All other composers are inferior to Beethoven

[Rod Corkin]

I think what you need to deal with; though never will, is that you are generally wrongheaded in your extreme opinions. So often in the past I asked you to say what you think is great about Beethoven and Handel. Give me information I don't have. But your default setting is to trash other equally great composers.

Your GI, (general ignorance), has been fully exposed in your remarks about Mozart's Jupiter Symphony. I learned something there from the poster who took trouble to analyse the music rather than, as you do, just spew over other composers; in the hope that the only ones remaining unbesmirched would be your two favourites.

I remember one of your posts where you proclaimed, 'I put my music where my mouth is.' An excellent idea, since your mouth seems now only capable of spitting out the old mantras and denigration.

Mike

As I predicted you only interject when I respond to the vitriol and not before. Moderators are supposed to be impartial Mr Knight, a factor that, with respect, I feel you have yet to fully understand.

Forgive me but I fail to recollect when you have asked me anything about Handel. If you seriously require any information I suggest you join my site, there is loads of Handel stuff going on there. In any case I said plenty in the Bach/Handel topic. and provided many music downloads too. Perhaps these informative posts were lost in the vitriol overload that you allowed to develop in that topic, and then had the audacity to close it because of the chaotic state it had developed into. Believe me that would NOT have happened at my site.

It is a simple fact that at this site if anyone criticises Mozart or Bach they had better watch out. I did attempt to explain some of my reasoning - I started to discuss the problem with Mozart and the observation of repeats but was typically shouted down before I could develop it.  You should count yourself lucky I haven't brought up Schubert into the equation!

I always put my music where my mouth is at my site, something I encourage from the other members too. Feel free to join up and hammer me with my own CD collection. I use Savall's recording of the Eroica for my demonstration there.

[knight66]

We are used to your offside claims re moderation; you don't like the way things are moderated here, you are entitled to your opinion. But moderators are perfectly entitled to express their opinions. Had the mods fawned around your absurd ideas and wiped out any discent, no doubt that would have been fine.

As to asking you about Handel and Bach, what a convenient lapse in your memory. Before your self imposed sabbatical I recall post after post where I asked you to describe to me what you liked about Bach and Handel; but what I got was a load of denigration about composers I had not mentioned. Posting snippets is no way of describing how great Beethoven is. I have most of what you post, I can listen to it for myself, what I always asked for was what you got out of it beyond what I can read via a three minute trawl through the Internet.

But, really, I waste time going round in circles with you. I got the impression you returned here merely to advertise and drum up interest in your own Site. We had suggestions that you were spamming GMG, but we decided to let you alone. If you gain interest in your site, fine. I hope it goes well. But as long as you keep coming down the mountain holding the holy tablets and telling us there can be no Gods but the ones you happen to have alighted upon; I have no doubt that people here will be less inclined to take you seriously.

Mike

[Rod Corkin]

We are used to your offside claims re moderation; you don't like the way things are moderated here, you are entitled to your opinion. But moderators are perfectly entitled to express their opinions. Had the mods fawned around your absurd ideas and wiped out any discent, no doubt that would have been fine.

As to asking you about Handel and Bach, what a convenient lapse in your memory. Before your self imposed sabbatical I recall post after post where I asked you to describe to me what you liked about Bach and Handel; but what I got was a load of denigration about composers I had not mentioned. Posting snippets is no way of describing how great Beethoven is. I have most of what you post, I can listen to it for myself, what I always asked for was what you got out of it beyond what I can read via a three minute trawl through the Internet.

But, really, I waste time going round in circles with you. I got the impression you returned here merely to advertise and drum up interest in your own Site. We had suggestions that you were spamming GMG, but we decided to let you alone. If you gain interest in your site, fine. I hope it goes well. But as long as you keep coming down the mountain holding the holy tablets and telling us there can be no Gods but the ones you happen to have alighted upon; I have no doubt that people here will be less inclined to take you seriously.

