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

[stoat_king]

I have to agree with j_menz.

Even if you assume that the OP is a troll, it is going too far to suggest that he alone is responsible for the continuing growth of this thread.

I cant see this thread dying any time soon regardless of who, if any, of the contributors are trolls.

[8_octaves]

= Karma, @stoat_king.

cordially, 8_octaves!

[visitor]

so i just clicked into this

just kidding.

[stoat_king]

^ The karma is taking a bat to us lol

[ahinton]

I have to agree with j_menz.

Even if you assume that the OP is a troll, it is going too far to suggest that he alone is responsible for the continuing growth of this thread.

I cant see this thread dying any time soon regardless of who, if any, of the contributors are trolls.

Not all of this thread and the other one has been a waste of time, although certain responses might have been shorter or less in number had it not been for the OP's frequently evidenced obduracy not only about certain of his claims but also in his reluctance to accept valid and constructive criticism. There's also been some rudeness in them which, whatever the reaction of those posting it, has been unhelpful.

Best,

Alistair

[stoat_king]

I don't think the OP is responsible for all the obduracy either...

One of the reasons that this thread has been - and will continue to be - so active.

[ahinton]

I don't think the OP is responsible for all the obduracy either...

One of the reasons that this thread has been - and will continue to be - so active.

Well, it does seem (to me, at least) that almost all challenges to, and/or questioning / criticism of his source claims and the videos that he posted (presumably for comment and assessment here) have met with scant acceptance or willingness to take any of them on board in order to question them himself and, given the nature of the claims and determination to maintain them in the face of others' comments in particular, it sounds pretty close to obduracy to me.

As I noted, not all of the discussion in the two threads that he initiated has been a waste of time by any means, but the reluctance to consider whether any of the claims or the quality of the performances, recording and instrument quality or the condition of the instrument used might provide even pause for thought is indeed suggestive of an inflexible single-mindedness that sits uneasily beside the attitudes of most other members who post their work for consideration on the forum.

Best,

Alistair

[stoat_king]

On the contrary - challenges, questioning and criticism are clearly like a red rag to a bull, justified or otherwise. This is commonplace in many forum I frequent.

The point you make about the other users posting their work for consideration is well taken - but at least these rather exotic debates seem to be confined now to these two threads.

I sense you are taking my comments to be some form of criticism - I do hope not, since that is not my intention at all.

[michael_sayers]

He was not so for all of his life!
That doesn't make him right about that in all particulars and all cases, though, does it?!
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.
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.
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'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!
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.

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.
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 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.
I don't; I'm a pacifist!
Then go and get on with it; I hope that it goes well!

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

Why does it matter whether or not Liszt was an Abbe his entire life?  No one can be an Abbe from birth.

Thomas Szasz is not necessarily applicable in all cases and particulars.  What we are talking about here are instances of persons who are otherwise, as far as anyone knows, of healthy psychological profile, and yet are labeled as mentally unwell [or as kooks, nuts, et c.] on the basis of cultural context.

As far as all Christians believing (or not) in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, fact is that this is apparent to have happened based an an extensive and multidisciplinary analysis and consideration of the evidence, therefore it isn't necessarily a matter of belief (or unbelief).  Why are you trying to pull me into a discussion of Christianity in a music forum?  This is something that would be rude and offensive to many members, and I am not going to do it.

If you are not sure what I mean by a process of composition not involving actually "composing" the music, the best thing would be to read up on Arthur M. Abell's Talks With Great Composers, and also on Nyiregyhazi's method of "composition".

And, regarding the veracity of Arthur M. Abell's writings, and not only within the book being discussed, if you can find ANY error in his long career as a music journalist and a s an intimate of so many important music figures of his - then I will be interested to know of it.  This is NOT like the situation with Anton Schindler and Ludwig van Beethoven, where DECEIPTS have been discovered in Anton Schindler's work thus lowering his credibility as a chronicler of Beethoven.  None such have EVER been found with Arthur M. Abell, and if you know of any one to mention, then please do so now or I rest my case.

