Sorabji vs Microwave Background Radiation Hiss

[lostinidlewonder]

You are allowing words to tie yourself in knots; not a recommend pursuit.

The words are not tieing me into a knot of any sort.

I need to do nothing of the kind;

I suggested you work on your persuasive skills since you said you wanted to help people who might not like the music to come around to another opinion which actually does like it. If you think you don't need to work on your persuasive skills then from the evidence of this thread your skill is rather poor from my perspective.

as I have already stated, it's up to each listener to decide what he/she feels about any music, it's up to the music itself and its performance to influence this insofar as it can and, let's not forget, humans have minds that they can change.

The matter of having an opinion is not the issue. It is the fact that you write in a way which puts other peoples opinions down, and in this case it is a mainstream ideology. I have already quoted the line which states this quite clearly.

Have you never changed your opinion on any music since first you listened to it?

Not currently as an adult, as a child I disliked some music but now like it but that only was for J.S Bach nothing else.

Poor grammar, careless and imprecise expression

We just have to believe you on that one? Why don't you express your confusion if these elements make it hard for you to understand? You have not shown anything so it is just an opinion with no reason. You questioned what I said and said "where it true" as if I didn't know what I wrote myself, I wrote it ahinton not you, I know what I wrote, you misunderstood and applied what I said to something else which I have already said was incorrect.

and, in any case, I'm not "complaining"; merely drawing attention to something is not synonymous with "complaining" and it's no skin off my nose anyway.

You can replace the word complaining with anything you like, you did say it was not clear enough, to me it sounded very much like a complaint, however it probably didn't bother you so much since you asked for no help, so we will leave it that you took a quote of mine and took it way out of context which I clearly mentioned.

If this thread is meant to be "against Sorabji's works" (although the OP mentioned only one of more than 100 of them), that doesn't preclude argument in favour of them; nothing "evasive" about that.

It is evasive that you are not explaining why you want to (rather ineffectively) promote Sorabji's work on a thread which is meant to ridicule his works. Why don't you create a thread which is serious about it all? Afterall don't you think it deserves that? It probably wont get any responses but "that's how the cookie crumbles".

Pointing out the sheer risibility of the OP (and don't forget that you have yourself described this thread as "useless") is hardly tantamount to "promoting" Sorabji's work

You fail to be flexible with your definition of "promoting" that is your own short comings not miine. You are promoting Sorabji here since you want to give the other opinion (albeit a marginalized one), I think that it is ineffective to go against a thread which opposes Sorabji, it would be much better for you to start another thread which is serious about the discussion and information. Here it just will be lost in other details, like our interaction

(even though you are of course correct that I have a duty to do this where and when appropriate, although it is a duty that I have chosen for myself rther than one thrust upon me)

No one has suggested otherwise.

...in any event, rather than "ridiculing" Sorabji it "ridicules" the OP (or would risk doing so were it to be taken seriously); there is therefore nothing either "unprofessional" or "perplexing" in my responses thereto.

Obviously you do not don't realize that your professional image is tarnished by interacting in ridiculous threads like this which opposes what you want to promote about Sorabji. It is perplexing and unprofessional from my perspective, of course there is nothing in your mind that there is, but I thought I would help you see what others might see in your interactions in this joke thread about Sorabji.

Of course. How indeed could it be otherwise? Not only is there a world of difference between personal opinion and value judgement, neither can possibly have any "effect on Sorabji's music" because it's already been written and the composer is hardly likely to revise any of it now!

Ok, just because you love Sorabjis music and his genius that DOES NOT MAKE IT SO!!! So what are you going to say about this now? Exactly the words you used now against you. What this does is that whatever someones opinion is means nothing at all, so what people think means nothing at all..... I'm sorry this is not how the world works. 

Not so. I am certainly not sharing what certain people have said about it, but I leave it to each listener to decide what the music is and what's in itt; that's all.

Not so in your mind, I have offered you the perspective of someone who is reading this thread. If you want to ignore that that's up to you. If you put down the mainstream audiences perspective down you by saying anything they think negatively about Sorabji's works DOES NOT MAKE IT SO, puts yourself in a very weak position to present your own perspective.

"Opposing" doesn't mean that I am telling others that they are wrong; it merely means that, like many others, I do indeed see much in this music - no more, no less.

No telling them that their opinion DOES NOT MAKE IT SO, makes it seem like you place their opnion at ZERO value, it does nothing at all, it means nothing at all, unfortunately for you though it is the mainstream ideology.

I have never suggested that the opinions of people about any music that I happen not to share are "null and void"; those are your words, not mine. Not sharing such opinions and saying so is just that - no more, no less.

I have offered you a perspective of what it looks like that you are doing and it is up to you to take that or leave it, just be aware that this is how you appear to others in your interaction here.

You wrote:
"...those people find the music (or most of it) disorganised and incoherent but that does not of itself make it so."

So you simply disregard the mainstream ideology and consider it means zero (DOES NOT ITSELF MAKE IT SO) which puts you immediately at a disadvantage. Beccause we can simply say your support for Sorabjis music and that it is great alone does not of itself make it so.

Now you're repeating yourself (or repeating me)...

It is required to keep on topic and make my point clear. I will say it again: So you simply disregard the mainstream ideology and consider it means zero (DOES NOT ITSELF MAKE IT SO) which puts you immediately at a disadvantage. Beccause we can simply say your support for Sorabjis music and that it is great alone does not of itself make it so. If IT DOES NOT MAKE IT SO, then what does it do? Does it do anything at all?

A personal opinion, however sincerely held, is never a truth; indeed, it cannot be so, whether it's mine or anyone else's. I do not "manage", or seek to "manage", people's opinions; merely declaring that I do not share some of them is in no sense indicative of a will to "manage" them.

When talking about something subjective, like the enjoyment of music, there are many truths, you should know that it is rather logical and very simple to grasp. So any semantics of truth you are talking about here is out of context. I said the mainstream truth is exactly what perfect_pitch has expressed to you, you disagree that the mainstream think this way (see your initial responses, if you don't know I will quote them for you many times i the next response) , I am here to support the obvious logic that they do.

