Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
NYT: Selling a 300-Year-Old Cello
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Frank Forman
Jan 15, 2012, 9:23:42 PM1/15/12
to
Why is the make of the piano comparatively so neglected by reviewers?
Selling a 300-Year-Old Cello
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/magazine/bernard-greenhouse-cello.html
By DANIEL J. WAKIN
On a cold day last winter, an ailing Bernard Greenhouse, wearing an
elegant bathrobe and attached to oxygen, was wheeled into the living
room of his Cape Cod home, which was festooned with paper cutouts of
musical notes. Relatives and students, locals and caregivers had
gathered to celebrate the 95th birthday of one of classical music's
most respected cellists, a founding member of the famed Beaux Arts
Trio and a beloved teacher. Young cellists performed for him, and
then Greenhouse indulged in a martini and a plate of oysters. Thus
fortified, he decided he wanted to play for the company. He picked
up his cello and, though a bit wobbly, soulfully rendered "Song of
the Birds," a Catalan folk melody transcribed by Pablo Casals, with
whom he studied many years ago.
"And then he laid down the bow and praised the cello for its
beauty," Nicholas Delbanco, Greenhouse's son-in-law, recounted. "He
said it had been his lifelong companion and the darling of his
heart." Indeed, the instrument, known as the Countess of Stainlein,
ex-Paganini of 1707--perhaps the greatest surviving Stradivarius
cello--had been with Greenhouse for 54 years. It was his voice on
numerous recordings and a presence at up to 200 concerts a year.
Toward the end of his life, Greenhouse asked his nurses to lay the
instrument next to him in bed.
But in a twist of exquisite poignancy, Greenhouse was not actually
playing his precious cello that day on Cape Cod. It was an exact
replica that was made especially for him, a beautiful instrument but
not the Strad. As they listened to him talk of his love for the
cello, his daughter Elena Delbanco and her husband grieved that he
could not tell he was playing the substitute. "We knew that this was
the beginning of the end," Nicholas Delbanco said. Five months
later, Greenhouse died.
Despite saying that he wanted to sell his cello while he was still
alive so that a worthy young musician might benefit from it,
Greenhouse was unable to part with it. Now his family has entrusted
the sale of the Countess of Stainlein to the Boston violin dealer
Christopher Reuning, who this week will open sealed bids starting in
the millions of dollars.
Much attention in the music world is given to the sale of Strads and
other rare string instruments. The numbers are tallied up like
baseball records: $15.9 million for the 1721 Lady Blunt Stradivarius
violin this year; more than $10 million for the Kochanski Guarneri
del Gesu in 2009. Reuning expects that the Greenhouse cello will
match or exceed the previous record of $6 million for a cello.
Behind the dollar figures, though, is a story of possession and
loss, of performers giving up the instruments that have defined
their artistic and emotional selves.
"It was the pride of his life," Elena Delbanco, a lecturer at the
Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of
Michigan, said of her father's Strad. "It was his soul mate. Until
the day he died he could not bear to part with it.
"I would like him, were he around, to think that we did the right
thing and be happy where the cello went," she continued. "I would
like it to be loved as much by its next owner as it was by my
father."
The master makers of bowed instruments flourished in northern Italy
from about 1550 to 1750, when supreme craftsmanship, superior woods
and varnish, enduring models and a highly developed apprentice
system centered on a few families. The best-known were located in
Cremona and included Amati, Guarneri and Bergonzi. But the greatest
acclaim has belonged to Antonio Stradivari, or Stradivarius, as he
was also known. Only about 600 instruments attributed to him are
still in existence, including 20 of his prime cellos--made after
1707 in a slightly smaller size, called Forma B, and more adapted to
solo playing. The Countess of Stainlein is the earliest known Forma
B.
While researchers have suggested that it can be difficult to tell
the difference in sound between old and new instruments, dealers
certainly benefit from the mystique that keeps prices high. And
musicians themselves talk of the old violins and cellos as
repositories of secrets to be slowly discovered, sources of
limitless color and nuance. Here is Greenhouse describing his
instrument's sound, as recounted in "The Countess of Stanlein
Restored: A History of the Countess of Stanlein ex-Paganini
Stradivarius Cello of 1707," a book by Nicholas Delbanco that uses
an alternate spelling of the cello's name: "The quality of sound is
something that one wears, that adorns an individual as though it
were a beautiful piece of apparel. The ear can be deceiving
sometimes; sometimes I'll pick up one of the lovely modern celli in
the morning and be very happy with it, but in the afternoon I'll ask
what could possibly have pleased me." Sound is not fixed, Greenhouse
said, "but with my Strad there was never a time when I've been
disappointed." Greenhouse was a player of refinement and
introspection. In a Beaux Arts recording of Schubert's Trio in E
flat, the elegiac opening measures of the Andante con Moto movement
convey everything beautiful about his playing. The vibrato is light
and warm; the notes taper elegantly. The drop in the 15th measure to
a low G sounds like a cat jumping onto a carpet.
Beyond their sound, though, the old instruments encapsulate history,
passing through the hands of the world's great performers. The
history of the Greenhouse cello has been traced to 1816 and Vincenzo
Merighi, the son of a violin maker who played in La Scala's
orchestra, becoming its principal cellist in 1823. Merighi later
played quartets with Paganini, who bought the cello for his
collection. The collection was consigned by his son, Achille
Paganini, to a Paris luthier named Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume in 1846.
Count Louis Charles Georges Corneille de Stainlein-Saalenstein, an
amateur musician and a host of musicales, appears to have acquired
the cello in 1854, and it then passed to the Countess of Stainlein.
After her death in 1908, Paul Grummer, a future cellist in the famed
Busch Quartet, took possession. A collector in Aachen, Dr. George
Talbot, bought the violin from Grummer in 1938. Nineteen years
later, Greenhouse heard about the instrument and tracked it down. "I
opened the cello case and fell immediately in love," he says in
Delbanco's book. "The color of the varnish, the shape of the
instrument, it was so beautiful, so very beautiful, and it seemed to
me a great jewel." He paid what his daughter Elena described as a
fortune for the time, although a tiny fraction of what it's worth
today.
Through the optic of history, those in possession of these
instruments are caretakers, not owners. For their players, the
transfer to the next caretaker symbolizes the end of performing, the
termination of an artistic prime, the memories of which reside in
long-used instruments. "The violin is not only a friend," said Aaron
Rosand, 84, once a prominent soloist in the tradition of the great
Romantics like Oistrakh, Milstein and Heifetz. "It's something that
you live with. Every day it becomes more dear to you. It's almost
like a living thing. You treat it carefully; you treat it gently. It
talks to you," he said. "You're caressing your instrument all the
time. Parting with an instrument that has become such a wonderful
friend is just like losing a member of your family."
In 2007, Rosand announced that he planned to sell his Guarneri del
Gesu, the Kochanski, and donate $1.5 million of the proceeds to the
Curtis Institute of Music, where he studied and continues to teach.
He recently had back surgery and could no longer stand long enough
to perform. "It didn't make any sense to tie it up," he said. Over
the next couple of years, Rosand received offers, including some
from noted players who came to try it out. "I could hardly bear to
hear it played by someone else," he said. But their offers were not
large enough. "I wasn't going to part with it just for admiration
for someone's fiddle playing. Once I decided to sell it, I wanted to
get the price for it."
Then he received a visit from a man he described as a Russian
oligarch. Working through the dealer Peter Biddulph, Rosand flew to
London with the Kochanski and checked into a suite at the Langham
Hotel one day in October 2009. He resisted any urge to play it one
last time. "I didn't have the heart to," he said. The next day,
Biddulph and the Russian arrived at the suite. The mood was somber
as the dealer examined the violin. They spent three or four hours in
the suite, waiting for e-mail confirmation from Rosand's bank that
the money had gone through. They ordered tea and filled the time
with small talk about the violin's travels and Rosand's concert tour
in the old Soviet Union. When the e-mail arrived, the Russians left,
and Biddulph took the instrument to his vault. The price, according
to Rosand, was $10.1 million.
"It's hard to completely express what it meant to me," Rosand told
me last month when I spoke with him about letting his instrument go.
"The agony, the tears I shed on just thinking about the parting." He
made good on his pledge to Curtis, paid $2 million in taxes and is
using some of the rest to help with his grandchildren's educations
and to give to charity. He said he talked to the buyer about having
other violinists use the instrument, but he received no assurances
and does not know if it remains in a vault or under a violinist's
chin.
Some musicians have taken other routes. Several years before his
death, Isaac Stern sold his famed Ysäye Guarneri del Gesu to the
Nippon Music Foundation, which allowed him to use it until the end
of his life. The foundation buys valuable instruments and lends them
out to top players. "It gave him some security at the end of his
life, and it got him to continue to play on the violin," said his
son, the conductor Michael Stern.
The conductor Lorin Maazel, who was also a violin virtuoso in his
younger days, auctioned off his 1783 Guadagnini to an anonymous
bidder for $1.08 million and poured the money into his Castleton
Festival for young musicians. "It made my life complete as a
musician," he said of his fiddle. "But a magnificent violin needs to
be played and kept alive. I always knew I would have to part from
it." The family of Gregor Piatigorsky lent his 1714 Strad cello, the
Batta-Piatigorsky, to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where it is on
display in the musical-instruments collection. The loan agreement
allows for it to be played on approval by the family. Museum
officials said there had been only one request, and it was turned
down.
Raphael Hillyer, the founding violist of the Juilliard String
Quartet, was in his 90s and repeatedly spoke of his plans to sell
his viola, a late-16th-century Gasparo da Salò. Twice, Hillyer
summoned Christopher Reuning to his home in order to hand over the
instrument. The last time was in November 2010. Reuning went to
Hillyer's apartment in downtown Boston. The violist was seated at
the dining-room table. He held his instrument up and offered it to
the dealer to hold. Documents were spread out on the dining table.
Hillyer asked Reuning a series of questions: What would it sell for?
What is the commission? How long would it take? They talked for more
than an hour, with Hillyer returning again and again to the same
questions.
"He sat there clutching it in his hands," Reuning recalled. "I
realized he was not ready to give it up. I told him, Why don't you
keep your viola and we'll talk again sometime?" They made another
appointment for just after Christmas, but Hillyer died on Dec. 27,
at age 96.
