GMG Classical Music Forum

I have always wondered this, especially hearing some people invest thousands of dollars to collect a huge library of Cds and Records.
I have never understood the urge. Or maybe because I'm a musician.

After listening to all this music for a number of times, Chopin, Bach, Mendelssohn, Beethoven and the rest, I don't really feel a great urge to listen to them again and again. Their music is in my head, and I know them already, so why spend so much time, money and attentiveness to something that is so familiar?

I used to listen more when I was a teenager and I had a passion to discover new music and new composers and also to listen. But now, after I did listened so much and got myself familiar with their music, I don't feel any strong urge to listen. And Especially when I do listen I don't bother myself about the performers so much. Hey give me a break there are some differences of reading the music, but the differences are not that great as some people would want you to believe, lots of it is hype.

Bottom line is that if you wont know who is the performer , you will never know who performed it.
It is more probable to guess a certain composer after listening to his music even without knowing who composed the music, because of the individuality of his composing style, so too with visual arts, if you were exposed to Monet, Degas, Chagall, Rembrandt and the other classics, you have a good chance to guess the originator of these works.

But trying to guess a performer of music? Or even an entire Orchestra? Or even a conductor?

I believe that its highly unlikely to guess correctly, furthering my assessment that this whole business of varieties in performance is nothing more then a well Orchestrated Hype.

But one thing does spark my imagination and passion for music, its not so much with listening, but it has to do with creating. There is no greater joy for a musician and I believe even for a listener, if they'll ever try, then composing and creating a new musical idea and developing it to a work of art.

Cheers,

Saul

But they aren't the same, one only has to look at Kurerti versus Gilels in Beethoven piano sonatas.

Quote from: Philoctetes on October 12, 2010, 06:45:59 PM
But they aren't the same, one only has to look at Kurerti versus Gilels in Beethoven piano sonatas.

Yes, but my whole point is :

Who cares?

So what if they are not the same?

Quote from: Saul on October 12, 2010, 06:41:48 PM
But trying to guess a performer of music? Or even an entire Orchestra? Or even a conductor?

Sometimes possible- though probably easy for some. I once guessed that a piece was a Deutsche Grammophon recording, and it turned out I was right- surprised me, but then again, their recordings have a distinct sound.

Sometimes there comes a recording which totally rises above all the others, and can make you a huge fan of the music when before you didn't know what to think about it. It's definitely worth it. Perpetual discovery > perpetual stagnation.

Quote from: Saul on October 12, 2010, 06:48:05 PM
Yes, but my whole point is :

Who cares?

So what if they are not the same?

Well I do, for one. I like to hear the performer's perspective.

When I say that I listen to classical music, it seems this question pops up.  I put it like this to them "did you like the cover to so and so song by blah?" usually pick a terrible cover.  They say no, then I say it's the same music, but you value one performance over another right?  They agree, and I say exactly it's the same with classical.  You just have to listen alot to classical to get a feel for the differences. :)

Quote from: Saul on October 12, 2010, 06:48:05 PM
Yes, but my whole point is :

Who cares?

So what if they are not the same?

For you, "I don't care" is always translated into "who cares" and "no other people should care".

Quote from: Greg on October 12, 2010, 06:49:33 PM
Sometimes possible- though probably easy for some. I once guessed that a piece was a Deutsche Grammophon recording, and it turned out I was right- surprised me, but then again, their recordings have a distinct sound.

Sometimes there comes a recording which totally rises above all the others, and can make you a huge fan of the music when before you didn't know what to think about it. It's definitely worth it. Perpetual discovery > perpetual stagnation.

I'm talking about performers.
Who says that one famous pianist's reading of a Beethoven Sonata is better then the other pianist's reading?
Beethoven is not here to judge...
It all falls down to personal taste...

If you have one or two versions of this performances by your favorite pianists, why there is this obsessive feeling to get all the recordings by all the pianists who ever recorded themselves?

Quote from: Saul on October 12, 2010, 06:57:56 PM
Recording by a music label is a different thing completly.

I'm talking about performers.
Who says that one famous pianist's reading of a Beethoven Sonata is better then the other pianist's reading?
Beethoven is not here to judge...
It all falls down to personal taste...

Even if he was alive, it wouldn't make his opinion any more valid.

Quote from: Saul on October 12, 2010, 06:57:56 PM
Recording by a music label is a different thing completly.

I'm talking about performers.
Who says that one famous pianist's reading of a Beethoven Sonata is better then the other pianist's reading?
Beethoven is not here to judge...
It all falls down to personal taste...

So why not listen to a bunch of them and see what you like best?

Quote from: Greg on October 12, 2010, 07:00:02 PM
So why not listen to a bunch of them and see what you like best?

Because its really pointless to listen to so many pianists and then choose 'which one I like best'.

I'm sure if there would have been one good recording of these sonatas, I would have liked it. But now that there are hundreds, now go and sit down and 'choose which one I like better'.. common who needs that?

I'll rather be busy with something else...

Its like tasting every single apple from a different country and deciding now which apple is the best? The French apple or the Big Apple from NY , or the Italian apple, or the Spanish apple...

Just give me an apple and I'll be content... who needs the hassle.. I'll rather be busy finding a new fruit, perhaps a pear...

What's the point of listening to so much music?

I like listening to a lot of different composers. A different "flavor," if you will, everyday. Why eat the same thing everyday? It gets old quick. I'm someone who is in constant change and live for variety in the music I choose to listen to. All of this also depends on my own mood or just what I feel like listening to. One day I might be in the mood for Berg, the next day I might want to listen to Villa-Lobos (which I'm doing right now :D ), etc. There's so much beautiful music available to us that, in my opinion, it would be a shame not to experience at least a fraction of it. Why listen to two or three composers? There's so many great ones to choose from.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 12, 2010, 07:06:33 PM
What's the point of listening to so much music?

I like listening to a lot of different composers. A different "flavor," if you will, everyday. Why eat the same thing everyday? It gets old quick. I'm someone who is in constant change and live for variety in the music I choose to listen to. All of this also depends on my own mood or just what I feel like listening to. One day I might be in the mood for Berg, the next day I might want to listen to Villa-Lobos (which I'm doing right now :D ), etc. There's so much beautiful music available to us that, in my opinion, it would be a shame not to experience at least a fraction of it. Why listen to two or three composers? There's so many great ones to choose from.

Ok but why listen to the same music recorded by hundreds of different people?

Lol, if you''ll think about it , there's something absurd about the whole thing... ;D

Quote from: Saul on October 12, 2010, 07:09:03 PM
Ok but why listen to the same music recorded by hundreds of different people?

Lol, if you''ll think about it , there's something absurd about the whole thing... ;D

I don't think there's anything absurd in listening to say 20 different versions of Holst's The Planets if that's what you like and enjoy listening to. Every recording has something different to offer. Each conductor performs it differently and has a different interpretation of the work. Since I'm talking about The Planets, you can compare just the first movement Mars The War-Bringer and each version of just this movement alone is different. Sometimes the conductor will make a change to the tempo, sometimes the conductor will put more emphasis here or there, this is the part of classical music that I find refreshing.

Again, there's nothing wrong with somebody who listens to 20 different recordings of the same work. If you think it's crazy or outlandish, then that is your right, but I don't see any harm in it and, in fact, I'm glad that person loves that work enough to dedicate their own time in figuring out what they like/dislike about the recording in question. In the end, if anything, they can offer help to those who maybe don't know which version of The Planets they should listen to first. It's always helpful, especially to the classical novice, to find someone who knows much more about a composer's music and their recordings than I do, especially if the composer is virtually unknown to me.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 12, 2010, 07:15:58 PM
I don't there's anything absurd in listening to say 20 different versions of Holst's The Planets if that's what you like and enjoy listening to. Every recording has something different to offer. Each conductor performs it differently and has a different interpretation of the work. Since I'm talking about The Planets, you can compare just the first movement Mars The War-Bringer and each version of just this movement alone is different. Sometimes the conductor will make a change to the tempo, sometimes the conductor will put more emphasis here or there, this is the part of classical music that I find refreshing.

Again, there's nothing wrong with somebody who listens to 20 different recordings of the same work. If you think it's crazy or outlandish, then that is your right, but I don't see any harm in it and, in fact, I'm glad that that person loves that work enough to dedicate their own time in figuring out what they like/dislike about the recording in question.

I used to think this way... but for a good time now, I figured out that all these performances are the same, with minor adjustments. I also believe that many people are busy with this because it makes them feel that they are 'on top of things' when it comes to classical music, feeling intimidated and embarrassed to answer falsely about a given recording, or performance.

Since when listening became an art?

Whether or not it's worthwhile to listen to many different recordings of a work really depends on the listener. I like to listen to different interpretations, but that doesn't mean I necessarily buy them. I don't only listen to my own cd's, I have a friend with quite a good collection, and we get together regularly to listen to eachother's stuff. Then there's the local library network, which has an excellent collection of classical cd's, some out of print. Then there's the radio. There's also YouTube, but I don't usually access that.

Before I go to a concert, I try to listen to at least one recording of some of the works they'll be performing. If I have access to two or more recordings, then that's a bonus (but usually one is ok). Like I'm going to a song recital, which will include Mahler's Ruckert Songs, this weekend, and I own Christa Ludwig's interpretation, but I've also borrowed Alison Coote's and Felicity Lott's recordings from the library. Listening to different versions of the same work can give you a deeper insight into the work and what the composer is doing.

Next year, I'm gearing up to see Mahler's 9th symphony with the Sydney Symphony under Ashkenazy in May. I have never owned this work. My friend has Karajan's interpretation, so we'll be getting into that a couple of times before we go. The local library also has many good recordings of it. I am looking at purchasing maybe two cd's of the work, to properly get my head around it (it's a long work, about 80 minutes!).

Of course, there is also much repertoire now available with which you can't compare recordings - because only maybe one recording is available. In my own collection, I have cd's of Stanford, Hovhaness and Saygun that I think may be only available on those Naxos recordings. So yes, in much of the repertoire that I am interested in, multiple readings are not available. However, I have been getting into the piano repertoire much more lately, and it is interesting to hear different pianists perform the same work - my friend and I have different recordings of classics like Liszt's Sonata in B minor and Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata, and it is very interesting to hear what different pianists get up to with these epic scores.

But I think listening to 20 different recordings of a work is a bit too excessive, I'd rather put my energies into listening to things that I haven't heard before. & repertoire and eras as well (the variety?)...

Quote from: Saul on October 12, 2010, 07:23:21 PM
I used to think this way... but for a good time now, I figured out that all these performances are the same, with minor adjustments. I also believe that many people are busy with this because it makes them feel that they are 'on top of things' when it comes to classical music, feeling intimidated and embarrassed to answer falsely about a given recording, or performance.

Since when listening became an art?

You have different objectives regarding music and, again, you have every right to your opinion, but just because you find fault in someone who does this doesn't mean it's wrong.

Hearing a work played a different way with a completely different perspective affords you the opportunity to fall in love with the work all over again. There are also other times when I've heard one recording of a work and didn't particularly enjoy what the conductor did with the music, so that's when I turn to an alternative performance and sometimes its the music itself. Like, for example, I didn't really appreciate Martinu's music, in particular his symphonies, until I heard Vaclav Neumann conduct these works. The previous symphony cycle I had was Bryden Thomson's, which his way with Martinu was very exaggerated and too Romantic. His approach to the music was too sentimental when it should have been more emotionally detached. Neumann let the music speak for itself and anyone with an ear for music can hear that difference.

Listening is a crucial part of music, especially for a musician. If all you do is run your mouth and think you know everything, then you'll never get anything accomplished and you certainly won't learn anything.

To further demonstrate the extreme hype when it comes to variety of performances, take for example Valentina Lisitsa who in my opinion is superior to Lang Lang and many other 'notable' pianists.

Yet she is not really famous, and she didn't perform in any major concerts, yet the formers went around the world on a hot air balloon stretching their fingers and hairs for all to see, and made millions of dollars.

So where is the art in all of this?

Without a doubt some people get lucky in the business of music, and they also become very famous and very successful, but this not always comes with a merit of superior artistic capabilities. What is the ratio of the Albums sold by Lang Lang compared to Listisa?

1000 to 1, perhaps way more then that.

Therefore its important while listening to different interpretations of a given work not to attach 'hype' and 'fame' to your final judgment regarding who you like better.

Here's an analogy...

Many people go crazy for Starbucks, and are even ready to pay three times more for it then a regular cup of coffee, when the truth is that this Starbucks coffee is no better then the regular coffee sold in 'Joe's coffee shop'.

In short my theory is that many people fool themselves into believing that one interpretation is somewhat superior to the next, when the truth is that objectively there is no way knowing definitely which is really superior, because after all its all a matter of taste, there is no real truth to this entire affair.

Quote from: Saul on October 12, 2010, 08:05:23 PM
To further demonstrate the extreme hype when it comes to variety of performances, take for example Valentina Lisitsa who in my opinion is superior to Lang Lang and many other 'notable' pianists.

Yet she is not really famous, and she didn't perform in any major concerts, yet the formers went around the world on a hot air balloon stretching their fingers and hairs for all to see, and made millions of dollars.

So where is the art in all of this?

Without a doubt some people get lucky in the business of music, and they also become very famous and very successful, but this not always comes with a merit of superior artistic capabilities. What is the ratio of the Albums sold by Lang Lang compared to Listisa?

1000 to 1, perhaps way more then that.

Therefore its important while listening to different interpretations of a given work not to attach 'hype' and 'fame' to your final judgment regarding who you like better.

Here's an analogy...

Many people go crazy for Starbucks, and are even ready to pay three times more for it then a regular cup of coffee, when the truth is that this Starbucks coffee is no better then the regular coffee sold in 'Joe's coffee shop'.

In short my theory is that many people fool themselves into believing that one interpretation is somewhat superior to the next, when the truth is that objectively there is no way knowing definitely which is really superior, because after all its all a matter of taste, there is no real truth to this entire affair.

Did you even read my posts?

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 12, 2010, 08:17:35 PM

Did you even read my posts?

Sure I did, I welcome your opinions.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 12, 2010, 08:17:35 PM

Did you even read my posts?

Of course not. What were you expectations of a thread started by Saul, though?

Quote from: Philoctetes on October 12, 2010, 08:19:08 PM
Of course not. What were you expectations of a thread started by Saul, though?

I even read yours so sit tight.

MI, seriously don't waste your time with Saul.  He is not reading your posts.  He wants to have a monologue here.  Philo is right.  Not worth it.

Quote from: DavidW on October 12, 2010, 08:28:03 PM
MI, seriously don't waste your time with Saul.  He is not reading your posts.  He wants to have a monologue here.  Philo is right.  Not worth it.

I have no idea what makes you think that I didnt read the posts. God knows I have read every single one of them.
But if you don't want to participate, then don't. I couldnt care less. Its a forum.. chill out..

The fact is, Saul, as much as you don't seem to like the people who buy recording after recording of the same piece, without these people there would be no classical music cd market. I'm not one of those people, I usually only buy one recording. As I said, I have ways to access other interpretations if I am interested. But let's face it, without those people who like to buy umpteen different versions of the same piece, we wouldn't have any market for classical music cd's (same with concerts, if people were only interested in seeing a piece live once in their lives, there would probably be no classical music concerts to speak of)...

Quote from: Sid on October 12, 2010, 09:10:18 PM
The fact is, Saul, as much as you don't seem to like the people who buy recording after recording of the same piece, without these people there would be no classical music cd market. I'm not one of those people, I usually only buy one recording. As I said, I have ways to access other interpretations if I am interested. But let's face it, without those people who like to buy umpteen different versions of the same piece, we wouldn't have any market for classical music cd's (same with concerts, if people were only interested in seeing a piece live once in their lives, there would probably be no classical music concerts to speak of)...

