Two Gramophone reviews: Hatto and Paul Lewis' Beethoven
Handel8
I have had a chance to read all the articles that interested me. Two
were of particular interest:
On page 92 of my copy is a rave review of the Joyce Hatto recording
of the Messiaen Vingt Regards.
There is a very cryptic reference in the first sentence that I am still
puzzling over. I quote it:
"Joyce Hatto's CD legace may be mired in controversy ("the forgeries
of jealousy"?) but there is nothing controversial about recordings
which surely place her among an elite of women pianists (only six
artists of comparable stature spring to mind). "
I wonder what the devil the reviewer, Bryce Morrison is getting at
here. If you are like me, you will hate little inside comments like
this that are totally inscrutable. Or maybe I should have enough
knowledge to know what he is alluding to here. Also, he enjoys his
little tease, as he never names the six pianists of "comparable
stature". That puts Mr. Morrison in the "possibly a jerk" category in
my book.
On the opposite page of the begining of the Hatto review is a rave by
the same person of the new 3 cd set of some 10 Beethoven sonatas played
by Paul Lewis on Harmonia Mundi. Has anyone heard these yet ? I see
there was at least one favoarble comment here earlier on the volume 1
single cd of Beethoven by Lewis that came out in 2005, I believe.
Alan Prichard
makropulos
It's still a cryptic reference - and arguably a pretentious and
pointless one as well.
makropulos
Ah - I've just looked it up. It is Midsummer Night's Dream.
Here's the context for the quotation - and the reference to it in the
Gramophone review makes no sense to me at all...
OBERON
How canst thou thus for shame, Titania,
Glance at my credit with Hippolyta,
Knowing I know thy love to Theseus?
Didst thou not lead him through the glimmering night
>From Perigenia, whom he ravished?
And make him with fair AEgle break his faith,
With Ariadne and Antiopa?
TITANIA
These are the forgeries of jealousy:
And never, since the middle summer's spring,
Met we on hill, in dale, forest or mead,
By paved fountain or by rushy brook,
Or in the beached margent of the sea,
To dance our ringlets to the whistling wind,
But with thy brawls thou hast disturb'd our sport.
tomdeacon
Mr. Morrison's formal education was in English Literature, I seem to
recal. This may go some way towards explaining his frequent quoting of
some poet, writer, or thinker.
This does not explain the quotation from the December Gramophone, but I
should have thought that needed no explanation at all. The meaning is
self-evident.
TD
david...@aol.com
QUOTH a Gramophone reviewer:
> [her recordings] surely place [Hatto] among an elite of women pianists (only six
> artists of comparable stature spring to mind)."
Surely her stature as a woman pianist isn't of the slightest interest.
Surely it's only her stature as a pianist that's worth discussing.
-david gable
alanwa...@aol.com
Handel8 wrote:
I think I can answer that. Bryce Morrison has, I believe, read the
comments upon the late Joyce Hatto on this very group in which, from
time to time, it has been suggested that her achievements are not all
that much or have been fuelled or overrated by "campaigners" on the
internet (of which of course I am one but by no means the first)
I believe one of the suggestions was that some performances were not,
in fact, by the elderly Ms Hatto but by "pupils" on her behalf. And
certainly, by any standards, she (to use a google term) "momentarily"
became for a while a figure of fun on this group which may or may not
have been the fault of the "campaigners" but which either way entirely
lets out the performer I would say.
I probably should not say this but Ms Hatto also read some of those
comments (yes, despite her age she was also capable of "googling")
She was minded to enquire: "Why do these people hate me so much? I
just do not understand that. What have I done to them?"
It is probably somewhere in all that. I do not know Mr Morrison
although I briefly met Jeremy Nicholas at her funeral service where
(possibly in vain) I felt I was not there just for me but also on
behalf of the campaigners and for those members of this group who may
occasionally see "something" in her playing.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
makropulos
meaning is?
Handel8
For one thing, Tom, the quote from MND is rather obscure I would say.
I have never come across it before. It is certainly way down the list
of famous quotations from this play. I have not read the play from
begining to end but have read numerous books on the Shakespeare
authorship controversy within the last year and I never saw this quote
before. I am not convinced that the meaning is self evident. Maybe
you could explain it to those like me who are not as knowledgeable on
Shakespeare as you are (or as you claim you are). You say you are
familar with the quote, but I wonder. Maybe the other poster who
posted the citation first is really the only one on this board who knew
the origin, except for maybe Mr. Watkins. From your past posts, I
suspect you are taking credit for knowledge you did not have just to
make another silly stab at another poster here. Which is your usual
MO.
Alan Prichard
Handel8
Thanks, Alan for that explanation. That says it as well as could be
expected. For the vast majority of the readers of Gramophone, however,
the meaning would be obscure in the extreme. I wonder the eitor didn't
catch this and conference with Bryce on it.
Alan Prichard
Andrew Clarke
tomdeacon wrote:
> Mr. Morrison's formal education was in English Literature, I seem to
> recal. This may go some way towards explaining his frequent quoting of
> some poet, writer, or thinker.
He is also writing for an audience that, he assumes, is well read too.
