Never the less, a friend of mine is almost beyond pleasure at the moment listening to this piece and I am in a state of bewilderment. It starts with someone attempting to play the flute whilst someone else bangs a drum.
Ah, the "I do not like it so it is crap" stance again. Personal taste and preference equated with absolute truth. You have a lot of snobby friends then, do you?all best,gep
Yes; again. As it is a case of "again", you can direct us to previous instances of such, assuredly. I hope nobody dares say Peter Maxwell Davies (or any composer [or anything, ever]) is not good on this forum, lest the stupid-police (read: you) interject when it is in opposition to your equally-unfounded statements that something is good, or even a lack thereof. Of course, the explicit statement I made regarding pretentiousness was overlooked, and I'm sure you can amplify on reasons to like him much more adequately, logically and unequivocally than I can do in support of disliking him. Which you have done somewhere, by the way? Which is, of course, not only the purpose of this thread, but also the expected depth of a post here, right? Please direct me to where I stated such things as any more unequivocal than the other members here, and please tell us why you're so positive that the linguistic truism that most people don't shove, "My opinion is," in front of everything they say when it might be appropriate isn't what was happening in my post. I'm really curious.
Give it another decade or two, and maybe you'll be able to sound like Alistair; we can all see how hard you're trying.
Now that is funny.
Almost fell off me chair.
Unless I am misunderstanding him, gep was drawing attention to instances when anyone disses a work or a composer merely because he/she happens not to enjoy listening to that work or that composer; I didn't notice him suggesting that it was only you that does or did this.
Give it another decade or two, and maybe you'll be able to sound like Alistair
we can all see how hard you're trying.
Now that is funny.Almost fell off me chair.Thal
Now that would be decidedly unfunny; none of us here wants you to suffer an accident and sustain possible injury!
perhaps you or someone else might care to steer the thread back to that topic by writing it.
My English is lacking (again); hasn't "umbrage" something to do with "fooly age"?
I am glad for you happiness! After all, no circus would be complete without at least one Fool to invoke myrth in the kiddies, and it would seem JollyJohn has been a succes there!
If anything useful and instructive remains to be written here about the actual topic, perhaps you or someone else might care to steer the thread back to that topic by writing it.
Even though you might not sound alike, you have to admit that there are certain similarities in posting styles.
I have nothing more to say on this subject. I will start on John McCabe next.Postie has just been and plonked Piano Concerto No.1 on my desk, so I'd better try and find a recording.No doubt great joys await.
I have nothing more to say on this subject. I will start on John McCabe next.Postie has just been and plonked Piano Concerto No.1 on my desk, so I'd better try and find a recording.No doubt great joys await.Thal
Gosh, Thal, a concerto by a still alive composer! There is hope yet!
Speaking for myself (and I do so here only because you mention me towards the end of your post), had I been addressing your allegation of PMD's pretentiousness, I would not have ignored it but may instead have felt inclined to seek some clarification as to the specific grounds upon which you believe that PMD's music is indeed "pretentious", in your view.
As to the "linguistic truism" to which you refer here, there is an well-worn cliché in the financial services industry in England that runs "if it isn't written, it didn't happen"; whilst I would not advocate that this be applied as matter of course in the manner of a tenet in contexts such as the present one
it is surely another kind of truism to state that the additional trouble involved in writing "to me," in front of "Peter Maxwell Davies' music is worse than the crap heard in elevators" is negligible and, in any case, it might have been more enlightening had you clarified what it is about PMD's music (are you referring to all of it here? - you do not state otherwise) that you dislike so much that you would "elevate" elevator music above it.
Might you care to identify and explain the particular alleged linguistic truism that you see as being enshrined in this statement and, in so doing, tell us what you meant by it?
and, while you're about it, could you also confirm by way of example the identities of those to whom you refer here by the words "we...all"? I'm really curious!
