@ Jag: I think this was a good post. Spot on. But likely to fall on deaf ears, I think.


"y last post was mainly to explain to Jim (at his request) how I came to regard him as a 'mediator'. It's simple - he is between us and his singers. I also explained how in most cases the context of passing on the information meant that we got the parts that he thought were relevant at the time. There will be other things that Jim thinks are important that have never come up so he has not told us about, or put in a discussion we have forgotten. Even if he wrote a book (which I would want to read) he would have to be prepared for scholarly types to cross-question him on things. Other people may have written things that don't fit with Jim's account and it is part of a scholar's job to notice those things ('compare and contrast' etc.)"