# No More Minimalism



## JTech82

This is the thread to come to if you are sick and tired of these "minimal" composers.

Share your thoughts.


----------



## Herzeleide

Yeah, they suck.

There's about twenty seconds' worth of music in these pieces when they go on for a quarter of an hour!

Put simply - their 'solution' was facile and puerile. I remember reading some pseudo-mystical explanation by Philip Glass about how people should listen to his music. I recall he says that one must not try to remember when listening to his music - but then understanding is _contingent_ upon remembering!

Anyway, minimal music is like Chinese water torture - just the same thing that goes on and on and on and on and on and on...


----------



## JTech82

Exactly, I whole-heartedly agree with you my friend. This minimal music is just so boring and yes it is like torture. I bought a recording by Reich one time. I think I must have fallen asleep three times before it was over!

I'm trying to get Bach to join my club here on TalkClassical called "No More Minimalism." You sound you would be a perfect member for this group! You are now a member.


----------



## Herzeleide

Thanks, but -call me happy-clappy if you will- I generally prefer discussing music I love/like and defending it, rather than concentrating on the stuff I dislike.


----------



## JTech82

I understand, but I enjoy bashing the music I hate and minimalism is definitely a top contender for that!


----------



## Tapkaara

If you do not like minimalism, you are obviously untrained, unmusical philistines without a TRUE appreciation for what good music is!

Of course, I COULD say that and mean it, but I do not. I will withhold making such a sneering judgement call as some in this forum are often wont to do.

Uh huh.

Having said that, I enjoy minimalism. Particularly Philip Glass. Like the Second Vienesse school, I can understand why there would be those who dislike this type of music. The lack of variation must make it seem like a never-ending dirge of sound to some, but I think in the repetition lies a fascinating hypnotic power that appeals to me somewhere deep inside.

True, music really is a subjective thing.


----------



## Sid James

It's also interesting to note that Glass does not like people attaching the label "minimalism" to his music. I heard this on radio, but I do not exactly remember the description of his music that he actually likes. Something about repeated cells and motives or something...


----------



## JTech82

Tapkaara said:


> True, music really is a subjective thing.


Yes it is, so if you enjoy music that goes nowhere, then have fun with minimalism.


----------



## JTech82

Tapkaara said:


> Having said that, I enjoy minimalism. Particularly Philip Glass. Like the Second Vienesse school, I can understand why there would be those who dislike this type of music. The lack of variation must make it seem like a never-ending dirge of sound to some, but I think in the repetition lies a fascinating hypnotic power that appeals to me somewhere deep inside.


Minimalism attracts itself to the lowest common denominator, which in this case, I guess that would mean you Tapkaara, but hey if you like that's all that matters right?


----------



## Tapkaara

JTech82 said:


> Minimalism attracts itself to the lowest common denominator, which in this case, I guess that would mean you Tapkaara, but hey if you like that's all that matters right?


Moi? The lowest common denominator? I guess I've been called worse.

I'll stick up for minimalism all day long. Hell, at least most of it is tonal!


----------



## JTech82

Tapkaara said:


> I'll stick up for minimalism all day long.


I know you will and that's the most troubling thing about all of this.  Such a fan of the great Sibelius, but yet, chooses to listen to pointless drivel.


----------



## Tapkaara

One man's drivel is another man's good music. The longer I hang out in this forum, the more I discover this is the truth!


----------



## JTech82

Tapkaara said:


> One man's drivel is another man's good music. The longer I hang out in this forum, the more I discover this is the truth!


 If you say so, but I still don't understand your logic. What exactly do you enjoy about minimalism and that's the best term for the music because it goes it minimizes the actual musical content and replaces that content with boring nonsense, but anyway, just indulge me and tell me your reasoning behind your madness.


----------



## Guest

JTech82 said:


> If you say so, but I still don't understand your logic. What exactly do you enjoy about minimalism and that's the best term for the music because it goes it minimizes the actual musical content and replaces that content with boring nonsense, but anyway, just indulge me and tell me your reasoning behind your madness.


I would be interested to know which composers you consider minimalist? for example Arvo Part is a composer that I have enjoyed for about 10 yrs now, yet his work is minimalist and as *Tapkaara * said "_at least most of it is tonal_! " to weave in and out and around a triad can be interesting!


----------



## PostMinimalist

Like most fads, Minimalism had its day. There was a time not so long ago when it was being hailed as the new direction for classical music and concert halls were filled with performances of Clapping Music by Terry Reily and Mallet Music by Steve Reich. One was led to believe that this was the future. Unfortunately musical fashion is like a pendulum and it swings motononously back and forth between overly complex, incomprehensible trash to boring, inane drivvel. Luckily it passes through a 'sane' zone going both ways and it is here that we find music which is interesting, stimulating, and exciting to listen to. Minimalism has passed its 'sell by date' and should really only be on the shelves in specialist outlets. Today composers are trying to come to terms with the aftermath of minimalism and, gleaning the ideas which made it popular when it was, now set about incorporating these ideas in to more intersting mobile harmonic and melodic strutures. 

It is a poor student who learns nothing from his mistakes. Even Sibelius could be accused of minimalism; his repeated ostinatos with long sustained chords in the woodwinds are quite similar in concept to a lot of Steve Reich's music. We live and we learn, and we learn to borrow what is worth borrowing and ignore what has been proven to be trash.

OK, the basic idea behind minimalism in general sucks. Repeating bland figures verbatum for hours on end is not a valid compositional process. But it has given us the chance to look at some psychological effects of repetition such as trance, hypnotic and ecstasy inducing music. The tribal music in many areas of Africa, Polynisia, and South America takes advantage of just such effects. Ignoring such a vast part of human history would probably be mistake.
FC


----------



## JTech82

Andante said:


> I would be interested to know which composers you consider minimalist? for example Arvo Part is a composer that I have enjoyed for about 10 yrs now, yet his work is minimalist and as *Tapkaara * said "_at least most of it is tonal_! " to weave in and out and around a triad can be interesting!


What composers to do I consider minimalist? Reich, Adams, Glass, Part, Gorecki, Riley, Tavener, etc.

I'm sorry but this "music" if you want to call it that is just boring me to me. If you want to be put to sleep this is the kind of thing that will help.


----------



## PostMinimalist

I dare you to fall asleep during 'Total Eclipse' by JT. You might vomit or have coronory but sleeping is not really on the cards in this one!


----------



## jhar26

Tapkaara said:


> One man's drivel is another man's good music. The longer I hang out in this forum, the more I discover this is the truth!


Definitely. I regularly read comments about composers and artists that I find absurd, and others probably have the same idea about some of my 'uneducated' opinions.


----------



## Edward Elgar

To be honest, only composers have the power over what they write and what you hear, no-one else. If you want to express your dissatisfaction with any type of music, simply compose a few hundred works that defy the entire nature of that music so that next to your output, say, minimalism's damage to humanity is minimal!


----------



## Edward Elgar

JTech82 said:


> If you want to be put to sleep this is the kind of thing that will help.


I use Part and Glass for this exact purpose, you see, all music is useful for something!


