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

[michael_sayers]

Aren't you supposed to have buggered off and taken your psychotic rants somewhere else??? Save what credibility you have dangling left and bother some other forum with your rubbish.

I know you're just thinking about possibly replying, just simply to have the last word but you're not going to win. Move on and begone!

Why is it important who has the last word?

[perfect_pitch]

                                               Michael Sayers
                                                        |
                                                        |
                                                        |
                                                       \ /

[j_menz]

Well, and now for something final (and strangely apt)...

[michael_sayers]

Well, and now for something final (and strangely apt)...

As much as I admire Joan Sutherland, maybe Maria Callas is better in such repertoire.

[big time Callas fan here, F.Y.I.]

[michael_sayers]

                                               Michael Sayers
                                                        |
                                                        |
                                                        |
                                                       \ /

Why are you doing this?  This thread isn't even about one of your recordings.

[perfect_pitch]

                                               Michael Sayers
                                                        |
                                                        |
                                                        |
                                                       \ /

[michael_sayers]

                                              Michael Sayers
                                                        |
                                                        |
                                                        |
                                                       \ /

Listen up perfect_pitch,

Any time someone posts something publicly about me or my work at this website, there is no reason why I should not be able to respond.  Fact is, I don't pay close attention to this website, but I do pay close attention to the threads I start - more or less this is true, except that the ones without my recordings as the subject of them, I eventually "forget" about.

You accuse me here of being a troll, yet think on this:

1) this thread was not started by you
2) this thread is about a recording which is not one of your recordings
3) your posts are not about the recording

So who is trolling whose thread here?

Who are you to imply that if someone posts about my recording to the relevant thread which I started about it, that I am not to respond?

Who are you to imply that if someone posts about an opera recording to one of my threads, which would not happen if the poster did not think it was somehow relevant and worth discussing  - and even though the connection to this thread of the Joan Sutherland opera recording is tenuous, in my opinion - that I am to be prevented by you from giving a response?

What is your standing in all of this, and why are you here - not just at this thread, but at Piano Street in general?

Please give all of this serious thought before you continue to reflexively post to one of my threads.

[ahinton]

..."(de)parting is such sweet sorrow"...(Romeo and Juliet, Bill Shakers)

Best,

Alistair

[perfect_pitch]

                                               Michael Sayers
                                                        |
                                                        |
                                                        |
                                                       \ /





Sorry Michael, did you say something???

[michael_sayers]

Sorry Michael, did you say something???

LOL . . . I was sure that Alistair Hinton's latest had been the last post in this thread.

Perfect_pitch, maybe you and I can discuss the recording of Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major, BWV 852, that is the subject of this thread.

[ahinton]

Maybe we can discuss the recording of Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major, BWV 852, that is the subject of this thread.

I've said my piece about it (albeit belatedly); some others have done the same. In the absence of much further comment, might it not just be possible that people here do not feel that there is anything more about it to discuss?

Have you decided against that departure after all?

Just wondering...

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

I've said my piece about it (albeit belatedly); some others have done the same. In the absence of much further comment, might it not just be possible that people here do not feel that there is anything more about it to discuss?

Have you decided against that departure after all?

Just wondering...

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

I had departed, and I had sincerely thought that your R. & J. post would be the last, but perfect_pitch posted again to this thread so I returned to respond.  With all due respect, if someone is saying things about me or my work publicly, what is it to you if or how I respond?  I am sure that eventually perfect_pitch will leave me alone and come to his or her senses, some how.  I made a very strongly worded, and reasonable post up above, to dissuade perfect_pitch from continuing onward here, but that post of mine did not succeed.

I am (de)parting again.

Hopefully I shall not be compelled once more to return!


Mvh,
Michael

[cbreemer]

Quick, somebody lock the thread before he comes back yet again 

[j_menz]

Quick, somebody lock the thread before he comes back yet again 

Don't be lazy. Here...





Do it yourself.

I will want that back, though. Never know when it might be needed.

[michael_sayers]

C'mon on guys and gals, I think you all have trolled me, and this thread which I started, enough.  You can continue to troll this thread if you wish but do not expect or anticipate a continued response from me.

The best thing would be for everyone to just let all the threads I've started sink away into the archival recesses of Piano Street - unless, of course, there is something new and of substance to add, or at least something about the subject of the threads, and as such I may return in the future to append the scores of the arrangements both here, of J.S. Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852, and also of Edvard Grieg's Op. 12 No. 7, to their respective threads and once the scores have been made available online.

Goodbye for now . . .

[cbreemer]

Did he just say goodbye ? What does that mean ? Confused now....

[cbreemer]

Don't be lazy. Here...
Do it yourself.

I have these:



Will that work as well ? I think the 277 wil be best suited.

[8_octaves]

Don't be lazy. Here...





Do it yourself.

I will want that back, though. Never know when it might be needed.

LOL j_menz 

what about this one:

On an Egyptian Scroll of Thoth this is to read:

"Every-mortal-who-continueth-this-thread-unfriendly-shall-be-devoured-not-by-Ammit-but-by-the-threadlocker: the-dreadlocked thread-lock-dog. And-then-be-forlorn-on-The-Cemetery-Of-The-West. Be-he-not-justified-before-the-Gods! So-mote-he-face-eternal-punishment!" 

Idea by: 8_octaves!

[ahinton]

I have these:



Will that work as well ? I think the 277 wil be best suited.

I think that the unillustrated 852 would be better.

In the meantime, I await with interest MS's interpretation of the finale of Alkan's solo Concerto (i.e. no. 10 from his Douze Études dans les tons mineurs) when and if he's prepared to share it...

Best,

Alistair

[cbreemer]

In the meantime, I await with interest MS's interpretation of the finale of Alkan's solo Concerto (i.e. no. 10 from his Douze Études dans les tons mineurs) when and if he's prepared to share it...

Lord NO !! That will take hours, and rupture your eardrums in the progress....

But see the Liszt program on his website https://www.michaelsayers.com/
It would be very interesting to hear St. Francois d'Assise: La predication aux oiseaux fortissimo
at half speed in double octaves, all the birds drowned in pedal. Or the Orage at quarter speed.
The Stockholm public has a lot to look forward to.

[perfect_pitch]

I had departed, and I had sincerely thought that your R. & J. post would be the last, but perfect_pitch posted again to this thread so I returned to respond. 

No, do not blame me for that. You seemingly want to come back and post here despite your continued messages saying you want to leave, as if my posts saying 'Bye, bye, don't come back and don't let the thread door smack you across the face as you leave' is a invitation to invite you back... It is not.

unless, of course, there is something new and of substance to add, or at least something about the subject of the threads

No... There is nothing else to add, nothing at all - I held a meeting with the other members of the forum and they all agreed. There is NOTHING at all to add; nada, zero, zilch.

You can continue to troll this thread if you wish but do not expect or anticipate a continued response from me.

That's great - please don't reply. What I will say though is that it's been an interesting(ly odd and baffling) 2 months, but I wish you well with whatever other forums you continue to converse with.

I bid you adieu...

[michael_sayers]

Hi perfect_pitch,

Thanks for your kind and courteous post.

There is one thing to add regarding this arrangement of Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major, BWV 852, and this is that the l.h. tremolo in measure 43 through beats one and two of measure 44 have never seemed quite right to my ears.  I don't have any particular improvement on that small portion of the arrangement, and I would need to interpret and/or arrange the Prelude from scratch (and without Liszt's involvement) to come up with something potentially more satisfying.

I am not leaving Piano Street permanently, and I will return - and the departure isn't because I am being asked to leave, it is because all the threads started seem to more or less have run their courses, although this one, and also the one for Edvard Grieg's Op. 12 No. 7, still are yet to have the scores appended for the arrangements that were recorded.

It is a bit hard to accurately dissect a particular arrangement and also the playing of it without the score, and the two may not and here - in fact - do not entirely align, and as this arrangement isn't yet publicly available, it really isn't a fair task of examination for anyone to attempt.  It is with the copyright office, yet it needs to be seen if the free-scores website allows arrangements of public domain material, jpgs need to be produced and sized, and so on.  These remaining steps are for later this year.

So, yes, I am leaving, though I may from time to time post observations to other threads than this one here, and eventually I will be back with new recordings to share.  I don't play games or indulge in ploys - I did though want to add to the discussion this one reservation I have had about the Bach Prelude arrangement given to me by Liszt.

Fare thee well perfect_pitch (and all others who are here) . . . even with ups and downs, Piano Street has been refreshing.  This is nothing against Piano World, though it is nice to communicate somewhere other than P.W. and where the standards of decorum are not set quite as high.

p.s. - About the choice of YouTube which some persons here complain about, I did consider uploading mp3s to Piano Street as some other members do, yet I am not enough studied in law to understand the implications of this here - at YouTube though I can understand the implications of uploading material, and SoundClick seems to not be very user friendly, in my opinion.  The audio content of the recordings is what is important, and not the particular choice of hosting website or web domain - everyone has to figure out which web hosting system works best for him or herself.

[perfect_pitch]

There is one thing to add regarding this arrangement of Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major, BWV 852

NO, NO, NO... This was supposed to be the point where you go on your merry way, and we all get this thread back to the way it was before your incessant rants, and we all live happily ever after.

and this is that the l.h. tremolo in measure 43 through beats one and two of measure 44 have never seemed quite right to my ears.

No. If that's your only problem with the...

arrangement

NO... It's not an arrangement. Adding a couple extra octaves, changing the tempo and buggering up the dynamics is not an arrangement. Just because you add a fff to a Chopin Prelude doesn't make it an arrangement. You clearly don't know what the term means. What Busoni did to the Bach Toccata's - THAT'S an arrangement.

Anyhow, I digress - if THAT'S your only problem with your recording, then I would see an Otolaryngologist immediately, because Bars 43 - 44 were the LEAST of your problems (bad tuning, hearing loss and with the tempos you play at - possibly global delay).

I am not leaving Piano Street permanently, and I will return - and the departure isn't because I am being asked to leave

Awww - why not, it was so peaceful before you came. Were you pissed off that your forums on Pianoworld weren't getting any replies, so you thought you'd spam the crap out of here???

it is because all the threads started seem to more or less have run their courses, although this one, and also the one for Edvard Grieg's Op. 12 No. 7, still are yet to have the scores appended for the arrangements that were recorded

If you're happy - I'm willing to troll it into the ground, if it will compel you to leave.   

So, yes, I am leaving, though I may from time to time post observations to other threads than this one here, and eventually I will be back with new recordings to share.

Please don't... please, please don't. So far you've posted over a dozen recordings, and from them was absolutely nothing of a sharable nature. Personally, I'd rather you keep them to yourself (primarily because I have perfect pitch, and the sound of you're out of tune piano is giving me tinnitus, but mainly because your performances are of such poor value, shoddy authenticity to the time period or composers intentions, and crappy interpretative notions).

Fare thee well

I tried playing nice, but I think it's now clear who is the troll (clearly you), who seems completely oblivious to the reaction you've had. It's basically been negative in almost every single way, and I doubt anyone has eaten up the 'garbage' that was your claim that Liszt spoke to you and inspired you to play the way you do. To claim that, is pretty much the GREATEST insult that could be said against Liszt, and as someone who admires the work of Liszt, and as someone who does proper arrangements, that even if the next time we conversed was on the day of the Apocalypse, it would be far too soon.

Fare thee well??

I don't f@#$ing think so.

[michael_sayers]

NO, NO, NO... This was supposed to be the point where you go on your merry way, and we all get this thread back to the way it was before your incessant rants, and we all live happily ever after.

No. If that's your only problem with the...

NO... It's not an arrangement. Adding a couple extra octaves, changing the tempo and buggering up the dynamics is not an arrangement. Just because you add a fff to a Chopin Prelude doesn't make it an arrangement. You clearly don't know what the term means. What Busoni did to the Bach Toccata's - THAT'S an arrangement.