"It's inconceivable that my father ever would have let it go,"
Jonathan Hillyer told me. "I think his life would have ended
immediately if he did such a thing. It's part of what kept him
alive. He played it every day, even when it got to be so painful to
pick it up. It was his life force. If he had sold it, it would have
been like he was giving up."
One day last month I met with the cellist Laurence Lesser in a
barren practice room at the offices of the Lincoln Center Chamber
Music Society. Lesser, 73, is a prominent teacher, performer and
former president of the New England Conservatory of Music, and owns
a 1622 Amati cello.
We talked at length about Greenhouse, whom Lesser described as a
friend, and about the nature of musician-instrument relationships. I
asked him to describe the sound of his Amati, and Lesser looked at
me and said, correctly, "You want to hear it, right?"
He carefully removed the 400-year-old instrument from its case and
pulled off a burgundy silk bag. Then he began to play, producing the
extraordinarily mellow sound, singing but complicated, that
musicians say is typical of the great instruments.
"I don't know how long I'm going to be playing," he said after he
was done. "I may have huge medical expenses, I may need the money it
will bring. How can I predict that? I don't know how I'm going to
die or when, or what's going to happen in the family."
He had no intention of selling, he said, but if he did, it would be
like selling his old house. Once out, you move on. "I'm not
sentimental about these things," he said. "It's almost a person, but
I still value people more than things." But as Lesser talked more
about his Amati, the complicated nature of his attachment to it
became more apparent.
"We respond to these old instruments because they feed us, they
inspire us," he said. "Life has so many possibilities and such
endless richness that unless you just shut down, you're always going
to learn from the environment. For us string players, our
instruments are our environment. It keeps stretching us, it keeps
demanding of us, it keeps us aspiring to grow. And it's the same old
wooden box. I know I love playing on this cello, and I love it now
more than I ever did."
In early December, I visited Reuning's shop on the fourth floor of a
generic office building in Boston's Back Bay. Inside, though, is the
re-creation of an Old World luthier's shop. Violins and violas hang
like bats in a glass-and-dark-wood cabinet. Stringed instruments in
various stages of undress lie on work tables in the restoration
room. The Paganini, Countess of Stainlein cello didn't fit in the
shop's safe, so it sat in a corner in its scuffed black case.
Reuning took it out of its case and brushed his fingers over its
glowing, almost iridescent back. "This varnish is absolutely
glorious," he said. He pointed out the Forma B's extra-high ribs,
which make the cello thicker and create greater volume and
resonance. The back is made of an expanse of maple, with its
"flames," or rows of tiger stripes, so beautiful that other violin
makers would recreate them with varnish on cheaper models made with
poplar or willow.
Heirs entrusted with the sale of such instruments stand to make a
significant amount of money, but they're also left with an enormous
responsibility. "I began to worry about what was going to happen to
it," Elena Delbanco told me. "Really worry, that somehow it would
come to harm or I would make bad decisions about how to sell it, or
it would end up somewhere where it wouldn't be played again."
So Reuning--who will receive a commission--devised an unusual
sale in which the Delbancos would have an opportunity to review the
sealed bids, giving them a chance to accept a lower offer if they
felt it better honored the cello. That is, if they believed a lower
bidder, like an investing consortium that lends out instruments,
might mean it was more likely to be played.
"What we're hoping for is a bid that also makes emotional sense,"
Elena Delbanco said, "so that we feel really happy that some
wonderful young talent is going to play it."
I asked her what she would do if confronted with a $7 million bid
that meant the Strad would stay in the case and a $5 million bid
that ensured it would be played. The extra money, she acknowledged,
could be put to philanthropic uses--buying instruments for needy
children, for example. "It would be amazing to do good," she said.
"But you can't do good at the expense of the cello's future." At the
same time, they don't want the Strad buried in a museum or in an
oligarch's vault. "That would make us sad," she said, "but we
understand we may not have control over that." Ultimately, she
acknowledged, they would have to accept that the cello now had a
caretaker other than her father or his family. "Once it's out of our
hands," she said, "what can we do?"
Daniel J. Wakin writes about classical music and dance for The
Times.
Correction: January 13, 2012
An earlier version of the headline with this article misstated the
age of the cello. It is 300 years old, not 400.
Selling a 300-Year-Old Cello
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/magazine/bernard-greenhouse-cello.html
By DANIEL J. WAKIN
On a cold day last winter, an ailing Bernard Greenhouse, wearing an
elegant bathrobe and attached to oxygen, was wheeled into the living
room of his Cape Cod home, which was festooned with paper cutouts of
musical notes. Relatives and students, locals and caregivers had
gathered to celebrate the 95th birthday of one of classical music's
most respected cellists, a founding member of the famed Beaux Arts
Trio and a beloved teacher. Young cellists performed for him, and
then Greenhouse indulged in a martini and a plate of oysters. Thus
fortified, he decided he wanted to play for the company. He picked
up his cello and, though a bit wobbly, soulfully rendered "Song of
the Birds," a Catalan folk melody transcribed by Pablo Casals, with
whom he studied many years ago.
"And then he laid down the bow and praised the cello for its
beauty," Nicholas Delbanco, Greenhouse's son-in-law, recounted. "He
said it had been his lifelong companion and the darling of his
heart." Indeed, the instrument, known as the Countess of Stainlein,
ex-Paganini of 1707--perhaps the greatest surviving Stradivarius
cello--had been with Greenhouse for 54 years. It was his voice on
numerous recordings and a presence at up to 200 concerts a year.
Toward the end of his life, Greenhouse asked his nurses to lay the
instrument next to him in bed.
But in a twist of exquisite poignancy, Greenhouse was not actually
playing his precious cello that day on Cape Cod. It was an exact
replica that was made especially for him, a beautiful instrument but
not the Strad. As they listened to him talk of his love for the
cello, his daughter Elena Delbanco and her husband grieved that he
could not tell he was playing the substitute. "We knew that this was
the beginning of the end," Nicholas Delbanco said. Five months
later, Greenhouse died.
Despite saying that he wanted to sell his cello while he was still
alive so that a worthy young musician might benefit from it,
Greenhouse was unable to part with it. Now his family has entrusted
the sale of the Countess of Stainlein to the Boston violin dealer
Christopher Reuning, who this week will open sealed bids starting in
the millions of dollars.
Much attention in the music world is given to the sale of Strads and
other rare string instruments. The numbers are tallied up like
baseball records: $15.9 million for the 1721 Lady Blunt Stradivarius
violin this year; more than $10 million for the Kochanski Guarneri
del Gesu in 2009. Reuning expects that the Greenhouse cello will
match or exceed the previous record of $6 million for a cello.
Behind the dollar figures, though, is a story of possession and
loss, of performers giving up the instruments that have defined
their artistic and emotional selves.
"It was the pride of his life," Elena Delbanco, a lecturer at the
Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of
Michigan, said of her father's Strad. "It was his soul mate. Until
the day he died he could not bear to part with it.
"I would like him, were he around, to think that we did the right
thing and be happy where the cello went," she continued. "I would
like it to be loved as much by its next owner as it was by my
father."
The master makers of bowed instruments flourished in northern Italy
from about 1550 to 1750, when supreme craftsmanship, superior woods
and varnish, enduring models and a highly developed apprentice
system centered on a few families. The best-known were located in
Cremona and included Amati, Guarneri and Bergonzi. But the greatest
acclaim has belonged to Antonio Stradivari, or Stradivarius, as he
was also known. Only about 600 instruments attributed to him are
still in existence, including 20 of his prime cellos--made after
1707 in a slightly smaller size, called Forma B, and more adapted to
solo playing. The Countess of Stainlein is the earliest known Forma
B.
While researchers have suggested that it can be difficult to tell
the difference in sound between old and new instruments, dealers
certainly benefit from the mystique that keeps prices high. And
musicians themselves talk of the old violins and cellos as
repositories of secrets to be slowly discovered, sources of
limitless color and nuance. Here is Greenhouse describing his
instrument's sound, as recounted in "The Countess of Stanlein
Restored: A History of the Countess of Stanlein ex-Paganini
Stradivarius Cello of 1707," a book by Nicholas Delbanco that uses
an alternate spelling of the cello's name: "The quality of sound is
something that one wears, that adorns an individual as though it
were a beautiful piece of apparel. The ear can be deceiving
sometimes; sometimes I'll pick up one of the lovely modern celli in
the morning and be very happy with it, but in the afternoon I'll ask
what could possibly have pleased me." Sound is not fixed, Greenhouse
said, "but with my Strad there was never a time when I've been
disappointed." Greenhouse was a player of refinement and
introspection. In a Beaux Arts recording of Schubert's Trio in E
flat, the elegiac opening measures of the Andante con Moto movement
convey everything beautiful about his playing. The vibrato is light
and warm; the notes taper elegantly. The drop in the 15th measure to
a low G sounds like a cat jumping onto a carpet.
Beyond their sound, though, the old instruments encapsulate history,
passing through the hands of the world's great performers. The
history of the Greenhouse cello has been traced to 1816 and Vincenzo
Merighi, the son of a violin maker who played in La Scala's
orchestra, becoming its principal cellist in 1823. Merighi later
played quartets with Paganini, who bought the cello for his
collection. The collection was consigned by his son, Achille
Paganini, to a Paris luthier named Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume in 1846.
Count Louis Charles Georges Corneille de Stainlein-Saalenstein, an
amateur musician and a host of musicales, appears to have acquired
the cello in 1854, and it then passed to the Countess of Stainlein.
After her death in 1908, Paul Grummer, a future cellist in the famed
Busch Quartet, took possession. A collector in Aachen, Dr. George
Talbot, bought the violin from Grummer in 1938. Nineteen years
later, Greenhouse heard about the instrument and tracked it down. "I
opened the cello case and fell immediately in love," he says in
Delbanco's book. "The color of the varnish, the shape of the
instrument, it was so beautiful, so very beautiful, and it seemed to
me a great jewel." He paid what his daughter Elena described as a
fortune for the time, although a tiny fraction of what it's worth
today.