The OP mentions only one Sorabji work and it does indeed run for a long time - just over 500 minutes. I accept in principle what you write about a "mainstream ideology"

Just accept what I said and not partial or with your little conditions, so you only appreciate the principle what don't you appreciate? What are the other elements of me mentinoing mainstream ideology, what is the principle you are agreeing with and what outside of this principle do you not agree with? Just say you agree and not mention principle because now I wonder what you disagree with since you only conceeded a semi agreement i.e: in principle only.

but seeking to apply one or discuss one in the context of Sorabji and many other composers of Western art music both alive and dead seems to be on a Haydn to nothing.

The master works of Haydn have far reaching approval even to those who don't normally listen to classical music. Beethoven? You will gather even more approval if you take a random sample space. Sorabji however will struggle very much, that is just obvious and logical. I don't know why you want to try and soften it all and suggest that many others might also be in the same boat of disaproval as Sorabji.

As I wrote more than once, this is all relative; there are many composers whose music has a far wider audience than does Sorabji's and many whose music has less, but all Westen art music (loose though I realise that term is) falls outside any semblance of "mainstream ideology".

Sorabi is a minority amongst a minority when it comes to classical music. Classical music lovers are a minority yes, but there is many classical masterpieces that people like that don't listen to classical music at all. Sorabji will never be in this league of the popular classical masters who are appreciate on a much wider scale.

Again, as far as reaching out to audiences is concerned, Sorabji is far more widely listened to now than he was up to the 1970s

That's because there are more people in the world now, we have the internet, without the internet Sorabji would be LARGELY unknown.

he is not exceptional in that, though, since far more people now listen to Mahler, Bruckner, Godowsky, Medtner, Schönberg and others than was once the case.

A very small % of the community would, quite minority. I know a relative of Bruckner and he never listens to the music In any case it doesn't matter that this occurs, what I said still remains, that the mainstream will ultimately hate Sorabji's works. It doesn't matter if this occurs elsewhere, that is inconsequential to the context of my writing.

In writing that it is "a mainstream opinion that Sorabji's music is not worth peoples time to listen to", your assertion is rather less than demonstrably accurate

It is easily demonstrated by going out in public and asking a random sample space. So your assertion that it is rather "less than demonstrably accurate" is an unfounded assumption.

I think that it could have been somewhat more so had you written that many people might answer not only that they would question the extent to which they might consider Sorabji's music (or at least some of it) "worth the time to listen to" but more informative and proportionate again had you added that the same might be said of the music of many other Western art music composers.

This thread is about Sorabji, why bring all other composers into it? There are plenty of composers non-classical music listeners would know and appreciate, maybe because they have heard it in movies, on tv or other media.

You then write "that doesn't mean Sorabji is terrible music some of it I find is nice"
OK - and, not unnaturally, I'm pleased to hear it - but, again, some people might not find "nice" the pieces that you do so, once again, were are in the territory of personal opinion;

Yes and hopefully you see that just because I think it is nice doens't mean it is nice and everyone must believe it. HOWEVER I have to then judge what is the mainstream opinion of the issue. I am totally ok being a minority and will proclaim that I am. I am with the majority most of the time re Sorabjis music, there are a number of smaller works and segments of larger ones which I think are great, but I accept that the majority will hate Sorabjis music, replace the word hate with anything you feel more comfortable with, they will dislike it, they will never give it the time of day, it will sound like garbled confusion for most. However give something like a masterpiece from Beethoven or Mozart, a much higher % of people will express appreciation for such things even though they are not classical music lovers. YOu can see evidence of this with the many medical research papers done on the brains wave state when listening to Mozart for instance. If you did the same brain wave studies with Sorabji I am sure you will not find an alpha state reached as you do with Mozart. Thus Mozart will be more appreciate by even non muisc lovers and in a positive light such as the alpha brain wave stimulation, this is only one small piece of appreciation we can measure music by and quite scientific.

...However, you continue "most people hate it, so the mainstream hate it and I acknowledge that and share that same boat for the majority of the works from Sorabji". I think that there would need to be more evidence of people's actual "hatred" of this music

YOu can replace the word hate for dislike, find annoying, can't stand the sounds, find it confusing and disorientating, do not feel any good emotions at all while listening to it etc etc etc.

not least because the very fact that it is far from "mainstream" means that most people will never even have heard any of it - and one cannot hate any music to which one hasn't listened.

I postulate if you do the experiment I suggested, take 100 random people and ask them what they think, you will see a strong propensity to dislike Sorabji's music, certainly it wont be 1 out of 1001 people that appreciate it like perfect_pitch posted (but that was for comical effect as well as presenting his point) but it will lean heavy upon disapproval.

It seems that, now that you are revealing more of what you think and why (which I appreciate), it is the sheer length of certain Sorabji works that you find discouraging or worse; fair enough insofar as it goes, of course.

It is not the length that makes me dislike it however all the longer works I have listened to are to me like junkyards of musical ideas where there are a few salvageable items here and there. I dislike having to listen to say for example 30minutes only to appreciate 1 minute and sift through 29 minutes of rambling. It turns me off totally and I teach piano for a living for decades, I wonder what the experience of non musicians or people who don't even listen to classical music would be? I am strongly infer that they will hate it.

All that I would add here, for what it might or might not be worth to you or anyone else reading this, is that, had Sorabji's creative motivations been mired in megalomania above all else, he would never have written the many shorter works of which you make passing mention. In discussion with Sorabji many years ago, we touched briefly on one occasion on the question of duration and it was clear that he was very conscious of this as an issue, even though he seemed unconcerned at that time as to whether his works, long, medium or short, would be performed (and, as a consequence, maybe didn't even realise just how long some of the larger ones would turn out to be in performance); he did, however, say that he was always anxious to ensure as far as possible that no passages in any of his works were too long or too short or disproportionate to those on either side of them, adding that the larger the scale of any work, the harder it sometimes seemed to be to feel confident of having gotten this right. Having written a few large scale works myself (though nothing of remotely Sorabjian proportions), I can well empathise with this.

This was interesting to read quite appreciated. 

[gep]

I get the impression that some people here think that 'how many people do (dis)like this or that piece of art' says anything about the piece itself, and that 'how many people (dis)like a piece of art the same way as I do' has anything to do with taste.

I happened to be at a concert last Sunday where a chamber version of Beethoven's 2nd Symphony was played. At the time of its original première, the general consensus was this symphony was nonsense, "Ungeheuer", a 'dragon that refused to die but bled to death in the last movement', and the like. Does that say anything about this symphony? JSBach's work was once that of a 'provincial composer', and not a very good one at that, does that say anything about his music? Bruckner was booed out of halls when his music was played, and understood/liked by just a few at the time, does that say anything about his symphonies?

