Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 19:04:11 GMT -5
Could it be that this woman is attempting to distract us from Dvořák? Is it healthy? Is it beautiful? Is it sane? Is it safe? Is it sexy? Why do tenors and baritones and conductors not feel the urge to perform in tiny shorts? It's the Mass, by the way - and does not that tremendously compound the offence?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 8, 2014 1:04:04 GMT -5
Could it be that this woman is attempting to distract us from Dvořák? Is it healthy? Is it beautiful? Is it sane? Is it safe? Is it sexy? Which woman? I see two in the photograph. OK, let's hae a stab at answering your questions. Healthy? For whom and in what sense? Beautiful? Is what beautiful, precisely? Sane? A matter of personal opinion, no doubt. Safe? Against what risk? Sexy? See answer above for "Sane".
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Oct 8, 2014 3:49:20 GMT -5
But surely:
1) her inadequate clothing is at least six inches vertically below its proper position, and the Mass is just beginning.
2) her trunk is being sqeezed horizontally in a most unnatural way, which could not but be detrimental to her breathing. (That must be unhealthy.)
3) no means of support are visible; there is nothing I can see that would prevent the contraption from slipping even further down, or am I missing something? Is it hooked onto the back of her ears, or attached to her back with sticky tape? With what fascination and horror must the audience have looked on!
4) why cannot she concentrate on the music instead of showing off her mouldy old organs of reproduction? Is any one at all going to be interested anyway? They should be kept well hidden. To summarize: what does she think she is doing?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 8, 2014 7:22:27 GMT -5
But surely: 1) her inadequate clothing is at least six inches vertically below its proper position, and the Mass is just beginning. Who determines its alleged "inadequacy", for what particular purpose do you appear to perceive it as being "inadequate"? Also, what do you believe its "proper position" should be, why and on what specific grounds? 2) her trunk is being sqeezed horizontally in a most unnatural way, which could not but be detrimental to her breathing. (That must be unhealthy.) You may have a point here but, at the same time, you might be even more exercised about the singer's mode of dress were her priority to ensure that nothing of any kind would risk constricting her breathing! 3) no means of support are visible; there is nothing I can see that would prevent the contraption from slipping even further down, or am I missing something? Is it hooked onto the back of her ears, or attached to her back with sticky tape? Whilst your omission to clarify either what it is for which means of support are supposedly invisible or the identity of what you call the "contraption" make the answer to your questions less than obvious, means of support do not have to be visible and so you almost certainly are missing something, though why that should especially concern you is likewise less than obvious. With what fascination and horror must the audience have looked on! Little if any, I imagine, especially since none of its members would have been seated at the close quarters imposed by the photograph. 4) why cannot she concentrate on the music On what particular grounds and with what knowledge might you suppose that she isn't? instead of showing off her mouldy old organs of reproduction? Pardon? I'm not sure which is the more deplorable - your sheer tasteless rudeness or your anatomical accuracy. Is any one at all going to be interested anyway? As suggested above in answer to your question "With what fascination and horror must the audience have looked on!". They should be kept well hidden. How "well"? And sez who? and why? Do you perhaps think that the singer might better be invisible altogether? To summarize: what does she think she is doing? Singing, I imagine; what do you think that she thinks that she is doing?
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Oct 8, 2014 23:11:20 GMT -5
Well I had originally written t**s, but sensing, like Mr. H., something "tasteless", I changed that to "organs of reproduction" which I think will be agreed has a much more decorous tone. But it is an unavoidable fact that a gain in gentility entails a loss in accuracy. Perhaps "mammary appendages" would satisfy all parties. Either way, what is truly "deplorable" remains the exhibition itself does it not. Of course one has learned to make allowances for the Netherlanders - but that does not oblige us to accept the daily practice of slummocks. Oh and it would also I think be of interest to all our members were Mr. H. to elaborate a little upon the following: . . . means of support do not have to be visible and so you almost certainly are missing something . . . because after considering the question disinterestedly from an engineering standpoint I honestly do not see how it (the "gown") can be persuaded to hold its position for more than a minute or so. As we go about our busy lives is it not of the essence that we who are not geniuses carry with us the spiritual assurance that our clothing will not without warning slide away and reveal our true natures to the passing throng?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 9, 2014 1:20:01 GMT -5
