Parla - a note on sources
Thu, Dec 8 2011, 4:47PM
I was idly reading the posts on Messiaen and read Parla’s customary learned contribution, and I quote:
I may understand your perplexed stance for a composer who considered himself as much an ornithologist as a composer; who notated bird songs worldwide and incorporated birdsong transcription into most of his music. At the same time, most of his compositions depict what he called "the marvelous aspects of the faith" and his desire to express religious ideas (he considered himself deeply rooted in Roman Catholicism). If we add his obsession and, consequently, his innovative use of "colour" along with his conception of the relationship between time and music, you may need some special courage and preparation to get through...
Parla
I also happened to take a look at the Wikipedia entry for Messiaen which shows some uncanny similarities with Parla’s post. Again I quote:
He...considered himself as much an ornithologist as a composer. He notated bird songs worldwide and incorporated birdsong transcriptions into most of his music.
Many of his compositions depict what he termed "the marvellous aspects of the faith", and drew on his deeply held Roman Catholicism.
His innovative use of colour, his conception of the relationship between time and music, his use of birdsong and his desire to express religious ideas are among features that make Messiaen's music distinctive.
I’m not suggesting of course that our friend is cutting and pasting information from Wikipedia in order to give the impression that his musical knowledge is greater than it actually is. Because that would be dishonest, wouldn’t it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Messiaen
Thu, Dec 8 2011, 5:15PM
#2
RE: Parla - a note on sources
Since work is calling for me, one more thing, very quickly:
When I was in US, an American scholar defined the "originality" as the "art of concealing your sources". So, you may as well suggest that I'm not the most "original" poster of these forums. As you like it!
Parla
Thu, Dec 8 2011, 6:53PM
#3
RE: Parla - a note on sources
A shocking revelation. How much else of Parla's posts is lifted - and why, for goodness sake?!!! I had wondered about the variation of his prose style sometimes. The thing that most disturbs me however is that he doesn't even seem embarrassed by it. Amazing. And rather sad perhaps.
Vic.
Thu, Dec 8 2011, 8:04PM
#4
RE: Parla - a note on sources
And just think we'll never get back all those hours spent in futile attempt to decipher Parla posts.
Thu, Dec 8 2011, 8:57PM
#5
RE:
If you're not "suggesting", you won't create this thread. And that's quite "dishonest"!
No - I was being ironic: there's a big difference. Let me try it without the irony - by cutting and pasting material from Wikepedia and passing it off as being written by you and reflecting your own knowledge is blatant dishonesty on your part.
I'm sure even you can see why this sort of behaviour is simply unacceptable - and undermines your credibility in everything you post. (Or would do if you actually had any credibility.)
However, I hope you don't contest the substance of my "limited knowledge".
The point is that it isn't your knowledge, limited or otherwise - you stole it from Wikipedia! Strewth!
Thu, Dec 8 2011, 11:35PM
#6
RE: Parla - a note on sources
I have contributed, in about four months, around 400 posts, mostly on intellectual, theoretical or on the different aspects of the role of Classical Music subjects. In every possible opportunity, whenever I was told (attacked or accused) that this is "my point of view" (or "my opinion", or "my preference" and so on), I stated, as clearly as possible, that I expressed views that I have tested, verified and experienced with musicians, friends in the business of music-making, producers, etc. I never care to present or defend personal views, since I don't believe they offer much in a forum, where we are supposed to try to identify some aspects of truth in Music in general and in Classical Music in particular.
Whenever I decided to contribute to treads on specific subjects about composers or works of them, I always had to verify information, fact and figures. Wikipedia, in very few occasions, was a convenient tool, due to time constraints, to that end. Quite often, I had to verify certain details with phone calls or quick e-mails with my friends and fellow-musicians.
In the case of Messiaen, the specific text I chose from Wikipedia, expressed exactly what I know and consider for this composer. There was a much larger and longer text, which I found it pedantic and too detailed to take any info for further use. I never felt we are here to write a thesis or even an article on any subject and I am sure whoever uses any source for developing his/her ideas, arguments, etc, he/she is ready to reveal them upon request.
Finally, the credibility issue is a matter of whether you are sincere on what you are believing, defending and serving in an open internet forum. I think from my posts you may confirm whether I mean business or not.
However, I'm not surprised about the behaviour of the "author" of the thread. When things go tough, awkward, uneasy on different debates, where I am involved, the "hit under the belt" is a useful tool. What he does not know is that I don't break easily and I'm not going to follow him in any kind of response, in the same "field"...
Parla
Fri, Dec 9 2011, 12:37AM
#7
RE: Parla - a note on sources
I have contributed, in about four months, around 400 posts, mostly on intellectual, theoretical or on the different aspects of the role of Classical Music subjects. In every possible opportunity, whenever I was told (attacked or accused) that this is "my point of view" (or "my opinion", or "my preference" and so on), I stated, as clearly as possible, that I expressed views that I have tested, verified and experienced with musicians, friends in the business of music-making, producers, etc. I never care to present or defend personal views, since I don't believe they offer much in a forum, where we are supposed to try to identify some aspects of truth in Music in general and in Classical Music in particular.
Whenever I decided to contribute to treads on specific subjects about composers or works of them, I always had to verify information, fact and figures. Wikipedia, in very few occasions, was a convenient tool, due to time constraints, to that end. Quite often, I had to verify certain details with phone calls or quick e-mails with my friends and fellow-musicians.
