Those interested in Beethoven and his life; please read.
Anubis
am embarking on an animation of him playing perhaps parts of the
hammerclavier. This has a lot of emotions I would like to convey
throughout his playing. About his emotions and outlook at this time
of his life. I have a few problems:
1) I have always said, if you can do it live action; why animate it.
Other than changing the view from an external to an internal and
perhaps imitating what he might have heard; or having him play a piece
with no accompanyment and then in his internal view you hear a
somewhat phantom accompanyment, what else could be done with the
malleable art form that is animation to perhaps give insight into his
emotions or outlook? Without going disney-esque and psychodellic.
Thus far I am keeping to the aforementioned external/internal, but I
am open to any thoughts about what may or may not have been bouncing
around in his head when he wrote this.
2) Does anyone have a good resource of video of any greats playing
sonatas, specifically the hammerclavier? I would either pay any
amounts incurred in being sent a copy of a VHS or I would love to know
some good video reference where you can see the players hands; and i
would purchase it online.
I am curently building a model directly off Kleins 1812 impression of
Beethoven's face. If anyone had any good points about his clothing
and things that would also help. I have been reading like mad, and
although people say things like "at thsi time in his life he not only
lacked a good coat, but a single good shirt", it really doesn't help a
lot when I try to recreate this.
Lastly, what the heck is this photo:
http://members.screenz.com/bennypostcards/Beethoven,%20Russia.jpg
I am guessing it surely is a joke, as the oldest photo I had seen was
that of Brahms.
Thanks for any help..
CE
Rich Andrews
4ax.com:
According to the descriptions and drawing I have read and seen, your photo
seem like a fairly accurate portrayal.
r
--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.
Eusebius7
>Lastly, what the heck is this photo:
>
>http://members.screenz.com/bennypostcards/Beethoven,%20Russia.jpg
The resolution on my laptop may not be the greatest, but your photo appears to
be a painting. Take a close look at the foilage in particular.
eusebius7
Davidsbuendler
http://members.aol.com/buendler
Dr.Matt
Eusebius7 <euse...@aol.comDELETE> wrote:
>Anubis Ch...@Dork.com wrote:
>
>>Lastly, what the heck is this photo:
>>
>>http://members.screenz.com/bennypostcards/Beethoven,%20Russia.jpg
>
>The resolution on my laptop may not be the greatest, but your photo appears to
>be a painting. Take a close look at the foilage in particular.
Worse than that, it's a cheap photographic paste-together, and the
chap modeling as Beethoven does not cast a shadow on the pre-painted
leaves, nor is he lit in the same direction as they are.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
If it's worth doing, it's worth doing in canon!
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Steve Hehr
[snip]
>
>Lastly, what the heck is this photo:
>
>http://members.screenz.com/bennypostcards/Beethoven,%20Russia.jpg
>
>I am guessing it surely is a joke, as the oldest photo I had seen was
>that of Brahms.
>
>Thanks for any help..
>
>CE
As the URL implies the image is of a postcard, it is likely some
"artist's concept" portraying Beethoven, based on contemporary
accounts of his habit of walking in the countryside. Nothing wrong
with that since, as another poster has mentioned, it's a fairly
accurate portrayal.
That it isn't a photo is clear, both for the reasons others have
mentioned, and because the earliest photographs date from the
mid-1820's, a year or two before Beethoven's death. His appearance on
the postcard portrays him as he would have looked much earlier. Also,
I believe early photos required time exposures that necessitated the
subject remaining perfectly still for several seconds; an "action"
shot such as of Beethoven walking would not have been possible it the
early 19th century.
There are photos of composers earlier than of Brahms -- I recall one
of Hector Berlioz from the 1860's, and I'm sure there must be earlier
photos of some others. There is a Dover book (possibly gone out of
print recently but still available from other sources, e.g., Amazon)
titled "Great Composers in Historic Photographs" which includes the
likes of Liszt, Clara Schumann, Meyerbeer, Chopin, etc. (I have no
connection with either Amazon or Dover except as a customer.)
There may not be agreement on what is the earliest photograph (of
anything, that is) but here are a couple links to some contenders:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/21/tech/main584997.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1885093.stm
--
Steve Hehr
To send me email, replace the "OUT" in my address with its opposite.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:41:27 GMT, Anubis <Ch...@Dork.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> >Lastly, what the heck is this photo:
> >
> >http://members.screenz.com/bennypostcards/Beethoven,%20Russia.jpg
> >
> >I am guessing it surely is a joke, as the oldest photo I had seen was
> >that of Brahms.