Sid, I think that we agree with each other to a degree. Yes I know that this whole thing is a huge money generating business for some people. I also think that attending a concert is not the same as a recording, and I also understand the need and motivation for people to attend concerts, at least once in their lives as you said, but I'm glad that you acknowledge to some degree that obsessive cd collection and performer comparisons can be counterproductive.
I have no problem with someone wanting to listen to 2 or 3 versions of the same work, but to get every single recording out there, has to do with the hobby of collecting things, rather with really appreciating music for what it is, and what it can be or what it was.

Too bad that nowdays almost everything has become a 'hobby'. Everthing has to be 'collected' like some sports cards.

Yes, well the classical cd market is a business just like any other (& a very fickle one at that - things can be here today, gone tomorrow & out of print). But I think it's still important to have new recordings made of the old repertoire (as well as world premiere recordings of more recent and some of the rarer stuff). Every generation has a different "take" on the classics, and it's interesting to hear this. A major example of this is the original instruments movement which since it's emergence around the 1980's has lead to a reassessment of much of the older repertoire. New ways of playing, like this, do emerge & it's important to have these things recorded so that future generations can understand why and how things were played in the past. As they say, if you don't understand the past, you won't understand the present, let alone be able to anticipate things in the future...

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 12, 2010, 08:17:35 PM
Did you even read my posts?

MI, you apparently haven't met Saul before. He's our resident brick wall. Really, what is the point of trying to talk to him about classical music when he says:

"I figured out that all these performances are the same"

"After listening to all this music for a number of times, Chopin, Bach, Mendelssohn, Beethoven and the rest, I don't really feel a great urge to listen to them again."

"I don't feel any strong urge to listen. And especially when I do listen I don't bother myself about the performers so much."

The guy doesn't even like classical music. I don't know why he comes here.

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 13, 2010, 01:31:36 AM
MI, you apparently haven't met Saul before. He's our resident brick wall. Really, what is the point of trying to talk to him about classical music when he says:

"I figured out that all these performances are the same"

"After listening to all this music for a number of times, Chopin, Bach, Mendelssohn, Beethoven and the rest, I don't really feel a great urge to listen to them again."

"I don't feel any strong urge to listen. And especially when I do listen I don't bother myself about the performers so much."

The guy doesn't even like classical music. I don't know why he comes here.

Sarge

Add to that

"I'm sure if there would have been one good recording of [Beethoven's] sonatas, I would have liked it."

Quote from: Saul on October 12, 2010, 06:41:48 PM
After listening to all this music for a number of times, Chopin, Bach, Mendelssohn, Beethoven and the rest, I don't really feel a great urge to listen to them again and again. Their music is in my head, and I know them already, so why spend so much time, money and attentiveness to something that is so familiar?

I am very, very good at memorizing music, and can play the complete Beethoven symphonies in my head, but that is still no substitute for the joy and physical excitement of actually HEARING them!

Quote from: Saul on October 12, 2010, 07:03:08 PM
Its like tasting every single apple from a different country and deciding now which apple is the best? The French apple or the Big Apple from NY , or the Italian apple, or the Spanish apple...

The Big Apple isn't an apple.

Having to ask the question means that you wouldn't understand the answer.

Quote from: Sid on October 12, 2010, 09:53:00 PM
Yes, well the classical cd market is a business just like any other (& a very fickle one at that - things can be here today, gone tomorrow & out of print). But I think it's still important to have new recordings made of the old repertoire (as well as world premiere recordings of more recent and some of the rarer stuff). Every generation has a different "take" on the classics, and it's interesting to hear this. A major example of this is the original instruments movement which since it's emergence around the 1980's has lead to a reassessment of much of the older repertoire. New ways of playing, like this, do emerge & it's important to have these things recorded so that future generations can understand why and how things were played in the past. As they say, if you don't understand the past, you won't understand the present, let alone be able to anticipate things in the future...

Well, I don't really think its necessary to record so much music, with your take of past, present , future...for music's sake.
But yes, it has become a major business, and just like every business that wants to generate sales, hype is a major selling tool.

And for those who say that I don't like classical music, they make no sense and its absolutely silly to even suggest that. I don't know why one needs to hear the same piece of music played by 20 or 30 different performers in order to 'really like something'. How about just ;listening to the music and enjoying it?

No that would be too simple now would it?

But who said that simplicity is wrong, or bad, its actually way better then putting yourself into this ordeal of eating every single apple in the world until you finally realize that you like apples. I love music enough to enjoy it right away without the whole mambo jumbo attachments.

Ah!  Another topic from Saul another quixotic quest!

Indeed, what is the point?

The point...is to think, to dream, to link, to calm, to purge, to create, to enjoy, to inflame, to remember, to exorcise, to become different, to be startled, to float in wonder, and sundry other possibilities!

Quote from: Cato on October 13, 2010, 04:24:06 AM
Ah!  Another topic from Saul another quixotic quest!

Indeed, what is the point?

The point...is to think, to dream, to link, to calm, to purge, to create, to enjoy, to inflame, to remember, to exorcise, to become different, to be startled, to float in wonder, and sundry other possibilities!

How the greats back then listened to music?
Did they listen in the manner that you suggest?

No they didn't, and no one would even suggest that they didn't like music.

Was Beethoven busy running around to hear every version of Mozart's symphony No. 40?

No, he did something else, and that is composed. He created new music that all of us enjoy so much today.
And I know that if he would have been living today, he wouldn't have been busy collecting and comparing music obsessively, but rather he would have concentrated with creating.
Technology is largely responsible for this addictive and obsessive collecting ritual that we have today, but back then people just enjoyed music, as simple as that.

Quote from: Saul on October 13, 2010, 04:32:31 AM
Technology is largely responsible for this addictive and obsessive collecting ritual that we have today, but back then people just enjoyed music, as simple as that.

Isn't it the same technology that offered you the chance to make your music known?

Quote from: Florestan on October 13, 2010, 04:35:22 AM
Isn't it the same technology that offered you the chance to make your music known?

Technology can be used for positive or negative things.

I'm against the negative aspect of technology. It all depends how one uses the technology, to what purpose.

Quote from: Saul on October 13, 2010, 04:37:05 AM
Technology can be used for positive or negative things.

I'm against the negative aspect of technology. It all depends how one uses the technology, to what purpose.

I think in this case most people would disagree with you as to which is the positive and which the negative use of technology.   ;D

Quote from: Scarpia on October 13, 2010, 04:38:12 AM
I think in this case most people would disagree with you as to which is the positive and which the negative use of technology.   ;D

I was trying to think of a nicer way of saying exactly this.  ;D

Quote from: Saul on October 13, 2010, 04:37:05 AM
Technology can be used for positive or negative things.

I'm against the negative aspect of technology. It all depends how one uses the technology, to what purpose.

Then it's not technology that is responsible, as you just stated.

Quote from: Scarpia on October 13, 2010, 04:38:12 AM
I think in this case most people would disagree with you as to which is the positive and which the negative use of technology.   ;D

Silly you!  ;D

Well, to record your new music and try to let people know about it, is innocent, and there is nothing wrong with it.
But to run around to look for every recording of a particular symphony has left many people with an obsessive practice and to some extend with empty pockets.
I remember that the very first recordings that I listened to when I was a teenager, were the best, and I have not found any better recordings then those.
For example when I was 15 I purchased a cassette of Chopin's Piano concerto No. 1 by a Pianist named Daniel Doshe. Very much unknown pianist, but his performance of the Chopin Concerto was the best one I have ever heard hands down, and I can't even find a recording of this pianist anywhere.

Eventually I purchased more recordings of this same concerto by different performers, but they didn't top him.

The same is with the Bach works, and I could go on and on but you got the point.

Quote from: Saul on October 13, 2010, 04:47:05 AM
I could go on and on

Please, don't!

Quote from: Florestan on October 13, 2010, 04:55:26 AM
Please, don't!

Well I didnt  ;D lol

Quote from: Saul on October 13, 2010, 04:47:05 AM
But to run around to look for every recording of a particular symphony has left many people with an obsessive practice and to some extend with empty pockets.
I remember that the very first recordings that I listened to when I was a teenager, were the best, and I have not found any better recordings then those.
For example when I was 15 I purchased a cassette of Chopin's Piano concerto No. 1 by a Pianist named Daniel Doshe. Very much unknown pianist, but his performance of the Chopin Concerto was the best one I have ever heard hands down, and I can't even find a recording of this pianist anywhere.

Well but that's exactly the point! What if the cassette you had bought was actually really bad? Or, what if some people on GMG who already have 15 Chopin Piano Concerto CDs bought the Daniel Doshe cassette today? Then would you say it's OK for them to buy another Chopin recording even if they have 15?

EDIT: BTW I found the correct spelling. Daniele Dechenne (http://www.discogs.com/artist/Danielle+Dechenne). Unfortunately, based on the list of artists involved in the series (http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=153724&filelist=1), I have very strong reason to believe that Danielle Dechenne is a pseudonym.

EDIT II: I was wrong! Here is a legitimate biography of Daniele Dechenne (http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Dechenne-Daniele.htm).

Quote from: Brian on October 13, 2010, 05:01:14 AM
Well but that's exactly the point! What if the cassette you had bought was actually really bad? Or, what if some people on GMG who already have 15 Chopin Piano Concerto CDs bought the Daniel Doshe cassette today? Then would you say it's OK for them to buy another Chopin recording even if they have 15?

EDIT: BTW I found the correct spelling. Daniele Dechenne (http://www.discogs.com/artist/Danielle+Dechenne). Unfortunately, based on the list of artists involved in the series (http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=153724&filelist=1), I have very strong reason to believe that Danielle Dechenne is a pseudonym.

EDIT II: I was wrong! Here is a legitimate biography of Daniele Dechenne (http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Dechenne-Daniele.htm).

No I don't think that its her. Its a wrong spelling.

Its Doshe.

Anyways I dont really remember exactly it was 18 years ago, and I don't have the cassette for a very long time, I dont know where it is lol.
But the point that I made still stands.

Quote from: Saul on October 13, 2010, 05:24:05 AM
No I don't think that its her. Its a wrong spelling.

Its Doshe.

Anyways I dont really remember exactly it was 18 years ago, and I don't have the cassette for a very long time, I dont know where it is lol.
But the point that I made still stands.

I found it from your post. You wrote here in 2004 (http://www.music-scores.co.uk/discus/messages/2/12496.html) that it was called "The best of Chopin" and "If im not mistaken the pianist name was Daniel Doshe,but im not sure." Then somebody replied, "I have that cassette. I'm not sure where it is. I remember it was a female pianist, Danielle, I think." You wrote back, "WoW!!!!!" Then I did a google search for Danielle and Chopin Piano Concerto, and Daniele Dechenne came up. The first name is only one letter different, the last name is really close. And the "Best of Chopin" CD Daniele Dechenne has the piano concerto and all the tracks your cassette had.

Quote from: Brian on October 13, 2010, 05:39:13 AM
I found it from your post. You wrote here in 2004 (http://www.music-scores.co.uk/discus/messages/2/12496.html) that it was called "The best of Chopin" and "If im not mistaken the pianist name was Daniel Doshe,but im not sure." Then somebody replied, "I have that cassette. I'm not sure where it is. I remember it was a female pianist, Danielle, I think." You wrote back, "WoW!!!!!" Then I did a google search for Danielle and Chopin Piano Concerto, and Daniele Dechenne came up. The first name is only one letter different, the last name is really close. And the "Best of Chopin" CD Daniele Dechenne has the piano concerto and all the tracks your cassette had.

Perhaps Doshe sounds more kosher for him.  :D

Quote from: Brian on October 13, 2010, 05:39:13 AM
I found it from your post. You wrote here in 2004 (http://www.music-scores.co.uk/discus/messages/2/12496.html) that it was called "The best of Chopin" and "If im not mistaken the pianist name was Daniel Doshe,but im not sure." Then somebody replied, "I have that cassette. I'm not sure where it is. I remember it was a female pianist, Danielle, I think." You wrote back, "WoW!!!!!" Then I did a google search for Danielle and Chopin Piano Concerto, and Daniele Dechenne came up. The first name is only one letter different, the last name is really close. And the "Best of Chopin" CD Daniele Dechenne has the piano concerto and all the tracks your cassette had.

Ok so it maybe be her, but I really cant remember the correct spelling, it was very long time ago as I said.

But that doesn't take away from the initial point I made, Sherlock.. ;D and btw, her Chopin recordings are the best that I have ever heard by any pianist, and that was the very first recording that I bought of Chopin's music.

Quote from: Saul on October 13, 2010, 05:43:48 AM
But that doesn't take away from the initial point I made, Sherlock.. ;D

I will take this as a compliment!  8)  BTW I just listened to your amigo Eliran Avni playing Avner Dorman...

Quote from: Florestan on October 13, 2010, 05:41:07 AM
Perhaps Doshe sounds more kosher for him.  :D

It looks like it sounds more kosher to you then to me... ;)

Quote from: Brian on October 13, 2010, 05:45:03 AM
I will take this as a compliment!  8)  BTW I just listened to your amigo Eliran Avni playing Avner Dorman...

Damn. I was about to post that it's easy to understand why Brian missed it because no point was made.

Quote from: Saul on October 13, 2010, 05:45:32 AM
It looks like it sounds more kosher to you then to me... ;)

I made a phonetic analogy: Doshe Daniel / Moshe Dayan.  :)

Quote from: Brian on October 13, 2010, 05:45:03 AM
I will take this as a compliment!  8)  BTW I just listened to your amigo Eliran Avni playing Avner Dorman...

Another bad composer... Doorman...

How did you like it?

Quote from: Florestan on October 13, 2010, 05:48:08 AM
I made a phonetic analogy: Doshe Daniel / Moshe Dayan.  :)

The one eyed with the two handed.....ten fingered...what a combo!!!
It kinda reminds me a scene from Munich "Ahh a Frenchman and a Jew, we could go at it forever'....(or something like that)

Quote from: Saul on October 13, 2010, 04:32:31 AM
And I know that if he would have been living today, he wouldn't have been busy collecting and comparing music obsessively, but rather he would have concentrated with creating.

Is there something bad about collecting many different recordings of the same thing and comparing them? Are you suggesting there is something detrimental in this activity? Why aren't you happy that someone would have the interest to listen to said recordings and compare them? Or are you saying that because you wouldn't do it and don't see value in it, then we shouldn't do it and see value in it?

Quote from: ukrneal on October 13, 2010, 06:04:13 AM
Is there something bad about collecting many different recordings of the same thing and comparing them? Are you suggesting there is something detrimental in this activity? Why aren't you happy that someone would have the interest to listen to said recordings and compare them? Or are you saying that because you wouldn't do it and don't see value in it, then we shouldn't do it and see value in it?

I'm not saying its bad, I'm saying its unnecessary, and to a degree its a waste of time and money.

Quote from: Saul on October 13, 2010, 06:20:13 AM
I'm not saying its bad, I'm saying its unnecessary, and to a degree its a waste of time and money.

Maybe if it's not your hobby, but there are lots of people who enjoy acquiring and comparing recordings. Some hobbies are just more expensive than others.

Quote from: Saul on October 13, 2010, 06:20:13 AM
I'm not saying its bad, I'm saying its unnecessary, and to a degree its a waste of time and money.

In honesty, you can say that only for yourself.

What's the use of getting sober if you're going to get drunk again?

;D

Quote from: MN Dave on October 13, 2010, 06:22:40 AM
Maybe if it's not your hobby, but there are lots of people who enjoy acquiring and comparing recordings. Some hobbies are just more expensive than others.

Well cd collecting is fairly cheap compared to collecting cars, so we have that going for us. ;D

Quote from: Saul on October 13, 2010, 06:20:13 AM
I'm saying its unnecessary, and to a degree its a waste of time .....

As opposed to wasting other's time?