You did not understand me wrongly here!I will take this as an implicit compliment. Unless you have the results of a representative poll among the Forum members substantiating the "we", I will assume you have ascended to the royal plural? (Next stop: the divine Capital Letter?)I am glad for you happiness! After all, no circus would be complete without at least one Fool to invoke myrth in the kiddies, and it would seem JollyJohn has been a succes there!If only in those who suffers the consequences of the sudden and unexpected local earthquake...An attempt; how many of the Forum have enjoyed muzak, and, if so, in which circumstances? And why?all best,gep Alistair Jr.
Well that's a lovely piece of information that he shared to me,
Perhaps...he could have included a word or two that would have differentiated the possibilities.
An Autism-like, literal reading of his post would correlate to your point of view,
I'm not always in the mood to write titanic posts, nor is that the topic of this thread, nor do I think it would be worth expanding upon the statement, considering the depth and array of information that would be required to make such an argument strong enough to bother posting it in the first place (and as such, would not be read and/or responded to in a way to merit its existence; at least that's what history here would dictate).
I do not refer to the amount of which I refer to. As I said, I'm uninterested in that conversation.
My primary issue was with whatever ulterior motive(s) may be present in (gep's) posting, considering the fact that such sorts of statements have been made numerous times in this thread, so to single out one on such a basis is conspicuous at best.
Not really, because you're not making it clear what you're referring to
Sorry, but that is the Imperial American "we". As in, "we" know the sky is blue, or "we" know puppies are cute. It's similar to the royal "we", except we use it only in cases of unmitigated truth so that we do not have to take a clipboard around to everyone in the world and check them off after asking, "did you know X?" We do not have to do such because it is so obvious we assume that anyone who does not know X (or in this case, can not see that X is the case) is not someone whose mental facilities are great enough that their opinion is worth anything.
Shared "with" you, surely?
Gep wrote [1- comma] "Ah, the [2, 3- incorrect apostrophe usage] "I do not like it so it is crap" stance again. Personal taste and preference equated with absolute truth" [4- period outside of quotation]. It was less "directed at" you (as though you were the only person [5- disjunct clause] ever to adopt such a stance) than issued as a response to the passage that he quoted from you.Why would this have been necessary? Had he specifically observed that this kind of statement was the kind that he only ever [6- tense] reads from you, [7- tense] he would have been accusing you alone [8- comma] and that would have been unreasonable; as he did not do so [9- comma] and as plenty of other people here have made similar remarks at one time or another, his remark self-evidently inveighs against anyone who does it, [10- fragment] not just one person who does it.That post can be [11- comma] and indeed has been [12- comma] read literally, but that does not presume also reading it " [13- capitalization] autistically", whatever that may mean.I wasn't referring to [14a- comma, 14b- nor] or expecting [15- comma] a voluminous dissertation [16- improper hyphen usage]- merely a thumbnail sketch of what bothers you so much about PMD's music, fleshed out with a handful of illustrations and reasons; as you rightly say, however, this is not the thread topic. [17- hyphenated statement dangling]My reference to the financial services industry cliché was by no means intended as a mere "anecdotal aside" [18- comma] in the context of your "linguistic truism"; whilst noting that one would not wish to have it adhered to without exception, it remains unclear in and of itself whether anyone who writes as you did about PMD's music is expressing the writer's personal opinion or what he/she believes to be a general value [19- spelling] judgement. [20- fragment] End of.If I understand [21- comma] correctly [22- comma] your meaning here ([23- preposition initiating parenthetical statement] and I'm not entirely certain that I do), you have no interest in declaring whether you were referring to specific pieces by PMD, his output as a whole [24- comma] or everything of his that you have heard; that's your prerogative, of course, just as it had been mine to ask.He "singled out" one because he was replying to one; that does not mean that he is any [25- hyphen] less aware than are you and I that statements of the kind [26- run-on] that he deprecates are far from uncommon on this board, nor does it signify that he has an "ulterior motive" in his remarks beyond airing them.I had written [27- comma]"Might you care to identify and explain the particular alleged linguistic truism that you see as being enshrined in this statement and, in so doing, tell us what you meant by it?"in response to your [28- comma]"Give it another decade or two, and maybe you'll be able to sound like Alistair; we can all see how hard you're trying."What I am referring to is surely clear [29- colon]; I'm asking you what you mean by those two statements and why you appear to believe them to be true.OK [30- incorrect hyphen usage]- well, that somewhat [31- hyphen] unnecessarily convoluted explanation clarifies what I had already assumed but just wanted to make sure I had understood correctly; however, "we" [32- comma]in any context [33- comma] must refer to at least two people and [34- run-on], in this one, you confirm that you are seeking to make it apply universally [35- comma] as though you [36- tense] have stated an "unmitigated truth", but [37- since] since your statement is nothing of the kind and you have [38- comma] in any case written [39- comma] nothing in an attempt to support its alleged "linguistic truism", "we" can only dispute it as indeed "we" do.Anyway, back (with no small relief) to Sir Peter Muzakswell Davies [40- improper ellipsis syntax]...Best,Alistair
Surely not; the usage was obviously phonetic
, given the context of the rest of the sentence, and used purposefully, given the assertion made therein.
