Sorabji vs Microwave Background Radiation Hiss

[Bob]

I haven't read the whole thread, but... Is Sorabji always using the piano, without doing anything usual for producing tones?  It's always a tone, sustained pitch?  As opposed to background noise from space, more random, not a sustain pitch?

I'd say it is or can all be music though, just different levels of how organized it is.  Having pitches though vs. noise would be one area of cutoff for me between levels.

[ahinton]

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

Well, if you can't find any even on the first page of Sequentia Cyclica, which harmonises the entire Dies Iræ theme in simple major and minor chords over an occasionally reiterated C#/F# pedal point, there's really no hope for you; that, incidentally, is not the personal opinion of someone who admires this work but a piece of incontrovertible fact that does not require "perfect pitch" - yours, mine or anyone else's - to recognise, as all that would be required is sufficient aural experience to enable recognition of common chords.

You know what - I refuse to argue with a crazy person.

Two things here.

Firstly, you are not conversing with a "crazy person" (indeed, one might well question whether you are "conversing" at all)

Secondly, you are not "arguing" anyway because it is clear that you have no "argument".

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.

Several things here.

Firstly, I do not bark

Secondly, the music isn't "crap"

Thirdly, Sorabji's ego cannot be boosted as he's been dead for more than 30 years

Fourthly, I would in any case have no need to try to boost it even were he still alive

Lastly, discussion of his work isn't "confined to this thread", nor has it been so for a long time.

I'm done arguing.

As I reminded you, you have not yet started.

I have better things to do.

Whilst better than what remains unclear, please go ahead and do them; thank you. Your promised withdrawal from non-arguments will doubtless be welcomed and clear more space for thoughtful discussion of the music.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I haven't read the whole thread, but... Is Sorabji always using the piano, without doing anything usual for producing tones?  It's always a tone, sustained pitch?  As opposed to background noise from space, more random, not a sustain pitch?

I'd say it is or can all be music though, just different levels of how organized it is.  Having pitches though vs. noise would be one area of cutoff for me between levels.

Sorabji's music is not all for the piano although a large majority of it is. He never uses any means of sound production at the piano that would have been unfamiliar to Haydn, Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt, Alkan, Brahms, Debussy, Granados, Busoni, Albéniz, Godowsky, Scriabin, Ravel &c. although, of course, his not infrequent requirement for the sostenuto pedal would have been unfamiliar to the first three of those composers. There is nothing "random" about the ways in which any of those composers, including Sorabji, went about writing for the piano - and Sorabji both felt and was a part of a great pianistic tradition.

I hope that this helps to answer your questions but if you have any more please don't hesitate to ask.

Best,

Alistair

[klavieronin]

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

Serious question: Is that hyperbole, or do you genuinely think that Sorabji's music is random?

[ahinton]

Serious question: Is that hyperbole, or do you genuinely think that Sorabji's music is random?

Whilst the (perhaps unsurprisingly as yet unanswered) question was not addressed to me to answer, should the response (if any) be the latter, it might be interesting to ascertain by what "random" means the music was supposedly created, not least given that no such "random" generation facilities were available at the time when Sorabji was active as a composer (i.e. 1914-1984).

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

Serious question: Is that hyperbole, or do you genuinely think that Sorabji's music is random?

I would say that the comment you refer to is not hyperbole, it's hyperbolesh*t. But the writer thereof happens to be in the posession of 'perfect pitch', which he (supposing it's a he; I may be wrong there) equates with 'perfect taste' meaning that if he does not hear harmony, there is none; if he does not hear melody, there is none, if he does not hear a theme, there is none, if he does not hear logic, there is none. In short, if a piece of music (which, in the pertaining case, he has not even heard, nor intends to hear) is not to his taste, it is not music.
Sadly, I am equipped with perfect pitch, nor am I a musician of any sort, so I have to haplessly help myself by listening to music. Strangely, in the piece discussed en disected, I do hear harmony (quite interesting harmony), I do hear melody, I can follow the various themes, I do hear logic, I am able to follow the musical 'argument', I am sensitive to the various expressions in the music. I am really disabled, therefor. It's really sad, actually listening to some music and then stubbornly liking it, despite the quite clearly opposite divine revelation and verdict about it.

[gep]

To return to people who are actually listening to the music (rather than state they don't need to because they have perfect pitch and hence fully understand music they never heard or intend to hear...), here's a review of the soon to be released box

For the interested:
https://artmusiclounge.wordpress.com/

(Unless you happen to have perfect vision as well and thus can judge a review without reading it..)

[ronde_des_sylphes]

But to be fair (and relevant), surely post that in the actual Sorabji release thread.

Don't diss the hiss! 

[ahinton]

But to be fair (and relevant), surely post that in the actual Sorabji release thread.

