Bryce Morrison and Joyce Hatto (and Deacon and Matsuzawa)
MrT
interest to the RMCR crowd:
[begin quote]
--------------------------------
Donald Manildi has found a concrete example of a critic panning a CD
when it first came out and then raving about it as a Hatto fake. The
critic in
question is Bryce Morrison, who in the latest issue of Gramophone
claims that he "never heard any of the discs on which the epic Hatto
deception
was based." This claim is provably false as demonstrated below.
It is well known that the Rachmaninoff 2nd and 3rd Concertos of Hatto
are ripoffs of the performances by Yefim Bronfman on Sony. I have
confirmed
this for myself, comparing wav files of both and listening to the
movements
myself. I also can state as fact that there was no tempo manipulation
or other monkey business involved with this Hatto release. The timings
and
tempos for each movement are identical on Hatto and Bronfman. Other
than slightly changing the acoustic sound the Hatto is a direct ripoff
of
the Bronfman.
In the September 1992 issue, Morrison reviews the Bronfman and writes
that in Concerto No.3 the pianist "operates at too low a voltage...he
lacks the sort of angst or urgency that has endeared Rachmaninov to
millions." He goes on to say "...I think you'll agree that this is
hardly a case
of how 'great things are done when men and mountains meet'" About
Concerto
No.2, Morrison writes that Bronfman "sounds oddly unmoved by
Rachmaninov's intensely slavonic idiom."
Moving on to Morrison's review of the "Hatto" recordings of the same
works in the February 2007 issue, he claims her Third Concerto to be
"among
the finest on record...the opening theme is given with a special sense
of
its Slavic melancholy...Above all, everything is vitally alive and
freshly
considered." Morrison goes on to praise the soloist's "clarity and
verve that will astonish even this concerto's most seasoned
listeners." And
in Concerto No.2, the pianist's "eloquence has the ease and
naturalness of
a born musician."
Another example of someone trashing an original release then praising
it as a Hatto fake comes to us courtesy of Tom Deacon. He originally
trashed
Matsuzawa's Chopin Etudes recording but later praised it in its Hatto
incarnation. I have now compared the Hatto 75th Anniversary Edition
release of the Chopin Etudes to the Matsuzawa recording. 17 of the 27
tracks on the Hatto are taken from Matsuzawa's disc. The one's that
are
NOT Matsuzawa are Op. 10 Nos. 2 and 6; Op. 25 Nos. 1 and 7-12; and
Nouvelle Etude No. 1. Ten of the Matsuzawa tracks have some tempo
manipulation,
but in many cases it is minor and hardly noticeable (2 seconds or
less).
Seven Matwsuzawa tracks are copied wholesale without any digital
manipulation.
Of the original Matsuzawa release, Tom Deacon had this to say:
//
Nothing could possibly equal the faceless, spineless, ever-so-tasteful
performances of Ms. Matsuzawa. She is the very model of Lily Tomlin's
much admired tasteful lady.
Ugh!
Perhaps you should move to the Orient and get your fill of such
niceness.
But with Ms. Matsuzawa you must be thinking with some other part of
your anatomy than your brain.
Faceless, typwriter, neat as a pin but utterly flaccid performances
with small, tiny poetic gestures added like so much rouge on the face
of a
Russian doll.
ARGH!!!
//
About the Hatto Etudes Deacon had this to say (note that all but one
of
the Etudes he singles out is a confirmed Matsuzawa performance):
//
My oh my, this is a beautiful recording of Chopin's music. The pieces
flow so naturally and so completely without precious effects that you
might,
for a moment, think that there are no other ways of reading the music.
Her
double notes are extraordinary. And yes, I know Lhevinne. But in the
Octave Etude she goes Lhevinne one better by playing the octaves so
incredibly
smoothly that they seem to flow from her fingers. How on earth does
she
manage that, I wonder? In Op. 10 No. 1 the right hand is fluent,
flawless, clear as a bell, but the real story is the LH, which carries
the
interest of the piece anyway. The central episode in No. 3 is
dramatic, but the
drama doesn't overwhelm the A section, either the first or second time
round.
The C# minor, a knucklebuster if ever there was one, is played as a
true
Presto, but punctuated with all kinds of wondrous LH details. The
first black
key etude has fluttering RH detail, but again, it is the LH which is
truly
eloquent. OK, the C major is not up to Friedman's inhuman tempo, but
it
is still beautiful, and again with lovely LH melodic figures. The A
flat
major, Op. 10 No. 10, restores all of Chopin's carefully notated
differenciation between one section and another, a veritable study in
the ability to
vary detached sounds. And again, the LH carries the day.
And so it goes all the way through. There are simply no weak
performances on this CD - CACD - 9243-2.
