Does he exist?
I don't know...
Charles Mackerras darn. :( :(
For me, considering what he has achieved so far as a solist and conductor, not to mention efforts for peace (E-W Divan orchestra) ....... it's Daniel Barenboim
Martha Argerich ;)
Nikolai Kapustin gets my vote. Its like Scarlatti meets Bach meets Oscar Peterson. Never been so exited about a composer in a long time.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 18, 2010, 07:29:24 AM
Women can't compose for crap.
They can compose for me anytime. Besides, the greatest living musician doesn't have to be a composer. I'll go with jhar26's pick - Argerich.
JdP - I see you're still going strong in maintaining your status as our resident woman-hater.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 18, 2010, 07:29:24 AM
Women can't compose for crap.
Nicola le Fanu, Judith Weir, Irina Belova...
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 18, 2010, 07:29:24 AM
Women can't compose for crap.
No; the correct response is: The pronoun he is used when the gender is unknown or irrelevant.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 18, 2010, 07:52:40 AM
No; the correct response is: The pronoun he iscan be used when the gender is unknown or irrelevant.
Or
they.
They is plural, though.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 18, 2010, 08:12:14 AM
They is plural, though.
You said it was irrelevant who they were.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they :P
;)
Interesting, thanks. Quote from: WikipediaGeneric he is still current English usage, though the gender neutral language movement discourages this use.
Even their citation of historical "use" is unconvincing. First: Because they cite so few historical exanples (two is awfully few). Second: The Shakespeare example is not much use; English grammar in the Elizabethan era was still "up for grabs," and there is 'documented usage' which is simply wrong, against later standardized grammar. If you like, witness the fact that Shakespeare spelled his own name differently at different times; at the time, the mindset towards the language was different. Third: The Thackeray example is not much use, either: it is a quotation of a character. Doesn't necessarily mean that Thackeray "demonstrates" that it is correct usage; could be an idiosyncracy of that character. Otherwise, of course, one might point to countless examples of poor grammar and dialiectical spelling in the characters of Dickens, as "demonstrations" that they are equally "correct" grammatically and orthographically. Fourth: These two slender examples are the only references given in an article which asserts: Quote from: WikipediaThough singular they is widespread in everyday English and has a long history of usage . . . .
If the thesis were not driven by ideology, the writers would own that this is deceptive 'documentation'.
Quote from: jhar26 on August 18, 2010, 06:57:03 AM
Martha Argerich ;)
All honor to Argerich's past career. Quite frankly, I think she bangs most of the time these days. Her recent playing of the Schumann Concerto was simply brutal--such an approach may have been OK for the Prokofiev 3rd PC back then. One can compare with Myra Hess, another grande dame, who simply made the keyboard melt, not sound like a percussive instrument in that particular work.
Martha's pairing up with that other Japanese lady doing Mozart piano duets on 9 foot grands has a volume and aggressiveness that could have terrified W Amadeus. It's like the two of them are competing as to who can play the loudest--not my taste at all.
ZB
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 18, 2010, 08:51:56 AM
If the thesis were not driven by ideology, the writers would own that this is deceptive 'documentation'.
You've been proven WRONG, Henning. You'd spell that
WR O NG . Now learn some
manners for once in your damn life and stop hijacking this thread.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 18, 2010, 07:27:33 AM
Nikolai Kapustin gets my vote. Its like Scarlatti meets Bach meets Oscar Peterson. Never been so exited about a composer in a long time.
Nice vote. I never play jazz anymore, but Kapustin stays fine. I´m listening to Kapustin right now and still like it. It's good stuff. I hope Kapustin (and Nancarrow) will inspire jazz musicians, jazz needs to be composed too!
Henk
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 18, 2010, 07:27:33 AM
Nikolai Kapustin gets my vote. Its like Scarlatti meets Bach meets Oscar Peterson. Never been so exited about a composer in a long time.
really? The few pieces i've listened seem to me as gratuitous virtuosism, but if you can suggest some of his works i'm curious. In the classical world i don't know, there are elliott carter, george crumb, boulez, but i can't say that i really like their works at least at this time (especially boulez). If i have to say a musician connected to jazz, i'd say wayne shorter.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 18, 2010, 07:29:24 AM
Women can't compose for crap.
