|
Baz
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #435 on: 19:36:58, 08-02-2008 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Antheil
|
|
« Reply #436 on: 19:37:55, 08-02-2008 » |
|
Well, must say I'm surprised at Mr Grew's leniency. The Harry Potter episode has cost me just the value of two off-topic postings, and best of all Anna came out of it unscathed  Ah, but you see John, you are the void, whereas I am the voidee. In other words, you led me astray, if I reply to a Puzzle which is Nul and Void, should I be penalised for responding to your error? I think not, and I think Dear Sydney thinks the same. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Reality, sa molesworth 2, is so sordid it makes me shudder
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #437 on: 19:42:29, 08-02-2008 » |
|
...but what about that avatar Anty?!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Antheil
|
|
« Reply #438 on: 19:52:14, 08-02-2008 » |
|
... C) PARTICULAR UNFAMILIARITY: Members should refrain from setting as puzzles compositions which the average music-lover is unlikely to know. Recent examples include: - the exceedingly abstruse (as in puzzle 53 with that solo violoncello)
... Bunk! That easy one was solved within minutes - almost even by Anty. You're just jealous because Anty recognized (unlike you) that the composer was not Showusaquickcock-shosters! Again, we are urged to ask Member Grew to pull up his socks (while carefully adjusting his longjohns)! Baz That was solved within minutes - almost even by Anty Excuse me, talk about damning with faint praise. Almost even by Anty - I would remind honourable members I did get 3 results right, 2 were voided as being duff questions and the third, whilst Mr. Macrea promised a 50 point half share, he had the 100 points away on his toes with not a backward glance We shall see about the avatar after the Wales v Scotland game tomorrow Baz, no doubt Katherine Jenkins and Bryn Terfel will be there. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Reality, sa molesworth 2, is so sordid it makes me shudder
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #439 on: 20:04:37, 08-02-2008 » |
|
We shall see about the avatar after the Wales v Scotland game tomorrow Baz, no doubt Katherine Jenkins and Bryn Terfel will be there.
Who cares? Just get the colours right Anty! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John W
|
|
« Reply #440 on: 20:05:13, 08-02-2008 » |
|
Ah, but you see John, you are the void, whereas I am the voidee. In other words, you led me astray, if I reply to a Puzzle which is Nul and Void, should I be penalised for responding to your error? I think not, and I think Dear Sydney thinks the same.
The way I see it Miss Termite, you blatantly participated in an inadmissable round of the great quiz, and your participation cost me the second of the off-topic deductions! But I'm so glad, it was great fun  just wish I'd chosen my clue more skilfully  John |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #441 on: 20:34:29, 08-02-2008 » |
|
Grand Accumulated Member Points Table:
Mr. Inquisitor: 2803
Mr. Baziron: 2336
Mr. Macrae: 2132
Mr. Sudden: 1587
Mr. Dish: 1395
Mr. Grew: 1081
Mr. Thompson: 788
Mr. Now: 524
Mr. Autoharp: 447
Mr. Opilec: 300
Mr. Dough: 241
Mr. Johnson: 40
Mr. Garnett: 25
Mr. Daniel: -20
Mr. H: -75
Mr. Pace: -75
Madame A: -163
Mr. D: -192
Mr. W: -320
Madame Antheil: -440
Mr. Martle: -644
Madame Strinasacchi: -880
Mr. Barrett: -1389
I cannot help noticing the almost perfect match - by inversion - of Richard and C Dish! Perhaps we could encourage the two of them to compose a Grand Canon - by strict inversion of course - in which their dialogue somehow fittingly and reciprocally commiserates each with the other? That would surely out-cage Cage? Baz  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #442 on: 00:37:43, 09-02-2008 » |
|
A pedant writes: strictly speaking Messiaen did not commemorate Jean-Pierre Guézec in Appel interstellaire or in Des canyons aux étoiles... - his tribute to Guézec, as part of the 6 April 1971 concert in Guézec's memory, was entitled simply Pièce pour cor (à la mémoire de Jean-Pierre Guézec). The piece ceased to have that title once it was incorporated in the new work and the score of Des canyons aux étoiles... contains (regrettably in our view) no mention of Guézec.
