PianoSupplies.com (a division of Piano World) Piano & music accessories, music theme decoratons, tuning & repair tools, moving equipment, party goods,music gift items, ... more
Free shipping on Jansen Artist Benches.
|
|
64895 Members
40 Forums
132569 Topics
1894724 Posts
Max Online: 15252 @ 03/21/10 11:39 PM
|
|
|
#466462 - 09/26/08 04:53 PM
Re: Chopin and Sand
|
5000 Post Club Member
Registered: 08/06/05
Posts: 5310
Loc: SC Mountains
|
Elton & Bernie
_________________________
Slow down and do it right.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#466463 - 09/26/08 06:44 PM
Re: Chopin and Sand
|
500 Post Club Member
Registered: 03/07/08
Posts: 589
Loc: Los Angeles
|
Originally posted by sotto voce:  Robert and Clara Schumann [/b] Johannes Brahms and Clara Schumann 
_________________________
Bach - WTC I in C major & C minor (BWV 846-847)
Mozart - Sonata K 282
Chopin - Polonaises Op 26
Schumann - Fantasiestücke Op 12
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#466464 - 09/26/08 06:50 PM
Re: Chopin and Sand
|
500 Post Club Member
Registered: 04/24/07
Posts: 810
Loc: Basel, Switzerland
|
Richard Wagner and Cosima von Bülow :2hearts: (poor Hans) [my only contribution to this thread, and an off-topic one...  but I have to say I find this page the most interesting  ]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#466465 - 09/26/08 07:40 PM
Re: Chopin and Sand
|
6000 Post Club Member
Registered: 08/15/06
Posts: 6163
Loc: Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA
|
Originally posted by akonow: Originally posted by sotto voce: Robert and Clara Schumann [/b] Johannes Brahms and Clara Schumann [/b] Can you believe that "Robert Schumann" and "Brahms Nocturne" are anagrams? http://www.sternestmeanings.com/ Nights aren't only for sleeping! Steven
_________________________
 "There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
—Albert Schweitzer
Chopin: Allegro de Concert Op. 46
Schumann: Toccata Op. 7
Fauré: Ballade Op. 19
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#466466 - 09/26/08 08:10 PM
Re: Chopin and Sand
|
500 Post Club Member
Registered: 03/07/08
Posts: 589
Loc: Los Angeles
|
Originally posted by sotto voce: Originally posted by akonow: Originally posted by sotto voce: Robert and Clara Schumann [/b] Johannes Brahms and Clara Schumann [/b] Can you believe that "Robert Schumann" and "Brahms Nocturne" are anagrams? http://www.sternestmeanings.com/ Nights aren't only for sleeping! Steven [/b] How scandalous! I love me some 19th century gossip. 
_________________________
Bach - WTC I in C major & C minor (BWV 846-847)
Mozart - Sonata K 282
Chopin - Polonaises Op 26
Schumann - Fantasiestücke Op 12
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#466467 - 09/26/08 09:02 PM
Re: Chopin and Sand
|
1000 Post Club Member
Registered: 10/16/06
Posts: 1422
Loc: Essex, England
|
Oh gosh.
And Chopin's name comes up as 'perky, iffy, chronic darkness'.
George Sand enrages dog.
Say no more.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#466468 - 09/26/08 11:40 PM
Re: Chopin and Sand
|
5000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/23/07
Posts: 5429
|
Originally posted by sotto voce: Communication is facilitated by clarity and precision: - You reject the precision of qualifying words like some, a few, most, many—words that would readily change an inaccurate and incendiary declaration into an innocuous, irrefutable observation. But such bland statements of opinion are no fun; they don't stir the pot!
- Erroneous proclamations, on the other hand, are sure to inflame and incite—and they have such a convenient safety net, too: you were only making generalizations and "casual comments" all along, after all.
But to care about clarity and precision, you first have to be interested in communicating—not pot-stirring. It's apparent to me that you twist words for a different and twisted purpose: a cat-and-mouse game rather than communication.  wr's fun game[/b] Rules for the mice: - If the "fan club" says anything negative about George Sand, it's bias.
- If any one
person mouse says anything negative about George Sand, they all said it. - If anything neutral or positive is offered, it's "lip-service."
Rules for the cat: - You confidently base your unqualified statements of fact on your thorough knowledge of what others have supposedly said in this thread (which is so apparent that there's no need to quote it).
- You don't need to remember critical information said by others and commented on repeatedly when it suits you to claim you didn't memorize the entire thread, after all.
Originally posted by wb: Of course, we haven't discussed my motive for stirring the pot. Or the motive behind my motive for stirring the pot. Or the motive behind my motive that was behind my motive for stirring the pot. [...] Uh, let's see here...you quoted my words in a message in which you were directly responding to big quoted chunks of my previous post, and expect me to not only realize that you suddenly changed focus to some other posters, but also that I should have memorized the entire thread so that I'll know that even though you use my words, you aren't using my words as if they are my words. Or something like that...? [/b]  In any court of law into which you wandered, pot-stirrer in hand, you'd be guilty of intentional obfuscation on the basis of that nonsense alone. [/b] So you are interested in continuing the tedium that you complained about earlier, eh? Okay, here goes... As I said, you posted a message which included lengthy chunks of a previous message of mine, to which you responded. Then, without any indication of having done so, you changed your subject to stuff other people wrote, but without quoting them, though. And to top it off, you then used my words as if they came from god knows where, but not from me. And now you lecture me about clarity?!?!?!? And when I point out what you did, it is "nonsense"?!!!? I don't get why you are putting energy into having extended fantasies about some "rules" that you imagine govern my posts in this thread. They do tell us more about your point of view, I guess, but I'm not sure that's what you intended. What you actually intended seemed to me to be an effort at a sort of very elaborate name-calling, but I don't see much connection to what I actually said or meant to say. If the meaning of my posts is really so impenetrable for you, maybe you ought not to bother reading them; they don't seem to be worthwhile to you in any way, after all.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#466469 - 09/26/08 11:55 PM
Re: Chopin and Sand
|
6000 Post Club Member
Registered: 08/15/06
Posts: 6163
Loc: Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA
|
 I thought your posts were worthwhile until this thread, wr, but sometimes it takes a while to get to know where people are really coming from. And they're not impenetrable at all; they were clear from the start, and the defensive posture of a humble and misunderstood victim is bogus after the pot-stirring you happily admitted to. So thanks for the tip about not reading them any further, and you can add me to that list of people whose posts you don't read, too. I'll just get back to them "extended fantasies" now, and you can get back to pot-stirring. Hey, at least it's a good exercise for the forearms?!?!?!? Steven
_________________________
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
—Albert Schweitzer
Chopin: Allegro de Concert Op. 46
Schumann: Toccata Op. 7
Fauré: Ballade Op. 19
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Del.icio.us
|Contact |
Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter | Press Room |
Previous Topic
Index
