Q:Legalities of "covering" a classical work?
Marcus James Christian
I had some wild ideas for doing some super high-tech and rythmic "cover"
tunes of some classical works. Although I doubt I'd be making Michael
Jackson money I had planned to at one time offer them for sale.
Does anyone know about the legalities of covering the old classics
because I'm pretty sure copyrights only last for 50-100 years which
would make all Beethoven and Mozart songs public property???
Does that make sense?
That means I could make dance versions of all the great classics and
never pay a cent to anybody???
Let me know what you know,
Thanks,
Marcus
--
M. J. Christian Unlimited -- Multimedia Internet Design and Education
@ http://mjchristianunlimited.com
Proudly presents the music of CHROMATICUS
@ http://chromaticus.com and http://www.mp3.com/chromaticus
When responding to Newsgroup posts please choose "Reply-All"
John Harrington
Christian at mar...@mjchristianunlimited.com wrote on 10/27/01 6:33 AM:
> Hello,
>
> I had some wild ideas for doing some super high-tech and rythmic "cover"
> tunes of some classical works. Although I doubt I'd be making Michael
> Jackson money I had planned to at one time offer them for sale.
>
> Does anyone know about the legalities of covering the old classics
> because I'm pretty sure copyrights only last for 50-100 years which
> would make all Beethoven and Mozart songs public property???
Wow. It's a good thing you asked, and you came to precisely the right
group, because this is a common misconception. No, actually, in the case of
classical music, copyrights last 1500 years after the composer's death, and
the penalty for violating them is a mandatory 15 years in jail in the US
with even harsher penalties overseas, especially in Austria. A rapper known
as WOLFGANGSTA is serving such a sentence in upstate New York right now for
a 1995 violation of the international CMC convention. Though some people
have gotten away with it (e.g., the guy who did "A 5th of Beethoven" and
those responsible for "Hooked on Classics" in the 70s), law enforcement has
been cracking down on the practice in recent years, so I simply wouldn't
take the chance.
In fact, if I were you and I had already made some recordings of such
"covers", I would burn them immediately. The FBI has been known to monitor
newsgroups, and they may be headed for your house right now. I know this
sounds far-fetched, but it's a possibility, and you can't be too careful.
Even if you haven't distributed them, you should know that mere possession
is a misdemeanor.
In summation, I heartily recommend you give up the idea of "super high-tech
and rhythmic 'cover' tunes of...classical works" altogether. It was very
smart of you to ask here.
Hope this helps,
John
Peter T. Daniels
paragraphs aren't.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)
Marcus James Christian wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I had some wild ideas for doing some super high-tech and rythmic "cover"
> tunes of some classical works. Although I doubt I'd be making Michael
> Jackson money I had planned to at one time offer them for sale.
...And of course, in your world, money is far more important
than artistic integrity, isn't it?
>
> Does anyone know about the legalities of covering the old classics
> because I'm pretty sure copyrights only last for 50-100 years which
> would make all Beethoven and Mozart songs public property???
I think (although I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm
wrong) that copyrights also cover the individual editions of
the various works.
>
> Does that make sense?
Only to an unprincipled twit.
>
> That means I could make dance versions of all the great classics and
> never pay a cent to anybody???
You have no qualms, of course, about the "morality" of
masking your own lack of talent by "borrowing" from your
betters? (If you succeed in your project, I hope the
composers you desecrate rise from their graves to haunt you
to your own!)
Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)
John Harrington wrote:
>
>
> Wow. It's a good thing you asked, and you came to precisely the right
> group, because this is a common misconception. No, actually, in the case of
> classical music, copyrights last 1500 years after the composer's death, and
> the penalty for violating them is a mandatory 15 years in jail in the US
> with even harsher penalties overseas, especially in Austria. A rapper known
> as WOLFGANGSTA is serving such a sentence in upstate New York right now for
> a 1995 violation of the international CMC convention. Though some people
> have gotten away with it (e.g., the guy who did "A 5th of Beethoven" and
> those responsible for "Hooked on Classics" in the 70s), law enforcement has
> been cracking down on the practice in recent years, so I simply wouldn't
> take the chance.
>
> In fact, if I were you and I had already made some recordings of such
> "covers", I would burn them immediately. The FBI has been known to monitor
> newsgroups, and they may be headed for your house right now. I know this
> sounds far-fetched, but it's a possibility, and you can't be too careful.
> Even if you haven't distributed them, you should know that mere possession
> is a misdemeanor.
>
> In summation, I heartily recommend you give up the idea of "super high-tech
> and rhythmic 'cover' tunes of...classical works" altogether. It was very
> smart of you to ask here.
>
> Hope this helps,
> John
>
Ah, if only the above fantasy were true, John!!! (But
perhaps you know more about it than I do - one can only
hope.)
...Note to O.P. - Perhaps you should heed Mr. Harrington's
advice? As he says, no point in taking unnecessary chances.
Steve Layton
"Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3BE3105E...@earthlink.net...
>
[....]
>
> Ah, if only the above fantasy were true, John!!! (But
> perhaps you know more about it than I do - one can only
> hope.)
>
> ...Note to O.P. - Perhaps you should heed Mr. Harrington's
> advice? As he says, no point in taking unnecessary chances.
The barest-bones guideline to US copyright is this:
1) Any work of music from the dawn of time up through the end of 1922 is
currently public domain, with a couple exceptions:
a) Any previously unpublished work from before that time, but that is
newly discovered (e.g., you find a lost Mozart quartet in the drawer of that
credenza you bought at an estate sale), can still receive protection;
b) Any "edition" or arrangement (even back to Perotin) of a pre-1923
work, that was made & published after 1922, almost certainly is currently
protected.
2) Virtually everything written after 1922 is protected until at least 2019.
There were a lot of major revisions in the copyright law over the last 25
years, and one of the net effects of getting them all to mesh has been to
put us in a slightly weird period, where essentially nothing from 1923 and
later will become public domain until 2019.
An easy-ish intro is here:
http://copylaw.com/articles/PublicDomain.html
--
Steve Layton
http://www.niwo.com/
http://artist.amazon.com/stevelayton
Alan Sweeney
> >
> > I had some wild ideas for doing some super high-tech and rythmic "cover"
> > tunes of some classical works. Although I doubt I'd be making Michael
> > Jackson money I had planned to at one time offer them for sale.
>
> ...And of course, in your world, money is far more important
> than artistic integrity, isn't it?
Money was far more important to Mozart than "artistic integrity" --
with the exception of the last three symphonies, and some other late
works, he only composed when he had a paying gig. He also bowdlerized
the work of J. Schobert, among others, in order to make a fast buck.
And in this he isn't/wasn't uncommon. "Artistic integrity" seems to
be a recent invention of Romanticism, and like most ideals it falls
short of what is realistic to expect of human beings.
> > Does that make sense?
>
>
>Only to an unprincipled twit.
Why on earth would you insult someone like this? For asking some
questions? For coming to RMC for some needed expertise? If someone
on the street asked you for the time would you slap him in the face?
The hubris that electronic forums generates is simply astounding. It
seems (in my opinion at least) that your point would be better served
if you refrained from name-calling.
