Searching for God in Classical Music

Have spent an hour or so reading this entire thread (I know time I'll never get back) and can't help but notice that the original poster is conspicuous by his/her abscence.

Maybe he lost the will to live when it got hi-jacked!

What I understand, Vic, is that on such a side issue, you try to discredit me. Following, in these two months, quite a few threads, I never came across to well justified and elaborated arguments of any kind. So, I leave it to your intelligence to figure out how "weak" my "assertions" are. In any case, I (and possibly nobody does) don't aspire for any title or accolade in these forums. What was encouraging was that, in very substantive issues, the situation resulted in much more positive and productive debates, even if any consensus was not attainable.

So, what you think you managed to do is to claim that :

-the CD is the sole product in the world market that never deteriorates (if, of course, is properly handled).

-the CD can be sold at any price (reissue, recycled, etc.), irrespective of what it offers and the cost of production (normally, all over the world, you get what you pay).

If these assertions are more credible, then you may contemplate if you too insult some readers...

The manufacturers and producers I know claim that "CDs are susceptible to damage from both normal use and environmental exposure" and, in the manufacturing process, "materials can vary from low (tolerable) to very high quality polycarbonate plastic as well as from aluminium to gold (for the metallic reflecting layer) resulting in the better performance and durability of the end product (package contributes also to the latter)".This is not an assertion. It's a fact, which, if you insist, you may try to contest it.

So, if you think that cheap reissues use the same materials and production process as the expensive originals, then fine. But, do you have any proof for that? (I just initiated my argument about Brilliant, which as a bargain label, resorts to more "reasonable -affordable- methods").

Finally, I wish to ask you to avoid to "pin-point" phrases or even half statements of mine, isolated from a whole argumentation, with a view to proving your claims or even assumptions. At least, I try to reply to arguments  as a whole. And that's more credible, if not for the substance, at least for the sake of the form of a debate.

Anyway, I think we lost anything we might have "found" in this thread, by landing to the bare land of the glorification of rational "over a lost penny" (to paraphrase Beethoven's Variations "rage over a lost penny").

Bravo, Vic! You may count your scores.

Parla

Why thank you troyen!

I don't know if you caught the recent overnight exchanges between Parla and Richypike before they were (rightly) deleted.  The latter had clearly lost it and vented his frustration in offensive and unacceptable outbursts across four or five threads - even creating a new one with a title I would love to be able to repeat!  Totally unproductive, with Parla replying to each and every one, clearly occupying the moral, if not the logical high ground.

His strategy of responding to questions about particular points with what might be seen as obfuscation and at great length, usually has the effect of his interlocutors shrugging their shoulders and giving up.

But we should always be able and willing to defend the claims we make, and have our credibility judged by them.  And Parla makes a lot that need to be accounted for, in my opinion.

Anyway, we will see where it goes.

Thanks again for you kind comment.

Vic.

Thank you for your reply Parla.

Four hundred plus words again.

But no answer to the question, how do you know that of the CDs you have purchased, the reissed ones deteriorate at a faster rate than others (whatever materials they may or may not have been made of)? 

You have made an accusation against a whole range CD issues, and about a Brilliant Classics' product in particular: that production values affect longevity.  Is this claim based on speculation or evidence?  If the latter, what is it?

Please tell us that your investigative methodology involves more than impressions gained over a long period of time.   What would the time span be between first and twentieth hearing?  How many samples did you use to make the comparisons, that sort of thing.

You and I might be the only ones interested in this exchange, Parla, but let me explain to you that it is important to me because I believe you make and have made a long string of dubious claims that, when challenged, you avoid answering.  So to focus on one particular claim may or may not help to establish your general credibility.

Unlike Richypike of recent memory, please be assured there is nothing personal in this.

Please answer the question or, in the words of Oliver Cromwell, quoted by the great Jacob Bronowski in The Ascent of Man (yes, we are on that territory, the nature of truth):

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, consider it possible that you may be mistaken".

Vic.

Vic,

     I missed the richypike exchange but I am quite happy to spectate on the exchanges beteewn yourself and parlous.

However, I fear with such continuing quality from yourself you may end up being the unofficially appointed spokesman for parla responses.

I am now off to listen to some music and, lo, to hand is this Sutherland opera set.

Keep counting the words, Vic. I have to express myself as I feel I can honour my interlocutor with a full answer. Whenever you feel compelled, you do the same.

I'm not that sure what you are after. If I accept I am mistaken (because all the examples or evidence I may bring forward are dismissed by you), is that statement (for you or any reader) enough (is it evidence) to prove that the opposite happens, namely that the "reissues" do not deteriorate at a faster rate than the "originals"?

Besides, I never accused Brilliant or any other label. I simply said they opt (and that's absolutely legitimate) for lower quality production process for selling much more affordable products. If this label or other wish to assure us that they use the best polycarbonate plastic and gold for the metallic reflecting layer like the more exclusive, expensive labels, it's up to us to believe them or to ask them for their "evidence".

The fact from the side of this business industry is that "the CD is susceptible to damage from both normal use and environmental exposure". So, the better "protection" it has, the longer it can be around. It's a general understanding (there cannot be easily accessible evidence on that matter) that cheaper products follow the basics in production (tolerable polycarbonate plastic and more importantly cheaper aluminium for the very important metallic reflecting layer).

As for my experience in so many years of listening, low quality CDs show some kind of faster decline over repeated use (the time span between listenings has not been proven important factor).

Finally, Vic, I wish to make it clear to you that I have been quite an honest and passionate man in my life, so I don't need to help to establish, on such a trivial issue, any (or much more my general) credibility. I have to assure (and reassure) you that my interventions are meant to contribute to some aspects of truth, in our pursuit of comprehending the object of our interest(s), even at the cost of being misunderstood, accused, "accounted for", etc.

(So far, I have noticed enough "obfuscation" along with ignorance, "arrant nonsense", "prevarication", and some more "resonant" and "sonorous"..., but I don't resort to use my assessments as justification of my views or to accuse my interlocutor of anything, much more to contest his credibility).

So, let's call the whole thing off and, maybe, talk about music itself and what we may have to expect to find there (to bring back the subject of this thread)!?

Parla

Can it be true? Say it is not so: Brilliant are not so brilliant after all.

(Sorry, couldn't resist).