Through the optic of history, those in possession of these
instruments are caretakers, not owners. For their players, the
transfer to the next caretaker symbolizes the end of performing, the
termination of an artistic prime, the memories of which reside in
long-used instruments. "The violin is not only a friend," said Aaron
Rosand, 84, once a prominent soloist in the tradition of the great
Romantics like Oistrakh, Milstein and Heifetz. "It's something that
you live with. Every day it becomes more dear to you. It's almost
like a living thing. You treat it carefully; you treat it gently. It
talks to you," he said. "You're caressing your instrument all the
time. Parting with an instrument that has become such a wonderful
friend is just like losing a member of your family."
In 2007, Rosand announced that he planned to sell his Guarneri del
Gesu, the Kochanski, and donate $1.5 million of the proceeds to the
Curtis Institute of Music, where he studied and continues to teach.
He recently had back surgery and could no longer stand long enough
to perform. "It didn't make any sense to tie it up," he said. Over
the next couple of years, Rosand received offers, including some
from noted players who came to try it out. "I could hardly bear to
hear it played by someone else," he said. But their offers were not
large enough. "I wasn't going to part with it just for admiration
for someone's fiddle playing. Once I decided to sell it, I wanted to
get the price for it."
Then he received a visit from a man he described as a Russian
oligarch. Working through the dealer Peter Biddulph, Rosand flew to
London with the Kochanski and checked into a suite at the Langham
Hotel one day in October 2009. He resisted any urge to play it one
last time. "I didn't have the heart to," he said. The next day,
Biddulph and the Russian arrived at the suite. The mood was somber
as the dealer examined the violin. They spent three or four hours in
the suite, waiting for e-mail confirmation from Rosand's bank that
the money had gone through. They ordered tea and filled the time
with small talk about the violin's travels and Rosand's concert tour
in the old Soviet Union. When the e-mail arrived, the Russians left,
and Biddulph took the instrument to his vault. The price, according
to Rosand, was $10.1 million.
"It's hard to completely express what it meant to me," Rosand told
me last month when I spoke with him about letting his instrument go.
"The agony, the tears I shed on just thinking about the parting." He
made good on his pledge to Curtis, paid $2 million in taxes and is
using some of the rest to help with his grandchildren's educations
and to give to charity. He said he talked to the buyer about having
other violinists use the instrument, but he received no assurances
and does not know if it remains in a vault or under a violinist's
chin.
Some musicians have taken other routes. Several years before his
death, Isaac Stern sold his famed Ysäye Guarneri del Gesu to the
Nippon Music Foundation, which allowed him to use it until the end
of his life. The foundation buys valuable instruments and lends them
out to top players. "It gave him some security at the end of his
life, and it got him to continue to play on the violin," said his
son, the conductor Michael Stern.
The conductor Lorin Maazel, who was also a violin virtuoso in his
younger days, auctioned off his 1783 Guadagnini to an anonymous
bidder for $1.08 million and poured the money into his Castleton
Festival for young musicians. "It made my life complete as a
musician," he said of his fiddle. "But a magnificent violin needs to
be played and kept alive. I always knew I would have to part from
it." The family of Gregor Piatigorsky lent his 1714 Strad cello, the
Batta-Piatigorsky, to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where it is on
display in the musical-instruments collection. The loan agreement
allows for it to be played on approval by the family. Museum
officials said there had been only one request, and it was turned
down.
Raphael Hillyer, the founding violist of the Juilliard String
Quartet, was in his 90s and repeatedly spoke of his plans to sell
his viola, a late-16th-century Gasparo da Salò. Twice, Hillyer
summoned Christopher Reuning to his home in order to hand over the
instrument. The last time was in November 2010. Reuning went to
Hillyer's apartment in downtown Boston. The violist was seated at
the dining-room table. He held his instrument up and offered it to
the dealer to hold. Documents were spread out on the dining table.
Hillyer asked Reuning a series of questions: What would it sell for?
What is the commission? How long would it take? They talked for more
than an hour, with Hillyer returning again and again to the same
questions.
"He sat there clutching it in his hands," Reuning recalled. "I
realized he was not ready to give it up. I told him, Why don't you
keep your viola and we'll talk again sometime?" They made another
appointment for just after Christmas, but Hillyer died on Dec. 27,
at age 96.
"It's inconceivable that my father ever would have let it go,"
Jonathan Hillyer told me. "I think his life would have ended
immediately if he did such a thing. It's part of what kept him
alive. He played it every day, even when it got to be so painful to
pick it up. It was his life force. If he had sold it, it would have
been like he was giving up."
One day last month I met with the cellist Laurence Lesser in a
barren practice room at the offices of the Lincoln Center Chamber
Music Society. Lesser, 73, is a prominent teacher, performer and
former president of the New England Conservatory of Music, and owns
a 1622 Amati cello.
We talked at length about Greenhouse, whom Lesser described as a
friend, and about the nature of musician-instrument relationships. I
asked him to describe the sound of his Amati, and Lesser looked at
me and said, correctly, "You want to hear it, right?"
He carefully removed the 400-year-old instrument from its case and
pulled off a burgundy silk bag. Then he began to play, producing the
extraordinarily mellow sound, singing but complicated, that
musicians say is typical of the great instruments.
"I don't know how long I'm going to be playing," he said after he
was done. "I may have huge medical expenses, I may need the money it
will bring. How can I predict that? I don't know how I'm going to
die or when, or what's going to happen in the family."
He had no intention of selling, he said, but if he did, it would be
like selling his old house. Once out, you move on. "I'm not
sentimental about these things," he said. "It's almost a person, but
I still value people more than things." But as Lesser talked more
about his Amati, the complicated nature of his attachment to it
became more apparent.
"We respond to these old instruments because they feed us, they
inspire us," he said. "Life has so many possibilities and such
endless richness that unless you just shut down, you're always going
to learn from the environment. For us string players, our
instruments are our environment. It keeps stretching us, it keeps
demanding of us, it keeps us aspiring to grow. And it's the same old
wooden box. I know I love playing on this cello, and I love it now
more than I ever did."
In early December, I visited Reuning's shop on the fourth floor of a
generic office building in Boston's Back Bay. Inside, though, is the
re-creation of an Old World luthier's shop. Violins and violas hang
like bats in a glass-and-dark-wood cabinet. Stringed instruments in
various stages of undress lie on work tables in the restoration
room. The Paganini, Countess of Stainlein cello didn't fit in the
shop's safe, so it sat in a corner in its scuffed black case.
Reuning took it out of its case and brushed his fingers over its
glowing, almost iridescent back. "This varnish is absolutely
glorious," he said. He pointed out the Forma B's extra-high ribs,
which make the cello thicker and create greater volume and
resonance. The back is made of an expanse of maple, with its
"flames," or rows of tiger stripes, so beautiful that other violin
makers would recreate them with varnish on cheaper models made with
poplar or willow.
Heirs entrusted with the sale of such instruments stand to make a
significant amount of money, but they're also left with an enormous
responsibility. "I began to worry about what was going to happen to
it," Elena Delbanco told me. "Really worry, that somehow it would
come to harm or I would make bad decisions about how to sell it, or
it would end up somewhere where it wouldn't be played again."
So Reuning--who will receive a commission--devised an unusual
sale in which the Delbancos would have an opportunity to review the
sealed bids, giving them a chance to accept a lower offer if they
felt it better honored the cello. That is, if they believed a lower
bidder, like an investing consortium that lends out instruments,
might mean it was more likely to be played.
"What we're hoping for is a bid that also makes emotional sense,"
Elena Delbanco said, "so that we feel really happy that some
wonderful young talent is going to play it."
I asked her what she would do if confronted with a $7 million bid
that meant the Strad would stay in the case and a $5 million bid
that ensured it would be played. The extra money, she acknowledged,
could be put to philanthropic uses--buying instruments for needy
children, for example. "It would be amazing to do good," she said.
"But you can't do good at the expense of the cello's future." At the
same time, they don't want the Strad buried in a museum or in an
oligarch's vault. "That would make us sad," she said, "but we
understand we may not have control over that." Ultimately, she
acknowledged, they would have to accept that the cello now had a
caretaker other than her father or his family. "Once it's out of our
hands," she said, "what can we do?"
Daniel J. Wakin writes about classical music and dance for The
Times.
Correction: January 13, 2012
An earlier version of the headline with this article misstated the
age of the cello. It is 300 years old, not 400.
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 15, 2012, 11:01:45 PM1/15/12
to
On Jan 15, 9:23 pm, Frank Forman <chec...@panix.com> wrote:
> Why is the make of the piano comparatively so neglected by reviewers?
Because Greenhouse didn't play the piano?
> Why is the make of the piano comparatively so neglected by reviewers?
Because the number of pianists who can dictate to the venue what make
of piano to provide is probably very limited?
Read about Liszt's early tour of the British Isles in Walker's
biography (vol. 1).
M forever
Jan 16, 2012, 1:27:59 AM1/16/12
to
On Jan 15, 11:01 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 9:23 pm, Frank Forman <chec...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Why is the make of the piano comparatively so neglected by reviewers?
>
> Because Greenhouse didn't play the piano?
>
> Because the number of pianists who can dictate to the venue what make
> of piano to provide is probably very limited?
Most big concert halls have several brands of pianos that the pianist
> On Jan 15, 9:23 pm, Frank Forman <chec...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Why is the make of the piano comparatively so neglected by reviewers?
>
> Because Greenhouse didn't play the piano?
>
> Because the number of pianists who can dictate to the venue what make
> of piano to provide is probably very limited?
can choose from.
> Read about Liszt's early tour of the British Isles in Walker's
> biography (vol. 1).
then.
herman
Jan 16, 2012, 3:04:31 AM1/16/12
to
Congratulations for yet again posting a NYT article that had already
been linked by someone else, and asking your (cliche) question not in
the running topic, but wanting to have the topic for yourself.
You probably don't even read the topics you start yourself.
been linked by someone else, and asking your (cliche) question not in
the running topic, but wanting to have the topic for yourself.
You probably don't even read the topics you start yourself.
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 16, 2012, 9:51:31 AM1/16/12
to
On Jan 16, 1:27 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 11:01 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 15, 9:23 pm, Frank Forman <chec...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why is the make of the piano comparatively so neglected by reviewers?
>
> > Because Greenhouse didn't play the piano?
