Discussion:
Silly Old Bach (was Death of Rosalyn Tureck Reported)
(too old to reply)
Alan Watkins
2003-07-24 00:14:02 UTC
Permalink
While lots of people are blasting off at each other could I point out
that in much of the keyboard music of Bach there are no tempi
indications or crochet markings....it was left to the peformer to
decide. It may well be that Ms Tureck decided wrong as Mr Hurtwitz
and others have indicated but she mostly had nothing to go on and so
she probably just made a mistake.

I do this often. I see a rubato sign but none of the composers tell
me how much or how little rubato. Usually I have to feel this and
sometimes I get it wrong.

There's a marvellous example of this in Five Tudor Portraits by
Vaughan Williams where he asks a wind player to depict "Drunken Alice"
without "measure of time." Regrettably, the composer left us without
any indication as to how pissed Alice was and so the wind player has
to guess at it.

It seems to me that Ms Tureck was guessing in the same way that I have
to guess at "rubato" or the wind player has to guess about Alice.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
David Hurwitz
2003-07-24 00:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Watkins
While lots of people are blasting off at each other could I point out
that in much of the keyboard music of Bach there are no tempi
indications or crochet markings....it was left to the peformer to
decide. It may well be that Ms Tureck decided wrong as Mr Hurtwitz
and others have indicated but she mostly had nothing to go on and so
she probably just made a mistake.
Bach may not have been clear as to tempo, but I was quite clear. I never said
that Ms Tureck "decided wrong." I said her tempos are comparatively slow in
general terms of Bach keyboard performance today. And so they are. I leave it to
others to judge the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the matter.

Dave Hurwitz
Alan Watkins
2003-07-24 21:28:41 UTC
Permalink
I'm terribly sorry........I misunderstood. It is just that when you
commented that on her death the tempi of Bach had gone up ten per cent
this was not, of course, meant as a critical comment or any form of
"collateral damage" to her playing but merely as an observation on
which, accordingly, you have no opinion.

It was clearly just an observation, and I apologise for
misinterpreting it.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
d***@yahoo.com
2003-07-24 01:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Watkins
While lots of people are blasting off at each other could I point out
that in much of the keyboard music of Bach there are no tempi
indications or crochet markings....it was left to the peformer to
decide. It may well be that Ms Tureck decided wrong as Mr Hurtwitz
and others have indicated but she mostly had nothing to go on and so
she probably just made a mistake.
If you allow that, Alan, you must also allow, by the same token, that
she may well have been right. Perhaps it is simply a matter of taste?

Tom Deacon
Richard Schultz
2003-07-24 04:41:42 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@yahoo.com wrote:

: If you allow that, Alan, you must also allow, by the same token, that
: she may well have been right. Perhaps it is simply a matter of taste?

Well, if the small amount of contemporary evidence is to be believed,
apparently, in Bach's day, they played his music *much* faster than we
do today. Supposedly, Goebel's Brandenburg concerti are taken at the
"correct" tempo. To me, it sounds like (if you'll pardon the simile) he
could have used a bottle of Kaopectate.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska
d***@yahoo.com
2003-07-26 00:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Alan Watkins
While lots of people are blasting off at each
other could I point out that in much of the
keyboard music of Bach there are no tempi
indications or crochet markings....it was
left to the peformer to decide. It may well
be that Ms Tureck decided wrong as Mr Hurwitz
and others have indicated but she mostly had
nothing to go on and so she probably just made
a mistake.
If you allow that, Alan, you must also allow, by
the same token, that she may well have been right.
Perhaps it is simply a matter of taste?
Or lack thereof. Tureck's playing tastes like
Geffuelte Fisches.
Your argument seems to ignore completely a third
possibilit, namely that there may not be any such
thing as right or wrong in the matter of choosing
tempi, and that the only thing that matters is the
impression it leaves on the audience.
That, Tom, is the *ESSENCE* of performing arts.
Music is not (and should never be allowed to be)
just scholarly reconstruction.
People like Tureck, Haebler and Brendull should
never have been allowed within 300 miles of a
piano. Nor should have you.
Yours truly,
dk
Since you do not know me at all, and even less Madame Tureck, Madame
Haebler and most certainly Mr. Brendel, you are hardly well placed to
jjudge.

Not would I with regard to your proximity to our beloved instrument.

Certainly I would never let you close to MY Bosendorfer, for fear that
the darling would rear its shiny head in revolt at the gross
trestment it was about to receive from some dumb clod!

"Leave him to his bloody computers", shrieked the Bosie. "Don't
inflict your worse enemy on me!"

Your thought about the "performing arts" is superficial, of course.
Musicians often play for themselves. Glenn Gould was an example. He
LOATHED himself when he played to people like you in the gallery. The
French have an expression - they always do, of course - "epater le
bourgeois" You seem to think that the focus of the peformer is YOU.
Quelle surprise! Whereas the real musicians focus is twofold - on the
music and his or her thoughts on it and then on communication of those
thoughts into sound.

Recordings are a strange thing. Done without an audience. Nobocy. Not
even your lovely self, Dan. And yet they live.

Could you possibly, even for a nanosecond, imagine that Sergei
Rachmaninoff was thinking of some computer nerd in Silicone valley
when he sad down to record the Funeral March Sonata by Chopin. I think
not. It would have turned him off completely.

No, old Sergei was performing for himself, or, more precisely, for the
microphone, which were his own ears translated into electronics, or
the contemporary version thereof.

The impressions which you have, some 75 years later were of no
importance to him then and are of little importance to anyone else
today, except yourself, of course. Where the centre of your universe
seems to be.

Of one thing we can be truly grateful: your teachers advised you well
when they encouraged you to "get a day job"!

Tom Deacon
Simon Roberts
2003-07-24 01:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Watkins
While lots of people are blasting off at each other could I point out
that in much of the keyboard music of Bach there are no tempi
indications or crochet markings....it was left to the peformer to
decide. It may well be that Ms Tureck decided wrong as Mr Hurtwitz
and others have indicated but she mostly had nothing to go on and so
she probably just made a mistake.
Cute (anyway, it's always for the performer to decide, regardless of how
detailed the score is). But David H never said she "decided wrong," and,
speaking just for myself, not all of those who don't like her Bach think she
made "mistakes" about tempo or, indeed, reject the results merely because of the
tempi she chose (to these ears, there's nothing wrong with the *tempi* in her
VAI piano Goldbergs chez Buckley, but very much wrong with her phrasing and
mood).

Simon
John Gavin
2003-07-24 20:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by Alan Watkins
While lots of people are blasting off at each other could I point out
that in much of the keyboard music of Bach there are no tempi
indications or crochet markings....it was left to the peformer to
decide. It may well be that Ms Tureck decided wrong as Mr Hurtwitz
and others have indicated but she mostly had nothing to go on and so
she probably just made a mistake.
Cute (anyway, it's always for the performer to decide, regardless of how
detailed the score is). But David H never said she "decided wrong," and,
speaking just for myself, not all of those who don't like her Bach think she
made "mistakes" about tempo or, indeed, reject the results merely because of the
tempi she chose (to these ears, there's nothing wrong with the *tempi* in her
VAI piano Goldbergs chez Buckley, but very much wrong with her phrasing and
mood).
Simon
I'm inserting this quote, not because it's conclusive, but merely
interesting:

GLENN GOULD on ROSALYN TURECK (Great Pianists Speak for Themselves p.
104, paragraph 1)

"I must say that I found her tempi then, as I do now, unnecessarily
slow most of the time".
John Gavin
2003-07-24 20:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by Alan Watkins
While lots of people are blasting off at each other could I point out
that in much of the keyboard music of Bach there are no tempi
indications or crochet markings....it was left to the peformer to
decide. It may well be that Ms Tureck decided wrong as Mr Hurtwitz
and others have indicated but she mostly had nothing to go on and so
she probably just made a mistake.
Cute (anyway, it's always for the performer to decide, regardless of how
detailed the score is). But David H never said she "decided wrong," and,
speaking just for myself, not all of those who don't like her Bach think she
made "mistakes" about tempo or, indeed, reject the results merely because of the
tempi she chose (to these ears, there's nothing wrong with the *tempi* in her
VAI piano Goldbergs chez Buckley, but very much wrong with her phrasing and
mood).
Simon
I'm inserting this quote, not because it's conclusive, but merely
interesting:

GLENN GOULD on ROSALYN TURECK (Great Pianists Speak for Themselves p.
104, paragraph 1)

"I must say that I found her tempi then, as I do now, unnecessarily
slow most of the time".
ulvi
2003-07-24 06:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Watkins
There's a marvellous example of this in Five Tudor Portraits by
Vaughan Williams where he asks a wind player to depict "Drunken Alice"
without "measure of time." Regrettably, the composer left us without
any indication as to how pissed Alice was and so the wind player has
to guess at it.
For some reason the expression "pissing in the wind" comes to mind...

Ulvi
Alan Watkins
2003-07-24 21:36:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by ulvi
Post by Alan Watkins
There's a marvellous example of this in Five Tudor Portraits by
Vaughan Williams where he asks a wind player to depict "Drunken Alice"
without "measure of time." Regrettably, the composer left us without
any indication as to how pissed Alice was and so the wind player has
to guess at it.
For some reason the expression "pissing in the wind" comes to mind...
:):) Absolutely right but not written down...............

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Serge
2003-07-24 06:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Watkins
While lots of people are blasting off at each other could I point out
that in much of the keyboard music of Bach there are no tempi
indications or crochet markings....it was left to the peformer to
decide. It may well be that Ms Tureck decided wrong as Mr Hurtwitz
and others have indicated but she mostly had nothing to go on and so
she probably just made a mistake.
There are always, of course, subjective factors, such as the
performer's taste, technical skill, and stylistic awareness, that come
into play. There are, however, some objective (given) parameters that
dictate the choice of tempi in Bach's solo keyboard works:

1. Time signature
2. Prevailing rhythmic values
3. Harmonic rhythm
4. Genre connotations

The tempo also depends on the character that is often encrypted in the
main thematic material (tonal symbolism, see Schweitzer).

You can find references to this both in period treatises and modern
sources (Robert Marshall, for example, has written about this).

Also, in his chamber music and concerto repertoire, Bach indicates
tempi with great precision. One can look at those and project them
onto the comparable solo keyboard movements where the tempi are not
given. The major bulk of Bach's solo keyboard works are teaching
repertoire, and Bach most probably imparted the skill of establishing
the right tempo to their students verbally, with very few exceptions
(see, e.g., the last Prelude and Fugue from WTC I). In the case of
dance movements, there were conventions that were followed quite
methodically. Again, there is some good literature on the subject --
modern-piano performers should really be doing their research instead
of relying solely on their instincts, or, at least, listen to good
period performers, such as Ton Koopman, Davitt Moroney, Gustav
Leonhardt, or Colin Tilney.

Regards,

Sergey Schepkin
Alan Watkins
2003-07-24 21:06:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serge
Post by Alan Watkins
While lots of people are blasting off at each other could I point out
that in much of the keyboard music of Bach there are no tempi
indications or crochet markings....it was left to the peformer to
decide. It may well be that Ms Tureck decided wrong as Mr Hurtwitz
and others have indicated but she mostly had nothing to go on and so
she probably just made a mistake.
There are always, of course, subjective factors, such as the
performer's taste, technical skill, and stylistic awareness, that come
into play. There are, however, some objective (given) parameters that
1. Time signature
2. Prevailing rhythmic values
3. Harmonic rhythm
4. Genre connotations
The tempo also depends on the character that is often encrypted in the
main thematic material (tonal symbolism, see Schweitzer).
You can find references to this both in period treatises and modern
sources (Robert Marshall, for example, has written about this).
Also, in his chamber music and concerto repertoire, Bach indicates
tempi with great precision. One can look at those and project them
onto the comparable solo keyboard movements where the tempi are not
given. The major bulk of Bach's solo keyboard works are teaching
repertoire, and Bach most probably imparted the skill of establishing
the right tempo to their students verbally, with very few exceptions
(see, e.g., the last Prelude and Fugue from WTC I). In the case of
dance movements, there were conventions that were followed quite
methodically. Again, there is some good literature on the subject --
modern-piano performers should really be doing their research instead
of relying solely on their instincts, or, at least, listen to good
period performers, such as Ton Koopman, Davitt Moroney, Gustav
Leonhardt, or Colin Tilney.
Regards,
Sergey Schepkin
I willingly accept these are all good points but I would humbly submit
that, by the nature of the instrument involved, there is a substantial
difference in playing Bach (or anyone else of that period) on a modern
pianoforte compared with a performance on a harpsichord or, in some
cases, on an organ. A piano cannot help sustaining more than a
harpsichord by the nature of the beast and, so far as I know, neither
can an organ. Although not a competent keyboard player, I would think
that would have to be taken into account in performance and might play
a part in tempi selection.

