Thom Deas' Greatest Hits
David Hurwitz
spammer you remain.>>
<<Perhaps 'troll' is closer, but they live in the same swamp.>>
<<Perhaps we could settle this by agreeing that David H is to music
criticism
as the other David H is to pianism.>>
Dear Group:
This, along with the Samir "highlights" posted above, is a sample of the
level of discourse that some members of this forum are willing to stoop to
for no other reason than that they find certain personal opinions about
music, and only music, "offensive," "provocative," or otherwise
objectionable. Whenever this sort of thing happens, I get literally dozens
of private e-mails from lurkers (and others) who say, time and time again,
that they would participate but for the existence of those who wish to
silence differences of opinion or personal comment on matters that they deem
controversial and beyond the scope of rational discussion. I have always
maintained that it is perfectly fine to attack, even vigorously and with
verbal sharpness, any opinion offered about music. That's why we are here.
But I think it goes beyond the pale when the attack extends to the person
himself simply by virtue of his having uttered the opinion in the first
place. You may disagree.
I ask you all to reflect on this and answer for yourself this simple
question: Is this the kind of discourse that you wish to cultivate in this
group?
--
David Hurwitz
Executive Editor
http://www.classicstoday.com
dhur...@classicstoday.com
samir ghiocel golescu
> I ask you all to reflect on this and answer for yourself this simple
> question: Is this the kind of discourse that you wish to cultivate in this
> group?
> David Hurwitz
> Executive Editor
> http://www.classicstoday.com
> dhur...@classicstoday.com
Dear Mr. David Hurwitz Executive Editor Http://www.classicstoday.com
dhur...@classics.today.com,
I'm not going to waste my time collecting "Dave Hurwitz's
Greatest Hits" only because everything you say is so memorable that
operating a choice amounts to a difficulty similar to that present in
Buridan's experiments.
Did you ever ask yourself why is exactly YOU the one that created the most
animosity around? Is this the kind of climate you like to create around
you?
Stop bashing artists whose achievements are obviously far beyond your
understanding and the "discourses" will have the tone they had before you
infested the place.
I receive myself "dozens of [different, of course] e-mails" that thank me
for saying in loud voice what other people dare only to think.
regards,
SG
Thomas Deas
"David Hurwitz" <hurw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:6Pmn4.468$%%5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> <<You came into this ng as a spammer, Mr Hurwitz, and under your skin, a
> spammer you remain.>>
>
> <<Perhaps 'troll' is closer, but they live in the same swamp.>>
>
> <<Perhaps we could settle this by agreeing that David H is to music
> criticism
> as the other David H is to pianism.>>
>
> Dear Group:
>
> This, along with the Samir "highlights" posted above, is a sample of the
> level of discourse that some members of this forum are willing to stoop to
> for no other reason than that they find certain personal opinions about
> music, and only music, "offensive," "provocative," or otherwise
> objectionable.
You pile disingenuity on disingenuity, Mr Hurwitz. You know perfectly well
that I have never objected to musical opinion, but only to relentless
badgering and threats of incessant *provocation*, which, by the way, is
*your* choice of word.
David Hurwitz
that I have never objected to musical opinion, but only to relentless
badgering and threats of incessant *provocation*, which, by the way, is
*your* choice of word.>>
Your words also speak for themselves, Mr. Deas. I don't believe that I have
ever attacked you personally, but I am sure that the group is thrilled to
have you as its policeman. What would we do without you?
--
David Hurwitz
Executive Editor
http://www.classicstoday.com
dhur...@classicstoday.com
"Thomas Deas" <tj...@spam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:87kvmc$l61$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
Thomas Deas
> <<You pile disingenuity on disingenuity, Mr Hurwitz. You know perfectly
well
> that I have never objected to musical opinion, but only to relentless
> badgering and threats of incessant *provocation*, which, by the way, is
> *your* choice of word.>>
>
> Your words also speak for themselves, Mr. Deas. I don't believe that I
have
> ever attacked you personally,
"the level of discourse that some members of this forum are willing to stoop
to for no other reason than that they find certain personal opinions about
music, and only music, "offensive," "provocative," or otherwise
objectionable."
> but I am sure that the group is thrilled to
> have you as its policeman. What would we do without you?
Deja vu, Mr H?
Thomas Deas
> > Deja vu, Mr H?
>
> Sure. It's a reply to an attack on me. I don't see your name anywhere, but
I
> note the pride with which you include yourself in this company. Just
proves
> my point, I guess.
Sorry, you've lost me. It's just that it's not the first time you've annoyed
a bunch of people and then picked on one and asked who set him up as
policeman...
David Hurwitz
Sure. It's a reply to an attack on me. I don't see your name anywhere, but I
note the pride with which you include yourself in this company. Just proves
my point, I guess.
--
David Hurwitz
Executive Editor
http://www.classicstoday.com
dhur...@classicstoday.com
"Thomas Deas" <tj...@spam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:87l0tg$m4n$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> "David Hurwitz" <hurw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
samir ghiocel golescu
> To sum up, who was better: Hanslick or Bruckner?
>
> Alain
Bruckner, of course, and Hanslick wrote many questionable things about
him, and about Tchaikovsky, and about Wagner etc. Still, Hanslick's book
about the "Musical Beauty" is a great book, and as great a pianist as
Moriz Rosenthal declared he was influenced in his aesthetic approach by
Hanslick. What's my point?
If it was understood that I deny the role critics in general have to play
in arts, that is wrong. I learned a bitt (at least I hope so) from reading
books and articles written by great critics (and, moving more toward
fundamentals, great musicologists) of the century, in the few languages I
can approximate. There is such a notion as "great critic". I'll give a
testimony on an amazing fact that was related to me by one of my beloved,
old musical ladies from Bucharest. [Parenthesis: during 1900--1940 dozens
of young Romanian musicians, especially women, were sent in such "minor"
musical centers as Leipzig, Vienna or Berlin, they came back in their
country as fully-formed musicians, it is a pity they are almost all dead
now... they were thesauri of first-hand tradition(s).
In the '30s Erich Kleiber was conducting Wagner's Tristan, with Berlin
Staatskapelle. A famous old critic came to Kleiber and said: "I knew from
the first up-beat that you didn't understand the opera". "How's that?!"
"Your first gesture was too elegant, too precise, lacking the mystery, the
*improbability* of that first sixth's coming into being." Kleiber
hesitated for a couple of moments and, then, said: "You are right. Thank
you." Noble of him, of course.
This is what I name a critic. Schenker was what I call a
great theoretician. Furtwangler was already famous and adulated but was
still going to Schenker for advice. Furtwangler was all his life
infuriated by idiotic critics, but he didn't mind Schenker's advice
and, sometimes, reservations. The monography Schenker
wrote, about Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, changed Furtwangler's life.
Celibidache, who knew how to be obnoxious and who never said anything
about critics except they were deaf and idiot, knew to take criticism from
(the older) Erdman (not exactly a critic though), who came to Celibidache
after a concert and yelled at him: "You are gifted but you don't know what
you are doing, you don't know your music!". Yes, Celibidache.
Take the other extreme. A great runner, a world champ, enters a race. He
has a bad day and falls. The expert in running notices and speaks loud: HE
FELL! Makes that the "expert" competent? Not at all. The critic, BECAUSE
he is not in the "line of fire" (by choice or biographical accident),
should know as well or better the music as the interpreter he criticizes
(and I showed that can be possible, now and then). Does our friend know
1/10000000 of what Furtwangler knew about music? Not at all, and the
demonstration may be brought, better than by comparing performance and
writing (which is kind of hard), by comparing the expert's articles and
Furtwangler's own writings (if you collect them all, there *is* something
to read!). It's like you would compare an ant and a titan. Better not to.
It is the hair-raising inadequacy, the terrestriality, sticking
meretriciously to materiality, what genuinely infuriates me when I read a
certain kind of critique that addresses an artist that *is* to be judged,
if judged at all, by different standards. Otherwise, the compassion of the
gentle ladies may console the poor guy, even in excess, and that may be a
reason, the only, I could become envious.
regards,
SG
PS Thank you for taking the "Romantic" risk of characterizing the
appearance of Proust, Raphael or Bach as miracles, because miracles they
are!
Wagner about Beethoven:
"it is impossible to talk about the essence itself of Beethoven's music,
without falling into the sin of adulation"!
Dimitri Dover
> Artists are not "special" people in any way. They
> are not "better" than anyone else. They are simply people who are doing the
> work which they were trained to do, and which hopefully they enjoy doing.
This last statement is pitiful, and pitiable.
> Anyone who listens to a Furtwangler performance has as much right to
> pronounce an opinion about it, and to have that opinion respected--even by
> Furtwangler himself--as would a housepainter or plumber responding to the
> expressions of satisfaction or criticism by their client or employer. There
> is no difference at all.
?!?!?!?
Dimitri
Dimitri Dover
far more than I could muster, to that post -- my jaw
has yet to assume its normal position.
Dimitri
Alain Dagher wrote:
>
> David Hurwitz wrote:
>
> > SG:
> >
> > <<Stop bashing artists whose achievements are obviously far beyond your
> > understanding and the "discourses" will have the tone they had before you
> > infested the place.>>
> >
> > Not only are your favorite artists "achievements" not beyond my
> > understanding, they are not beyond anyone's. These artists exist for no
> > other purpose than to please me, and everyone else who listens to them, and
> > to communicate their understanding of great music to all of us. Some are
> > more successful at this than others. The fact of successful communication is
> > never a "given," not with any artist. We have every right to judge them, and
> > to render our opinion is fundamental to the relationship between artist and
> > public. The fact that these opinions may not comport with yours, or even the
> > artists', is irrelevant.
>
> OK, so far so good. You have a right to express your opinions, like anyone else.
> And you most definitely are right to listen critically even to the most sacred
> of cows. But ...
>
> > Artists are not "special" people in any way. They
> > are not "better" than anyone else.
>
> I think this is an absolutely false statement. A great artist must essentially
> dedicate their life to art, something which takes courage (or serious delusions
> I guess) as well as talent. And here I am not talking ethics. Obviously we are
> all equally "valuable" as persons, and deserve to be treated with equal respect.
>
> > They are simply people who are doing the
> > work which they were trained to do,
>
> That is an insult to all artists. That Raphael painted, that Proust wrote, that
> Bach composed, these are miracles.
>
> > Anyone who listens to a Furtwangler performance has as much right to
> > pronounce an opinion about it, and to have that opinion respected--even by
> > Furtwangler himself--as would a housepainter or plumber responding to the
> > expressions of satisfaction or criticism by their client or employer. There
> > is no difference at all.
>
> So are you suggesting that there is no difference between sitting down to write
> an opera and just going to work each day? That painting a house is just the same
> as painting the stanza della segnatura? Even accounting for the fact that you're
> obviously trying to aggravate Samir, this is a rather incredible statement. I
> would think you more than most should realize what it takes to succeed as an
> artist.
>
> > When an artist offers himself to the public, it is
> > he who must seek its approval on its own terms, not the public which must
> > accomodate itself the artist.
>
> This is ridiculous. The public must make an effort too. I once overheard an old
> couple at the intermission of a concert, following Berg's violin concerto. She
> said "too bad about the child but does that mean we have to suffer too?" So if
> she didn't like it, is that Berg's fault? A friend of mine says Proust is
> boring. Is that statement valid (never mind that he has the "right" to make it -
> we agree about that)? Does it reflect on Proust's shortcomings as an artist?
>
> > The artist's
> > willingness to listen to his public, to submit himself to their approval, is
> > one sign of a healthy musical culture.
>
> Great artists challenge their public. And if the public doesn't like it, they
> carry on regardless. If all artists asked their critics for advice what would be
> left with? (Network TV I was going to say - but you'd probably accuse me of
> being a snob.) I can see it now, Igor Stravinsky asking the audience what they
> didn't like about Le Sacre so he could make the appropriate corrections. Monet
> inviting the art critics of his day into his studio for some advice. Baudelaire
> asking the judges who banned Les Fleurs du Mal precisely what bits they would
> like changed, and in what way.
>
> The number of masterpieces that were originally considered rubbish is huge. That
> they were eventually appreciated for what they were must mean that the original
> judgments were wrong.
>
> And I am not being elitist. Great art occurs when a talented individual follows
> their heart, no matter what anybody thinks.
>
> David, you are siding with the people who booed Stravinsky, insulted Bruckner,
> ridiculed Van Gogh, etc ... a whole legion of philistines with the attitudes of
> schoolyard bullies.
>
> To sum up, who was better: Hanslick or Bruckner?
>
> cheers,
>
> Alain
samir ghiocel golescu
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, evan johnson wrote:
> :> They are simply people who are doing the
> :> work which they were trained to do,
> :
> :That is an insult to all artists. That Raphael painted, that Proust wrote, that
> :Bach composed, these are miracles.
>
> I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Hurwitz. Bach was one of the most
> workmanlike of composers! Composition is an art, of course, but it is
> equally a craft, a trade. A particular aptitude for a trade does not
> by itself elevate the trade to some sort of semi-divine plane.
>
> Evan (a composition student)
Don't worry, nobody tried to elevate the entire branch! A.D. was talking
about Bach.
regards,
SG
(who believes that Bach is the very LAST musician in whose case a
distinction between divine gift and workmanship would be necessary, he had
them both to the highest degree imaginable--his modesty, his own claims
that "anybody who works as I do would be able to do what I do were either
Lutheran humility or subtle mockery. Or both.)
samir ghiocel golescu
> This sounds like the Hollywood bio-pic view of art and artists. It also
> explains why all rationality so often flies out the window in
> discussions of art, artists and creativity. This is religion, not art.
I am sorry, Sir, utilitarianly viewing the artists as (only) servants of
the public taste is what is much closer to the Hollywood ideal.
About possible, *partial*, parallelisms (not identity, by all means)
between art and religion, that is not such a big offense. Religious or not,
great art is spiritual before pertaining to the reign of "rationality".
regards,
SG
samir ghiocel golescu
A. D.:
<<So are you suggesting that there is no difference between sitting down
to write an opera and just going to work each day?>>
D.H.:
<<There is absolutely no difference between sitting down to write
an opera and going to work each day.>>
To those acquainted with the plays of my compatriot, Eugene Ionesco, or,
if not, with Samuel Beckett's *En attendant Godot*, this fruitful dialogue
may seem disturbingly familiar.
regards,
SG
samir ghiocel golescu
> Well, no one would ever accuse you of "pertaining to the reign of
> rationality," Samir.
Say what you like about me--be my guest, I don't count.
The keyword: about ME.
samir ghiocel golescu
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, David Hurwitz wrote, in indignation:
> <<Say what you like about me--be my guest, I don't count.
>
> The keyword: about ME.>>
>
> Talk about disingenuous! Furtwangler would have regarded the hypocritical
> and false modesty attested to by your pretentious assumption of the role of
> "keeper of his sacred flame" with the same disgust that he would have
> reserved for the many broadcast performances of his that have been released
> without his approval or consent. Neither do his reputation any credit.