Why does it matter how many persons hold this or that view of Arthur M. Abell?  Do you think the truth here is supposed to be determined by voting instead of scholarship?


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

Well, it does seem (to me, at least) that almost all challenges to, and/or questioning / criticism of his source claims and the videos that he posted (presumably for comment and assessment here) have met with scant acceptance or willingness to take any of them on board in order to question them himself and, given the nature of the claims and determination to maintain them in the face of others' comments in particular, it sounds pretty close to obduracy to me.

As I noted, not all of the discussion in the two threads that he initiated has been a waste of time by any means, but the reluctance to consider whether any of the claims or the quality of the performances, recording and instrument quality or the condition of the instrument used might provide even pause for thought is indeed suggestive of an inflexible single-mindedness that sits uneasily beside the attitudes of most other members who post their work for consideration on the forum.

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

I have no issue with challenges, questioning and criticism.  Just because I disagree with you on many things does not mean I have not listened.  Maybe, though, you have an issue when you can not get someone to agree with you on something?  And this is not meant to be rude - it just seems to be the situation, otherwise why do you keep posting messages to this thread about particular subjects?  Seemingly every time I post what I think will be the final post in this thread, another post from you appears.


Mvh,
Michael

[perfect_playing]

can this thread be locked ... it's such a waste of time

[ahinton]

On the contrary - challenges, questioning and criticism are clearly like a red rag to a bull, justified or otherwise. This is commonplace in many forum I frequent.

But it's not so commonplace here, is it? I admit that I've not checked this but I've not noticed anything quite like this here previously.

The point you make about the other users posting their work for consideration is well taken - but at least these rather exotic debates seem to be confined now to these two threads.

Perhaps that might at least in part be because this kind of thing is NOT commonplace on here!

I sense you are taking my comments to be some form of criticism - I do hope not, since that is not my intention at all.

Not at all; please be assured that I did not read them that way and have not taken them to be such.

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

can this thread be locked ... it's such a waste of time

I don't think it is a waste of time.  If Alistair has concerns to air here, why should anyone stop him?  I am just wondering when he will be finished.

[ahinton]

Why does it matter whether or not Liszt was an Abbe his entire life?  No one can be an Abbe from birth.

Of course not butm since youask, it matters to the extent that this represented so fundamental a change in Liszt's life.

Thomas Szasz is not necessarily applicable in all cases and particulars.  What we are talking about here are instances of persons who are otherwise, as far as anyone knows, of healthy psychological profile, and yet are labeled as mentally unwell [or as kooks, nuts, et c.] on the basis of cultural context.

We know that this does indeed happen - one has only to look at how it occurs in certain totalitarian régimes, for example - but I'm not aware that anyone has deemed anyone else here to be "mentally unwell" on the grounds of claims that they have made; I've certainly not done that.

As far as all Christians believing (or not) in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, fact is that this is apparent to have happened based an an extensive and multidisciplinary analysis and consideration of the evidence, therefore it isn't necessarily a matter of belief (or unbelief).

You wrote "fact is that this is apparent to have happened based an an extensive and multidisciplinary analysis and consideration of the evidence"; the "fact" is that this "apparently" happened - which is it to be?!

 Why are you trying to pull me into a discussion of Christianity in a music forum?  This is something that would be rude and offensive to many members, and I am not going to do it.

Please read carefully what I wrote, which makes it abundantly clear that I am doing no such thing and that my sole reference to it arose from your having brought up that subject!

If you are not sure what I mean by a process of composition not involving actually "composing" the music, the best thing would be to read up on Arthur M. Abell's Talks With Great Composers, and also on Nyiregyhazi's method of "composition".

Well, as I told you, I don't have a copy of the Abell, otherwise I'd have known at least the source of what you were writing about and responded to it accordingly - and I'm not inclined to acquire another copy just for that purpose!