Cf a recent article in Le Figaro about Irak, which began with "La mort,
la mort, toujours recommencee," the source of which any French reader
would recognise immediately.
> This does not explain the quotation from the December Gramophone, but I
> should have thought that needed no explanation at all. The meaning is
> self-evident.
As a Canadian you will have observed how so many Americans seem
incapable of understanding that the rest of the world is not like
America. This tends to have a disastrous effect on their foreign policy
...
Presumably the selfsame doubts as to the provenance of Joyce Hatto's
recordings have been doing the rounds in the London musical circles as
well as in this newsgroup. Mr Morrison, far from being "a jerk" is
standing up for her.
It would have been more apt, perhaps, if he'd quoted Don Basilio's "La
Calumnia" aria rather than Shakespeare, but then we'd have the same
kind of people complaining about quotations in foreign languages ...
Andrew Clarke
Canberra
makropulos
thank you, my French ais fluent and my German passable. What I *am*
complaining about - as was the original poster - is the obscure mis-use
of a quotation. I have posted the context of the quotation already -
and all that proves to me is that the Gramophone reviewer felt like
showboating with a bit of Shakespeare rather than using the MSND line
for any useful purpose.
alanwa...@aol.com
Talking about MSND: if you want every note Mendelssohn wrote it will
have to be Hanssler Classics/Rilling I'm afraid.
Mendelssohn monsters both of us. (Yes, I know).
Handel8
It might surprise you, Andrew, that I am not one of ignorant
Americans that you speak so aptly of. In fact I am strongly opposed to
the Bush policies. In fact also, I am one of the few people who think
that George McGovern would have made a fine President in 1972 ! In
fact, also, I think that both Nixon and Bush are or were psychopaths !
However, much to my amazement, Bush is so much worse than Nixon ever
was. Also, it is clear to me that the Republican Party in the US is a
massive criminal enterprise whose roots go back to the post Lincoln
period of McKinley et al, but the current version is deeply rooted in
Texas politics, the most vile in the nation.
I do consider myself fairly well read, but not in foeign languages,
which is a well known weakness in the educational system here in the
US. However, I consider myself pretty well read or at least better
than average. I think that anyone like Bryce Morrison, who puts rather
obscure quotes or allusions in his reviews is either showing off or
thinks its cute somehow. If most of his readers don't get the gist of
it, then he has failed as a writer. In this case, even if I had known
the quote was from Shakespeare, I would still be at a loss as to his
meaning. Therefore, I feel he has failed as a reviewer. This is not
an issue of dumming down as you seem to say, if I understand you
correctly. It seems that only Alan Watkins on this board got the gist
of what the reviewer was trying to convey. Did you get the point of the
Morrison review before Alan's post ? I doubt it. Of course it was a
rave review. I did get that and stated so. That was obvious from the
beginning. I was merely trying to clarify a obscure reference in the
review.
Alan Prichard
Alan
Handel8
Yes, I just got a reasonably priced copy from Amazon in the US. It was
the last one they had in stock. I have seen other copies for something
cosae to 89 USD ! LOL ! I listened to it the other day. It is merely
OK. I am not sure that it is any more complete than the Frubeck de
Burgos recording. The Rilling performance is way way down the list of
my favorites of this work. I found it almost sluggish and it never
caught fire for me.
I like the Leinsdorf a great deal but it is very hard to come by these
days.
Alan Prichard
tomdeacon
Hmmmmmm.
Including English, it would seem.
TD
david...@aol.com
Andrew Clarke wrote:
> It would have been more apt, perhaps, if he'd quoted Don Basilio's "La
> Calumnia" aria rather than Shakespeare, but then we'd have the same
> kind of people complaining about quotations in foreign languages ...
Is Shakespeare's Elizabethan English so remote from the dialect you
speak as to be mistaken for a "foreign" language???? I'm shocked. A
pity you weren't educated in the States. Maybe then you wouldn't
generalize about the politics of Americans. Close to half of Americans
have voted against every president who's ever been elected. I neither
voted for George Bush nor for the current neo-liberal quasi-Bush-ite
Prime Minister of Australia.
-david gable
makropulos
david...@aol.com wrote:
Close to half of Americans
> have voted against every president who's ever been elected. I neither
> voted for George Bush nor for the current neo-liberal quasi-Bush-ite
> Prime Minister of Australia.
>
> -david gable
I quite agree. It's as silly as assuming that all Brits love the royal
family or that we all voted for Margaret Thatcher in 1979.
Ralph
> Talking about MSND: if you want every note Mendelssohn wrote it will
> have to be Hanssler Classics/Rilling I'm afraid.
>
> Mendelssohn monsters both of us. (Yes, I know).
>
Have you heard Mendelssohn's Der Onkel Aus Boston conducted by Rilling?
If yes, what is your judgment of the composition, as well as Rilling's
performance of it?
Ralph
tomdeacon
david...@aol.com wrote:
>Close to half of Americans have voted against every president who's ever been elected.
Are you sure you want to stand with this statement, David?
You do know, don't you, that only a small fraction of Americans
actually vote, even in presidential election years.