But if that's worth mentioning, then so is the following:So many gnats.
If someone directs a comment at you, which is what happens when your comment is quoted and critiqued, then the normal, human assumption is that such critique is directed at that, specific comment. Your logic becomes ridiculous when applied to other situations. When someone does this to only one of many such comments, without mention the others, then it becomes conspicuous if the view points of the two people involved are opposing.
Trying to nitpick such patently obvious things is pointless, not that I don't believe I haven't adequately nitpicked back, regardless.
Making arguments for such specificity of wording in the case of my posts, and then doing the opposite in the case of others, is also illogical. You cannot have it both ways.
I am really glad I don't have the intelligence to understand that.
Obvious to whom?
That's two givens without so much as a semicolonic irrigation between them - but then British English applications are often not the same as Alabamic ones.
Apart from the fact that, in British English, "viewpoints" is one word rather than two, the rest of what you write here seems determined to disappear up the posterior of its own attempts at expression which, "given"(!) some of the more interesting things that you write, seems a particular disappointment (at least to me).
If you must, you carry on living and working with your nits and gnats, for I have no interest in such things, personally.
Illustrative examples would not come amiss for the benefit of anyone interested, but I'll have "it" (whatever "it" may or may not be) as many ways as are possible, assuming that there are any in the first place and assuming also that I could care less, frankly.
John - why not stick to writing the interesting and engaging things that you do here from time to time?
Anyone who's actually going to bother going to the trouble of thinking about it, something I highly recommend before posting about it.
A shame that you Brits can't keep up with us Alabamians, or at least in the case between me and you. There are no semicolons because each instance refers to two things separated by that "and" you seem to be overlooking.
I'm sorry; am I about to quote you where you say you're not interested in nits and gnats, which refer to grammatical issues? Not to mention the above-quoted issue regarding unnecessary semicolons. Just drawing attention to more of your hypocrisy.
As far as my writing was concerned, if you can't read it, that's not my problem. It is constructed correctly; use your brain. When you can't read something, that makes you stupid, not the writer, assuming the passage is grammatically correct, which mine was.
As I said. Or is this an extremely sudden disinterest?
And to think, I thought you were asexual.
Or am I taking you out of context in some ridiculous manner that completely obfuscates the original point?
Apparently, Gep isn't the only person emulating you today.
For you to fail to comprehend, apparently?
To my "obvious to whom" you wrote...which sadly doesn't actually identify anyone at all and will continue not to do so until and unless anyone chooses to come forward and seeks to admit to being one of those that makes up your "anyone"; never mind.
I'm afraid that the only "overlooking" here is yours in not recognising the differences of inflection and nuance between certain specifics of established (though still fluid) British and apparent Alabamesque English usage, but that's up to you if indeed it's up to anyone at all (which is arguably debatable).
