Discussion:
NYT: Top 10 Composers: Which 20th-Century Masters Will Make the Cut?
Add Reply
Premise Checker
2011-01-16 10:14:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Bartok is the one. Shostakovich the two. Why is Schoenberg mentioned only
in passing? Good for Tommasini!


Top 10 Composers: Which 20th-Century Masters Will Make the Cut?
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/top-10-composers-which-20th-century-masters-will-make-the-cut/?pagemode=print

By ANTHONY TOMMASINI

Over the next two weeks Anthony Tommasini is exploring the qualities
that make a classical composer great, maybe even the best of all
time. Watch videos and vote for your own top 10 here and read
previous posts here and share your thoughts in the comments field.
Mr. Tommasini's final list will be posted on Jan. 21.

The 19th century will pose the toughest calls in our whimsical
attempt to identify the top 10 classical composers of all time.
Think of Chopin, Schumann, Berlioz, Liszt, Brahms, Tchaikovsky. And
what about Verdi and Wagner? So let me deal with the 20th century
first, see how many slots might still be left, and work backward.

Though Debussy was born in 1862 and died in 1918, this path-breaker
has to be considered a 20th-century giant. After some 300 years of
pulsating Germanic music, for Debussy to come along and write such
hauntingly restrained, ethereal, time-stands-still works was a shock
to the system. His thick yet transparent block chords; his harmonies
tinged with ancient modal elements; his preference for whole-tone
scales that loosened music's moorings to traditional tonality; his
mastery of delicate orchestral colorings and new ways of writing for
the piano: all this and more made him the father of modern music.
Composers from Stravinsky to Boulez would have been impossible
without Debussy's example.

For the subject of his only complete opera he chose Maeterlinck's
"Pelléas et Mélisande," a groundbreaking work of Symbolist theater
from 1893. Debussy's Impressionist music, full of veiled harmonies,
blurry textures and emotional ambiguity, hauntingly taps the
subliminal stirrings of this mysterious story of a sullen royal
family in a timeless, placeless kingdom. In the Metropolitan Opera's
recent production Simon Rattle, in his Met debut, conducted a
stunning account of this unorthodox opera, first performed in 1902.
What other 20th-century work continues to sound as radical?

Stravinsky, by the way, though I am still formulating this list,
will surely make the cut. One fascinating element of his achievement
is that among a very select roster of great composers in history,
Stravinsky is the only one to have made his reputation by writing
ballet scores, with the possible exception of Tchaikovsky.

Everyone acknowledges the impact of Stravinsky's Paris ballets,
especially that all-time stunner "The Rite of Spring" from 1913. His
later work with the choreographer George Balanchine was one of the
most important collaborations in the history of the arts. Stravinsky
was inspired to write astonishing scores for Balanchine, like
"Orpheus" and "Apollo." But Balanchine found Stravinsky's music so
choreographic that he seized even on pieces like the Violin Concerto
and the late, 12-tone Movements for Piano and Orchestra and
conscripted them for duty in ballet.

Stravinsky's works during his lengthy period of Neo-Classicism are
still underappreciated. I love that these pieces are, essentially,
music about other music. "The Rake's Progress" is an ingenious,
amusing and profound opera on its own terms. It is also Stravinsky's
savvy, admiring musical commentary on Mozart opera. When he finally
started writing 12-tone works (adapting the technique to his own
ends), even those scores were Neo-Classical in a sense. The 12-tone
thing had been around for a while, and the movement was losing
steam. So Stravinsky's 12-tone pieces were like commentaries on the
12-tone phenomenon.

Theorists and composers are still trying to figure out exactly how
the elusive harmonic language in Stravinsky's Neo-Classical scores
(like the Symphony in Three Movements and the overlooked Piano
Sonata) actually works. His pieces do not give up their secrets
easily. The "Symphony of Psalms" for chorus and unconventional
orchestra (with no violins and violas but two pianos) is the most
gravely beautiful and profound sacred work of the 20th century.
Leonard Bernstein once said that the opening chords of the third
movement alone, in which the chorus sings a bittersweet, almost
resigned setting of the word "Alleluia," would have ensured
Stravinsky's place in history. That was Bernstein in his exuberant
mode, but he had a point.

What's more, including the Russian-born Stravinsky in my list brings
some geographical diversity to the Top 10.

The composer I yearn to include is Benjamin Britten. In many ways,
Britten is thriving. At least a half-dozen of his operas have become
staples, and his symphonic and chamber works turn up all the time on
programs. If there are finer 20th-century works for voice and
orchestra than "Les Illuminations" and the Serenade for Tenor, Horn
and Strings. I don't know what they are. Still, I am probably in a
minority in rating him quite this high. I predict that his stock
will rise steadily over the next 50 years. Still, Top 10? Am I going
to push out Haydn for Britten?

Among other 20th-century giants, however, I am leaning toward making
a place for Bartok. It's not just that Bartok was a visionary
composer with an arresting and original voice. He could write works
in a popular vein, like the Concerto for Orchestra, that are still
rich with subtle complexities and ingenious strokes and his
characteristic propulsive rhythms. Yet he also wrote
uncompromisingly modern and experimental pieces, like the six string
quartets, pieces he assumed would never catch on with the public. He
would be amazed that today his quartets are as essential to the
repertory as Beethoven's.

Bartok's other pivotal contribution came from his field research
into folk music and indigenous musical traditions of Eastern Europe.
He was an early ethnomusicologist. The music he encountered
fundamentally altered his perceptions as a composer. Sometimes he
more or less transcribed the folk music into suitable pieces for the
concert hall. But in subtler ways he folded unconventional elements
of the indigenous songs, dances and dirges into his own mature
style. Even when he is not explicitly borrowing some folk tune,
Bartok's music is run through with the earthy strangeness of Eastern
European folk music. His example inspired countless composers, from
Lou Harrison to Osvaldo Golijov, to explore folk music and classical
traditions from Asia, South America or wherever their backgrounds
and interests took them.

Also--and maybe this is where my own concerns come into play--
Bartok's role in forging new pathways for music in the early decades
of the 20th century was pivotal. Schoenberg's analysis that the
system of tonality was in crisis was spot on. Yet the solution he
proposed, 12-tone music, while an audacious and exhilarating leap,
appeared as inevitable--that is, the next step in the evolution--
only to Schoenberg and his acolytes.

Bartok showed another way. His arresting harmonic language was an
amalgam of tonality, unorthodox scales, atonal wanderings and more.
Theorists still haven't broken down Bartok's language. But
concertgoers, who don't have such concerns, continue to be swept
away by the originality and mystery of his music. A work like the
Third String Quartet seems as stunningly modern today as it was in
1927. Yet it is a mainstay of the string quartet repertory.

So whom are we missing? Any votes for Shostakovich? Prokofiev?
Messiaen? Ligeti?
number_six
2011-01-16 18:14:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
First Tommasini succumbs to the vice of listmaking (I am not immune),
but then he wants the list to serve a purpose other than that for
which he made it.

He "yearns" to include Britten -- but does he belong? He seems
gratified that adding Stravinsky gives the list more "geographical
diversity." Sheesh -- then add Villa-Lobos if that's what counts.

But my main question for the field has to do with one of Tommasini's
Post by Premise Checker
Bartok showed another way. His arresting harmonic language was an
amalgam of tonality, unorthodox scales, atonal wanderings and more.
Theorists still haven't broken down Bartok's language. But
concertgoers, who don't have such concerns, continue to be swept
away by the originality and mystery of his music. A work like the
Third String Quartet seems as stunningly modern today as it was in
1927. Yet it is a mainstay of the string quartet repertory.
What do others here make of the statement that "theorists still
haven't broken down Bartok's language"? Agree or disagree?
Ray Hall
2011-01-16 18:24:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by number_six
First Tommasini succumbs to the vice of listmaking (I am not immune),
but then he wants the list to serve a purpose other than that for
which he made it.
He "yearns" to include Britten -- but does he belong? He seems
gratified that adding Stravinsky gives the list more "geographical
diversity." Sheesh -- then add Villa-Lobos if that's what counts.
But my main question for the field has to do with one of Tommasini's
Post by Premise Checker
Bartok showed another way. His arresting harmonic language was an
amalgam of tonality, unorthodox scales, atonal wanderings and more.
Theorists still haven't broken down Bartok's language. But
concertgoers, who don't have such concerns, continue to be swept
away by the originality and mystery of his music. A work like the
Third String Quartet seems as stunningly modern today as it was in
1927. Yet it is a mainstay of the string quartet repertory.
What do others here make of the statement that "theorists still
haven't broken down Bartok's language"? Agree or disagree?
Apart from his more popular works, MSPC, CfO, and a few others, I just
do not get his string quartets. I've tried and tried but to no avail.

What theorists reckon is a matter for the musicologists here.

Ray Hall, Taree
M forever
2011-01-16 22:31:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ray Hall
Post by number_six
First Tommasini succumbs to the vice of listmaking (I am not immune),
but then he wants the list to serve a purpose other than that for
which he made it.
He "yearns" to include Britten -- but does he belong?  He seems
gratified that adding Stravinsky gives the list more "geographical
diversity." Sheesh -- then add Villa-Lobos if that's what counts.
But my main question for the field has to do with one of Tommasini's
Post by Premise Checker
Bartok showed another way. His arresting harmonic language was an
amalgam of tonality, unorthodox scales, atonal wanderings and more.
Theorists still haven't broken down Bartok's language. But
concertgoers, who don't have such concerns, continue to be swept
away by the originality and mystery of his music. A work like the
Third String Quartet seems as stunningly modern today as it was in
1927. Yet it is a mainstay of the string quartet repertory.
What do others here make of the statement that "theorists still
haven't broken down Bartok's language"? Agree or disagree?
Apart from his more popular works, MSPC, CfO, and a few others, I just
do not get his string quartets. I've tried and tried but to no avail.
Is that so important? I don't "get" a lot of Messiaen's music but I
find it really fascinating to listen to.
Post by Ray Hall
What theorists reckon is a matter for the musicologists here.
Ray Hall, Taree
Ray Hall
2011-01-17 00:48:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Ray Hall
Post by number_six
First Tommasini succumbs to the vice of listmaking (I am not immune),
but then he wants the list to serve a purpose other than that for
which he made it.
He "yearns" to include Britten -- but does he belong? He seems
gratified that adding Stravinsky gives the list more "geographical
diversity." Sheesh -- then add Villa-Lobos if that's what counts.
But my main question for the field has to do with one of Tommasini's
Post by Premise Checker
Bartok showed another way. His arresting harmonic language was an
amalgam of tonality, unorthodox scales, atonal wanderings and more.
Theorists still haven't broken down Bartok's language. But
concertgoers, who don't have such concerns, continue to be swept
away by the originality and mystery of his music. A work like the
Third String Quartet seems as stunningly modern today as it was in
1927. Yet it is a mainstay of the string quartet repertory.
What do others here make of the statement that "theorists still
haven't broken down Bartok's language"? Agree or disagree?
Apart from his more popular works, MSPC, CfO, and a few others, I just
do not get his string quartets. I've tried and tried but to no avail.
Is that so important? I don't "get" a lot of Messiaen's music but I
find it really fascinating to listen to.
It is important when one doesn't enjoy it, as well as doesn't get it.

Ray Hall, Taree
M forever
2011-01-17 02:08:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ray Hall
Post by M forever
Post by Ray Hall
Post by number_six
First Tommasini succumbs to the vice of listmaking (I am not immune),
but then he wants the list to serve a purpose other than that for
which he made it.
He "yearns" to include Britten -- but does he belong?  He seems
gratified that adding Stravinsky gives the list more "geographical
diversity." Sheesh -- then add Villa-Lobos if that's what counts.
But my main question for the field has to do with one of Tommasini's
Post by Premise Checker
Bartok showed another way. His arresting harmonic language was an
amalgam of tonality, unorthodox scales, atonal wanderings and more.
Theorists still haven't broken down Bartok's language. But
concertgoers, who don't have such concerns, continue to be swept
away by the originality and mystery of his music. A work like the
Third String Quartet seems as stunningly modern today as it was in
1927. Yet it is a mainstay of the string quartet repertory.
What do others here make of the statement that "theorists still
haven't broken down Bartok's language"? Agree or disagree?
Apart from his more popular works, MSPC, CfO, and a few others, I just
do not get his string quartets. I've tried and tried but to no avail.
Is that so important? I don't "get" a lot of Messiaen's music but I
find it really fascinating to listen to.
It is important when one doesn't enjoy it, as well as doesn't get it.
Maybe you don't enjoy the music because you don't get it? Maybe you
aren't open-minded to anything that is beyond your grasp? It certainly
seems so.
Ray Hall
2011-01-17 04:12:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Ray Hall
Post by M forever
Post by Ray Hall
Apart from his more popular works, MSPC, CfO, and a few others, I just
do not get his string quartets. I've tried and tried but to no avail.
Is that so important? I don't "get" a lot of Messiaen's music but I
find it really fascinating to listen to.
It is important when one doesn't enjoy it, as well as doesn't get it.
Maybe you don't enjoy the music because you don't get it?
Then why do you enjoy the music of Messaien, oaf? And do you always
spell the composer's name incorrectly, or were you born dim? Don't
reply, because we all know.

We do know for sure your dim-witted responses to many here, and possibly
your reaction is because you are far too dim to be anything other than
open-minded. Rather a clear case of OSPD and a rampant liar to boot.

Abedd awaits you.

Ray Hall, Taree
Beaver Lad
2011-01-17 04:37:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ray Hall
Post by M forever
Post by Ray Hall
Post by M forever
Post by Ray Hall
Apart from his more popular works, MSPC, CfO, and a few others, I just
do not get his string quartets. I've tried and tried but to no avail.
Is that so important? I don't "get" a lot of Messiaen's music but I
find it really fascinating to listen to.
It is important when one doesn't enjoy it, as well as doesn't get it.
Maybe you don't enjoy the music because you don't get it?
Then why do you enjoy the music of Messaien, oaf? And do you always
spell the composer's name incorrectly, or were you born dim? Don't
reply, because we all know.
We do know for sure your dim-witted responses to many here, and possibly
your reaction is because you are far too dim to be anything other than
open-minded. Rather a clear case of OSPD and a rampant liar to boot.
Abedd awaits you.
Ray Hall, Taree
====================

Mr. Schaffer spelled Messiaen correctly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Messiaen
Kip Williams
2011-01-17 04:45:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Beaver Lad
Mr. Schaffer spelled Messiaen correctly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Messiaen
Whoops! I've been spelling it wrong, I think.

I shall endeavor to correct myself, starting now.


Kip W
M forever
2011-01-17 05:03:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ray Hall
Post by M forever
Post by Ray Hall
Post by M forever
Post by Ray Hall
Apart from his more popular works, MSPC, CfO, and a few others, I just
do not get his string quartets. I've tried and tried but to no avail.
Is that so important? I don't "get" a lot of Messiaen's music but I
find it really fascinating to listen to.
It is important when one doesn't enjoy it, as well as doesn't get it.
Maybe you don't enjoy the music because you don't get it?
Then why do you enjoy the music of Messaien, oaf?
And do you always
spell the composer's name incorrectly, or were you born dim?
I always spell the name of a composer the way he spelled it himself.
Post by Ray Hall
Don't
reply, because we all know.
Indeed I don't have to reply for everyone to see that I spelled
Messiaen right and you spelled his name wrong - "Messaien".

OUUUUUUUUUUCH!

You are so fucking provincial and stupid.

"Messaien"

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

And that's obviously not a typo because you replied to my post and
thought it was spelled wrong.

Apparently you think the name is pronounced somehow like "Messiah-en".

LOL AGAIN
Post by Ray Hall
We do know for sure your dim-witted responses to many here, and possibly
your reaction is because you are far too dim to be anything other than
open-minded. Rather a clear case of OSPD and a rampant liar to boot.
Calling me a liar is apparently the only way you can distract from the
nonsense you wrote in the other thread about how Americans are
responsible for the "bastardized" spelling of Rachmaninoff's name.

And as we can see here, I am very open minded while you just complain
about music you don't "get". Well, you are from Australia so I guess
we have to give you extra points for even knowing those composers
exist, even though you can't spell their names right if they are
longer then 5 or 6 letters.

I like that you call me "oaf" though. That is so quaint, mate.
Post by Ray Hall
Abedd awaits you.
Man, you didn't even get that name right. Not that it matters much. e
is unimportant. And you have so much egg on your face already there is
no space for more.
Post by Ray Hall
Ray Hall, Taree
Ray Hall
2011-01-17 07:51:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Calling me a liar is apparently the only way you can distract from the
nonsense you wrote in the other thread about how Americans are
responsible for the "bastardized" spelling of Rachmaninoff's name.
And as we can see here, I am very open minded
LOL. How cutesy Schaffer.
Post by M forever
while you just complain
about music you don't "get".
Wrong again. I was not complaining.
Post by M forever
I like that you call me "oaf" though. That is so quaint, mate.
I am glad you think so. At least you have now admitted the fact, but
your endless posts over the last few months have already convinced many
here. In fact many of us were convinced years ago.

