Hamelin estimated that the audience consisted of about 25 people, whereas Alistair stated that there were about 100 people present at the concert.
@Thalbergmad, that was one funny post, even if I don't share your distaste for Sorabji's music!
They were scattered about the auditorium, so it's a little hard to give a good estimate.
The fact that only 25 people showed up to Jonathan Powell's recital just shows how sad the state of affairs in the arts is in whatever venue he performed in.
This is true, but on the other hand it is pleasing that such a top notch pianist would dedicate so much of his time to playing lesser known composers and unperformed works.No doubt Mr Powell would play in front of much larger audiences if he were to perform Beethoven Sonatas, Liszt transcriptions and Chopin Etudes, but thank gawd he don't.Thal
I can only fully agree with what you write!
WHAT??
Perhaps I should have given you a warning before posting my, clearly shocking, message? I do recall you agreeing with me on occasion. I'm still haven't entirely recovered, so I feel your pain...
In absolutely no way does such a tautological and obvious statement conform to what was originally insinuated in response to my relaying of Ian Pace's failure (not that it's a failure, and I would consider it a failure on his part if he did bother to respond, considering the vacuity permeating this thread).
Should I really bother to point out the unbelievable hypocrisy of this post?
It is a fact that Sorabji had misogynistic views; whether they were as strong as one might infer from only being familiar with the documents that specifically deal with it doesn't detract from the fact that he was a misogynist.
Sorabji's music is extremely self-reverential, in my opinion.
Qualifying that his music somehow has a misogynistic aspect to it is incredibly difficult to do, but I think it is intuitively obvious that there is a strong possibility of such,
given that there are many things that one could point to in order to quasi-substantiate such a view.
Frankly, Ian Pace is a terrifyingly smart person
lucubrations
Yet again I find myself getting my dictionary off the shelf.
You would have made an excellent contestant on Call My Bluff.
undult
Thalbergmad and Ahinton act like a bunch of girls in love if theyre together on a thread, and our dear (late) Pianistimo was in state of heavenly gibberish all the time.Gyzzzmo
*nod nod*
Yes - it's probably time for you to nod off if you've not already done so; neither Thal nor I are "actors", nor is either one of us a part of any kind of "bunch", nor have "girls in love" any connection with anything that you might be trying to write about either of us here and, as to "pianistimo", I have no evidence of her death so would not presume that any use of the term "late" in respect of her is appropriate, let alone correct, irrespective of the arguably gibberish nature of some of her many so many past posts. OK, you are here quoting the egregious "gyzzzmo" (whose tally of "z"s is admittedly already more than enough to prompt anyone to nod off) rather than offering up your own personal sentiments, but it seems nevertheless appropriate to question the validity and/or usefulness of your so doing.What any of this has to do with Ian Pace - let alone Sorabji - is, however quite beyond me.Best,Alistair
Just remember, sesquipedalian pleonasm does not imply eloquence or sophistication. How any of this relates to the topic? I guess it's worth as much as Ian Pace's opinions.
OHHHH, i do love bossy women.Thal
Get out, you silly ass. Your bullcrap is of interest to no one.
Thank you for your kind words.
Just remember, sesquipedalian pleonasm does not imply eloquence or sophistication.
How any of this relates to the topic?
I guess it's worth as much as Ian Pace's opinions.
Should I send you the link to my YouTube channel, then?
OHHHH, i do love bossy women.
1. None of the posts after mine are on topic. Neither are the two posts immediately above my first post here, one of which is yours.Why don't you say that you're off topic yourself, or the people who are on your side? Don't be a filthy hypocrit
2. Why are you arguing against the quote literally? Are you not intelligent enough to realize that it wasn't meant to be understood literally? Do you really think that I was trying to say you and thal are "actors"?
Or are you purposely pretending to be stupid to avoid the key point, which is that you and thal go on and on about nothing?
Or are you simply trying to show off your writing?
3. I never said ahinton isn't capable of clear and concise writing. And this is exactly why I wrote my second reply here; language is a form of communication. If you can communicate properly but choose not to, that's just sad. Why would you try to show off your writing on an internet forum? This isn't poetry class, there's no point in making people get a dictionary or at least read a few times to understand what you're saying. Clearly you're only doing this to show off, which is meaningless and childish.