Given the above, it might seem to be your own hypocrisy rather than anyone else's to which you are actually "drawing attention" here but, even if so, that is not my problem, particularly since your apparent lack of appreciation of the differences beween certain usages and conventions of English in different parts of the world where English is a predominant language appears to fuel certain of your more defensive remarks, for reasons or otherwise best known (if at all) to you alone, it would seem.
I can read your writings without problem, notwithstanding those differences of convention in the use of English to which I referred above (and I am not referring here to your sentence construction with which I have little problem in any case), so the remainder of your purportedly accusational expression simply fails to apply. Never mind.
but it appears that I need to assure you - as indeed I am now doing - that the distinct disinterest on my part is far from "sudden".
Who's doing this thinking and why? And what on earth made you think, as you purport to do, in the above statement and on what grounds? As in so many other instances, the nature and content of your thoughts are your own problem and no one else's (which is perhaps just as well sometimes).
Youris as gratuituous and ungracious a remark as one might expect as a response to myJohn - why not stick to writing the interesting and engaging things that you do here from time to time?.
Were I not to comprehend and appreciate the kind of writing that you do when you're concentrating on something interesting rather than going around in ever-decreasing circles of your own contrivance on one or other of your all-too-well-known rants, I would not have written as I did. Live with it. Or without it. The choice (if any) is yours and yours alone.
In the meantime, why not go get Boulez going on that Quatrième Sonate and Carter to worh on the Sixth Quartet that he's persistently assured us all that he will not write? If successful, plenty of us will genuinely appreciate that!
You seem de temps en temps to enjoy picking fights. I do not. Consequently, I don't do so because I really cannot be bothered, although that does not mean that I'll necessarily decline to respond to various things that are posted.
I bet the Montgolfier Brothers wished they had this much hot air at their disposal.
You're correct: it does not identify any concerned parties, the only concerned party being you.
Nuance and inflection are not syntactical constructions, whereas a semicolon is. They are unrelated. To use a semicolon in the vein of "nuance", whatever you mean by it, would be incorrect, and would be something that's actually worth complaining about. The two instances of "given" modify separate participles, and therefore present no errors in construction. Not that it was worth writing about either way because, as you have said/continue to say, you're not interested in such things. Your assuredly-sincere disinterest is belied by the amount of time you've spent writing about them.
It could seem that way to someone, but I doubt it. Tirades about semicolons interspersed with instigating demagogy about how you don't care about such things (things such as semicolons) fits the definition of hypocrisy quite neatly. And here you are, still going on about the differences between English and American syntax, as if I'm honestly not aware of them.
I'm sorry; are you not aware of the differences between American and English grammar? Or are you the only one who can call such an argument to your aid(e)? If it is pointless for me to bring up such things (not that you're correct either way, regarding the semicolons) then please explain why it is worth your time to bring them up?
So it is long-standing, but simply vacillatory? Please explain why you have gone to all the above-trouble when you have no interest in doing such things? Is it a BDSM thing?
It's not my problem, nor anyone's (unless it's yours). You are the one that stated such a thing; should I dredge up proof?
Then I shall return to writing such things, but for the time being, if you are going to call me into question in whatever way you deem preferable, then I shall retaliate. Perhaps you should also go back to writing your much more informed posts; I fail to see why you feel the right to hold me to a double-standard.
It's patently obvious (and there's that word "obvious" again; let's not explode, now) that you are the one who is at the apex of failing to live with it. How can my posts here be more contrived than yours, if they are so similar? Again, the double-standard.
Because I have never spoken to Carter in my life, and because Boulez is working on a series of small piano pieces, as a matter of fact, one of them having already been premiered. However, the percentage of people on this forum that would appreciate more music by Carter and/or Boulez is, perhaps, smaller than what your diction would insinuate.
Carter
I also doubt that many here have much time for Xenakis, who died ten years ago today.
You almost made it to 6 Carterless posts.Just one short of your personal record.Well done.