Can't you take one minute of rest and (try to...) think, for once, faster
than you write? What do you say about Furtwangler's attitude in front of
his own recordings?
FYI, Furtwangler was mostly reluctant in releasing some of his *studio*
recordings he was not satisfied with. When he recorded for HMV, after the
war, Brahms' First Symphony with VPO, he asked for a limited audience to
assist his "studio" recording. He was happy only (starting) with the
Tristan recording.
He was very satisfied, instead, with most of the WWII broadcasts, made by
his friend, Friedrich Schnapp, himself a musician and an adept, all his
life, of mono work. One of the (sonically, but not only) best Furtwangler
post-war recordings is the NDR 1951 one of the same symphony, made also
by Schnapp. Comparing it with the "official" 1947 version says it all.
In those years, it wasn't yet customary that taped WWII documents were
released for public consumption--so Furtwangler was never really put in a
position to choose anything in this respect. [There is a story regarding a
lawsuit against the fraudulent release of a Beethoven recording, but that
was a matter of copyright, not of artistic veto.]
Your assumption that he "would have been disgusted" by the discs now in
circulation is hot air, nothing else.
About your other pronouncement--take a break. I am not THE keeper of
anything (Th. W. Adorno dubbed Furtwangler, BTW, "the last guardian of the
Music", another bloody hero-worshiper...). Furtwangler's sacred
flame--and *I* don't use the locution in derision, if you like it or
not--is kept alive by the tens of thousands of Furtwangler's listeners,
among which I am happy to be one of many, of those that are lucky
enough not to be influenced by inept reviews that emphasize the
supposedly "crappy sound" of Furtwangler's recordings.
Good night--you need a rest, badly!
regards,
SG
samir ghiocel golescu
> Anyone who has
> written music knows that divine inspiration or some sort of
> higher-plane communication has little or nothing to do with it.
Sorry, all my respect for your expertize into writing music, but that one
composer feels that "divine inspiration [...] has nothing to do with it",
doesn't mean that all composers feel--or are supposed to feel--the same
way. Actually what you write should be read as "99% of those that have
written music know that [...] and I would welcome that as perfectly
credible. Just that it *may* be possible that the 1% count more. Thank
God, musical composition is not a matter of numbers and quantity, and the
few and the little is what really counts.
If you only want to reject the cliche of the sentimental movie, with the
composer walking in the park and ending a Mass in his mind, or the cute
joke that has the Tomcat Tom "producing" Strauss' Bleu Danube in 1 minute,
I am with you. Also, how can scores like Stravinski's (sigh) be composed
other than with hard work and by employing enormous intellectual
resources? All these *are* true, but they more nuance and enhance than
contradict the matter of "innate blessing" a (great!) composer is supposed
to receive.
best regards,
SG
(who believes, from the little music history he knows, that different
composers treated very differently the problem of "inspiration", so no
univocal position can be reasonably argued)
Roland van Gaalen
: "David Hurwitz" <hurw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
: news:6Pmn4.468$%%5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
:> <<You came into this ng as a spammer, Mr Hurwitz, and under your skin, a
:> spammer you remain.>>
:>
:> <<Perhaps 'troll' is closer, but they live in the same swamp.>>
:>
:> <<Perhaps we could settle this by agreeing that David H is to music
:> criticism
:> as the other David H is to pianism.>>
:>
:> Dear Group:
:>
:> This, along with the Samir "highlights" posted above, is a sample of the
:> level of discourse that some members of this forum are willing to stoop to
:> for no other reason than that they find certain personal opinions about
:> music, and only music, "offensive," "provocative," or otherwise
:> objectionable.
: You pile disingenuity on disingenuity, Mr Hurwitz. You know perfectly well
: that I have never objected to musical opinion, but only to relentless
: badgering and threats of incessant *provocation*, which, by the way, is
: *your* choice of word.
Things got a little out of hand in the thread on bad recordings by great
conductors -- and I was the one who started talking about "unworthy
provocations".
My understanding is that the original question was asked in earnest by
someone who is eager to explore various "big-name" conductors' works, but
who understandably wanted to avoid the obvious recording failures or
disasters.
Given that particular context, the Mengelberg St Matthew passion was a
bad nomination. Not because I think it is great (as I admittedly do) but
it simply does not belong to the category "for Mengelberg _completists_
only". By the standards of Mengelberg's legacy, it is not "below par" by
any stretch of imagination. Telling a novice otherwise is in my opinion
disinformation -- if you like Mengelberg's interpretive style, then the
chances are very good that his St Matthew Passion will appeal to you in
one way or another. From that perspective and in this particular context,
it is not a clunker, though in a more general context it may very well be
viewed as such.
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
MEA
> I have always
> maintained that it is perfectly fine to attack, even vigorously and with
> verbal sharpness, any opinion offered about music. That's why we are here.
> But I think it goes beyond the pale when the attack extends to the person
> himself simply by virtue of his having uttered the opinion in the first
> place. You may disagree.
I'm not taking sides, since I think all of you involved in this little fracas
have valuable contributions to make to this newsgroup. However, I can tell you
that it isn't opinions that start flame wars, but the way they are stated. Trust
me David, no one here has attacked you because of your opinions.
cheers,
Alain
David Hurwitz
<<Stop bashing artists whose achievements are obviously far beyond your
understanding and the "discourses" will have the tone they had before you
infested the place.>>
Not only are your favorite artists "achievements" not beyond my
understanding, they are not beyond anyone's. These artists exist for no
other purpose than to please me, and everyone else who listens to them, and
to communicate their understanding of great music to all of us. Some are
more successful at this than others. The fact of successful communication is
never a "given," not with any artist. We have every right to judge them, and
to render our opinion is fundamental to the relationship between artist and
public. The fact that these opinions may not comport with yours, or even the
artists', is irrelevant. Artists are not "special" people in any way. They
are not "better" than anyone else. They are simply people who are doing the
work which they were trained to do, and which hopefully they enjoy doing.
Anyone who listens to a Furtwangler performance has as much right to
pronounce an opinion about it, and to have that opinion respected--even by
Furtwangler himself--as would a housepainter or plumber responding to the
expressions of satisfaction or criticism by their client or employer. There
is no difference at all. When an artist offers himself to the public, it is
he who must seek its approval on its own terms, not the public which must
accomodate itself the artist. Every time any one of us listens to a
Furtwangler CD (or any other), we are being asked to judge, not mindlessly
admire, the artist himself. This judgment is personal, normal, and
inherently correct, whether it's positive or negative. You have no right
(not that you care, of course) to question the appropriateness of this
judgment, the intelligence of the listener making it (whom you don't know
other then in this single, trivial respect), his integrity, sincerity,
accuracy, or right to share his opinion with others. The artist's
willingness to listen to his public, to submit himself to their approval, is
one sign of a healthy musical culture. The audience which merely gapes in
awe and listens reverently to endless repetitions of the same few
"masterpieces" by "artist-heros" participates in nothing more than the
appreciation of the dead relics of a dead culture. This applies equally to
record collectors.
Paul Penna
<alain...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I'm not taking sides, since I think all of you involved in this little fracas
> have valuable contributions to make to this newsgroup. However, I can tell you
> that it isn't opinions that start flame wars, but the way they are stated.
> Trust
> me David, no one here has attacked you because of your opinions.
Right. It's primarily because of who he expressed his opinions about.
That and the monumentally inconsequential matter of his references to
his web site, and even more monumentally inconsequential, his sig.
--
Paul Penna
Andrys D Basten
David Hurwitz <hurw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
><<You came into this ng as a spammer, Mr Hurwitz, and under your skin, a
>spammer you remain.>>
>
><<Perhaps 'troll' is closer, but they live in the same swamp.>>
>
><<Perhaps we could settle this by agreeing that David H is to music
>criticism
>as the other David H is to pianism.>>
>
>Dear Group:
>
>This, along with the Samir "highlights" posted above, is a sample of the
>level of discourse that some members of this forum are willing to stoop to
>music, and only music, "offensive," "provocative," or otherwise
>of private e-mails from lurkers (and others) who say, time and time again,
And thus it ever shall be. I can attest to the private mails
that say they can't understand the hatreds and bile here that is
so personalized but that they don't want to get involved though
they will write to thank me for posting what they would like to
post. I am talking about regulars, not just lurkers.
Thomas is way out of line for posting what he did, and it
reflects on him the 'argument' and denigration he chose, not on
you. Samir will always resent you and look for every
opportunity go get you in a personal manner for your opinions.
You and I have disagreed on more than one thing, but I
really value your participation here and I can't say that the
others bring so much to the discussions, actually. Mainly
attacks, their meat. The one time recently that Samir posted
something really worthwhile, you complimented him as did many of
us, but of course he will discount that. To me, it's very sad.
And the very worst of this newsgroup, when this happens.
Forget it - those who seem to despise your signature seem
intimidated by it, but it's reality - you have done reviews as a
living and now provide them for a supplementary livings, but you
participate in the same way as many of us do and annoy in the
same way as many of us do and that's all there is to it.
Don't let a few who so resent your sigline matter more than
it's worth.
- A
--
Andrys Basten, CNE http://www.andrys.com/ PC Network Support
http://www.andrys.com/books.html - Classical-Music Searches on one page
Search VIDEOS, SHEET MUSIC (good), CDs, Gramophone reviews
http://www.andrys.com/indox.html - Machu Picchu PhotoDiary w/Canon Elph
http://www.andrys.com/freddyk.html - Freddy Kempf on CD
http://www.andrys.com/argerich.html - available Argerich recordings
Alain Dagher
> SG:
>
> <<Stop bashing artists whose achievements are obviously far beyond your
> understanding and the "discourses" will have the tone they had before you
> infested the place.>>
>
> Not only are your favorite artists "achievements" not beyond my
> understanding, they are not beyond anyone's. These artists exist for no
> other purpose than to please me, and everyone else who listens to them, and
> to communicate their understanding of great music to all of us. Some are
> more successful at this than others. The fact of successful communication is
> never a "given," not with any artist. We have every right to judge them, and
> to render our opinion is fundamental to the relationship between artist and
> public. The fact that these opinions may not comport with yours, or even the
> artists', is irrelevant.
OK, so far so good. You have a right to express your opinions, like anyone else.
And you most definitely are right to listen critically even to the most sacred
of cows. But ...
> Artists are not "special" people in any way. They
> are not "better" than anyone else.
I think this is an absolutely false statement. A great artist must essentially
dedicate their life to art, something which takes courage (or serious delusions
I guess) as well as talent. And here I am not talking ethics. Obviously we are
all equally "valuable" as persons, and deserve to be treated with equal respect.
> They are simply people who are doing the
> work which they were trained to do,
That is an insult to all artists. That Raphael painted, that Proust wrote, that
Bach composed, these are miracles.
> Anyone who listens to a Furtwangler performance has as much right to
> pronounce an opinion about it, and to have that opinion respected--even by
> Furtwangler himself--as would a housepainter or plumber responding to the
> expressions of satisfaction or criticism by their client or employer. There
> is no difference at all.
So are you suggesting that there is no difference between sitting down to write
an opera and just going to work each day? That painting a house is just the same
as painting the stanza della segnatura? Even accounting for the fact that you're
obviously trying to aggravate Samir, this is a rather incredible statement. I
would think you more than most should realize what it takes to succeed as an
artist.
> When an artist offers himself to the public, it is
> he who must seek its approval on its own terms, not the public which must
> accomodate itself the artist.
This is ridiculous. The public must make an effort too. I once overheard an old
couple at the intermission of a concert, following Berg's violin concerto. She
said "too bad about the child but does that mean we have to suffer too?" So if
she didn't like it, is that Berg's fault? A friend of mine says Proust is
boring. Is that statement valid (never mind that he has the "right" to make it -
we agree about that)? Does it reflect on Proust's shortcomings as an artist?
> The artist's
> willingness to listen to his public, to submit himself to their approval, is
> one sign of a healthy musical culture.
Great artists challenge their public. And if the public doesn't like it, they
evan johnson
<alain...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
:> They are simply people who are doing the
:> work which they were trained to do,
:
:That is an insult to all artists. That Raphael painted, that Proust wrote, that
:Bach composed, these are miracles.
I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Hurwitz. Bach was one of the most
workmanlike of composers! Composition is an art, of course, but it is
equally a craft, a trade. A particular aptitude for a trade does not
by itself elevate the trade to some sort of semi-divine plane.
Evan (a composition student)
Remove everything between '@' and 'yale' to reply.
Alain Dagher
evan johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2000 02:35:32 GMT, Alain Dagher
> <alain...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> :That is an insult to all artists. That Raphael painted, that Proust wrote, that
> :Bach composed, these are miracles.
>
> I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Hurwitz. Bach was one of the most
> workmanlike of composers! Composition is an art, of course, but it is
> equally a craft, a trade. A particular aptitude for a trade does not
> by itself elevate the trade to some sort of semi-divine plane.
What do you mean by workmanlike? That he worked each day, and got his compositions
in on time? That he thought of himself as a humble craftsman? Do you think that what
Bach did is similar to what a restaurant reviewer does - go to work, eat a meal, get
your review in under deadline, etc ...? Would you call the B minor mass workmanlike?
I should point out that "workmanlike" when applied to an artist is pejorative,
although I assume you did not use it in that way. The very fact that it is generally
accepted as pejorative proves my point actually.
What elevates Bach to the semi-divine is not his aptitude for a craft. It is the
collective experience of all the human beings who have been brought to that
semi-divine state by listening to his music. Equate that to putting a new jacuzzi
into someone's home if you will. I don't. I have tremendous (perhaps naive) respect
for true artists.We could not live without them.
ciao,
Alain
Paul Penna
<alain...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> What elevates Bach to the semi-divine is not his aptitude for a craft. It is
> the
> collective experience of all the human beings who have been brought to that
> semi-divine state by listening to his music.
This sounds like the Hollywood bio-pic view of art and artists. It also
explains why all rationality so often flies out the window in
discussions of art, artists and creativity. This is religion, not art.
--
Paul Penna
Alain Dagher
samir ghiocel golescu wrote:
> If it was understood that I deny the role critics in general have to play
> in arts, that is wrong.
This wasn't my point either. My experience of the arts has been infinitely
enhanced by great writers such as Gombrich and Panofsky. In fact, the question
I asked re: Bruckner vs Hanslick could have been rephrased to compare Robert
Hughes ( a really great writer ) and the many painters he disembowels on a
regular basis, to the advantage of the critics. But I think an essential
distinction must be made between an art critic and a reviewer. Nabokov,
himself a fabulous literary critic, made the distinction between the person
who enhances our appreciation of works of art and what he called the reviewing
hack, who just gives thumbs up or thumbs down.
I should state that I don't consider David a hack, and that I do appreciate
his musicological contributions to this group.
ciao,
Alain
Simon Roberts
: David Hurwitz wrote:
: > Anyone who listens to a Furtwangler performance has as much right to
: > pronounce an opinion about it, and to have that opinion respected--even by
: > Furtwangler himself--as would a housepainter or plumber responding to the
: > expressions of satisfaction or criticism by their client or employer. There
: > is no difference at all.
