Just who is this Norman Lebrecht guy, and how long has he been off his meds...

The Magpie Maestro

I saw persecute this heretic for the things he says!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by HAL 2000:
Oh come on. Heresy? Persecution? Noone is above criticism. Not even John Williams. This critic states his opinion. Have one of your own and be secure enough in it to appreciate that others may have a contrary view.

---

I have my own opnions. And other may have theirs, but I know mine are better. That's how secure I am

Liked the analysis of Horner and Zimmer.

His columns are provocative, though frequently muddled (as this one is). He loves to attack the cronyism and elitism and fiscal irresponsibility that are rampant across the classical music scene. He's also a rather prolific writer--the title of one of his books, Who Killed Classical Music?, tells you pretty much all you need to know about him.

But he knows far more about music in general than any of us, I would bet. His opinions about the state of classical music are almost certainly better founded than you claim. About soundtracks in particular, especially John Williams, he may know less. But how many of you guys actively post about soundtrack composers of the past such as Auric, Arnold, Frankel, or even about the more famous emigres such as Waxman and Rosza?

Lebrecht has written some very interesting articles on classical music.
And you can find most of his columns at guardian.co.uk and other printed and online places.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinko:
What JClark said.

Lebrecht has written some very interesting articles on classical music.
And you can find most of his columns at guardian.co.uk and other printed and online places.

[Message edited by Dinko on 11-21-2002]

---

This thread is really a waste of time, since, all we have to ask is not how interesting or how qualified a critic is, but, how much music has this Lebrecht guy composed, and how many of them are masterpieces? By last count, it's a complete and utter ZERO. So, most certainly everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but their are opinions that presents intelligence and there are opinions that reveals the state of mind of the writer.

Lets put it this way.....

How would you feel to the person who has the opinion that Osama did a great and marvelous thing on September 11?

Well, I have no comments other than that person also become our enemy.

But, hey, he is entitled to his opinion, is he not? Certainly!

But some opinions are just so whacked out, that you do learn about the state of mind of the person, within the subject spoken of.

So, for Lebrecht, let us hear your compositions, since you know so much as to how bad others are.

This reminds me of Roger Ebert, who's opinions are so valued as a movie critic, which I don't care much at all. Yet, he was truly humbled when he directed a movie that sucked so badly.

I've said it before in boards like this, that, music critics are failed composers, and movie critics are failed directors. Because if they're successful, they wouldn't waste their time being critics, but becoming better at what they do. It's as simple as that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SkyMakers:
<Also, opinions are only as good as farts.....nothing more than bursts of hot air.

---

Well then, we're glad you spent so much time sharing yours. The longer the fart, the better?

quote:

---

Well then, we're glad you spent so much time sharing yours. The longer the fart, the better?

---

So long as he doesn't lift the sheets.

quote:

---

How would you feel to the person who has the opinion that Osama did a great and marvelous thing on September 11?

---

What does a 'terrorist' act have to do with a critical analysis of John Williams' score to CoS? The analogy is utterly inane. Are you equating critical thinking with acts of destruction and the slaughter of civilians? But, hey, I guess if the Republicans can make headway following this dictum I suppose you can give it a shot too.

Nevertheless, following a bread recipe doesn't require familiarity with the bio-chemical reaction which makes it rise; however, you would be able to determine why it tasted poorly based on some familiarity of the ingrdients and the chemical process involved. And simply because you have spit it up does not require you to bake a new loaf. After all, some would maintain that the baking of very good bread is more a gift than simply just a process.

Summarily, writing music does not necessarily make you a potentially better critic, nor would learned criticism or infinite knowledge of music necessarily make you a better composer.

Some of the most well written criticism effictively contradicts the obvious (though it most often takes the form of satire), but succeeds as arguement because it is supported by reasonable proofs.

quote:

---

...a half-phrase from Mahler's second symphony melds into a Ravellian sub-theme, twists back into Mahler and off into a Prokofiev-like horn chorus.

---

The thing is, that if he's copying a 'half phrase', a sub theme and his horn parts are only like Prokofiev, I don't know why he's bitching. Sometimes composers unintentionally sound like other composers. Sometimes I speak like my friends, but its only coincidence because I spend my time with them. They've influenced me.

Although, having said that, I should say that I haven't heard of seen CoS, nor am I overly familiar with Mahler, Ravel or Prokofiev, and I don't know John Williams well enough to ask "did you make that bit sound like 'composer X' on purpose?"

quote:

---

What John Williams did to the modern movie score was to reduce it to a string of cliches and strip it of musical character.

