Lindsay Perigo's stoopid-ass music essay

[Rich Engle]

It was horrible. You know what it was like, reading? I don't know about you, but I have one of those things where I get sickers going on carnival rides that go in circles, then more than two directions at once.

Like a good teacup ride.

Pay no attention to the Man Behind the Curtain.

I considered doing something else; more detailed, but that would require reading it again, and I'm not about to waste (another) thirty=dollar meal over it. That salad was GOOD.

But I do remember some parts of it, through the trauma. His strategy was curious.

I mean, I'm compromised because the nausea started early-on reading: I am not sure where I started blocking and speed-reading.

He came on nice, but then got ugly, par for course.

He wrote it liked flawed movements.

And then, the flaw any pro could see: to bring up a whipping-boy example, in this case the notorious (not) Slipknot hanging dealio. Sigh.

Off all the tragedies, and he pulls out THAT? Weak.

Then he goes on with more justification (I think, hard to tell as he runs rampant with this). And THEN, he circles around with an attempted rational argument, being "Romantic Music Is The Best."

Any musician worth squat has their ass cheeks contract when they hear "best." Basically, we are off the bus when we hear it, because it is a juke argument involving style that we have heard before.

All this coming from a non-player, unless you include air-batoning as an Olymian Ideal. Yeah.

That's all I can stand to say of it. It is a shitty essay (not really even an essay), and he even admits his defensive position, if you notice.

It smells like a ham and feet sandwich.

Thus spoke Zarathustra, my effing behind.

rde

PS-- Oh, and this a good part... He actually offers a prize to anyone who can refer to what Schumann was referring to in the "last two phrases" of the piece he wrote for Clara. The 3rd MM, I think, is introspective, the 4th is a bombastic close (CMajor?). I like that piece.

The point is he just uses that as a vehicle. He's a dick.

Edited March 22, 2009 by Rich Engle

[9thdoctor]

I was just doing a quick browse on SLOP, the global warming thread is quite good BTW, but saw a new “KASS Music Gem” thread dedicated to Carlos Kleiber’s recording of the Brahms 2nd. Great recording, there’s none better (Klemperer, Walter, a few others do equal it). Jabba’s comment:

Terrific find. Alas, wasted on all here, and on the rest of the world at large.

There's only one hope for humanity—the destruction (probably by mad Muslims, but who cares?) of Neanderthal (by Neanderthal—the mad Muslims) and the flourishing of Cro-Magnon. If that's Nietzschean, then long live Nietzsche, I say. But it isn't, of course. Nietzsche was simply Neanderthal inverted.

But we'd all better get serious about this stuff. This is not an armchair debate. You fuckwitted, lazy, complacent Americans are about to be done in, and deservedly so. Some of us pro-American non-Americans are anxious to avoid this outcome, and are equally anxious to help you avoid the terrorist dirty nuke that you so richly deserve. So help us out here.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/7132

I feel that any comment I could make would only belabour the obvious.

[Jonathan]

I was just doing a quick browse on SLOP, the global warming thread is quite good BTW, but saw a new “KASS Music Gem” thread dedicated to Carlos Kleiber’s recording of the Brahms 2nd. Great recording, there’s none better (Klemperer, Walter, a few others do equal it). Jabba’s comment:

Terrific find. Alas, wasted on all here, and on the rest of the world at large.

There's only one hope for humanity—the destruction (probably by mad Muslims, but who cares?) of Neanderthal (by Neanderthal—the mad Muslims) and the flourishing of Cro-Magnon. If that's Nietzschean, then long live Nietzsche, I say. But it isn't, of course. Nietzsche was simply Neanderthal inverted.

But we'd all better get serious about this stuff. This is not an armchair debate. You fuckwitted, lazy, complacent Americans are about to be done in, and deservedly so. Some of us pro-American non-Americans are anxious to avoid this outcome, and are equally anxious to help you avoid the terrorist dirty nuke that you so richly deserve. So help us out here.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/7132

I feel that any comment I could make would only belabour the obvious.