> >
> > That means I could make dance versions of all the great classics and
> > never pay a cent to anybody???
>
> You have no qualms, of course, about the "morality" of
> masking your own lack of talent by "borrowing" from your
> betters? (If you succeed in your project, I hope the
> composers you desecrate rise from their graves to haunt you
> to your own!)
Desecrate? Stealing from Beethoven isn't exactly the same as doing a
Burroughsian cut-and-paste job with the Koran. In any case, the
poster said he wanted to do COVERS -- and in a cover version, credit
is normally given. He didn't say he wanted to rip anyone off. He
wants to interpret some classical music in a different way. He didn't
say anything about passing off the music as his own. There is nothing
immoral, deceitful, or sacreligious about doing a "cover" of a piece
of music.
Alan Sweeney.
Margaret Mikulska
Alan Sweeney wrote:
> Money was far more important to Mozart than "artistic integrity" --
> with the exception of the last three symphonies, and some other late
> works, he only composed when he had a paying gig.
The last three symphonies were not an exception. What else do you think
was an exception?
> He also bowdlerized
> the work of J. Schobert, among others, in order to make a fast buck.
How did he "bowdlerize" *the* (?) work of Schobert and why?
-Margaret
John Harrington
evolvi...@home.com wrote on 11/5/01 12:58 PM:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I had some wild ideas for doing some super high-tech and rythmic "cover"
>>> tunes of some classical works. Although I doubt I'd be making Michael
>>> Jackson money I had planned to at one time offer them for sale.
>>
>> ...And of course, in your world, money is far more important
>> than artistic integrity, isn't it?
>
> Money was far more important to Mozart than "artistic integrity" --
> with the exception of the last three symphonies, and some other late
> works, he only composed when he had a paying gig.
This gives the impression that when Mozart couldn't find a "paying gig", he
took it easy, shot some billiards, perhaps took up golf.... But Mozart
worked like a madman, all his life, sometimes on spec, sometimes with
promise of payment, and sometimes with little more than a hope that someone
would be interested in the work he was composing. And he hardly made
himself wealthy. There is no evidence that he considered money more
important than his art. Had Mozart seen a way to make more money by, say,
working as a banker, and I'm sure he could given what must have been genius
level intelligence as well as talent, I find it impossible to believe he
would have given up music.
> He also bowdlerized
> the work of J. Schobert, among others, in order to make a fast buck.
> And in this he isn't/wasn't uncommon. "Artistic integrity" seems to
> be a recent invention of Romanticism, and like most ideals it falls
> short of what is realistic to expect of human beings.
>
>>> Does that make sense?
>>
>>
>> Only to an unprincipled twit.
>
> Why on earth would you insult someone like this?
Because the person's stated intentions are essentially the equivalent of
shitting on a Rembrandt. Perhaps you find that okay, too.
> For asking some
> questions?
> For coming to RMC for some needed expertise? If someone
> on the street asked you for the time would you slap him in the face?
I believe he would say precisely what he has said in this forum. And so
would I. Why assume violence would be involved?
> The hubris that electronic forums generates is simply astounding. It
> seems (in my opinion at least) that your point would be better served
> if you refrained from name-calling.
>
>>>
>>> That means I could make dance versions of all the great classics and
>>> never pay a cent to anybody???
>>
>> You have no qualms, of course, about the "morality" of
>> masking your own lack of talent by "borrowing" from your
>> betters? (If you succeed in your project, I hope the
>> composers you desecrate rise from their graves to haunt you
>> to your own!)
>
> Desecrate? Stealing from Beethoven isn't exactly the same as doing a
> Burroughsian cut-and-paste job with the Koran.
This isn't merely "stealing", it's mutilating...cultural vandalism. BTW,
have you read the Koran?
> In any case, the
> poster said he wanted to do COVERS -- and in a cover version, credit
> is normally given. He didn't say he wanted to rip anyone off. He
> wants to interpret some classical music in a different way. He didn't
> say anything about passing off the music as his own. There is nothing
> immoral, deceitful, or sacreligious about doing a "cover" of a piece
> of music.
Nothing to you, apparently.
John
Alan Sweeney
> > the work of J. Schobert, among others, in order to make a fast buck.
>
> How did he "bowdlerize" *the* (?) work of Schobert and why?
>
> -Margaret
Apologies for my lack of clarity. It was my (probably mistaken, I'll
admit) that the young Mozart regularly formed works (esp. his early
piano concerti) by orchestrating piano sonatas by a variety of
composers (Schobert was the only name I could remember). I was simply
trying to point out that I felt the entire thing can be seen in shades
of gray, and the elevation of music to a religion (the prior poster's
remarks about desecration, etc.) is, IMHO, a bit overdone.
Perhaps "bowdlerize" is not the right term. I realize I have a very
Anglo-sounding name, but I am no a native speaker and have some
difficulty communicating. Again, you have my apologies.
Alan.
Alan Sweeney
Gives that impression to you, perhaps.
> But Mozart
> worked like a madman, all his life, sometimes on spec, sometimes with
> promise of payment, and sometimes with little more than a hope that someone
> would be interested in the work he was composing.
I didn't say he didn't do these things.
> And he hardly made
> himself wealthy. There is no evidence that he considered money more
> important than his art.
I based my statement on things I have read. I admit I could be in
total error, and if so I apologize and withdraw my statement.
> Had Mozart seen a way to make more money by, say,
> working as a banker, and I'm sure he could given what must have been genius
> level intelligence as well as talent, I find it impossible to believe he
> would have given up music.
I agree.
> >>> Does that make sense?
> >>
> >>
> >> Only to an unprincipled twit.
> >
> > Why on earth would you insult someone like this?
>
> Because the person's stated intentions are essentially the equivalent of
> shitting on a Rembrandt. Perhaps you find that okay, too.
If that person happened to *own* that Rembrandt, and that was his
thing, why not -- as long as he does it in private?
> > Desecrate? Stealing from Beethoven isn't exactly the same as doing a
> > Burroughsian cut-and-paste job with the Koran.
>
> This isn't merely "stealing", it's mutilating...cultural vandalism. BTW,
> have you read the Koran?
Yes. My Arabic is rusty, but I have read a French "summary."
> > In any case, the
> > poster said he wanted to do COVERS -- and in a cover version, credit
> > is normally given. He didn't say he wanted to rip anyone off. He
> > wants to interpret some classical music in a different way. He didn't
> > say anything about passing off the music as his own. There is nothing
> > immoral, deceitful, or sacreligious about doing a "cover" of a piece
> > of music.
> Nothing to you, apparently.
Yes, exactly. I was stating a personal opinion, not attempting to
rattle off Truth. If that's how I came off, I apologize. I am not a
native English user.
I respect the forcefulness of your opinions!
Alan.
Alain Naigeon
>
> > Money was far more important to Mozart than "artistic integrity" --
> > with the exception of the last three symphonies, and some other late
> > works, he only composed when he had a paying gig.
Sounds strange to me : is your baker more interested in making money
than in making good bread, just because he doesn't give it for free ?
