At the risk of provoking apoplexy, take a look at this. I loved it, but then...
Being in Beijing with my family at the moment, I'm not "allowed" to watch this...site. Are you...allowed to give me (or to anyone in a similar situation) a hint of what is all about.
I had you in mind when I mentioned apoplexy, Parla. It's just as well you can't see it at the moment, I really don't want to cast a cloud over your holiday.
Suffice to say, on the Linn forum where I posted this, someone made the comment: "My god, what a terrible thing to do to a great piece of music".
I profoundly disagree, but am intrigued to see how others might react to something seen as great in one genre being imaginatively used in another. Does the "greatness" evaporate with this transposition? Sacrilege or great fun?
I eagerly await your judgement.
Enjoy your holiday.
I find your analogy distasteful in the extreme, parla. Please desist.
Audio Editor, Gramophone
a "terrible" sort of Asian guy
(classical) works are so "perfect" that no itervention, let alone transcription or arrangement, is allowed ...
Parla, I know the above quotes from your last post pale into almost insignificance compared to the offence everyone will take from your last paragraph, but I would be interested in your elaboration of the above. For instance, allowed by whom?
PS: Parla, please consider self-editing out your last two sentences. I can't begin to imagine the distress this could cause some families or victims.
I was just about to reply saying what fun I thought this clip was when I saw the subsequent 250 word pronouncement from Parla based on something he hasn't yet seen. That would have been amusing in its own way, if unsurprising. Then I came to his concluding analogy.
Parla, have you no conception of how utterly offensive and inappropriate this is? If you have a shred of self-respect, an apology is in order.
I can apologise to anyone offended by my "distasteful analogy", but, sometimes, we have to go to these extremes to show how distasteful can be any experiment in the Art, where, of course, the perpetrator is not faced with any consequences regardless of how far he/she may have gone. On the contrary, he/she may be the object of sympathy, even admiration and everything would be as fine as it could. Sometimes, the "analogy" might be less offensive than the hypocrisy and double standards, often used in the free field of Arts.
(By the way, you never crossed your mind that I used this example because I might have had a vivid example in the wider family. So, I might know...)
Vic, as for "allowed by whom", it is used in this context like "the work is not susceptible"... to changes, etc. Do we have to refer to the specific reasons why it is not, or we understand that, simply, this particular work does not lend itself to changes, interventions, etc? In any case, when we have a definitive score of some hundred years ago, that requires the utmost precision to the actual performance, we may comprehend that we cannot play with it or...fool around, musically speaking.
I can apologise to anyone offended by my "distasteful analogy", but, sometimes, we have to go to these extremes to show how distasteful can be any experiment in the Art....... Sometimes, the "analogy" might be less offensive than the hypocrisy and double standards, often used in the free field of Arts.
Of course we don't have to go to these extremes. And if you seriously believe that any example of artistic hypocrisy or double standards could be more offensive than the analogy you used, you have a truly warped outlook.
I do not know why this example crossed whatever passes for your mind. Similarly, you seem to believe that you may be the only one with a 'vivid example'. I can assure you that you are not.
Round objects, parla.
Parla, please stop this flaming you seem so intent on.
Am I the one who started the "flaming" and "seem so intent on", Preston?
Since I was the original target of something I have to "dare to check" with the "risk of provoking apoplexy" (to me, apparently), while it was "fun" to some other(s) as "he (or they) thought", I simply responded accordingly. The problem is that some read between the lines, some read simply the lines and some even over them!
JKH, you are not the only one to have the authority of what is "offensive" or "inappropriate" or when "an apology is in order".
"The warped outlook" fits in those who envisage that anything may be allowed in Art, while the offended ones (artists, composers, etc.) cannot be in a position to show the analogy of what is being committed to their work and to the Art in general.
When I mention "I might know", I said it because it didn't happen to me (or my family) directly. So, I cannot have or feel the immediate and direct rammifications, but I am not stranger to this situation. However, this happened to a fellow musician, who happened to see or conceive the analogy you found offensive and inappropriate. Is his outlook...warped or our comme il faut life?
This really doesn't deserve being dignified by a response from me. I'm sure others will be more than capable of making up their own minds.
Just echoing JKH's response. I'm out of here. Parla will have the last word though. Always does (must be an insecurity problem).
Parla, how do you do it? No, I know how you do it. Why do you do it?
This light-hearted item has been turned to ill-feeling out of what? An opinionated attack based on a presumption you are in no position to make. Your ill-judged intervention comes with forced logic, barely relevant examples and a crassly insensitive analogy, and somehow you end up claiming to be the victim of unfair criticism! There is becoming something of a pattern here, you know.
Given where you are, if I were you I would avoid the temptation to opine on political question in the same way or it might be a long time until we enjoyed the benefit of your wisdom here again.
On a lighter note, I trust you will have some interesting information for us on the musical life of your hosts?
The only insecurity problem I might have is that I don't deserve being dignified (!) by a response from him.
Anyhow, dignity is a virtue; to be dignified even by a response (in an internet forum) is a privilege. I never relied on privileges, even when they come uninvited, but I always welcome them. (It's the law of recognition).
I was about to sleep, Vic, (you know, it's quite late here), when I saw your dignified response. I thought for a while, but, eventually, I felt compelled to send some brief comments:
As for your question, as I have already said before, you have the ability to discover the riddles, you know the answers too. I just enjoy discovering things I didn't know about myself! Make sure, however, you read between the lines, not above.
Concerning the second paragraph, I send it to...the clowns. You are over the top. You read me wrong, once more. (That becomes a pattern of yours, here, you know).
Regarding the third, I find it indecently irrelevant and as for the fourth, if you have read my posts in various threads, I have given enough clues to the musical life of "my hosts" (?!).
Since apoplexy is not an option with me, even with the most outrageous thing, let's end up here. If and when I see the object of such a fuss, I might let you know about my judgement, provided there is anything more to say.
I thought the YouTube clip was a bit of fun and enjoyed it. There is room for fun in classical music isn't there?