Ray Hall, Taree
M forever
2011-01-17 07:58:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ray Hall
Post by M forever
Calling me a liar is apparently the only way you can distract from the
nonsense you wrote in the other thread about how Americans are
responsible for the "bastardized" spelling of Rachmaninoff's name.
And as we can see here, I am very open minded
LOL. How cutesy Schaffer.
Post by M forever
while you just complain
about music you don't "get".
Wrong again. I was not complaining.
Post by M forever
I like that you call me "oaf" though. That is so quaint, mate.
I am glad you think so. At least you have now admitted the fact, but
your endless posts over the last few months have already convinced many
here. In fact many of us were convinced years ago.
Funny, you responded positively to many of my recent posts during the
past months because you happened to agree with the political views and
musical contained in them.

I can understand the anger you feel now, but it's not my fault that
you stuck your neck out so far and that so many other posters have
also pointed out how wrong you are. It's really only your own fault.

Just like trying to correct me on how to spell "Messiaen" totally
backfired, too. Again, not my fault.

So how do you actually pronounce "Messiaen"? Something like "MESS-say-
en"?
Ray Hall
2011-01-17 08:07:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Ray Hall
Post by M forever
Calling me a liar is apparently the only way you can distract from the
nonsense you wrote in the other thread about how Americans are
responsible for the "bastardized" spelling of Rachmaninoff's name.
And as we can see here, I am very open minded
LOL. How cutesy Schaffer.
Post by M forever
while you just complain
about music you don't "get".
Wrong again. I was not complaining.
Post by M forever
I like that you call me "oaf" though. That is so quaint, mate.
I am glad you think so. At least you have now admitted the fact, but
your endless posts over the last few months have already convinced many
here. In fact many of us were convinced years ago.
Funny, you responded positively to many of my recent posts during the
past months because you happened to agree with the political views and
musical contained in them.
I can understand the anger you feel now, but it's not my fault that
you stuck your neck out so far and that so many other posters have
also pointed out how wrong you are. It's really only your own fault.
Just like trying to correct me on how to spell "Messiaen" totally
backfired, too. Again, not my fault.
So how do you actually pronounce "Messiaen"? Something like "MESS-say-
en"?
Changing tack to save face Schaffer? Now the dullard has to resort to
pouncing on a spelling mistake. Pathetic !!

Ray Hall, Taree
Beaver Lad
2011-01-17 08:11:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ray Hall
Post by M forever
Post by Ray Hall
Post by M forever
Calling me a liar is apparently the only way you can distract from the
nonsense you wrote in the other thread about how Americans are
responsible for the "bastardized" spelling of Rachmaninoff's name.
And as we can see here, I am very open minded
LOL. How cutesy Schaffer.
Post by M forever
while you just complain
about music you don't "get".
Wrong again. I was not complaining.
Post by M forever
I like that you call me "oaf" though. That is so quaint, mate.
I am glad you think so. At least you have now admitted the fact, but
your endless posts over the last few months have already convinced many
here. In fact many of us were convinced years ago.
Funny, you responded positively to many of my recent posts during the
past months because you happened to agree with the political views and
musical contained in them.
I can understand the anger you feel now, but it's not my fault that
you stuck your neck out so far and that so many other posters have
also pointed out how wrong you are. It's really only your own fault.
Just like trying to correct me on how to spell "Messiaen" totally
backfired, too. Again, not my fault.
So how do you actually pronounce "Messiaen"? Something like "MESS-say-
en"?
Changing tack to save face Schaffer? Now the dullard has to resort to
pouncing on a spelling mistake. Pathetic !!
Ray Hall, Taree
================================

You tried to correct Mr. Schaffer's spelling.

He was correct. You were wrong.

Don't dissemble.

Man up to your mistake.
Ray Hall
2011-01-17 08:33:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Beaver Lad
Post by Ray Hall
Post by M forever
Post by Ray Hall
Post by M forever
Calling me a liar is apparently the only way you can distract from the
nonsense you wrote in the other thread about how Americans are
responsible for the "bastardized" spelling of Rachmaninoff's name.
And as we can see here, I am very open minded
LOL. How cutesy Schaffer.
Post by M forever
while you just complain
about music you don't "get".
Wrong again. I was not complaining.
Post by M forever
I like that you call me "oaf" though. That is so quaint, mate.
I am glad you think so. At least you have now admitted the fact, but
your endless posts over the last few months have already convinced many
here. In fact many of us were convinced years ago.
Funny, you responded positively to many of my recent posts during the
past months because you happened to agree with the political views and
musical contained in them.
I can understand the anger you feel now, but it's not my fault that
you stuck your neck out so far and that so many other posters have
also pointed out how wrong you are. It's really only your own fault.
Just like trying to correct me on how to spell "Messiaen" totally
backfired, too. Again, not my fault.
So how do you actually pronounce "Messiaen"? Something like "MESS-say-
en"?
Changing tack to save face Schaffer? Now the dullard has to resort to
pouncing on a spelling mistake. Pathetic !!
Ray Hall, Taree
================================
You tried to correct Mr. Schaffer's spelling.
He was correct. You were wrong.
Don't dissemble.
Man up to your mistake.
I have already mentioned my spelling mistake. Or maybe you need reading
lessons. As if this mistake was an issue anyway, except for the likes of
Schaffer, and now, obviously, yourself. Anything to distract from the
main issue.

Ray Hall, Taree
Beaver Lad
2011-01-17 08:43:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ray Hall
Post by Beaver Lad
Post by Ray Hall
Post by M forever
Post by Ray Hall
Post by M forever
Calling me a liar is apparently the only way you can distract from the
nonsense you wrote in the other thread about how Americans are
responsible for the "bastardized" spelling of Rachmaninoff's name.
And as we can see here, I am very open minded
LOL. How cutesy Schaffer.
Post by M forever
while you just complain
about music you don't "get".
Wrong again. I was not complaining.
Post by M forever
I like that you call me "oaf" though. That is so quaint, mate.
I am glad you think so. At least you have now admitted the fact, but
your endless posts over the last few months have already convinced many
here. In fact many of us were convinced years ago.
Funny, you responded positively to many of my recent posts during the
past months because you happened to agree with the political views and
musical contained in them.
I can understand the anger you feel now, but it's not my fault that
you stuck your neck out so far and that so many other posters have
also pointed out how wrong you are. It's really only your own fault.
Just like trying to correct me on how to spell "Messiaen" totally
backfired, too. Again, not my fault.
So how do you actually pronounce "Messiaen"? Something like "MESS-say-
en"?
Changing tack to save face Schaffer? Now the dullard has to resort to
pouncing on a spelling mistake. Pathetic !!
Ray Hall, Taree
================================
You tried to correct Mr. Schaffer's spelling.
He was correct. You were wrong.
Don't dissemble.
Man up to your mistake.
I have already mentioned my spelling mistake. Or maybe you need reading
lessons. As if this mistake was an issue anyway, except for the likes of
Schaffer, and now, obviously, yourself. Anything to distract from the
main issue.
Ray Hall, Taree
======================

You're still dissembling.

And please, no lame "reading lessons" remarks. All the holes in your
feet have come from your very own bullets.

And about the main issue -- you are wrong.

It is "Rachmaninoff".
M forever
2011-01-17 08:45:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ray Hall
Post by Beaver Lad
Post by Ray Hall
Post by M forever
Post by Ray Hall
Post by M forever
Calling me a liar is apparently the only way you can distract from the
nonsense you wrote in the other thread about how Americans are
responsible for the "bastardized" spelling of Rachmaninoff's name.
And as we can see here, I am very open minded
LOL. How cutesy Schaffer.
Post by M forever
while you just complain
about music you don't "get".
Wrong again. I was not complaining.
Post by M forever
I like that you call me "oaf" though. That is so quaint, mate.
I am glad you think so. At least you have now admitted the fact, but
your endless posts over the last few months have already convinced many
here. In fact many of us were convinced years ago.
Funny, you responded positively to many of my recent posts during the
past months because you happened to agree with the political views and
musical contained in them.
I can understand the anger you feel now, but it's not my fault that
you stuck your neck out so far and that so many other posters have
also pointed out how wrong you are. It's really only your own fault.
Just like trying to correct me on how to spell "Messiaen" totally
backfired, too. Again, not my fault.
So how do you actually pronounce "Messiaen"? Something like "MESS-say-
en"?
Changing tack to save face Schaffer? Now the dullard has to resort to
pouncing on a spelling mistake. Pathetic !!
Ray Hall, Taree
================================
You tried to correct Mr. Schaffer's spelling.
He was correct. You were wrong.
Don't dissemble.
Man up to your mistake.
I have already mentioned my spelling mistake.
How did you "mention" that? By making it yourself and acting like a
complete idiot at the same time?

"Then why do you enjoy the music of Messaien, oaf? And do you always
spell the composer's name incorrectly, or were you born dim?"
Post by Ray Hall
Or maybe you need reading
lessons. As if this mistake was an issue anyway, except for the likes of
Schaffer, and now, obviously, yourself. Anything to distract from the
main issue.
Which was, obviously, what you attempted to do. With very embarrassing
consequences.
M forever
2011-01-17 08:17:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ray Hall
Post by M forever
Post by Ray Hall
Post by M forever
Calling me a liar is apparently the only way you can distract from the
nonsense you wrote in the other thread about how Americans are
responsible for the "bastardized" spelling of Rachmaninoff's name.
And as we can see here, I am very open minded
LOL. How cutesy Schaffer.
Post by M forever
while you just complain
about music you don't "get".
Wrong again. I was not complaining.
Post by M forever
I like that you call me "oaf" though. That is so quaint, mate.
I am glad you think so. At least you have now admitted the fact, but
your endless posts over the last few months have already convinced many
here. In fact many of us were convinced years ago.
Funny, you responded positively to many of my recent posts during the
past months because you happened to agree with the political views and
musical contained in them.
I can understand the anger you feel now, but it's not my fault that
you stuck your neck out so far and that so many other posters have
also pointed out how wrong you are. It's really only your own fault.
Just like trying to correct me on how to spell "Messiaen" totally
backfired, too. Again, not my fault.
So how do you actually pronounce "Messiaen"? Something like "MESS-say-
en"?
Changing tack to save face Schaffer? Now the dullard has to resort to
pouncing on a spelling mistake. Pathetic !!
No, YOU wanted to POUNCE on a spelling mistake.

And YOU scored an embarrassing own goal by doing so.

Are you THAT FUCKING STUPID that you don't realize anyone can still
read your post? In fact, someone else already commented on that.

So by your own definition, you are a pathetic dullard.

Seriously, how stupid can you get by trying to put someone down for
something YOU DID YOURSELF?
Peter T. Daniels
2011-01-17 14:16:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
I always spell the name of a composer the way he spelled it himself.
Oh, yeah? How do you spell the name of the German-English composer of
operas and oratorios who lived from 1685 to 1759?

How do you spell the name of Takemitsu or Yoshimatsu?
Kip Williams
2011-01-17 16:32:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by M forever
I always spell the name of a composer the way he spelled it himself.
Oh, yeah? How do you spell the name of the German-English composer of
operas and oratorios who lived from 1685 to 1759?
How do you spell the name of Takemitsu or Yoshimatsu?
Or (to continue this line) Archie Leach, Bernard Schwartz, or William
Henry Pratt?


Kip W
O
2011-01-17 17:17:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by M forever
I always spell the name of a composer the way he spelled it himself.
Oh, yeah? How do you spell the name of the German-English composer of
operas and oratorios who lived from 1685 to 1759?
How do you spell the name of Takemitsu or Yoshimatsu?
Or (to continue this line) Archie Leach, Bernard Schwartz, or William
Henry Pratt?
She'll always be Norma Jean to me.

-Owen
M forever
2011-01-17 19:32:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by M forever
I always spell the name of a composer the way he spelled it himself.
Oh, yeah? How do you spell the name of the German-English composer of
operas and oratorios who lived from 1685 to 1759?
Interestingly, Handel/Händel used both versions of his name even in
later life when he was already in England. He sometimes even used the
version Händel with the English forms of his first names. In this
case, I think both versions are OK because he used both of them
himself. One could say the most exact usage should be chosen according
to the context. But I don't think it's that critical because he
himself used both.
In Rachmaninoff's case, there is no alternative because he always used
one form of his name.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
How do you spell the name of Takemitsu or Yoshimatsu?
Lame trick question. Unfortunately for you, I do know there are
several ways to transliterate to long O in Takemitsu's first name. If
I was to use his name in an article or book, I would find out which
one he preferred. His publisher Schott apparently just spells him Toru
Takemitsu without worrying about the long O. But if someone presented
me evidence that he preferred a certain version of his name, as I
presented much evidence for Rachmaninoff's preference, I would accept
it without such a big fuss as Hall and other ignorants made here to
ignore the evidence.
Peter T. Daniels
2011-01-17 23:28:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by M forever
I always spell the name of a composer the way he spelled it himself.
Oh, yeah? How do you spell the name of the German-English composer of
operas and oratorios who lived from 1685 to 1759?
Interestingly, Handel/Händel used both versions of his name even in
later life when he was already in England. He sometimes even used the
version Händel with the English forms of his first names. In this
case, I think both versions are OK because he used both of them
himself. One could say the most exact usage should be chosen according
to the context. But I don't think it's that critical because he
himself used both.
He used Hendel. Was he "wrong"?

Next question. What is Liszt's first name?
Post by M forever
In Rachmaninoff's case, there is no alternative because he always used
one form of his name.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
How do you spell the name of Takemitsu or Yoshimatsu?
Lame trick question. Unfortunately for you, I do know there are
several ways to transliterate to long O in Takemitsu's first name. If
I was to use his name in an article or book, I would find out which
one he preferred. His publisher Schott apparently just spells him Toru
Takemitsu without worrying about the long O. But if someone presented
me evidence that he preferred a certain version of his name, as I
presented much evidence for Rachmaninoff's preference, I would accept
it without such a big fuss as Hall and other ignorants made here to
ignore the evidence.
WRONG. If you insist on "spelling composers' names the way they do,"
then you need to use kanji and kana.
M forever
2011-01-18 00:21:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by M forever
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by M forever
I always spell the name of a composer the way he spelled it himself.
Oh, yeah? How do you spell the name of the German-English composer of
operas and oratorios who lived from 1685 to 1759?
Interestingly, Handel/Händel used both versions of his name even in
later life when he was already in England. He sometimes even used the
version Händel with the English forms of his first names. In this
case, I think both versions are OK because he used both of them
himself. One could say the most exact usage should be chosen according
to the context. But I don't think it's that critical because he
himself used both.
He used Hendel. Was he "wrong"?
I haven't seen examples for "Hendel". People were often lax about
orthography back then, and sometimes also spelled their own names in
varying ways, but I have only seen contemporary examples of Handel or
Händel. Those versions seem to be the overwhelming usage of the name
by him himself and his associates.

That's still not a good comparison for the Rachmaninoff thing though.
Rachmaninoff never used a different version of his name in our
alphabet.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Next question. What is Liszt's first name?
Good question. One would assume it was originally Ferencz but then his
parents were both German speakers so it may have been Franz from the
beginning. His father apparently didn't spell his last name Liszt
either.
Later he was officially Franz Ritter von Liszt for a while, but I
think he renounced that title. I wouldn't be surprised if he also
referred to his first name in the French version at times as he
enjoyed conversing and writing in French. But I don't know what the
"official" story is. I am not very familiar with his biography.

Maybe you can shed more light on this! That would be interesting.

Still doesn't have much to do with the Rachmaninoff thing though. So
what's your point here? That it can be very different and tricky in
individual cases? We already knew that. It's very simple in
Rachmaninoff's case though. For good and solid historical reasons.
You with your background should understand that better than anyone
else. And I am sure you do know how sometimes, a certain historical
context is reflected in transliterations. And sometimes not. In the
former case, it matters. In the latter case, obviously not.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by M forever
In Rachmaninoff's case, there is no alternative because he always used
one form of his name.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
How do you spell the name of Takemitsu or Yoshimatsu?
Lame trick question. Unfortunately for you, I do know there are
several ways to transliterate to long O in Takemitsu's first name. If
I was to use his name in an article or book, I would find out which
one he preferred. His publisher Schott apparently just spells him Toru
Takemitsu without worrying about the long O. But if someone presented
me evidence that he preferred a certain version of his name, as I
presented much evidence for Rachmaninoff's preference, I would accept
it without such a big fuss as Hall and other ignorants made here to
ignore the evidence.
WRONG. If you insist on "spelling composers' names the way they do,"
then you need to use kanji and kana.
WRONG!!!

What an incredibly clever "gotcha"! Too bad it totally backfires on
you.

Unfortunately, the context made it very, very clear that I was talking
about how those names should be transliterated into the Latin alphabet
for use in the West.
In that case, if an "authorized transliteration" is available, that
choice should be respected, too.
In their own script, the question usually doesn't come up unless the
composer migrates into a different culture/language area using the
same script, like Handel did, or Liszt.

