[Bards] No Sh*t stories
bedlamandmayhem at gmail.com
Sun Jan 6 20:29:04 PST 2008
And I think I have been less than clear in my point. My point is that
past a certain point we cannot judge 'more authentic', we have
examples but not the entire body of work. We may have ideals and
criteria, but we don't always know how well they were adhered to.
Styles had to evolve since styles now are noticably different than
styles back then. How can we call one piece 'better' than another
because one is a direct copy of something we have documented, and the
other has some variations that are more pleasing to the ear or mind,
but are not documentable. Which is the better piece? The one that's
more pleasing to the audience or the one that is 'more authentic'?
This is intended largely as food for thought. I am of two minds on
'criteria' for bards or standards or whatever. Though I would like
to make one contention. We cannot pick our judges. Our Audience
judges us whether we want them to or not. When push comes to shove it
doesn't matter what WE say about what makes a good bard or a bad bard,
a beginner bard or an advanced bard. The audience will acclaim whom
the audience will acclaim and all we can do is learn what they want of
~Svetlana Andrejevna Volkova
On Jan 6, 2008 8:30 PM, Jay Rudin <rudin at ev1.net> wrote:
> Svetlana wrote:
> > Please define a "perfectly Period" Style?
> Not a chance.
> > I would, personally, argue we don't KNOW what perfectly period is
> > because we only have a limited amount of data about any given period.
> Agreed. Which has no effect on my point, which is that more authentic is
> better, just as more exciting is better, and more beautiful is better, and
> more of any good aspect of our bardcraft is better.
> Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
> Bards mailing list
> Bards at lists.ansteorra.org
More information about the Bards