The world war on democracy

[John Skelton]

Whether I agree with you or not has nothing to do with it.

You interrupt a conversation about Birtwistle to do what you always do: sneer and jeer. Never any specifics - you don't know any of the music to be specific about. If you bother to read what was written nobody said Birtwistle was "comparable" to Wagner or indeed that Wagner was comparable to Birtwistle. Whatever either of those would mean. But reading what people write would get in the way of your belligerence and natural bad manners.

You didn't talk about balance in Duchen's article: you launched yourself into characteristic abuse concluding with a remark about "bongobongo drums."

No, I don't think someone thinking one symphony by Shostakovich is the 'weakest' is "worth at least a laugh smiley." Perhaps because I'm not a five year old trapped in a middle aged man's body.

Do you believe that some don't decry "popular" music in order to gain some perceived superiority? No idea. It wouldn't have occurred to me in this context, certainly. Again, perhaps because I'm not a five year old trapped in a middle aged man's body.

Do you think that if I glooped together a set of unmusical discords, they would in fact be rather wonderful, and that it would be the listener's fault if s/he didn't think so? No. But the thread wasn't about you or music written by you. It was about music you hadn't heard and, as so many times in the past, your only interest was in getting a good sneer in and displaying the full range of your personality.

Far from the general definition of trolling, clearly. I've been around too long for that (trolls tend not to stay on forums and contribute to a wide range of subjects for seven years).

So you are a troll with sticking power.

[Simon]

Whether I agree with you or not has nothing to do with it.

On the contrary, it clearly has everything to do with it. You cannot counter my points with rational argument, so you attack the way in which I post - which is not sneering, or jeering, but certainly not beating about the bush either. If my directness bothers you, I'm sorry.

You interrupt a conversation about Birtwistle ... nobody said Birtwistle was "comparable" to Wagner or indeed that Wagner was comparable to Birtwistle.

There had been many posts around the subject from many people, and I thought that we were allowed to join in on all threads. The post I referred to seemed to link Wagner and Birtwistle and as I and so many others think that the latter's music is unpleasant and the former's sheer genius, I thought that the linking was unhelpful. Rather like linking Michelangelo with, say, Emin.

You didn't talk about balance in Duchen's article: you launched yourself into characteristic abuse concluding with a remark about "bongobongo drums."

I implied the lack of balance, which a later poster amplified. On a re-read, it was justified. I also made an eminently justifiable point about her reference to colonialism. Am I not allowed to comment unfavourably when I perceive errors? Or is unfavourable comment only allowed against News International papers? And why shouldn't I mention drums?

No, I don't think someone thinking one symphony by Shostakovich is the 'weakest' is "worth at least a laugh smiley." Perhaps because I'm not a five year old trapped in a middle aged man's body.

Disingenuous! Clever try! But I didn't say "one" symphony by Shostakovitch, I said the 5th. Which was the whole point. For which you clearly have no answer, so you go for the meaningless attempted insult of calling me a five year old trapped in a middle aged man's body. Not brilliant, that, is it?

Do you believe that some don't decry "popular" music in order to gain some perceived superiority?

No idea.

Oh come on, don't be shy. I'm sure you have some idea.

It wouldn't have occurred to me in this context, certainly. Again, perhaps because I'm not a five year old trapped in a middle aged man's body.

Repetition of a meaningless insult doesn't make it any more intelligent, you know!

Do you think that if I glooped together a set of unmusical discords, they would in fact be rather wonderful, and that it would be the listener's fault if s/he didn't think so?

No.

Ah, a straight answer. Thanks. So at what point does it become the listener's fault and at what point the "composer's" fault?

----====----

As to the rest, I certainly hope to stick around, yes. If only to put the other point of view from time to time. It's a shame that some can't cope with that, but not surprising.