In the current context, it never was a question of how Rachmaninoff's
name is spelled in Cyrillic either. The whole discussion revolved
around how it should be *transliterated*.


Unfortunately, you totally shot yourself in the foot here by saying
Takemitsu's and Yoshimatsu's names are "spelled" in kanji and kana in
Japanese.

WRONG!!!

They are written only in KANJI - not in KANA. Katakana are only used
to spell foreign words and names. Both composers write their own names
completely in KANJI only. Sometimes, furigana are used to clarify the
reading of kanji, but typically not in proper names.

I don't think the term "spelling" is a correct term in connection with
writing in kanji anyway. Kana, yes, but kanji? That would be
interesting to know more about. Unfortunately, after you embarrassed
yourself in this way, I can not trust you to shed more light on this.
But I can google it, I guess.

Now that is an extremely embarrassing failed attempt to take a cheap
shot by an alleged expert in writing systems. Anybody else could be
completely forgiven for making that mistake. But not you. You really
are an amazingly crappy scholar. No wonder you don't have any relevant
publications of your own and no university job. So no wonder you shoot
your mouth off about subjects you have no clue about. You even make
such blatant errors in your own field.
That is really, really bad.

Dunno if kanji and kana are supported by this format, but here is a
nice Japanese proverb for you, with some nice kanji and hiragana:

馬鹿につける薬もない
Peter T. Daniels
2011-01-18 06:21:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by M forever
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by M forever
I always spell the name of a composer the way he spelled it himself.
Oh, yeah? How do you spell the name of the German-English composer of
operas and oratorios who lived from 1685 to 1759?
Interestingly, Handel/Händel used both versions of his name even in
later life when he was already in England. He sometimes even used the
version Händel with the English forms of his first names. In this
case, I think both versions are OK because he used both of them
himself. One could say the most exact usage should be chosen according
to the context. But I don't think it's that critical because he
himself used both.
He used Hendel. Was he "wrong"?
I haven't seen examples for "Hendel". People were often lax about
orthography back then, and sometimes also spelled their own names in
varying ways, but I have only seen contemporary examples of Handel or
Händel. Those versions seem to be the overwhelming usage of the name
by him himself and his associates.
That's still not a good comparison for the Rachmaninoff thing though.
Rachmaninoff never used a different version of his name in our
alphabet.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Next question. What is Liszt's first name?
Good question. One would assume it was originally Ferencz but then his
parents were both German speakers so it may have been Franz from the
beginning. His father apparently didn't spell his last name Liszt
either.
Later he was officially Franz Ritter von Liszt for a while, but I
think he renounced that title. I wouldn't be surprised if he also
referred to his first name in the French version at times as he
enjoyed conversing and writing in French. But I don't know what the
"official" story is. I am not very familiar with his biography.
Maybe you can shed more light on this! That would be interesting.
According to Alan Walker's three-volume biography, Liszt NEVER signed
his name as anything but "F. Liszt." (Which, BTW, is what Victor Borge
called him: Flist.)

He is also, probably, for the reasons you noted, one of those people
who has a foreign accent in _every_ language they speak: raised in
Germanophone Hungary but lived in Paris from about age 12, i.e.
probably too late not to have a German accent in French.
Post by M forever
Still doesn't have much to do with the Rachmaninoff thing though. So
Really? You claim to spell people's names as they themselves spell
them.
Post by M forever
what's your point here? That it can be very different and tricky in
individual cases? We already knew that. It's very simple in
Rachmaninoff's case though. For good and solid historical reasons.
You with your background should understand that better than anyone
else. And I am sure you do know how sometimes, a certain historical
context is reflected in transliterations. And sometimes not. In the
former case, it matters. In the latter case, obviously not.
Transliterations are consistent for a wide variety of reasons.
Post by M forever
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by M forever
In Rachmaninoff's case, there is no alternative because he always used
one form of his name.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
How do you spell the name of Takemitsu or Yoshimatsu?
Lame trick question. Unfortunately for you, I do know there are
several ways to transliterate to long O in Takemitsu's first name. If
I was to use his name in an article or book, I would find out which
one he preferred. His publisher Schott apparently just spells him Toru
Takemitsu without worrying about the long O. But if someone presented
me evidence that he preferred a certain version of his name, as I
presented much evidence for Rachmaninoff's preference, I would accept
it without such a big fuss as Hall and other ignorants made here to
ignore the evidence.
WRONG. If you insist on "spelling composers' names the way they do,"
then you need to use kanji and kana.
WRONG!!!
What an incredibly clever "gotcha"! Too bad it totally backfires on
you.
Unfortunately, the context made it very, very clear that I was talking
about how those names should be transliterated into the Latin alphabet
for use in the West.
Unfortunately, it did no such thing.
Post by M forever
In that case, if an "authorized transliteration" is available, that
choice should be respected, too.
In their own script, the question usually doesn't come up unless the
composer migrates into a different culture/language area using the
same script, like Handel did, or Liszt.
In the current context, it never was a question of how Rachmaninoff's
name is spelled in Cyrillic either. The whole discussion revolved
around how it should be *transliterated*.
Unfortunately, it didn't.
Post by M forever
Unfortunately, you totally shot yourself in the foot here by saying
Takemitsu's and Yoshimatsu's names are "spelled" in kanji and kana in
Japanese.
WRONG!!!
They are written only in KANJI - not in KANA. Katakana are only used
to spell foreign words and names. Both composers write their own names
completely in KANJI only. Sometimes, furigana are used to clarify the
reading of kanji, but typically not in proper names.
And where did you learn about Japanese orthograpy?
Post by M forever
I don't think the term "spelling" is a correct term in connection with
writing in kanji anyway. Kana, yes, but kanji? That would be
interesting to know more about. Unfortunately, after you embarrassed
yourself in this way, I can not trust you to shed more light on this.
But I can google it, I guess.
Now that is an extremely embarrassing failed attempt to take a cheap
shot by an alleged expert in writing systems. Anybody else could be
completely forgiven for making that mistake. But not you. You really
are an amazingly crappy scholar. No wonder you don't have any relevant
publications of your own and no university job. So no wonder you shoot
your mouth off about subjects you have no clue about. You even make
such blatant errors in your own field.
That is really, really bad.
Dunno if kanji and kana are supported by this format, but here is a
馬鹿につける薬もない-
And what do you think it means?
Ray Hall
2011-01-18 02:26:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
M forever wrote:
as I
Post by M forever
presented much evidence for Rachmaninoff's preference, I would accept
it without such a big fuss as Hall and other ignorants made here to
ignore the evidence.
You presented zero evidence that wasn't already known by even the lamest
here, of which you are a strong candidate. Still smarting over the fact
that you are wrong? Never mind Schaffer, I expect you get these feelings
often. Even with the paltry evidence which even your flying dog knew
about, was presented in repeated fashion. As if a drab oaf such as
yourself give's a rat's arse about Rachmaninov's posthumous honour, or
the honour of anybody.

Still, I fully expect your job as a janitor allows you some time off. I
therefore have some more links for you to peruse, and please don't give
any more lame excuses about them being amateur links.

Enjoy them.


http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/special/?ID=grimaud-recital

http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=57186&source=CLOFO

http://www.rhapsody.com/lang-lang/rachmaninov-piano-concerto-no2-rhapsody-on-a-theme-of-paganini

http://www.abc.net.au/classic/daily/stories/s1534657.htm

http://www.philharmonia.co.uk/concerts/31jan09/

http://www.karajan.co.uk/laser.html

http://universalmusic.net.au/musicpages/feb05/classicscatalogue.html

http://argerich.org/Chrono.htm

http://www.musicalheritage.com/product/Steinway-Legends-Vladimir-Horowitz/5286293

http://www.emiclassics.com/releaseabout.php?rid=50158

http://lugansky.homestead.com/Discography.html

http://www.andromeda.at/mus/ric/art_e.shtml

.....

We will end this little excursion now, for your sake. Of course you will
be in denial, but the only fact that you have to deal with now is how to
live down being such a fool and a clod. Happy listening.

Ray Hall, Taree
Kip Williams
2011-01-18 02:43:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ray Hall
We will end this little excursion now, for your sake. Of course you will
be in denial, but the only fact that you have to deal with now is how to
live down being such a fool and a clod. Happy listening.
Lucky for Rachmaninoff that he died before you could tell him how wrong
he was to think that he could decide how his own name was to be spelled.


Kip W
Beaver Lad
2011-01-18 02:44:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Ray Hall
We will end this little excursion now, for your sake. Of course you will
be in denial, but the only fact that you have to deal with now is how to
live down being such a fool and a clod. Happy listening.
Lucky for Rachmaninoff that he died before you could tell him how wrong
he was to think that he could decide how his own name was to be spelled.
Kip W
===============

Chuckle du jour!
Matthew B. Tepper
2011-01-18 03:32:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Ray Hall
We will end this little excursion now, for your sake. Of course you will
be in denial, but the only fact that you have to deal with now is how to
live down being such a fool and a clod. Happy listening.
Lucky for Rachmaninoff that he died before you could tell him how wrong
he was to think that he could decide how his own name was to be spelled.
As one might read on Facebook, Matthew B. Tepper likes this.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
***** War is Peace **** Freedom is Slavery **** Fox is News *****
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Bob Harper
2011-01-18 07:33:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Ray Hall
We will end this little excursion now, for your sake. Of course you will
be in denial, but the only fact that you have to deal with now is how to
live down being such a fool and a clod. Happy listening.
Lucky for Rachmaninoff that he died before you could tell him how wrong
he was to think that he could decide how his own name was to be spelled.
As one might read on Facebook, Matthew B. Tepper likes this.
Dittos.

Bob Harper
Matthew B. Tepper
2011-01-18 15:23:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Ray Hall
We will end this little excursion now, for your sake. Of course you
will be in denial, but the only fact that you have to deal with now
is how to live down being such a fool and a clod. Happy listening.
Lucky for Rachmaninoff that he died before you could tell him how
wrong he was to think that he could decide how his own name was to be
spelled.
As one might read on Facebook, Matthew B. Tepper likes this.
Dittos.
If that's a reference to what I think it is, bleah.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Bob Harper
2011-01-18 22:53:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 1/18/11 7:23 AM, Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
(snip)
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
As one might read on Facebook, Matthew B. Tepper likes this.
Dittos.
If that's a reference to what I think it is, bleah.
Oh, come on, Matthew, have a sense of humor :)

And just to sow a little more confusions:
I have a recording on Berlin Classics which contains Kyrill
Kondraschin's performance of the First Symphony of one 'Prokofjew'.

DG413 363-2 contains performances by Ivo Pogorelich of works by Ravel
and Prokofiev (on the front), and Ravel and Prokofieff (on the back).
Oddly enough, there are only two works on the disc.

Looking through the R discs I have (around 20), the following use -ff:
Ormandy's Sony recording of the Symphonies, the Kiril Kondrashin (same
guy?) disc on RCA Gold Seal of the Symphonic Dances and The Bells, the
Argerich disc on Phillips of the 3rd Concerto (coupled with the
Tchaikovsky (sic) 1st Concerto conducted by Kirill
Kondrashin--apparently the same guy under yet another nom de
transliteration, and the Byron Janis disc (RCA LS) of Concertos 1 and 3.
All the rest are -ov, including the Ormandy/PO disc of the Symphonic
Dances on Sony.

And I won't even begin to try to parse the 11 CD box of the orchestral
music of someone named Tsjaikovski, all played by some group called the
Koninklijk Concertgebouworkest.

Bob Harper
Ray Hall
2011-01-18 13:41:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Ray Hall
We will end this little excursion now, for your sake. Of course you will
be in denial, but the only fact that you have to deal with now is how to
live down being such a fool and a clod. Happy listening.
Lucky for Rachmaninoff that he died before you could tell him how wrong
he was to think that he could decide how his own name was to be spelled.
I am quite prepared to let you use whatever spelling you want. But the
reality is that you honour his memory infinitely less by not using his
official English transliterated name. Simple as. What I object to is
being told I am wrong when clearly, as my links tell, I am not. Nor is
the Rachmaninov 'industry' at large.

But use whatever whim you decide upon. Feel free.

Ray Hall, Taree
Kevin N
2011-01-18 14:23:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ray Hall
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Ray Hall
We will end this little excursion now, for your sake. Of course you will
be in denial, but the only fact that you have to deal with now is how to
live down being such a fool and a clod. Happy listening.
Lucky for Rachmaninoff that he died before you could tell him how wrong
he was to think that he could decide how his own name was to be spelled.
I am quite prepared to let you use whatever spelling you want. But the
reality is that you honour his memory infinitely less by not using his
official English transliterated name. Simple as. What I object to is
being told I am wrong when clearly, as my links tell, I am not. Nor is
the Rachmaninov 'industry' at large.
But use whatever whim you decide upon. Feel free.
Ray Hall, Taree
You really should consider a career as a stand up comedian, Ray!
Ray Hall
2011-01-18 14:30:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevin N
Post by Ray Hall
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Ray Hall
We will end this little excursion now, for your sake. Of course you will
be in denial, but the only fact that you have to deal with now is how to
live down being such a fool and a clod. Happy listening.
Lucky for Rachmaninoff that he died before you could tell him how wrong
he was to think that he could decide how his own name was to be spelled.
I am quite prepared to let you use whatever spelling you want. But the
reality is that you honour his memory infinitely less by not using his
official English transliterated name. Simple as. What I object to is
being told I am wrong when clearly, as my links tell, I am not. Nor is
the Rachmaninov 'industry' at large.
But use whatever whim you decide upon. Feel free.
Ray Hall, Taree
You really should consider a career as a stand up comedian, Ray!
Thye rest of you galahs certainly prove the butt of the jokes. Why not
read and digest the many links provided. And then open your mouth. You
are simply in denial.

Even so, M has proved the largest clod here. By far.

Clowns the lot of you.

Ray Hall, Taree
John Wiser
2011-01-18 15:03:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ray Hall
Post by Kevin N
Post by Ray Hall
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Ray Hall
We will end this little excursion now, for your sake. Of course you will
be in denial, but the only fact that you have to deal with now is how to
live down being such a fool and a clod. Happy listening.
Lucky for Rachmaninoff that he died before you could tell him how wrong
he was to think that he could decide how his own name was to be spelled.
I am quite prepared to let you use whatever spelling you want. But the
reality is that you honour his memory infinitely less by not using his
official English transliterated name. Simple as. What I object to is
being told I am wrong when clearly, as my links tell, I am not. Nor is
the Rachmaninov 'industry' at large.
But use whatever whim you decide upon. Feel free.
Ray Hall, Taree
You really should consider a career as a stand up comedian, Ray!
Thye rest of you galahs certainly prove the butt of the jokes. Why not
read and digest the many links provided. And then open your mouth. You are
simply in denial.
Even so, M has proved the largest clod here. By far.
Clowns the lot of you.
Ray Hall, Taree
Because Ray is an Old Australian, it is fitting that he should use "galah,"
which is an Old Australian word. It denotes a loudmouthed idiot.
In our lamentably less pungent and resourceful American lexicon
the nearest equivalent I suppose would be "turkey."

JDW
Ray Hall
2011-01-18 15:15:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Wiser
Post by Ray Hall
Post by Kevin N
Post by Ray Hall
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Ray Hall
We will end this little excursion now, for your sake. Of course you will
be in denial, but the only fact that you have to deal with now is how to
live down being such a fool and a clod. Happy listening.
Lucky for Rachmaninoff that he died before you could tell him how wrong
he was to think that he could decide how his own name was to be spelled.
I am quite prepared to let you use whatever spelling you want. But the
reality is that you honour his memory infinitely less by not using his
official English transliterated name. Simple as. What I object to is
being told I am wrong when clearly, as my links tell, I am not. Nor is
the Rachmaninov 'industry' at large.
But use whatever whim you decide upon. Feel free.
Ray Hall, Taree
You really should consider a career as a stand up comedian, Ray!
Thye rest of you galahs certainly prove the butt of the jokes. Why not
read and digest the many links provided. And then open your mouth. You
are simply in denial.
Even so, M has proved the largest clod here. By far.
Clowns the lot of you.
Ray Hall, Taree
Because Ray is an Old Australian, it is fitting that he should use "galah,"
which is an Old Australian word. It denotes a loudmouthed idiot.
In our lamentably less pungent and resourceful American lexicon
the nearest equivalent I suppose would be "turkey."
JDW
Another turkey in total denial of the reality. I know it hurts to be
confronted with the facts, and to have to face the facts, and have to
accept you are incorrect, but you lot shouldn't take it so hard. A new
dawn begins tomorrow.

Have fun defacing your Rachmaninov collection.

Ray Hall, Taree
Kip Williams
2011-01-18 15:34:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Wiser
Post by Ray Hall
Thye rest of you galahs certainly prove the butt of the jokes.
Because Ray is an Old Australian, it is fitting that he should use "galah,"
which is an Old Australian word. It denotes a loudmouthed idiot.
According to Wikipedia (which is online and therefore correct),

The term galah is derived from gilaa, a word found in
Yuwaalaraay and neighbouring Aboriginal languages.