Don't diss the hiss! 

Hiss is what you get on badly made recordings...

Best,

Alistair

[perfect_pitch]

To return to people who are actually listening to the music (rather than state they don't need to because they have perfect pitch and hence fully understand music they never heard or intend to hear...)

You just HAD to be a little turd in saying that didn't you? Couldn't you just move on in a civilised fashion??? There were plenty of people who actually listened to the music and found it complete sh*t - myself included. Please stop saying there are people who don't listen to music - we're all musicians here.

Some of us however seem to think there's meaning in depth in something I can only qualify as 'audible diarrhoea'.

[thalbergmad]

Well said.
Regretfully, the kind of know it all wankers that defend this bile hold the non Sorabjians in contempt.
Anyone who doesnt share their devotion to this obscure Zoroastrian queer, is unfit to gather up the crochets from under their table.

[klavieronin]

My irony detector just exploded!

[perfect_pitch]

My irony detector just exploded!

That's not irony... it's the truth. You can argue with crazy people all you want - while they say they were abducted by aliens and probed up the arse, and you know their full of crap; the undeniable truth is one person is right, and the other person is wrong.

Try being one of the normal people for once.

[dogperson]

Good grief!  Hasn’t enough been said, enough name-calling done by both sides to stop?
Love the music, don’t love the music or not sure.  Adults behaving like 3 graders choosing sides gets really old.

[ahinton]

Well said.
Regretfully, the kind of know it all wankers that defend this bile hold the non Sorabjians in contempt.
Anyone who doesnt share their devotion to this obscure Zoroastrian queer, is unfit to gather up the crochets from under their table.

Sorabji's work is not being "defended" by those who hold it in high regard; it has no need of such "defence". Likewise, such folk for the most part have no problem with those who do not share their views, so your assertion here is invalid and unevidenced.

Also, do get your facts straight before you spout forth. Sorabji was not a practising Zoroastrian even though he was born into that faith on his father's side; he was also half English - a supporter of "Queen and country", at that...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

That's not irony... it's the truth.

Indeed it is not "irony"; it neither merits nor warrants such a descriptor. It is also not "the truth"; it is a personal opinion, no more, no less - and, like most such, it is one with which some might agree and others disagree.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Good grief!  Hasn’t enough been said, enough name-calling done by both sides to stop?
Love the music, don’t love the music or not sure.  Adults behaving like 3 graders choosing sides gets really old.

The voice of reason! Thank you for that.

Anyway, in a few weeks' time, there will also be

https://www.hmv.co.jp/en/artist_Sorabji-1892-1988_000000000066011/item_Toccata-Seconda-Sanchez-aguilera-P-2CD_10629969
 
https://www.cede.ch/de/music/?view=detail&branch_sub=0&branch=1&aid=17059012

Soon after that will be Vols. VI & VII of Fredrik Ullén's traversal of the 100 Transcendental studies and, later this year, a CD of shorter Sorabji works played by Jonathan Powell.

So, whatever anyone's opinion, the CDs keep on coming!

Best,

Alistair

[klavieronin]

That's not irony... it's the truth. You can argue with crazy people all you want - while they say they were abducted by aliens and probed up the arse, and you know their full of crap; the undeniable truth is one person is right, and the other person is wrong.

Try being one of the normal people for once.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. The irony I was referring to was the fact that you had previously left the discussion by calling ahinton (who has been nothing but civil) a "crazy person". You then rejoined the discussion in order to call gep a "turd" and criticise him for not conducting himself in a civilised fashion. If that's not irony then I don't know what is. thalbergmad then agreed with you and called anyone who likes Sorabji's music a "know it all wanker", and Sorabji a "Zoroastrian queer". To my mind this is not the way to conduct a civilised discussion.

To be clear I have no disrespect for anyone who doesn't like the music of Sorabji. It's perfectly understandable. I don't particularly like the music of Tchaikovsky but I wouldn't dream of calling anyone who did a crazy know it all wanker (and if I did, I should fully expect to get back as good as I gave).

[ahinton]

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. The irony I was referring to was the fact that you had previously left the discussion by calling ahinton (who has been nothing but civil) a "crazy person". You then rejoined the discussion in order to call gep a "turd" and criticise him for not conducting himself in a civilised fashion. If that's not irony then I don't know what is. thalbergmad then agreed with you and called anyone who likes Sorabji's music a "know it all wanker", and Sorabji a "Zoroastrian queer". To my mind this is not the way to conduct a civilised discussion.

To be clear I have no disrespect for anyone who doesn't like the music of Sorabji. It's perfectly understandable. I don't particularly like the music of Tchaikovsky but I wouldn't dream of calling anyone who did a crazy know it all wanker (and if I did, I should fully expect to get back as good as I gave).