[Chris Newman]

Simon,
I have to agree with John. You go into every musical conversation aggressively, all guns blazing with nothing positive to say about other boarders likes and tastes: look at this for a comment showing respect to other people:

You mention various 20thC composers. The odd bits of "music" that I've heard by Birtwistle, Davies and Tippett I have nothing but scorn for. So if I were to choose my list of music - which would include Gibbons, Weelkes, Arne, Purcell, Handel (have to have it, I think!), Sullivan, Elgar, Stanford, Parry, RVW, Howells and Britten, along with the best of BritPop and especially a tribute to the other Queen and Freddie (arguably the greatest pop artist of them all) - would you and your friends be happy?

I am adopting your tone now because quite frankly I feel insulted. There are works by all three composers that you scorn that I love and respect deeply. Tippett is IMO one of the finest lyrical British composers and many people express their sadness on these boards that R3 at present is neglecting him. Birtwistle and Maxwell Davies have both mellowed in their old age and produced some utterly beautiful music. You have the temerity to base your high opinion on "odd bits"? No wonder you are held with little respect around here. It is not your way out politics that draw flack, Simon, it is the unsubstantiated twaddle that you intersperse in your writings. To be told that my tastes in music are scornful by someone who admits he is not prepared to try listening to it beggars my belief.

[MrGongGong]

On the contrary, it clearly has everything to do with it. You cannot counter my points with rational argument, so you attack the way in which I post - which is not sneering, or jeering, but certainly not beating about the bush either. If my directness bothers you, I'm sorry.



There had been many posts around the subject from many people, and I thought that we were allowed to join in on all threads. The post I referred to seemed to link Wagner and Birtwistle and as I and so many others think that the latter's music is unpleasant and the former's sheer genius, I thought that the linking was unhelpful. Rather like linking Michelangelo with, say, Emin.



I implied the lack of balance, which a later poster amplified. On a re-read, it was justified. I also made an eminently justifiable point about her reference to colonialism. Am I not allowed to comment unfavourably when I perceive errors? Or is unfavourable comment only allowed against News International papers? And why shouldn't I mention drums?



Disingenuous! Clever try! But I didn't say "one" symphony by Shostakovitch, I said the 5th. Which was the whole point. For which you clearly have no answer, so you go for the meaningless attempted insult of calling me a five year old trapped in a middle aged man's body. Not brilliant, that, is it?


Oh come on, don't be shy. I'm sure you have some idea.



Repetition of a meaningless insult doesn't make it any more intelligent, you know!



Ah, a straight answer. Thanks. So at what point does it become the listener's fault and at what point the "composer's" fault?

----====----

As to the rest, I certainly hope to stick around, yes. If only to put the other point of view from time to time. It's a shame that some can't cope with that, but not surprising.

Hummmm

this really wont do you know !!
"sticking around" in Simons world means ignoring people he disagrees with
the man (?) is an arch charlatan troll IMV who has very little informed knowledge of music and total disrespect for those who know more than him on a multitude of subjects (and I am NOT referring to myself at all )
some of us know of old that his "academic" knowledge that he used to bang on about is a work of a sad fantasists mind
I guess we should feel sorry for him ?

[Simon]

Simon,
I have to agree with John. You go into every musical conversation aggressively, all guns blazing with nothing positive to say about other boarders likes and tastes: look at this for a comment showing respect to other people:

You mention various 20thC composers. The odd bits of "music" that I've heard by Birtwistle, Davies and Tippett I have nothing but scorn for. So if I were to choose my list of music - which would include Gibbons, Weelkes, Arne, Purcell, Handel (have to have it, I think!), Sullivan, Elgar, Stanford, Parry, RVW, Howells and Britten, along with the best of BritPop and especially a tribute to the other Queen and Freddie (arguably the greatest pop artist of them all) - would you and your friends be happy?


I am adopting your tone now because quite frankly I feel insulted. There are works by all three composers that you scorn that I love and respect deeply. Tippett is IMO one of the finest lyrical British composers and many people express their sadness on these boards that R3 at present is neglecting him. Birtwistle and Maxwell Davies have both mellowed in their old age and produced some utterly beautiful music. You have the temerity to base your high opinion on "odd bits"? No wonder you are held with little respect around here. It is not your way out politics that draw flack, Simon, it is the unsubstantiated twaddle that you intersperse in your writings. To be told that my tastes in music are scornful by someone who admits he is not prepared to try listening to it beggars my belief.