Someone needs to lecture those Aborigines on the proper use of language.
"The word is galah now, you idiot! Don't you use Google?"


Kip W
Matthew B. Tepper
2011-01-18 16:57:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kip Williams
Post by John Wiser
Post by Ray Hall
Thye rest of you galahs certainly prove the butt of the jokes.
Because Ray is an Old Australian, it is fitting that he should use
"galah," which is an Old Australian word. It denotes a loudmouthed
idiot.
According to Wikipedia (which is online and therefore correct),
The term galah is derived from gilaa, a word found in
Yuwaalaraay and neighbouring Aboriginal languages.
Someone needs to lecture those Aborigines on the proper use of language.
"The word is galah now, you idiot! Don't you use Google?"
I wonder if Ray is familiar with the term "fogey"?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Matthew B. Tepper
2011-01-18 15:23:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Kevin N <***@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters to
be typed in news:50f49e79-fc30-44ac-880f-cec2de1dc423
Post by Kevin N
You really should consider a career as a stand up comedian, Ray!
Or as one of those people who writes up his experiences with UFOs and
flouridation on a single sheet of paper in big block letters, makes lots of
photocopies at a library, and posts them on utility poles across town.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Beaver Lad
2011-01-18 15:34:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
be typed in news:50f49e79-fc30-44ac-880f-cec2de1dc423
Post by Kevin N
You really should consider a career as a stand up comedian, Ray!
Or as one of those people who writes up his experiences with UFOs and
flouridation on a single sheet of paper in big block letters, makes lots of
photocopies at a library, and posts them on utility poles across town.
========================

First laugh of the day!
Matthew B. Tepper
2011-01-18 16:57:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Beaver Lad
letters to be typed in news:50f49e79-fc30-44ac-880f-cec2de1dc423
Post by Kevin N
You really should consider a career as a stand up comedian, Ray!
Or as one of those people who writes up his experiences with UFOs and
flouridation on a single sheet of paper in big block letters, makes
lots of photocopies at a library, and posts them on utility poles
across town.
========================
First laugh of the day!
[bow]
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Steven Bornfeld
2011-01-18 17:06:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
be typed in news:50f49e79-fc30-44ac-880f-cec2de1dc423
Post by Kevin N
You really should consider a career as a stand up comedian, Ray!
Or as one of those people who writes up his experiences with UFOs and
flouridation
Sounds very messy.

Steve


on a single sheet of paper in big block letters, makes lots of
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
photocopies at a library, and posts them on utility poles across town.
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Matthew B. Tepper
2011-01-18 20:16:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
letters to be typed in news:50f49e79-fc30-44ac-880f-cec2de1dc423
Post by Kevin N
You really should consider a career as a stand up comedian, Ray!
Or as one of those people who writes up his experiences with UFOs and
flouridation
Sounds very messy.
Steve
on a single sheet of paper in big block letters, makes lots of
photocopies at a library, and posts them on utility poles across town.
Or even *fluoridation*, Doctor Bornfeld.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Steven Bornfeld
2011-01-20 02:02:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Or even *fluoridation*, Doctor Bornfeld.
Heh heh!

S.
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Kip Williams
2011-01-18 15:21:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ray Hall
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Ray Hall
We will end this little excursion now, for your sake. Of course you will
be in denial, but the only fact that you have to deal with now is how to
live down being such a fool and a clod. Happy listening.
Lucky for Rachmaninoff that he died before you could tell him how wrong
he was to think that he could decide how his own name was to be spelled.
I am quite prepared to let you use whatever spelling you want. But the
reality is that you honour his memory infinitely less by not using his
official English transliterated name. Simple as. What I object to is
being told I am wrong when clearly, as my links tell, I am not. Nor is
the Rachmaninov 'industry' at large.
Official? The name he had his name changed to wasn't official? It wasn't
official when he used it for the rest of his life? When his record label
honors his wishes by using it?
Post by Ray Hall
But use whatever whim you decide upon. Feel free.
Yeah, honoring his stated desire is a whim. Woo! Have fun with your
links. Give my regards to Racmaninov:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=racmaninov#hl=en&safe=off&pwst=1&sa=X&ei=B681TeCGGMT48Ablgo2DCQ&ved=0CBwQvgUoAA&q=racmaninov&nfpr=1&fp=ee5b8d49ec6ea034

and Rakmaninov:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=racmaninov#hl=en&safe=off&pwst=1&sa=X&ei=Pq81Tcz9HoP58Abk-fy6CA&ved=0CBwQvgUoAA&q=rakmaninov&nfpr=1&fp=ee5b8d49ec6ea034

and Rakhmaninov:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=racmaninov#hl=en&safe=off&pwst=1&sa=X&ei=aK81TZSrJ4P68AbrtZGcCQ&ved=0CBwQvgUoAA&q=rakhmaninov&nfpr=1&fp=ee5b8d49ec6ea034

and Rakhmaninoff:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=racmaninov#hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&ei=tq81TcmiMoyr8AbP5vC7CA&ved=0CCAQvgUoAA&q=rakhmaninoff&nfpr=1&fp=ee5b8d49ec6ea034

and Racmaninoff:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=racmaninov#hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&ei=3K81TaGeE8Sp8Ab_h_WJCQ&ved=0CCAQvgUoAA&q=racmaninoff&nfpr=1&fp=ee5b8d49ec6ea034

They all get hits from Google! They must all be right.

Who knows? Maybe next year one of those will be "the" spelling you're
insisting on. It's a simple standard, I guess: "anything but what the
composer wanted."


Kip W
Ray Hall
2011-01-18 15:30:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kip Williams
They all get hits from Google! They must all be right.
Why not try reading them instead of acting all hurt.

Ray Hall, Taree
Kip Williams
2011-01-18 15:38:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ray Hall
Post by Kip Williams
They all get hits from Google! They must all be right.
Why not try reading them instead of acting all hurt.
You see much that is hidden, Ray.

I take this projection as a cry for help. Go comfort yourself by
listening to some songs (the popular term) on iTunes. The non-classical
ones are way more popular, so they're sure to be better.


Kip W
John Wiser
2011-01-18 15:43:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Ray Hall
Post by Kip Williams
They all get hits from Google! They must all be right.
Why not try reading them instead of acting all hurt.
You see much that is hidden, Ray.
I take this projection as a cry for help. Go comfort yourself by listening
to some songs (the popular term) on iTunes. The non-classical ones are way
more popular, so they're sure to be better.
I suspect that Ray's combativeness has its origins in the same place as
Deacon's snottiness, from being half in the bag at inappropriate times of
day. It really does raise Hell with one's judgement.

JDW
Beaver Lad
2011-01-18 16:00:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Wiser
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Ray Hall
Post by Kip Williams
They all get hits from Google! They must all be right.
Why not try reading them instead of acting all hurt.
You see much that is hidden, Ray.
I take this projection as a cry for help. Go comfort yourself by listening
to some songs (the popular term) on iTunes. The non-classical ones are way
more popular, so they're sure to be better.
I suspect that Ray's combativeness has its origins in the same place as
Deacon's snottiness, from being half in the bag at inappropriate times of
day. It really does raise Hell with one's judgement.
JDW
=======================================

So I'm not alone in detecting a whiff of Foster's Lager.
John Wiser
2011-01-18 16:28:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Beaver Lad
Post by John Wiser
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Ray Hall
Post by Kip Williams
They all get hits from Google! They must all be right.
Why not try reading them instead of acting all hurt.
You see much that is hidden, Ray.
I take this projection as a cry for help. Go comfort yourself by listening
to some songs (the popular term) on iTunes. The non-classical ones are way
more popular, so they're sure to be better.
I suspect that Ray's combativeness has its origins in the same place as
Deacon's snottiness, from being half in the bag at inappropriate times of
day. It really does raise Hell with one's judgement.
JDW
=======================================
So I'm not alone in detecting a whiff of Foster's Lager.
In TeDious's case it is more likely to be vinous than beerous.
Say, a recent vintage of Eagle Tree Muscat.

JDW
Ray Hall
2011-01-18 19:52:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Wiser
Post by Beaver Lad
Post by Ray Hall
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Ray Hall
Post by Kip Williams
They all get hits from Google! They must all be right.
Why not try reading them instead of acting all hurt.
You see much that is hidden, Ray.
I take this projection as a cry for help. Go comfort yourself by >
listening
Post by Kip Williams
to some songs (the popular term) on iTunes. The non-classical ones
are > way
Post by Kip Williams
more popular, so they're sure to be better.
I suspect that Ray's combativeness has its origins in the same place as
Deacon's snottiness, from being half in the bag at inappropriate times of
day. It really does raise Hell with one's judgement.
JDW
=======================================
So I'm not alone in detecting a whiff of Foster's Lager.
In TeDious's case it is more likely to be vinous than beerous.
Say, a recent vintage of Eagle Tree Muscat.
JDW
More a case of too much water. And I never touched wine at all when I
drank. And I haven't met one Australian who would admit to drinking
Fosters. Simple fact is, they don't.

Ray Hall, Taree

Ray Hall, Taree
John Wiser
2011-01-18 19:58:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ray Hall
Post by John Wiser
Post by Beaver Lad
Post by Ray Hall
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Ray Hall
Post by Kip Williams
They all get hits from Google! They must all be right.
Why not try reading them instead of acting all hurt.
You see much that is hidden, Ray.
I take this projection as a cry for help. Go comfort yourself by >
listening
Post by Kip Williams
to some songs (the popular term) on iTunes. The non-classical ones
are > way
Post by Kip Williams
more popular, so they're sure to be better.
I suspect that Ray's combativeness has its origins in the same place as
Deacon's snottiness, from being half in the bag at inappropriate times of
day. It really does raise Hell with one's judgement.
JDW
=======================================
So I'm not alone in detecting a whiff of Foster's Lager.
In TeDious's case it is more likely to be vinous than beerous.
Say, a recent vintage of Eagle Tree Muscat.
JDW
More a case of too much water. And I never touched wine at all when I
drank. And I haven't met one Australian who would admit to drinking
Fosters. Simple fact is, they don't.
Here I'm inclined to credit you, Ray. Most of it appears to be shipped by
tanker to the USA, to be consumed by people who have been told that it's a
cut up from Bud Light.
JDW
Ray Hall
2011-01-18 20:00:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Wiser
Post by Ray Hall
More a case of too much water. And I never touched wine at all when I
drank. And I haven't met one Australian who would admit to drinking
Fosters. Simple fact is, they don't.
Here I'm inclined to credit you, Ray. Most of it appears to be shipped
by tanker to the USA, to be consumed by people who have been told that
it's a cut up from Bud Light.
JDW
Indeed.

Ray Hall, Taree
Matthew B. Tepper
2011-01-18 16:57:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Beaver Lad
Post by John Wiser
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Ray Hall
Post by Kip Williams
They all get hits from Google! They must all be right.
Why not try reading them instead of acting all hurt.
You see much that is hidden, Ray.
I take this projection as a cry for help. Go comfort yourself by
listening to some songs (the popular term) on iTunes. The non-
classical ones are way more popular, so they're sure to be better.
I suspect that Ray's combativeness has its origins in the same place as
Deacon's snottiness, from being half in the bag at inappropriate times
of day. It really does raise Hell with one's judgement.
So I'm not alone in detecting a whiff of Foster's Lager.
I like that idea, except that it gives me no excuse other than insanity.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Kip Williams
2011-01-18 16:12:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Wiser
I suspect that Ray's combativeness has its origins in the same place as
Deacon's snottiness, from being half in the bag at inappropriate times
of day. It really does raise Hell with one's judgement.
I may be forgetting things, but this is really the first time Ray has
shrieked at me about stuff that I can recall. Who knew we'd react this
badly to being told we're idiots?


Kip W
Matthew B. Tepper
2011-01-18 16:57:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kip Williams
Post by John Wiser
I suspect that Ray's combativeness has its origins in the same place as
Deacon's snottiness, from being half in the bag at inappropriate times
of day. It really does raise Hell with one's judgement.
I may be forgetting things, but this is really the first time Ray has
shrieked at me about stuff that I can recall. Who knew we'd react this
badly to being told we're idiots?
He used to be very friendly toward me, and then it's as though he turned on a
dime and let loose with bitterness and insults.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
John Wiser
2011-01-18 17:03:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by Kip Williams
Post by John Wiser
I suspect that Ray's combativeness has its origins in the same place as
Deacon's snottiness, from being half in the bag at inappropriate times
of day. It really does raise Hell with one's judgement.
I may be forgetting things, but this is really the first time Ray has
shrieked at me about stuff that I can recall. Who knew we'd react this
badly to being told we're idiots?
He used to be very friendly toward me, and then it's as though he turned on a
dime and let loose with bitterness and insults.
It's simple, Matthew. He realized that you were an incurable asshole.

JDW
Ray Hall
2011-01-18 19:45:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Wiser
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by Kip Williams
Post by John Wiser
I suspect that Ray's combativeness has its origins in the same place as
Deacon's snottiness, from being half in the bag at inappropriate times
of day. It really does raise Hell with one's judgement.
I may be forgetting things, but this is really the first time Ray has
shrieked at me about stuff that I can recall. Who knew we'd react this
badly to being told we're idiots?
He used to be very friendly toward me, and then it's as though he turned on a
dime and let loose with bitterness and insults.
It's simple, Matthew. He realized that you were an incurable asshole.
Not wrong W.

Ray Hall, Taree
Ray Hall
2011-01-18 16:02:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Ray Hall
Post by Kip Williams
They all get hits from Google! They must all be right.
Why not try reading them instead of acting all hurt.
You see much that is hidden, Ray.
I take this projection as a cry for help. Go comfort yourself by
listening to some songs (the popular term) on iTunes. The non-classical
ones are way more popular, so they're sure to be better.
Kip W
Still in total denial? It is fun to watch.

Ray Hall, Taree
Kip Williams
2011-01-18 16:14:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ray Hall
Still in total denial? It is fun to watch.
Denial? Me? No! NO!! NEVER!!! I AM NOT IN DENIAL GOD DAMN IT!!!!1!!!


Kip W
Howard Brazee
2011-01-17 14:23:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
I always spell the name of a composer the way he spelled it himself.
It makes it hard in a medium like this when the composer didn't use
our alphabet to spell his name.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
Allen
2011-01-17 15:47:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Howard Brazee
Post by M forever
I always spell the name of a composer the way he spelled it himself.
It makes it hard in a medium like this when the composer didn't use
our alphabet to spell his name.
Fortunately, Toru Takemitsu and Tan Dun (among others) followers use
English sound-alikes.
Allen
M forever
2011-01-17 19:34:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Howard Brazee
Post by M forever
I always spell the name of a composer the way he spelled it himself.
It makes it hard in a medium like this when the composer didn't use
our alphabet to spell his name.
You seem to have missed 99% of the "discussion". Rachmaninoff did use
our alphabet to spell his name when outside Russia. And he did it in a
very consistent way over 4 decades. As did the publishers of his music
and his recordings.
Howard Brazee
2011-01-17 21:55:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Howard Brazee
Post by M forever
I always spell the name of a composer the way he spelled it himself.
It makes it hard in a medium like this when the composer didn't use
our alphabet to spell his name.
You seem to have missed 99% of the "discussion". Rachmaninoff did use
our alphabet to spell his name when outside Russia. And he did it in a
very consistent way over 4 decades. As did the publishers of his music
and his recordings.
I'm reading the top line above as "any composer". So I responded
about those who don't use our alphabet. I don't know how I could
have been more clear, but apologize for any misunderstanding about my
intent.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
M forever
2011-01-17 23:32:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Howard Brazee
Post by M forever
I always spell the name of a composer the way he spelled it himself.
It makes it hard in a medium like this when the composer didn't use
our alphabet to spell his name.
You seem to have missed 99% of the "discussion". Rachmaninoff did use
our alphabet to spell his name when outside Russia. And he did it in a
very consistent way over 4 decades. As did the publishers of his music
and his recordings.
I'm reading the top line above as "any composer".   So I responded
about those who don't use our alphabet.   I don't know how I could
have been more clear, but apologize for any misunderstanding about my
intent.
If they don't use our alphabet and never did, then I guess the most
recent and correct transliteration according to the standards of the
language you are using makes sense. If they did however chose a
version of their name in our alphabet, then that is the one and only
valid version of the name.

Can you give an example for who you are thinking of here?
Howard Brazee
2011-01-18 15:14:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
If they don't use our alphabet and never did, then I guess the most
recent and correct transliteration according to the standards of the
language you are using makes sense. If they did however chose a
version of their name in our alphabet, then that is the one and only
valid version of the name.
And if the spelled their name multiple ways in our alphabet (as did
Shakespeare), then we look for modern day standards.