>
> > Because the number of pianists who can dictate to the venue what make
> > of piano to provide is probably very limited?
>
> Most big concert halls have several brands of pianos that the pianist
> can choose from.
Most piano recitals are not given in "big concert halls."
> On Jan 15, 11:01 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 15, 9:23 pm, Frank Forman <chec...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why is the make of the piano comparatively so neglected by reviewers?
>
> > Because Greenhouse didn't play the piano?
>
> > Because the number of pianists who can dictate to the venue what make
> > of piano to provide is probably very limited?
>
> Most big concert halls have several brands of pianos that the pianist
> can choose from.
> > Read about Liszt's early tour of the British Isles in Walker's
> > biography (vol. 1).
>
> Liszt lived in the 19th century. Many things were quite different back
> then.
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 16, 2012, 9:51:58 AM1/16/12
to
Kip Williams
Jan 16, 2012, 11:12:35 AM1/16/12
to
somewhat popular, and he played on some bad pianos.
Kip W
rmcr
John Wiser
Jan 16, 2012, 12:29:32 PM1/16/12
to
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jan 16, 3:04 am, herman fumed:
JDW
On Jan 16, 3:04 am, herman fumed:
>> Congratulations for yet again posting a NYT article that had already
>> been linked by someone else, and asking your (cliche) question not in
>> the running topic, but wanting to have the topic for yourself.
>
>> You probably don't even read the topics you start yourself.
> You're just noticing that?
The Hermster is behind the curve on a lotta stuff.
>> been linked by someone else, and asking your (cliche) question not in
>> the running topic, but wanting to have the topic for yourself.
>
>> You probably don't even read the topics you start yourself.
> You're just noticing that?
JDW
M forever
Jan 16, 2012, 12:42:57 PM1/16/12
to
On Jan 16, 9:51 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 1:27 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 15, 11:01 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 15, 9:23 pm, Frank Forman <chec...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Why is the make of the piano comparatively so neglected by reviewers?
>
> > > Because Greenhouse didn't play the piano?
>
> > > Because the number of pianists who can dictate to the venue what make
> > > of piano to provide is probably very limited?
>
> > Most big concert halls have several brands of pianos that the pianist
> > can choose from.
>
> Most piano recitals are not given in "big concert halls."
Some of them are, and you didn't say "pianists who only plat recitals
> On Jan 16, 1:27 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 15, 11:01 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 15, 9:23 pm, Frank Forman <chec...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Why is the make of the piano comparatively so neglected by reviewers?
>
> > > Because Greenhouse didn't play the piano?
>
> > > Because the number of pianists who can dictate to the venue what make
> > > of piano to provide is probably very limited?
>
> > Most big concert halls have several brands of pianos that the pianist
> > can choose from.
>
> Most piano recitals are not given in "big concert halls."
in small halls and who never appear in recitals or with orchestras in
large halls".
BTW, many of the small halls in which recitals are given also have
several pianos to choose from.
So to say that the number of pianists who can "dictate" what make of
piano they play on is far less "limited" than you think.
> > > Read about Liszt's early tour of the British Isles in Walker's
> > > biography (vol. 1).
>
> > Liszt lived in the 19th century. Many things were quite different back
> > then.
>
> And many things have not changed.
don't know much about the realities of concert life. No big deal,
although I do realize that your tiny ego will not allow you to admit
that.
Polluter Politika
Jan 16, 2012, 12:51:18 PM1/16/12
to
On Jan 15, 11:01 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
Gerard
Jan 16, 2012, 1:08:48 PM1/16/12
to
M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> typed:
>
> You don't know
...
> You didn't know
...
> You don't know much
...
> You don't know
...
> You didn't know
>
> You don't know
...
> You didn't know
...
> You just didn't know it
...
> You don't know much
...
> You don't know
...
> You didn't know
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 16, 2012, 3:34:53 PM1/16/12
to
On Jan 16, 12:42 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 9:51 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 1:27 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 15, 11:01 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 15, 9:23 pm, Frank Forman <chec...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Why is the make of the piano comparatively so neglected by reviewers?
>
> > > > Because Greenhouse didn't play the piano?
>
> > > > Because the number of pianists who can dictate to the venue what make
> > > > of piano to provide is probably very limited?
>
> > > Most big concert halls have several brands of pianos that the pianist
> > > can choose from.
>
> > Most piano recitals are not given in "big concert halls."
>
> Some of them are, and you didn't say "pianists who only plat recitals
> in small halls and who never appear in recitals or with orchestras in
> large halls".
That would be because I was contributing to a normal conversation in
> On Jan 16, 9:51 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 1:27 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 15, 11:01 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 15, 9:23 pm, Frank Forman <chec...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Why is the make of the piano comparatively so neglected by reviewers?
>
> > > > Because Greenhouse didn't play the piano?
>
> > > > Because the number of pianists who can dictate to the venue what make
> > > > of piano to provide is probably very limited?
>
> > > Most big concert halls have several brands of pianos that the pianist
> > > can choose from.
>
> > Most piano recitals are not given in "big concert halls."
>
> Some of them are, and you didn't say "pianists who only plat recitals
> in small halls and who never appear in recitals or with orchestras in
> large halls".
which the ordinary principles of conversational interaction ought to
apply.
> BTW, many of the small halls in which recitals are given also have
> several pianos to choose from.
continent.
> So to say that the number of pianists who can "dictate" what make of
> piano they play on is far less "limited" than you think.
>
> > > > Read about Liszt's early tour of the British Isles in Walker's
> > > > biography (vol. 1).
>
> > > Liszt lived in the 19th century. Many things were quite different back
> > > then.
>
> > And many things have not changed.
>
> That particular thing has though. You just didn't know it because you
> don't know much about the realities of concert life. No big deal,
> although I do realize that your tiny ego will not allow you to admit
So what prompts your interventions? Your enormous ego?
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 16, 2012, 3:36:34 PM1/16/12
to
On Jan 16, 12:29 pm, "John Wiser" <ceec...@gmail.com> wrote:
OT: Did you overlook the posting yesterday in rmc from someone looking
for an on-line seller of used and OP scores?
for an on-line seller of used and OP scores?
John Wiser
Jan 16, 2012, 3:46:08 PM1/16/12
to
> OT: Did you overlook the posting yesterday in rmc from someone
> looking for an on-line seller of used and OP scores?
Yes, I did overlook it, Thanks for the tip.
> looking for an on-line seller of used and OP scores?
JDW
M forever
Jan 16, 2012, 3:57:22 PM1/16/12
to
On Jan 16, 3:34 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 12:42 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 9:51 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 16, 1:27 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 15, 11:01 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 15, 9:23 pm, Frank Forman <chec...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Why is the make of the piano comparatively so neglected by reviewers?
>
> > > > > Because Greenhouse didn't play the piano?
>
> > > > > Because the number of pianists who can dictate to the venue what make
> > > > > of piano to provide is probably very limited?
>
> > > > Most big concert halls have several brands of pianos that the pianist
> > > > can choose from.
>
> > > Most piano recitals are not given in "big concert halls."
>
> > Some of them are, and you didn't say "pianists who only plat recitals
> > in small halls and who never appear in recitals or with orchestras in
> > large halls".
>
> That would be because I was contributing to a normal conversation in
> which the ordinary principles of conversational interaction ought to
> apply.
Exactly. Pianists play solo recitals, chamber music, sometimes lieder
> On Jan 16, 12:42 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 9:51 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 16, 1:27 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 15, 11:01 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 15, 9:23 pm, Frank Forman <chec...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Why is the make of the piano comparatively so neglected by reviewers?
>
> > > > > Because Greenhouse didn't play the piano?
>
> > > > > Because the number of pianists who can dictate to the venue what make
> > > > > of piano to provide is probably very limited?
>
> > > > Most big concert halls have several brands of pianos that the pianist
> > > > can choose from.
>
> > > Most piano recitals are not given in "big concert halls."
>
> > Some of them are, and you didn't say "pianists who only plat recitals
> > in small halls and who never appear in recitals or with orchestras in
> > large halls".
>
> That would be because I was contributing to a normal conversation in
> which the ordinary principles of conversational interaction ought to
> apply.
recitals, and with orchestras. Sometimes in big halls, sometimes in
small halls. You were talking about the situation in general, not
about a specific situation, and I replied about the situation in
general.
> > BTW, many of the small halls in which recitals are given also have
> > several pianos to choose from.
>
> Maybe in your very tiny corner of a small country on a small
> continent.
the corner of the country, it is neither a small country nor a small
continent. Most continents are pretty big, BTW. Which one would you
call small?
And yes, they have several pianos to choose from here at the concert
halls, too.
> > So to say that the number of pianists who can "dictate" what make of
> > piano they play on is far less "limited" than you think.
>
> > > > > Read about Liszt's early tour of the British Isles in Walker's
> > > > > biography (vol. 1).
>
> > > > Liszt lived in the 19th century. Many things were quite different back
> > > > then.
>
> > > And many things have not changed.
>
> > That particular thing has though. You just didn't know it because you
> > don't know much about the realities of concert life. No big deal,
> > although I do realize that your tiny ego will not allow you to admit
> > that.-
>
> So what prompts your interventions? Your enormous ego?
most pianists don't get to choose what kind of piano they can play in
most concert halls. That is incorrect.
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 16, 2012, 11:32:50 PM1/16/12
to
fight with me.
> is Boston, and while that is (more or less) near
> the corner of the country, it is neither a small country nor a small
> continent. Most continents are pretty big, BTW. Which one would you
> call small?
>
> And yes, they have several pianos to choose from here at the concert
> halls, too.
>
> > > So to say that the number of pianists who can "dictate" what make of
> > > piano they play on is far less "limited" than you think.
>
> > > > > > Read about Liszt's early tour of the British Isles in Walker's
> > > > > > biography (vol. 1).
>
> > > > > Liszt lived in the 19th century. Many things were quite different back
> > > > > then.
>
> > > > And many things have not changed.
>
> > > That particular thing has though. You just didn't know it because you
> > > don't know much about the realities of concert life. No big deal,
> > > although I do realize that your tiny ego will not allow you to admit
> > > that.-
>
> > So what prompts your interventions? Your enormous ego?