And, regarding the veracity of Arthur M. Abell's writings, and not only within the book being discussed, if you can find ANY error in his long career as a music journalist and a s an intimate of so many important music figures of his - then I will be interested to know of it.

I am not disputing - or even referring to - Abell's journalistic career; I very specifically referred insteand to reservations about that particular book which have been expressed by a number of people including distinguished scholars and, even if one were to believe that Abell's transcripts of his intgerviews with the composers with whom he dealt in that book ere indeed somehow lost in WWI, the question of how he was subsequently able to include them in such detail in that book entirely from memory can hardly be avoided!

This is NOT like the situation with Anton Schindler and Ludwig van Beethoven, where DECEIPTS have been discovered in Anton Schindler's work thus lowering his credibility as a chronicler of Beethoven.

It's an interesting comparison indeed; I am not alleging that Abell set of wilfully to deceive, but those who have questioned the veracity of his book (not just me) have expressed their suspicion that it cannot be trusted as accurate accounts of conversations. Malcolm MacDonald in particular was as pragmatic a scholar as you could ever hope to meet - and widely admired as a human being as well as in his capacity as a critic and musicologist; I knew him well enough to know that he would not think to express doubts in print about anything unless his researches had justly led him to do so.

Why does it matter how many persons hold this or that view of Arthur M. Abell?  Do you think the truth here is supposed to be determined by voting instead of scholarship?

No, I do not - but then the texts to which I referred you include those by scholars, not ballot supervisors!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I don't think it is a waste of time.  If Alistair has concerns to air here, why should anyone stop him?  I am just wondering when he will be finished.

I have likewise stated that I do not believe that it's all been a waste of time; that said, I think that onst of us here wonder when you will be finished with it, not least because my only "concern", having said my piece about your claims and your videos, has been to respond to your arguments, which I could not sdo if you didn't make them!

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

I have likewise stated that I do not believe that it's all been a waste of time; that said, I think that onst of us here wonder when you will be finished with it, not least because my only "concern", having said my piece about your claims and your videos, has been to respond to your arguments, which I could not sdo if you didn't make them!

Best,

Alistair

I'll be finished when everyone - including you - is through contributing to the discussion.  This is one of my threads, so why should I not stick around and stayed engaged with it?

About Arthur M. Abell, no scholar has ever found an error in his journalistic work.  And Talks With Great Composers is not a massive volume, but neither is it a five page monograph, and no errors of reporting have yet been found in it or in his other writings.  Do you know of any?

It would be hard to misremember 167 pages of narrated information, and I assume that you aren't talking about something such as misremembering a date or misspelling the name of a not very well known city, or some other such detail.


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

Hi Alistair,

Look at it this way: I could write a 200 page autobiographical essay and make it error free.  Anything I am unsure of, I could look up, and if the information is not available then I would be approximate [e.g., "Also in the 1990s . . . "].  Conversations can and would be included, at least in summary form and giving the highlights which I recall.  And I think in Talks With Great Composers Arthur M. Abell says that to varying degrees the conversations are summarized and without presenting the full detail.

I remember an exchange involving Dr. Geoffrey Stanford more than 15 years ago, outdoors on a hot, Texas summer's day at the Dallas Nature Center where he was the Director Emeritus.  I remember the mother's child throwing rocks at a squirrel, and Geoffrey asking her to have the child stop.  When she asked him why he wasn't wearing a shirt, he asked her why she wasn't wearing a corset and where is her bonnet.  He did not ask hear why she wasn't wearing a tuxedo, and where is her top hat.  One doesn't make mistakes of memory like that, or at least I don't.

Why do you assume that Arthur M. Abell is liable to make such types of mistakes, given his track record as a journalist?

What are the specific mistakes, if any, which you think he may have committed in Talks With Great Composers or elsewhere?