Well said in all particulars.

We none of us share identical tastes in music. Moreover, our responses to the music of any composer might change over time, for all kinds of reasons.

I agree that there is no cause to omit reasonable civility in discussions of this or any other subject on this forum; there is likewise no place for ad hominems here. Lack of reasonable civility and the use of ad hominems contribute nothing of value to any discussion and indeed may be seen as undermining such discussion by turning parts of it into a slanging match unconnected with the thread topic.

This thread has already had numerous posts removed from it that were deemed not to comply with the forum rules on civility; it would be a good thing if further opportunites were not provided to justify repetition of such an exercise...

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

You just HAD to be a little turd in saying that didn't you? Couldn't you just move on in a civilised fashion???

The eloquent elegance here is mesmerising; I would not dare follow suit..
 

There were plenty of people who actually listened to the music and found it complete sh*t - myself included.

Yes, there are people who have listened to this music and found it not to their liking; perfectly OK with that. Likewise, anyone taking serious music serious would listen to it in an open-minded fashion to find out if it is to their liking or not, and perhaps in the latter case come back to it from time to time to hear if, due to growth in experience or evolution of taste, perhaps start to like it. Do tell us, by the way, what pieces of Sorabji you did listen to in an attentive stance for the entire duration of the piece(s).

Please stop saying there are people who don't listen to music

I will certainly say there are people who do not listen to music in general (and I do count such people among those who have some music blaring in the background, or on their ears, or something else without listening to it). Quite a few of the comments against Sorabji's music in this thread are expressed in ways that make it clear the commentors haven't listened to the music, and do not intent to; they just want to bash Sorabji's music on principle. Which is not only silly, it only proves they are impossible to take seriously in any fashion, though they present their polemics like it’s divine truth emanating from their rear ends.

we're all musicians here.

Nope. I’m not.

Some of us however seem to think there's meaning in depth in something I can only qualify as 'audible diarrhoea'.

I think you meant to start that sentence with “Some of you”? You seem perplexed by the idea that it would be possible that, despite you not liking some music, and having expressed such sentiment in so beautifully crafted fulsome elegance, some people not just keep listening to that music and actually find it in any way attractive. Could you explain why you feel that the worth of any music is only and wholly defined by whatever you feel about it?
Certainly this, or any music, can seem to be without any ‘depth’ to anyone, and such is perfectly acceptable and inevitable. But while we all hear the same music, we all respond to it differently. Such is called ‘taste’. And yes, despite my limited capacities as listener, I do not just think there is depth in something you can only qualify as ‘audible diarrhoea’, for me there is depth of expression and suchlike in Sorabji’s music. That you don’t hear it, fine by me; no doubt there is music you enjoy immensely that would grate over my senses. But the idea that it is nonsense that other people like some music while you do not like it is nothing but evidence you, sadly, never grow up beyond the point where you should have learned that you are neither the centre of the world, nor its yardstick to which all things are measured. An infantile stance that, most worryingly, is spreading like wildfire in the Western world, where aggressive snowflakes attack anyone daring to not agree with them.

Regretfully, the kind of know it all wankers that defend this bile hold the non Sorabjians in contempt.

I certainly a) am no ‘know it all’; there is not a day that passes without me in some way or other being frustrated with myself because I lack knowledge and/or understanding in various matters, including music, including the music of Sorabji (and many others), and b)  do most certainly not hold people who dislike Sorabji’s music ‘in contempt’ (if they listened to his music and didn’t/don’t like it, fine by me) though I do hold people who sh*t on people who don’t see things their narrow and prejudiced ways

Anyone who doesnt share their devotion to this obscure Zoroastrian queer, is unfit to gather up the crochets from under their table.

I am not a Sorabji ‘devotee’ or any composer’s; I just happen to like his music a lot. I’m not a ‘devotee’ of anything or anyone. So no one share's my 'devotion' to anything. Devotion is for the feeble-minded who cannot or willnot think about what they hear or read or whatever but merely follow other feeble-minded nincompoops because doing their own thinking is too hard or too much work. I prefer to do my own thinking, difficult and uncomfortable as such at times is.

Btw, in my experience, the use of derogatory slang is usually done to gloss over the user’s own insecurity in matters. I note you use the term ‘queer’ in a sense that is derogatory intended; interesting to come from someone who has his own thread on how he proceeds in bloating his own masculine physique, inclusive of pictures of how he does so in the company of other sweaty men doing the same.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I have to admit that I find the selections I have heard from Sorabji's music to be consistently incoherent. That's not to say there are not good moments, for there are. But my prevailing impression is one of extremely self-indulgent improvisation retrospectively notated with very little sense of discipline or editorial control applied to the process.

