(Note: This post has been updated (2) as of 6:39 AM Eastern on 13 Nov. See below)
Weblogger of elegance, George Hunka of Superfluities, misreads the central thrust of my eMail comments reprinted here by weblogger Steve Hicken of Listen as referring generally to this post by Mr. Hunka. They in fact referred principally to this post by me, and my cautionary remark vis-à-vis that post was intended simply to point out to Mr. Hicken that the "bias" of my remarks in that post where "impressionistic" analysis in critical writing on music was given normative status over the "hard-core technical" was due entirely to my focusing exclusively on general critical writing for "civilians" rather than professionals, with the implied suggestion that had the case been the reverse (i.e., my focusing on critical writing for professionals rather than "civilians"), so would the status assigned by me to the two analytic methods.
I in fact said nothing about Mr. Hunka's post generally, merely pointing out to Mr. Hicken that in the single excerpt in question Mr. Hunka said essentially the same thing I said, the only substantive difference being that because of the framing of his remark in that excerpt, Mr. Hunka assigned (or seemed to assign) normative status more to the "hard-core technical" than the "impressionistic"; an assessment with which Mr. Hicken agreed, and in fact cited as one of the reasons he found Mr. Hunka's remark in that excerpt more congenial than mine (the other reason being that he found Mr. Hunka's remark to be more elegantly expressed than mine; an assessment with which I agree).
I trust I do not make myself obscure.
Update (7:43 PM Eastern on 11 Nov): George Hunka responds. Seems to me a simple mea culpa would have been more appropriate. Or perhaps that eMail of mine would better have remained eMail — or never been written.
Update (6:39 AM Eastern on 13 Nov): For the end (hopefully) to all this, see this post.
On The Road To Prohibition