In the abstract or physical sense? See the following...
Quote from: The Illustrious Josquin des Prez, May 5, 2010 from The Mona Lisa Thread
Weininger suggested that the classification of gender based solely on genitalia is an approximate measure. That we all have something of either sex from a deeper biological point of view. Essentially, none of us is 100% male or 100% female, and human variety relies entire on the proportion of feminine or masculine biological make up we carry within ourselves. The implications are enormous. It would explain many facets of human behavior, including homosexuality, or feminine achievement in fields generally dominated by men.
Even if we were to assume that Composing was "man's work", your statement above (assuming you still subscribe to it) implies that any woman could be a good composer if she had a sufficiently "butch" aura. Although, rather than Weininger, perhaps it would be more constructive to look at the theories of Carl Jung and creativity, which lean more towards the idea that creativity comes for the well developed presences of both the male and female aspects in an artist.
Of course, this leads us to idea that the ideal artist would be someone of indeterminate gender, such as Pat from Saturday Night Live.
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTgW7c7viCi6FNvCaVXVs5L5eM47nak4-XFx-_P-8pzzj91o0k&t=1&usg=__kYoBqL15KE0hjUMp-Zn4QWd0QZc=)
All said and done, the connection between how someone pees and their ability to compose is not clear to me.
I'm getting tired of these futile and pointless discussions of who is"the greatest".In classical music,whether composer or performer,no is ,ever has been or ever will be "the greatest".
You can only say of some that they're AMONG THE GREATEST.
As I've pointed out before, people tend to equate the most famous with the greatest, and often ignore people who may not be quite as famous yet are still as great or even greater than those who happen to be better known to the general public.
Ranking musicians i so subjective. Person X may think composer A or performer B is greater than the other simply because he or she happens to prefer the other.
Some people prefer the music of Bach to Beethoven,or vice versa,so they say that Bach is greater than Beethoven or vice versa.
But with composers this great,it's simply pointless to wonder whether one is greater than another.Apples and oranges.
Same with Toscanini vs Furtwangler.
Quote from: Superhorn on August 18, 2010, 02:52:28 PM
I'm getting tired of these futile and pointless discussions of who is"the greatest".In classical music,whether composer or performer,no is ,ever has been or ever will be "the greatest".
Testify!
"Greatness" is an interesting concept, one that I've been thinking about recently, probably because of numerous classical music threads rubbing my nose in it.
Great implies some kind of consensus, that is, a person is deemed great by a group of other people who esteem that person.* So if you're going for "greatness," it seems you're just letting other people's opinions (expert or not doesn't matter, I don't think) substitute for your own.
What do you like? Why do you like it? That should be enough for any listener. Maybe for a musicologist, there would need to be something about the importance of a composer's contribution to musical art generally.
Maybe.
(By the way, Saul, Karl was using "testify" in its religious sense, not its judicial one. So the joke should be--if we need one here :P--Reverend Henning, this ain't the 700 Club.)
*I haven't seen an argument for "greatness" being an intrinsic quality yet that I've liked.
Quote from: Superhorn on August 18, 2010, 02:52:28 PM
I'm getting tired of these futile and pointless discussions of who is"the greatest".In classical music,whether composer or performer,no is ,ever has been or ever will be "the greatest".
You can only say of some that they're AMONG THE GREATEST.
As I've pointed out before, people tend to equate the most famous with the greatest, and often ignore people who may not be quite as famous yet are still as great or even greater than those who happen to be better known to the general public.
Ranking musicians i so subjective. Person X may think composer A or performer B is greater than the other simply because he or she happens to prefer the other.
Some people prefer the music of Bach to Beethoven,or vice versa,so they say that Bach is greater than Beethoven or vice versa.
But with composers this great,it's simply pointless to wonder whether one is greater than another.Apples and oranges.
Same with Toscanini vs Furtwangler.