---

After reading the article twice, I'm still not sure what it is Lebrecht is trying to say, other than he thinks Williams is a bit of an over rated hack and that film music from the 1930-40s was better?
Oh wait, maybe I do know what he's saying.
All the same, it still seems like a rather vague and muddled way of saying it.

One idea some people like, although not me, is that critics are those who can't produce the material they are criticising. Would this mean that only if we could produce, in this case, 'good' music, would we be allowed to criticise? If so, how would we know it was good? Would we ask the critics?

quote:

---

The word in Hollywood is that Williams is on the wane. He has not won an Oscar since Schindler's List in 1993, and the clothes that he stole from so many classical composers have been fashionably recut by a wave of Williams clones led by the British-educated James Horner (Titanic), the Canadian Howard Shore (Lord of the Rings) and the German Hans Zimmer (Lion King).

---

This statement alone should secure the author's idiocy.

1993? Crimony, he's on the wane! (Guess they better get someone else to conduct at the Oscars next year.) I suppose this would make Jerry Goldsmith wholly extinguished, as well....

SkyMakers' 9/11 vs musical criticism opinion must be the most moronic thing I have ever read.

Peter

Lebrecht wants his cake and to eat it too.
On the one hand, Korngold channels Strauss and it's okay, but if Williams does, it's simply not good. He praises Herrmann, but anyone who likes Herrmann needs to give a listen to the opening measures of the last movement of Mahler's 7th.

His opinion of Shore, I would guess, is based solely on Lord of the Rings. Lebrecht would probably rip Shore a new one if he heard anything by Shore, while still maintaining Shore is groundbreaking.

and just WHO in Hollywood thinks Williams is one the wane?

Hans Zimmer was an "avant-gardist"?!?
Ok it was funny. I'll let it go.

Long before Zimmer's Heldenmusik destroyed the orchestra, he destroyed rock.

ever see the music video "Video Killed the Radio Star" ?
Guess who's playing the keyboards.

SPQR, well said!!!

SkyMakers' 9/11 vs musical criticism opinion must be the most moronic thing I have ever read.

Peter

[Message edited by plindboe on 11-22-2002]<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am putting this comment on the top also as the bottom, something which will be better understood when you read the entire thing.(Which one of you are now going to come up and bring out the comment, "What does guns have anything to do with critical thinking?!" Or, "How can you compare the Nobel Prize with terrorism?!" Or,"I can't believe you regard Williams to be a terrorist?!" Or, "How moronic it is that you compare Williams' thinking as one and the same as a terrorist's thinking?!" Or many other stupid and idiotic comments like that, based on my commentary but had totally been misinterpreted and is brought up just for the sake of it, rather than reading and understanding of what is actually being said.)

I see that you are not able to read, since if you are, you will see that the 9/11 commentary I made were to explain a point, not to compare to Williams.

What happened, did you failed at your english comprehension classes, or are you too arrogant to admit my point? Which I think you are. Next time, learn to read english, and see if you can understand first, before you call someone moronic, because it might just backfires like it has.

Read my post again, and see if you can really understand it properly, and see that I wasn't comparing music and terrorism.

Boy, you really did bad at english didn't you, since articles are written all the time that uses metaphors and similies, but I see you're not educated enough to understand that.

Also, if you think that musical creation and terrorist acts are not computed the same critical thinking, and by thoughts created in your ones' head, then obviously we're of a very different opinion. Remember folks, the creation of a masterpiece and the all the wars that ever was, are cut from the same cloth, that is based on critical thinking. All the many religions existing are also based on the so called critical thinking. But I think some people just miss the understanding that critical thinking are not always used for good.

So please don't spread false notion that critical thinking between Williams' compositions and a terrorist act are any different. And read this carefully so you won't misunderstand my words. I am NOT saying that Williams' critical thinking are based on or the same as a terrorist, not in the least, but what I am saying is that, he or Einstein, and other critical thinkers uses similar computations through the brain. Of course, what we think to be logical is not logical to someone else, and therefore to us, 9/11 is not a logical act, but to a terrorist, it's completely logical.

Hence, it's the interpretation of critical thinking that makes all the difference as to the output thereof.

We will never understand behaviors of terrorism to be something that's logical and comprehensive, because our interpretation of such acts are totally different to those who are brought up to terrorize. Their way of seeing it is screwed up in our eyes, but to them, it's perfectly logical because it serves their religion and their god.

So, are they not exercising critical thinking? Sure they do! Absolutely they do. It's no different than the critical thinking of a Nobel Prize winner, or a filmmaker, etc. However, the filters in which critical thinking are distilled are completely different, hence, we have different results due to it. One is to create, the other is used to destroy.

