# Pointless "Which one is greater/greatest" debates: points music/musician scores?



## Fenestella (Oct 4, 2015)

*Pointless "Which one is greater/greatest" debates: points music/musician scores?*

When debating whether Composer/Composition A is the greater one or the greatest one, whether Performer/Performance A is the greater one or the greatest one, rhetoric cannot make your case to everyone's satisfaction. Unless you figure out how to calculate exactly the points music/musician scores, such debates remain pointless.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2017)

Fenestella said:


> such debates remain pointless.


I saw what you did there!

Just check out my signature.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Listening to music is totally pointless. As a consequence, any debate following from that activity is even more pointless.

If music would have a set purpose, I wouldn't waste my time with it.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Was there a composer called Pointless?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

"Greatest" in terms of objective evaluation is nonsense, unless it is clearly defined upfront what measurable criteria are to be used.

"Greatest" in terms of subjective preference is perfectly valid and suitable for discussion.

Personally, I like these threads because they may point me to music I don't know yet. If someone says that Myaskovsky's sixth symphony is his "best"/"greatest" (read "favourite") work, and I know only a handful of this composer's works but not the sixth, I'll be tempted to check it out. True story, I did, and it is now one of my favourite 20th century symphonies.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

We don't need music physiologically like we need oxygen and water but we need it to nourish our emotions. We are probably the only species, I assume, that finds solace, wonder and passion from the receipt of harmonic, vibrating, resonating air.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Was there a composer called Pointless?


You meaning the one with the 4'33" on his name.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Fenestella said:


> When debating whether Composer/Composition A is the greater one or the greatest one, whether Performer/Performance A is the greater one or the greatest one, rhetoric cannot make your case to everyone's satisfaction. Unless you figure out how to calculate exactly the points music/musician scores, such debates remain pointless.


I agree. This is a point many of us have been trying to make for years.

When I was younger I used to engage in what is the greatest debate but as I have gotten older I have learned that esthetics is so subjective it is next to impossible to resolve these issues.

Even is we banned all discussions about modern music we would still find composers to squabble about like Wagner. I think there was a thread a few years ago trashing Beethoven's _Ninth_.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

If your goal is to use argument alone to persuade someone that X is, objectively, the greatest, then yeah, it's pointless.

But if your goal is to canvass opinions and see if anything interesting about the world of music can be learned from that, then no, not pointless, in fact such debates can often be enlightening.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> If your goal is to use argument alone to persuade someone that X is, objectively, the greatest, then yeah, it's pointless.
> 
> But if your goal is to canvass opinions and see if anything interesting about the world of music can be learned from that, then no, not pointless, in fact such debates can often be enlightening.


I agree. Because of the continual squabbling over Cage I actually discovered some works of his that I enjoy listening to.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> But if your goal is to canvass opinions and see if anything interesting about the world of music can be learned from that, then no, not pointless, in fact such debates can often be enlightening.


I strongly agree. As arpeggio said, I also learned from the long drawn out "discussions" about Cage's works. One of the most interesting threads I have read on TC is What is the point of atonal music?.

But remember there is another purpose for such threads. TC is here for members to share, discuss, learn, and, of utmost importance, _argue_.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

I wish for less arguing. 

It's inevitable I guess, but there is so very much to learn from people on this forum. I could inadvertently put off someone because of some inconsequential difference of opinion, and I end up losing what might have been a giant resources and perhaps many significant learning opportunities.

I am just as guilty as the next. I need to work on being less easily provoked.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

While it seems it can't be settled what's the best music and what's second best etc, at the same time it is obviously even more nonsense to say it is all just a matter of personal taste so that you can't even say that Beethoven was a better composer than me or you when we put some notes on a paper... There is something great to the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven - something you and I can not produce - and it is to the philosopher to say what that greatness is all about. In philosophy you will find different aesthetic theories which can provide some clues what a great work of art embodies (e.g. sensual manifestations of the Ideas, the conflating of subject (will) and object (nature), etc), but to keep it simple and practical: I think it is the trained lover of music who has most authority on what is great music and what is not. That is: he must be a music lover, so he has an openness to music (he is receptive to the beauty of music) and he must have al lot of listening experience so he has learned to notice the varying degrees of greatness in all the music that he has listened to. A professional music critic should be such a person so he should be such an authority.