Heh. If anything is "Neanderthal," it's people who express rage about the fact that others have different tastes in music, the belief that mankind's "only hope" is to destroy people who are capable of enjoying more than just Romantic music, and the view that the enjoyment of such music makes one deserving of destruction.

One thing that never ceases to amuse me about angry old Neanderthal Pigero is his opinion that others are not capable of enjoying the music that he enjoys, and that music is "wasted on" them, if they don't also share his rage about the music that he hates. What it comes down to is that he's really not interested in promoting the joy of music, but in trying to intimidate weak-minded followers into sharing his anger and hatred.

J

[jeffrey smith]

The melancholy/terrifying thing about Perigo is that he seems to honestly believe he is advancing the ideas in which he believes by this behavior; yet when presented with people living out those ideas in a way that is outside his zone of intellectual comfort (and apparently it is a very small zone) he can't see what they are doing. You'll notice that his KASS gems are, in very large proportion, old clips. Sometimes a living performer makes it there, but not very often; and always the music is very mainstream. No sense of exploration of either new performers or new (to the listener) music. And apparently his chief sexual fantasy involves a threeway among himself, Van Cliburn and Tchaikovsky. And he has absolutely no tolerance for anyone having different tastes or ideals in music. Prof. Campbell is despised because he likes SunRa; others are insulted because they express a liking for heavy metal, and Galt help those who like Frank Zappa, or don't think that Mario Lanza is the greatest voice that ever sang. Because I preferred a more intellectual, less emotive approach--ie, I don't need to value swoon over every piece of I hear--my religion and sex are changed (search SOLO for "Sister Jeffrina" if you wish). (And this despite the fact that my musical tastes are not very different from his.) (And of course the whole idea of "value swooning" is simply a knockoff from tantra/Hermeticism, although he seems to have no idea of its origins.)

The real downfall is that lack of tolerance and lack of the desire to explore; it leaves him cold, sterile and condemned only the company of those that think exactly like himself.

Jeffrey S.

[9thdoctor]

Because I preferred a more intellectual, less emotive approach--ie, I don't need to value swoon over every piece of I hear--my religion and sex are changed (search SOLO for "Sister Jeffrina" if you wish).

Jesus, I wouldn’t put up with that shit. Looks like you ducked out in June, good call, why not sooner? I can’t stand that guy, here’s another of his statements that defies further comment:

Putting the point more philosophically, Sibelius is for dyslexic empiricists.

[Robert Campbell]

ND,

It was after I read Lindsay Perigo's putdown of Sibelius's 2nd Symphony that I realized there was no point in my commenting on any of those threads where he went on about his faves.

Robert Campbell

[jeffrey smith]

Because I preferred a more intellectual, less emotive approach--ie, I don't need to value swoon over every piece of I hear--my religion and sex are changed (search SOLO for "Sister Jeffrina" if you wish).

Jesus, I wouldn’t put up with that shit. Looks like you ducked out in June, good call, why not sooner? I can’t stand that guy, here’s another of his statements that defies further comment:

Putting the point more philosophically, Sibelius is for dyslexic empiricists.

That statement defies not only further comment, but also rational explanation. Who represents the nondyslexic empiricists? Richard Strauss?

I stayed as long as I did because I was under the impression that other people who frequented the site were worth talking to. But eventually I realized that (with the exception of one person) the people who were worth talking to at SOLO also posted here--and certain others whom I had initially thought better of turned out to be worthless. And realizing that, I left. Perigo himself I already knew of before I even joined, and was ready to put up with his buffoonry until I realized there was nothing to be gained by doing so.

Jeffrey S.