Ton Koopman, an artist I admire, might play a Bach piece differently
on the piano which makes a recording retard wonder whether there is
anyone who has recorded the same work on both piano and harpsichord
and if anyone has observed a difference?

I can only speak for my "own" instrument but I always rely on my
instincts as, for me, it is the most reliable approach to music making
(that's not to say my instincts are right or wrong, just that I rely
upon them).

Although I have limited "period" recordings I can say that whacking
"leather" sticks on calf head timpani produces an atrocious sound
which kills all harmony/overtones, key features of the timpani,
literally at a stroke. It busts any note all over the place. Was than
an E or an Eminor or an Esharp? This, of course, may be authentic.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Serge
2003-07-25 18:00:23 UTC
Permalink
This seesm to be degenerating into a discussion of the relative merits
of certain INSTRUMENTS in the performance of Bach's music.
Surely we have laid the old canard to rest that Bach's music should
only be heard on the chlavichord, or the harpsichord, or the Baroque
organ or a period violin, or a baroque cello, or whatever.
Bach's music, as has been pointed out by Charles Rosen, among many
distinguished musicians and musicologists, is NOT about instrumental
colour, or even touch. It is about structure.
And you can reveal that structure on the marimba if you want to. And
Bach will not suffer in the transcription.
To reduce Bach's music to one or another instrument exclusively, or to
try endlessly to imitate that one instrument, is to make of him a kind
of Baroque Chopin. A one-trick pony.
If you want to make the piano sound like a harpsichord, then better to
use a harpsichord.
If you want to make the piano sound like a cello, then better use a
cello.
If you DO use the piano, then you should USE it to its full, but not
abuse it. In any event it is, strictly speaking, not what Bach would
have used. But so what?
I really thought all these wars had been fought and won decades ago,
so it is surprising to find them popping up here.
And for those who think I am abandoning my respect for the Urtext,
think again. I am not suggesting that notes be changed. Bach's score
is extremely bare, leaving much to the taste of the performer. (Unlike
Albeniz, of course, who put his thoughts down very explicitly, so that
the pianist would not misinterpret his work)
Tom Deacon
I agree with you that Bach's music is about structure, and like I said
before, it can take a lot and still work. I think, though, that the
essence of the piano is in its protean quality. It can sound like
itself, of course, but it can also evoke the colors of any musical
instrument under the sun, plus the human voice, chorus, or orchestra.
Liszt and Busoni understood that extremely well. It is evocation, not
imitation, that I am talking about. The piano is the choice instrument
for musicians with imagination, and a perfect suicide means for
musicians without.

Regards,

Sergey Schepkin
Edward Jasiewicz
2003-07-25 20:18:30 UTC
Permalink
<***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
[cuts]
And for those who think I am abandoning my respect for the
Urtext,
think again. I am not suggesting that notes be changed. Bach's
score
is extremely bare, leaving much to the taste of the
performer...

Indeed. And some pianists (those whom insist on ruining Bach's
music with their own improvisations for ornamentation...and then
have the nerve to pretend they are playing something great!)
desperately need a refresher course on this in the form of
Chopin' opinion on the matter, which was [something along the
lines of] "...to change even one note one bit would be to bring
ruination upon a master of proportion and detail...," or
something like that.

regards,

Ed Jasiewicz
Serge
2003-07-28 05:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
[cuts]
And for those who think I am abandoning my respect for the
Urtext,
think again. I am not suggesting that notes be changed. Bach's
score
is extremely bare, leaving much to the taste of the
performer...
Indeed. And some pianists (those whom insist on ruining Bach's
music with their own improvisations for ornamentation...and then
have the nerve to pretend they are playing something great!)
desperately need a refresher course on this in the form of
Chopin' opinion on the matter, which was [something along the
lines of] "...to change even one note one bit would be to bring
ruination upon a master of proportion and detail...," or
something like that.
regards,
Ed Jasiewicz
"Or something like that." The exact quotation, please.

Although I tend to embellish less these days, I must remark that
improvised embellishment is a part of Baroque/Rococo/Classical styles,
and actually extends all the way into Chopin -- only he chooses to
notate it in full (even in his music, there are some remarkable
exceptions, like, for example, the multiple authentic readings of the
Nocturne Op. 9/2). Sorry to state something that belongs to common
knowledge nowadays, but embellishment was, in fact, a regular
practice. To give another example -- in Mozart's day, as today, only
an ignoramus would leave the skeletal melodic lines of some of the
slow movements of that composer's concerti without any ornamentation,
no matter what your distinguished mentor might have said on the
subject. I suggest you study Bach's manuscripts and his students'
copies of the same pieces and compare the ornamentation in them (e.g.,
the E-flat Sinfonia, which exists in no fewer than four readings, two
of them by Bach himself: one almost without ornaments, the other
supplied with quite a profusion of them -- and the second one is as
authentic as the first). The results of your study could be quite
illuminating, and could shed light on some of my thinking. Should you,
however, choose to remain in a blissful state of ignorance, I would
totally understand it. To quote my favorite play: "Ignorance is like a
delicate exotic fruit: touch it and the bloom is gone." (Wilde, "The
Importance of Being Earnest," Act I) You would probably not like to
see the bloom of your ignorance gone.

Regards,

Sergey
Edward Jasiewicz
2003-07-29 21:29:41 UTC
Permalink
"Serge" <***@aol.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...

...
Post by Serge
Sorry to state something that belongs to common
knowledge nowadays, but ...
[...other incredibly egocentric bullshit cut...]


"In the series of resuscitated Eunice Norton recordings that
Edward Jasiewicz has been devotedly producing on the Norvard
label over the last six years, this complete 48 seems to me the
finest yet. When Ms. Norton's set of the Bach Partitas arrived
for review-my largely favorable comments appeared in 20:2-I had
never heard of her. Yet this was a pianist, born in Minneapolis
in 1908, who had made an enormous impression on such luminaries
as Paderewski, Myra Hess, and the musicologist Alfred Einstein,
studied with Tobias Matthay and Schnabel, and enjoyed a highly
successful international career, and who was still actively
teaching and even playing in Pittsburgh. For further background
on this remarkable person, I refer you to the interview with her
published in 20:2.

Reviewing that first Bach set, as well as two Beethoven releases
and a Chopin disc in the intervening years, I have been more or
less consistently impressed, but with the occasional reservation.
On the one side, I have admired the charm, poetry, and often
striking technical fluency of the pianism; the sense of tradition
allied with openness to new perceptions and undistorted by
doctrinaire theories either old or new; the woman's obvious
commitment to the highest ideals of communication and
integrity-to the obligations as well as the privileges of the
artist, the responsibility as well as the freedom. On the other
side, there was the generally middling quality of the sound as
reproduced (deriving as it does in all these releases from tapes
recorded in varying circumstances by the pianist's late husband,
Bernard Lewis), and I had better warn audiophiles at the outset
that the sound in this new release is at times regrettably tinny.
And there were occasions when a momentary lapse of memory or
dexterity, or the very occasional misreading of a rhythm,
undermined the success of the result. My response has been to
make allowances for these defects, not just because they are
understandable in such an enterprise, but also because the
positive so largely outweighed the negative. However, in this
recording of The Well-tempered Clavier, taped in 1968 and
originally released on Golden Triangle LPs, there is nothing of
any consequence to make allowances for. It is simply one of the
finest realizations of the work I have ever encountered.

Digging as we do these days into the past in an effort to know
and understand more about how Bach should or may be played, we
fall too easily into the presumption that the performers and
musicologists of today are the first archeological generation.
But the archeology of that archeological pursuit is itself
fascinating. Every now and then a musician born a good many years
ago re-emerges into public gaze and reminds us that the attempt
to understand has a long history. Eunice Norton's formal
education was completed (insofar as an education can ever be said
to be completed) long before "historically informed performance
practice" became a commonplace. Yet her understanding of Bachian
style-I do not say "Baroque style," because in the two
illuminating booklets published with these discs she makes a
strong case for separating this particular composer's art from
his Baroque environment-is profound, containing the fundamentals
of almost everything we know after another half-century of
inquiry; and it goes with a feeling for Bach that to my ears is
individual, stimulating, and often intensely and profoundly
moving.

There are 96 individual pieces in this compendium of preludes and
fugues, and there are of course-especially since Bach, like most
of his contemporaries, was parsimonious in the provision of
tempo, expression, or even dynamic markings-any number of ways in
which an individual performer responds to any one of them. You
may not agree with every single interpretative decision Norton
makes. Her conclusions as to which prelude or which fugue is to
be played softly and lyrically, and which in a more forthright or
brilliant manner, are her own, as are those of any performer who
tackles this music, and, I hope, those of anyone who listens to
it. Sometimes, they may clash with my own perceptions. But they
always make sense, and more times than I can count they have
given me a fresh and welcome understanding for Bach's achievement
in this summation of his work in the field of the keyboard fugue.

The best of the other versions recorded on the piano, in my
judgement, are Samuel Feinberg's 1959 set on Russian Disc, Edwin
Fischer's EMI set recorded in the mid-1930s, and the much more
recent version by Sergey Schepkin in separate Ongaku sets of the
two constituent books, which I reviewed respectively in 23:2 and
23:5. Setting Norton's performance against that background, I
would offer the following distinctions. Feinberg (who pedals much
more heavily than any of his colleagues) is mystical, poetic, and
intimate, and every Bachian should know his version. Fischer is
lucid and at times delicate, but his widely admired set seems,
aside from the relative weakness of the bass as recorded, to have
less character, and to fall too readily into stentorian
hectoring. Schepkin, texturally more lucid still, is lyrical and
intellectual in bracing balance, and he possesses an uncanny
evenness of touch. It is interesting to compare the different
approaches of these performers to the question of how fugal
entries should be delineated. Schepkin, as often as not, makes
you aware of each new voice naturally, and without drawing
attention to its first notes, yet he never falls short of
complete textural clarity. Feinberg, by contrast, tends to favor
a strong, and Fischer at times an over-strong, underlining of
each entry. (The harpsichord, lacking the piano's capacity for
continuous gradations of tone, has more of a problem in dealing
with this matter, though Masaaki Suzuki, whose WTC Book I on
BIS-reviewed in 21:4 and so far without a companion Book
II-solves it as well as any harpsichordist I have heard.) Norton,
it seems to me, balances her method nicely, taking sometimes the
one way and sometimes the other, and overall the clarity of her
polyphonic textures fully matches that of Schepkin's. The nature
of her interpretation, as nearly as I can characterize it, is
crisp, sprightly, sensitive, and supremely natural. This, as her
playing and her essays equally show, is a pianist who has thought
deeply about the music, but also one who feels it in her bones,
and the result is a joy to listen to.

Norton establishes her authority and subtlety of expression from
the very start: The C-Major Prelude of Book I, played with
close-to-superhuman restraint and delicacy, attains a quietude
and a poise that speak of unfathomable depths. In what follows,
she attains an ideal equilibrium between virtuosity (Prelude
II/2) and contemplation (Prelude II/12, taken softly,
expressively, and at a slow tempo that can't possibly work, yet
does), between commanding rhetoric (Fugue II/16) and trenchant
dialogue (Prelude I/22), between a breathtaking lucidity (Fugue
I/20), a gorgeous intensity of contrapuntal interplay (Prelude
II/24), and a sovereign ease in the simultaneous projection of
triple and quadruple rhythms (Fugue II/10). Speaking of rhythm, I
would add that her handling of the vexed question of single-
versus over-dotting seems for the most part well ahead of general
1960s awareness, and that her treatment of melodic
embellishments, except for an occasional piece like Prelude I/4
that is done largely without ornament, is similarly stylish.

"From the very start," I said about the Prelude of Book I. But
that is not quite accurate, because-and this is a matter of some
consequence for prospective purchasers-Ms. Norton has made the
decision not to give us Book I straight followed by Book II, but
to interleave the two volumes. The order of events has each
Book-I pair of movements followed by its counterpart from Book
II, except in the case of numbers 1 and 24, where the process is
reversed. In 20:4, reviewing a recording by Enrica Cavallo on the
Dynamic label that took a consistently interleaved approach, I
commented that the juxtapositions of all the same-key pairs
resulted in monotony. In the present case, I feel no such
problem, whether because Eunice Norton commands a so much wider
range of tonal and expressive nuance, or because her performance,
though hardly ever verging on excessive speed, is lively in all
the right places and times out at more than half an hour shorter
than Cavallo's. In sum, this is a WTC to treasure, on a par with
Schepkin's, and surpassing even the great Feinberg and the great
but more uneven Fischer. - Bernard Jacobson, Fanfare."

