|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
104.58.212.61
In Reply to: RE: "Fruit fly posts" Effeminization of discretion and good taste; let it stand. posted by jdaniel@jps.net on October 29, 2015 at 08:55:48
>>"Fruit fly posts" Effeminization of discretion and good taste;<<
>>Classic ad hominem. Not the behaviour of someone who is confident in his claims/arguments.<<
WHAT AD HOMINEM attack?????????????
Listen, homeboy. If I want to attack you, I'll come at you with full force. You'll know it; no question about it, no secret codey weasel words.
Das how I roll -- you feel me -- Homes?
What part of my post was some feminized ad hominem attack? Fly? Insect? The image of an flying insect - the common fly being the most common type - harrassing a human, or any large animal further up the food chain - has been used as a metaphor for trivial irritants since the DAWN OF HUMANITY!!!
Fruit flies, and all flies, as with most animals on the planet, come in male and female pairs. How is using a flying insect analogy "effeminization"??????? Are insects now considered to be all females???
If so, I've got a rude awakening for you, Jiminy. Cockroaches reproduce in the billions. They can only do that with male and female pairs.
Is this all news to you? Is basic biology something unknown to you? Are you even aware of the addage "...the birds and the bees..."?
Jeez, this place sure attracts a lot of abberant types. Insects = feminization. Unbelievable.
Apparently, to YOU, a fruit fly means something else. If so, whatever the **k it means, it's local to your little circle of whomever you call your associates. I can assure you that I used the analogy to indicate a flying, buzzing, trivial irritant -----NOT SOMETHING ELSE -- whatever YOU may think it may be.
********************BUT*******************
That's not the end of the story. We're not done yet.
YOU - the apparent innocent, pure-as-driven-snow victum of insect insults, actually fired the first shot of a REAL ad hominem attack, and you did it in a greasy loser kind of way, when you weakly tried to deflect away the attention from your lack of grasp of Beethoven's cannon by alleging that I collect boxed sets, and as such, I was a neophite.
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/music/messages/21/217375.html
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Or - does that also have some other weird ad hominem meaning for you?
N. Thelman, SSI
Follow Ups:
Jeez. I used to run into EXACTLY this sort of this 10 years ago, when this place was filled with music dummies. Yes - dummies. There's no better word for them. Those folks just weren't educated musically. But, each and every one of them had stubbornly held opinions. They'd read a crap load of liner notes, jumped to conclusions on the basis of that, and filled in the yawning gaps in their knowledge with crap they made up.
I'd post something, such as what I've posted above, and I'd get exactly JDaniels's sort of loud, raging response - 100% missing my point or just being 100% wrong.
After I'd explain the whole error to them, they'd respond with even MORE rage and stubborn insistence on their untenable and erroneous positions. There was one enormously lengthy thread where I'd corrected a rock n roller about his erroneous attempts at harmonic analysis. I gave him the correct answer. For weeks, he shot back post after increasingly hysterical, angry post desperately trying to assert his erroneous ideas and save face.
One particular handful was called Rob. He was from Amsterdam. You couldn't convince him of anything, no matter how wrong he was [which he was most of the time]. I understand that he eventually killed himself. No - I didn't lead him to it.
N. Thelman, SSI
Is Beethoven's 4th more popular or recognizable than his 5th? No.
Is his 8th more popular than his 5th? No.
Is his 2nd? No.
Do composers sometimes defer the tonic or weaken the final cadence in order to make a psychological point? Yes.
Are there Academics who are supportive of the Romantic/post-Romantic era? Yes.
Have there always been? Yes.
Are my retorts indicative of a vast and knowledge of--and comfort with--the genre? Yes.
Any disagreement?
> > Is Beethoven's 4th more popular or recognizable than his 5th? No.
Is his 8th more popular than his 5th? No.
Is his 2nd? No. < <
Reply: Less popular? Arguably. Less well known to the classical listener? NO. You're equating popularity with familiarity. And, even then, really, the whole Nine are so popular - TO CLASSICAL LISTENERS, not motorcycle driving Jesse James - that's it's absurd to make much distinction. They're not "less well known" to the classical music listening audience. It's less well known, if known at all, to the typical Red Bull guzzling millenial. But, they're outside the focus of your thread, as they should be.
You could've saved yourself a world of trouble if you said "Let's listen to the slightly less popular members of the Beethoven Nine". That'd have shown that you knew what you were talking about, and had something interesting to add to our appreciation.
See the difference?
> > Do composers sometimes defer the tonic or weaken the final cadence in order to make a psychological point? Yes. < <
Reply: no argument there. Spot on, and a very good point. Of course [and yet again], that wasn't the point I was making. My point was that a conservative such as Stanford would be unlikely not to resolve to the tonic chord, as it was the last and final chord and note of a huge composition. And, he didn't use some other, more typical method of avoiding the tonic, had he been so inclined. BTW, even the late Romantics who did avoid a V-I cadences [or any approach to tonic resolution] might steadfastly did so through out a given work, but then provided the final tonic close. Either listen to the Sibelius 5th, or have a look at the score. He assiduously avoided any tonic cadences - until that genius last chord. Genius.
With clarification from all of the other participants in the thread, I now have a better understanding of Stanfords ending, but it still sounds to me like one chord to go to get to the tonic kind of ending.
> > Are there Academics who are supportive of the Romantic/post-Romantic era? Yes. < <
Reply: Today, maybe a few more, especially among the critics. Sure, they're writing in Fanfare and ARG. But, I'm not referring to them at all.
> > Have there always been? Yes. < <
Reply: very few, but the more powerful and published [same thing in the academe] - NO. Just take a look at the old editions of Groves. Or, pick up Aaron Copland's book about music for the general reader. There's tons and tons of material. You're not familiar with it and really out of your depth with this particular topic. There's nothing to be gained in continued retorts with me, since you just don't have knowlegde in this area. You can't hide it from me - I'm very well versed in it. It's OK. You don't have to know everything - and no one expects you to. I suggest that you use my posts as a springboard to learning more about the issues if you're at all interested, rather than wasting my time and yours in endless and unconstructive retorts. At some point, those grow tiresome, and totally unproductive.
> Are my retorts indicative of a vast and knowledge of--and comfort with--the genre? Yes. < <
Reply: some are and some aren't, but they sure are indicative that my ego's way, way larger than yours.
> > Any disagreement? < <
Reply: those could continue for hours. Tired of typing right now. Blinking out for the night.
N. Thelman, SSI
,
d
N. Thelman, SSI
That's what I mean when I say that you're trying too hard impress.
I doing what comes naturally to me. I think about music all the time. Tons of ideas. I should write a book.
N. Thelman, SSI
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: