Not true. Some members are just fed up with your tiresome, repetitive and narrow-minded comments about it. Everyone on this board EXCEPT YOU is happy to discuss the music in a friendly and sensitive way or to avoid discussions of it.

You'll probably find more people deeply familiar with Holliger's work on this board than anywhere else (with the exception of M&S), so I don't know what you're looking for. But I imagine you're better at taking in things which are not 'complex messages', so I reiterate:

HOLLIGER F***ING ROOLZ!
(with apologies to Biroc for stealing his trick)

By the way, concerning 'losing an argument', I don't know what 'argument' is there to be lost? An ultimate submission to the great wisdom of echt-Middle Englander John W, conceding that Holliger really is absolutely appalling?

And there you go again Ian  

hh, said on this thread that the minority opinion must be heard

On this thread maybe I am, so I will be heard, and you just want to shout and swear at me  

At least I gave the Holliger a listen, I heard it, so I CAN have an opinion, some folk posting on this thread haven't heard it 

John, with the greatest respect, Richard 'misquoting' you (i.e. leaving off the words 'to my sensitive ears' - which doesn't actually change that much in the meaning of what you were saying) doesn't come across as being either unfriendly or insensitive.

Also in my experience, when people do take the time to explain what they find entrancing/enjoyable about a performance, you tend to come back with 'yes, but it's a load of crap isn't it?' (though, of course you would never use such coarse language).

I suppose what I'm driving at is that I don't understand what you mean by 'explained'.


So don't. Most of us already realise that you don't like contemporary music. There seem to be a significant proportion of people who enjoy discussing it, and I think they should be able to without this implication that because it's being discussed on the same messageboard it's somehow being forced upon the entire population.

You've expressed the fact that you didn't like it - that's fine, great even! - but again and again you're coming back and saying the same thing.

I don't really think that's it. I read his message as expressing his enthusiasm for the music in the least subtle and blatant fashion available to him. Does everything have to be explained in order to be valid?

John.

I'm pretty sure that everybody here is aware that some people don't like contemporary music, but once that's been said, what more is there to say? Unless I am much mistaken, you have little knowledge or experience of (or even interest in) the bulk of serious music over the last century or so, yet insist on dictating to people who specialise in it. It's a bit like a Lambrusco tippler gate-crashing a fine wines convention and slagging off the assembly because what they like isn't sweet or fizzy enough....

You have made your point repeatedly: it has been taken on board, and yet you continue to labour the matter. Frankly, it's not doing you, or the board, any favours.

Time to give it a rest now, I'd humbly suggest.

I'm only coming back again and again because other members are attacking me for my comments made here and at R3mb. If one of you had immediately replied 'sorry you didn't enjoy it John' that would probably have been the end of it, and you could have then had a one-sided discussion uninterrupted, but as mf suggests that would not have been representative of the feelings of the Po3 audience that reynart reported on at R3mb.

If you stop attacking people who don't like certain contemporary music then they might listen more, to the music, and to you.


John W

But, marbleflugel, this isn't really a debate in any meaningful sense, at least not from both sides. We could have a debate about a) what are perceived to be certain prerequisites for a successful piece of music (or, as that is such a huge subject, more specifically for a work of chamber music written near the beginning of the 21st century, say), and whether or not Holliger's work satisfies them, or b) which aspects of Holliger's new quartet (or other works) can be perceived by a listener without an extensive amount of specialist knowledge, or c) the best ways to go about programming new works in the context of old ones, or whether it can ever be successful or d) the social make-up of the average Wigmore concert-goer, or Radio 3 listener, and their likely expectations, and whether a work like the Holliger clashes with those, or e) the rights and wrongs of license-payers' money supporting performances, and broadcasts of performances, of works like the Holliger 2nd Quartet, or numerous other things. But something tells me that thoughtful contributions to these very real issues are not likely to be forthcoming from Mr W. Or maybe he can prove me wrong?

I would really like to get back to the music.