: So are you suggesting that there is no difference between sitting down to write
: an opera and just going to work each day? That painting a house is just the same
: as painting the stanza della segnatura? Even accounting for the fact that you're
: obviously trying to aggravate Samir, this is a rather incredible statement. I
: would think you more than most should realize what it takes to succeed as an
: artist.
Well, you know, it's all just fun....
Simon
Alain Dagher
Which begs the question: if writing the B Minor Mass is, in its essence, no different
than installing someone's dishwahser, why bother reviewing performances of the B Minor
Mass?
ciao,
Alain
mt
<<I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Hurwitz. Bach was one of the most
workmanlike of composers! Composition is an art, of course, but it is
equally a craft, a trade. A particular aptitude for a trade does not
by itself elevate the trade to some sort of semi-divine plane.>>
Take Beethoven. You want to be a composer, and you are aware that
there's Beethoven. To a degree never equalled since, he shows you what
it means to be great. How he achieved his greatness is immaterial (of
course, craft and dedication play an important role in very hard work
such as composing). A trade that counts Beethoven among its
practitioners must be special indeed.
As a Chinese colleague of mine is fond of saying: the mathematician is
near the top of the pagoda, but the musician is at the very top...
Regards,
mt (a mathematician and pagoda gazer)
David Hurwitz
essentially
> dedicate their life to art, something which takes courage (or serious
delusions
> I guess) as well as talent.
So must a great plumber, butcher, doctor, teacher or electrician. Some
people do a job because it's just a job (artists included), others have real
talent. Talent is not limited to artistic pursuits, nor are artists
necessarily specially talented at what they do. They are just like everyone
else, and everyone else is just like them. I have seen fireman and cops
every bit as "dedicated" as Furtwangler and his crowd. To demean their
dedication by saying that it is fundamentally inferior or less "courageous"
is pure snobbery. Nothing more.
> > They are simply people who are doing the
> > work which they were trained to do,
> That is an insult to all artists. That Raphael painted, that Proust wrote,
that
> Bach composed, these are miracles.
No, it is a compliment, and one which comports rather well with what we know
most pre-Romantic artists thought of themselves and their work: to wit,
their highest ambition was to please their patrons and public by doing their
best work, and so to die wealthy and appreciated. The fact that they wrote
masterworks in so doing is incidental, and a byproduct of their dedication
to their craft, not a result of any avowed intention to write only
"masterpieces." They could not and generally did not know how future
generations would judge their work, and did not compose for those later
generations.
> So are you suggesting that there is no difference between sitting down to
write
> an opera and just going to work each day? That painting a house is just
the same
> as painting the stanza della segnatura? Even accounting for the fact that
you're
> obviously trying to aggravate Samir, this is a rather incredible
statement. I
> would think you more than most should realize what it takes to succeed as
an
> artist.
You got it. The fact that something does or does not aggravate Samir is not
a particular concern of mine at this point. He's made it quite clear that
the fact that I exist aggravates him, so let's not give him more credit then
he deserves. There is absolutely no difference between sitting down to write
an opera and going to work each day. As to "what it takes to succeed" as an
artist, it all depends what you mean by "succeed." Many of the people we
know consider huge successes artistically were not so regarded in their
lifetimes by others, and did not so regard themselves. All I'm saying is
that a job well done, with talent and ability, is just that. It matters not
a wit what "the job" is. Obviously, some jobs require a different set of
skills than others, but the fact that certain jobs require more
intelligence, education, or special knowledge than others does not change my
basic contention that artists are like any other skilled job-holder. They
learn their trade and ply it with varying degrees of dedication and success.
Just like everyone else.
> > When an artist offers himself to the public, it is
> > he who must seek its approval on its own terms, not the public which
must
> > accomodate itself the artist.
>
> This is ridiculous. The public must make an effort too. I once overheard
an old
> couple at the intermission of a concert, following Berg's violin concerto.
She
> said "too bad about the child but does that mean we have to suffer too?"
So if
> she didn't like it, is that Berg's fault?
Of course it's Berg's fault. Berg could have written a much "easier" violin
concerto had he been so inclined. Her reaction was a perfectly fair one. The
public is under no particular obligation to do anything at all other than
sit and render its opinion in the form of applause (or not). One can always
hope that they will be open minded, but they have no obligation to be so.
The question here is whether or not it matters terribly that the woman in
your example did or did not like the piece. The fact that it gets played by
great orchestras and violinists, and that the vast majority of people sit
through it and applaud afterwards, suggests that the work does actually
justify its existence in terms of audience approval. Why be so cynical? I've
found most audiences to be quite willing to enjoy new, difficult things if
they are presented with a bit of creativity and above all humility on the
part of the artists. It's when you try to shove things down people's throats
that they start to take offence.
> > The artist's
> > willingness to listen to his public, to submit himself to their
approval, is
> > one sign of a healthy musical culture.
>
> Great artists challenge their public. And if the public doesn't like it,
they
> carry on regardless.
No, this has nothing to do with "greatness." I've never heard an artist
called great (or not) by virtue of their "challengingness." Artists are
judged on the basis of what they create, and recreative artists, like
conductors, on their reputations while they are alive and on the recordings
that survive them. The idea the Furtwangler "challenged" his public I find
particularly laughable, as his reputation, particularly on discs, rests
almost entirely and virtually without exception on his performances of the
standard German classical repertoire in the country of its origin. All it
takes to "challenge" the public (whatever that means) is ego, certitude,
stubbornness, sincerity, persistence, contempt, respect for the artwork--any
single one or combination of these. There are any number of reasons an
artist may decide to "challenge" the public. I don't believe that greatness
or talent necessarilt enters into the equation at all. It may, but it
doesn't have to.
> And I am not being elitist. Great art occurs when a talented individual
follows
> their heart, no matter what anybody thinks.
>
> David, you are siding with the people who booed Stravinsky, insulted
Bruckner,
> ridiculed Van Gogh, etc ... a whole legion of philistines with the
attitudes of
> schoolyard bullies.
No, this is not true. Great art *may* occur when someone follows their heart
no matter what anybody thinks. So does a lot of garbage. Again, sincerity is
not the issue. Plenty of very sincere artists followed their hearts, as you
put it, and we couldn't care less now. While I agree with you that we all
generally pay lip service to the idea that great art is "sincere" or
"truthful," your implication, which is that great art is necessarily that
which meets with incomprehension or non-acceptance, is simply untrue. Haydn,
Handel, Rossini, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Vivaldi, Scarlatti, Rameau, Johann
Strauss, Richard Strauss, Prokofiev, Copland, Stravinsky, Verdi, Wagner,
Vaughan Williams, Britten and dozens of others were all composers who
achieved greatness and real popular success in their own lifetimes without
major incident. A scandal or two doesn't count. Most of the time they
backfire, and in the event wind up "spreading the word." In fact the very
evidence you cite--the "Rite of Spring" episode--only proves my point. It
enhanced the composer's reputation, and subsequent performances were huge
successes. What most people objected to was the choreography, a judgment in
the event proved correct, as the work has never succeeded as a ballet, only
as a concert piece.
I am not siding with the OPINION of the people who booed Stravinsky,
Bruckner, etc. I am defending their right to express that opinion, because
(a) it forces the artist to ask himself whether or not he is sincere or
intends merely to shock or affront, which is a healthy thing; (b) the
opinion is irrelevant to the judgment of history of the work in question.
The very fact that we now regard these works as masterpieces despite their
original reception proves beyond all doubt that the expression of opinion is
not harmful, evil, or in any way damaging to our historical perceptions of
the value of a work of art.
And besides, all I have ever said, and the cause of all this brouhaha, is
that not all of Furtwangler's recordings support his claim to greatness in
my opinion. Now I ask you: what is the harm of discussing this calmly and
rationally? Is Furtwangler's reputation at stake? We are not even talking
about the work of a composer, but the work of a recreative artist who no one
in this group ever heard live, and whose reputation is based, not on
recordings, but on the testimony of those who did work with him and hear him
at his best. For most of us, though, all that remains are a few dim audio
documents which, at their very best can be nothing more than a pale
reflection of what the real thing must have sounded like. Isn't it therefore
reasonable to debate in a forum of self-styled record collectors the degree
to which these documents BY THEMSELVES confirm or disprove this claim to
greatness?
The process of recognizing, understanding, and enjoying classical music and
classic performances of it is ongoing, and one in which we are all
participants. Our opinions of composers and the artists who perform their
works is always evolving, changing, being questioned and re-evaluated. This
process is healthy and normal. The issue is not the quality or quantity of
our opinions, but the fact that we have them, express them, and debate them
with passion tempered by civility. Some here find this impossible, which is
all the more ironic given the fact that what we say and do is purely for our
own edification and amusement. It's not going to alter either the judgment
of history or, I suspect, much else.
David Hurwitz
<<Religious or not,
great art is spiritual before pertaining to the reign of "rationality".>>
Well, no one would ever accuse you of "pertaining to the reign of
rationality," Samir.
--
David Hurwitz
Executive Editor
http://www.classicstoday.com
dhur...@classicstoday.com
"samir ghiocel golescu" <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100020...@ux13.cso.uiuc.edu...
>
>
> > This sounds like the Hollywood bio-pic view of art and artists. It also
> > explains why all rationality so often flies out the window in
> > discussions of art, artists and creativity. This is religion, not art.
>
> I am sorry, Sir, utilitarianly viewing the artists as (only) servants of
> the public taste is what is much closer to the Hollywood ideal.
>
> About possible, *partial*, parallelisms (not identity, by all means)
> between art and religion, that is not such a big offense. Religious or
not,
> great art is spiritual before pertaining to the reign of "rationality".
>
> regards,
> SG
>
evan johnson
<ddo...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
:David Hurwitz wrote:
:
:> Artists are not "special" people in any way. They
:> are not "better" than anyone else. They are simply people who are doing the
:> work which they were trained to do, and which hopefully they enjoy doing.
:
:This last statement is pitiful, and pitiable.
I emphatically agree with Mr. Hurwitz's position here. Anyone who has
written music knows that divine inspiration or some sort of
higher-plane communication has little or nothing to do with it. Above
all, music-making of any sort is daily work; nobody, as far as I can
tell, is claiming that seeing the side of a newly painted house is the
same as seeing a Picasso; but the distinct qualities of the product of
a worker does nothing to contradict the worker's status as such.
Evan
evan johnson
<alain...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
:Which begs the question: if writing the B Minor Mass is, in its essence, no different
:than installing someone's dishwahser, why bother reviewing performances of the B Minor
:Mass?
I can't understand why the first half of the question has anything to
do with the second, or in any way mitigates its absurdity.
David Hurwitz
The keyword: about ME.>>
Talk about disingenuous! Furtwangler would have regarded the hypocritical
and false modesty attested to by your pretentious assumption of the role of
"keeper of his sacred flame" with the same disgust that he would have
reserved for the many broadcast performances of his that have been released
without his approval or consent. Neither do his reputation any credit.
--
David Hurwitz
Executive Editor
http://www.classicstoday.com
dhur...@classicstoday.com
"samir ghiocel golescu" <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100020...@ux13.cso.uiuc.edu...
>
>
> > Well, no one would ever accuse you of "pertaining to the reign of
> > rationality," Samir.
>
evan johnson
<alain...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
:
:
:evan johnson wrote:
:
:> On Mon, 07 Feb 2000 02:35:32 GMT, Alain Dagher
:> <alain...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
:>
:> :That is an insult to all artists. That Raphael painted, that Proust wrote, that
:> :Bach composed, these are miracles.
:>
:> I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Hurwitz. Bach was one of the most
:> workmanlike of composers! Composition is an art, of course, but it is
:> equally a craft, a trade. A particular aptitude for a trade does not
:> by itself elevate the trade to some sort of semi-divine plane.
:
:What do you mean by workmanlike? That he worked each day, and got his compositions
:in on time? That he thought of himself as a humble craftsman? Do you think that what
:Bach did is similar to what a restaurant reviewer does - go to work, eat a meal, get
:your review in under deadline, etc ...? Would you call the B minor mass workmanlike?
Yes, I do think that, and I don't see why that in any way diminishes
Bach's accomplishments. Obviously bach was particularly good at what
he does, and obviously the nature of his craft allowed for more and
more obvious variations in quality and impact of product than that of
a restaurant critic. I wouldn't call the B minor mass workmanlike,
because that word has a different meaning when applied to a work of
art than that which I would use elsewhere, viz.:
:I should point out that "workmanlike" when applied to an artist is pejorative,
:although I assume you did not use it in that way. The very fact that it is generally
:accepted as pejorative proves my point actually.
Of course it is pejorative, because it implies a lack of imagination,
intuition, whatever that should be as present in a performance or
composition of a piece of music as it should be in the solving of an
electrical wiring problem.
:What elevates Bach to the semi-divine is not his aptitude for a craft. It is the
:collective experience of all the human beings who have been brought to that
:semi-divine state by listening to his music. Equate that to putting a new jacuzzi
:into someone's home if you will. I don't. I have tremendous (perhaps naive) respect
:for true artists.We could not live without them.
I agree completely, and I won't even make the facile rejoinder that we
couldn't live without electricians either because it's not relevant.
I hope you don't see my views as diminishing my earth-shatteringly
high esteem for Bach and many who succeeded and preceded him. But I
don't see that as contradicting an understanding of Bach's career (and
Bach's in particular!) as one of work requested and done. In this
sense perhaps the difference between us stems from the fact that
composers (and other artists) often work without the commissioning of
others in a way a plumber would not. There is something to this, but
the point stands: whatever the motivation, the work an artist puts in
is still work; and that fact seems to me to elevate the meaning of
work rather than denigrate the efforts of musicians and other artists.
yours,
David Hurwitz
Bruckner,
> ridiculed Van Gogh, etc ... a whole legion of philistines with the
attitudes of
> schoolyard bullies.
One further point, Alain. These self same people probably booed dozens of
other composers and performers who are dead and forgotten because you know
what? They were right to do so. You regard them, snobbishly, as
"philistines, etc." because they disliked when new and unfamiliar that tiny
percentage of the whole which you now feel (or we now feel) is great and a
"classic." But this is a purely ex-post facto judgment. We select, with the
aid of hindsight, those few works which we admit to the pantheon of
"masterpieces" or "greatness," and we then pat ourselves on the back by
telling ourselves that our choice was correct because "those philistines and
schoolyard bullies" reacted poorly at the premiere. But at the same time we
ACCEPT the judgement of those same "p's and s b's" (for short) with respect
to literally thousands of works that never come to our notice because they
thankfully killed them, deader than dead, thus saving us the trouble of
having to form any opinion of them at all.
And who knows, maybe they knocked off a few masterpieces so thoroughly that
they never survived to attract our attention today. It could happen,
probably did, and so what? That's how life works; that's what the process of
becoming a classic involves: some determination, some luck. It's hit or
miss, certainly no different now than it was then, and every bit as
irrational and unscientific. Somehow I don't see you withholding your
distaste for what you take to be a particularly horrid contemporary work
just because you're afraid that 50 years from now it may be regarded as a
masterpiece. We are no better now. You are no better now, Alain. Or do you
think that contemporary audiences (or you yourself) have a 100% success
record in identifying certified masterpieces at every modern music premiere?