Anyhow, I digress - if THAT'S your only problem with your recording, then I would see an Otolaryngologist immediately, because Bars 43 - 44 were the LEAST of your problems (bad tuning, hearing loss and with the tempos you play at - possibly global delay).

Awww - why not, it was so peaceful before you came. Were you pissed off that your forums on Pianoworld weren't getting any replies, so you thought you'd spam the crap out of here???

If you're happy - I'm willing to troll it into the ground, if it will compel you to leave.    

Please don't... please, please don't. So far you've posted over a dozen recordings, and from them was absolutely nothing of a sharable nature. Personally, I'd rather you keep them to yourself (primarily because I have perfect pitch, and the sound of you're out of tune piano is giving me tinnitus, but mainly because your performances are of such poor value, shoddy authenticity to the time period or composers intentions, and crappy interpretative notions).

I tried playing nice, but I think it's now clear who is the troll (clearly you), who seems completely oblivious to the reaction you've had. It's basically been negative in almost every single way, and I doubt anyone has eaten up the 'garbage' that was your claim that Liszt spoke to you and inspired you to play the way you do. To claim that, is pretty much the GREATEST insult that could be said against Liszt, and as someone who admires the work of Liszt, and as someone who does proper arrangements, that even if the next time we conversed was on the day of the Apocalypse, it would be far too soon.

I don't f@#$ing think so.

Hi perfect_pitch,

These things are arrangements - and not only that, the originals, too, are particular arrangements of the notes, as Busoni so well observed in his Sketch for a New Aesthetic of Music.

This arrangement of J.S. Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major, BWV 852, was obtained not by any verbal delivery from Liszt, but by in the first instance with Liszt playing it through me at a piano - unfortunately the recording linked to this thread is from a later date.

Bottom line, you don't like what you are hearing with these recordings, and I can respect this 100%.  There are a lot of recordings of music which I don't particularly appreciate, although I do appreciate a very wide range of pianists and pianistic styles.

At the end of the day:

1) these are arrangements, as are the originals (according to Busoni, who is right about this)

and

2) my communion with Liszt is factual

What you think about these recordings, and of my communion with Liszt, and of Busoni's Sketch for a New Aesthetic of Music, is up to you my friend.


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

These things are arrangements - and not only that, the originals, too, are particular arrangements of the notes, as Busoni so well observed in his Sketch for a New Aesthetic of Music.

Be that or be it not the case, there are good arrangments and bad ones just as there are good performance and bad ones (not to mention well tguned pianos and badly tuned ones).

This arrangement of J.S. Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major, BWV 852, was obtained not by any verbal delivery from Liszt, but by in the first instance with Liszt playing it through me at a piano - unfortunately the recording linked to this thread is from a later date.

Ahem. Well, I don't think that anyone here would have assumed that even you would have sought to claim that Liszt dictated this to you verbally! But "playing it through" you? What on earth can that mean?

At the end of the day

"Will that ever come?", I try not to ask myself...

these are arrangements, as are the originals (according to Busoni, who is right about this)

Busoni never encountered yours. Deragngements, peut-ętre?

my communion with Liszt is factual

But wholly undemonstrable to anyone.

What you think about these recordings, and of my communion with Liszt, and of Busoni's Sketch for a New Aesthetic of Music, is up to you

Speaking for myself, I broadly share the views expressed here about the first of these, echo others' responses here about the second and, as I've already said, admire Busoni's work, including that one, immensely.

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

Be that or be it not the case, there are good arrangments and bad ones just as there are good performance and bad ones (not to mention well tguned pianos and badly tuned ones).
Ahem. Well, I don't think that anyone here would have assumed that even you would have sought to claim that Liszt dictated this to you verbally! But "playing it through" you? What on earth can that mean?
"Will that ever come?", I try not to ask myself...
Busoni never encountered yours. Deragngements, peut-ętre?
But wholly undemonstrable to anyone.
Speaking for myself, I broadly share the views expressed here about the first of these, echo others' responses here about the second and, as I've already said, admire Busoni's work, including that one, immensely.

Best,

Alistair

Fact is, Alistair, I commune with Liszt, and as such you can not prove it does not occur, and neither can you prove that it is an impossibility.  Furthermore, proof is one thing, and balance of the evidence is something else, and evidence, as such, is possible with:

1) Obtaining from Liszt verifiable knowledge regarding music which previously was unknown to one's personal knowledge of music, and - much more significantly - obtaining verifiable knowledge of the existence of a previously unreferenced manuscript for a Handel-Liszt Queen of Sheba March.

2) Compositions and work to which Liszt has contributed in the last 20 years, such as not only the Bach Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852 arrangement here which shows his musicological grasp of the expressive nature and function of the keys for J.S. Bach, and also which shows Liszt's piano style as is well documented, but also the first 23 measures of Love, Rebirth and Cosmic Acceptance are to be considered and for which Liszt provided the harmonic and melodic content with a simplified piano arrangement for me to improve upon - these 23 measures include portions with such combined melodic and harmonic content as which only could have originated through Liszt and not through my own compositional efforts.

3) Evidence that I have been occupied by the forces of Liszt and the Holy Spirit may very well be possible, and it is dogmatic for you to assume otherwise; the non-stop electrical type ringing sound in my ears in consequence of the sudden openness to the Divine in October of 2012, and also, and in addition due to having Liszt within me and also present otherwise in communication with me every day and around the clock until Christmas Day, 2012 (and only at intervals thereafter) - the electrical sensation in my body, and particularly strong in the hands and fingers, at times of such intensity as to itch or even almost burn - these things, I suspect, exude a measurable and quantifiable signature of some sort which CAN be identified.  For you to assume otherwise, prior to any investigation, is, as I said, dogmatic.

About the Bach arrangement recorded and linked in the first post of this thread, I was only saying to perfect_pitch that both it AND the original are arrangements, as per Busoni's Sketch for a New Aesthetic of Music.  Whether you or anyone else likes or dislikes this arrangement is another matter, I though don't perceive any objective musicological flaws with it.  The concern over measures 43 and 44 relates to my subjective taste as something not feeling quite satisfactory, and not necessarily to an objective flaw within the arrangement.

