VIDEO: Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852 by J.S. Bach

[michael_sayers]

I didn't present such an argument; I simly put the question. Is either of them aware at least of the possibility of the work that you mention, even if they've yet to see a copy of the ms.?
That, of course, is very true.
"May". Yes - and I'm not arguing that it may not be so - but you seem to know more than most about this, so I must ask whether you have shared your speculations, beliefs or whatever else about this with Drs. Walker and Howerd or any other distinguished Liszt scholar at this stage. I would not seek to cricitse you if you had not, for it is common knowledge and experience that researchers usually like to keep their discoveries to themselves until they can be shared, but I ask anyway.
Again, of that I have no doubt; Humphrey Searle, no less, said as much to me years ago when I was his student.
Well, whilst that might not be impossible, we'd all have to await whatever evidence might emerge about this before pronouncing about it.
Sdly, once again, it is this persistent reiteration of your "contact with Liszt" that lets the whole thing down here. You mention the words that you say Liszt uses; in what language do you believe he does so and are you familiar with that language? Could Liszt speak 21st century American English, for example - even if without sufficiently clear diction to enable anyone lis(z)tening to understand?

I don't think that you or anyone else need concern ourselves at this point with what a Handel scholar might make of something that, by your own admission, has yet to emerge but, in the meantime, can you please elaborate on the "Handel keyboard suite based on the (now lost) music to a work with a Queen of Sheba character" that you mention (albeit adding the caveat "or maybe this is so . . . I'm not totally clear on it")?

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

If I had emailed any of the listed persons about this, I wouldn't say so publicly because these would be private communications.  What can be said is that as far as I have been able to find out, there is no reference in Liszt scholarship to date for this work.

About who discovers it, if an article appeared online tomorrow about any researcher who had found it, that would be great.  I want the music to be available to scholars, and also to pianists who may want to perform or record it - who does the discovering doesn't make any difference in that outcome, presumably.

It probably would be best for a Handel expert to post on the keyboard suite.  It is documented, and has been written about, but I don't have access to a nearby music library at which to get well oriented on it.  A Handel expert - if the person truly is such - would already have done all of that.

About Liszt's language of communication, it has been primarily English, though not colloquial English that can be identified with a particular country or region, and although words in other languages can be an issue for me, sometimes these are necessary.  The address of the location of the manuscript, for instance, is not in an officially English language country, and yet there is one street in the mentioned city where the street name matches and, including the pronunciation in that language, the spelling is correct - which is to say, I had misspelled the street name based on the heard pronunciation, but there is an official street name in that city which, when both spelled and pronounced correctly, matches what I heard.


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

If I had emailed any of the listed persons about this, I wouldn't say so publicly because these would be private communications.  What can be said is that as far as I have been able to find out, there is no reference in Liszt scholarship to date for this work.

Fair comment insofar as it goes; I am not asking you to divulge what communications you may have had - merely pointing out tht there are such scholars and they would undoubtedly have an interest in this score if indeed it does exist. It is not unlikely that at least some futher work by Liszt may yet to be discovered. That said, however, my concern here is that your belief in this particulr work's existence appears to be based upon communications that you claim recently to have received from the composer rather than as a consequence of academic research and detective work.

About who discovers it, if an article appeared online tomorrow about any researcher who had found it, that would be great.  I want the music to be available to scholars, and also to pianists who may want to perform or record it - who does the discovering doesn't make any difference in that outcome, presumably.

Fine - but see above.

About Liszt's language of communication, it has been primarily English, though not colloquial English that can be identified with a particular country or region, and although words in other languages can be an issue for me, sometimes these are necessary.  The address of the location of the manuscript, for instance, is not in an officially English language country, and yet there is one street in the mentioned city where the street name matches and, including the pronunciation in that language, the spelling is correct - which is to say, I had misspelled the street name based on the heard pronunciation, but there is an official street name in that city which, when both spelled and pronounced correctly, matches what I heard.

This is where we return to the fundamental problem here. What you posit is predicated upon communications to you from Liszt who's been dead since 1886 and these communications are primarily in English which is not a language that Liszt used as a rule. You now refer to the address of the location of the ms. concerned, which suggests that you know where it is, yet this conflicts with your earlier statements about its possible discovery. I do not propose to comment on the remainder of your paragraph here as I have done more than enough of that already; readers may draw their own conclusions.

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

Fair comment insofar as it goes; I am not asking you to divulge what communications you may have had - merely pointing out tht there are such scholars and they would undoubtedly have an interest in this score if indeed it does exist. It is not unlikely that at least some futher work by Liszt may yet to be discovered. That said, however, my concern here is that your belief in this particulr work's existence appears to be based upon communications that you claim recently to have received from the composer rather than as a consequence of academic research and detective work.
Fine - but see above.
This is where we return to the fundamental problem here. What you posit is predicated upon communications to you from Liszt who's been dead since 1886 and these communications are primarily in English which is not a language that Liszt used as a rule. You now refer to the address of the location of the ms. concerned, which suggests that you know where it is, yet this conflicts with your earlier statements about its possible discovery. I do not propose to comment on the remainder of your paragraph here as I have done more than enough of that already; readers may draw their own conclusions.

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

There isn't any conflict within these posts of mine, unless it be due to error of expression on my part.  The fact is, "anyone" could discover the manuscript.  Pianist Martin Berkofsky walked into a library in France, and walked out with a copy of the previously unknown composition Deak by Franz Liszt, a composition which Martin Berkofsky was the first to perform and record.  Why he was in the library I do not know - he and I never discussed it - but presumably the library visit was connected with research.  Unless the address which holds the manuscript has a perimeter barring all persons other than Michael Sayers from entering, then anyone can go in and discover the item.  And maybe it is my use of the word "discover" as a way of describing the event of having the manuscript before one's eyes which poses the issue of contradiction?  According to your perspective, I do not know the manuscript as such exists, and therefore in your perspective anyone (including me) who finds it would have discovered it.

Regarding the communication between Franz Liszt and myself, if there were defects in the information received from him, or quantities of unverifiable references, then I might suspect there is an issue.  This is the only information from him which I have not yet verified, but neither has it been dis-verified.  To do as you do, and imply "I know not of the conversations, therefore they did not happen" - or rather, to state such phenomenon as concerning Liszt and myself are not such as can fit within one's world view, because one's assumed and unverifiable premises prevent one from acknowledging the possibility of such phenomenon, and therefore one knows these did not occur, is fallacious.  Neither Hume, nor John Stuart Mill in his treatise on logic, were so rigid, and both were acutely aware of the finitude of human experience and especially so of any one human's experience - this aspect of their thinking is often under appreciated, and also neglected, by persons who wish to select from their reasoning such bits as are useful to defend one reaching conclusions absent sufficient evidence for the conclusions.

There is only one means of verification (or dis-verification) for the truth of the hypothesis of the manuscript's existence and its location, and this requires going to the address and verifying (or dis-verifying) the presence of the object.

p.s. - Why would one become querulous with Liszt about the language of communication, as you seem to be?  Would this not be a rude and impertinent way to treat Abbe Liszt?

[michael_sayers]

p.s. for Alistair - In your posts you do not appear as a logical positivist, or as a Sartrean existentialist, et c., but rather as having much similarity in thinking to David Hume and John Stuart Mill.  There appears, however, to be a dissimilarity between you and them in that neither of those two philosophers, when properly considered, were dogmatists.  They sought to reach conclusions based on evidence, with its roots of entrance through the senses, and also to keep all presuppositions to as much of a minimum as possible.  How well they succeeded at this is up for debate, I (perhaps obviously) think their work was flawed, and not least of all this is due to Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason response to Hume by way of exposing the limitations of reason and of Aristotelian logic, and the assumptions one makes, out of necessity, in any process of reasoning or Aristotelian logic appertaining to and following the evidence of the senses which enter in to thought and through the categories of mind.  John Stuart Mill and David Hume would never knowingly embrace any dogmatic conclusion or any dogmatism whatsoever.  Dogmatism is not about the conclusion, it is about how the conclusion is held.  The fact that you appear to embrace dogmatism is, in my view, a philosophical "problem"  

[ahinton]

There isn't any conflict within these posts of mine, unless it be due to error of expression on my part.

