Do pianists have more/better sex?

[thalbergmad]

The moment I saw this, I thought, "what would Sorabji do?".

Not sure. I don't think "would you like to hear my latest 7 hour piano piece" is much of a puller.

Thal

[nyiregyhazi]

Omfg N! This thread is probably not the most serious thread in the history of pianostreet. Yet, you manage to bring your made up statistics into it. I don't know what kind of sex your into, but maybe you should let someone look in your behind, there seem to be a big stick stuck there.

Think what you like. I've simply read plenty of eye opening research on these issues. Look up preselection. Women may not consciously be liars on this issue, but what they say and what really attracts them are very different. Also, check out the pickup podcast. Neil strauss (author of the game) is the figure head of this type of stuff but most in the industry don't like him much. The whole thing is often seen to be a big fraud but I assure you that plenty of these guys know things that work. Some of the most interesting ones back it up with science, but it's what you experience in practice that shows the truth of what the best ones say-you're not a scientific paper. That podcast simply passes on information that is both accurate and effective. It's not seedy or slimy at all, contrary to typical impressions. They deliberately distance themself from those kind of movements.


More generally, Vladimir mlodinow has written an excellent book about the unconscious. After reading that, you realise how all human behaviours and just instinctive reactions and that there's a divide between how we behave and what we think. Women are programmed to respond to certain types of things (in a different way to what they say) which is why only a small percentage of men are very successful with them.

[outin]

You're arguing from a place of idealism, not from a place of accurate observations. I know plenty of people in the swingers community. It doesn't get much more open than that. Most women (certainly not all) even in the world of swingers want to get to known men first.

Take men and prostitutes. Do men normally need to form an emotional relationship first? A few shy men might feel more comfortable after talking, but most men would simply want an attractive woman and to get started . How many women hire a gigolo purely on looks and only want sex, without some kind of emotional warm up? It's virtually unheard of. Women aren't men and men aren't women. There are people who are uncharacteristically far along the spectrum for their sex, but they do not speak for the tendencies of their sex as a whole.

There are exceptions to anything that is a trend rather than a rule, but the trends are simply overwhelming on these issues. You're trying to sculpt reality to match some kind of idealism, not looking at it objectively. Evolution couldn't have happened as it did unless women became more selective than men. They'd have had genetically weak babies and the genes would not survive. Women look either for strength or for emotional commitment (or both) so the baby is either physically strong without a father. Or physically weaker but with a good chance of a supporting parent being their to aid survival. Or, in cases of cheating, physically strong (thanks to her secretly *** a big guy with a beard who has various women on the go and pissed right off again) and helped by a poor loser who got roped in to providing but wasn't the dad after all. The unconscious developed to go for whatever aids survival. *** the first guy who asks for some, for quick pleasure, didn't do much to aid survival of genes in our origins.

There's a movement of directness in the pickup industry where men really do approach strangers and ask for sex. I've heard interviews about it. What they said is that that key is in the followup. Strong women perform "sh*t test" to weed out fake confidence. Apparently, the direct approach is surprisingly successful if backed up by a followup performance that shows strength and confidence. But starting to apologise or be weak ends it. I can imagine confident Scandinavian women could respond to such an opener, but they'd respond with aggressive tests of confidence. Not by saying sure, let's go round the back. The mental side is paramount again. The man has to turn her on by behaving as an alpha male, or its no go.

You can deny it all you like, but all factors show that men and women exist with a different balance. Less usual behaviour patterns in some situations do not negate powerful trends.

I don't have to deny anything, I have studied this subject long enough to get a rather balanced view about it. I'm certain it's no use to continue this discussion... You are very confident that you understand female sexuality and I could not convince you otherwise with anything I can write on this forum. So I'd rather spend my time discussing things related to piano

[kakeithewolf]

Not sure. I don't think "would you like to hear my latest 7 hour piano piece" is much of a puller.

Thal

There are women who watch Wagner's Ring in a single sitting. 7 hours is nothing compared to that.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't have to deny anything, I have studied this subject long enough to get a rather balanced view about it. I'm certain it's no use to continue this discussion... You are very confident that you understand female sexuality and I could not convince you otherwise with anything I can write on this forum. So I'd rather spend my time discussing things related to piano

Studied it in what manner? You could start by standing on the door of an open swingers club and watching how many single men are willing to pay eighty quid for entry  and how few single women are willing to get in for free. The economics alone speaks volumes.