A gun can be used to save lives or to kill lives. It can liberate or it can shackle, so the same element can have opposite results based on how it's used.

Critical thinking are the same. It's not critical thinking that's lacking or in error, but it's how it is used.

So, Peter, take English classes and learn to use your critical thinking so you can interpret other's comments properly. Right now, you have completely misread my point altogether. You point that I used 9/11 vs musical criticism is completely erroneous, which you'll find if you re-read it again.

If you still can't see, then print it out and take it to your english teacher and let him/her read it. Tell them your interpretation and see if they see it your way, until then, protect yourself from backfiring yourself into a self moron. (;

And as for you SPQR, if you're still confused about the difference with a terrorist act and critical analysis of Williams' work, well, if you read my original post, you'll also learn I wasn't comparing between the two, so I suggest you take some english classes, otherwise, I'd just revert to you had miserably had low grades on english comprehension and refused to extend it.

Also, this post of mine, suggests that terrorism acts and critical analysis are processed by thoughts that came from, in case you don't know, the brain. You can't tell me those terrorists didn't used critical thinking. But you had assumed that critical thinking will always yield good and happy results.

In case you haven't learned, all the wars in history are based on critical thinking. But it's their interpretation of that thinking that makes the difference between good results or bad results.

So, if you think that a critical musical analysis are different than critical destruction of man, then you're simply not right, until you take some classes on modern psychology, which then, perhaps, you might just learn something. (;

So both you and Peter have 2 things to take up on, 1st to learn better english comprehension, and then take psychology classes.

Good luck.

The best.

Reprise. P.S. So, which one of you are now going to come up and bring out the comment, "What does guns have anything to do with critical thinking?!" Or, "How can you compare the Nobel Prize with terrorism?!" Or,"I can't believe you regard Williams to be a terrorist?!" Or, "How moronic it is that you compare Williams' thinking as one and the same as a terrorist's thinking?!" Or many other stupid and idiotic comments like that, based on my commentary but had totally been misinterpreted and is brought up just for the sake of it, rather than reading and understanding of what is actually being said.

quote:

---

What happened, did you failed at your english comprehension classes...

---

Uhm, I don't think I'd be criticising other people's English comprehension skills if I were you.

quote:

---

But, hey, he is entitled to his opinion, is he not? Certainly!
But some opinions are just so whacked out...

---

quote:

---

...but their are opinions that presents intelligence and there are opinions that reveals the state of mind of the writer.

---

Toushe

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but after rereading your original post several times, this is how I interpret it...
you're saying because this Lebrecht is slandering Williams, he becomes our enemy, because even though he is entitled to his opinion, his opinion is wrong, I mean, "whacked out"?

I don't know. This is getting quite confusing and imho, the 9/11 reference wasn't very tactful.
Why couldn't you have just said "I think Lebrecht is a fool and I don't agree with him one little bit. For my money, Williams is just as good and original as he was 20years ago!!" ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>What happened, did you failed at your english comprehension classes...<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhm, I don't think I'd be criticising other people's English comprehension skills if I were you.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>But, hey, he is entitled to his opinion, is he not? Certainly!
But some opinions are just so whacked out...<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>
So he's entitled to an opinion, but it's a "whacked out" opinion? Should I read "whacked out" as "wrong"?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>
...but their are opinions that presents intelligence and there are opinions that reveals the state of mind of the writer. <HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

Toushe

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but after rereading your original post several times, this is how I interpret it...
you're saying because this Lebrecht is slandering Williams, he becomes our enemy, because even though he is entitled to his opinion, his opinion is wrong, I mean, "whacked out"?

I don't know. This is getting quite confusing and imho, the 9/11 reference wasn't very tactful.
Why couldn't you have just said "I think Lebrecht is a fool and I don't agree with him one little bit. For my money, Williams is just as good and original as he was 20years ago!!" ?

[Message edited by Richard on 11-25-2002]

---

Thank you Richard, at least that you had inquired if you understood me or not.

There is still some rectification on your commentary.

Firstly, when I used the example of 9/11, it's to make a strong emotional point that we can feel anger to someone's opinion, and can regard them as more than just opinions, because their opinions are not just opinions in the general sense, but belief to where it's so whacked out, that it affects our lives.

So, the whole point is, there are opinions that become more than opinions, so much so that you and I are affected.

Let me use another example. And I bet you there are going to be people who'll take this off context and get crazy with it.

Richard Wagner had an opinion that Jews are inferior. He hated and put down the music of Mendelsshonn. Hitler also had an opinion of the same, but this time, he acted on his opinion where it affected not just the 6 million he murdered, but the countless lives that resulted from his opinion.

