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.
Poll
Topic: Sorabji vs Microwave Background Radiation Hiss