Continuation of issues arising from most forgotten thread...

No way jose, are you mad. You do it, that's a double dare.

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!

Vic.

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.

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?

Vic.

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:

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.

Vic.

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!

Parla

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.