"Understand me wrongly", nested quotations, ending phrases with incorrectly parsed ellipses, that sign-off and referencing the royal we?Seriously.
Secondly, that sign-off isn't mine. I never would dream of signing off that way, or any way other then "gep" unless there might be a reason. I do not know how you come by that (falsified) sign-off, or whether you invented it yourself or not.
As for the use of the colon, I must compliment on your writing, for reading to even one of your lengty post helps evacuate my colon at speed.
Truly all you write is a kind of written Muzak: unavoidable, nagging, empty, loud and sadly irrepressible
John, you truly are the biggest star on this Forum!
End of story on that side-thread as far as I'm concerned. Back to the main issue here!
But yes, back to the topic indeed - and the sooner the better (assuming, of course, that members still have something to contribute to it).
Woelfl.
First off let me compliment Gep on his use of English. I had been reading his posts for quite a while and did not know he was Dutch until he made some reference to where he lived. I must admit that I don't spend a lot effort learning other languages. I can't imagine how much time would be needed to get a second language up to Gep's level of English (his second language).
Secondly, we must all realize that in this age of shrinking subsidies we will be depending more and more on ticket sales to support our music. Our public is not sufficiently educated to understand "cutting-edge" modern music. The incessant playing of canned popular music wherever we go is partly to blame. There are other factors of course. Still we must sell those tickets to the performance. If our public can't understand what we are performing, selling those tickets will be very difficult.
First off let me compliment Gep on his use of English. I had been reading his posts for quite a while and did not know he was Dutch until he made some reference to where he lived. I must admit that I don't spend a lot effort learning other languages. I can't imagine how much time would be needed to get a second language up to Gep's level of English (his second language). Secondly, we must all realize that in this age of shrinking subsidies we will be depending more and more on ticket sales to support our music. Our public is not sufficiently educated to understand "cutting-edge" modern music. The incessant playing of canned popular music wherever we go is partly to blame. There are other factors of course. Still we must sell those tickets to the performance. If our public can't understand what we are performing, selling those tickets will be very difficult.
Whatever, Alistair; anyone who bothers to read that discourse has had more than ample opportunity to see the errors in your logic that I have discussed, and vice-versa, as you may believe, and retrospectively as I may merely believe in the case of the former, and given that the specific topics don't seem to be changing, I doubt further elucidation on them would be useful and/or necessary to anyone who would wish to gauge such statements' voracity.@ Gep: you should see a doctor. I don't know what GI's are called in the Netherlands, but that sounds like what you need. As well, you completely misunderstand my post. I was not deriding your use of English, but drawing parallels between its and Alistair's style. So, while your English my be adequate, perhaps your critical reading skills could still use some honing, as I'm certain it was clear what my intentions were.Now, back to which topic, exactly? There seem to be a number of them. Are we talking about elevator music, non-classical music as a whole or the erosion of classical music in contemporary society? These are all very different questions.However, I will say that bashing all non-classical music is about as stupid as bashing all classical music, considering the varieties of quality and sound present in either.
I really cannot be bothered to respond to your attempts at patronising, especially since they fail so miserably and are so obviously so unnecessary to anyone other than yourself, particularly since I am far more interested in the fact that you have gone to the trouble to post a considerable amount of interesting material in the women composers' thread which is surely of far greater value than any of this stuff.
Many thanks for your kind compliment! May I ask if English is your first language and, if not, what is? Lastly, if you see how much money goes to the arts, and compare that to the complete amount of money spent by the government, we’re talking peanuts. If we here buy one JSF plane less, we can keep the art subsidies quite well on level. I for one would choose the arts over a fighting plane we do not need!
If you can't be bothered to respond, then your paragraph should be nothing more than the first tenth of this sentence you have written. In fact, it should not exist in the first place.
I was not patronizing you
I was explaining the state of affairs that further discussion of the topics you keep dragging on just as much as I do (possibly more, considering I had, in all senses, proposed to end the discussion)
is not useful, because you have failed to amplify on my own continuations
there is nothing more to speak of
I've done my part in attempting to end this
I suggest you stop acting like a child by seeking the proverbial "last word"
the mental image is disturbing.
