The high passion of lofty thought

[Sydney Grew]

Obliging Members! Let us introduce ourself . . .

We adore the serious music which strenuously strives towards the mystical and ecstatic: that of Scryabine Brahms Bach and indeed of all men who have without pride laboured in the high passion of lofty thought.

We are a keen supporter also of the homo-sexualistic spirit in music! It does no harm at all to make it prominent and strive for its increase we would aver.

What is more we are utterly unbending in our love of the complex; in the end it is the only true simplicity is not it?

We detest on the other hand all ignoble stuff of the "jazz" kind, the foolish posturings of such as Shostacowitch, those too of the northern American mesmerist school and the recent silly-names brigade; as well as non-standard notation and anything with a whiff of the aleatory.

Two years ago we elsewhere at last set out a reliable critical framework: seven ratings or categories among which all music may be divided. As every one knows in his heart there are first-rate pieces of first-rate composers and seventh-rate pieces of seventh-rate composers, and every possible intermediate combination; Members may well hear more about all these in due course.

And one final point in anticipation and obviation of what is in our experience to-day a question all too often likely to be asked is that as a courtesy to all Members we are unremitting in our adherence to the plural of modesty.

[uffeviking]

WOW, what have we got here - and the "WE" in this case are the members of GMG, inclusive the owner and creator of the site. Who is "WE" in your case? Usually one person per membership is sufficient to either educate, inform, teach, sometimes even entertain us; but hopefully never annoy or insult us!

Using the name of Shostakovich in vain is much too close to being insultive. Take care, please, whoever you are! 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Obliging Members! Let us introduce ourself . . .

We adore the serious music which strenuously strives towards the mystical and ecstatic: that of Scryabine Brahms Bach and indeed of all men who have without pride laboured in the high passion of lofty thought.

We are a keen supporter also of the homo-sexualistic spirit in music! It does no harm at all to make it prominent and strive for its increase we would aver.

What is more we are utterly unbending in our love of the complex; in the end it is the only true simplicity is not it?

We detest on the other hand all ignoble stuff of the "jazz" kind, the foolish posturings of such as Shostacowitch, those too of the northern American mesmerist school and the recent silly-names brigade; as well as non-standard notation and anything with a whiff of the aleatory.

Two years ago we elsewhere at last set out a reliable critical framework: seven ratings or categories among which all music may be divided. As every one knows in his heart there are first-rate pieces of first-rate composers and seventh-rate pieces of seventh-rate composers, and every possible intermediate combination; Members may well hear more about all these in due course.

And one final point in anticipation and obviation of what is in our experience to-day a question all too often likely to be asked is that as a courtesy to all Members we are unremitting in our adherence to the plural of modesty.

Let me guess...Sean sent you here...

[longears]

Let me guess...Sean sent you here...

No way, Don!  Surely this guy doesn't take himself the least bit seriously.  I'm anxious to hear more about "the silly-names brigade" from the Sydney Grew crew (for they are legion) and hope this fellow these fellows turns out to be a characters in the best sense of the word.

Let's see...if a first-rate composer writes five fourth-rate duets for a three act opera, when will the old bat sitting behind me stop coughing?

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Let's see...if a first-rate composer writes five fourth-rate duets for a three act opera, when will the old bat sitting behind me stop coughing?

I'd ask Mr. Grew...he has all the answers...

[knight66]

A cautious welcome I guess. Like Lis, I am wondering whether you are a singular new member, or represent a group. Do royal personages still  refer to themselves in plural terms?

I am intrigued by the following:

We are a keen supporter also of the homo-sexualistic spirit in music! It does no harm at all to make it prominent and strive for its increase we would aver.

How do you encourage this......in dead composers?

Mike

[Gustav]

just as I was beginning to be bored by the lack of activities on this forum....

[Sydney Grew]

Let me guess...Sean sent you here...

