Sir Peter Maxwell Davies criticises "piped muzak"

[djealnla]

Deleted

[john11inc]

One might attempt to patronise, but if that attempt does not have the desired effect, the attempt has failed, leaving it as a mere unsuccessful attempt.

One patronizes or does not patronize.  Whether such patronization is deemed effective in its goal or outcome is irrelevant to whether or not such patronization has occurred, and thus "an attempt at patronization" is a misnomer in this context, as the patronization itself has occurred, regardless of its efficacy, as, by definition, patronization is active and not causal.

Because I was responding to your post which didn't mention him at all!

You are aware that you do not need to respond to everything in sight?

I didn't actually say that it was anyone's fault; however, I did write "some of us", so nothing could be down to a single person's "reading abilities".

You're the only one who responded, so how could it matter?  Also, who is that "us"?  Is that the royal "us", as in the royal "we" you were complaining about earlier?

I know exactly what it means, just as I suspect that, in mentioning that word here, you are aware of which of those two words I had in mind when referring to the possibility of an incorrect vowel. Have a think about the mirror rather than spend your money on a dictionary for me, which I do not need, thanks all the same.

Oh, I'm sorry.  Are you making a joke about "anus"?  Please confirm this, so the people here may make their own confirmations thereof as to whether or not you're acting like a child, as I've stated.

Of course I'll admit to wrong-doing - and more than a mere modicum of it, at that! No one is perfect - certainly not me. We all do wrong sometimes; I certainly do. Accordingly, having made that admission, I very much look forward to receiving that .pdf file in due course (I assume that you already have my email address to which to send it) and I thank you profusely in advance for your kindness in offering to forward it to me.

Oh, I'm sorry, I did say "some kind", if I remember correctly.  Perhaps you should have asked which kind I was referring to.  I'm quite certain you know which kind that is: a retraction of some of the most ludicrously illogical and hypocritical things you've stated in this thread in the vein of worthless rhetoric (specificity is appreciated, and read as much into "appreciated" as you'd like).  I do not believe it fair that I have avoided such tactics, whereas your posts here seem to be comprised of almost nothing but, which I tend to regard you as being above.

[ahinton]

One patronizes or does not patronize.  Whether such patronization is deemed effective in its goal or outcome is irrelevant to whether or not such patronization has occurred, and thus "an attempt at patronization" is a misnomer in this context, as the patronization itself has occurred, regardless of its efficacy, as, by definition, patronization is active and not causal.

Once again, in your view. Patronising is a two-way affair; if the intended recipient is not patronised by the person trying to patronise, that person's attempt will have failed. Simple as that. You may retain your different view of this is it pleases you to do so; that is your prerogative.

You are aware that you do not need to respond to everything in sight?

Since you ask, yes, of course I am - and, indeed, if you bother to look carefully enough, you will find that I haven't.

You're the only one who responded, so how could it matter?  Also, who is that "us"?  Is that the royal "us", as in the royal "we" you were complaining about earlier?

Of course I was, since you were not obviously addressing your remarks to anyone else besides me or apparently expecting a response from anyone else besides me. Since you seem unclear about those whom I meant by "Some of us", it was certain of those who frequent this messageboard - and, in any case, I merely drew attention in that reference to the various colloquial usages of the first person plural rather than actually "complaining" as such about any particular usage thereof.

Oh, I'm sorry.  Are you making a joke about "anus"?  Please confirm this, so the people here may make their own confirmations thereof

Please do not apologise here; there is no need for that. I will - and indeed have need to - confirm nothing of the kind one way or the other, especially as I had quite clearly left it to you alone to form your own conclusions. "People here may make their own confirmations" - or rather interpret what they may choose to interpret as they so choose - without the need of any assistance from me.

Oh, I'm sorry

You're apologising again - equally needlessly (said he following one adverb with another as he shouldn't, really).

I did say "some kind", if I remember correctly.

But you appear not to remember correctly; you wrote

If you admit to even a modicum of wrong-doing I will get it again and send it to you

I don't see any reference to "some" or any particular "kind" of wrong-doing there, so when you follow that up with

Perhaps you should have asked which kind I was referring to.

my answer had quite clearly therefore to be in the negative and, in any case, I would not have had the slightest cause to ask you such a question.

Never mind. Can't wait to see that .pdf! As a matter of interest, does your friend have PMD's original ms. or a copy thereof? I'm sure that several people reading this thread will at least be interested to read the answer to that, if nothing else!

Come on; what do you think of Boulez's recent CD of Szymanowski? (you need not feel that you should reply in this thread, of course but, if you have something interesting to say on that subject, you might care to start another one in order to proffer your thoughts on this if so you choose)...

Best,

Alistair

[richard black]

Gosh, threads like this make the winter nights just fly by!