[thalbergmad]

3) Evidence that I have been occupied by the forces of Liszt and the Holy Spirit may very well be possible

I think spirits more than likely come into the equation here, but i am not convinced they are holy.

Anyway, i spoke to Franz last night and he asked that you stop posting his arrangements with immediate effect.

Thal

[michael_sayers]

I think spirits more than likely come into the equation here, but i am not convinced they are holy.

Anyway, i spoke to Franz last night and he asked that you stop posting his arrangements with immediate effect.

Thal

It must have been Franz Schubert with whom you were speaking.

[thalbergmad]

Could well have been. The spirits are always playing jokes.

Thal

[michael_sayers]

Could well have been. The spirits are always playing jokes.

Thal

Or maybe it was Franz Lehar?

There was also a Robert Franz.  

[a composer who late in life was provided for financially by Franz Liszt among other benefactors]

[ahinton]

Fact is, Alistair

Do you start posts like that automatically?

I prefer to say no more at this time.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Or maybe it was Franz Lehar?

Lehár, please! Anyway who can say? It might have been Franz Schmidt, whose astonishing Das Buch mit Sieben Siegeln has about as much Revelatory spiritual explosive material as you might care not to hope for...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I think spirits more than likely come into the equation here, but i am not convinced they are holy.

Anyway, i spoke to Franz last night and he asked that you stop posting his arrangements with immediate effect.

The chances of his taking the slightest goddam' notice are sadly almost certainly vanishingly small, Franz or no Franz.

Anyway, good sense at last! It's what's been lacking in the thread pretty much from the outset. That said, I also had a chat with Ferenc, curiously just after yours, and he said to me that he didn't actually ask that MS stop posting his arrangements; on the contrary, he made it quite clear that these were NOT his arrangements, which hardly surprised me. He also told me off something rotten for presuming to improve (when I was in my 'teens) on the big D major theme in his Sonata in my own second piano sonata and I asked his understanding and forgiveness which, generous to a fault as always he was, he beneficently gave me, perhaps in part because I'd been a student of Searle.

Mon Dieu!

Best,

Alisztair

[perfect_pitch]

These things are arrangements - and not only that

No they are not.

This arrangement of J.S. Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major, BWV 852, was obtained not by any verbal delivery from Liszt, but by in the first instance with Liszt playing it through me at a piano

No it was not.

Bottom line, you don't like what you are hearing with these recordings, and I can respect this 100%.

I doubt you can, because almost everyone else has said the same as well.

my communion with Liszt is factual

What I think??? What I think, is that there isn't a padded cell cozy enough for you.

I think spirits more than likely come into the equation here, but i am not convinced they are holy.

No... they were most likely green.   



Chances are, you down a whole bottle of that in a night, you'd have the entire 19th century of composers...



...'talking to you'.

[michael_sayers]

Hi perfect_pitch,

These are arrangements - and not only that, so, too, the originals are arrangements.

Any composer has not only the melody and a harmonization of it to contend with, but also the particular arrangement of it and for particular instrumentation, as with J.S. Bach's multiple arrangements of the same material.

As a pianist you should know of the endless variants, and as well even in the composers' own hand.  From Liszt and Chopin we have these in abundance.  And there are jazz arrangements of the classics.

About my communion with Liszt, you can think of it as you wish, yet [and I have studied psychology] you don't come across as a psychologist or as anyone who is qualified to make assessments of the mental health of Piano Street members, and even if you were qualified, a professional psychologist would know better than to do such here and so publicly.

Please be advised that you do cross a line it is forbidden to cross when you post such things.


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

The chances of his taking the slightest goddam' notice are sadly almost certainly vanishingly small, Franz or no Franz.

Anyway, good sense at last! It's what's been lacking in the thread pretty much from the outset. That said, I also had a chat with Ferenc, curiously just after yours, and he said to me that he didn't actually ask that MS stop posting his arrangements; on the contrary, he made it quite clear that these were NOT his arrangements, which hardly surprised me. He also told me off something rotten for presuming to improve (when I was in my 'teens) on the big D major theme in his Sonata in my own second piano sonata and I asked his understanding and forgiveness which, generous to a fault as always he was, he beneficently gave me, perhaps in part because I'd been a student of Searle.

Mon Dieu!

Best,

Alisztair

Hi Alistair,

There has been a lot of "good sense" in this thread, not only from myself, but from you and from many others.  What has been lacking is agreement, and this is okay.  With all the different types of music in the world, and all the different variations of religious belief and unbelief, why do you insist on coming here to persuade one member of your views?  And then you say that the one members' views are absent "good sense"?

While you may do so, it is not for you to judge of the beliefs and convictions of others.

As long as liberty, life and basic rights are respected, I for one don't have any issue with what others believe or do not believe.

When persons cross those lines, I do have an issue with it, and this is so whether it concerns me and your harassment of me here at Piano Street, or the murderers this year of the Charlie Hedbo staff.

You really would do well to not harass persons on matters of belief, Alistair.

Everyone needs to get along peacefully in this world and regardless of religious and philosophical differences.


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

There has been a lot of "good sense" in this thread, not only from myself, but from you and from many others.  What has been lacking is agreement, and this is okay.  With all the different types of music in the world, and all the different variations of religious belief and unbelief, why do you insist on coming here to persuade one member of your views?  And then you say that the one members' views are absent "good sense"?

I do nothing of the kind; all that I do, in fact, is to challenge assertions that are unproven and unproveable because they are so and, in so doing, I made no reference to religion or religious belief - the only references to that have come from yu and I have not responded to them other than to point out that I've not mentioned this.

While you may do so, it is not for you to judge of the beliefs and convictions of others.

I do not judge; I state my view which seems largely to meet with agreement here. It would seem that you prefer your unverifiable assertions to go unchallenged and that is some kind of offence if anyne does challenge them; I would add tht it is not only your own assertions that are unverifiable but also that there are no other cases where similar claims have been tested and verified.

As long as liberty, life and basic rights are respected, I for one don't have any issue with what others believe or do not believe.