In any endeavor so fundamentally dependent on "taste" and "style" as
understood over time, it's silly to point the finger of shame at the very
people whose taste and style contributed to that very process just because
they didn't "get it right" 100% of the time, as we see it now. Can you
understand how foolish (not to mention intolerant) that is? Actually, given
what we know of the circumstances of most premieres, the vast majority went
off without a hitch, and the works were given a very warm reception.
Scandals were relatively few and far between. Bruckner's Third was booed,
but his 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th were all received (by the public at least)
with real enthusiasm. I think we have every right to be proud of the wisdom,
culture, and intelligence of our audiences, (and even some critics)
historically speaking.
What's even more objectionable, we also take delight in completely ignoring
many works which those audiences applauded madly, deducing from the fact
that these works are not to our taste today further confirmation of our
superior musical perceptiveness. Art history, Alain, is winner's history--in
other words, it isn't history at all, but an ex-post facto exercise designed
to reinforce our current perceptions and prejudices about what constitutes
"greatness," rather than an honest inquiry into the circumstances
surrounding the creation and performance of the entire musical repertoire of
a given period. Purely in terms of historical validity, your blanket
dismisal as "philistines and schoolyard bullies" of all who occasionally
booed what you (or we) consider to be a great work is as indefensible as it
is incorrect on its face.
Dimitri Dover
actually sent.
Dimitri
Dimitri Dover wrote:
>
> evan johnson wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 06 Feb 2000 22:09:40 -0500, Dimitri Dover
> > <ddo...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >
> > :David Hurwitz wrote:
> > :
> > :> Artists are not "special" people in any way. They
> > :> are not "better" than anyone else. They are simply people who are doing the
> > :> work which they were trained to do, and which hopefully they enjoy doing.
> > :
> > :This last statement is pitiful, and pitiable.
> >
> > I emphatically agree with Mr. Hurwitz's position here. Anyone who has
> > written music knows that divine inspiration or some sort of
> > higher-plane communication has little or nothing to do with it. Above
> > all, music-making of any sort is daily work;
>
> Wrong. Great concert artists like Richter, Michelangeli, Horowitz, Arrau,
> and Rubinstein took time away from music to redirect their careers,
> their ambitions, and their art, and to take stock.
>
> And no one is talking about "divine inspiration", just inspiration.
> This is often forgotten is the mist of analyzing the minutiae of a
> thoroughly competent performance, of which there are plenty today.
> A great artist at his best (and not only) can make you cry, make
> you laugh, make you gasp, make you sing. Is there craft involved?
> By God, yes. But likening this craft, as fragile and ephemeral
> as it can be, to the work of a housepainter or a plumber, as
> Mr. Hurwitz has done, is revoltingly cynical, and an insult to
> all artists.
>
> Dimitri
Dimitri Dover
>
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2000 22:09:40 -0500, Dimitri Dover
> <ddo...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> :David Hurwitz wrote:
> :
> :> Artists are not "special" people in any way. They
> :> are not "better" than anyone else. They are simply people who are doing the
> :> work which they were trained to do, and which hopefully they enjoy doing.
> :
> :This last statement is pitiful, and pitiable.
>
> I emphatically agree with Mr. Hurwitz's position here. Anyone who has
> written music knows that divine inspiration or some sort of
> higher-plane communication has little or nothing to do with it.
> Above all, music-making of any sort is daily work
Wrong. It was hardly "daily work" for Richter, Michelangeli,
Arrau, Horowitz and Rubinstein, who took time away from music to
redirect their careers, their ambitions and their art, and to take
stock.
And no one is talking about "divine inspiration," just "inspiration".
Painting a house does not take inspiration, and is not art. We
sometimes forget this component when listening to throroughly
competent and skilled performances, of which there are more than
ever today, and criticizing the minutiae of virtues and flaws in
any creation of a human being.
At their best (and not only), the greatest artists (and not only
of the past) can make you cry, can make you laugh, can make you
gasp, can make you sing. Likening the "craft" of a Richter or
a Michelangeli or a Furtwangler to that of a housepainter or plumber is, to me, a
revoltingly cynical view,
and an insult to any artist.
Dimitri Dover
>
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2000 22:09:40 -0500, Dimitri Dover
> <ddo...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> :David Hurwitz wrote:
> :
> :> Artists are not "special" people in any way. They
> :> are not "better" than anyone else. They are simply people who are doing the
> :> work which they were trained to do, and which hopefully they enjoy doing.
> :
> :This last statement is pitiful, and pitiable.
>
> I emphatically agree with Mr. Hurwitz's position here. Anyone who has
> written music knows that divine inspiration or some sort of
> higher-plane communication has little or nothing to do with it. Above
> all, music-making of any sort is daily work;
Wrong. Great concert artists like Richter, Michelangeli, Horowitz, Arrau,
Andrys D Basten
Alain Dagher <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>Which begs the question: if writing the B Minor Mass is, in its essence,
>no different than installing someone's dishwahser, why bother reviewing
>performances >of the B Minor Mass.
Not at all a good summary of what was said, but aside from
that, why bother reviewing performances of any bad movie, any of
the more prosaic books, or even a tv movie of the night?
Because people are asked to spend money or time to enjoy any of
these and some want opinions in advance. Sometimes you pay
attention to the opinion, sometimes you don't.
As for the rest of it, artists are very 'special' people to
those who prize their art. They are not to those who don't.
They are definitely unusual. They are sometimes inspired. But
above all, they are humans and along with whatever inspiration
comes to them and whatever biological musical ability, there is
a very disciplined technique involved with most of this, whether
in classical music or painting or dance, but inspiration is
nothing without the work to make it take place.
Tony Movshon
> [ of Furtwangler ]
> He was very satisfied, instead, with most of the WWII broadcasts, made by
> his friend, Friedrich Schnapp, himself a musician and an adept, all his
> life, of mono work.
Schnapp also did some recordings in the early days of stereo. I
have a Schubert 9 with the NDRSO under Schmidt-Isserstedt that he
produced in 1959. It's probably the only disk I ever bought because
of the producer's name. The sound is not terribly distinguished,
unfortunately.
--
Tony Movshon mov...@nyu.edu
Center for Neural Science New York University
Raymond Hall
any bandwagon. I read and enjoy David's posts just as much as I enjoy
(and sometimes endure) Samir's posts. A personal opinion is simply - a
personal opinion. I'll admit I've hammered Rattle, but then so have many
others. And Furtwaengler is NOT a special case, that we all have to
humbly bow before the WF altar, and accept his interpretations. Other
people here hammer Previn (for whom I *have had* a very high regard many
years ago), but I am not going to lose any sleep over somebody
crucifying him. That would be their loss IMHO.
Personally, I'm not jumping into any boat with either of them (DH or
SG). They should both be put into a rowing boat, towed 50 miles and left
in the middle of a gigantic lake, each with an oar, and with each
pulling in opposite directions (as they are now doing). Newton's laws
will indicate that the boat will circle endlessly, where they both will
remain. Commonsense will ultimately prevail, because both know that
close to the middle of this vast lake is an island, on which is buried a
stash of food, one computer, one CD player, every classical CD ever
made, and a dozen crates of single malt whisky.
The outcome might be interesting.
Anyone remember the ditty, that starts :-
The Owl and the Pussy Cat Went to Sea
In a Beautiful Pea-Green Boat .....
So lighten up. Now who is the Owl and who is the Pussy Cat?
Regards,
Ray Hall, Sydney
Thomas Deas
"Andrys D Basten" <and...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:87laij$qog$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net...
If you are happy to have cod-humorous postings whose stated purpose is to
provoke, because Mr H finds it 'amusing' to provoke, that's up to you. I
have to differ as to what is the 'worst of this newsgroup'. I have objected
to what Mr H has admitted to be deliberate provocation, without serious
(musical) intent. I have not started new threads naming, or mis-naming,
people I have differed with.
Matthew Silverstein
"Alain Dagher" <alain...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:389E30EE...@sympatico.ca...
> > Artists are not "special" people in any way. They
> > are not "better" than anyone else.
>
essentially
> dedicate their life to art, something which takes courage (or serious
delusions
are
> all equally "valuable" as persons, and deserve to be treated with equal
respect.
How is this different from any other challenging career? Or I suppose you
think being a great conductor requires more talent than being a great
physicist. I'm very skeptical of this. It certainly requires a different sort
of talent, but more?
> This is ridiculous. The public must make an effort too. I once overheard an
old
> couple at the intermission of a concert, following Berg's violin concerto.
She
> said "too bad about the child but does that mean we have to suffer too?" So
if
> she didn't like it, is that Berg's fault? A friend of mine says Proust is
> boring. Is that statement valid (never mind that he has the "right" to make
it -
> we agree about that)? Does it reflect on Proust's shortcomings as an artist?
Your claim is: if we don't like a piece of art, it is not the artists fault.
Why doesn't this follow: if we *do* like a piece of art, it is not the
artist's fault.
Either the artist is in some way responsible for our reactions (positive *and*
negative) or she isn't. Pick one.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> What elevates Bach to the semi-divine is not his aptitude for a craft. It is
the
> collective experience of all the human beings who have been brought to that
> semi-divine state by listening to his music. Equate that to putting a new
jacuzzi
> into someone's home if you will. I don't. I have tremendous (perhaps naive)
respect
> for true artists.We could not live without them.
What elevates Bach to the semi-divine is only the fact that people worship
him.
Not every human being is brought to a "semi-divine" state by listening to
Bach's music, and I don't see why any of these people should consider him
semi-divine. Just because *you* feel "divine" when hearing the B-minor Mass
does not mean that everyone does or should. Is your contention that we all
should see Bach as semi-divine really different from the claims of
proselytising religious nuts who think that I should accept Jesus as my
saviour just because he is going to save them?
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
"samir ghiocel golescu" <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100020...@ux13.cso.uiuc.edu...
> between art and religion, that is not such a big offense. Religious or not,
That would certainly explain your fanatical Furtwänglerian fundamentalism . .
.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
"samir ghiocel golescu" <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100020...@ux13.cso.uiuc.edu...
> "it is impossible to talk about the essence itself of Beethoven's music,
> without falling into the sin of adulation"!
And we all know that Wagner was right about everything . . .
Matty
Simon Roberts
: Which begs the question: if writing the B Minor Mass is, in its essence, no different
: than installing someone's dishwahser, why bother reviewing performances of the B Minor
: Mass?
Oh, reviews of dishwashers and those who install them are far more useful
(cf Consumer Reports) and not controversial: we agree on the criteria and
success or failure is readily determined.... (None of which has anything
to do with whether plumbing is an inferior calling to composing -- at
least as far as I can see too early in the morning.)
Simon
Thomas Deas
"Andrys D Basten" <and...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:87laij$qog$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <6Pmn4.468$%%5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> David Hurwitz <hurw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> ><<You came into this ng as a spammer, Mr Hurwitz, and under your skin, a
> >spammer you remain.>>
> >
> ><<Perhaps 'troll' is closer, but they live in the same swamp.>>
> >
> ><<Perhaps we could settle this by agreeing that David H is to music
> >criticism
> >as the other David H is to pianism.>>
>
> reflects on him the 'argument' and denigration he chose, not on
> you.
Andrys, I think you deserve a fuller response than I gave earlier. May I
ask, though, if you find my comments offensive, why did you not respond to
them in context, in the threads in which they originally occurred?
To go through the selective quotations above, which Mr Hurwitz has removed
from their original context, presumably in order to avoid discussion of his
part in that context:
Mr Hurwitz started with a post which, by his own admission, was not serious,
and was intended to provoke certain people because he finds that amusing. He
also stated his intention to continue this behaviour. When challenged, he
maintained that he had merely been stating an opinion, and that he was being
picked on because we disagreed with his opinion. He thus sought to give the
impression that we were the bullies, picking on him. He then started new
threads with, in this case, a corruption of my name in the header, quoting
selectively from our posts in an attempt to convince others that he was the
victim.
This deliberate attempt to dominate a newsgroup by provocation and
subversion merits the name of 'trolling'. It is only a step away from the
'Classical lovers indulge in sexual perversions' posts.
This is not the first time Mr Hurwitz has behaved in this way; when he first
appeared he acted similarly towards Matthew, but after a while moderated his
behaviour, and a truce was called.
This is the background to the first two quotations above.
The usual solution to trolls is to killfile them. The problem with Mr
Hurwitz is that he is not a pure troll; he contributes to debates, and
although I would happily do without his posts, others contribute to the same
threads as he, and it can be difficult to follow an argument without seeing
all of the posts. The unusual combination of knowledgeable contributions and
provocative trolling is what suggested to me the parallel with David
Helfgott; plainly not a rank pretender, plainly a musician of some ability,
but whose behaviour is so erratic that serious music lovers generally ignore
him.
Mr Hurwitz is clearly determined that this is to be his playground; he will
bully the littler ones, but will run crying to teacher if they fight back.
He needs to understand that this is a forum for discussion, not for throwing
weight around, seeking amusement by deliberately provoking others whose
sensitivities are well known.
Another characteristic he shares with Charlie Brown and Jim Cate is his
occasional hearty attempts to start threads; CB was especially pathetic,
asking 'what do you think of Schnabel's Beethoven'. Mr Hurwitz's lists of
pseudo-philosophical questions serve a similar purpose; to attempt to
dominate newsgroup discussion. He wants to be the leader of the gang.
There are no leaders here. There is only an eclectic bunch of people; the
most valuable contributors are often the most modest. We don't need to be
colonised.
Alain
Matthew Silverstein wrote:
> "Alain Dagher" <alain...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:389E3C51...@sympatico.ca...
> > What elevates Bach to the semi-divine is not his aptitude for a craft. It is
> the
> > collective experience of all the human beings who have been brought to that
> > semi-divine state by listening to his music. Equate that to putting a new
> jacuzzi
> > into someone's home if you will. I don't. I have tremendous (perhaps naive)
> respect
> > for true artists.We could not live without them.
>
> What elevates Bach to the semi-divine is only the fact that people worship
> him.
I don't worship him or anyone else.
> Not every human being is brought to a "semi-divine" state by listening to
> Bach's music, and I don't see why any of these people should consider him
> semi-divine. Just because *you* feel "divine" when hearing the B-minor Mass
> does not mean that everyone does or should.
And who said that? What does this have to do with anything we are arguing about. I
maintain that the choice of being an artist is essentially different than going to
law school or med school or electrician school. The fact that there are bad
artists, or good artists that some people haven't heard of, or don't respond to,
etc is utterly irrelevant.
> Is your contention that we all
> should see Bach as semi-divine really different from the claims of
> proselytising religious nuts who think that I should accept Jesus as my
> saviour just because he is going to save them?
Again, a pointless argument since I never said anyone should worship any artist.