[ahinton]

Gosh, threads like this make the winter nights just fly by!

Oh, come now, Richard - there must surely be many so many better ways to help those winter nights on their way! That said, it would be good to see Max's orchestrations of the first two movements of OC if only someone could come up with them, wouldn't you say?

Best,

Alistair

[john11inc]

Once again, in your view. Patronising is a two-way affair; if the intended recipient is not patronised by the person trying to patronise, that person's attempt will have failed. Simple as that. You may retain your different view of this is it pleases you to do so; that is your prerogative.

Much like being hit by a baseball bat is a two-way affair; how much you enjoy being hit is unrelated to whether you were, in fact, hit (not that I'm a fan of this analogy, as I'm sure it will continue on about swinging and missing, but I'm too lazy to go with something else), the extent of the second party's involvement being that he was, indeed, hit.

Since you ask, yes, of course I am - and, indeed, if you bother to look carefully enough, you will find that I haven't.

Only to so many things you continually remind us that you don't see the point in responding to.

Of course I was, since you were not obviously addressing your remarks to anyone else besides me or apparently expecting a response from anyone else besides me. Since you seem unclear about those whom I meant by "Some of us", it was certain of those who frequent this messageboard - and, in any case, I merely drew attention in that reference to the various colloquial usages of the first person plural rather than actually "complaining" as such about any particular usage thereof.

If you were, "of course", then your wording is superfluous.  Now, is this "certainty" you mention again similar to the "obviousness" I brought up and that you derided?  Let me answer that for you: yes.  It is this type of hypocrisy that I know you're not unaware of, so questions regarding your intelligence have to be relocated to questions of your motives.

I will - and indeed have need to - confirm nothing of the kind one way or the other, especially as I had quite clearly left it to you alone to form your own conclusions. "People here may make their own confirmations" - or rather interpret what they may choose to interpret as they so choose - without the need of any assistance from me.

Yes, people are free to interpret puns about an "anus" however they choose, in regard to the maturity of your current postings.

But you appear not to remember correctly; you wroteI don't see any reference to "some" or any particular "kind" of wrong-doing there, so when you follow that up withmy answer had quite clearly therefore to be in the negative and, in any case, I would not have had the slightest cause to ask you such a question.

A shame I didn't word myself so specifically so-as to adhere to your standards, but the implication was clear enough to me that I'm afraid I'm going to have to hold you to such.

Never mind. Can't wait to see that .pdf! As a matter of interest, does your friend have PMD's original ms. or a copy thereof? I'm sure that several people reading this thread will at least be interested to read the answer to that, if nothing else!

It is a PDF which was a copy of the full score, which was hand-written.  That is all that I remember.

Come on; what do you think of Boulez's recent CD of Szymanowski? (you need not feel that you should reply in this thread, of course but, if you have something interesting to say on that subject, you might care to start another one in order to proffer your thoughts on this if so you choose)...

I am not an enormous fan of Szymanowski, so have not bothered to hear it, nor was I aware that it existed.

Your motives are unclear to me.  I do not believe I misinterpret your intent, but there are a number of things your internal monologue may be telling you what your reasoning is, all rather and inevitably phallic.  A shame that you believe your currently-chosen form of arguing, regardless of outcome, could possibly produce a worth-while victory.  I suggest you pick your fights better and hold out for something more in line with your areas of knowledge and expertise.

[mephisto]

John:


Condescending Fox


https://www.quickmeme.com/Condescending-Fox/

[ahinton]

Much like being hit by a baseball bat is a two-way affair; how much you enjoy being hit is unrelated to whether you were, in fact, hit (not that I'm a fan of this analogy, as I'm sure it will continue on about swinging and missing, but I'm too lazy to go with something else), the extent of the second party's involvement being that he was, indeed, hit.

Yes, it's not perhaps the best analogy, though at the same time it is arguably not the worst; anyway, there's surely no need, as this one's been ealt with already.

Only to so many things you continually remind us that you don't see the point in responding to.

Ending your sentence with a - oh, never mind. Anyway, the answer to that is "no".

If you were, "of course", then your wording is superfluous.  Now, is this "certainty" you mention again similar to the "obviousness" I brought up and that you derided?  Let me answer that for you: yes.

Again, this matter has already been answered fully, so there is nothing more to be said than that you clearly enjoy answering for others. Go ahead; be someone's guest...

Yes, people are free to interpret puns about an "anus" however they choose

People are free to do whatever they may want here; whether or not they do this or how they do what they do is up to each of them.

A shame I didn't word myself so specifically so-as to adhere to your standards, but the implication was clear enough to me that I'm afraid I'm going to have to hold you to such.