[reprinted with permission]


At least we'll probably agree on one thing, Sergey: I'll never
understand how anyone could like *both* your and Norton's
Bach!

Best regards,
Ed
Alan Watkins
2003-07-25 22:06:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Watkins
Although I have limited "period" recordings I can say that whacking
"leather" sticks on calf head timpani produces an atrocious sound
which kills all harmony/overtones, key features of the timpani,
literally at a stroke. It busts any note all over the place. Was than
an E or an Eminor or an Esharp? This, of course, may be authentic.
"Authentic" or not, I'll take that sound any day over the sound of big fuzzy
dishmops on plastic.
Simon
I agree with you but then I have never used big fuzzy dishmops or
plastic (see previous posts) and neither do many other players. One
of the problems (in my opinion) is that modern timpani have shells
which are too big whether you are playing authentic or romantic. Look
at baroque/hand tuned drums (whatever the head size) and then compare
the shell size to what is on offer today. Bigger is better or truer?
Not necessarily so in my opinion.

For all the nightmare of "hand tune" drums (and they are a nightmare
in quick change passages) I still think the note is probably going to
be truer but not so easy to get.

Obviously written from someone who started a long time ago but I am
astonished sometimes to see players carry a bewildering array of
mallets on to the platform.

Alan Taylor, one of the great timpanists of the last century, used one
pair of mallets to do the Ring Cycle at the Royal Opera House, London,
and while I cannot match that I use one pair of mallets for Ma Vlast:
okay, not a "Ring Cycle" but it's a work that requires everything in
the timpanists repertoire.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Simon Roberts
2003-07-26 00:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Watkins
Obviously written from someone who started a long time ago but I am
astonished sometimes to see players carry a bewildering array of
mallets on to the platform.
I don't know whose choice it was, the timpanist's or Giulini's, but when I saw
the Giulini conduct the LAPO in London in the late 1970s in the Eroica, the
timpani were set somewhat apart from, and above (and to one side of) the rest of
the orchestra, and the timpanist had an array of mallets that was remarkable,
their heads ranging from large blobs of fluff to tiny little hard heads, which
were all used to considerable effect (though I would have been happier had he
stuck with the hardest).

Simon
REG
2003-07-26 00:52:59 UTC
Permalink
Thanks. Lots of us were worried about that.
And for those who think I am abandoning my respect for the Urtext,
think again. I am not suggesting that notes be changed. Bach's score
is extremely bare, leaving much to the taste of the performer. >
Tom Deacon
REG
2003-07-26 04:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Are you sure you took ALL your posts off yahoo? Was that because of a
lawsuit or because you violated the terms of your separation agreement with
the company?
Post by REG
Thanks. Lots of us were worried about that.
And for those who think I am abandoning my respect for the Urtext,
think again. I am not suggesting that notes be changed. Bach's score
is extremely bare, leaving much to the taste of the performer. >
Tom Deacon
So glad about that, Beckmesserschmitt!
Tom Deacon
d***@yahoo.com
2003-07-26 13:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by REG
Are you sure you took ALL your posts off yahoo? Was that because of a
lawsuit or because you violated the terms of your separation agreement with
the company?
I figured that your little pseudonym would get your attention.
Sometimes even those who lurk in dark corners or under a rock
eventually have a spotlight aimed at them.

The answer to your first question is "yes".

The reason is my own business, not yours,.

I will say, however, that normally I clean off my shoes when I have
just crossed through a cow patch. I wonder if you do the same, or
whether you just enjoy the stench.

Happy listening, Beckmesserschmitt!

Tom Deacon
Serge
2003-07-25 03:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Very sensible advice, all of this, but consider, e.g. Glenn Gould's
two recorded versions of the E major fugue from WTC-2: they both sound
wonderful, and one (the older) is more than twice as slow as the other.
There are many other examples where wildly different tempi for the
same Bach piece work about equally well (although I do prefer the
slower version of the E major fugue).
Do you really find Schweitzer's ideas about Bach's symbolism persuasive?
Ulvi
Well, I think that Bach can take a lot of beating and still tower in
dismal judgment over all of us poor mortals . . .

The Fugue in question can be taken at its face value of a 4/2 piece in
half and quarter notes, which, of course, calls for a rather rapid
tempo; it can, however, be seen as a stile antico piece (as it should,
because it is based on Gregorian chant), which would then slow the
tempo down. I myself prefer a slower tempo.

And yes, I believe that Schweitzer's ideas still make a lot of sense,
for the most part. In view of those, the WTC (especially the First
Book) could be understood as a religious composition.

Regards -

Sergey Schepkin
Edward Jasiewicz
2003-07-25 20:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Well, well, well. Are these not some of the very same notions
that were disseminated by Eunice Norton in her essay about Bach
that you summarily dismissed as unworthy of serious regard? Me
thinks someone changes their song so very conveniently... (and
steals from other musicians' publications as easily as a snake
sheds its skin!)

regards,
Ed

P.S. This essay also interesting commentary on Bach's own
*strong* opinion against detached playing as a solution to
playing his music. Perhaps you out to read that essay again,
Sergey.
Post by Serge
Very sensible advice, all of this, but consider, e.g. Glenn
Gould's
Post by Serge
two recorded versions of the E major fugue from WTC-2: they
both sound
Post by Serge
wonderful, and one (the older) is more than twice as slow as
the other.
Post by Serge
There are many other examples where wildly different tempi
for the
Post by Serge
same Bach piece work about equally well (although I do prefer the
slower version of the E major fugue).
Do you really find Schweitzer's ideas about Bach's symbolism
persuasive?
Post by Serge
Ulvi
Well, I think that Bach can take a lot of beating and still
tower in
Post by Serge
dismal judgment over all of us poor mortals . . .
The Fugue in question can be taken at its face value of a 4/2
piece in
Post by Serge
half and quarter notes, which, of course, calls for a rather
rapid
Post by Serge
tempo; it can, however, be seen as a stile antico piece (as it
should,
Post by Serge
because it is based on Gregorian chant), which would then slow
the
Post by Serge
tempo down. I myself prefer a slower tempo.
And yes, I believe that Schweitzer's ideas still make a lot of
sense,
Post by Serge
for the most part. In view of those, the WTC (especially the
First
Post by Serge
Book) could be understood as a religious composition.
Dan Koren
2003-07-25 22:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
Well, well, well. Are these not some of the very same notions
that were disseminated by Eunice Norton in her essay about Bach
that you summarily dismissed as unworthy of serious regard? Me
thinks someone changes their song so very conveniently... (and
steals from other musicians' publications as easily as a snake
sheds its skin!)
regards,
Ed
P.S. This essay also interesting commentary on Bach's own
*strong* opinion against detached playing as a solution to
playing his music. Perhaps you out to read that essay again,
Sergey.
Hah! The ghost of a Mr. Jasiewicz has come back to life!

Ed, please tell us, how many Russian pianists did you
sleep with?



dk
Edward Jasiewicz
2003-07-26 18:51:28 UTC
Permalink
.
Post by Dan Koren
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
Well, well, well. Are these not some of the very same notions
that were disseminated by Eunice Norton in her essay about
Bach
Post by Dan Koren
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
that you summarily dismissed as unworthy of serious regard?
Me
Post by Dan Koren
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
thinks someone changes their song so very conveniently...
(and
Post by Dan Koren
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
steals from other musicians' publications as easily as a
snake
Post by Dan Koren
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
sheds its skin!)
regards,
Ed
P.S. This essay also interesting commentary on Bach's own
*strong* opinion against detached playing as a solution to
playing his music. Perhaps you out to read that essay again,
Sergey.
Hah! The ghost of a Mr. Jasiewicz has come back to life!
Ed, please tell us, how many Russian pianists did you
sleep with?
Hah?

Whatever the answer, Dan, I suppose it's not nearly enough. They
are such passionate, musical people. Almost as passionate and
musical (and lovable) as us Poles!

-Ed
Serge
2003-07-28 05:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
Well, well, well. Are these not some of the very same notions
that were disseminated by Eunice Norton in her essay about Bach
that you summarily dismissed as unworthy of serious regard? Me
thinks someone changes their song so very conveniently... (and
steals from other musicians' publications as easily as a snake
sheds its skin!)
regards,
Ed
P.S. This essay also interesting commentary on Bach's own
*strong* opinion against detached playing as a solution to
playing his music. Perhaps you out to read that essay again,
Sergey.
Ed:

I think your teacher's essay makes sense, only her ideas are not
original. All of them have been, in fact, common knowledge ever since
Spitta and Schweitzer. I don't need to read Mme. Norton's essay again,
because I have known all of its content for about twenty years before
reading it.

Incidentally, this and the next response (see below) mark the end of
my replies to your posts. I do not want to argue with you anymore. You
may consider this your victory if you so wish.

Regards,

Sergey
Edward Jasiewicz
2003-07-29 21:29:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serge
I think your teacher's essay makes sense, only her ideas are
not
Post by Serge
original. All of them have been, in fact, common knowledge ever since
Spitta and Schweitzer. I don't need to read Mme. Norton's essay again,
because I have known all of its content for about twenty years
before
Post by Serge
reading it.
Incidentally, this and the next response (see below) mark the
end of
Post by Serge
my replies to your posts. I do not want to argue with you
anymore. You
Post by Serge
may consider this your victory if you so wish.
(Well la di da, as they say. Nonetheless, I'll bet you'll read
this!)

Actually, Norton was one of the first musicians to recognize and
utilize "HIP" principals in playing Bach on the piano. However,
what is particularly striking about _her_ perspective as a Bach
performer is that she knew when to *limit* that idea in terms of
its artistic application; in other words, his music requires
being distinguished from other, average Baroque composers in
performance practice. Unless you really want to make him seem
less, that is... :)

Also, Norton's essay/lecture was given in *1968,* Sergey. (That's
right, more than 30 years ago. D'oh!) It was published today
along with her 1968 recording of the WTC, logically, because of
its revealing qualities into her valued artistic insight, which
is no doubt what prompted an invitation for her to give a lecture
in the first place.

(For the record, it is also generally considered bad form in
academia to attempt to publicly slander a peer. You should keep
this in mind when you start teaching at the all-important
Carnegie Mellon University music department's "conservatory" next
spring (thanks to Mr. Fletcher, no doubt), which is where Eunice
Norton used to teach herself, come to think of it. Gee, such
similarities. Perhaps you may even win the Bach prize, too,
someday.)

warm and fuzzy regards,
Ed
Simon Roberts
2003-07-29 22:48:59 UTC
Permalink
In article <aHBVa.79564$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Edward
says...

[snip]
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
Actually, Norton was one of the first musicians to recognize and
utilize "HIP" principals in playing Bach on the piano. However,
what is particularly striking about _her_ perspective as a Bach
performer is that she knew when to *limit* that idea in terms of
its artistic application; in other words, his music requires
being distinguished from other, average Baroque composers in
performance practice. Unless you really want to make him seem
less, that is... :)
I'm afraid I don't follow this argument at all. The superiority of Bach's music
doesn't require a different performance style to be apparent, does it?

Simon
Simon Roberts
2003-07-31 04:23:20 UTC
Permalink
In article <MUVVa.77209$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Edward
says...
That depends on how badly the performance style either only
promulgates form over function (as in what constitutes style
versus substance) or obfuscates distinguishing excellence from
mediocrity in any age (taste).
Anyway, none of this has any bearing on the discussion at hand,
Simon, for my examples were only potential arguments provided to
level an unfair playing ground. I don't need to prove anything
here to make my point, rather only provide a potential space for
the inclusion of a different taste to be made, granted regarding
which even your hero Sergey deserves some consideration due to
the fraction of the masses from whom he commands some regard
(hence, the inclusion of a review which aptly puts Norton and
Schepkin on professional par - for which I'd imagine he might
actually feel some bit of gratitude!). My involvement in this
discussion was prompted as a defense of an artist whom clearly
commands another portion of that group (and I didn't hear you
leaping in when my relationship with Norton was originally
referred to so rudely in the context of Tom Deacon's advocacy of
Tureck), which incidentally nicely puts me in the position of
only having to counter a supposition instead of prove a rule. I'm
simply stating my preference and disfavor in response to Sergey's
attempts at dismissing a truly great Bach performer in favor of
what I consider to be his comparably dismissible grasp of the
material.
Besides, I'd really hate to think readers might visit this group
and come away with the impression that admiration for Sergey's
cheap, virtuosity-driven approach to playing is unanimous,
despite how accessible and popular that type of "musicianship"
may be. :)
Well, you've certainly given them a different impression to ponder.