----------



## Elgarian

post-minimalist said:


> But it has given us the chance to look at some psychological effects of repetition such as trance, hypnotic and ecstasy inducing music. The tribal music in many areas of Africa, Polynisia, and South America takes advantage of just such effects. Ignoring such a vast part of human history would probably be mistake.
> FC


What a refreshing insight, Fergus. So often the opinions in these exchanges are monodimensional -'this music doesn't fit my shape of box, so it must be rubbish' (and I'm not being holier-than-thou, here, because I sympathise: I feel the impulse myself, to disparage when I don't understand, and sometimes I give in to it.)

But it's so easy to lose sight of the vastness of art; of the enormous breadth of responses to the human condition that it expresses, evokes or inspires. Why try to make it smaller, more restrictive? When one looks at some of the visual art associated with Shamanism and trance-like states, it's clear that something interesting and powerful is going on here, beyond the ken of most of us, and far beyond the range of our limited western critical judgements. That alone ought to make us think twice about making sweeping judgements concerning repetitive musical patterns.


----------



## Lang

Elgarian said:


> But it's so easy to lose sight of the vastness of art


But the universe looks small to an ant.


----------



## Lang

For those who are currently coming out with the usual crap about music they personally don't like, has it occurred to you that one of the first pieces of minimalist music was Carl Orff's Carmina Burana?

If you remove the repetition you would be left with at most 10 minutes of music. If you are criticising the *technique* as you appear to be doing, then you have no option but to call Carmina Burana all those names you were calling minimalist music. And incidentally, during the 1950s when the piece was not as popular as it is now, those *were* the terms used by ignorant critics to deride the piece.


----------



## Herzeleide

post-minimalist said:


> Even Sibelius could be accused of minimalism; his repeated ostinatos with long sustained chords in the woodwinds are quite similar in concept to a lot of Steve Reich's music. We live and we learn, and we learn to borrow what is worth borrowing and ignore what has been proven to be trash.


Hmm yes don't try to tar Sibelius with the minimalism brush! They're fundamentally different. Repetition does not = minimalism.



post-minimalist said:


> The tribal music in many areas of Africa, Polynisia, and South America takes advantage of just such effects. Ignoring such a vast part of human history would probably be mistake.
> FC


Ligeti's music is probably the best that has absorbed such influences. And such non-Occidental influences occur throughout Boulez's oeuvre.

EDIT: I would also add that the 'hypnotic' and 'ecstatic' effects of such musics really are inextricably bound with the societal context within which they're placed: an entire belief system, which would be impossible to replicate in the Western world, so composers are better off taking what they can and tranforming it into their own, very Western language. In addition to the composers already cited, I would add Messiaen - certainly someone whose music has been described as existing outside the Western tradition, whose forms are not developmental, but who nonetheless remained unblemished by the invidious influence of minimalism.


----------



## Herzeleide

Lang said:


> For those who are currently coming out with the usual crap about music they personally don't like, has it occurred to you that one of the first pieces of minimalist music was Carl Orff's Carmina Burana?
> 
> If you remove the repetition you would be left with at most 10 minutes of music. If you are criticising the *technique* as you appear to be doing, then you have no option but to call Carmina Burana all those names you were calling minimalist music. And incidentally, during the 1950s when the piece was not as popular as it is now, those *were* the terms used by ignorant critics to deride the piece.


Carmina Burana sucks, definitely. I have always thought so; this is not me just being contrary.


----------



## Herzeleide

Tapkaara said:


> Hell, at least most of it is tonal!


It's a cheapened, one-dimensional kind of tonality. Not really tonal at all, just 'diatonic'.

Anaesthetic is the opposite of aesthetic. Minimalism is anaesthetic sound - the less one pays attention, the more it improves.


----------



## bassClef

I think it all depends on the way you listen. If you like to give the music your full attention and listen intently all the way through to every nuance of every note, minimalism is likely to bore you to tears. If however you can be content to let the music drift over and around you without actually concentrating on it, minimalist music can lend a certain ambience. I can do both fortunately. And if you drift off to sleep in such ambience, what's wrong with that? It's a blissful feeling actually.


----------



## PostMinimalist

Herzeleide said:


> Hmm yes don't try to tar Sibelius with the minimalism brush! They're fundamentally different. Repetition does not = minimalism.
> 
> Ligeti's music is probably the best that has absorbed such influences. And such non-Occidental influences occur throughout Boulez's oeuvre.
> 
> In addition to the composers already cited, I would add Messiaen.


OK the Sibelius might just be a chance resemlance but his attempts to evoke the Finnish forests never ending trees and lakes as Leminkainen gallops home is in a sense the core of minimalism.

I would put Messiaen very high up there since his concept of the ecstatic is about as developed as you get without actaully sailing up the Zambezee and drinking the 'forbbiden drink' and dancing the 'forbidden dance'...

But fundamentally I agree with you post. (wow!)


----------



## sam richards

Well, I don't like most of the minimalistic music myself but I think we should focus on the positive instead of the negative.



Elgarian said:


> So often the opinions in these exchanges are monodimensional -'this music doesn't fit my shape of box, so it must be rubbish' (and I'm not being holier-than-thou, here, because I sympathise: I feel the impulse myself, to disparage when I don't understand, and sometimes I give in to it.)
> 
> But it's so easy to lose sight of the vastness of art; of the enormous breadth of responses to the human condition that it expresses, evokes or inspires. Why try to make it smaller, more restrictive? When one looks at some of the visual art associated with Shamanism and trance-like states, it's clear that something interesting and powerful is going on here, beyond the ken of most of us, and far beyond the range of our limited western critical judgements. That alone ought to make us think twice about making sweeping judgements concerning repetitive musical patterns.


So true.


----------



## Herzeleide

sam richards said:


> That alone ought to make us think twice about making sweeping judgements concerning repetitive musical patterns.


Unless it's in a Western context, as is minimalist music.

EDIT: this was actually stated by Elgarian. On which topic:



> Why try to make it smaller, more restrictive?


Elgarian, my musical interests are vast enough as it is. My listening encompasses music of every epoch of Western art music, not to mention a fair amount of non-Western music. If anything, my tastes are too catholic.


----------



## sam richards

Sorry, that was a misquote. That was actually posted by Elgarian. But I feel you are a "reluctant to innovation/change" type, Herzeleide.


----------



## Herzeleide

sam richards said:


> That was actually posted by Elgarian. But I feel you are a "reluctant to innovation/change" type, Herzeleide.


This is a gross misapprehension, especially considering the fact that I have expressed a penchant for avant-garde composers. If you're interested these are twentieth-/twenty-first century composers I like:

Fauré, Janácek, Mahler, (Richard) Strauss, Debussy, Ravel, Scriabin, Rachmaninov, Schmidt, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Bartók, Stravinsky, Szymanowski, Dallapiccola, Scelsi, Lutyens, Messiaen, Carter, Lutoslawski, Dutilleux, Ligeti, Nono, Boulez, Berio, Takemitsu, Birtwistle, Ferneyhough, Holloway, Grisey, Murail, Dillon, Knussen, Saariaho, Saxton, Lindberg, Benjamin, Anderson, Adès...


----------



## Lang

sam richards said:


> Sorry, that was a misquote. That was actually posted by Elgarian. But I feel you are a "reluctant to innovation/change" type, Herzeleide.


That view of Herzeleide is about as insightful as some of the opinions of minimalist music that have been expressed here.