--
Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Strasbourg, France
Margaret Mikulska
names, they seemed English to me. They still do. I'm not a native
speaker, either, but that's probably obvious.)
You are not entirely wrong: the first four keyboard (or Klavier)
concerti by Mozart are arrangements of movements from sonatas by
Schobert (of bad mushrooms [in]fame), Eckard, Honauer, Raupach, and C.
P. E. Bach. Except for Bach, these were composers whose work he got to
know in Paris in 1763-1766 (German composers who settled down or at
least stayed longer in Paris). BUT - and here's the reason for my
objection - he didn't write them "to make a fast buck".
First, he wrote them at the age of 10. It's really hard to imagine that
a kid of 10 (and spoiled rotten by being admired for 3-1/2 years prior
to this time by many kings and princes of Europe, not to mention general
public) would have the notion of "making a fast buck". Furthermore, at
that time he was admired more for performing than composing skills, and
just playing other composers' works, with full credit given to the
original authors, was more cost-effective for him than working on
arrangements of sonatas into works with orchestra.
Second, he wrote them in Salzburg, even though most likely intending to
play them in Vienna later that year (it was 1767). He had several
months to write them - it wasn't a case of needing a concerto or four
right now. Most likely, he didn't need them at the time he was writing
them.
Third, at 10, he was still learning. Arranging other people's works is
a good way of learning to compose, so one might easily assume that one
of the reasons he used existing sonata movements was learning how to
write a concerto: how to contrast the solo part with the orchestra,
etc. Judging from his keyboard and chamber pieces from the time up to
then, he probably wasn't yet comfortable with writing an entire keyboard
concerto from scratch. It seems that writing orchestral and vocal
music, even big works (by that time he had already written an oratorio K
35 and was writing a "Latin comedy" - basically a sort of opera, a
full-evening work, KV 38) came to him easier than writing longer works
involving keyboard (at that time harpsichord rather than piano). It's
strange, but his first original piano concerto, D major K 175, was
written as late as Dec. 1773. It may be that this had something to do
with his father being a violinist and the composer of symphonies,
chamber music for strings, a great lot of church music, oratorios,
"school dramas" (staged or semi-staged works related to oratorios), and
other genres, but hardly of Klavier works: extant are 3 sonatas and a
handful of very simple (primitive, to be frank) minuets and similar
trifles. He wrote several concertos for various instruments, but there
are only sketches for a single Klavier concerto. Come to think of that,
there is a similarity between the genres represented by Leopold's works
and those by the works of the very young Wolfgang, and even the the
proportions of the particular genres in the total output are comparable
to a large extent. That shouldn't be surprising: the father taught the
son what he himself knew how to compose. It seems to me that Leopold
Mozart wasn't the right person to teach his son how to write piano
concertos, so the son did his best to learn, indirectly, from other
composers. In this case it would be a rather slow buck.
There are also three concerti from some later time - most likely early
1770s - which are arrangements of sonatas by J. Chr. Bach. It's not
known when exactly, where, and for what occasion he wrote them. In the
early 1770s he was either in Salzburg or in Italy. In Salzburg, he
wouldn't make much money with these concertos. In Italy, he made most
money from the operatic commissions, and there is no evidence that he
played concertos with orchestra on his Italian trips: operas and
symphonies are what we know he needed for Italy. Perhaps these three
concertos were a sort of study for writing his first original work in
this genre, especially that although we know quite a lot about his
public performances throughout his life, there is no trace of any public
performance of these three concertos (or of the first four, for that
matter - and the correspondence from the trip to Vienna where he could
play the first four concertos as well as that from his Italian trips, is
very detailed).
Be that as it may, one can't say that he did such arrangements
"regularly". The first four concertos were written within a few months
(K 37, 39, 40, 41 - the numbering is chronologically correct, so that
was "one batch" of works). The next three concertos were almost
certainly also "one batch". And that's all as far as sonatas and
concertos are concerned.
Moreover, there is no evidence that he presented any of the 7 concertos
as his own work. If I may digress: There is much talk about Bach
"ripping off" Vivaldi and other composers by arranging their works as
harpsichord concertos and concertos for solo organ. It's true that JSB
did such arrangements, but from what we know, they were all written
either for educational purposes, for a patron/pupil (who was most likely
told about the origin of the works - in fact Bach arranged a few works
*by* his aristocratic patron/pupil as organ-solo concertos) or else for
performances in definitely private circles (in which case he would also
reveal the origins of the works - the music-loving patrons could very
well know the original works by Vivaldi). Similarly, in the case of
other composers, Mozart included, arrangements of other composers' works
were usually done - at least by reputable composers - not to make a fast
buck, but for various "special purposes" and they were not
misrepresented as one's own works. For instance, later rrangements done
by Mozart included: J S Bach's fugues from WTC (for string trio and/or
quartet) and Handel's oratoria (expanded instrumentation). Those were
done for Van Swieten's matinées, where "old masters' works" were
presented.
As for "bowdlerizing" Schobert, even if you meant "to modify by
abridging, simplifying, or distorting in style or content", this doesn't
really apply to Mozart's earliest concertos: arranging keyboard sonatas
as concertos for keyboard and orchestra is hardly simplifying them;
AFAIK, the sonata movements were not abridged; whether they are
"distorted in style" or not is to a large extent a subjective issue.
(I agree with you, though, that the idea of "desecration" is at least
overdone - I'd even call it nonsense.)
-Margaret
Peter T. Daniels
> Because the person's stated intentions are essentially the equivalent of
> shitting on a Rembrandt. Perhaps you find that okay, too.
Making a "cover" or arrangment of a piece of music doesn't cause the
original piece to cease existing in its original form.
Margaret Mikulska
>
> > Alan Sweeney wrote:
> >
> > > Money was far more important to Mozart than "artistic integrity" --
> > > with the exception of the last three symphonies, and some other late
> > > works, he only composed when he had a paying gig.
>
> Sounds strange to me : is your baker more interested in making money
> than in making good bread, just because he doesn't give it for free ?
Unfortunately, artistic integrity doesn't pay for rent, food, and other
necessities. Money does.
I recommend the article "Mozart as a Working Stiff" by Neal Zaslaw.
It's in the volume "On Mozart", edited by J. Morris.
In any case, the postings in this thread represent rather extreme
positions. In reality, a compromise is often necessary. On the one
hand, composing was Mozart's profession, a way of earning money. He
called it "his sole passion", but that doesn't mean that he would write
a 3-act opera on spec. On the other hand, when his father urged him to
write "popular" works - which would bring him quickly some money, he
wouldn't write them if he regarded them as "hackwork". Nonetheless,
when he was short of money, he would write pieces for mechanical organ,
although he complained about it. When he could earn some money from an
amateur flutist, he didn't deliver as much as he promised, most likely
because he would have to write simple, uninteresting works. (The
details of this flute commission are still unclear, but that much is
most likely true.) So things depended on various factors.
-Margaret
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: Oh dear, don't apologize. (Yes, however I looked at your first and last
: names, they seemed English to me. They still do. I'm not a native
: speaker, either, but that's probably obvious.)
You underestimate yourself. Your English is far better than that of many
native speakers I could name.
