Josh Hill goes:
>On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 17:15:27 +0200, Alan Hope
><usenet.identity@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>Josh Hill goes:
>>>Seriously,
>>Seriously, he says. What a ****ing arse.
>>>AFAIK, Mozart did write most of his stuff in his head. He'd
>>>work out his ideas by improvising at the keyboard, develop them in his
>>>head, write them out the next day or whenever -- famously, while
>>>carrying on conversations at parties. So it wasn't a matter of his not
>>>being prodigious, but rather of his wanting to "hone" his legend.
>>Mozart listened to the Miserere of Allegri once and once only, then
>>went home and transcribed it note for note. You don't need to hone a
>>legend like that, you puffed-up tit.
>Dude, you are falling into the habit of being habitually wrong.
>Mozart wrote it out the first time, listened to it again the next
>night, and made some revisions.
Yeah, cos that really makes the world of difference.
>Which of course has nothing to do with my assertion about Mozart,
>except perhaps to illustrate the value of honing a legend and the fact
>that people will do it whether the legendee is involved or not. And
>which, like your failed defense of Beethoven, is based not on any
>knowledge, but your wish to believe something.
You're reading your own opinion into your sources, which do not say
what you claim they say. Look at the words on the page, you dumbass,
not the ones you wish were there.
>As was the case with Beethoven, what I've said here about Mozart is
>based on reading, not wishful thinking.
No, it's based on wishful reading.
>And that, unless you've a
>scholar's knowledge of the composers' lives and can argue at the same
>level as my sources, means that your arguments are fools' errands.
Your sources are ****ing primary-school picture books. They require no
refuting. You are attempting to prove a case, and failing.
>Bach, it's said, used to say that he thought he could play everything
>at sight. One day, a friend of his placed a work with a fiendishly
>difficult passage on the stand of his clavier, knowing that it was
>Bach's habit upon visiting to walk over to the clavier and try out the
>music there. That the composer duly did upon arrival, until he got to
>the fiendishly passage, whereupon the music stopped. Bach backed up,
>the music resumed -- and stopped again at the fiendishly difficult
>passage. "You know, I guess you /can't/ play anything at sight," said
>Bach to his laughing friend.
And this is what you deem a "source"?
>Truth be told, I was kind of disappointed when I read that story, just
>as I was kind of disappointed when I read about Mozart's secret
>sketches.
That's because you're a ****wit who looks only for fairy-stories. If
you find a flaw in one of your fairy-stories, you'll believe the
opposite of the fairy-story, never once realising that the truth of
reality rarely if ever resides in fairy-stories at all, but somewhere
else.
>But -- if it makes the man less of a god, doesn't it make
>him more human? Bach himself used to say that, with hard work, anyone
>could accomplish what he had.
That's Protestant modesty, not any sort of insight. Plainly Bach was
wrong.
>Beethoven too referred to his having
>become what he had through his labor.
Not the sort of comment you'd expect from the puffed-up little
arriviste you were claiming he was earlier.
>The gifts of these men and their
>fellows in genius seem to me even more impressive when seen against
>the background of a talent that, while marvelous by ordinary
>standards, was not infinite, and the hard work that was required to
>develop it.
Who ever said otherwise?
>That being said, my nobility is here, and here (pointing to my mouth
>and crotch). I 'umbly submit that if I'm a puffed-up git, you're the
>veritable Peking Duck of gits, the Araby of arrogance, the Parnassus
>of pomposity. Which roles may, however, reverse if you persist in
>arguing against facts you just don't happen to have read because you
>don't happen to want to believe them.
I piss on your "sources". And on your ability to fathom what the ****
they're telling you.
>I've always considered you my equal in knowledge and intellect,
How dare you.
>have
>in fact sometimes been shy in responding to your posts for that
>reason. But if you start playing Sylvia and criticizing me over
>"angled decks" and claiming that microphones are powered by trucks,
>well, it will be pretty damn hard not to feel puffed up, if only in
>the sense that a fed man would at Auschwitz.
Nice touch, the note of terminal crassness to end on. You have a tin
ear for rhetoric, you know that?
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
|