Simon
Bob Lombard
2003-07-31 13:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
says...
Besides, I'd really hate to think readers might visit this group
and come away with the impression that admiration for Sergey's
cheap, virtuosity-driven approach to playing is unanimous,
despite how accessible and popular that type of "musicianship"
may be. :)
Well, you've certainly given them a different impression to ponder.
Simon
I'm pondering the possibility that Ed's accusation of
"virtuosity-driven approach" derives from Sergey's show-off habit of
hitting most of the notes - or maybe that most of the notes he hits
are the ones he intended to. I'm pondering whether it's necessary to
comment further... nope.

bl
Edward Jasiewicz
2003-07-31 20:45:09 UTC
Permalink
Don't be a silly boy, Bob. I'm very proud of all the Sergeys for
learning how to "hit" all those right notes. However, as far as
their having accomplished anything more than that...

I would have to say that note-accuracy, as a bland statistic
accordingly, can be a good thing (to quote Martha), but you must
realize that it is actually an artistically neutral concept. More
importantly, it is certainly no assurance of musical interest,
artistry, imagination, or any sort of excellence other than in
target shooting, unless you have the lowest standards for such
things. In fact, one of the most pernicious afflictions affecting
contemporary pianism is having anything artistically worthwhile
survive the pseudo-professional methods for accomplishing the
artistic false ideal of note-accuracy. Not only is it a sad
little goal unto itself, but it's also a dangerous measure for
any musician hoping to actually make music in the end with their
final production. It typically is the primary reason for dead,
ineffective performances, and to the extent that it reflects some
of the [accumulative] bad ramifications of our modern recording
industry, it may be one of the methods by which great musical art
will have been eradicated.

I know it may a difficult pill for you to swallow, Bob, but try
not to forget that one of the words in the title of this
newsgroup is actually "music." :) As far as pianistic
note-accuracy goes, thank you, but I will take "living" and
potentially inaccurate performances over "dead" accurate ones any
day.

cheers,
Ed
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by Richard Schultz
In article
<MUVVa.77209$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Edward
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by Richard Schultz
says...
Besides, I'd really hate to think readers might visit this
group
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by Richard Schultz
and come away with the impression that admiration for
Sergey's
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by Richard Schultz
cheap, virtuosity-driven approach to playing is unanimous,
despite how accessible and popular that type of
"musicianship"
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by Richard Schultz
may be. :)
Well, you've certainly given them a different impression to
ponder.
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by Richard Schultz
Simon
I'm pondering the possibility that Ed's accusation of
"virtuosity-driven approach" derives from Sergey's show-off
habit of
Post by Bob Lombard
hitting most of the notes - or maybe that most of the notes he
hits
Post by Bob Lombard
are the ones he intended to. I'm pondering whether it's
necessary to
Post by Bob Lombard
comment further... nope.
David Hurwitz
2003-07-31 21:11:44 UTC
Permalink
In article <pdfWa.78851$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Edward
says...
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
Don't be a silly boy, Bob. I'm very proud of all the Sergeys for
learning how to "hit" all those right notes. However, as far as
their having accomplished anything more than that...
The basic fallacy here is that you are deliberately misconstruing what both
Simon and Bob are saying, perfectly reasonably, which is that technical accuracy
need not preclude interpretive excellence, and performances that offer both are
generally to be preferred to those that offer merely one or the other. It's the
same "zero sum game" that we find here so often: great virtuosity must
necessarily be "empty" and almost any amount of technical weakness is exceptable
if the "conception" is a great one (of course, how it's even possible to
recognize the result as the artist's conception in the first place in a
performance crippled by technical shortcomings is a detail we need not go into).

No one is suggesting that you are not entitled to enjoy whatever you please, but
it is completely untrue and illogical to suggest that other pianists with
superior technical equipment to those you enjoy must necessarily be inferior or
less penetrating artists. Furthermore, the overstate the case when you also
assert that mere literalism precludes all artistic merit. Much of what any piece
of music expresses is contained within the notes themselves, and merely striking
them in the correct sequence, rhythm, and balance with the correct dynamics
conveys a considerable amount of expressive information. Great it may not be,
but nor is it "musically" null and void. In short, you are constructing staw men
in order to support a position that no one here seems be asserting, and as such
you are really simply arguing with yourself rather than addressing the issues
that I see clearly being raised to challenge your extreme attack on technical
competence.

David Hurwitz
Edward Jasiewicz
2003-08-01 03:30:52 UTC
Permalink
Despite your attempt to suggest otherwise, I think we are mostly
in agreement (except for your reference to that old bit about
value residing in the unplayed notes...for, I find mere
literalism to be exactly musically null).

First of all, Simon referred to the idea I quoted that Bach style
can or should be separated from the categorical pattern presented
by his peers (which Bach wrote about himself). Simon did not
comment on technical accuracy (unless you are defining technique
in terms of stylistic choice, too, which is not really the
definition I thought technique meant in this context).

Secondly, Bob did not make that point either as much as
exaggerate a theory that my grasp of the difference between
musical excellence and technical accuracy is mutually exclusive.
It's possible that Bob may be a really nice guy, but not
according to my challenging any of his notions about good music
making (where he has shown himself to be a regular ass) Not only
was it a loaded suggestion (I guess he doesn't like my voicing my
opinion as assertively as Sergey did his...too bad), but it was
also inaccurate (!). For, I do not believe anything of the sort!

I do believe that technical accuracy - playing the correct notes
when in fact you intend to - is a good thing. Also, I am
perfectly apprised of the notion that there can be aspects of
virtuosity even within the most austere and economic of
[profound...] musical utterances. That does not preclude a
distinction that the nature of the work en route to that
condition is of paramount artistic concern. In other words, you
cannot just use "intelligence" attached to a rote process and
work your way to "music." There must be a role for controlled
accident for real expression to come through. Otherwise, we are
simply scoring drill routines and measuring mindless tasks of

While you suggest it is being presented that I am "entitled to
enjoy" whomever I wish, that is not in fact the nature of how
things are being presented here. In reality, it is being
suggested instead that I am "foolish" to prefer Norton over
others (and as typically is the course of reasoning here, that
often also then comprises the *equally mistaken assumption* that
I therefore must be engaging in some form of hero worship, as
well, which is something I find to be reprehensible). I have
thick skin, so I can take it. However, don't preach to me about
deliberately misconstruing positions. The flip side of the coin
is that I am here to defend the legitimacy of my choice. I have
as much right to that theory as others do theirs (and in fact can
offer good reasons and even outward proof regarding why others in
positions of influence in the music world also share my
perspective). And I'm saying it in defensive response to the very
condition you accuse me of perpetrating!

To be specific, I think it is true that virtuosity as a means
unto itself is dismissible. I have fashioned my taste in
performance preferences accordingly. Artistic expression - or the
impetus to communicate living experience through some medium -
must *always* strive to survive the very method by which it means
to reach someone (as it simultaneously encompasses such a means,
itself, into the very expressing of the impetus). That is a basic
tenant of art. The most efficient pursuit of technical accuracy
is not something that takes place along side expressive
cultivation, rather it can only happen in place of it! I think it
is better to prioritize expression and then consult statistics
for secondary considerations. Technical competence is a tool,
that is it. Any other consideration of it or use for it is merely
worship of virtuosity.

regards,
Ed

P.S. Despite that I am not religious at all, I could not help
being thoroughly fascinated recently when I heard a bit about
Buddhist monks featuring a chant that somehow enables each monk
to sing three notes at once. The explanation was that this was
something that never would have arisen if not for the need to
express something that therefore emerged afterwards as three
notes being sung by one person. This is not to say that someone
wishing to learn how to sing three notes at the same time
couldn't learn it from them, or even could have learned it alone
by striving to figure out a way to accomplish that goal. Their
point, however, which is quite like mine regarding expression and
technique, is that there is something crucially operative to the
condition of objective and result here, as it affect the outcome.
Who's to say that those monks wouldn't also be perfectly able to
distinguish the rote, three-note-singing learner from the fellow
monk who came to this skill through different incentives.
Post by Richard Schultz
In article
<pdfWa.78851$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Edward
Post by Richard Schultz
says...
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
Don't be a silly boy, Bob. I'm very proud of all the Sergeys
for
Post by Richard Schultz
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
learning how to "hit" all those right notes. However, as far
as
Post by Richard Schultz
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
their having accomplished anything more than that...
The basic fallacy here is that you are deliberately
misconstruing what both
Post by Richard Schultz
Simon and Bob are saying, perfectly reasonably, which is that
technical accuracy
Post by Richard Schultz
need not preclude interpretive excellence, and performances
that offer both are
Post by Richard Schultz
generally to be preferred to those that offer merely one or the other. It's the
same "zero sum game" that we find here so often: great
virtuosity must
Post by Richard Schultz
necessarily be "empty" and almost any amount of technical
weakness is exceptable
Post by Richard Schultz
if the "conception" is a great one (of course, how it's even
possible to
Post by Richard Schultz
recognize the result as the artist's conception in the first
place in a
Post by Richard Schultz
performance crippled by technical shortcomings is a detail we
need not go into).
Post by Richard Schultz
No one is suggesting that you are not entitled to enjoy
whatever you please, but
Post by Richard Schultz
it is completely untrue and illogical to suggest that other
pianists with
Post by Richard Schultz
superior technical equipment to those you enjoy must
necessarily be inferior or
Post by Richard Schultz
less penetrating artists. Furthermore, the overstate the case
when you also
Post by Richard Schultz
assert that mere literalism precludes all artistic merit. Much
of what any piece
Post by Richard Schultz
of music expresses is contained within the notes themselves,
and merely striking
Post by Richard Schultz
them in the correct sequence, rhythm, and balance with the
correct dynamics
Post by Richard Schultz
conveys a considerable amount of expressive information. Great
it may not be,
Post by Richard Schultz
but nor is it "musically" null and void. In short, you are
constructing staw men
Post by Richard Schultz
in order to support a position that no one here seems be
asserting, and as such
Post by Richard Schultz
you are really simply arguing with yourself rather than
addressing the issues
Post by Richard Schultz
that I see clearly being raised to challenge your extreme
attack on technical
Post by Richard Schultz
competence.
David Hurwitz
2003-08-01 04:58:33 UTC
Permalink
In article <M9lWa.82855$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Edward
says...
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
Despite your attempt to suggest otherwise, I think we are mostly
in agreement (except for your reference to that old bit about
value residing in the unplayed notes...for, I find mere
literalism to be exactly musically null). [snip]
That's an old debate, actually, and it came down to the general agreement that
"literalism" is, actually impossible. As soon as someone plays they interpret,
and the only question then becomes if you like what they do or not. but leaving
that aside, the issue here is not that we probably are in agreement; I grant
that we are. It's that you are attributing to Simon and Bob ideas and arguments
that they are not, in fact, advocating. You are also in agreement with them.

Dave Hurwitz
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
2003-08-01 06:42:22 UTC
Permalink
... To be specific, I think it is true that virtuosity as a means unto
itself is dismissible. I have fashioned my taste in performance
preferences accordingly. Artistic expression - or the impetus to
communicate living experience through some medium - must *always*
strive to survive the very method by which it means to reach someone
(as it simultaneously encompasses such a means, itself, into the very
expressing of the impetus). That is a basic tenant of art.
Oops: make that *tenet* of art.
I don't think Tenet can be regarded as very reliable any more. ;--)
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Mark Coy tossed off eBay? http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2B734C02
RMCR's most pointless, dumb and laughable chowderhead: Mark Coy.
d***@yahoo.com
2003-07-31 22:21:32 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:45:09 GMT, "Edward Jasiewicz"
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
Don't be a silly boy, Bob. I'm very proud of all the Sergeys for
learning how to "hit" all those right notes. However, as far as
their having accomplished anything more than that...
I would have to say that note-accuracy, as a bland statistic
accordingly, can be a good thing (to quote Martha), but you must
realize that it is actually an artistically neutral concept. More
importantly, it is certainly no assurance of musical interest,
artistry, imagination, or any sort of excellence other than in
target shooting, unless you have the lowest standards for such
things. In fact, one of the most pernicious afflictions affecting
contemporary pianism is having anything artistically worthwhile
survive the pseudo-professional methods for accomplishing the
artistic false ideal of note-accuracy. Not only is it a sad
little goal unto itself, but it's also a dangerous measure for
any musician hoping to actually make music in the end with their
final production. It typically is the primary reason for dead,
ineffective performances, and to the extent that it reflects some
of the [accumulative] bad ramifications of our modern recording
industry, it may be one of the methods by which great musical art
will have been eradicated.
I know it may a difficult pill for you to swallow, Bob, but try
not to forget that one of the words in the title of this
newsgroup is actually "music." :) As far as pianistic
note-accuracy goes, thank you, but I will take "living" and
potentially inaccurate performances over "dead" accurate ones any
day.
cheers,
Ed
I could not agree more with your statement.