In the case of Messiaen, the specific text I chose from Wikipedia, expressed exactly what I know and consider for this composer. There was a much larger and longer text, which I found it pedantic and too detailed to take any info for further use. I never felt we are here to write a thesis or even an article on any subject and I am sure whoever uses any source for developing his/her ideas, arguments, etc, he/she is ready to reveal them upon request.
Finally, the credibility issue is a matter of whether you are sincere on what you are believing, defending and serving in an open internet forum. I think from my posts you may confirm whether I mean business or not.
However, I'm not surprised about the behaviour of the "author" of the thread. When things go tough, awkward, uneasy on different debates, where I am involved, the "hit under the belt" is a useful tool. What he does not know is that I don't break easily and I'm not going to follow him in any kind of response, in the same "field"...
Parla
This shambolic self-serving farrago of a response at least shows that you are unfamiliar with the colloquial phrase "It's a fair cop, guv"
Fri, Dec 9 2011, 8:59AM
#8
RE: Parla - a note on sources
If I have little or no knowledge on a subject then I will not contribute to that thread. I might go to Wikipedia, or elsewhere, to discover more but I don't feel I have to contribute to almost every thread with speudo over-intellectualised (I know more than you) evasive waffle!
Fri, Dec 9 2011, 9:00AM
#9
RE: Parla - a note on sources
If I have little or no knowledge on a subject then I will not contribute to that thread. I might go to Wikipedia, or elsewhere, to discover more but I don't feel I have to contribute to almost every thread with speudo over-intellectualised (I know more than you) evasive waffle!
Fri, Dec 9 2011, 9:32AM
#10
RE: Parla - a note on sources
In the case of Messiaen, the specific text I chose from Wikipedia, expressed exactly what I know and consider for this composer.
Finally, the credibility issue is a matter of whether you are sincere
Parla
Have you no shame Parla? Stealing someone else's knowledge and passing it off as your own is the opposite of sincere, it is dishonest - and if there were profit involved, would be criminal. I think you are lucky you took it from a non-profit-making source and not from a commercial organisation.
How typical of you though to try to deflect valid criticism with brazen distortion and evasion. Your credibility here is shot. For instance, how many of your 400-odd posts contain information from other sources?
What's with this seeming obsession to know the most, always be in the right, have the last word anyway? A less charitable consideration than you will get from this forum might think it more pathological than egotistical.
Anyway, if ever there was a time for regret, a little humility and apology, it is now. But I'm not holding my breath.
Vic.
Fri, Dec 9 2011, 9:45AM
#11
RE: Parla - a note on sources
A friend who works on another magazine (dealing with music completely unrelated to Gramophone-World) coined the word 'Wikiaccurate' to describe that awkwardly muddled spectrum between 'facts'/'semi-facts'/ideas/mistakes which have currency simply because they appear on Wikipedia, and thus get repeated and regurgitated, as seems to have happened here, therefore becoming 'sort' of true by default. He argues that, far from expanding the knowledge base, Wikipedia is actually damaging people's ability to think for themselves and assemble information from a variety of sources, before coming to a considered, informed opinion. Which is an intriguing point of view worth thinking about.
And for a richly comic example of the dangers of taking Wikipedia at face value who could forget this journalistically tragic episode:
Fri, Dec 9 2011, 10:09PM
#12
RE: Parla - a note on sources
Parla - it's a straightforward issue. You must acknowledge your sources, otherwise it is plagiarism, by any other name.
A massive problem at the moment in schools, colleges and universities in this country. And probably elsewhere too.
Mark
Mon, Feb 25 2013, 5:56PM
#13
RE: Parla - a note on sources
Bump
Mon, Feb 25 2013, 6:19PM
#14
RE: Parla - a note on sources
Bazza - glad you've resuscitated this thread. I take the liberty of adding this link
http://www.gramophone.co.uk/forum/general-discussion/requiem-hundreds-wa...
where the nightmare drove two of us to work through the agony by way of a sort of couplet seizure. Mostly it's page 2 that carries the references.
It's a complete drag, because I guess this sort of outright, or at best thinly-veiled, plagiarism, amounts to another spasm of trolldom - a way, if you like, of messing with posters' heads. It's nauseating, and on a forum like this a complete turnoff for actual dialogue. The mods really should have stepped in here.
Incidentally, for anyone who cares: on the "Listening Project" thread there is a recent Parla post on the Orpheus myth which seems to take the Wikipedia entry on Orpheus, garble it carefully and supplement it by clicking on a couple of links. This would be no more than rather sad, except that Parla introduces it with blah about information gained in his "ancient Greek studies ..."
Mon, Feb 25 2013, 6:49PM
#15
RE: Parla - a note on sources
I think his most recent suspect post may be the one in the Listening Project, where he started an out-of-the-blue post about the Orpheus myth with "I found the following info from my ancient Greek studies", followed by some text in a style that differs significantly from his usual prose. It's not straight from wikipedia this time, apparently he's learning from his mistakes.
Also, don't you hate it when you attack someone rather harshly - a bit too harshly, perhaps, but still deservedly - and they come back to you not with a counter-attack but with big wet puppy eyes? It's like kicking a dog and watching it crawl back to you with an expression that says "I still love you"...
EDIT: Oops, I see DST mentioned the Orpheus message already. Sorry for the double post.
If you're not "suggesting", you won't create this thread. And that's quite "dishonest"!
So, to give life to your thread, try to reveal how many more "uncanny similarities" you may find as for the "sources". However, I hope you don't contest the substance of my "limited knowledge".
Good luck!
Parla