What is called a "landslide" - say Reagan against Carter - is actually
a few percentage points over the 50% mark, and that of only about
40-45% of eligible voters in the USA. Now, you might say that this is
through no fault of their own, as seemingly many voters suffer rather
nasty attitudes from those who manage elections in many states. Some
voters have even found that their votes have not counted at all. (see
Ohio in 2004)
You might be more accurate in saying that approximately 40-45% of
Americans have voted for eery president who's ever been elected, at
least in recent memory.
TD
david...@aol.com
I wrote:
> >Close to half of Americans have voted against every president who's ever been elected.
Deacon asked:
> Are you sure you want to stand with this statement, David?
Yes, because it could be considered implicit in my statement that I
meant "close to half of those Americans who have voted in every
election."
> You do know, don't you, that only a small fraction of Americans
> actually vote, even in presidential election years.
It's not a small fraction. It's a very large fraction and in actual
numbers an enormous number. The fact remains that an enormous number
of Americans oppose every president, and a not insignficant per centage
of Americans have opposed Mr. Bush all along.
> What is called a "landslide" - say Reagan against Carter - is actually
> a few percentage points over the 50% mark, and that of only about
> 40-45% of eligible voters in the USA.
It is extremely presumptuous of you to attempt to educate Americans in
general or me in particular on the subject of these facts. It is quite
possible for a true landslide to occur in the USA absent a true
landslide in the popular vote . . . but only in the Electoral College.
If candidate X wins by 1% in 50 states, candidate X will get every vote
in the Electoral College. That would be widely reported as an
overwhelming landslide, but the news media would also have reported the
per centages in the popular vote. For all of your huffing and puffing,
you have not introduced any facts new to the Americans who post here.
And then there's the absurd leap you and Mr. Canberra have made from a
perfectly reasonable question about a statement in a Gramophone review
to a gross and inaccurate generality about the behavior of "all
Americans" in politics. The meaning of the quotation from Shakespeare
was never opaque to anybody. The passage in Gramophone remains opaque.
Unless I simply haven't happened to see the post making things clear.
-david gable
Andrew T. Kay
> For the vast majority of the readers of Gramophone, however,
> the meaning would be obscure in the extreme. I wonder the eitor didn't
> catch this and conference with Bryce on it.
Morrison's allusion was almost certainly a reference to something that
has been going on in GRAMOPHONE for most of this year, and it was
assumed by Morrison and his editor that their regular readers had been
keeping up with this and would "get" it. I don't think it was an
unreasonable assumption; your mileage may vary.
In the March 2006 issue (with Villazon on the cover), the critic Jeremy
Nicholas wrote an enraptured piece called "Piano Dreams" about Ms.
Hatto's recorded legacy, with brief mention of her difficult personal
circumstances in the last few decades. Letters in response to that
piece appeared in the next two issues; and in the June 2006 issue
(Shostakovich cover), Mr. Nicholas was moved to follow up with a letter
of his own about the responses he'd received to the Hatto piece -- some
thanking him for giving a neglected great musician some publicity, some
asking him how they could get hold of her discs, others wondering why
GRAMOPHONE had never reviewed her before if she were so great, still
others accusing him of being on the take from Concert Artists, calling
into question that Ms. Hatto was really all that ill, suggesting that
her students did the actual playing on the recordings issued under her
name, etc. Mr. Nicholas challenged the doubters to provide evidence of
the alleged fraud and deception that would "stand up in a court of
law," and continued, "It would help me enormously if you can gain
access to [Hatto's] medical records, provide an accurate log of all
Miss Hatto's visits to hospital over the past 20 years," and so on in
the same apparently irritated vein. He concluded that if her students
were indeed responsible for the playing on her recordings, they should
all be offered recording contracts immediately.
I believe this matter continued to simmer in the wake of Ms. Hatto's
passing and the magazine's obituary for her a few months later. Anyway,
to boil it down to its essence, the GRAMOPHONE -- at least, a few of
its most prominent reviewers -- believes that Ms. Hatto should now be
considered one of the greatest pianists of her time, and that position
has met with a sharply divided response from the readers.
Todd K
Bob Harper
>
> I wrote:
>>> Close to half of Americans have voted against every president who's ever been elected.
>
> Deacon asked:
>> Are you sure you want to stand with this statement, David?
>
> Yes, because it could be considered implicit in my statement that I
> meant "close to half of those Americans who have voted in every
> election."
>
>> You do know, don't you, that only a small fraction of Americans
>> actually vote, even in presidential election years.
>
> It's not a small fraction. It's a very large fraction and in actual
> numbers an enormous number. The fact remains that an enormous number
> of Americans oppose every president, and a not insignficant per centage
> of Americans have opposed Mr. Bush all along.
>
>> What is called a "landslide" - say Reagan against Carter - is actually
>> a few percentage points over the 50% mark, and that of only about
>> 40-45% of eligible voters in the USA.
>
> It is extremely presumptuous of you to attempt to educate Americans in
> general or me in particular on the subject of these facts.