So, that's what I mean that opinions reveal the state of mind of the possessor. And the depending on the opinion, it could be a revelation could be that he/she's whacked out. Now, please don't misconstrue that I mean all opinions are whacked out and they're our enemy. I have never said that, in any of my posts.

I had made sure that I broke the paragraph when I used the example, and then broke it again to return to the topic at hand, so that there are no confusion of mixing my point with the example I used, an example I used for the purposes of exaggerating the emotions in the hope that it will be clearer upon returning to the topic at hand.

Such metaphors and similes are bread and butter of essay writing, debate, or any other communications. That's why we have metaphors and similes, otherwise, such things are not necessary in our language. Jesus used metaphors and similes all the time in His teachings. AND PLEASE DON'T POST AND TELL ME WHAT DOES JESUS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MUSIC, OR JOHN WILLIAMS, OR TELL ME WHAT DOES RELIGION HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC.....HE is referenced to make a point! I have never heard of commentaries by people complaining of Jesus, saying, "What does a Samaritan have anything to do with my neighbor?!"

Plus, I would disagree if I were to say that Lebrecht is a fool, because he is not. He is just stating his own state of mind, which, in his head are correct, but to my mind he is very incorrect, which is my state of mind being revealed. Hey perhaps I am the one that's crazy for thinking that Williams' is a great composer, and if such is true than I would own that I am crazy for thinking of Williams is a great composer. I had even said it to him when I had the chance to interview him one on one.

So, my example of a state of mind being whacked out, is just a point to make of how extreme thoughts can be from a person. I had no intent to say that Lebrecht was whacked out, only to point that such opinions as bin laden's can be whacked out, in which he thinks terrorism is the way to go. But in this case, I feel Lebrecht's reasonings differed so much that his opinions violently clashed with mine. Not to say my opinions are superior, it's just something I feel inside with absolute conviction.

Anyway, you have the right attitude Richard, because you sought for clarification of my post, and not misconstrue. Yes, there are still some misunderstanding on your part, but you asked if it were right. Which I am then able to reply here.

But I am serious about the lack of English comprehension of some people. I wished that they'd print it out and ask their english teacher to see if what I said is what they think I said. But NO, instead, they missed the point altogether and stick with it.

But, just for fun, let's look at your contentious posting once more, shall we:

quote:

---

So, most certainly everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but their are opinions that presents intelligence and there are opinions that reveals the state of mind of the writer.

Lets put it this way.....

How would you feel to the person who has the opinion that Osama did a great and marvelous thing on September 11?

---

We'll ignore the grammar for brevity sake and instead quickly move onto corralling your wayward pontifications.

You open by implying that no one but the musician themselves is capable of offering qualified criticism and that a self-titled, non-composer critic, who, though he/she may be entitled to their opinion, must first pass some litmus test - your now infamous analogy - to ascertain a presumptive mental state based solely on political affiliation.

And then...that's it. Except for proclamating Bin Laden sympathizers enemies of the 'state' you drop the whole kit-and-kaboodle.

So, what's to be drawn from this? Well, apart from concocting an ill-founded relationship between music criticism and acts of terrorism which, in a discussion of one critic's flawed analysis of John Williams' music already reserves you a front row seat under the dunce cap, you don't even bother to entertain us with any proofs of said arguement. Tisk, tisk...

But then you have the gall to question our interprative skills and further sink yourself in a mire of quackery in a subsequent tirade.

To wit: your peculiar (some might say asinine) supposition that because

quote:

---

the creation of a masterpiece and the all the wars that ever was, are cut from the same cloth,

---

****

This is all J.K. Rowling's fault I say...these bloody Potter films are destroying our children's minds!!!

Of course, like many strictly classical music critics he falls prey to approximations when dealing with film music, nevertheless John Williams is no sacred cow, and I won't dispute his analysis of the maestro's style.

But I would take it to come to a different conclusion: John Williams is the great film composer we know precisely because of what he does with all the mentioned influences, how he manages to turn them into his own distinctive voice.

On the other hand, I don't care much for his concert hall works.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SkyMakers:
Also, opinions are only as good as farts.....nothing more than bursts of hot air.

---

SkyMakers' example of excellent communication in English.

quote:

---

This thread is really a waste of time

---

I couldn't agree more.

quote:

---

So, most certainly everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but their are opinions that presents intelligence and there are opinions that reveals the state of mind of the writer.

---

Your opinions, SkyMakers, reveal most clearly that there is no God greater for you than John Williams. I humbly think it's not the most healthiest way to live your life. This is a friendly piece of advice - please do step sometimes off your clouds and put both feet firmly to the ground.