Well I had originally written t**s, but sensing, like Mr. H., something "tasteless", I changed that to "organs of reproduction" which I think will be agreed has a much more decorous tone. But it is an unavoidable fact that a gain in gentility entails a loss in accuracy. Perhaps "mammary appendages" would satisfy all parties. It might satisfy certain pedants, perhaps, but even their pedantry would stand in the way of accuracy and thereby miss the point, for whilst what you write about are indeed "mammary", they are certainly not "appendages", as though somehow stuck on (assuming that they're not false, of course, which the photograph suggests is highly unlikely) - and why use a clumsy two-word phrase when the word "breasts" (in which I do not sense anything "tasteless", as your apparently wilful misunderstanding encourages you to recontextualise it) is far simpler, less pedantic and, above all, unequivocal. Either way, what is truly "deplorable" remains the exhibition itself does it not. It does not, since you ask, because what you describe as an "exhibition" simply wasn't one to the audience present, all of whom would, as I have already noted, have been seated at a distance from the singer than that implicit in the photograph; your accusation "deplorable" therefore has no merit, since there was nothing to be "deplored". Of course one has learned to make allowances for the Netherlanders Really? Which "one"? What "allowances"? - and why? - and what makes you assume that this could not have occurred other than in the Netherlands? but that does not oblige us to accept the daily practice of slummocks Since you clearly do not know the singer personally and have no knowlege of what she might "practice daily" (other, presumably, than singing, as all singers do), whatever it might be (if anything) that the unexplained making of "allowances" might or might not "oblige" the nebulous "us" (who are they?) to accept is far from obvious. As to "slummocks", I had to go and look that one up, the word being by no means in common parlance today; I found that OED defines it as "a dirty, untidy, or slovenly person". You have omitted to clarify what you appear to believe to be "untidy" about this singer as portrayed in the photograph; furthermore, since "slovenly" once again suggests a state of untidyness (unless, of course, it is intended to convey that the singer is from Slovenia) and as you have no idea of the said singer's hygiene habits and standards (neither of which is in any case relevant here and cannot be identified by a mere photograph in any case), your use of the word is wholly inappropriate and indeed suggestive of a wilful "slovenliness" of expression on your own part that is as unjustified as it is unwelcome. Oh and it would also I think be of interest to all our members were Mr. H. to elaborate a little upon the following: . . . means of support do not have to be visible and so you almost certainly are missing something . . . because after considering the question disinterestedly from an engineering standpoint I honestly do not see how it (the "gown") can be persuaded to hold its position for more than a minute or so. As we go about our busy lives is it not of the essence that we who are not geniuses carry with us the spiritual assurance that our clothing will not without warning slide away and reveal our true natures to the passing throng? Perhaps rather more "uninterestedly" than "disinterestedly", methinks! Since a gown is an inanimate object, it is difficult to figure how such a garment could be "persuaded" to do, or not do, anything at all. Furthermore, the fact that you "do not see" something, "honestly" or otherwise, does not of itself mean that it is not possible; rather than asking me, however, why not approach someone who has greater professional knowledge of clothing design than either of us for an authentic and reliable answer to your question? It is also unclear why you appear implicity to exempt those who are "geniuses" from the sense of responsibility for and control over their apparel that is the concern of the rest of us who are not "genuises", but perhaps that's beside the point (if indeed there is one). In conclusion, I am "obliged" to conclude that the extent to which you appear to be exercised and arguably distracted by this photograph - which, as I have been at pains to point out, is a far greater extent than that of anyone who had been present in the audience - seems at best to be grossly disproportionate. One might conclude that you have made several boobs in what you hve written on this subject but it might be better not to do so...
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Oct 10, 2014 0:26:25 GMT -5
Thank you Mr. H. for the clarification; I thought "slummock" meant a slum-dweller - appropriately so, the Netherlands being one vast slum - but obviously I was wrong and should simply have written "slum-dweller" to convey the intended meaning. Here is a second singer from the same concert, this time performing Wagenaar. She has much the same problem as the first, as well as one or two more, seeing that she is very fat and the stage is very hot and there is not the space in her bosom for her to tuck her hanky into which ladies of more fortunate and more genteel days had. She doesn't look too happy with Wagenaar. But I think Wagenaar would have been even less happy with her!So - we have still not found an answer to the obvious questions: why do ladies feel the urge to project their parts at the audience, whereas men feel no urge at all to show off their legs? And why do ladies feel they are at liberty actually to perform this shocking and inappropriate exhibition, whereas men are far more modest about their attributes? Just because a great crowd of people are sitting out there, is that an excuse to thrust the very debatable charms of these features into their faces? Is there not a time and a place for everything? Should a modesty law be introduced do members think, to prevent further widespread confusion of opportunity with excuse?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 10, 2014 5:07:27 GMT -5
Thank you Mr. H. for the clarification; I thought "slummock" meant a slum-dweller - appropriately so, the Netherlands being one vast slum - but obviously I was wrong and should simply have written "slum-dweller" to convey the intended meaning. Well, that's not the meaning provided by OED at all - and your remarks about the Netherlands are, frankly, beyond contempt. Here is a second singer from the same concert, this time performing Wagenaar. She has much the same problem as the first, as well as one or two more, seeing that she is very fat and the stage is very hot and there is not the space in her bosom for her to tuck her hanky into which ladies of more fortunate and more genteel days had. She doesn't look too happy with Wagenaar. But I think Wagenaar would have been even less happy with her!Why? Have you actually heard her sing but found her singing wanting in some way and, as a consequence, concluded that the composer would have been dissatisfied with her performances of his