4. What is the topic?Whether you agree with Ian Pace's stance on Sorabji's music?It would be better titled "What do you think of Sorabji's music", since essentially people would like his music will like it, and people who don't won't. It has nothing to do with Ian Pace.Or is the topic What is Ian Pace's stance on Sorabji's music?
How would you know, unless he told you? And if he has told you, what is there to argue about? And why does it even matter?
Or is the topic Is Ian Pace's stance on Sorabji's music justified?
But most human thoughts and actions are not justified. For example, reasonable people would not start swaering at a random stranger.
And whether it is justified or not has nothing to do with sorabji's music. Those who like it will still like it, those who won't still won't.
The only productive discussion that can come from this is discusing whether Sorabj's music itself is worth listening to. Which, of course, has nothing to do with Ian Pace.
What is the topic?Whether you agree with Ian Pace's stance on Sorabji's music?It would be better titled "What do you think of Sorabji's music", since essentially people would like his music will like it, and people who don't won't. It has nothing to do with Ian Pace.Or is the topic What is Ian Pace's stance on Sorabji's music?How would you know, unless he told you? And if he has told you, what is there to argue about? And why does it even matter?Or is the topic Is Ian Pace's stance on Sorabji's music justified?But most human thoughts and actions are not justified. For example, reasonable people would not start swaering at a random stranger.And whether it is justified or not has nothing to do with sorabji's music. Those who like it will still like it, those who won't still won't.The only productive discussion that can come from this is discusing whether Sorabj's music itself is worth listening to. Which, of course, has nothing to do with Ian Pace.
b******g
So you don't allow any room for people changing their minds about anything, then?
What?
No reference to Sorabji's famous statement about changing one's mind?
You know what? Since I'm having such a terrible day I guess I'll just let it all out here. *In process of editing*
I would have thought that this would be stating the b******g obvious. What you mean by those who are "on my side" I do not know in the present context. I will ignore your compliment.
I will ignore your compliment
It wasn't even you doing the saying; it was gyzzzmo. Please try therefore to to avoid crediting yourself, even if only by implication, with what someone else has written. The point that gyzzzmo was making - if indeed there was one - is less than clear whether or not what he wrote is interpreted literally, so the manner of interpretation appears not to make a whole lot of difference.
I am not pretending anything, nor being stupid, nor avoiding this "key point" that you mention (which is hardly surprising, since there isn't one). What Thal or i might write about might not appeal to you, but that's up to you.
Insofar as what I and anyone else writes here is available to by read by anyone else who cares to do so, we're all "showing off our writing" in some way and to some degree.
Your confused use of pronouns and names here muddies the waters in terms of whom who're talking about and whom you're addressing. That said, if someone - anyone, including me - needs occasional recourse to a dictionary, what's the harm in that? You surely cannot expect everyone to have a precisely identical vocabulary range!
Read it and decide for yourself. Clearly, whichever way you or anyone might choose to interpret in and comment upon it, it involves Sorabji the mane and his work and Ian Pace's views thereon. It has to do with Ian Pace insofar as his views on Sorabji might be quoted and discussed in this thread, which is surely a perfectly legitimate thing to do under such a thread title. It is true that the fact that one's own views of Sorabji's work, be they positive or negative, are "nothing to do with Ian Pace", but that is hardly the point.
Ian pace has written about Sorabji the man and his work on occasion, so what is known is what can be discovered from reading his writings; he doesn't actually have to have "told" anyone what he thinks. Ian Pace's views on Sorabvji presumably matter to him; they might matter to some others, whether or not they agree with any or all of them.
Gep - I wouldn't waste a millisecond worrying about it if I were you;
Music is always solely music (Stravinsky said something like “music cannot express anything”).
You've not cleared yourself of the FACT that you're both a hypocrit [sic] who goes off topic himself but does not allow others to do so, and a show off spammer with nothing significant to say, other than using a plethora of logical fallacies to argue against something that was not said, all to show that you have good writing skills, which I must admit.