Alain
Alain
Andrys D Basten wrote:
> As for the rest of it, artists are very 'special' people to
> those who prize their art. They are not to those who don't.
> They are definitely unusual. They are sometimes inspired. But
> above all, they are humans and along with whatever inspiration
> comes to them and whatever biological musical ability, there is
> a very disciplined technique involved with most of this, whether
> in classical music or painting or dance, but inspiration is
> nothing without the work to make it take place.
My whole point was precisely that the work involved was what makes it
special.
Alain
Andrys D Basten
Thomas Deas <tj...@spam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Andrys, I think you deserve a fuller response than I gave earlier. May I
>ask, though, if you find my comments offensive, why did you not respond to
>them in context, in the threads in which they originally occurred?
Because I thought such a series of ad hominum bile didn't
merit a direct response. I don't understand the need for such a
post. If you can't stand him, don't read him. I come here to
read about music, not about some people's hatreds for other
members of the group.
All I'm getting is ... "He started it... wahhh" - I happen to
enjoy many of his posts and find them informative. The ones
that don't interest me I pass up. Easily done.
>impression that we were the bullies, picking on him. He then started new
>threads with, in this case, a corruption of my name in the header, quoting
>selectively from our posts in an attempt to convince others that he was the
>victim.
Well, I agree that he should not bother. I feel your posting
to him was way beyond the pale. With you I've seen more posts
about other people (Cate, people you feel are spammers) lately
than I do about music and it was just more of the same. So much
negativity. On the rare occasion that I've seen you post on
music, I enjoy your opinions, but they're so rare these days.
>This deliberate attempt to dominate a newsgroup by provocation and
>subversion merits the name of 'trolling'. It is only a step away from the
>'Classical lovers indulge in sexual perversions' posts.
You feel he's trying to dominate. You feel dominated, maybe.
Whatever, start using a kill filter for the name "hurwitz" and
you'll no longer be bothered while those of us who enjoy some of
his posts will read the threads that interest us.
And, you seem to want to dominate by starting a movement to
persuade away someone you insist is just commercial or just
provocative.
>The usual solution to trolls is to killfile them. The problem with Mr
>Hurwitz is that he is not a pure troll; he contributes to debates, and
>although I would happily do without his posts, others contribute to the same
>threads as he, and it can be difficult to follow an argument without seeing
>all of the posts.
This proves that others are interested in one way or another in
threads in which he participates. What's wrong with that? As
soon as you see his name, you can just press 'next' or whatever
on your computer and you'll be spared more pain.
> The unusual combination of knowledgeable contributions and
>provocative trolling is what suggested to me the parallel with David
>Helfgott; plainly not a rank pretender, plainly a musician of some ability,
>but whose behaviour is so erratic that serious music lovers generally ignore
>him.
Many would argue with you about Helfgott's ability with a piano
relative to Hurwitz's ability with words. We are not ignoring
Hurwitz, are we. It would be better if those who despise his
offerings did and then the rest of us would not have to put up
with all this bickering at his being here or his style.
>Mr Hurwitz is clearly determined that this is to be his playground; he will
No more than you are clearly determined that it not be A
playground for him, as it is A playground for many of us.
>He needs to understand that this is a forum for discussion, not for throwing
>weight around, seeking amusement by deliberately provoking others whose
>sensitivities are well known.
The only way to train a 'troll' is to ignore them. Hurwitz is
not ignored. That may tell you something. It is obvious that
some whose feelings are tender are not amused, but it is also
obvious that others appreciate his thoughts on various threads.
We seldom enjoy all of what any one person posts.
>Another characteristic he shares with Charlie Brown and Jim Cate is his
>occasional hearty attempts to start threads; CB was especially pathetic,
>asking 'what do you think of Schnabel's Beethoven'.
What's pathetic is people getting on his case for a normal
discussion thread when objecting to his website's links with
vendors. I personally don't need the policemenship some of you
volunteer. It makes for a forum where a few take over
and email comes to me saying they don't understand it but don't
want to subject themselves to it either. No one needs it.
>Mr Hurwitz's lists of
>pseudo-philosophical questions serve a similar purpose; to attempt to
>dominate newsgroup discussion. He wants to be the leader of the gang.
Or you sense he wants to be your leader, when he is merely
prolific. His mind probably has never been very still when it
comes to music.
If he were not interesting in some degree people would not answer him.
>There are no leaders here.
There are people who would like to police-out for the rest of us
anyone whose offerings they find grating. No one can 'lead'
a group like this, and if you're not interested (plural 'your')
don't respond to the thread and be seen as a 'follower' by those
who fear encroachment of a 'leader' type. If there is no
interest in threads started by him, that's all you need. If
there is interest, thenb bypass it if you feel differently.
>There is only an eclectic bunch of people; the
>most valuable contributors are often the most modest. We don't need to be
>colonised.
Nor do we need self-appointed policemen shutting up everyone
they don't like. Modesty is not a virtue heavily in abundance
in this newsgroup. Nor should it be.
I'm not alone in feeling this way about the policing.
However, I don't waste your time posting to policing types and
ad homining them all over the place, Tom. Different strokes.
Live and let live. It can be nice.
Thomas Deas
> The only way to train a 'troll' is to ignore them. Hurwitz is
> not ignored.
They never are. We had this debate with Charlie Brown.
> What's pathetic is people getting on his case for a normal
> discussion thread when objecting to his website's links with
> vendors. I personally don't need the policemenship some of you
> volunteer.
(I don't recall playing the website card with Hurwitz. I rarely read the sig
files anyway.)
> >There is only an eclectic bunch of people; the
> >most valuable contributors are often the most modest. We don't need to be
> >colonised.
>
> Nor do we need self-appointed policemen shutting up everyone
> they don't like.
By starting new threads carrying their names, perhaps? Don't you think that
was de trop?
Anyway, I'll drop it.
Listening to Bach Chaconne arr. Brahms for piano left hand.
David Hurwitz
serious,
and was intended to provoke certain people because he finds that amusing. He
also stated his intention to continue this behaviour. When challenged, he
maintained that he had merely been stating an opinion, and that he was being
picked on because we disagreed with his opinion. He thus sought to give the
threads with, in this case, a corruption of my name in the header, quoting
selectively from our posts in an attempt to convince others that he was the
victim.>>
Oh, Tom, Tom! Get a grip. I merely replied to one of Mr. Sigurd's endless
series of threads asking for advice about recordings. It was he who I
regarded as "not serious," because the very nature of the question ("please
give me a list of bad recordings by big name conductors") I do not regard as
terribly serious. Perhaps you do, but it seems destined to do nothing than
draw from everyone a purely subjective list of recordings we dislike, and
thus be of limited use to Mr. Sigurd. This I assumed he knew, hence my
tendency to doubt his seriousness in asking the question.
So I gave him my list, perfectly serious as to content, humorous as to
comment. In fact, I seldom start threads in this group. Probably 95% of the
time I am merely a participant in the discussion, something you can see
clearly for yourself should you be so inclined to look at the matter
objectively. I also never said that I intended to provoke anyone. What I
said was that if I am to be accused (by Roland) of a "deliberate unworthy
provocation" merely because he, or Samir, or whoever dislikes my opinion,
then I shall continue to be (regarded as) provocative because I will not
change my opinion just because people find it so. I further pointed out that
if people in this group could tolerate without comment the kind of spite and
bile routinely hurled at me (and others) by the likes of you and Samir, then
perhaps in time my opinions would occasion just as little comment. That,
Tom, in case you didn't notice, was a joke. That's all. I never said (and I
dare you to find) anything about having deliberately attempted to provoke
anyone through my original reply to Sigurd's request. The fault, Tom, lies
with those who lie in wait, just dying to be provoked by an opinion they
will not tolerate. Everyone has a right to state their opinion.
As to starting new threads, it seems that you feel a tad uncomfortable in
the spotlight, eh? I was not trying to make myself out to be a victim in
starting this thread. I was simply holding up your words to general scrutiny
and asking a legitimate question: should people be treated as you have
treated me because of their musical opinions. Some feel the answer is "yes,"
others "no," as I might have expected. I detect behind your words a brittle
defensiveness that seems to indicate that perhaps you are feeling somewhat
victimized? You object to having your words taken out of context, do you?
Well golly, aren't these things just awful. Perhaps you should consider not
meeting the same treatment out to others if you do not wish to be similarly
treated. That's a familiar maxim, isn't it? Clean your own house first, Tom.
> This deliberate attempt to dominate a newsgroup by provocation and
> subversion merits the name of 'trolling'. It is only a step away from the
> 'Classical lovers indulge in sexual perversions' posts.
"Provocation?" "Subversion?" What on earth are you talking about? Calm down.
Take a pill. Sounds exactly like the accusations leveled by thought police
throughout history to stifle the free expression of opinion. I'd be careful,
Tom, your words may come back to haunt you.
> This is not the first time Mr Hurwitz has behaved in this way; when he
first
> appeared he acted similarly towards Matthew, but after a while moderated
his
> behaviour, and a truce was called.
No, I listened to Matthew because that fact is that he knew what he was
talking about and expressed a genuine desire to talk about MUSIC as opposed
to how loathsome we found each other personally. Our disagreements were
fundamentally about musical matters, and not ego driven, and as such easily
resolvable. I value his comments, he evidently values mine. You, on the
other hand, have had not a single word to contribute regarding the subject
of the thread from which I drew your remarks, and confine your posts
exclusively to personal attacks about my legitimate contribution to that
thread. The difference is clear.
> The usual solution to trolls is to killfile them. The problem with Mr
> Hurwitz is that he is not a pure troll; he contributes to debates, and
> although I would happily do without his posts, others contribute to the
same
> threads as he, and it can be difficult to follow an argument without
seeing
> all of the posts. The unusual combination of knowledgeable contributions
and
> provocative trolling is what suggested to me the parallel with David
> Helfgott; plainly not a rank pretender, plainly a musician of some
ability,
> but whose behaviour is so erratic that serious music lovers generally
ignore
> him.
Well, then as a serious music lover, you are perfectly free to ignore me. Go
ahead. Give it a try
> Mr Hurwitz is clearly determined that this is to be his playground; he
will
> bully the littler ones, but will run crying to teacher if they fight back.
> He needs to understand that this is a forum for discussion, not for
throwing
> weight around, seeking amusement by deliberately provoking others whose
> sensitivities are well known.
No, I am determined to stop taking crap in the form of personal insults and
attacks from intolerant jerks who parade their "sensitivities" around in
public as a way to control or limit the scope of discussion among the
members of this group. If mention of these things is so deeply troubling,
they have only to remove themselves from the discussion itself. Nothing is
easier than not reading a thread. I routinely ignore lots of them. So do we
all.
> Another characteristic he shares with Charlie Brown and Jim Cate is his
> occasional hearty attempts to start threads; CB was especially pathetic,
> asking 'what do you think of Schnabel's Beethoven'. Mr Hurwitz's lists of
> pseudo-philosophical questions serve a similar purpose; to attempt to
> dominate newsgroup discussion. He wants to be the leader of the gang.
Well, here's a new accusation. First it was "tone," then "commerical
interest," then my "signature line." Now it's: Point that trembling finger!
Raise your voice to the skies and indignantly cry: "Heavens to betsy! He's
trying to, to, to--oh my God NO!--to START A THREAD!!!!!! Hide the children!
Stash the silver! What ever are we to do? What a horrible way to use a
newsgroup!"
Jesus, Tom, of all the silly things I've been accused of, this has to take
the prize. Why not look over the past week of postings, Tom, and give this
group an accurate number of actual threads that I have started? Think you
can count that high? Don't worry, it's only single digits. And do keep in
mind that if you and Samir had simply shut up and let me utter a purely
subjective opinion without making the issue personal (or replied by posting
your own answers to Sigurds original question), the number of new threads
started by me would be fewer still, by at least two.
> There are no leaders here. There is only an eclectic bunch of people; the
> most valuable contributors are often the most modest.
Present company excluded, of course. There is one respect in which I truly
respect Samir's position, though it underlies our fundamental disagreement.
He says "Attack me all you like, but don't criticize my artists, or else!"
At least he's honest. I say "Discuss the artists all you like, offer
opinions good and bad, that's what we're here for. Let's talk about them,
and not each other." These two positions seem to me incompatible, so to this
extent I understand his objection to my postings. I believe that if he
really feels this way, he should think twice about his desire to participate
in a newsgroup the subject of which is, theoretically, the free discussion
of the value and interest of recordings and the artists who made them. You,
on the other hand, seem to have no such consistent position, and to the
extent that I can determine seem to be motivated by nothing other than
personal dislike. To that extent, your comments appear to me both uglier and
far more gratuitous.
Philip Peters
evan johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2000 04:01:15 GMT, Alain Dagher
> <alain...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> :Which begs the question: if writing the B Minor Mass is, in its essence, no different
> :than installing someone's dishwahser, why bother reviewing performances of the B Minor
> :Mass?
>
> I can't understand why the first half of the question has anything to
> do with the second, or in any way mitigates its absurdity.
OTOH we might start doing dishwasher reviews.
Philip
>
>
>
Alain Dagher
> > I think this is an absolutely false statement. A great artist must
> essentially
> > dedicate their life to art, something which takes courage (or serious
> delusions
> > I guess) as well as talent.
>
> So must a great plumber, butcher, doctor, teacher or electrician.
As a doctor let me just say: no.
> Some
> people do a job because it's just a job (artists included), others have real
> talent. Talent is not limited to artistic pursuits, nor are artists
> necessarily specially talented at what they do. They are just like everyone
> else, and everyone else is just like them. I have seen fireman and cops
> every bit as "dedicated" as Furtwangler and his crowd. To demean their
> dedication by saying that it is fundamentally inferior or less "courageous"
> is pure snobbery. Nothing more.
Well, I called it.
> > > They are simply people who are doing the
> > > work which they were trained to do,
>
> > That is an insult to all artists. That Raphael painted, that Proust wrote,
> that
> > Bach composed, these are miracles.
>
> No, it is a compliment, and one which comports rather well with what we know
> most pre-Romantic artists thought of themselves and their work:
This is not really relevant. What Bach and others thought of themselves or said
about themselves we cannot know for sure. What is being debated here is what
*we* think about their work.
> As to "what it takes to succeed" as an
> artist, it all depends what you mean by "succeed."
I mean creating a great work of art. I most certainly do not mean getting the
thumbs up from a reviewer.
> Many of the people we
> know consider huge successes artistically were not so regarded in their
> lifetimes by others, and did not so regard themselves. All I'm saying is
> that a job well done, with talent and ability, is just that. It matters not
> a wit what "the job" is.
Are you seriously telling me that you don't see a difference between writing a
novel and painting a house? Do you think the way to write a novel is to start at
the start and keep going till it's done? Do you not think that the pianist who
strides up on stage in front of a large audience is exhibiting an amout of
courage that is somewhat out of the ordinary? And therefore, that the person who
boos him or her is in some way acting like a schoolyard bully. (Of course we
have strayed from the subject - but you did defend booing of artists just now,
even to the point of blaming the victim.)