And some people may find his lengthy works riveting; that's for them to do, but there's no way I could get past half an hour, based on what I've been able to sample online.

[ahinton]

I have to admit that I find the selections I have heard from Sorabji's music to be consistently incoherent. That's not to say there are not good moments, for there are. But my prevailing impression is one of extremely self-indulgent improvisation retrospectively notated with very little sense of discipline or editorial control applied to the process.

And some people may find his lengthy works riveting; that's for them to do, but there's no way I could get past half an hour, based on what I've been able to sample online.

Each to his/her own; no problem for me! That said, KSS would and could never have "retrospectively notated" such "extremely indulgent improvisation"; speaking as a composer myself, I can say with confidence that this would never have worked even in his piano music, let alone anything else.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Another way of putting it would be that I certainly don't get the impression that, for example, it is effectively random. I think it is evident that compositional craft is being deployed; however I tend to feel that the results are rather amorphous.

Anyway, possibly simply not my kind of aesthetic.

[ahinton]

Another way of putting it would be that I certainly don't get the impression that, for example, it is effectively random. I think it is evident that compositional craft is being deployed; however I tend to feel that the results are rather amorphous.

Anyway, possibly simply not my kind of aesthetic.

Again, fair enough. Whilst it is true that Sorabji often wrote at great speed, that factor had no impact on the content.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

Whilst it is true that Sorabji often wrote a(t) great speed, that factor had no impact on the content.

How can you say it has NO impact, ZERO effect, does absolutely nothing at all when for instance if one read through the OC they would notice a number errors? If he didn't write it all down so fast and took time to edit the work much more carefully then surely these errors wouldn't be so numerous.

[mjames]

Holy sh*t lmao

[ahinton]

How can you say it has NO impact, ZERO effect, does absolutely nothing at all when for instance if one read through the OC they would notice a number errors? If he didn't write it all down so fast and took time to edit the work much more carefully then surely these errors wouldn't be so numerous.

Perhaps I should have been somewhat clearer; I meant that the speed at which he wrote had no direct impact on the nature of the content, even though it may, as you suggest, have given rise to greater margins of error than might otherwise have been the case.

His mss. would still have required typesetting in any case and, given the sheer quantity of his output and the relative compleixty of some of it, this would remain a monumental task.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

[deleted]

[thalbergmad]

How can you say it has NO impact, ZERO effect, does absolutely nothing at all when for instance if one read through the OC they would notice a number errors? If he didn't write it all down so fast and took time to edit the work much more carefully then surely these errors wouldn't be so numerous.

It could have 4000 errors and none but a dedicated few would be any the wiser.

[ahinton]

It could have 4000 errors and none but a dedicated few would be any the wiser.

In your opinion.

Do please bear in mind that
a) there are many who do not share your opinions of Sorabji's music and his compositional methodologies and, perhaps more importantly,
b) presenting personal opinions as though demonstrable fact does little beyond exposing the flaws in those who do so.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

You do go on a bit.

[ahinton]

You do go on a bit.

Not that much, really. OK, yes, I have pointed out issues with presenting personal opinions as facts and/or as though endorsed by almost everyone as well as those who present them but, if such opinions continue to be paraded as facts or universally accepted views, then yes, I might draw attantion to the problems with that yet again.

OK, that's repetition - and how sad that people "not only in this country but around the world" will no longer be able to hear Nicholas Parsons dealing with challenges thereto...

BEst,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

Perhaps I should have been somewhat clearer; I meant that the speed at which he wrote had no direct impact on the nature of the content, even though it may, as you suggest, have given rise to greater margins of error than might otherwise have been the case.

Yes the errors don't confuses the nature of the contents however it is logical that it is a fact rather than something that "may" be the case when it comes to the correlation between increased errors and rapid working speeds.

[ahinton]

Yes the errors don't confuses the nature of the contents however it is logical that it is a fact rather than something that "may" be the case when it comes to the correlation between increased errors and rapid working speeds.

That doesn't follow, actually; when editing/typesetting Sorabji's three organ symphonies, organist Kevin Bowyer did not find any less errors or ambiguities in the ms. of the third one even though the composer worked considerably more slowly on it (1949-1953); moreover, Sorabji was by no means the only composer to work at great speed in preparing mss. in any case and there is no obvious correlation on this across their work.

However, the point that I was making, which is more important and in answer to a question, was that the speed at which he might work on any particular ms. had no impact on the nature of the work itself.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

Sorabji was by no means the only composer to work at great speed in preparing mss. in any case and there is no obvious correlation on this across their work.

Now you say there is NO OBVIOUS CORRELATION which is a step back from your MAY. If he went back and edited his work and looked closely there would be less erorrs. Thus if one slows down and spends more time editing their work and writing it more carefully there will be less errors, that is simple logic and Sorabji doesn't evade this law of nature.