I am not the one calling for the discussion to end; you are
The onus
In your view.Of course you weren't; you couldn't. I used the words "attempts at" with good reason.You had, had you? Well, well!Why the "on"? Isn't "amplify", tout court, sufficient of itself? Or am I perhaps missing an American English convention here? (I certainly don't pretend to be familiar with them all).There's always "Sir Peter Maxwell Davies criticises "piped muzak""...As I implied above, some of us may not have noticed that.Still attempting, I see! The only words that I'd seek here are some more on the thread topic, as I have already stated.Many mental images can disturb some people; which ones do that to you is up to you and not anyone else's problem, frankly.Well, if my repeated requests for the topic to be re-addressed constitutes "calling for the discussion to end", then Britain and America are a good deal more divided by a common language than I had thought.Hmmm - wrong vowel there, perhaps; got a mirror (on which to dwell)?
Anyway - whilst it's only about part of the topic, does anyone here have any idea what might have happened to PMD's orchestration of the first two movements of Opus Clavicembalisticum? (a very long shot indeed, I admit, but there's still no harm in asking)...
I think this conversation has reached the stage when neither of you are talking about the same issue.
One of my sources has told me it's currently in possession of the Thalbergmad Archive.
I really cannot be bothered to respond to your attempts at patronising, especially since they fail so miserably and are so obviously so unnecessary to anyone other than yourself, particularly since I am far more interested in the fact that you have gone to the trouble to post a considerable amount of interesting material in the women composers' thread which is surely of far greater value than any of this stuff.Alistair
In your view.
Of course you weren't; you couldn't. I used the words "attempts at" with good reason.
You had, had you? Well, well!
Why the "on"? Isn't "amplify", tout court, sufficient of itself? Or am I perhaps missing an American English convention here? (I certainly don't pretend to be familiar with them all).
There's always "Sir Peter Maxwell Davies criticises "piped muzak""...
As I implied above, some of us may not have noticed that.
Still attempting, I see! The only words that I'd seek here are some more on the thread topic, as I have already stated.
Many mental images can disturb some people; which ones do that to you is up to you and not anyone else's problem, frankly.
Well, if my repeated requests for the topic to be re-addressed constitutes "calling for the discussion to end", then Britain and America are a good deal more divided by a common language than I had thought.
Hmmm - wrong vowel there, perhaps; got a mirror (on which to dwell)?
Yes; in my view, if one "has nothing to say", and subsequently says a lot, there is a discrepancy. You're saying we don't share that view?
Is "attempt at" not only necessary to convey the meaning of what I said, but can an "attempt" at patronization render patronization nonexistent? By definition, one patronizes or one doesn't, regardless of the other person's feelings on the matter.
You are simply using the word incorrectly, in that case, American vs. English conventions not being applicable. One can amplify things, in the case of speakers, electrical currents and a sforzando, but one amplifies upon or on statements. I believe upon is preferred, so I'm afraid you missed the correct way to complain about this, not that I don't think on is also 100% correct.
Then Peter Maxwell Davies is mentioned only once is such a long post because?
Again, you can't paint me as some evil bad guy
That's my fault because? That would be your poor reading abilities, not mine.
Don't worry
That was worth writing as well, was it?
Which discussion? The discussion regarding Peter Maxwell Davies, or the discussion between us about how the other is being an idiot?
Which one? "The" or "onus" (the two words you quoted)? Because neither of those are vowels.
Please explain where a mirror comes into play, by the way. And while I'm out, I'll be sure to pick up a dictionary for you, because the obvious assumption here is that you have no idea what the word "onus" means, for some reason.
My friend has a PDF of them, which I used to have but discarded. If you admit to even a modicum of wrong-doing I will get it again and send it to you.
Topic: Sir Peter Maxwell Davies criticises "piped muzak" 