>
> In this case, I "intervened" to correct your erroneous assumption that
> most pianists don't get to choose what kind of piano they can play in
Another English word you don't know the meaning of is "most."
M forever
Jan 16, 2012, 11:58:21 PM1/16/12
to
conversed before that.
I don't understand what you mean by "picking a fight" though. I just
pointed something out which you obviously didn't know because you have
never been a performing musician yourself, so you don't know what is
going on "behind the scenes". That has nothing to do with "picking a
fight", unless you are so feeble and insecure that even a small detail
correction like this deeply upsets you.
> > is Boston, and while that is (more or less) near
> > the corner of the country, it is neither a small country nor a small
> > continent. Most continents are pretty big, BTW. Which one would you
> > call small?
>
> > And yes, they have several pianos to choose from here at the concert
> > halls, too.
>
> > > > So to say that the number of pianists who can "dictate" what make of
> > > > piano they play on is far less "limited" than you think.
>
> > > > > > > Read about Liszt's early tour of the British Isles in Walker's
> > > > > > > biography (vol. 1).
>
> > > > > > Liszt lived in the 19th century. Many things were quite different back
> > > > > > then.
>
> > > > > And many things have not changed.
>
> > > > That particular thing has though. You just didn't know it because you
> > > > don't know much about the realities of concert life. No big deal,
> > > > although I do realize that your tiny ego will not allow you to admit
> > > > that.-
>
> > > So what prompts your interventions? Your enormous ego?
>
> > In this case, I "intervened" to correct your erroneous assumption that
> > most pianists don't get to choose what kind of piano they can play in
> > most concert halls. That is incorrect.-
>
> Another English word you don't know the meaning of is "most."
attacks. Remember that didn't end well for you last time, when you
discredited yourself completely as a linguist, your alleged profession
and area of expertise? You are well on the way to discrediting
yourself again, and for what? Just to score a cheap and meaningless
point against a foreigner who can converse with you in your own
language while you couldn't converse with me in mine?
You have just proven that, BTW, because you obviously don't know how
the parallel word in German (which comes form the same root) is used.
Plus, you used the word "most" here yourself, in the same context:
"Most piano recitals are not given in "big concert halls.""
"most" in English? Looks like it then, by your own admission.
And how is
"the number of pianists who can dictate to the venue what make
of piano to provide is probably very limited"
In any case, whatever childish cheap shots you are once again trying
to take here, the fact remains that you know nothing - nothing at all
- about performing music, and you simply didn't know what situation
the typical concert hall - no matter if large or small - presents to
visiting pianists. You simply didn't know that. Is that so hard for
you to admit?
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 17, 2012, 9:35:50 AM1/17/12
to
> so you don't know what is
> going on "behind the scenes". That has nothing to do with "picking a
> fight", unless you are so feeble and insecure that even a small detail
> correction like this deeply upsets you.
words "most" and "probably" and "limited," I wonder how you've managed
to survive in Boston for four years?
> You have just proven that, BTW, because you obviously don't know how
> the parallel word in German (which comes form the same root) is used.
>
> Plus, you used the word "most" here yourself, in the same context:
>
> "Most piano recitals are not given in "big concert halls.""
>
> Your own words. Oops! Do you have trouble understanding the word
> "most" in English? Looks like it then, by your own admission.
simple English.
> And how is
>
> "the number of pianists who can dictate to the venue what make
> of piano to provide is probably very limited"
>
> not the opposite of "most"?
statement is equivalent to "Most pianists do not get to dictate what
make of piano they will use in any particular performance."
You obviously know nothing of the economics of performing musicians.
Most will eagerly accept any gigs they are offered, as their income is
far from secure.
> In any case, whatever childish cheap shots you are once again trying
> to take here, the fact remains that you know nothing - nothing at all
> - about performing music, and you simply didn't know what situation
> the typical concert hall - no matter if large or small - presents to
> visiting pianists. You simply didn't know that. Is that so hard for
You simply don't know anything about me, so you would do well to stop
inventing lies about me.
Bob Harper
Jan 17, 2012, 10:37:26 AM1/17/12
to
On 1/17/12 6:35 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
(snip)
are and what you think. Once you understand that, everything will be
just fine. Until you deviate.
Bob Harper
(snip)
>
> You simply don't know anything about me, so you would do well to stop
> inventing lies about me.
Peter, he won't. You don't understand: he knows better than you who you
> You simply don't know anything about me, so you would do well to stop
> inventing lies about me.
are and what you think. Once you understand that, everything will be
just fine. Until you deviate.
Bob Harper
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 17, 2012, 11:48:57 AM1/17/12
to
what goes on in rmcr ordinarily.
M forever
Jan 17, 2012, 3:48:48 PM1/17/12
to
That is clear from your statements. If I don't know what molar teeth
are, it is clear that I am not a dentist. It's all about context, not
about small words like "most".
As an alleged linguist, you should be able to understand that.
take desperate cheap shots at a foreigner who converses with you in
your language, while you couldn't converse with me in mine -
otherwise, you could simply have responded in flawless German to me
and demonstrate that you command a level of German superior to mine in
English.
Unfortunately, Google Translate isn't good enough for that yet, so all
you have are these childish cheap shots.
Which are nothing but silly attempts at distracting from the actual
content and the fact that you talked about something you don't know
much, if anything, about.
> > You have just proven that, BTW, because you obviously don't know how
> > the parallel word in German (which comes form the same root) is used.
>
> > Plus, you used the word "most" here yourself, in the same context:
>
> > "Most piano recitals are not given in "big concert halls.""
>
> > Your own words. Oops! Do you have trouble understanding the word
> > "most" in English? Looks like it then, by your own admission.
>
> You're the one that cannot understand what I write in very, very
> simple English.
>
> > And how is
>
> > "the number of pianists who can dictate to the venue what make
> > of piano to provide is probably very limited"
>
> > not the opposite of "most"?
>
> Why do you keep digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole? That
> statement is equivalent to "Most pianists do not get to dictate what
> make of piano they will use in any particular performance."
>
> You obviously know nothing of the economics of performing musicians.
> Most will eagerly accept any gigs they are offered, as their income is
> far from secure.
imagined still can offer them a choice of various types of
instruments. You don't know that because you have never worked as a
performing musician. I have. I also used to organize concerts, and the
question what instruments are available for the pianist or
harpsichordist or other players of keyboard instruments came up all
the time.
> > In any case, whatever childish cheap shots you are once again trying
> > to take here, the fact remains that you know nothing - nothing at all
> > - about performing music, and you simply didn't know what situation
> > the typical concert hall - no matter if large or small - presents to
> > visiting pianists. You simply didn't know that. Is that so hard for
> > you to admit?-
>
> You simply don't know anything about me, so you would do well to stop
> inventing lies about me.
to admit that you don't really know what the realities of concert life
are? What's the big deal? Are you that feeble and insecure?
M forever
Jan 17, 2012, 3:52:27 PM1/17/12
to
On Jan 17, 10:37 am, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
that you have no part in and that you don't contribute to either, just
to take yet another cheap shot at me?
Is that because I responded to all your points in the anti-semitism
discussion calmly and rationally, and you don't have anything to
respond to that, so you chose to ignore my detailed reply and you had
to look for another opportunity to insult me?
Do you really not realize how bad this uncalled-for snipping&sniping
makes you look yourself, especially when you then act the moral
apostle and the champion of good manners, in complete contradiction to
your own actual behavior?
Bob Harper
Jan 17, 2012, 4:35:06 PM1/17/12
to
On Jan 17, 12:52 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 10:37 am, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On 1/17/12 6:35 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > (snip)
>
> > > You simply don't know anything about me, so you would do well to stop
> > > inventing lies about me.
>
> > Peter, he won't. You don't understand: he knows better than you who you
> > are and what you think. Once you understand that, everything will be
> > just fine. Until you deviate.
>
> Why do you again feel the need to insert yourself into a discussion
> that you have no part in and that you don't contribute to either, just
> to take yet another cheap shot at me?
Hardly cheap, just accurate, and that's what annoys you so much:
> On Jan 17, 10:37 am, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On 1/17/12 6:35 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > (snip)
>
> > > You simply don't know anything about me, so you would do well to stop
> > > inventing lies about me.
>
> > Peter, he won't. You don't understand: he knows better than you who you
> > are and what you think. Once you understand that, everything will be
> > just fine. Until you deviate.
>
> Why do you again feel the need to insert yourself into a discussion
> that you have no part in and that you don't contribute to either, just
> to take yet another cheap shot at me?
having the mirror held up, as 'twere, to your nature.
>
> Is that because I responded to all your points in the anti-semitism
> discussion calmly and rationally, and you don't have anything to
> respond to that, so you chose to ignore my detailed reply and you had
> to look for another opportunity to insult me?
My response to Roland addressed what I felt the need to respond to.
> Is that because I responded to all your points in the anti-semitism
> discussion calmly and rationally, and you don't have anything to
> respond to that, so you chose to ignore my detailed reply and you had
> to look for another opportunity to insult me?
>
> Do you really not realize how bad this uncalled-for snipping&sniping
> makes you look yourself, especially when you then act the moral
> apostle and the champion of good manners, in complete contradiction to
> your own actual behavior?
1. I claim no such mantle.
> Do you really not realize how bad this uncalled-for snipping&sniping
> makes you look yourself, especially when you then act the moral
> apostle and the champion of good manners, in complete contradiction to
> your own actual behavior?
2. I'll be the judge of what is or is not called for, thank you very
much. In this instance I judged it appropriate. Disagree if you wish,
but please don't think I'll bow to your wishes just because you don't
like what I have to say.
Bob Harper
M forever
Jan 17, 2012, 5:25:24 PM1/17/12
to
On Jan 17, 4:35 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 12:52 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 17, 10:37 am, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 1/17/12 6:35 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > (snip)
>
> > > > You simply don't know anything about me, so you would do well to stop
> > > > inventing lies about me.
>
> > > Peter, he won't. You don't understand: he knows better than you who you
> > > are and what you think. Once you understand that, everything will be
> > > just fine. Until you deviate.
>
> > Why do you again feel the need to insert yourself into a discussion
> > that you have no part in and that you don't contribute to either, just
> > to take yet another cheap shot at me?