Boucourechliev and Jolas also contributed pieces for the 6 April 1971 concert by the way. As did Iannis Xenakis among others (Charisma for clarinet and cello).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sydney Grew
Guest
|
|
« Reply #443 on: 01:30:02, 09-02-2008 » |
|
A pedant writes: strictly speaking Messiaen did not commemorate Jean-Pierre Guézec in Appel interstellaire or in Des canyons aux étoiles... Congratulations Mr. Sudden! After eight years of almost daily communion with Mr. Lebrecht's tremendous book the error you rightly indicate is the first therein to have come to our notice. Perhaps one day you will step into his shoes with a book of your own: " The Complete Companion to Twenty-First-Century Music by O. Sudden"; you are eminently well qualified for the task! Just be sure not to start down the cul-de-sac of little Pierre Boulez's unreadable " Penser la musique aujourd'hui" . . . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
C Dish
|
|
« Reply #444 on: 02:09:04, 09-02-2008 » |
|
I cannot help noticing the almost perfect match - by inversion - of Richard and C Dish! Perhaps we could encourage the two of them to compose a Grand Canon - by strict inversion of course - in which their dialogue somehow fittingly and reciprocally commiserates each with the other? That would surely out-cage Cage? Baz No comment: Grand Cañon?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
inert fig here
|
|
|
|
Bryn
|
|
« Reply #445 on: 07:53:28, 09-02-2008 » |
|
After eight years of almost daily communion with Mr. Lebrecht's tremendous book the error you rightly indicate is the first therein to have come to our notice.
This observation reflects very poorly upon SCGrew's own knowledge of the subject. I have yet to find a page in Lebrecht's sad excuse for a presentation of an overview of 20th Century music which is not littered with errors, a good few of which have previously been brought to SCGrew's attention. At least Griffiths's tome reflects his familiarity with the writings, both lexical and musical, of those whose work he seeks to open up to the reader. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
autoharp
|
|
« Reply #446 on: 08:07:55, 09-02-2008 » |
|
A new thread celebrating the errors of the appalling Lebrecht would no doubt be edifying, Bryn. Mind you, it could be that Member Grew is just taking us all for a ride . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #447 on: 08:37:42, 09-02-2008 » |
|
After eight years of almost daily communion with Mr. Lebrecht's tremendous book the error you rightly indicate is the first therein to have come to our notice. "A participial phrase at the beginning of a sentence must refer to the grammatical subject." (Strunk, 1918) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sydney Grew
Guest
|
|
« Reply #448 on: 10:30:36, 09-02-2008 » |
|
After eight years of almost daily communion with Mr. Lebrecht's tremendous book the error you rightly indicate is the first therein to have come to our notice. "A participial phrase at the beginning of a sentence must refer to the grammatical subject." (Strunk, 1918) Believe it or not we ourself did before pressing the "Post" button consider whether it would be better to put " After eight years of almost daily communion with Mr. Lebrecht's tremendous book" later in the sentence. But we quickly realized that that was unnecessary. Firstly although it is true that it is a phrase it is not at all a "participial phrase" as the Member appears to believe. No participle is in evidence! Had it been a participial phrase it would have an adjectival function and would indeed be presumed to modify the subject which consists of the words "the error" in this case. But our phrase has nothing to do with participles; it is a prepositional phrase of time relationship and it functions as an adverbial adjunct. As the Member may know and as his curiously Northern American and hence hardly reliable mentor Strunk must nevertheless have known adverbs and adverbial adjuncts may occur in all kinds of places within the structure of a sentence and it is certainly not out of place where we put it. The connection of the " communion" with " our" later in the sentence is evidently a semantic one rather than a syntactic is not it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #449 on: 10:41:27, 09-02-2008 » |
|
Mr Greugh, I am surprised at you. The opening phrase of your sentence is clearly attempting to behave as a participial clause (though failing to do so, for exactly the reason expressed by Strunk in admirably pithy manner). I suggest that you sometimes cut short your communion with Mr Lebrecht's sorry piece of hack-work and apply yourself more assiduously to the correct use of English grammar, viz. to aid and not trammel the communication of your point, assuming there is one.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