Nor do I. What you believe about your claim is up to you, but the respect of "liberty, life and basic rights" includes that of challenge to unproven and unproveable assertions such as you have made about your communication with Liszt.

When persons cross those lines, I do have an issue with it, and this is so whether it concerns me and your harassment of me here at Piano Street, or the murderers this year of the Charlie Hedbo staff.

Harassment? Of you? I think that it's more a case of this thread - and those who have challenged your claim in it (and the other thread) - being "harassed" by you! "Comparisons are odious"m as the cliché has it; yours of certain contents of this thread with the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris are more so than most.

You really would do well to not harass persons on matters of belief, Alistair.

Which is why I don't.

Everyone needs to get along peacefully in this world and regardless of religious and philosophical differences.

But in order to do so they don't have to claim to be in conversation with Liszt who didn't even speak your principal language and/or that Liszt plays a piano work through you (whatever that means).

Whilst you evidently take offence easily, you are not so much thin-skinned as plain obdurate. You make truly exceptional unverifiable and otherwise unexemplifiable claims and vociferously resist any and all challenge to or questioning of them as though any dissent is wholly out of order and represents "harassment" on the part of anyone who dares to express it; that is both intransigent and arrogant, to say nothing of a gross insult to the memory of Liszt.

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

I do nothing of the kind; all that I do, in fact, is to challenge assertions that are unproven and unproveable because they are so and, in so doing, I made no reference to religion or religious belief - the only references to that have come from yu and I have not responded to them other than to point out that I've not mentioned this.
I do not judge; I state my view which seems largely to meet with agreement here. It would seem that you prefer your unverifiable assertions to go unchallenged and that is some kind of offence if anyne does challenge them; I would add tht it is not only your own assertions that are unverifiable but also that there are no other cases where similar claims have been tested and verified.
Nor do I. What you believe about your claim is up to you, but the respect of "liberty, life and basic rights" includes that of challenge to unproven and unproveable assertions such as you have made about your communication with Liszt.
Harassment? Of you? I think that it's more a case of this thread - and those who have challenged your claim in it (and the other thread) - being "harassed" by you! "Comparisons are odious"m as the cliché has it; yours of certain contents of this thread with the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris are more so than most.
Which is why I don't.
But in order to do so they don't have to claim to be in conversation with Liszt who didn't even speak your principal language and/or that Liszt plays a piano work through you (whatever that means).

Whilst you evidently take offence easily, you are not so much thin-skinned as plain obdurate. You make truly exceptional unverifiable and otherwise unexemplifiable claims and vociferously resist any and all challenge to or questioning of them as though any dissent is wholly out of order and represents "harassment" on the part of anyone who dares to express it; that is both intransigent and arrogant, to say nothing of a gross insult to the memory of Liszt.

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

How would you know that my claims are not verifiable?  Are you a scientist or an expert who is qualified to back up such assertions?  When you make a blanket statement that claims such as mine ARE unverifiable, this dogmatism can only be premised on a particular (and unverifiable) world view of YOURS which disallows for such possibilities.  I am well versed in this subject of world views by the way, and am a student of Stephen Pepper's work including - though not his magnum opus - World Hypotheses which even has been in use as a university textbook in philosophy courses.

What you do not know or do not acknowledge is that the particular world view to which I make reference is that of philosophical skepticism, which is of the same tree and has related (and unverifiable) assumptions in common with other varieties of dogmatism, as in particular instances such as your proclamations here where you reach conclusions absent sufficient evidence or expertise/knowledge.  I think you may suppose that philosophical skepticism is possible without any presuppositions about the world - this view of yours is incorrect.

Another other issue here regards "naturalism" vs. "supernaturalism", "materialism" vs. "idealism", et c.  This is classical Greek thinking and which your posts seem to echo, although you avoid the particular terminology.  Contemporary philosophers rarely work in such a rigid conceptual frame work.  The idea is to MINIMIZE all premises and assumptions, and be neither skeptical, nor dogmatic, and to seek KNOWLEDGE.

The fact that the majority of your posts as of late in this thread are NOT about the recording for this thread, but are instead about incessantly and without end opposing YOUR philosophical views to my experiences, and my knowledge thereof, is personal harassment.

A lot of things in this world hinge on perception, Alistair.

If someone says he is being personally harassed, then maybe this has some basis in factual events.

And it is very ill mannered that one would say to you, "You are harassing me," and yet you would impolitely continue to do so.

Are you here now in this thread to discuss music or musicology at all, or only to harass me on grounds of your "skepticism"?


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

How would you know that my claims are not verifiable?  Are you a scientist or an expert who is qualified to back up such assertions?  When you make a blanket statement that claims such as mine ARE unverifiable, this dogmatism can only be premised on a particular (and unverifiable) world view of YOURS which disallows for such possibilities.  I am well versed in this subject of world views by the way, and am a student of Stephen Pepper's work including - though not his magnum opus - World Hypotheses which even has been in use as a university textbook in philosophy courses.

What I have said is not only that your claims have not been verified and there's no unequivocal and unassilable documnetary evidence that similar ones by anyone else have been either; if you can indeed verify yours, we'll all sit up and take due notice!

What you do not know or do not acknowledge is that the particular world view to which I make reference is that of philosophical skepticism, which is of the same tree and has related (and unverifiable) assumptions in common with other varieties of dogmatism, as in particular instances such as your proclamations here where you reach conclusions absent sufficient evidence or expertise/knowledge.  I think you may suppose that philosophical skepticism is possible without any presuppositions about the world - this view of yours is incorrect.

And that of Michael Sayers is correct and brooks no dissent; with what arrogance you decorate your assumptions about world views and the like in order to support your stance!

Another other issue here regards "naturalism" vs. "supernaturalism", "materialism" vs. "idealism", et c.  This is classical Greek thinking and which your posts seem to echo, although you avoid the particular terminology.  Contemporary philosophers rarely work in such a rigid conceptual frame work.  The idea is to MINIMIZE all premises and assumptions, and be neither skeptical, nor dogmatic, and to seek KNOWLEDGE.

