Recordings That You Are Considering

[DavidRoss]

Not unlike Dave to make his acerbic comments.  He did the same at classicalmusicguide and he's doing the same here.

Nasty, unnecessary, inaccurate, and personal...as usual. And you're carrying your trash talk from another site to try poisoning the atmosphere here. Just because someone dislikes hearing simple truths clearly expressed does not make them acerbic.

Since I'm apparently misreading your quote, what exactly did you mean when you said that Schoenberg and his 'moronic' disciples derailed the explosion of creative genius with which the century began?

Note that you've misquoted me above, further shifting the ground ... whether intentional or just due to sloppy thinking I hesitate to guess.

I've already wasted a ridiculous amount of time here today responding to your irrational personal attacks in reaction to my post suggesting that appreciation of Bach is fundamental to appreciation of classical music. You are welcome to disagree with me and with the noted experts I quoted who share that opinion. You are not, however, welcome to engage in personal attacks that slander my character and misrepresent my views...even though such attacks have long been your stock in trade. Accepting this about you and not being surprised by it does not mean condoning it or allowing it to pass unremarked.

Nevertheless, giving you the benefit of the doubt and imagining that your request above is sincere and that despite your best efforts you're unable to figure out my statement on your own (again, get some training in critical thinking -- it's in even shorter supply than economic literacy, may God help us all ), I will offer you some BIG hints that should be more than sufficient for you to puzzle it out:

1. Schoenberg ≠ Schoenberg's legacy
2. Schoenberg's moronic disciples ⊂ Schoenberg's disciples
3. And if you examine recent history you will find that the early 20th Century was characterized by an explosion of polymorphous creativity in all the arts that tore off the straitjacket of orthodoxy. In music, however, particularly in academic circles, a new orthodoxy soon arose, identifying itself alone as "modern" and damning all else as reactionary, thus making pariahs of practitioners outside the anointed circle and making mid-20th Century classical music mostly a disappointing wasteland populated by academic hacks (though not without plenty of assistance from numerous other 20th Century horrors!). 

Now: believe whatever you like, argue another position with me if you must, but please at least respect yourself enough to understand the point I've made before going off half-cocked and attacking me personally in an irrational knee-jerk reaction to having your pet prejudices challenged.

And that is my final word on this much too tedious topic! Spew away, boys, spew away! 

[Mirror Image]

I've already wasted a ridiculous amount of time here today responding to your irrational personal attacks in reaction to my post suggesting that appreciation of Bach is fundamental to appreciation of classical music. You are welcome to disagree with me and with the noted experts I quoted who share that opinion. You are not, however, welcome to engage in personal attacks that slander my character and misrepresent my views...even though such attacks have long been your stock in trade. Accepting this about you and not being surprised by it does not mean condoning it or allowing it to pass unremarked.

Nevertheless, giving you the benefit of the doubt and imagining that your request above is sincere and that despite your best efforts you're unable to figure out my statement on your own (again, get some training in critical thinking -- it's in even shorter supply than economic literacy, may God help us all ), I will offer you some BIG hints that should be more than sufficient for you to puzzle it out:

1. Schoenberg ≠ Schoenberg's legacy
2. Schoenberg's moronic disciples ⊂ Schoenberg's disciples
3. And if you examine recent history you will find that the early 20th Century was characterized by an explosion of polymorphous creativity in all the arts that tore off the straitjacket of orthodoxy. In music, however, particularly in academic circles, a new orthodoxy soon arose, identifying itself alone as "modern" and damning all else as reactionary, thus making pariahs of practitioners outside the anointed circle and making mid-20th Century classical music mostly a disappointing wasteland populated by academic hacks (though not without plenty of assistance from numerous other 20th Century horrors!). 

Now: believe whatever you like, argue another position with me if you must, but please at least respect yourself enough to understand the point I've made before going off half-cocked and attacking me personally in an irrational knee-jerk reaction to having your pet prejudices challenged.

And that is my final word on this much too tedious topic! Spew away, boys, spew away! 

Good luck with all of that, Dave. It's easy to see that you don't understand what I'm trying to say and never bothered to understand. I never attacked you personally, but rather attacked your opinion, which I still disagree with.