David, David, calm down. Presumption on Tom's part should come as no
surprise to one of your undoubted intelligence. Why expect him to make
more sense on the subject of politics than he does on the subject of
copyright?
Bob Harper
Steve de Mena
> david...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Close to half of Americans have voted against every president who's ever been elected.
>
> Are you sure you want to stand with this statement, David?
>
> You do know, don't you, that only a small fraction of Americans
> actually vote, even in presidential election years.
>
> What is called a "landslide" - say Reagan against Carter - is actually
> a few percentage points over the 50% mark, and that of only about
> 40-45% of eligible voters in the USA.
Another reason a presidential election is
categorized as a "landslide" is when the winning
party takes almost all the states in electoral
votes. (I think Carter only won a few of the 50
states)
> Now, you might say that this is
> through no fault of their own, as seemingly many voters suffer rather
> nasty attitudes from those who manage elections in many states.
I don't buy that. Many don't vote simply out of
apathy.
> Some
> voters have even found that their votes have not counted at all. (see
> Ohio in 2004)
>
> You might be more accurate in saying that approximately 40-45% of
> Americans have voted for eery president who's ever been elected, at
> least in recent memory.
>
> TD
>
Steve
david...@aol.com
Steve de Mena wrote:
> Another reason a presidential election is
> categorized as a "landslide" is when the winning
> party takes almost all the states in electoral
> votes.
That's not "a" reason an election is categorized as a landslide: it's
the very definition of a landslide.
> > Now, you might say that this is
> > through no fault of their own, as seemingly many voters suffer rather
> > nasty attitudes from those who manage elections in many states.
> I don't buy that. Many don't vote simply out of
> apathy.
No doubt. But there are plenty of reasons why people don't vote:
apathy, laziness, indifference, disaffection, the feeling that one's
vote won't affect the outcome, the feeling that one's life will be
unaffected by either outcome - or not affected differently either way,
disenchantment with both parties or with the entire system, etc. In my
opinion, the only one of these conceivably attributable to any sort of
"moral failing" on the part of the non-voter is laziness.
And there most certainly are ill educated people intimidated by the
process of voting disinclined to put themself through the embarrassment
they fear they will have to endure in order to vote. We also know what
obstacles to voting have been placed in front of more than half of the
electorate: women and blacks. In Georgia, the legislature and
governor have recently seen fit once again to make it more difficult to
vote for what I have no doubt are the traditional reasons: traditional
for the South, that is.
-david gable
her...@yahoo.com
>
> Morrison's allusion was almost certainly a reference to something that
Well, it took only 24 posts to get a clear and cogent explanation of
what the (not too obscure IMO) MND quote was alluding to.
Oh, and for the fellow who was saying his language and literature
skills were perfectly fine: it "dumbing down" rather than "dumming
down".
Herman
Handel8
Todd, thanks for solving the mystery. I get the American version of
Gramophone (or North American version, to be precise). I don't read
all of each issue front to back, but I don't recall all those letters
about Hatto that you refer to. I will have to dig out my back issues
and check. I collect many Hatto cds and already have a pretty good
percentage of those released so far in my collection, so I would have
noticed the Hatto references you refer to.
Alan Prichard
alanwa...@aol.com
Handel8 wrote:
As is pretty obvious, this issue is not very simple and the Jeremy
Nicholas letter, while an important part of the issue, is not in my
view the whole story. Although no doubt the magazine has received
letters on the subject very few have been published, so far as I know
and I do see the UK edition.
No doubt a number of Gramophone readers will be puzzled by the fact
that only recently have reviews of Joyce Hatto's recordings appeared
and might well be asking why she was ignored for so long if, as two
reviewers now say, she was a substantial artist. Indeed, I think one
such question along those lines appeared on The Gramophone forum. That
is not a fair question for the current publishers of The Gramophone but
it is a fair question for the previous publishers. I do not know why
her recordings were ignored but I do know that reviewers requested
copies which were sent by the company but no reviews resulted.
Obviously, that situation has now changed.
I think Ernst Lumpe faced a very similar battle in trying to persuade
the world of music that Sergio Fiorentino was a substantial but
neglected artist with a great deal to say. How could so comparitively
few people know this?
Len of MusicWeb
from MusicWeb. I wrote to point out that we had been reviewing Joyce Hatto's
recordings for a long time before they discovered her and that there was no
difficulty in availablity as we sold them from the Website. I did not enter
into discussion as to whether her recordings were forgeries.
I suggest you read Jonathan Woolf's review of the Messiaen which we
published two months before Gramophone
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2006/Oct06/Messiaen_Vingt_Hatto_CACD20032.htm
You might also read the review of the Dukas sonata
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2006/Nov06/Dukas_Hatto_CACD92742.htm
Regards
Len
......................................................................
Len Mullenger
Founder: MusicWeb-International
The Internet CD review site
32,000 reviews read every day
www.musicweb-international.com
mobile: 07913 999009
You click with us and you may find we'll click with you.
-------------------------o0o--------------------------
tomdeacon
david...@aol.com wrote:
> I wrote:
> > >Close to half of Americans have voted against every president who's ever been elected.
>
> Deacon asked:
> > Are you sure you want to stand with this statement, David?