> >
> >Thanks for any help..
> >
> >CE
>
> As the URL implies the image is of a postcard, it is likely some
> "artist's concept" portraying Beethoven, based on contemporary
> accounts of his habit of walking in the countryside. Nothing wrong
> with that since, as another poster has mentioned, it's a fairly
> accurate portrayal.
>
> That it isn't a photo is clear, both for the reasons others have
> mentioned, and because the earliest photographs date from the
> mid-1820's, a year or two before Beethoven's death. His appearance on
That would be news to the historians of photography.
The Met Museum just had a show of early French Daguerrotypes (1839), and
Fox Talbot's experiments in England were not much earlier than that, if
earlier at all (he wasn't mentioned in the Met's signage).
> the postcard portrays him as he would have looked much earlier. Also,
> I believe early photos required time exposures that necessitated the
> subject remaining perfectly still for several seconds; an "action"
> shot such as of Beethoven walking would not have been possible it the
> early 19th century.
>
> There are photos of composers earlier than of Brahms -- I recall one
> of Hector Berlioz from the 1860's, and I'm sure there must be earlier
> photos of some others. There is a Dover book (possibly gone out of
> print recently but still available from other sources, e.g., Amazon)
> titled "Great Composers in Historic Photographs" which includes the
> likes of Liszt, Clara Schumann, Meyerbeer, Chopin, etc. (I have no
> connection with either Amazon or Dover except as a customer.)
>
> There may not be agreement on what is the earliest photograph (of
> anything, that is) but here are a couple links to some contenders:
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/21/tech/main584997.shtml
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1885093.stm
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Steve Hehr
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Steve Hehr wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:41:27 GMT, Anubis <Ch...@Dork.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> >
>> >Lastly, what the heck is this photo:
>> >
>> >http://members.screenz.com/bennypostcards/Beethoven,%20Russia.jpg
>> >
>> >I am guessing it surely is a joke, as the oldest photo I had seen was
>> >that of Brahms.
>> >
>> >Thanks for any help..
>> >
>> >CE
>>
>> As the URL implies the image is of a postcard, it is likely some
>> "artist's concept" portraying Beethoven, based on contemporary
>> accounts of his habit of walking in the countryside. Nothing wrong
>> with that since, as another poster has mentioned, it's a fairly
>> accurate portrayal.
>>
>> That it isn't a photo is clear, both for the reasons others have
>> mentioned, and because the earliest photographs date from the
>> mid-1820's, a year or two before Beethoven's death. His appearance on
>
>That would be news to the historians of photography.
>
>The Met Museum just had a show of early French Daguerrotypes (1839), and
>Fox Talbot's experiments in England were not much earlier than that, if
>earlier at all (he wasn't mentioned in the Met's signage).
>
Did you bother to look at the links I posted? I don't know if he
qualifies as a "historian of photography", but Roy Flukinger, senior
curator of photography at the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center
at the University of Texas at Austin (among many others) considers the
1826 image to be the first photograph, as you can read at the first
link.
Michael Haslam
Peter won't admit he's wrong, you know.
He's apparently very wrong about orange over on sci.lang.japan at the
moment.
MJHaslam
Peter T. Daniels
I don't click links. You might have mentioned an 1826 claim, which might
have been an incentive to click it.
Peter T. Daniels
If you're so intent on stalking me, you really ought to do it at the
newsgroup I post to.
Steve Hehr
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
OK -- should you (or anyone else) be interested in the subject, here's
a link to the full details of Joseph Nicephore Niepce's 1826
"heliograph", billed as the "World's First Photograph".
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/permanent/wfp/
Peter T. Daniels
Oh, _that's_ what you're talking about. The phrase "billed as" is
appropriate -- because it isn't, really. It didn't contribute to the
development of the science and art of photography, which Daguerre and
others took in a different direction a decade later.
Michael Haslam
Intent I'm not. An unknowntome third party emailed me to bring me up to
date. AFAIK cross-posts are posted to each group equally. There is no
perceivable hierarchy.
Glad you tacitly admit that you won't admit that you're wrong.
MJHaslam
Peter T. Daniels
You might want to go see what use Algross is making of your postings to
r.m.c.
Michael Haslam
I've taken photographs since about 1965 which have contributed *not at
all* to the development of the science and art of photography. Does that
mean they are not really photographs? Excuse my hollow laughter.