//
Having listened to several of these performances side by side I can
assure you that speeding up or slowing down a track by a few seconds
does not
turn performances by a faceless, typewriter with small, tiny poetic
gestures
into the glorious artist described by Tom Deacon.
Farhan
------------
[end quote]
Matthew B. Tepper
be typed in news:1182005761.3...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> The following article appeared on Pianophiles, and I think may be of
> interest to the RMCR crowd:
Thanks for relaying Farhan's post to us, Mario.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Harrington/Coy is a gay wrestler who won't come out of the closet
rkhalona
HA HA HA HA!
(thanks for providing another example of the DJ's incompetence as a
critic)
RK in Madrid
Walter Traprock
her...@yahoo.com
No, but Bryce Morrisson is, and his coverup attempt is really sad.
Herman
td
His error - and it is a clear error on his part, I think - is
understandable, as it comes with some 14 years between the two
hearings. Moreover, it has to be said that sometimes the same
interpretation can strike one quite differently at different times in
one's life.
Arrau, for example, usually is too slow when one is young, but just
the right tempo as you get older.
For me Glenn Gould was perfection itself in Bach when I was young, and
now the most wilfull distortionist of his music now that I have
matured.
Frankly, not much that Mr. Bronfman has ever done has struck me as
"character-full", shall I say, and that after some twenty years of
listening to his playing on and off. Not that I would excuse BM. Just
that I would understand if he completely forgot the first hearing and
thought differently about the same playing many years later.
As anyone who has ever met Bryce Morrison will agree, he has an almost
encyclopedic memory for each and every interpretation he has ever
heard. Really, quite uncanny. And very useful. When we were
collaborating on some Tchaikovsky Competition broadcasts from Moscow
in 1982 he could summon up detail after detail about individual
performances by various competitors I had forgotten completely. You
know, faceless alsorans!!! I feel sure that he remembers every concert
he has ever attended. In minute detail. That he made a mistake with
this one recording is only the exception that proves the rule.
TD
aleksios
> [...] That he made a mistake with this one recording is only the
> exception that proves the rule.
Shakespeare's reply to this can't be improved upon: "Look then to be
well edified, when the fool delivers the madman."
--Alex (the twelfth philistine)
Bob Harper
(snip)
> His (Bryce Morrison's) error - and it is a clear error on his part, I think - is
> understandable, as it comes with some 14 years between the two
> hearings. Moreover, it has to be said that sometimes the same
> interpretation can strike one quite differently at different times in
> one's life.
>
> Arrau, for example, usually is too slow when one is young, but just
> the right tempo as you get older.
>
> For me Glenn Gould was perfection itself in Bach when I was young, and
> now the most wilfull distortionist of his music now that I have
> matured.
>
> Frankly, not much that Mr. Bronfman has ever done has struck me as
> "character-full", shall I say, and that after some twenty years of
> listening to his playing on and off. Not that I would excuse BM. Just
> that I would understand if he completely forgot the first hearing and
> thought differently about the same playing many years later.
>
> As anyone who has ever met Bryce Morrison will agree, he has an almost
> encyclopedic memory for each and every interpretation he has ever
> heard. Really, quite uncanny. And very useful. When we were
> collaborating on some Tchaikovsky Competition broadcasts from Moscow
> in 1982 he could summon up detail after detail about individual
> performances by various competitors I had forgotten completely. You
> know, faceless alsorans!!! I feel sure that he remembers every concert
> he has ever attended. In minute detail. That he made a mistake with
> this one recording is only the exception that proves the rule.
>
> TD
>
>
And, um, what about the Chopin Etudes?
Bob Harper
Matthew Silverstein
> Nice of you to run interference for BM, Tom.
> And, um, what about the Chopin Etudes?
Whether he's running interference or not, he has a point, Bob. Or do you
think you would react the same way to a performance 14 years after first
hearing?
Matty
conr...@gmail.com
Perhaps what is also at issue with the Matsuzawa Chopin is racism. The
original review is a racist stereotype of how you would expect a
Japanese person to play is your knowledge of Japanese culture was
derived from predudice - bonsai Chopin. It suggests that the ears are
not always as clean as we would like them to be.
ronán
Richard Loeb
news:xeydnaUvupjtWunb...@comcast.com...
Yes that was pretty funny, and not to say a fairly transparent attempt to
excuse his own mistakes - you got to hand it to him - like the Energizer
bunny - he just keeps on trying - shame its wasted on such a useless and
futile endeavor. Richard
td
Clear ears are overrated.
TD
td
> "Bob Harper" <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Surprised you're still trying to make hay out of that item.
Check the archives.
TD
her...@yahoo.com
And don't forget the many times Morrisson mentions "slavonic
melancholy" and other boilerplate stuff when he's talking about
Rachmaninov. You know a critic is clueless when he needs those cliches
that bad.
Herman
DmitryG
All this is an infinite shame..