Well, that's evidently your opinion; I beg to differ, based upon all that I've read.

The fact is, "anyone" could discover the manuscript.  Pianist Martin Berkofsky walked into a library in France, and walked out with a copy of the previously unknown composition Deak by Franz Liszt, a composition which Martin Berkofsky was the first to perform and record.  Why he was in the library I do not know - he and I never discussed it - but presumably the library visit was connected with research.  Unless the address which holds the manuscript has a perimeter barring all persons other than Michael Sayers from entering, then anyone can go in and discover the item.

I have already made it clear that there is always the possibility that more works by Liszt might turn up. However, if you know where it is, might I ask why you are unable to obtain a scan or paper photocopy of it, which I presume to be the case from what you've written?

And maybe it is my use of the word "discover" as a way of describing the event of having the manuscript before one's eyes which poses the issue of contradiction?  According to your perspective, I do not know the manuscript as such exists, and therefore in your perspective anyone (including me) who finds it would have discovered it.

I'm trying to understand what it is that you're writing about this, but you do not make yourself clear. If you know it exists and you know its location (and therefore presumably also its ownership), you would presumably also know whether it is in a public, academic or private library or in a private collection and, as the music itself is in the public domain, you ought to be able to obtain a copy of it unless it's in a private collection whose owner is unwilling to share it by that means. I have no problem with your use of the term "discover", provided that the discovery concerned is correctly and appropriately ascribed and credited.

For many years, it was thought, for example, that hardly any of the finale of the final work by the composer who had apparently played at Liszt's funeral had been written and, as a consequence, an unfortunate (albeit from that time inevitable) tradition began to develop which led to the establishment of Bruckner's Ninth Symphony as a three movement work when, of course, the composer had always intended it to be a four movement one; it was therefore concluded a long time ago that there could be no possibility of its completion by scholars. Legend has it (and legend might on this occasion contain truth) that cultural vultures descended upon the composer's home in the immediate aftermath of his death and removed pages of this finale from his desk to retain as souvenirs. More recently, some of this material has been discovered and several attempts have been made to complete the movement; these have been revised and recorded, most famously by Berlin Philharmonic conducted by Simon Rattle, though even after all that work and advocacy it's yet to "catch on" universally as it should. The various discoveries of material over the years have led to the destruction of the myth that Bruckner had barely begun ths finale of his last symphony; he'd actually written out quite a lot of it. The coda remains missing but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that yet more pages might turn up and the team who has most famously put the movement together as we now have it will then no doubt seize upon the opportunity for yet further revision.

The reason for my digression here is to clarify my belief that the possibility that unknown (i.e. undocumented) works or material from documented or undocumented works by Bruckner, Liszt or indeed any other composer might turn up somewhere at some point and that I would therefore never discount such a possibility.

Regarding the communication between Franz Liszt and myself, if there were defects in the information received from him, or quantities of unverifiable references, then I might suspect there is an issue.  This is the only information from him which I have not yet verified, but neither has it been dis-verified.  To do as you do, and imply "I know not of the conversations, therefore they did not happen" - or rather, to state such phenomenon as concerning Liszt and myself are not such as can fit within one's world view, because one's assumed and unverifiable premises prevent one from acknowledging the possibility of such phenomenon, and therefore one knows these did not occur, is fallacious.  Neither Hume, nor John Stuart Mill in his treatise on logic, were so rigid, and both were acutely aware of the finitude of human experience and especially so of any one human's experience - this aspect of their thinking is often under appreciated, and also neglected, by persons who wish to select from their reasoning such bits as are useful to defend one reaching conclusions absent sufficient evidence for the conclusions.

I did not and do not state, or even imply, "I know not of the conversations, therefore they did not happen"; I merely pointed out that Liszt's been dead for a very long time and can't do what you claim he has done. Dragging Hume, Mill or anyone else into what passes for your argument proves - and indeed achieves - nothing of material value any more than do your references to what you perceive to be my "world view" have any relevance to or impact upon this issue.

There is only one means of verification (or dis-verification) for the truth of the hypothesis of the manuscript's existence and its location, and this requires going to the address and verifying (or dis-verifying) the presence of the object.

Or obtaining a copy of it as I suggested earlier; OK, that wouldn't prove that it was genuine - only specialist examination of the item iteslf could hope to do that (hence my observations about authentication) - but it would at least reveal the text that it contains. On this aspect of the matter you are at least on somewhat safer ground.

p.s. - Why would one become querulous with Liszt about the language of communication, as you seem to be?  Would this not be a rude and impertinent way to treat Abbe Liszt?

I'm not being querulous with Liszt at all; far from it! I have simply pointed out that he's dead and cannot therefore communicate; his legacy does the communicating and it is, of course, a vast an important one. On the contrary, mightn't it be argued that your assertions about commuinication represent an arrogant, self-serving and attention-seeking way for you to treat Liszt?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

p.s. for Alistair - In your posts you do not appear as a logical positivist, or as a Sartrean existentialist, et c., but rather as having much similarity in thinking to David Hume and John Stuart Mill.  There appears, however, to be a dissimilarity between you and them in that neither of those two philosophers, when properly considered, were dogmatists.  They sought to reach conclusions based on evidence, with its roots of entrance through the senses, and also to keep all presuppositions to as much of a minimum as possible.  How well they succeeded at this is up for debate, I (perhaps obviously) think their work was flawed, and not least of all this is due to Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason response to Hume by way of exposing the limitations of reason and of Aristotelian logic, and the assumptions one makes, out of necessity, in any process of reasoning or Aristotelian logic appertaining to and following the evidence of the senses which enter in to thought and through the categories of mind.  John Stuart Mill and David Hume would never knowingly embrace any dogmatic conclusion or any dogmatism whatsoever.  Dogmatism is not about the conclusion, it is about how the conclusion is held.  The fact that you appear to embrace dogmatism is, in my view, a philosophical "problem"  

"In your view", yes; however, there are inherent dangers in seeking to expand a view of what might constitute "dogmatism" to the point at which anyone's attempt to argue against another's assertions on the grounds that they do not accord to scientific fact and have never therefore been proven or even examined for possible proof. Holocaust deniers and others fall wilfully into this trap. I hasten to assure you that I am not seeking to compare the subject matter itself, in which the holocaust denier's denials are born of an anti-social inhumanity that has no place in discussions of whether the dead (even if they're Liszt!) can communicate personally with the living. What I have said to you about your assertions cannot therefore be classifed as "dogmatism"; if it could, the very edifice of the factual might risk collapsing for fear of being accused of embracing "dogmatism"!

If you find, or someone else finds, or you assist in the discovery of, an hitherto undocumented work by Liszt and its ms. comes to be reliably authenticated, then something that is in principle achievable will have been achieved; I have no problem with that - I only have problems with your assertions, as indeed do others here, unsurprisingly. Why would Liszt communicate with you personally, even if he could? Why would he communicate with me? Why wouldn't he communicate with Walker, Howard and others and why didn't he communicate with Searle when Searle was alive?

It's not up to me, of course, but I would hope that all this stuff is now put to one side so that the question of this ms. that you believe to exist and of whose location and ownership you appear to be aware can assume due priority up to the point at which it's found, examined and reliably authenticated.

Best,

Alistair

[brogers70]

To roughly summarize Hume: If someone makes a claim that appears to violate our established experience of the laws of nature, the way to evaluate that claim is to decide whether it is more likely that the laws of nature were indeed violated or that the person making the claim was mistaken or was attempting to deceive us. There's no dogmatism there (as it does leave open the possibility that we were mistaken about the laws of nature or that they were violated), just a justifiable skepticism.

[michael_sayers]

To roughly summarize Hume: If someone makes a claim that appears to violate our established experience of the laws of nature, the way to evaluate that claim is to decide whether it is more likely that the laws of nature were indeed violated or that the person making the claim was mistaken or was attempting to deceive us. There's no dogmatism there (as it does leave open the possibility that we were mistaken about the laws of nature or that they were violated), just a justifiable skepticism.