You ARE right of course. But on the other hand I'm always amazed by the fact that people take things so seriously. If I say that Argerich is the greatest pianist I know beforehand that someone else will say that she sucks, or that Richter or Horowitz are better. I don't care. But while arguing over that stuff I may learn something about Richter, Horowitz and Argerich that I didn't know or hadn't noticed before, and that's the whole point it seems to me. The results of of all those "who's the greatest polls" are not important, but they are great things to get a discussion going.
Quote from: some guy on August 18, 2010, 03:04:42 PM
"Greatest" is an interesting concept, one that I've been thinking about recently, probably because of numerous classical music threads rubbing my nose in it.
Great implies some kind of consensus, that is, a person is deemed great by a group of other people who esteem that person.* So if you're going for "greatness," it seems you're just letting other people's opinions (expert or not doesn't matter, I don't think) substitute for your own.
What do you like? Why do you like it? That should be enough for any listener. Maybe for a musicologist, there would need to be something about the importance of a composer's contribution to musical art generally.
Maybe.
(By the way, Saul, Karl was using "testify" in religious sense, not its judicial one. So the joke should be--if we need one here :P--Reverend Henning, this ain't the 700 Club.)
*I haven't seen an argument for "greatness" being an intrinsic quality yet that I've liked.
I stand corrected...lol ;D
Quote from: jhar26 on August 18, 2010, 03:10:50 PM
You ARE right of course. But on the other hand I'm always amazed by the fact that people take things so seriously. If I say that Argerich is the greatest pianist I know beforehand that someone else will say that she sucks, or that Richter or Horowitz are better. I don't care. But while arguing over that stuff I may learn something about Richter, Horowitz and Argerich that I didn't know or hadn't noticed before, and that's the whole point it seems to me. The results of of all those "who's the greatest polls" are not important, but they are great things to get a discussion going.
The question was, I believe ...a 'living classical musician today'... so that leaves Vlad and Rich out of the discussion.. doesnt it?.......
Want to get a discussion going? Just purse your lips! : )
Quote from: Saul on August 18, 2010, 03:13:15 PM
The question was, I believe ...a 'living classical musician today'... so that leaves Vlad and Rich out of the discussion.. doesnt it?.......
My comment wasn't exclusively about this thread, but about "the greatest" this or that threads and polls in general.
Quote from: Saul on August 18, 2010, 03:13:15 PM
The question was, I believe ...a 'living classical musician today'... so that leaves Vlad and Rich out of the discussion.. doesnt it?.......
Not if someone injects them into the conversation. It's best not to be so literal about these things.
Saul, I just remembered that you injected baroque composers in the thread Mahler vs. Strauss. :P
I find it hard to decide between André Rieu, Richard Clayderman and Sarah Brightman.
Quote from: Bulldog on August 18, 2010, 03:18:23 PM
Not if someone injects them into the conversation. It's best not to be so literal about these things.
Besides, people always say that Richter and Horowitz are immortal.
Quote from: jhar26 on August 18, 2010, 03:21:03 PM
Besides, people always say that Richter and Horowitz are immortal.
Indeed they are. Just yesterday I saw the two of them loping across my backyard. 8)
Quote from: Bulldog on August 18, 2010, 03:23:08 PM
Indeed they are. Just yesterday I saw the two of them loping across my backyard. 8)
They must have heard the rumours about Elvis mowing your lawn.
Quote from: Bulldog on August 18, 2010, 03:23:08 PM
Indeed they are. Just yesterday I saw the two of them loping across my backyard. 8)
The question you should ask is why these two together? ;)
Quote from: Lethe on August 18, 2010, 03:19:08 PM
I find it hard to decide between André Rieu, Richard Clayderman and Sarah Brightman.
Have I said already how much I enjoy your sense of humor?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 18, 2010, 07:27:33 AM
Nikolai Kapustin gets my vote. Its like Scarlatti meets Bach meets Oscar Peterson. Never been so exited about a composer in a long time.
Whoa, GREAT choice. I'm voting Kapustin too. And Kapustin playing his own music is a terrific experience.