In addition to all of this, I think I read somewhere there are or were written documents of the interviews [Mr. Abell's, ever the music journalist!] - the ones with Brahms, I think, were conducted as formal interviews, as were some of the others, due to Arthur M. Abell's quite formal and journalistic bent, but I could be wrong about this.


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

I'll be finished when everyone - including you - is through contributing to the discussion.  This is one of my threads, so why should I not stick around and stayed engaged with it?

You're welcome to do that, of course - but what point would here be if this were to become a solo mission without responses? It would case to be any kind of discussion, that's for sure!

About Arthur M. Abell, no scholar has ever found an error in his journalistic work.  And Talks With Great Composers is not a massive volume, but neither is it a five page monograph, and no errors of reporting have yet been found in it or in his other writings.  Do you know of any?

Once again, you take so much on trust, don't you? Again, I said nothing of his journalistic work, yet you raise it again. But never mind me - just consider the reservations that others - including people vastly more knowledgeable than I - have expressed about its veracity and then consider how and when the book came into being (i.e. the loss of the transcripts and consequent need for reconstruction from memory and the fact that publication was held back until the last of its composers had died and could no longer answer back).

It would be hard to misremember 167 pages of narrated information, and I assume that you aren't talking about something such as misremembering a date or misspelling the name of a not very well known city, or some other such detail.

Your expectations of human memory are improbably high - and no, I wasn't referring to those kinds of detail. I know of no one who could carry around that many pages' worth of such detail verbatim in his/her head for so many years! Could you do it? I most certainly couldn't!

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

You're welcome to do that, of course - but what point would here be if this were to become a solo mission without responses? It would case to be any kind of discussion, that's for sure!
Once again, you take so much on trust, don't you? Again, I said nothing of his journalistic work, yet you raise it again. But never mind me - just consider the reservations that others - including people vastly more knowledgeable than I - have expressed about its veracity and then consider how and when the book came into being (i.e. the loss of the transcripts and consequent need for reconstruction from memory and the fact that publication was held back until the last of its composers had died and could no longer answer back).
Your expectations of human memory are imprabably high - and no, I wasn't referring to those kinds of detail. I know of no one who could carry around that many pages' worth of such detail verbatim in his/her head for so many years! Could you do it? I most certainly couldn't!

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

As a courtesy I am re-posting this here from just up above as it makes everything clear and I think you may have missed it.

----------------------------------------------

Hi Alistair,

Look at it this way: I could write a 200 page autobiographical essay and make it error free.  Anything I am unsure of, I could look up, and if the information is not available then I would be approximate [e.g., "Also in the 1990s . . . "].  Conversations can and would be included, at least in summary form and giving the highlights which I recall.  And I think in Talks With Great Composers Arthur M. Abell says that to varying degrees the conversations are summarized and without presenting the full detail.

I remember an exchange involving Dr. Geoffrey Stanford more than 15 years ago, outdoors on a hot, Texas summer's day at the Dallas Nature Center where he was the Director Emeritus.  I remember the mother's child throwing rocks at a squirrel, and Geoffrey asking her to have the child stop.  When she asked him why he wasn't wearing a shirt, he asked her why she wasn't wearing a corset and where is her bonnet.  He did not ask hear why she wasn't wearing a tuxedo, and where is her top hat.  One doesn't make mistakes of memory like that, or at least I don't.

Why do you assume that Arthur M. Abell is liable to make such types of mistakes, given his track record as a journalist?

What are the specific mistakes, if any, which you think he may have committed in Talks With Great Composers or elsewhere?

In addition to all of this, I think I read somewhere there are or were written documents of the interviews [Mr. Abell's, ever the music journalist!] - the ones with Brahms, I think, were conducted as formal interviews, as were some of the others, due to Arthur M. Abell's quite formal and journalistic bent, but I could be wrong about this.