But we have multiple standards, sometimes depending upon how we define
"our alphabet". My keyboard does not have ancillary glyphs and many
of our newsgroup readers won't display them correctly. Is the
German alphabet the same as the Spanish alphabet? Neither maps with
my keyboard 100%.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
Peter T. Daniels
2011-01-18 17:15:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Howard Brazee
Post by M forever
If they don't use our alphabet and never did, then I guess the most
recent and correct transliteration according to the standards of the
language you are using makes sense. If they did however chose a
version of their name in our alphabet, then that is the one and only
valid version of the name.
And if the spelled their name multiple ways in our alphabet (as did
Shakespeare), then we look for modern day standards.
But we have multiple standards, sometimes depending upon how we define
"our alphabet".   My keyboard does not have ancillary glyphs and many
of our newsgroup readers won't display them correctly.    Is the
German alphabet the same as the Spanish alphabet?   Neither maps with
my keyboard 100%.
And there is rarely one single "recent and correct transliteration."
The US officially switched to the PRC's pinyin transliteration of
Chinese (ca. 1975), hence Mao Zedong, but the RoC continues to use the
traditional Wade-Giles, hence Mao Tse-tung.

And there are many more than two familiar transliterations for Hebrew
-- and they differ between Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew.
M forever
2011-01-18 22:51:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Howard Brazee
Post by M forever
If they don't use our alphabet and never did, then I guess the most
recent and correct transliteration according to the standards of the
language you are using makes sense. If they did however chose a
version of their name in our alphabet, then that is the one and only
valid version of the name.
And if the spelled their name multiple ways in our alphabet (as did
Shakespeare), then we look for modern day standards.
Yes, that makes sense. But not in the case of Rachmaninoff. He stuck
to the one spelling all his life in the West.
Post by Howard Brazee
But we have multiple standards, sometimes depending upon how we define
"our alphabet".   My keyboard does not have ancillary glyphs and many
of our newsgroup readers won't display them correctly.    Is the
German alphabet the same as the Spanish alphabet?   Neither maps with
my keyboard 100%.
You can easily do all German characters on an US or British keyboard
by loading the US-International mode.
Howard Brazee
2011-01-19 15:10:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Howard Brazee
But we have multiple standards, sometimes depending upon how we define
"our alphabet".   My keyboard does not have ancillary glyphs and many
of our newsgroup readers won't display them correctly.    Is the
German alphabet the same as the Spanish alphabet?   Neither maps with
my keyboard 100%.
You can easily do all German characters on an US or British keyboard
by loading the US-International mode.
I'm aware of that, although I have never done it. But there are a
couple of problems with that in this medium:

1. The names I am interested in are from several languages.

2. People reading these posts are using a variety of newsgroup
readers - many with significant limitations in displaying the output
the way I intended.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
Kevin N
2011-01-17 19:58:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ray Hall
Post by number_six
First Tommasini succumbs to the vice of listmaking (I am not immune),
but then he wants the list to serve a purpose other than that for
which he made it.
He "yearns" to include Britten -- but does he belong?  He seems
gratified that adding Stravinsky gives the list more "geographical
diversity." Sheesh -- then add Villa-Lobos if that's what counts.
But my main question for the field has to do with one of Tommasini's
Post by Premise Checker
Bartok showed another way. His arresting harmonic language was an
amalgam of tonality, unorthodox scales, atonal wanderings and more.
Theorists still haven't broken down Bartok's language. But
concertgoers, who don't have such concerns, continue to be swept
away by the originality and mystery of his music. A work like the
Third String Quartet seems as stunningly modern today as it was in
1927. Yet it is a mainstay of the string quartet repertory.
What do others here make of the statement that "theorists still
haven't broken down Bartok's language"? Agree or disagree?
Apart from his more popular works, MSPC, CfO, and a few others, I just
do not get his string quartets. I've tried and tried but to no avail.
What recordings do you have? I had the Emerson Quartet, and it was
completely unmusical - just a note-perfect showcase of the score. The
Vegh Quartet (the mono recording) really made these pieces come alive
for me.
Post by Ray Hall
What theorists reckon is a matter for the musicologists here.
Ray Hall, Taree
Matthew B. Tepper
2011-01-17 20:41:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Kevin N <***@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters
to be typed in news:5e87ca7e-15b0-4c43-96c1-3735d8cefe20
Post by Kevin N
Post by Ray Hall
Post by number_six
First Tommasini succumbs to the vice of listmaking (I am not immune),
but then he wants the list to serve a purpose other than that for
which he made it.
He "yearns" to include Britten -- but does he belong?  He seems
gratified that adding Stravinsky gives the list more "geographical
diversity." Sheesh -- then add Villa-Lobos if that's what counts.
But my main question for the field has to do with one of Tommasini's
Post by Premise Checker
Bartok showed another way. His arresting harmonic language was an
amalgam of tonality, unorthodox scales, atonal wanderings and more.
Theorists still haven't broken down Bartok's language. But
concertgoers, who don't have such concerns, continue to be swept
away by the originality and mystery of his music. A work like the
Third String Quartet seems as stunningly modern today as it was in
1927. Yet it is a mainstay of the string quartet repertory.
What do others here make of the statement that "theorists still
haven't broken down Bartok's language"? Agree or disagree?
Apart from his more popular works, MSPC, CfO, and a few others, I just
do not get his string quartets. I've tried and tried but to no avail.
What recordings do you have? I had the Emerson Quartet, and it was
completely unmusical - just a note-perfect showcase of the score. The
Vegh Quartet (the mono recording) really made these pieces come alive
for me.
Are we talking about Bela Bartok, or Bartók Béla?
Post by Kevin N
Post by Ray Hall
What theorists reckon is a matter for the musicologists here.
Ray Hall, Taree
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Peter T. Daniels
2011-01-17 23:29:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevin N
Post by Ray Hall
Post by number_six
First Tommasini succumbs to the vice of listmaking (I am not immune),
but then he wants the list to serve a purpose other than that for
which he made it.
He "yearns" to include Britten -- but does he belong?  He seems
gratified that adding Stravinsky gives the list more "geographical
diversity." Sheesh -- then add Villa-Lobos if that's what counts.
But my main question for the field has to do with one of Tommasini's
Post by Premise Checker
Bartok showed another way. His arresting harmonic language was an
amalgam of tonality, unorthodox scales, atonal wanderings and more.
Theorists still haven't broken down Bartok's language. But
concertgoers, who don't have such concerns, continue to be swept
away by the originality and mystery of his music. A work like the
Third String Quartet seems as stunningly modern today as it was in
1927. Yet it is a mainstay of the string quartet repertory.
What do others here make of the statement that "theorists still
haven't broken down Bartok's language"? Agree or disagree?
Apart from his more popular works, MSPC, CfO, and a few others, I just
do not get his string quartets. I've tried and tried but to no avail.
What recordings do you have? I had the Emerson Quartet, and it was
completely unmusical - just a note-perfect showcase of the score.
That would be the Hamelin approach.
Post by Kevin N
The
Vegh Quartet (the mono recording) really made these pieces come alive
for me.
Terry
2011-01-17 14:51:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by number_six
First Tommasini succumbs to the vice of listmaking (I am not immune),
but then he wants the list to serve a purpose other than that for
which he made it.
He "yearns" to include Britten -- but does he belong? He seems
gratified that adding Stravinsky gives the list more "geographical
diversity." Sheesh -- then add Villa-Lobos if that's what counts.
But my main question for the field has to do with one of Tommasini's
Post by Premise Checker
Bartok showed another way. His arresting harmonic language was an
amalgam of tonality, unorthodox scales, atonal wanderings and more.
Theorists still haven't broken down Bartok's language. But
concertgoers, who don't have such concerns, continue to be swept
away by the originality and mystery of his music. A work like the
Third String Quartet seems as stunningly modern today as it was in
1927. Yet it is a mainstay of the string quartet repertory.
What do others here make of the statement that "theorists still
haven't broken down Bartok's language"? Agree or disagree?
How can one do either? It's a meaningless statement, really.
--
Cheers, Terry
herman
2011-01-16 19:38:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You know how this works?

The editor of the paper, impatient with all these concert reviews,
suggest the music critic does a big piece on the best composers there
are, from Bach to John Adams.

There are so many concerts in town; how do you know which ones to
cover? Why would a reader want to read about a concert he hasn't been
to?

Well, thinks the critic, why would he (or she) want to read about a
murder he hasn't committed?

Let's make a list a the best music there is, the editor says. Of all
time. Readers like that kind of stuff.

The critic asks if he may break it down into 19th C and 20th C
composers.

OK, but why don't you make it interactive? the editor says. Why don't
you let the readers vote, too?

Today's newspaper is not about reporters writing and readers reading.
It's about the participation of the public. If they feel they have a
say, too, they'll renew their subscription maybe.
Gerard
2011-01-17 18:10:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by herman
Today's newspaper is not about reporters writing and readers reading.
It's about the participation of the public. If they feel they have a
say, too, they'll renew their subscription maybe.
Like radio stations with "you-ask-and-we-play" programs as many as possible?
The more participation of the public, the more debilization of the medium.
(See also what happens to democracy in politics.)
Joe Roberts
2011-01-17 23:16:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by herman
Today's newspaper is not about reporters writing
and readers reading. It's about the participation
of the public. If they feel they have a say, too,
they'll renew their subscription maybe.
Like radio stations with "you-ask-and-we-play" programs
as many as possible? The more participation of the public,
the more debilization of the medium.
There's a story about a radio station somewhere in the rural mid-USA (its exact location didn't come with the story).

Mostly they played Top-40 Pop Hits, but they'd received a few requests to put on some classical music. So they started a "Cultural Hour" program.

On the first program, the announcer announced "now we'll hear Ave Maria, composed by Bach-Gounod". As the music was playing, telephone calls came in from folks, informing the station that hyphenated names meant that the music was originally composed by the person with the first name and later arranged by the one with the second name.

When the "Ave Maria" ended, the announcer thanked the folks who had called in, and apologized for the error: "Of course I should have said, it was composed by Bach and arranged by Gounod". Matter closed.

Then he announced the next piece: "Scheherazade".

Joe
M forever
2011-01-17 23:28:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe Roberts
Post by Gerard
Post by herman
Today's newspaper is not about reporters writing
and readers reading. It's about the participation
of the public. If they feel they have a say, too,
they'll renew their subscription maybe.
Like radio stations with "you-ask-and-we-play" programs
as many as possible? The more participation of the public,
the more debilization of the medium.
There's a story about a radio station somewhere in the rural mid-USA (its exact location didn't come with the story).
Mostly they played Top-40 Pop Hits, but they'd received a few requests to put on some classical music.  So they started a "Cultural Hour" program.  
On the first program, the announcer announced "now we'll hear Ave Maria, composed by Bach-Gounod".  As the music was playing, telephone calls came in from folks, informing the station that hyphenated names meant that the music was originally composed by the person with the first name and later arranged by the one with the second name.
When the "Ave Maria" ended, the announcer thanked the folks who had called in, and apologized for the error:  "Of course I should have said, it was composed by Bach and arranged by Gounod".  Matter closed.
Then he announced the next piece:  "Scheherazade".
So why is that piece often spelled "Scheherazade" instead of
"Sheherazade"? Where does the extra C come from?
Joe Roberts
2011-01-18 00:21:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
So why is that piece often spelled "Scheherazade"
instead of "Sheherazade"? Where does the extra C
come from?
"Orchestration" (Walter Piston) has it only with the "Sch"; "New College Encyclopedia of Music" (Westrup-Harrison-Wilson) has it both ways with preference for the "Sh". Webster's Second Edition gives it only as "Sch".

Joe
M forever
2011-01-18 00:30:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
So why is that piece often spelled "Scheherazade"
instead of "Sheherazade"? Where does the extra C
come from?
"Orchestration" (Walter Piston) has it only with the "Sch"; "New College Encyclopedia of Music" (Westrup-Harrison-Wilson) has it both ways with preference for the "Sh".  Webster's Second Edition gives it only as "Sch".
Those are all English publications. Why do they even mention versions
with "Sch"? That's not an English thing.

Once again, background clarifies the issue.

The work was first published in 1889 in Leipzig by the publishing
house M.P. Belaieff, founded by a Russian lumber merchant who wanted
to promote Russian music in the West. That's where the "Sch" comes
from - its the German spelling.
Note the publisher's name was spelled "Belaief", not "Belaiev".
John Wiser
2011-01-18 01:18:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe Roberts
Post by M forever
So why is that piece often spelled "Scheherazade"
instead of "Sheherazade"? Where does the extra C
come from?
"Orchestration" (Walter Piston) has it only with the "Sch"; "New College
Encyclopedia of Music" (Westrup-Harrison-Wilson) has it both ways with
preference for the "Sh". Webster's Second Edition gives it only as "Sch".
Post by M forever
Those are all English publications. Why do they even mention versions
with "Sch"? That's not an English thing.
As in "school" and "schedule?"
[snip]

JDW
M forever
2011-01-19 19:30:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Wiser
Post by Joe Roberts
Post by M forever
So why is that piece often spelled "Scheherazade"
instead of "Sheherazade"? Where does the extra C
come from?
"Orchestration" (Walter Piston) has it only with the "Sch"; "New College
Encyclopedia of Music" (Westrup-Harrison-Wilson) has it both ways with
preference for the "Sh". Webster's Second Edition gives it only as "Sch".
Post by M forever
Those are all English publications. Why do they even mention versions
with "Sch"? That's not an English thing.
As in "school" and "schedule?"
Or "schism". All Latin/Greek loan words which reflect the Late Latin
spelling. Scheherazade however is the transliteration of a Russian
title derived from a Persian name. There is no reason for an English
transliterator to have the C there. There is one single letter for SH
in Russian. Except that the title was transliterated into German first
and so acquired the C. Which is also often the case when you encounter
the name in its literary context because among the first complete
translations of the 1001 Nights were several by German writers.
Joe Roberts
2011-01-18 02:16:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Joe Roberts
Post by M forever
So why is that piece often spelled "Scheherazade"
instead of "Sheherazade"? Where does the extra C
come from?
"Orchestration" (Walter Piston) has it only with the "Sch";
"New College Encyclopedia of Music" (Westrup-Harrison-Wilson)
has it both ways with preference for the "Sh". Webster's Second
Edition gives it only as "Sch".
Those are all English publications. Why do they even
mention versions with "Sch"? That's not an English thing.
Once again, background clarifies the issue.
The work was first published in 1889 in Leipzig by the
publishing house M.P. Belaieff, founded by a Russian
lumber merchant who wanted to promote Russian music
in the West. That's where the "Sch" comes from - its the
German spelling.
It's also the Webster's spelling. And we are here writing in English. And it's also the World Book Encyclopedia's spelling. That's in addition to the Piston "Orchestration" and the other encyclopedia cited previously.

Frankly:

... If it's Piston on orchestration, giving bits of Scheherazade from a composer who arguably was one of the great orchestrators -- and who also wrote a book on it -- it's good enough for me.

... Presumably a dictionary staff and several encyclopedia staffs (er, staves) do sufficient research to convince themselves that their spelling sufficiently reflects and organizes both academic and popular understanding and usage, perhaps in the current generation and one or two before, of the term within the culture of their target audience before they commit it to ink. And that spelling in turn influences another generation of usage which we inherit.

Whew. Could've just said, look it up in your Funk'n Wagnalls.

Not that Webster's and those other sources have to be Bible commandments on spelling, but what's wrong with using 'Sch' in a polite discussion? Take it up with Yahweh, er, Jehovah.

Joe
M forever
2011-01-19 19:05:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Joe Roberts
Post by M forever
So why is that piece often spelled "Scheherazade"
instead of "Sheherazade"? Where does the extra C
come from?
"Orchestration" (Walter Piston) has it only with the "Sch";
"New College Encyclopedia of Music" (Westrup-Harrison-Wilson)
has it both ways with preference for the "Sh". Webster's Second
Edition gives it only as "Sch".
Those are all English publications. Why do they even
mention versions with "Sch"? That's not an English thing.
Once again, background clarifies the issue.
The work was first published in 1889 in Leipzig by the
publishing house M.P. Belaieff, founded by a Russian
lumber merchant who wanted to promote Russian music
in the West. That's where the "Sch" comes from - its the
German spelling.
It's also the Webster's spelling.  And we are here writing in English.  And it's also the World Book Encyclopedia's spelling.  That's in addition to the Piston "Orchestration" and the other encyclopedia cited previously.
   ...  If it's Piston on orchestration, giving bits of Scheherazade from a composer who arguably was one of the great orchestrators -- and who also wrote a book on it -- it's good enough for me.
   ...  Presumably a dictionary staff and several encyclopedia staffs (er, staves) do sufficient research to convince themselves that their spelling sufficiently reflects and organizes both academic and popular understanding and usage, perhaps in the current generation and one or two before, of the term within the culture of their target audience before they commit it to ink.  And that spelling in turn influences another generation of usage which we inherit.
Whew.  Could've just said, look it up in your Funk'n Wagnalls.
Not that Webster's and those other sources have to be Bible commandments on spelling, but what's wrong with using 'Sch' in a polite discussion?  Take it up with Yahweh, er, Jehovah.
I didn't say anything was wrong with that. Nor did I want to "take it
up" with anybody. I just noted that this often encountered spelling of
this title in English is unusual for an English transliteration of a
foreign name or term, so I wondered if there is a reason for that. As
I found out with just a minimum of research, there is. See above.