----------



## Margaret

post-minimalist said:


> But it has given us the chance to look at some psychological effects of repetition such as trance, hypnotic and ecstasy inducing music. The tribal music in many areas of Africa, Polynisia, and South America takes advantage of just such effects. Ignoring such a vast part of human history would probably be mistake.
> FC


I've never thought of it that way, but a lot of the native music I hear when I travel to the Southwest US is minimalist and I always enjoy listening to it when I'm out there. There is something about it that ranges from peaceful to powerful, but it's all hypnotic. (Or maybe I just really like music with a lot of drumming.)


----------



## Bach

Minimalism is ****! Yeah! I want to bottle Glass in the face and murder his kids! I want to shoot Part with a rifle!


----------



## Lang

Bach said:


> Minimalism is ****! Yeah! I want to bottle Glass in the face and murder his kids! I want to shoot Part with a rifle!


Which part?


----------



## Tapkaara

Jtech wanted me to explain, in more depth, why I like minimalism. Well, jeez, the more I thought about this, the more I find it hard to put into words. I just do. I think there is something in minimalism...the repetitions (some would say ad nauseum) of musical cells/fragments...that I find, perhaps hypnotic. I think there is something in minimalism that appeals (or has the potential to appeal) to something very "basic" in man. For example, most rock/pop music is very "minimalist" and repetitive. Melodies and rhythmic fragments are repeated quite a bit in any run-of-the-mill pop song. I don't think it's a coincidence that this is a facet of pop music by chance. I think in the "simplicity" lies a secret formula to appealing to something built deep into the human psyche. Something "base," maybe. In a way, pop music shares a certain "minimalist simplicity" that one often finds in folk music, which is also '"popular" and "of the people." Again, here we find repetion of melodies and rhythmic figures.

So, do composers like Glass, Adams, etc. composer music that sounds like folk music or stuff you would hear on a Britney Spears album. No. Some would say that their output is even more repetitive than most popular music. And that could be true. So why listen to something repeat OVER and OVER again?

Well, if you like it, than listen to it! Simple as that!

Do I find minimalism ultimately as satisfying as a work that covers a wider emotional breadth? I'd say no. I think this type of music certainly has it's limitations. (Limitations that are self-imposed, too!) But the repetitive nature is something I find somewhat primal and primitive, and there is a trance-inducing appeal there FOR ME.

Carmina Burana does not suck, by the way.

And as for Sibelius, no, he was not as minimalist but there are certainly tangible examples in his oeuvre where minimalist techniques come into play. Check out the 6th symphony. There are myriad ostinati on the strings in every movement that pulsate with an almost tribal cadence. Night Ride and Sunrise contains a "horse trot" rhythmic figure that seems to go on and on. En Saga features theme/rhythm repetition throughout the entire work. Same can be said of Tapiola, which could DEFINITELY be considered a minimalist/monothematic work...perhaps the first one of the "modern era. 

So, as far as Mr. Sibelius goes, he is not a minimalist per se, but these types of techniques were undeniably a part of his arsenal. And I do not think it is at all insulting to him to admit he used minimalist techniques. Anyone who does not belive he used such techniques is just being stubborn for the sake of this argument.


----------



## JTech82

Tapkaara said:


> Jtech wanted me to explain, in more depth, why I like minimalism. Well, jeez, the more I thought about this, the more I find it hard to put into words. I just do. I think there is something in minimalism...the repetitions (some would say ad nauseum) of musical cells/fragments...that I find, perhaps hypnotic.


So something that is hypnotic constitutes good music? I don't think so. Hindemith hypnotizes me, Stravinsky hypnotizes me, Ravel hypnotizes me, etc., but their music isn't _designed_ to do that. It's got substance, it's got heartbreak, it's got drama, it's got structure, and it takes world-class musicians to play it unlike with these wannabe minimalists and their very coma-inducing muzak.

All of these minimalism composers are something you hear in one of these "New Age" spas where they cover your eyes with cucumbers and rub vanity for your pleasure lotion all over your body.


----------



## Tapkaara

Just yet another case of members agreeing to disagree on what we like and what we don't! Fair enough!


----------



## Praine

Watching a minimalist performance is like watching one of those psychics who want to appear like they can communicate with the dead by narrowing down general ideas to a big audience. They are extremely pretentious and accomplish nothing in the grand scheme of things, except muster up a few basic ideas and follow the same formula every time they "entertain".

Philip Glass, Jesus Christ you're a douchebag.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Reign of Praine said:


> *They are* extremely pretentious and accomplish nothing in the grand scheme of things,


For example?


----------



## JTech82

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> For example?


Listen to anything by Reich, Adams, Glass, Riley, and those are your examples. You know good and well what he's talking about and I absolutely agree with him.


----------



## JoeGreen

I will disagree John Adams on a whole other level than the other composers.


----------



## Guest

JTech82 said:


> I'm sorry but this "music" if you want to call it that is just boring me to me. If you want to be put to sleep this is the kind of thing that will help.


Have you ever listened to Parts, Statuit ei dominus, missa syllabica, Beatus Petronius, de profundis, Memento, Cantata Domino, Solfeggio, Berliner Messe, Magnificat Etc Etc this is far from boring unless you have an aversion to choral music.


----------



## Elgarian

Herzeleide said:


> [who was responding to my query 'Why try to make it smaller, more restrictive?']
> Elgarian, my musical interests are vast enough as it is.


I'm not wanting here to continue the discussion (I've nothing further to say), but I do want to restore my sentence to its original context - which wasn't directly concerned with Herzeleide's musical interests, but was a general observation that lost its meaning by the editing:

"But it's so easy to lose sight of the vastness of art; of the enormous breadth of responses to the human condition that it expresses, evokes or inspires. Why try to make it smaller, more restrictive?"


----------



## Lang

Reign of Praine said:


> Philip Glass, Jesus Christ you're a douchebag.


It is great to see intelligent and reasoned discourse. It's why I come to this site.


----------



## Lang

Elgarian said:


> "But it's so easy to lose sight of the vastness of art; of the enormous breadth of responses to the human condition that it expresses, evokes or inspires. Why try to make it smaller, more restrictive?"


I would say that is what every composer does as soon as he sets pen to paper. Indeed, it is the very basis of the musical art. Out of the thousands of possibilities, the composer restricts himself to a key, a time signature, a particular instrumentation and a particular form. You can't get more restrictive than a fugue, where some of the very notes you choose, once you have begun, are more-or-less determined for you. And yet the fugue has given us some of the finest music ever composed. The restrictions of minimalist music are no different, IMO, than the restrictions any composer faces when he writes a fugue or a symphony. It is just that in minimalist music, the restrictions are of a different kind.


----------



## Herzeleide

Elgarian said:


> I'm not wanting here to continue the discussion (I've nothing further to say), but I do want to restore my sentence to its original context - which wasn't directly concerned with Herzeleide's musical interests, but was a general observation that lost its meaning by the editing:
> 
> "But it's so easy to lose sight of the vastness of art; of the enormous breadth of responses to the human condition that it expresses, evokes or inspires. Why try to make it smaller, more restrictive?"


Generalised observations on unnamed people's parochialism is far from helpful.


----------



## Herzeleide

Tapkaara said:


> So, as far as Mr. Sibelius goes, he is not a minimalist per se, but these types of techniques were undeniably a part of his arsenal. And I do not think it is at all insulting to him to admit he used minimalist techniques. Anyone who does not belive he used such techniques is just being stubborn for the sake of this argument.