[Excellent discussion of Mozart's early piano concertos deleted]
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska
John Harrington
> > Alan Sweeney wrote:
> >
> > > Money was far more important to Mozart than "artistic integrity" --
> > > with the exception of the last three symphonies, and some other late
> > > works, he only composed when he had a paying gig.
>
> Sounds strange to me : is your baker more interested in making money
> than in making good bread, just because he doesn't give it for free ?
Only a Frenchman could ask this question. ;-)
J
Alan Sweeney
Ah, a relief to me! :)
the first four keyboard (or Klavier)
> concerti by Mozart are arrangements of movements from sonatas by
> Schobert (of bad mushrooms [in]fame), Eckard, Honauer, Raupach, and C.
> P. E. Bach. Except for Bach, these were composers whose work he got to
> know in Paris in 1763-1766 (German composers who settled down or at
> least stayed longer in Paris). BUT - and here's the reason for my
> objection - he didn't write them "to make a fast buck".
>
> [snip of a very thoughtful, educational essay!]
Thank you, Margaret, for the wealth of information. Very interesting
and enlightening reading. Some of my "knowledge" of Mozart, which I
have taken for granted as true, boils down to my various
misconceptions and prejudices. Being human is sometimes very ugly :)
Thank you again!
Alan.
Michael Haslam
>
> John Harrington wrote:
>
> > Because the person's stated intentions are essentially the equivalent of
> > shitting on a Rembrandt. Perhaps you find that okay, too.
>
> Making a "cover" or arrangment of a piece of music doesn't cause the
> original piece to cease existing in its original form.
Quite. And would the condemners (?) condemn Peter Warlock for his Cod
Pieces (s**tting on Beethoven V and the Franck Symphony), Ives for his
America variations (s**tting on the National Anthem of the United
Kingdom :-) ), and the host of Renaissance composers who lifted and
transformed existing polyphonic pieces (often secular) into masses, not
to mention any composer that used a plainsong cantus firmus?
MJHaslam
how...@nospam.no
<innat...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>>
>> John Harrington wrote:
>>
>> > Because the person's stated intentions are essentially the equivalent of
>> > shitting on a Rembrandt. Perhaps you find that okay, too.
>>
>> Making a "cover" or arrangment of a piece of music doesn't cause the
>> original piece to cease existing in its original form.
>
>Quite. And would the condemners (?) condemn Peter Warlock for his Cod
>Pieces
<snip>
And would the condemners [?] condemn Grieg for adding second piano
parts to Mozart sonatas?
errrr, I guess there is a limit!!<g>
HH.
>MJHaslam
John Harrington
innat...@btopenworld.com wrote on 11/7/01 1:06 PM:
But I referred to the "person's stated intentions", which were to shit on
borrowed classical works, not to Peter Warlock, Ives or Renaissance
composers. In short, he intended to take works of legitimate art and slime
on a bucket of scum and stupidity.
John
John Harrington
how...@nospam.no wrote on 11/7/01 5:54 PM:
Grieg's arrangements are beautiful and tasteful. But, yes, there certainly
is a limit.
John
Michael Haslam
I can't tell if you are deliberately misunderstanding my post. Do you
not consider Warlock to have s**t on Beethoven & Franck in his Cod
Pieces? If you don't know them you should check them out - they are very
funny and must be a close equivalent of what you are condemning here in
that Warlock "arranged" Beet. and Fra. in the manner of popular styles
of his time with the object of making the original works of art appear
banal. Warlock's suggestion of lyrics for the finale of Beethoven V are
"Hi, you there. Your flies are all undone. Oh I say Hi, you there " etc.
Does my point become clearer now?
MJHaslam
John Harrington
innat...@btopenworld.com wrote on 11/8/01 4:15 AM:
Sigh. Yes, I understand your point, little one. The problem is you don't
understand mine. Satirizing works of art != shitting on them.
HTH,
John
Alan Bird
<bear...@earthlink.net> writes
[snip]
>This gives the impression that when Mozart couldn't find a "paying gig", he
>took it easy, shot some billiards, perhaps took up golf.... But Mozart
>worked like a madman, all his life, sometimes on spec, sometimes with
>promise of payment, and sometimes with little more than a hope that someone
>would be interested in the work he was composing. And he hardly made
>himself wealthy. There is no evidence that he considered money more
>important than his art. Had Mozart seen a way to make more money by, say,
>working as a banker, and I'm sure he could given what must have been genius
>level intelligence as well as talent, I find it impossible to believe he
>would have given up music.
>
another unrelated one. Is there any evidence that Mozart was talented
in banking?
Actually, I'm not sure what the component creative parts of a banking
talent are, but I'm fairly sure I can't be bothered to find out.
(Hmm: I close this post as I've closed many of my others: somewhat
unsure of quite what position I've argued myself into.
Never mind, a good blast of Wagner is now in order. Wagner! Clears away
all the uncertainties of life... Wagner! Recharge your convictions
here!)
--
Alan Bird Inventor & sole consumer of After-8 Mince
John Harrington
al...@jsbach.demon.co.uk wrote on 11/8/01 4:14 PM:
> In article <B80D482C.1A1%bear...@earthlink.net>, John Harrington
> <bear...@earthlink.net> writes
> [snip]
>> This gives the impression that when Mozart couldn't find a "paying gig", he
>> took it easy, shot some billiards, perhaps took up golf.... But Mozart
>> worked like a madman, all his life, sometimes on spec, sometimes with
>> promise of payment, and sometimes with little more than a hope that someone
>> would be interested in the work he was composing. And he hardly made
>> himself wealthy. There is no evidence that he considered money more
>> important than his art. Had Mozart seen a way to make more money by, say,
>> working as a banker, and I'm sure he could given what must have been genius
>> level intelligence as well as talent, I find it impossible to believe he
>> would have given up music.
>>
> I'm not sure that genius in one field allows one to infer genius in
> another unrelated one. Is there any evidence that Mozart was talented
> in banking?
No, but I didn't say there was any evidence, and banking doesn't require
"talent". I was inferring, based on what I know of banking and what I know
of Mozart's intellect (in addition to his obvious talent in music), that he
could have made a mint as a banker.
> Actually, I'm not sure what the component creative parts of a banking
> talent are, but I'm fairly sure I can't be bothered to find out.
Then why did you bring it up?
John
Michael Haslam
> > not consider Warlock to have s**t on Beethoven & Franck in his Cod
> > Pieces? If you don't know them you should check them out - they are very
> > funny and must be a close equivalent of what you are condemning here in
> > that Warlock "arranged" Beet. and Fra. in the manner of popular styles
> > of his time with the object of making the original works of art appear
> > banal. Warlock's suggestion of lyrics for the finale of Beethoven V are
> > "Hi, you there. Your flies are all undone. Oh I say Hi, you there " etc.
> > Does my point become clearer now?
>
> Sigh. Yes, I understand your point, little one. The problem is you don't
> understand mine. Satirizing works of art != shitting on them.
OK big guy, tell me what != means.
I still can't tell if you think Warlock is the equivalent of the
original poster in this thread.
>
>
> HTH,
Not much, actually.
