Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Members Recordings - Pianist Corner It's another improvisation I'm afraid

I love FSO's writing. ...then again, I've always been one out of ten, or five out of six if Kinsey was correct... Or something...

And yes, my questions were answered.

Best!

Forrest

This ^^^ is a masterpiece, FSO! I read it this morning and laughed out loud, chuckled, and nodded through the whole thing. Then, tonight, as I was re-reading it (because it is wonderful writing, and incredibly witty and thought-provoking) I laughed out loud, chuckled, and nodded again!--but not in all the same places, because I saw some things that I hadn't seen before in the first reading. Now that, my dear, is the mark of quality and not "jumbled incoherence"!

As to the "appreciation of life," I have felt for a long time, now, that the actual "meaning" of life is found in personal relationships, and that the quality of one's life can be measured (or assessed, or otherwise reflected upon) by the quality of one's relationships. Volume doesn't count, but treatment and respect does. Just a random thought, there.

I have to tell you, you really got me with the punch line to "negative criticism," because, upon following your parenthetical line of thought, which evoked many musings of my own regarding much of the discourse here at Piano World, and that of individual contributors, some of whom even have provided illustrations for your very grumblings, and in this very thread no less, I didn't see it coming. And there it was.

Some people prefer Hemingway. Some people prefer Eliot. I enjoy how you express your thoughts, FSO.

I remain,
--Andy

Quite an interesting discussion of language going on on this thread now. I guess the original topic was out the window a long time ago.

Language is a comparative art form; we use it as a device, much like we may use a piano or paint. Some people hate Schoenberg and Picasso and it's nobody's fault...it's not up to Schoenberg to change his output and it's not up to the listeners to change...their perspective on their input? I mean, um, to do so is almost to defile the purpose of the language itself; very similar to how words between nations can sometimes become misconstrued due to an unknown affect, so too is it throughout all forms of communication. Um...is it a matter of courtesy? I don't *expect* anyone to read my posts; I've not made a song and dance when someone brings up a point that, calmly I note, I've already stated, with at least as much detail, to which others may respond. I mean, um, I get it I litter the internet and the sight of all those disused, incomprehensible thoughts turns many away in disgust; but it is to those that find the beauty in a bin liner wrapped around a tree that I write. If pseudo-populism is deemed courtesy then I feel sorry for the scant regard society has left for understanding it's own foundations. Um...yes, my writing style is a little opaque to some, perhaps most, but as *so many* of the threads here have stipulated (or at least posited); popular opinion is not necessarily the most valued base of critique. So, finally, we wind back to misinterpretation, the comparability of language and I'll use Schoenberg to emphasise the point; to some it works, to others it does not. It's only worth trying to convert people to Schoenberg if they *can* be; some people simply will never accept his music...and that's fine. It's each person's own universe within which they live...um...their own rules and guidelines as to what things are, how they are, the quality of them and it is *through* language that we try to share our universes...um...I'm sure that all universes are compatible and, really, if we could communicate what we *mean* as opposed to what we *say* there could be no disagreement, of any form, over any situation...um...Andy, I'd say that the greatest joy in life is being able to share your world with another (or more than one if you're lucky) to such a degree that you can no longer truly distinguish yours from theirs...I think that would qualify as a relationship not lacking in quality. Meaning and joy, I fear, are incongruent but...perhaps it is *joy* that meaning utilises in an attempt to show us our purpose..I don't know...(well, I have an idea, but now's not the time )...um...it seems silly to me that it is the portal through which these worlds are shared, our language, our methods of conveyance, that are the true problem; that we as individuals could all perfectly synchronise with a spectral myriad of interpolating ideas, more than could ever be known by one alone...that's what society *is*...but, um, language (be it verbal or musical, physical or conceptual) presents us our only barrier...and at the same time our truest form of creativity. It is in attempting to convey ourselves that the truest challenge lies and...well, obviously, that's sure to bring about spectacular effects; be they arguments, wars, insanity...beauty, humour, curiosity...um...no, I don't *expect* anyone to read what I write, but it does me no disservice if I manage to convey myself to only 1% of those I otherwise would (it's the quality, not the quantity )..I agree it *would* be discourteous if I wrote in a "difficult" style (I'll trust you've never read Heidegger ) and expected, required or otherwise forced others to read it...but I don't. Indeed, if more people enjoyed, or loved, or found merit in my writing I might become too scared to continue; um...quit while you're ahead and all that palaver. So thank you, dears; you're all managing, in your own ways, to sustain my deficiencies and inadequacies whether you like them or hate them...I just find it a shame that I seem to get to know more about all of you than you I; the sketchy figure from the bushes with the binoculars. Still, um, that figure has its place and I'll take mine ^>^
Xxx