NB. That the authoritative person must be receptive to the beauty of music implies that in that sense he must 'understand' all music. For I am with J.S. Mill on this issue: the old person who loves Bach (but Justin Bieber not so much) has a greater authority on musical issues than the teenage girls who loves Justin Bieber (but Bach not so much), because the one who understands Bach's music will also understand Bieber's music (so can make a righteous comparison) but the teenage girl will probably only understand Bieber's music so she can't make a proper comparison.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

JeffD said:


> I wish for less arguing.
> 
> It's inevitable I guess, but there is so very much to learn from people on this forum. I could inadvertently put off someone because of some inconsequential difference of opinion, and I end up losing what might have been a giant resources and perhaps many significant learning opportunities.
> 
> I am just as guilty as the next. I need to work on being less easily provoked.


One. I am also turned off by the arguing. I do not like it either.

Two. I am getting tired of apologizing for being overly sensitive or easily provoked. When will the provokees accept some responsibility for the state of affairs?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

There is arguing in the debate sense of the word. It doesn't necessarily mean bickering. The OP for instance might be considered an opening argument.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Agamemnon said:


> I think it is the trained lover of music who has most authority on what is great music and what is not.


I'd narrrow that somewhat and say that the trained lover of music has the most authority on identifying the criteria by which music is most commonly judged to be "great".
But the criteria do change over time, and not every music lover changes at the same pace.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> I am getting tired of apologizing for being overly sensitive or easily provoked. When will the provokees accept some responsibility for the state of affairs?


There is no reason for the "provokees" to apologize merely because others are "overly sensitive or easily provoked." To say "I do not like music composed by xyz" is not a personal attack on anyone who might like said music. It isn't really even a personal attack on composer xyz.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Agamemnon said:


> While it seems it can't be settled what's the best music and what's second best etc, at the same time it is obviously even more nonsense to say it is all just a matter of personal taste so that you can't even say that Beethoven was a better composer than me or you when we put some notes on a paper... There is something great to the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven - something you and I can not produce - and it is to the philosopher to say what that greatness is all about. In philosophy you will find different aesthetic theories which can provide some clues what a great work of art embodies (e.g. sensual manifestations of the Ideas, the conflating of subject (will) and object (nature), etc), but to keep it simple and practical: I think it is the trained lover of music who has most authority on what is great music and what is not. That is: he must be a music lover, so he has an openness to music (he is receptive to the beauty of music) and he must have al lot of listening experience so he has learned to notice the varying degrees of greatness in all the music that he has listened to. A professional music critic should be such a person so he should be such an authority.
> 
> NB. That the authoritative person must be receptive to the beauty of music implies that in that sense he must 'understand' all music. For I am with J.S. Mill on this issue: the old person who loves Bach (but Justin Bieber not so much) has a greater authority on musical issues than the teenage girls who loves Justin Bieber (but Bach not so much), because the one who understands Bach's music will also understand Bieber's music (so can make a righteous comparison) but the teenage girl will probably only understand Bieber's music so she can't make a proper comparison.


While I think there is certainly merit to the idea that a philosopher, or a historian, has particularly useful tools for evaluating established music of the past, I don't know that anyone really has the same tools for evaluating the merits of more current music (except perhaps suggestions or thoughts for consideration). It is easier to "predict" the past than the future.


----------



## agoukass (Dec 1, 2008)

Anytime someone posts a thread with a superlative adjective (best, greatest, most, etc) I generally skip it. There was probably a time a long time ago when I would have posted such a thread here, but there is no real point to them except to start arguments over which interpretations of a particular is better than another. 

Someone once told me that you cannot argue with someone over personal taste because it is an argument that I can’t ever win. That is perfectly true. User X might love a recording of the Chopin Nocturnes and I might like a recording of the same repertoire that I don’t care about. So, we agree to disagree and move on.

As I’ve listened to more and more music, I’ve found myself wondering if there truly is such a thing as a benchmark recording for a work or a truly great interpretation. When I was younger, I thought that it simply didn’t get any better than Rubinstein’s Chopin. Then I started listening to Moiseiwitsch, Cortot, Horowitz, Kissin, Richter, and Argerich, and my perspective changed because each of them brought something new and unique to music that I had heard countless times. While I can say that some pieces are played by some better than others, I can’t completely trash them and say that X is the best or Y is the best. There is no point in that.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

But there is a point to saying there is no such thing as a great whatever you want to argue.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I'm of the opinion that such discussions are absolutely never pointless, even if a beginner listener makes a thread about how something is the "BEST" and something else is the "WORST EVER". Less useful than some other discussion, yes. Pointless, no. Discussion is always useful. Retreating back to solipsism and scepticism "I like this, you like that, apples and oranges, de gustibus non est disputandum, let's stop talking" - now that is pointless.