Hi brogers70,

With this I agree 100%, that David Hume is not to be classified as a dogmatist.  This is not to say that he was without presuppositions, but that in principle and spirit he was open to any claim provided with sufficient evidence, and that for him to reject a claim would not to be to deny its possibility, but (in the most extreme instance) only to assign a tremendously low probability to the truth value of the claim.

To this date, "skeptics" will quote David Hume.  Skepticism is of many varieties and degrees, yet often it is a masque worn by dogmatists.  I'll accept that Alistair Hinton is not a dogmatist, and I do apologize for my mistake in the association.  And yet the "skeptical" dogmatists, whose mode of operation is quite attacking, are very content to say such-and-such is a fact, and not feel any need to outline the evidence.

A list of objects and phenomenon historically which were considered as factually non-existent, of which probably you are aware:

1) ball lightning
2) gorillas
3) meteorites

Just because one hasn't yet observed it in laboratory conditions, doesn't mean it isn't there or that it does not happen.  And I am sure you agree with this in a general way, I am just emphasizing the point for Alistair's benefit.

There are many claims today which are denied, and of which one can be sure that at least some of these claims are true.  That is the historical pattern.  Human knowledge, surely, is not yet complete in 2015.  Again . . . this is for Alistair's benefit, as I think you, brogers70, already get all of this.

[michael_sayers]

Well, that's evidently your opinion; I beg to differ, based upon all that I've read.
I have already made it clear that there is always the possibility that more works by Liszt might turn up. However, if you know where it is, might I ask why you are unable to obtain a scan or paper photocopy of it, which I presume to be the case from what you've written?
I'm trying to understand what it is that you're writing about this, but you do not make yourself clear. If you know it exists and you know its location (and therefore presumably also its ownership), you would presumably also know whether it is in a public, academic or private library or in a private collection and, as the music itself is in the public domain, you ought to be able to obtain a copy of it unless it's in a private collection whose owner is unwilling to share it by that means. I have no problem with your use of the term "discover", provided that the discovery concerned is correctly and appropriately ascribed and credited.

For many years, it was thought, for example, that hardly any of the finale of the final work by the composer who had apparently played at Liszt's funeral had been written and, as a consequence, an unfortunate (albeit from that time inevitable) tradition began to develop which led to the establishment of Bruckner's Ninth Symphony as a three movement work when, of course, the composer had always intended it to be a four movement one; it was therefore concluded a long time ago that there could be no possibility of its completion by scholars. Legend has it (and legend might on this occasion contain truth) that cultural vultures descended upon the composer's home in the immediate aftermath of his death and removed pages of this finale from his desk to retain as souvenirs. More recently, some of this material has been discovered and several attempts have been made to complete the movement; these have been revised and recorded, most famously by Berlin Philharmonic conducted by Simon Rattle, though even after all that work and advocacy it's yet to "catch on" universally as it should. The various discoveries of material over the years have led to the destruction of the myth that Bruckner had barely begun ths finale of his last symphony; he'd actually written out quite a lot of it. The coda remains missing but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that yet more pages might turn up and the team who has most famously put the movement together as we now have it will then no doubt seize upon the opportunity for yet further revision.

The reason for my digression here is to clarify my belief that the possibility that unknown (i.e. undocumented) works or material from documented or undocumented works by Bruckner, Liszt or indeed any other composer might turn up somewhere at some point and that I would therefore never discount such a possibility.
I did not and do not state, or even imply, "I know not of the conversations, therefore they did not happen"; I merely pointed out that Liszt's been dead for a very long time and can't do what you claim he has done. Dragging Hume, Mill or anyone else into what passes for your argument proves - and indeed achieves - nothing of material value any more than do your references to what you perceive to be my "world view" have any relevance to or impact upon this issue.Or obtaining a copy of it as I suggested earlier; OK, that wouldn't prove that it was genuine - only specialist examination of the item iteslf could hope to do that (hence my observations about authentication) - but it would at least reveal the text that it contains. On this aspect of the matter you are at least on somewhat safer ground.
I'm not being querulous with Liszt at all; far from it! I have simply pointed out that he's dead and cannot therefore communicate; his legacy does the communicating and it is, of course, a vast an important one. On the contrary, mightn't it be argued that your assertions about commuinication represent an arrogant, self-serving and attention-seeking way for you to treat Liszt?

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

Basically what you are saying is this: the hypothesis that I could walk in to an address, and walk out of the address with a copy of a specifically titled Liszt work announced here, and that I could do this without any historical reference for either the work or the presence of an unknown Liszt work at the address - you are saying that this hypothesis is less improbable than the hypothesis that I have a source for this information in personal communion with Franz Liszt.  I don't think you can verify one of these as being more or less improbable than the other, and either way, persons would want to know how the "discovery" of the manuscript was accomplished.  For me to say, "Hej! I went on a vacation, walked in to an address, walked to a location within the address, pulled out a previously unknown Liszt work the title of which I knew in advance and posted here, I then copied the work, and walked out!" - this would, I suspect, leave many plausible questions to be asked by observers.

As for why Liszt has made me the subjects of particular assignments, rather than the persons you mention, and including yourself, I do not know the answer - except that, if you all were to seek "professional help" rather than carry out the assignments, this would not be what is wanted by Liszt.

And how do you know that none of these persons has had contact with Liszt?  Is this contact something they would necessarily reveal to you or to any other person?  I wouldn't assume that others than myself would be forthcoming about such experiences.

One thing I do know is that Liszt can exert influence upon others without their knowing it.  I did not know who or what it was at first.  And I am inclined to think that some of this, at least, occurs with others and perhaps with more than a few persons.  When he is not here with me, I doubt he is just "sitting" around somewhere twiddling his metaphorical thumbs.

It is no disservice to Liszt that I give the truth of my experiences, and in fact this seems to be what he wants me to do, though he has not said either way and perhaps is neutral upon it.

And I do apologize for saying that you are a dogmatist.  What I perceive to be an attacking nature from you unfortunately misled me to that conclusion.


Mvh,
Michael

[brogers70]

Hi brogers70,
...

A list of objects and phenomenon historically which were considered as factually non-existent, of which probably you are aware:

1) ball lightning
2) gorillas
3) meteorites

Just because one hasn't yet observed it in laboratory conditions, doesn't mean it isn't there or that it does not happen.  And I am sure you agree with this in a general way, I am just emphasizing the point for Alistair's benefit.

There are many claims today which are denied, and of which one can be sure that at least some of these claims are true.  That is the historical pattern.  Human knowledge, surely, is not yet complete in 2015.  Again . . . this is for Alistair's benefit, as I think you, brogers70, already get all of this.

Sure. When the evidence for communication between Franz Liszt and yourself is as abundant as the evidence for gorillas, meteorites and ball lightning, I'll be open to being convinced. That claims initially thought to be false sometimes turn out to be true is not a warrant for accepting seemingly false claims generally. In the meanwhile, I think it more likely that you are mistaken or are trying to deceive us, with simply mistaken seeming most likely.

[michael_sayers]

Sure. When the evidence for communication between Franz Liszt and yourself is as abundant as the evidence for gorillas, meteorites and ball lightning, I'll be open to being convinced. That claims initially thought to be false sometimes turn out to be true is not a warrant for accepting seemingly false claims generally. In the meanwhile, I think it more likely that you are mistaken or are trying to deceive us, with simply mistaken seeming most likely.

When it happens, won't the "discovery" of what seems to be a previously unknown and unreferenced work (apart from my references to it and with the specific title) be evidence of "something"?

[michael_sayers]

p.s. for Alistair - Regarding not having requested a photocopy of the manuscript, it isn't clear to me what all occupies the address.  With some other addresses on the street, a commercial or institutional occupier/tenant can be identified.  There is a bit of a language barrier which prevents me from obtaining so much as even a phone number that might, in this situation, prove useful.