I think we need to just lock Saul and Satzaroo in one thread.  They can each post their own little stories and musings to each other. ;D  And we wouldn't see them on any other thread. >:D

Quote from: Saul on October 13, 2010, 04:10:29 AMI don't know why one needs to hear the same piece of music played by 20 or 30 different performers in order to 'really like something'. How about just ;listening to the music and enjoying it?

How many times does somebody have to explain this to you? People buy different recordings of the same work to compare the performances. Of course, we all like the music or else why would we be buying it? But the journey is about finding what interpretation is the one you like the most. That's the point of owning several recordings of the same work. This isn't a hobby or some kind of novelty, this is a way of listening to music.

Quote from: Saul on October 13, 2010, 04:10:29 AMBut who said that simplicity is wrong, or bad, its actually way better then putting yourself into this ordeal of eating every single apple in the world until you finally realize that you like apples. I love music enough to enjoy it right away without the whole mambo jumbo attachments.

Why do you keep repeating yourself over and over, paragraph by paragraph? It's like you purposely don't want to accept that people are different than you.

In the end, you will find yourself on a lonely street on this forum or perhaps you already have. You continue to go on and on and there's just no end in sight. I mean seriously what's the point of giving your opinion when you aren't reading other people's? It seems like to me that whoever is involved with you has to agree with everything you say and if they don't then they will be tortured by the constant hammering of your endless opinion.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 13, 2010, 07:10:13 AM
How many times does somebody have to explain this to you? People buy different recordings of the same work to compare the performances. Of course, we all like the music or else why would we be buying it? But the journey is about finding what interpretation is the one you like the most. That's the point of owning several recordings of the same work. This isn't a hobby or some kind of novelty, this is a way of listening to music.

Why do you keep repeating yourself over and over, paragraph by paragraph? It's like you purposely don't want to accept that people are different than you.

In the end, you will find yourself on a lonely street on this forum or perhaps you already have. You continue to go on and on and there's just no end in sight. I mean seriously what's the point of giving your opinion when you aren't reading other people's? It seems like to me that whoever is involved with you has to agree with everything you say and if they don't then they will be tortured by the constant hammering of endless opinion.

Dude, we warned you.

Quote from: DavidW on October 13, 2010, 07:00:59 AM
I think we need to just lock Saul and Satzaroo in one thread.  They can each post their own little stories and musings to each other. ;D  And we wouldn't see them on any other thread. >:D

That would be one boring thread. There would be no dialogue! :D

Quote from: DavidW on October 13, 2010, 07:00:59 AM
I think we need to just lock Saul and Satzaroo in one thread.  They can each post their own little stories and musings to each other. ;D  And we wouldn't see them on any other thread. >:D

(* applauds *)

Saul, I think I understand some of where you're coming from.  You and I are creative musicians--you maybe more than I since you spend more time composing--and for us, mere listening will not satisfy.  But I myself have many versions of certain pieces.  I think I counted 5 Mahler Seconds at last count, 3 on vinyl.  I don't consider one better than another, say, Kaplan's as opposed to Solti's.  However, one or two may be more "authentic" than certain others.  Among my stacks are the 1924 Oskar Fried recording (Fried worked with Mahler himself) and one by Bruno Walter, Mahler's protégé, probably from the late 1950s or early 1960s.  Obsessive?  Not really, in my opinion, since M2 is such a seminal work.

Ultimately, though, when I listen I usually imagine myself playing or even conducting these pieces.  So I'm less "hooked on listening" than many here.  Yet as for those who do not play, but merely listen, I say more power to them!  Someday they might be listening to you, or me, or the esteemed Mr. Henning or one of the other working musicians on this forum.

(Do I dare bring up my own judgment that maybe musicians SHOULD spend less effort in recording The Old Masters and more in finding good new music to play and record? :o ;D)

I'll drink to more good new music!

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 13, 2010, 07:36:11 AM
I'll drink to more good new music!

And I trust you'll do more than drink to that! :D

Quote from: Saul on October 13, 2010, 05:49:19 AM
Another bad composer... Doorman...

How did you like it?

I love it! I think he is a very good composer. Although you spelled his name wrong.

Quote from: Brian on October 13, 2010, 08:21:51 AM
I love it! I think he is a very good composer. Although you spelled his name wrong.

Well, you know, Saul is fond to decree that Schoenberg and Stravinsky are "bad" composers, so his use of the adjective is suspect at best ; )

I mean, apart from his asking if I was serious with the Viola Sonata, nyuk-nyuk.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 13, 2010, 08:26:36 AM
Well, you know, Saul is fond to decree that Schoenberg and Stravinsky are "bad" composers, so his use of the adjective is suspect at best ; )

I mean, apart from his asking if I was serious with the Viola Sonata, nyuk-nyuk.

In my experience, viola sonatas are a laugh a minute!

(Oh. dear.)

Quote from: Saul on October 13, 2010, 04:32:31 AM
How the greats back then listened to music?
Did they listen in the manner that you suggest?

No they didn't, and no one would even suggest that they didn't like music.

Was Beethoven busy running around to hear every version of Mozart's symphony No. 40?

No, he did something else, and that is composed. He created new music that all of us enjoy so much today.
And I know that if he would have been living today, he wouldn't have been busy collecting and comparing music obsessively, but rather he would have concentrated with creating.
Technology is largely responsible for this addictive and obsessive collecting ritual that we have today, but back then people just enjoyed music, as simple as that.

My emphasis above.

You cannot "know" anything that you have claimed!  What we do know is that my list of infinitives will encompass more people with their experience of music than not.

We cannot know what Beethoven would have done, if born in 1970 rather than 1770.  He might never have gone deaf in modern times, and if so, might have indeed listened to all kinds of music, and might have indeed collected various versions of Mozart's 40th Symphony.

And he might have remained immune: it simply cannot be proven.  We do know that he had his obsessions: e.g. he counted out an exact number of coffee beans every day for his grinder. 

That would be a small bit of evidence for the other side.   0:)

And do you really believe there were people who did NOT play the same piece at the piano many times for their enjoyment, or that there were some who did NOT collect sheet music the way people collect CD's?

Prithee, explain precisely how you KNOW what Beethoven would be doing in 2010 A.D.?

Ah, Saul is bored again and no one else will talk to him. Time to once again rile up GMG.

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on October 13, 2010, 09:49:27 AM
Ah, Saul is bored again and no one else will talk to him. Time to once again rile up GMG.

Since Saul is back for Halloween, this means Sean will arrive by Christmas and Rob Newman by Valentine's Day.

Quote from: Brian on October 13, 2010, 09:50:21 AM
Since Saul is back for Halloween, this means Sean will arrive by Christmas and Rob Newman by Valentine's Day.

:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 13, 2010, 07:13:26 AM

That would be one boring thread. There would be no dialogue! :D

LOL that would be reeeallllyy bizarre.  :D
I know! Limit Saul's posting to his own "Saul's Composition" thread, and limit Satzaroo's posts to that same thread.

I can see it now:
Saul: Here's my Prelude no.3 in G#m

Satzaroo: One time, I had a crazy experience with this annoying person and...

Saul: Here's my Intermezzo for piano in A

Satzaroo: It was a hot, sunny day. A homeless man was behind me, begging for money...

"What's the point of listening to so much music?"

What's the point of anything? Please let me know. At least collectors aren't hurting people.

I'd quite like to try every single different variety of apple to find out which one I liked best. Did the same thing with cheese a few years back - never did complete the experiment though. Norwegian Ridder was top grilling cheese for crumpets I seem to remember. Can't even find the stuff now.

For myself only, I agree that I am little interested in hearing a work over again once I have more or less exhausted my interest in it. And I concur that the interpreter is of little importance next to the composer. Cover songs in popular music are not an analogy, because the arrangements are different, whereas in classical it's the exact same notes. My favorite rock song for awhile now is Tumbling Dice, and I would say Linda Ronstadt's cover of it adds a very worthwhile alternative version.

When I first discovered major works like the B Minor Mass, Tristan und Isolde, and the Musical Offering, I listened to them twice a day for several weeks on end. Now I rarely if ever listen to them, perhaps once every two years. And am little interested if I hear a good new interpretation has been issued.

A difference is live opera, which with a fresh (non-Eurotrash) production can be a rewarding revivified experience.

Another factor for me is the large size of the repertory. I do not listen continually or even every day, which I suspect is not the case for many members here. So there is a good chunk of the repertory I will not hear during my lifetime. This keeps me busy finding new works, and new composers, such as the late Romantics Parry, Schmidt and Schreker who I am beginning to explore. There is so much to listen to that I put listening to works I already know well, way down on the scale.

Quote from: Sef on October 13, 2010, 11:36:26 AM
Norwegian Ridder was top grilling cheese for crumpets I seem to remember. Can't even find the stuff now.

Is starting to smell?  That will help you find it.

But indeed, if you find him not within
this month, you shall nose him as you go up the
stairs into the lobby.

Quote from: Catison on October 13, 2010, 11:45:24 AM
Is starting to smell?  That will help you find it.

Hilarious!  :D
I remember bringing some smelly French cheese back with me from holiday a few years ago. Stank the car out for months, and put me off soft runny cheese for years!

Quote from: jochanaan on October 13, 2010, 07:35:19 AM
Saul, I think I understand some of where you're coming from.  You and I are creative musicians--you maybe more than I since you spend more time composing--and for us, mere listening will not satisfy.  But I myself have many versions of certain pieces.  I think I counted 5 Mahler Seconds at last count, 3 on vinyl.  I don't consider one better than another, say, Kaplan's as opposed to Solti's.  However, one or two may be more "authentic" than certain others.  Among my stacks are the 1924 Oskar Fried recording (Fried worked with Mahler himself) and one by Bruno Walter, Mahler's protégé, probably from the late 1950s or early 1960s.  Obsessive?  Not really, in my opinion, since M2 is such a seminal work.

Ultimately, though, when I listen I usually imagine myself playing or even conducting these pieces.  So I'm less "hooked on listening" than many here.  Yet as for those who do not play, but merely listen, I say more power to them!  Someday they might be listening to you, or me, or the esteemed Mr. Henning or one of the other working musicians on this forum.

(Do I dare bring up my own judgment that maybe musicians SHOULD spend less effort in recording The Old Masters and more in finding good new music to play and record? :o ;D)

Great Post, thank  you.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 13, 2010, 08:26:36 AM
Well, you know, Saul is fond to decree that Schoenberg and Stravinsky are "bad" composers, so his use of the adjective is suspect at best ; )

I mean, apart from his asking if I was serious with the Viola Sonata, nyuk-nyuk.

I was serious about that question and it still stands:

"Are you serious Karl"?

100 years from now two listeners sit together and chat about that work.


One says to the other :

"I believe that this violist screwed up when he played the runs so unintentionally".

The other says: "no I really liked that interpretation, sometimes the score can fool you but my ear is still intact"...

And then the other one fires back:

"What? You got to be kidding me? you know that Henning didn't mean the violist to do that, so what's up with 'you liked it'?

And I say:

'Oh...someone pass the coffee... who needs to hear this... '

Or in short:

'Next'.

Quote from: Chaszz on October 13, 2010, 11:44:39 AM
...And I concur that the interpreter is of little importance next to the composer. Cover songs in popular music are not an analogy, because the arrangements are different, whereas in classical it's the exact same notes...

Okay, devil's advocate time: Classical artists who play other people's music--that is, the overwhelming majority of classical performers--may play exactly the same notes, but never the same way.  Any number of factors go into making a performance (recorded or live) different: the exact tempo; whether the beat is steady or flexible; dynamic range; accents strong or muted; vocal or instrumental tone; the room itself... Even Stravinsky's multiple recordings of some of his own music show some major differences between them.  And the greater the performers, the more their work differs. 8)

Quote from: Greg on October 13, 2010, 10:49:17 AM
LOL that would be reeeallllyy bizarre.  :D
I know! Limit Saul's posting to his own "Saul's Composition" thread, and limit Satzaroo's posts to that same thread.

I can see it now:
Saul: Here's my Prelude no.3 in G#m

Satzaroo: One time, I had a crazy experience with this annoying person and...

Saul: Here's my Intermezzo for piano in A

Satzaroo: It was a hot, sunny day. A homeless man was behind me, begging for money...

No, that would be a two-part po-mo large-scale work for voices :D.

I can also see where Saul is coming from, but (yes) perhaps he is labouring the point a bit. I think part of being flexible is trying to enjoy virtually any performance one comes across, as I think that it is an achievement in itself to be recorded in classical - only the best get to that stage. Even if I don't particularly like a performance, I try to get my head around it in some way. I think repeated listening is also good, because you might not realise that you actually like it if you only listen to it once or twice.

As for your experience with the Chopin, I think that much of the time it is the first performance we hear that becomes our "benchmark" for judging others. I also had many recordings in the '90's which I got rid of, and there is still a sense of nostalgia with some of those works, although I have them in different recordings now. Often, the first recording you get to know in more depth becomes your favourite. But it doesn't make it any better than the others, really.

I agree with you that composers probably don't spend their time listening to recordings and criticising them. That's why we have critics! The composers are too busy creating to do that, so I get your point...

Quote from: Greg on October 13, 2010, 10:49:17 AM
LOL that would be reeeallllyy bizarre.  :D
I know! Limit Saul's posting to his own "Saul's Composition" thread, and limit Satzaroo's posts to that same thread.

I can see it now:
Saul: Here's my Prelude no.3 in G#m

Satzaroo: One time, I had a crazy experience with this annoying person and...

Saul: Here's my Intermezzo for piano in A

Satzaroo: It was a hot, sunny day. A homeless man was behind me, begging for money...

Lol...this is pretty much what I had in mind as well. :D

Quote from: Cato on October 13, 2010, 09:14:40 AM

My emphasis above.

You cannot "know" anything that you have claimed!  What we do know is that my list of infinitives will encompass more people with their experience of music than not.

We cannot know what Beethoven would have done, if born in 1970 rather than 1770.  He might never have gone deaf in modern times, and if so, might have indeed listened to all kinds of music, and might have indeed collected various versions of Mozart's 40th Symphony.

And he might have remained immune: it simply cannot be proven.  We do know that he had his obsessions: e.g. he counted out an exact number of coffee beans every day for his grinder. 

That would be a small bit of evidence for the other side.   0:)

And do you really believe there were people who did NOT play the same piece at the piano many times for their enjoyment, or that there were some who did NOT collect sheet music the way people collect CD's?

Prithee, explain precisely how you KNOW what Beethoven would be doing in 2010 A.D.?

Waiting patiently!

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 13, 2010, 05:58:58 PM

Lol...this is pretty much what I had in mind as well. :D

Darn, that painting looks scary.

(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=27273;type=avatar)

While I by no means share Saul's high opinion of his own music, I don't think what he's saying here is entirely off base. When I first took an interest in classical music around 1960 at the age of 12, there were plenty of recordings, but nothing like the hundreds of versions of single pieces you can encounter now. I had an old RCA Victor record catalog from the 1940s where 2-3 versions of a piece were the norm. And as I remember the Schwann catalogs of those days, it was exceptional to see 30+ versions of a single work listed, and complete Wagner operas like the installments of Solti's Ring were major events.

We take recordings so much for granted today that it may not be obvious how much they revolutionized the history of music. Some musicians like Elgar and Stravinsky immediately sensed the benefit of recordings as a way of preserving music, while others (I believe Debussy among them) were suspicious that recordings imposed an artificial layer of interference that inhibited free performance.

The way I see music history of the 19th-20th centuries, there were several primary movements that shaped the way classical music has developed today. Compare Bach's time, where all of his sacred cantatas were intended for use in the Lutheran service, or Mozart's and Haydn's era, where they were invariably expected to provide listeners with new music. Haydn wrote twelve new symphonies for London; when Mozart did not have a symphony to bring to Linz, he wrote a new one in a few days. Music was obviously always live, and was always new.

