Composers Hall of Fame Game.

[Guido]

 like the way people are now saying "this is ridiculous" as if Barber going into their hallowed hall of fame was the ridiculous part. The ridiculous part is that you are taking this so seriously and have taken it seriously in the past. The ridiculous part is to have a hall of fame of composers and think it's a sensible or worthwhile thing to discuss. The ridiculous part is that you are arguing over whether composers should or should not be in the hall of fame, when you've not defined what is meant by being in the hall of fame, or any other prerequisites for deciding to be in the hall of fame, other than by the mechanics that were divised to make this game work. I actually can't believe that you people have the power to vote in general elections.

[Don]

I actually can't believe that you people have the power to vote in general elections.

Special elections also.

[longears]

If that's correct, you need to do better job of conveying what you mean.

That's right, it couldn't possibly be that you need to do a better job of reading, interpreting, and thinking....  Good grief, why do guys like you and Sean and Saul always think, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that you have all the answers and anyone who disagrees must be wrong?  Did you not get hugged enough as a child?  Or could it be that:

[longears]

like the way people are now saying "this is ridiculous" as if Barber going into their hallowed hall of fame was the ridiculous part. The ridiculous part is that you are taking this so seriously and have taken it seriously in the past. The ridiculous part is to have a hall of fame of composers and think it's a sensible or worthwhile thing to discuss. The ridiculous part is that you are arguing over whether composers should or should not be in the hall of fame, when you've not defined what is meant by being in the hall of fame, or any other prerequisites for deciding to be in the hall of fame, other than by the mechanics that were divised to make this game work. I actually can't believe that you people have the power to vote in general elections.

Makes you wonder if there's a correlation between humorlessness and stupidity, eh?  As for the idiocy of voters:  my God, man!  Have you never seen the boobs offered as candidates?  And it might not be possible to underestimate the intelligence of the average voter, as nearly every election I've witnessed proves.  Hell, one American political party even specializes in promising pie in the sky to the ignorant, and half the people in the country believe it!

You might be interested in Bryan Caplan's recent The Myth of the Rational Voter:  Why Democracies Choose Bad Politics.  According to Louis Menand's recent review in The New Yorker, Caplan disagrees with those who think the average voter is merely ignorant.  Caplan argues that they're not so much ignorant as just plain wrong!  But still:

The political knowledge of the average voter has been tested repeatedly, and the scores are impressively low.  In polls taken since 1945, a majority of Americans have been unable to name a single branch of government, define the terms "liberal" and "conservative," and explain what the Bill of Rights is.  ...apart from ignorance of the basic facts, most people simply do not think politically.  They cannot see, for example, that the opinion that taxes should be lower is incompatible with the opinion that there should be more government programs.  ...[their] opinions are not based on information or derived from a coherent political philosophy.  They are largely attitudinal and ad hoc.

[Don]

That's right, it couldn't possibly be that you need to do a better job of reading, interpreting, and thinking....  Good grief, why do guys like you and Sean and Saul always think, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that you have all the answers and anyone who disagrees must be wrong? 

I'm confident that you are unable to cite any posting of mine about classical music where my comments are contradicted by overwhelming evidence.  Your penchant for exaggeration and deception is quite transparent and unbecoming.

[longears]

I'm confident that you are unable to cite any posting of mine about classical music where my comments are contradicted by overwhelming evidence.  Your penchant for exaggeration and deception is quite transparent and unbecoming.

Who said anything about your postings re. classical music?  You're still not reading very carefully or thinking very clearly, nor showing any signs of the humility that makes learning possible--thus the unflattering comparison to Saul and Sean proves not entirely inaccurate.  Doesn't that give you pause?

As for your charges impugning my character:  I certainly admit to exaggeration for effect.  That's a common rhetorical device and one of the mainsprings of humor.  But deception?  No way, dude!  However, that you think I've "a penchant...for deception" is rather revealing of your own penchant for deception, especially in light of your prior claim that:

As for having someone's number, I can't say that I have yours.  In order to do so, I would have to possess some degree of interest in you.

You should have left the field after that.  Each time you return to engage me only betrays the lie.  And it recalls your return to this thread almost immediately after stating that Barber's election to the HOF was such a travesty that it signaled time for you to leave--in a self-righteous, snooty huff, no less!  What a hoot!  And the really hilarious part is that you take yourself so damned seriously that you don't see the ridiculousness of your own behavior!  And come to think of it, that's another trait you share with the aforementioned comrades--a weak sense of humor, crippled by self-importance and the inability to laugh at oneself.  Think about it, man!  You're never too old to learn!

And now I'd best leave the field to you, while I'm still more amused than riled, lest this exchange turn truly nasty.  And speaking of nasty:  don't forget to vote early, and vote often! 

[Don]

Who said anything about your postings re. classical music?  You're still not reading very carefully or thinking very clearly, nor showing any signs of the humility that makes learning possible--thus the unflattering comparison to Saul and Sean proves not entirely inaccurate.  Doesn't that give you pause?

As I expected, you offer no citation to support your claim that postings of mine are contradicted by overwhelming evidence, more deception on your part.  Also, your attempt to lump me in with Saul and Sean only reveals that you have been unwilling to engage in this communication on a 'one-on-one' basis, feeling the need to use others as part of your arsenal.

As for my weak sense of humor, that's a matter of opinion.  Some folks enjoy my sense of humor, others don't.  I have no opinion of your sense of humor.

Thinking back, this whole thing between us started when your postings went into attack mode subsequent to my comment that Barber's music was far below HOF status.  That seemed to really get under your skin, but I never indicated that Barber was some kind of hack composer or that his music was not worthy of a recorded legacy.  As it happens, I have about 15 discs devoted to Barber and give them a spin now and then.  I do prefer Creston and Diamond, but I wouldn't place them anywhere near HOF status either. 

So, you blew this Barber thing all out of proportion.  Just admit it to yourself and get over it.

[val]

Penderecki 8
Verdi 8 + 2 = 10
Martinu 12
Rautavaara 12
Lindberg 14 - 2 = 10
Ockeghem 10
Poulenc 10
Britten  8
Bellini 10
Machaut 10

 

[Symphonien]

Lindberg 14 - 2 = 10

I think that's a sign that this thread needs to end...