[ahinton]

A list of objects and phenomenon historically which were considered as factually non-existent, of which probably you are aware:

1) ball lightning
2) gorillas
3) meteorites

Just because one hasn't yet observed it in laboratory conditions, doesn't mean it isn't there or that it does not happen.  And I am sure you agree with this in a general way, I am just emphasizing the point for Alistair's benefit.

I don't know why, however - and brogers70 makes good points. Let's re-examine this; Liszt died in 1886. We're now in 2015. In all that time (and before that time), no one has ever demonstrated, under laboratory or inddeed any other independently observable conditions, that anyone who is dead has succeeded in commmunicating with anyone who is alive. The examples 1) - 3) above that you cite do not help here, because they are cases in which phenomena supposedly once thought not to exist have been proved to exist after all. As long as the situation in respect of dead people communicating with live ones remains unproven and apparently unprovable, it must be treated differently to your three examples. Human communication by definition presumes noth the communicators and communicatees to be alive at the time of communication; this is as much the case today when we know about such phenomena as DNA, the human genome, &c. which were unknown in Liszt's day. Were Liszt able to communicate directly to a live person today - including speech in a langauge that he rarely used during his known lifetime - it would follow that whoever pronounced him dead in 1886 would have made a grave error and I do not think that such an error was made. As I have already pointed out, due assessment of your claim would sensibly presume to include the need to question why Liszt would choose to communicate with you in particular (I'm not being rude in so saying - I am merely referring to tht fact that it is you alone that is making such a claim) and not with anyone else, even distinguished Liszt scholars).

There are many claims today which are denied, and of which one can be sure that at least some of these claims are true.  That is the historical pattern.  Human knowledge, surely, is not yet complete in 2015.  Again . . . this is for Alistair's benefit, as I think you, brogers70, already get all of this.

Again, I don't know what benefit you believe you are attempting to offer to me here; of couse human knowledge is not complete in 2015 and it never will be; there nevertheless comes a point at which humans must try to conclude that, after a period of time, when not a shred of evidence in support of a claim about the dead communicating directly with the living in many decades of speculation on some people's part about such a phenomenon despite all the manifold expansions of knowledge about humans and humanity, the claim muat be treated as unsupportable; in your case, that unsupportability is emphasised when one considers that there's no obvious reason why Liszt would wish to cmmunicate with you even if he could.

Now can we drop all this stuff and, if anything, concentrate on the ms. that you have written about and which you are convinced exists (which indeed it may) and which you believe is in Liszt's hand and whose whereabouts and ownership you appear to be aware until the facts are brought to light either in the form of that ms. itself or incontrovertible evidence that it does not exist after all? Many thanks!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Basically what you are saying is this: the hypothesis that I could walk in to an address, and walk out of the address with a copy of a specifically titled Liszt work announced here, and that I could do this without any historical reference for either the work or the presence of an unknown Liszt work at the address - you are saying that this hypothesis is less improbable than the hypothesis that I have a source for this information in personal communion with Franz Liszt.  I don't think you can verify one of these as being more or less improbable than the other, and either way, persons would want to know how the "discovery" of the manuscript was accomplished.  For me to say, "Hej! I went on a vacation, walked in to an address, walked to a location within the address, pulled out a previously unknown Liszt work the title of which I knew in advance and posted here, I then copied the work, and walked out!" - this would, I suspect, leave many plausible questions to be asked by observers.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. Of course you would not expect to visit an address, partake of an hitherto unknown and undocumented Liszt ms. and walk out with it (having first been granted permission by its owner to do so, of course - I am not suggesting that you are a potential thief!) without first having some information about it and its existence and location from somewhere, but when other mss. of Liszt have been unearthed it has always been as a consequence of research and detective work, not by the assistance some kind of spurious supernatural phenomenon involving the composer himself as though he were alive! As I wrote previosuly, humans can only communicate with others when alive, and Liszt is dead.

As for why Liszt has made me the subjects of particular assignments, rather than the persons you mention, and including yourself, I do not know the answer - except that, if you all were to seek "professional help" rather than carry out the assignments, this would not be what is wanted by Liszt.

What kind of "professional help" do you have in mind in this particular context? You cannot know any more than can Liszt himself or indeed anyone else what Liszt "wants" 129 years after his death; that said, carry out the assignment of unearthing this ms. and we can look at that if you succeed.

And how do you know that none of these persons has had contact with Liszt?  Is this contact something they would necessarily reveal to you or to any other person?

Yes! Any Liszt scholar of such magnitude of the two that I mentioned have spent a large part of his/her life not only in researching the chosen subject but in sharing the findings with others; this is what conscientious musicologists do!

I wouldn't assume that others than myself would be forthcoming about such experiences.

That's your prerogative, I guess, but what makes you so different the those others? It's not, after all, as though you're making a secret of it, becasue instead of that you're writing about it here!

One thing I do know is that Liszt can exert influence upon others without their knowing it.  I did not know who or what it was at first.  And I am inclined to think that some of this, at least, occurs with others and perhaps with more than a few persons.

It seems to me that you are, for whatever easons or none, mistaking - indeed, confusing - the influence of Liszt's example with that of Liszt himself who has been dead for many years; I've already drawn attention to Liszt's enormous legacy and the very fact that he is performed, discussed, written about, researched and the rest to the extent that he still is today is testament to the extent and value of that astonishing legacy, but that's not the same thing as the dead Liszt pretending still to be alinve or someone trying to pretend that he is alive or behaving as though he is alive.

When he is not here with me, I doubt he is just "sitting" around somewhere twiddling his metaphorical thumbs.

This is really a preposterous statement on all counts; he himself personally is never "here with you", nor is he, as a dead man, able to "sit around" anywhere doing anything, let alone speaking!

It is no disservice to Liszt that I give the truth of my experiences, and in fact this seems to be what he wants me to do, though he has not said either way and perhaps is neutral upon it.

You give what you believe to be the truth of your experiences, which is not the same thing; as such it cannot be a disservice to Liszt per se - especially as he cannot answer back or be affected by its consequences - but it is a disservice to yourself in Liszt's name, as I suggested previously.

And I do apologize for saying that you are a dogmatist.  What I perceive to be an attacking nature from you unfortunately misled me to that conclusion.

Thank you. That's OK. Your perception itself was what misled you here, probably because you either could not or seemed unwilling to be able to draw a distinction between a bona fide challenge to your assertions and an "attack".

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Sure. When the evidence for communication between Franz Liszt and yourself is as abundant as the evidence for gorillas, meteorites and ball lightning, I'll be open to being convinced. That claims initially thought to be false sometimes turn out to be true is not a warrant for accepting seemingly false claims generally. In the meanwhile, I think it more likely that you are mistaken or are trying to deceive us, with simply mistaken seeming most likely.

Ah, good sense at last! I did point out earlier that if everything were potentially to be believed irrespective of the existence or otherwise of any kind of proof then the entire edifice of the factual would risk collapsing. I am myself more inclined to believe that mistakenness is more likely than wilful deception in this case (not least because it seems no one is being deceived by it in any case!), but the delusionality from which it appears to arise does seem to be born of a kind of arrogance, a self-serving agenda and an attention-seeking motivation, otherwise why bother?

Best,

Alistair

[themeandvariation]

I think that we, here,  (under the guise of the discussion at hand), are Really being treated to an Arrangement of "Waiting for Godot"…..
S. Beckett whispered to me that he is pleased, and indeed,  laughing…  
Cheers!

[michael_sayers]

Ah, good sense at last! I did point out earlier that if everything were potentially to be believed irrespective of the existence or otherwise of any kind of proof then the entire edifice of the factual would risk collapsing. I am myself more inclined to believe that mistakenness is more likely than wilful deception in this case (not least because it seems no one is being deceived by it in any case!), but the delusionality from which it appears to arise does seem to be born of a kind of arrogance, a self-serving agenda and an attention-seeking motivation, otherwise why bother?