D
John Wilson
wrote:
Three words too many. The Hatto Boob (aka washed up DJ) is just plain
incompetent in any field.
John
John Wilson
You check the archives. Or have you still not learned how to use the
mouse?
JW
Richard Loeb
news:1gda73tar8tvgfv4p...@4ax.com...
might not be too good for your health!!!! Richard
Bob Harper
response would fully contradict my earlier one to the degree reflected
in these quotes from BM. Besides which, given what TD says about BM's
encyclopedic memory, that he could be so fooled as in this instance
really strains credulity.
And oh, BTW, what about the Chopin Etudes?
Bob Harper
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:1182070551.022030.68040
@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 17, 7:26 am, Matthew Silverstein <msilv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 17, 2007, Bob Harper wrote:
>> > Nice of you to run interference for BM, Tom.
>> > And, um, what about the Chopin Etudes?
>>
>> Whether he's running interference or not, he has a point, Bob. Or do you
>> think you would react the same way to a performance 14 years after first
>> hearing?
>
> Perhaps what is also at issue with the Matsuzawa Chopin is racism. The
> original review is a racist stereotype of how you would expect a Japanese
> person to play is your knowledge of Japanese culture was derived from
> predudice - bonsai Chopin. It suggests that the ears are not always as
> clean as we would like them to be.
I admit that part of my reaction is for personal reasons, but I sometimes
got the impression that there was a veneer of racism behind some of the
negative reviews Kent Nagano got from the British press when he was in
Manchester.
Matthew Silverstein
> Possibly, even probably, not. But it's hard to imagine that my later
> response would fully contradict my earlier one to the degree reflected
> in these quotes from BM.
It's not hard for me to imagine at all. I've been a serious classical music
listener for less than 14 years, and I've already had many experiences
where my reaction to performances (or to particular performers) has changed
radically: singers whose voices I once loved but now can barely stand, old
favorites that are now despised, and so forth.
Does this show that BM's reactions were uninfluenced by the Hatto-hype? Of
course not--I suspect he *was* influenced, to some extent. But I also think
that there is a real possibility that his preferences have changed with the
passage of time, and that he might very well have reacted differently to
the Bronfman recording 14 years later, even knowing it was Bronfman.
I guess I'm just hesitant to point to these two reviews as evidence that he
is somehow incompetent. (Needless to say, he's hardly my favorite critic.)
> Besides which, given what TD says about BM's encyclopedic memory, that he
> could be so fooled as in this instance really strains credulity.
You can't cherrypick the comments of TD that you'll take seriously, Bob. If
TD is the imbecile you take him for, why give full credit to this
particular claim?
And besides, an encyclopedic memory is not an infallible one.
> And oh, BTW, what about the Chopin Etudes?
I have no opinion there, not having followed the various discussions of
them.
Matty
DmitryG
- Of course, opinion of an average listener about a particular
recording can change with time. This happens with me from time to
time. This is why I prefer to listen several times and compare
different recordings.
But we expect more from a professional music critic. Opinions can
change but the recording does not. Critic with opinions subject to
change is immature or corrupt. And this is not so innocent because it
can make a damage to artist's career.
Dmitry
Henk van Tuijl
"DmitryG" <dgar...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:1182105604.9...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> But we expect more from a professional music critic. Opinions can
> change but the recording does not. Critic with opinions subject to
> change is immature or corrupt.
Hmmmm, if this is true the same can be said of professional
interpreters: a pianist who once preferred Liszt to Schubert but now
prefers Schubert to Liszt would be immature and/or corrupt ...
Let's hope for the sake of maturity and ethics in this world that no
professional in the arts will ever change his or her opinion about
anything that does not change.
Henk
Bob Harper
(snip)
> It's not hard for me to imagine at all. I've been a serious classical music
> listener for less than 14 years, and I've already had many experiences
> where my reaction to performances (or to particular performers) has changed
> radically: singers whose voices I once loved but now can barely stand, old
> favorites that are now despised, and so forth.
OK.
>
> Does this show that BM's reactions were uninfluenced by the Hatto-hype? Of
> course not--I suspect he *was* influenced, to some extent. But I also think
> that there is a real possibility that his preferences have changed with the
> passage of time, and that he might very well have reacted differently to
> the Bronfman recording 14 years later, even knowing it was Bronfman.
Has he said so, knowing now whose performances 'Hatto's' really were?
>
>
> You can't cherrypick the comments of TD that you'll take seriously, Bob.
Of course I can. The ones that make sense and seem to me to have no
agenda, which is how I take the comment about BM, I will take seriously.
The other sort I won't.
> If TD is the imbecile you take him for, why give full credit to this
> particular claim?
I do not for an instant believe TD to be an imbecile. He's nasty at
times, judgmental almost always, and clearly doesn't give a fig what
others think of him, but unintelligent he isn't.