>
> Hardly cheap, just accurate, and that's what annoys you so much:
> having the mirror held up, as 'twere, to your nature.
Saying childish stuff like "he knows better who you are" just to score
> On Jan 17, 12:52 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 17, 10:37 am, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 1/17/12 6:35 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > (snip)
>
> > > > You simply don't know anything about me, so you would do well to stop
> > > > inventing lies about me.
>
> > > Peter, he won't. You don't understand: he knows better than you who you
> > > are and what you think. Once you understand that, everything will be
> > > just fine. Until you deviate.
>
> > Why do you again feel the need to insert yourself into a discussion
> > that you have no part in and that you don't contribute to either, just
> > to take yet another cheap shot at me?
>
> Hardly cheap, just accurate, and that's what annoys you so much:
> having the mirror held up, as 'twere, to your nature.
a cheap point against me is hardly "accurate". It doesn't have
anything to do with the context, nor the content of the discussion -
you do realize that Daniels never was a performing musician, so how
would he know what the practical realities of concert life really are
- but I was. It is just cheap and childish, however much you want to
congratulate yourself.
And, in fact, you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing.
> > Is that because I responded to all your points in the anti-semitism
> > discussion calmly and rationally, and you don't have anything to
> > respond to that, so you chose to ignore my detailed reply and you had
> > to look for another opportunity to insult me?
>
> My response to Roland addressed what I felt the need to respond to.
don't feel the need to respond to points which show that you were
wrong earlier is nothing new though. Instead of backing up your
original statements, you just snip&snipe and bail. Very mature.
> > Do you really not realize how bad this uncalled-for snipping&sniping
> > makes you look yourself, especially when you then act the moral
> > apostle and the champion of good manners, in complete contradiction to
> > your own actual behavior?
>
> 1. I claim no such mantle.
> 2. I'll be the judge of what is or is not called for, thank you very
> much. In this instance I judged it appropriate.
sideline, no doubt.
> Disagree if you wish,
> but please don't think I'll bow to your wishes just because you don't
> like what I have to say.
something that I wish that you should "bow to". It is something that
any grown up person should aspire to. Provided you have any backbone.
Which you don't. Which is why you need the crutch of childish beliefs
to make it through life. Which is why you need to insert yourself into
discussions you have no part in and no contributions to make to.
It just shows what a very low and weak character you really are. I try
to take you seriously once in a while, like in the other discussion.
But it is evident time and time again that you simply do not deserve
that kind of respect.
Bob Harper
Jan 17, 2012, 6:50:01 PM1/17/12
to
On Jan 17, 2:25 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snip)> > > Do you really not realize how bad this uncalled-for
thinking. When are you going to get over that bad habit, Michael?
>
> - Show quoted text -
Careful; I wouldn't want you to suffer a stroke.
Bob Harper
(snip)> > > Do you really not realize how bad this uncalled-for
snipping&sniping
> > > makes you look yourself, especially when you then act the moral
> > > apostle and the champion of good manners, in complete contradiction to
> > > your own actual behavior?
>
> > 1. I claim no such mantle.
>
> Of course you do, by your sanctimonious behavior.
Once again, you know better than someone else what that person is
> > > makes you look yourself, especially when you then act the moral
> > > apostle and the champion of good manners, in complete contradiction to
> > > your own actual behavior?
>
> > 1. I claim no such mantle.
>
> Of course you do, by your sanctimonious behavior.
thinking. When are you going to get over that bad habit, Michael?
>
> > 2. I'll be the judge of what is or is not called for, thank you very
> > much. In this instance I judged it appropriate.
>
> Appropriate for yet another pointless snip&snipe attack from the
> sideline, no doubt.
Hardly pointless. You seem to have got it.
> > 2. I'll be the judge of what is or is not called for, thank you very
> > much. In this instance I judged it appropriate.
>
> Appropriate for yet another pointless snip&snipe attack from the
> sideline, no doubt.
>
> > Disagree if you wish,
> > but please don't think I'll bow to your wishes just because you don't
> > like what I have to say.
>
> Living up to your own standards and being less of a hypocrite is not
> something that I wish that you should "bow to". It is something that
> any grown up person should aspire to. Provided you have any backbone.
> Which you don't. Which is why you need the crutch of childish beliefs
> to make it through life. Which is why you need to insert yourself into
> discussions you have no part in and no contributions to make to.
> It just shows what a very low and weak character you really are. I try
> to take you seriously once in a while, like in the other discussion.
> But it is evident time and time again that you simply do not deserve
> that kind of respect.- Hide quoted text -
> > Disagree if you wish,
> > but please don't think I'll bow to your wishes just because you don't
> > like what I have to say.
>
> Living up to your own standards and being less of a hypocrite is not
> something that I wish that you should "bow to". It is something that
> any grown up person should aspire to. Provided you have any backbone.
> Which you don't. Which is why you need the crutch of childish beliefs
> to make it through life. Which is why you need to insert yourself into
> discussions you have no part in and no contributions to make to.
> It just shows what a very low and weak character you really are. I try
> to take you seriously once in a while, like in the other discussion.
> But it is evident time and time again that you simply do not deserve
>
> - Show quoted text -
Careful; I wouldn't want you to suffer a stroke.
Bob Harper
M forever
Jan 17, 2012, 7:04:54 PM1/17/12
to
On Jan 17, 6:50 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2:25 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (snip)> > > Do you really not realize how bad this uncalled-for
> snipping&sniping
>
> > > > makes you look yourself, especially when you then act the moral
> > > > apostle and the champion of good manners, in complete contradiction to
> > > > your own actual behavior?
>
> > > 1. I claim no such mantle.
>
> > Of course you do, by your sanctimonious behavior.
>
> Once again, you know better than someone else what that person is
> thinking. When are you going to get over that bad habit, Michael?
Your behavior speaks for itself. That has nothing to do with me
> On Jan 17, 2:25 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (snip)> > > Do you really not realize how bad this uncalled-for
> snipping&sniping
>
> > > > makes you look yourself, especially when you then act the moral
> > > > apostle and the champion of good manners, in complete contradiction to
> > > > your own actual behavior?
>
> > > 1. I claim no such mantle.
>
> > Of course you do, by your sanctimonious behavior.
>
> Once again, you know better than someone else what that person is
> thinking. When are you going to get over that bad habit, Michael?
claiming to know what you are thinking. I never claimed I do. I
sometimes wonder if you really are such a mega-hypocrite or if you are
really that dumb that you actually believe you are acting like a role
model and that you are in a position to lecture others on good
behavior. I am really not sure. You aren't too bright, that much is
very obvious, but you aren't that dumb either. You aren't Gerard,
although quite often, you behave just like him.
> > > 2. I'll be the judge of what is or is not called for, thank you very
> > > much. In this instance I judged it appropriate.
>
> > Appropriate for yet another pointless snip&snipe attack from the
> > sideline, no doubt.
>
> Hardly pointless. You seem to have got it.
completely ignore you. I find ignoring people kind of rude, which is
why I even once in a while give Gerard the benefit of the doubt and
check if he actually has something to say (I just did, but he still
doesn't).
That's why I even reply to you, even though it is obvious you just
want to insult and provoke.
> > > Disagree if you wish,
> > > but please don't think I'll bow to your wishes just because you don't
> > > like what I have to say.
>
> > Living up to your own standards and being less of a hypocrite is not
> > something that I wish that you should "bow to". It is something that
> > any grown up person should aspire to. Provided you have any backbone.
> > Which you don't. Which is why you need the crutch of childish beliefs
> > to make it through life. Which is why you need to insert yourself into
> > discussions you have no part in and no contributions to make to.
> > It just shows what a very low and weak character you really are. I try
> > to take you seriously once in a while, like in the other discussion.
> > But it is evident time and time again that you simply do not deserve
> > that kind of respect.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Careful; I wouldn't want you to suffer a stroke.
at the mouth" style defamation level. Maybe I was wrong above. Maybe
you are much dumber than I think you are. You don't even seem to
notice how lame and childish your predictable defamation repertoire
is.
So what have you contributed to the actual subject?
Once again, absolutely nothing.
I just pointed out that what Daniels said isn't the reality in concert
halls. I know that. He doesn't. Nor do you. What's the big deal here?
Why all that ad hominem nonsense just because I said there are more
often pianos for pianists to choose from than he said there were?
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 17, 2012, 11:18:35 PM1/17/12
to
On Jan 17, 3:48 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 9:35 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > You also know nothing about me.
>
> I know you have never performed music in a professional environment.
You cannot "know" any such thing, for two reasons.
> On Jan 17, 9:35 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > You also know nothing about me.
>
> I know you have never performed music in a professional environment.
> That is clear from your statements. If I don't know what molar teeth
> are, it is clear that I am not a dentist. It's all about context, not
> about small words like "most".
> As an alleged linguist, you should be able to understand that.
that the quality of your primary education?
> > You know nothing about me.
>
> I know enough from you own statements. For instance, that you need to
> take desperate cheap shots at a foreigner who converses with you in
> your language, while you couldn't converse with me in mine -
You know nothing about me.
> otherwise, you could simply have responded in flawless German to me
> and demonstrate that you command a level of German superior to mine in
> English.
would be rude.
> Unfortunately, Google Translate isn't good enough for that yet, so all
> you have are these childish cheap shots.
>
> Which are nothing but silly attempts at distracting from the actual
> content and the fact that you talked about something you don't know
> much, if anything, about.
> > You obviously know nothing of the economics of performing musicians.
> > Most will eagerly accept any gigs they are offered, as their income is
> > far from secure.
>
> That doesn't mean that the many more performing venues than you
> imagined still can offer them a choice of various types of
> instruments. You don't know that because you have never worked as a
> performing musician. I have. I also used to organize concerts, and the
> question what instruments are available for the pianist or
> harpsichordist or other players of keyboard instruments came up all
> the time.
I have no reason to believe your claim to have been an impresario, but
> > Most will eagerly accept any gigs they are offered, as their income is
> > far from secure.
>
> That doesn't mean that the many more performing venues than you
> imagined still can offer them a choice of various types of
> instruments. You don't know that because you have never worked as a
> performing musician. I have. I also used to organize concerts, and the
> question what instruments are available for the pianist or
> harpsichordist or other players of keyboard instruments came up all
> the time.
if it is true, what was your response?