No, you're just making a failed attempt at giving minimalism credibility. As far as I'm concerned Sibelius's harmonic language and impeccable motivic and formal logic have nothing to do with minimalism, and isolated examples where he repeats something is far from convincing. Similarly, _moto perpetuo_ movements from the common-practice period may feature undeviating semiquavers but still not be minimalist.


----------



## Herzeleide

Lang said:


> It is great to see intelligent and reasoned discourse. It's why I come to this site.


It's true though. Glass sold his soul. Him and other minimalists are millionaires because their music is cheap and tacky, unlike reasonable contemporary classical composers.


----------



## Herzeleide

Lang said:


> You can't get more restrictive than a fugue, where some of the very notes you choose, once you have begun, are more-or-less determined for you. And yet the fugue has given us some of the finest music ever composed.


If you knew a reasonable amount of Bach's fugues, you would know that his approach was anything but dogmatic and strict.



Lang said:


> The restrictions of minimalist music are no different, IMO, than the restrictions any composer faces when he writes a fugue or a symphony.


Writing a fugue or symphony to a reasonable standard requires an extremely high level of musicianship.

Minimalism requires you to copy and paste on a music software programme.


----------



## Lang

Herzeleide said:


> If you knew a reasonable amount of Bach's fugues, you would know that his approach was anything but dogmatic and strict.
> 
> Writing a fugue or symphony to a reasonable standard requires an extremely high level of musicianship.
> 
> Minimalism requires you to copy and paste on a music software programme.


Well, you produce something as good as Steve Reich and I will give your opinion some credence.


----------



## Lang

Herzeleide said:


> If you knew a reasonable amount of Bach's fugues, you would know that his approach was anything but dogmatic and strict.


I said nothing about dogmatism or strictness. In fact that is why I went to the effort of using the term 'more-or-less'.

When I was a music student my teacher once took me through a Bach two-part invention. He began with the first note, and then told me exactly why each note of the piece was where it was. It was an interesting experience.

But dogmatism is no more an element of minimalism than it is of Bach's fugues.


----------



## Herzeleide

Lang said:


> Well, you produce something as good as Steve Reich and I will give your opinion some credence.


That's the oldest recourse to take during a debate that I've ever seen. 

And yes, I do of course find my own music infinitely more interesting than Reich's.


----------



## Herzeleide

Lang said:


> I said nothing about dogmatism or strictness.





Lang said:


> You can't get more restrictive than a fugue,


Restrictive/strict/dogmatic - they're synonymous.


----------



## Lang

Herzeleide said:


> That's the oldest recourse to take during a debate that I've ever seen.
> 
> And yes, I do of course find my own music infinitely more interesting than Reich's.


No it isn't. Because I am challenging a claim that you made. You said that all you needed to produce minimalist music was some software. Ok - I am calling you on it. Do it.


----------



## Herzeleide

Lang said:


> No it isn't. Because I am challenging a claim that you made. You said that all you needed to produce minimalist music was some software. Ok - I am calling you on it. Do it.


Why would I waste my time producing something I dislike?

Anyway, this is wholly irrelevant. You've given up trying to defend minimalism and are just indulging in an ad hominem attack on me.


----------



## Herzeleide

Tapkaara said:


> I think there is something in minimalism...the repetitions (some would say ad nauseum) of musical cells/fragments...that I find, perhaps hypnotic.


I was music to stimulate and excite my senses, not send them to sleep. I'll shoot up on heroin or take sleeping tablets (any anaesthetics, i.e. not _aesthetic_) if I want that.


----------



## Elgarian

Lang said:


> I would say that is what every composer does as soon as he sets pen to paper. Indeed, it is the very basis of the musical art. Out of the thousands of possibilities, the composer restricts himself to a key, a time signature, a particular instrumentation and a particular form. You can't get more restrictive than a fugue, where some of the very notes you choose, once you have begun, are more-or-less determined for you. And yet the fugue has given us some of the finest music ever composed. The restrictions of minimalist music are no different, IMO, than the restrictions any composer faces when he writes a fugue or a symphony. It is just that in minimalist music, the restrictions are of a different kind.


Well yes of course; you could say the same about a sonnet, or indeed any work of art - the creation of which obviously occurs within certain limits. That's not at issue here, and isn't what I was talking about.

I was talking about the dangers of adopting too narrow a critical or prescriptive approach to what art can be, or can achieve, in expressing, extending, and enhancing the human condition. If you recall, I was responding to a particular comment by Fergus, but my comments have since been removed from that context, and I've no wish to defend them outside it. (I tried to restore it to some degree, but clearly didn't go far enough.)


----------



## Elgarian

Herzeleide said:


> Generalised observations on unnamed people's parochialism is far from helpful.


My general advice to unnamed people who adopt a high-minded (some might say pompous) tone, while seeking to guard the forum against my 'unhelpful' comments, is that it's a good idea to:

(a) understand, first, what I am saying; and 
(b) get your grammar right.


----------



## PostMinimalist

A gentle hint to all concerned: Maybe now is the time to calm down. 
This thread has degenerated into petty bickering and it wouldn't surprise me at all if it gets closed.
Everyone has a point to make here, but let's make it in a polite and civilized manner least we be silenced by higher powers.


----------



## Tapkaara

post-minimalist said:


> A gentle hint to all concerned: Maybe now is the time to calm down.
> This thread has degenerated into petty bickering and it wouldn't surprise me at all if it gets closed.
> Everyone has a point to make here, but let's make it in a polite and civilized manner least we be silenced by higher powers.


I quite agree! Well put.

Herzeliede, you are reluctant to admit to the minimalist tendencies in Sibelius because 1) You like Sibelius and 2) you don't like minimalism. From someone who has never made an objective comment on music (like yourself), I am surprised you are letting your personal tastes taint your normally "spot on" analysis of music.

While Sibelius was by no means a minimalist composer, at least not in the vein of a Glass, Adams or Reich, I think there is no doubting his minimalist _tendencies _in certain works. And I don't think it suffices to say "well, it's just REPETITION, it's not MINIMALISM." All music has some measure of repetition. But in works like En Saga or Tapiola (which I presume you have not heard), the "repetitive" nature of the music is fairly astounding. What is more, En Saga is right at the start of his career, and Tapiola right at the end. Now, while there were several works in between that do not contain as much theme repetition as these works, there we also several others: The Wood Nymph, Night Ride and Sunrise, In Memoriam and Pohjola's Daughter, just to name a few more, and again, I presume you have not heard these.

And by the way, I don't see how you can't call Sibelius at least a "minimalist of sorts" when his final expresion of the symphony, his 7th, is a compact and succinct work in one condensed movement in about 20 miunutes. This is a type of "minimalism" that he was striving for ever since his 1st and finally achieved. In many ways, Sibelius was certainly in a "less is more" mood at several points in his career.

So, because I do not like back-and-forth discussions that degenerate into nastiness for nastiness's sake, I will let you have the last word on this, as you will no doubt disagree. But, I will say, if I may, for someone with the academic credentials you say you have, I think it such a true lack of pure "objectivity" when you try to deny the theoretical aspects of a certain composer because you personally do not like the particular technique being used. Again, I don't think it is in any way damaging to Sibelius to say he showed a certain tendancy in his music. Even if it is a tendancy of other composers you do not like.