Deadly accurate performances of music are just that, dead!

By the same token, of course, deadly inaccurate performances are also
dead.

The point of music would seem to me, at least, to be not in utter
technical perfection, but in an honest recreation of the music, both
the score, as we know it or as scholars have shown it to be, and the
essence of the score, as we can only imagine it.. If either are
missing, the enterprise fails. Mechanical Bach is not Bach at all,
except skeltally, so to speak.

The search for perfection of utterance usually comes at the expense of
music, as the oceans of CDs which face us in the record stores show
only too clearly. In my own experience the one example of such
perfection I can think of that "worked" is Krystian Zimerman's Chopin
Concertos conducted by himself at the keyboard. There, repeatedly, the
listener was faced with a level of musical perfection that I have only
rarely heard. Martha Argerich's Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet in Carnegie
Hall was another.

There is, perhaps, a case to be made that the situation the classical
record industry finds itself in today is a direct result of the very
cold, ruthless search for perfection which has come along with
digital sound, digital editing, and endless retakes. The buyer is
bored with the kind of cold perfection he finds on CD today.

In the days of 78 RPM recording, you pretty much got the unvarnished
performances of the great musicians. Today all musicians SEEM to have
the same technical expertise. Not true, of course. Just an illusion
brought about by technology.

Having still to hear Mr. Schepkin's Bach performances, I have to
reserve judgment on his playing, but I cannot presume that it will be
any less perfect than any other pianist performing Bach on CD. Surely,
if he did not hit the right notes the first time, he would have done a
retake, like all his colleagues, including the king of retakes, Mr.
Glenn Gould.
Bob Lombard
2003-08-01 01:39:00 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:21:32 -0400, ***@yahoo.com wrote:

[truly remarkable response to Ed's post snipped]

Holy Smokin' Catfish, the similarity in prose style is even more
remarkable than the agreement in content! When I read Tom's first post
here, I thought it seemed familiar in style... Wait a minute now...
Ed, is this whole Tom Deacon thing another of your tricks?

bl
Edward Jasiewicz
2003-08-01 03:30:53 UTC
Permalink
(Love the cat-fish, country-bumpkin stuff, Bob. Do you do Western
bars, too?)
Considering how much your message had to do with the discussion,
can I make some jokes here, too? How about this link, Bob? I have
a feeling you will really like it...

-Ed

http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf

(click each horse)
Post by Bob Lombard
[truly remarkable response to Ed's post snipped]
Holy Smokin' Catfish, the similarity in prose style is even
more
Post by Bob Lombard
remarkable than the agreement in content! When I read Tom's
first post
Post by Bob Lombard
here, I thought it seemed familiar in style... Wait a minute
now...
Post by Bob Lombard
Ed, is this whole Tom Deacon thing another of your tricks?
Bob Lombard
2003-08-01 13:33:22 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 03:30:53 GMT, "Edward Jasiewicz"
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
(Love the cat-fish, country-bumpkin stuff, Bob. Do you do Western
bars, too?)
Considering how much your message had to do with the discussion,
can I make some jokes here, too? How about this link, Bob? I have
a feeling you will really like it...
-Ed
A 'Great Mind' has been goaded into calling me an ass (perhaps
agreeing with my belief that the condition is intermittently
universal?) My work in this thread is nearly done, it seems.

The catfish thing really was inappropriate. I should have used 'Well
I'll be diddly-dad-burned'.

Music, including Bach's music, *lives* in performance, not on paper.
Hell, I'll take it further: it lives in the mind of the performer, who
plays an instrument (that word is significant) to bring it to the mind
of the listener. I have heard the WTC performed on a modern
harpsichord, using the circle of fifths sequence, by a Russian who in
his notes to the recording placed special emphasis on not emphasizing
*any* note in his playing. Nothing 'brought out'. No 'egregious
ornamentation'. He didn't use the words, but I'm sure his intent was
to 'let the music speak for itself'. Bach be praised, I still heard
music. My spirit praises Bach more though, when I hear Schepkin play
the WTC. Because the music isn't just Bach; it's him and the performer
and the instrument and the medium and the hearer. That's why we
hearers can make value judgements between recordings played by Tureck
and Norton and Schepkin.

For me, Ed, you're mostly another hearer with an opinion.

bl
Edward Jasiewicz
2003-08-01 18:28:04 UTC
Permalink
For the record, I never pleaded the case about my having such a
great mind. ;) (But, I'll accept the accusation when someone
offers it!) And there's no point in your trying to get mileage
out of having caught me "a-swear'n," Bob, 'cause I'm not
particularly sensitive to moralizing, either (except when it
comes to defining great art, that is, and only to the extent that
morals might have anything to do with that, which is questionable
if not easy to exclude).

And also for the record, I like the silly link I included. I
thought you would, too. (Plus, it provided a good metaphor for
what I was accusing your taste of...)

But Bob, I am perfectly happy to be just another hearer with an
opinion. That is exactly what I required as my right as the basis
for my involvement in this whole discussion. (And I am not in the
least unaware of the conspicuous overtones of a minority-member's
plight here, too; just how uncommon do you think it is, for one
example, for the typical white man to plead innocence when he is
accused of taking certain privileges for granted and then balks
at a non-white man's complaint about not also being permitted
participation in those privileges?)

-Ed
Post by Bob Lombard
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 03:30:53 GMT, "Edward Jasiewicz"
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
(Love the cat-fish, country-bumpkin stuff, Bob. Do you do
Western
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
bars, too?)
Considering how much your message had to do with the
discussion,
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
can I make some jokes here, too? How about this link, Bob? I
have
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
a feeling you will really like it...
-Ed
A 'Great Mind' has been goaded into calling me an ass (perhaps
agreeing with my belief that the condition is intermittently
universal?) My work in this thread is nearly done, it seems.
The catfish thing really was inappropriate. I should have used
'Well
Post by Bob Lombard
I'll be diddly-dad-burned'.
Music, including Bach's music, *lives* in performance, not on
paper.
Post by Bob Lombard
Hell, I'll take it further: it lives in the mind of the
performer, who
Post by Bob Lombard
plays an instrument (that word is significant) to bring it to
the mind
Post by Bob Lombard
of the listener. I have heard the WTC performed on a modern
harpsichord, using the circle of fifths sequence, by a Russian
who in
Post by Bob Lombard
his notes to the recording placed special emphasis on not
emphasizing
Post by Bob Lombard
*any* note in his playing. Nothing 'brought out'. No 'egregious
ornamentation'. He didn't use the words, but I'm sure his
intent was
Post by Bob Lombard
to 'let the music speak for itself'. Bach be praised, I still
heard
Post by Bob Lombard
music. My spirit praises Bach more though, when I hear Schepkin play
the WTC. Because the music isn't just Bach; it's him and the
performer
Post by Bob Lombard
and the instrument and the medium and the hearer. That's why we
hearers can make value judgements between recordings played by
Tureck
Post by Bob Lombard
and Norton and Schepkin.
For me, Ed, you're mostly another hearer with an opinion.
d***@yahoo.com
2003-08-01 10:51:45 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:39:00 -0400, Bob Lombard
Post by Bob Lombard
[truly remarkable response to Ed's post snipped]
Holy Smokin' Catfish, the similarity in prose style is even more
remarkable than the agreement in content! When I read Tom's first post
here, I thought it seemed familiar in style... Wait a minute now...
Ed, is this whole Tom Deacon thing another of your tricks?
bl
I doubt that, Bob. Great minds think alike! That's been true since the
beginning of time. LOL!

Tom Deacon
David Hurwitz
2003-08-01 01:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
There is, perhaps, a case to be made that the situation the classical
record industry finds itself in today is a direct result of the very
cold, ruthless search for perfection which has come along with
digital sound, digital editing, and endless retakes. The buyer is
bored with the kind of cold perfection he finds on CD today.
Nah, not really. Come on, Tom! First it was "blame the public" for not buying,
and now it's "blame the artists" for the "cold, ruthless search for perfection."
Well, if the latter is true, how can you blame the former for not buying? Never
mind, I know it's pointless to expect any sort of logical consistency from this
source. One of the greatest perfectionists I know is Moravec, whose "search" is
neither cold nor ruthless, but informed simply by a desire to play as well as
he's capable on every single occasion.

Far from the "cold, ruthless search for perfection," I see many more performancs
and recordings that I would deem rushed, ill-prepared, immature, facile, and for
that reason lacking in character and style. However, I can think of very few
artists who would say that their obligation ends at technical perfection, or who
see that as a goal in and of itself which, having been satisfied, requires no
further musical effort on their part. Indeed, the real issue has nothing to do
with HOW the record is made, how many edits it has, and whether or not it is
digital, but whether or not it SHOULD have been made in the first place because
the artist in question was ready to make it.

In this respect, I think it's closer to the truth, when it comes to whom we
should blame for the current "situation," to point the finger squarely at
overpaid, stupid, arrogant, self-serving record executives who find some sort of
ego gratification (never mind a lucrative income) in sucking up to "their"
artists, but who in the last analysis couldn't sell a starving man with money in
his pocket a decent meal, even if their lives depended on it.

Dave Hurwitz
Edward Jasiewicz
2003-08-01 03:30:53 UTC
Permalink
(Uh, there's no need to bring your baggage with you everywhere.
Eh? Do we have to sit through another bought of this kind of
arguing??)

Even as I had some feelings about the presumptuousness of a
series that purports to represent "the great pianists" (there may
always be debates about inclusions and exclusions...), there's no
denying that Tom's series brought some great recordings to
broader circulation in the "modern world." I'm lucky to have
encountered much of that finally highly-distributed series. Why
can't you simply agree to disagree with Tom, Dave, and
concentrate on his and your having something unique to offer the
music industry?

-Ed
Post by David Hurwitz
Post by d***@yahoo.com
There is, perhaps, a case to be made that the situation the
classical
Post by David Hurwitz
Post by d***@yahoo.com
record industry finds itself in today is a direct result of
the very
Post by David Hurwitz
Post by d***@yahoo.com
cold, ruthless search for perfection which has come along
with
Post by David Hurwitz
Post by d***@yahoo.com
digital sound, digital editing, and endless retakes. The buyer is
bored with the kind of cold perfection he finds on CD today.
Nah, not really. Come on, Tom! First it was "blame the public"
for not buying,
Post by David Hurwitz
and now it's "blame the artists" for the "cold, ruthless search for perfection."
Well, if the latter is true, how can you blame the former for
not buying? Never
Post by David Hurwitz
mind, I know it's pointless to expect any sort of logical
consistency from this
Post by David Hurwitz
source. One of the greatest perfectionists I know is Moravec,
whose "search" is
Post by David Hurwitz
neither cold nor ruthless, but informed simply by a desire to
play as well as
Post by David Hurwitz
he's capable on every single occasion.
Far from the "cold, ruthless search for perfection," I see many more performancs
and recordings that I would deem rushed, ill-prepared,
immature, facile, and for
Post by David Hurwitz
that reason lacking in character and style. However, I can
think of very few
Post by David Hurwitz
artists who would say that their obligation ends at technical
perfection, or who
Post by David Hurwitz
see that as a goal in and of itself which, having been
satisfied, requires no
Post by David Hurwitz
further musical effort on their part. Indeed, the real issue
has nothing to do
Post by David Hurwitz
with HOW the record is made, how many edits it has, and whether or not it is
digital, but whether or not it SHOULD have been made in the
first place because
Post by David Hurwitz
the artist in question was ready to make it.
In this respect, I think it's closer to the truth, when it
comes to whom we
Post by David Hurwitz
should blame for the current "situation," to point the finger
squarely at
Post by David Hurwitz
overpaid, stupid, arrogant, self-serving record executives who
find some sort of
Post by David Hurwitz
ego gratification (never mind a lucrative income) in sucking up to "their"
artists, but who in the last analysis couldn't sell a starving
man with money in
Post by David Hurwitz
his pocket a decent meal, even if their lives depended on it.
Simon Roberts
2003-07-31 22:28:58 UTC
Permalink
In article <pdfWa.78851$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Edward
says...
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
Don't be a silly boy, Bob. I'm very proud of all the Sergeys for
learning how to "hit" all those right notes. However, as far as
their having accomplished anything more than that...
I would have to say that note-accuracy, as a bland statistic
accordingly, can be a good thing (to quote Martha), but you must
realize that it is actually an artistically neutral concept. More
importantly, it is certainly no assurance of musical interest,
artistry, imagination, or any sort of excellence other than in
target shooting, unless you have the lowest standards for such
things.
Now *there's* a novel thought. Perhaps next someone will have the temerity to
suggest that technical ineptitude is not an infallible sign of interpretative
superiority!

