This conversation has been repeated enough that it is clear neither side convinces the other (as usual ), but allow me to offer you an alternate to anger. On the screen where the thread titles are listed there are display options at the bottom. You can sort topics by the thread start time. That will throw this particular thread on to a page you won't normally see. Of course this will also move threads that are somewhat active that have an early start post. To alleviate that to some degree, you can experiment with the show topics setting to encompass a range of active posts by number of days. YMMV, but I hope it helps.

Here's an example of the display option. The Valentin Lisitsa post is the oldest zombie thread active in the last two days. It doesn't confirm it's zombie-ness, but it's a great heads-up.

I gave a clue too (an easier one but not as definitive).

We'll see what's the chance they blunt his view.

My guess: Close to 0%.

I'm more optimistic. I know he's not averse to using technology to block Avatars and signatures. I'll go 70%

....and I think it's closer to 0 because I think the objection is more of a "gut" thing than anything specific like what he's saying and what we're addressing. A lot of things are like that. Like, we say we like Horowitz better than Rubinstein (or whatever) because of this-and-that, but the reasons might go deeper than what we say and often deeper than what we think.

Yes it is interesting to some of us but not, apparently, to most. One of the reasons I decided not to pursue classical music professionally is that, as a teen, I was convinced that most famous performers had that ability and I didn't.

I don't really know what more can be said about it other than the anecdotes already mentioned. Take a poll on who believes it?

I think it is. Even if people don't post, the thread brings to their attention (or reminds them) that Liszt probably could, and I'd guess lots of people find that interesting.

(BTW I believe it -- not that he could do it with all the notes accurate, but that he could basically do it.)

Why does it matter if someone revives an old thread?

wr explained his objection above. Personally, I don't find it annoying at all. Annoying are the people who use "quick reply".

I would go along with that, mostly. If Chopin were sincere about his wishes, and we know that Chopin wasn't a slouch, I think Liszt could do more than "basically" play it. Of course we would have to know the exact circumstance in which Chopin said it to ascertain whether there was some amount of hyperbole in the statement. (the statement being, and I quote loosely "I wish I could steal the way Liszt plays my etudes")

In the grand scheme of life, it doesn't matter a great deal. It may matter, as sometimes happens, when a new post responds directly to the originator of the thread with something such as "Why don't you try ..." or "I would suggest that you look at ..." when the originator hasn't posted anything in a couple of years. Yes, that has happened more than once.

I have Pianist Corner set up so that posts are listed with the most recent at the top of page 1. Since I read this forum daily, usually more than once a day, if I see a thread on page 1 in the middle of the day that wasn't on page 1 in the morning and if it already has five pages amounting to 113 posts or more, then I know it is an old one. Then I go to the last (most recent) page and see what has currently been posted to revive the thread and decide if the "revival" was intentional, unintentional and whether or not I want to continue reading it.

I remember once, before I started more conscientiously checking dates of posts, reading a thread that had just come up on page 1. I found it interesting, continued to read through it thinking of how I would respond, and came across something in the middle of the thread that was very much exactly what I was thinking, only to find out I was reading one of my own posts which, it turned out, was three or four years old - as was the entire thread except for the very last post.

I wonder if some others have their PW chronology set up differently, or if it's possible to set it up differently. Otherwise, I don't quite understand, when a thread is revived after a couple - or several - years, that the poster didn't realize s/he was reviving very old material. Would one not be aware that one was wading through a lot of back pages of old material to find such threads?

I guess it is possible that a Google search might direct someone to an old thread; I hadn't thought of that until now. That might explain how some very old posts occasionally get revived.


Regards,

WR please take note.
That tells you how you can possibly know.


....and that's the advanced course in this methodology.


Even more interesting would be if you sometimes disagree with it!


Very often. I know, because many times when I've googled something about music, one of the top matches is an old PW thead.

I'd guess that's often how the resurrections occur.

AND....this might be news to some people, but when you're a new member and especially if you're new to discussion sites altogether (which some new people might be), not only might you not realize that a thread is old, you might not realize that the members make any distinction of any sort between new and old threads. That happened to me on my first discussion site. I saw something of interest and it never occurred to me that there was such a distinction, because I didn't know that there was necessarily any chronological ordering of how threads show up for someone. All I knew was that I saw something I was looking for and which I was interested in. I sort of figured that was how anyone would do stuff on the site -- "sort of" because I had no reason and no way to have thought about it.

Been there/done that myself.

At least you're consistent !!!

I was only describing my own condition.

Returning to topic, I have no difficulty in believing Liszt's abilities.

For example this:
"A pile of Brahms' unpublished compositions laid on the table as Liszt walked into the room, including the manuscript of the Scherzo in E-flat minor, op.4, which Brahms said was practically illegible. Liszt, after engaging in some good-humoured banter turned to Brahms and said: "We are interested in your compositions whenever you are ready and feel inclined to play them." At that, Brahms became very nervous, and neither Liszt nor Reményi could persuade him to go to the keyboard. Seeing that further persuasion was useless, Liszt went over to the table, picked up the nearly illegible scherzo, placed it on the music desk, and said: "Well, I shall have to play."

Liszt's remarkable powers of sight-reading had been witnessed many times, but this time he was inviting disaster by attempting to read such an untidy manuscript.

Not only did he perform the scherzo in a masterly fashion, however, but also kept up a running commentary on the music—much to Brahms' amazement and delight."