Men and women are not the same. Women are wired to have stronger requirements before engaging in sex than men. These are primarily mental requirements. Sorry if it troubles you to think that strong differences exist in prevailing behaviours, but they do.

If you cannot see why women had to be more selective in order for evolution to occur as it did (due to a man being able to have potentially hundreds of kids given the chance, but women only getting a small number of chances to pass on their genes by producing offsprings that can survive) then I can only presume that you must be arguing for creation theory. I can't immediately see any other possible way of writing off an airtight issue. If you've studied it plenty, by all means go ahead and debunk that issue.

The fact that women are tending to become more sexually liberal overall does not either prove that they are much the same as men now, or serve to invalidate the torrents of incontrovertible evidence that they are not the same.

[timothy42b]

Also, check out the pickup podcast. Neil strauss (author of the game) is the figure head of this type of stuff but most in the industry don't like him much.

I see.

You play piano.

And use a pickup podcast.

I rest my case. 

[nyiregyhazi]

I see.

You play piano.

And use a pickup podcast.

I rest my case. 

Sure, I used to be pretty useless before. Since understanding a lot of objective stuff about how it works I'm  a hell of a lot better in practise. Currently, I'm going out with a few women on a casual basis. I'd happily concede that I'm still better at understanding the theory than at get ng things right in practice but it certainly works.

In reference to the original piano issue, it's worth little alone except to a few piano fanatics, perhaps
. But anyone who understands how to use it with confidence will be no worse off from being a good pianist. However, you don't get to be like rubinstein with women merely by having the piano skills. Half an equation counts for little without the other half.

[outin]

Studied it in what manner?

In theory and in practice.

then I can only presume that you must be arguing for creation theory.

Sorry, that is just too silly to event comment  

[nyiregyhazi]

In theory and in practice.

Sorry, that is just too silly to event comment  

Precisely. So, if your line of argument is to be shown not to exist in direct contradiction to evolutionary science, you'll need to find an alternative rebuttal to such a colossal issue. Not to mention  the host of other illustrations of differences that you had no response for.

[outin]

So, if your line of argument is to be shown not to exist in direct contradiction to evolutionary science, you'll need to find an alternative rebuttal to such a colossal issue. 

No, I really don't need to find one.

[jknott]

I second that.

[timothy42b]

Sure, I used to be pretty useless before. Since understanding a lot of objective stuff about how it works I'm  a hell of a lot better in practise. Currently, I'm going out with a few women on a casual basis. I'd happily concede that I'm still better at understanding the theory than at get ng things right in practice but it certainly works.

.

I applaud your efforts.  No time to make a longer comment, maybe later.

[nyiregyhazi]

No, I really don't need to find one.

Well, personally I stop to question my opinions if I have absolutely no way of reconciling a contradiction against known science. If you're happier to push it under the rug than to stop and think, stick to your guns regardless and ignore the transparent flaw in the foundations of everything you have asserted in this thread.

If you examine biology in general, humans have an extremely unusual gestation period and only produce one offsprings per litter. That means they can't just churn kids out like rabbits. That in turn means that you need to be selective about who you partner with If you want the best odds of survival. But not too selective or you won't get to give birth at all. At least, if you're female. A man can blow more than two loads a day and still have more working semen left in case someone better comes along.

Anyone who asserts that human females have not necessarily evolved to be more selective is not only ignoring what is transparent to all to see in the real world, but also the most basic premise of evolution itself. But if you say you've "studied" then obviously we should just ignore that, regardless of whether you have any basis to refute it...

[divwx]

NO THEY DON'T. DON'T BE FOOLED.

[outin]

Well, personally I stop to question my opinions if I have absolutely no way of reconciling a contradiction against known science.

I have been trained in scientific methodology and philosophy. Because of that I can critically assess and compare both theories and research findings in a way that most people cannot. Laymen tend to try to apply them into reality in a way that is not consistent with the science. That is also very common with statistics.

I see so many misconceptions/misinterpretations in your posts that it would simply be too much work and require too many words to try to correct them. You have taken some theories and bits and pieces from research findings and statistics and tried to use them to support your preconceived ideas in a way that simply does not make any sense to someone with my background. I don't know if you do it on purpose or if you are not aware of it.

Your use of evolution theory is especially creative. In addition to having some basic understanding of the evolution theory and its limitations I have quite a lot of practical experience in working with genetic variation and reproduction behavior in more than one species. I just find your posts too much of a mess to continue a decent discussion. Sorry.

[ahinton]

Those questions were quite obvious, so  I'm sure the original question was so soon forgotten because it makes so little sense to ask it...