Since there has been multiple posts after mine, I'll just post it as a new post.Again, you are pretending to be an idiot. It is clear that "on my side" refers to the people who are, on your side. Or are you really incapable of comprehending the fact that besides literal meanings, words can also have figurative meanings, or be used a metaphors and examples?On your side clearly means the people who agree with you, or the people who support you. I don't believe any person who can write such complicated sentences, and indeed, anyone who can read a picture book isn't capable of understanding such a clear phrase.Also, I must say, multiple posting is the most typical act of spammers, and to not even have one of those posts be on topic, I really don't think you have the right to say anyone else is off topic.But this sentence explains it all; You've got nothing to argue against my point, so you have to take such desperate measures to avoid this argument. I might as well say "I will ignore your compliment" to your whole post, but I feel like ranting today.If stating the fact that your own posts are off topic was "obvious", why would it be any different for mine? Why do you take the initiative of commenting on how my post was off topic? Why not any of the people who are ON YOUR SIDE? Because they didn't criticize you?Again, off topic red herring. It doesn't matter who said what, that doesn't lower the value of the statement itself. But the fact is, my quoting of gyzzzmo's words shows two things:1. I clearly intended to credit gyzzzmo, or else I wouldn't have quoted what he said, and just said it myself.2. I clearly agree with what he said, which was why I quoted it in the first place. I'm not crediting myself with coming up with those words, but I am certainly trying to make the same point he was making; or am I not allowed to agree with him? What he wrote wasn't poetry or anything sophisticated; it is clear on how to interpret it. But I understand, you can't comprehend the fact that the meanings of individual words have slight variations, and you can't just put a dictionary definition of each of the words in the sentence together to get the true meaning.You clearly were responding to me with your post, which means you were arguing against me, my values and my opinions. Thus, I am responding from my perspective. If I happen to agree with gyzzzmo, that doesn't mean I'm stealing his statement and giving credit to myself. Such a notion is laughable.I even pointed out my point, which you convienently chose to ignore and say there is no point. What I write might not appeal to you, but that's up to you.Ignoring my argument.Ad hominem attack. Whether I write with perfect grammar or not does not lessen my argument. No one is expecting everyone to have the same vocabulary. After all, there are many professional jargon that only professionals know. However, for the purpose of a forum such as this, there is basically no need to use any complicated words that other people wouldn't understand to get your point across. You can just as easily use simpler words. In fact, it may be easier. But you choose not to, and instead write wordy sentences, which makes me think that you are trying to show off your writing.But obviously you're not showing off your intelligence.Just as well, you can quote my views on Sorabji, or even gyzzzmo's, although I'm not sure what the point would be. Similarly, there isn't a point in purely discussing about Ian Pace's views. It is much more productive to just discuss about Sorabji's music, and in the process bring in some comments from other musicians, which may or may not be Ian Pace. Again, you resort to a literal reading of my words. "Told" does not have to be him using his voice to say directly to someone. Written work counts as well. Either way, there is no argument on what he thinks, if he thinks it he thinks it. What productive discussion can come from that? "Mr. Ian Pace thinks x""I agree with Mr. Pace""I disagree"/thread*The above is an example, not to be taken literally. So please, don't say "I have no idea what x is, so I can't comment on whether Ian Pace believes in x or not, or something to that effect.*Again, you take the literal meaning of my quote. Clearly people's opinions can change. But it doesn't change simply because someone thinks something. Or at least it shouldn't. A change in perspectives and opinions can occur with a productive discussion. Discussing whether a believes b is not (see example above)Basically, all you've done is red herring across my arguments and use ad hominem attacks against me and my writing. You've not cleared yourself of the FACT that you're both a hypocrit who goes off topic himself but does not allow others to do so, and a show off spammer with nothing significant to say, other than using a plethora of logical fallacies to argue against something that was not said, all to show that you have good writing skills, which I must admit.On the other hand, I really have nothing to say to djealnla. Not only does this person only use ad hominem, but even their writing is unsophisticated and dull. But I guess that's why this person faithfully follows you, ahinton (again, not literal). Those with no intelligence do follow like sheep.
On the other hand, I really have nothing to say to djealnla. Not only does this person only use ad hominem, but even their writing is unsophisticated and dull. But I guess that's why this person faithfully follows you, ahinton (again, not literal). Those with no intelligence do follow like sheep.
Nils, please do your job.
In the meantime, it might be advisable not to feed the troll.
Nobody is feeding anyone, as far as I can see. We are merely purging this site of stupidity. Especially the kind of stupidity our comrade "ongaku_oniko" has been exhibiting in this thread.
Topic: Ian Pace on Sorabji 