>
> And besides, an encyclopedic memory is not an infallible one.
I suspect TD meant comprehensive *and* inerrant.
Bob Harper
Henk van Tuijl
"Wayne Reimer" <wrdslremovethis濃pacbell.net> schreef in bericht
news:MPG.20df62f3f...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
>> In article <46758b58$0$337$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
>> hvt...@xs4all.nl says...
>>
>> "DmitryG" <dgar...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
>> news:1182105604.9...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > But we expect more from a professional music critic. Opinions can
>> > change but the recording does not. Critic with opinions subject to
>> > change is immature or corrupt.
>>
>> Hmmmm, if this is true the same can be said of professional
>> interpreters: a pianist who once preferred Liszt to Schubert but now
>> prefers Schubert to Liszt would be immature and/or corrupt ...
>>
>
> interpreters in the same way as it is for critics.
Many professional critics are or were interpreters - and many
professional interpreters are also critics and even members of juries in
competitions.
IMHO there is not one set of rules how one should form one's opinion for
critics and another for interpreters or for composers. I even doubt if
there are rules.
> While I don't think
> critics should never change their minds, I do think that, at the
> least,
> they should explain those changes in opinion, if they occur.
Why? And if so, only if they are aware of it or could have been aware of
it.
Besides, the same can be said of the interpreter who has changed his
opinion about Liszt and now prefers Schubert. As a professional he or
she should be able to explain this change - and I have the impression
that the majority of interpreters have no problem at all explaining
themselves.
> Critics
> are supposed to be in the business of the articulation of their
> thoughts about music, after all; their opinion *is* their product,
> which is not the case for other arts professionals.
There is an important difference between the formation of an opinion and
the articulation of it.
I fully agree that the articulation of opinions about the arts is the
business of critics.
However, we read these articulations as we read political columns: not
because they are true but to form our own opinion about matters of
interest to us.
In this context, and only in this context, it might be relevant to hear
why a critic has changed his or her mind.
> OTOH, a
> performer's feelings about composers don't have to be thought out at
> all; they can be purely instinctual.
Feeling 'good' about Schubert, having affinity with his music, isn't
quite the same as preferring Schubert to Liszt.
The Hatto hoax has made clear again that even the Morrisons of this
world are just professionals who sell an articulated opinion. They are
not the enlightened beings with a direct link to Plato's world of ideas
some of us believe they should be.
Henk
Peter J
>
> I admit that part of my reaction is for personal reasons, but I sometimes
> got the impression that there was a veneer of racism behind some of the
> negative reviews Kent Nagano got from the British press when he was in
> Manchester.
>
I do hope you are wrong. KN was welcomed very warmly IIRC. His star
did seem to wane; I thought it was due to too few recordings.
aleksios
said:
> [...] The Hatto hoax has made clear again that even the
> Morrisons of this world are just professionals who sell an
> articulated opinion. They are not the enlightened beings with a
> direct link to Plato's world of ideas some of us believe they
> should be.
But they are *professionals*. I can accept a professional being fooled
once or twice -- but when he's fooled 119 times, then, IMHO, it's time
to bring into question either his professionalism, or the very
foundations of his profession.
--Alex (the dilettante philistine)
aleksios
said:
> Whether he's running interference or not, he has a point, Bob.
> Or do you think you would react the same way to a performance 14
> years after first hearing?
If you follow the Hatto-related threads on rmcr, you will see that all
this has been discussed before.
On first blush, it's like Clinton and the stained blue dress -- the
issue is not the size of the stain, but his lying about it.
But there's more to it than that. We're not talking here a few critics
being fooled once or twice. We're talking roughly 119 CDs, we're
talking the Morrisons and the Deacons praising the putative performer
to the skies and dumping vile invective on any who dared to express
the slightest doubt.
Finally, we're talking an emperor -- nay, a legion of emperors -- who,
having been exposed full frontal nudity urbi et orbi, immediately
began bellowing in a Philip Glass-like motoric chorus, "We are not to
blame! We are not to blame! We are..."
The real wonder here is not the shamelessness of a Bryce Credulous or
Tom Gullible -- it's the fact that there are still people who take
them seriously, and who believe them when they say that the stuff on
their faces is just light make-up and not egg plastered an inch
thick.
--Alex (the gourmet philistine)
td
I believe you misjudge BM completely. It's really a pity, as he has
much to offer on the subject of pianism and piano music. I don't
always agree with him, but he makes his points well and writes with
literary polish.
TD
td
Perhaps. But you strain easily, Bob.
> And oh, BTW, what about the Chopin Etudes?
Did BM ever write about the Chopin Etudes, or are you referring to my
musical fisticuffs with DK?
TD
td
> On Sunday, June 17, 2007, Bob Harper wrote:
> > Possibly, even probably, not. But it's hard to imagine that my later
> > response would fully contradict my earlier one to the degree reflected
> > in these quotes from BM.