However, the point that I was making, which is more important and in answer to a question, was that the speed at which he might work on any particular ms. had no impact on the nature of the work itself.

A point I didn't debate yet you seem to want to repeat it. I took response to your initial unclarified point that the speed has no effect at all on his work, this of which you later clarified more properly, however are unwilling to yield to the idea that faster work increases errors? Slower work taking care and editing carefully produces much less, odd that you seem to pose question that this is a matter that can't be clear (no obvious correlation)  since it is a natural conclusion to make that exists all throughout life.

[ahinton]

Now you say there is NO OBVIOUS CORRELATION which is a step back from your MAY. If he went back and edited his work and looked closely there would be less erorrs.

That might be the case; the same would indeed apply to proof reading, which he didn't do very well for the early scores published between 1921 and 1931.

Thus if one slows down and spends more time editing their work and writing it more carefully there will be less errors, that is simple logic and Sorabji doesn't evade this law of nature.

I have not suggested that he necessarily did evade it although I would add that, when discussing Kevin Bowyer's ongoing work in preparing a handwritten edition of his Organ Symphony No. 2  in 1988 (just a few months before Sorabji's death) and he expressed amazement at what KB was doing, the subjects of his handwriting and possible errors arose and, whilst readily admitting that these would cause KB more trouble than might othewise have been the case, he added that, had he worked much more slowly, he might never have gotten beyond that work.

A point I didn't debate yet you seem to want to repeat it.

In so doing, I was replying to another member's post (as I had already clarified).

I took response to your initial unclarified point that the speed has no effect at all on his work, this of which you later clarified more properly, however are unwilling to yield to the idea that faster work increases errors? Slower work taking care and editing carefully produces much less, odd that you seem to pose question that this is a matter that can't be clear (no obvious correlation)  since it is a natural conclusion to make that exists all throughout life.

What I would say about this is the speed of writing does not necessarily increasse the rish of errors, although it can do so and it would not surprise me if and when it does. To take another example from a composer who was working at the same time as Sorabji, Shostakovich is said to have composed his Eighth Symphony in a mere three weeks, although it is almost certainly truer to say that he wrote down its score during that space of time. Even given that Shostakovich usually planned out his works in detail and wrote straight into full score with very few prior sketches, three weeks just to set down a five movement symphony of at least one hour's duration must have involved writing at breakneck speed, yet Shostakovich's ms. was clearer and more error-free than Sorabji's. In conclusion, therefore, my response is one of wariness of undue generalisation about such matters whilst at the same time allowing for the possibility.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

This is more information than I want to go through. All I am saying is that more time spent on a work will reduce the errors, that is only logic and a truth no maybe's or lack of obvious correlation.

That might be the case

"Might" is too weak, "certainly" is more correct. If he spent (let's use a melodramatic number) 50 years editing a single work surely it would have much less errors, to say it possibly wouldn't is bewildering logic.

I have not suggested that he necessarily did evade it although

You either believe he does or he doesn't there is no inbetween. It is logical that he doesn't because he is human and every human who puts more work in a project will reduce the errors that are in it.

[ahinton]

This is more information than I want to go through.

It's your choice what you do and don't go through; another example was provided as I believed it to be helpful.

All I am saying is that more time spent on a work will reduce the errors, that is only logic and a truth no maybe's or lack of obvious correlation.
"Might" is too weak, "certainly" is more correct. If he spent (let's use a melodramatic number) 50 years editing a single work surely it would have much less errors, to say it possibly wouldn't is bewildering logic.
You either believe he does or he doesn't there is no inbetween. It is logical that he doesn't because he is human and every human who puts more work in a project will reduce the errors that are in it.

Whilst I do not disagree in principle with much of what you write here, the matter is not as simple as you appear to portray it; some composers can work faster than others without generating either errors or anomalies arising from legibility issues.

However, that was not the point. The member to whom I was responding appeared to be referring to the nature of the content rather than the risks of textual errors or legibility issues and it was that, not what you're writing about here, to which I had referred.

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

Beethoven Symphony 5


Schnittke symphony 9


Moreover, there is no definitive score of Bach's WTC2 (there are two non-autograph sources, with His corrections and additions in both, which do not align, so basically there is WTC2a and WTC2b. Bruckner's symphonies (barring 5,6,7 and 9) exists in several versions, in clear handwriting, but what is the 'right' one. Monteverdi's 'Ulisse' and 'Poppea' are not entirely his, and neither in his handwriting, and the scores available might be best regarded working vocal scores with lots of choices to be made. Most Baroque scores need lots of work to be performed. Many of Mozart's piano concerti have partly incomplete or even missing sections in the solo-piano parts (which Mozart no doubt filled in in performance). Mahler (who was a conductor) left many problems in his manuscripts, to be solved by editors. And so on.