That seems not to be the case. I ask again - why pianists in particular as distinct from any other kinds of performing musician? And if it is indeed as "obvious" as you suggest it to be that there's no way of telling one way or the other, what do you see as the point of the thread?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Not sure. I don't think "would you like to hear my latest 7 hour piano piece" is much of a puller.

Almost certainly not - but then he would not have said such a thing to anyone in any circumstance, for that intended purpose or any other!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

There are women who watch Wagner's Ring in a single sitting. 7 hours is nothing compared to that.

Are there indeed? They must be listening to recordings, then, since no opera company / conductor / orchestra would put on a continuous performance of the entire work!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Is anyone up for concluding the thread with the so far elusive but simple answer "yes" - or "no" - or even "who knows/cares"?

Best,

Alistair

[outin]

That seems not to be the case. I ask again - why pianists in particular as distinct from any other kinds of performing musician? And if it is indeed as "obvious" as you suggest it to be that there's no way of telling one way or the other, what do you see as the point of the thread?

I see no point in the thread.

[outin]

Are there indeed? They must be listening to recordings, then, since no opera company / conductor / orchestra would put on a continuous performance of the entire work!

I did watch a TV performance of the cycle as a set although I don't even like opera... It is definitely needed to take some breaks to use the toilet or get something to eat

[ahinton]

I see no point in the thread.

Nor do I - but then I saw none from its outset!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I did watch a TV performance of the cycle as a set although I don't even like opera... It is definitely needed to take some breaks to use the toilet or get something to eat

Of course; the performance of any lengthy work - or indeed any work that includes lengthy unbroken passages - must take care of such physical necessities on the part of both performers and listeners; that is just one (though not the only) reason, for example, for Jonathan Powell's wise decision to break Sorabji's Sequentia Cyclica into three distinct sections in performance (although these are not marked as such in the score).

Whilst I'm not sure that this has anything to do with the thread topic, that is perhaps arguably just as well, really...

Best,

Alistair

[nyiregyhazi]

I have been trained in scientific methodology and philosophy. Because of that I can critically assess and compare both theories and research findings in a way that most people cannot. Laymen tend to try to apply them into reality in a way that is not consistent with the science. That is also very common with statistics.

I see so many misconceptions/misinterpretations in your posts that it would simply be too much work and require too many words to try to correct them. You have taken some theories and bits and pieces from research findings and statistics and tried to use them to support your preconceived ideas in a way that simply does not make any sense to someone with my background. I don't know if you do it on purpose or if you are not aware of it.

Your use of evolution theory is especially creative. In addition to having some basic understanding of the evolution theory and its limitations I have quite a lot of practical experience in working with genetic variation and reproduction behavior in more than one species. I just find your posts too much of a mess to continue a decent discussion. Sorry.

Given that you've spent all of your posts trying to rubbish what I've said, refusing to make accountable points and instead trying to build your status is a pretty cheap way to bow out. Appeal to authority is a very weak argument - especially when you make yourself the authority and refuse to deal with anything that is on the table.

Female sexuality has been downplayed over the years, but the fact that people are learning more about how it acts does not lead to the conclusion that men and women are not different in their requirements. Iold fashioned views are moving on, but they were an EXAGGERATION of reality. Not an outright myth. Neither observation in the real world nor ANY credible science backs up such utter nonsense as the idea that we behave the same.

Go and research some modern science about sociology and the different evolution of male and female minds. Female preselection is the most interesting. I bet you haven't researched it at all. There is abundant evidence that women find a man more attractive than HIMSELF, if he is pictured with beautiful women smiling at him. Conversely men do not judge a woman positively on success with attractive men. Both are jealous in the right context. But a woman is attracted because of jealousy issues. Whereas a man will simply be jealous of someone who has something he wants.

I've seen this me after time in practice, since learning about. It's not some twist of fate that men in relationships get more offers than when the same person is single. It's because of a well proven difference between male and female sexuality. Women are also more likely to sleep with a man more quickly in this situation, as it's like a seal of approval. A man who starts alone attracts more suspicion, even if attractive in other ways and has to put in more mental preparation before the woman would allow her defences down. But merely enter a bar with a group of attractive women who look at you with desire, and other women in the room have already begun letting their defences down without a word spoken. Women essentially trust the opinions of other women, in a subconscious level that contributes to attraction.