>
> It's not hard for me to imagine at all. I've been a serious classical music
> listener for less than 14 years, and I've already had many experiences
> where my reaction to performances (or to particular performers) has changed
> radically: singers whose voices I once loved but now can barely stand, old
> favorites that are now despised, and so forth.
Indeed.
I am in the process of doing a complete reversal of opinion about
Witold Malcuzynski, courtesy of that anonymous MrT. Not that I would
classify him as a "great pianist", but he has lots of virtues as a
player which I used to discount.
And then there is Glenn Gould, who used to set the standard for Bach
for me, but whose Bach I know find simply irritating.
> Does this show that BM's reactions were uninfluenced by the Hatto-hype? Of
> course not--I suspect he *was* influenced, to some extent. But I also think
> that there is a real possibility that his preferences have changed with the
> passage of time, and that he might very well have reacted differently to
> the Bronfman recording 14 years later, even knowing it was Bronfman.
>
> I guess I'm just hesitant to point to these two reviews as evidence that he
> is somehow incompetent. (Needless to say, he's hardly my favorite critic.)
BM incompetent?
I wonder which nincompoop uttered those words?
> > Besides which, given what TD says about BM's encyclopedic memory, that he
> > could be so fooled as in this instance really strains credulity.
>
> You can't cherrypick the comments of TD that you'll take seriously, Bob. If
> TD is the imbecile you take him for, why give full credit to this
> particular claim?
>
> And besides, an encyclopedic memory is not an infallible one.
Certainly not. Even Heifetz was fallible. And musically even more than
that, of course. It would also appear now that Einstein wasn't
infallible either.
As for God, well, we all know about His weaknesses.
TD
td
A critic who cannot change his mind is a critic I simply don't want to
read. Or to know.
It is also true that musicians change over time. And we allow those
changes. We would never say "so and so played this piece differently
ten years ago. And now it's different. How appalling!"
YF
td
> "DmitryG" <dgara...@yahoo.com> schreef in berichtnews:1182105604.9...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
So maturity and ethics trump artistitry?
I wonder if that was your real meaning here.
TD
td
>
> > And besides, an encyclopedic memory is not an infallible one.
>
> I suspect TD meant comprehensive *and* inerrant.
You should be wary of stating what I meant.
I said what I meant.
His knowledge - particularly of piano music, piano playing, pianists,
etc., is positively encyclopedic.
TD
td
> On 2007-06-17 02:26:16 -0400, Matthew Silverstein <msilv...@yahoo.com>
You would seem to be neither a gourmet, nor a philistine, but a fool.
"Taking people seriously" would seem to be the ultimate compliment for
you, where I always thought it was the least one could do.
I even take your comments seriously, which is why I have come to the
conclusion stated above.
Perhaps you can change my mind on the subject, but for the time being,
it's a decision I am unlikely to reverse.
TD
Henk van Tuijl
"aleksios" <alex...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1182174757.7...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
It is clear that Morrisson loved to sell the opinion that a
British woman with a tragic story was the best pianist ever. Whether
that brings into question his professionalism ...
Henk
aleksios
> You would seem to be neither a gourmet, nor a philistine, but a
> fool. [...]
Why, thank you, kind sir! Coming from one who thought Hatto was a
genius, that is high praise indeed, and highly shall I treasure it.
--Alex (the foolish philistine)
John Briggs
> her...@yahoo.com - Sun, 17 Jun 2007 04:03:02 -0700:
>
>> And don't forget the many times Morrisson mentions "slavonic
>> melancholy" and other boilerplate stuff
>
>
> boilerplate
> 3 chiefly North American
> stereotyped or clichéd writing.
> (Concise Oxford Dictionary)
"cliché" is the French word for a stereotype plate...
--
John Briggs
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:1182187466.5...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
Given we're all agreed that his opinions of other people are rubbish,
imagine how it makes me feel considering what he thinks of me! I will try
my best not to get a swelled head over it.
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:CpAdi.746$vA3.179@newsfe2-
win.ntli.net:
Actually, the description "boilerplate" would be closer to a form letter:
Dear [Mr. Squid]:
It has come to my attention that you are not satisfied with the service you
received at our [Redondo Beach] store on [May 2nd]. The manager there,
[Mr. Portnoy McComplaint], shares my concern and so we are sending you a
gift certificate in the amount of [$5.00] which may be used at any branch
of Foontley's Forty-Four Flavors.
Please accept my sincere apology, and I hope you will visit us again the
next time you are in [Redondo Beach].
Sincerely,
Foontley J. Duckface
Founder and President
Foontley's Forty-Four Flavors
MrT
> Indeed.
>
> I am in the process of doing a complete reversal of opinion about
> Witold Malcuzynski, courtesy of that anonymous MrT. Not that I would
> classify him as a "great pianist", but he has lots of virtues as a
> player which I used to discount.