In addition to recording, the other major movements in my reading of music history include: a) the gradual establishment of a fixed canon of music that was considered worthy of preservation, b) the rise of modernist styles that alienated listeners to one degree or other, c) the rise of a dedicated body of listeners with the leisure time to hear music for its own sake (rather than say, as part of a religious service), and d) the decline in amateur music-making, where if you wanted to hear (say) a Brahms symphony in your own home, you might turn to a 2-piano arrangement or listen to people who could play one.

Bear with me, please, as I think this is all relevant. Our own time is obviously very different from Bach's or Haydn's, and recordings are key to this. At the same time a fixed canon of music is taking shape roughly by the end of the 19th century, the newer music of Schoenberg, Webern, Boulez, Carter et al. continues to alienate listeners, who then instead of making music amateurishly for themselves, turn to established older classics that they can hear in expert performances reproduced in high-quality sound in their own homes. As more and more recorded versions of the same works become available, listeners take a greater interest in comparative interpretation, and thus it is not uncommon for "completists" to want to specialize in single genres, periods, composers, even single works, of which they want to master the entire recorded legacy.

Of course these are all generalizations and exceptions are easy to find. (There are still people who play music for their own pleasure, and a substantial body of listeners enthusiastic about new music.) But I think I have the main outlines right. The question is: is where we are today a good thing? I have my doubts. We have nothing today like the eager anticipation a new work of Haydn or Brahms raised in their times. Instead, listeners pay attention to variations in phrasing, tempo, balance, attack and the like within multiple performances of individual works. Some listeners rarely if ever even experience live music; they listen at home or on the radio or in their cars. It all feels smaller somehow, and we no longer feel the same electricity that must have been experienced when Otello or the Ring or the Brahms 4th were completely new and their privileged first hearers at live performances knew they were in the presence of new masterpieces. I don't begrudge those who want to devote themselves to comparative listening, but it seems to me a lot has been lost in the process, and I don't see it coming back soon.

Quote from: Sforzando on October 13, 2010, 06:31:37 PM


Bear with me, please, as I think this is all relevant. Our own time is obviously very different from Bach's or Haydn's, and recordings are key to this. At the same time a fixed canon of music is taking shape roughly by the end of the 19th century, the newer music of Schoenberg, Webern, Boulez, Carter et al. continues to alienate listeners, who then instead of making music amateurishly for themselves, turn to established older classics that they can hear in expert performances reproduced in high-quality sound in their own homes. As more and more recorded versions of the same works become available, listeners take a greater interest in comparative interpretation, and thus it is not uncommon for "completists" to want to specialize in single genres, periods, composers, even single works, of which they want to master the entire recorded legacy.

Of course these are all generalizations and exceptions are easy to find. (There are still people who play music for their own pleasure, and a substantial body of listeners enthusiastic about new music.) But I think I have the main outlines right. The question is: is where we are today a good thing? I have my doubts. We have nothing today like the eager anticipation a new work of Haydn or Brahms raised in their times. Instead, listeners pay attention to variations in phrasing, tempo, balance, attack and the like within multiple performances of individual works. Some listeners rarely if ever even experience live music; they listen at home or on the radio or in their cars. It all feels smaller somehow, and we no longer feel the same electricity that must have been experienced when Otello or the Ring or the Brahms 4th were completely new and their privileged first hearers at live performances knew they were in the presence of new masterpieces. I don't begrudge those who want to devote themselves to comparative listening, but it seems to me a lot has been lost in the process, and I don't see it coming back soon.

Masterfully written and intelligently presented, thank you.

Quote from: Cato on October 13, 2010, 05:59:50 PM
Waiting patiently!

Dude... Jurassic Park. DUH!  ;D

Quote from: Saul on October 13, 2010, 06:06:38 PM
Darn, that painting looks scary.

(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=27273;type=avatar)

This is a piece of Expressionist art I found on Google just by doing a search. I think it's a cool painting. I like Expressionism and Impressionism, but lately I have fancied some Realists and Cubism works as well. There's so much beautiful art out there.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 13, 2010, 07:45:51 PM

This is a piece of Expressionist art I found on Google just by doing a search. I think it's a cool painting. I like Expressionism and Impressionism, but lately I have fancied some Realists and Cubism works as well. There's so much beautiful art out there.

I think you'll like this:

http://www.google.com/images?q=ted+nasmith&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4ADBF_enUS316US316&biw=1266&bih=623&tbs=isch:1,isz:l&prmd=ivo&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=oH22TPlPgf_wBv_-vLYB&ved=0CAcQpwU

Quote from: Philoctetes on October 13, 2010, 06:45:32 PM
Dude... Jurassic Park. DUH!  ;D

;D  I know!  Or maybe he is just passive-aggressive!   :o

Quote from: Sforzando on October 13, 2010, 06:31:37 PMOf course these are all generalizations and exceptions are easy to find. (There are still people who play music for their own pleasure, and a substantial body of listeners enthusiastic about new music.) But I think I have the main outlines right. The question is: is where we are today a good thing? I have my doubts. We have nothing today like the eager anticipation a new work of Haydn or Brahms raised in their times. Instead, listeners pay attention to variations in phrasing, tempo, balance, attack and the like within multiple performances of individual works. Some listeners rarely if ever even experience live music; they listen at home or on the radio or in their cars. It all feels smaller somehow, and we no longer feel the same electricity that must have been experienced when Otello or the Ring or the Brahms 4th were completely new and their privileged first hearers at live performances knew they were in the presence of new masterpieces. I don't begrudge those who want to devote themselves to comparative listening, but it seems to me a lot has been lost in the process, and I don't see it coming back soon.

I am bewildered when I read on this board of people undertaking to "compare" all recordings of a piece.  They seem to have persuaded themselves that they are doing some sort of research, rather than listening to the stereo.  I have multiple recordings of most pieces I like because I don't want to be "imprinted" on one recording.  When I listen to it, I want it to be something novel like going to a concert, not a repeat of the version that rests in my memory.  I feel this helps me focus on the music rather than a specific performance of the music. 

As far as those lucky ones who heard the premier of Brahms 4th, well I am in no hurry to go back to those days.  Aside from those precious few who were privileged to hear a good orchestra, I'm sure most people never had even the opportunity to know what a Brahms symphony sounds like.   The really perseverant ones perhaps knew it from hearing aunt Edna pounding it out on a spinet piano from a piano reduction made by some hack. 

I'm in no rush to return to those days.  Since I have an advanced graduate degree and work 60 hours a week, I naturally don't have enough money to think about attending a classical music concert in my city.  If this were 1890, the best a person of my class could hope for would be to hear Mozart's 40'th symphony transcribed for penny-whistle.

Quote from: Scarpia on October 14, 2010, 07:39:18 AM
. . . I have multiple recordings of most pieces I like because I don't want to be "imprinted" on one recording.  When I listen to it, I want it to be something novel, not a repeat of the version that rests in my memory.  I feel this helps me focus on the music rather than a specific performance of the music.

Good.  Also you seem to me to present one reasonable counter-remark to something the OP said, to the effect of "why should I listen to many recordings of a piece I already know well?"

Doesn't to hurt to challenge what one supposes oneself already to know very well.

Quote from: Scarpia on October 14, 2010, 07:39:18 AM
I am bewildered when I read on this board of people undertaking to "compare" all recordings of a piece.  They seem to have persuaded themselves that they are doing some sort of research, rather than listening to the stereo. 

I think that Paulb actually calls his listening "research" :D

Quote from: DavidW on October 14, 2010, 08:14:43 AM
I think that Paulb actually calls his listening "research" :D

(* chortle *)

Quote from: Scarpia on October 14, 2010, 07:39:18 AM
I am bewildered when I read on this board of people undertaking to "compare" all recordings of a piece.

Great Point.

Quote from: Saul on October 14, 2010, 12:46:44 PM
Great Point.

I didn't make a point, I said I was bewildered.   ???

Quote from: Scarpia on October 14, 2010, 12:49:39 PM
I didn't make a point, I said I was bewildered.   ???

Well it was a point anyways.

Sforzando, thank you. That was one of the best, most interesting posts I've ever read here and I might save it to my computer. If you have any more theories, please do fire away! ~ I have one addition to your post, however. I think the expansion of the musical world, and the geographical compartmentalization of the composition process via residencies and academic posts, makes it very difficult for new music to spread quickly through the world, the way it may have in the 1800s. For example, if Beethoven wrote a new symphony, he knew that in order to get most dedicated orchestras, listeners, and critics to hear it, the symphony had to be played in only a few places - say (this is not exhaustive by any means), Vienna, Berlin, Paris, London, and a few more German cities. If Beethoven were around today, his new symphony might be commissioned by the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra, then spread around the world by a single conductor who "advocated" it, or by the orchestra going on a tour, after which if he was lucky it would be recorded by Naxos.

Partly this is due to the narrow space allotted to contemporary music in orchestral repertoire, partly it's due to the huge number of active composers clamoring for attention, but partly it is because of the increase in size of the musical world. For example, the composer Avner Dorman is one who interests me. But he is Composer in Residence for the Alabama Symphony Orchestra, which means that about 50% of his new works are premiered by the Alabama SO in Birmingham, and about half of these are currently not scheduled by any other ensemble. If the world today was as small as it was in Beethoven's time, he'd be in Paris rather than central Alabama and I could take the Eurostar to see the premiere. But now the classical music scene is so big that even really successful pieces take a long time to "spread."

Quote from: Brian on October 14, 2010, 01:14:03 PM
. . . For example, the composer Avner Dorman is one who interests me. But he is Composer in Residence for the Alabama Symphony Orchestra, which means that about 50% of his new works are premiered by the Alabama SO in Birmingham, and about half of these are currently not scheduled by any other ensemble.

I see a glass half full: about half of his new works which the Alabama SO are playing will get other performances in other venues, too.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 14, 2010, 01:39:35 PM
I see a glass half full: about half of his new works which the Alabama SO are playing will get other performances in other venues, too.

And moreover, if we were in Alabama, we'd have exciting premieres to look forward to - which is a totally new thing!

Quote from: Brian on October 14, 2010, 01:14:03 PM
Sforzando, thank you. That was one of the best, most interesting posts I've ever read here and I might save it to my computer. If you have any more theories, please do fire away! ~ I have one addition to your post, however. I think the expansion of the musical world, and the geographical compartmentalization of the composition process via residencies and academic posts, makes it very difficult for new music to spread quickly through the world, the way it may have in the 1800s. For example, if Beethoven wrote a new symphony, he knew that in order to get most dedicated orchestras, listeners, and critics to hear it, the symphony had to be played in only a few places - say (this is not exhaustive by any means), Vienna, Berlin, Paris, London, and a few more German cities. If Beethoven were around today, his new symphony might be commissioned by the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra, then spread around the world by a single conductor who "advocated" it, or by the orchestra going on a tour, after which if he was lucky it would be recorded by Naxos.

Partly this is due to the narrow space allotted to contemporary music in orchestral repertoire, partly it's due to the huge number of active composers clamoring for attention, but partly it is because of the increase in size of the musical world. For example, the composer Avner Dorman is one who interests me. But he is Composer in Residence for the Alabama Symphony Orchestra, which means that about 50% of his new works are premiered by the Alabama SO in Birmingham, and about half of these are currently not scheduled by any other ensemble. If the world today was as small as it was in Beethoven's time, he'd be in Paris rather than central Alabama and I could take the Eurostar to see the premiere. But now the classical music scene is so big that even really successful pieces take a long time to "spread."

Also an important and valid point.

Quote from: Scarpia on October 14, 2010, 07:39:18 AM
I am bewildered when I read on this board of people undertaking to "compare" all recordings of a piece.  They seem to have persuaded themselves that they are doing some sort of research, rather than listening to the stereo. 

Maybe I can remove some of your bewildered feelings about the subject.  It's been a few years since I did any relatively comprehensive reviews, but I well remember why I did them - pure enjoyment. 

"Waiting patiently"... still!

What's the name of the place that people say "freezes over" before something else happens?   >:D

Quote from: Cato on October 14, 2010, 04:31:32 PM
"Waiting patiently"... still!

What's the name of the place that people say "freezes over" before something else happens?   >:D

You'll be waiting forever. Trolls merely like to "bait".

Quote from: Bulldog on October 14, 2010, 02:39:53 PM
Maybe I can remove some of your bewildered feelings about the subject.  It's been a few years since I did any relatively comprehensive reviews, but I well remember why I did them - pure enjoyment. 

Testify, Don! It is one mode of enjoying the music.

Quote from: Brian on October 14, 2010, 01:14:03 PM
Sforzando, thank you. That was one of the best, most interesting posts I've ever read here and I might save it to my computer. If you have any more theories, please do fire away! ~ I have one addition to your post, however. I think the expansion of the musical world, and the geographical compartmentalization of the composition process via residencies and academic posts, makes it very difficult for new music to spread quickly through the world, the way it may have in the 1800s. For example, if Beethoven wrote a new symphony, he knew that in order to get most dedicated orchestras, listeners, and critics to hear it, the symphony had to be played in only a few places - say (this is not exhaustive by any means), Vienna, Berlin, Paris, London, and a few more German cities. If Beethoven were around today, his new symphony might be commissioned by the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra, then spread around the world by a single conductor who "advocated" it, or by the orchestra going on a tour, after which if he was lucky it would be recorded by Naxos.

Partly this is due to the narrow space allotted to contemporary music in orchestral repertoire, partly it's due to the huge number of active composers clamoring for attention, but partly it is because of the increase in size of the musical world. For example, the composer Avner Dorman is one who interests me. But he is Composer in Residence for the Alabama Symphony Orchestra, which means that about 50% of his new works are premiered by the Alabama SO in Birmingham, and about half of these are currently not scheduled by any other ensemble. If the world today was as small as it was in Beethoven's time, he'd be in Paris rather than central Alabama and I could take the Eurostar to see the premiere. But now the classical music scene is so big that even really successful pieces take a long time to "spread."

Thank you, Brian, for those very kind thoughts. For better or worse, I am full of theories, but regarding your "one addition," I think if anything the opposite is more truly the case. I do not know any music by Avner Dorman, but thanks to modern technology, in five minutes I can find a website and click into a video recording of some of his music. Compare Bach having to walk on foot some 200 miles to meet and hear Buxtehude in 1705, or Berlioz as a conductor trudging all over Europe to drum up awareness of his music, almost literally killing himself in the process.

What I think you're talking about, however (and correct me if I've misread you), is the fierce competition by composers for scarce performing resources. There are lots of composers today, all wanting to get their work heard, but performing organizations fearful of not getting warm bodies into seats are often unwilling to take chances on music that isn't tried and true. This is the paradox: every one and his uncle claims they are saturated with Beethoven, yet program something other than Beethoven and the house is half empty.

The musical world may have been smaller in Beethoven's time, but that also means that huge percentages of the world's population never had access to his music. No question that the advent and maturation of recording have done a lot to ameliorate this deficiency. We may complain that the overwhelming majority of people don't care about classical music, but at least the opportunity to buy CDs of Beethoven or hear YouTube clips by Avner Dorman is at all our fingertips.

Quote from: Sforzando on October 14, 2010, 05:57:25 PM
. . . What I think you're talking about, however (and correct me if I've misread you), is the fierce competition by composers for scarce performing resources. There are lots of composers today, all wanting to get their work heard, but performing organizations fearful of not getting warm bodies into seats are often unwilling to take chances on music that isn't tried and true. This is the paradox: every one and his uncle claims they are saturated with Beethoven, yet program something other than Beethoven and the house is half empty.

I still think this is largely a matter of inertia. Inertia w/r/t the situation itself, and mental inertia w/r/t the Boards/Programming Directors.

Levine has been very creative in finding a middle ground between an unflagging commitment to new music, and the perceived need for Safety First in programming.  The '10-'11 season at symphony is the first of two seasons over which the BSO will play the six symphonies of John Harbison (the sixth is a commission). Granted, Harbison is not Carter or Wuorinen, and is a local favorite; but it's both new music, and a set of six concerts over two seasons.  And there's a Birtwistle commission coming on line this season, too, for instance.