Mike

In the topic itself I explained why I prefer Handel over Bach, it is just that you will have to wade through 32 pages of crap before you will make any sense of it. If I did not respond as you requested it must have been because I thought you weren't being serious considering I'd already made over 200 posts on the matter.

There are no snippets at my site, nor did I post any here. They were/are representative extracts from the composers output, and always whole movements. One track says more than a 10 page monologue. I cannot be convinced by a piece of writing alone that a piece of music is good or otherwise. But the music functions as the focal point for discussion, not to replace discussion all together. But this seemed too radical a concept for your boot boys. You can write all you like about the Jupiter and the Eroica, but the best artistic impression is gained when the music is played side by side. There is nothing radical in this concept, to sensible people at least.

I don't come here with a 'holy tablet', I simply responded supporting a topic that even I would not have dared to post. The originator of this topic has now saw fit to try and disassociate himself from his original position, such is the fear the local mafia apparently induces here.

You will see there is a consistency in my approach that goes beyond me simply coming here to promote my site. Remember I have been a member of GMG for a long time before I created my own site but left because of the anarchy that is allowed here. It seems nothing has changed in the meantime. If anything I am doing you a favour as I am demonstrating the flaws that exist in your own forum. If you'd get the mafia to shut up for 5 minutes I'm sure you'd have a lot more interesting debates here. Their incessant whinging I find most pathetic. Harry says at my place that Beethoven's Ode to Joy is crap, did I kick a fuss?? Did I kick him out?? No I smiled and moved on. Though thinking about it, here it seems it is more acceptable to criticise Beethoven than Mozart or Bach or Schubert. An interesting feature that is not unique to this forum. Even Rob Newman's most radical theories pass almost without effect at my site!

I will give you the last word..

Happy New Year  0:)

[71 dB]

It is a simple fact that at this site if anyone criticises Mozart or Bach they had better watch out.

In my opinion many members on this forum have very conservative opinions.
I feel my opinions are ultrafresh and new in comparison and I am almost 37!

[longears]

Sure sounds as if Rod's site would be more congenial to your ultrafresh freethinking, doesn't it? 
Have you ever visited?  He's clearly desperate for clicks.
http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org

[PerfectWagnerite]

"Trust me," (as they say) it is. But allow me to explain, as it bears on the discussion. I assume you know counterpoint is the art of combining musical lines. In invertible counterpoint, a melody and bass line are designed so that the melody can serve equally well as the bass line and vice versa. This is challenging enough for a composer in itself, but multiple inverted lines are even more difficult. In the last, unfinished fugue from The Art of Fugue, Bach writes passages in quadruple invertible counterpoint. What Mozart does in the celebrated Jupiter fugato is to pluck five of the principal melodic ideas heard already in the finale and show, totally unexpectedly, that each one of them can be used as melody or bass to all the others. Meanwhile the inner parts keep the other three melodic strands in play, so that at any time you're hearing five pieces of melody simultaneously - all sounding both independent and interdependent. If you'd like to see an outline of the various permutations, Google "invertible counterpoint mozart jupiter zaslaw" for a table taken from Neal Zaslaw's "The Compleat Mozart."

That's what I mean by the "fireworks" that I admire gushingly and fawningly.

Thanks for the explanation. That was cool. I'll listen for it next time. I took harmony and counterpoint class but I didn't do so well...

[Que]

This thread, though started as joke, was bound to get out of hand at some moment.

Pitting composers and their masterworks against each other for "greatness" is foolish and an utter waste of time. Discounting Bach because he is supposedly "inferior" to Händel and doing the same with Mozart (and Schubert), does make one's musical outlook very narrow indeed -  which is not our loss btw.

I also agree with Jezetha that it is rather pointless as well, to respond to this with fulminating and name calling. The modest level of moderation here doesn't make it all right - I feel it degrades the way in which we interact here.