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

As I have said before, and getting back to the start of this thread, when a composer posts a recording and/or a score of a composition or arrangement, it is appropriate that the composer given some statement about the composition or arrangement, and state what is relevant.  To simply post a link for an audio recording, without this explanation or account, would be (in my opinion) expressive of disrespect for whoever may happen to read the post and possibly also listen to the recording.

Fact is, as you say, you (and others) have "challenged" (attacked?) me for providing background information on the arrangement, and I have defended rather than imply - through passivity - confusion, uncertainty and/or weakness.

You and others have made a big deal of my communion with Liszt, and indeed I continue to feel that to "challenge" (attack?) an arranger or a composer for the extra-musical origination of his or her work, is an instance of very poor judgement, and especially when this is connected with the religious beliefs (or non-belief, as here) of the "challenger" (attacker?) vs. those of the composer/arranger.  Such a "challenge" (attack?) is highly socially inappropriate, in my opinion.

I do hope that when I post a recording here, with a link to the score and of Love, Rebirth and Cosmic Acceptance, and with the honest and fair giving of credit where credit is due by stating that the harmonic and melodic content of the first 23 measures, along with a simple piano arrangement for me to improve upon, were contributed to the work in the course of my communion with Liszt, that the response here will be more kind and less "challenging" (attacking?) on the grounds of difference of religious belief/non belief.

For clarity, and in my instance, it can be accurately stated that all of my conclusions, and insofar as it is within my power, are knowledge based, and not to do with belief.  The things which I know are true and traditionally belonging to the category of "belief", the majority of which have gone unstated here, are knowledge based and not faith based, although for a knowledgeable person the leap of faith that may be involved with these other things - things which have been the subject of years of philosophical meditation and related analysis on my part - is but a quite minuscule leap; I am no proselytizer, and I am no attacker upon the beliefs or non-beliefs of others, so I have left the other things and the most important things out.  But when attacked I am, being secure in my knowledge, quite able and confident to defend, even if such defence involves a philosophical turning of the tables upon the attacker to justify his or her premises - something to which you have failed (in my opinion) adequately to give response, and yet, and due to my non-attacking and also civil nature, I do not challenge you directly upon the philosophical insufficiency of your responses.

A composer could post his "Ode to Atheism", and I would say nothing to him upon the extra musical associations.  That is his right and his freedom to decide for himself, and as it should be.  I might, however, say something about the music, if I were so inclined, as this is - after all - a music forum, not a philosophy/religion/theology forum.

I wish that your attitude in this forum toward one of differing beliefs than your own - I wish that this attitude of yours could bear a similarly, socially appropriate respect toward and acceptance of others and their differences.


Mvh,
Michael

[brogers70]

When it happens, won't the "discovery" of what seems to be a previously unknown and unreferenced work (apart from my references to it and with the specific title) be evidence of "something"?

Of course. Assuming you mentioned the location and title of the previously unknown Liszt work in advance, it would be evidence that you knew about it in advance. Both Hume and I, however, would require a good deal more evidence before accepting the claim that you had that knowledge because the dead Liszt told you about it, rather than thinking that you had gotten that knowledge by some other mechanism that didn't appear to violate the laws of nature.

[ahinton]

Fact is, as you say, you (and others) have "challenged" (attacked?) me for providing background information on the arrangement, and I have defended rather than imply - through passivity - confusion, uncertainty and/or weakness.

When did I challenge you for providing background information that's believable?

You and others have made a big deal of my communion with Liszt, and indeed I continue to feel that to "challenge" (attack?) an arranger or a composer for the extra-musical origination of his or her work, is an instance of very poor judgement, and especially when this is connected with the religious beliefs (or non-belief, as here) of the "challenger" (attacker?) vs. those of the composer/arranger.  Such a "challenge" (attack?) is highly socially inappropriate, in my opinion.

To challenge anyone over the extra-musical origin that he/she claims for anything that he/she has done is by no mans an instance of "very poor judgement" when it is entirely predicated upon assertions that are not merely unprovable but physically impossible. Religious beliefs or the lack thereof do not come into it and I for one have made no mentio0n of them in this context.

I do hope that when I post a recording here, with a link to the score and of Love, Rebirth and Cosmic Acceptance, and with the honest and fair giving of credit where credit is due by stating that the harmonic and melodic content of the first 23 measures, along with a simple piano arrangement for me to improve upon, were contributed to the work in the course of my communion with Liszt, that the response here will be more kind and less "challenging" (attacking?) on the grounds of difference of religious belief/non belief.

Again, I've made no refeence to such beliefs or the lack of them. No one would necessarily deny the influence of Liszt on work that appears to show it; it is merely this alleged "communion" that's the issue here. Apart from any other consideration, it would be impossible to tell whether such an impact on the music derived from the influence of Liszt or direct comunication with Liszt, even if the latter were possible, which it is't.

You still seem to be unable to distinguish between bona fide criticism and/or challenge on the one hand and attacks on the other; I cannot help you with this but would at least counsel you to try.

Though in my instance, all conclusions insofar as it is within my power, are knowledge based, and not to do with belief.  The things which I know are true and traditionally belonging to the category of "belief", the majority of which have gone unstated here, are knowledge based and not faith based, although for a knowledgeable person the leap of faith that may be involved with these other things - things which have been the subject of years of philosophical meditation and related analysis on my part - is but a quite minuscule leap; I am no proselytizer, and I am no attacker upon the beliefs or non-beliefs of others, so I have left the other things and the most important things out, but when attacked I am, being quite secure in my knowledge, quite able and confident to defend, even if such defence involves a philosophical turning of the tables upon the attacker to justify his or her premises, something which you are either unwilling or unable to do.

You're on about religious beliefs and the lack of them once again; these do not apply here. If your assetions are in any case based upon knowledge rather than belief, proof should be possible.

A person could post his "Ode to Atheism", and I would say nothing to him upon the extra musical associations.  That is his right and his freedom to decide for himself, and as it should be.  I might, however, say something about the music, if I were so inclined, as this is - after all - music forum, not a philosophy/religion/theology forum.

It is indeed - so, once again, why keep dragging such issues into the discussion where they have no place to be?!

Hole.

Dig.

Deeper.

Stop.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

When it happens, won't the "discovery" of what seems to be a previously unknown and unreferenced work (apart from my references to it and with the specific title) be evidence of "something"?

Yes, of course - but we'll need to wait for that.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

p.s. for Alistair - Regarding not having requested a photocopy of the manuscript, it isn't clear to me what all occupies the address.  With some other addresses on the street, a commercial or institutional occupier/tenant can be identified.  There is a bit of a language barrier which prevents me from obtaining so much as even a phone number that might, in this situation, prove useful.

Now come on. Either you know where this ms. is located and who owns it or you don't; if the latter and you nevertheless have an approximate idea as to wherre it is, you need to do the rest of the research to find out and if that involves the help of someone who speaks a lauguage that you don't, then seek it withou delay!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Of course. Assuming you mentioned the location and title of the previously unknown Liszt work in advance, it would be evidence that you knew about it in advance. Both Hume and I, however, would require a good deal more evidence before accepting the claim that you had that knowledge because the dead Liszt told you about it, rather than thinking that you had gotten that knowledge by some other mechanism that didn't appear to violate the laws of nature.

As I have already pointed out! - but now it seems that Michael doesn't actually know its precise location or the identity of its owner after all.

This is getting more tiresome by the minute!

Best,

Alistair

[liszt1022]

STOP

[thalbergmad]

What a load of old crap.

Thal

[michael_sayers]

When did I challenge you for providing background information that's believable?
To challenge anyone over the extra-musical origin that he/she claims for anything that he/she has done is by no mans an instance of "very poor judgement" when it is entirely predicated upon assertions that are not merely unprovable but physically impossible. Religious beliefs or the lack thereof do not come into it and I for one have made no mentio0n of them in this context.
Again, I've made no refeence to such beliefs or the lack of them. No one would necessarily deny the influence of Liszt on work that appears to show it; it is merely this alleged "communion" that's the issue here. Apart from any other consideration, it would be impossible to tell whether such an impact on the music derived from the influence of Liszt or direct comunication with Liszt, even if the latter were possible, which it is't.

