Missing Members

[ritter]

Boulez has had patience?  0:)

Well, he did conduct Ein deutsches Requiem once. ... he must have been very patient!   

[(poco) Sforzando]

The message is where the now popular "vapid banality" originated; it was a response to poco calling Havergal Brian the Ultimate Faker. It is gone now...at least I couldn't find it.

Sarge

Since it is moi who is being referred to, I did not use that phrase with regards to Havergal Brian. I did write of the Gothic Symphony in 2011 that I found it "grandiose, overlong, bombastic, disjointed, and banal." But I did not accuse the work of "vapid banality"; I accused it of unqualified banality.

"Banal" however is now, I find, one of the many words now proscribed by our esteemed moderator, on the theory that if we characterize others' likes or dislikes (I honestly think only dislikes are being referred to) as "boring, stale, tedious, banal, etc., etc., etc." that we are by implication somehow characterizing them. I don't think this is the case at all (I have many friends I love very much who like music I consider tedious, and many friends who despise Beethoven), but the point seems to be that we are being enjoined not to say anything negative towards any music that someone else might like, out of fear that their feelings might be hurt, and we can't have that.

I submit the possibility that this kind of namby-pamby censorship is what ZB7 reacted to. When I went through Gurn Blanston's list of words in red and asked what's left, ZB7 said (and later deleted) "dim-witted," implying as I see it that he too objected to this attempt by the moderator to enforce a kind of genteel politesse that would vitiate all spirited argument on these boards. Of course, it is entirely possible as well that he was referring to me as dim-witted, which may well be true, and at least is not a word on the forbidden list.

Fortunately, however, words like Ultimate Faker are not on the list, nor can I see how my characterization of Havergal Brian's 8th symphony as sounding like "a moderately clever child playing with fingerpaints, and using every color in the box to make a mess of the paper, the house, his clothes, and himself" - to which Brianite vandermolen replied, "Fair enough" - breaks the rules. But cilgwyn's claim that "he's never heard a score by Milhaud that didn't sound utterly banal" is clearly verboten, on the theory that it might cause some lover of Milhaud to break down in a fit of tears. I suppose we'll all have to be very clever in future not to couch our most offensive remarks in a manner that might, heaven forbid, cause offense.

[Gurn Blanston]

You are entitled to characterize anything I say in any way you like, I really don't mind. However, it is disingenuous of you to now imply that the post in question didn't characterize the people who liked that music every bit as much as the music itself. Whether it was your intent or not, it certainly read that way, and the reports I got demonstrated to me that people took it that way.

Brian's music may be everything you say. I wouldn't know. But those who like any particular kind of music are not liable to bear the onus of your dislike of the music itself.

I shouldn't need to explain that to you, who has proved himself an excellent reader over the years. As for ZD7, it was my belief that he was calling YOU 'dim-witted'. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

You are entitled to characterize anything I say in any way you like, I really don't mind. However, it is disingenuous of you to now imply that the post in question didn't characterize the people who liked that music every bit as much as the music itself. Whether it was your intent or not, it certainly read that way, and the reports I got demonstrated to me that people took it that way.

Brian's music may be everything you say. I wouldn't know. But those who like any particular kind of music are not liable to bear the onus of your dislike of the music itself.

I shouldn't need to explain that to you, who has proved himself an excellent reader over the years. As for ZD7, it was my belief that he was calling YOU 'dim-witted'. 

May I remind you also that when I first ventured to express some doubts about the merits of the Holy Sainted Havergal in 2011, I was greeted with a storm of derision and contempt by the Faithful, who made it clear that their hagiography was not to be challenged. To quote what I wrote then: I was called variously silly (cilgwyn),* unserious (Guido), uninformed and unprofessional (Sgt. Rock), facile, rude, and intellectually lazy (Klaatu), truculent and ignorant (Legge), asinine (5against4), self-important (Hatoff), sad but amusing, predictable, pontificating, hopelessly out-of-touch (Luke), and similar ad hominem attacks. Did I complain to the moderators? Did the moderators rally to my defense? Did they post a series of proscribed words in red to assuage my wounded feelings? And for that matter, were my feelings truly wounded? Did I start weeping like a bathtub overflowing? Did I resign my membership? No, I shrugged my shoulders and moved on.

