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.
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.
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
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
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.
can this thread be locked ... it's such a waste of time
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
You overestimate my capabilities, I fear!Best,Alistair
Listen up michael_sayers,You accuse me here of being a troll, yet think on this:3) your posts are not about the recordingSo who is trolling whose thread here?
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.
You're trolling your own thread - you are the MASTER TROLL!!!
That said, is there really much more of that to be discussed at this point?
That said, is there really much more of that to be discussed at this point?Best,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?
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
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.
he/she has put it!...
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
I have it and use it for the weekly chips.Thal
As this information for the arrangement of J.S. Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852
I have it and use it for the weekly chips.
THIS IS NOT, I repeat, NOT AN ARRANGEMENT!!!
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
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!
Please do my friend. Many remain unperformed.Thal
Topic: VIDEO: Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852 by J.S. Bach 