Anyway, I enjoy music that attracts me just like you enjoy music that attracts you. I'm not missing anything when I don't listen to Bach's music. You may feel I am, but your judgement is wrong and will continue to be wrong because you can't accept that I have no interest in his music. You called me ignorant because I don't listen to Bach's music, so therefore you claim I have no understanding of it, but you're wrong. I obviously have some understanding of the music in order to formulate the opinion of not being interested in the music. You don't know what I've heard by Bach and what I haven't heard. You made an assumption about me. Bach's music doesn't scare, but the horrible backlash I continue to receive for saying I don't enjoy or have an interest in his music is what continues to rub me the wrong way. The reason your Schoenberg quote was important for me is that it demonstrates that you, too, have your own prejudices and opinions. I'm not arguing with you because of those opinions, I'm arguing with you because you can't accept that somebody in this vast universe doesn't care for a composer you hold in the highest regard and, thus making you react in an ill-mannered, self-righteous way in which you somehow feel gives your own opinion leverage over my own. The bottom line is nobody will win this argument, because it's an argument that should have never happened in the first place. Maybe instead of tooting your own horn about how you love Bach or Sibelius, you should start considering the fact that not everybody will share the same opinions as your own.

[flyingdutchman]

Nasty, unnecessary, inaccurate, and personal...as usual. And you're carrying your trash talk from another site to try poisoning the atmosphere here. Just because someone dislikes hearing simple truths clearly expressed does not make them acerbic.
Note that you've misquoted me above, further shifting the ground ... whether intentional or just due to sloppy thinking I hesitate to guess.

I've already wasted a ridiculous amount of time here today responding to your irrational personal attacks in reaction to my post suggesting that appreciation of Bach is fundamental to appreciation of classical music. You are welcome to disagree with me and with the noted experts I quoted who share that opinion. You are not, however, welcome to engage in personal attacks that slander my character and misrepresent my views...even though such attacks have long been your stock in trade. Accepting this about you and not being surprised by it does not mean condoning it or allowing it to pass unremarked.

Nevertheless, giving you the benefit of the doubt and imagining that your request above is sincere and that despite your best efforts you're unable to figure out my statement on your own (again, get some training in critical thinking -- it's in even shorter supply than economic literacy, may God help us all ), I will offer you some BIG hints that should be more than sufficient for you to puzzle it out:

1. Schoenberg ≠ Schoenberg's legacy
2. Schoenberg's moronic disciples ⊂ Schoenberg's disciples
3. And if you examine recent history you will find that the early 20th Century was characterized by an explosion of polymorphous creativity in all the arts that tore off the straitjacket of orthodoxy. In music, however, particularly in academic circles, a new orthodoxy soon arose, identifying itself alone as "modern" and damning all else as reactionary, thus making pariahs of practitioners outside the anointed circle and making mid-20th Century classical music mostly a disappointing wasteland populated by academic hacks (though not without plenty of assistance from numerous other 20th Century horrors!). 

Now: believe whatever you like, argue another position with me if you must, but please at least respect yourself enough to understand the point I've made before going off half-cocked and attacking me personally in an irrational knee-jerk reaction to having your pet prejudices challenged.

And that is my final word on this much too tedious topic! Spew away, boys, spew away! 

You don't even know who I am David.  Grow up!

[Brian]

You sure have a way about you - indicating that you prefer what goes on in a toilet bowl to Mozart's music.

He has a point. Mozart's last symphony, for instance, might take 38 minutes to perform, while an old man farting, even a man possessed of extraordinary digestive talents, will carry out his task in a far smaller span of time.

[Octave]

I haven't found any comments on these three Fritz Wunderlich box sets from Membran.  The second of these would even seem to be some kind of co-production of Membran and Sony!  Is that unusual?

No contents for either at Arkiv, for the moment.
EDIT: I ran across a third (even more recent) box, which I added at the bottom.

[asin]B007A0CCAE[/asin]
Fritz Wunderlich: WELTERFOLGE UND RARITÄTEN (Membran, 10cd)
See the Amazon link for a customer review consisting of the contents.

[asin]B0033HKDEA[/asin]
Fritz Wunderlich: EINE STIMME - EINE LEGENDE (Membran, 10cd)
Only a back cover pick, but you can read the general contents, more or less.

[asin]B009EP36EY[/asin]
Fritz Wunderlich: MASSES AND ORATORIOS (Membran, 10cd)

[jlaurson]

I haven't found any comments on these three Fritz Wunderlich box sets from Membran.  The second of these would even seem to be some kind of co-production of Membran and Sony! Is that unusual?

No contents for either at Arkiv, for the moment.
EDIT: I ran across a third (even more recent) box, which I added at the bottom.

Would be very unusual. I thought Membran just steals other company's copies and then releases them in their value-destroying boxes...

[The new erato]

What a sad - and predictable - trainwreck of a discussion.