The differences are plenty and I suggest you investigate more sources before correcting me. You might also explore the considerable evidence that women with unusually high testosterone levels tends to have more sex drive and that men with higher oestrogen levels often have less. And then no doubt you'll come back an list a few more minor credentials - as if that makes a few assertions of fact from you, minus supporting evidence, more important than floods of modern sociological research.

[outin]

Given that you've spent all of your posts trying to rubbish what I've said, refusing to make accountable points and instead trying to build your status is a pretty cheap way to bow out.

I'm sorry but I really tried to have a decent conversation with you. Obviously nothing I wrote was even considered. I never said everything you wrote is rubbish, just that there are problems in your reasoning. You suggested that I need to do more research to think like you. I already told you that I don't but you still kept on insisting that I should. That is the only reason I felt necessary to write my last post.

[outin]

The differences are plenty and I suggest you investigate more sources before correcting me. You might also explore the considerable evidence that women with unusually high testosterone levels tends to have more sex drive and that men with higher oestrogen levels often have less.

This is what we thought, but interestingly has turned out not to be consistetly true in recent research.

[nyiregyhazi]

This is what we thought, but interestingly has turned out not to be consistetly true in recent research.

By all means link it. Are you also denying that gay men have more sex than straight men? It's rather widely accepted that when both parties possess a male sex drive, there are fewer impediments to acting upon attraction (that's not a judgement). Do you have evidence to deny that?

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm sorry but I really tried to have a decent conversation with you. Obviously nothing I wrote was even considered. I never said everything you wrote is rubbish, just that there are problems in your reasoning. You suggested that I need to do more research to think like you. I already told you that I don't but you still kept on insisting that I should. That is the only reason I felt necessary to write my last post.

Assertions require support or they will be treated as faith and no more. Link to the surveys that have suggested that male and female sexuality is identical and that there are no trends found in either sex. And explain how sex clubs charge single men and have to make it free entry for single women yet still get few.

If you don't deal with exceptions to your invented rule, only faith can allow it to be seen as one.

[outin]

By all means link it. Are you also denying that gay men have more sex than straight men? It's rather widely accepted that when both parties possess a male sex drive, there are fewer impediments to acting upon attraction (that's not a judgement). Do you have evidence to deny that?

Now where did that com from? Were we discussing sexual orientation or sexual habits of gay people? I think this is a good example of why it's so difficult to discuss things with you. You just suddenly jump into something irrelevant and expect me to start argumentation on that.
I must link later when on computer, this device is too difficult to use for that. Or you could google yourself...

[nyiregyhazi]

Now where did that com from? Were we discussing sexual orientation or sexual habits of gay people? I think this is a good example of why it's so difficult to discuss things with you. You just suddenly jump into something irrelevant and expect me to start argumentation on that.
I must link later when on computer, this device is too difficult to use for that. Or you could google yourself...

So gay men and women are not men and women? What on earth are you trying to say?

See the difference found between males and females even in the gay world:

https://m.samesame.com.au/features/4407/Gay-Census-Lets-Talk-About-Sex

[outin]

Assertions require support or they will be treated as faith and no more. Link to the surveys that have suggested that male and female sexuality is identical and that there are no trends found in either sex. And explain how sex clubs charge single men and have to make it free entry for single women yet still get few.

If you don't deal with exceptions to your invented rule, only faith can allow it to be seen as one.

It is you who have been presenting rules, expecting others to prove them wrong. I have not claimed that anybody's sexiality is identical, claiming so is just an indication that you do not read my posts. Being identical and not having fundamental biological differences covering the whole group and affecting every aspect of the behavior are not the same thing. Do you not see the difference?

[outin]

Anyway, this is just becoming too ridiculous for me to continue, so I'm not going end the discussion on my part here. I have no problem with you thinking how you do.

[nyiregyhazi]

It is you who have been presenting rules, expecting others to prove them wrong. I have not claimed that anybody's sexiality is identical, claiming so is just an indication that you do not read my posts. Being identical and not having fundamental biological differences covering the whole group and affecting every aspect of the behavior are not the same thing. Do you not see the difference?

I stated explicitly that I was presenting trends. If you assert that there are no definable gender differences, you make a rule. Here'san interesting one for you:

https://alvanista.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/another-okcupid-study-preselection-rears-its-ugly-head-again/

Perhaps you'd like to explain why female are so shockingly judgemental of male photos compared to males on female photos? That's far too much to attribute to ordinary statistical fluctuation. The author's reference to preselection as the explanation makes perfect sense. Men judge more on looks. But women cannot help judging on the absence of factors that they typically require in the real world. They are ultra selective when on dating website and not easily attracted.