Thanks for providing this additional information. That those books all
follow that spelling demonstrates that it is indeed very common usage
in English, and I guess, "sanctioned" by these renowned dictionaries
and books as "correct".

I agree that the people who work on such dictionaries and
encyclopedias generally do thorough research into such matters - or at
least they are supposed to! - which in this case will have led to the
first published edition done by Belaieff in Leipzig. By tracing the
title back to that source, it can be confirmed that it was indeed the
correct title of that first edition, and that the common SCH spelling
is therefore not some error which kept getting copied from one
generation to the next, but the work's first "official" title in a
language other than Russian.

You seem to see a big argument there between you and me. I don't see
an argument here at all. Your and my data are not contradicting, but
complementing each other.
Joe Roberts
2011-01-20 01:55:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
You seem to see a big argument there
between you and me. I don't see an
argument here at all. Your and my data
are not contradicting, but complementing
each other.
No argument was meant and none felt.

In the context of a name-spelling thread, the "take it up with ..." bit was merely a pun. It was about sending the issue up to the ultimate arbiter ("Yahweh" or "Jehovah" or "YHWH", whoever) whose name we also spell variously. If we can fiddle with his/her/its name, why not with Scheherazade's?

Thank you for the Belaieff reference ... it does show the source of the "Sch". Probably it was natural for the name to be taken into English in that spelling for printed works, later to elide through the syllable as "Sh" when the work became popular and entered oral discussions, and still later to be written in that way as the sound grew into popular usage.

I can only think that if she kept the prince away from her for three years by telling him bedtime stories, she must not have been much of a looker.

Joe
Peter T. Daniels
2011-01-20 04:39:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe Roberts
Post by M forever
You seem to see a big argument there
between you and me. I don't see an
argument here at all. Your and my data
are not contradicting, but complementing
each other.
No argument was meant and none felt.
In the context of a name-spelling thread, the "take it up with ..." bit was merely a pun.  It was about sending the issue up to the ultimate arbiter ("Yahweh" or "Jehovah" or "YHWH", whoever) whose name we also spell variously.  If we can fiddle with his/her/its name, why not with Scheherazade's?
Thank you for the Belaieff reference ... it does show the source of the "Sch".  Probably it was natural for the name to be taken into English in that spelling for printed works, later to elide through the syllable as "Sh" when the work became popular and entered oral discussions, and still later to be written in that way as the sound grew into popular usage.
Rather, since the original is Russian, using the standard
transliteration <sh> of the Russian letter. (Or, of course, for the
Perso-Arabic letter in the original spelling.)
Post by Joe Roberts
I can only think that if she kept the prince away from her for three years by telling him bedtime stories, she must not have been much of a looker.
She kept the prince from killing her for 1001 nights by telling him
cliffhangers. (Did you get the expurgated version?)
Joe Roberts
2011-01-20 05:58:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
(... re: Scheherazade)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Joe Roberts
I can only think that if she kept
the prince away from her for
three years by telling him
bedtime stories, she must not
have been much of a looker.
She kept the prince from killing her
for 1001 nights by telling him cliffhangers.
(Did you get the expurgated version?)
Must've been Bowdlerized, indeed. Can't wait for the movie.

Scheherazade could not have properly attended 2:30 tea (strong brew, with chilled, fresh buttered cucumber sandwiches, crusts of course cut off) at a ladies' soiree in a year contemporary to Rimsky-Korsakov's exposition of her. Folks would have looked at her, and tittered and talked.

Jocks would wonder why the guy waited so long.

But then, how could Rimsky-Korsakov condense it all into one work: why didn't he write it as 1001 movements?

Joe
M forever
2011-01-20 17:52:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
(... re:  Scheherazade)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Joe Roberts
I can only think that if she kept
the prince away from her for
three years by telling him
bedtime stories, she must not
have been much of a looker.
She kept the prince from killing her
for 1001 nights by telling him cliffhangers.
(Did you get the expurgated version?)
Must've been Bowdlerized, indeed.  Can't wait for the movie.
Scheherazade could not have properly attended 2:30 tea (strong brew, with chilled, fresh buttered cucumber sandwiches, crusts of course cut off) at a ladies' soiree in a year contemporary to Rimsky-Korsakov's exposition of her.  Folks would have looked at her, and tittered and talked.
Jocks would wonder why the guy waited so long.
He didn't. During the time she told the stories, she had three
children.
But then, how could Rimsky-Korsakov condense it all into one work:  why didn't > he write it as 1001 movements?
Because he didn't want to write specific program music illustrating
the specific tales. The work is conceived as a 4 movement suite or
symphonic collection of tone poems with an "oriental" atmosphere" but
without a specific program. The titles of the 4 movements do not
correspond to any 4 specific tales from the collection either. I think
R-K later withdrew the titles altogether.
M forever
2011-01-20 17:39:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe Roberts
Post by M forever
You seem to see a big argument there
between you and me. I don't see an
argument here at all. Your and my data
are not contradicting, but complementing
each other.
No argument was meant and none felt.
In the context of a name-spelling thread, the "take it up with ..." bit was merely a pun.  It was about sending the issue up to the ultimate arbiter ("Yahweh" or "Jehovah" or "YHWH", whoever) whose name we also spell variously.  If we can fiddle with his/her/its name, why not with Scheherazade's?
Thank you for the Belaieff reference ... it does show the source of the "Sch". > Probably it was natural for the name to be taken into English in that spelling for > printed works, later to elide through the syllable as "Sh" when the work became > popular and entered oral discussions, and still later to be written in that way as > the sound grew into popular usage.
The C is actually not heard in German either, so it didn't even have
to get elided by English speakers. German SCH sounds pretty much
exactly the same as English SH. Maybe linguists can point to some very
small differences in the way the sound is formed in both languages.
But to the common ear, there is no difference.
I don't know why SH is spelled SCH in German. My guess is that it
comes from Greek and Latin loan words such as schola, schisma, schema.
I don't know how these were pronounced in medieval German but in
modern German, the pronunciation of all these words has changed from
the original SK or SKH to SH and maybe that's why all German words are
spelled SCH if there is a SH sound in them.

Regarding Belaieff, I guess since that is (or was) a "brand name", I
don't think it would occur to anyone to "correct" the spelling of the
name either.
Another example is the French pianist Michel Béroff who was born in
France into a family of Russian immigrants who obviously
transliterated their name in just that way. Apparently, it has never
occurred to anyone to "correct" this name either.
r***@gmail.com
2011-01-20 17:07:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by M forever
Post by Joe Roberts
Post by M forever
So why is that piece often spelled "Scheherazade"
instead of "Sheherazade"? Where does the extra C
come from?
"Orchestration" (Walter Piston) has it only with the "Sch";
"New College Encyclopedia of Music" (Westrup-Harrison-Wilson)
has it both ways with preference for the "Sh". Webster's Second
Edition gives it only as "Sch".
Those are all English publications. Why do they even
mention versions with "Sch"? That's not an English thing.
Once again, background clarifies the issue.
The work was first published in 1889 in Leipzig by the
publishing house M.P. Belaieff, founded by a Russian
lumber merchant who wanted to promote Russian music
in the West. That's where the "Sch" comes from - its the
German spelling.
It's also the Webster's spelling.  And we are here writing in English.  And it's also the World Book Encyclopedia's spelling.  That's in addition to the Piston "Orchestration" and the other encyclopedia cited previously.
   ...  If it's Piston on orchestration, giving bits of Scheherazade from a composer who arguably was one of the great orchestrators -- and who also wrote a book on it -- it's good enough for me.
   ...  Presumably a dictionary staff and several encyclopedia staffs (er, staves) do sufficient research to convince themselves that their spelling sufficiently reflects and organizes both academic and popular understanding and usage, perhaps in the current generation and one or two before, of the term within the culture of their target audience before they commit it to ink.  And that spelling in turn influences another generation of usage which we inherit.
Whew.  Could've just said, look it up in your Funk'n Wagnalls.
Not that Webster's and those other sources have to be Bible commandments on spelling, but what's wrong with using 'Sch' in a polite discussion?  Take it up with Yahweh, er, Jehovah.
I didn't say anything was wrong with that. Nor did I want to "take it
up" with anybody. I just noted that this often encountered spelling of
this title in English is unusual for an English transliteration of a
foreign name or term, so I wondered if there is a reason for that. As
I found out with just a minimum of research, there is. See above.
Thanks for providing this additional information. That those books all
follow that spelling demonstrates that it is indeed very common usage
in English, and I guess, "sanctioned" by these renowned dictionaries
and books as "correct".
I agree that the people who work on such dictionaries and
encyclopedias generally do thorough research into such matters - or at
least they are supposed to! - which in this case will have led to the
first published edition done by Belaieff in Leipzig. By tracing the
title back to that source, it can be confirmed that it was indeed the
correct title of that first edition, and that the common SCH spelling
is therefore not some error which kept getting copied from one
generation to the next, but the work's first "official" title in a
language other than Russian.
You seem to see a big argument there between you and me. I don't see
an argument here at all. Your and my data are not contradicting, but
complementing each other.
What seems to me to have been overlooked is that 'Sheherezade' in
English, with no other indication, suggests the work by Ravel.
Scheherezade does not: it's Rimsky Korsakov unless otherwise
specified. Thus changing the transliterations could add confusion
where none now exists.
I really don't care whether Handel, Haendel, or Hendl (contempory
usage in Handel's time) is used for the composer of Messiah: it does
not cause much confusion either way. Ditto for the permutations of
Rachmaninov, Shakespeare, etc. It would be unfortunate if Schumann,
Schuman, and other homonyms were confused. Otherwise it just affects
those whose concern is primarily alphabetised shelving and, above all,
'Order.'
Some of the debate has been fun to read though.
Richard
Peter T. Daniels
2011-01-20 18:32:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by M forever
Post by M forever
Post by Joe Roberts
Post by M forever
So why is that piece often spelled "Scheherazade"
instead of "Sheherazade"? Where does the extra C
come from?
"Orchestration" (Walter Piston) has it only with the "Sch";
"New College Encyclopedia of Music" (Westrup-Harrison-Wilson)
has it both ways with preference for the "Sh". Webster's Second
Edition gives it only as "Sch".
Those are all English publications. Why do they even
mention versions with "Sch"? That's not an English thing.
Once again, background clarifies the issue.
The work was first published in 1889 in Leipzig by the
publishing house M.P. Belaieff, founded by a Russian
lumber merchant who wanted to promote Russian music
in the West. That's where the "Sch" comes from - its the
German spelling.
It's also the Webster's spelling.  And we are here writing in English.  And it's also the World Book Encyclopedia's spelling.  That's in addition to the Piston "Orchestration" and the other encyclopedia cited previously.
   ...  If it's Piston on orchestration, giving bits of Scheherazade from a composer who arguably was one of the great orchestrators -- and who also wrote a book on it -- it's good enough for me.
   ...  Presumably a dictionary staff and several encyclopedia staffs (er, staves) do sufficient research to convince themselves that their spelling sufficiently reflects and organizes both academic and popular understanding and usage, perhaps in the current generation and one or two before, of the term within the culture of their target audience before they commit it to ink.  And that spelling in turn influences another generation of usage which we inherit.
Whew.  Could've just said, look it up in your Funk'n Wagnalls.
Not that Webster's and those other sources have to be Bible commandments on spelling, but what's wrong with using 'Sch' in a polite discussion?  Take it up with Yahweh, er, Jehovah.
I didn't say anything was wrong with that. Nor did I want to "take it
up" with anybody. I just noted that this often encountered spelling of
this title in English is unusual for an English transliteration of a
foreign name or term, so I wondered if there is a reason for that. As
I found out with just a minimum of research, there is. See above.
Thanks for providing this additional information. That those books all
follow that spelling demonstrates that it is indeed very common usage
in English, and I guess, "sanctioned" by these renowned dictionaries
and books as "correct".
I agree that the people who work on such dictionaries and
encyclopedias generally do thorough research into such matters - or at
least they are supposed to! - which in this case will have led to the
first published edition done by Belaieff in Leipzig. By tracing the
title back to that source, it can be confirmed that it was indeed the
correct title of that first edition, and that the common SCH spelling
is therefore not some error which kept getting copied from one
generation to the next, but the work's first "official" title in a
language other than Russian.
You seem to see a big argument there between you and me. I don't see
an argument here at all. Your and my data are not contradicting, but
complementing each other.
What seems to me to have been overlooked is that 'Sheherezade' in
English, with no other indication, suggests the work by Ravel.
(Why isn't that one Che- ?)
Post by r***@gmail.com
Scheherezade does not: it's Rimsky Korsakov unless otherwise
specified. Thus changing the transliterations could add confusion
where none now exists.
I really don't care whether Handel, Haendel, or Hendl (contempory
usage in Handel's time) is used for the composer of Messiah: it does
not cause much confusion either way. Ditto for the permutations of
Rachmaninov, Shakespeare, etc.  It would be unfortunate if Schumann,
Schuman, and other homonyms were confused. Otherwise it just affects
those whose concern is primarily alphabetised shelving and, above all,
'Order.'
Some of the debate has been fun to read though.
Don't forget the great composers Strauss, Charpentier, and Scarlatti.
Not to mention Handl.
M forever
2011-01-20 19:03:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by M forever
Post by M forever
Post by Joe Roberts
Post by M forever
So why is that piece often spelled "Scheherazade"
instead of "Sheherazade"? Where does the extra C
come from?
"Orchestration" (Walter Piston) has it only with the "Sch";
"New College Encyclopedia of Music" (Westrup-Harrison-Wilson)
has it both ways with preference for the "Sh". Webster's Second
Edition gives it only as "Sch".
Those are all English publications. Why do they even
mention versions with "Sch"? That's not an English thing.
Once again, background clarifies the issue.
The work was first published in 1889 in Leipzig by the
publishing house M.P. Belaieff, founded by a Russian
lumber merchant who wanted to promote Russian music
in the West. That's where the "Sch" comes from - its the
German spelling.
It's also the Webster's spelling.  And we are here writing in English.  And it's also the World Book Encyclopedia's spelling.  That's in addition to the Piston "Orchestration" and the other encyclopedia cited previously.
   ...  If it's Piston on orchestration, giving bits of Scheherazade from a composer who arguably was one of the great orchestrators -- and who also wrote a book on it -- it's good enough for me.
   ...  Presumably a dictionary staff and several encyclopedia staffs (er, staves) do sufficient research to convince themselves that their spelling sufficiently reflects and organizes both academic and popular understanding and usage, perhaps in the current generation and one or two before, of the term within the culture of their target audience before they commit it to ink.  And that spelling in turn influences another generation of usage which we inherit.
Whew.  Could've just said, look it up in your Funk'n Wagnalls.
Not that Webster's and those other sources have to be Bible commandments on spelling, but what's wrong with using 'Sch' in a polite discussion?  Take it up with Yahweh, er, Jehovah.
I didn't say anything was wrong with that. Nor did I want to "take it
up" with anybody. I just noted that this often encountered spelling of
this title in English is unusual for an English transliteration of a
foreign name or term, so I wondered if there is a reason for that. As
I found out with just a minimum of research, there is. See above.
Thanks for providing this additional information. That those books all
follow that spelling demonstrates that it is indeed very common usage
in English, and I guess, "sanctioned" by these renowned dictionaries
and books as "correct".
I agree that the people who work on such dictionaries and
encyclopedias generally do thorough research into such matters - or at
least they are supposed to! - which in this case will have led to the
first published edition done by Belaieff in Leipzig. By tracing the
title back to that source, it can be confirmed that it was indeed the
correct title of that first edition, and that the common SCH spelling
is therefore not some error which kept getting copied from one
generation to the next, but the work's first "official" title in a
language other than Russian.
You seem to see a big argument there between you and me. I don't see
an argument here at all. Your and my data are not contradicting, but
complementing each other.
What seems to me to have been overlooked is that 'Sheherezade' in
English, with no other indication, suggests the work by Ravel.
(Why isn't that one Che- ?)
Post by r***@gmail.com
Scheherezade does not: it's Rimsky Korsakov unless otherwise
specified. Thus changing the transliterations could add confusion
where none now exists.
I really don't care whether Handel, Haendel, or Hendl (contempory
usage in Handel's time) is used for the composer of Messiah: it does
not cause much confusion either way. Ditto for the permutations of
Rachmaninov, Shakespeare, etc.  It would be unfortunate if Schumann,
Schuman, and other homonyms were confused. Otherwise it just affects
those whose concern is primarily alphabetised shelving and, above all,
'Order.'
Some of the debate has been fun to read though.
Don't forget the great composers Strauss, Charpentier, and Scarlatti.
Not to mention Handl.
A common misconception similar the the Rachmaninoff thing, at least in
Germany and Austria, is that Johann Strauß II actually spelled his
last name Strauss. In fact, all the members of he waltz dynasty
spelled their last name with ss except for Eduard Strauß - but they
used the so-called long s and short or round s combination ſs which
then morphed into ß. So the correct form is Strauß.
Peter T. Daniels
2011-01-20 20:48:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by M forever
Post by M forever
Post by Joe Roberts
Post by M forever
So why is that piece often spelled "Scheherazade"
instead of "Sheherazade"? Where does the extra C
come from?
"Orchestration" (Walter Piston) has it only with the "Sch";
"New College Encyclopedia of Music" (Westrup-Harrison-Wilson)
has it both ways with preference for the "Sh". Webster's Second
Edition gives it only as "Sch".
Those are all English publications. Why do they even
mention versions with "Sch"? That's not an English thing.
Once again, background clarifies the issue.
The work was first published in 1889 in Leipzig by the
publishing house M.P. Belaieff, founded by a Russian
lumber merchant who wanted to promote Russian music
in the West. That's where the "Sch" comes from - its the
German spelling.
It's also the Webster's spelling.  And we are here writing in English.  And it's also the World Book Encyclopedia's spelling.  That's in addition to the Piston "Orchestration" and the other encyclopedia cited previously.
   ...  If it's Piston on orchestration, giving bits of Scheherazade from a composer who arguably was one of the great orchestrators -- and who also wrote a book on it -- it's good enough for me.
   ...  Presumably a dictionary staff and several encyclopedia staffs (er, staves) do sufficient research to convince themselves that their spelling sufficiently reflects and organizes both academic and popular understanding and usage, perhaps in the current generation and one or two before, of the term within the culture of their target audience before they commit it to ink.  And that spelling in turn influences another generation of usage which we inherit.
Whew.  Could've just said, look it up in your Funk'n Wagnalls.
Not that Webster's and those other sources have to be Bible commandments on spelling, but what's wrong with using 'Sch' in a polite discussion?  Take it up with Yahweh, er, Jehovah.
I didn't say anything was wrong with that. Nor did I want to "take it
up" with anybody. I just noted that this often encountered spelling of
this title in English is unusual for an English transliteration of a
foreign name or term, so I wondered if there is a reason for that. As
I found out with just a minimum of research, there is. See above.
Thanks for providing this additional information. That those books all
follow that spelling demonstrates that it is indeed very common usage
in English, and I guess, "sanctioned" by these renowned dictionaries
and books as "correct".
I agree that the people who work on such dictionaries and
encyclopedias generally do thorough research into such matters - or at
least they are supposed to! - which in this case will have led to the
first published edition done by Belaieff in Leipzig. By tracing the
title back to that source, it can be confirmed that it was indeed the
correct title of that first edition, and that the common SCH spelling
is therefore not some error which kept getting copied from one
generation to the next, but the work's first "official" title in a
language other than Russian.
You seem to see a big argument there between you and me. I don't see
an argument here at all. Your and my data are not contradicting, but
complementing each other.
What seems to me to have been overlooked is that 'Sheherezade' in
English, with no other indication, suggests the work by Ravel.
(Why isn't that one Che- ?)
Post by r***@gmail.com
Scheherezade does not: it's Rimsky Korsakov unless otherwise
specified. Thus changing the transliterations could add confusion
where none now exists.
I really don't care whether Handel, Haendel, or Hendl (contempory
usage in Handel's time) is used for the composer of Messiah: it does
not cause much confusion either way. Ditto for the permutations of
Rachmaninov, Shakespeare, etc.  It would be unfortunate if Schumann,
Schuman, and other homonyms were confused. Otherwise it just affects
those whose concern is primarily alphabetised shelving and, above all,
'Order.'
Some of the debate has been fun to read though.
Don't forget the great composers Strauss, Charpentier, and Scarlatti.
Not to mention Handl.
A common misconception similar the the Rachmaninoff thing, at least in
Germany and Austria, is that Johann Strauß II actually spelled his
last name Strauss. In fact, all the members of he waltz dynasty
spelled their last name with ss except for Eduard Strauß - but they
used the so-called long s and short or round s combination ſs which
then morphed into ß. So the correct form is Strauß.-
Sorry, what made you imagine I was referring to any "members of he
waltz dynasty"?