Yes, Sorabji's manuscript score pose many smaller and greater editorial problems. But he neither unique in this, not the most problematical. What has been and is proven by all editors so far is that it is very much possible to produce edited scores. Editors can get used to the typical idiosyncrasies of Sorabji’s handwriting, and make the right (or good) decisions based on experience. And perform them.

[ahinton]

Beethoven Symphony 5


Schnittke symphony 9


Moreover, there is no definitive score of Bach's WTC2 (there are two non-autograph sources, with His corrections and additions in both, which do not align, so basically there is WTC2a and WTC2b. Bruckner's symphonies (barring 5,6,7 and 9) exists in several versions, in clear handwriting, but what is the 'right' one. Monteverdi's 'Ulisse' and 'Poppea' are not entirely his, and neither in his handwriting, and the scores available might be best regarded working vocal scores with lots of choices to be made. Most Baroque scores need lots of work to be performed. Many of Mozart's piano concerti have partly incomplete or even missing sections in the solo-piano parts (which Mozart no doubt filled in in performance). Mahler (who was a conductor) left many problems in his manuscripts, to be solved by editors. And so on.

Yes, Sorabji's manuscript score pose many smaller and greater editorial problems. But he neither unique in this, not the most problematical. What has been and is proven by all editors so far is that it is very much possible to produce edited scores. Editors can get used to the typical idiosyncrasies of Sorabji’s handwriting, and make the right (or good) decisions based on experience. And perform them.

Indeed so. And, of course, I am not agreeing with all that you say here for the sake of it but because there IS no argument against any of it, since what you write deals with facts alone.

And, for the record, what would someone of Buxtehude's time have made of Beethoven's Grosse Fuge (had she/he been able to avail her/himself of a good performance thereof) other than that it was full of "wrong" notes?...

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

It's your choice what you do and don't go through; another example was provided as I believed it to be helpful.

I repeat, all I wanted to talk about was the fact that increase time working on something will reduce errors, that it is. You start going off into your own discussions elaborating on issues which are irrelveant to my interests.

Whilst I do not disagree in principle with much of what you write here, the matter is not as simple as you appear to portray it; some composers can work faster than others without generating either errors or anomalies arising from legibility issues.

Im sorry ahinton you fail to understand logic. Ignore the speed at which composers work at and focus on the time they use, if they increased the time there would be less errors and if they reduce the time they spend on it errors will increase, most composers increase the time spent to a rate that is enough to ensure there are no errors which will confuse the nature of the work at minumum and have no errors at best, the rate at which they do this all is irrelevant. The fact that you refuse to yield to this logic which is very easy to understand is extremely peculiar however not suprising since you do like make it look like people are not being as accurate as yourself when discussing issues. In this case the logic is so so so simple that your attempt to make it appear more complicated than necessary is ridiculous

However, that was not the point. The member to whom I was responding appeared to be referring to the nature of the content rather than the risks of textual errors or legibility issues and it was that, not what you're writing about here, to which I had referred.

You were inaccurate in your response to that member so that is why I responded and you clarified. Yet you still in our imaginary situation refused to accept that INCREASING TIME WORKING ON SOMETHING will REDUCE THE ERRORS. You are very peculiar ahinton to even put question to something like this.

[ahinton]

I repeat, all I wanted to talk about was the fact that increase time working on something will reduce errors, that it is. You start going off into your own discussions elaborating on issues which are irrelveant to my interests.

As I stated earlier, more than once, I was not replying to you in the first instance..

Im sorry ahinton you fail to understand logic. Ignore the speed at which composers work at and focus on the time they use, if they increased the time there would be less errors and if they reduce the time they spend on it errors will increase, most composers increase the time spent to a rate that is enough to ensure there are no errors which will confuse the nature of the work at minumum and have no errors at best, the rate at which they do this all is irrelevant. The fact that you refuse to yield to this logic which is very easy to understand is extremely peculiar however not suprising since you do like make it look like people are not being as accurate as yourself when discussing issues. In this case the logic is so so so simple that your attempt to make it appear more complicated than necessary is ridiculous
You were inaccurate in your response to that member so that is why I responded and you clarified. Yet you still in our imaginary situation refused to accept that INCREASING TIME WORKING ON SOMETHING will REDUCE THE ERRORS. You are very peculiar ahinton to even put question to something like this.

...(yawn)...

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

As I stated earlier, more than once, I was not replying to you in the first instance..

It was attached all to other responses where you quoted me so you might understand why I said it was beyond my interest.

...(yawn)...

