Re: Boston Globe on J Hatto
- From: andrys@xxxxxxxxx (Andrys Basten)
- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:01:21 +0000 (UTC)
In article <MPG.1d733728b637e541989ea2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Wayne Reimer <wrdsl@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> In article <debuqr$9sp$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, andrys@xxxxxxxxx says...
>> Wayne, this latest argument is totally NEEDLESS.
>>
>
>As is the whole of rmcr.
>
>> I didn't join in with a couple of rags against you, but
>> you started this for no reason I can discern and it really
>> makes no sense.
>>
>Let me explain again then. I think it's funny (and worth a short
>comment) that it turns out that the same guy who wrote the piece on
>Hatto that you've added approving comments to is the same guy who wrote
>a positive piece on Tomsic, which was one of the reviews I had in mind
>when I compared press coverage between Tomsic and Hatto, and about
>which you made that snide comment about my trusting the press.
The snide comment was about your denying possible WORTH
of a pianist BASED on YOUR NOT SEEING any industry press. In
other words, you BELIEVED that if no press had reported on her
to your satisfaction, she couldn't be much good.
My snide remark was that you predicated your entire position
on her possible worth as a remarkable pianist on the fact that
industry press had not reported on her. THAT was the DEPENDENCE
on the worth of the Press that I meant.
Not a chance review of someone you felt compelled to
see.
The snideness was real and was in response to your taking
a LACK of such press as indicative of a lack of worth. That
very strange dependence on The Word from Press before you
pay much attention was what I was referring to, though you
can't seem to get it, or won't.
>However, now that it's about a person you're crazy about, what that
>reviewer has to say would seem to have gained in value.
No, it's just finally a reviewer YOU would pay attention
to and the worth of that review is only because people like
you won't take other listener's views seriously unless you
hear it from The Press.
> It even
>appeared over in the Yahoo forum, I think by your initiative. That's
>all.
Right. I introduced it by saying that I had seen it posted
at RMCR, and it was right after a post in which Hatto had been
discussed.
I hope that meets with your approval. I put up all kinds of
reviews and posts whether or not they agree with my taste.
Perhaps you don't do the same.
>If you want to make that into WWIII, be my guest.
You're the one who couldn't resist. As usual.
Worse, you don't evne get the simplest point of how his
review of Tomsic has nothing to do with how a review of his
will finally fit in with what -you- have been seeking to help
you feel that possibly mere listeners in RMCR might be right
that there is something going on with Hatto's outuput that
has engaged a lot of ears here, quite disparate sets at that.
So, yes, the remark stands. The rest of us didn't need
that review to get our ears up. But you kept asking for some.
So, you finally got a fairly good one.
- A
--
http://www.andrys.com
.
- References:
- Boston Globe on J Hatto
- From: jwlidz
- Re: Boston Globe on J Hatto
- From: Andrys Basten
- Boston Globe on J Hatto
- Prev by Date: Re: GP20C - Julius Katchen I Booklet Misprint
- Next by Date: Re: Sony Classic Library First Releases
- Previous by thread: Re: Boston Globe on J Hatto
- Next by thread: Re: Boston Globe on J Hatto
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