In response to the issues at hand, this is mere flannel.

The fact that the majority of your posts as of late in this thread are NOT about the recording for this thread, but are instead about incessantly and without end opposing YOUR philosophical views to my experiences, and my knowledge thereof, is personal harassment.

Rubbish! I have made all the comment that I need to on the recordings and performances, albeit with no pleasure in doing so and there's no more that I can usefully add to this except that they seem broadly to accord to those of other members here.

A lot of things in this world hinge on perception, Alistair.

As you continue to demonstrate!

If someone says he is being personally harassed, then maybe this has some basis in factual events.

Indeed - and maybe it would not. Case by case basis, methinks. Considering that one is being harassed and actually being so may not be synonymous.

And it is very ill mannered that one would say to you, "You are harassing me," and yet you would impolitely continue to do so.[/quote
Only by the Michael Sayers "what I say's correct and what you say's incorect unless you agree with me" system of communication!

Are you here now in this thread to discuss music or musicology at all, or only to harass me on grounds of your "skepticism"?

I have been in this thread broadly to attempt to do two things - firstly to challenge your communicative assumptions and secondly to provide criticism of your recorded performances and, following on from that, your assertions about what you deem to be acceptable performance practice under your own "anything goes" stance in which composers' intentions border on irrelevance and only performers' views count.

Again, I do not think that others here disagree fundamentally with what I have tried with the best of intentions (i.e. not "harassment"!) to do, but it is clear that most of it has cut no ice with you because your arrogance and the inflexibility of your standpoints would not admit of any such possibility.

Best,

Alistair

Mvh,
Michael

[perfect_pitch]

Please be advised that you do cross a line it is forbidden to cross when you post such things.

I refer you back to my portrait...



That was me... just yesterday.   

Given your delusions of grandeur, I'm going to go back to my original post. Clearly, you are not capable of having a rational discussion, so I'm going to go back to my original post.

                                               Michael Sayers
                                                        |
                                                        |
                                                        |
                                                       \ /

[michael_sayers]

What I have said is not only that your claims have not been verified and there's no unequivocal and unassilable documnetary evidence that similar ones by anyone else have been either; if you can indeed verify yours, we'll all sit up and take due notice!
And that of Michael Sayers is correct and brooks no dissent; with what arrogance you decorate your assumptions about world views and the like in order to support your stance!
In response to the issues at hand, this is mere flannel.
Rubbish! I have made all the comment that I need to on the recordings and performances, albeit with no pleasure in doing so and there's no more that I can usefully add to this except that they seem broadly to accord to those of other members here.
As you continue to demonstrate!
Indeed - and maybe it would not. Case by case basis, methinks. Considering that one is being harassed and actually being so may not be synonymous.
I have been in this thread broadly to attempt to do two things - firstly to challenge your communicative assumptions and secondly to provide criticism of your recorded performances and, following on from that, your assertions about what you deem to be acceptable performance practice under your own "anything goes" stance in which composers' intentions border on irrelevance and only performers' views count.

Again, I do not think that others here disagree fundamentally with what I have tried with the best of intentions (i.e. not "harassment"!) to do, but it is clear that most of it has cut no ice with you because your arrogance and the inflexibility of your standpoints would not admit of any such possibility.

Best,

Alistair

Mvh,
Michael

Hi Alistair,

Near the top of the first page of threads in this forum is a "Bach Prelude No. 2 in Cm from WTC Book 1" thread.  The author says that it is his first Bach recording since 1963.  He may not be able to prove the truth of this assertion, and, in fact, I suspect that he can not prove it.  If I had evidence to the contrary of the claim, as in if I knew of a Bach recording he did in 1964, I might say something to him about this, though probably I would do it by private message.

The situation is no different with this thread.  There is a recording, and there is information related to the recording.  You have no evidence to the contrary of any of the information surrounding this recording.  Maybe it was recorded a year later than what the YouTube page says - it wasn't recorded a year later than that date, but from your perspective it may have been.  Maybe it wasn't really recorded on a N.Y. Steinway D - perhaps it was a N.Y. Steinway grand the next model size down.  What evidence to you have upon any of the circumstances or information surrounding the recording?  NONE.

It is as simple as that, really, so unless you are here to discuss the arrangement or my playing of it, please leave this thread alone so that it can sink away into the archival recesses of Piano Street.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation on this.


Mvh,
Michael

[liszt1022]

[ahinton]

There is a recording, and there is information related to the recording.  You have no evidence to the contrary of any of the information surrounding this recording.  Maybe it was recorded a year later than what the YouTube page says - it wasn't recorded a year later than that date, but from your perspective it may have been.  Maybe it wasn't really recorded on a N.Y. Steinway D - perhaps it was a N.Y. Steinway grand the next model size down.  What evidence to you have upon any of the circumstances or information surrounding the recording?  NONE.

But I'm not cencerned to discuss any of those details and you didn't ask that anyone enters into such discussion when posting the video; I had assumed that you posted it in order to invite discussion of what you posted - the video and its contents!

It is as simple as that, really, so unless you are here to discuss the arrangement or my playing of it, please leave this thread alone so that it can sink away into the archival recesses of Piano Street.

A number of members here, including me, have made comments about the content of the video - the sound of the instrument used, the nature and quality of the performance, the recorded sound et al, so I have no idea why you make the request that you now do.

Best,

Alistair

[8_octaves]

Hi all,

watching the troll-pictures and the scary picture posted here some time ago, I sometimes think we are here:

and not here:

I don't think Michael is a troll, and if he is, then he's sportful and fun. He's polite, and he insults nobody here. He has given additional information on his recordings, which I find interesting, and I like them. Because I know, that Michael could interpret them in traditional way, too, so that everybody would be satisfied. To heap reproaches on him personally isn't necessary, since as grown-ups we can refer to the matters of facts.

Of course, while showing polarizing interpretations or arrangements Michael has taken the risk that perhaps people don't like them. But think: I cannot see a reasonable sense in 3576 times saying " the piano is out of tune". A piano used for a recording is...
...the piano used for the recording.