----------



## David C Coleman

I've learnt that it's no use trying to enforce a personal opinion about a particular style of music on this forum. 
Everybody has likes and dislikes regarding musical tastes. Someone likes Baroque and someone else dislikes the Romantic era and so forth. And somebody else thinks Boulez is the bees knees etc..

So to say that Minimilism sucks is just a personal opinion (Personally I like some of it). It's just part of lifes rich pattern I guess...


----------



## Tapkaara

David C Coleman said:


> I've learnt that it's no use trying to enforce a personal opinion about a particular style of music on this forum.
> Everybody has likes and dislikes regarding musical tastes. Someone likes Baroque and someone else dislikes the Romantic era and so forth. And somebody else thinks Boulez is the bees knees etc..
> 
> So to say that Minimilism sucks is just a personal opinion (Personally I like some of it). It's just part of lifes rich pattern I guess...


I quite agree. Disagreements on what's great and what's not are what these forums are about. But when disagreements of opinion become "you're an idiot", it becomes personal and thus an unappealing experience.


----------



## nickgray

I don't like minimalism, it... yeah, it sucks, I don't know how else to explain this  I view this err.. "genre" more as a lazy composer's genre than "stuff with lots of repetitions" kind of thing. It seems to me that "lots of repetition" is just an excuse for inability to write something more complicated. It would've been one thing if this minimalism wasn't associated with classical music, but since it is... meh, it sucks. Just hide it under the "neoclassic" (meaning not neoclassicism, but, you know, that semi-electronic stuff) carpet and forget about it.


----------



## David C Coleman

nickgray said:


> I don't like minimalism, it... yeah, it sucks, I don't know how else to explain this  I view this err.. "genre" more as a lazy composer's genre than "stuff with lots of repetitions" kind of thing. It seems to me that "lots of repetition" is just an excuse for inability to write something more complicated. It would've been one thing if this minimalism wasn't associated with classical music, but since it is... meh, it sucks. Just hide it under the "neoclassic" (meaning not neoclassicism, but, you know, that semi-electronic stuff) carpet and forget about it.


But that's your own opinion!! Yes I agree with you..But a lot of people like it...I could say that a lot of Pop music is just a load repetitive nonsense, especially dance, trance etc..Just a simple phrase repeated over and over again..but IF I said IT IS A LOAD OF RUBBISH!..I would have lots of people jumping down my throat. And I don't want that...


----------



## nickgray

> But that's your own opinion!!


Um, well, uhhhh.. obviously? Of course it's my own opinion - people may like it, people may not. Again, obviously, every opinion is subjective in the end - some are just more subjective than others (which is the case with mine).


----------



## Tapkaara

Having opinions in this forum is dangerous. If your opinion differs from someone else who is more educated in music than you (there always seems to be someone), than you are an idiot with no taste and lack of "understanding."


----------



## nickgray

Tapkaara said:


> Having opinions in this forum is dangerous. If your opinion differs from someone else who is more educated in music than you (there always seems to be someone), than you are an idiot with no taste and lack of "understanding."


It's not an unusual thing to encounter. Most people (with better-understanding-of-life-etc attitude) like to use the "age card" - its sort of frequent to encounter some ~20y.o. arguing/talking with 30+y.o. and suddenly 30y.o. pulls the "age card" out of his virtual pocket, however "strangely" enough the age almost-almost-almost never has anything to do with the discussion topic... Obviously same thing with music - tons of musically educated people like different types of music, it's just that some of them think that their music is just better for reason x, and it's a fact. Rather strange, imo.


----------



## Tapkaara

There's no doubting the amount of "musically educated" folks in this forum. And many of them like to flash their credentials whenever appropriate to trump someone else's argument or opinion. But it is interesting how even the enlightened and educated in here disagree with each other. I think this proves a very valuable point. No matter your credentials or background, you are likely not more "right" than anyone lese in this forum, just of a different mind. This futher proves, I think, the ultimately subjective nature of this art form.

And while I do not carry the weightest background in music theory, at least compared to many in here I am sure, that should not mean that I am any less qualified to have an opinion one way or another on a composer, piece of work, or school of thought. I like minimalism, so what? Should that really mean I'm some sort of stooge?

I think that just about anyone in this forum is here because they know classical music better than the average Joe, and that's saying a lot...there are not multitudes of us, at least compared to your pop crowds, for example. We are all here because we all enjoy classical music, but when will we grow up and figure out that we will not always agree on the finer points?

Maybe I am being naive, but can't we respectfully enagage each other's differences without mounting our high horses and PERSONALLY coming down on those whose "educated" opinions differ from our own?


----------



## nickgray

> And many of them like to flash their credentials whenever appropriate to trump someone else's argument or opinion


Yep... If there aren't any exotic scales, extensive use of obscure time signatures, some particular use (obsucre scary word usually used here) of harmony - this music sucks, just because of that fact - "omg, it never uses 15/16 sig. in this score, this music sux"... a bit exaggerated example. The fact that you know what the hell tristan chord or neapolitan sixth are doesn't automatically transform you into a uber music guru that have a "perfect" opinion about everything. Just my 5 cents... Obviously slightly exaggerated


----------



## David C Coleman

Is not the ultimate judge of music the listener, the consumer? I mean composers and pop song writers alike need to make a living out of what they do (If, of course music is their primary profession). They don't primarily write music just for their own peer group to snuggle around a drink and a cigarette in somebody's studio or flat or something and admire each others work. They need to get it out there for the public to hear and buy. Unfortunately theres a lot of red tape to get round I guess. But there needs to be a balance between commercialism and personal expression..


----------



## Bach

> Herzeliede, you are reluctant to admit to the minimalist tendencies in Sibelius because 1) You like Sibelius and 2) you don't like minimalism. From someone who has never made an objective comment on music (like yourself), I am surprised you are letting your personal tastes taint your normally "spot on" analysis of music.


I find it strange that Herzeliede receives so much disapprobation when his musical comments are so frequently apt and well informed.


----------



## Tapkaara

Bach said:


> I find it strange that Herzeliede receives so much disapprobation when his musical comments are so frequently apt and well informed.


Bach, there is a very astute commentator behind those sunglasses.


----------



## jhar26

Tapkaara said:


> Having opinions in this forum is dangerous. If your opinion differs from someone else who is more educated in music than you (there always seems to be someone), than you are an idiot with no taste and lack of "understanding."


Which is why I sometimes wonder why I even am a member here. Why bother to post opinions on things when you know that you run the risk of being ridiculed or get your nose bitten off by someone who thinks that he's immeasurably smarter than you are? I rather watch the bigger egos of the forum fight it out amongst themselves.


----------



## Tapkaara

jhar26 said:


> Which is why I sometimes wonder why I even am a member here. Why bother to post opinions on things when you know that you run the risk of being ridiculed or get your nose bitten off by someone who thinks that he's immeasurably smarter than you are? I rather watch the bigger egos of the forum fight it out amongst themselves.


Yup, and the ringside seats are not hard to get here.


----------



## Guest

So when does minimalism cease to be minimalism ?? what is the immediate next step to take in order to avoid the tag?


----------



## JTech82

I'm pretty surprised this thread has turned into a no holds bard kind of fight. I mean I knew there were people that like it and people that don't like it, but I seriously wasn't expecting this! 

Anyway, I'm glad people are sharing their opinions. I'll admit that I'm not the nicest person in the world when I share my own opinion when it is in regards to something that I dislike, but I understand that we should be more respectful of people.