[snip]
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
As far as pianistic
note-accuracy goes, thank you, but I will take "living" and
potentially inaccurate performances over "dead" accurate ones any
day.
Fortunately the rest of us aren't limited to that unfortunate choice.

Simon
Edward Jasiewicz
2003-08-01 03:30:54 UTC
Permalink
Simon, this awfully silly of you, too. I clearly did not suggest
that it was the only choice. The point was *if* you were given
such a choice (as in testing your virtues!). I'm really surprised
to see you, of all people, succumbing to some of these set-ups.

-Ed
Post by Richard Schultz
In article
<pdfWa.78851$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Edward
Post by Richard Schultz
says...
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
Don't be a silly boy, Bob. I'm very proud of all the Sergeys
for
Post by Richard Schultz
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
learning how to "hit" all those right notes. However, as far
as
Post by Richard Schultz
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
their having accomplished anything more than that...
I would have to say that note-accuracy, as a bland statistic
accordingly, can be a good thing (to quote Martha), but you
must
Post by Richard Schultz
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
realize that it is actually an artistically neutral concept.
More
Post by Richard Schultz
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
importantly, it is certainly no assurance of musical interest,
artistry, imagination, or any sort of excellence other than in
target shooting, unless you have the lowest standards for such
things.
Now *there's* a novel thought. Perhaps next someone will have
the temerity to
Post by Richard Schultz
suggest that technical ineptitude is not an infallible sign of
interpretative
Post by Richard Schultz
superiority!
[snip]
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
As far as pianistic
note-accuracy goes, thank you, but I will take "living" and
potentially inaccurate performances over "dead" accurate ones
any
Post by Richard Schultz
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
day.
Fortunately the rest of us aren't limited to that unfortunate
choice.
Post by Richard Schultz
Simon
Simon Roberts
2003-08-01 03:43:43 UTC
Permalink
In article <O9lWa.82858$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Edward
says...
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
Simon, this awfully silly of you, too. I clearly did not suggest
that it was the only choice. The point was *if* you were given
such a choice (as in testing your virtues!).
What's the point of offering that choice? No-one here has defended the position
you purport to be attacking. Has anyone, ever? (Your suggestion that
Schepkin's Bach playing offers nothing more than technical perfection is
ridiculous.)

Simon
Edward Jasiewicz
2003-08-01 04:47:18 UTC
Permalink
1.) The point is defining your ideals and then measuring your
experiences by them accordingly.

2.) The position I'm supporting has, indeed, been attacked: my
choices, for and against, have been "disshed" ( 3.) and more than
once around here).

I didn't say I think there is nothing more than technical
perfection in his playing because he's not technically perfect
(!). My _suggestion_ has been - and very much still is - that
Schepkin's' Bach is inferior 'cause of its preoccupation with
meaningless, virtuosity-driven, empty pseudo-inflection; a weak
little "post-" art, of sorts, with moments of more or less
expelling of forced bravado here and there (plus a statistical
relationship to the score!). Can't bear to listen to it, Simon.
If you can, good for you. But in my understanding of music, your
admiration is the anomaly here.

-Ed
Post by Richard Schultz
In article
<O9lWa.82858$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Edward
Post by Richard Schultz
says...
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
Simon, this awfully silly of you, too. I clearly did not
suggest
Post by Richard Schultz
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
that it was the only choice. The point was *if* you were given
such a choice (as in testing your virtues!).
What's the point of offering that choice? No-one here has
defended the position
Post by Richard Schultz
you purport to be attacking. Has anyone, ever? (Your
suggestion that
Post by Richard Schultz
Schepkin's Bach playing offers nothing more than technical
perfection is
Post by Richard Schultz
ridiculous.)
Simon
Simon Roberts
2003-08-01 11:08:19 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhmWa.82909$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Edward
says...
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
1.) The point is defining your ideals and then measuring your
experiences by them accordingly.
By attacking an ideal that no-one has?
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
I didn't say I think there is nothing more than technical
perfection in his playing because he's not technically perfect
(!).
Perhaps. But you did write: "I'm very proud of all the Sergeys for
learning how to "hit" all those right notes. However, as far as
their having accomplished anything more than that..." Evidently they have - you
just don't like it.

My _suggestion_ has been - and very much still is - that
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
Schepkin's' Bach is inferior 'cause of its preoccupation with
meaningless, virtuosity-driven, empty pseudo-inflection; a weak
little "post-" art, of sorts, with moments of more or less
expelling of forced bravado here and there (plus a statistical
relationship to the score!). Can't bear to listen to it, Simon.
If you can, good for you. But in my understanding of music, your
admiration is the anomaly here.
Given the evident fondness of his playing that more than one person has
expressed around here, there would appear to be all sorts of anomalies in play,
including Bernard Jacobson's. If his admiration of Shepkin is an anonmaly, what
is his admiration of Norton?

Simon
Edward Jasiewicz
2003-08-01 18:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
In article
<qhmWa.82909$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Edward
Post by Richard Schultz
says...
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
1.) The point is defining your ideals and then measuring your
experiences by them accordingly.
By attacking an ideal that no-one has?
I didn't think that was the case.
Post by Richard Schultz
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
I didn't say I think there is nothing more than technical
perfection in his playing because he's not technically perfect
(!).
Perhaps. But you did write: "I'm very proud of all the Sergeys for
learning how to "hit" all those right notes. However, as far as
their having accomplished anything more than that..."
Evidently they have - you
Post by Richard Schultz
just don't like it.
My "...'s" were intended as a measure of politeness. (But since
you bring it up,) they represent finishing the sentence with "it
is highly debateable." Whether or not what, if anything, was
accomplished beyond the note-playing is something hardly evident,
in this listener's opinion.
Post by Richard Schultz
My _suggestion_ has been - and very much still is - that
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
Schepkin's' Bach is inferior 'cause of its preoccupation with
meaningless, virtuosity-driven, empty pseudo-inflection; a
weak
Post by Richard Schultz
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
little "post-" art, of sorts, with moments of more or less
expelling of forced bravado here and there (plus a statistical
relationship to the score!). Can't bear to listen to it,
Simon.
Post by Richard Schultz
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
If you can, good for you. But in my understanding of music,
your
Post by Richard Schultz
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
admiration is the anomaly here.
Given the evident fondness of his playing that more than one
person has
Post by Richard Schultz
expressed around here, there would appear to be all sorts of
anomalies in play,
Post by Richard Schultz
including Bernard Jacobson's. If his admiration of Shepkin is
an anonmaly, what
Post by Richard Schultz
is his admiration of Norton?
Yes, I find Jacobson's response to be really strange, even as I'm
now quite used to all the provocative responses generated by
Norton's playing. (She typically warrants either near rabid
advocacy or near rabid opposition.) In my estimation, Jacobson
displays symptoms of both having a[n overly...] cultivated,
completely modern sense of sport-piano appreciation (which may be
an occupational hazard!) and something [left...] of a more
natural response to the language of real music. He may be one guy
who can actually stand astride both hierarchies (the right one
and the wrong one! ;).

Yet, keep in mind I had decided never to submit any more
recordings to him after his appraisal of Norton's Waldstein and
Hammerklavier. I mean, if a reviewer is still going to try to
pull apart Beethoven's tempo instructions for the latter, there's
no point in his pretending to understand that music. (Plus, he
completely neglected to include as any measure a comparison of
her efforts the greatest thinker and performer regarding
Beethoven's music, Schnabel. How else could Norton, arguably
Schnabel's most talented pupil, be considered in light of any
Beethovenian judgement call?) Joel Flegler gave Jacobson his copy
of the WTC AEA (Against Ed's Advice). Thank goodness! (And back
when Jacobson also gave Schepkin such incredibly high marks for
his Goldbergs - he said something like "the measure of good
Goldbergs has now forever been raised" - we thought he was
kidding and being sarcastic!)

I'm still totally confounded that he seems to really understand
some of Norton's Bach and yet also likes Schepkin's. Go figure.

-Ed
Simon Roberts
2003-08-01 20:52:48 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@yahoo.com
says...
Post by Simon Roberts
Given the evident fondness of his playing that more than one person has
expressed around here, there would appear to be all sorts of anomalies in play,
including Bernard Jacobson's. If his admiration of Shepkin is an anonmaly, what
is his admiration of Norton?
What, I would ask, is the point of bringing up the name of yet another
music journalist?
Because he was quoted at length by Ed; he is thus not "yet another music
journalist."

Simon
Simon Roberts
2003-08-01 20:53:17 UTC
Permalink
In article <ViyWa.80105$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Edward
says...
I was the one who brought Jacobson into the picture, actually.
But nevertheless, I am perfectly prepared to admit that
Jacobson's endorsement of Norton is certainly provocative in the
very way Simon means. What can I say. That just leads me to
believe there are at least some kinks in the thoroughness of the
"fleecing of music appreciators!"
Yes, but which is the kink?

Simon
d***@yahoo.com
2003-08-01 11:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
says...
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
Simon, this awfully silly of you, too. I clearly did not suggest
that it was the only choice. The point was *if* you were given
such a choice (as in testing your virtues!).
What's the point of offering that choice? No-one here has defended the position
you purport to be attacking. Has anyone, ever? (Your suggestion that
Schepkin's Bach playing offers nothing more than technical perfection is
ridiculous.)
Simon
Like all good debaters, Simon, you exaggerate the point of your
opponent in order to make your point seem more palatable. But here you
did not score any points, in my opinion.

Furthermore, the "more" that Mr. Schepkin's Bach offers, may, in the
view of some, actually be "less", particularly if we are talking
beyond technical accuracy and are now in the realm of personal
opinion, which, as you know, is always highly subjective.

I feel sure that Ed could delineate every single aspect of the "more"
in any performance he has heard which he would qualify as "less".

Tom Deacon
Simon Roberts
2003-08-01 11:17:28 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@yahoo.com
says...
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by Edward Jasiewicz
As far as pianistic
note-accuracy goes, thank you, but I will take "living" and
potentially inaccurate performances over "dead" accurate ones any
day.
Fortunately the rest of us aren't limited to that unfortunate choice.
Simon
No, but when you DO choose, you may well choose the deadly (I use the
word advisedly) accurate ones over those which are more innaccurate
but actaully alive.
I might. But then we may not agree about what's "deadly" and "actaully alive."

Some people are quite dazzled by the surface, so
much so that they fail to see that there is nothing inside.
That's one way to put it. Another way is to say that you don't like the
interpretation that is technically dazzling. Chances that it literally contains
"nothing" strike me as remote; after all, talk of "surface" and "content" is
merely a colourful, cliched, misleading (and, indeed, almost meaningless)
figurative way of referring to interpretative questions that would be better
discussed otherwise.
Accuracy is not the goal of music, unless it also entails musical
accuracy, which, unfortunately, cannot be measured.
So much for your discussion of Sanchez's Iberia!

Simon
d***@yahoo.com
2003-08-01 13:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
says...
No, but when you DO choose, you may well choose the deadly (I use the
word advisedly) accurate ones over those which are more innaccurate
but actaully alive.
I might. But then we may not agree about what's "deadly" and "actaully alive."
Some people are quite dazzled by the surface, so
much so that they fail to see that there is nothing inside.
That's one way to put it. Another way is to say that you don't like the
interpretation that is technically dazzling.
Not true. There are many dazzling performances I admire. The thing is,
I also look for the "more". Without the "more" the dazzle quickly
vanishes.

Chances that it literally contains
Post by Simon Roberts
"nothing" strike me as remote; after all, talk of "surface" and "content" is
merely a colourful, cliched, misleading (and, indeed, almost meaningless)
figurative way of referring to interpretative questions that would be better
discussed otherwise.
They are, indeed, separate discussions, providing that those
discussing the matter can actually distinguish between them.