>
Glad you are enjoying the work of this pianist.
> And then there is Glenn Gould, who used to set the standard for Bach
> for me, but whose Bach I know find simply irritating.
>
I still like Gould's second Goldbergs and his English suites. Fine
stuff. His Mozart sonatas, however, sound to me just as clueless as
ever. It doesn't even come to finely nuanced critical judgment: I
can't bear to hear his Mozart.
Best,
MonsieurT
Matthew B. Tepper
be typed in news:1182197282....@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> I still like Gould's second Goldbergs and his English suites. Fine
> stuff. His Mozart sonatas, however, sound to me just as clueless as
> ever. It doesn't even come to finely nuanced critical judgment: I
> can't bear to hear his Mozart.
What he did to the first movement of K. 331 is enough to prove to me that
he hated Mozart.
td
> On 2007-06-18 12:51:48 -0400, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> said:
>
> > You would seem to be neither a gourmet, nor a philistine, but a
> > fool. [...]
>
> Why, thank you, kind sir! Coming from one who thought Hatto was a
> genius, that is high praise indeed, and highly shall I treasure it.
Do so.
It may be the only thing you will ever treasure.
TD
td
> On Jun 18, 6:41 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Indeed.
>
> > I am in the process of doing a complete reversal of opinion about
> > Witold Malcuzynski, courtesy of that anonymous MrT. Not that I would
> > classify him as a "great pianist", but he has lots of virtues as a
> > player which I used to discount.
>
> Glad you are enjoying the work of this pianist.
Please don't exaggerate.
What I am doing is coming to a greater appreciation for his qualities,
which I used to value back in the 1950s until I actually heard him
play in concert.
So far the most interesting performance is, wait for it, Brahms D
minor concerto.
> > And then there is Glenn Gould, who used to set the standard for Bach
> > for me, but whose Bach I know find simply irritating.
>
> I still like Gould's second Goldbergs and his English suites. Fine
> stuff. His Mozart sonatas, however, sound to me just as clueless as
> ever. It doesn't even come to finely nuanced critical judgment: I
> can't bear to hear his Mozart.
The perverse thing is that Glenn didn't want us to enjoy Mozart. He
thought little of this music and the little he did think of it
showed!!!
TD
td
> td wrote:
> > her...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> And don't forget the many times Morrisson mentions "slavonic
> >> melancholy" and other boilerplate stuff when he's talking about
> >> Rachmaninov. You know a critic is clueless when he needs those
> >> cliches that bad.
>
> > I believe you misjudge BM completely. It's really a pity, as he
> > has much to offer on the subject of pianism and piano music. I
> > don't always agree with him, but he makes his points well and
> > writes with literary polish.
>
> Shinola?
You probably couldn't tell, at least judging from your "poetry".
TD
dtr...@newsguy.com
even have that. Your raison d'etre seem to be to insult as many
people as possible. Bloody good show.
DT
td
> > It may be the only thing you will ever treasure.
>
> At least he has a left handed compliment to treasure while you don't
> even have that. Your raison d'etre seem to be to insult as many
> people as possible. Bloody good show.
Thanks. I try very hard, you know, and it's nice to know that my
efforts are appreciated.
TD
td
> > In article <1182197282.787585.72...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, symbiotr...@yahoo.com says...
> it is played with such energized perversity, designed to elict exactly
> your reaction. I think the enormous fun he's having doing it is
> contagious, but then, that's me.
Yes, indeed. That's you.
But actually the present tense is a bit odd here, since GG has been
dead some 25 years now.
TD
Tony Overington
> So far the most interesting performance is, wait for it, Brahms D
> minor concerto.
Tom, do you know if that's available to buy on CD? I recall Samir once
mentioned it, but it boiled down to an impossible-to-find Italian CD
that came with some magazine or other, and the work just wasn't worth
it.
td
I just acquired it myself on Muza via www.polishjazz.net. A very nice
man by the name of "chazz" will supply it in short order.
Samir was right to mention it. It's strengths are its wonderful pulse
- different from tempo - which drives the music forward rather
relentlessly and yet not without sensitivity.
TD
aleksios
> [...] It may be the only thing you will ever treasure.
Why? Have you fashioned for yourself a little wax doll and you're
sticking pins in it? Hate to disappoint you, mon p'tit chou, but that
voodoo shit you picked up from your pals Joyce and Bill... it doesn't
work. Not on real people, that is. It's only effective on music
critics and piano cognoscenti.
--Alex (the sceptical philistine)
td
> On 2007-06-18 20:35:13 -0400, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> said:
>
> > [...] It may be the only thing you will ever treasure.
>
> Why?
I should have thought that was obvious.
But perhaps I overestimated your self-analysis.
TD
aleksios
> > Why?