>
> Yes, because it could be considered implicit in my statement that I
> meant "close to half of those Americans who have voted in every
> election."
>
> > You do know, don't you, that only a small fraction of Americans
> > actually vote, even in presidential election years.
>
> It's not a small fraction. It's a very large fraction and in actual
> numbers an enormous number. The fact remains that an enormous number
> of Americans oppose every president, and a not insignficant per centage
> of Americans have opposed Mr. Bush all along.
>
> > What is called a "landslide" - say Reagan against Carter - is actually
> > a few percentage points over the 50% mark, and that of only about
> > 40-45% of eligible voters in the USA.
>
> It is extremely presumptuous of you to attempt to educate Americans in
> general or me in particular on the subject of these facts.
PRESUMTUOUS?
Touchy, touchy!
Really, don't get your tits in a knot, David.
There is nothing presumptuous about making the perfectly valid point
that usually less than half of all eligible Americans bother to vote,
and that a little over half of those who do bother end up electing a
president "by a landslide".
And please don't bother us all with the "electoral college" garbage.
That pre-historic relic is only one of many anomalies in the American
"democracy" which is screaming for a trip to the junkyard.
> And then there's the absurd leap you and Mr. Canberra have made from a
> perfectly reasonable question about a statement in a Gramophone review
> to a gross and inaccurate generality about the behavior of "all
> Americans" in politics. The meaning of the quotation from Shakespeare
> was never opaque to anybody. The passage in Gramophone remains opaque.
> Unless I simply haven't happened to see the post making things clear.
You don't need the post, David, just the quotation. The meaning is
perfectly clear. You, of all people, supposedly from the educated
class, should be able to decipher the meaning of Mr. Morrison's
sentence without resorting to Cole's crib-notes.
Mind you, it was Makropulos who failed to grasp the meaning and he is
not, as far as I know, a resident of the USA. But I could be wrong
about that.
TD
tomdeacon
Bob Harper wrote:
> david...@aol.com wrote:
> > It is extremely presumptuous of you to attempt to educate Americans in
> > general or me in particular on the subject of these facts.
>
> David, David, calm down. Presumption on Tom's part should come as no
> surprise to one of your undoubted intelligence. Why expect him to make
> more sense on the subject of politics than he does on the subject of
> copyright?
I am properly appalled at the accusation contained in this post.
That I should stand accused of "making sense on the subject of
(American) politics" would seem to imply that one gave a flying fuck
what happened in that benighted land.
We who are lucky enough not to live within its borders can only look on
from outside and lament the goings-on which pass for "democracy".
The following statistics have been compiled regarding "voter turnout".
It might interest you to cast your contemptuous eyes upon their
findings:
<Since 1945 Western Europe has maintained the highest average turnout
(77%), and Latin America the lowest (53%), but turnout need not
necessarily reflect regional wealth. North America and the Caribbean
have the third lowest turnout rate, while Oceania and the former Soviet
states of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and Central
Eastern Europe are respectively second and third highest in the
regional league table over this period.>
Hmmmmmm.
"Old Europe" seems to be doing very well, despite Rummy's derogatory
remarks about their interest to Americans. Even the former states of
the Soviet Union seem to be doing extremely well.
The USA, on the other hand, is in the third lowest turnout rate
category. Not sure if that includes Canada. Usually we have about a
55-60% turnout for federal elections.
In the meantime, you can count me among the officially indifferent,
Bob, to your so-called American democracy. Take note.
TD
tomdeacon
Steve de Mena wrote:
> tomdeacon wrote:
> > Now, you might say that this is
> > through no fault of their own, as seemingly many voters suffer rather
> > nasty attitudes from those who manage elections in many states.
>
> I don't buy that. Many don't vote simply out of
> apathy.
I think you will find that my statement doesn't contradict yours,
Steve.
Les deux sont bons.
TD
Bob Harper
(snip)
> And please don't bother us all with the "electoral college" garbage.
> That pre-historic relic is only one of many anomalies in the American
> "democracy" which is screaming for a trip to the junkyard.
>
>
>
> TD
>
As you may not have noticed, Tom, the United States Constitution created
a federal republic made up of a number of sovereign states. The
Electoral College is a recognition of that fact, and rather than being a
'prehistoric relic' is in fact one of many evidences of the genius of
the Founding Fathers.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
intelligence, do not 'give a f----- f---' about what happens in the most
powerful nation on earth, and your contiguous southern neighbor, is
laughable. Clearly you don't *like* what is happening, which is your
right, but don't kid us that you don't care.
As for voter turnout, my considered response to all the handwringing is
a big yawn. I always vote; it's part of my upbringing. However, I never
vote in a race for which there is only one candidate. As David
intelligently comments:
'But there are plenty of reasons why people don't vote:
apathy, laziness, indifference, disaffection, the feeling that one's
vote won't affect the outcome, *the feeling that one's life will be
unaffected by either outcome - or not affected differently either way*
(emphasis mine),
disenchantment with both parties or with the entire system, etc.'
