Hello Lfjslohll:
Regarding your edit to the Segovia entry of 9 March, you wrote that "'specific' is not a redundant word here: Early music needs mannersisms, but (arguably) somewhat different mannerisms than those employed by Segovia)". The wording in the text is "his specific personal mannerisms are often considered less idiomatic (or inappropriate) to the style". I would argue that "specific" is, indeed redundant, because of the word "personal." Perhaps you would have less objection to deleting the word "personal", although his mannerisms are VERY personal, so I would still prefer to see "specific" go. However, I will not delete either word without further discussion.
-Robert Phillips
Greetings from Mars, Robert!
The problem about Segovia, is not his "personal" mannerisms. Personal is great! (It's so different from today's ignorant virtuosi, who aren't even fit to shine young Segovia's shoes, in my opinion!).
The problem is that his personal mannerisms (i.e. his "specific" ones) are often not idiomatic to the style (performance practice). Someone else's "personal" mannerisms might be better. But then again - Mars is colder than Earth, so the cold pressure on my brain, might ummm... ahhhhh...: damn it's cold here. ;)
Lfjslohll (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lfjslohll:
I totally agree about the problem with Segovia's mannerisms. My disagreement is about the clarity of the the language. But your point is well taken, and I would have to agree that both "specific" and "personal", although they may appear redundant at first blush, are actually important to the completeness of the statement.
rguitphil (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)