>
> I should have thought that was obvious. [...]
You seem to have missed most of my message. But don't worry, we
understand -- it's tough for you to accommmodate to this new-fangled
computer stuff. You should try a machine more suitable for your level,
such as this one
<http://www.mystique.net/faq.html>
In the meantime, here's the full message again, for your reading
pleasure:
# On 2007-06-18 20:35:13 -0400, td <tomde...@mac.com> said:
#
# [...] It may be the only thing you will ever treasure.
#
# Why? Have you fashioned for yourself a little wax doll and you're
# sticking pins in it? Hate to disappoint you, mon p'tit chou, but
that
# voodoo shit you picked up from your pals Joyce and Bill... it
doesn't
# work. Not on real people, that is. It's only effective on music
# critics and piano cognoscenti.
#
# --Alex (the sceptical philistine)
--Alex (the compassionate philistine)
td
> > In article <1182251166.803344.84...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, tomdedea...@mac.com says...
> that works.
No it doesn't.
He's dead. As is his playing of it.
TD
Simon Roberts
says...
>
>On Sunday, June 17, 2007, Bob Harper wrote:
>
>> Possibly, even probably, not. But it's hard to imagine that my later
>> response would fully contradict my earlier one to the degree reflected
>> in these quotes from BM.
>
>It's not hard for me to imagine at all. I've been a serious classical music
>listener for less than 14 years, and I've already had many experiences
>where my reaction to performances (or to particular performers) has changed
>radically: singers whose voices I once loved but now can barely stand, old
>favorites that are now despised, and so forth.
>
>Does this show that BM's reactions were uninfluenced by the Hatto-hype?
Didn't he generate much of it?
Of
>course not--I suspect he *was* influenced, to some extent. But I also think
>that there is a real possibility that his preferences have changed with the
>passage of time, and that he might very well have reacted differently to
>the Bronfman recording 14 years later, even knowing it was Bronfman.
Perhaps, though I can't say I care much, because I've not read a review or liner
note written by him that wasn't fatuous or otherwise useless (he may be as
knowledgeble as TD says, but mere knowledge, without more, doesn't get you that
far).
Simon
Simon Roberts
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Wayne_Reimer?= says...
>
>>In article <1182197282....@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>symbi...@yahoo.com says...
>it is played with such energized perversity, designed to elict exactly
>your reaction. I think the enormous fun he's having doing it is
>contagious, but then, that's me.
Me too. But even if you hate what he does, I would have thought it pretty clear
that, whatever else it is, it's not "clueless."
Simon
td
> In article <MPG.20e11ad4c6ac11e98a...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Wayne_Reimer?= says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >>In article <1182197282.787585.72...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >>symbiotr...@yahoo.com says...
> >> On Jun 18, 6:41 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Indeed.
>
> >> > I am in the process of doing a complete reversal of opinion about
> >> > Witold Malcuzynski, courtesy of that anonymous MrT. Not that I would
> >> > classify him as a "great pianist", but he has lots of virtues as a
> >> > player which I used to discount.
>
> >> Glad you are enjoying the work of this pianist.
>
> >> > And then there is Glenn Gould, who used to set the standard for Bach
> >> > for me, but whose Bach I know find simply irritating.
>
> >> I still like Gould's second Goldbergs and his English suites. Fine
> >> stuff. His Mozart sonatas, however, sound to me just as clueless as
> >> ever. It doesn't even come to finely nuanced critical judgment: I
> >> can't bear to hear his Mozart.
>
> >Clueless in the Mozart? No, he's totally clued, which is precisely why
> >it is played with such energized perversity, designed to elict exactly
> >your reaction. I think the enormous fun he's having doing it is
> >contagious, but then, that's me.
>
> Me too. But even if you hate what he does, I would have thought it pretty clear
> that, whatever else it is, it's not "clueless."
But of course it is.
Completely clueless about anything approaching Mozart style.
It is, indeed, perversely an attempt to contradict such notions as
style.
GG was a very sick mind.
TD
mal...@concentric.net
> > Maybe, but TD's not really a critic is he?
>
> No, but Bryce Morrisson is, and his coverup attempt is really sad.
Speaking of coverups, did anyone else hear the Sky News segment on the
Hatto scandal some months ago where Bryce was the brought in expert?
One of the things he said was that he had had serious doubts about the
authenticity of the Hatto recordings from the very beginning. My
friend almost fell out of chair when he heard that. From now on we'll
have to call him Thomas Morrison...
Farhan
Matthew B. Tepper
typed in news:1182390064.2...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> Speaking of coverups, did anyone else hear the Sky News segment on the
> Hatto scandal some months ago where Bryce was the brought in expert?
> One of the things he said was that he had had serious doubts about the
> authenticity of the Hatto recordings from the very beginning. My friend
> almost fell out of chair when he heard that. From now on we'll have to
> call him Thomas Morrison...
