The Anonymous in Religious Music
Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:10 am
Deleted
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
He is quoting Whackjob Weil again. What did you expect? Clarity and succinctness? I think I have finally figured out what makes Nick tick. If he doesn't understand it, it is profound even if others can understand it and see how ridiculously stupid it is.Dalek Prime wrote:What's anonymous about it, exactly? Would you mind being a little more vague, please?
We're anonymous, here on this forum. Am I close?Nick_A wrote:Dalek, first let me see if anyone understands what is meant by anonymous
I really wish he'd read a second author. It would double his knowledge.sthitapragya wrote:He is quoting Whackjob Weil again. What did you expect? Clarity and succinctness? I think I have finally figured out what makes Nick tick. If he doesn't understand it, it is profound even if others can understand it and see how ridiculously stupid it is.Dalek Prime wrote:What's anonymous about it, exactly? Would you mind being a little more vague, please?
Are you actually crediting WW with giving him some knowledge? You are a generous man.Dalek Prime wrote:I really wish he'd read a second author. It would double his knowledge.sthitapragya wrote:He is quoting Whackjob Weil again. What did you expect? Clarity and succinctness? I think I have finally figured out what makes Nick tick. If he doesn't understand it, it is profound even if others can understand it and see how ridiculously stupid it is.Dalek Prime wrote:What's anonymous about it, exactly? Would you mind being a little more vague, please?
In all fairness, he did read one book. Okay, maybe skimmed it.sthitapragya wrote:Are you actually crediting WW with giving him some knowledge? You are a generous man.Dalek Prime wrote:I really wish he'd read a second author. It would double his knowledge.sthitapragya wrote:
He is quoting Whackjob Weil again. What did you expect? Clarity and succinctness? I think I have finally figured out what makes Nick tick. If he doesn't understand it, it is profound even if others can understand it and see how ridiculously stupid it is.
I'd be happier if you stuck with the scotch then. Is there hope for that outcome?Nick_A wrote:This is really amazing. Hopefully someone will show up with artistic depth who understands what is meant by anonymous. If not, well there is always good scotch to cover a multitude of sins.
Nick, you brought the word into the picture. So it is for you to define it. So why don't you? Or are you afraid to commit yourself to the definition? You really take cop outs to a whole new level.Nick_A wrote:This is really amazing. Hopefully someone will show up with artistic depth who understands what is meant by anonymous. If not, well there is always good scotch to cover a multitude of sins.
As I wrote, I'm hoping one person will show up who understands what is meant by anonymous in older religious music of quality. Then perhaps a real discussion can begin as opposed to inviting the seek and destroy mission that is the norm for the usual suspects in matters of quality.Nick, you brought the word into the picture. So it is for you to define it. So why don't you? Or are you afraid to commit yourself to the definition? You really take cop outs to a whole new level.
Yes, if no one with the soul of an artist shows up who I can exchange with. And by that I don't mean someone who just expresses themselves.D P wrote: I'd be happier if you stuck with the scotch then. Is there hope for that outcome?
This is almost too good to be true. Someone pinch me!Nick_A wrote:Yes, if no one with the soul of an artist shows up who I can exchange with. And by that I don't mean someone who just expresses themselves.D P wrote: I'd be happier if you stuck with the scotch then. Is there hope for that outcome?
Seems to me that anonymous is used as an attempt to take credit away from the composer and claim that either a higher consciousness helped in composing it, or the collective did it. Either way, it is a blatant attempt at trying to hog the credit or to claim the composer had help and thus discredit him. This is usually the kind of stuff people without talent do when they come across real talent. They cannot believe that a human being can by himself create something so amazing because they themselves couldn't do it. It is a pathetic attempt at taking away from the greatness of the composer by people who cannot achieve much in life.Nick_A wrote:sthit wrote:As I wrote, I'm hoping one person will show up who understands what is meant by anonymous in older religious music of quality. Then perhaps a real discussion can begin as opposed to inviting the seek and destroy mission that is the norm for the usual suspects in matters of quality.Nick, you brought the word into the picture. So it is for you to define it. So why don't you? Or are you afraid to commit yourself to the definition? You really take cop outs to a whole new level.