> The
> public is under no particular obligation to do anything at all other than
> sit and render its opinion in the form of applause (or not).
Now I think I understand the root of our disagreement. A work of art is not like
a bowl of soup, to be tasted and rated as good or bad. The reason our
Berg-hating friend's reaction is "wrong" is that art demands an effort on the
part of the audience. To blithely dismiss something without taking the trouble
to understand it, or think about it, or learn how to appreciate it, is the very
essence of philistinism. As a reviewer, I guess you must develop a
thumbs-up/thumbs-down approach to art. I suppose it is a professional habit.
You assume that the problem with booing Le Sacre is just that they happened to
get it wrong. But art is not there to be rated on a scale of one to ten. It's
there to be experienced, and the experience depends in large part on what you
bring to it.
> One can always
> hope that they will be open minded, but they have no obligation to be so.
Yes, we must not be snobbish and take the narrow-minded to task.
> I am not siding with the OPINION of the people who booed Stravinsky,
> Bruckner, etc. I am defending their right to express that opinion,
And I would say the opposite. Booing is easy. Trying to understand what at first
glance appears difficult is a better approach. In any case I would not call
booing "expressing an opinion".
ciao,
Alain
Andrys D Basten
Thomas Deas <tj...@spam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>"Andrys D Basten" <and...@netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:87mftj$qik$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>> not ignored.
>
My point was that Hurwitz is not a troll. And sometimes even
Charle Brown wants just to discuss music.
>(I don't recall playing the website card with Hurwitz. I rarely read the sig
>files anyway.)
I was still talking about Charlie Brown... sinc you had just
mentioned him...
>Anyway, I'll drop it.
>
>Listening to Bach Chaconne arr. Brahms for piano left hand.
Whaaat? Music? I'm disoriented again ;-)
I don't know this piece. For real?
David Hurwitz
I prefer Maytag. Variable speed control, fully computerized, adjustable
racks for large pots and pans, an excellent warranty, and a handy
water-saver option that doesn't preclude getting your dishes sparkling
clean. You can read the review at http://www.dishestoday.com.
--
David Hurwitz
Executive Editor
http://www.classicstoday.com
dhur...@classicstoday.com
"Philip Peters" <phi...@p-peters.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:389ED60E...@p-peters.demon.nl...
>
>
> evan johnson wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 07 Feb 2000 04:01:15 GMT, Alain Dagher
> > <alain...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > :Which begs the question: if writing the B Minor Mass is, in its
essence, no different
> > :than installing someone's dishwahser, why bother reviewing performances
of the B Minor
> > :Mass?
> >
> > I can't understand why the first half of the question has anything to
> > do with the second, or in any way mitigates its absurdity.
>
>
> Philip
>
> >
> >
> >
>
Thomas Deas
"David Hurwitz" <hurw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4vAn4.1690$_h5....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> As to starting new threads, it seems that you feel a tad uncomfortable in
> the spotlight, eh? I was not trying to make myself out to be a victim in
> starting this thread. I was simply holding up your words to general
scrutiny
> and asking a legitimate question: should people be treated as you have
> treated me because of their musical opinions.
Still using that disingenuous 'they're picking on me for my opinions' line?
Perhaps you could read the posts you are so eager to criticise.
Some feel the answer is "yes,"
> others "no," as I might have expected. I detect behind your words a
brittle
> defensiveness that seems to indicate that perhaps you are feeling somewhat
> victimized? You object to having your words taken out of context, do you?
> Well golly, aren't these things just awful. Perhaps you should consider
not
> meeting the same treatment out to others if you do not wish to be
similarly
> treated. That's a familiar maxim, isn't it? Clean your own house first,
Tom.
No, I just think your new thread title is childish. How many more ways are
you planning to misspell my name?
>
> > This deliberate attempt to dominate a newsgroup by provocation and
> > subversion merits the name of 'trolling'. It is only a step away from
the
> > 'Classical lovers indulge in sexual perversions' posts.
>
> "Provocation?" "Subversion?" What on earth are you talking about?
Since you ask:
"I know, and as long as you keep objecting, that's exactly how long I shall
continue my provocations."
>
> > Another characteristic he shares with Charlie Brown and Jim Cate is his
> > occasional hearty attempts to start threads; CB was especially pathetic,
> > asking 'what do you think of Schnabel's Beethoven'. Mr Hurwitz's lists
of
> > pseudo-philosophical questions serve a similar purpose; to attempt to
> > dominate newsgroup discussion. He wants to be the leader of the gang.
>
> Well, here's a new accusation. First it was "tone," then "commerical
> interest," then my "signature line." Now it's: Point that trembling
finger!
> Raise your voice to the skies and indignantly cry: "Heavens to betsy! He's
> trying to, to, to--oh my God NO!--to START A THREAD!!!!!! Hide the
children!
> Stash the silver! What ever are we to do? What a horrible way to use a
> newsgroup!"
OK, I was drawing a parallel. The key word is 'hearty'. And I don't recall
criticising you for commercial interest or sig line.
> > There are no leaders here. There is only an eclectic bunch of people;
the
> > most valuable contributors are often the most modest.
>
> Present company excluded, of course.
Not at all.
There is one respect in which I truly
> respect Samir's position, though it underlies our fundamental
disagreement.
> He says "Attack me all you like, but don't criticize my artists, or else!"
> At least he's honest. I say "Discuss the artists all you like, offer
> opinions good and bad, that's what we're here for. Let's talk about them,
> and not each other." These two positions seem to me incompatible, so to
this
> extent I understand his objection to my postings. I believe that if he
> really feels this way, he should think twice about his desire to
participate
> in a newsgroup the subject of which is, theoretically, the free discussion
> of the value and interest of recordings and the artists who made them.
You,
> on the other hand, seem to have no such consistent position, and to the
> extent that I can determine seem to be motivated by nothing other than
> personal dislike.
My personal dislike of disingenuous attempts to monopolise discussion and
bully people. I've replied to you in other threads in a perfectly civil
manner.
>>Let me make one
thing clear: my determination to remain "provocative" stems entirely from
the fact that as long as there are people here who will permit no criticism
whatsoever of Furtwangler without taking personal offense, then my
"provocativeness" is inevitable. <<
There are no such people here.
Thomas Deas
"Raymond Hall" <hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:389EEACF...@bigpond.com...
> > thing clear: my determination to remain "provocative" stems entirely
from
> > the fact that as long as there are people here who will permit no
criticism
> > whatsoever of Furtwangler without taking personal offense, then my
> > "provocativeness" is inevitable. <<
> >
> > There are no such people here.
>
> Furtwaengler as a very great conductor, on the basis of his wartime
> Beethoven 4th, 5th, 9th, Bruckner 5th and 8th, and have read several
> books about him, I fail to see how you can ascertain that *everyone*
> here is going to be offended by any criticism of Furtwaengler.
> In any case, life would be pretty intolerable in rmcr if one cannot
> allow reasonable criticism of one's musical icons/heros to take place,
> without getting offended. Think of all the Brendel, Previn, Arrau,
> Gould, Abbado, Solti, and many others, (including Rattle) fans, who have
> to take the flak and wear it. I am sure even Samir would take a reasoned
> analysis of valid criticism of Furtwaengler.
Yes, that's my point; that there are no people here "who will permit no
criticism whatsoever of Furtwangler without taking personal offense". David
Hurwitz makes unreasonable, provocative comments; when people object he
claims that they would object to any criticism at all. T'ain't so.
Matthew Silverstein
"Alain" <alain...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:389EC2DC...@sympatico.ca...
> > Not every human being is brought to a "semi-divine" state by listening to
> > Bach's music, and I don't see why any of these people should consider him
> > semi-divine. Just because *you* feel "divine" when hearing the B-minor
Mass
> > does not mean that everyone does or should.
>
> And who said that? What does this have to do with anything we are arguing
about. I
> maintain that the choice of being an artist is essentially different than
going to
> law school or med school or electrician school. The fact that there are bad
> artists, or good artists that some people haven't heard of, or don't respond
to,
> etc is utterly irrelevant.
*You* said that Bach was "semi-divine." Those are you're words, not mine. I
want to know what makes him more divine than anyone else? Is it just the fact
that he composed music that happens to move a whole bunch of people (but by no
means everyone)?
Why is choosing to be an artist essentially different from going to law school
or becoming a physicist (in a way that is somehow distinct from the way that
going to law school is different from becoming a physicist)?
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
"Thomas Deas" <tj...@spam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:87meb6$2tc$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> Another characteristic he shares with Charlie Brown and Jim Cate is his
> occasional hearty attempts to start threads; CB was especially pathetic,
> asking 'what do you think of Schnabel's Beethoven'. Mr Hurwitz's lists of
> pseudo-philosophical questions serve a similar purpose; to attempt to
> dominate newsgroup discussion. He wants to be the leader of the gang.
Regardless of whatever else you say in this post, this bit here seems
absolutely ridiculous. Whether or not I agree with David's
"pseudo-philosophical ideas," the posts that he has started (e.g., the
Interpretation vs. Realisation one) have been responsible for some fascinating
and extremely enjoyable discussions and arguments.
I do not see how these posts represent any other than an interest in starting
a discussion of various entirely relevant and topic issues and questions.
Why does so many people feel so threatened by this guy? He's as full of shit
as anyone else (including me)? Why do so many people perceive him as seeking
to "dominate" the discussion, "colonise" the rest of us, or just be "leader of
the gang"? What is going on here?
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> My whole point was precisely that the work involved was what makes it
> special.
What do you mean here? Do you mean that if there was not lots of
heart-wrenching, hair-tearing, tear-provoking angst involved, that a work is
not special? What if it was very easy (as I suspect it was) for Mozart to
compose the Linz symphony?
Perhaps this is not what you mean. If so, by all means correct me.
Matty
samir ghiocel golescu
> I am sure even Samir would take a reasoned analysis of valid criticism
of Furtwaengler.<
I dare guess you mean either *reasoned analysis* or *valid criticism*, not
the analysis of the criticism.
> But perhaps I am deluding myself, but I think not.
No, you don't. Just that what I mean by valid criticism, in Furtwangler's
case, is more than what some people are able to give. It is that simple.
regards,
SG
(BTW, I am not so stupid as to fail to notice the flaws of my English, but
[almost] all the neologisms I am using can be found in a good English
dictionary, and they are used in a correct and understandable context.
As I said it before, my troubles with English reside more in syntax, in
using correctly some (verb) tenses and prepositions, in grasping a certain
[of course] untranslatable idiomaticity. I miss Mr. Ando's picking on
me--he could help me improve my usage of English(-:]
Thomas Deas
"Matthew Silverstein" <matthew.s...@corpus-christi.oxford.ac.uk>
wrote in message news:87mqp0$2hq$2...@news.ox.ac.uk...
Two things;
he has an irritating manner; he knows this and flaunts it;
there is a certain, thankfully rare, class of contributor which turns up
occasionally. They exhibit certain characteristics, one of which is the type
of thread-starting I referred to. They set questions, usually dull and based
on false premisses. Another characteristic is a proneness to temper
tantrums, with threats that they will never end as long as people are
offended. Some of them indulge in commercial spamming, which they tend to
moderate after a while. The worst that I've seen was Charlie Brown, who had
a repertoire of puppet contributors who spouted obscenities at anyone who
criticised him. Hurwitz is a genuine contributor, but he seems to have a
tendency to this type of behaviour.
samir ghiocel golescu
> I don't quite understand their problem. Or are they like the street
> kids who can't win a fight and then start to shout insults from a safe
> distance?
No, "they" aren't.
Alain
> "Alain" <alain...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:389EC2DC...@sympatico.ca...
>
> *You* said that Bach was "semi-divine." Those are you're words, not mine.
Actually, it is not me who brought divine-ness into this. I think it was Evan
Johnson. I'm agnostic so ...
> I
> want to know what makes him more divine than anyone else? Is it just the fact
> that he composed music that happens to move a whole bunch of people (but by no
> means everyone)?
This prosaic description of JS Bach as a guy who happened to write music that just
happens to appeal to some people has to be a new record in cutting giants down to
size (which seems to be the goal of certain critics).
> Why is choosing to be an artist essentially different from going to law school
> or becoming a physicist (in a way that is somehow distinct from the way that
> going to law school is different from becoming a physicist)?
Not "choosing" to be an artist, but "being" one.
One thing I've noticed, is that certain people here take offense at the very
notion of creative genius. I am not saying that is the case with you, but I
believe that this is an attitude which results from a very unhealthy
self-resentment. If I call Bach a genius who am I offending? Mr Hurwitz's
butchers, firemen,cops, and doctors? I don't think so.
cheers,
Alain
David Hurwitz
> you planning to misspell my name?
So that's the issue, is it? You can call me a "troll," a "swamp dweller,"
"bully," "provocateur", "subversive," etc., etc., but you object when your
name is mis-spelled. Answer me this, Mr. Deas, how many ways can you spell
"hypocrite?"
> > "Provocation?" "Subversion?" What on earth are you talking about?
>
> Since you ask:
> "I know, and as long as you keep objecting, that's exactly how long I
shall
> continue my provocations."
Hmmm, let us look at the remark that you quote in its context, shall we?
Roland attacked as follows:
> Those "groupies" are not the only ones who object to your quasi-humorous
> provocations, Mr. Executive Editor.
This was there the term "provocations" first popped up, I believe. You, I
should add, had been on the attack for some time already. In fact, you
yourself led the charge, first on the subject of my estimation of Boult's
really dull Brahms, then on the subject of my "seriousness" because you
didn't like the attendant Brit joke (one I've seen bandied about around this
group often enough, which is why I didn't think I needed to think twice
about it).
Evidently you are either (a) a Boult Brahms fan, (b) British, (c) both, and
in any event totally lacking in a sense of humor. Roland was of course
referring to Furtwangler groupies, when, in reality, unbeknownst to me, he
was secretly acting in the role of Mengelberg groupie, a particularly
diabolical strategy, I must admit. You were simply being your dispeptic
self. And Samir, is of course, always Samir. Outnumbered and harrassed by
enemies on all sides, I parried with my usual brilliance:
"I know, and as long as you keep objecting, that's exactly how long I shall
continue my provocations. Personally, I think it's a healthy thing that
there are differences of opinion about these matters. The desire to place
Furtwangler, or anyone else, on some sort of divine pedestal beyond
rational, critical discussion of his actual achievement (other its relative
degrees of incomparable greatness) is a tribute neither to his memory and
reputation, nor the taste and musicality of those who claim to admire him.
The shrillness of the Furtwangler partisanship (some, not all of it, Henry)
is something I find irresistably amusing, and if either my opinion of the
man's achievement or of those who defend him causes "offence," then so much
the better. As I've said before, this is just music. Enterntainment. Fun.
The world (not to mention rmcr) is too full of people just waiting to be
offended, since this affirms their frightening sense of moral superiority,
and offers the opportunity to vent all kinds of bile by accusing the
offending party of all everything from musical deafness to capital crimes.
