Re: Liszt Sonata: which recording?
- From: td <tomdedeacon@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 03:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
On May 31, 9:54 pm, O <ow...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<bf5bb5cf-366e-4648-8599-1be144462...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, td
Clout was, perhaps, unwisely chosen to convey my meaning. Weight?
Credibility, perhaps?
But to what end? What good is it? What do you DO with it?
It doesn't matter, does it?
Robert J Oppenheimer was raked over the coals by Teller and some dumb
politician and he had all the weight, credibility, and clout one could
want. Rehabilitated personally by Kennedy, who knew that the RW had
sandbagged a great American.
Interesting fact: He asked that his ashes be spread on the ocean
outside of American waters.
As a guide to the
purchase of recordings?
Perhaps, but not necessarily. My tastes are not those of the average
record buyer, I would guess. Sometimes I try to suggest things which
might be of general interest, at other times those which might appeal
to the specialist.
I've bought recordings recommended here, even some recommended by you,
and not ones by Hatto either. It's been a valuable resource to me.
Glad to be of help.
Mark Stenroos twitted me for coming up with a recommendation for the
Liszt sonata which appeared to him as slightly esoteric, out of the
main stream, as opposed to the list of recordings which might have
appealed to the broad public: Horowitz, Argerich, Arrau, Brendel,
Zimerman, et al. I understand his point, but maintain that George-
Emmanuel Lazaridis can stand comparison with all of those names and in
my opinion deserves attention. Hence my suggestion.
I believe that Mark was teasing you. The amazing thing is that you're
both right, and it's a perfectly natural thing that you both be right
even though contradictory.
David Gable's experience as a music historian is valuable. But when he
starts opining on the merits of Pierre Boulez's music or Charles
Rosen's virtuosity as a pianist, he is venturing on territory in which
his experience hardly informs his opinions.
In the above paragraph, you belie your point: background only matters
when the respondent agrees with ME.
Wrong. We all bring backgrounds to our opinions. Some have more
relevance to certain opinions than others do. I loathe Wagner. That
doesn't sway anyone who loves Wagner. They tend to ignore my distaste.
Ditto Bruckner. Mahler too, although I would not dispense with
everything he wrote in the same way. Or even Wagner, who wrote
distasteful music which is nonetheless significant in the history of
music. David Gable could step up to the plate on this score, of
course. Not that he would, since his nose is buried in Pierre Boulez.
But the gentle reader here has no scope to judge such things. He merely
reads posts, some outrageously and obviously unwise, some seeming wise,
and some he has no clue.
That, I am afraid, is the gentle reader's problem. Not mine. Clueless
readers abound.
Which is to say that background IS important here, as well as in life
in general. I don't want an inexperienced pilot to fly me across the
Atlantic. And I don't want someone who just discovered the Liszt
Sonata yesterday to offer his opinions of Claudio Arrau.
Of course you don't. But someone else just discovering the Liszt
Sonata might agree more with a neophyte than you. Maybe they'll age
and mature over time to ultimately agree with you. Maybe they won't.
My point is simply that I don't give such opinions weight. I will
describe them as jejeune, naive, take your pick.
As you should, for they are opinions, and you know what you like.
The internet is the great leveler, the great Democratizer, the perfect
example of Anarchy.
Well, if you equate democracy with anarchy, I am not sure where you
are coming from, frankly.
It is Anarchic as there are no restrictions, and it is Democratic as
everyone can post his "vote," and, in the end, posts are judged on
themselves, not on the clout or reputation of the author, though for
most of us, we know about what we'll see when we open one another's
post.
Yet in spite of this, we're all still here, and this group is still one
of the busiest on Usenet.
Anyone can publish his opinions, no matter how
good or how bad, and they do publish them. Your background counts only
as good as you can convince people, as backgrounds can be easily
fabricated in this medium.
Actually not. My background is really only of importance to me,
personally. And only I know what I have done, what I know, and what my
opinion means. Often the "counting" will depend upon my rhetorical
abilities at the moment of opinionating. Very often I don't have the
time or inclination.
You've previously stated you consider background relevent in assessing
the weight or clout of opinions stated here, yet you here state that
it's only of importance to you, so which one is it? Or do you just
like to dazzle us with conundrums?
Nor do you, as you tend to hide your opinions in cute quips. Your
choice. And as a result I don't give them much credence.
I post here, as everyone else does, because I enjoy it. If one didn't
then they wouldn't post. As you said, I don't have time to comment as
much as I like, and who does (except for some people who appear to be
waiting here to respond to posts 24 hours a day). I also read other's
posts because I enjoy reading them, except for a very few in the kill
file, as even I can stand only so much nonsense. I've been posting
here for thirty years or so, and I've learned a whole lot about the
industry, about recordings, and about musicians just from hanging out
here, and reading what the people who were there have to say about it.
But as far as my opinions, I expect you to value them for what you paid
for them.
We've had numerous incarnations of Alan
Watkins, whoever he is. Joyce Hatto convinced slews of people with
just the backgrounds you're talking about that she was actually a
pianist.
Joyce Hatto resembles Bernie Madoff. There was the whole gamut of
people involved in the two massive frauds.
And those are just the frauds we know about.
Who even knows if you're really Tom Deacon, producer of the GPOC?
Well, I doubt that anyone else would have several copies of the
complete GPE in his or her library, share my name, and my history. But
I take your point.
As I said, it's what you write that makes the man here, because up to
now I had no idea you had several copies of anything in your library.
Nor does even that prove it's you.
But what I can say is that we know a hell of a lot
less about you, for example.
My last name's (Hartnett) been on here countless times, especially in
the older posts, easy enough to find, and many have done so. Then a
google search will give you all you need to know about me, should you
be so inclined. I still have to work for a living, and potential
employers use google, and when my name kept coming up with all the name
calling here, I thought it left a bad impression.
Doesn't seem to worry Matthew B. Tepper.
-Owen, who only has ears for you.
Well, as you know, I have no ears. DK made that perfectly clear years
ago.
I think DK may have been on this group before I was. Well, if you see
him, tell him Naida says hello.
Naida only has eyes for her hubby.
TD
.
- References:
- Re: Liszt Sonata: which recording?
- From: td
- Re: Liszt Sonata: which recording?
- From: O
- Re: Liszt Sonata: which recording?
- From: td
- Re: Liszt Sonata: which recording?
- From: O
- Re: Liszt Sonata: which recording?
- Prev by Date: Re: Liszt Sonata: which recording?
- Next by Date: Re: Haydn House launches Great Cathedral Organ Series
- Previous by thread: Re: Liszt Sonata: which recording?
- Next by thread: Re: Liszt Sonata: which recording?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