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

Look at it this way: I could write a 200 page autobiographical essay and make it error free.  Anything I am unsure of, I could look up, and if the information is not available then I would be approximate [e.g., "Also in the 1990s . . . "].  Conversations can and would be included, at least in summary form and giving the highlights which I recall.  And I think in Talks With Great Composers Arthur M. Abell says that to varying degrees the conversations are summarized and without presenting the full detail.

Well, it's as well that he includes such a cavet in the circumstances, but 167 pages? - And over that period of time? Brahms died in 1897, the book wasn't published until quite some time after Strauss had died more than half a century later, by which time the transcripts had apparently disappeared decades earlier.

Why do you assume that Arthur M. Abell is liable to make such types of mistakes, given his track record as a journalist?

What are the specific mistakes, if any, which you think he may have committed in Talks With Great Composers or elsewhere?

I'm not talking specific factual errors here but the very premises on which the interviews were documented in the book; I've already told you that I'm at a disadvantage here because I don't have the book to hand and this is why I pointed you in the direction of others who have cast doubt upon it in print, including some who know a great deal more than I do. That said, I wish now that I did have a copy and then peerhaps I could cite some examples for you!

In addition to all of this, I think I read somewhere there are or were written documents of the interviews [Mr. Abell's, ever the music journalist!] - the ones with Brahms, I think, were conducted as formal interviews, as were some of the others, due to Arthur M. Abell's quite formal and journalistic bent, but I could be wrong about this.

No, I don't believe that you are; my understanding is that Abell did indeed write them up but that, as I wrote earlier, all the transcripts were supposedly lost presumed destroyed during WWI, more than four decades prior to publication.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Michael - there was no need for you to repost. I missed nothing, You wrote two posts and I responded to them one after the other. I couldn't do them both at once!

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

Well, it's as well that he includes such a cavet in the circumstances, but 167 pages? - And over that period of time? Brahms died in 1897, the book wasn't published until quite some time after Strauss had died more than half a century later, by which time the transcripts had apparently disappeared decades earlier.
I'm not talking specific factual errors here but the very premises on which the interviews were documented in the book; I've already told you that I'm at a disadvantage here because I don't have the book to hand and this is why I pointed you in the direction of others who have cast doubt upon it in print, including some who know a great deal more than I do. That said, I wish now that I did have a copy and then peerhaps I could cite some examples for you!
No, I don't believe that you are; my understanding is that Abell did indeed write them up but that, as I wrote earlier, all the transcripts were supposedly lost presumed destroyed during WWI, more than four decades prior to publication.

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

With a different font, paper size, different margins, et c., Talks With Great Composers could be 50 pages instead of 167 pages.

Either way, you aren't at a disadvantage "here" - I am working off of memory alone, my copy of the book I gave away several years ago, and as well my entire music library is in the U.S. - if I do need to check up on something ["what was that chord inversion again?"  ], there is I.M.S.L.P.

Normally I give away books when I am through with them, although some I keep such as -

A very old Oxford University Edition of Shakespeare [and, yes, Mr. Shakespere   who signed his name with a different spelling every time, was the author]

Allan Bloom's translation, with an interpretive essay, of Plato's Republic
[Allan Bloom was the author of the controversial book "Closing of the American Mind"; I don't think the first edition of Allan Bloom's Republic translation had the massive and incisive interpretive essay]

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in Norman Kemp Smith's translation - I've lugged this one around for almost 30 years

Ouspensky's Tertium Organum [definitely, or possibly, a book you would not like   - yet one can read it as a critical thinker, i.e. take out what is perceived to be of value and toss away the remainder]

a K.J.V. Bible that belonged to one of my grandfathers [here again, one can take the critical thinker approach; i.g., "take no thought for the morrow" could be a form of carpe diem and immediacy in living; I know that if I want to do something, I do it with no exception as there isn't necessarily going to be a repeat opportunity; and, in fact, I am so busy with carpe diem that I only find time to eat once per day and with reluctance!]