I'm just trying to take it one step at a time. I have read a lot of these posts and some of them irritate me to no end, but I think it's quite strange that this topic has cultivated this much controversy.

Getting back on topic, I heard some more Reich today. I believe it was a movement from his "Music For 18 Musicians" and hearing this triggered a gag reflection from me, in which, I had to run to the restroom, but thank goodness it was a false alarm.


----------



## Guest

Jtech, you really must learn to control your self, and Losec is good if you suffer a lot of gaging and puking.lol


----------



## JTech82

Andante said:


> Jtech, you really must learn to control your self, and Losec is good if you suffer a lot of gaging and puking.lol


 I usually show a lot of self-restraint, but for some reason Reich just makes me puke.


----------



## Elgarian

jhar26 said:


> Why bother to post opinions on things when you know that you run the risk of being ridiculed or get your nose bitten off by someone who thinks that he's immeasurably smarter than you are?


Good sense, as ever, from jhar26. What a travesty of real discussion these exchanges become, so often. I come here because I love music and want to talk about it and exchange ideas - and I mean, here, a _real_ exchange of ideas, where people with varying opinions can discuss them intelligently and with due tolerance and regard for those with whom they disagree. That's often where we can learn most, in my experience. But it simply isn't possible to do that here, except on very rare occasions, and time after time opportunities for really valuable exchange are lost.

The impression I get from the (far too many) vituperative, arrogant, and intolerant posts I read is that sometimes a considerable knowledge of music is indeed displayed, but with very little evidence of any understanding of what music is actually _for_. It seems to hold no intrinsic value except as the basis for a kind of knockabout competitive pseudo-intellectual sport, providing opportunities for self-aggrandisement.



> Which is why I sometimes wonder why I even am a member here.


Exactly. There comes a time when it's necessary just to walk away, and I think it's getting very close.


----------



## Herzeleide

Elgarian said:


> My general advice to unnamed people who adopt a high-minded (some might say pompous) tone, while seeking to guard the forum against my 'unhelpful' comments, is that it's a good idea to:
> 
> (a) understand, first, what I am saying; and
> (b) get your grammar right.


You've proven you can take recourse to observing the irrelevant in my posts. Now can you prove that you have an argument? Or does it satisfy you to indite aimless posts of a sanctimonious nature?


----------



## Herzeleide

Tapkaara said:


> And by the way, I don't see how you can't call Sibelius at least a "minimalist of sorts" when his final expresion of the symphony, his 7th, is a compact and succinct work in one condensed movement in about 20 miunutes. This is a type of "minimalism" that he was striving for ever since his 1st and finally achieved. In many ways, Sibelius was certainly in a "less is more" mood at several points in his career.


Deary me. Credibility is defenestrated when one tries to claim that a symphony, by dint of its moderate length, is minimalist! In such an instance the meaning of the word 'minimalist' is totally abandoned. Must I point out all the pieces of music that are condensed but which are anything but minimalist? I have mentioned this before, but in certain composers, there is more thought, attention to detail and content in one minute of their music than in a twenty-minute piece by a minimalist composer!

Your entire premise is wholly speculative and musicologically implausible: the equivalent of Hans Keller finding 'strict serial technique' in the music of Mozart!



Tapkaara said:


> But, I will say, if I may, for someone with the academic credentials you say you have,


What, busking on my ukulele for pennies to feed my drug habit?


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> I find it strange that Herzeliede receives so much disapprobation when his musical comments are so frequently apt and well informed.


Thanks.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Personally, I appreciate minimalism, even though it's definitely not my favourite classical genre. There's a lot of meaning to the motto 'less is more'. Here I am talking primarily about the so-called 'holy minimalism', in works of Pärt, Tavener, and Górecki (although by him I know only the famous Symphony of Sorrowful Songs). 

Why should we have large masses of orchestral power and flashing colours at all times? Minimalism offers a pleasant alternative. It is close to many people because it is simpler, more instinctive and more 'ancient' or primordial than most other genres of classical music. Yes, there is a lot of repetition, but take folksong - also a lot of repetition, especially in African music. Yet still this music communicates a lot. There is something in human nature that makes minimalism likeable and meaningful to many people.


----------



## Herzeleide

Elgarian said:


> The impression I get from the (far too many) vituperative, arrogant, and intolerant posts I read is that sometimes a considerable knowledge of music is indeed displayed, but with very little evidence of any understanding of what music is actually _for_. It seems to hold no intrinsic value except as the basis for a kind of knockabout competitive pseudo-intellectual sport, providing opportunities for self-aggrandisement.


Well I admit my curmudgeonly side appears here frequently.

I have however consistently defended music I like and love. But it appears that this is less conspicuous.

Anyway, suffice to say, music is for listening, absorbing and edifying one's soul, but describing such experiences ends up like the bad prose-poetry that nineteenth-century composers were apt to write when describing how pieces they liked made them feel (imaginary diegesis and all). It's all a bit candid and useless.


----------



## Herzeleide

Lisztfreak said:


> Why should we have large masses of orchestral power and flashing colours at all times? Minimalism offers a pleasant alternative.


False dichotomy.



Lisztfreak said:


> There is something in human nature that makes minimalism likeable and meaningful to many people.


It's the same with pop music.

Sorry, but such observations are not illuminating.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Elgarian said:


> Good sense, as ever, from jhar26.


Hear, hear!


Elgarian said:


> The impression I get from the (far too many) vituperative, arrogant, and intolerant posts I read is that sometimes a considerable knowledge of music is indeed displayed, but with very little evidence of any understanding of what music is actually _for_. It seems to hold no intrinsic value except as the basis for a kind of knockabout competitive pseudo-intellectual sport, providing opportunities for self-aggrandisement.


The William Blake couplet "The truth that's told with bad intent/Beats all the lies you can invent" used to be in my signature field. Should I bring it back again? I don't know... I kind of like the one I have now!

:Aside: Ever have the situation when someone's hostile reaction to some artistic endeavor piques your curiosity even further... kind of an "Eduard Hanslick Memorial Reverse Barometer Award" nominee?


Elgarian said:


> There comes a time when it's necessary just to walk away, and I think it's getting very close.


For heaven's sake, I hope not. I still find it easy enough to avoid the "slanging" around these parts.

P.S.: Some of us are _grateful_ for the posts that remind us of the importance of adhering to the Terms of Service. (I've said it before) those unable to follow the Terms of Service (here, the relevant one is to state disagreements in _a civil and respectful manner_) are invited to return to the activites they pursued prior to their arrival on this board.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Herzeleide said:


> It's the same with pop music.


Exactly. That is why there is nothing bad about people listening to pop music. Let them! In the very end of ends, it all comes to a combination of your character + personal taste.


----------



## Herzeleide

Oooo hohoho_ho_... by all means waste your money on it, Chi.


----------



## Nicola

Elgarian said:


> There comes a time when it's necessary just to walk away, and I think it's getting very close.


All I can say is that you may be expecting too much from music forums, as not everybody has your sense of fair play and decency. As you correctly say, many people use places like this simply to mouth off their "expertise", however limited and immature it may be. I just accept it and laugh at the lot of them. It doesn't pay to be too sensitive, and you can't expect the place to moderated merely to suit your sensitivities, as it would then become so over-regulated that nobody would bother coming here.