I wouldn't recommend Rod's forum, unless you like discussing with those who fight wind mills. Like a thread with the theory that Mozart did not write the "Gran Partita", but that the piece originates from... "travelling Moravian musicians"!! LOL Naturally, the thought arises that whoever comes up which such a theory might have some ... uhm ... personal issues. Especially when the origins of several other famous Mozart compositions are vigorously put into doubt as well, with the most fantastic theories on their "real" origin. Follies like this are better left alone IMO, but please oblige Rod's request to visit his forum if that kind of thing is to your liking.

Q

[71 dB]

Sure sounds as if Rod's site would be more congenial to your ultrafresh freethinking, doesn't it? 
Have you ever visited?  He's clearly desperate for clicks.
http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org

No I haven't. Only today I realised he has one. I avoid forums because they take all my time (narcotic places!)

[Sydney Grew]

You only get this at unmoderated sites like GMG . . .

Yes, Mr. Corkin, you seem to be correct; but then if it is as you say unmoderated - which we can now after three days experience of it readily believe - just one question arises: who was it that deleted our self-introduction (which was - very appropriately we should have thought - all about our own musical interests) from the self-introduction section and copied it to the "anything but music" section? We agree with you - it is really weird and disconcerting.

[M forever]

I also agree with Jezetha that it is rather pointless as well, to respond to this with fulminating and name calling. The modest level of moderation here doesn't make it all right - I feel it degrades the way in which we interact here.

I generally agree, too, except that there is nothing to degrade about the nonsense some idiots fling around while at the same time feeling they are misunderstood geniuses. But they do seriously degrade the level of discussion we can have here. Actually, idiots is still too good a word for people like that. Anybody have a better suggestion?

[longears]

Freethinkers?

[M forever]

Freethinkers, however much some people would like to see themselves as such, is definitely not the right word for people who are incarcerated in the hell of their own stupidity and ignorance. (And yes, I got that you were  ).

[(poco) Sforzando]

I generally agree, too, except that there is nothing to degrade about the nonsense some idiots fling around while at the same time feeling they are misunderstood geniuses. But they do seriously degrade the level of discussion we can have here. Actually, idiots is still too good a word for people like that. Anybody have a better suggestion?

Rebut his musical misconceptions without making any personal observations.

[71 dB]

People use the word idiot in a wrong way. Historically term idiot refers to "layman, person lacking professional skill", "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning". In 19th and early 20th century medicine and psychology, an "idiot" was a person with a very severe mental retardation or a very low IQ level, as a sufferer of cretinism, defining idiots as people whose IQ were below 20 (with a standard deviation of 16). In current medical classification, these people are now said to have profound mental retardation, and the word "idiot" is no longer used as a scientific term.

- Wikipedia

So, real idiots can't even use the internet. We don't have idiots among us. Some of us are perhaps narrow-minded but intelligent nevertheless. On the hometheater forum I read "idiotic" posts about classical music such as "I don't like classical music because they don't use electric guitars." but even those people are not real idiots, just horribly ignorant and preoccupied in music. However, their opinions about subwoofers and hometheater projectors make many of us look like idiots. 

[knight66]

Just for the record here; three moderators made recent interventions on this thread.

A) A post calling Rod a fool was censored. Unfortunately, it was quoted by Rod and we did not want to interfere with his posting; as we felt he had the right of reply without removing the word and thereby making people wonder what the word could be. But we had made the point that we did not want insults flying around.
B) Another Mod suggested there was no point arguing one composer up against another, it lead nowhere.
C) I requested that people post without namecalling. Yes talk about the opinions and behaviour in just about any terms you like; but please don't namecall.

I repeat my request...NOW.

To Mr Grew, your thread was not removed, it was moved to the Diner; as the discussions had become remote from the purpose of the introductions thread.

Mike

[knight66]

So, real idiots can't even use the internet. We don't have idiots among us. Some of us are perhaps narrow-minded but intelligent nevertheless. On the hometheater forum I read "idiotic" posts about classical music such as "I don't like classical music because they don't use electric guitars." but even those people are not real idiots, just horribly ignorant and preoccupied in music. However, their opinions about subwoofers and hometheater projectors make many of us look like idiots. 