> John
MJHaslam
John Harrington
at inn...@mac.com wrote on 11/9/01 6:30 AM:
> John Harrington <bear...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<
>>> I can't tell if you are deliberately misunderstanding my post. Do you
>>> not consider Warlock to have s**t on Beethoven & Franck in his Cod
>>> Pieces? If you don't know them you should check them out - they are very
>>> funny and must be a close equivalent of what you are condemning here in
>>> that Warlock "arranged" Beet. and Fra. in the manner of popular styles
>>> of his time with the object of making the original works of art appear
>>> banal. Warlock's suggestion of lyrics for the finale of Beethoven V are
>>> "Hi, you there. Your flies are all undone. Oh I say Hi, you there " etc.
>>> Does my point become clearer now?
>>
>> Sigh. Yes, I understand your point, little one. The problem is you don't
>> understand mine. Satirizing works of art != shitting on them.
>
> OK big guy, tell me what != means.
!= is the standard "does not equal" operator, newbie.
>
> I still can't tell if you think Warlock is the equivalent of the
> original poster in this thread.
>>
>>
>> HTH,
>
> Not much, actually.
>
>> John
>
> MJHaslam
So glad to have been of help in clearing things up for you,
John
Coby Beck
> in article 32ea5d2b.01110...@posting.google.com, Michael Haslam
> at inn...@mac.com wrote on 11/9/01 6:30 AM:
>
> > John Harrington <bear...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<
> >
> > OK big guy, tell me what != means.
>
> != is the standard "does not equal" operator, newbie.
>
Standard in a minority of computer programming languages, hardly standard
usenet jargon outside of comp.lang.c and a few others
Michael Haslam
>
> in article 32ea5d2b.01110...@posting.google.com, Michael Haslam
> at inn...@mac.com wrote on 11/9/01 6:30 AM:
>
> > John Harrington <bear...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<
> >>> I can't tell if you are deliberately misunderstanding my post. Do you
> >>> not consider Warlock to have s**t on Beethoven & Franck in his Cod
> >>> Pieces? If you don't know them you should check them out - they are very
> >>> funny and must be a close equivalent of what you are condemning here in
> >>> that Warlock "arranged" Beet. and Fra. in the manner of popular styles
> >>> of his time with the object of making the original works of art appear
> >>> banal. Warlock's suggestion of lyrics for the finale of Beethoven V are
> >>> "Hi, you there. Your flies are all undone. Oh I say Hi, you there " etc.
> >>> Does my point become clearer now?
> >>
> >> Sigh. Yes, I understand your point, little one. The problem is you don't
> >> understand mine. Satirizing works of art != shitting on them.
> >
> > OK big guy, tell me what != means.
>
> != is the standard "does not equal" operator, newbie.
Well there's a thing. If you know I'm a little one why not cut out the jargon?
>
> >
> > I still can't tell if you think Warlock is the equivalent of the
> > original poster in this thread.
> >>
> >>
> >> HTH,
Now you've helped.
> >
> > Not much, actually.
> >
> >> John
> >
> > MJHaslam
>
> So glad to have been of help in clearing things up for you,
> John
So, where do you draw the line between satire and s**tting? Drawing a
cartoon of the Mona Lisa with a moustache = satire; drawing the
moustache on THE Mona Lisa = s**tting? Putting Beethoven V into a Polka
= satire; putting a trance back-beat behind the same piece = s**tting?
Just out of interest.
MJHaslam
John Harrington
innat...@btopenworld.com wrote on 11/9/01 3:41 PM:
> John Harrington wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> != is the standard "does not equal" operator, newbie.
>
> Well there's a thing. If you know I'm a little one why not cut out the jargon?
Little one != USENET newbie.
> Now you've helped.
Glad to be of service....
>> So glad to have been of help in clearing things up for you,
>> John
>
> So, where do you draw the line between satire and shitting?
Where do you draw the line between sweet and sour? Happy and sad? Great
and mediocre? Fast and slow? Chruchillian and Hitlerian?
John
Michael Haslam
>
> in article 3BEC69AB...@btopenworld.com, Michael Haslam at
> innat...@btopenworld.com wrote on 11/9/01 3:41 PM:
>
> > John Harrington wrote:
> <snip>
> >>
> >> != is the standard "does not equal" operator, newbie.
Thinking about it, it is a pretty piss-poor standard. I find it hard to
believe it can date back to the earliest usenet pioneers.
> >
> > Well there's a thing. If you know I'm a little one why not cut out the jargon?
>
> Little one != USENET newbie.
Why not cut the jargon anyway? We're not that short of bandwidth these
days and I've been around usenet for about four years and I'd never seen
!= before. Or do you secretly like sticking the odd shibboleth in?
>
> > Now you've helped.
>
> Glad to be of service....
>
> >> So glad to have been of help in clearing things up for you,
> >> John
> >
> > So, where do you draw the line between satire and shitting?
>
> Where do you draw the line between sweet and sour? Happy and sad? Great
> and mediocre? Fast and slow? Chruchillian and Hitlerian?
But these examples are direct opposites and therefore are easily
discerned; the satire/s**tting thing is a question of degree or intent, no?
>
> John
MJHaslam
John Harrington
innat...@btopenworld.com wrote on 11/11/01 2:11 PM:
> John Harrington wrote:
>>
>> in article 3BEC69AB...@btopenworld.com, Michael Haslam at
>> innat...@btopenworld.com wrote on 11/9/01 3:41 PM:
>>
>>> John Harrington wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> != is the standard "does not equal" operator, newbie.
>
> Thinking about it, it is a pretty piss-poor standard. I find it hard to
> believe it can date back to the earliest usenet pioneers.
In my day, we trudged across the USENET prairies in our covered wagons with
nothing to sustain us but != and rainwater, and we *liked* it. Men were
men. Women were women. And emoticons were emoticons.
>>>
>>> Well there's a thing. If you know I'm a little one why not cut out the
>>> jargon?
>>
>> Little one != USENET newbie.
>
> Why not cut the jargon anyway? We're not that short of bandwidth these
> days and I've been around usenet for about four years and I'd never seen
> != before. Or do you secretly like sticking the odd shibboleth in?
Depends on whom I'm sticking it into.
>>
>>> Now you've helped.
>>
>> Glad to be of service....
>>
>>>> So glad to have been of help in clearing things up for you,
>>>> John
>>>
>>> So, where do you draw the line between satire and shitting?
>>
>> Where do you draw the line between sweet and sour? Happy and sad? Great
>> and mediocre? Fast and slow? Chruchillian and Hitlerian?
>
> But these examples are direct opposites and therefore are easily
> discerned; the satire/s**tting thing is a question of degree or intent, no?
So are fast and slow, and arguably the others as well.
John
Michael Haslam
>
>
> >>>> != is the standard "does not equal" operator, newbie.
> >
> > Thinking about it, it is a pretty piss-poor standard. I find it hard to
> > believe it can date back to the earliest usenet pioneers.
>
> In my day, we trudged across the USENET prairies in our covered wagons with
> nothing to sustain us but != and rainwater, and we *liked* it. Men were
> men. Women were women. And emoticons were emoticons.