Levine already paid the Beethoven dues, with his complete symphony cycle last season. This season, LvB is relatively scarce (the Vn Cto, and two of the Pf Cti).  In one program, Beethoven has been swapped for Mozart as the "classical foil" to Schoenberg.

When your light is on the blink
You never think of worrying
What's the use of worrying?
When your bus has left the stop
You'd better drop your hurrying
What's the use of hurrying?

Leave me alone mrs vandebilt
I've got plenty of time of my own

What's the use of worrying?
What's the use of hurrying?
What's the use of anything?

Ho Hey Ho...

What's the use of worrying?
What's the use of hurrying?
What's the use of anything?

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 15, 2010, 04:08:51 AM
I still think this is largely a matter of inertia. Inertia w/r/t the situation itself, and mental inertia w/r/t the Boards/Programming Directors.

Levine has been very creative in finding a middle ground between an unflagging commitment to new music, and the perceived need for Safety First in programming.  The '10-'11 season at symphony is the first of two seasons over which the BSO will play the six symphonies of John Harbison (the sixth is a commission). Granted, Harbison is not Carter or Wuorinen, and is a local favorite; but it's both new music, and a set of six concerts over two seasons.  And there's a Birtwistle commission coming on line this season, too, for instance.

Levine already paid the Beethoven dues, with his complete symphony cycle last season. This season, LvB is relatively scarce (the Vn Cto, and two of the Pf Cti).  In one program, Beethoven has been swapped for Mozart as the "classical foil" to Schoenberg.

I'm sure there's a lot of truth to that. For all the conservatism, a lot of modern music does get heard, even here in New York. The Phil just did a marvelous program consisting of Debussy's Faune, the Sibelius VC (Joshua Bell, still looking as if he's 16), and Magnus Lindberg's very modern Kraft, which made impressive use of percussion instruments found in local junkyards and antiphonal effects. I doubt all the audience loved it, but those who did expressed their appreciation vociferously.

I wonder how much it matters if the bso or the nypo program modern music since those concert goers in major cities are a very small fraction of the entire classical audience.  You get significant airtime for modern music on NPR and BBC, and then there is something to write about.

Quote from: jochanaan on October 13, 2010, 01:41:05 PM
Okay, devil's advocate time: Classical artists who play other people's music--that is, the overwhelming majority of classical performers--may play exactly the same notes, but never the same way.  Any number of factors go into making a performance (recorded or live) different: the exact tempo; whether the beat is steady or flexible; dynamic range; accents strong or muted; vocal or instrumental tone; the room itself... Even Stravinsky's multiple recordings of some of his own music show some major differences between them.  And the greater the performers, the more their work differs. 8)

Well, I did overstate my case. I'm not such a philistine as to think the conductor makes no difference. But once I've found what I consider a good interpretation, I'm not too interested in alternatives. Especially since as I said, I generally listen to works I really like very intensively for awhile and sort of wear them out.  Now I like Thielemann's Wagner and consider him the first really great Wagner conductor in a while, based on what I've heard on Bayreuth web broadcasts. But I've not bought anything by him and would consider a praised new cover version of Tumbling Dice a more necessary purchase.

But to each his own..... 

Perhaps the interpreter of music is something like the expert who photographs a great painting for reproduction. With great artists who use free brushwork as a an expressive medium, like Rembrandt and the later Titian, there is a lot of variation in photography possible and much better and worse outcomes. But if one cannot own the painting and wants to hang a reproduction, when one has found a pretty good one his quest may cease. 

There is a book which has a series of reproductions by great artists copying earlier great artists' works for knowledge, practice and love. Some almost exact copies and some freer ones. This is also perhaps analogous to music interpretation. It's a fascinating book, called Art Themes and Variations, unfortunately I believe out of print. I saw it many years ago, wished for it many times after that, and luckily came across and bought a used copy on the internet two years ago.   

I am surprised no one has picked up on this issue of Saul happening to repeatedly alight initially on the best versions of pieces. It strikes me that he is hearing it done one way, then assuming this is the right way. As a kid I had a disc of Sir Eugene Goosens in some Berlioz, I loved it and thought that no performance I subsequently heard came up to that level of excitement. I heard it again recently; there was nothing special about it. It was the excitement of getting to know the piece that imprinted that thought in my mind.

The impression is that Saul does not learn more from the pieces or take more away from them than the first performer has to offer. Had I done this with say Mehta's Aida, I would be pretty clueless as to just what can be made of the piece.

Secondly, he sets up one of his straw men, positing the idea that many people generally sit endlessly comparing multiple versions of a piece. Even the hard core here rarely hold more than a few versions of anything, though there are exceptions for perhaps one or two favoured pieces. Additionally, there have been several through the site who do get hold of every version of something, but they often don't even break into the packaging. That is about collecting, not about listening to music.

Mike

Quote from: knight on October 15, 2010, 12:36:25 PM
I am surprised no one has picked up on this issue of Saul happening to repeatedly alight initially on the best versions of pieces. It strikes me that he is hearing it done one way, then assuming this is the right way. As a kid I had a disc of Sir Eugene Goosens in some Berlioz, I loved it and thought that no performance I subsequently heard came up to that level of excitement. I heard it again recently; there was nothing special about it. It was the excitement of getting to know the piece that imprinted that thought in my mind.

The impression is that Saul does not learn more from the pieces or take more away from them than the first performer has to offer. Had I done this with say Mehta's Aida, I would be pretty clueless as to just what can be made of the piece.

Secondly, he sets up one of his straw men, positing the idea that many people generally sit endlessly comparing multiple versions of a piece. Even the hard core here rarely hold more than a few versions of anything, though there are exceptions for perhaps one or two favoured pieces. Additionally, there have been several through the site who do get hold of every version of something, but they often don't even break into the packaging. That is about collecting, not about listening to music.

Mike

Well the first impression is a factor, but I did happen to have really good musicians performing these works by various composers at my first listening to them, I guess I was lucky to get it right the first time.
But if one really thinks about it deeply and objectively, the differences of performances are not that great, and a good number of these differences are things that people dream up, insisting that these differences are primal, and I say they are marginal, most works that were recorded by well educated talented virtuosos, are the same with minor adjustments as I said before.

Best of Wishes,

Saul

It may depend just what you are listening to, but for instance I have several recordings of Bach Goldberg Variations, they are all different. If I had 40 versions I have no doubt I would not be able to tell say number 18 from number 34....but that does not invalidate that most music yields different things depending on who performs it and there is no one 'right' version of any complex masterpiece.

Mike

Quote from: knight on October 15, 2010, 12:51:49 PM
It may depend just what you are listening to, but for instance I have several recordings of Bach Goldberg Variations, they are all different. If I had 40 versions I have no doubt I would not be able to tell say number 18 from number 34....but that does not invalidate that most music yields different things depending on who performs it and there is no one 'right' version of any complex masterpiece.

Mike

Exactly there are no right versions for these works, only marginal varieties of expression which is a natural thing, given the musicians are only performing the music of a composer, but not actually composing the piece. Its like 100 different artists sketching the Mona Lisa, they all have their versions, but the primal glory belongs to Di Vinci.

Too many at times, people forget the composer and instead focus on what this or that pianist did different, forgetting that its not really a matter of art per say, but a natural process of expressing something written or composed or painted by someone else.

Cheers,

Saul

Quote from: Saul on October 15, 2010, 12:46:59 PM
Well the first impression is a factor, but I did happen to have really good musicians performing these works by various composers at my first listening to them, I guess I was lucky to get it right the first time.
But if one really thinks about it deeply and objectively, the differences of performances are not that great, and a good number of these differences are things that people dream up, insisting that these differences are primal, and I say they are marginal, most works that were recorded by well educated talented virtuosos, are the same with minor adjustments as I said before.

Best of Wishes,

Saul

I think this post reveals more about Saul's own listening habits than any kind of intelligent argument.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 15, 2010, 12:57:46 PM

I think this post reveals more about Saul's own listening habits than any kind of intelligent argument.

Ok whatever, I just listen to the music and try to enjoy it, I don't care for comparing music, for me its pointless, though I understand that for some people its a form of entertainment, well if you like it and this is your cup of tea, then listen away.

Saul, I am only partly with you here. I think it is difficult now for a new pianist to make the Beethoven Emperor Concerto sound new.....every possible approach has been taken. But if nothing else, it is a personal exploration for that specific artist and is likely to modify over time as they develop their knowledge of the piece.

The comparison with the da Vinci is not valid. That painting exists for all to see. Music generally needs to be released by a performer. Sitting on the page, most 'listeners' will make little of it.

If the performer can realise the piece and at least make it seem fresh, that is a triumph. As long as it is not wrongheaded I don't see that the composer is being left behind.

Mike

Quote from: Saul on October 15, 2010, 12:46:59 PM
Well the first impression is a factor, but I did happen to have really good musicians performing these works by various composers at my first listening to them, I guess I was lucky to get it right the first time.
But if one really thinks about it deeply and objectively, the differences of performances are not that great, and a good number of these differences are things that people dream up, insisting that these differences are primal, and I say they are marginal, most works that were recorded by well educated talented virtuosos, are the same with minor adjustments as I said before.

Don't you get tired of saying the same thing over and over again?

Quote from: knight on October 15, 2010, 01:01:55 PM
Saul, I am only partly with you here. I think it is difficult now for a new pianist to make the Beethoven Emperor Concerto sound new.....every possible approach has been taken. But if nothing else, it is a personal exploration for that specific artist and is likely to modify over time as they develop their knowledge of the piece.

The comparison with the da Vinci is not valid. That painting exists for all to see. Music generally needs to be released by a performer. Sitting on the page, most 'listeners' will make little of it.

If the performer can realise the piece and at least make it seem fresh, that is a triumph. As long as it is not wrongheaded I don't see that the composer is being left behind.

Mike

Part of the problem is that back then most serious performers of music were also composers.
Today performance has become a genre by itself.

The recording studios and the publishing companies know this fact way too well, that's why they push off new composers and their music, and concentrate on recording and publishing the same old Mozart Sonata for the millionth time.

Quote from: Bulldog on October 15, 2010, 01:07:27 PM
Don't you get tired of saying the same thing over and over again?

Another trouble maker in our midst...
Please focus on the subject can you train yourself to do that?

Quote from: Saul on October 15, 2010, 12:56:07 PM
Exactly there are no right versions for these works, only marginal varieties of expression which is a natural thing, given the musicians are only performing the music of a composer, but not actually composing the piece. Its like 100 different artists sketching the Mona Lisa, they all have their versions, but the primal glory belongs to Di Vinci.

Too many at times, people forget the composer and instead focus on what this or that pianist did different, forgetting that its not really a matter of art per say, but a natural process of expressing something written or composed or painted by someone else.

Cheers,

Saul

The composer writes music and NOBODY knows what he/she was thinking or how it should be played that is why different interpretations exist. Not everybody views a piece of art the same way. If you don't understand this, then you shouldn't be listening to classical music or buying any recordings for that matter.

Your logic continues to baffle me. As a pianist, do you play other composer's music totally devoid of emotion? It is your emotion that shapes the work and changes it. You DON'T know what the composer's intentions were all you have is the music in front of you and that's it. The ball is in your court.

If you can't understand this then, again, you shouldn't be involved with classical music.

Saul, Singers were rarely composers. I think you get stuck in a world of pianists, who often did compose. Many pieces have been commissioned by instrumentalists who were not themselves composers.

Mike

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 15, 2010, 01:17:03 PM

The composer writes music and NOBODY knows what he/she was thinking or how it should be played that is why different interpretations exist. Not everybody views a piece of art the same way. If you don't understand this, then you shouldn't be listening to classical music or buying any recordings for that matter.

Your logic continues to baffle me. As a pianist, do you play other composer's music totally devoid of emotion? It is your emotion that shapes the work and changes it. You DON'T know what the composer's intentions were all you have is the music in front of you and that's it. The ball is in your court.

If you can't understand this then, again, you shouldn't be involved with classical music.

Every composer has a different way of playing the piece.

Big deal, this is natural, tell me something I don't know.

Some people insist attaching art to something that is impossible to do otherwise.
There is no way that 2 pianists will play the same piece the same way...

Thank you, I didn't know that, I really needed you to tell me that...

Quote from: knight on October 15, 2010, 01:18:07 PM
Saul, Singers were rarely composers. I think you get stuck in a world of pianists, who often did compose. Many pieces have been commissioned by instrumentalists who were not themselves composers.

Mike

I'm talking about instrumental music.
Most serious perfomers of Instrumental music back then also composed, some more then others, but that is a fact.

Quote from: Saul on October 15, 2010, 01:19:33 PM
Every composer has a different way of playing the piece.

Big deal, this is natural, tell me something I don't know.

Some people insist attaching art to something that is impossible to do otherwise.
There is no way that 2 pianists will play the same piece the same way...

Thank you, I didn't know that, I really needed you to tell me that...

But the problem is you continue to insist that it's "pointless" to listen to different interpretations of a piece of music.

When are you going to stop contradicting yourself and actually think about what you're going say first before you say it?

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 15, 2010, 01:22:41 PM

But the problem is you continue to insist that it's "pointless" to listen to different interpretations of a piece of music.

When are you going to stop contradicting yourself and actually think about what you're going say first before you say it?

You missed the whole point..

Differences in interpretation are a natural aspect of performing written compositions, and the differences that do arise, I say are minor, and not really worthy of this whole business of comparative listening.

I hope that you got this now.

Bare in mind that I'm talking about well educated professional performers.
Do I care if Horowitz or Kissin play the Bach, not really.

Bach is Bach and I will enjoy it from every talanted pianist out there.

Quote from: Saul on October 15, 2010, 01:28:35 PM
You missed the whole point..

Differences in interpretation are a natural aspect of performing written compositions, and the differences that do arise, I say are minor, and not really worthy of this whole business of comparative listening.

I hope that you got this now.

Bare in mind that I'm talking about well educated professional performers.
Do I care if Horowitz or Kissin play the Bach, not really.

Bach is Bach and I will enjoy it from every great pianist out there.

The differences in each performance is what seperates them. There are bad performances and uninspired performances as well and I've heard many. This said, with your logic, every performance is great, which certainly isn't true.

Ashkenazy conducting Vivaldi...no, Pinnock conducting Vivaldi...yes.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 15, 2010, 01:32:05 PM

The differences in each performance is what seperates them. There are bad performances and uninspired performances as well and I've heard many. This said, with your logic, every performance is great, which certainly isn't true.

Every performance of a particular composition by a talented virtuoso or by a talented conductor and Orchestra are basically the same, the differences that some people find is nothing more then a strong spark of imagination insisting that one is better then the other, and as Knight said before, there is no telling which is really better, just like you said that one can't know for sure how the composer himself played it or wanted to be played right now.

So what's this whole business of comparing?
What are you comparing, things that don't have a place in the truth or in reality?

Quote from: Saul on October 15, 2010, 01:21:18 PM
I'm talking about instrumental music.
Most serious perfomers of Instrumental music back then also composed, some more then others, but that is a fact.

You mean solo instrumental music. So you are getting into a sub set of music. You can't mean symphonic music, as

A) Many composers could not conduct.

B) They certainly could not play all the instruments that they composed for.

As I suggested, really, I think you are referring to piano music. The musical world is much bigger than that.

Mike

Quote from: knight on October 15, 2010, 01:38:19 PM
You mean solo instrumental music. So you are getting into a sub set of music. You can't mean symphonic music, as

A) Many composers could not conduct.

B) They certainly could not play all the instruments that they composed for.

As I suggested, really, I think you are referring to piano music. The musical world is much bigger than that.

Mike

But they could invision in their minds the whole Orchestra playing. They say about Beethoven that even with his piano music, he heard strings.