I suggest the emphasized portion of David's litany is the real reason
why the US has comparatively low voting percentages. And that is,
frankly, a good thing. It means that many people realize that politics
is *not* the most important thing in their lives; they believe that
things are by and large OK, and choose to give elections a pass. You may
disagree, but it sure beats tanks in the street.
Bob Harper
tomdeacon
The words of a true anti-democrat.
TD
tomdeacon
And it ends up with tanks in Baghdad.
TD
Bob Harper
necessary to change, it is necessary not to change' is the family motto,
a statement with which most of the Founders would agree. They didn't
want a plebiscite-driven system, and neither do I.
Bob Harper
tomdeacon
Bob Harper wrote:
> No, a republican (small r). I'm an Urquhart, you see. 'When it is not
> necessary to change, it is necessary not to change' is the family motto,
> a statement with which most of the Founders would agree. They didn't
> want a plebiscite-driven system, and neither do I.
Which therefore makes you, and them, anti-democratic.
TD
Bob Harper
majority to make decisions which will affect people for years, if not
generations, then I plead guilty. The notion that such a system
maximizes liberty, which I thought we all wanted to do, is risible.
Bob Harper
Frank Berger
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1165389235.5...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> Steve de Mena wrote:
>
>> Another reason a presidential election is
>> categorized as a "landslide" is when the winning
>> party takes almost all the states in electoral
>> votes.
>
> That's not "a" reason an election is categorized as a landslide: it's
> the very definition of a landslide.
>
>> > Now, you might say that this is
>> > through no fault of their own, as seemingly many voters suffer rather
>> > nasty attitudes from those who manage elections in many states.
>
>> I don't buy that. Many don't vote simply out of
>> apathy.
>
> No doubt. But there are plenty of reasons why people don't vote:
> apathy, laziness, indifference, disaffection, the feeling that one's
> vote won't affect the outcome, the feeling that one's life will be
> unaffected by either outcome
I'm always amazed at the percentage that DO vote. If you think about it,
the likelihood that your vote will affect the outcome of an election is
vanishling small. So people must vote out of a sense of civic duty or a
desire to express themselves more than the expectation of affecting the
outcome. When I tell people I vote Libertarian, they scoff that I have
"wasted" my vote. Of course, unless an election is determined by less than
2 votes, every vote, considered by itself, is "wasted".
Frank Berger
"Bob Harper" <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3qudndyuCLqsjerY...@comcast.com...
Bob, I've found life to be simpler and more pleasant since I plonked Deacon.
You should consider it.
tomdeacon
Bob Harper wrote:
> tomdeacon wrote:
> > Bob Harper wrote:
> >
> >> No, a republican (small r). I'm an Urquhart, you see. 'When it is not
> >> necessary to change, it is necessary not to change' is the family motto,
> >> a statement with which most of the Founders would agree. They didn't
> >> want a plebiscite-driven system, and neither do I.
> >
> > Which therefore makes you, and them, anti-democratic.
> >
> > TD
> >
> Well, if by democratic you mean worshiping at the altar of a temporary
> majority to make decisions which will affect people for years, if not
> generations, then I plead guilty.
We knew that, Bob.
You're an old fascist from way back. You call it "republican", I call
it fascist. The power brokers know best; the people are ignorant. Let's
cut them off at the knees, silence their voices, grind their opinions
into the dirt.
> The notion that such a system maximizes liberty, which I thought we all wanted to do, is risible.
I never said a thing about "liberty". Is that anything like "freedom"?
I thought that was the name given to sliced potatoes fried in grease.
TD
tomdeacon
Frank Berger wrote:
> I'm always amazed at the percentage that DO vote. If you think about it,
> the likelihood that your vote will affect the outcome of an election is
> vanishling small. So people must vote out of a sense of civic duty or a
> desire to express themselves more than the expectation of affecting the
> outcome. When I tell people I vote Libertarian, they scoff that I have
> "wasted" my vote. Of course, unless an election is determined by less than
> 2 votes, every vote, considered by itself, is "wasted".
The only thing missing in this thread was, of course, an appearance by
Frank Berger, who can never resist commenting on some political matter
of which he is woefully ignorant.
TD
Bob Harper
> Bob Harper wrote:
>> tomdeacon wrote:
>>> Bob Harper wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, a republican (small r). I'm an Urquhart, you see. 'When it is not
>>>> necessary to change, it is necessary not to change' is the family motto,
>>>> a statement with which most of the Founders would agree. They didn't
>>>> want a plebiscite-driven system, and neither do I.
>>> Which therefore makes you, and them, anti-democratic.
>>>
>>> TD
>>>
>> Well, if by democratic you mean worshiping at the altar of a temporary
>> majority to make decisions which will affect people for years, if not
>> generations, then I plead guilty.
>
> We knew that, Bob.
>
> You're an old fascist from way back. You call it "republican", I call
> it fascist.
So I'm right and you're wrong. Sounds OK to me.
The power brokers know best; the people are ignorant. Let's
> cut them off at the knees, silence their voices, grind their opinions
> into the dirt.
Like Hugo Chavez or Robert Mugabe? *They* believe in your sort of
'democracy', right?