Incidentally, an ex of mine used to get 30 messages per day or more on a dating website. Men rarely get more than one per day, unsolicited. Yet there are no differences between what men and women are sexually attracted to or how we act on attraction? Hardly seems to fit, sorry...

As I said at the outset, women respond more to mental issues than men and in a different way. If you'd like to stop pretending that this is a myth and respond to the evidence (rather than assert yourself to be right and anything else wrong) maybe this could evolve into an actual two way discussion, about such remarkable evidence of quite how powerful the differences are?

Alternatively, you can casually ignore the wealth of evidence, make no attempt to explain statistics that are too significant to represent random chance, and protect yourself from having to consider anything that contradicts what you have put blind and irrational faith into believing.

[ahinton]

I stated explicitly that I was presenting trends. Here's an interesting one for you:

https://alvanista.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/another-okcupid-study-preselection-rears-its-ugly-head-again/

Perhaps you'd like to explain why female are so shockingly judgemental of male photos compared to males? That's far too much to attribute to ordinary statistical fluctuation. The author's reference to preselection as the explanation makes perfect sense. Men judge more on looks. But women cannot help judging on the absence of factors that they typically require in the real world. They are ultra selective when on dating website and not easily attracted.

Incidentally, an ex of mine used to get 30 messages per day or more on a dating website. Men rarely get more than one per day, unsolicited. Yet there are no differences between what men and women are sexually attracted to? Hardly seems to fit, sorry...

As I said at the outset, women respond more to mental issues than men and in a different way.

Whilst some - indeed perhaps arguably quite a fair amount - of what you write here in your copious posts might well stand up to reasonable scientific scrutiny, it remains off topic; the topic is about whether pianists (presumably of either sex and indeed of any sexual provclivity/ies) "have more/better sex" than - well, whilst not specified by the OP, one must assume "non-pianists", whereas what you write about barely touches on that subject.

Best,

Alistair

[kakeithewolf]

Are there indeed? They must be listening to recordings, then, since no opera company / conductor / orchestra would put on a continuous performance of the entire work!

Best,

Alistair

If there was such a case, that'd be quite a performance for the ages. So, yes, definitely recordings. Still, 16 hours in a single sitting is quite something.

[outin]

By all means link it.

Unfortunately articles are not available freely on internet, you'd need to have access through an institution or pay.

Sari M. van Anders:
Beyond masculinity: Testosterone, gender/sex, and human social behavior in a comparative context
Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology
Volume 34, Issue 3, August 2013, Pages 198–210

Sari M. van Anders:
Testosterone and Sexual Desire in Healthy Women and Men
Archives of Sexual Behavior
December 2012, Volume 41, Issue 6, pp 1471-1484

[nyiregyhazi]

Unfortunately articles are not available freely on internet, you'd need to have access through an institution or pay.

Sari M. van Anders:
Beyond masculinity: Testosterone, gender/sex, and human social behavior in a comparative context
Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology
Volume 34, Issue 3, August 2013, Pages 198–210

Sari M. van Anders:
Testosterone and Sexual Desire in Healthy Women and Men
Archives of Sexual Behavior
December 2012, Volume 41, Issue 6, pp 1471-1484

Fair enough. It doesn't change anything notable, either way, in terms of what I know about female behaviour patterns in practise (I don't typically get them to have a blood test to check for hormone issues anyway), so I'll happily consider the possibility that newer research has questioned those particular issues. It was never a dealbreaker in my argument, so I'll bear in mind the possibility that other studies found different conclusions.

However, your assertion was that there are no male/female trends. So let's bring it back to the most important counterproofs of that fallacy. One exception disproves a rule. How do you explain the overwhelming statistical trends in the link I gave about preselection and the shockingly judgmental marks awarded by women to men on dating sites, compared to how men judge women?And how do you explain the fact that attractive women are flooded with enquiries on dating websites whereas few men get more than a handful of unsolicited messages. Alternatively, look into speed-dating statistics- where women almost without fail give no more than three or four ticks out of 15 or so men, whereas most men will happily tick more than half of the candidates?

Real world evidence makes a mockery of the nonsense that men and women do not have gender-based trends- in terms of both attraction and the odds of acting upon it.

[nyiregyhazi]

Whilst some - indeed perhaps arguably quite a fair amount - of what you write here in your copious posts might well stand up to reasonable scientific scrutiny, it remains off topic; the topic is about whether pianists (presumably of either sex and indeed of any sexual provclivity/ies) "have more/better sex" than - well, whilst not specified by the OP, one must assume "non-pianists", whereas what you write about barely touches on that subject.