>
>
> > days and I've been around usenet for about four years and I'd never seen
> > != before. Or do you secretly like sticking the odd shibboleth in?
>
> Depends on whom I'm sticking it into.
So sometimes "yes", you piece of cack. Why not cut the jargon anyway?
>
> >>> So, where do you draw the line between satire and shitting?
> >>
> >> Where do you draw the line between sweet and sour? Happy and sad? Great
> >> and mediocre? Fast and slow? Chruchillian and Hitlerian?
> >
> > But these examples are direct opposites and therefore are easily
> > discerned; the satire/s**tting thing is a question of degree or intent, no?
>
> So are fast and slow, and arguably the others as well.
Fast isn't the opposite of slow? This should be interesting [this is a
music ng, after all].
>
> John
John Harrington
> John Harrington wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>>> != is the standard "does not equal" operator, newbie.
> > >
> > > Thinking about it, it is a pretty piss-poor standard. I find it hard to
> > > believe it can date back to the earliest usenet pioneers.
> >
> > In my day, we trudged across the USENET prairies in our covered wagons with
> > nothing to sustain us but != and rainwater, and we *liked* it. Men were
> > men. Women were women. And emoticons were emoticons.
> >
> >
> > > Why not cut the jargon anyway? We're not that short of bandwidth these
> > > days and I've been around usenet for about four years and I'd never seen
> > > != before. Or do you secretly like sticking the odd shibboleth in?
> >
> > Depends on whom I'm sticking it into.
>
> So sometimes "yes", you piece of cack. Why not cut the jargon anyway?
IIRC, BTW, FYI, IMHO, ROTFLMAO. ;-/
> > >>> So, where do you draw the line between satire and shitting?
> > >>
> > >> Where do you draw the line between sweet and sour? Happy and sad? Great
> > >> and mediocre? Fast and slow? Chruchillian and Hitlerian?
> > >
> > > But these examples are direct opposites and therefore are easily
> > > discerned; the satire/s**tting thing is a question of degree or intent, no?
> >
> > So are fast and slow, and arguably the others as well.
>
> Fast isn't the opposite of slow?
"Fast" and "slow" are each a "question of degree".
> This should be interesting [this is a
> music ng, after all].
Oh. Sorry 2B boring.
J
Michael Haslam
> Michael Haslam <innat...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<3BEF9851...@btopenworld.com>...
> > John Harrington wrote:
> > > >>>> != is the standard "does not equal" operator, newbie.
> > > >
> > > > Thinking about it, it is a pretty piss-poor standard. I find it hard to
> > > > believe it can date back to the earliest usenet pioneers.
> > >
> > > In my day, we trudged across the USENET prairies in our covered wagons with
> > > nothing to sustain us but != and rainwater, and we *liked* it. Men were
> > > men. Women were women. And emoticons were emoticons.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Why not cut the jargon anyway? We're not that short of bandwidth these
> > > > days and I've been around usenet for about four years and I'd never seen
> > > > != before. Or do you secretly like sticking the odd shibboleth in?
> > >
> > > Depends on whom I'm sticking it into.
> >
> > So sometimes "yes", you piece of cack. Why not cut the jargon anyway?
>
> IIRC, BTW, FYI, IMHO, ROTFLMAO.
These are all seen frequently on all the ngs I frequent, unlike !=
>;-/
I've never seen this before.
>
> > > >>> So, where do you draw the line between satire and shitting?
> > > >>
> > > >> Where do you draw the line between sweet and sour? Happy and sad? Great
> > > >> and mediocre? Fast and slow? Chruchillian and Hitlerian?
> > > >
> > > > But these examples are direct opposites and therefore are easily
> > > > discerned; the satire/s**tting thing is a question of degree or intent, no?
> > >
> > > So are fast and slow, and arguably the others as well.
> >
> > Fast isn't the opposite of slow?
>
> "Fast" and "slow" are each a "question of degree".
Between not moving at all and the speed of light. In musical terms I
would contend that they are opposites.
>
> > This should be interesting [this is a
> > music ng, after all].
>
> Oh. Sorry 2B boring.
I was anticipating your defence of your assertion that fast and slow
are not opposites in a musical context. I should have guessed that you
would not rise to the challenge. You become boring when you mistake
repeating an assertion for argument.
MJHaslam
PS Sorry for the late respose. My ISP's news server is crap (fact) so
when I have time I check for replies on Google.
John Harrington
at inn...@mac.com wrote on 11/14/01 1:48 AM:
> jbay...@my-deja.com (John Harrington) wrote in message
> news:<b97c7d0a.01111...@posting.google.com>...
>> Michael Haslam <innat...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:<3BEF9851...@btopenworld.com>...
>>> John Harrington wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> != is the standard "does not equal" operator, newbie.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thinking about it, it is a pretty piss-poor standard. I find it hard to
>>>>> believe it can date back to the earliest usenet pioneers.
>>>>
>>>> In my day, we trudged across the USENET prairies in our covered wagons with
>>>> nothing to sustain us but != and rainwater, and we *liked* it. Men were
>>>> men. Women were women. And emoticons were emoticons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Why not cut the jargon anyway? We're not that short of bandwidth these
>>>>> days and I've been around usenet for about four years and I'd never seen
>>>>> != before. Or do you secretly like sticking the odd shibboleth in?
>>>>
>>>> Depends on whom I'm sticking it into.
>>>
>>> So sometimes "yes", you piece of cack. Why not cut the jargon anyway?
>>
>> IIRC, BTW, FYI, IMHO, ROTFLMAO.
>
> These are all seen frequently on all the ngs I frequent, unlike !=
>> ;-/
>
> I've never seen this before.
Hmmm. Not surprising, since you != someone experienced with USENET. But
it's never too late to learn. :-\ :-0 %-| >:-{|}
>>>>>>> So, where do you draw the line between satire and shitting?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where do you draw the line between sweet and sour? Happy and sad? Great
>>>>>> and mediocre? Fast and slow? Chruchillian and Hitlerian?
>>>>>
>>>>> But these examples are direct opposites and therefore are easily
>>>>> discerned; the satire/s**tting thing is a question of degree or intent,
>>>>> no?
>>>>
>>>> So are fast and slow, and arguably the others as well.
>>>
>>> Fast isn't the opposite of slow?
>>
>> "Fast" and "slow" are each a "question of degree".
>
> Between not moving at all and the speed of light. In musical terms I
> would contend that they are opposites.
So you keep saying.
>>> This should be interesting [this is a
>>> music ng, after all].
>>
>> Oh. Sorry 2B boring.
>
> I was anticipating your defence of your assertion that fast and slow
> are not opposites in a musical context. I should have guessed that you
> would not rise to the challenge. You become boring when you mistake
> repeating an assertion for argument.
Oh, I see--you wanted me to defend something I've never asserted, even after
I've helpfully clarified precisely what I meant, and you've even accused me
of "repeating" this phantom assertion, while repeating your own undefended
assertion. That is boring.
And oh so typical.
But to rise to your stupid challenge, let me suggest that "fast" and "slow"
might not be "opposites" in music because they are relative. Playing a
piece marked "largo" at "andante" pace is "fast". But, compared to playing
it "vivace", it is "slow".
