And I'm with you!


....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.)

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.

No worries, I don't think. I doubt anyone really thinks you did.

It's more that that -- it's the PW Hall of Fame!

But not 7 years and 364 days?


My opinion of what's a zombie thread: NONE.

BTW, what's much more offensive and contrary to etiquette is when somebody does like 8 posts in a row.

(Sorry folks, didn't even realize -- was just hanging' out.)

I read once -cannot recall when or where- that 'Annie Get Your Gun' has produced more standards than any other Broadway musical.

A lot of other info about Annie in the book 'Eiffel's Tower' by Jill Jonnes. She was quite prominently featured in the Paris 1889 World's Fair.

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

lol, fully derailed thread. nice.

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.

***many older members don't seem easily able to tell***
Combination of presbyopia and don't care a bit?

In my case if I've got 20 windows open on VPN's into 5 different states I consider it a success if I post a proper reply to the correct forum.

Well just goes to show that I have not thought this out properly. Sorry for that.



Upon thinking about it more, well I guess it should not bother me, and it is always fun to interact with new people here. Mark does have a point, and ultimately if an old thread is resurrected, well what harm in that? I stand corrected.

Be nice.

I don't think you hadn't thought it out properly. I think he misunderstood it a bit. The people who are upset about the 5 month gap are upset over 4 year gaps too.

Trigalg693 (a mathematician?) we're in total agreement there. Performance wise, I think there are lots of Liszts today; I think we're sorely lacking in great composers, unfortunately.

Super immature handle/name picked well over 10 years ago, but yes, still a (-n aspiring) mathematician, surprisingly!

Yea, composition seems to be a dying art, but maybe we just have the wrong perspective. There's Kennan, Ligeti, Vine, Rzewski, etc. and maybe in another century they'll be considered greats.

You're kidding!
I had always read it as "tri-galg" -- not that I knew what a galg would be.

(And I even liked trig and alg....)

tri-gal = a girl who likes to do triathlons, of course. That's how I read the name until recently...

My problem with a lot of the contemporary composers is I don't like the way it sounds. Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Liszt, Rachmaninoff: all we're Elvises IMHO. Rock stars one and all.

Actually, Mark, you're now up to 10 - in under 90 minutes. Was there a chugging contest at Starbucks tonight? A switch to brandy might be in order.

No, but we did have a really good dinner at a place we stumbled into.

Oh....and a non-decaffeinated cappuccino.

I'm guessing you're a female triathlete.

This is nice. I haven't read this thread before and was a good read, I'm glad it was "resurrected". To those who seem to be losing sleep over this fact, why not just shut up and not read the thread if you know it's old?

What makes you think anyone is losing sleep over it? And why, once a zombie thread is resurrected, should anyone "just shut up", any more than you have?

Anyway, please explain me how one is supposed to know a thread is old when looking down the subject list of threads. I would love to know.

The issue is apparently one of those "if you don't already understand it, there is no way to explain" things. At any rate, it has absolutely nothing to do with those who might have posted since the thread was resurrected.

For me, the problem isn't about responding to old threads, it's about how it is done.

Here's just one part of why I don't like the way this one was done - I look down the list of subjects when I come to the forum, see a thread I hadn't noticed before, open it, and am immediately plunged into a conversation in which I cannot partake, because most of the people are no longer here. That's annoying.

Then, realizing that it's a zombie thread, I have to go through it, scanning the dates, trying to find the one that was the one that resurrected the thread.

All of that could be avoided if the person resurrecting the thread simply started a new thread, with the same subject if they want, saying they had something to add, and put a link to the old one in their post.

Yeah, I guess I should be more tolerant to your OCD, since this is a public forum after all. I apologise and forgive you.

I understand.

I gave a clue but you probably didn't see it because you think you know who isn't worth reading.


That's what it was about, my dear friend.


Apparently not.

You know, the real topic of this thread actually is interesting - and if someone had not added to it I would probably never have noticed it.

Too bad there are so many posts debating the rights and wrongs of reviving an old post -- (as if there really are any, I mean...seriously folks?) --- that we have to now wade through to see if there is anything else interesting.

I think some folks really get too wound up about stuff that really isn't worth it - and to call someone out as being impolite, or to tell someone to shut up (different posters)... well, that's just not very friend is it?