No particular shame in not remembering every detail, even if you wrote such detail yourself. My "standards" do not come into it here; you might have meant to add something and you didn't, so I took you at your word. Your "implication" may have been clear to you, but since you had not made it clear to me and possibly not to anyone else, then you do not "hold me" to anything, thanks.

It is a PDF which was a copy of the full score, which was hand-written.  That is all that I remember.

OK; thanks for that information. As a matter of interest, do you happen to know if PMD is aware of the current whereabouts either of his original ms. or of the copy that you mention that your friend has?

I am not an enormous fan of Szymanowski, so have not bothered to hear it, nor was I aware that it existed.

OK - fair enough.

Your motives are unclear to me.

Evidently. Don't worry unduly about it!

I do not believe I misinterpret your intent, but there are a number of things your internal monologue may be telling you what your reasoning is, all rather and inevitably phallic.

Whilst I have no idea how or whether you may interpret my intent at any given moment, you don't have to explain the remainder of what you write here, although both its meaning (if any) and the reason for your reasoning (if that's what it is) will remain unclear in the absence of credible explanation.

A shame that you believe your currently-chosen form of arguing, regardless of outcome, could possibly produce a worth-while victory.

From what do you conclude that I have any such belief? I have not sought, nor do I seek, any kind of "victory" here, so any such notion must acconrdingly be confined to your personal imagination.

I suggest you pick your fights better

Perhaps my memory is failing me at present as your did recently, because I could have sworn that I'd already clarified that I am not picking a fight here or elsewhere; as I cannot now find that reference, I can only assume that I may accidentally have omitted to mention this salient fact so, for the sake of due understanding, let me state it now, unequivocally - I am not interested in "picking fights" as some people are and I am therefore not doing so here. Your "suggestion" is therefore unnecessary.

and hold out for something more in line with your areas of knowledge and expertise.

I always try to do that as best I can, within the confines of those areas; I am not, however, arrogant enough to claim success in every case.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

John:


Condescending Fox


https://www.quickmeme.com/Condescending-Fox/

I have always been against what in England has been both quaintly and revoltingly described as "the sport of kings" - i.e. what Oscar Wilde famously and far more appropriately described as the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable - namely foxhunting, but I may not fully have appreciated all the reasons why until recently(!). The prospect of Sir Peter Maxwell Davies casseroling the odd swan that he neither hunted nor shot but which happened by mischance to meet with its own death within his immediate vicinity seems infinitely more palatable and eschews the ridiculous "sporting" notion that, in foxhunting, inevitably accompanies the intended killing of certain animals when a bunch of ridiculously dress toffs ride indiscriminately over the English countryside with a bunch of yapping dogs in tow.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

As much as Max doth deprecate all "muzak",
He loves the plangent sound of Scottish "pipes";
Though should he read this thread in full (on prozac*?),
He surely would despair and yell "oh, cripes!"
(anon, 21st century)


* he'd probably need prozac in order to read it in full...

Best,

Alistair

[john11inc]

John:


Condescending Fox


https://www.quickmeme.com/Condescending-Fox/

Oh.  I definitely like this.



I think this is the one for Alistair:

https://www.quickmeme.com/Lame-Pun-Coon/

[john11inc]

[ahinton]

OK, all very amusing, to be sure but, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I think that, after these Renardesque diversions, it would be good to get back to Sir Peter Foxwell Davies and his campaign to hunt down those responsible for the widespread use of piped muzak; tally-ho!

Quite what the forum member to whom Thal occasionally refers as the "foxy lady" might think of all this, I have no idea, however...

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

Oh.  I definitely like this.



I think this is the one for Alistair:

https://www.quickmeme.com/Lame-Pun-Coon/

Legendary!

[ahinton]

"Lame Pun Coon" does seem to me to sound like an Oriental name (said he, digging himself in even deeper)...

Best,

Alistair

[john11inc]

I don't understand.  How does one actually post their edit of a meme onto the site?  I see someone has already stolen my Juilliard one (and reworded it awkwardly).

[djealnla]

And to think, I thought you were asexual.

Alistair isn't asexual, here I can provide conclusive evidence:   

Never having had sex on toast (and never having previously realised that this was a traditional repast beloved of northern English choristers), I'll have to take your word for that, but if the majority of the piano music by the abovementioned composers (Leighton perhaps excepted) is itself anything like sex on toast, then I'll continue to enjoy the two things separately, thanks!

[ahinton]

Alistair isn't asexual, here I can provide conclusive evidence:   

Well spotted and remembered! - although I believe that the issue here (if indeed it is an issue at all) was what john11inch thought, rather than the facts themselves; as I observed, however, there is no obvious reason fror him to have formed any conclusions on that subject one way or the other, particularly since he has never met me and, in any case, I fail to see what possible relevance it might have to Sir Peter Maxwell Davies or piped muzak.

Best,

Alistair