All I can say is the person not reading, for whatever reason they are not reading, is missing out on someone utterly unique and interesting - yes, I qualified the word unique which must have no qualification. And look now, a discussion on language may break into a discussion on philosophy! (No expert on philosophy am I.) No matter how skilled our expression, whether in words or musics, there is a level of faith between ourselves which moves our understanding of each other. Andy's mention of relationships is apt, and success here involves not looking inside, but outside ourselves...not merely looking out for our own personal interests, but also for the interests of others...beyond this even, the true, the absolute that is outside linking us all together.

(This may not have as much to do with the evolving conversation, and yet it was inspired by it. I hope I can be granted this license.)

Just to be perfectly clear - I have no problems at all with the content of F.S.O.'s posts, or the way she expresses herself. It's the format, which my eyes cannot handle. It's not a language issue for me, it's an eyesight issue. Just a few hits of the return key would do it, but I can see that's not going to happen. So I'm not going to try any more. My loss, yes, I know, but like F.S.O. apparently, I can't help it.

It's a shame to lose you currawong....though to be honest, I'd have thought you'd have stopped a while ago; thank you for your hard efforts, I appreciate the fault, essentially, lies with me and there it will lay Deffles dear, I'm not sure how to license that which I don't own; this conversation is not under copyright, I mean, um, as far as I know...and it's everyone's; if I wanted to get in a huff about deviation from topic I'd have to cast *myself* out most of all...so...there's your licence I'd be a fool not to agree at least half-heartedly with your premise but, I must admit, something in it sits a little uneasily atop the thoughts of how true it is; um...I feel it's in the notions of how one might understand something, were it not already aware of how it relates to the self. I mean, how *can* one understand another person without, at the very least, being able to determine the differences between themselves and their counterpart? It...um...the idea that we are these egocentrical beings, who can't do any a-egoic act or relate to anything other than themselves, sits equally uneasy with ME...but perhaps not from an instinct of its flawedness but rather its truth...um...I *believe* that it's not the case, but can't recognise how it could not be; my belief trumps my logic, fortunately, but this only raises a further, more general worry; is belief merely a diversion from the logical; to believe is surely to "know" something with little to no reason for said belief...um...could it just as easily be replaced with the word "reckon" and, if not, why not? I already know my answers but...I'd be interested to know other people's thoughts. Um...just as a side note, as Deffles brought the magic word into it all, I was a rather promising student of philosophy at university; I adore, beyond most else, how particularly fine answers need to be to assert the essence of the matter and how, at the end of the day, it's all a constructed nonsense Reality will still remain reality (it won't really) regardless of how we think of it...um...it's just kind of nice finding out *which* reality you live in; proper scientists argue it's all the same one, dealing with the things of "reality" whilst their distant cousins deal with the expressions of reality...um...it doesn't appeal to everyone and it's certainly far from useful but...to truly understand *anything* I believe (ME, *I* believe ) you need to either have a moment of genuine, unthinking absolution or a thorough understanding of maths, philosophy, some psychology and a heck of a lot of time on your hands Um...see Deffles; it's fine to divert to or from wherever you want...the conversation is linked and, as such, one could argue that *this* has bearing on the original post, be it in an incredibly abstracted fashion.
Xxx

Which IMO indicates disrespect and possibly arrogance towards anyone who might start reading her posts. Similarly, if someone cannot compose posts without the endless ums and smileys, anyone can go back and delete them after writing the post. What can be the possible excuse for not doing that?

