will be as long as it is thereminists themselves who are applying them.

The Wikipedia theremin article, in order to have any objective credibility whatsoever, should be written by an accredited musical scholar with no agenda, and who has nothing to do with the theremin or the theremin community.

Perhaps this is the reason that "worthiness" is not a wikipedia criterion. Far too subjective.

[i]"My point is that the same musical standards should be applied to theremin playing as are applied to the playing of other instruments"[/i]

AMEN to that - I could not agree more!

[i]"Problem: anyone can edit wikipedia, including the ill-informed.

Solution: anyone can edit wikipedia, including the well informed. Do you feel strongly enough about this to take wikipedia's advice and be bold?" [/i]

I do not see the "solution" as being able to correct the "problem".. The "problem" is the fundamental basis of wikipedia, and it is that [b]"anyone can edit wikipedia"[/b] .. This is fine, as long as wiki is seen as of no more importance or value or merit than any other web forum where where people WILL and DO post many things which are inaccurate or just plain nonsense, and where people have their own agendas for their postings and/or editings.. Including commercial reasons and/or egotistical reasons.


[i]"The problem here is not with wikipedia - wikipedia only reflects what is written in books etc. The problem is that if so-and-so deserves his place in history, he should be mentioned somewhere."[/i]

I agree in principle, but do not believe this can ever be facilitated in practice.. For every person history 'preserves' and "enshrines in its sacred halls" there may well be 10 people more "worthy" who are never recognized in their own lifetime, let alone "enshrined".. Wiki cannot do anything to correct this - The majority of those who history "enshrines" may well be those who best know how to play the publicity game and elbow their way into the "sacred halls".. So nothing will change - Wiki will, by its nature, facilitate "honour" for these personality types more readily than redress any imbalance or injustice.

[i]So who decides who is "worthy"?

No one in our little cabal of self-appointed arbiters is going to agree on this. That is part of what makes discussion so much fun. Hell, if we all agreed there'd be no discussion at all. [/i]

I absolutely agree on this - Which is why (A) I think this whole matter is, at the bottom line, nonsense. (B) If there is going to be a serious attempt at correcting the nonsense, hard extra rules need to be applied which remove most of the possibility of self promotion of individuals and deletion of the names of some living players by other living players in the way we have seen recently...

When I go to see / hear a performer, I am interested in their music.. I do not want to be thinking about the fact that this individual has the arrogance to place their name on Wiki and delete the names of some of their contemporaries.. ( I am actually inclined to avoid such artists, regardless of how good they may be ) .. First, and foremost, I would like to see mechanisms implemented which prevent this kind of sh*t from happening.. I think that a "You must have been involved for a reasonable time" rule would be a good step in that direction.. I would choose at least 20 years, but others may think a shorter time is fairer on younger wanna-be's.


[i]"The Wikipedia theremin article, in order to have any objective credibility whatsoever, should be written by an accredited musical scholar with no agenda, and who has nothing to do with the theremin or the theremin community."[/i]

I must disagree with the "should be written by an accredited musical scholar", although I agree that that the other criterion would solve many problems of "objective credibility" .. The problem, I feel, is with the issue being entirely in the hands of the academic establishment.. the idea that only persons from the formal scholarly route should have the right to determine who enters the ‘sacred Wiki halls’ (LOL) is not to[b] my [/b] taste.. it comes back to the question [i] “So who decides who is "worthy"?” [/i]

Anyway - I think that the statement [i]” I think that to suggest all this is a tempest in a teapot is an exaggeration. Other than those who are actually mentioned in the article, I doubt that there is anyone in the world who cares one bit about what is written, or what is omitted” [/i] is the most ‘real’ thing said on this thre