And anyway, in the same environment where you presume to dictate how
Russian names shall be transliterated, the ess-tzet ligature simply
does not exist. It is absolutely and entirely incorrect to use it in
English. It must be, if you will, "transliterated" into ss. However,
there are plenty of German-language publications that renounce the ess-
tzet entirely (and not all of them from Switzerland).
M forever
2011-01-20 22:24:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by M forever
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by M forever
Post by M forever
Post by Joe Roberts
Post by M forever
So why is that piece often spelled "Scheherazade"
instead of "Sheherazade"? Where does the extra C
come from?
"Orchestration" (Walter Piston) has it only with the "Sch";
"New College Encyclopedia of Music" (Westrup-Harrison-Wilson)
has it both ways with preference for the "Sh". Webster's Second
Edition gives it only as "Sch".
Those are all English publications. Why do they even
mention versions with "Sch"? That's not an English thing.
Once again, background clarifies the issue.
The work was first published in 1889 in Leipzig by the
publishing house M.P. Belaieff, founded by a Russian
lumber merchant who wanted to promote Russian music
in the West. That's where the "Sch" comes from - its the
German spelling.
It's also the Webster's spelling.  And we are here writing in English.  And it's also the World Book Encyclopedia's spelling.  That's in addition to the Piston "Orchestration" and the other encyclopedia cited previously.
   ...  If it's Piston on orchestration, giving bits of Scheherazade from a composer who arguably was one of the great orchestrators -- and who also wrote a book on it -- it's good enough for me.
   ...  Presumably a dictionary staff and several encyclopedia staffs (er, staves) do sufficient research to convince themselves that their spelling sufficiently reflects and organizes both academic and popular understanding and usage, perhaps in the current generation and one or two before, of the term within the culture of their target audience before they commit it to ink.  And that spelling in turn influences another generation of usage which we inherit.
Whew.  Could've just said, look it up in your Funk'n Wagnalls.
Not that Webster's and those other sources have to be Bible commandments on spelling, but what's wrong with using 'Sch' in a polite discussion?  Take it up with Yahweh, er, Jehovah.
I didn't say anything was wrong with that. Nor did I want to "take it
up" with anybody. I just noted that this often encountered spelling of
this title in English is unusual for an English transliteration of a
foreign name or term, so I wondered if there is a reason for that. As
I found out with just a minimum of research, there is. See above.
Thanks for providing this additional information. That those books all
follow that spelling demonstrates that it is indeed very common usage
in English, and I guess, "sanctioned" by these renowned dictionaries
and books as "correct".
I agree that the people who work on such dictionaries and
encyclopedias generally do thorough research into such matters - or at
least they are supposed to! - which in this case will have led to the
first published edition done by Belaieff in Leipzig. By tracing the
title back to that source, it can be confirmed that it was indeed the
correct title of that first edition, and that the common SCH spelling
is therefore not some error which kept getting copied from one
generation to the next, but the work's first "official" title in a
language other than Russian.
You seem to see a big argument there between you and me. I don't see
an argument here at all. Your and my data are not contradicting, but
complementing each other.
What seems to me to have been overlooked is that 'Sheherezade' in
English, with no other indication, suggests the work by Ravel.
(Why isn't that one Che- ?)
Post by r***@gmail.com
Scheherezade does not: it's Rimsky Korsakov unless otherwise
specified. Thus changing the transliterations could add confusion
where none now exists.
I really don't care whether Handel, Haendel, or Hendl (contempory
usage in Handel's time) is used for the composer of Messiah: it does
not cause much confusion either way. Ditto for the permutations of
Rachmaninov, Shakespeare, etc.  It would be unfortunate if Schumann,
Schuman, and other homonyms were confused. Otherwise it just affects
those whose concern is primarily alphabetised shelving and, above all,
'Order.'
Some of the debate has been fun to read though.
Don't forget the great composers Strauss, Charpentier, and Scarlatti.
Not to mention Handl.
A common misconception similar the the Rachmaninoff thing, at least in
Germany and Austria, is that Johann Strauß II actually spelled his
last name Strauss. In fact, all the members of he waltz dynasty
spelled their last name with ss except for Eduard Strauß - but they
used the so-called long s and short or round s combination ſs which
then morphed into ß. So the correct form is Strauß.-
Sorry, what made you imagine I was referring to any "members of he
waltz dynasty"?
Nothing, really. Just reading the name made me think of that common
"confusion" about how to spell the waltz king's name.

So which Strauss *were* you referring to, and why? Richard? I am not
aware of any open questions around the spelling of his name.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And anyway, in the same environment where you presume to dictate how
Russian names shall be transliterated,
I do not.

But in the case of his own name, Rachmaninoff did.

That has nothing to do with me. I am just pointing out the facts and
the evidence, and I gave an explanation for the historic reasons
behind this choice,

And, BTW, this applies also in other "environments", not just English,
in which the Latin script is used.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
the ess-tzet ligature simply
does not exist. It is absolutely and entirely incorrect to use it in
English. It must be, if you will, "transliterated" into ss. However,
there are plenty of German-language publications that renounce the ess-
tzet entirely (and not all of them from Switzerland).
It's actually called "Eszett". If you want to phonetically
circumscribe it in English, "ess-tzet" is wrong because in English, Z
before E is voiced and in German, it is not. So you should either call
the letter by its real name, or call it "ess-tset".

In any case, first of all, I said this is a common misconception in
Germany and Austria. I didn't say it was a common problem for English
speaking (or writing) people where the Eszett doesn't occur.