To my mind, there is nothing more "offensive" than to hurl personal insults
at a living human being for expressing mere opinions, flattering or not,
about a dead musician's recordings. That's not just offensive, it's sick.
But that's not going to stop it from happening, and rather than get
offended, I shall simply continue to contribute my opinions and let the
intelligent readers of this newsgroup judge all parties concerned as they
will. I can certainly live with that, and so can you. In fact, you have no
choice. Deal with it."
This is my entire, unexpurgated reply. I believe it speaks for itself. My
only regret is that I didn't include "Boult," "Mengelberg" and "The British"
in my list of "sacred cows" along with the great WF. Oh well, maybe next
time...
On the subject of starting new threads:
> OK, I was drawing a parallel. The key word is 'hearty'. And I don't recall
> criticising you for commercial interest or sig line.
So now my crime is "heartiness." Fascinating. Give it up, Deas.
> My personal dislike of disingenuous attempts to monopolise discussion and
> bully people. I've replied to you in other threads in a perfectly civil
> manner.
Feel free to continue to do so.
> >>Let me make one
> thing clear: my determination to remain "provocative" stems entirely from
> the fact that as long as there are people here who will permit no
criticism
> whatsoever of Furtwangler without taking personal offense, then my
> "provocativeness" is inevitable. <<
>
> There are no such people here.
And you said your were writing from what planet? Not only are there such
people here, but we've heard the same shrill carping from Roland (about
Mengelberg, though it took him a while to admit it), Samir, the great
"Sofronitzky" league, Koren (God knows), and quite a few others. As I said,
the very fact that you can make the above claim (which really only applies
to yourself) merely validates my contention that your objections are 100%
personal in nature, and not even motivated, as these other people are, by
some allegiance to the performers they feel such an intense need to defend.
As such, I would suggest that they have no place in a forum for the
discussion of musical issues. If you have a personal problem with me, feel
free to e-mail me privately about it. Otherwise, I will consider this matter
closed and of no further relevance to me or anyone else whose time would be
better spent discussing music.
David Hurwitz
shit
> as anyone else (including me)? Why do so many people perceive him as
seeking
> to "dominate" the discussion, "colonise" the rest of us, or just be
"leader of
> the gang"? What is going on here?
Exactly, and knowing this, it's even more laughable that I should even dimly
contemplate wanting to be "the big shit" leader of this gang of anarchists.
Hey, folks, I may be stupid, you may hate my taste in music and everything
that I say about it, but I'm not THAT crazy.
--
David Hurwitz
Executive Editor
http://www.classicstoday.com
dhur...@classicstoday.com
"Matthew Silverstein" <matthew.s...@corpus-christi.oxford.ac.uk>
wrote in message news:87mqp0$2hq$2...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>
> "Thomas Deas" <tj...@spam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:87meb6$2tc$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> > Another characteristic he shares with Charlie Brown and Jim Cate is his
> > occasional hearty attempts to start threads; CB was especially pathetic,
> > asking 'what do you think of Schnabel's Beethoven'. Mr Hurwitz's lists
of
> > pseudo-philosophical questions serve a similar purpose; to attempt to
> > dominate newsgroup discussion. He wants to be the leader of the gang.
>
> Regardless of whatever else you say in this post, this bit here seems
> absolutely ridiculous. Whether or not I agree with David's
> "pseudo-philosophical ideas," the posts that he has started (e.g., the
> Interpretation vs. Realisation one) have been responsible for some
fascinating
> and extremely enjoyable discussions and arguments.
>
> I do not see how these posts represent any other than an interest in
starting
> a discussion of various entirely relevant and topic issues and questions.
>
>
> Matty
>
>
>
samir ghiocel golescu
A question for the impeccable users of the English language (no comparison
with the "pidgin" level of my usage):
doesn't "fanatic fundamentalism" (version: "fundamentalist fanaticism")
smell, just and only a tiny little small bit, like a pleonastically
rebarbative redundancy, buried in a kind of type of repetitive
reiterative superfluity?
Probably and presumedly not... otherwise it wouldn't be used... just
wondering...
Always glad and felicitously happy to be taught, educated, and, what's
more, educatively instructed!
regards,
SG (-:
Thomas Deas
> > No, I just think your new thread title is childish. How many more ways
are
> > you planning to misspell my name?
>
> So that's the issue, is it? You can call me a "troll," a "swamp dweller,"
> "bully," "provocateur", "subversive," etc., etc., but you object when your
> name is mis-spelled. Answer me this, Mr. Deas, how many ways can you spell
> "hypocrite?"
Eh? Where's the hypocrisy in objecting to deliberate misspelling of a name?
<snip>
> This was there the term "provocations" first popped up, I believe. You, I
> should add, had been on the attack for some time already. In fact, you
> yourself led the charge, first on the subject of my estimation of Boult's
> really dull Brahms,
Read it again. I specifically avoided that.
then on the subject of my "seriousness" because you
> didn't like the attendant Brit joke (one I've seen bandied about around
this
> group often enough, which is why I didn't think I needed to think twice
> about it).
>
> Evidently you are either (a) a Boult Brahms fan, (b) British, (c) both,
and
> in any event totally lacking in a sense of humor.
You judge my sense of humour by whether I find your 'jokes' amusing? My only
point in that post was that you were, yet again, attempting to pick a fight.
The problem is that you think your 'jokes' are so charming or reasonable or
whatever that anyone who takes offence at them would take offence at any
criticism at all of the subject, and has a personal problem with you. It
ain't so.
Let me demonstrate:
I do not like Furtwangler's Beethoven Pastoral Symphony in either of the two
recordings I have.
I think Furtwangler made errors of judgment in his relations with record
companies after the war.
Now, are you *personally* offended, Samir, Roland, anyone?
samir ghiocel golescu
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Thomas Deas wrote:
> I think Furtwangler made errors of judgment in his relations with record
> companies after the war.
>
> Now, are you *personally* offended, Samir, Roland, anyone?
YES!
Did you expect that? (-:
Matthew Silverstein
> >>Let me make one
> thing clear: my determination to remain "provocative" stems entirely from
> the fact that as long as there are people here who will permit no criticism
> whatsoever of Furtwangler without taking personal offense, then my
> "provocativeness" is inevitable. <<
>
> There are no such people here.
Samir the Evangelical Furtwänglerian does seem to fit this description fairly
well . . .
Matty
Thomas Deas
"samir ghiocel golescu" <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100020...@ux12.cso.uiuc.edu...
But the Pastoral one was ok, right? Or try this;
Furtwangler was bald and Mengelberg had hair like Kissin.
Paul Penna
<Pine.GSO.4.10.100020...@ux13.cso.uiuc.edu>, samir
ghiocel golescu <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> About possible, *partial*, parallelisms (not identity, by all means)
> between art and religion, that is not such a big offense. Religious or not,
> great art is spiritual before pertaining to the reign of "rationality".
Yours is not the only definition of "spiritual."
--
Paul Penna
Matthew Silverstein
> Two things;
>
> he has an irritating manner; he knows this and flaunts it;
It also irritates me, but I think that is besides the point.
> there is a certain, thankfully rare, class of contributor which turns up
> occasionally. They exhibit certain characteristics, one of which is the type
> of thread-starting I referred to. They set questions, usually dull and based
> on false premisses.
I have not found his threads to be dull, perhaps *because* they are based on
false (or controversial, at least) premises, thus opening the door for
discussions and arguments that are anything but dull.
> Another characteristic is a proneness to temper
> tantrums, with threats that they will never end as long as people are
> offended.
I agree. Note that this does not justify--in my mind--Samir's nasty personal
attacks on David. I do agree, though, that he is being just as immature by
paying so much attention to what Samir has to say.
> Some of them indulge in commercial spamming, which they tend to
> moderate after a while. The worst that I've seen was Charlie Brown, who had
> a repertoire of puppet contributors who spouted obscenities at anyone who
> criticised him. Hurwitz is a genuine contributor, but he seems to have a
> tendency to this type of behaviour.
I agree with all of this, but I don't think it justifies the kind of criticism
and--more importantly--personal insults he receives from Samir and others.
There are plenty of other people in this newsgroup who express controversial
opinions, and some of them even do it in less-than-subtle ways. Disagree with
him. Vociferously. I don't see any reason to do any more than that.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
Hurwitz is probably enjoying all of the attention he's getting (if you're
description of him is even remotely correct). Stop giving him the
attention--stop responding to his provocations--and he'll probably stop
providing them.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
Samir wrote:
> doesn't "fanatic fundamentalism" (version: "fundamentalist fanaticism")
> smell, just and only a tiny little small bit, like a pleonastically
> rebarbative redundancy, buried in a kind of type of repetitive
> reiterative superfluity?
For someone with a self-proclaimed imperfect grasp of our language, you seem
to do just fine! :-)
It's nice to know that you have a good thesaurus. Thankfully, I have a good
dictionary.
And to answer you question, I would say that there might be a tiny bit of
redundancy (although I see no reason why it is at all rebarbative), but
perhaps not. One way of describing fundamentalism is as a point of view
characterized by rigid adherence to a fundamental principle or principles.
This alone does not seem very pejorative. Add the word "fanatic," though, and
you get someone who not only adheres rigidly to these principles but does so
with extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm. That is a bit more disparaging, which is
definitely the sense for which I was aiming.
Consider yourself educated, taught, instructed, trained, tutored, edified, and
otherwise enlightened!
Incidentally, I have not to my knowledge criticised Samir's writing style, and
I find it somewhat amusing that he would respond to my post *only* to
criticise (albeit jokingly and in good spirit) mine. I suppose that, as a
fanatic fundamentalist, he sees no reason to defend his obviously correct and
entirely untouchable beliefs.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
"Steven Chung" <s...@Radix.Net> wrote in message
news:87mtv6$km7$1...@saltmine.radix.net...
> In article <87mqou$2hq$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
> Matthew Silverstein <matthew.s...@corpus-christi.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
> # Why is choosing to be an artist essentially different from going to law
school
> # or becoming a physicist (in a way that is somehow distinct from the way
that
> # going to law school is different from becoming a physicist)?
>
> Because art engages the whole person. The law, say, only engages a small
> subset, leaving other parts bored and unoccupied enough to post endlessly
> to this group...
What about all the artists who endlessly post to this group? Let's forget law,
then. How about philosophy, the field into which I am headed? I dare say that,
for me, it does not engage only a subset of my person. It leaves very little
(if anything) bored and unoccupied (although the fact that I post endlessly to
this group may suggest otherwise).
Matty
Simon Roberts
: Are you seriously telling me that you don't see a difference between writing a
: novel and painting a house? Do you think the way to write a novel is to start at
: the start and keep going till it's done?
Remember Truman Capote's (I think) review of "Valley of the Dolls"?
"That's not writing, it's typing."
Simon
Matthew Silverstein
"Alain" <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote in message
news:389EFB47...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca...
> > I
> > want to know what makes him more divine than anyone else? Is it just the
fact
> > that he composed music that happens to move a whole bunch of people (but
by no
> > means everyone)?
>
> This prosaic description of JS Bach as a guy who happened to write music
that just
> happens to appeal to some people has to be a new record in cutting giants
down to
> size (which seems to be the goal of certain critics).
Perhaps I do want to cut him down to size. More on this below.
> One thing I've noticed, is that certain people here take offense at the very
> notion of creative genius. I am not saying that is the case with you, but I
> believe that this is an attitude which results from a very unhealthy
> self-resentment. If I call Bach a genius who am I offending? Mr Hurwitz's
> butchers, firemen,cops, and doctors? I don't think so.
I would never argue with the fact that Bach was a creative genius, but I'm not
sure that one's genius is a good reason to put one on a pedestal. Hitler,
after all, was a political and public relations genius.
I do not have a problem with the idea of genius, I just don't believe that
one's genius places one above criticism. I have no doubt that Bach had talents
the likes of which I can barely dream. That said, if someone comes along and
says that, in his opinion, Bach stinks, who am I to argue with him?
We seem to have gotten off topic, though; I'm not sure how this all relates to
the conversation at hand.
Matty
Simon Roberts
: In article <87mqou$2hq$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
: Matthew Silverstein <matthew.s...@corpus-christi.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
: # Why is choosing to be an artist essentially different from going to law school
: # or becoming a physicist (in a way that is somehow distinct from the way that
: # going to law school is different from becoming a physicist)?
: Because art engages the whole person. The law, say, only engages a small
: subset, leaving other parts bored and unoccupied enough to post endlessly
: to this group...
Ahem....
Simon
Simon Roberts
[snip]
: You feel he's trying to dominate. You feel dominated, maybe.
: Whatever, start using a kill filter for the name "hurwitz" and
: you'll no longer be bothered while those of us who enjoy some of
: his posts will read the threads that interest us.
True enough; I really don't get this "attempt to dominate" accusation.
Let's assume for a moment that that's David's intention (I haven't a clue
whether it is, but frankly doubt it), how would anyone accomplish that?
As far as I can tell there's no way anyone can prevent someone else from
posting here (aside from cutting off their hands etc.), and it's pretty
obvious from reading the relevant threads that whenever he says something
with which some of us disagree, we say so (some of us disagreeing with
different things, obviously). I'm reminded, if only slightly, of E.L.
Wisty's World Domination League....
Simon
Andy Evans
else who listens to them. >>
Have you ASKED them why they exist???????????? Maybe they have other
views??????? And lives?????????
samir ghiocel golescu
Agreed.
regards,
SG
samir ghiocel golescu
> "samir ghiocel golescu" <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100020...@ux12.cso.uiuc.edu...
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Thomas Deas wrote:
> >
> > > I think Furtwangler made errors of judgment in his relations with record
> > > companies after the war.
> > >
> > > Now, are you *personally* offended, Samir, Roland, anyone?
> >
> > YES!
> > Did you expect that? (-:
>
> But the Pastoral one was ok, right? Or try this;
Both were OK, I was just kidding.
> Furtwangler was bald and Mengelberg had hair like Kissin.
This one, instead, I find unpardonable! (-:
BTW, the notion that I'd be a Furtwangler Evangelist seems to me funny,
for at least two reasons:
I'd suppose that most people here didn't love Furtwangler before I
appeared--that's ridiculous, some of them were listening to his recordings
before I was born.
I made myself jokes on Furtwangler's behalf, connecting his many
"Uberaschung-Kinder" ("His Passion's Children" or however you want to name
his out-of-wedlock "creations") to his conductorial "con una licenza" (-:
I simply don't fit the portrait of the "fanatic fundamentalist" (I still
doubt there would exist "tolerant fundamentalists" or "relativist
fundamentalists" or... but let that pass--who am I to argue on language
matters with Oxford people, after all?), because I miss the
fundamentalist's... fundamental quality: the lack of humor.