Quote from: Saul on October 15, 2010, 01:36:23 PM
as Knight said before, there is no telling which is really better, just like you said that one can't know for sure how the composer himself played it or wanted to be played right now.

Oh, no I don't ascribe to that. Some are certainly better than others and as MI said, many performances are uninspired. Brushing aside the element of imaginative interpretation throws out baby and bathwater.

Mike

Quote from: Saul on October 15, 2010, 01:40:06 PM
But they could invision in their minds the whole Orchestra playing. They say about Beethoven that even with his piano music, he heard strings.

What has that to do with the argument? We only know what is on the page as released by musicians, we don't know what they heard inside their heads.

Mike

Quote from: knight on October 15, 2010, 01:40:47 PM
Oh, no I don't ascribe to that. Some are certainly better than others and as MI said, many performances are uninspired. Brushing aside the element of imaginative interpretation throws out baby and bathwater.

Mike

When you say that some interpretations are not inspiring, I will say that this has to do with personal taste, because some people cant stand Horowitz, and some people Love Lang Lang. The whole idea of 'Better Interpretations' is like 'who's your favorite composer'?

Its all a matter of taste, and personal choice, but not really any definitive universal artistic stamp.

Quote from: Saul on October 15, 2010, 01:36:23 PM
Every performance of a particular composition by a talented virtuoso or by a talented conductor and Orchestra are basically the same, the differences that some people find is nothing more then a strong spark of imagination insisting that one is better then the other, and as Knight said before, there is no telling which is really better, just like you said that one can't know for sure how the composer himself played it or wanted to be played right now.

So what's this whole business of comparing?
What are you comparing, things that don't have a place in the truth or in reality?

As a listener, I base my listening on emotional content. Some conductors bring out certain aspects of a composition that I like better than others while other conductors may excel in the more introspective aspect of the work.

As I said, if you think every performance you hear of say Mendelssohn's Scottish Symphony is great, then you're not listening hard enough. Can you not tell the difference between an inspired performance and an uninspired performance or do they all sound the same to you?

Quote from: knight on October 15, 2010, 01:41:59 PM
What has that to do with the argument? We only know what is on the page as released by musicians, we don't know what they heard inside their heads.

Mike

I kinda lost you here, I believe you were the one who made a distinction between solo and Orchestra, for me its all the same.

Quote from: Saul on October 15, 2010, 01:44:48 PM

When you say that some interpretations are not inspiring, I will say that this has to do with personal taste, because some people cant stand Horowitz, and some people Love Lang Lang. The whole idea of 'Better Interpretations' is like 'who's your favorite composer'?

Its all a matter of taste, and personal choice, but not really any definitive universal artistic stamp.

Ladies and gentlemen allow me to introduce to you Saul the Brick Wall:

(http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007-3-21/brick_wall.jpg)

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 15, 2010, 01:45:17 PM
As a listener, I base my listening on emotional content. Some conductors bring out certain aspects of a composition that I like better than others while other conductors may excel in the more introspective aspect of the work.

As I said, if you think every performance you hear of say Mendelssohn's Scottish Symphony is great, then you're not listening hard enough. Can you not tell the difference between an inspired performance and an uninspired performance or do they all sound the same to you?

Thank you !

"That you like better' you said it...

But who said that what you liked has to do with art.
Tell me what art has to do with comparing performances.

Its nothing, in my opinion, its nothing more then a huge hype designed to create money, and composers today are paying a huge price for that.

Quote from: Saul on October 15, 2010, 01:48:45 PM
Thank you !

"That you like better' you said it...

But who said that what you liked has to do with art.
Tell me what art has to do with comparing performances.

Its nothing, in my opinion, its nothing more then a huge hype designed to create money, and composers today are paying a huge price for that.

Can you even answer my question? I asked you can you tell the difference between an inspired performance and an uninspired performance?

Quote from: Saul on October 15, 2010, 01:16:09 PM
Another trouble maker in our midst...
Please focus on the subject can you train yourself to do that?

I don't consider your subject worthy of any focus.  I do find it interesting that you keep hammering away with the same argument said the same way, much more repetitive than multiple versions of the same work.

Quote from: Bulldog on October 15, 2010, 02:03:53 PM
I don't consider your subject worthy of any focus.  I do find it interesting that you keep hammering away with the same argument said the same way, much more repetitive than multiple versions of the same work.

He can't even answer simple questions either.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 15, 2010, 02:09:18 PM

He can't even answer simple questions either.

Quite true!    $:)

The U.S. Marines have a slogan: "Can't Means Won't!"


"Can't" or "Won't"...I am...STILL...waiting...waiting...waiting!!!   0:)

Quote from: Cato on October 15, 2010, 04:12:40 PM
Quite true!    $:)

The U.S. Marines have a slogan: "Can't Means Won't!"


"Can't" or "Won't"...I am...STILL...waiting...waiting...waiting!!!   0:)

All I asked the guy was could he tell an inspired performance apart from an uninspired performance and, yes, like you, I am still waiting for an answer.

Quote from: Saul on October 15, 2010, 01:44:48 PM

When you say that some interpretations are not inspiring, I will say that this has to do with personal taste, because some people cant stand Horowitz, and some people Love Lang Lang. The whole idea of 'Better Interpretations' is like 'who's your favorite composer'?

Its all a matter of taste, and personal choice, but not really any definitive universal artistic stamp.

I cannot agree.  There are certain objective measurements by which we can measure performance quality.  There is note-accuracy--and this is something we can never take for granted; I've heard a broadcast or two of Lang Lang that was actually rather distressing in its inaccuracy!--there is following (or not) the composer's directions re tempo, nuance and dynamics; there is gracefulness; there is tone quality; there is intensity... Granted, some of these indicators are hard to measure, but they're not hard to feel, and listeners know when they're absent or weak.

Quote from: jochanaan on October 15, 2010, 05:23:11 PM
I cannot agree.  There are certain objective measurements by which we can measure performance quality.  There is note-accuracy--and this is something we can never take for granted; I've heard a broadcast or two of Lang Lang that was actually rather distressing in its inaccuracy!--there is following (or not) the composer's directions re tempo, nuance and dynamics; there is gracefulness; there is tone quality; there is intensity... Granted, some of these indicators are hard to measure, but they're not hard to feel, and listeners know when they're absent or weak.

Absolutely agree with this and very well stated. A musical performance, for me, is about the overall feel. An experienced listener can pick up on what they feel to be well-played or severely lacking. I know I can.

I don't think people set out to compare differences between recordings, but usually just want to hear a piece being played different ways, and in that way, there's lots to explore.

Some things I have trouble telling apart. For Mahler's 1st, I don't think I can tell apart most recordings. It mainly sounds the same to me. For the 6th and 9th symphonies, however, I have absolutely clear choices about which one is my favorite. When I discovered a certain recording for the 6th, I enjoyed the piece like I never had before- in other words, if you find a recording you really like, it can help you appreciate the composer and his music better.

btw... please, Saul... be more careful when you type. Reading those run-on sentences and misplaced commas are almost painful.  :-\

Quote from: Greg on October 15, 2010, 07:14:22 PM
I don't think people set out to compare differences between recordings, but usually just want to hear a piece being played different ways, and in that way, there's lots to explore.

Some things I have trouble telling apart. For Mahler's 1st, I don't think I can tell apart most recordings. It mainly sounds the same to me. For the 6th and 9th symphonies, however, I have absolutely clear choices about which one is my favorite. When I discovered a certain recording for the 6th, I enjoyed the piece like I never had before- in other words, if you find a recording you really like, it can help you appreciate the composer and his music better.

btw... please, Saul... be more careful when you type. Reading those run-on sentences and misplaced commas are almost painful.  :-\

I think Mahler has been interpreted in so many different ways that it is now hard to find a conductor who brings something truly original of their own to the music. I tend to like very accurate, almost transparent readings of Mahler a la Abbado, Chailly, Boulez, Rattle, Gielen, and Bertini. I'm not much for bombast in Mahler and he's definitely a composer that one can overkill in a heartbeat.

I agree though about hearing different performances of the same work and you pretty said the point I've been trying to make all along: finding new avenues into the music we love gives the listener a new appreciation for not only the composer, but the music itself.

I can agree to a certain extent with the arguments of both sides here. But Saul makes a good point when he says the record companies are perhaps concentrating on the 2,134th release of the Emperor rather than seeking out something new and worthwhile. Perhaps if continual reinterpretation of the old was not so big a part of our musical culture then the thousands of instrumentalists who compete for a limited number of star positions and chairs in major orchestras would be more stimulated instead to...compose? As they did in the old days? And we might have more of a living culture in classical music? Just a thought. Remember that during the ages we idolize the idea of not having a continual flood of new music was totally unacceptable and drove the production of all the works we love. E.g., when Bach assumed his Leipzig job his first task was to compose an entirely new yearly cycle of cantatas; the notion of using the old ones was simply not even thought of.

Quote from: Chaszz on October 16, 2010, 07:22:44 AM
I can agree to a certain extent with the arguments of both sides here. But Saul makes a good point when he says the record companies are perhaps concentrating on the 2,134th release of the Emperor  . . . .

Well, that's a point which has been made here often by others, and generally better than has been done on this thread. It's a point which can be made without whingeing about those of us who do enjoy listening to more recordings of a piece than just the first one we happened to hear.

What's the point of living so much life?

Quote from: jochanaan on October 15, 2010, 05:23:11 PM
I cannot agree.  There are certain objective measurements by which we can measure performance quality.  There is note-accuracy--and this is something we can never take for granted; I've heard a broadcast or two of Lang Lang that was actually rather distressing in its inaccuracy!--

I wonder what would we say if we heard Liszt or Chopin performing their own music... I can already hear some complaining about their inaccuracy, or romantic self-indulgence. As for Beethoven conducting his own symphonies, let's not open another can of worms...

:D

Goodness knows that Henning cat's performances of his own music are riddled with inaccuracirs.

Quote from: Florestan on October 16, 2010, 01:19:18 PM
I wonder what would we say if we heard Liszt or Chopin performing their own music... I can already hear some complaining about their inaccuracy, or romantic self-indulgence. As for Beethoven conducting his own symphonies, let's not open another can of worms...

:D

I'm surprised that no one hear picked up on this stunning point by Florestan.

Quote from: Saul on October 16, 2010, 04:03:37 PM
I'm surprised that no one hear picked up on this stunning point by Florestan.

And some others might end up really enjoying their performances. So what? Why limit yourself?

Quote from: Greg on October 16, 2010, 04:04:46 PM
And some others might end up really enjoying their performances. So what? Why limit yourself?

Remember who you're talking to Greg...

(http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007-3-21/brick_wall.jpg)

I can only see MI sitting in his brick wall house on his comfortable sofa, whining how Chopin's interpretation of his own music, lacks balance and passion, the same goes for Liszt.
Florestan had nailed this whole thing in a cleaver sentence, too bad very few grasped its magnitude.

Nothing will change, for those who claim that others are made of bricks, they are in fact showcasing their own insecurities and their own immaturity, where they can't carry a conversation without getting into kindergarten accusations that make no sense.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 16, 2010, 04:06:46 PM

Remember who you're talking to Greg...

(http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007-3-21/brick_wall.jpg)

Quote from: Saul on October 16, 2010, 04:12:38 PM
I can only see MI sitting in his brick wall house on his comfortable sofa, whining how Chopin's interpretation of his own music, lacks balance and passion, the same goes for Liszt.
Florestan had nailed this whole thing in a cleaver sentence, too bad very few grasped its magnitude.

Nothing will change, for those who claim that others are made of bricks, they are in fact showcasing their own insecurities and their own immaturity, where they can't carry a conversation without getting into kindergarten accusations that make no sense.

And you just prove it with this post. Sad.

Quote from: Saul on October 16, 2010, 04:12:38 PM
I can only see MI sitting in his brick wall house on his comfortable sofa, whining how Chopin's interpretation of his own music, lacks balance and passion, the same goes for Liszt.
Florestan had nailed this whole thing in a cleaver sentence, too bad very few grasped its magnitude.

Nothing will change, for those who claim that others are made of bricks, they are in fact showcasing their own insecurities and their own immaturity, where they can't carry a conversation without getting into kindergarten accusations that make no sense.

"Please focus on the subject can you train yourself to do that?"

Quote from: Greg on October 16, 2010, 04:16:43 PM
And you just prove it with this post. Sad.

Why can't you understand what Florestan said?

Very Sad indeed.

Quote from: some guy on October 16, 2010, 04:18:12 PM
"Please focus on the subject can you train yourself to do that?"

Where did you pop out from?

Quote from: some guy on October 16, 2010, 04:18:12 PM
"Please focus on the subject can you train yourself to do that?"

Ugh- that was the painful to read sentence I was referring to earlier... no need to bring it up again.

Quote from: Saul on October 16, 2010, 04:20:12 PM
Why can't you understand what Florestan said?

Very Sad indeed.

I did understand what he meant. It's true what he meant. However, I don't think he means to say that people should completely stop finding new performances of music they like.

Quote from: Greg on October 16, 2010, 04:22:48 PM
Ugh- that was the painful to read sentence I was referring to earlier... no need to bring it up again.


I did understand what he meant. It's true what he meant. However, I don't think he means to say that people should completely stop finding new performances of music they like.

When in the world did I say specifically that they "should completely stop finding new performances of music they like"?

All I was trying to say was that there is no need for this obsessive behavior where people feel that they need to listen to multiple recordings in order to finally come to like the piece. Those who listen to 1, 2 or 3 recordings of the same piece should concentrate on other things, and stop with purchasing endless recordings of the same piece, that's what I am against, and its my opinion, there's nothing wrong with stating your opinion, is that right Greg?

I'm sure you'll agree with that.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 16, 2010, 04:06:46 PM

Remember who you're talking to Greg...

(http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007-3-21/brick_wall.jpg)

QFT

Quote from: Saul on October 16, 2010, 04:27:56 PM
When in the world did I say specifically that they "should completely stop finding new performances of music they like"?

All I was trying to say was that there is no need for this obsessive behavior where people feel that they need to listen to multiple recordings in order to finally come to like the piece. Those who listen to 1, 2 or 3 recordings of the same piece should concentrate on other things, and stop with purchasing endless recordings of the same piece, that's what I am against, and its my opinion, there's nothing wrong with stating your opinion, is that right Greg?

I'm sure you'll agree with that.

Well, yeah, I'd say after 2 or 3 very different recordings, if you don't like the piece, you probably won't like it. People can do what they want, though I understand what you mean. Collecting 7 recordings of a piece you know you don't like seems kinda silly.

Sometimes people do strange things, though. I have 4 Sibelius Symphony Cycles and I like them, but am not the biggest fan in the world. I don't know why.  ::) :D

Quote from: Saul on October 16, 2010, 04:27:56 PM
All I was trying to say was that there is no need for this obsessive behavior where people feel that they need to listen to multiple recordings in order to finally come to like the piece. Those who listen to 1, 2 or 3 recordings of the same piece should concentrate on other things, and stop with purchasing endless recordings of the same piece, that's what I am against, and its my opinion, there's nothing wrong with stating your opinion, is that right Greg?

Just apply your "shoulds" to yourself and leave others alone.  Besides, I don't recall anyone appointing you our listening cop.

Quote from: Bulldog on October 16, 2010, 04:39:23 PM
Just apply your "shoulds" to yourself and leave others alone.  Besides, I don't recall anyone appointing you our listening cop.

Ok, Policedog.

Bark yourself out.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 16, 2010, 04:36:21 PM
QFT

Lets see over 26,000 posts...

Lets take out the thousands of lols and hehes, and QFTs, and HAHAs and other obscure gibberish small salon talk, and what are we left with?

Not much.

Quote from: Saul on October 16, 2010, 04:44:11 PM
Lets see over 26,000 posts...