-William Mason (Liszt's pupil) Weimar, 1853

There were other of his contemporaries who conjectured that Liszt was perhaps some sort of returned demigod or re-incarnated Mozart. There had to be significant reason behind these parallels.

Yes, he could and did sight-read the etudes.

But William Mason does not relate that Brahms reportedly fell asleep when listening to Liszt play his B minor Sonata?

I have never believed that.

Yet Harold Schonberg recounts an incident which is uncomfortably close to Mason, concerning the observation of Otis B. Boise when Liszt sight-read his symphony:

No features of the workmanship, contrapuntal or instrumental, escaped his notice, and he made running comments without interrupting his progress.

Perhaps Liszt did that for any composer who approached him. It is quite unlikely that he would have had any difficulty with MacDowell's A minor Concerto. A gloriously delicious confection to be sure, but one look at its conventional form -and cute attempts at thematic transformation- well it might be a wonder if Liszt didn't play it for memory after a casual perusal.

I looked at those options, but they don't help. The only thing I can think of that would actually work is if the forum locked old threads. That way, if people wanted to refer to them, they would need to include a link to them within a current thread. Or if they wanted to comment on some particular post, they could copy and paste it into a current thread.

It's not as if people don't already do that kind of thing. For example, I've seen plenty of links to old threads within current topics. I have sometimes have provided them myself. And, unlike the full zombification of a thread from the archives, it doesn't seem bother anyone when it happens. That contrast in the response should tell you something.

See?

Actually, that was only one part of my objection. There's a good deal more, having to do with issues of context, continuity, etc., but there's no use in trying to explain that stuff, I've found. Those who are sensitive to such things already know, and those who aren't, aren't.

@argerichfan

Liszt always considered himself a "good son" obliged to behave as a decent human being. He was also a fierce musical and social competitor and not above overt reminders as to who was Alpha lion. Considering he had the ability, the ego and was always aware of the importance of publicity I'd say it would be out of character not to leverage all whenever possible.

Reading hundreds of Liszt's personal letters (he wrote tens of thousands in his lifetime) is what solidified my opinion of the veracity of these many accounts. His drive, willingness and ability to achieve were truly superhuman.

He learned early in his career that concert hall flash was derisively called out as bombast while the same bold excellence assisting brother composers and students was recounted with awe. He was too intelligent not to use this to advantage.

The aged Liszt was often compared to a Native American Chieftain. From what I've read in his own letters Liszt was counting coup most of his lifetime.

You're the psychiatrist. I can't say whether I like Horowitz or Rubinstein better for sure, but I can say that I think they are both miles beyond who is in 3rd....and for the same reason. And they were both pretty good sight readers. I wonder if they approached Liszt in that ability.

Tararex, not sure what your post above was meant to convey. If it was educational, well I knew all that. I was simply pointing out that William Mason and Otis Boise (both Americans and presumably writing in English) were so remarkably similar in their reports, even using almost the same words. ('running commentary' vs 'running comments')

I don't doubt for a moment that each of them witnessed a life-changing event, I was just curious about the coincidence of the wording.

Wanna talk about great sight readers? Talk about John Ogdon. You know the Brahms 2nd concerto story, right?

So I said to Franz, I said ... what’s all this malarkey about playing a romping ditty by Fred off-the-cuff ... makes us amachurs look kind of silly ...
so, if you don’t mind ... get back to your reverent prayerful vocation ... and please use this fully paid-for (well nearly) train ticket to Timbuktu .

Yours faithfully,
Peter Sellers

You sure, OSK? I thought it was the D minor.

Yes, Ogdon was a legendary sight reader, but look at the amount of 20th century British piano concertos he championed! Staggering, he must have learned them overnight.

Or perhaps Peter Sellars?

Sorry about that fan ... the boo-boo has been corrected ... but later re-corrected to the first copy.

Must just tell that my son has given me access to the Goon show legacy ... my latest is the "The Phantom head-shaver of Brighton" with Spike Milliagan, Peter Sellars and Harry Seacombe ... with rivetting start including the advisory of an "arab stench-recuperating centre in Stoke-Poges ... the play is considered unsuitable for people".

However, on the Goon Show site, they spell Peter's surname SELLERS ... so what about it?

I'm not following your logic. Two people describe the same feat accomplished at different times. Wouldn't it be suspicious if the accounts didn't sound the same?

"No features of the workmanship, contrapuntal or instrumental, escaped his notice, and he made running comments without interrupting his progress."

"Not only did he perform the scherzo in a masterly fashion, however, but also kept up a running commentary on the music—much to Brahms' amazement and delight."

Is there another way of describing the witness of mad sight reading skills while simultaneously commenting to others? If you were to ask 100 people of standard writing skill to describe a specific action accomplished by a specific person, even if repeated at 100 different times and locations, how could they not be "coincidental"?

That sameness of description of the observed skills strengthens the case that the event was as described.

Peter Sellers ≠ Peter Sellars.

The former: a British comedian/actor, the latter an American theatre director. Hence the argerichfan's suggested (tongue-in-cheek?) reference to the latter.

How did you get that "does not equal" sign in there?

And, OSK, I'm not familiar with the John Ogdon story. Care to share (and become a member of the 5000 post club)?

I wondered too.
How I'd try to do it: Find it on google and copy/paste it. Let's see if that works:

≠

Bingo!!

But I suspect Bruce has a better way.

BTW I didn't know the Ogdon story either. I don't know if it's well known. Except among those who know it.