I think that is a good point well made. There is a difference between suggesting someone's ideas are idiotic and calling them an idiot. I have now asked for a third time that people do not make personal insults. Without excusing or going along with it; certainly in the UK, 'idiot' is a very mild form of invective. But invective nevertheless.

While I am at it, Greg, we can also live without your various posts from the sidelines cheering on putative pugilists in the hope of seeing some bloodletting. This does not just apply to this thread.

Mike

[M forever]

Rebut his musical misconceptions without making any personal observations.

From a musical point of view, the idea that two random pieces can be "objectively compared" and that it can be decided which of the two is "greater" or even "the greatest" is complete nonsense.
There. Rebutted.  

People can of course discuss what music means to them and which pieces of music they think had more (or less) influence historically, on other composers, and which pieces have left the deeper impression over time with audiences and performers, but even that is rather vague and not a basis for making such absolute statements.

People use the word idiot in a wrong way. Historically term idiot refers to "layman, person lacking professional skill", "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning". In 19th and early 20th century medicine and psychology, an "idiot" was a person with a very severe mental retardation or a very low IQ level, as a sufferer of cretinism, defining idiots as people whose IQ were below 20 (with a standard deviation of 16). In current medical classification, these people are now said to have profound mental retardation, and the word "idiot" is no longer used as a scientific term.

- Wikipedia

Thanks for clarifying that. I meant all of the above.   0:)

I think that is a good point well made. There is a difference between suggesting someone's ideas are idiotic and calling them an idiot. I have now asked for a third time that people do not make personal insults. Without excusing or going along with it; certainly in the UK, 'idiot' is a very mild form of invective. But invective nevertheless.

There is some truth in that. However, when people participate in a discussion and prove to be unable to support their wild theses with hard facts based on solid musical knowledge and understanding, and then resort to declaring themselves generally superior to those whose points they could not answer, and declare that they are part of a mental elite whose views are above those who delivered a more solid argumentation based in reality, then that is a personal insult directed at the discussion partners, too. So there are no "victims" here.

[greg]

The person called 'an idiot' here is Rod Corkin, Greg, not Sydney Grew...

lol that is pretty funny i got them confused 

On the hometheater forum I read "idiotic" posts about classical music such as "I don't like classical music because they don't use electric guitars."

that's funny, too

Just for the record here; three moderators made recent interventions on this thread.

A) A post calling Rod a fool was censored. Unfortunately, it was quoted by Rod and we did not want to interfere with his posting; as we felt he had the right of reply without removing the word and thereby making people wonder what the word could be. But we had made the point that we did not want insults flying around.
B) Another Mod suggested there was no point arguing one composer up against another, it lead nowhere.
C) I requested that people post without namecalling. Yes talk about the opinions and behaviour in just about any terms you like; but please don't namecall.

I repeat my request...NOW.

To Mr Grew, your thread was not removed, it was moved to the Diner; as the discussions had become remote from the purpose of the introductions thread.

Mike

you're a pretty good babysitter, Mike, you should get paid for this!



..... continue the thread, please.... this one is pretty fun- Rod, Sydney, 71db, M.... we just need more Karl, Sean, and Eric and this thread would be a masterpiece.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

"Hello, hello...*thump thump*...is this mike on?"

Consensus is the devil. Isn't that what you've been preaching to us for ages now, Rod? Bach vs. Handel and all that?

But now, suddenly, when it suits you you use it as a crutch to bolster your own position.

Shame...

[knight66]

Greg.....what am I going to say to you? You say something nice about me, then repeat the very urgings I asked you to forgo. As your babysitter, and my rates are reasonable, go to your room and no TV for the rest of the night.

M, I do see your point; I see the insult in, 'Blah' is the greatest composer, anyone who cannot see this without argument is a mental defective. Yes, but it is more generalist than specific to a person. I am not trying to encourage people to get round the main rule of the site by imaginative generalist insults that really are veiled personal insults.

But we do have a tradition here of robust debate where we can call a spade a spade; but could we stick with that rather than calling it a bloody shovel?

Now....how about discussion of music.

Mike