You still seem to be unable to distinguish between bona fide criticism and/or challenge on the one hand and attacks on the other; I cannot help you with this but would at least counsel you to try.
You're on about religious beliefs and the lack of them once again; these do not apply here. If your assetions are in any case based upon knowledge rather than belief, proof should be possible.
It is indeed - so, once again, why keep dragging such issues into the discussion where they have no place to be?!

Hole.

Dig.

Deeper.

Stop.

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

I'll say it again: I posted a recording of a music arrangement at the start of this thread.  When a composer does this, it is appropriate to state relevant background information.  You continue to criticize [formerly it was "challenge"] the extra musical background information which has been provided, and you continue to make a big deal out of it.  If you have no constructive criticism of this work of the performing arts, then maybe you should start a new thread about philosophy, religion and theology.  There is, I suspect, a free for all forum here where you can do this.

About the location of the manuscript: I do not have knowledge of how to find a listing for the addresses in the city and which lists all tenants, occupants, owners, et c. - institutional, commercial and otherwise - appertaining to each address on the street and also to the specific address.  If the address were in an officially English language country, this would be no issue to resolve - yet it is not in an officially English language country.  This is, it seems, for me to sort out, rather than for you to go on and on about in this forum.

I must recant my position that you are not attacking.  This is personal, and is not about the piano arrangement for this thread, as it concerns the issue of a piano arrangement having a background which is contrary to your religious belief (or non belief).

Please stop.


Mvh,
Michael

[stoat_king]

You and others have made a big deal of my communion with Liszt, and indeed I continue to feel that to "challenge" (attack?) an arranger or a composer for the extra-musical origination of his or her work, is an instance of very poor judgement, and especially when this is connected with the religious beliefs (or non-belief, as here) of the "challenger" (attacker?) vs. those of the composer/arranger.  Such a "challenge" (attack?) is highly socially inappropriate, in my opinion.

Whilst I have some sympathy for your position, you must surely understand that your exposition of the background to these pieces ('I see dead people') is a social gambit with an expectation so low that it could reasonably described as disastrous.

I recently overheard someone I distantly know trying to chat up a young lady with "The voices are telling me that you're the one for me".
How do you think that went?
Do you imagine the results of your astonishing revelations here could be any different?
It didn't help that he followed this up with "You're not as hot as your mum are you". Oh well.

I don't doubt that you are sincere, but you must have had some purpose in posting here.
I cant conceive of any such purpose that you haven't undermined to the point of extinction.
You have effectively made the music you posted an irrelevance, which is a shame because I found some of it interesting.
Its now lost in the noise of the circus you have created.
I am surprised that this is what you are about, given the passion of your earlier posts.

[michael_sayers]

Whilst I have some sympathy for your position, you must surely understand that your exposition of the background to these pieces ('I see dead people') is a social gambit with an expectation so low that it could reasonably described as disastrous.

I recently overheard someone I distantly know trying to chat up a young lady with "The voices are telling me that you're the one for me".
How do you think that went?
Do you imagine the results of your astonishing revelations here could be any different?
It didn't help that he followed this up with "You're not as hot as your mum are you". Oh well.

I don't doubt that you are sincere, but you must have had some purpose in posting here.
I cant conceive of any such purpose that you haven't undermined to the point of extinction.
You have effectively made the music you posted an irrelevance, which is a shame because I found some of it interesting.
Its now lost in the noise of the circus you have created.
I am surprised that this is what you are about, given the passion of your earlier posts.

Hi stoat_king,

Certainly you are right, that sincerity about such things as here isn't wise, at least not for social acceptance.  And yet, I've always been a bit of a loner.  Which isn't to say that I don't value others, and want for others to find joy and happiness in life as much as possible.  Yet there is a part of me that keeps me from being deceptive and this is so regardless of the possible social consequences.  It is the same in life, as at the piano or with composing/arranging.  If something feels "right" (to me), or is recognized (perhaps incorrectly) to my mind as an accurate conclusion, I surrender to it.  I trust my instincts and that as long as I harm no one, and as long as I am not malicious, I do no wrong.  Sometimes I do things which I should not do, but I strive as hard as possible not to do such things.

About my own work, my opinion of it varies.  A successful composition in the old fashioned harmonic language would be something one could enter into a composition competition in 2015 and have it win, rather than the medals going to such contemporary fare as might even involve graphic notation.  By that definition, even this year's compositions are in a sense failures.

I'll just have to keep at it and try to improve.

I am not about circuses, yet I am very against treating any person unfairly and subjecting any person to ridicule or shame on the basis of religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, et c., and if I am the focus of what I perceive to be such an attack, I will defend in each instance.

I still remember the one - and only one - audition which did not get me a performance.  I was told later that the reason for this failure was that I am not "German" enough.

This sort of behaviour is despicable, in my opinion.  Each of us decides how we accept being treated by others, and maybe I should have ignored Alistair Hinton's posts, yet I don't accept being ridiculed and shamed by others on the basis of religious belief (or non belief), or involving any of the other things listed in those categories.

[michael_sayers]

Of course. Assuming you mentioned the location and title of the previously unknown Liszt work in advance, it would be evidence that you knew about it in advance. Both Hume and I, however, would require a good deal more evidence before accepting the claim that you had that knowledge because the dead Liszt told you about it, rather than thinking that you had gotten that knowledge by some other mechanism that didn't appear to violate the laws of nature.

Hi brogers70,

One hypothesis that could be put forward is that in the course of my years of Liszt research I came across this information.  In that scenario the reason for waiting 20 years to act on it then would be that part of my time in Sweden involves following a continued trail of this research on Liszt, and that perhaps it is in research here that I learned of the manuscript.

And maybe there is a reference to this work and manuscript out there, somewhere . . . this is entirely plausible.

The outcome of making this music available is bound to be incredibly harsh.  It seems likely that many or most persons will conclude that I have access to Liszt scholarship which I unfairly withhold from the public.   Nonetheless, I will bring the manuscript into the light, no matter the negative fall out or the extent of it . . . unless someone else does it first, in which instance I will be blamed as responsible for the delay by withholding my knowledge of the manuscript and its whereabouts.  I have known about the manuscript, and its location, for three years now.

And I can prove that I knew about it three years ago - this is something I can verify.

[themeandvariation]

Knowing that there are unseen (by the naked eye) forces acting upon us all the time, …gravity…. feelings… our 'mind'… (love) …   it isn't so difficult to imagine someone (who is blinded folded) touching another part of the elephant that i am not touching….
Michael, why not just ask Liszt to mention the address again -- a bit louder, and clearer so you can understand it?  Or to ask, who you might contact about it?…Otherwise, it begs the question, "what does one do with a staticky  signal?"
The answer to which, I suppose, depends on the listener… whether it be Edgard Varèse, Karlheinz Stockhausen,  Claudio Monteverdi ….. but I wouldn't want to put the answer in a Cage

[ahinton]

STOP

Oh, yes please!!!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

What a load of old crap.

Can't speak for the age of it, Thal, old chap, but its overt excremental content is indeed undeniable.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I'll say it again: I posted a recording of a music arrangement at the start of this thread.  When a composer does this, it is appropriate to state relevant background information.  You continue to criticize [formerly it was "challenge"] the extra musical background information which has been provided, and you continue to make a big deal out of it.  If you have no constructive criticism of this work of the performing arts, then maybe you should start a new thread about philosophy, religion and theology.  There is, I suspect, a free for all forum here where you can do this.

Criticise - challenge - call it what you will or won't but either way it's not an attack. It's you who have mde a big deal out of what you allege to be its fons et origo and mopst of the rest of us here who have challenged your assertion on this. For the umpteenth time, "philosophy, religion and theology" have nothing to do with this.

About the location of the manuscript: I do not have knowledge of how to find a listing for the addresses in the city and which lists all tenants, occupants, owners, et c. - institutional, commercial and otherwise - appertaining to each address on the street and also to the specific address.  If the address were in an officially English language country, this would be no issue to resolve - yet it is not in an officially English language country.  This is, it seems, for me to sort out, rather than for you to go on and on about in this forum.