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

This way of thinking about the world (i.e., scaling everything numerically and juxtaposing _works of art_) is certainly new, and, I think, an unfortunate sign of our _deprived_ times. The scientific method has become so deeply rooted in our psyche that it is almost impossible not to give in on its premises, and hence we seek scientific answers in questions relating to art, music, literature, history, etc. This is all nonsense, of course. The most important questions (which often are of an aesthetic nature) _cannot_ be answered by science. What could it _possibly_ mean for, say, _Symphony No. 7_ by Beethoven to be rated a 4.3? No, it is our (moral) duty to resist this scientific _weltanshauung_, and to act in accordance with that famous Greek dictum: Know thyself!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Forss said:


> This way of thinking about the world (i.e., scaling everything numerically and juxtaposing _works of art_) is certainly new, and, I think, an unfortunate sign of our _deprived_ times.


Or it might be a fortunate sign that our times aren't as restrictive towards people who think about the world in different ways.


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

Nereffid said:


> Or it might be a fortunate sign that our times aren't as restrictive towards people who think about the world in different ways.


Funnily enough, I find it to be rather on the contrary. The commonly held view is: either a question has a scientific answer, or it has no answer at all. How could this _not_ be restricting towards other ways of thinking about the world? It is certainly not "piety" (as it was in ancient Greece).


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

completely pointless, especially when compared are composers like Wagner and Mahler, meanwhile one did not write symphonies and the other wrote no opera; how do such polls even cross someone's mind?


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

In general, people tend to equate the most famous with the greatest , even though the two do not always coincide . 
For example, Vladimir Horowitz is probably more famous to the general public than Claudio Arrau .
But was Horowitz necessarily a greater pianist than Arrau in terms of sheer musicianship? No . Horowitz was a much more flashy performer than Arrau , and people tended to come to see him show off his spectacular technique . 
But Arrau , even though he had a formidable technique , was not a flashy musician and he was more interested in trying to convey the meaning of the music than mere technical display . 
Arrau also had a very different sound than Horowitz . Where Horowitz tended to play with a kind of glassy, percussive tone , Arrau had a much more rounded , smooth , plush and cushioned sound . 
Many knowledgable critics and listeners would consider to be a more profound musician than Arrau .
Also , Heifetz is considered in general to have been one of if not the greatest v violinists of all time , and the general public who are not classical music fans are familiar with his name . But there are many great violinists who are not as well known to the general public who are not in any way inferior to him in terms of artistry , such as Adolf Busch , Joseph Szigeti , Georg Kulenkampff in the past , and in our time the recently deceased Paul Zukofsky and Godon Kremer who is still very much alive .
The same is true other instruments, opera and lieder singers , and conductors etc .
Bach, Beethoven ,Mozart and Chopin are among the few composers recognizable to the general public , but there are so many other great composers who would cause people on the streets to draw a blank stare if you asked them who they were going around with a microphone . 
I wonder if anyone has actually done this . The results might be interesting .


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> "Greatest" in terms of objective evaluation is nonsense, unless it is clearly defined upfront what measurable criteria are to be used.
> 
> "Greatest" in terms of subjective preference is perfectly valid and suitable for discussion.
> 
> Personally, I like these threads because they may point me to music I don't know yet. If someone says that Myaskovsky's sixth symphony is his "best"/"greatest" (read "favourite") work, and I know only a handful of this composer's works but not the sixth, I'll be tempted to check it out. True story, I did, and *it is now one of my favourite 20th century symphonies*.


Except for about 20 others, it's my favorite Miaskovsky symphony.


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

The Latin for this sentiment is "de gustibus non est disputandum" - "about matters of taste, there can be no disputes." Let us say that I stoutly maintain that Mahler's Ninth Symphony is the greatest of all Ninth Symphonies, while you hold with equal vigour to the position that it is Beethoven's Ninth that holds that honor. First, there exists no independent set of "scientific" criteria to establish the truth or falsity of either claim. Second, no amount of argument is likely to persuade the other of the falsity of their position; in fact, it is likely that the more prolonged and heated the discussion becomes, the more likely we each are to dig into our original position.

There can be no resolution. Much more importantly, there _should be_ no resolution. We are _both_ correct in every sense of the word, as is someone who witnesses the discussion, listens to both symphonies, and chooses one for himself. Even if a poll shows an 80/20 split, what that means is that 80% of the respondents are correct, while 20% of the respondents are correct. And so a good time _should be_ had by all.

Words such as _should_ and _ought_ have no meaning in the realm of science. They move the discussion onto the plane of philosophy, specifically aesthetics (in the case of, say, discussions of the relative merits of symphonies). And even though science may be able to discover that the Golden Mean proportion is pleasing to most humans, or that a certain proportion of facial structures is responded to positively by a majority of test subjects, science can only _speculate _about _why_ that might be so.