* Who later wrote: "I can see the reappearance of 'Sforzando' at some point if we're not careful."

And so if you want to ban me for saying what I consider true, go right ahead.

[Sergeant Rock]

Since it is moi who is being referred to, I did not use that phrase with regards to Havergal Brian.

I know you didn't. That was, if memory serves (the message is gone now), Monsieur, replying to you, and mentioning Medtner.

I did write of the Gothic Symphony in 2011 that I found it "grandiose, overlong, bombastic, disjointed, and banal." But I did not accuse the work of "vapid banality"; I accused it of unqualified banality.

"Banal" however is now, I find, one of the many of words now proscribed by our esteemed moderator, on the theory that if we characterize others' likes or dislikes (I honestly think only dislikes are being referred to) as "boring, stale, tedious, banal, etc., etc., etc." that we are by implication somehow characterizing them. I don't think this is the case at all (I have many friends who like music I consider tedious, and many friends who despise Beethoven), but the point seems to be that we are being enjoined not to say anything negative towards any music that someone else might like, out of fear that their feelings might be hurt, and we can't have that.

I submit the possibility that this kind of namby-pamby censorship is what ZB7 reacted to. When I went through Gurn Blanston's list of words in red and asked what's left, ZB7 said (and later deleted) "dim-witted," implying as I see it that he too objected to this attempt by the moderator to enforce a kind of genteel politesse that would vitiate all spirited argument on these boards. Of course, it is entirely possible as well that he was referring to me as dim-witted, which may well be true, and at least is not a word on the forbidden list.

Fortunately, however, words like Ultimate Faker are not on the list, nor can I see how my characterization of Havergal Brian's 8th symphony as sounding like "a moderately clever child playing with fingerpaints, and using every color in the box to make a mess of the paper, the house, his clothes, and himself" - to which Brianite vandermolen replied, "Fair enough" - breaks the rules. But cilgwyn's claim that "he's never heard a score by Milhaud that didn't sound utterly banal" is clearly verboten, on the theory that it might cause some lover of Milhaud to break down in a fit of tears.

I didn't take Gurn's word list, and meaning, literally but rather a caution to use them in a way that wouldn't directly attack another member. If I misunderstood, and he really means we can't criticize music, then we'll have to delete half the messages in this forum.

In other words, I am not offended by your opinion of dear Havergal. He may or not be a faker but I assure you I am not the ultimate faker for liking him...penultimate maybe.

Sarge

[(poco) Sforzando]

I know you didn't. That was, if memory serves (the message is gone now), Monsieur, replying to you, and mentioning Medtner.

I said nothing about Medtner, whom I consider vapid but not banal.

[Gurn Blanston]

May I remind you also that when I first ventured to express some doubts about the merits of the Holy Sainted Havergal in 2011, I was greeted with a storm of derision and contempt by the Faithful, who made it clear that their hagiography was not to be challenged. To quote what I wrote then: I was called variously silly (cilgwyn),* unserious (Guido), uninformed and unprofessional (Sgt. Rock), facile, rude, and intellectually lazy (Klaatu), truculent and ignorant (Legge), asinine (5against4), self-important (Hatoff), sad but amusing, predictable, pontificating, hopelessly out-of-touch (Luke), and similar ad hominem attacks. Did I complain to the moderators? Did the moderators rally to my defense? Did they post a series of proscribed words in red to assuage my wounded feelings? And for that matter, were my feelings truly wounded? Did I start weeping like a bathtub overflowing? Did I resign my membership? No, I shrugged my shoulders and moved on.

* Who later wrote: "I can see the reappearance of 'Sforzando' at some point if we're not careful."

And so if you want to ban me for saying what I consider true, go right ahead.

Well, we aren't big rallyers without cause. If you were offended (and perhaps you should have been) then I wasn't offended on your behalf (not least because I have never read that thread, AFAIK).

As for banning people, I ban no one. At worst, I pay more attention to what you say. Not give it more credence, just pay it more attention. In your case, I already read most of your posts because I like them. So it goes.