Even when I am the only one to like a piece of art, or the only one to dislike it (both after studying it to the best of my abilities), than that is my taste. Nothing it wrong with it, and I do not need to justify it to anyone. Same goes for everyone else. But it seems that some people (in messages as heated as they are silly; quite as per usual in such matters) that some pieces of art, or artists themselves, have no right to exist for no other reason than that the writer does not like these pieces of art, or the artists. At that, that people who have an opposing view or opinion have no right to have such an opinion, and certainly are not allowed to express such an opinion. Down that road lies what happened in Russia after 1917, in Germany after 1933 and places such as North Korea today.

If you don’t like Sorabji’s work, fine. Simply stay away from it, like I stay away from what I do not like (but not stay away from what I do not know, or what I do not really like because I do not yet understand it enough to form an informed opinion). But continuing yapping along the lines of "Sorabji’s music is nonsense by default therefor I do not listen to it by default and anyone who has a different opinion is a fool who should shut up by default" is the mindset of a very, very immature mind refusing to grow up and getting angry about such minds as have grown up (and may well have come to the conclusion that Sorabji's music is not for them; a fair and utterly acceptable conclusion). To use a metaphor, you may clang as hard as you will, but the train will pass and move on.

all best,
gep

[ahinton]

Do make your quotes clearer ahinton, it is all in blue.

I saw that and corrected it a while back; sorry about that!

Not currently as an adult, as a child I disliked some music but now like it but that only was for J.S Bach nothing else.

OK.

It is evasive that you are not explaining why you want to (rather ineffectively) promote Sorabji's work on a thread which is meant to ridicule his works.

As I said, I am not seeking actively to "promote" his music in this thread and only one of his works is mentioned here anyway.

Why don't you create a thread which is serious about it all? Afterall don't you think it deserves that?

What a good idea! Suich a good idea, in fact, that I already did that some while ago to draw attention to the new CDs...

Obviously you do not don't realize that your professional image is tarnished by interacting in ridiculous threads like this which opposes what you want to promote about Sorabji. It is perplexing and unprofessional from my perspective, of course there is nothing in your mind that there is, but I thought I would help you see what others might see in your interactions in this joke thread about Sorabji.

My professional imagine being tasnished by what I write on here! Are you serious?!

Ok, just because you love Sorabjis music and his genius that DOES NOT MAKE IT SO!!!

It does not make what "so"?

Not so in your mind, I have offered you the perspective of someone who is reading this thread. If you want to ignore that that's up to you. If you put down the mainstream audiences perspective down you by saying anything they think negatively about Sorabji's works DOES NOT MAKE IT SO, puts yourself in a very weak position to present your own perspective.

Responding to you as I have done seems to me a rather odd way of "ignoring" what you have written. What sort of a confused sentence is your second one?

No telling them that their opinion DOES NOT MAKE IT SO, makes it seem like you place their opnion at ZERO value, it does nothing at all, it means nothing at all, unfortunately for you though it is the mainstream ideology.

Repetition did no favour for Mr Glass; it does no more for you.

I have offered you a perspective of what it looks like that you are doing and it is up to you to take that or leave it, just be aware that this is how you appear to others in your interaction here.

It ill behoves you to speak for others here or elsewhere; please just speak for yourself and I will accept what you say for yourself whether or not I agree with it. "we" can easily become an overused pronoun"...

You wrote:
"...those people find the music (or most of it) disorganised and incoherent but that does not of itself make it so."

So you simply disregard the mainstream ideology and consider it means zero (DOES NOT ITSELF MAKE IT SO) which puts you immediately at a disadvantage. Beccause we can simply say your support for Sorabjis music and that it is great alone does not of itself make it so.

I didn't suggest that it did; as I've said more than once, a personal opinion, however sincerely held and however positive or nbegative it might be, is not and cannot be a value judgement.

It is required to keep on topic and make my point clear. I will say it again: So you simply disregard the mainstream ideology and consider it means zero (DOES NOT ITSELF MAKE IT SO) which puts you immediately at a disadvantage. Beccause we can simply say your support for Sorabjis music and that it is great alone does not of itself make it so. If IT DOES NOT MAKE IT SO, then what does it do? Does it do anything at all?

There is a panel game of UK's BBC Radio 4 called Just a minute in which contestants are invited to speak for that length of time on a given subject without hesitation, deviation or repetition, on the last of which you would not, I fear, last very long at all.

When talking about something subjective, like the enjoyment of music, there are many truths, you should know that it is rather logical and very simple to grasp.

Of course.

The master works of Haydn have far reaching approval even to those who don't normally listen to classical music. Beethoven? You will gather even more approval if you take a random sample space. Sorabji however will struggle very much, that is just obvious and logical. I don't know why you want to try and soften it all and suggest that many others might also be in the same boat of disaproval as Sorabji.
Sorabi is a minority amongst a minority when it comes to classical music. Classical music lovers are a minority yes, but there is many classical masterpieces that people like that don't listen to classical music at all. Sorabji will never be in this league of the popular classical masters who are appreciate on a much wider scale.

Of course Haynb, Beethove and quite a few others have a far wider listener base than Sorabji and some others have a narrower one, as I pointed out. Do also bear in mind that not only do people change their minds about music but the extent to which certaincomposers' works are performed and listened to varies greatly from one generation to another.

That's because there are more people in the world now, we have the internet, without the internet Sorabji would be LARGELY unknown.

Whilst the internet has helped, his music came to public attention well before it is anything like what it is today.

This thread is about Sorabji, why bring all other composers into it?

He doesn't exist in a vacuum!

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

I saw that and corrected it a while back; sorry about that!

I still went through it all in blue -_- my eyes!!!!

As I said, I am not seeking actively to "promote" his music in this thread and only one of his works is mentioned here anyway.

I think you are inflexible with the definition of the word "promote" so perhaps a word like "support" his music might be easier for you to manage?

However I am giving you a large concession here since you admitted already in this thread that it is to PROMOTE Sorabji's work.

Quote from: fftransform on January 07, 2020, 06:41:07 PM
This thread is to promote a major musical moment in history with the release of this gargantuan piece that was for a long time just a fable!