> > You simply don't know anything about me, so you would do well to stop
> > inventing lies about me.
>
> All this drama and childish insults just because it is so hard for you
> to admit that you don't really know what the realities of concert life
It seems that I know more about the realities of concert life in the
two largest cities in the US than you do.
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 17, 2012, 11:12:25 PM1/17/12
to
On Jan 17, 5:25 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 4:35 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 12:52 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 17, 10:37 am, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > On 1/17/12 6:35 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > You simply don't know anything about me, so you would do well to stop
> > > > > inventing lies about me.
>
> > > > Peter, he won't. You don't understand: he knows better than you who you
> > > > are and what you think. Once you understand that, everything will be
> > > > just fine. Until you deviate.
>
> > > Why do you again feel the need to insert yourself into a discussion
> > > that you have no part in and that you don't contribute to either, just
> > > to take yet another cheap shot at me?
>
> > Hardly cheap, just accurate, and that's what annoys you so much:
> > having the mirror held up, as 'twere, to your nature.
>
> Saying childish stuff like "he knows better who you are" just to score
> a cheap point against me is hardly "accurate". It doesn't have
> anything to do with the context, nor the content of the discussion -
> you do realize that Daniels never was a performing musician,
More English words you don't understand: "Stop lying about me."
> On Jan 17, 4:35 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 12:52 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 17, 10:37 am, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > On 1/17/12 6:35 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > You simply don't know anything about me, so you would do well to stop
> > > > > inventing lies about me.
>
> > > > Peter, he won't. You don't understand: he knows better than you who you
> > > > are and what you think. Once you understand that, everything will be
> > > > just fine. Until you deviate.
>
> > > Why do you again feel the need to insert yourself into a discussion
> > > that you have no part in and that you don't contribute to either, just
> > > to take yet another cheap shot at me?
>
> > Hardly cheap, just accurate, and that's what annoys you so much:
> > having the mirror held up, as 'twere, to your nature.
>
> Saying childish stuff like "he knows better who you are" just to score
> a cheap point against me is hardly "accurate". It doesn't have
> anything to do with the context, nor the content of the discussion -
> you do realize that Daniels never was a performing musician,
M forever
Jan 17, 2012, 11:34:34 PM1/17/12
to
On Jan 17, 11:18 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 3:48 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 17, 9:35 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > You also know nothing about me.
>
> > I know you have never performed music in a professional environment.
>
> You cannot "know" any such thing, for two reasons.
Sure I can. It's perfectly obvious from some of the things you have
> On Jan 17, 3:48 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 17, 9:35 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > You also know nothing about me.
>
> > I know you have never performed music in a professional environment.
>
> You cannot "know" any such thing, for two reasons.
said here now, and earlier. If you had that kind of experience, then
you wouldn't have said what you said.
> > That is clear from your statements. If I don't know what molar teeth
> > are, it is clear that I am not a dentist. It's all about context, not
> > about small words like "most".
> > As an alleged linguist, you should be able to understand that.
>
> In this country, children of 10 or so know what molar teeth are. Is
> that the quality of your primary education?
music, hence that comparison.
> > > You know nothing about me.
>
> > I know enough from you own statements. For instance, that you need to
> > take desperate cheap shots at a foreigner who converses with you in
> > your language, while you couldn't converse with me in mine -
>
> You know nothing about me.
> > otherwise, you could simply have responded in flawless German to me
> > and demonstrate that you command a level of German superior to mine in
> > English.
>
> Why would I respond in German to someone writing in English? That
> would be rude.
effectively communicate, I invite you to respond in German.
Dann können wir endlich diese Missverständnisse ausräumen, die durch
meine katastrophal schlechten Englischkenntnisse verursacht worden
sind! Ich freue mich darauf!
> > Unfortunately, Google Translate isn't good enough for that yet, so all
> > you have are these childish cheap shots.
>
> > Which are nothing but silly attempts at distracting from the actual
> > content and the fact that you talked about something you don't know
> > much, if anything, about.
> > > You obviously know nothing of the economics of performing musicians.
> > > Most will eagerly accept any gigs they are offered, as their income is
> > > far from secure.
>
> > That doesn't mean that the many more performing venues than you
> > imagined still can offer them a choice of various types of
> > instruments. You don't know that because you have never worked as a
> > performing musician. I have. I also used to organize concerts, and the
> > question what instruments are available for the pianist or
> > harpsichordist or other players of keyboard instruments came up all
> > the time.
>
> I have no reason to believe your claim to have been an impresario, but
> if it is true, what was your response?
>
> > > You simply don't know anything about me, so you would do well to stop
> > > inventing lies about me.
>
> > All this drama and childish insults just because it is so hard for you
> > to admit that you don't really know what the realities of concert life
> > are? What's the big deal? Are you that feeble and insecure?-
>
> It seems that I know more about the realities of concert life in the
> two largest cities in the US than you do.
since in such bigger cities, the typical venues in which pianists
would play, there are usually several pianos to choose from.
M forever
Jan 17, 2012, 11:43:04 PM1/17/12
to
and feeble little wanker. You are completely incapable of admitting
when you don't know something, even something really irrelevant as in
this case.
Is that why your academic career foundered?
And all that simply because you can't admit that you babbled about
something you don't know anything about. There is something distinctly
psychopathic about that, and about your desperate and impotent below-
the-beltline-insult attempts. It doesn't even matter how much or how
little English I know. You were still wrong, and you even know that
yourself. That's why you create so much smoke and drama here. Pathetic.
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 18, 2012, 7:41:07 AM1/18/12
to
Really? Why don't you list the places where pianists would play in
Chicago and New York?
(All of them.)
Gerard
Jan 18, 2012, 8:22:25 AM1/18/12
to
Gerard
Jan 18, 2012, 8:25:46 AM1/18/12
to
M forever
Jan 18, 2012, 5:42:37 PM1/18/12
to
I don't know "all of them", and neither do you. Theoretically, any
space where there is enough room for a piano and a few listeners can
be a concert venue. But all the relevant places where relevant
professional pianists appear typically can offer several instruments
to choose from. If the pianist isn't in demand enough that he/she
doesn't get to play in such places, then it doesn't matter anyway.
BTW, you said: "It seems that I know more about the realities of
concert life in the two largest cities in the US than you do."
NY and Chicago aren't the two "largest" cities in the US. You don't
seem to understand what the word "large" means in English.
Oops...
See, I can nitpick, too, even your own comments in your own language.
Maybe we should really switch to German, after all, you once claimed
you know German, and your German must be superior to my English,
otherwise your attempts to put down my English would just make you
look like a total blowhard.
Also, von jetzt an auf deutsch! Dann können wir endlich alle diese
blöden Missverständnisse ausräumen und uns so richtig gepflegt
unterhalten!
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 18, 2012, 11:36:30 PM1/18/12
to
On Jan 18, 5:42 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 7:41 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 11:34 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 17, 11:18 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > It seems that I know more about the realities of concert life in the
> > > > two largest cities in the US than you do.
>
> > > It doesn't seem that way from from anything you have said. Especially
> > > since in such bigger cities, the typical venues in which pianists
> > > would play, there are usually several pianos to choose from.-
>
> > Really? Why don't you list the places where pianists would play in
> > Chicago and New York?
>
> > (All of them.)
>
> "All of them"? LOL
>
> I don't know "all of them", and neither do you. Theoretically, any
> space where there is enough room for a piano and a few listeners can
> be a concert venue. But all the relevant places where relevant
> professional pianists appear typically can offer several instruments
> to choose from. If the pianist isn't in demand enough that he/she
> doesn't get to play in such places, then it doesn't matter anyway.
What, in Boston most concerts aren't presented in churches, as they
> On Jan 18, 7:41 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 11:34 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 17, 11:18 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > It seems that I know more about the realities of concert life in the
> > > > two largest cities in the US than you do.
>
> > > It doesn't seem that way from from anything you have said. Especially
> > > since in such bigger cities, the typical venues in which pianists
> > > would play, there are usually several pianos to choose from.-
>
> > Really? Why don't you list the places where pianists would play in
> > Chicago and New York?
>
> > (All of them.)
>
> "All of them"? LOL
>
> I don't know "all of them", and neither do you. Theoretically, any
> space where there is enough room for a piano and a few listeners can
> be a concert venue. But all the relevant places where relevant
> professional pianists appear typically can offer several instruments
> to choose from. If the pianist isn't in demand enough that he/she
> doesn't get to play in such places, then it doesn't matter anyway.
are in most cities? Or are all the churches you know so well endowed
-- and so spacious -- that they have several pianos just sitting
around not being used? Ditto for school auditoriums. (That's English
for "Gymnasium," which means something else in English. Though an
American gymnasium often doubles as an auditorium. Don't take what you
see on *Glee* as typical of the facilities available.)
So many chances I gave you to stop looking like an ignoramus. Yet you
continued to dig yourself deeper and deeper and deeper.
> BTW, you said: "It seems that I know more about the realities of
> concert life in the two largest cities in the US than you do."
>
> NY and Chicago aren't the two "largest" cities in the US. You don't
> seem to understand what the word "large" means in English.
> Oops...
you've never heard of the Second City comedy troupe. Where do you
suppose it got its name?
Thus I cannot speak of Chicago when it became #3, nor can I say
anything about L.A.; when I was there, for one week in 1987, it was
#3, and I went to one concert -- in a school auditorium.
> See, I can nitpick, too, even your own comments in your own language.
> Maybe we should really switch to German, after all, you once claimed
> you know German, and your German must be superior to my English,
> otherwise your attempts to put down my English would just make you
> look like a total blowhard.
Gerard
Jan 19, 2012, 4:32:16 AM1/19/12
to
M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> typed:
Have you EVER tried something else?
> even your own comments in your own language.
> Maybe we should really switch to German, after all, you once claimed
> you know German, and your German must be superior to my English,
> otherwise your attempts to put down my English would just make you
> look like a total blowhard.
>
> Also, von jetzt an auf deutsch! Dann können wir endlich alle diese
> blöden Missverständnisse ausräumen und uns so richtig gepflegt
> unterhalten!
Utterly childish forever.