>
>> The notion that such a system maximizes liberty, which I thought we all wanted to do, is risible.
>
> I never said a thing about "liberty". Is that anything like "freedom"?
> I thought that was the name given to sliced potatoes fried in grease.
I know you said nothing about liberty. That's the point: I place more
value on it than on the tyranny of a temporary majority; you, by your
own admission, place less value on it than you do on 'democracy'.
Suppose we had an election and a clear majority voted in favor of
invidious discrimination against some minority (pick any you like). How
would you oppose this 'democratic' decision? You couldn't, if you care
at all about intellectual consistency.
No. Given human nature as it is, limits like those in a constitutional
representative republic are essential to the well-being of everyone.
Bob Harper
>
> TD
>
Bob Harper
and a time waster, I know, but there it is.
Bob Harper
tomdeacon
Bob Harper wrote:
> > I never said a thing about "liberty". Is that anything like "freedom"?
> > I thought that was the name given to sliced potatoes fried in grease.
>
> I know you said nothing about liberty. That's the point: I place more
> value on it than on the tyranny of a temporary majority; you, by your
> own admission, place less value on it than you do on 'democracy'.
> Suppose we had an election and a clear majority voted in favor of
> invidious discrimination against some minority (pick any you like). How
> would you oppose this 'democratic' decision?
Out of the mouths of babes.....
The answer is easy: the same way we have been opposing invidious
discrimination for a particular minority for centuries. And still are.
We have won considerable progress in my homeland, Canada. The American
"majority" which is so in love with freedom and liberty is currently
undergoing one of its revolting reactionary periods, aided and abetted
by the likes of Dubya and his Junta.
Please, don't talk to me about invidious discrimination, Bob.
> No. Given human nature as it is, limits like those in a constitutional representative republic are essential to the well-being of everyone.
Certainly keeps some people in their place, doesn't it? Just keep those
blacks out of the polling stations and your well-being will be assured.
Not!
TD
arrau...@yahoo.com
I think that recent elections in the U.S. have proved the exact
opposite - every vote DOES count. Look at the 2006 election - many
elections were decided by only a handful of votes (a thousand out of
more than a million cast, for example), and effected control of the
national senate (Virginia, Missouri and Montana) and several
statehouses. Hopefully when the realization sets in that voting does
affect your life (your pocketbook, first and foremost, then culturally,
and on various other levels), people will begin vote in record numbers,
hopefully educating themselves on the issues before doing so.
RJM
Sacqueboutier
Democracy, in its purest form, was tried once in history.
It failed.
--
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
Bob Harper
again, m'boy.
Bob Harper
Brendan R. Wehrung
Don't forget the Jascha Horenstein Society whose (nearly) very first duty
was to report the death of the conductor they had banded together to
promote new recordings from.
Ever play for him?
Brendan
tomdeacon
Bob Harper wrote:
> Sorry, but this is simply incoherent shouting. Time to check your meds
> again, m'boy.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
TD
makropulos
> Mind you, it was Makropulos who failed to grasp the meaning and he is
> not, as far as I know, a resident of the USA. But I could be wrong
> about that.
>
> TD
Actually it was me who identified the quotation in the first place, and
said that I thought Morrison was misusing it (and provided the context
for the quotation, to demonstrate why I believed this to be so).
I don't have any problem understanding the bit of Shakespeare.
Morrision's use of it is, however, something whose "meaning" I
certainly don't get - because it seems to me that he was just showing
off.
You are correct that I am not a resident of the US.
Andrew Clarke
Actually I wasn't thinking of either of the Bushes, or even the present
Irak war, although the latter does demonstrate the uncanny ability of
the USA to win the war and lose the peace. I was rather thinking of
Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman, among others.
> However, much to my amazement, Bush is so much worse than Nixon ever
> was. Also, it is clear to me that the Republican Party in the US is a
> massive criminal enterprise whose roots go back to the post Lincoln
> period of McKinley et al, but the current version is deeply rooted in
> Texas politics, the most vile in the nation.
You people do love a conspiracy theory :-) I might add that if I were
an American citizen I'd generally vote Republican. I admired George
Bush Snr's prompt action after the invasion of Kuwait, and I
particularly admired President Reagan's facing down the Soviet Empire.
I similarly admired Lady Thatcher's action in defending her
fellow-citizens in the Falkland Islands from falling into the hands of
one of the nastier South American military dictatorships.
> I do consider myself fairly well read, but not in foeign languages,
> which is a well known weakness in the educational system here in the
> US.
My point wasn't whether Americans can or cannot read foreign languages
-- as I understand it, you learn at least two languages when you're
meeting the language requirements for higher degrees, if not before.
The point I *was* making is that making literary allusions isn't
limited to the English-speaking world.
> However, I consider myself pretty well read or at least better
> than average. I think that anyone like Bryce Morrison, who puts rather
> obscure quotes or allusions in his reviews is either showing off or
> thinks its cute somehow.
This is making all kinds of assumptions about his motives. Actually the
quotation works perfectly well even if the source *isn't* known. He's
saying that questions have been raised about the Hatto recordings, and
he's put in an apt (if obscure) quotation to dismiss them.