If it's out of tune, it should be considered, that only rarely people would hire a piano-tuner only or extra for a forum-recording. And moreover, some people might have only access to pianos owned by institutions / other people, for which they cannot held responsible. Furthermore, there are people, including myself, who have cheap or very old pianos at home: They like them, and they perhaps even like their "out of tune"-sound. ( Especially while playing ragtime on an "old saloon-clunker", one mustn't expect them to be 100% in-tune. And that's good. )

Cordially, 8_octaves!!

   

[michael_sayers]

Hi 8_octaves,

Thanks for your kind words.

I hope that I have personally insulted no one, and I do apologize if anything has come across as such.

Trolls, I think, have to be Norwegian, I am not sure though if they really are citizens.

Iceland's Huldufolk are much nicer, yet you would never know it when they are around! 

[michael_sayers]

p.s. for 8_octaves - To interpret music in the traditional (starting in the 20th century) way would be so very boring.  Who wants to be the 31467th pianist to play something in the same way?

Imitation, and the copying of one's interpretive ideas from others, has zero appeal . . . and, in fact, goes miles deep into the negative integers.

[michael_sayers]

But I'm not cencerned to discuss any of those details and you didn't ask that anyone enters into such discussion when posting the video; I had assumed that you posted it in order to invite discussion of what you posted - the video and its contents!
A number of members here, including me, have made comments about the content of the video - the sound of the instrument used, the nature and quality of the performance, the recorded sound et al, so I have no idea why you make the request that you now do.

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

When it comes to Liszt as you know of him, consider this:

1) he was an Abbe
2) as such he was an exorcist [and why do the "skeptics" not scream about this? and where is his entry in their "book"?]
3) talk of his Two Legendes S. 175 does not center around whether the events alluded to actually happened and are or are not historical certainties
4) Liszt's mental health is not questioned because he perceived some things to be fact whilst others are not of such perception

Thomas Szasz has done much writing on the subject of "mental illness", and the discussion within this dialogue is an excellent demonstration of Szasz' conclusion that "mental illness" is a culturally defined construct.  My communion with Liszt is no more or less miraculous than Jesus' return from death - yet, except for certain hardcore "skeptics", Christians are not attacked en masse as being mentally unwell.  Most members of any dominant faith have very normal and productive lives, with nothing that to a professional psychologist would necessarily appear as amiss.

The portion of our discussions here, Alistair, which are not music or musicology related, seem to hinge on issues of philosophy and religion.  I just don't think that this is the forum for that type of discussion, and even though I am of the same religion as Liszt, and even though I know as a result of years of analysis and contemplation that what I know is true rather than myself having any utility or need of faith, I am not a proselytizer and I respect the right of every person to reach his or her own conclusions on such matters.

A person can post a composition here and say it was given to him by a unicorn.  I don't believe in unicorns, and yet why would I want to petition that member for proof of the composition's origins?  I would be much more interested in the music and its observable and possible merits (or demerits) than in harassing that member about the composition's origination and about the processes of the creation of the composition.

I am interested in composers' process of composition, of course, and if the process does not involve actually "composing" the music, or to the extent or in the way most professional composers do it, this is of interest.  And hence, I brought Arthur M. Abell's book Talks With Great Composers into the discussion.  Being the lifelong and reliable music journalist he was, and also on intimate terms with many of the greatest composers and performers of the late 19th century, I think the most plausible scenarios are:

1) Brahms, Grieg - and the others - are liars and were lying to Abell
2) Brahms, Grieg - and the others - are sincere though mistaken
3) Brahms, Grieg - and the others - are sincere and not mistaken

I think, given the detail of the narrative and such details and structures as it contains, that the composers were not mistaken - it isn't like the "white and gold, or black and blue" dress challenge in recent weeks, where one would reasonably be expected to make a mistake.

That you are automatically dismissive of the words of great composers is concerning, yet it is your right to dismiss them.  Nonetheless, there should be some informative value there related to how to compose great music, even if one thinks the composers were mistaken in their descriptions of their compositional processes.  Humility of the composer seems to be a significant factor in the ability to compose great and beautiful music - this, I think, is the essential take away from Arthur M. Abell's Talks With Great Composers.

I hope that we can, at least for know, set these issues aside as we both know with some degree of clarity where each of us stands.  In life one needs to pick and choose one's battles - there isn't time for all in a day.  And today I have many hours of music composition and piano practice to do!


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

he was an Abbe

He was not so for all of his life!

Thomas Szasz has done much writing on the subject of "mental illness", and the discussion within this dialogue is an excellent demonstration of Szasz' conclusion that "mental illness" is a culturally defined construct.

That doesn't make him right about that in all particulars and all cases, though, does it?!

My communion with Liszt is no more or less miraculous than Jesus' return from death - yet, except for certain hardcore "skeptics", Christians are not attacked en masse as being mentally unwell.  Most members of any dominant faith have very normal and productive lives, with nothing that to a professional psychologist would necessarily appear as amiss.

Not all Christians believe that Jesus Christ "returned from death" and, frankly, although I'm not a Christian myself, I see no reason to decry or undermine that doubt on the part of some Christians because what mattered then and still does today is what Jesus Christ achieved during what's known of his lifetime and the legacy that he left for humanity. That said, I did write that I've made no refeences to religion or religious faith here and I make this one exception solely as a response to you reference here.

The portion of our discussions here, Alistair, which are not music or musicology related, seem to hinge on issues of philosophy and religion.  I just don't think that this is the forum for that type of discussion, and even though I am of the same religion as Liszt, and even though I know as a result of years of analysis and contemplation that what I know is true rather than myself having any utility or need of faith, I am not a proselytizer and I respect the right of every person to reach his or her own conclusions on such matters.

Au contraire, "philosophy and religion" are phenomena that can be drawn in to such a discussion by whoever might choose to do so but which are not necessarily of themselves behind that discussion or the conclusions (if any) that it might reach; what IS at issue here is a matter of individual personal belief and that does not necessarily have to centre on religion or even philosophy.