But I don't read much anymore.  I think it is possible to get to the point where one has done "enough" reading.  I don't need to be like Harold [not Allan] Bloom and read every letter, poem, essay, diary entry, et c., by every author from the past 2000 years or so.  Eventually one, I think, acquires the gist of it all.

I hope that we can bring our discussion in this thread to a close on a jovial and friendly note.

The next likely recording to be posted here - which would be of In Memoriam Mr. Rusty (2015) - won't, I hope, have any association likely to incite extended debate or discussion.


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

Michael - there was no need for you to repost. I missed nothing, You wrote two posts and I responded to them one after the other. I couldn't do them both at once!

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

Being the master composer which you are, I would expect that you could do four posts at once, as a variety of four part postlude.


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

p.s. - and about manuscript discovery, the "holy grail" in modern times would be, given the discrepancies of the source documents for Shakespere's plays, would be to find any copies in his hand, and even just some of the stage parts.  If I find out the location of any of this material, I'll let you know, but I'll do it by private message and not here.

[ahinton]

Being the master composer which you are, I would expect that you could do four posts at once, as a variety of four part postlude.

You overestimate my capabilities, I fear!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

p.s. - and about manuscript discovery, the "holy grail" in modern times would be, given the discrepancies of the source documents for Shakespere's plays, would be to find any copies in his hand, and even just some of the stage parts.  If I find out the location of any of this material, I'll let you know, but I'll do it by private message and not here.

Thank you - but, in the meantime, I'd be more than happy to unearth Sorabji's Toccata Terza for piano whose score has been missing for over half a century, although I'd like to think that its current possessor (assuming that it still exists) knows where he/she has put it!...

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

You overestimate my capabilities, I fear!

Best,

Alistair

Four posts simultaneously was just the minimum I had in mind.  I was thinking more towards eight simultaneously as a maintained average.


Mvh,
Michael

[perfect_pitch]

Listen up michael_sayers,

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

3) your posts are not about the recording

So who is trolling whose thread here?

You're trolling your own thread - you are the MASTER TROLL!!!



Congratulations! Here's a cookie for your troubles...

[michael_sayers]

LOL . . .

I've been responding to Alistair's personal harassment of me on the grounds of religious belief, and now - in addition - his attack on Arthur M. Abell, seemingly on similar grounds and without any supportive basis in scholarship.

I would rather discuss the arrangement of J.S. Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852, and the recording of it, but I don't decide what other persons want to contribute to this thread.

[ahinton]

I've been responding to Alistair's personal harassment of me on the grounds of religious belief

If you have done that (and much of it seems to have escaped my notice), you've been wasting your time, since I have not even commented on your religious belief (which is no concern of mine) and even made a point of wanting to keep matters of religion and religious belief out of this discussion which is quite claerlay about something else altogether; any such "harassment" to which you have supposedly sought to respond is therefore of your own making or intvention, not mine.

and now - in addition - his attack on Arthur M. Abell, seemingly on similar grounds and without any supportive basis in scholarship.

"Attack"? Au contraire, what I have done is cite my own opinions of the contents of one of his books as best I remember them from the many years ago when I read it and I have added that I no longer have this book available so cannot provide further detailed personal comment on it, which is why I have refrained from doing so and instead cited others' reservations about it, including those of distinguished scholars with no obvious axe to grind; quite how expressing reservations of one's own and declining further comment in the absence of that book and quoting what others have said and written about it (their thoughts, not mine) constitutes any kind of "attack", let alone one by me, I have less than no idea. It would seem that not for nothing did whoever it was speak of US and UK as two nations divided by a common language!

I would rather discuss the arrangement of J.S. Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852, and the recording of it, but I don't decide what other persons want to contribute to this thread.

No, you don't - or at least you shouldn't try to (and those who have accused you of trolling have not included me) - but plenty of people, me included, have done just that, albeit most of them in ways that you might not enjoy or agree with.