Not liking Bach is not the issue here, John, but instead rather provocatively flaunting it in post that really doesn't add anything to the discussion - and I knew already when you posted where this would end. And so should you.

[Opus106]

What a sad - and predictable - trainwreck of a discussion.

Not liking Bach is not the issue here, John, but instead rather provocatively flaunting it in post that really doesn't add anything to the discussion - and I knew already when you posted where this would end. And so should you.

Let me play devil's advocate and ask: why bother with little statement of John's at all if all those involved knew very well where it would lead them to? Some "schadenfruede", perhaps? I'm not sure what's "provocative" (assuming all grown ups here) about saying, to paraphrase, "I'm happy about not having any recording of Bach's music." John's attitude/preference has been known for as long as he's been a member here; even I tease him about it every now and then, but never have I taken it to such ridiculous levels.

[Florestan]

(assuming all grown ups here)

A completely unwarranted assumption, it seems. Some of us are more like children boasting about whose toy is bigger and more beautiful.

[Opus106]

A completely unwarranted assumption, it seems. Some of us are more like children boasting about whose toy is bigger and more beautiful.

[Karl Henning]

Back to the topic....

does anyone have this recording?  [asin]B000HKDCJY[/asin]

I remember seeing it and being intrigued, but never pulled the trigger.

Yes, get it.

What Greg said.

[The new erato]

Let me play devil's advocate and ask: why bother with little statement of John's at all if all those involved knew very well where it would lead them to? Some "schadenfruede", perhaps? I'm not sure what's "provocative" (assuming all grown ups here) about saying, to paraphrase, "I'm happy about not having any recording of Bach's music." John's attitude/preference has been known for as long as he's been a member here; even I tease him about it every now and then, but never have I taken it to such ridiculous levels.

Yes I generally agree, and that's why I never replied to the post - but instead made a comment to where the discussion was going.

But I'm not so sure about the statement; "I'm happy about not having any recording of Bach's music." I find that slightly unneccesary and provocative - like the redneck flauntinghis third rate beer and saying "I hate champagne, though I never really tasted it". The good things in life take perseverance, and though you don't like the good stuff, it seems rather childish to brag about it.

If he had said "I've never gotten along with Bach's music and don't have any records of it" I'm pretty sure this nasty discussion would have taken another turn. The word happy in this context is what I find slightly provocative and what makes my head (slightly) spin. To be happy that one cannot find joy in what have given immeasurable pleasure to mankind for centuries? 

A better statement would have been "sadly, I cannot enjoy Bach's music".
 

[Karl Henning]

Tangentially . . . I fully expect that, whenever Dave & I may have the opportunity to meet, hang out, and groove to the odd patch of music, we may listen to some Schoenberg which he will not find horrorful.

[Karl Henning]

Yes I generally agree, and that's why I never replied to the post - but instead made a comment to where the discussion was going.

But I'm not so sure about the statement; "I'm happy about not having any recording of Bach's music." I find that slightly unneccesary and provocative - like the redneck flauntinghis third rate beer and saying "I hate champagne, though I never really tasted it". The good things in life take perseverance, and though you don't like the good stuff, it seems rather childish to brag about it.

If he had said "I've never gotten along with Bach's music and don't have any records of it" I'm pretty sure this nasty discussion would have taken another turn. The word happy in this context is what I find slightly provocative and what makes my head (slightly) spin. To be happy that one cannot find joy in what have given immeasurable pleasure to mankind for centuries? 

A better statement would have been "sadly, I cannot enjoy Bach's music".

Which is, no doubt, why his teeth are set on edge whenever he hears "Horizons," in which Steve Hackett starts out by quoting the Prelude to the C Major Cello Suite. ; )

[Florestan]

To be happy that one cannot find joy in what have given immeasurable pleasure to mankind for centuries? 

Teetotallers... 

[The new erato]

Teetotallers... 

Yes indeed. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Hopefully, everyone got that last little ounce of bile out of his system and can now abide by my request to drop it and look elsewhere for cheap thrills. If I come back to find that this all continued, I'll just delete the whole shitaree and we can set our clocks back 24 hours. 

[Karl Henning]

Here are two I am considering:



[asin]B0000029Y7[/asin]

[TheGSMoeller]

Here are two I am considering:



[asin]B0000029Y7[/asin]

I have Gould's disc of Byrd and Gibbons, very good. If I remember correctly (past pot use may have altered my memories) that Gould considered Gibbons as his favorite composer.

[springrite]

The Gibbons is about as good as it gets. The others are good, as well. But Gibbons would be the reason to get the disc, and Gould sure did a good job making the case of Gibbon as a great composer (his favorite).