To which you responded:
Dead right it is!

What a good idea! Suich a good idea, in fact, that I already did that some while ago to draw attention to the new CDs...

Too bad the discussion there is not as lengthy as ours -_-

My professional imagine being tasnished by what I write on here! Are you serious?!

I think so, the thread is a ridicule thread about Sorabji, I wouldn't have anything to do with it or take it seriously.

It does not make what "so"?

It is what you wrote so the "SO" shall be defined exactly the same way you used it.

Responding to you as I have done seems to me a rather odd way of "ignoring" what you have written. What sort of a confused sentence is your second one?

You are mistaken that I have ignored anything in this case. What is confusing you? You are just saying you are confused without explaining what you are confused about.

Repetition did no favour for Mr Glass; it does no more for you.

What do you mean "favour" and why should I strive for any of this "favour"? I repeat to get my important point across and it is effective. Mr Glass is quite well known and many of his works are appreciated quite widely even from "non classical musical" people from my experiences, so I'd say it did favour him a lot. 

It ill behoves you to speak for others here or elsewhere; please just speak for yourself and I will accept what you say for yourself whether or not I agree with it. "we" can easily become an overused pronoun"...

My use of the word "others" was to define people who are not you. That is a normal use of the word and does not specifcy that what I write is talking on behalf of "all the others". Seems rather logical and easy to understand, I wonder why you struggled with that.

I didn't suggest that it did; as I've said more than once, a personal opinion, however sincerely held and however positive or nbegative it might be, is not and cannot be a value judgement.

I'm sorry but the audience opinion of music is very important. Art requires people to appreciate it for it to become great. It is a mainstream ideology that Sorabji's music is no good, if it were otherwise we would see him all over the place. It is ok that the music from Sorabji is appreciated by a minority amongst the minority. It's just a fact. So when people give their opinion that the music is rubbish we can't say that that doesn't make the music so because the mainstream ideology is important to guage and understand rather than simply say it means nothing and makes nothing "so".

There is a panel game of UK's BBC Radio 4 called Just a minute in which contestants are invited to speak for that length of time on a given subject without hesitation, deviation or repetition, on the last of which you would not, I fear, loast very long at all.

Interesting I would crush that show, I merely repeat online because important points are ignored and I enjoy looping discussion if the responses are unsatisfactory for me.

Of course.

Good news!

Whilst the internet has helped, his music came to public attention well before it is anything like what it is today.

If there was no internet all I would have known about Sorabji is that his OC was mentioned once in Guiiness World Records Books as the longest piece in the world. The internet has done Sorabji a huge amount, much more so than anything before it. This same pattern can be said for a large number of other composers too, so it is nothing unusual and should be an easily accepted truth.

He doesn't exist in a vacuum!

Why bring other composers into it tho?

[ahinton]

I think you are inflexible with the definition of the word "promote" so perhaps a word like "support" his music might be easier for you to manage?

I don't have to "manage" any such thing and have no interest in such terminological semantics.

However I am giving you a large concession here since you admitted already in this thread that it is to PROMOTE Sorabji's work.

You are and are in aposition to give no such thing, not least because I made no such admission.

Quote from: fftransform on January 07, 2020, 06:41:07 PM
This thread is to promote a major musical moment in history with the release of this gargantuan piece that was for a long time just a fable!

To which you responded:
Dead right it is!

I am not responsible for the posts of others.

Too bad the discussion there is not as lengthy as ours -_-
I think so, the thread is a ridicule thread about Sorabji, I wouldn't have anything to do with it or take it seriously.

Nor do I, but then my posts in it have demonstrated that I do not.

It is what you wrote so the "SO" shall be defined exactly the same way you used it.
You are mistaken that I have ignored anything in this case. What is confusing you? You are just saying you are confused without explaining what you are confused about.
What do you mean "favour" and why should I strive for any of this "favour"? I repeat to get my important point across and it is effective. Mr Glass is quite well known and many of his works are appreciated quite widely even from "non classical musical" people from my experiences, so I'd say it did favour him a lot. 
My use of the word "others" was to define people who are not you. That is a normal use of the word and does not specifcy that what I write is talking on behalf of "all the others". Seems rather logical and easy to understand, I wonder why you struggled with that.
I'm sorry but the audience opinion of music is very important. Art requires people to appreciate it for it to become great. It is a mainstream ideology that Sorabji's music is no good, if it were otherwise we would see him all over the place. It is ok that the music from Sorabji is appreciated by a minority amongst the minority. It's just a fact. So when people give their opinion that the music is rubbish we can't say that that doesn't make the music so because the mainstream ideology is important to guage and understand rather than simply say it means nothing and makes nothing "so".
Interesting I would crush that show, I merely repeat online because important points are ignored and I enjoy looping discussion if the responses are unsatisfactory for me.
Good news!

Bovine excrement.

If there was no internet all I would have known about Sorabji is that his OC was mentioned once in Guiiness World Records Books as the longest piece in the world. The internet has done Sorabji a huge amount, much more so than anything before it. This same pattern can be said for a large number of other composers too, so it is nothing unusual and should be an easily accepted truth.

As indicated previously, I am not about to argue with much of that in principle.

Why bring other composers into it tho?

I've already answered that; go read...

Best,

Alistair

[perfect_pitch]

if you think a child could do it, go ahead and try. It's not as easy as it looks.

Seriously??? You don't think children can make a mess??? You've never worked with them.

There's no structure to his work, it's literally a mess on a canvas with some pseudo-intellectual argument to make people think there's meaning in the chaos... when in reality it's just a man making a joke out of the qualitative representation of art and what is considered 'art'.

[dogperson]

Seriously??? You don't think children can make a mess??? You've never worked with them.

There's no structure to his work, it's literally a mess on a canvas with some pseudo-intellectual argument to make people think there's meaning in the chaos... when in reality it's just a man making a joke out of the qualitative representation of art and what is considered 'art'.

My sister was an accomplished artist in high school.  Her feeling about modern art was ‘that can’t be hard; I can do that’. So her teacher challenged her to try it and see.  She did finish a project but concluded it was much harden than it looks. 

[perfect_pitch]

Her feeling about modern art was ‘that can’t be hard; I can do that’.