MJHaslam
Michael Haslam
From the only relevant post I could find:
************************************
Here are just a few of the informed judgments by many other
scholars about this idiot:
"Because if Peter Daniels doesn't have something to complain
about - why, he'll just go and make it up." (4-1 sl)
"Once again Peter Daniels proves that reading is not one of
his special skills." (2-22 rmc)
"While I'm sure that most people are aware that the default truth
value of any Peter Daniels post is "false," I feel that I should clarify
the incorrect statement he makes above so that no one is misled
by it." (3-16 rmc)
"The short answer is that Peter Daniels loves to post smears, backed
only by ridicule... As always, the best weapon against bigotry
is knowledge." (21-25 rmc)
"But what would you know about this? You're Peter Daniels,
and only you have the right to judge this, right?" (2-19 rmc)
"for `once again, Peter Daniels is too chicken to admit that he made a
mistake.' " (2-17 rmc)
"But I would be more interested if the phrase `I was wrong' is
in Peter Daniels's vocabulary." (1-25 rmc)
************************************
Of these unattributed quotes, I don't recognize any as being written by
me. OTOH they all could have been. They all have the ring of truth.
Why won't you ever admit you're wrong?
MJHaslam
Steve Hehr
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Now Mr. Daniels, I would like to think you aren't being deliberately
intransigent, but you aren't making the task easy.
The image is billed as a photograph because it *IS* a photograph. How
do I know that, you may ask?
The OED defines "photograph" as "a picture, likeness or facsimile
obtained by photography". "Photography" is, in turn, "the process or
art of producing pictures by means of the chemical action of light on
a sensitive film on a basis of paper, glass, metal, etc." [OED again]
Does Niepce's image qualify? According to the link above (again, did
you bother looking?) Niepce "set up a camera obscura, placed within it
a polished pewter plate coated with bitumen of Judea (an asphalt
derivative of petroleum)" and then exposed it and obtained the image.
That fits the definition of photograph.
Niepce did not call it a "photograph" as the word was not invented
till later (1839, again per OED) -- Niepce called it a "heliograph".
But simply because the word didn't exist does not mean photographs
themselves didn't exist, any more than the fact that the word
"uranium" didn't exist at that time means that uranium itself didn't
exist then.
As for how much Niepce "contributed to the development of the science
and art of photography" -- that is irrelevant to the question of
whether he produced a photograph. But as mentioned at the link
(*please* take a look!) he formed a partnership with Daguerre in 1829
"but produced little more work and died, his contributions chiefly
unrecognized, in 1833".
Incidentally, the Encyclopedia Brittanica also credits Niepce with
producing the first photo, and Daguerre with the first *practical*
method of photography.
Anubis
So many replies; and not one about Beethoven.
Is it too much to ask for everyone to stop pissing all over themselves
and just talk about music?
And is it really necessary to quote the entire bodies of all parts of
the thread before you append "You sir, are wrong" at the end?
And lastly, is there a different place perhapd I should go to receive
feedback and talk to people about music?
CE
Steve Hehr
Fair enough complaint -- though you did kind of open the door to a
dicussion with your original comment about an "oldest photograph".
But regarding Beethoven -- you asked about sources on his appearance.
Have you tried the book "Beethoven: Impressions by His Contemporaries"
(ed. Sonneck, pub. by Dover)? As the title suggests, it contains the
accounts of many people who met the composer, and is fascinating and
at times surprising, e.g., the English conductor Sir George Smart's
account of Beethoven (substantiated by Beethoven's associates) that
the 9th Symphony should take only 45 minutes to perform!
Anubis
Wow, thank you so much! I will look for this one.
Dr.Matt
but it isn't at all clear to me what its history is.
Peter T. Daniels
No, it means you didn't invent photography. But we already knew that.
Anubis
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>Intererstingly enough, there *is* an item called his "death-mask",
>but it isn't at all clear to me what its history is.
Look on ebay. he has a life and death mask. They are direct
impressions taken from his face; my favorite is was taken of him by
the Sculptor Klien in 1812. If you ever wanted to see the man; there
is your chance. Ebay: Beethoven Mask.
CE
Joyce Maier
news:s62100dukggdsg8hi...@4ax.com...
In case you're also interested in the man's skull:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ademu/Beethoven/Beet/0910ziek.htm#schedels
--
Joyce Maier
www.ademu.com/Beethoven - update December 16, 2003