I'd say less than 1 in 10 read more than the first sentence or two of these posts. So FSO has to decide whether she wants her posts ignored by the huge majority or whether she is willing to back and edit her posts.

Well... given the amount of tpyos in my posts I'd say that sometimes people simply can't help it...

I'm Greek, but I've lived in London for 4 years, thus I consider my English to be fine. Yet I fill my posts with either spelling errors, or various tpyos out of haste. And while I know I do it, I don't sit back to edit away those errors. I simply post it! (not to mention that I'm an idiot enough to not remember the difference between below and bellow ).

Why do you assume that it's FSO's choice? Why do we have to be normal in the way that you, or the majority of people like to?

I can see how a large block of text, with smileys and ums, might turn you, or others away, but so be it... :-/

wow, I just realized so many composers are disrespectful of me.

You would think they would keep my (very limited) ability in mind.

Forrest

I never had the slightest difficulty reading any of your posts and can't even remember noticing a misspelling. FSO's posts are in a category that none of PW's 50,000 members, including those with minimal knowledge of English, come close to in terms of their difficulty to read.

I understand that it may not be possible for her to compose her posts without all the things that make them virtually unreadable, but I cannot imagine that she couldn't go back and press enter a few times to create paragraphs and press delete enough times to remove ums and smileys. And here I think it's actually discourteous not to do so.

No one "has to be normal in the way the majority of people like", but even though I don't ever get through more than a few sentences I actually find the posts offensive. If someone at a meeting continually got up and spoke unintelligibly, I don't think those at the meeting would just sit there and do nothing after this happened a few times.

I do understand that the likelihood of anything changing here is very small, so this is my last post about this...at least for a month.

FWIW, me too. (Although as per what Plover said, I could also do without the "ums.")

And from the other posts here, especially from CinnamonBear, I can see that I might be missing out on some pretty neat things.

I would add (and I wonder if this is true for Curra too) that the "eyesight" thing actually goes a little beyond the purely visual. The lack of more visual organization of the posts is fairly brain-scrambling; the unorganized layout is unsettling to the mind as well as to the eye. It's not that I'm incapable of dealing with unorganized or chaotic stuff, but it feels like work (for me, literally) .....and when I'm on here, I don't want to feel like I'm at work.

Thank you for this. It's all beginning to make sense.

When I choose to read a PW thread, it's usually because I'm interested in the topic. If a complex, rambling post isn't directly related to the thread topic - and requires a great deal of concentration and patience to wade through - then I tend to lose interest and move on to something else. If, by doing so, I miss out on discovering rich hidden meanings and glimpses into the author's soul - so be it.

And by the way, I enjoyed listening to portions of the improvisation. To answer FSO's original question.."Is there any point continuing what I do?" (i.e., the improvisation), I sincerely say......UM... Yes - by all means !!