Give a kid numerous hours with a large sheet of paper, and plenty of paint and tell them to make a mess, you'll pretty much get something along the lines of this:



On the other hand - given 100 years, I still couldn't replicate anything like this:



or this:



or this:



3 of those pictures are art... 1 of them is what my toilet bowl looks like after a really bad curry from a dodgy restaurant.

[klavieronin]

Give a kid numerous hours with a large sheet of paper, and plenty of paint and tell them to make a mess, you'll pretty much get something along the lines of this:

That would be an interesting experiment. Why don't you make some random mess on a canvas, take a picture, then upload it here with a couple of Jackson Pollocks. We'll see if we can guess which is yours?

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't have to "manage" any such thing and have no interest in such terminological semantics.

You don't HAVE to do a lot of things, no one has a gun at your head. That seems rather obvious though. Your inability to be flexible with the definintion of PROMOTE is just unusual on your behalf and you are more than welcome to behave in an unsual manner. 

You are and are in aposition to give no such thing, not least because I made no such admission.

lol ahinton man up! You already agreed that you were PROMOTING sorabji in this page by agreeing with another user who used the word PROMOTE. You said very clearly DEAD RIGHT to the user who used the word PROMOTE. You already prove to us that you cannot own up to errors when it is shows to you. You said to me NO NO NO NO PROMOTE!!!! Then I show you where you said someone was DEAD RIGHT when they mentioned PROMOTE, so ahinton you cannot talk your way out of this, it shows your purposeful irrational disagreements with others quite clearly.

I am not responsible for the posts of others.

Illogical conclusion, you agreed with DEAD RIGHT to a comment which said this thread is about PROMOTING sorabjis work, where you said to me you are NOT promoting anything at all. So it is clearly proven you don't know what to think here because you are saying two things at the same time, DEAD RIGHT PROMOTING with one used, NO PROMOTION with me, that is quite illogical.

Nor do I, but then my posts in it have demonstrated that I do not.

Demonstrate what?

Bovine excrement.

Obviously then you just like to proclaim confusion without even expressing what is confusing you. To me this is irrational behaviour nothing to do with manure.

As indicated previously, I am not about to argue with much of that in principle.

What do you mean "in principle" you wont argue that in principle, so ignore princple what would you argue then? We really must keep this discussion flowing

I've already answered that; go read...

I am asking for elaboration or at least referral to where you answered it, if you don't want to provide that fair enough, from my perspective you haven't answered it at all then.

[brogers70]

That would be an interesting experiment. Why don't you make some random mess on a canvas, take a picture, then upload it here with a couple of Jackson Pollocks. We'll see if we can guess which is yours?

I second that proposal.

[lostinidlewonder]

I think he would do quite well against the average public. How's 20million for a blank canvas??

All you need is some rich person to talk loudly and spend much money and rubbish can be worth lots of money and gain a lot of attention.

I read somewhere recently that a non artist for a joke put some of their art attempts in a gallery and sold a piece for $10k!

[ted]

My sister was an accomplished artist in high school.  Her feeling about modern art was ‘that can’t be hard; I can do that’. So her teacher challenged her to try it and see.  She did finish a project but concluded it was much harden than it looks.

My father was a very talented woodcarver, especially in the Maori idiom, probably the first European admitted to a Maori carving school in the fifties. In the early sixties a huge controversy erupted about the art gallery's purchase of Barbara Hepworth's Torso II, with almost everyone saying "anybody could do that sort of thing". Dad, who had hitherto been very traditional, was suddenly captivated by Hepworth and commenced making abstract wood sculptures, gaining immense satisfaction from them for the rest of his life.

So the two directions are not at all mutually exclusive. I have not inherited any visual talent myself but I get much pleasure from producing abstract pictures algorithmically:

https://www.deviantart.com/search?q=Superoso 

[thalbergmad]

If i filled up my rectum with notes and farted over a sheet of manuscript paper, the result would be indistinguishable from Sorabji.

[ahinton]

If i filled up my rectum with notes and farted over a sheet of manuscript paper, the result would be indistinguishable from Sorabji.

I believe that the membership deserves incontrovertible proof of this; to that end, I'll send you a sheet of ms. paper if you'd like.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

You don't HAVE to do a lot of things, no one has a gun at your head. That seems rather obvious though. Your inability to be flexible with the definintion of PROMOTE is just unusual on your behalf and you are more than welcome to behave in an unsual manner. 
lol ahinton man up! You already agreed that you were PROMOTING sorabji in this page by agreeing with another user who used the word PROMOTE. You said very clearly DEAD RIGHT to the user who used the word PROMOTE. You already prove to us that you cannot own up to errors when it is shows to you. You said to me NO NO NO NO PROMOTE!!!! Then I show you where you said someone was DEAD RIGHT when they mentioned PROMOTE, so ahinton you cannot talk your way out of this, it shows your purposeful irrational disagreements with others quite clearly.

Illogical conclusion, you agreed with DEAD RIGHT to a comment which said this thread is about PROMOTING sorabjis work, where you said to me you are NOT promoting anything at all. So it is clearly proven you don't know what to think here because you are saying two things at the same time, DEAD RIGHT PROMOTING with one used, NO PROMOTION with me, that is quite illogical.
Demonstrate what?
Obviously then you just like to proclaim confusion without even expressing what is confusing you. To me this is irrational behaviour nothing to do with manure.
What do you mean "in principle" you wont argue that in principle, so ignore princple what would you argue then? We really must keep this discussion flowing
I am asking for elaboration or at least referral to where you answered it, if you don't want to provide that fair enough, from my perspective you haven't answered it at all then.

!!!

[perfect_pitch]

If i filled up my rectum with notes and farted over a sheet of manuscript paper, the result would be indistinguishable from Sorabji.

Much like my quote about not-so-great take-away:

1 of them is what my toilet bowl looks like after a really bad curry from a dodgy restaurant.

I believe that the membership deserves incontrovertible proof of this; to that end, I'll send you a sheet of ms. paper if you'd like.

Nope - I'm happy to take him at his word.

[ahinton]

Much like my quote about not-so-great take-away:

Nope - I'm happy to take him at his word.

Well, you might be. I wouldn't be. I can't speak for the other members but, although I maintain that it would be a good idea, I don't consider it to be of sufficient importance to warrant yet another of those "polls"!

Best,

Alistair

[dogperson]

Much like my quote about not-so-great take-away:

Nope - I'm happy to take him at his word.