Lets take out the thousands of lols and hehes, and QFTs, and HAHAs and other obscure gibberish small salon talk, and what are we left with?

Not much.

That post deserves a lol.

Quote from: Greg on October 16, 2010, 04:38:26 PM
Well, yeah, I'd say after 2 or 3 very different recordings, if you don't like the piece, you probably won't like it. People can do what they want, though I understand what you mean. Collecting 7 recordings of a piece you know you don't like seems kinda silly.

Sometimes people do strange things, though. I have 4 Sibelius Symphony Cycles and I like them, but am not the biggest fan in the world. I don't know why.  ::) :D

Thank you Greg, you finally understood what I was saying all along.

I really commend you for that...

Quote from: Saul on October 16, 2010, 04:12:38 PM
Florestan had nailed this whole thing in a cleaver sentence, too bad very few grasped its magnitude.

(http://media2.tbo.com/mediamanager/2009/jan/05/2820_010409leaveit.orig-max-640x640.jpg)

Grasping the magnitude of the sentence, he commits it to paper and makes it his own ...

Quote from: Greg on October 16, 2010, 04:45:05 PM
That post deserves a lol.

Much appriciated Senor, Greg... :)

And I would also say Greg, that if one has a recording that he likes, he should like it, that's right actually like it completely without any obsessive feeling to compare it.
If he wants to compare it with 2 other performers that's should be fine, but looking for every recording of the same piece and purchasing all these recordings, is absolutely uncalled for and counterproductive in my opinion. Two or three recordings of one work should be enough, and not like 20 or 30.

Quote from: Szykniej on October 16, 2010, 04:46:34 PM
(http://media2.tbo.com/mediamanager/2009/jan/05/2820_010409leaveit.orig-max-640x640.jpg)

Grasping the magnitude of the sentence, he commits it to paper and makes it his own ...

Saul was the Beaver? 

Quote from: Bulldog on October 16, 2010, 04:52:58 PM
Saul was the Beaver?

If its history that interests you:


The term "bulldog" was first mentioned in literature around 1500, the oldest spelling of the word being Bondogge and Bolddogge. The first reference to the word with the modern spelling is dated 1631 or 1632 in a letter by a man named Preswick Eaton where he writes: "procuer mee two good Bulldoggs, and let them be sent by ye first shipp".[10] The name "bull" was applied because of the dog's use in the sport of bull baiting. The original Bulldog had to be very ferocious and so savage and courageous as to be almost insensitive to pain. In 1835 dog fighting as a sport became illegal in England. Therefore, the Old English Bulldog had outlived his usefulness in England and his days were numbered in England. However, emigrants did have a use for such dogs in the New World, resulting in the original Bulldog's closest descendant, the American Bulldog. Back in England, they proceeded to eliminate the undesirable 'fierce' characteristics and to preserve and accentuate the finer qualities. Within a few generations, the English Bulldog became one of the finest physical specimens, minus its original viciousness, stamina, strength, speed, and intelligence.

Quote from: Greg on October 16, 2010, 04:45:05 PM
That post deserves a lol.

'Tis true; it doth.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 16, 2010, 05:19:16 PM

'Tis true; it doth.

LOL!

Quote from: Saul on October 16, 2010, 04:27:56 PMAll I was trying to say was that there is no need for this obsessive behavior where people feel that they need to listen to multiple recordings in order to finally come to like the piece. Those who listen to 1, 2 or 3 recordings of the same piece should concentrate on other things, and stop with purchasing endless recordings of the same piece, that's what I am against....

People, fortunately, are free to do whatever they like without consulting you.

Oh, and nice side-step of that other issue I brought up, which is that you're no better at staying on topic than anyone else.

(I know, I know, I took a vow of silence regarding Saul's threads. Bad Michael. Down. Down dog.)

QuoteAll I was trying to say was that there is no need for this obsessive behavior where people feel that they need to listen to multiple recordings in order to finally come to like the piece.

Well, and all I am saying is that, actually, you have no mandate to say this of anyone but yourself. You've got to get over this soft egotism of thinking that what is true for you musically, is necessarily true for everyone, everywhere.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 16, 2010, 05:47:20 PM

Well, and all I am saying is that, actually, you have no mandate to say this of anyone but yourself. You've got to get over this soft egotism of thinking that what is true for you musically, is necessarily true for everyone, everywhere.

Hear, hear! I'll drink to that!  :P

(http://nakedandshameless.com/wed/img/beer.jpg)

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 16, 2010, 05:47:20 PM

Well, and all I am saying is that, actually, you have no mandate to say this of anyone but yourself. You've got to get over this soft egotism of thinking that what is true for you musically, is necessarily true for everyone, everywhere.

This was an opinion made, I dont enforce my opinions on other lol.

Saul, please don't use my comment as if it endorsed in any way your restrictive position.  :)

I don't have many multiple recordings as I usually prefer to, say, listen to ten symphonies I've never heard before than to ten different recordings of Beethoven's Seventh.

But neither do I condemn those who have a different approach. Each one of us is free to enjoy music in whatever way he sees fit, according to his personal taste and style. One man's joy is another's boredom. Fortunately enough, nowadays we are able, thanks to the recording industry and the modern technology, to pursue our own musical goals and ideals. And the Earth is large enough to accomodate us all.

Quote from: Florestan on October 17, 2010, 02:45:45 AM
Saul, please don't use my comment as if it endorsed in any way your restrictive position.  :)

I don't have many multiple recordings as I usually prefer to, say, listen to ten symphonies I've never heard before than to ten different recordings of Beethoven's Seventh.

But neither do I condemn those who have a different approach. Each one of us is free to enjoy music in whatever way he sees fit, according to his personal taste and style. One man's joy is another's boredom. Fortunately enough, nowadays we are able, thanks to the recording industry and the modern technology, to pursue our own musical goals and ideals. And the Earth is large enough to accomodate us all.

I dont know what you're talking about, you nailed it man.

You're the man!  :)

Quote from: Saul on October 17, 2010, 05:41:48 AM
I dont know what you're talking about, you nailed it man.

You're the man!  :)

And you're such a child. You should really grow-up. What Florestan so elegantly said is common sense, and yet, you acknowledge this post as if it's some kind of epiphany. We have all been saying this all along to you. Again, you fail to read people's posts and when somebody actually says something that "clicks" with you, you praise them as if they're the Messiah. Again, grow-up, Saul. You're in your 30s and you act like you're in your teens.

Quote from: Florestan on October 16, 2010, 01:19:18 PM
I wonder what would we say if we heard Liszt or Chopin performing their own music... I can already hear some complaining about their inaccuracy, or romantic self-indulgence. As for Beethoven conducting his own symphonies, let's not open another can of worms...

:D

Point well taken.  But remember that I indicated that note-accuracy was only ONE of the objective measures of a good or great performance... :)

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 17, 2010, 06:44:14 AM
And you're such a child. You should really grow-up. What Florestan so elegantly said is common sense, and yet, you acknowledge this post as if it's some kind of epiphany. We have all been saying this all along to you. Again, you fail to read people's posts and when somebody actually says something that "clicks" with you, you praise them as if they're the Messiah. Again, grow-up, Saul. You're in your 30s and you act like you're in your teens.

Really, we just keep coming back to this:

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 15, 2010, 01:47:26 PM
Ladies and gentlemen allow me to introduce to you Saul the Brick Wall:

(http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007-3-21/brick_wall.jpg)

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 18, 2010, 02:03:29 AM
Really, we just keep coming back to this:

Yes and we'll continue to go back to that. :D

The point I'd like to add is that, with them buying all of these different recordings, do people actually spend time absorbing them? I mean, I now only buy about one cd every fortnight. Over that time, I try to listen to it as much as I can (along with all of the other stuff). It's the same thing about going to concerts - I find that I absorb the music and performance more if I know at least some (or often most) of the works being played. I find that I get more out of the process if I say only attend about 3 concerts per month where I know the repertoire at least to some extent, rather than say going to double that amount but knowing the works less.

But, yes, as Florestan says the world can accomodate all listeners, whether they only listen to their newly acquired cd's once, twice or many times. I'm more of a deep listener, in the latter category, but not everyone has to be...

Quote from: Sid on October 18, 2010, 09:27:33 PM
The point I'd like to add is that, with them buying all of these different recordings, do people actually spend time absorbing them? I mean, I now only buy about one cd every fortnight. Over that time, I try to listen to it as much as I can (along with all of the other stuff). It's the same thing about going to concerts - I find that I absorb the music and performance more if I know at least some (or often most) of the works being played. I find that I get more out of the process if I say only attend about 3 concerts per month where I know the repertoire at least to some extent, rather than say going to double that amount but knowing the works less.

But, yes, as Florestan says the world can accomodate all listeners, whether they only listen to their newly acquired cd's once, twice or many times. I'm more of a deep listener, in the latter category, but not everyone has to be...

Even though I buy a good many recordings, I'm actually becoming more of a deeper listener. I will spend weeks, months, years with a recording and never tire of it. I like learning the music inside out. I have to continue to listen to music. I will NEVER learn anything by not listening and trying to nail down what it is I enjoy about the music so much.

Saul asks "What's the point of listening to so much music?"

This question doesn't make a practical use of common sense, especially to somebody who claims they love music. Why not listen to a lot of music? Why limit yourself to 10 composers when there are 60 more worth getting to know and who have composed as great music as those 10 you're limiting yourself to? There isn't just one flavor of ice cream that is good, there are many, but how would you ever know if you don't take a risk and try it?

I used to be musically close-minded like Saul, but then something inside of me happened, I stumbled upon the reason for this closure in my mind: listening to what the critics and classical conservatives instead of listening to the music with my own ears. This happened for me this year. As Sid knows, I was quite the classical snob, but now I think there's all kinds of great music out there whether it's more avant-garde or more Romantically melodic, if you're open to music, then you can enjoy it much more.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 18, 2010, 09:23:48 PM
Yes and we'll continue to go back to that. :D

Oh, aye, he has a certain concrete consistency ; )

Quote from: Sid on October 18, 2010, 09:27:33 PM
The point I'd like to add is that, with them buying all of these different recordings, do people actually spend time absorbing them?

Some time immediately, with the intent of spending more time afterwards.  It's a balance, or even, a management of several balances . . . as it is, I am not a particularly voracious comparative-recordings acquirer.  It's more or less up to the individual, of course . . . so I do feel that I derive value from the several versions I fetch in.

Doors open all the time. That's what's so gratyfing about "listening to so much music". I may well understand the question when one doesn't experience this, as Saul IMO exemplifies. I appreciate other musics and other interpretations now compared to 30 years ago. If I didn't, I might well have wondered about why I spend so much time and money on music, but then again; if I didn't, I wouldn't have.  :)

Quote from: erato on October 19, 2010, 04:26:29 AM
Doors open all the time. That's what's so gratyfing about "listening to so much music".

Beautifully put.

Quote from: Sid on October 18, 2010, 09:27:33 PM
The point I'd like to add is that, with them buying all of these different recordings, do people actually spend time absorbing them?

What do you mean by absorb? The rest of your post implies that repeated listening to one CD is done by you in order to "absorb" the work, not the interpretation. If that's the case, what difference does it make if you listen to one CD ten times, or five different performances two times each, or ten CDs of the work once each? You've still heard the work the same number of times. The advantages of hearing ("absorbing") multiple interpretations vs a single performance are numerous and obvious. No need for me to elaborate.

But even if a person only listens to a CD once, what is wrong with that? We spend far more money on a single ticket to a live event that we'll only hear once.

Sarge

Quote from: Saul on October 19, 2010, 04:31:33 AM
.... when a younger composer such as me was able to get thousands of people to enjoy my music, appreciate it and praise it....

Which doesn't prove anything else then that zillions of rappers are better composers than you, since even more people apprecaite them, even to the point of being willing to pay money for it. Don't go down that road. I find Karl's viola music pretty good after one listening.

Quote from: erato on October 19, 2010, 04:43:56 AM
Which doesn't prove anything else then that zillions of rappers are better composers than you, since even more people apprecaite them, even to the point of being willing to pay money for it. Don't go down that road. I find Karl's viola music pretty good after one listening.

Thousands or millions it doesn't matter, as long as I was able to touch a certain number of people in a positive way, that's a good thing in my book.
Its really sad, that this fact infuriates certain people.

Quote from: Saul on October 19, 2010, 04:31:33 AM
You're a terrible composer, Karl. No matter what others might tell you, and no matter how much they will kiss up to you saying :"My wife, my cat, my dog, my this and that listened to that Viola' I will set you on your spot. You are not more then a raving , arrogant ego driven composer who is going absolutely crazy and extremely mad, when a younger composer such as me was able to get thousands of people to enjoy my music, appreciate it and praise it.

Not only your a bad composer, as time goes by you are proving to be a bad human being, too bad I had to reach this conclusion, I wish I had not, and I also wish that you will prove otherwise.


I also doubt that you would have spoken so freely to my face. Yes, I don't think that you would have spoken like that to a 33 year old, 6 feet tall, 220 pound American, Israeli, Georgian guy with such open animosity and disrespect. Its easy for you to sit at your little salon in Boston and spew personal insults, that have to do nothing with music.

Shame on you, and I do hope, that you will change your bad habits and begin treating people with minimum respect, and not only to those who kiss up to you.

I imagine you delivering this in an Adam Sandler voice, and you are funnier still! Thanks.

Quote from: Saul on October 19, 2010, 04:46:36 AM
Thousands or millions it doesn't matter, as long as I was able to touch a certain number of people in a positive way, that's a good thing in my book.
Its really sad, that this fact infuriates certain people.

You're so funny!  The anonymous "thousands" who bow to you on YouTube, you invite us to regard as intelligent, cultured appreciators of music;  but the flesh-&-blood people on this forum who have had generous things to say about "the world's worst viola sonata" by "a terrible composer," you fondly imagine to mean nothing.

Truly, you are a legend in your own mind LOL

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 19, 2010, 04:51:21 AM
You're so funny!  The anonymous "thousands" who bow to you on YouTube, you invite us to regard as intelligent, cultured appreciators of music;  but the flesh-&-blood people on this forum who have had generous things to say about "the world's worst viola sonata" by "a terrible composer," you fondly imagine to mean nothing.

Truly, you are a legend in your own mind LOL

Also, Youtube doesn't individuate, much like GMG or most other forum type platforms.

Quote from: Philoctetes on October 19, 2010, 04:52:22 AM
Also, Youtube doesn't individuate, much like GMG or most other forum type platforms.

No, no! Don't burst Saul's bubble! Let us pause to bask in his YouTube deitization ; )

Quote from: Saul on October 19, 2010, 04:53:42 AM
Actually I don't have any Adam Sandler voice, and I can be very intimidating.
I doubt you would have spoken like that to my face.
For that you need major balls, and I don't think you have those.

http://www.youtube.com/v/DW4YDypf7qs

Quote from: Saul on October 19, 2010, 04:46:36 AM
Thousands or millions it doesn't matter, as long as I was able to touch a certain number of people in a positive way, that's a good thing in my book.

That' very good in my opinion. But it just doesn't say anything about quality, which was my point. Most people enjoy cheap burgers and wouldn't be able to swallow an oyster if it hit them in the face. And if we disregard the health aspects, that's fine with me (even though it means we are overflowing with garish burger joints).

Quote from: erato on October 19, 2010, 05:00:01 AM
That' very good in my opinion. But it just doesn't say anything about quality, which was my point. Most people enjoy cheap burgers and wouldn't be able to swallow an oyster if it hit them in the face. And if we disregard the health aspects, that's fine with me (even though it means we are overflowing with garish burger joints).

No no no, many Musicians and composers and classical music listeners, have sent me their praises, and purchased my music.
So I don't know what your talking about.

Quote from: Saul on October 19, 2010, 05:01:31 AM
You're pathetic.

When compared to what?

