But then whether or not he wants to respond and whether or not he does respond surely makes little difference to what is available to consider in the absence of such response until and unless one and/or thje other might change, as we have already noted here.
Best,
Alistair
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). Because I was in a position to be moderately helpful, given my friendship with Pace, I offered to join the thread in such a capacity and only in such a capacity; as you can see, I have almost entirely abstained from giving my own opinion on the insurmountable number of topics that have been brushed upon in this thread, most all of them in a hilariously superficial manner.
As well, given your admittance of such, it seems odd that such a large amount of conversation has nevertheless managed to go on. Frankly, my view of this thread is similar to Ryan's in that it serves no legitimate purpose, and pending Ian joining this forum and posting himself (which I can nearly guarantee he will not do) it continues to serve no purpose. However, I will go one step further in that I feel it's obvious that the original poster's motives are egocentric: the way in which this thread was proposed seems to have little reason other than to publicly state that the original poster is aware that such things have been said, and for some reason we should be vaguely impressed by this fact, as well as the fact that the person thinks about such things. Given how the pseudo-quotes were presented (in a totally biased and purposefully unflattering light), I also assume such forms a fallacious base by which to later attack them, which again serves no actual purpose.
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. 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. Can you empirically validate the statement? No, absolutely not. But if you look at it from a differantial (not a typo: talking about Derrida) point of view, an even stronger argument can be made for this belief. Because it's going to be impossible to "prove" it was or wasn't the case, discussing it in such a manner is stupid.
Sorabji's music is extremely self-reverential, in my opinion. I don't think very many people would disagree with this. It seems to live on in honor of itself, or its composer, as opposed to being pure art. This is not necessarily a bad thing and doesn't speak to Sorabji's skill as a composer, and can only qualify as a personal interpretation of Sorabji's output. Again, this is so abstract that talking about it in black and white terms is pointless.
Sorabji's compositional techniques are not "rudimentary", and they certainly didn't require "no talent". That statement is idiotic when standing alone. While I don't agree with Pace regarding its pervasiveness, I do also get the feeling that many sections of his works were written conveniently, in that form often came to dominate the music, regardless of how (in)commensurable they were. It often feels as though the music was already there, and then a superfluous haze of artificially infused chromaticism was violently shoved into the music against its will, often doing a disservice to the music itself. The Opus Clavicembalisticum is actually the first piece I would point to as an example of this, and I think it's highly unfortunate that the OC was burdened with more historical significance and notoriety than some of his other, larger works, which I think are much better. Again, I am not an end-all expert on Sorabji, but I am quite familiar with the majority of his typeset works (and even some that aren't), and I consider the OC to be the worst of the lot.
The statement regarding Sorabji sympathizing with Nazis looks ludicrous without the context that was later provided, but is accurate. Whether or not using the very instigatory word "Nazi" does a service to the point is at least questionable, but the argument is valid. He did place a heavy emphasis on racial origin, which was a view also shared by the Nazis. Using the word "Nazi" to describe Sorabji is inappropriate and appellate, but the argument stands. Just inflammatory wording that harkens to that which isn't appropriate.
Frankly, I don't know anything about the political or economic views of people who listen to Sorabji, but it is true that Sorabji himself had, how to put it lightly. . . tastes that are considered more coalescent with right wing ideology than left wing ideology. I find the topic impossible to address in a way that would adequately draw us to an answer regarding the voracity of the statement and I find it irrelevant to Sorabji's music. If I was under the impression that it permeated his music I would believe it to be apropos, but because I do not get the feeling his political views (unless you want to consider sexuality a "political view", which I don't) were expressed in his music, I find the topic pointless.
Frankly, Ian Pace is a terrifyingly smart person; I do not idolize him, as one might think, and disagree with him often (and let him know it in no more of a kind manner than I do anyone else on here), but he is without a doubt one of the smartest and most knowledgeable people in the world of music, based on my contact with him, so to harass him (and it is harassment, really) with these loaded questions on an issue he cares little about is just not something I'm very interested in; I was merely humoring the idiocy of this thread, and as opposed to how I normally deal with these sorts of situations, given just how much crap, and in how many directions it's being flung, I figured I would let other people just take a look at the intellectual rigor that went into this thread and let people make their own opinions.
Not that this is especially directed at you, Alistair, but you're just who I happen to be responding to. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say you were a casualty in this stupidity, your presence unfortunately seeming necessary given the subject being Sorabji. Although I'd have hoped, given the lack of context and explanation of these quotations, that you wouldn't have leaped at the opportunity to do a bit of slandering, not that you didn't express some reticence, but such reticence seemed in opposition to some things you did eventually decide to go ahead and state.
Topic: Ian Pace on Sorabji