.

[ahinton]

Nope - I'm happy to take him at his word.

I think that this would need to be done in a credible scientific manner and upon the presumption that what Thal refers to here is the appearance of the material on the page.

Firstly, a particlar page from Sorabji's ms. or a typeset edition thereof would need to be selected for comparison purposes.

Secondly, we would need to know with how many notes Thal would fill his rectum, how many of them would be stemless, how many with stems and how many with stems and beams, along with an explanation as to how decisions of all of these were made.

Thirdly, the velocity of the wind would need to be measured and recorded.

Lastly, once the job was done, a photocy or scan would need to be made in order to make the evidence available; this would be a very messy task and, I suspect, quite difficult to accomplish even were the contents to be fully dried before doing this.

Only then could an intelligent and informed comparison be made.

So now it's over to Thal. The only other problem that I envisage here is that, in the absence of a copy of the ms. or typeset edition, Thal would need first to select, request and be supplied with a particular page for use in this exercise.

Still, I suspect that the sound of the expulsion of gas involved would be less unpleasant than that of microwave background radiation hiss, even if at a considerably higher dynamic level.

Best,

Alistair

[brogers70]

I think he would do quite well against the average public. How's 20million for a blank canvas??

All you need is some rich person to talk loudly and spend much money and rubbish can be worth lots of money and gain a lot of attention.

I read somewhere recently that a non artist for a joke put some of their art attempts in a gallery and sold a piece for $10k!

We were talking about Pollock specifically. No doubt there's BS flying around sometimes in the modern art world, but that hardly means all modern art is BS. And Pollock is, to me anyway, fascinating to look at. I highly doubt that a Pollock-skeptic throwing paint randomly at a canvas would be difficult to tell from a set of actual Pollocks. Not very art-savvy rich folks with lots of money to spend in a competitive, conspicuous consumption sort of way can doubtless be parted from their money  by charlatans of many sorts, but that does not turn Pollock or Picasso or Rothko or Miro or Mondrian into charlatans.

[perfect_pitch]

Well, you might be. I wouldn't be.

So... what you're saying is you genuinely want to see Thalbergmad desperately sh*t out notes over a canvas...






That's JUST *** SICK!!! What is WRONG WITH YOU!!!

[ahinton]

So... what you're saying is you genuinely want to see Thalbergmad desperately sh*t out notes over a canvas...






That's JUST *** SICK!!! What is WRONG WITH YOU!!!

I did not suggest that I would WANT to see this and, indeed, for the record and for the avoidance of doubt, I would most certainly NOT want to see it; on the contrary, the purpose of my post on the subject was to note my belief that this would be the only method whereby evidence in support of Thal's otherwise unproven statement could be obtained, not to recommend that he proceed with the exercise!

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I'll just mention this piece (in fact, it is an arrangement for guitar of the piano original):

I'm not sure how it compares against either of the options here 

[perfect_pitch]

I'm not sure how it compares against either of the options here 

It's a guy brushing a guitar with random notes with what looks like weeds... this is why people think Modern Art/20th Cent. music is a joke.

[perfect_pitch]

I did not suggest that I would WANT to see this

Technically, you inferred that you DID want to see it. I said I was happy to take Thal at his word, however you quite rightly claimed:

I wouldn't be.

Thus, if you're not willing to take him at his word, then this means that you would need to see some sort of physical or visual proof...

I'm still willing to take him at his word.   

[lostinidlewonder]

[ahinton]

Technically, you inferred that you DID want to see it. I said I was happy to take Thal at his word, however you quite rightly claimed:

Thus, if you're not willing to take him at his word, then this means that you would need to see some sort of physical or visual proof...

I'm still willing to take him at his word.   

No. I stated that it would be neessary for him to go through this exercise if proof of his statement were to be produced and, without that proof, it is an unevidenced statement. Impicit in my response was the fact that the statement would almost certainly remain unproven and its value judged accordingly.

Best,

Alistair

[dogperson]

Does anyone posting on this thread even think about how disgusting it is to read?  Does anyone really want to read a hypothetical test of excrement to modern art?

If anyone of you really wants to think about the decline in PS participation, go back and read this thread.  I know what your responses will be:  if you don’t like it you don’t have to read it.  You’re right. And I guess that also applies to anyone who discovers this site and is thinking of participating. Shouldn’t this be at least some musical discussion?  Guess not; I didn’t think this would be what a piano forum would be.

I’m writing this knowing that I will be blasted so hard that I will want to leave the forum and that’s ok.

[ahinton]

Does anyone posting on this thread even think about how disgusting it is to read?  Does anyone really want to read a hypothetical test of excrement to modern art?

If anyone of you really wants to think about the decline in PS participation, go back and read this thread.  I know what your responses will be:  if you don’t like it you don’t have to read it.  You’re right. And I guess that also applies to anyone who discovers this site and is thinking of participating. Shouldn’t this be at least some musical discussion?  Guess not; I didn’t think this would be what a piano forum would be.

I’m writing this knowing that I will be blasted so hard that I will want to leave the forum and that’s ok.

You'll not be "blasted" by me. The problem here is that it would have been better had the thread not been initiated in the first place and most of the rest of it follows from there.

Best,

Alistair

[perfect_pitch]

The problem here is that it would have been better had the thread not been initiated in the first place and most of the rest of it follows from there.

I know - any thread regarding Sorabji is a waste of time.

[ahinton]

I know - any thread regarding Sorabji is a waste of time.

Far from it but, as has been mentioned elsewhere, no one has to read any threads that are not anticipated to be of interest. For the record, are there other piano composers on whom you would deem threads a waste of time and, if so, who might they be?

That said, this was hardly a thread "regarding Sorabji" to the extent of inviting serious discussion of him or his work so, in that sense, this one was indeed a waste of time, as has already been noted previously.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

It is one thing for a thread to get incrementally longer, but quite another for it to get excrementally longer 

[ahinton]

It is one thing for a thread to get incrementally longer, but quite another for it to get excrementally longer 

That's very funny! - and perhaps also lends another connotation to the "waste" of time that some have deemed it to be...

Best,

Alistair

[perfect_pitch]

For the record, are there other piano composers on whom you would deem threads a waste of time

Anyone whose musical works are the result of chaotic, pseudo-interpretive bullshit that have no substance or musicality, and have been hyped up by so-called 'intellectuals' who claim there's an extravagant beauty to the work; when in actual fact it's meaningless and a joke.