I mean compared to someone of the genius type, a Bach, a Dirac. I'd wager we're all pretty pathetic.

But if compared to you. I mean come one, there's really no contest in who is more pathetic than who?


When one has to sink to Internet tough guyism, you know that person is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Quote from: Saul on October 19, 2010, 05:03:16 AM
No no no, many Musicians and composers and classical music listeners, have sent me their praises, and purchased my music.
So I don't know what your talking about.

They're probably people that havent listened to so much music?

Quote from: Philoctetes on October 19, 2010, 05:03:37 AM
When one has to sink to Internet tough guyism, you know that person is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

He may be a thug, but he's got a tender soul. He likes Mendelssohn. His conversation is limited, it's true:

Quote from: The YouTube god
Thousands love my music. Stravinsky is a lousy composer. How are your balls growing?

Quote from: Saul on October 19, 2010, 05:03:16 AM
So I don't know what [you're] talking about.

Congratulations! Apart from the grammatical error, the most sensible thing you've posted in a week! Bully for you!

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 19, 2010, 05:09:50 AM
Congratulations! Apart from the grammatical error, the most sensible thing you've posted in a week! Bully for you!

I am taking a hiatus from here for a week or even more, until you little fools will come back to your senses.
You want to have the last word?Have it.

Edited by Knight

Quote from: erato on October 19, 2010, 05:14:27 AM
Most of us are nobodys.

But some of us are wise enough not to expose that on youube and the internet.

I'm no rat! (But I might be a vole . . . .)

Many years ago, my chorus was rehearsing a work by Liszt. I hated it; the work made no sense to me. I found it confusing, confused. Our director was an excellent musician and conductor, but the way he had us rehearsing the work, the way he was conducting it as we prepared the work, did nothing to clarify the work for me.

The entire work snapped into place for me when the conductor for the performance (Frühbeck de Burgos) came for a choral rehearsal. He put the piece together in a way my (much beloved) choral director just hadn't been able to do, at least for me. I loved the work! It was a joy to sing it with this conductor!

I would have to agree with Saul: it's useless for him to listen to different performances of a work. He doesn't get anything out of doing so, by his own admission. So what? Others clearly don't follow suit.

And wow -- 22 new replies since I started typing this, and most of them ungentlemanly!

What an exciting thread!  :o

Quote from: owlice on October 19, 2010, 05:20:05 AM
Many years ago, my chorus was rehearsing a work by Liszt. I hated it; the work made no sense to me. I found it confusing, confused. Our director was an excellent musician and conductor, but the way he had us rehearsing the work, the way he was conducting it as we prepared the work, did nothing to clarify the work for me.

The entire work snapped into place for me when the conductor for the performance (Frühbeck de Burgos) came for a choral rehearsal. He put the piece together in a way my (much beloved) choral director just hadn't been able to do, at least for me. I loved the work! It was a joy to sing it with this conductor!

I would have to agree with Saul: it's useless for him to listen to different performances of a work. He doesn't get anything out of doing so, by his own admission. So what? Others clearly don't follow suit.

And wow -- 22 new replies since I started typing this, and most of them ungentlemanly!

What an exciting thread!  :o

Excellent post!

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 19, 2010, 05:27:04 AM
Of course, there is a philosophical question buried in here to consider: why, of all sorts, should a non-composer be the worst kind of major idiot?

Perhaps he'll upload an explanatory video on YouTube! That will be something to look forward to!

All right. I think he's done with the topic. So let us just get back to it and forget this all ever....

Quote from: owlice on October 19, 2010, 05:20:05 AM
Many years ago, my chorus was rehearsing a work by Liszt. I hated it; the work made no sense to me. I found it confusing, confused. Our director was an excellent musician and conductor, but the way he had us rehearsing the work, the way he was conducting it as we prepared the work, did nothing to clarify the work for me.

The entire work snapped into place for me when the conductor for the performance (Frühbeck de Burgos) came for a choral rehearsal. He put the piece together in a way my (much beloved) choral director just hadn't been able to do, at least for me. I loved the work! It was a joy to sing it with this conductor!

I would have to agree with Saul: it's useless for him to listen to different performances of a work. He doesn't get anything out of doing so, by his own admission. So what? Others clearly don't follow suit.

And wow -- 22 new replies since I started typing this, and most of them ungentlemanly!

What an exciting thread!  :o

Thanks for giving us a brief glimpse of sanity. It was much needed.

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 19, 2010, 05:29:01 AM
Thanks for giving us a brief glimpse of sanity. It was much needed.

I was especially glad to read of Frühbeck de Burgos here, because lately as I've heard his ocasional work as a guest in Boston, it's been spotty.

Well the answer to the question of this topic is basically, as I said:
Perpetual discovery > Perpetual stagnation.  8)


(except for some people)

Quote from: Greg on October 19, 2010, 05:23:30 AM
I thought you couldn't get any more ridiculous, and then...
(btw, I think Karl is about your size, so he probably would have said the same things. You know, "fool," "idiot," "noncomposer..." Oh wait, that was you. Nevermind).

And you say Karl is the mean one?... ::)

In The World According to Saul, respect is evidently something that is owed to Saul by others. It is not something that others are owed by Saul.

Now that the 6', 220 lb. composer is on hiatus, and no doubt reviewing all his laudatory e-mails, I'll try to post something actually relevant to the thread later today.

Thanks, Sarge; it's desperate times when one of my posts is considered a glimpse of sanity!

Philo, I miss the bunnies!

Karl, I think that's the only time I performed with Frühbeck de Burgos. It made a huge impression on me, how much difference his conducting the work made for me. I'd never had that experience before -- it was a complete revelation and I loved loved loved singing the work after that rehearsal.

Quote from: Philoctetes on October 19, 2010, 04:55:07 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/DW4YDypf7qs

This is friggin' hilarious.

Quote from: owlice on October 19, 2010, 05:38:42 AM
Thanks, Sarge; it's desperate times when one of my posts is considered a glimpse of sanity!

Hah! : )

Quote from: owlice on October 19, 2010, 05:38:42 AM
Karl, I think that's the only time I performed with Frühbeck de Burgos. It made a huge impression on me, how much difference his conducting the work made for me. I'd never had that experience before -- it was a complete revelation and I loved loved loved singing the work after that rehearsal.

That is wonderful, when a conductor guides you into the heart of a piece. My pleasure in this story is profound.

Quote from: Brian on October 19, 2010, 05:39:21 AM
This is friggin' hilarious.

He was on Tosh.0 with his cousin. A very funny interview.

Quote from: owlice on October 19, 2010, 05:38:42 AM
Thanks, Sarge; it's desperate times when one of my posts is considered a glimpse of sanity!

Philo, I miss the bunnies!

Karl, I think that's the only time I performed with Frühbeck de Burgos. It made a huge impression on me, how much difference his conducting the work made for me. I'd never had that experience before -- it was a complete revelation and I loved loved loved singing the work after that rehearsal.

They're still around. I mean a samurai has to have a pet, right?!

Quote from: Brian on October 19, 2010, 05:39:21 AM
This is friggin' hilarious.

Yeah, and the guy in the background with no shirt on made it even more bizarre...

I agree with Sarge about hey listen to 1 time or many.  I listen as many times as I feel myself either liking the music or liking it more.  When I fall off that hill towards starting to dislike it's time for a break, and I'll come back to it later. :)  Anyway that works out to anywhere 1-20 listens when it's new depending on the work and my mood.  No need to repetively listen for the sake of it (or to feel you got your moneys worth). :)

Quote from: DavidW on October 19, 2010, 06:23:11 AM
I agree with Sarge about hey listen to 1 time or many.  I listen as many times as I feel myself either liking the music or liking it more.  When I fall off that hill towards starting to dislike it's time for a break, and I'll come back to it later. :)  Anyway that works out to anywhere 1-20 listens when it's new depending on the work and my mood.  No need to repetively listen for the sake of it (or to feel you got your moneys worth). :)

I find that I have to listen to a work multiple times simply to "get it". Sort of how I watch movies more than once so that I can try and take it all in. I view music in a very similar fashion. And simply because I don't understand something, say the music of Haydn, it is no knock against the composer, and I continue to listen to his music, in search of that right recording that just makes it all click for me.

Quote from: Philoctetes on October 19, 2010, 06:33:09 AM
And simply because I don't understand something, say the music of Haydn, it is no knock against the composer, and I continue to listen to his music, in search of that right recording that just makes it all click for me.

Of course, if there is one... it's always good to search, though sometimes you just might not like the music itself.  :D

Quote from: Philoctetes on October 19, 2010, 06:33:09 AM
I find that I have to listen to a work multiple times simply to "get it". Sort of how I watch movies more than once so that I can try and take it all in. I view music in a very similar fashion. And simply because I don't understand something, say the music of Haydn, it is no knock against the composer, and I continue to listen to his music, in search of that right recording that just makes it all click for me.

Yeah same here, there are many Bach works where I just have to listen and listen because there is so much going on that it sounds alien until it clicks.  While Vivaldi just clicks right at first. :)

Quote from: DavidW on October 19, 2010, 06:23:11 AM
I agree with Sarge about hey listen to 1 time or many.  I listen as many times as I feel myself either liking the music or liking it more.  When I fall off that hill towards starting to dislike it's time for a break, and I'll come back to it later. :)  Anyway that works out to anywhere 1-20 listens when it's new depending on the work and my mood.  No need to repetively listen for the sake of it (or to feel you got your moneys worth). :)

Copland said that he would never admit to disliking a work until he could categorically say that he understood why he disliked it, and that otherwise it felt like unfinished business.

I like to think i'm the same, except that I don't have the musical training or genius that Copland had. For that reason I could never say I dislike a composition because it is poorly written or notated etc, though like any reasonably experienced but non-trained listener I may have an inkling that this may be the case. So it's really the experience that i've built up from 15 years of listening that I rely on to help me sort the wheat from the chaff, and even then the 'chaff' pile is more a 'actual chaff or unrecognisable wheat' pile that I may sift through at another time when I may be better at recognising wheat.

In a kernel (you know I mean nutshell but i'm keeping my metaphors themed), I try never to write something off until I know for a fact that it isn't my own limitations that are preventing me from enjoying, or at least undestanding, it. Which is why i've yet to find a work that I will categorically say I dislike.

(apologies for the naff metaphor)

Quote from: Greg on October 19, 2010, 06:58:31 AM
Of course, if there is one... it's always good to search, though sometimes you just might not like the music itself.  :D

I leave that open as a possibility, but I find that difficult to accept with composers such as Haydn, Bach, Schoenberg, etc. Perhaps because of their clout, I sort of just make an assumption that there is at least one piece, one performance, that my mind can conform too and accept (outside of the pure respect aspect, which should always be implicit).

Quote from: Philoctetes on October 19, 2010, 04:55:07 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/DW4YDypf7qs

http://www.youtube.com/v/LlbpnodtfUg

Nick's response is even more devastating.   ;D

Quote from: Philoctetes on October 19, 2010, 05:50:58 AM
They're still around. I mean a samurai has to have a pet, right?!

Maybe even two of them! (Glad to know they are still around. :) )

The bunnies rock!

Interesting post Ben.  I guess when I don't like something I don't see it as either me or the composer failed.  No, I blame the performer! >:D  Nah okay seriously it's good that you keep going back over the chaffe because I find that as a listener my tastes change and so what didn't appeal to me a few years ago, might appeal to me and vica versa. :)

Quote from: DavidW on October 19, 2010, 08:29:29 AM
Interesting post Ben.  I guess when I don't like something I don't see it as either me or the composer failed.  No, I blame the performer! >:D  Nah okay seriously it's good that you keep going back over the chaffe because I find that as a listener my tastes change and so what didn't appeal to me a few years ago, might appeal to me and vica versa. :)

Oh there is definitely an issue of performance - all of us will have examples of works that we didn't get until a certain interpretation unlocked it for you. So I suppose it's completely reasonable to lay the blame at the performer's feet sometimes, but then that's the more subjective issue of interpretation and doesn't have much to do with a work's intrinsic value (or at least the soundness of its composition). I mean, a carrot can be interpreted as a tasty vegetable or the spawn of Satan, but there's no denying its nutritional value, whereas a turd is still a turd even if you interpret it as fly food or whatever.  :P

I am glad to say I have never been in the supermarket yet where the carrots were the spawn of Satan.

(Where do you go shopping, Ben?)

; )

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 19, 2010, 08:40:50 AM
I am glad to say I have never been in the supermarket yet where the carrots were the spawn of Satan.

(Where do you go shopping, Ben?)

; )

It's gotta be walmart! ;D  Oh wait they don't have walmart in the UK do they?  What a heavenly place that must be. 0:)

Karl, thanks for the bunnies!

(I'm hoping that someone will be able to answer my question over on the Great Recordings thread, about the piano on the Richter English Suites recording, because not knowing what the piano was is *really* bugging me! Please oh please let there be a piano credit on the recording, and let someone here have the recording and post that information!!)

must consider the possibility that WalMart is the spawn of Satan

Quote from: DavidW on October 19, 2010, 08:43:42 AM
It's gotta be walmart! ;D  Oh wait they don't have walmart in the UK do they?  What a heavenly place that must be. 0:)

God. I would KILL for a Walmart right now. Actually, I nearly killed for a Walmart a month ago, when Marks & Spencer had only one variety of pillow, the housewares store was "out" of all dishes and silverware, and I had to settle for 50% cotton sheets because the real cotton sheets were something like $40 each. Seriously, the perceived evil factor of Walmart is easy to tolerate when the alternative is an absurd concatenation of bad service, bad stocking, tiny selections, and silly hours.

...as I found out when I finally went to the English store chain which Walmart bought out a few years ago, and discovered that they do indeed have everything:

(http://www.philipgraves.net/images/asda-350.jpg)

To give you an idea how loved ASDA is here, there are actually officially city buses, the red double deckers, which literally exist as ASDA shuttles. The little electronic signs in the windshields actually say, "To ASDA," and ASDA actually has a giant bus stop and several bus lanes for them all.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 19, 2010, 03:26:54 AM
Oh, aye, he has a certain concrete consistency ; )

Lol...

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 19, 2010, 08:40:50 AM
I am glad to say I have never been in the supermarket yet where the carrots were the spawn of Satan.

(Where do you go shopping, Ben?)

; )

Quote from: DavidW on October 19, 2010, 08:43:42 AM
It's gotta be walmart! ;D  Oh wait they don't have walmart in the UK do they?  What a heavenly place that must be. 0:)

Quote from: owlice on October 19, 2010, 08:45:11 AM
must consider the possibility that WalMart is the spawn of Satan

BINGO!  :D

Asda Walmart  >:D  They do in fact stock the Spawn of Satan - I bought a bag of spinach and it was crawling with the bane of my life: aphids!  >:D  >:D  >:D  Those little buggers killed off five of my chilli plants, my chives, and now my chervil. Those herbs are for my consumption!  :'(

At least they didn't charge you extra for the aphids . . . .

Quote from: Giant Toad SupermarketsDon't worry about the flies: we won't weigh 'em!

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 19, 2010, 10:48:03 AM
At least they didn't charge you extra for the aphids . . . .

Well I couldn't eat the stuff after that horrific revelation. They should have labelled it Big Bag of Pestilence.

Oh, of course not! Ptui!

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 15, 2010, 01:17:03 PMThe composer writes music and NOBODY knows what he/she was thinking or how it should be played

Sorry to ressurect this topic but the phrase above is not true --- pace John.  0:)

Exhibit A : Mahler / Strauss / Willem Mengelberg.

Exhibit B:

Chopin said with respect to Carl Filtsch: "My God! What a child! Nobody has ever understood me as this child has...It is not imitation, it is the same sentiment, an instinct that makes him play without thinking as if it could not have been any other way. He plays almost all my compositions without having heard me [play them], without being shown the smallest thing - not exactly like me [because he has his own cachet], but certainly not less well."