My sense of humor freezes though in front of... you actually know of what.
regards,
SG
David Grayshan
As so often you are really on the ball. But: there are statues to composers,
there are also statues to conductors, pianists, violinists etc..... But, (Oh,
dear): there are none to such as you and others, who merely sit in
judgement..... i.e. critics. From *that* point of view I am afraid that we, i.e.
society at large, have, despite your protestations, acceded to implicit artistic
standards. From this vantage point we have applauded the achievements of
Mengelberg, Willy, even Herbie, but do not deem so worthy the achievements of
Cardus, Newman or even Hurwitz. It therefore behoves critics to be most
selective of their words when they formulate artistic judgements on the likes of
WM, WF etc.
Which of course does not criticise your feeling that you have an obligation to
tilt at windmills.....
Regards,
David.
David Hurwitz wrote:
> (Snip) Not only are your favorite artists "achievements" not beyond my
> understanding, they are not beyond anyone's. These artists exist for no other
> purpose than to please me, and everyone else who listens to them, and to
> communicate their understanding of great music to all of us. Some are
> more successful at this than others. The fact of successful communication is
> never a "given," not with any artist. We have every right to judge them, and
> to render our opinion is fundamental to the relationship between artist and
> public. (Snip)
Regards, as always,
David.
David Grayshan
composition by the mentioned JSB, if you would be so kind.....
(No smiley).
David.
evan johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2000 02:35:32 GMT, Alain Dagher
> <alain...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> :> They are simply people who are doing the
> :> work which they were trained to do,
> :
> :That is an insult to all artists. That Raphael painted, that Proust wrote, that
> :Bach composed, these are miracles.
>
> I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Hurwitz. Bach was one of the most
> workmanlike of composers! Composition is an art, of course, but it is
> equally a craft, a trade. A particular aptitude for a trade does not
> by itself elevate the trade to some sort of semi-divine plane.
>
> Evan (a composition student)
>
> Remove everything between '@' and 'yale' to reply.
David Grayshan
How does one such as I distinguish between a "masterpiece by Messian" and a
piece of trash by (insert name here)?
I am quite serious. Many such as NH or CL are quick with their sneers when you
say that you find it all to be crap, or something more polite than that.
So, my bonny lads, (ye know who ye be), give us the benefit of your collective
wisdom if it please you, and spare not the denominational characteristics.....
Steven Chung wrote:
> (Snip). We're not too far from it, either, judging from the fact that any
> recent-ish piece seems to get the same respectfully demure reaction from
> most audiences, whether a masterpiece by Messiaen or a piece of trash by
> (insert name here).
>
(Snip)
Sardonic Regards,
David.
David Hurwitz
(1) The fact that there are no statues to critics supports what I have been
saying all along, which is that our opinions are just that: opinions. They
threaten no one. They have never prevented a statue from being erected to a
great artist, never prevented individual listeners (especially in this day
and age) from enjoying anything that felt so inclined to enjoy. It's for
each individual to decide to what extent a critic has useful information or
not to offer. So let them decide. I fail to understand from your remarks in
what way I am not cognizant of the fact that there are artistic standards
(unless you are suggesting that some matters are simply not to be discussed
as they are 'generally accepted'). The whole issue with respect to
Furtwangler, especially with regard to the quality of the orchestras under
his baton, has been my perception of his failure (or his players' failures)
to achieve or uphold those standards.
(2) You are speaking theoretically, but the reality of this situation is
different. All I have EVER said is that not all of Furtwangler's recordings
support his claim to greatness. That's all. Everything else has been a
discussion of which recordings those are. I have never said he was not
great. I have never said that Mengelberg was not great. What I have said is
that I have some real problems, which are shared by many in this group, with
some of these recordings as regards details of interpreation, sound and the
quality of the playing. It seems to me that these are perfectly legitimate
opinions, worthy of discussion, a discussion which has been rendered
impossible by the deliberate tactics of changing the subject from the
substance of my opinions to every thing about me personally, my right to
post, to sign, to talk, my tone, my "thread creating" tendencies--anything
to divert attention from the question at hand, which is the quality of the
musical performance and recording under discussion.
(3) Your comments about criticism are irrelevant here, however correct (and
I do agree with them completely), David, for the simple reason that I am not
offering my opinions here in my professional capacity at all, but rather as
an individual music lover, and as such, they are no better or worse than
anyone else's in this group. Despite your hang-up about my signature line,
when I am not actually writing a review, or unless someone specifically asks
for a "professional opinion," I do not participate here in that capacity. In
fact, when I do write professionally, I choose my words very much more
carefully than I feel I need to as a private citizen. I would not put the
Mengelberg St. Matthew Passion on a list of "worst records by big name
conductors" as a professional critic. I would be forced to point out that
although I personally dislike the performance, others disagree, and I would
then feel obligated to describe exactly what I like and do not like so that
my opinion is just as valuable as regards Mengelberg to someone who
disagrees with me as to someone who agrees. And that is what consider my
professional obligation.
--
David Hurwitz
Executive Editor
http://www.classicstoday.com
dhur...@classicstoday.com
"David Grayshan" <dgra...@tschan-partner.com> wrote in message
news:389F203D...@tschan-partner.com...
Matthew Silverstein
"samir ghiocel golescu" <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100020...@ux12.cso.uiuc.edu...
> (I still
> doubt there would exist "tolerant fundamentalists" or "relativist
> fundamentalists" or... but let that pass--who am I to argue on language
> matters with Oxford people, after all?),
I agree that a "relativist fundamentalist" might be an impossibility (but how
about a fundamentalist relativist?), but I don't think that "fanatic" is the
opposite of "tolerant" or "relativist."
To ascribe fanaticism to someone is not to describe their particular cause
(fundamentalism, in this case), but rather to suggest that they pursue this
cause with extreme and unreasoning enthusiasm.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
"Steven Chung" <s...@Radix.Net> wrote in message
> In article <87n32o$7eg$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
> Matthew Silverstein <matthew.s...@corpus-christi.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
> # How about philosophy, the field into which I am headed? I dare say that,
> # for me, it does not engage only a subset of my person. It leaves very
little
> # (if anything) bored and unoccupied (although the fact that I post
endlessly to
> # this group may suggest otherwise).
>
> Well, there is--to pick up one of Alain's touchstones for art--humor, a
> quality Oxford philosophers aren't exactly renowned for...
Haven't you read J. L. Austin?
Matty
Paul Penna
<dgra...@tschan-partner.com> wrote:
> As so often you are really on the ball. But: there are statues to composers,
> there are also statues to conductors, pianists, violinists etc..... But, (Oh,
> dear): there are none to such as you and others, who merely sit in
> judgement..... i.e. critics. From *that* point of view I am afraid that we,
> i.e.
> society at large, have, despite your protestations, acceded to implicit
> artistic
> standards. From this vantage point we have applauded the achievements of
> Mengelberg, Willy, even Herbie, but do not deem so worthy the achievements of
> Cardus, Newman or even Hurwitz. It therefore behoves critics to be most
> selective of their words when they formulate artistic judgements on the likes
> of
> WM, WF etc.
So you're saying that the goal of both creative artists and those who
express opinions about those creations - the latter group including,
presumably, most who participate in this forum - should be to become
subjects of statues?
--
Paul Penna
evan johnson
<dgra...@tschan-partner.com> wrote:
:Well, good. Let us know when you have produced anything as "workmanlike" as any
:composition by the mentioned JSB, if you would be so kind.....
:
:(No smiley).
:
:David.
The last time I am going to make this distinction:
The results of bach's labor are not workmanlike. The fact of his
labor is.
Evan
Matthew Silverstein
> BTW, the notion that I'd be a Furtwangler Evangelist seems to me funny,
> for at least two reasons:
>
> I'd suppose that most people here didn't love Furtwangler before I
> appeared--that's ridiculous, some of them were listening to his recordings
> before I was born.
This does not make the idea of you as an evangelist improbable; it just means
that--at least on occasion--you preach to the choir!
> I made myself jokes on Furtwangler's behalf, connecting his many
> "Uberaschung-Kinder" ("His Passion's Children" or however you want to name
> his out-of-wedlock "creations") to his conductorial "con una licenza" (-:
This is one tiny (but noted) incident, and it does not stand for much, I
believe, when compared to your many extreme condemnations of Mr. Hurwitz. In
particular, you have said that Mr. Hurwitz is somehow not good or smart enough
to criticise Furtwängler as an artist or as a person. He is a heretic who
dares to show his disdain for the one true Gospel, and you attack and ridicule
him accordingly.
I fully recognise that other people in this newsgroup have made criticisms of
Furtwängler of one sort or another that you have not condemned. It seems,
however, that your tolerance of these dissenting viewpoints stems only from
your belief that--despite the dissention--these people generally subscribe the
religion that you preach so eloquently and devotedly.
I make these claims having been--in the not too distant past--on the receiving
end of your attacks. In that case, you insisted that I did not understand or
even love classical music because I did not hold it to be inherently superior
to other forms of music. I did not subscribe to your views regarding the
absolute ordering of the aesthetic universe. In response you did *not* try to
discuss and refute the content of my claims. No, you deemed that activity
somehow beneath you. Instead, you contended that anyone who did not see the
light--the ineffable truth of the superiority of classical music--was clearly
someone for whom classical music could never really mean anything, someone
whose soul classical music could never enter.
You refused to engage in the conversation at hand; you declined to step down
from your pedastal--your position high above the lowly swamp where we lovers
of jazz and rock music wallow in ignorance and misery. Instead of joining the
substance of the conversation, you expressed only superiority and disdain.
*That* is the behavior of fanatic fundamentalists. They cannot even imagine
the possibility that the world is other than how they see it. Any suggestion
to that effect engenders--at best--a haughty shrug and a condescending laugh
or--at worst--a nasty and unreasoned attack: the more fanatic, the nastier the
attack.
If you believe that David's criticisms of Furtwängler are unfounded, then by
all means come to Furtwängler's defence. Tell us all why David's assessment of
this recording or his interpretation of that decision are confused or
incoherent. When you go out of way to write posts like this, you not only
persuade some of us to give certain recordings or personalities another
chance, you do so in a way that makes us grateful for, rather than resentful
of, your contributions to the discussion and to this newsgroup.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> How does one such as I distinguish between a "masterpiece by Messian" and a
> piece of trash by (insert name here)?
I'm not sure how *you* should distinguish such a masterpiece. For me, I knew
that Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time as soon as I heard. It moved me
greatly. I don't think there is a way to determine objectively what counts as
a masterpiece. If there are pieces that seem to be objectively so, I would
suggest that it is merely because almost all people think of them in that way.
But, that's just my rampant relativism with regards to aesthetics rearing its
ugly head again . . .
Matty
David Hurwitz
No, I am not enjoying all the attention. I have said it over and over. I
would rather be talking about music. That was exactly my point when I said,
very, very clearly, that my opinions will cease being provocative the minute
people stop being provoked by them. Which means, not that they should agree
or not contest them, but that they should accept them as legitimate personal
opinions and differ with them (or not) accordingly within the context of a
civil discussion, rather than foaming at the mouth over the fact that those
opinions exist in any form whatsoever.
The problem, as I see it, lies in the following statement of Samir:
"Just that what I mean by valid criticism, in Furtwangler's
case, is more than what some people are able to give. It is that simple."
I take him at his word. He is to be the arbiter of what criticism his valid,
and who is "qualified" to offer it. As long as he insists on this, then no
rational discussion of this artist will be possible in this group, not just
initiated by me, but by anyone else as well. So we have two choices. We can
simply agree never to discuss topics which Samir, Thomas, Roland, or others
of like mind deem "beyond the pale of discussion," or we can try to do so
and ignore the ensuing hail of abuse.
I feely admit that I can't accept the first option, and feel uncomfortable
with the second, though I agree with you that responding to these people
gives them more attention than they probably deserve (to say nothing of me).
But then again, here we are in the middle of a lengthy debate about some
very fundamental principles of participation in this group, and that doesn't
seem to me to be unworthy of discussion, even if it is necessarily
off-topic.
--
David Hurwitz
Executive Editor
http://www.classicstoday.com
dhur...@classicstoday.com
"Matthew Silverstein" <matthew.s...@corpus-christi.oxford.ac.uk>
wrote in message news:87n2ms$7aa$2...@news.ox.ac.uk...
samir ghiocel golescu
> Samir wrote:
>
> > BTW, the notion that I'd be a Furtwangler Evangelist seems to me funny,
> > for at least two reasons:
> >
> > I'd suppose that most people here didn't love Furtwangler before I
> > appeared--that's ridiculous, some of them were listening to his recordings
> > before I was born.
>
> This does not make the idea of you as an evangelist improbable; it just means
> that--at least on occasion--you preach to the choir!
Hm, Henry Fogel, to take only one example, member in the choir conducted
by me? --I could dream that!
> > I made myself jokes on Furtwangler's behalf, connecting his many
> > "Uberaschung-Kinder" ("His Passion's Children" or however you want to name
> > his out-of-wedlock "creations") to his conductorial "con una licenza" (-:
>
> This is one tiny (but noted) incident, and it does not stand for much, I
> believe, when compared to your many extreme condemnations of Mr. Hurwitz.
Oy, what did you expect, to talk about Hurwitz as I talk about
Furtwangler?
[long discourse related to a thread three months old snipped]
OK, now you can be sure I did read it.
bye,
SG
FFF
(fanatic-fundamentalist-Furtwanglerian]
Thomas Deas
"David Hurwitz" <hurw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:FsGn4.2321$_h5....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Matthew:
>
> No, I am not enjoying all the attention. I have said it over and over. I
> would rather be talking about music. That was exactly my point when I
said,
> very, very clearly, that my opinions will cease being provocative the
minute
> people stop being provoked by them. Which means, not that they should
agree
> or not contest them, but that they should accept them as legitimate
personal
> opinions and differ with them (or not) accordingly within the context of a
> civil discussion, rather than foaming at the mouth over the fact that
those
> opinions exist in any form whatsoever.
>
> The problem, as I see it, lies in the following statement of Samir:
>
> "Just that what I mean by valid criticism, in Furtwangler's
> case, is more than what some people are able to give. It is that simple."
>
> I take him at his word. He is to be the arbiter of what criticism his
valid,
> and who is "qualified" to offer it.
This is the point at which David introdiuces a new element in his supposed
presentation of Samir's argument.
As long as he insists on this, then no
> rational discussion of this artist will be possible in this group, not
just
> initiated by me, but by anyone else as well. So we have two choices. We
can
> simply agree never to discuss topics which Samir, Thomas, Roland, or
others
> of like mind deem "beyond the pale of discussion," or we can try to do so
> and ignore the ensuing hail of abuse.
You still don't get it.
lord_e...@my-deja.com
"David Hurwitz" <hurw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I have always maintained that it is perfectly fine to attack,
>even vigorously and with verbal sharpness, any opinion offered
>about music.
"Attack"?! Sigh. I have absolutely nothing against differing
opinions. I've agreed with you on occasion. But would a more
gentlemanly approach to discourse be so bad?
It's a given that if you attack or preach, you will be attacked or
sniped at. Actually, even as a bystander, I often feel like punching
someone after reading one of your more aggressive posts. It's not
what you say, it's how you say it that sparks off these little wars.
However, I'm not sure you will see this anytime soon...
Lena
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.