work? If so, on what grounds do you put forward such a view? So - we have still not found an answer to the obvious questions: why do ladies feel the urge to project their parts at the audience, whereas men feel no urge at all to show off their legs? The principal reason why this still undentified "we" (whoever they may be) have not "found an answer to the obvious questions" is that said questions are themselves by no means "obvious" to anyone other, perhaps, than the person who asked them and - as I am now repeating for the second time - your premise is itself flawed in any case because no one in the audience will have had such a close-up view of the singer as that provided by the camera. And why do ladies feel they are at liberty actually to perform this shocking and inappropriate exhibition As it is not an "exhibition" per se because most audience members would not be able to avail themselves of the close-up view provided by the camera (how many more times do I have to point this out?), your references to "liberty" and "inappropriate" are clearly superfluous - redundant, indeed - and, as to "shocking", just as someone has to be "shocked" for whatever it is that has "shocked" to be "shocking", so someone has to be exhibited to in order that an exhibition can be said to have occurred - and why in any event would anyone be "shocked" by what you draw grossly disproportionate attention to here? The only "shocking" aspect of all of this is, as I have already indicated, your deplorable remark about the Netherlands. whereas men are far more modest about their attributes? Just because a great crowd of people are sitting out there, is that an excuse to thrust the very debatable charms of these features into their faces? Is there not a time and a place for everything? Should a modesty law be introduced do members think, to prevent further widespread confusion of opportunity with excuse? I've already answered that; my only additional comments are that (a) the confusion, if any, is yours alone, (b) there is not a time or place for such scabrous comment about the Netherlands as you present here and (c) the gender of the performer would be of little or no consequence in the present context if he/she is an organist. Lastly, at the risk of wnadering temporarily off-topic, I cannot help but note your reference to a certain member here as "Mr. H." which is precisely as another member here refers to that member while no one else here ever does so; what an interesting coincidence!...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2014 14:06:12 GMT -5
Is it not the fashion, Sydney?
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Oct 10, 2014 23:31:31 GMT -5
Is it not the fashion, Sydney? And who are the arbiters of this fashion Mr. c?
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Oct 10, 2014 23:35:27 GMT -5
Have you actually heard her sing but found her singing wanting in some way and, as a consequence, concluded that the composer would have been dissatisfied with her performances of his work? If so, on what grounds do you put forward such a view? I use the faculty of judgement. I believe a funny old German from Koenigsburg wrote a whole unnecessary book about it. One must trust one's own judgement Mr. H otherwise one is no one - no more than an ape. And I hope it will be admitted that it is one's duty to aspire to being more than an ape. ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 11, 2014 2:39:26 GMT -5
Have you actually heard her sing but found her singing wanting in some way and, as a consequence, concluded that the composer would have been dissatisfied with her performances of his work? If so, on what grounds do you put forward such a view? I use the faculty of judgement. I believe a funny old German from Koenigsburg wrote a whole unnecessary book about it. One must trust one's own judgement Mr. H otherwise one is no one - no more than an ape. And I hope it will be admitted that it is one's duty to aspire to being more than an ape. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? But how can you else judge singing that you have not heard? All that you do here is put forward your unfounded and foundable assumption that, because you happen to disapprove of her mode of dress, the composer whose work she was singing would have disapproved of her altogether; the composers is not ever around to be consulted on this. Exercising judgement is all very well, but when one has nothing to judge, one should not exercise it as though there is; "it is one's duty" to recognise this and act accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Oct 11, 2014 4:23:41 GMT -5
. . . But how can you else judge singing that you have not heard? . . . I am not judging her singing Mr. H; I am judging her behaviour. In fact I have heard her sing - indeed I will post the video to the Art Musics soon so you too may hear her - but that is quite beside the point. What worries me - and would no doubt have worried Mijnheer Wagenaar similarly - is her using the presence of the audience as an opportunity to do a bit of thrusting. Would a man do that?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 11, 2014 10:17:22 GMT -5
. . . But how can you else judge singing that you have not heard? . . . I am not judging her singing Mr. H; I am judging her behaviour. But what particular behaviour? - and what particular right do you have to judge it any more than anyone else? In fact I have heard her sing - indeed I will post the video to the Art Musics soon so you too may hear her - but that is quite beside the point. What worries me - and would no doubt have worried Mijnheer Wagenaar similarly - is her using the presence of the audience as an opportunity to do a bit of thrusting. Would a man do that? I hope that I do not have to reiterate for the umpteenth time that audience members would not have been at anything like such close quarters to her as is evident from the photograph, because banging on as I have been with the same answer is getting extremely tiresome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 11:49:25 GMT -5
If I may address your question directly, Gerard: Is it not the fashion, Sydney? And who are the arbiters of this fashion Mr. c? Gerard is the arbiter. What of Sydney?
|
|