In a message dated 4/3/2001 11:57:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
johnlink@c... writes:
<< But isn't a soloist also a part of a community of performers, >>
not in the way a choral singer is. a chorus is a team. soloists are
exactly that, soloists. despite the pc notion that soloists are playing
their part in concert with the greater good, this is not true. a soloist
who screws up takes all the blame. other soloists are not blamed for their
mistakes nor are they given credit for the success of that soloist. one of
the benefits of being a soloist is to stand on one's own and bask in that
glory and the possibility of screwing up, is the price one pays for the
chance at that glory. as a soloist is relative to the greater good, the
greater good in their case is a restriction, not a community.
choristers are one of several or more covering the same task. there is
always someone there to cover, and the chorister is there, in turn, to cover
for others. success is shared by the team and so is failure.
the chorus and the soloist, by definition, are different creatures like
members of a herd are different from the lone predator.
and this isn't even going into the ugly back stabbing sub-culture that
often occurs around soloists. i am merely speaking of the nature of the two
beasts.
lastly, as i'm trying to unload a bridge myself, i'm not really in the
market for any other bridges, no matter how fine the artifice might be.
mike
|