There are many meaningless accurate performances available. Anyone
with a keyboard, a digital recorder and a modicum of ability can turn
out such stuff. As I said before, that is what is clogging the system.

We are overwhelmed with accuracy!

But we have never been so lacking in musical values.
Post by Simon Roberts
Accuracy is not the goal of music, unless it also entails musical
accuracy, which, unfortunately, cannot be measured.
So much for your discussion of Sanchez's Iberia!
Poor Esteban Sanchez. Given a good piano and a decent recording, he
might - we will never know - have turned out a decent performance of
Iberia. Alas, he was sabotaged with a lousy piano, a clangy, twangy
instrument which ressembles more a xzylophone than a piano, and then
placed in a padded cell with microphones stuck down the throat of his
instrument.

Jesus Christ could not have made a good recording of Iberia in such
conditions. Even with the URTEXT!!!

His recording, in fact, proves my feelings about accuracy. The notes
are all correct and in the correct sequence, but the music is all
wrong.

Tom Deacon
David Hurwitz
2003-08-01 14:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Accuracy is not the goal of music, unless it also entails musical
accuracy, which, unfortunately, cannot be measured.
His recording, in fact, proves my feelings about accuracy. The notes
are all correct and in the correct sequence, but the music is all
wrong.
Tom Deacon
Indeed not. Your entire critique of Sanchez, sonics and instrument aside, was
based on the extent to which he DEVIATES from the Urtext; in other words, the
extent to which he was NOT accurate according to the printed score, and your
praise of De Larrocha arose entirely from the extent to which she gave an
accurate presentation of that text in contrast to Sanchez. That was your
argument.

And you then went on at excruciating length not merely to define "accuracy" as
"the correct notes in the correct sequence," but as obedience to the composers
markings as regards dynamics, verbal descriptions of mood and character, tempo,
and various other criteria--in other words, as "musical" accuracy and not merely
as the purely "mechanical" accuracy that you define above.

So if you now concede that "musical accuracy" is unmeasurable, then you have no
basis on which to criticize Sanchez, for that is exactly what you claim to
measure in your previous discussion and in your conclusion above. Indeed, the
two statements of yours cited above are mutually contradictory on their very
face.

Dave Hurwitz
d***@yahoo.com
2003-08-01 15:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hurwitz
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Accuracy is not the goal of music, unless it also entails musical
accuracy, which, unfortunately, cannot be measured.
His recording, in fact, proves my feelings about accuracy. The notes
are all correct and in the correct sequence, but the music is all
wrong.
Tom Deacon
Indeed not. Your entire critique of Sanchez, sonics and instrument aside, was
based on the extent to which he DEVIATES from the Urtext; in other words, the
extent to which he was NOT accurate according to the printed score, and your
praise of De Larrocha arose entirely from the extent to which she gave an
accurate presentation of that text in contrast to Sanchez. That was your
argument.
And you then went on at excruciating length not merely to define "accuracy" as
"the correct notes in the correct sequence," but as obedience to the composers
markings as regards dynamics, verbal descriptions of mood and character, tempo,
and various other criteria--in other words, as "musical" accuracy and not merely
as the purely "mechanical" accuracy that you define above.
So if you now concede that "musical accuracy" is unmeasurable, then you have no
basis on which to criticize Sanchez, for that is exactly what you claim to
measure in your previous discussion and in your conclusion above. Indeed, the
two statements of yours cited above are mutually contradictory on their very
face.
Dave Hurwitz
Bullshit!

My comments, if you reread them, focus almost exclusively on the
inadequacies of the recording and the piano. The pianist is, of
course, ultimately responsible for the final product, but I repeatedly
make the point that it is impossible to tell whether or not the
pianist WANTED to play ppppp; the recording simply wouldn't allow it,
even if he had wished to.

The simple point - and a quick audition of the very first piece is all
that is needed, although I listened carefully to several and then just
gave up - is that this is a fundamentally flawed reading of the music.
The score clearly mas markings that the pianist either ignores, or,
more charitably, but without possibility of proof, cannot represent,
given the conditions under which he was working.

On top of that, the piano is a real abomination. Clangorous,
ungrateful, unresponsive, and grossly out of tune. I have no idea how
they maintain instruments in Spain, but this one in Barcelona in 1968
was a real beast!

The score remains the Bible for me. The notes, of course, in the
correct order and with all indications observed.

In the recording medium even such a close observance of the score ,
however, can be either inhibited or enhanced by the instrument on the
one hand and the recording quality on the other.

Given a good piano and a grateful recording benue, I have no doubt
that Esteban Sanchez would have or could have turned out an acceptable
representation of the score. He would have had no reason not to. But
he did not enjoy that luxury. Alas.

What is completely nonsensical is to maintain that this recording CAN
represent Iberia as Albeniz wrote it. That completely escapes me.
Unless people simply do not care about the composer's wishes, or are
listening casually. But I hardly think that is the case.

No, the Sanchez supporters simply choose to listen PAST all the
problems with this recording and to THINK that they hear what Albeniz
wrote. A look at the score should cure them of that delusion pretty
quickly.

Regarding Larrocha II. I have always had a love-hate relationship with
this recording. Loved the sweep, the rhytmic snap, the soulfulness of
Larrocha's playing, but lamented the beer-barrel polka sound. AND the
tape slippage,which occurs in every single version I have of it,
including EMI';s CD. Obviously, it is on the mastertape.). That said,
one still gets the impression that p means p, ppp means ppp, etc., not
to speak of her realization of some of Albeniz' more colourful
performance indications. But nobody, including myself, could ever
argue that this recording is ideal. Not at all.

Tom Deacon
David Hurwitz
2003-08-01 16:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Regarding Larrocha II. I have always had a love-hate relationship with
this recording. Loved the sweep, the rhytmic snap, the soulfulness of
Larrocha's playing, but lamented the beer-barrel polka sound. AND the
tape slippage,which occurs in every single version I have of it,
including EMI';s CD. Obviously, it is on the mastertape.). That said,
one still gets the impression that p means p, ppp means ppp, etc., not
to speak of her realization of some of Albeniz' more colourful
performance indications. But nobody, including myself, could ever
argue that this recording is ideal. Not at all.
Tom Deacon
Certainly, Tom, you are perfectly well entitled to your opinions regarding these
performances. However, your discussion of Sanchez was NOT limited to dynamics
purely as a result of the sonics, though as you say that was a major point;
perhaps you can go back and check if you are interested.

But the real question that Simon raised, legitimately I think, is that you
cannot claim:

"Accuracy is not the goal of music, unless it also entails musical accuracy,
which, unfortunately, cannot be measured."

but then say at the same time of Sanchez:

"The notes are all correct and in the correct sequence, but the music is all
wrong."

Obviously, there must be some basis for the claim that "the music is all wrong",
and whatever that is, it necessarily contradicts your assertion that musical
accuracy cannot be measured, as this is exactly what you in fact do in saying
"the music is all wrong".

I don't want to belabor this point, and I will not, but your words are quite
clear and just as clearly mutually contradictory.

Dave Hurwitz
Edward Jasiewicz
2003-08-01 18:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hurwitz
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Regarding Larrocha II. I have always had a love-hate
relationship with
Post by David Hurwitz
Post by d***@yahoo.com
this recording. Loved the sweep, the rhytmic snap, the
soulfulness of
Post by David Hurwitz
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Larrocha's playing, but lamented the beer-barrel polka sound.
AND the
Post by David Hurwitz
Post by d***@yahoo.com
tape slippage,which occurs in every single version I have of
it,
Post by David Hurwitz
Post by d***@yahoo.com
including EMI';s CD. Obviously, it is on the mastertape.).
That said,
Post by David Hurwitz
Post by d***@yahoo.com
one still gets the impression that p means p, ppp means ppp,
etc., not
Post by David Hurwitz
Post by d***@yahoo.com
to speak of her realization of some of Albeniz' more colourful
performance indications. But nobody, including myself, could
ever
Post by David Hurwitz
Post by d***@yahoo.com
argue that this recording is ideal. Not at all.
Tom Deacon
Certainly, Tom, you are perfectly well entitled to your
opinions regarding these
Post by David Hurwitz
performances. However, your discussion of Sanchez was NOT
limited to dynamics
Post by David Hurwitz
purely as a result of the sonics, though as you say that was a
major point;
Post by David Hurwitz
perhaps you can go back and check if you are interested.
But the real question that Simon raised, legitimately I think,
is that you
Post by David Hurwitz
"Accuracy is not the goal of music, unless it also entails
musical accuracy,
Post by David Hurwitz
which, unfortunately, cannot be measured."
"The notes are all correct and in the correct sequence, but the music is all
wrong."
Obviously, there must be some basis for the claim that "the
music is all wrong",
Post by David Hurwitz
and whatever that is, it necessarily contradicts your assertion that musical
accuracy cannot be measured, as this is exactly what you in
fact do in saying
Post by David Hurwitz
"the music is all wrong".
But you left out one other choice: the determination of simple
presence or non-presence. Tom seems to be suggesting he found
none, which precludes any further measuring at that point. I'll
bet if he had heard "some," he might have stuck around then to
see just "how much." On the other hand, he may also be suggesting
that presence/none is all that can ever be measured, nothing
more - hence "cannot be measured...[but, can be determined at
least if present or not). (But, I do not know the recording in
question, so I'll bow out...)

-Ed
Henk van Tuijl
2003-08-02 08:40:49 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:28:05 GMT, "Edward
Jasiewicz"
If you are at all interested in Iberia, you
can't go wrong with Alicia
de Larrocha. OF COURSE! This isn't rocket
science, of course.
Tom Deacon
Indeed, De Larrocha is the reference
interpretation par excellence.

For those who want a fascinating
alternative Sanchez is a must.

Those who want the Urtext should to
listen to Gonzalez, its editor -
IIRC.

Henk
d***@yahoo.com
2003-08-02 12:10:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 10:40:49 +0200, "Henk van Tuijl"
Post by d***@yahoo.com
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:28:05 GMT, "Edward
Jasiewicz"
If you are at all interested in Iberia, you
can't go wrong with Alicia
de Larrocha. OF COURSE! This isn't rocket
science, of course.
Tom Deacon
Indeed, De Larrocha is the reference
interpretation par excellence.
For those who want a fascinating
alternative Sanchez is a must.
Those who want the Urtext should to
listen to Gonzalez, its editor -
IIRC.
Henk
And I have every intention of doing that, Henk, as soon as I can
locate a copy here in Canada. But you know, Canada IS a wild and wooly
place, inhabited only by a few bears and native Indians, plus us
trappers. I will have to search far and wide.

Tom Deacon
d***@yahoo.com
2003-08-02 19:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Not to mention the rought trade.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
And I have every intention of doing that, Henk, as soon as I can
locate a copy here in Canada. But you know, Canada IS a wild and wooly
place, inhabited only by a few bears and native Indians, plus us
trappers. I will have to search far and wide.
Tom Deacon
Tasteless comment. And meaningless.

Tom Deacon
d***@yahoo.com
2003-08-02 20:22:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
says...
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Not to mention the rought trade.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
And I have every intention of doing that, Henk, as soon as I can
locate a copy here in Canada. But you know, Canada IS a wild and wooly
place, inhabited only by a few bears and native Indians, plus us
trappers. I will have to search far and wide.
Tom Deacon
Tasteless comment. And meaningless.
Tom Deacon
Not to mention homophobic. Don't forget that one!
Dave Hurwitz
Hardly matches you in that vein.

The following text might be of interest to both of you, actually. It
shows the level of thought this side of the border.

Latest Vatican tirade unworthy of His name


JIM COYLE

"Jesus has on the whole field of sexual irregularity preserved an
uninterrupted silence."

— Jeremy Bentham, 1774.

Oh, God.

Forgive us more than anything the things done and said in Your name.

Witches burned at stakes. Sons and daughters shunned or stoned. Drums
beaten, wars fought, heathens slaughtered. Jets flown into
skyscrapers. Hate incited, bigotry licensed.

And on and on it goes.

We may live in a town that cheerfully hosts the world's biggest Gay
Pride parade, an event now so mainstream (and so lucrative) that the
city's chief magistrate trades water-pistol fire with drag queens and
khakied suburban families make trips downtown to share in the fun.

We may reside in a country where gays are city councillors, and
big-city mayors, and cabinet ministers, and members of Parliament, and
federal leadership candidates; a world where gays and lesbians have
been world-class boxers, and international tennis champions and
Olympic medallists, to say nothing of being celebrated authors,
artists, performers, or maybe just sons, daughters, brothers, sisters,
fathers, mothers.