[Jonathan]

The melancholy/terrifying thing about Perigo is that he seems to honestly believe he is advancing the ideas in which he believes by this behavior; yet when presented with people living out those ideas in a way that is outside his zone of intellectual comfort (and apparently it is a very small zone) he can't see what they are doing. You'll notice that his KASS gems are, in very large proportion, old clips. Sometimes a living performer makes it there, but not very often; and always the music is very mainstream. No sense of exploration of either new performers or new (to the listener) music.

Yup. The fictional character from Rand's novels that Pigero most closely resembles is Ellsworth Toohey.

J

[Chris Grieb]

The melancholy/terrifying thing about Perigo is that he seems to honestly believe he is advancing the ideas in which he believes by this behavior; yet when presented with people living out those ideas in a way that is outside his zone of intellectual comfort (and apparently it is a very small zone) he can't see what they are doing. You'll notice that his KASS gems are, in very large proportion, old clips. Sometimes a living performer makes it there, but not very often; and always the music is very mainstream. No sense of exploration of either new performers or new (to the listener) music.

Yup. The fictional character from Rand's novels that Pigero most closely resembles is Ellsworth Toohey.

J

From my one meeting with Lindsay he is little fatter than I pictured Toohey. Also Toohey would not have drank. Toohey wanted to stay in control.

[Jonathan]

From my one meeting with Lindsay he is little fatter than I pictured Toohey.

Sure, but then again, Pigero is a lot heavier than I picture all of the characters in Rand's novels, so his weight shouldn't be a factor when deciding which character he most closely resembles.

Also Toohey would not have drank. Toohey wanted to stay in control.

Right. Pigero is a cheap imitation of Toohey. He closely resembles Toohey in many ways, but is not an exact duplicate.

J

[Dragonfly]

Sure, but then again, Pigero is a lot heavier than I picture all of the characters in Rand's novels, so his weight shouldn't be a factor when deciding which character he most closely resembles.

Orren Boyle perhaps?

Orren Boyle made a noise, swallowing his liquor. He was a large man with big, virile gestures; everything about his person was loudly full of life, except the small black slits of his eyes.

Orren Boyle, who seemed too stout for his full-dress clothes

He was seeing the pendulous face of Orren Boyle with the small slits of pig's eyes

Orren Boyle had giggled to him drunkenly.

Jim Taggart calls Boyle a fat slob and a fat fool.

Right. Pigero is a cheap imitation of Toohey. He closely resembles Toohey in many ways, but is not an exact duplicate.

I don't see the resemblance, Toohey is much more smooth and intelligent.

[Jonathan]

Hey DF,

You make a good point about Pigero looking like Bolye. As for Pigero's resemblance to Toohey, I was thinking more of the general attitude rather than the physical appearance or the smoothness of Toohey's style or of his intelligence versus Pigero's lack thereof -- the point being that Toohey, like Pigero, was a non-creator who yearned to have influence and power over others, especially creators, and he resented the new and original in art. He fought against those who dared to step outside of classical or mainstream artistic forms. Pigero is very much like Toohey in that he likes to try to intimidate people into sharing his hatred of artworks.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Orren Boyle?

Hmmm...

Let's see...

----ORREN BOYLE----

Works for me.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Orren Boyle?

Hmmm...

Let's see...

----ORREN BOYLE----

Works for me.

Michael

I could have done without the picture but it does make the point. SOLO will have some nasty comments about you.

[Greybird]

Edit: No point to my protesting the pointlessness of epithets. And there never was any point.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Greybird

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

SOLO will have some nasty comments about you.

Chris,

Oh, the pain... the pain...

Michael

EDIT: I meant "woe is me" kind of pain, not sidesplitting laughter. Just want to make that clear.

[9thdoctor]

Edit: No point to my protesting the pointlessness of epithets. And there never was any point.

I’m glad Greybird reconsidered his post dumping on this thread, I read it this morning. We’re in the “Rants” forum, so there’s truth in advertising, and the posters here have been called all kinds of over the top names by Perigo: Nambpla Campla, Sister Jeffrina, Michael Sewer Smelly, so on. And on and on. So people have a place to vent.

