M_is_D

OK then, let's end this useless argument once and for all.

Hey... next time you want a reply to a review (I use you in the plural) ask for it and you'll get it.



Ah, the putrid smell of assumption once again hits me. Take a closer look at this: without other people competing, how can the judges effectively judge my piece with no term of comparison, be it good or bad? How am I even guaranteed a review if I end up being the only person entering? (Thankfully it didn't happen, kudos to Dev, Enigmus and virtualshock) And second of all, how depressing is it to see the initial enthusiasm over an activity dissolve into a situation where only a fraction of the people who signed up for it submitted pieces as expected? They're dishonoring what they entered in the first place. If I may rephrase, the only thing I care about *to myself* is the reviews. Especially since score formatting is a criteria, a numerical grade means little or nothing to me. It doesn't feel too good entering something with the deep desire of getting an impression for other people and see the other contestants not giving a damn; forgetting about the deadline and apparently not anxious at all to get an opinion of their work.


See above comment.

I do - and again, see first comment - . But you assume I either don't care or I care cuz I want my precious gradings so I can be the best.

Yes, it is. If you hadn't misinterpreted what I said and started this argument I would have been out of this thread a long time ago.

You can keep your firm beliefs to yourself. No matter how many times I tell you you misinterpreted me, you still think I'm some kind of self-centered douchebag who only wants to win a contest in which victory would be meaningless. Would I even get a review if no one else entered? When I complained that with no other people it wouldn't be a contestant, you immediatly accused me of the same thing again. The whole review thing is dependant on the fact a certain number of people enters so reviews can have each other as terms of comparison so they can be objective. Without other people entering, I could have gotten a much more positive but potentially less constructive review than if other more talented people did as well.


What, you're saying I did that? Looks like you're the one not able to properly communicate. I made a statement that was misinterpreted, I didn't say something when I actually meant the exact opposite. That's not being subjective, it's being a liar. My statement wasn't subjective, the way you can interpret it is.

Don't worry. From now I'll attempt to communicate in a way so that even the blindest misinterpreters will get what I'm saying.

Why don't you do that? You're the one who has a knack for giving different meanings to words.

And I've been telling you for many posts that what you perceived was wrong - but you don't care to change your viewpoint.

Up until you started accusing me of things I never meant I managed to do that perfectly well.

As I said before - you're the first time I've had this "problem".


So after I tell you countless times I don't care about gradings AND after you said there would be no gradings, you tell me I could have gotten the same old review with a new grading, which is something you said you weren't giving? Huh?



And I have expressed above how I feel that opinion is completely erratic.


Looks like you misinterpret things everywhere.

1) Poisoning is hardly the same as simply convincing someone not to do something. It's manipulation, but everyone except the kids' parents agreed with it.
2) My parents didn't force or threaten the kid, they put the facts blatantly to his parents and they simply agreed.


And I was better than him. But the parents didn't care their kid was worse: they wanted him to be the one to tour a foreign country. That's why they had to be convinced, by both my parents and the conductor, to drop the idea.

In this case, what they did was voluntarily give me the job. Sure, they wouldn't have done that if no one came to talk to them, but that doesn't make them any more right.

The tour had been planned by the young people's orchestra years back, without the idea of having a child soloist. That kid offered to be that soloist and the conductor agreed. A few months later he heard me play and told my parents it would be better if I were the soloist instead.


Considering the fact I didn't even try to apply for the job in the first place and got prefered over that kid anyway by a professional musician, I would say I deserved it more.

The conductor thought I did, and so did the Genoese who called me back on stage three times.

I was better. Music is all I have in my life. I don't even know if that kid still studies the violin.

One of the most brilliant violinists I know never gives concerts in formal clothes. And that's just the beginning of it.

I guess that's why I'm a student to the best violin teacher in the country, and incidentally his only student under the age of 21.


See above comments.

You've stuck to that idea so much it's almost funny.

Yeah, so try getting my point through your thick skull, or just drop the subject.

I assume, then, you've had more than 11 years of experience in the field.

See above.

What makes you think that?

If someone came up to me in real life and made the assumptions you've made in here, I would have probably treated them worse.