In a similar way, what is "shitting on" and what is "satire" is relative and
a matter of opinion and perspective. For example, to someone who sees the
world from the perspective of a degenerate and shares the brainwashed
opinions of his fellow savages, adding a rock beat to Ave verum corpus is
perfectly okay.
John
Coby Beck
"Michael Haslam" <inn...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:32ea5d2b.01111...@posting.google.com...
> jbay...@my-deja.com (John Harrington) wrote in message
news:<b97c7d0a.01111...@posting.google.com>...
> > Michael Haslam <innat...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<3BEF9851...@btopenworld.com>...
> > > John Harrington wrote:
>
> > > > >>>> != is the standard "does not equal" operator, newbie.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thinking about it, it is a pretty piss-poor standard. I find it hard
to
> > > > > believe it can date back to the earliest usenet pioneers.
> > > >
> > > > In my day, we trudged across the USENET prairies in our covered wagons
with
> > > > nothing to sustain us but != and rainwater, and we *liked* it. Men
were
> > > > men. Women were women. And emoticons were emoticons.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Why not cut the jargon anyway? We're not that short of bandwidth
these
> > > > > days and I've been around usenet for about four years and I'd never
seen
> > > > > != before. Or do you secretly like sticking the odd shibboleth in?
> > > >
> > > > Depends on whom I'm sticking it into.
> > >
> > > So sometimes "yes", you piece of cack. Why not cut the jargon anyway?
> >
> > IIRC, BTW, FYI, IMHO, ROTFLMAO.
>
> These are all seen frequently on all the ngs I frequent, unlike !=
> >;-/
!= is only standard in a minority of computer programming languages, hardly
standard
usenet jargon outside of comp.lang.c and a few others.
Coby
--
moc.dnopgib@101yboc
Michael Haslam
> > > IIRC, BTW, FYI, IMHO, ROTFLMAO.
> >
> > These are all seen frequently on all the ngs I frequent, unlike !=
> > >;-/
>
> != is only standard in a minority of computer programming languages, hardly
> standard
> usenet jargon outside of comp.lang.c and a few others.
Dear Coby
I've not noticed you on rmc before but today you've brought so much
light into my life :-()
Thank you for your authoritative support.
MJHaslam
John Harrington
innat...@btopenworld.com wrote on 11/14/01 3:45 PM:
The fact that you have a comrade in ignorance doesn't help you.
John
Michael Haslam
I don't notice your position having much support. I think I will remain
the judge of how much anyone here or indeed anywhere else helps me.
Perhaps you could point me towards a gazetteer of usenet abbreviations
that might add weight to your argument.
MJHaslam
John Harrington
innat...@btopenworld.com wrote on 11/15/01 4:59 PM:
> John Harrington wrote:
>>
>> in article 3BF30217...@btopenworld.com, Michael Haslam at
>> innat...@btopenworld.com wrote on 11/14/01 3:45 PM:
>>
>>> Coby Beck wrote:
>>>>>> IIRC, BTW, FYI, IMHO, ROTFLMAO.
>>>>>
>>>>> These are all seen frequently on all the ngs I frequent, unlike !=
>>>>>> ;-/
>>>>
>>>> != is only standard in a minority of computer programming languages,
>>>> hardly
>>>> standard
>>>> usenet jargon outside of comp.lang.c and a few others.
>>>
>>> Dear Coby
>>>
>>> I've not noticed you on rmc before but today you've brought so much
>>> light into my life :-()
>>>
>>> Thank you for your authoritative support.
>>
>> The fact that you have a comrade in ignorance doesn't help you.
>>
>> John
>
> I don't notice your position having much support.
The same can be said of your position. Mine at least has my 10 years of
USENET experience behind it. If what I say isn't true, I'm either lying or
I've coincidentally seen the few posts that use != over the years.
> I think I will remain
> the judge of how much anyone here or indeed anywhere else helps me.
> Perhaps you could point me towards a gazetteer of usenet abbreviations
> that might add weight to your argument.
I tried searching google for !=, but it was not accepted as a search term.
John
Michael Haslam
>
> > I don't notice your position having much support.
>
> The same can be said of your position. Mine at least has my 10 years of
> USENET experience behind it. If what I say isn't true, I'm either lying or
> I've coincidentally seen the few posts that use != over the years.
Just on a show of hands [unless some posts aren't showing on my server]
my position has two votes and yours one!
>
> > I think I will remain
> > the judge of how much anyone here or indeed anywhere else helps me.
> > Perhaps you could point me towards a gazetteer of usenet abbreviations
> > that might add weight to your argument.
>
> I tried searching google for !=, but it was not accepted as a search term.
I tried too. No luck even with spaces before and after...
MJHaslam
John Harrington
innat...@btopenworld.com wrote on 11/16/01 1:47 AM:
> John Harrington wrote:
>>
>>> I don't notice your position having much support.
>>
>> The same can be said of your position. Mine at least has my 10 years of
>> USENET experience behind it. If what I say isn't true, I'm either lying or
>> I've coincidentally seen the few posts that use != over the years.
>
> Just on a show of hands [unless some posts aren't showing on my server]
> my position has two votes and yours one!
But one of the votes is biased, coming as it does from someone I publicly
plonked recently, and my vote is worth 2.5 times yours.
John
Michael Haslam
> in article 3BF4E0C9...@btopenworld.com, Michael Haslam at
> innat...@btopenworld.com wrote on 11/16/01 1:47 AM:
>
> > John Harrington wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't notice your position having much support.
> >>
> >> The same can be said of your position. Mine at least has my 10 years of
> >> USENET experience behind it. If what I say isn't true, I'm either lying or
> >> I've coincidentally seen the few posts that use != over the years.
You've probably written most of them.
> > Just on a show of hands [unless some posts aren't showing on my server]
> > my position has two votes and yours one!
>
> But one of the votes is biased, coming as it does from someone I publicly
> plonked recently,
Yeah, but I canonized him publicly so his vote is tripled. On the
other hand what goes around comes around so you should have expected
it!
>and my vote is worth 2.5 times yours.
Depends if you count hanging chads. As an Oxford MA I would have been
entitled to two votes before the 1945 Representation of the People
Act!
Does ! on its own mean anything in C? I'm thinking of factorial. Just
wondering.
MJHaslam
John Harrington
> John Harrington <bear...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<B81A724A.2BD%bear...@earthlink.net>...
>> in article 3BF4E0C9...@btopenworld.com, Michael Haslam at
>> innat...@btopenworld.com wrote on 11/16/01 1:47 AM:
>>
>>> John Harrington wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't notice your position having much support.
>>>>
>>>> The same can be said of your position. Mine at least has my 10 years of
>>>> USENET experience behind it. If what I say isn't true, I'm either lying or
>>>> I've coincidentally seen the few posts that use != over the years.
>
> You've probably written most of them.
>
>>> Just on a show of hands [unless some posts aren't showing on my server]
>>> my position has two votes and yours one!
>>
>> But one of the votes is biased, coming as it does from someone I publicly
>> plonked recently,
>
> Yeah, but I canonized him publicly so his vote is tripled. On the
> other hand what goes around comes around so you should have expected
> it!
