Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
My apologies if I breached some etiquette of this site. Yes, Chopin did write that he envied Liszt's skills, but he was ill and weakened from TB probably the last ten years of his life. I've read several accounts of his formidable concertizing skills in his youth.
Please, jdott - no apologies. You didn't breach a thing. You're simply bringing your questions and insights to a topic that interests you, and that's what PW is (or should be) all about.
For some of us, he did. I have an intense dislike of zombie threads, and I know there are many others who feel the same.
The very concept of a forum is dependent on the interaction of current users. That fact seems to be lost on a number of the current users.
If it were my forum, I'd be looking for some automated method of locking dormant threads. If someone was desperate to add on to some ancient stuff, they could simply start a new thread and give a link to the old one they wanted to reference in the first post. Or, if it was just some single posting that they wanted to respond to, they could just copy and paste whatever was relevant.
For some of us, he did. I have an intense dislike of zombie threads, and I know there are many others who feel the same.
The very concept of a forum is dependent on the interaction of current users. That fact seems to be lost on a number of the current users.
If it were my forum, I'd be looking for some automated method of locking dormant threads. If someone was desperate to add on to some ancient stuff, they could simply start a new thread and give a link to the old one they wanted to reference in the first post. Or, if it was just some single posting that they wanted to respond to, they could just copy and paste whatever was relevant.
How exactly has the "interaction of current users" been impeded? Just today we've had the following people post to this thread:
jdott AldenH Mark C RealPlayer beet31425 pianoloverus argerichfan Tararex Damon Old Man wr
All of the above are current users (1/18/2013 seems fairly current to me, anyway). The title of the thread is clearly visible. The only difference I see between this "zombie" thread and a "current" thread is that this thread contains comments that have an earlier time stamp.
So what is the source of your "intense dislike"? Other than these time stamps, and the names of people who may or may not still be posting, I'm not sure how how this thread differs from a current thread. The differences seem so superficial, I can't believe it's such an issue for you and the "many others who feel the same." I'm certainly no genius, but even I can handle time stamps.
Good question. No concrete definition of course, but I should think any thread that is at least 8 years old would qualify, especially as the majority of times subsequent threads may have covered the same territory.
But I don't really have a problem with threads that may be as old as 2 years, particularly if there is something pertinent to add, as in the case here.
As I indicated earlier, the Franz Liszt Appreciation Thread might lie fallow for several months, but that does not mean we shouldn't revive it when there is something new and exciting to add.
And not to mention some threads which had a very short shelf life at the time. Why not revive them if there are new members or older ones with fresh input?
....the rest of us (the majority I think, sorry Mark) who resent the confusion between living and historical conversations.
Confusion? I didn't think there's much confusion except maybe to the very new people. As the line goes in Annie Get Your Gun....
....all you have to do is look!
Just take a look at the date on the 1st post. Or the last ones before the new one.
A big clue, which almost always gives it away to me even before I click: A thread that doesn't look at all familiar but which has multiple posts and many hundreds or thousands of views.
And as for the n00bs, nothing we do will keep THEM from being confused.
I know, because when I first came here, there were thousands of things that confused me. For starters, how about the thing that has the name "Adult Beginners Forum".....
....Posting on an old thread is no different, I think, from opening up an old magazine or book one has saved....
Interesting analogy, and maybe it's no accident that I love that too. Almost always when I find an old magazine or newspaper that I've 'saved' by accident (by having put it some place where it then just failed to get thrown away.....excuse me, I mean recycled) ....I virtually always find everything in it fascinating, on a lot of levels. Even/maybe especially the ads. And the older the better.
It's also always a fascinating experience to thumb through the old magazines in antique shops. I find myself half-wanting to buy them ALL. What keeps me from it is that I realize there'd be no end to it.
....The assumption that newer members are unable to understand the concept of "date stamps" on old threads is a bit odd to say the least....
....but I'm not surprised at all that they often can't. What surprises me is that many older members don't seem easily to be able to tell. Likewise, that many older members don't seem easily able to tell which post a post is replying to (since except when posts are default-ly labeled as replying to the OP, it is shown at the top of the post.)
....it's always been a puzzler to me. Some, such as yourself, believe that old threads should not be resurrected, and yet I've seen new OPs chewed out for raising subjects that have already been hashed and rehashed a "million times before".
Which is it, folks?....
Great job. Love it.
Which indeed?
I think all it means is:
-- You can't make everybody happy. And.... -- One's opinions (probably anyone's opinions) aren't necessarily consistent.
And not to mention some threads which had a very short shelf life at the time. Why not revive them if there are new members or older ones with fresh input?
Hear hear!
The new posts in Pianist Corner have been a little slow lately (or maybe it's just my perception), so I was happy to re-read this thread with some input from someone who was unable to post before.
I think it's nice to point out to new people if they try to answer a specific question that was asked years ago. I guess that may be a candidate for a "zombie thread". But otherwise, what's the harm? I don't think people would decide not to respond to a thread with a recent creation date because they already responded to an old thread.
Sorry argerichfan (I also think she's terrific), but I'm still confused. The original post was Aug of 2008, then it jumped to July 2012. Why would some people be upset over 5 months when the earlier gap spanned almost four years? As an aside, I thought this was a pretty lively discussion. Thanks
Sort of on topic, someone said there aren't any modern day Liszts, and it's also been mentioned that pianists now have different focus and all. I disagree. Let's just look at Marc-Andre Hamelin. He learns bookshelves full of music, and records giant stacks of CDs. How long do you think it takes him to learn these pieces? My guess is he can play most of them perfectly or near perfectly on the first try.
And really, it's not just him. A lot of young rising stars these days have a crazy amount of repertoire. I've seen a list of the repertoire that some kid at Curtis learned in 1 year, and it averages to something like 30 minutes per week of new repertoire (all difficult stuff obviously), which they have to polish and perform in a very short timespan. The only way to learn that quickly is if you only need to play through a few times to have it completely down.
You didn't breach a thing. You're simply bringing your questions and insights to a topic that interests you, and that's what PW is (or should be) all about.