Best,

Alistair

My point has perhaps been lost under a barrage of assertions that male and female trends supposedly are a myth.

The original point was that males draw less from mental issues than women, on the whole. So, it's very unlikely that a female pianist of equivalent physical attractiveness to Rubinstein could pull widely desirable men very easily. You wouldn't see a hollywood film star with an ordinary looking female concert pianist- although they might potentially be drawn to one with looks like Lola Astanova. Conversely, someone of Rubinstein's prowess AND confidence would be extremely appealling to a lot of attractive women, without needing to be Johnny Depp. But the piano skills won't cut it on their own. It may not have existed as a concept in those days, but Rubinstein had real "game" to pull off what he managed. The problem with most pianists is that they are very isolated and distant. But those who have skills and confidence are on to a winner.

Those who have faith in the absence of gender based traits can ignore that, but it's a reality that observant people see in practise and that is confirmed by a wealth of sociological research.

[outin]

Go and research some modern science about sociology and the different evolution of male and female minds. Female preselection is the most interesting. I bet you haven't researched it at all

I suggest that you go and research what sociology is and what it studies, because not much of what you have written here has anything to do with sociology. The explanations you have given for the differences you have observed in the sexual behavior in this thread are in the realm of other disciplines such as psychology and sociobiology.

And I would advice you not to bet on things where you can only end up losing  

But I will respect your wish not to hear about my minor credentials...

[senanserat]

Is anyone up for concluding the thread with the so far elusive but simple answer "yes" - or "no" - or even "who knows/cares"?

Best,

Alistair

No.
Yes.
Maybe.

All those subjective to the person in question I daresay.

[pianoman53]

So, N, you're a perfect teacher, who knows everything there is to know about technique. A guy who knows exactly everything there is to know about how to pick up women. A great pianist with somewhat of a Cinderella story... Yet, you spend hours and hours on an online forum. I mean, if I would be the world leading expert on technique, I would probably live somewhere fancier than my mums basement, playing the upright piano that Jesus' babysitter played chopsticks on. And if I was a world leading expert on picking up women (from reading a book), I would.. You know.. play Chopsticks on the girls I pick up. And if I was a pianist with the most perfect technique, I'm quite sure I would have a few more concerts.

I must say, it's noble of you to instead share your genius with us, here, on this humble website.

Hats on gentlemen, a troll.

[senanserat]

So, N, you're a perfect teacher, who knows everything there is to know about technique. A guy who knows exactly everything there is to know about how to pick up women. A great pianist with somewhat of a Cinderella story... Yet, you spend hours and hours on an online forum. I mean, if I would be the world leading expert on technique, I would probably live somewhere fancier than my mums basement, playing the upright piano that Jesus' babysitter played chopsticks on. And if I was a world leading expert on picking up women (from reading a book), I would.. You know.. play Chopsticks on the girls I pick up. And if I was a pianist with the most perfect technique, I'm quite sure I would have a few more concerts.

I must say, it's noble of you to instead share your genius with us, here, on this humble website.

Hats on gentlemen, a troll.

There is no need to be aggressive, if you don't agree with his views (and many won't and don't) you may as well either refute them and try to play nice or ignore him. By saying he lives in his mother's basement only reflects poorly on you.

After all...someone with more than two brain cells can put 2 and 2 together and call bullshit on some of his more extravagant statements.
 

[senanserat]

Just wanted to add that we're all have something in common and that's some lewd thought that led us here I would wager to say piano, don't you get it!? We're of a elite caste way over mere mortals or Bach forbid Rappers *spit* and if we cannot discuss something so simple as intercourse, be it anal or not I think we may as well don't.

Lets us bring much rejoicing with useful post now >

[pianoman53]

There is no need to be aggressive, if you don't agree with his views (and many won't and don't) you may as well either refute them and try to play nice or ignore him. By saying he lives in his mother's basement only reflects poorly on you.

After all...someone with more than two brain cells can put 2 and 2 together and call bullshit on some of his more extravagant statements.
 

How was that aggressive?! He obviously doesn't just ignore me when he disagrees, but disagree is the douchiest, most patronizing way. And when I say he lives in his mums basement (Because that's how it looks on the videos he has posted here, playing in his bathrobe and all) it's aggressive?

[ahinton]

The conductors' version of that is

KEEP
CALM
AND
KARAJAN

Best,

Alistair