Of course you agree with John. I wouldn't have expected you not to!

I am sorry that you feel insulted. I don't want to insult you. I don't feel insulted when people jeer at the music I like, which they do. I just accept that we are all different. Just a few that come to mind of those composers I've mentioned in the past, who have provoked immediate hostile reactions, are Part, Rautavaara, Stanford, Rutter, Einaudi and Mozart.

I'm happy for you that you like some of the music that the composers I mentioned have produced. As I don't know all their works, I might like some of them too. But it's probably unlikely, and the fact that you like them does not, I'm afraid, alter the fact that in their music that I have heard I have found little to persuade me that it was worth the trouble.

As regards your general points, I am not in the least bit worried about "respect" on an internet chat board. Frankly, I would be horrified if I felt that I had much in common with some on here! That I have the respect of my colleagues and my friends in the real world is enough for me: their opinions I value.

As for my politics being "way out" - that's worth a smile too. I'd bet that my politics and views on most things are far closer to that of the average man on the Clapham omnibus that the politically-correct left/liberal stuff that so oten gets trotted out on here!


bws S-S!

[Lateralthinking1]

Would it be possible to have this conversation on another thread? The last six posts have nothing to do with Sydney's and the one who should feel most aggrieved is him.

[Simon]

I don't think he'll mind, Lat. I'm sure he's as avid for John's views on when not liking a work is the composer's fault and when it's the listener's fault as I am...

But do feel free to move it elsewhere if you think it best - I wouldn't complain.

[Lateralthinking1]

I am not intending to move the thread physically or artificially to bring it back on track. It seems to me though that he was intending it to be about the Pilger article. Unless he indicates otherwise - from memory he tends to appear mostly in the mornings - it seems only fair on him all round to try to keep to that issue.

[Bryn]

Would it be possible to have this conversation on another thread? The last six posts have nothing to do with Sydney's and the one who should feel most aggrieved is him.

Do bear in mind, L1, that Syd has his very own forum, the main business of which appears to be attacking contributors to, and the elected moderation team at r3ok.com (he knows the tricks required to get his boards high up the Google ranking for those looking for r3ok.com, too. He appears to post here for reasons not dissimilar to those of Simon, i.e. to disrupt.

[Mind you, it is only right that I also mention that when the earlier 'free' version of r3ok bit the dust suddenly due to the collapse of its host, it was Syd who had the necessary ITC skills to rescue and archive the content of the discussions from those old boards. However, he can't take his medicine, especially when one of those dispensing it is a woman, and one who gets re-elected again and again to the r3ok moderation team by popular acclaim.]

[Lateralthinking1]

Do bear in mind, L1, that Syd has his very own forum, the main business of which appears to be attacking contributors to, and the elected moderation team at r3ok.com (he knows the tricks required to get his boards high up the Google ranking for those looking for r3ok.com, too. He appears to post here for reasons not dissimilar to those of Simon, i.e. to disrupt.

I am aware of some of the dynamics on the forum. Whatever the form of the individuality, we probably all have days when posts could be more relevant. I know I do. That is why I would prefer to try to focus on the content of the first post in an individual thread to assess its purpose. In this case, it doesn't of itself seem inflammatory.

[Simon]

I am aware of some of the dynamics on the forum. Whatever the form of the individuality, we probably all have days when posts could be more relevant. I know I do. That is why I would prefer to try to focus on the content of the first post in an individual thread to assess its purpose. In this case, it doesn't of itself seem inflammatory.

Hmmm. Maybe not. But nonetheless I'll bet Syd - for whom as a fellow forum member for some years I have a healthy respect and much affection, despite not agreeing with him on several subjects - is well aware that the mention of a certain journalist will always have me, at least, ready to jump in with a few not necessarily tactful comments. So he won't be surprised at the slight derailment.