If I could take that work and turn it into a MIDI and insert wrong notes and omit notes etc... you would be none the wiser... wouldn't you agree??? And before you say yes, I highly doubt you can, because only someone with a really keen sense of perfect pitch would be able to recognise off the score if one had done so.

If the score can be manipulated in ways that no one can tell, then it's clearly not art and there is nothing of credible value to the work. You draw a small blue spot on the Mona Lisa and you can tell instantly that someone's ruined a great piece of art.

[ahinton]

Anyone whose musical works are the result of chaotic, pseudo-interpretive bullshit that have no substance or musicality, and have been hyped up by so-called 'intellectuals' who claim there's an extravagant beauty to the work; when in actual fact it's meaningless and a joke.

If I could take that work and turn it into a MIDI and insert wrong notes and omit notes etc... you would be none the wiser... wouldn't you agree??? And before you say yes, I highly doubt you can, because only someone with a really keen sense of perfect pitch would be able to recognise off the score if one had done so.

If the score can be manipulated in ways that no one can tell, then it's clearly not art and there is nothing of credible value to the work. You draw a small blue spot on the Mona Lisa and you can tell instantly that someone's ruined a great piece of art.

I aksed you if you might name names; if you'd rather not do so, then that's fine. The problem that remains is therefore that works that "are the result of chaotic, pseudo-interpretive bullshit that have no substance or musicality, and have been hyped up by so-called 'intellectuals' who claim there's an extravagant beauty to the work; when in actual fact it's meaningless and a joke" will not be the same for one individual as for another; in other words, not everyone will agree on any of these factors. Go back around 170 years and you would find people who would have sought to make similar assertions about the late paintings of JMW Turner, the complex biblical epics of his compatriot and younger contemporary John Martin, the orchestral extravagance of Berlioz, the pianistic impossibilities demanded by Alkan and Liszt and the allegedly incomprehensibe last five quartets of Beethoven - and, should you have searched with sufficient conscientiousness, you'd also have found some who would have disagreed.

The expression "one man's meat is another man's poison", whilst un-PC today, still holds in principle.

Best,

Alistair

[perfect_pitch]

I find it rather interesting that your focus on my last quote was in regards to what constitutes as music or art...

And yet you made no argument against this:

If I could take that work and turn it into a MIDI and insert wrong notes and omit notes etc... you would be none the wiser... wouldn't you agree??? And before you say yes, I highly doubt you can, because only someone with a really keen sense of perfect pitch would be able to recognise off the score if one had done so.

If the score can be manipulated in ways that no one can tell, then it's clearly not art and there is nothing of credible value to the work.

[ahinton]

I find it rather interesting that your focus on my last quote was in regards to what constitutes as music or art...

And yet you made no argument against this:

So I did not express agreement with it!

Whilst there are, of course, "right" notes and "wrong" notes in anything, what of the following scenarios:

a) composer decides to revise work following publication - perhaps more than once; which, then are the "right" notes and which the "wrong" ones?
b) as there are listeners with average aural perceptions and those with or without absolute pitch whose perceptions are far more developed, different listeners will have different levels of awareness of "wrong" notes.
c) is the music of Bach and his contemporaries played with textual accuracy on a modern Bösendorfer the "right" notes played on the "wrong" instrument?
d) how many people would be able to tell if a single desk of second violinists played some wrong notes in a busy passage in a Mahler symphony?

...and so on and so on...

There are also so many instances of music whose initial reception from some listeners was one of bafflement at best and contempt at worst yet the music has long since entered the world of accepted "standard repertoire".

Incidentally, I made no reference to "manipulating" scores...

Best,

Alistair

[perfect_pitch]

My point is - if you take a piece of music like Sorabji and you edit notes, remove notes, add in extra random notes and no one can tell the difference then it means that the piece of music is no different from a chaotic mess which has no structure, no recognition and is akin to a random mess on the piano which can't be distinguished from it's original composition.

If I could edit Sorabjis music and no one could clearly point out what was edited, then one can only conclude that it is not music... and just the result of random chaos which means there was no intricacy or depth to the original composition if substitute passages of chaos can be inserted in without people knowing.

And to answer your question - c) yes, if Bach wrote his pieces for a harpsichord and someone plays it on a Bosendorfer then the two instruments despite both being keyboard instruments, present different timbres, tones, volume etc... You can't MAKE a piano sound like a harpsichord.

d) I could. It would be pretty obvious

[brogers70]

My point is - if you take a piece of music like Sorabji and you edit notes, remove notes, add in extra random notes and no one can tell the difference then it means that the piece of music is no different from a chaotic mess which has no structure, no recognition and is akin to a random mess on the piano which can't be distinguished from it's original composition.

If I could edit Sorabjis music and no one could clearly point out what was edited, then one can only conclude that it is not music... and just the result of random chaos which means there was no intricacy or depth to the original composition if substitute passages of chaos can be inserted in without people knowing.

What you are claiming is that the output from a random note generator would be indistinguishable from a Sorabji composition. I highly doubt that that is true. I don't particularly like Sorabji but I'm pretty sure even I could tell the difference. I don't get the urge to run Sorabji into the ground. If you don't like him, don't listen to him.

[klavieronin]

My point is - if you take a piece of music like Sorabji and you edit notes, remove notes, add in extra random notes and no one can tell the difference then it means that the piece of music is no different from a chaotic mess which has no structure, no recognition and is akin to a random mess on the piano which can't be distinguished from it's original composition.

If I could edit Sorabjis music and no one could clearly point out what was edited, then one can only conclude that it is not music... and just the result of random chaos which means there was no intricacy or depth to the original composition if substitute passages of chaos can be inserted in without people knowing.

I'm willing to bet that Sorabji could tell if his music was tampered with. Apparently he had notoriously high standards when it came to playing his music (he even went so far as to ban his music from public performance after one concert that didn't meet his standards - ahinton can correct me on that if I am wrong). And I think anyone familiar enough with any specific piece of his could tell if some random notes had been injected into it. I also doubt if any lay person not familiar with the works of, say, Rachmaninoff could tell if there were a few random notes.