It's you that's going on and on about it; the rest of us wouldn't even know about it had you not started it all! Fine - so just go find and report and then we call all re-enter a discussion but, in the meantime, please just get on with what you have in front of you, since it is, as you mercifully admit, for you (alone) to sort out.

I must recant my position that you are not attacking.  This is personal, and is not about the piano arrangement for this thread, as it concerns the issue of a piano arrangement having a background which is contrary to your religious belief (or non belief).

Please stop.

For what I hope will be the last time, I have made no mention about religion or religious beliefs here and you do not know what mine might be; this being the case, my comments cannot possibly have originated in what might be contrary to my religious beliefs (or otherwise). It is therefore for you to stop talking about this, not for me to do so as I've not mentioned this in the first place. There's also nothing "personal" beyond the fact that it's you who have brought all of this up. Just go find the ms. andthen it can be discussed; until you have - STOP!

Sorry - must go now; it's tme for me to have a chat with Liszt, with one of whose most distinguished scholars I had the privilege to be a student; I might ask him what he has to say about you but won't bother him for an answer if he doesn't feel lke providing one, of course.

I wonder if Liszt is communicating with Humphrey Searle; at least they'e both dead...

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

Knowing that there are unseen (by the naked eye) forces acting upon us all the time, …gravity…. feelings… our 'mind'… (love) …   it isn't so difficult to imagine someone (who is blinded folded) touching another part of the elephant that i am not touching….
Michael, why not just ask Liszt to mention the address again -- a bit louder, and clearer so you can understand it?  Or to ask, who you might contact about it?…Otherwise, it begs the question, "what does one do with a staticky  signal?"
The answer to which, I suppose, depends on the listener… whether it be Edgard Varèse, Karlheinz Stockhausen,  Claudio Monteverdi ….. but I wouldn't want to put the answer in a Cage

Hi themeandvariation,

Liszt gave what I suspect is sufficient information, and the address was heard very clearly though I could not properly spell the street name in that moment due to the pronunciation (What can I say?  While everyone else was studying foreign languages, I spent all my time buried in such things as Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reasonand in Norman Kemp Smith's English translation  . I've had that book since I was 12, and given its great depth and importance it is one of about 20 books I brought to Sweden).

Communication sometimes works like this: when Liszt is here, and when I (when he allows it) know that he is here, his presence can be felt.  Then I get a pen and paper and take dictation.  And the speech is either faster yet not as easy to hear properly, or else is slower and more emphatic with much more space for the punctuation.  Complete sentences aren't necessarily involved, just whatever minimum is necessary to as efficiently as possible provide sufficient information, then he can be gone, or he may linger for some time though silently.  Words by Liszt are not repeated - there is one chance, and one chance only, for me to get it right.

We communicate in other ways.  The linked piano arrangement was given to me initially by him playing the piano through me (an event which obviously is NOT what is heard in the linked recording).

He can give (very ingenious and flexible!)  fingerings for his music when he is present and this is requested, and he communicates changes in his works by way of inwardly heard piano sound, and also his preferred interpretations.  This happened with two of the Concert Etudes.

Other than that . . . his presence is very commanding and majestic, yet also very fatherly and comforting - when he is present it feels like he is one's father - and the sheer intensity of these feelings of him when he is present make one feel as though he is a great religious figure.

[ahinton]

Liszt gave what I suspect is sufficient information, and the address was heard very clearly though I could not properly spell the street name in that moment due to the pronunciation (What can I say?

Too much for sure, already...

While everyone else was studying foreign languages, I spent all my time buried in such things as Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reasonand in Norman Kemp Smith's English   I've had that book since I was 12, and given its great depth and importance it is one of about 20 books I brought to Sweden).

Is that where you are now?

Communication sometimes works like this: when Liszt is here, and when I (when he allows it) know that he is here, his presence can be felt.  Then I get a pen and paper and take dictation.  And the speech is either faster yet not as easy to hear properly, or else is slower and more emphatic with much more space for the punctuation.  Complete sentences aren't necessarily involved, just whatever minimum is necessary to as efficiently as possible provide sufficient information, then he can be gone, or he may linger for some time though silently.  Words by Liszt are not repeated - there is one chance, and one chance only, for me to get it right.

We communicate in other ways.  The linked piano arrangement was given to me initially by him playing the piano through me (which obviously is NOT what is heard in the linked recording).

He can give (very ingenious and flexible!)  fingerings for his music when he is present and this is requested, and he communicates changes in his works by way of inwardly heard piano sound, and also his preferred interpretations.  This happened with the two of the Concert Etudes.

Other than that . . . his presence is very commanding and majestic, yet also very fatherly and comforting - when he is present it feels like he is one's father - and the sheer intensity of these feelings of him when he is present make one feel as though he is a great religious figure.

Ah, so this religious thing of which you write isn't down to me and my beliefs or otherwise after all but down to you, as you admit here.

If we must continue to confront the world of fantasy, then Schumann's Op. 17, please (sorry, Thal!) or, perhaps better still, Busoni's Fantasia Contrappuntistica...

Y

A

W

N...

Best,

Alistair

[eldergeek]

I have followed this thread with (mild) interest and amusement for some time, but I feel it is time to  to say:

Don't. Feed. The. Trolls.!

[stevensk]

I have followed this thread with (mild) interest and amusement for some time, but I feel it is time to  to say:

Don't. Feed. The. Trolls.!

Its not about trolls, its about cockfighting!  Please stop it! There are more serious and extremely terrible things going around in the world today so STOP fighting about piano playing please!!

[michael_sayers]

Criticise - challenge - call it what you will or won't but either way it's not an attack. It's you who have mde a big deal out of what you allege to be its fons et origo and mopst of the rest of us here who have challenged your assertion on this. For the umpteenth time, "philosophy, religion and theology" have nothing to do with this.
It's you that's going on and on about it; the rest of us wouldn't even know about it had you not started it all! Fine - so just go find and report and then we call all re-enter a discussion but, in the meantime, please just get on with what you have in front of you, since it is, as you mercifully admit, for you (alone) to sort out.
For what I hope will be the last time, I have made no mention about religion or religious beliefs here and you do not know what mine might be; this being the case, my comments cannot possibly have originated in what might be contrary to my religious beliefs (or otherwise). It is therefore for you to stop talking about this, not for me to do so as I've not mentioned this in the first place. There's also nothing "personal" beyond the fact that it's you who have brought all of this up. Just go find the ms. andthen it can be discussed; until you have - STOP!

Sorry - must go now; it's tme for me to have a chat with Liszt, with one of whose most distinguished scholars I had the privilege to be a student; I might ask him what he has to say about you but won't bother him for an answer if he doesn't feel lke providing one, of course.

I wonder if Liszt is communicating with Humphrey Searle; at least they'e both dead...

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

What you are doing here, and repeatedly so, is an attack, and it is personal, and it does involve what (for you) is a matter of belief and/or non belief, and all of this as stated here in this sentence is correct, and it is correct whether you admit to it or not.

I've asked nicely for you to stop, and I'll ask again: please stop.

[ahinton]

What you are doing here, and repeatedly so, is an attack, and it is personal, and it does involve what (for you) is a matter of belief and/or non belief, and all of this as stated here in this sentence is correct, and it is correct whether you admit to it or not.

I've asked nicely for you to stop, and I'll ask again: please stop.

First it's an attack, then it isn't, then again it is. Consistency seems not to be one of your watchwords. My beliefs or otherwise - as I have become weary of pointing out - have nothing to do with any of this and what I have challenged you over is endorsed by others here, as you now well. Lastly, for the record, my challenges to your assertion are not any kind of attack, personal or otherwise; I doubt that Liszt would be especially enamoured of your attitude or presentation here, but that is simply my opinion.

I've told you - stop all this stuff about communication with Liszt and confine yourself to finding, if you can, this ms. of which you have written and, if as and when you've done that, feel free to come back to the forum and tell members about what you've found.