I did, but I was just pointing it out to you in case you didn't. Plonking
is not usually an act that one thinks of as earning retribution, but it
sometimes works out that way. Some people have very fragile egos,
especially the sorts who get plonked.
>> and my vote is worth 2.5 times yours.
>
> Depends if you count hanging chads. As an Oxford MA I would have been
> entitled to two votes before the 1945 Representation of the People
> Act!
>
> Does ! on its own mean anything in C? I'm thinking of factorial. Just
> wondering.
Yes, it means "not", but no it doesn't mean anything "on its own". There
has to be something that is "not".
I'm ! a C expert, BTW.
J
Myron Stackpool
>Does ! on its own mean anything in C? I'm thinking of factorial. Just
>wondering.
No. The usual mathematical symbol for the inequality relation is the equals sign
with a slash through it. In other programming languages the variants /= and \=
are also used as an "ASCII art" representation of the symbol. (Other languages
use ~= or <> and probably a few others I'm not familiar with.)
The exclamation point is used in C and C-derived languages because /= already
has the meaning "assign value on left with value on left divided by value on
right" and \xxx, where there are a lot of different symbols "xxx" can be is used
write special characters in formatted strings.
The Head of the family, so to speak.
Myron Stackpool
>
>Michael Haslam says...
>>Does ! on its own mean anything in C? I'm thinking of factorial. Just
>>wondering.
And I wrote
>No. [snip]
Ouch! My C is a *lot* rustier than I thought. This from Kernighan and Ritchie:
"The unary negation operator ! converts a non-zero operand into 0, and a zero
operand into 1. A common use of ! is in constructions like
if (!valid) ...."
HTH
Michael Haslam
And of course everyone on Usenet knows *that*! Thanks for the
explanation, Myron.
MJHaslam
Coby Beck
> in article 32ea5d2b.01111...@posting.google.com, Michael Haslam
> at inn...@mac.com wrote on 11/16/01 1:58 PM:
>
> > John Harrington <bear...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<B81A724A.2BD%bear...@earthlink.net>...
> >> in article 3BF4E0C9...@btopenworld.com, Michael Haslam at
> >> innat...@btopenworld.com wrote on 11/16/01 1:47 AM:
> >>
> >>> John Harrington wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I don't notice your position having much support.
> >>>>
> >>>> The same can be said of your position. Mine at least has my 10 years of
> >>>> USENET experience behind it. If what I say isn't true, I'm either lying
or
> >>>> I've coincidentally seen the few posts that use != over the years.
> >
> > You've probably written most of them.
> >
> >>> Just on a show of hands [unless some posts aren't showing on my server]
> >>> my position has two votes and yours one!
> >>
> >> But one of the votes is biased, coming as it does from someone I publicly
> >> plonked recently,
> >
> > Yeah, but I canonized him publicly so his vote is tripled. On the
> > other hand what goes around comes around so you should have expected
> > it!
>
> I did, but I was just pointing it out to you in case you didn't. Plonking
> is not usually an act that one thinks of as earning retribution, but it
> sometimes works out that way. Some people have very fragile egos,
> especially the sorts who get plonked.
No need to worry, John (if you read this in another's reply) I'm am not so
fragile nor so vindictive! Usenet is about freedom, I would never question
your right to plonk me, though I must say you are the only one to have ever
done so (to the best of my knowledge). You did not hurt my feelings :) BTW
It is another sign of ego to assume one's opinion of another would have any
effect on them.
As for Usenet jargon, I can not claim for myself John's ten years of experience
but I have read thousands, if not tens of thousands of posts and do not recall
ever seeing != used outside of very technical discussions. Forgive the
anecdotal and easy subjectivity of that "evidence" but it is all I have.
But isn't the issue really a question of snobbism? Arter all, jargon, be it a
doctor's medical dictionary or usenet acronyms, 9 times out of 10 is really a
way of making people feel like insiders and outsiders. There is unarguable
utility in precise terms with well defined meaning and four letters in an
acronym to replace 20 in a common phrase, but they way it is used is too often
as a weapon. I always assume myself to be in the wrong when communicating with
another and not getting my message across, it so reduces the bickering. If I
used an acronym unknown to another I would apologize and explain it and
hesitate to use it again unless it were easily demonstrable that the community
I am participating in incorporates it in their standard lingo.
But that is me, John (in case John ever sees this) and I don't wish to imply
that is the only way to be. So best wishes to John, no attack or chastisment
intended and good luck to Micheal in brushing up on his C ;-)
Coby
--
moc.dnopgib@101yboc
PS
> > Does ! on its own mean anything in C? I'm thinking of factorial. Just
> > wondering.
>
> Yes, it means "not", but no it doesn't mean anything "on its own". There
> has to be something that is "not".
>
This is absolutely true!
> I'm ! a C expert, BTW.
>
This would, however, need to be written " !(I am a C expert) "
: )
Michael Haslam
Even *I* thought there was something wrong with John's BTW comment! (BTW
the ! here is a standard exclamation mark in case English newbies aren't
used to seeing it).
MJHaslam
John Harrington
innat...@btopenworld.com wrote on 11/19/01 3:00 AM:
<snip>
>>> I'm ! a C expert, BTW.
>>>
>>
>> This would, however, need to be written " !(I am a C expert) "
>>
>> : )
>
> Even *I* thought there was something wrong with John's BTW comment! (BTW
> the ! here is a standard exclamation mark in case English newbies aren't
> used to seeing it).
Actually, my sentence as written is valid (it is not logically necessary to
put the ! before the I'm). I did leave out the parentheses, but that would
have only confused you more, I'm sure. ;-)
J
Coby Beck
> in article 3BF8E664...@btopenworld.com, Michael Haslam at
> innat...@btopenworld.com wrote on 11/19/01 3:00 AM:
> <snip>
> >>> I'm ! a C expert, BTW.
> >>>
> >> This would, however, need to be written " !(I am a C expert) "
> >>
> > the ! here is a standard exclamation mark in case English newbies aren't
> > used to seeing it).
>
> Actually, my sentence as written is valid
Sorry to be so pedantic, but I can not see in what context this could be
considered valid. It certainly is not standard as English nor as usenet jargon
(even John has not claimed ! to be standard usenet jargon for "not"). And I
stand by my rewrite above to be a valid C(ish) form. Perhaps it could be "I am
!(a C expert)" - that would work in our hypothetical C-English soup.
> (it is not logically necessary to
> put the ! before the I'm). I did leave out the parentheses, but that would
> have only confused you more, I'm sure. ;-)
>
Unfortunately those parentheses are essential to the semantics of your
expression! The not operator will only apply to what it directly precedes and
without parens it is only applied to the "a" - if you wish to group tokens into
a single expression you must use parens
But I will not post anything further on this sub-thread. John does not strike
me as the kind of person who will admit he was wrong and will only grow more
annoyed and sure I have a vendetta against him.
Coby
--
moc.dnopgib@101yboc
PS In *my* favorite programming language, Common Lisp, it would be something
like (am (not C-expert) I)) ;-)