Friendly,
KEN

quote:

---

Next time, learn to read english, and see if you can understand first, before you call someone moronic, because it might just backfires like it has.

---

quote:

---

Such metaphors and similes are bread and butter of essay writing, debate, or any other communications. That's why we have metaphors and similes, otherwise, such things are not necessary in our language. Jesus used metaphors and similes all the time in His teachings.

---

quote:

---

Also, if you think that musical creation and terrorist acts are not computed the same critical thinking, and by thoughts created in your ones' head, then obviously we're of a very different opinion. Remember folks, the creation of a masterpiece and the all the wars that ever was, are cut from the same cloth, that is based on critical thinking.
...
So please don't spread false notion that critical thinking between Williams' compositions and a terrorist act are any different.
...
So, are they not exercising critical thinking? Sure they do! Absolutely they do. It's no different than the critical thinking of a Nobel Prize winner, or a filmmaker, etc.
...
So, if you think that a critical musical analysis are different than critical destruction of man, then you're simply not right

---

I'm not sure if you're trying to imply that you study psychology and have taken some classes about this. If you are, then I strongly advice you to take those classes again, as you obviously didn't understand them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SPQR:
Perhaps if you had read my reply more clearly you would have noted that my response was formed as a question. Because, as is obviously the case, I'm not the only one having difficulty making heads or tails of these spasms of peculiar insight you seem to suffer.

But, just for fun, let's look at your contentious posting once more, shall we:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>So, most certainly everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but their are opinions that presents intelligence and there are opinions that reveals the state of mind of the writer.

Lets put it this way.....

How would you feel to the person who has the opinion that Osama did a great and marvelous thing on September 11?<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

We'll ignore the grammar for brevity sake and instead quickly move onto corralling your wayward pontifications.

You open by implying that no one but the musician themselves is capable of offering qualified criticism and that a self-titled, non-composer critic, who, though he/she may be entitled to their opinion, must first pass some litmus test - your now infamous analogy - to ascertain a presumptive mental state based solely on political affiliation.

And then...that's it. Except for proclamating Bin Laden sympathizers enemies of the 'state' you drop the whole kit-and-kaboodle.

So, what's to be drawn from this? Well, apart from concocting an ill-founded relationship between music criticism and acts of terrorism which, in a discussion of one critic's flawed analysis of John Williams' music already reserves you a front row seat under the dunce cap, you don't even bother to entertain us with any proofs of said arguement. Tisk, tisk...

But then you have the gall to question our interprative skills and further sink yourself in a mire of quackery in a subsequent tirade.

To wit: your peculiar (some might say asinine) supposition that because <BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>the creation of a masterpiece and the all the wars that ever was, are cut from the same cloth,<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE> i.e. they are the results of critical thinking, music criticism and terrorism, because they are neurological bedfellows, are intrinsically one and the same, except, I suppose, that the bombs dropped on Mr. Williams don't result in dismemberment.

****

This is all J.K. Rowling's fault I say...these bloody Potter films are destroying our children's minds!!!

[Message edited by SPQR on 11-26-2002]

---

And to think that you really have mastered the language you dearly love, to communicate by using the thesaurus book (an assumption), to prove how adept and agile are your command of english. Does anyone communicate like you in real life?? Do they?? Also, do you suppose that your grammar is impeccable and flawless? You're not that arrogant are you? But hey, that's not the argument here. But there is an argument to my criticism of lack of comprehension, as it will be explained and PROVEN, below.

Hey maybe you're a lawyer, or a politician, if so, then forgive me.

Perhaps I should try it..........hmmm, lets see.........

Herewith and wherewithall, under the prudence of the said statement of the subject SPQR, in which from henceforth shall be named, it is to my due credence that I shall not rescind statements that were heretofore given in accordance and in lieu, to conject a rebuttal against said subject due to a presumptive axiom, for the purposes of indemnification and self-approbation, but herewith not under propitiation nor postulation, thus rendered with due dilligence.

My, my, your reply on this one really means that order is no longer needed to be with us. Perhaps, it is you they talked about when we would often hear on various mediums of news, "What has society become?". Why is it that your interpretations to my posts are made completely taken out of context and furthermore, putting words into my mouth when I had never mentioned the such.

Let me ask you something, were you ever taught about metaphors, similes and the likes? About my grammar, well, that's all in the editing, and I am writing this without editing, except for minor typos and the such. But is this really how we have descended this discussion into?

You know, something that I am guilty of is that, I am going against my first statement I made, that this post is a waste of time.

My wayward pontification? Hey, it's you and Peter that I had to reply to BECAUSE of your so called, wayward pontification.