Can't be boring since solidifies a standard truth that is at work in reality. Not "MAY" or "LACK OF OBVIOUS CORRELATIONS" here.

[ahinton]

It was attached all to other responses where you quoted me so you might understand why I said it was beyond my interest.

Whether or not it is beyond your interest is of no concern to me; I do not wish to appear rude in so saying, but it was not your point to which I originally responded.

Can't be boring since solidifies a standard truth that is at work in reality. Not "MAY" or "LACK OF OBVIOUS CORRELATIONS" here.

Wonderful sentence structure at work here...

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

Whether or not it is beyond your interest is of no concern to me;

And I didn't want you rambling on about things which was of no concern since my point was a very simple one. You should not be suprised that someone might consider your response directed to them when you quote them and then go off with many paragraphs under that. You can attempt to talk past this again if you like and I will repeat it. See my last response as to how you quoting me and then rambling on underneath it with paragraphs can make one believe you are responding to whom you quoted.

I do not wish to appear rude in so saying, but it was not your point to which I originally responded.

Does it have to be? Don't you have a history of butting into peoples conversations which didn't have anything to do with you? Would you like me to list the examples? Pot calling the kettle black!

Wonderful sentence structure at work here...

You are welcome I am glad you appreciate it, more importantly now hopefully you realize your error though that is highly doubtful but it is amusing to see you carry on trying to wriggle your way out of a simple logic situation you will never be able to debate. Keep it coming, you know I will always be here to respond back.

[ahinton]

And I didn't want you rambling on things which was of no concern since my point was a very simple one.

But you have no jurisdiction over what I write.

You should not be suprised that someone might consider your response directed to them when you quote them and then go off with many paragraphs under that.

What might and might not surprise me need be no concern of yours.

Does it have to be? Don't you have a history of butting into peoples conversations which didn't have anything to do with you? Would you like me to list the examples? Pot calling the kettle black!

No, I have no such history.

As I mentioned previously, if contributing posts to any thread constitutes butting into such conversations, there would be no forum discussions.

It is not in any case for you to decide whether or not such conversations have anything to do with me or indeed anyone else.

That said, your assertion that a conversation including the name Sorabji has nothing to do with me seems at best somewhat bizarre.

Since a list has by definition to include at least two items, the answer to your last question would of necessity have to be no.

I won't speak for you, but I'm not calling anyone anything.

You are welcome I am glad you appreciate it

I don't "appreciate" it; I merely note it.

more importantly now hopefully you realize your error

What error? Actually, don't bother to answer that...

Keep it coming, you know I will always be here to respond back.

Keep what coming?

I know nothing of the kind and care less.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

But you have no jurisdiction over what I write.

You just have to realize that if you quote someone and write underneath that quote they will consider that you are responding to them.

What might and might not surprise me need be no concern of yours.

I really don't care what you do, it is a form of speech not personal care about your emotions, have you never come across such things before? Perhaps you are just wanting to be argumentive since you have absolutely no ability to argue against MORE TIME = LESS ERRORS which you stupidly tried to put question to and now throw up all these different arguments to forget about your error.

No, I have no such history.

Yes you do, go have a look at LAST POST WINs, here we go links to PROVE you butt into peoples conversations. You told me not to tell someone what to play when they asked me what to play, YOU BUTTED IN, have you gained amnesia from your actions?

My interaction with J_menz which had NOTHING to do with AHINTON https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=51107.msg696495#msg696495

AHINTONS BUTTING IN REPLY:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=51107.msg696503#msg696503

Irrefultable proof, so now ahinton we can see that what you procilam is not be beleived.

As I mentioned previously, if contributing posts to any thread constitutes butting into such conversations, there would be no forum discussions.

Then why did you write "I do not wish to appear rude in so saying, but it was not your point to which I originally responded." When what you responded with was directly under something you quoted from me to which I said I was not interested in that and then you say it's mean for someone else? Why quote me and then write something for someone else? That is illogical.

It is not in any case for you to decide whether or not such conversations have anything to do with me or indeed anyone else.

It also is not your duty to decide either. When I had a conversation with j_menz who asked me what piece to learn and i told him and you told me not to tell him, I have to right to tell you to bugger off. In this thread however you have quoted me and then rambled on about things which are of no interest to me, to which you said was mean for someone else but not me? That is stupid logic, why quote me then write superflous information which is meant for someone else? Do you really think people are reading these interaction you have with me? AHAHAHHA!!!!

That said, your assertion that a conversation including the name Sorabji has nothing to do with me seems at best somewhat bizarre.

Your asserstion that I cannot tell someone what to play when they asked me what to play is even MORE bizzare. See the proof in LAST POST WINS which I have already posted up above in this response.

Since a list has by definition to include at least two items, the answer to your last question would of necessity have to be no.

I have provided 2 links which prove the point so your answer is void.

I won't speak for you, but I'm not calling anyone anything.

The links proves the idiom I posted previously.

I don't "appreciate" it; I merely note it.

Your repsonse was "Wonderful sentence structure at work here." This is a comment of appreciation, please look up the definition of "wonderful".

What error? Actually, don't bother to answer that...

The fact that you posed question to a LAW of NATURE, that putting more effort into work will reduce errors. Go back and read the first few responses, they are very simple. You however wanted to bring into a simple situation all sorts of nitpicking.

Keep what coming?

What would I respond back to for something to keep coming? Surely you have enough intellect to fill in the gaps?

I know nothing of the kind and care less.

You will know it because I will constantly respond to you if you try to depreciate peoples words and trying to pose question to it all. I am also an immovable force. You will never be able to decrease the truth that MORE TIME WITH WORK will produce LESS ERRORS, no matter how much you try.

[ahinton]

I really don't care what you do

From the sheer quantity of what you write, one would never guess!

Irrefultable proof

Really?!

Do you really think people are reading these interaction you have with me?

I have no idea but I certainly hope not.

Your repsonse was "Wonderful sentence structure at work here." This is a comment of appreciation, please look up the definition of "wonderful".

I don't need to do that but perhaps you might be well advised to look up the definition of sarcasm...

As to the rest, if it pleases you to blather on as incessantly as you do, be my guest; go ahead - make your day...

I am also an immovable force.

Immovable forces tend to remain fixed to the spot. Your prerogative, of course...

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

From the sheer quantity of what you write, one would never guess!

This makes no sense in the overall thread of these quote lines. It was in response to your nitpick of the word "surprise" which you failed to read as not a personal interest in your emotions but rather a form of expression. This also had little to do with the previous point which was that if you quote someone and then go ahead and write under that quote, the person you quoted will believe that the response is meant for them, this is only logical. This also had little to do with the main point which was that INCREASING WORK TIME will REDUCE ERRORS. So many ahinton tangents.

Really?!

Yes it is proof since you said there is no examples of you ever butting into conversations. So why don't you talk your way out of these links I posted then? It clearly condradicts your stance that you have never done such things before.

I have no idea but I certainly hope not.

The I would wonder why you would write something under a quote of mine and intend it to be for someone else? One string or argument you had is that when I said i was not interested in the superflous information you were providing since my statement was a rather simple one was that it was not intended for me but someone else. So I would hope that you understand when quoting someone what you write under there often implies it is meant for the person you quoted.

I don't need to do that but perhaps you might be well advised to look up the definition of sarcasm...

How "ungentlman" like of you! lol. 

Immovable forces tend to remain fixed to the spot. Your prerogative, of course...

Yep when I state irrefutable truth I'll not be moved from that no matter what madness people try to throw at it. I know your distain for people writing things that are "truths" because you like to think everything must be opinion or there is some debate on the issue and that is fair enough but in certain instances this kind of interaction will not work. There have been several proofs already written on this page but most importantly and (really my only interest when responding again in this thread but your nitpicking as usual caused many irrelevant tangents) was that the proof that MORE WORK= LESS ERRORS is something you will not be able to debate as being questionable.

[ahinton]

This makes no sense in the overall thread of these quote lines. It was in response to your nitpick of the word "surprise" which you failed to read as not a personal interest in your emotions but rather a form of expression. This also had little to do with the previous point which was that if you quote someone and then go ahead and write under that quote, the person you quoted will believe that the response is meant for them, this is only logical. This also had little to do with the main point which was that INCREASING WORK TIME will REDUCE ERRORS. So many ahinton tangents.
Yes it is proof since you said there is no examples of you ever butting into conversations. So why don't you talk your way out of these links I posted then? It clearly condradicts your stance that you have never done such things before.
The I would wonder why you would write something under a quote of mine and intend it to be for someone else? One string or argument you had is that when I said i was not interested in the superflous information you were providing since my statement was a rather simple one was that it was not intended for me but someone else. So I would hope that you understand when quoting someone what you write under there often implies it is meant for the person you quoted.
How "ungentlman" like of you! lol. 
Yep when I state irrefutable truth I'll not be moved from that no matter what madness people try to throw at it. I know your distain for people writing things that are "truths" because you like to think everything must be opinion or there is some debate on the issue and that is fair enough but in certain instances this kind of interaction will not work. There have been several proofs already written on this page but most importantly and (really my only interest when responding again in this thread but your nitpicking as usual caused many irrelevant tangents) was that the proof that MORE WORK= LESS ERRORS is something you will not be able to debate as being questionable.

!!!

"In went old soldier", wittering incessantly (to himself) yet again...

Best,

Alistair