Maybe W. will hire him as White House Press Secretary should Tony Snow's
health problems recur. (Although it was so much more fun to see Scott
McClellan's forehead break out in sweat.)
Sacquboutier
> (snip)
>> His (Bryce Morrison's) error - and it is a clear error on his part, I
>> think - is
>> understandable, as it comes with some 14 years between the two
>> hearings. Moreover, it has to be said that sometimes the same
>> interpretation can strike one quite differently at different times in
>> one's life.
>>
>> Arrau, for example, usually is too slow when one is young, but just
>> the right tempo as you get older.
>>
>> For me Glenn Gould was perfection itself in Bach when I was young, and
>> now the most wilfull distortionist of his music now that I have
>> matured.
>>
>> Frankly, not much that Mr. Bronfman has ever done has struck me as
>> "character-full", shall I say, and that after some twenty years of
>> listening to his playing on and off. Not that I would excuse BM. Just
>> that I would understand if he completely forgot the first hearing and
>> thought differently about the same playing many years later.
>>
>> As anyone who has ever met Bryce Morrison will agree, he has an almost
>> encyclopedic memory for each and every interpretation he has ever
>> heard. Really, quite uncanny. And very useful. When we were
>> collaborating on some Tchaikovsky Competition broadcasts from Moscow
>> in 1982 he could summon up detail after detail about individual
>> performances by various competitors I had forgotten completely. You
>> know, faceless alsorans!!! I feel sure that he remembers every concert
>> he has ever attended. In minute detail. That he made a mistake with
>> this one recording is only the exception that proves the rule.
>>
>> TD
Wipe your mouth, Tom. You still have some
bullshit on it.
--
Kindest regards,
Don
Simon Roberts
Hogwash. Gould was perfectly familiar with "proper" Mozart style and, on one of
the Sony videos, gives a flawless example of it. What seems to bother you and
so many others is that Gould had no time for it and, perhaps, not much time for
the music either. Not liking his performances is fine, of course, but it
doesn't follow from the fact that his performances aren't *in* the "right" style
that he's "clueless" about it.
>It is, indeed, perversely an attempt to contradict such notions as
>style.
Right. Not "clueless" at all.
Simon
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:2007062106275816807-Nospam@somewherenet:
>> td wrote:
[the usual crapola]
> Wipe your mouth, Tom. You still have some bullshit on it.
Can you believe it, Don? It's like picking up a newspaper and finding Jayson
Blair mounting a stirring defense of Sony's use of reviews supposedly written
by nonexistent critic David Manning.
td
> Wipe your mouth, Tom. You still have some
> bullshit on it.
Go blow your horn, Don, for lack of anything else, that is.
TD
td
> In article <1182377409.718377.311...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, td says...
Agreed.
Then he should have left it alone.
Poor Mozart! What did he ever do to deserve GG?
Not liking his performances is fine, of course, but it
> doesn't follow from the fact that his performances aren't *in* the "right" style
> that he's "clueless" about it.
But of course it does.
> >It is, indeed, perversely an attempt to contradict such notions as
> >style.
?????
The logic of such a statement is not apparent.
TD
Sacquboutier
> Sacquboutier <Nos...@somewhere.net> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:2007062106275816807-Nospam@somewherenet:
>
>>> td wrote:
>
> [the usual crapola]
>
>> Wipe your mouth, Tom. You still have some bullshit on it.
>
> Can you believe it, Don? It's like picking up a newspaper and finding Jayson
> Blair mounting a stirring defense of Sony's use of reviews supposedly written
> by nonexistent critic David Manning.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!
[grin] ;-)
Wish I'd thought of that.
--
Kindest regards,
Don
Bob Harper
>> Hogwash. Gould was perfectly familiar with "proper" Mozart style and, on one of
>> the Sony videos, gives a flawless example of it. What seems to bother you and
>> so many others is that Gould had no time for it and, perhaps, not much time for
>> the music either.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Then he should have left it alone.
>
> Poor Mozart! What did he ever do to deserve GG?
>
> Not liking his performances is fine, of course, but it
>> doesn't follow from the fact that his performances aren't *in* the "right" style
>> that he's "clueless" about it.
>
> But of course it does.
>
>>> It is, indeed, perversely an attempt to contradict such notions as
>>> style.
>
> ?????
>
> The logic of such a statement is not apparent.
>
> TD
>
>
GG was able to reproduce what most (but not he) accepted as 'good style'
in Mozart;
GG rejected that same notion;
his performances are a demonstration (perverse, to be sure) that the
music can be played in an alternative way, one that does not recognize
'good' style.
The fact that most of us (and I include myself) find the results hideous
would not, I suspect, have bothered GG one bit.
Bob Harper
td
In point of fact GG took criicism very badly.
TD