> even your own comments in your own language.
> Maybe we should really switch to German, after all, you once claimed
> you know German, and your German must be superior to my English,
> otherwise your attempts to put down my English would just make you
> look like a total blowhard.
>
> Also, von jetzt an auf deutsch! Dann können wir endlich alle diese
> blöden Missverständnisse ausräumen und uns so richtig gepflegt
> unterhalten!
M forever
Jan 19, 2012, 11:09:49 AM1/19/12
to
On Jan 18, 11:36 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 5:42 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 18, 7:41 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Jan 17, 11:34 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 17, 11:18 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > It seems that I know more about the realities of concert life in the
> > > > > two largest cities in the US than you do.
>
> > > > It doesn't seem that way from from anything you have said. Especially
> > > > since in such bigger cities, the typical venues in which pianists
> > > > would play, there are usually several pianos to choose from.-
>
> > > Really? Why don't you list the places where pianists would play in
> > > Chicago and New York?
>
> > > (All of them.)
>
> > "All of them"? LOL
>
> > I don't know "all of them", and neither do you. Theoretically, any
> > space where there is enough room for a piano and a few listeners can
> > be a concert venue. But all the relevant places where relevant
> > professional pianists appear typically can offer several instruments
> > to choose from. If the pianist isn't in demand enough that he/she
> > doesn't get to play in such places, then it doesn't matter anyway.
>
> What, in Boston most concerts aren't presented in churches, as they
> are in most cities? Or are all the churches you know so well endowed
> -- and so spacious -- that they have several pianos just sitting
> around not being used?
> On Jan 18, 5:42 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 18, 7:41 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Jan 17, 11:34 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 17, 11:18 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > It seems that I know more about the realities of concert life in the
> > > > > two largest cities in the US than you do.
>
> > > > It doesn't seem that way from from anything you have said. Especially
> > > > since in such bigger cities, the typical venues in which pianists
> > > > would play, there are usually several pianos to choose from.-
>
> > > Really? Why don't you list the places where pianists would play in
> > > Chicago and New York?
>
> > > (All of them.)
>
> > "All of them"? LOL
>
> > I don't know "all of them", and neither do you. Theoretically, any
> > space where there is enough room for a piano and a few listeners can
> > be a concert venue. But all the relevant places where relevant
> > professional pianists appear typically can offer several instruments
> > to choose from. If the pianist isn't in demand enough that he/she
> > doesn't get to play in such places, then it doesn't matter anyway.
>
> What, in Boston most concerts aren't presented in churches, as they
> are in most cities? Or are all the churches you know so well endowed
> -- and so spacious -- that they have several pianos just sitting
> around not being used?
Like I said:
Theoretically, any space where there is enough room for a piano and a
few listeners can be a concert venue. But all the relevant places
where relevant professional pianists appear typically can offer
several instruments to choose from. If the pianist isn't in demand
enough that he/she doesn't get to play in such places, then it doesn't
matter anyway.
Theoretically, any space where there is enough room for a piano and a
few listeners can be a concert venue. But all the relevant places
where relevant professional pianists appear typically can offer
several instruments to choose from. If the pianist isn't in demand
enough that he/she doesn't get to play in such places, then it doesn't
matter anyway.
> Ditto for school auditoriums. (That's English
> for "Gymnasium," which means something else in English.
"School auditorium" is English for "Gymnasium"?
> for "Gymnasium," which means something else in English.
No, it isn't. A Gymnasium in German is a type of high school, not a
school auditorium. Oh, you didn't mean "in German"? Of course you did.
Evidence is piling up that you really don't know German. You don't
even know your own language that well, as it has turned out. So your
attempts to put me down because my English is so terrible are
obviously both desperate and totally douchey.
> Though an
> American gymnasium often doubles as an auditorium. Don't take what you
> see on *Glee* as typical of the facilities available.)
>
> So many chances I gave you to stop looking like an ignoramus. Yet you
> continued to dig yourself deeper and deeper and deeper.
>
> > BTW, you said: "It seems that I know more about the realities of
> > concert life in the two largest cities in the US than you do."
>
> > NY and Chicago aren't the two "largest" cities in the US. You don't
> > seem to understand what the word "large" means in English.
> > Oops...
>
> Chicago didn't slip to #3 until after I returned to New York. Perhaps
> you've never heard of the Second City comedy troupe. Where do you
> suppose it got its name?
>
> Thus I cannot speak of Chicago when it became #3, nor can I say
> anything about L.A.; when I was there, for one week in 1987, it was
> #3, and I went to one concert -- in a school auditorium.
in one of the two "largest" cities in the US - while you boasted that
you do. Ouch! What an embarrassing own goal.
And it seems that you still don't get that you are using the word
"large" in the wrong context. Your own English isn't all that good, is
it? Even more embarrassing considering its your own first language.
Even more embarrassing considering you are trying to put my English
down by trying to suggest I don't understand basic words like "most".
Even more embarrassing because you don't know my language, or any
other. Even more embarrassing because you pretend to be a linguist.
> > See, I can nitpick, too, even your own comments in your own language.
> > Maybe we should really switch to German, after all, you once claimed
> > you know German, and your German must be superior to my English,
> > otherwise your attempts to put down my English would just make you
> > look like a total blowhard.
>
> I suggest you check my bibliography of professional translations.
of German texts, then you could easily have replied in German here.
But you didn't because you know that whatever rudimentary knowledge of
German you have, it will be immediately obvious to me that you don't
know a fraction of German compared to my English. So you have made
yourself look like a total douche.
I asked you before, but you didn't answer me: is that why your
academic career foundered, because you are a notorious liar and
because you can not admit when you are wrong, even when it is
something as trivial as this thing here?
> > Also, von jetzt an auf deutsch! Dann können wir endlich alle diese
> > blöden Missverständnisse ausräumen und uns so richtig gepflegt
> > unterhalten!
besonders beeindruckend, würde ich sagen. Du kommst eher als
stümperhafter Dummquatscher 'rüber. Und als ziemlich feige Sau noch
dazu. Und als ausländerfeindliches, vorurteilbelastetes Arschloch
obendrein.
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 19, 2012, 2:03:10 PM1/19/12
to
don't score points by equating commercial success with artistic
ability. Or have I, by not reading rmcr, missed your paeans, over the
years, to Andrea Boccelli, Sarah Church, Janet Evancho or whatever her
name is, and that fellow from *Shine*?
> > Ditto for school auditoriums. (That's English
> > for "Gymnasium," which means something else in English.
>
> "School auditorium" is English for "Gymnasium"?
could comprehend that "Gymnasium" was an explanation, for your
benefit, of "school."
said?
> And it seems that you still don't get that you are using the word
> "large" in the wrong context. Your own English isn't all that good, is
> it? Even more embarrassing considering its your own first language.
> Even more embarrassing considering you are trying to put my English
> down by trying to suggest I don't understand basic words like "most".
> Even more embarrassing because you don't know my language, or any
> other. Even more embarrassing because you pretend to be a linguist.
area? Then the leading contenders include Indianapolis and Orlando.
The lengths you go to embarrass yourself are truly astonishing.
> > > See, I can nitpick, too, even your own comments in your own language.
> > > Maybe we should really switch to German, after all, you once claimed
> > > you know German, and your German must be superior to my English,
> > > otherwise your attempts to put down my English would just make you
> > > look like a total blowhard.
>
> > I suggest you check my bibliography of professional translations.
>
> I don't need to. If you were able to make "professional translations"
> of German texts, then you could easily have replied in German here.
>
> But you didn't because you know that whatever rudimentary knowledge of
> German you have, it will be immediately obvious to me that you don't
> know a fraction of German compared to my English. So you have made
> yourself look like a total douche.
> I asked you before, but you didn't answer me: is that why your
> academic career foundered, because you are a notorious liar and
> because you can not admit when you are wrong, even when it is
> something as trivial as this thing here?
> > > Also, von jetzt an auf deutsch! Dann können wir endlich alle diese
> > > blöden Missverständnisse ausräumen und uns so richtig gepflegt
> > > unterhalten!
>
> Na, wie siehts aus, Herr "professioneller Übersetzer"? Bis jetzt nicht
> besonders beeindruckend, würde ich sagen. Du kommst eher als
> stümperhafter Dummquatscher 'rüber. Und als ziemlich feige Sau noch
> dazu. Und als ausländerfeindliches, vorurteilbelastetes Arschloch
You Bostonians are _so_ charming!
John Wiser
Jan 19, 2012, 8:55:31 PM1/19/12
to
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote...
[ne-ver mind!]
>You Bostonians are _so_ charming!
Ach, Petrus!
Vier Jahre ist er in Boston, und du verdammt die ganze Stadt?
JDW
On Jan 19, 11:09 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 11:36 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
[great dirty schnippqage]>
> On Jan 18, 11:36 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
[ne-ver mind!]
>You Bostonians are _so_ charming!
Vier Jahre ist er in Boston, und du verdammt die ganze Stadt?
JDW
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 19, 2012, 11:26:28 PM1/19/12
to
On Jan 19, 8:55 pm, "John Wiser" <ceec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote...
Well, he chose to deny his heritage; that's the only class he claims
to belong to.
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote...
to belong to.
Joe Roberts
Jan 20, 2012, 10:52:22 PM1/20/12
to
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> "M forever" wrote:
>> Na, wie siehts aus, Herr "professioneller Übersetzer"?
>> Bis jetzt nicht besonders beeindruckend, würde ich sagen.
>> Du kommst eher als stümperhafter Dummquatscher 'rüber.
>> Und als ziemlich feige Sau noch dazu. Und als
>> ausländerfeindliches, vorurteilbelastetes Arschloch
>> obendrein.-
> You Bostonians are _so_ charming!
The triteness of resorting to German when the 'venue/piano' argument is being sunk in English simply sinks it quickly.
I could whack it thoroughly in Spanish and more politely in Japanese (written Romaji), and demand that a lack of fluency in the response correlates to a lack of 'multiple-piano-availability' savvy -- but it would be silly to do so. So it was in going to German.
You've tried time and again to get across points that are clear to others but which don't penetrate the silly and outdated übermensch disposition.
Don't bother.
How much older must the 'cello grow before this tedious work ends?
Joe
0 new messages