In the meantime, it is for me (and others) to ask you once again to stop (except that, in so doing, I do not ask you to stop trying to find what you say you think you can find).

Poor Liszt! Poor Sarah. Hopefully the latter can find a way, as will the former have done, to rise above it all if need be...

Best,

Alistair

[perfect_pitch]

I doubt that Liszt would be especially enamoured of your attitude or presentation here, but that is simply my opinion.

I've told you - stop all this stuff about communication with Liszt

+1   If Liszt wasn't already dead, I'm sure he'd have been given a heart attack listening to Michaels recordings.

[themeandvariation]

Michael:   "I've asked nicely for you to stop, and I'll ask again: please stop."
Alistair:   "it is for me (and others) to ask you once again to stop."

(where is the rim shot when you need it?)

[themeandvariation]

Com'on guys… It's a big sand box… Fugetaboutit !!!!!      (pun intended, and couldn't be better arranged!)

[j_menz]

Com'on guys… It's a big sand box… Fugetaboutit !!!!!      (pun intended, and couldn't be better arranged!)

Fughettaboutit, surely. 

[themeandvariation]

@j_menz…  Thanks for the 'clarifying' - And the coconut cream pie!…  Glad you 'got' it.  i think.  
But as i said, I "arranged" the pun… more to shadow the obvious structural reference, and highlight the 'hood' factor.  Guess it didnt work.  Oh well..  

[michael_sayers]

First it's an attack, then it isn't, then again it is. Consistency seems not to be one of your watchwords. My beliefs or otherwise - as I have become weary of pointing out - have nothing to do with any of this and what I have challenged you over is endorsed by others here, as you now well. Lastly, for the record, my challenges to your assertion are not any kind of attack, personal or otherwise; I doubt that Liszt would be especially enamoured of your attitude or presentation here, but that is simply my opinion.

I've told you - stop all this stuff about communication with Liszt and confine yourself to finding, if you can, this ms. of which you have written and, if as and when you've done that, feel free to come back to the forum and tell members about what you've found.

In the meantime, it is for me (and others) to ask you once again to stop (except that, in so doing, I do not ask you to stop trying to find what you say you think you can find).

Poor Liszt! Poor Sarah. Hopefully the latter can find a way, as will the former have done, to rise above it all if need be...

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

Do you have any thoughts on what, if in anything, is amiss with the arrangement of Bach's music that is linked in the first post of this thread?  It seems that you do not, in which instance why, and without end in sight, dispute its origins which (to you) are unbelievable, though (according to you) what you believe or not is not relevant here?  Everyone here knows you dispute its origins, but what about thoughts on "it", i.e. the arrangement itself?  You are a professional composer, and one who is familiar I would suspect with far more arrangements of Bach's music for piano than I am, and yet there is little on this subject which you have available to contribute.

As with For Sarah, all you seem capable to do is attack and personally so in relation to the extramusical associations of a work of the performing arts, and nothing more.  This is highly rude and offensive, in my opinion.  About the composition, you do not here demonstrate the sort of discussion composers can engage in, and discussing music does not, in fact, seem to be what you are about at this forum.  There is a separate thread for that composition, by the way, but we can discuss it here if you feel this to be appropriate.

If you are just here to socialize, then what you are doing isn't the way to go about it.  If you are here to attack and ridicule, then you've succeeded at doing so - well done!

You can parody me asking you stop, and yet anyone here can see what it is that you are doing.  You should consider all of this behaviour from you to be beneath yourself, and if either the J.S. Bach piano arrangement or For Sarah are worthy in your eyes of a response from you, then maybe the music contents can, in some way, be a subject of discussion here.

Endless personal attacks, which now involve two works of the performing arts, are simply rude, offensive and inappropriate, and benefit no one - and, as I said, such behaviour is beneath you.  Please think on that.

Re. consistency, I read somewhere that "inconsistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", you might want to read up on that author.

[cbreemer]

This has to be one of the most ridiculous discussions I've ever seen on a forum. It's not even about music or piano playing anymore, it's about having the Last Word. I can't believe anyone is still arguing with MS who's got his head so far up his botty that he'll never get it out again.

[michael_sayers]

This has to be one of the most ridiculous discussions I've ever seen on a forum. It's not even about music or piano playing anymore, it's about having the Last Word. I can't believe anyone is still arguing with MS who's got his head so far up his botty that he'll never get it out again.

Hi cbreemer,

I can't agree more, that the discussion has become ridiculous.  When an attempt is made to hold a person up to public ridicule and shame, and not only this, but a woman as well the character of whom Alistair Hinton knows nothing - and to what extent are members' personal lives his business anyhow, and who is he to judge? - of course I am going to respond.

This thread would have faded away long ago if it were not for Alistair Hinton's vile and beyond the pale behaviour.

I can and have ignored many posts here.  The things Alistair says though, and the persistence of it, is not something that one is going to ignore.

And please note: I do not attack his personal life and associations, and I respect his right to believe whatever he wants.

Yet he is relentless, and I know not what inner agitation has brought him to this unrespectable state of mind.

It is beyond deplorable.

But he does not stop.

[cbreemer]

Here we go again

[michael_sayers]

Here we go again

And you would ignore it if someone had publicly maligned the character of your "Sarah"?  I think you would not ignore it.

[michael_sayers]

And I haven't even said who "Sarah" is or isn't, or what my relation to her is or isn't, and yet he attacked and continues to attack and for reasons unknown.

[ahinton]

Do you have any thoughts on what, if in anything, is amiss with the arrangement of Bach's music that is linked in the first post of this thread?  It seems that you do not, in which instance why, and without end in sight, dispute its origins which (to you) are unbelievable, though (according to you) what you believe or not is not relevant here?  Everyone here knows you dispute its origins, but what about thoughts on "it", i.e. the arrangement itself?  You are a professional composer, and one who is familiar I would suspect with far more arrangements of Bach's music for piano than I am, and yet there is little on this subject which you have available to contribute.

If I said anything, you would probably regard it as another "attack", so I will refrain from doing so.

As with For Sarah, all you seem capable to do is attack and personally so in relation to the extramusical associations of a work of the performing arts, and nothing more.  This is highly rude and offensive, in my opinion.  About the composition, you do not here demonstrate the sort of discussion composers can engage in, and discussing music does not, in fact, seem to be what you are about at this forum.  There is a separate thread for that composition, by the way, but we can discuss it here if you feel this to be appropriate.

I know nothing of its extramusical associations and am not expecting you to divulge them if you prefer not to do so. I have expressed my reservations about the piece itself. Enough said - other than to note en passant that you seem to be easily offended.

If you are just here to socialize, then what you are doing isn't the way to go about it.  If you are here to attack and ridicule, then you've succeeded at doing so - well done!

I am here to do neither, so have neither failed in the former nor succeeded in the latter as you suggest.

You can parody me asking you stop, and yet anyone here can see what it is that you are doing.  You should consider all of this behaviour from you to be beneath yourself, and if either the J.S. Bach piano arrangement or For Sarah are worthy in your eyes of a response from you, then maybe the music contents can, in some way, be a subject of discussion here.

I parody nothing in quoting you; I simply asked you to stop going on about your communications with Liszt and concentrate insad on finding and sharing that ms., the outcome of which has the potential of considerably greater interest here. As mentioned above, I've already commented on the latter of thos pieces; it's up to anyone else whether or not they also wish to do so in order to initiate a discussion.

Endless personal attacks, which now involve two works of the performing arts, are simply rude, offensive and inappropriate, and benefit no one - and, as I said, such behaviour is beneath you. Please think on that.

I don't need to do so or to be asked by you to do so but, in any case, as you either cannot or will not distinguish between an attack and a bona fide challenge, it would make no difference.

Re. consistency, I read somewhere that "inconsistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", you might want to read up on that author.

Thank you for the Emersonian invitation, for all that its purpose is unclear; all that I will therefore do in that circumstance is point out that I am no more "adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines" than I am a pupil - still less a communicant - of Liszt, for what that little nugget of information isn't worth.

Best,

Alistair