skepticalforumguy; I'm sorry, I entirely missed your post! Thank you for the lovely words! I'm afraid that I can't comment on the quality of your improvisations as...well, I know *nothing* of jazz It sounds like jazz though...so...I assume it's good? Um...woodog: whilst everyone's talents have a limit, I think to state yours as being very much so is a tad dramatic; who's disrespecting you? I mean, there's nothing I can do about it but assure you that it can't be true; you're too lovely! Pianoloverus....this shall be my only response on the matter; I shan't be driven to emotional ruin like last time. If you don't read it then I quite understand, but I sort of hope you do. I am civil. I am respectful of other people's conditions or desires, impairments and goals. I apologise *all* the time (for instance, the very first post in this thread anticipates this exact event)...um...I'm humble, calm and, generally, will respond to every person who contacts me directly with a personal response. If I feel what I say, if worded poorly, will hurt somebody's feelings I take extra care when choosing each thought I try to put across. Still, you call me arrogant, disrespectful, discourteous...I wouldn't dare say such things about *anyone* let alone someone I don't know! Mark C, for instance, has shown a degree of civility; he's stated, essentially, that he doesn't read my posts...um...that's fine with me; he doesn't read them because they are, basically, not worth the effort. That's plenty fair enough. What you've done is gone out of your way to try and offend me; I like to think that it's just a desperate push to try and make me see things as you see them, to type as you would type and be as you would be. As I've said before, I wish I could be so. Um...you've never believed that and you never will...the problem I have is that I'm starting to suspect this isn't your true motivation; woodog's suggestion that I read the validation manifesto (flawed as it is ) kind of fits the bill (in a ham fisted fashion). Even so, your comparison is bunk and you know it; this is, almost literally, a noticeboard. Beyond that, it's a noticeboard that every person can customise; they can actually choose who can post on their own noticeboard...not that I endorse the ignore button, but if I truly offend you so greatly it *is* there (not that I know where it is; um...I'll never ignore anyone, no matter how virulently hostile or abusive they may be)...um...even without "ignoring" me, people can still ignore me by scrolling down. Furthermore, I see this "few sentences" all the time...how long are paragraphs meant to be? One sentence? Or is it an ill placed "um" that sets your teeth on edge? Frankly, no offence, but if you can't handle a word that you can't quite understand or the notion of reading more than a few sentences without a break "offends" you then I can't imagine a list of good books that you've read...you know, um, the ones without pictures. There, that was me being arrogant, assuming, vindictive and churlish without purpose (though no doubt you've stopped reading); it's pointless, hurtful and sometimes cruel. It's similar to the vast majority of the posts you direct towards me. currawong, Mark C, carey and plenty others have *nicely* indicated my deficiencies. carey even apologised (unnecessarily so, but it was nice); evidently concerned for my feelings as any fully functioning adult would be. Um...you, on the other hand, don't give a flying fridge magnet unless it's forced upon you; I live with a psychopath (not the film type, a real one). You two have some remarkably similar qualities. If you *are* a psychopath that's fine; I'll stop expecting you to care about things that don't directly affect you...um...similarly, if you have Aspergers or schizophrenia I can sympathise or empathise accordingly. What I'm saying is I'll give you an F-ing break. Please, I've previously practically begged to you before snapping my last tether, I'm not like a lot of you...um...that sounded arrogant but I mean; I'm broken in ways you clearly aren't, in ways you didn't think could break, and for F's sake, that's how it is. I've told you this before; you continued to berate me, I believe, leading to some unfortunate emotional disturbance. That shan't happen again. I hope you're well and happy, this of course applying to everyone but you don't half know how to push my buttons sometimes (less...less to everyone ) I'm sorry for the boring post...I assure you it'll be the last *super* dull one I do and normal dullness will be resumed...
FSO
Xxx

Actually I thought the post was really good - one of your best - and easy to read !!!!!!

Oh, behave Thank you for your answer, for your explanation and, above all, your patience (although maybe, really, your answer ). I shouldn't have said what I did just now...um...I...was a tad...not enraged, exactly, but certainly rather hacked off. It was impolite and "discourteous" Um...if that's what it takes to be easy to read...well...that's not great news for someone
Xxx

Well - the content of the post was one thing but the flow of the narrative was much easier to follow - because there was less visual clutter and you clearly had a point to make....great news or not.

I must admit, I would consider my prose a lot less cluttered and clearly...point...making, than my music; I'd always been told my narratives in my playing are nigh on *impossible* to follow to the point of incredulity...but...um...maybe there *is* a fundamental difference between these two mediums and how they're interpreted...thank you, I'll be sure to ponder that (as well as upon it ).
Xxx

By how many have you been told, FSO? I might suppose that 100% of people who don't read Heidegger might find that to be so. Or, perhaps 98%. (Oh, wait! Quantity does not matter! Is "one" a quantity?) As someone who has read and appreciated "The Wisdom of Insecurity" (not by Heidegger), what *I* observe is that, somehow, you have a firm ability to stay in the present moment to make musical meaning.

What I find interesting about the improvs that I have heard from you is this: they are very consonant, harmonically, even in their most dissonant moments. It's as if you were almost unwilling to explore tension. Hmmm... (If I am hearing this wrong, or too superficially, perhaps you would link to a sonic narrative of yours which, in your estimation, explores significant tension.)

BTW, I am curious about a few of the pictures you have chosen for your youtube vids. Do you know anything about iridology? Yes or no will suffice.

--Andy