We may have reached a point in time where people such as Richard
Florida, in his book The Rise of the Creative Class, can even develop
something called a Gay Index, whereby a city's prosperity and health
are said to be very much determined by its openness to different kinds
of people and ideas, and where a visible gay community is an indicator
of creative capability.

Yet, there are days when it seems that hardly any time at all can have
passed since Oscar Wilde — or prisoner C33 as he was apparently known
— was flung a century ago into Reading Gaol for homosexuality.

What an unholy contribution the Vatican made this week to the
unfolding story of mankind with another obsessive outburst about the
realm in which it is least expert, matters of human sexuality.

What a dispiriting thing to hear again the fetishistic diatribes
against gays, dark mutterings about deviance and immorality, the
bizarre insistence that politicians abide not by the wishes of the
diverse constituencies that elect them but by the dictates of a band
of unelected, unaccountable celibates.

And what unintentionally comical anachronisms were chipped in by some
of this country's testy and turbulent priests.

To read the words emanating from the Vatican, and from Western Canada,
was to feel yanked back in time; to recognize the ugliness behind them
to feel the need of a shower.

To hear that the prime minister risks eternity in hellfire for
legalizing gay marriage is to know, however, that he will have plenty
of company — among his fellow-travellers some of the most decent, most
loving men and women that, well, God, you'd have to think it was, put
on the planet.

How much longer can the church insist that so many of God's children
are damaged goods, defective merchandise, deviants to be marked down
or written off?

How much longer can the Vatican and its agents maintain the
preposterous position that homosexuals are welcome and loveable, so
long as they don't give expression to their most fundamental being?

How can anyone take seriously the allegation that gay couples seeking
to take part in one of society's most mainstream and stabilizing
institutions are somehow threatening the fabric of their communities
and snubbing "the common inheritance of humanity."

If only the Vatican had brought one half of the fervour in recent
decades to confronting its own internal sins, failings and crises.

If only it had brought to bear a fraction of the concern for "the
common inheritance of inhumanity" when it came to confronting Nazi
Germany.

What a sad way for the current Pope to close out a long and eventful
life, fomenting intolerance and hatred against those who seek only to
love.

It takes some nerve, after all, given the church's dogged silence
maintained in the face of real and actual violence visited on children
by members of his own clergy, to make such claims as the Vatican
document did against the adoption of children by gay couples.

"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions
would actually mean doing violence to these children," it said.

Of course, chutzpah — unlike tolerance, compassion and love — was the
one thing that did not seem in short supply this week. And no priest
hotter under the clerical collar than Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary.

As a Catholic, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien was risking damnation by
proposing to legally change the definition of marriage, Henry said.
All Catholic legislators, as he put it, were "risking, in the sight of
God, their eternal salvation."

What arrogance to presume to know God's vision. What dreadful memories
it conjures for generations of Catholics raised under pulpitsful of
similar threats and shamings — natural human impulses and normal human
acts cast as depravity and sin.

This week, the Vatican as much as took out worldwide advertisements
trumpeting its own increasing irrelevance.

In tone and tenor, the document released and the concerted campaign by
Catholic clerics to support it, had all the hallmarks of the losing
side of an argument, all the hortatory hysteria of those who aren't
being listened to.

Anger. Intimidation. Shaming. Threats. Scapegoating. And, at core,
fear.

Oh, God.
David Hurwitz
2003-08-02 21:40:48 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@yahoo.com
says...
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Simon Roberts
says...
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Not to mention the rought trade.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
And I have every intention of doing that, Henk, as soon as I can
locate a copy here in Canada. But you know, Canada IS a wild and wooly
place, inhabited only by a few bears and native Indians, plus us
trappers. I will have to search far and wide.
Tom Deacon
Tasteless comment. And meaningless.
Tom Deacon
Not to mention homophobic. Don't forget that one!
Dave Hurwitz
Hardly matches you in that vein.
The following text might be of interest to both of you, actually. It
shows the level of thought this side of the border.
[SNIP]

And what level is that? All I see is that there are people who hate Catholics as
much as certain Catholics purportedly hate gays. I see nothing wrong with the
Vatican doing what its community of believers charges it to do: speak out on
matters of morality, faith, and doctrine as Catholics define such things. I may
disagree with the Church's position on this issue, but so what? This is its
right, and if the Church hierarchy turns out to be out of touch with its
community on this issue, then what it says won't matter at all. If, on they
other hand, it is merely expressing what most Catholics truly believe and hold
dear, then at worst it is doing nothing more than properly exercizing the right
to free expression of its religious beliefs.

Ultimately, I think the Gay community will win this argument because the tide of
history is on its side, but I see no evidence of an "elevated" level of thought
in an article by a writer who demonstrates nothing more than the same ignorance,
intolerance, and hostility that he believes he sees in others. I'm not surprised
that you find his example inspiring; it's obvious from your comments here on any
variety of issues that you model yourself after this pathetic example of shrill
alarmism, extremist rhetoric, and arrogant self-righteous moral certitude. You
behave exactly as those you despise, and then some. Such behavior is sickening,
on whichever side of the issue you may be standing.

Dave Hurwitz
d***@yahoo.com
2003-08-03 00:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hurwitz
Ultimately, I think the Gay community will win this argument because the tide of
history is on its side, but I see no evidence of an "elevated" level of thought
in an article by a writer who demonstrates nothing more than the same ignorance,
intolerance, and hostility that he believes he sees in others. I'm not surprised
that you find his example inspiring; it's obvious from your comments here on any
variety of issues that you model yourself after this pathetic example of shrill
alarmism, extremist rhetoric, and arrogant self-righteous moral certitude. You
behave exactly as those you despise, and then some. Such behavior is sickening,
on whichever side of the issue you may be standing.
Why does this not surprise me at all? Kind of goes along with the rest
of your spiel.

TD
David Hurwitz
2003-08-03 00:13:13 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@yahoo.com
says...
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by David Hurwitz
Ultimately, I think the Gay community will win this argument because the tide of
history is on its side, but I see no evidence of an "elevated" level of thought
in an article by a writer who demonstrates nothing more than the same ignorance,
intolerance, and hostility that he believes he sees in others. I'm not surprised
that you find his example inspiring; it's obvious from your comments here on any
variety of issues that you model yourself after this pathetic example of shrill
alarmism, extremist rhetoric, and arrogant self-righteous moral certitude. You
behave exactly as those you despise, and then some. Such behavior is sickening,
on whichever side of the issue you may be standing.
Why does this not surprise me at all? Kind of goes along with the rest
of your spiel.
TD
I'm glad you think so.

Dave Hurwitz
REG
2003-08-03 04:34:10 UTC
Permalink
You must be thinking of rough trappers.
Post by Simon Roberts
says...
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Not to mention the rought trade.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
And I have every intention of doing that, Henk, as soon as I can
locate a copy here in Canada. But you know, Canada IS a wild and wooly
place, inhabited only by a few bears and native Indians, plus us
trappers. I will have to search far and wide.
Tom Deacon
Tasteless comment. And meaningless.
Tom Deacon
Not to mention homophobic. Don't forget that one!
Dave Hurwitz
d***@yahoo.com
2003-08-03 11:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by REG
You must be thinking of rough trappers.
Having your daily fantasies, Beckmesserschmitt?

TD

Henk van Tuijl
2003-08-02 19:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
And I have every intention of doing that, Henk,
as soon as I can
Post by d***@yahoo.com
locate a copy here in Canada. But you know,
Canada IS a wild and wooly
Post by d***@yahoo.com
place, inhabited only by a few bears and native
Indians, plus us
Post by d***@yahoo.com
trappers. I will have to search far and wide.
No need to hurry, Tom. AFAIK trappers are
supposed to follow trails - and who knows
when and where these end.

Rest assured that Gonzalez and the Urtext
are waiting for you when you come home.

Hmm, that sounds ominous ...

Henk
d***@yahoo.com
2003-08-02 12:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
says...
[snip]
It is not important enough for you to bother, Ed. Since you are a
student of Norton, and she of Schnabel, I can only presume that YOU
can read a score and attempt to follow its little signs and
instructions insofar as your abilities allow you.
Sanchez either can't or won't. Don't know which. Only that he doesn't.
So, when even the notes - with all their many indications - are
missing, then the music simply cannot be there. simple.
I wish you would make up your mind. When you say the foregoing, and are
"Poor Esteban Sanchez. Given a good piano and a decent recording, he
might - we will never know - have turned out a decent performance of
Iberia. Alas, he was sabotaged with a lousy piano, a clangy, twangy
instrument which ressembles more a xzylophone than a piano, and then
placed in a padded cell with microphones stuck down the throat of his
instrument.
Jesus Christ could not have made a good recording of Iberia in such
conditions. Even with the URTEXT!!!
His recording, in fact, proves my feelings about accuracy. The notes
are all correct and in the correct sequence, but the music is all
wrong."
So this particular reader, who hasn't heard Sanchez's recording (and probably
never will, because the music isn't to my taste), is left rather confused....
Simon
I am not sure what confuses you, Simon. but surely if you have not
heard Sanchez's recording of Iberia (which is to say you could not
judge the validity of my comments) and furthermore that the music
doesn't interest you, I have to ask what possible motive could you
have for caring one way or the other if Mr. Sanzhez has accurately
represented Albeniz's score?

I, too, am left rather confused.

Tom Deacon
d***@yahoo.com
2003-08-02 19:16:29 UTC
Permalink
On 2 Aug 2003 05:25:03 -0700, Simon Roberts <***@comcast.net> wrote:

I have to ask what possible motive could you
Post by d***@yahoo.com
have for caring one way or the other if Mr. Sanzhez has accurately
represented Albeniz's score?
The principles are the same, regardless of the music.
Simon
Oh, so this is a parlour game?

For me it is not.

Tom Deacon
d***@yahoo.com
2003-08-03 11:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
says...
Post by d***@yahoo.com
I have to ask what possible motive could you
Post by d***@yahoo.com
have for caring one way or the other if Mr. Sanzhez has accurately
represented Albeniz's score?
The principles are the same, regardless of the music.
Simon
Oh, so this is a parlour game?
Interesting that you think that caring about the consistent application of
principles is a parlour game.
Simon
You flatter yourself in thinking that you are consistently applying
principles.

Tom Deacon
David Hurwitz
2003-08-01 19:20:49 UTC
Permalink
Perhaps if he had, or better still, if he could have, he would have
had accuracy in the notes as well as the music. Get my point?
The only point I need get is that you still haven't answered the question,
because if you claim to be able to recognize accuracy in the "notes as well as
the music," as you just did, then accuracy in the music is not unmeasurable,
which is what you just claimed previously.

But never mind. It's not that important.

Dave Hurwitz
d***@yahoo.com
2003-08-02 00:48:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hurwitz
Perhaps if he had, or better still, if he could have, he would have
had accuracy in the notes as well as the music. Get my point?
The only point I need get is that you still haven't answered the question,
because if you claim to be able to recognize accuracy in the "notes as well as
the music," as you just did, then accuracy in the music is not unmeasurable,
which is what you just claimed previously.
But never mind. It's not that important.
Dave Hurwitz
Clearly, because you obviously did not bother to read my comments.

Why am I not surprised.

Tom Deacon
d***@yahoo.com
2003-08-02 12:15:25 UTC
Permalink
But only the New Testament, eh, Herr Deacon?
Post by d***@yahoo.com
The score remains the Bible for me. The notes, of course, in the
correct order and with all indications observed.
Well, Herr Beckmesserschmitt, my scores are not divided along
Christian and Jewish lines, if that is what you are suggestion.

They are, however, still Holy Writ!

I leave the aleatoric music-making to the country music folk in
Nashville. Is that where you live?

Oh, no, I forgot. You live in the Apple core. So, you would be used to
the same kind of thing in the jazz clubs of Harlem. You know, do what
you like. Spontaneous-like. Cool, man! That wouldn't even have a
testament.

Tom Deacon
David Hurwitz
2003-08-02 19:27:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Oh, no, I forgot. You live in the Apple core. So, you would be used to
the same kind of thing in the jazz clubs of Harlem. You know, do what
you like. Spontaneous-like. Cool, man! That wouldn't even have a
testament.
Tom Deacon
Just remember folks: you heard it here first!

Dave Hurwitz
Dan Koren
2003-07-25 22:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serge
Well, I think that Bach can take a lot of beating
and still tower in dismal judgment over all of us
poor mortals . . .
The best beating Bach takes is jazz.

I love that ;-)



dk
Loading...