I didn't take Gurn's word list, and meaning, literally but rather a caution to use them in a way that wouldn't directly attack another member. If I misunderstood, and he really means we can't criticize music, then we'll have to delete half the messages in this forum.

You should take a hint from Sarge, who understood exactly what I was trying to say. Perhaps it's the Cleveland background which makes him more understanding...   

[Sergeant Rock]

I said nothing about Medtner, whom I consider vapid but not banal.

Again, I know you didn't. That was Monsieur Croche's phrase about Medtner, who was replying to your post about Havergal. You dissed Havergal; Monsieur dissed Medtner. Why any of that would make the dragon go away is beyond me. I can't believe those two comments had anything to do with his leaving.

Sarge

[(poco) Sforzando]

Again, I know you didn't. That was Monsieur Croche's phrase about Medtner, who was replying to your post about Havergal. You dissed Havergal; Monsieur dissed Medtner. Why any of that would make the dragon go away is beyond me. I can't believe those two comments had anything to do with his leaving.

Sarge

Well, apparently he called me dim-witted. I am sobbing uncontrollably as I write.

[knight66]

Again, I know you didn't. That was Monsieur Croche's phrase about Medtner, who was replying to your post about Havergal. You dissed Havergal; Monsieur dissed Medtner. Why any of that would make the dragon go away is beyond me. I can't believe those two comments had anything to do with his leaving.

Sarge

We have and have had some valuable, pleasant and exceptionally sensitive members here. Like Sarge, I can't see what was written as a good reason for leaving; but it certainly happens and I echo Gurn in urging people to make sure their denegration of such and such a composer cannot be taken as a personal insult. We can't legislate for people who decide to pull insult upon themselves if someone does not like their pet composer; and that certainly happens too.

We don't want to water all comment, but do be clear about what you are writing, what it is aimed at and be civil to one another.

Knight

[Sergeant Rock]

I was called uninformed and unprofessional (Sgt. Rock)

Well, apparently he called me dim-witted. I am sobbing uncontrollably as I write.

I hope my calling you " uninformed and unprofessional" also induced tears. It was meant to 

Seriously, did I really say that? How unprofessional of me. I'll have to go find that conversation. Somewhere in the 2011 Havergal thread, is it?

Sarge

[knight66]

. I'll have to go find that conversation. Somewhere in the 2011 Havergal thread, is it?

Sarge

......in which case we will see you the Christmas after next. We will keep your seat warm, also send in the occasional liquor to sustain you.

Mike

[Sergeant Rock]

......in which case we will see you the Christmas after next. We will keep your seat warm, also send in the occasional liquor to sustain you.

Mike

I confess, the prospect of searching the Brian thread is daunting. Perhaps poco will give me a hint. Which season or month? Then I might find it by Easter.

Sarge

[(poco) Sforzando]

I confess, the prospect of searching the Brian thread is daunting. Perhaps poco will give me a hint. Which season or month? Then I might find it by Easter.

Sarge

I found what I wished from the Brian thread within fifteen minutes.

First, a correction. I misquoted myself above; instead of saying "To quote what I wrote then: I was called variously silly, etc.," what I originally wrote was, "But say a word against the all-holy Havergal Brian!!!!! and you prove yourself silly . . . ." Which puts an entirely different, more generic slant on the matter. Sarge's point (July 18, 2011) was "that a performance of work like this, one so seldom heard, would have compelled them to do a little research and listening first. Criticism of the Gothic, both positive and negative, is more "professionally" done on this forum."

It was only after my comments that the attacks on me started. Such as Albion, July 19, 2011: "I can't quite understand why you have felt the need to contribute gratuitously to this thread, especially such a personally-offensive and fatuous addition: the music of Havergal Brian clearly does not impress you in the least - but then I don't really think that anybody will worry about that fact for too long." (Well sneered, Albion! Never mind that if I say anything about Havergal Brian here, all hell breaks loose.) Or Cilgwyn, July 19: "Sforzando, on the other hand, was 100% pure vitriol." (To which I responded by thanking the poster, in that I prefer not to do things by halves.)

However, when Karl defended me by saying, "(poco) Sfz's point about circling the wagons against anyone who doesn't dig the music, remains well taken," Sarge's response was "Bullshit."