Also I think you may be thinking of music in a rather limited way. Sometimes music is not about the notes specifically but more about the colour and texture, like a painting. Could you tell that this copy of Van Gogh's Starry Night has been tampered with without directly comparing it to the original?

[perfect_pitch]

I'm willing to bet that Sorabji could tell if his music was tampered with. Apparently he had notoriously high standards when it came to playing his music (he even went so far as to ban his music from public performance after one concert that didn't meet his standards - ahinton can correct me on that if I am wrong). And I think anyone familiar enough with any specific piece of his could tell if some random notes had been injected into it. I also doubt if any lay person not familiar with the works of, say, Rachmaninoff could tell if there were a few random notes.

Also I think you may be thinking of music in a rather limited way. Sometimes music is not about the notes specifically but more about the colour and texture, like a painting. Could you tell that this copy of Van Gogh's Starry Night has been tampered with without directly comparing it to the original?

First of all - every artist or author could tell if their painting or masterpiece was edited - that's a given.

Secondly - anyone familiar with say Beethoven or Chopin could easily tell if the notes were tampered with. Music like Sorabji? Very unlikely. I've literally looked at the score, and sadly enough heard more than a couple of minutes worth - one could EASILY doctor that score and plague it with some injected notes or tamper with the phrases.

And yes, it took a minute but someone has edited one of the light blue hills in the lower right hand side. You can tell because there are specks of black under it, and the hill itself looks quite mishapen.

I'm sure in the original it's a straight hill.

[lostinidlewonder]

You can put in a number of "wrong notes" in Sorabji and it would be far less noticeable than say if you put in a single "wrong note" in Beethoven. They both have a different musical language they write with. I guess we could compare it to someone speaking a common language like English vs someone speaking an African tribe clicking language. To the English speaker you could make all sorts of strange sounds and sound like the tribesman  Make any changes to the well known English language and you will have people noticing it well because of their familiarity with the language.

I've listened to much of Sorabji's works and understand his unique musical language and accept that you can put in many wrong notes in his works and still maintain his language, evidence of this for example can be seen in Ogdon's recording of the OC where he often estimates what needs to be done but still maintains the language (for me at least).

[klavieronin]

First of all - every artist or author could tell if their painting or masterpiece was edited - that's a given.

Secondly - anyone familiar with say Beethoven or Chopin could easily tell if the notes were tampered with. Music like Sorabji? Very unlikely. I've literally looked at the score, and sadly enough heard more than a couple of minutes worth - one could EASILY doctor that score and plague it with some injected notes or tamper with the phrases.

And yes, it took a minute but someone has edited one of the light blue hills in the lower right hand side. You can tell because there are specks of black under it, and the hill itself looks quite mishapen.

I'm sure in the original it's a straight hill.

That's right. I changed the hill. Well spotted. Though you missed the extra window I added in one of the buildings, the colour change on one of the roofs (it should be red), the dozen or so random strokes I made in the sky, and other changes I can't even remember. Personally, I don't think the fact that you missed these says anything about the art itself, because the individual strokes are not important. What is important is the colour, texture, composition, etc. much like Sorabji's music. That's all I was trying to illustrate. Sorabji is not Beethoven or Chopin, Van Gogh is not Bouguereau. You shouldn't look at or listen to their work the same way. Just MHO.

[perfect_pitch]

Sorabji is not Beethoven or Chopin. You should listen to their work the same way. Just MHO.

No offense, but you can't listen to Beethoven or Chopin in the same way as Sorabji. There is melody, harmony and flow to Beethoven & Chopin.

There is neither melody (or to be totally honest) any harmony in Sorabji. There is dissonance which is indistinguishable from noise for pretty much most of his works.

[klavieronin]

No offense, but you can't listen to Beethoven or Chopin in the same way as Sorabji. There is melody, harmony and flow to Beethoven & Chopin.

There is neither melody (or to be totally honest) any harmony in Sorabji. There is dissonance which is indistinguishable from noise for pretty much most of his works.

I'm not offended. That was a typo (now corrected). I meant to say "You should NOT listen to their work in the same way."

[ahinton]

No offense, but you can't listen to Beethoven or Chopin in the same way as Sorabji. There is melody, harmony and flow to Beethoven & Chopin.

There is neither melody (or to be totally honest) any harmony in Sorabji. There is dissonance which is indistinguishable from noise for pretty much most of his works.

Clearly your Sorabji listening experience is gravely limited, as you reveal here. Have a look at the first or last pages of SC (or many others of its score) and tell me that there's no harmony! No, it's down to expectation; if you expect Sorabji's harmony to sound like Haydn's, Chopin's or Brahms's, you will obviously be disappointed.

Best,

Alistair

[perfect_pitch]

Clearly your Sorabji listening experience is gravely imited

Perfect pitch... remember? My listening experience is not limited in ANY way. I can understand music and experience it in a way you can't.

It's like being able to see colour in a world where everyone else sees black and white.

[ahinton]

Perfect pitch... remember? My listening experience is not limited in ANY way. I can understand music and experience it in a way you can't.

How's that, then? As I stated previously, I have absolute pitch as well - although that is not the point.

It's like being able to see colour in a world where everyone else sees black and white.

Be that as it may or may not, what you write about the alleged absence of harmony in Sorabji is a quite different matter and what you really mean by it is not that there is such an absence (which would be absurd) but that you don't care to listen to the harmonies that he creates; that's fine and, as at least one other member has opined here, you don't have to listen to what you don't like, so it might in this instance be better if you refrained from listening to Sorabji (at least for the time being) rather than letting the experience of doing so encourage you to make statements about his music that are demonstrably false.

In order to try better to understand where you're coming from on this, I asked which other composers you would accuse of a lack of harmonic input but you have yet to identify any; without wishing to lead you in this, what, for example, about Messiaen, Schönberg, Pettersson, Krenek, Carter, Roslavets? I ask if for no better reason than to ascertain in what company you would personally seek to place Sorabji in this.

I also asked you to examine the first and last pages of Sorabji's Sequentia Cyclica and identify the lack of harmony but you've yet to do that either.

Best,

Alistair

[perfect_pitch]

but that you don't care to listen to the harmonies that he creates

What bloody harmonies??? Majority of his music is random notes.

You know what - I refuse to argue with a crazy person. You want to bark on about this crap and boost the ego of Sorabji - I'm hoping it will be confined to this thread and this thread only.

I'm done arguing. I have better things to do.