There are still so much errors in your english comprehension, even after I replied and exculpated, that I have no idea as to why it is so hard for you to apprehend.

So, of course, your interpretative skills are no higher than a high school student who keeps failing in class. This is self-evident, especially, since you still complained and misinterpreted my first statements.

Now, lets continue with plain english. And I won't make it long, since this really is a waste of time. To be honest with you, I have not much enthusiasm to this topic in the beginning, and I have betrayed my own axiom, in which I need to be forgiven for by my conscience.

"Perhaps if you had read my reply more clearly you would have noted that my response was formed as a question."

I am so sorry, but where is the question that was formed? You have a very funny way of forming a question. It sounds more like a rebuttal and a directive to me, on how I should behave and think, as evidenced in this statement of yours. "Your job is to refute these proofs with equal vigor and insight, not with flippancy or the wringing of hands; otherwise it is just hot air."

Proofs?? Huh!!

How many religions are proven, yet are so clearly defined by the creators of those religions to the point that they think points of their interpretation to the same exact doctrines are irrefutable. So, what if any are proofs? E.G. Recently, on 20/20, 5 weight-loss specialists were tested on their techniques of losing weight effectively. yet, they all contradict one another, blasting oppositions, making claims they have the right methods. Surprisingly, the results are fairly similar. So, each have their proofs, but each are so contradictory. E.G., one said to eat more fat and less carb, where the other said exactly the opposite. So, proofs are nothing more than one's interpretation of the logics of their environment. Is it refutable, absolutely! But I sensed that you are talking about proving with vigour for the sake of argument, which is better than not making any. But still, unless you're in a court of law where something is at stake, it's all boils down to just making opinions. After all, that's what all the wars are about in the Middle-East, they each have proof that their God is the right one.

"I'm not the only one having difficulty making heads or tails of these spasms of peculiar insight you seem to suffer."

Well, I really don't know what's so difficult with my post to make heads or tails with. Perhaps, you can print it out and take it to someone who studied english and have them explain it to you. It's pretty plain english, not much to it at all. If you'd only just open your head and see that the metaphors I used, in which, I had separated it with paragraphs are points being used, a standard communication technique taught in any english classes, to mark clearly an emotional tone to have the reader feel more of the point being presented. Instead, you have bastardised it and turned it to where it sounds like I am making terrorism to be the subject matter. Please, I urge you to re-read it, and see with your mind being opened and free, and you'll see it pretty clearly. Believe me, there are more than just one person in this world who don't understand english, hence, my rebuttal to the other person who is confused.

I sensed more and more that there is a preference and a direct purpose to misunderstand and twist my words; rather than to see it for what it is.

"You open by implying that no one but the musician themselves is capable of offering qualified criticism and that a self-titled, non-composer critic"

Yes, I truly feel that some sort of qualification is needed in order to make a "qualified criticism". So, what does the term qualified criticism mean then? Lebrecht, did not post his opinion on a forum such as this; rather, he posted it on a professional publication. Hence, I know that if you are to write an opinion that it will never be published as an article, except for letters to the editor. So, we can assume that he had some qualification of some sort. The problem is, it's not qualification based on self-ability, but an appointment given by the so called authorities, who are just as much non-musicians themselves. I laugh at the notion that a Pidgeon can complain at how an Eagle fly. I laugh at how a poor person criticize Bill Gates' supreme wealth, and I'd laugh at how a patient tells his/her doctor how to operate. This goes the same with, how I laugh at a non-composer telling how bad a composer John Williams is. I don't know how many who criticized Bill Gates would suddenly love him so much if he were to decide to give, say, $100 million to that poor person. Suddenly, Bill Gates are not such a bad person anymore. But because he doesn't have a penny of what Gates have, then it's so easy to feel jealous. If it were possible to just pass on the skills of another by downloading the subject into the brain (Keanu Reeves did it), I must confidently assume, Lebrecht would just at the chance of instantly having Williams' skill.

An opinion can be made by anyone, at any qualification. But when it's made by someone who is also as good as the person who is being criticized, then there are a great deal more legitimacy and credibility. That's the point I was making. Since Lebrecht was not anywhere near the composer Williams is, then his opinions are to be taken none more the serious as someone who complains but can't compose. So, don't tell me that what I said is that he is not entitled to his own opinion, or that only musicians can make opinions about music, because I never said that. But I do believe that for a Pidgeon to say that an Eagle don't know how to fly, then that opinion is whacked out. You may agree, or you may disagree, who cares! But for you to come and then complain putting words into my mouth by saying absurd things like, "It's idiotic for you to say that only an Eagle know how to fly!" This is "proven" by your commentary, "...your now infamous analogy - to ascertain a presumptive mental state based solely on political affiliation." Also, "...pass a litmus test...", and "...concocting an ill-founded relationship between music criticism and acts of terrorism...."