In due course all the really big "gobs" get banned: Gustav, Manuel, Jtech, Newman, Corkin, Kiely, to mention just some of the obvious former members who grossly over-stayed their welcome before eventually being banned, in my view all long overdue cases.

Maybe you'll like your new home at another forum whose name I won't mention. It is possibly just as well for you that they recently got rid of the some of their hooligans too, as I reckon you would have been a target given your musical tastes and style. Their variety of nutters made the bunch of school kids here look like mere pussy cats, as you wouldn't believe how rude and aggressive that place used to be. There are still some highly sarcastic types lurking around over there so you might watch your back.


----------



## PostMinimalist

I think Elgarian was meaning 'walk away from this thread,' rather than abandon the forum all together. Right?
There is a civilised (so far) discussion of minimalism going on down the street in another thread, may be that is where I and others are posting interesting stuff on Minimalism at the momment, trying to stay objective about things.


----------



## Mirror Image

Nicola said:


> All I can say is that you may be expecting too much from music forums, as not everybody has your sense of fair play and decency. As you correctly say, many people use places like this simply to mouth off their "expertise", however limited and immature it may be. I just accept it and laugh at the lot of them. It doesn't pay to be too sensitive, and you can't expect the place to moderated merely to suit your sensitivities, as it would then become so over-regulated that nobody would bother coming here.
> 
> In due course all the really big "gobs" get banned: Gustav, Manuel, Jtech, Newman, Corkin, Kiely, to mention just some of the obvious former members who grossly over-stayed their welcome before eventually being banned, in my view all long overdue cases.
> 
> Maybe you'll like your new home at another forum whose name I won't mention. It is possibly just as well for you that they recently got rid of the some of their hooligans too, as I reckon you would have been a target given your musical tastes and style. Their variety of nutters made the bunch of school kids here look like mere pussy cats, as you wouldn't believe how rude and aggressive that place used to be. There are still some highly sarcastic types lurking around over there so you might watch your back.


I disagree with this post. People get banned for stupid reasons. There are obviously rules that we all have to follow, but I think sometimes moderators are a little too harsh in their judgements of who stays and who goes. There are, of course, people who need to go because they bring onto themselves, but there are many who are trying to have conversations with people, but all they get is a different kind of negativity thrown back at them. A negativity that should be more closely examined by the moderators.

It's not a one-way street. There are always two sides to every story. Some people just aren't treated that fairly for whatever reasons. Perhaps they're too upfront and honest with people and this, in turn, makes it seem like they're being negative when they are in fact being honest and truthful.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

I was under the impression that there was a ban on you, JTech82.


----------



## Mirror Image

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> I was under the impression that there was a ban on you, JTech82.


I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Guest

Mirror Image said:


> It's not a one-way street. There are always two sides to every story. Some people just aren't treated that fairly for whatever reasons. Perhaps they're too upfront and honest with people and this, in turn, makes it seem like they're being negative when they are in fact being honest and truthful.


I agree, we all post in our own style, some timid some rude, some so up themselves that it is embarrassing but a bit of banter does no harm, so if you can't stand the heat...........
This is not aimed at any one individual


----------



## Mirror Image

Andante said:


> I agree, we all post in our own style, some timid some rude, some so up themselves that it is embarrassing but a bit of banter does no harm, so if you can't stand the heat...........
> This is not aimed at any one individual


I think a lot of the time people just simply misunderstand other people. They don't know how to deal with that individual so they form their own conclusions about them before they even want to hear their side of the argument.


----------



## Nicola

Mirror Image said:


> I disagree with this post. People get banned for stupid reasons. There are obviously rules that we all have to follow, but I think sometimes moderators are a little too harsh in their judgements of who stays and who goes. There are, of course, people who need to go because they bring onto themselves, but there are many who are trying to have conversations with people, but all they get is a different kind of negativity thrown back at them. A negativity that should be more closely examined by the moderators.
> 
> It's not a one-way street. There are always two sides to every story. Some people just aren't treated that fairly for whatever reasons. Perhaps they're too upfront and honest with people and this, in turn, makes it seem like they're being negative when they are in fact being honest and truthful.


So you disagree with my post? Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about the types of people I believe should be banned, and should have been banned much sooner than they were.

Let's take an example of JTech, who has now thankfully been banned twice, and I therefore assume will not be allowed to return. I make my comments below bearing in mind that this disgraced former member has clearly run foul of the Forum Rules. Furthermore, this person chose an assumed name, and I do not know his real identity. Taking this into account and since I am merely expressing my opinion about him, which opinion do not purport to be facts, I cannot possibly be accused of defamation.

In my opinion, this guy had nothing of any musical value to offer anyone here. He was a big conman, who knew next to nothing about classical music. It was all hot air. He was clueless about anything but one genre of music, and even that was all blather. He couldn't make up his mind whether he liked or disliked particular composers, and sometimes contradicted himself. He bragged about his stupid, one-sided collection.

He was quite a nasty piece of work all round too. He jumped into various threads and did nothing but honk and fart utter drivel all over the place, confusing and de-railing innocent threads. All he did was make rude remarks about other members' tastes in music, and sometimes made personal comments about their drafting skills. This happened time and time again, and he seemed to get away with it. He goaded Yagan Kiely into a retaliatory stance which the latter couldn't control, and the two of them got banned temporarily. He made "friends" with a bunch of people, then tried to manipulate them by pouring sycophantic comments all over them. Some of these people responded like they couldn't see they were being conned.

People like Jtech shouldn't be allowed out of "care" without supervision from a qualified minder, let alone be allowed to run amok among normal decent folk in places like this. I do hope hope we don't ever see him again, but I gather that some really weird types do tend to come back under other names. I can of course say this to you because I'm sure you won't in any way misconstrue my comments as applying to you, as you are clearly a different person from JTech.


----------



## Bach

I thought he was pretty funny, to be honest..


----------



## Mirror Image

Nicola said:


> So you disagree with my post? Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about the types of people I believe should be banned, and should have been banned much sooner than they were.
> 
> Let's take an example of JTech, who has now thankfully been banned twice, and I therefore assume will not be allowed to return. I make my comments below bearing in mind that this disgraced former member has clearly run foul of the Forum Rules. Furthermore, this person chose an assumed name, and I do not know his real identity. Taking this into account and since I am merely expressing my opinion about him, which opinion do not purport to be facts, I cannot possibly be accused of defamation.
> 
> In my opinion, this guy had nothing of any musical value to offer anyone here. He was a big conman, who knew next to nothing about classical music. It was all hot air. He was clueless about anything but one genre of music, and even that was all blather. He couldn't make up his mind whether he liked or disliked particular composers, and sometimes contradicted himself. He bragged about his stupid, one-sided collection.
> 
> He was quite a nasty piece of work all round too. He jumped into various threads and did nothing but honk and fart utter drivel all over the place, confusing and de-railing innocent threads. All he did was make rude remarks about other members' tastes in music, and sometimes made personal comments about their drafting skills. This happened time and time again, and he seemed to get away with it. He goaded Yagan Kiely into a retaliatory stance which the latter couldn't control, and the two of them got banned temporarily. He made "friends" with a bunch of people, then tried to manipulate them by pouring sycophantic comments all over them. Some of these people responded like they couldn't see they were being conned.
> 
> People like Jtech shouldn't be allowed out of "care" without supervision from a qualified minder, let alone be allowed to run amok among normal decent folk in places like this. I do hope hope we don't ever see him again, but I gather that some really weird types do tend to come back under other names. I can of course say this to you because I'm sure you won't in any way misconstrue my comments as applying to you, as you are clearly a different person from JTech.


I think it's easy for you to form an opinion when you fail to see it from any other angle but your own.

I think, yes, there are some people that deserve to banned, because they can't get along with anybody, but there are somebody that make that very hard to do. As I said, there's always a two-way street.

Perhaps people shouldn't be so sensitive and overly emotional all the time?


----------



## Tapkaara

Well, maybe we can all start to move on and get back to polite, if sometimes spirited exchanges of ideas and opinions.

But I do hope that the mods here wake up a little bit and be more quick to watch the nastiness that comes from the keyboards of some of our members. Mind you, everyone should be granted the chance to rant and rave every now and again, but when we have members that are nasty for the sake of being nasty, it makes members (like myself) wonder why I bother on forums where abuse is the order of the day.

The longer this type of activity is allowed to continue, the moderators won't have a forum to watch over as everyone will be gone. So I'm glad to see things are looking up.


----------



## Bach

I love abuse. S&M baby. 

Tappy, you're a bellend.


----------



## handlebar

I have come to this thread late and will turn and leave as I don't want to get into any flaming wars.  So back I go to civilization 

Jim


----------



## Tapkaara

A bellend? I'm hoping that's a good thing...?


----------



## Bach

Fun British word, they'll love it in San Diego. Urban Dictionary is your friend. http://www.urbandictionary.com/


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> Fun British word, they'll love it in San Diego. Urban Dictionary is your friend. http://www.urbandictionary.com/


I love the Urban Dictionary. I always loved trying to keep up with the Jones'. Did I use that phrase right?


----------



## Tapkaara

Well, I will take being called a "bellend" as a compliment.


----------



## JoeGreen

the only definition I could get was from urban dictionary...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bellend

You gotta love british slang.


----------



## Bach

Can't say I'm familiar with that little gem, Mirror..


----------



## JoeGreen

Bach said:


> Fun British word, they'll love it in San Diego. Urban Dictionary is your friend. http://www.urbandictionary.com/


I don't know how easily I can cruise down Skyline, and tell them to use it. 

Okay back on topic. Go.


----------



## Tapkaara

JoeGreen said:


> I don't know how easily I can cruise down Skyline, and tell them to use it.
> 
> Okay back on topic. Go.


Skyline?? Hahahaha...wow, you really are from San Diego..!


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> Can't say I'm familiar with that little gem, Mirror..


I'm not sure where I heard it either, Bach, but I think it's one of those phrases that these Hollywood pimps always use. Umm...not that I would know anything about being a pimp.


----------



## JoeGreen

Tapkaara said:


> Skyline?? Hahahaha...wow, you really are from San Diego..!


whada tell ya?


----------



## Bach

A city that is blessed by God himself... repeatedly.
I want to go back to San Diego and stay there, permanently.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jones - I'm jonesing you right now, gorjus.

Okay, fo rizzle now. Bach on topic.


----------



## Mirror Image

bach said:


> a city that is blessed by god himself... Repeatedly.
> I want to go back to san diego and stay there, permanently.
> 
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jones - i'm jonesing you right now, gorjus.
> 
> Okay, fo rizzle now. Bach on topic.


I love that British wit!


----------



## Tapkaara

Bach said:


> A city that is blessed by God himself... repeatedly.
> I want to go back to San Diego and stay there, permanently.
> 
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jones - I'm jonesing you right now, gorjus.
> 
> Okay, fo rizzle now. Bach on topic.


Come to San Diego, Bach, and this old bellend here will gladly buy you a drink.


----------



## JoeGreen

Bach said:


> A city that is blessed by God himself... repeatedly.
> I want to go back to San Diego and stay there, permanently.
> 
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jones - I'm jonesing you right now, gorjus.
> 
> Okay, fo rizzle now. Bach on topic.


Yeah Bach, will be glad to have you here.


----------



## Bach

If I don't get onto the postgrad course at Berkeley, then I'd seriously consider UC San Diego.


----------



## Tapkaara

I can see it now, Joe Green, bach and Tapkaara sitting in a coffee house on Adams Ave. discussing col legno and tone clusters...


----------



## Bach

Sounds superb. I want it now.


----------



## JoeGreen

Bach said:


> If I don't get onto the postgrad course at Berkeley, then I'd seriously consider UC San Diego.


I hear UCSD has quite the department when it comes to contemporary, electro-acoustic, and all that good stuff.


----------



## Nicola

Mirror Image said:


> I think it's easy for you to form an opinion when you fail to see it from any other angle but your own.
> 
> I think, yes, there are some people that deserve to banned, because they can't get along with anybody, but there are somebody that make that very hard to do. As I said, there's always a two-way street.
> 
> Perhaps people shouldn't be so sensitive and overly emotional all the time?


Me sensitive and overly emotional? You've got to be kidding. My main motive in contributing to this totally useless thread was to try to persuade Elgarian to think twice before leaving this Forum and throwing all his eggs into that other Forum he recently joined that shall remain nameless. I have seen the most goddam awful fights over there in the past, which I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy were they ever to recur. For some inexplicable reason they used to have it in for Elgar fans. Things appear to thing under better control at the moment but perhaps it's not surprising given that they currently have more Mods than members.

I must say it's so much nicer chatting to you, Mirror, rather than that awful character, JTech, I was referring to previously. But before you get any ideas in that directiion, don't ask me to be your "friend" as I don't buy all that nonsense. I was brought up properly, you see, and don't respond to cheap ofers like that. It'll cost you a Porsche and a 5* vacation in Hawaii before I'd consider accepting. And even then, I'd have to check out you're not that scoundrel, JTech, in disguise.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Mirror Image said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about.


http://www.talkclassical.com/1006-latest-purchases-45.html#post46919

And yet you are looking forward to listening that set JTech82 purchased?


----------



## Bach

Well, come on - let's give the bloke a chance..


----------



## Herzeleide

Is Nicola Gorm Less's wife?


----------



## Mirror Image

Nicola said:


> Me sensitive and overly emotional? You've got to be kidding. My main motive in contributing to this totally useless thread was to try to persuade Elgarian to think twice before leaving this Forum and throwing all his eggs into that other Forum he recently joined that shall remain nameless. I have seen the most goddam awful fights over there in the past, which I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy were they ever to recur. For some inexplicable reason they used to have it in for Elgar fans. Things appear to thing under better control at the moment but perhaps it's not surprising given that they currently have more Mods than members.
> 
> I must say it's so much nicer chatting to you, Mirror, rather than that awful character, JTech, I was referring to previously. But before you get any ideas in that directiion, don't ask me to be your "friend" as I don't buy all that nonsense. I was brought up properly, you see, and don't respond to cheap ofers like that. It'll cost you a Porsche and a 5* vacation in Hawaii before I'd consider accepting. And even then, I'd have to check out you're not that scoundrel, JTech, in disguise.


You keep naming this "other" forum. What is this "other" forum you speak of?

By the way, I would never ask somebody who takes themselves way too seriously to be my friend, so don't worry about it. You're not worthy of my friendship.


----------



## Tapkaara

Something seems fishy here...


----------



## Krummhorn

We seem to have strayed way off the thread topic. 
Seems this thread has lost interest and has run its due course.


----------