A person can post a composition here and say it was given to him by a unicorn.  I don't believe in unicorns, and yet why would I want to petition that member for proof of the composition's origins?  I would be much more interested in the music and its observable and possible merits (or demerits) than in harassing that member about the composition's origination and about the processes of the creation of the composition.

If the music is being claimed to have come from some great figure of the past such as Liszt, as in this instance you have vociferously done for yours (and as, for example, Rosemary Brown once did in a more modest and self-effacing way) and yet the music itself is something that most people versed in what Liszt actually did write would find unrecognisable as such, it is perhaps unsurprising (especially given that in posting the video you have sought responses from listeners) the those origins have been challenged, although even this is not the same as petitioning for proof of origin!

I am interested in composers' process of composition, of course, and if the process does not involve actually "composing" the music, or to the extent or in the way most professional composers do it, this is of interest.

I'm not sure what you mean when you write "the process [of composition] does not involve actually "composing" the music", so the background to and reason for your "interest" here is unclear; could you please explain? How can a composer's "process of composition" not "involve actually composing the music"? (and why do you place "" around the word "composing" here)? The two are surely synonymous! I say this as a composer but I'm sure that what you write here would likewise puzzle most people with an interest in the processes of musical composition!

 And hence, I brought Arthur M. Abell's book Talks With Great Composers into the discussion.  Being the lifelong and reliable music journalist he was, and also on intimate terms with many of the greatest composers and performers of the late 19th century, I think the most plausible scenarios are:

1) Brahms, Grieg - and the others - are liars and were lying to Abell
2) Brahms, Grieg - and the others - are sincere though mistaken
3) Brahms, Grieg - and the others - are sincere and not mistaken

I think, given the detail of the narrative and such details and structures as it contains, that the composers were not mistaken - it isn't like the "white and gold, or black and blue" dress challenge in recent weeks, where one would reasonably be expected to make a mistake.

Your three possibilities refer only to the composers themselves and, by so doing, notably exclude the other possibility that Abell might have been gilding the lily with fanciful writing! A collection of his papers are in NYPL (see https://archives.nypl.org/mus/20021 for overview and https://archives.nypl.org/uploads/collection/pdf_finding_aid/musjob88-4.pdf for more detail) as you may know and this at least demonstrates the wide range of his correspondents.

Here's an extract from a 1965 review in Music & Letters - https://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/732640?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21106197474371; I'm unable to post the item in full but the end of the extract might give some idea of the reservations that i had expressed about the book.

The discussion at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.classical/K64OY_sPIVY might do the same.

You might also care to read the article Did Johannes Brahms Contemplate A Ragtime Project? at https://www.edwardaberlin.com/disc.htm.

Here, in a "letter to the editor", you will find more of substance; Malcolm MacDonald, a brilliant and painstaking music scholar whom I knew, was a leading authority on Brahms (he died in his 60s of cencer last year) whose view can undoubtedly be trusted - see https://www.haverford.edu/musc/choral/papers/CJ%20letter%20to%20the%20editor%20-%20Brahms%20and%20Religion.pdf.

In noting, as you presumably will, that I am by no means in the minority as a sceptic of this work's contents, you will find two matters of significance; the first is that all of what was supposedly dictated to him in the interviews was apparently lost in Europe during WWI and that he accordingly had to reconstruct them all from memory for the book and the second is that publication of that book was withheld by the author until after the last of the composers concerned, Richard Strauss, had died.

One would therefore have to take a great deal upon trust in order to accept unquestioningly the veracity of the book's contents, given the examples of doubts expressed upon it in print and the reconstructive efforts that appear to have gone into it.

I will, however, refrain from further comment of my own on it right now because, as I mentioned previously, I no longer have a copy, otherwise I could be more specific.

That you are automatically dismissive of the words of great composers is concerning, yet it is your right to dismiss them.

There's nothing "automatic" about it and I do not dismiss words of composes but cast doubt upon whether what's in that book are actually that.

Nonetheless, there should be some informative value there related to how to compose great music, even if one thinks the composers were mistaken in their descriptions of their compositional processes.  Humility of the composer seems to be a significant factor in the ability to compose great and beautiful music - this, I think, is the essential take away from Arthur M. Abell's Talks With Great Composers.

The essential take away from this book is one of profound distrust of the author's integrity; that's not something which I either take delight in saying or which I wish to feel, but it is clear, as I wrote earlier, that I am far from alone in this.

I hope that we can, at least for know, set these issues aside as we both know with some degree of clarity where each of us stands.

I think that indeed we do know that but, where Abell's book is concerned, it would not come amiss for you to consider the widespread doubts expressed about it rather than simply berate what you call my "dismissal" of it.

In life one needs to pick and choose one's battles

I don't; I'm a pacifist!

And today I have many hours of music composition and piano practice to do!

Then go and get on with it; I hope that it goes well!

Best,

Alistair

[perfect_pitch]

You accuse me here of being a troll, yet think on this:

1) this thread was not started by you
2) this thread is about a recording which is not one of your recordings
3) your posts are not about the recording

So who is trolling whose thread here?

Let's see...

1) this thread was not started by you

No it wasn't, and you asked for advice on your interpretation of this piece of music, which people promptly declared rubbish, of poor quality (the tuning and the recording quality), and your interpretation was bad.

2) this thread is about a recording which is not one of your recordings

Again, you've actually said very little about this recording, and once again used this thread to spread your insane ramblings. You never wanted advice on the recording, but simply to try and flex your so-called ego-muscle, and claim that people who don't like your recording are nostalgic twats stuck in the 1950's.

3) your posts are not about the recording

No, they were replies to your incessant ramblings and nonsensical statements that you've excreted onto this forum.

So who is trolling whose thread here?

Simple - you are. You refuse to let this thread die, and there were a couple of chances when I tried to be nice and leave it alone, but you're incessant need to try and flex your mouth and rant on about complete trollop is incredible. For that, I present to you this declamatory image in your honour...

You are the...



Congratulations.

[j_menz]

You refuse to let this thread die, and

... you're helping?