There are litters of the above examples, which are a waste of my time to go through. But it began from your very first rebuttal to my post, and increases with ever more perposterous each time you advance your comments.

"who, though he/she may be entitled to their opinion, must first pass some litmus test"

Yes, there is a test that helped him/her to gain credibility. Perhaps credibility is not an issue to you, but it certainly is to me. Am I the only one to have a need for this???

"your now infamous analogy - to ascertain a presumptive mental state based solely on political affiliation."

Infamous?? By whom?? By the few that read this topic, in which many don't care in the least bit?

This is a very fine example of your making exaggerations, a pattern so deeply ingrained in you that pretty much your arguments are based on these exaggerated interpretations. And your statements of, "ascertain a presumptive mental state based solely on political affiliation" Where the hell did I ever say that? My, you really do need to take some basic classes on english comprehension. I'm not even going to waste my time on that one. It's so absurd and ridiculous that I don't think I can anymore take your arguments seriously. It is at this point, that I have learned I cannot any further debate with you. Your tangents and your interpretative skills are so low, that I had reverted to explaining very plain and very basic english. It's not any fun to take your comments, that supposedly came from mine when it's not even so.

You know what I think? My guess, is that you and some others are pissed of at my comments, hence, just for the sake of creating arguments, you'd pull out comments I've made and turn it into your preference of ammunition. Let me tell ya, it's a waste of time debating with you. I wondering and half-expecting if you'd say, "What does a pidgeon have anything to do with proofs?!" Or, what does Bill Gates have anything to do with Lebrecht?!" Or, "Your implication that one needs to have $100 million in order to make an opinion is absurd!" Or, "Your implication of, in order for one to be qualified to his opinion, he must lose weight by eating more fat and less carb, you must have gone brain dead!"

Well, all those are examples of just how much you have misinterpreted my posts. And it's not that exaggerated, these examples are pretty much litteral as to how far you've gone. But, hey, I now expect that coming from you. Did you say that your statements were formed as a question? I must take SPQR english 101, because I have not seen and understood it that way at all.

There are so much more proofs that I can provide for you that you dearly so needed. But, it's no point, your tangents are too far and too tiring, because each explanation pushes it into another direction to some far away land. So, I'll just shut up and go now.

First of all, your grammar is full or errors also. Secondly, what I said was ENGLISH COMPREHENSION. You see, I had to explain this, when it's clearly that's what I was arguing about. And it's happening again that you had lacked to comprehend my comments, and turn it into something that I had not said. I had not commented about your grammar, which is not as hot as you think.

My arguments were about your misunderstanding and miscomprehending my statements, which, again, is happening as evidenced in your last post.

Furthermore, as I write, I don't edit, because I am not writing for an english teacher to see. I'm typing as fast as I can from thoughts coming, directly. So, are we to revert to grammar now? Another tangent that already drove us to places that have wasted both our times?

As I re-read my posts, yes, there are things I could've edited out, and corrected, and I am embarrassed that they're purely incorrect grammar due to adding extra words, and missing words. I am typing this as my thoughts come, and there are little if any editing.

I think SPQR and you, as well as I, can use better grammar, certainly.

Please, read and comprehend, that's all I'm asking. Don't read into things that are not being said, and imply that it is. That's really what my previous rebuttal and this rebuttal is all about.

I'm not trying to be your english teacher. But I do know this, what I said is not anywhere near what you interpreted I said. I had even needed to read my post several times again, to see if I had communicated and suggested things where I hadn't intended, but had inadvertently conveyed. But, no, I had not done so.

Any writings can be interpreted anyway it wants, using the same exact words, that's why we have hundreds of Christian religions believing their doctrines to be the right one, and all based on the bible. But I am confident that I had not indicated 9/11 as a tool to argue about music, but about feelings I wanted to conjure up for purposes of making the real point clearer. Again, this is very basic essay writing technique.

There are other examples I had also made to focus the real point. But what happened is that, the examples are turned against the real subject, and you and SPQR had argued that, instead of the real subject and point I was making.