As C.S. Lewis once observed, proper science boils down to "on such-and-such a date, I put such-and such together with such-and-such in a pot, and heated it to this temperature, and it did thus-and-so." Science is a _tool_; it is not a grimoire for the universe, and it is certainly not a god by whose pronouncements we are all to live without question. Being human, we must question our world, ourselves, and each other, _especially_ if there can be no answers.

In short (snerk), TCers - keep on seeking the best and greatest! We'll certainly at least find the better and good along the way.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Forss said:


> The commonly held view is: either a question has a scientific answer, or it has no answer at all.


That is not my experience.

And my point was, some people do actually prefer to see aspects of _their_ world in terms such as figures or rankings, and I have no desire to criticise them for it.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Lets have a pointless poll


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Forss said:


> This way of thinking about the world (i.e., scaling everything numerically and juxtaposing _works of art_) is certainly new, and, I think, an unfortunate sign of our _deprived_ times. The scientific method has become so deeply rooted in our psyche that it is almost impossible not to give in on its premises, and hence we seek scientific answers in questions relating to art, music, literature, history, etc. This is all nonsense, of course. The most important questions (which often are of an aesthetic nature) _cannot_ be answered by science. What could it _possibly_ mean for, say, _Symphony No. 7_ by Beethoven to be rated a 4.3? No, it is our (moral) duty to resist this scientific _weltanshauung_, and to act in accordance with that famous Greek dictum: Know thyself!


Very few threads on TC have remotely reminded me of science. Certainly polls and discussions of greatest composers or works have little, if anything, to do with science, and most certainly nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method. Polls or threads on greatest composers/works are simply rankings or preferences. If we didn't ranks things in the world, we'd literally die. It's just what brains do. I've always viewed such threads on TC as harmless fun with the possibility of learning some things about music. Why would anyone have a problem with that?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> Very few threads on TC have remotely reminded me of science. Certainly polls and discussions of greatest composers or works have little, if anything, to do with science...


That's because you haven't tried my patented Great-o-Meter, guaranteed to accurately measure the greatness of any piece of music in standard milliLudwigs. Easy payments. Buy it now and get your first three calibrations free! 

Note that our new model has a second scale in microLudwigs to accommodate composers like, say, John Cage. :devil:


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Lets have a pointless poll


Is there some other kind here at TC?


----------



## Jacred (Jan 14, 2017)

Clearly, the solution is to have a poll featuring only one composer: Composer A or Composer A? Sorry guys, it's the only way to water down polls, and quite a boring one at that...


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Jacred said:


> Clearly, the solution is to have a poll featuring only one composer: Composer A or Composer A? Sorry guys, it's the only way to water down polls, and quite a boring one at that...


That could actually work with Schumann: Florestan or Eusebius?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Almost all composers are great, by having produced at least one great work, with at least one criteria. Comparison of greatness between these works is impossible and pointless. Greatness inevitably translates to be most impacted by. Some works are appreciated more by beginner listeners, some more advanced listeners, and some by all levels, at the extremes. The ones by all levels generally are usually voted as the Greatest: those by Bach, Beethoven, Mozart. But there are many works in the other categories that get neglected because of this generalized criteria. But human nature is the way it is, so there is no point in arguing against it.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Lets have a pointless poll


http://www.talkclassical.com/50075-sibelius-schoenberg.html


----------



## Jacred (Jan 14, 2017)

KenOC said:


> That's because you haven't tried my patented Great-o-Meter, guaranteed to accurately measure the greatness of any piece of music in standard milliLudwigs. Easy payments. Buy it now and get your first three calibrations free!
> 
> Note that our new model has a second scale in microLudwigs to accommodate composers like, say, John Cage. :devil:


Sorry, but I only deal in milliWolfgangs. Care to provide a conversion?

.......Hee hee hee, aren't I sly?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Lets have a pointless poll


Aren't they already the majority? Let's not get greedy. Let's simply enjoy all the pointless polls we have already.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

arpeggio said:


> I am getting tired of apologizing for being overly sensitive or easily provoked. When will the provokees accept some responsibility for the state of affairs?


Oh I agree. But working on being less easily provoked is the only part I can do anything about. Its not the whole solution, but as they say "it is what I can do".


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Lets have a pointless poll


Another one.......lets do a poll about that first


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

KenOC said:


> That's because you haven't tried my patented Great-o-Meter, guaranteed to accurately measure the greatness of any piece of music in standard milliLudwigs. Easy payments. Buy it now and get your first three calibrations free!
> 
> Note that our new model has a second scale in microLudwigs to accommodate composers like, say, John Cage. :devil:


Is a Beethoven masterpiece 1 Ludwig?