Whether or not it is "incorrect" to use such a letter in an alphabet
which normally doesn't have it is not a decision we want to leave up
to you. There are no accents in German but it is considered very
correct to write the correct French accents and other elements not
present in the German alphabet. Same with the OE ligature and the
thing which sometimes occurs under the C, whatever that is called. Or
the special characters occurring in such names as Dvořák or
Lutosławski. And I see that it is not at all "incorrect" to use these
when writing in English either. Obviously, in an informal format such
as this it doesn't really matter, but in an official article or book,
care to spell such names correctly is certainly not too much to ask of
an author who wants to be taken seriously. Same with the German
Umlaute, BTW. It's not such a big deal to use any of the letters,
especially when typing on a computer.
Gerard
2011-01-20 22:43:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by M forever
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by M forever
Post by M forever
Post by Joe Roberts
Post by M forever
So why is that piece often spelled "Scheherazade"
instead of "Sheherazade"? Where does the extra C
come from?
"Orchestration" (Walter Piston) has it only with the
"Sch"; "New College Encyclopedia of Music"
(Westrup-Harrison-Wilson) has it both ways with
preference for the "Sh". Webster's Second Edition
gives it only as "Sch".
Those are all English publications. Why do they even
mention versions with "Sch"? That's not an English thing.
Once again, background clarifies the issue.
The work was first published in 1889 in Leipzig by the
publishing house M.P. Belaieff, founded by a Russian
lumber merchant who wanted to promote Russian music
in the West. That's where the "Sch" comes from - its the
German spelling.
It's also the Webster's spelling. Â And we are here
writing in English. Â And it's also the World Book
Encyclopedia's spelling. Â That's in addition to the
Piston "Orchestration" and the other encyclopedia cited
previously.
  ...  If it's Piston on orchestration, giving bits of
Scheherazade from a composer who arguably was one of the
great orchestrators -- and who also wrote a book on it --
it's good enough for me.
  ...  Presumably a dictionary staff and several
encyclopedia staffs (er, staves) do sufficient research
to convince themselves that their spelling sufficiently
reflects and organizes both academic and popular
understanding and usage, perhaps in the current
generation and one or two before, of the term within the
culture of their target audience before they commit it to
ink. Â And that spelling in turn influences another
generation of usage which we inherit.
Whew. Â Could've just said, look it up in your Funk'n
Wagnalls.
Not that Webster's and those other sources have to be
Bible commandments on spelling, but what's wrong with
using 'Sch' in a polite discussion? Â Take it up with
Yahweh, er, Jehovah.
I didn't say anything was wrong with that. Nor did I want
to "take it up" with anybody. I just noted that this often
encountered spelling of this title in English is unusual
for an English transliteration of a foreign name or term,
so I wondered if there is a reason for that. As I found out
with just a minimum of research, there is. See above.
Thanks for providing this additional information. That
those books all follow that spelling demonstrates that it
is indeed very common usage in English, and I guess,
"sanctioned" by these renowned dictionaries and books as
"correct".
I agree that the people who work on such dictionaries and
encyclopedias generally do thorough research into such
matters - or at least they are supposed to! - which in this
case will have led to the first published edition done by
Belaieff in Leipzig. By tracing the title back to that
source, it can be confirmed that it was indeed the correct
title of that first edition, and that the common SCH
spelling is therefore not some error which kept getting
copied from one generation to the next, but the work's
first "official" title in a language other than Russian.
You seem to see a big argument there between you and me. I
don't see an argument here at all. Your and my data are not
contradicting, but complementing each other.
What seems to me to have been overlooked is that
'Sheherezade' in English, with no other indication, suggests
the work by Ravel.
(Why isn't that one Che- ?)
Post by r***@gmail.com
Scheherezade does not: it's Rimsky Korsakov unless otherwise
specified. Thus changing the transliterations could add
confusion where none now exists.
I really don't care whether Handel, Haendel, or Hendl
(contempory usage in Handel's time) is used for the composer
of Messiah: it does not cause much confusion either way.
Ditto for the permutations of Rachmaninov, Shakespeare, etc.
 It would be unfortunate if Schumann, Schuman, and other
homonyms were confused. Otherwise it just affects those whose
concern is primarily alphabetised shelving and, above all,
'Order.'
Some of the debate has been fun to read though.
Don't forget the great composers Strauss, Charpentier, and
Scarlatti. Not to mention Handl.
A common misconception similar the the Rachmaninoff thing, at
least in Germany and Austria, is that Johann Strauß II actually
spelled his last name Strauss. In fact, all the members of he
waltz dynasty spelled their last name with ss except for Eduard
Strauß - but they used the so-called long s and short or round s
combination ſs which then morphed into ß. So the correct form
is Strauß.-
Sorry, what made you imagine I was referring to any "members of he
waltz dynasty"?
Nothing, really. Just reading the name made me think of that common
"confusion" about how to spell the waltz king's name.
So which Strauss *were* you referring to, and why? Richard? I am not
aware of any open questions around the spelling of his name.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And anyway, in the same environment where you presume to dictate how
Russian names shall be transliterated,
I do not.
But in the case of his own name, Rachmaninoff did.
That has nothing to do with me. I am just pointing out the facts and
the evidence, and I gave an explanation for the historic reasons
behind this choice,
And, BTW, this applies also in other "environments", not just English,
in which the Latin script is used.
Not so.
Different languages have different rules about how Russian names shall be
transliterated.
Post by M forever
Post by Peter T. Daniels
the ess-tzet ligature simply
does not exist. It is absolutely and entirely incorrect to use it in
English. It must be, if you will, "transliterated" into ss. However,
there are plenty of German-language publications that renounce the
ess- tzet entirely (and not all of them from Switzerland).
It's actually called "Eszett". If you want to phonetically
circumscribe it in English, "ess-tzet" is wrong because in English, Z
before E is voiced and in German, it is not. So you should either call
the letter by its real name, or call it "ess-tset".
In any case, first of all, I said this is a common misconception in
Germany and Austria. I didn't say it was a common problem for English
speaking (or writing) people where the Eszett doesn't occur.
Whether or not it is "incorrect" to use such a letter in an alphabet
which normally doesn't have it is not a decision we want to leave up
to you. There are no accents in German but it is considered very
correct to write the correct French accents and other elements not
present in the German alphabet. Same with the OE ligature and the
thing which sometimes occurs under the C, whatever that is called. Or
the special characters occurring in such names as Dvořák or
Lutosławski. And I see that it is not at all "incorrect" to use these
when writing in English either. Obviously, in an informal format such
as this it doesn't really matter, but in an official article or book,
care to spell such names correctly is certainly not too much to ask of
an author who wants to be taken seriously. Same with the German
Umlaute, BTW. It's not such a big deal to use any of the letters,
especially when typing on a computer.
M forever
2011-01-20 22:53:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by M forever
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by M forever
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by M forever
Post by M forever
Post by Joe Roberts
Post by M forever
So why is that piece often spelled "Scheherazade"
instead of "Sheherazade"? Where does the extra C
come from?
"Orchestration" (Walter Piston) has it only with the
"Sch"; "New College Encyclopedia of Music"
(Westrup-Harrison-Wilson) has it both ways with
preference for the "Sh". Webster's Second Edition
gives it only as "Sch".
Those are all English publications. Why do they even
mention versions with "Sch"? That's not an English thing.
Once again, background clarifies the issue.
The work was first published in 1889 in Leipzig by the
publishing house M.P. Belaieff, founded by a Russian
lumber merchant who wanted to promote Russian music
in the West. That's where the "Sch" comes from - its the
German spelling.
It's also the Webster's spelling. And we are here
writing in English. And it's also the World Book
Encyclopedia's spelling. That's in addition to the
Piston "Orchestration" and the other encyclopedia cited
previously.
... If it's Piston on orchestration, giving bits of
Scheherazade from a composer who arguably was one of the
great orchestrators -- and who also wrote a book on it --
it's good enough for me.
... Presumably a dictionary staff and several
encyclopedia staffs (er, staves) do sufficient research
to convince themselves that their spelling sufficiently
reflects and organizes both academic and popular
understanding and usage, perhaps in the current
generation and one or two before, of the term within the
culture of their target audience before they commit it to
ink. And that spelling in turn influences another
generation of usage which we inherit.
Whew. Could've just said, look it up in your Funk'n
Wagnalls.
Not that Webster's and those other sources have to be
Bible commandments on spelling, but what's wrong with
using 'Sch' in a polite discussion? Take it up with
Yahweh, er, Jehovah.
I didn't say anything was wrong with that. Nor did I want
to "take it up" with anybody. I just noted that this often
encountered spelling of this title in English is unusual
for an English transliteration of a foreign name or term,
so I wondered if there is a reason for that. As I found out
with just a minimum of research, there is. See above.
Thanks for providing this additional information. That
those books all follow that spelling demonstrates that it
is indeed very common usage in English, and I guess,
"sanctioned" by these renowned dictionaries and books as
"correct".
I agree that the people who work on such dictionaries and
encyclopedias generally do thorough research into such
matters - or at least they are supposed to! - which in this
case will have led to the first published edition done by
Belaieff in Leipzig. By tracing the title back to that
source, it can be confirmed that it was indeed the correct
title of that first edition, and that the common SCH
spelling is therefore not some error which kept getting
copied from one generation to the next, but the work's
first "official" title in a language other than Russian.
You seem to see a big argument there between you and me. I
don't see an argument here at all. Your and my data are not
contradicting, but complementing each other.
What seems to me to have been overlooked is that
'Sheherezade' in English, with no other indication, suggests
the work by Ravel.
(Why isn't that one Che- ?)
Post by r***@gmail.com
Scheherezade does not: it's Rimsky Korsakov unless otherwise
specified. Thus changing the transliterations could add
confusion where none now exists.
I really don't care whether Handel, Haendel, or Hendl
(contempory usage in Handel's time) is used for the composer
of Messiah: it does not cause much confusion either way.
Ditto for the permutations of Rachmaninov, Shakespeare, etc.
It would be unfortunate if Schumann, Schuman, and other
homonyms were confused. Otherwise it just affects those whose
concern is primarily alphabetised shelving and, above all,
'Order.'
Some of the debate has been fun to read though.
Don't forget the great composers Strauss, Charpentier, and
Scarlatti. Not to mention Handl.
A common misconception similar the the Rachmaninoff thing, at
least in Germany and Austria, is that Johann Strauß II actually
spelled his last name Strauss. In fact, all the members of he
waltz dynasty spelled their last name with ss except for Eduard
Strauß - but they used the so-called long s and short or round s
combination ſs which then morphed into ß. So the correct form
is Strauß.-
Sorry, what made you imagine I was referring to any "members of he
waltz dynasty"?
Nothing, really. Just reading the name made me think of that common
"confusion" about how to spell the waltz king's name.
So which Strauss *were* you referring to, and why? Richard? I am not
aware of any open questions around the spelling of his name.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And anyway, in the same environment where you presume to dictate how
Russian names shall be transliterated,
I do not.
But in the case of his own name, Rachmaninoff did.
That has nothing to do with me. I am just pointing out the facts and
the evidence, and I gave an explanation for the historic reasons
behind this choice,
And, BTW, this applies also in other "environments", not just English,
in which the Latin script is used.
Not so.
Different languages have different rules about how Russian names shall be
transliterated.
There is no need to transliterate Rachmaninoff's name. He already did
so himself. When it comes to people who didn't chose the form their
name should have in the West, local rules apply. If the composer
himself made that choice, it trumps everything else. It is his name,
after all.
Post by Gerard
Post by M forever
Post by Peter T. Daniels
the ess-tzet ligature simply
does not exist. It is absolutely and entirely incorrect to use it in
English. It must be, if you will, "transliterated" into ss. However,
there are plenty of German-language publications that renounce the
ess- tzet entirely (and not all of them from Switzerland).
It's actually called "Eszett". If you want to phonetically
circumscribe it in English, "ess-tzet" is wrong because in English, Z
before E is voiced and in German, it is not. So you should either call
the letter by its real name, or call it "ess-tset".
In any case, first of all, I said this is a common misconception in
Germany and Austria. I didn't say it was a common problem for English
speaking (or writing) people where the Eszett doesn't occur.
Whether or not it is "incorrect" to use such a letter in an alphabet
which normally doesn't have it is not a decision we want to leave up
to you. There are no accents in German but it is considered very
correct to write the correct French accents and other elements not
present in the German alphabet. Same with the OE ligature and the
thing which sometimes occurs under the C, whatever that is called. Or
the special characters occurring in such names as Dvořák or
Lutosławski. And I see that it is not at all "incorrect" to use these
when writing in English either. Obviously, in an informal format such
as this it doesn't really matter, but in an official article or book,
care to spell such names correctly is certainly not too much to ask of
an author who wants to be taken seriously. Same with the German
Umlaute, BTW. It's not such a big deal to use any of the letters,
especially when typing on a computer.
Gerard
2011-01-20 23:01:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Gerard
Post by M forever
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by M forever
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by M forever
Post by M forever
Post by Joe Roberts
Post by M forever
So why is that piece often spelled
"Scheherazade" instead of "Sheherazade"? Where
does the extra C come from?
"Orchestration" (Walter Piston) has it only with
the "Sch"; "New College Encyclopedia of Music"
(Westrup-Harrison-Wilson) has it both ways with
preference for the "Sh". Webster's Second Edition
gives it only as "Sch".
Those are all English publications. Why do they even
mention versions with "Sch"? That's not an English
thing.
Once again, background clarifies the issue.
The work was first published in 1889 in Leipzig by
the publishing house M.P. Belaieff, founded by a
Russian lumber merchant who wanted to promote
Russian music
in the West. That's where the "Sch" comes from -
its the German spelling.
It's also the Webster's spelling. And we are here
writing in English. And it's also the World Book
Encyclopedia's spelling. That's in addition to the
Piston "Orchestration" and the other encyclopedia
cited previously.
... If it's Piston on orchestration, giving bits of
Scheherazade from a composer who arguably was one of
the great orchestrators -- and who also wrote a book
on it -- it's good enough for me.
... Presumably a dictionary staff and several
encyclopedia staffs (er, staves) do sufficient
research to convince themselves that their spelling
sufficiently reflects and organizes both academic and
popular understanding and usage, perhaps in the
current generation and one or two before, of the term
within the culture of their target audience before
they commit it to ink. And that spelling in turn
influences another generation of usage which we
inherit.
Whew. Could've just said, look it up in your Funk'n
Wagnalls.
Not that Webster's and those other sources have to be
Bible commandments on spelling, but what's wrong with
using 'Sch' in a polite discussion? Take it up with
Yahweh, er, Jehovah.
I didn't say anything was wrong with that. Nor did I
want to "take it up" with anybody. I just noted that
this often encountered spelling of this title in
English is unusual for an English transliteration of a
foreign name or term, so I wondered if there is a
reason for that. As I found out with just a minimum of
research, there is. See above.
Thanks for providing this additional information. That
those books all follow that spelling demonstrates that
it is indeed very common usage in English, and I guess,
"sanctioned" by these renowned dictionaries and books as
"correct".
I agree that the people who work on such dictionaries
and encyclopedias generally do thorough research into
such matters - or at least they are supposed to! -
which in this case will have led to the first published
edition done by Belaieff in Leipzig. By tracing the
title back to that source, it can be confirmed that it
was indeed the correct title of that first edition, and
that the common SCH spelling is therefore not some
error which kept getting copied from one generation to
the next, but the work's first "official" title in a
language other than Russian.
You seem to see a big argument there between you and
me. I don't see an argument here at all. Your and my
data are not contradicting, but complementing each
other.
What seems to me to have been overlooked is that
'Sheherezade' in English, with no other indication,
suggests the work by Ravel.
(Why isn't that one Che- ?)
Post by r***@gmail.com
Scheherezade does not: it's Rimsky Korsakov unless
otherwise specified. Thus changing the transliterations
could add confusion where none now exists.
I really don't care whether Handel, Haendel, or Hendl
(contempory usage in Handel's time) is used for the
composer of Messiah: it does not cause much confusion
either way. Ditto for the permutations of Rachmaninov,
Shakespeare, etc. It would be unfortunate if Schumann,
Schuman, and other homonyms were confused. Otherwise it
just affects those whose concern is primarily
alphabetised shelving and, above all, 'Order.'
Some of the debate has been fun to read though.
Don't forget the great composers Strauss, Charpentier, and
Scarlatti. Not to mention Handl.
A common misconception similar the the Rachmaninoff thing, at
least in Germany and Austria, is that Johann Strauß II
actually spelled his last name Strauss. In fact, all the
members of he waltz dynasty spelled their last name with ss
except for Eduard Strauß - but they used the so-called long
s and short or round s combination Å¿s which then morphed
into ß. So the correct form is Strauß.-
Sorry, what made you imagine I was referring to any "members of
he waltz dynasty"?
Nothing, really. Just reading the name made me think of that
common "confusion" about how to spell the waltz king's name.
So which Strauss *were* you referring to, and why? Richard? I am
not aware of any open questions around the spelling of his name.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And anyway, in the same environment where you presume to
dictate how Russian names shall be transliterated,
I do not.
But in the case of his own name, Rachmaninoff did.
That has nothing to do with me. I am just pointing out the facts
and the evidence, and I gave an explanation for the historic
reasons behind this choice,
And, BTW, this applies also in other "environments", not just
English, in which the Latin script is used.
Not so.
Different languages have different rules about how Russian names
shall be transliterated.
There is no need to transliterate Rachmaninoff's name. He already did
so himself. When it comes to people who didn't chose the form their
name should have in the West, local rules apply. If the composer
himself made that choice, it trumps everything else. It is his name,
after all.
Not completely. There are other people with the same name. To those the local
rules apply. So if /one/ prefers another way of writing (maybe not even knowing
anything about local rules), the local rules do not become invalid at once.
M forever
2011-01-20 23:20:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by M forever
Post by Gerard
Post by M forever
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by M forever
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by M forever
Post by M forever
Post by Joe Roberts
Post by M forever
So why is that piece often spelled
"Scheherazade" instead of "Sheherazade"? Where
does the extra C come from?
"Orchestration" (Walter Piston) has it only with
the "Sch"; "New College Encyclopedia of Music"
(Westrup-Harrison-Wilson) has it both ways with
preference for the "Sh". Webster's Second Edition
gives it only as "Sch".
Those are all English publications. Why do they even
mention versions with "Sch"? That's not an English
thing.
Once again, background clarifies the issue.
The work was first published in 1889 in Leipzig by
the publishing house M.P. Belaieff, founded by a
Russian lumber merchant who wanted to promote
Russian music
in the West. That's where the "Sch" comes from -
its the German spelling.
It's also the Webster's spelling. And we are here
writing in English. And it's also the World Book
Encyclopedia's spelling. That's in addition to the
Piston "Orchestration" and the other encyclopedia
cited previously.
... If it's Piston on orchestration, giving bits of
Scheherazade from a composer who arguably was one of
the great orchestrators -- and who also wrote a book
on it -- it's good enough for me.
... Presumably a dictionary staff and several
encyclopedia staffs (er, staves) do sufficient
research to convince themselves that their spelling
sufficiently reflects and organizes both academic and
popular understanding and usage, perhaps in the
current generation and one or two before, of the term
within the culture of their target audience before
they commit it to ink. And that spelling in turn
influences another generation of usage which we
inherit.
Whew. Could've just said, look it up in your Funk'n
Wagnalls.
Not that Webster's and those other sources have to be
Bible commandments on spelling, but what's wrong with
using 'Sch' in a polite discussion? Take it up with
Yahweh, er, Jehovah.
I didn't say anything was wrong with that. Nor did I
want to "take it up" with anybody. I just noted that
this often encountered spelling of this title in
English is unusual for an English transliteration of a
foreign name or term, so I wondered if there is a
reason for that. As I found out with just a minimum of
research, there is. See above.
Thanks for providing this additional information. That
those books all follow that spelling demonstrates that
it is indeed very common usage in English, and I guess,
"sanctioned" by these renowned dictionaries and books as
"correct".
I agree that the people who work on such dictionaries
and encyclopedias generally do thorough research into
such matters - or at least they are supposed to! -
which in this case will have led to the first published
edition done by Belaieff in Leipzig. By tracing the
title back to that source, it can be confirmed that it
was indeed the correct title of that first edition, and
that the common SCH spelling is therefore not some
error which kept getting copied from one generation to
the next, but the work's first "official" title in a
language other than Russian.
You seem to see a big argument there between you and
me. I don't see an argument here at all. Your and my
data are not contradicting, but complementing each
other.
What seems to me to have been overlooked is that
'Sheherezade' in English, with no other indication,
suggests the work by Ravel.
(Why isn't that one Che- ?)
Post by r***@gmail.com
Scheherezade does not: it's Rimsky Korsakov unless
otherwise specified. Thus changing the transliterations
could add confusion where none now exists.
I really don't care whether Handel, Haendel, or Hendl
(contempory usage in Handel's time) is used for the
composer of Messiah: it does not cause much confusion
either way. Ditto for the permutations of Rachmaninov,
Shakespeare, etc. It would be unfortunate if Schumann,
Schuman, and other homonyms were confused. Otherwise it
just affects those whose concern is primarily
alphabetised shelving and, above all, 'Order.'
Some of the debate has been fun to read though.
Don't forget the great composers Strauss, Charpentier, and
Scarlatti. Not to mention Handl.
A common misconception similar the the Rachmaninoff thing, at
least in Germany and Austria, is that Johann Strauß II
actually spelled his last name Strauss. In fact, all the
members of he waltz dynasty spelled their last name with ss
except for Eduard Strauß - but they used the so-called long
s and short or round s combination ſs which then morphed
into ß. So the correct form is Strauß.-
Sorry, what made you imagine I was referring to any "members of
he waltz dynasty"?
Nothing, really. Just reading the name made me think of that
common "confusion" about how to spell the waltz king's name.
So which Strauss *were* you referring to, and why? Richard? I am
not aware of any open questions around the spelling of his name.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And anyway, in the same environment where you presume to
dictate how Russian names shall be transliterated,
I do not.
But in the case of his own name, Rachmaninoff did.
That has nothing to do with me. I am just pointing out the facts
and the evidence, and I gave an explanation for the historic
reasons behind this choice,
And, BTW, this applies also in other "environments", not just
English, in which the Latin script is used.
Not so.
Different languages have different rules about how Russian names
shall be transliterated.
There is no need to transliterate Rachmaninoff's name. He already did
so himself. When it comes to people who didn't chose the form their
name should have in the West, local rules apply. If the composer
himself made that choice, it trumps everything else. It is his name,
after all.
Not completely. There are other people with the same name.
Yes, and if they want to be spelled Rachmaninov or Rakhmaninov, fine.
But the well known musician Rachmaninoff did not want to be spelled in
that way.
Post by Gerard
To those the local
rules apply. So if /one/ prefers another way of writing (maybe not even knowing
anything about local rules), the local rules do not become invalid at once.
You don't have to know anything about local rules of writing to decide
how your name should be spelled. If you want your name be spelled a
given way in a given alphabet, nothing else matters. It's your name.
You can spell your name in whatever way you like.

Peter T. Daniels
2011-01-18 06:14:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by M forever
So why is that piece often spelled "Scheherazade"
instead of "Sheherazade"? Where does the extra C
come from?
"Orchestration" (Walter Piston) has it only with the "Sch"; "New College Encyclopedia of Music" (Westrup-Harrison-Wilson) has it both ways with preference for the "Sh".  Webster's Second Edition gives it only as "Sch".
Those are all English publications. Why do they even mention versions
with "Sch"? That's not an English thing.
Dictionaries -- especially Merriam-Webster's -- _describe_ the
language as it is attested. They do not set up some sort of ideal that
must be followed. As of 1931, that's how the name was spelled in
English.
Matthew B. Tepper
2011-01-18 01:38:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe Roberts
There's a story about a radio station somewhere in the rural mid-USA
(its exact location didn't come with the story).
Mostly they played Top-40 Pop Hits, but they'd received a few requests to
put on some classical music. So they started a "Cultural Hour" program.
On the first program, the announcer announced "now we'll hear Ave Maria,
composed by Bach-Gounod". As the music was playing, telephone calls came
in from folks, informing the station that hyphenated names meant that the
music was originally composed by the person with the first name and later
arranged by the one with the second name.
When the "Ave Maria" ended, the announcer thanked the folks who had
called in, and apologized for the error: "Of course I should have said,
it was composed by Bach and arranged by Gounod". Matter closed.
Then he announced the next piece: "Scheherazade".
*cackle* Some of the announcers from Babbling Bonnie's reign of terror at
KUSC might have been pretty nearly that dumb.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Loading...