That said, is there really much more of that to be discussed at this point?

Best,

Alistair

[stoat_king]

You're trolling your own thread - you are the MASTER TROLL!!!

I've been responding to Alistair's personal harassment of me on the grounds of religious belief

That said, is there really much more of that to be discussed at this point?

This thread is like 'The ride of the wild ironies'.
Its possible to argue that, in context, many of the people contributing to this thread that are effectively trolling / harassing themselves.
In addition, it now seems that 'There isnt anything else to discuss - lets all shut up' has become the subject of vigorous debate - and that in spite of everyone agreeing on this point. lol.

Maybe the thread should be stickied!

[michael_sayers]

That said, is there really much more of that to be discussed at this point?

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

Actually, there is more left to be discussed about the arrangement of J.S. Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852, and also the recording of it which is the subject of this thread - and I'll get to that.

First, though, I wonder why - if you are not harassing me - why is that you continue to post to this thread when you do not think there is anything left to discuss?


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

Actually, there is more left to be discussed about the arrangement of J.S. Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852, and also the recording of it which is the subject of this thread - and I'll get to that.

Fine - although if it's to be a "discussion" per se it will require more than just your own input, of course.

First, though, I wonder why - if you are not harassing me - why is that you continue to post to this thread when you do not think there is anything left to discuss?

I did not say that there was nothing left to discuss ( please re-read my post); I merely posited an open question as to whether there was and I am satisfeid with you sanswer to it as I've confirmed above, so let's wait and see if others have something more to say about it, shall we? And, in the meantime, may I counsel you to drop this "harassment" business on the basis that, as I have nort merely stated but demonstrated, none is coming from here.

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

Hi Alistair,

I want to post new information for discussion - and about the arrangement of J.S. Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852, and also the recording of it which is the subject of this thread - yet unfortunately this can not be done until it is ready.  So there isn't any choice here but to wait, otherwise I would have posted the new information long ago.


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

I want to post new information for discussion - and about the arrangement of J.S. Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852, and also the recording of it which is the subject of this thread - yet unfortunately this can not be done until it is ready.  So there isn't any choice here but to wait, otherwise I would have posted the new information long ago.

That's fine; in your own time, of course!

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

That's fine; in your own time, of course!

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

Should I send you a private message and as a courtesy when it is ready and also has been posted here?  I only ask this as it may be a while.  I don't think it will be ready today or tomorrow, but I could be wrong about this.  It will be "soon" though, I just don't know how much more time will be needed.  I have worked very hard on it and at maximum pace, yet it still is not ready.


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

Should I send you a private message and as a courtesy when it is ready and also has been posted here?  I only ask this as it may be a while.  I don't think it will be ready today or tomorrow, but I could be wrong about this.  It will be "soon" though, I just don't know how much more time will be needed.  I have worked very hard on it and at maximum pace, yet it still is not ready.

That is indeed thoughtful of you, but there's no need, really; just post what you decide to do when it's ready, as you have done previously and I've no doubt that I'll catch up with it ere long!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

he/she has put it!...

I have it and use it for the weekly chips.

Thal

[michael_sayers]

That is indeed thoughtful of you, but there's no need, really; just post what you decide to do when it's ready, as you have done previously and I've no doubt that I'll catch up with it ere long!

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

Then I'll post the information as soon as it is ready.

As this information for the arrangement of J.S. Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852, and also the recording of it which is the subject of this thread is (in my opinion) quite dramatico, I hope that it doesn't incite more responses of a similar tenor to those at the start of this thread - maybe you did not read these?

People at the initial release of the recording were talking about killing themselves, and requesting that I kill myself - not in text as such, but in text as part of images.  I do not know what to make of this, except that it is extreme and concerning.

I've reread some of the thread to better get the gist of the discussions, and those early posts really stand out vividly.

This was prior to your participation in this thread.  Those posts are on page one.


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

I have it and use it for the weekly chips.