Suggestion: Maybe it's easier to score the least great work of Beethoven with 1 Ludwig and the greatest work (thats opus 132) 10 Ludwig.

I think this really might get us somewhere


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Clarification one more time.

We are not against people who dislike Webern. Many of us feel that a person can dislike whomever he wants to dislike.

We have problems with people who dislike Webern AND that his music should be prohibited in the concert hall or played on a classical music station or discussed in a classical music forum.

We all know that there are people like this in the classical music world. How many times do we have to provide examples of this? Like the members of a group that I perform with who did not want us to program a work of Hindemith. Just check out the posts of Harpsichord Concerto.

Beyond this I really do not know what else I can say.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Forss said:


> The most important questions (which often are of an aesthetic nature) _cannot_ be answered by science. What could it _possibly_ mean for, say, _Symphony No. 7_ by Beethoven to be rated a 4.3?


As he was in so many other ways, Satie was ahead of the curve on this matter:

_Everyone will tell you that I am not a musician. That is correct. From the very beginning of my career, I classified myself as a photometrographer. My work is completely phonometrical… I enjoy measuring a sound much more than hearing it. With my phonometer in my hand, I work happily and confidently. What haven't I weighed or measured? I've done all of Beethoven, all of Verdi, etc. It's fascinating. The first time I used a phonoscope, I examined a B-flat of medium size. I can assure you that I have never seen anything more revolting. I called in my servant to show him. On my phono scales, a common F-sharp registered at 93 kilos. It came from fat tenor whom I also weighed._

Satie, "Memoirs of an Amnesiac"


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> Clarification one more time.
> 
> We are not against people who dislike Webern. Many of us feel that a person can dislike whomever he wants to dislike.
> 
> We have problems with people who dislike Webern AND that his music should be prohibited in the concert hall or played on a classical music station or discussed in a classical music forum.


Have all (or even any) of these positions actually been taken anywhere on these forums?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

JAS said:


> Have all (or even any) of these positions actually been taken anywhere on these forums?


I would say that I've seen examples of just about everything people have complained about on TC. People have strongly objected to modern music in present concerts. I wouldn't say many have done that, and those people haven't continuously complained. All the complaints (about TC members) from modern music lovers and all the complaints from those on "the other side" have some basis in fact.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> I would say that I've seen examples of just about everything people have complained about on TC. People have strongly objected to modern music in present concerts. I wouldn't say many have done that, and those people haven't continuously complained. All the complaints (about TC members) from modern music lovers and all the complaints from those on "the other side" have some basis in fact.


I suspect for the most part the claims are either exaggerated or misinterpreted. My own case may serve as an example. I have no objection to modern music being "in the concert hall," but it would certainly reduce my interest in a given concert if a piece by Webern were present (and absolutely eliminate my interest if it were some like Ferneyhough). So, I do not object _per se_ to such a concert, but am unlikely to support it with either my time or money. (It gets tricky these days since they tend to bundle these things in a subscription series, or add other complicating factors, such as putting "name" performers in a series as a kind of added inducement.) For classical radio, if a station played what I considered to be too much of that sort of music, I would probably cease to support it. I assume that I am perfectly within my rights (personally, legally, morally, and intellectually) in both of these positions.

As for discussions of modern music, I cannot imagine a plausible reason for denying anyone engaging in such an activity given a suitable forum, which TC certainly would be.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2017)

JAS said:


> Have all (or even any) of these positions actually been taken anywhere on these forums?


Yes .


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Fenestella said:


> When debating whether Composer/Composition A is the greater one or the greatest one, whether Performer/Performance A is the greater one or the greatest one, rhetoric cannot make your case to everyone's satisfaction. Unless you figure out how to calculate exactly the points music/musician scores, such debates remain pointless.


Agreed, but I'd go one step further. Art cannot be quantified. It's not sports or science. It's akin to selecting the best color or the best word. "Pointless" is an understatement.

However, there can certainly be favorites, but this distinction seems lost on so many.

And... because you really like a composer, that does not make them a genius.

Stepping off soapbox now....

-09


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Yes.


One reason that this might not be so obvious is that moderators appear to quickly and quietly remove many posts that might substantiate at least some of the claim.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Anyone who has read a Tolstoy novel - there is often heated argument among the men at a party or social gathering. And the arguments can get quite heated. I grew up in a comparable environment, and I didn't care for it, much as I was (and am) compelled to participate.


----------

