Everyone who has contributed to this debate - I'm out now because I have said everything I wanted to say on this one. As I said above, echoed by Caballe and I think also by Chris, we are going round in circles.
I attempted a synthesis after page 30 on the old thread, and moved related issues onto a new one. Since then I have continued to contribute but feel that I have said what I wanted to say.
I have said that Parla and to a certain extent Chris have different views than mine. I accept that there is difference of opinion. For me that signals time to stop, while I have a further think about the issues involved. Vic like Caballe says I do admire your tenacity.
(So in view of all that Uber, firstly I don't understand your point above on atomic theory, seriously I don't. If you want to start a new thread on artistic and scientific theories please do!)
Uber, If you want to start a new thread on artistic and scientific theories please do!)
No way jose, are you mad. You do it, that's a double dare.
This cannot end before the Parla has the last word, surely?
I accept that there is difference of opinion. For me that signals time to stop, while I have a further think about the issues involved.
This must echo the sentiments of many Mark, but I see progress albeit with a lot of "going round in circles" as has been said. While the process may seem, well, actually is, somewhat laborious, a point by point analysis and questioning has been necessary, sometimes crucial, in keeping the focus on the issue at stake, which I believe, as Parla does, is vital for how music is perceived. Some very key issues for a classical music forum have been aired and in the process given us all much food for thought.
I believe that the line Parla is pursuing is not only wrong but counter-productive in preventing the prostituting, the muzak-isation, of the music we all love. The ghettoisation of music on the grounds of inherent and exclusive superiority, the dismissal of value in all other forms of music enjoyed by others (which is where this debate began, and in passing, why Brodsky keeps bringing up Paul Simon!), this is false and damaging, I believe.
And really, at the end of the day, and while it may be very much a minority sport, it is my belief that the use of language and logic in pursuit of (what I believe to be) falsehood, should never be allowed to go unchallenged. Defying logic for a good cause is a slippery slope that leads to defying logic for an evil one. And we live with the consequences of that every day of our lives.
An obsessive pursuit? I'll have to put my hand up to that one!
Parla, Mark wrote above:
"Greatness is a value judgement and thus humanly attributed."
For your proposition to stand you have to be able to prove this is not so.
Here is your argument:
"Greatness is not a value judgement and thus not humanly attributed."
But is greatness akin to gravity or to, say beauty?
"Gravity is not a value judgment and thus not humanly attributed."
"Beauty is not a value judgment and thus not humanly attributed."
How is beauty different to greatness in terms of this debate?
Parla, any thoughts on the above?
PS: Beethoven as the standard against which Beethoven is evaluated is next up.
Time itself Vic, is this an objective enough concept for you. Longevity. Beethoven (1770 - 1827), let's give him a rounded off score of 300. Paul Simon ( 1960's Hippy - 1990's pretend south African) he will score 40 points. Now in 100 years time Beethoven will have 400 points and Paul Simon will have, yes you've guessed it, all the old hippies will be gone and he will be forgotten. Nuls poi.
Well, you want to pursue the truth (let's stick to that, for the moment). What truth? The truth you believe in? How do you possibly know anything about the truth of the Art of Music
No Parla, the pursuit of truth. Pursuit.
You are the one who claims possession of this particular truth, aren't you?
Could it be an indication of the tangle you have got yourself into that I have to keep reminding you of what you are arguing for?
Any thoughts yet on my last post above?
Caballe, I could easily desist, if Vic would agree to stop the debate, as a never-ending one, with two sides arguing but not converging. In any case, we are only a handful of people debating on such an issue. It's not that worthwhile.
The pursuit of truth is always worth while Parla.
Unlike yourself (if dozens of other threads are anything to go by) having the last word is of no interest to me.
I don't know what you mean by convergence - to me it means coming together. Our relative positions are irreconcilable. However, we both believe that we can prove our case so I see no problem continuing. Can you?
No, Vic, I cannot see why we have to pursue the matter further, since, instead of bringing more forum members on the debate, we alienate even those who, initially, were very eager to participate, in good faith. Now, we are only me and you and...your multi-personality nemesis, who keeps making pertinent fun against almost any single post you deliver.
I guess we have to respect the forum's decorum and core interests. The truth is far from what you think you can prove and, frankly speaking, I don't think anybody in this forum cares less about it.
Your last three paragraphs of your today's post #4 demonstrates your political agenda on this matter. This is your end and, subsequently, the "truth". Based on how many posts you send to ignite one from me also exhibits your obsession on the matter, while I never crossed the indiscreet line to ask you why this issue is so important to you. The pursuit of truth is a perfect excuse. Someone not educated in the music-making process thinks he knows better than those who have studied music how we define greatness in the Art of Music, much more in Classical Music. Why not? Who cares, anyway?
Parla, I of course respect your decision to discontinue the debate and will leave to others to make up their minds about your stated reasons for doing so.
As for "the core interests of the forum" and interest levels, only the moderators, who have access to the numbers, are in a position to know about that.
I guess I couldn't argue with the pursuit of truth as a political agenda, in its broadest sense.
However, your statement below cannot be allowed to stand as a definition of what this debate has been about:
Someone not educated in the music-making process thinks he knows better than those who have studied music how we define greatness in the Art of Music, much more in Classical Music.
It has not been about "how we define greatness" but about the validity or otherwise of the notion that, to paraphrase Mark's statement: "Greatness is not a value judgement and thus not humanly attributed".
I am not dissatisfied with my efforts to do so, and as I say, let us now leave to others to decide how well each of us has made his respective case.
'Greatness' Vic, as a human do you confer greatness or do you recognise greatness.
Spot on, once more, Uber Alice!
Who is in a position to confer, attribute any form of greatness to a Bach or Haydn or Mozart or Beethoven? It's already a heavy task for any human to be able to recognise their total and comprehensive greatness.
Anyway, this debate is over. Uber "gehen" Sie uber diese Frage, bitte! Vielen Dank!
Thank God, or the local atheist, whomever you prefer. Peace at last!!!???
How can it possibly be over as you have not had the last word?
Wake up, there are a number of posts after your "last" including this one.
Unbelievable! You declare the debate over and then you post a statement like this!
This is beyond obsession, Parla, this is fanaticism.
Given your track record and the unconvincing reasons you give for discontinuing, we obviously have to take your reluctance to deal with the issues I raised in my last post as an inability to do so.
Either defend your claims or have the grace not to restate them. This is undignified petulance.