> Therefore, I feel he has failed as a reviewer.
Hang on, Alan. You may or may not find his style annoying from time to
time, but can you really argue from this that his reviews are failures?
>This is not
> an issue of dumming down as you seem to say, if I understand you
> correctly.
Not at all. I'm arguing that different cultures do things different
ways, and we need to be cautious about rushing to judgement.
>It seems that only Alan Watkins on this board got the gist
> of what the reviewer was trying to convey. Did you get the point of the
> Morrison review before Alan's post ? I doubt it.
Morrison was felt that unworthy rumours about the Hatto legacy were
circulating, and that he felt honour-bound to dismiss them in short
order as the product of jealous minds. The use of a quotation might
have been a way of keeping the issue "at arms length" so to speak, or
"without making a meal of it" as our British contributors might put it.
It's really a question of rhetoric. No, I didn't know precisely what
Morrison was alluding to, but, ironically, it appears that if I had
read some of the Hatto threads in this newsgroup I would have had a
very good idea indeed.
Incidentally, part of my own Australian education was the repeated
dictum that you should always make sure that you understand a question
before attempting to answer it. I'm sure young Americans are taught
this too, but so many of the people who replied to my posting seemed to
have read " .... Irak ... most Americans ... French speaking ... and
jumped to the most astonishing conclusions!
Best wishes,
Andrew C.
Mr Canberra
> And then there's the absurd leap you and Mr. Canberra have made from a
> perfectly reasonable question about a statement in a Gramophone review
> to a gross and inaccurate generality about the behavior of "all
> Americans" in politics.
Mr Canberra said nothing whatsoever about the behaviour of "all"
Americans in politics. He did offer a generalisation about the way
"many" Americans tend to view the outside world and its effect on
foreign policy, but no mention was made of the current President, the
Republican Party, Sadie Hawkins Day or anything else.
Regards,
Mr Canberra
Len of MusicWeb
it.
Regards
Len
Needless to say Gramophone did not print, and never has printed, any letters
from MusicWeb. I wrote to point out that we had been reviewing Joyce Hatto's
recordings for a long time before they discovered her and that there was no
difficulty in availablity as we sold them from the Website. I did not enter
into discussion as to whether her recordings were forgeries.
I suggest you read Jonathan Woolf's review of the Messiaen which we
published two months before Gramophone
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2006/Oct06/Messiaen_Vingt_Hatto_CACD20032.htm
You might also read the review of the Dukas sonata
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2006/Nov06/Dukas_Hatto_CACD92742.htm
Regards
Len
......................................................................
Len Mullenger
Founder: MusicWeb-International
The Internet CD review site
32,000 reviews read every day
www.musicweb-international.com
mobile: 07913 999009
You click with us and you may find we'll click with you.
-------------------------o0o--------------------------
Handel8
Len of MusicWeb wrote:
> I am not sure why but this reply of mine did not appear so I am re-posting
> it.
>
> Regards
>
> Len
>
>
> Needless to say Gramophone did not print, and never has printed, any letters
> from MusicWeb. I wrote to point out that we had been reviewing Joyce Hatto's
> recordings for a long time before they discovered her and that there was no
> difficulty in availablity as we sold them from the Website. I did not enter
> into discussion as to whether her recordings were forgeries.
>
> I suggest you read Jonathan Woolf's review of the Messiaen which we
> published two months before Gramophone
> http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2006/Oct06/Messiaen_Vingt_Hatto_CACD20032.htm
>
> You might also read the review of the Dukas sonata
> http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2006/Nov06/Dukas_Hatto_CACD92742.htm
>
> Regards
> Len
>
Wel, it posted just fine the first time as I see it on the web site.
It has been apparent the last few days or so after you posted it. Now
it is posted twice, of course.
Alan Prichard
Len of MusicWeb
"Handel8" <ala...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1165591138.4...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Alan Prichard
I feared that might be the case but I still cannot see the original although
I can the re-post. I use outlook express as my news reader.
Regards
Len
Peter Lemken
> Mr. Nicholas challenged the doubters to provide evidence of
> the alleged fraud and deception that would "stand up in a court of
> law,"
The nonexistence of Rene Köhler as the conductor of Mrs. Hatto's recordings
should be good enough.
Peter Lemken
Berlin
--
"Make me a sandwich!"
"Make a sandwich yourself."
"sudo Make me a sandwich!"
"OK."
Frank Berger
<arrau...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165456458.8...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You seem to have missed my point. The fact that many elections are close
does to detract from the point that any one vote cast does not affect the
outcome. A single vote does matter to the outcome unless the election is
determined by one vote or is a tie. This is a simple fact. The quesion is,
what of it?
This fact deters people from voting. It is one of the factors that holds
down voter turnout. You can be sure if every person somehow knew that his
vote WOULD determine the outcome of the election that voter turnout would be
higher. This is also not inconsistent with turnout being higher in more
important elections.
It also does not mean that people are silly to vote, as feeling a civic duty
to vote is not silly. But if one thinks that the likelihood of one's vote
determining an election is not vanishingly small, then one IS silly.
I always vote.