Music Lane It's all about the music, dude! Sit down, relax and listen to some tunes.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Music Lane ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

RE: Seriously?

Posted by Analog Scott (A) on August 23, 2012 at 16:21:35

In Reply to: RE: Seriously? posted by josh358 on August 23, 2012 at 15:31:14:

"Scott, I shouldn't really answer, but -- how would you feel if someone

a) claimed that you weren't familiar with the work you were discussing

b) claimed after you explained that you were that that you were, in effect, lying"

If I were making the argument that Yuja Wang was "rhythmically wrong" in her interpretation of that particular arrangement of Tea for Two by Art Tatum from 1933 and I knew that he had recorded several very different arrangements as would anybody who is that familiar with Art Tatum and that particular standard and I decided to go to the trouble of finding it on youtube and posting it in support of that argument.... I would never ever ever post the wrong arrangement. and if I did and I were called on it I would have walked away feeling pretty dumb about the whole thing. That is what you did. And you even went on to argue that despite being a completely different arrangement that it still supported your argument. That really killed your argument more than anything. Again you might want to go back and look at that post....You didn't just post the link you commented on it's content
"I guess she deserves credit for trying, but you have to be some kind of masochist to try to equal that."
"That" being what? Were you going from memory of the 1933 recording or were you commenting on the content of the youtube video that you had just posted? Then you come back with this
"It seemed to me sufficient to demonstrate Tatum's overwhelming superiority in jazz interpretation and technique."
Certainly it would not be unreasonable to deduct that if "it seemed sufficient to demonstrate Tatum's overwhelming superiority in jazz interpretation and technique" that you must have given it a listen first. No? How else could you make such a claim? So you must have known that it was a completely different arrangement that bears little resemblance to the relavent performance since you are familiar with Art Tatum's other arrangements and his performances of them (by the way the only other arrangement of this one on youtube is the right one so there wouldn't have been much of a search)As someone so familiar with the various Art Tatum versions of Tea for Two you had to know that this was so different and you had to also know that the correct arrangement, while somewhat different was at least basically the same piece with tempos and phrasing that was not nearly as dissimilar as the two different Art Tatum arrangements. So regardless of why you chose to post the wrong arrangement matters not. You did make that choice and it completely killed your argument.



You got called on it.

"c) claimed that you were posting "stupid things"?"

If I did the above and someone called it stupid I would have to agree with them. Smart people do and say stupid things from time to time. I know it's no fun to be called on it but that is the school of hard knocks.

"When you make inaccurate accusations about people, they are rapidly going to lose respect for your argument. At least, I will. If you're that wrong about me, why would I expect you to be right about something else?

When you add an insult into the mix, well . . ."

Sorry you feel insulted. But if you go back and read the posts you will see that I merely called you on posting the wrong version of Art Tatum's Tea for Two and then called you on trying to assert that it still proved your point. I really don't care what your rationalizations are for posting the wrong arrangement. The point was that it was lame beyond belief to make the argument you made and then post the wrong arrangement and then hang on to it by claiming it still supported your argument.

"That's why I ended the discussion,"

But alas, you didn't end it and you are still not ending it.


"as I do these days whenever someone insists on arguing ad hominem rather than sticking to the issue at hand. Not because we have differing opinions."

That is ironic since you are the one making ad hominem arguments here. I have argued about the music and I have deconstructed your arguments about the music which include citing the wrong arrangement as evidence for your objective assertions about "wrong rhythms." If we were arguing... I don't know...say college football and I was saying that..Alabama is great and USC was an objectively inferior team and I posted a youtube video of Alabama playing basketball as evidence wouldn't that raise a red flag? Especially if I said well yeah, it's basketball but it still proves that USC is an inferior football team. Wouldn't that come off as a bit, dare I say it?.... stupid?

"And, really, this doesn't happen to me often on the Asylum, despite the hundreds of posts I've made. I can think of one exception on the General Asylum -- I ended that discussion too -- and otherwise, it's always the same guy, and he does it to others as well."

Whether or not you want to continue the discussion or end it is fine with me either way.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Schiit Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---