Thal

Hi thalbergmad,

I am wondering if maybe there is a list informally available of works involving one piano which are in possession of the Concerto Preservation Society? There is much music that is not at I.M.S.L.P., and which is out of print (or else has been published in peculiarly flawed editions), as you know.


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

Hi Everyone,

I've selected some appropriate music for listening while we "Take Five" and wait for the additional information appertaining to this arrangement of J.S. Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852, and also the recording of it which is the subject of this thread.

[Take Five is a reference to the metre of the music in this link]

&index=26


Mvh,
Michael

[perfect_pitch]

As this information for the arrangement of J.S. Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852

THIS IS NOT, I repeat, NOT AN ARRANGEMENT!!!

[ahinton]

I have it and use it for the weekly chips.

The ones on your shoulder, presumably (except that I wasn't aware that these were confined to once weekly).

Did your preservation society make a scan of it before so mistreating it?

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

THIS IS NOT, I repeat, NOT AN ARRANGEMENT!!!

Hi perfect_pitch,

Maybe we would do well to wait for the additional information pertaining to this arrangement of J.S. Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852, and also the recording of it which is the subject of this thread, before you and I discuss it further.


Mvh,
Michael

[thalbergmad]

I am wondering if maybe there is a list informally available of works involving one piano which are in possession of the Concerto Preservation Society? There is much music that is not at I.M.S.L.P., and which is out of print (or else has been published in peculiarly flawed editions), as you know.

Here is a list of CPS holdings. Some works in solo format, but generally the earlier concertos.

Several hundred not available on IMSLP.

Thal

[michael_sayers]

Here is a list of CPS holdings. Some works in solo format, but generally the earlier concertos.

Several hundred not available on IMSLP.

Thal

Hi Thal,

That is quite an amazing list!

Is it okay if I forward it to a concert pianist I know who is looking for lesser known concertos to perform?  Maybe if he were interested in something not otherwise available then the two of you could work something out.


Mvh,
Michael

[thalbergmad]

Please do my friend. Many remain unperformed.

Thal

[8_octaves]

Here is a list of CPS holdings. Some works in solo format, but generally the earlier concertos.

Several hundred not available on IMSLP.

Thal

Hi Thal, thanx for the list! Nice.. .

( btw.: I spotted the name JS Mayr in it, ( Johann Simon Mayr / Giovanni Simone Mayr / Johannes Simon Mayr ), he has written a very nice piano concerto, in C major ( perhaps 2 of them, as I just could see in the catalogs ), which one perhaps could add to the list somewhen  ? I heard "it" ( "C-major, 1 piano + orchestra" )  in radio years ago, it was very nice!

And nice to see Moreau's Tarantelle and the Union-version in your list, too! 

Cordially, 8_octaves!

[michael_sayers]

Hi Thal, thanx for the list! Nice.. .

( btw.: I spotted the name JS Mayr in it, ( Johann Simon Mayr / Giovanni Simone Mayr / Johannes Simon Mayr ), he has written a very nice piano concerto, in C major ( perhaps 2 of them, as I just could see in the catalogs ), which one perhaps could add to the list somewhen   ? I heard "it" ( "C-major, 1 piano + orchestra" )  in radio years ago, it was very nice!

And nice to see Moreau's Tarantelle and the Union-version in your list, too!  

Cordially, 8_octaves!

Hi 8_octaves,

First of all, you are up way too late at night.

Second of all, I'll be waiting for your proof in the other thread that a pianist can not vary the timbre of a grand piano at uniform pitch and level of dynamic.


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

Please do my friend. Many remain unperformed.

Thal

Hi Thal,

And should I offer your msn or your yahoo.co.uk email address?

Somehow, I think the yahoo.co.uk one may be preferred.

Then again, he lives in Finland, and Nordics have a good - if not also peculiar - sense of humour, so the msn one, as well, should be just fine.


Mvh,
Michael