You suggested that there’s too little sharing of artistic treasures on this site, I beg to differ, see the youtube thread under Music, or the Literature threads. These threads usually don’t go on and on, maybe that’s because there aren’t (typically) the kinds of insane comments that Perigo makes. He does have a certain talent for conversation starters, but are those conversations that you want to join? I don’t.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2106&st=320

Oh Jesus, look at that, Dragonfly is recommending Florence Foster Jenkins (post 335). Lower than Sun Ra and Zappa combined, RANK NIHILISM!!! DF, you’re a Homo Habilis who’s not even worthy of wanking a Homo Erectus. Die, you primeval devolved sub-human anti-values jihadist…hmm, I’m stuck, imitating Jabba actually takes more effort than I realized, maybe a drink would help, but its too early in the day.

[Greybird]

[4:50 am PST] Edit: No point to my protesting the pointlessness of epithets. And there never was any point.

[9:18 am PST] I’m glad Greybird reconsidered his post dumping on this thread, I read it this morning. [...]

And then you responded to it, several hours later, well after I deleted it.

You ended up responding to comments I had made that "dumped" in larger degree as to epithets, and about the dearth of artistic discussion here. Ones that I had already decided — after eight minutes! — were not sufficiently grounded to keep posted, under my name, on this site.

So long after I already chose to reconsider and to retract them, you still want to tar me with them. That, sir, is not an impulse belonging to civil discussion. Which ought to be upheld even in a "Rants" forum.

You had no valid excuse to do this, not after more than four hours. (See the accurate timestamps above.)

When a post is read and responded to by others within minutes, before one can rethink or change it, I can understand such a response. I've reinstated or explained some edits when someone has responded that quickly.

Yet you had four hours to see, plainly, that I had quite quickly changed my mind. You still didn't choose to honor that, and plainly wanted to rub my nose in it all.

I'm not going to put up with such tactics. And since you chose to do this in public, I have no choice but to request in public that you immediately post an apology.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Greybird

[9thdoctor]

And then you responded to it, several hours later, well after I deleted it.

You ended up responding to comments I had made that "dumped" in larger degree as to epithets, and about the dearth of artistic discussion here. Ones that I had already decided — after eight minutes! — were not sufficiently grounded to keep posted, under my name, on this site.

So long after I already chose to reconsider and to retract them, you still want to tar me with them. That, sir, is not an impulse belonging to civil discussion. Which ought to be upheld even in a "Rants" forum.

You had no valid excuse to do this, not after more than four hours. (See the accurate timestamps above.)

When a post is read and responded to by others within minutes, before one can rethink or change it, I can understand such a response. I've reinstated or explained some edits when someone has responded that quickly.

Yet you had four hours to see, plainly, that I had quite quickly changed my mind. You still didn't choose to honor that, and plainly wanted to rub my nose in it all.

I'm not going to put up with such tactics. And since you chose to do this in public, I have no choice but to request in public that you immediately post an apology.

I read your post but couldn’t respond immediately (other things to do). I thought what you wrote originally was exceedingly harsh, and planned to respond later, when time allowed. I hardly tarred you, the tone of your reply is wildly out of proportion. Further, my post remains valid as a reply to your edited post, notwithstanding the fact I address your deleted statements on the lack of artistic treasure sharing (did that really sting so much?). Also I didn’t mess with the time stamps, but I’ve noticed they often add or subtract an hour for no apparent reason. I’ve replied to posts that show up as having been originally made after my reply, you’d think it was a Dr. Who episode.

You claim that it is inexcusable netiquette to comment on a deleted post, I’ll point you to the following:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6539&st=158

I’m not the only one doing it, get used to it, and think before you post, the first time.

You demand an apology, well, I can’t resist offering a favorite line from a favorite novel (Foucault’s Pendulum by Umberto Eco): Ma gavte la nata…

Or would you prefer an insincere apology?