My point is that I sense among the Brianites a degree of touchiness and defensiveness, whenever anyone expresses any reservations towards their idol, that one rarely sees here with other composers. I am hardly the only one to have expressed doubts about some or all of Brian's music:

* Springrite, June 09, 2007: "As a big fan of much of Brian's music, I must admit I hear nothing in that work [Gothic] whatsoever."
* Perfect Wagnerite, June 11: "I've listened to 1, 4, 12, 8, and 9 and they are all horrible music. Densely scored, unmemorable tunes, a mixture of salon music, noise, and bits and pieces of Holst and Shostakovich but showing nowhere near the maturity or skill of either one."
* johnQpublic, June 17: "Personally, I wish you'd let the hack languish among the dregs."
* Steve Molino (Molman), in an email to me: "There's no there there."

Which is why I used the apparently so objectionable epithet "Ultimate Faker." I hear Brian as noisy effects without cause, such as using six pairs of cymbals for the ultimate cymbal crash (five weren't enough?) and writing disjointed, incoherent music. My remarks were not intended as personal attacks on the lovers of his music. Certainly not someone like Luke, whom I esteem as highly as anyone here, not to mention several others. No doubt these people hear things in Brian's music that I do not. But in fact I would say that Albion's and cilgwyn's charming attacks on me were far more supercilious and personally contemptuous than anything I have ever said on this forum about anybody.

Finally, and since this is getting ridiculously long, let me conclude by mentioning a PM in which a poster commiserates with me and expresses his similar feeling that the moderators have repeatedly shut down threads because some person complained or out of fear that someone might complain when a discussion gets too heated.

(Oh, and how to search the "Brian" thread without making it your full-time job? Simple: click Print to open the thread in a new window, then search for the word or phrase you want. Not bad for someone dim-witted, huh?)

[knight66]

Are you Pandora or are you Senna the Southsayer; or are you Dickens who never got over anything that happened to him? I don't really understand why the above was dredged up? In brief, what was you point? If it was that some people get jumped on for being less than flattering about specific composers: we were already there.

Mike

[(poco) Sforzando]

Are you Pandora or are you Senna the Southsayer; or are you Dickens who never got over anything that happened to him? I don't really understand why the above was dredged up? In brief, what was you point? If it was that some people get jumped on for being less than flattering about specific composers: we were already there.

Mike

Is this an example of being civil to one another? Or should I complain to the moderators about you? The point was that Sergeant Rock explicitly asked where I had found certain statements in a thread that he was unable to locate. I wouldn't have gone through all this nonsense had it not been for that. You or Blanston were the ones to point out that reports had been made complaining about me when I made that remark. I felt I had a right to defend myself, and put it into context. Apparently not.

[knight66]

You imagine I was being uncivil; almost as soon as complainng that mods keep closing things down to avoid conflict. Interesting. Thank you for your explanation.

Knight

[(poco) Sforzando]

You imagine I was being uncivil; almost as soon as complainng that mods keep closing things down to avoid conflict. Interesting. Thank you for your explanation.

Knight

You were being uncivil to me, and yes, moderators have been known to shut down threads. If you are so concerned about incivility, then practice what you preach.

[knight66]

Clearly you have little idea of the possibilities I have at my fingertips for being uncivil.

But I will explain my take on this to you. I do not understand why you forensically analyse remarks that were part of a years old conflict and which could attract further conflict. So, if you needlessly start another argument; and already you seem to want to have one with me, then I suggest it is not a good move on your part.

But who knows, perhaps it will all be left aside and folk will move on. Let me assure you, I am taking pains here not to be too direct with you.

Knight

[Sergeant Rock]

I found what I wished from the Brian thread within fifteen minutes.

Knight and I were joking about the difficulty of a search.

Sarge's point (July 18, 2011) was "that a performance of work like this, one so seldom heard, would have compelled them to do a little research and listening first. Criticism of the Gothic, both positive and negative, is more "professionally" done on this forum."

So I didn't call you "uninformed and unprofessional" but was talking about the professional critics who wrote about Brabbin's performance. I didn't attack you personally. I didn't think so...but memory being what it is at my age and with the meds I take (they have splendid side effects  ), I wasn't entirely sure    Thank you for the correction.

Sarge