Since this is such an absurd question, my answer is Bugs Bunny. He's the greatest classical musician living today:
(http://blaze.gaynewsnetwork.com.au/multisites/blaze/images/stories/238/p9_queeriosity_bugs-bunny_2.jpg)
He's got to be one of these following schmucks...
http://www.youtube.com/v/psP0XgTI2VE&feature=search
Quote from: Saul on August 18, 2010, 08:12:02 PM
He's got to be one of these following schmucks...
http://www.youtube.com/v/psP0XgTI2VE&feature=search
LMAO....this is funny and at the same time pathetic, which gives a special quality. :D
Peter Davison is the Mad Conductor (at about 1:10):
http://www.youtube.com/v/waPDoicrwzg
I would say Alfred Brendel, but since he's retired, i would go for Murray Perahia.
My vote, if I had to cast one, might go for Charles Rosen....
Quote from: Luke on August 19, 2010, 04:00:08 AM
My vote, if I had to cast one, might go for Charles Rosen....
I like this choice. I like Alkan's suggestion of Barenboim as well. I am attracted to the idea of a musician who has also done other things as both of these two have.
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 18, 2010, 07:56:53 PM
Since this is such an absurd question, my answer is Bugs Bunny. He's the greatest classical musician living today:
(http://blaze.gaynewsnetwork.com.au/multisites/blaze/images/stories/238/p9_queeriosity_bugs-bunny_2.jpg)
:) You're right.
Daffy objected to certain persistent errors in his xylophone playing, however.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 19, 2010, 04:46:36 AM
Daffy objected to certain persistent errors in his xylophone playing, however.
And got his beak blown off as well.
I don't know about "greatest," but Argerich is up there with the best. I'm not paticularly keen on some of her playing, but she has done much in terms of teaching and mentoring the younger generation, which (I think) is more important in some ways...
Pogo! ::)
Quote from: Octo_Russ on August 19, 2010, 02:21:10 AM
I would say Alfred Brendel, but since he's retired, i would go for Murray Perahia.
He's still alive, and besides, in London this year he will be delivering a handful of lectures on the art of performance which I am keen to attend.
Two octogenarian musicians: Gustav Leonhardt and Paul Badura-Skoda.
Since I am permanently addicted to Wagner, I put in Christian Thielemann, who is IMO the greatest Wagner conductor alive and worthy of comparison with the greatest ones of the past...
Quote from: Bulldog on August 18, 2010, 07:39:25 AM
Besides, the greatest living musician doesn't have to be a composer. I'll go with jhar26's pick - Argerich.
Agreed. It´s definately a pianist. But which one, I have no clue. If Glenn Gould was still alive, I would have put him on top.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 18, 2010, 08:51:56 AM
If the thesis were not driven by ideology, the writers would own that this is deceptive 'documentation'.
If this point hasn't exhausted itself, I might add ideology has a lot to do with using "they" or "their" to avoid using "he" and "his" in fairly recent use. Otherwise the former is not a bad idea when referring to a collective noun that gets a singular verb.
Personally, I can't stand constantly tiptoeing through the tulips to avoid "offense" by the use of a masculine pronoun. It also makes me laugh when hearing "humankind" as some virtue to include women as well when the derivation of "human" is from the Latin for "man".
ZB
Quote from: Luke on August 19, 2010, 04:00:08 AM
My vote, if I had to cast one, might go for Charles Rosen....
That is a very interesting answer, especially as Rosen does not often make most Top Ten lists specifically for his pianism. (At age 80, his technique is very obviously deteriorating, and I don't think he "tried very hard" in his latest book, but his musical intelligence remains as acute as ever.)
Rosen's greatest strengths, in my opinion, are his continued deference of the canon of Western music, his inability to suffer fools gladly, his incredible wit,* and his phenomenal ability to examine passages from the canon in detail and to show how and why they are musically superior. When I'm feeling a bit less lazy, I'll scan the tribute Boulez wrote to Rosen in the recently published Festschrift celebrating his 80th birthday.
* Examples (paraphrasing from memory):
"When a critic complained that suppressing the music of Hans Pfitzner was the result of a terrible 'conspiracy,' all I could think of was, 'What a wonderful conspiracy that must be! Where can I sign up?'"
"Schoenberg said there was plenty of good music yet to be written in C major. The only trouble is, nobody has written any of it yet."
Fischer-Dieskau
Pollini
Boulez
Argerich
Brendel