We do not know how but Mr. Wyn is almost correct in his surmise. It was indeed Sean who we will not say recommended but rather brought for the first time to our attention the existence of this message-board. Could it really be our sort of "thing"? we wondered . . .

Regrettably a number of Members have as we half expected already missed our reference to the plural of modesty. But believe it or not it does survive! Sweet in 1903 explains it succinctly; ignore his first paragraph but note well the second:

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

We do not know how but Mr. Wyn is almost correct in his surmise. It was indeed Sean who we will not say recommended but rather brought for the first time to our attention the existence of this message-board. Could it really be our sort of "thing"? we wondered . . .

Regrettably a number of Members have as we half expected already missed our reference to the plural of modesty. But believe it or not it does survive! Sweet in 1903 explains it succinctly; ignore his first paragraph but note well the second

I did. You are not the author of a message-board. A posting is not a book, with its implied authority. And this is 2007 (almost 2008).

[Harry]

Why do I keep thinking that the game is not afoot..........

[uffeviking]

Enough with this nonsense! The section for Introductions is just that: Introductions of new prospective members, wanting to talk about classical music. I'll take it to the Diner. Hope you all don't mind!

[longears]

How do you encourage this ["homo-sexualistic spirit"]......in dead composers?

Perhaps like this?

[karlhenning]

And now, for something completely different . . . .

[greg]

Mr.Grew, you're either someone who is trying to be funny or you're the next Pink Harp/Sean/Poju 

[(poco) Sforzando]

We do not know how but Mr. Wyn is almost correct in his surmise. It was indeed Sean who we will not say recommended but rather brought for the first time to our attention the existence of this message-board. Could it really be our sort of "thing"? we wondered . . .

Regrettably a number of Members have as we half expected already missed our reference to the plural of modesty. But believe it or not it does survive! Sweet in 1903 explains it succinctly; ignore his first paragraph but note well the second:

Yes, yes, but as in 1903 Sweet noted that meaning #2 was already obsolescent, most "Members" here are more likely to interpret your use of the first person plural to imply an attitude of majesty rather than modesty. So Syd (or whatever your name really is, as I - not "we" - doubt you are the famous musicologist who I - not "we" - believe recently died), why not just use the first person singular like the rest of us slobs, and thus sound as modest as you claim you wish?

[karlhenning]

our reference to the plural of modesty

Yes, yes, but as in 1903 Sweet noted that meaning #2 was already obsolescent, most "Members" here are more likely to interpret your use of the first person plural to imply an attitude of majesty rather than modesty.

Syd, language doesn't work like that.  The freezing point of water at sea-level, is the kind of thing which remains constant over time.  Language is a kind of organism, and it evolves.  It is, not perhaps the height of absurdity, but well up the slope, to point to a 1903 definition, and chide readers on the eve of 2008 for reading the word and its context differently.  The "plural of modesty" doesn't have quite the same environment here.

It's like pointing to the King James version of Psalm 23, and chiding people for taking "want" to mean something other than "lack."

[longears]

Whether the "we" should be read as immodest or not is easily answered by reference to its context.  The OP makes it quite clear:  his "we" is no more modest than Pamela Anderson.

[Catison]

Whether the "we" should be read as immodest or not is easily answered by reference to its context.  The OP makes it quite clear:  his "we" is no more modest than Pamela Anderson.

Yes.  The very act of using the "modest" we here is, in its own way, immodest.

[bhodges]

We detest on the other hand all ignoble stuff of the "jazz" kind, the foolish posturings of such as Shostacowitch, those too of the northern American mesmerist school and the recent silly-names brigade; as well as non-standard notation and anything with a whiff of the aleatory.

Well, Sydney, I suspect you may find some alternative opinions here about Shostakovich's "foolish posturings," not to mention jazz, and the other subjects you mention, but never mind: one doesn't have to like any of those to love classical music. 

--Bruce

[knight66]

Yes.  The very act of using the "modest" we here is, in its own way, immodest.

Backing firmly into the limelight.

Mike