Therefore, to question,"What does 9/11 have anything to do with musical analysis?" shows that there was a serious lack of comprehension.

quote:

---

Originally posted by plindboe:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>
Next time, learn to read english, and see if you can understand first, before you call someone moronic, because it might just backfires like it has.
<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>
First of all, I live in a none English speaking country, but still I notice your writing is filled with grammatical errors all the way through, which really makes it laughable that you believe I'm the one in need of English lessons. Second of all, I didn't call you moronic, I called your point moronic.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>
Such metaphors and similes are bread and butter of essay writing, debate, or any other communications. That's why we have metaphors and similes, otherwise, such things are not necessary in our language. Jesus used metaphors and similes all the time in His teachings.
<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, Jesus often used metaphors, but he used them to simplify his points, whereas your metaphor clearly only causes confusion.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>
Also, if you think that musical creation and terrorist acts are not computed the same critical thinking, and by thoughts created in your ones' head, then obviously we're of a very different opinion. Remember folks, the creation of a masterpiece and the all the wars that ever was, are cut from the same cloth, that is based on critical thinking.
...
So please don't spread false notion that critical thinking between Williams' compositions and a terrorist act are any different.
...
So, are they not exercising critical thinking? Sure they do! Absolutely they do. It's no different than the critical thinking of a Nobel Prize winner, or a filmmaker, etc.
...
So, if you think that a critical musical analysis are different than critical destruction of man, then you're simply not right
<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course critical thinking comes from computations in our brains, and in that sense you can say that all critical thinking is the same; computations in the brain. But, continuing with the metaphors, that's like saying that there's no difference between a Ford T and a Lamborghini simply because they're both cars, or saying that there's no difference between Tetris and Space invaders simply because they're both created from computations of data. No two brains on this planet are the same so it's obvious that no two ways of thinking(critical or not) are identical.

I'm not sure if you're trying to imply that you study psychology and have taken some classes about this. If you are, then I strongly advice you to take those classes again, as you obviously didn't understand them.

Peter

---

I had lost an entire reply to this, due to flood control on this site.

So, I'll just abreviate.

Your grammar is not that hot either.

My arguments with you is your lack of comprehension, not your lack of english. It's happening again, on this very post of yours. What I wrote was, you had argued on my examples to make a point, which is not the point I was making, but metaphors and similes used to create stronger feelings, and therefore, hopefully will focus the point better.

I am typing this as fast as I can, therefore, there is little, if any, editing. So, are we to revert to this argument now? Which is a waste of time for both you and I.

Again, I felt you had missed the point of my post about english. It was COMPREHENSION classes that I felt you needed to take. Your last post revealed again that you had lacked comprehending this point.

9/11 had nothing to do with musical analysis, and it had nothing to do with my comments. Even that example was used to clarify an emotion, 9/11 was not the subject being spoken off.

My statement was, "How would you feel to the person who has the opinion that Osama did a great and marvelous thing on September 11?"

I have no idea how this statement was made to mean that I am comparing musical analysis with 9/11.

Do you see my point with that line? Do you really?

Is that line really that unclear and confusing?

How did it jump to become a comparison for Williams' music, or any other comparison?

This is and other places, as well as this, your last post, made it clear that, both you and SPQR had not comprehended, hence, you and he had conjured up some fantastical statement as to what my arguments really were. It's not to put you, nor he, down; rather, only to state the truth.

All in all, forgive me if I had offended both you and SPQR. But it was both of your unsubstantiated attacks that made me search a point to really rebutt your arguments. I had to read over and over my original post to see where my comments had lead both of you to places I hadn't argued. Like I said in the post using Jesus' technique of metaphors and similes, saying, 'Please don't write and say, "What does Jesus have to do with musical analysis?!" He was a reference to better focus a point, not the subject being argued. So, if you think my metaphors causes confusion, then that in its self proves you lacked comprehension. Because this statement,"How would you feel to the person who has the opinion that Osama did a great and marvelous thing on September 11?" had obviously confused you to think that I am comparing it to musical analysis.

There are other points you have argued, such as cars, and space invaders, and no 2 brains are alike (Is that a fact?). Now you're arguing that I said those things are one and the exact same thing. How did you come up with that?

What I had said is that, it's the application of what essentially came from the "critical analysis". What I said is summed up on this statement, "....it's the interpretation of critical thinking that makes all the difference as to the output thereof".

So, your cars, video games, and brains have nothing to do with the subject being spoken, and therefore, I shall dismiss it as another tangent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgoldwas:
Sheesh - speaking of flood control... Skymakers, why don't you just combine it all into one essay?

Dan

---

Yes, you're right It wasn't intentional. When I sent, I found another one to reply.

Anyway, how's the weather?

Does everyone here like Cheeseburgers?

quote:

---

Sheesh - speaking of flood control... Skymakers, why don't you just combine it all into one essay?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JClark:
All your grammars are belong to me.

And I bet *I* can write better legalese than anyone here.

---