Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Death of Pianist Rosalyn Tureck Reported

151 views
Skip to first unread message

Phil Garon

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 11:53:26 AM7/18/03
to
According to a message posted to Dave Lampson's music list:

"Rosalyn Tureck died at approximately 10:40 PM on July 17, 2003, at
her home in Riverdale, Bronx, New York, at the age of 88."

pgaron

David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 12:49:28 PM7/18/03
to
In article <613e3493.03071...@posting.google.com>, pga...@my-deja.com
says...

...and the average worldwide tempo of Bach keyboard performances just increased
by at least 10%.

Dave Hurwitz

Samir Golescu

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 1:10:48 PM7/18/03
to

On 18 Jul 2003, David Hurwitz wrote:

> >"Rosalyn Tureck died at approximately 10:40 PM on July 17, 2003, at
> >her home in Riverdale, Bronx, New York, at the age of 88."
>

> ...and the average worldwide tempo of Bach keyboard performances just
> increased by at least 10%.

INEXCUSABLY cynical!!

regards,
SG
(but shamefully funny. . .)

Terrymelin

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 2:54:07 PM7/18/03
to
>>"Rosalyn Tureck died at approximately 10:40 PM on July 17, 2003, at
>>her home in Riverdale, Bronx, New York, at the age of 88."
>>
>>pgaron
>
>...and the average worldwide tempo of Bach keyboard performances just
>increased
>by at least 10%.
>
>Dave Hurwitz
>

That kind of comment is beneath contempt as the first and only reaction to the
death of an artist.

Terry Ellsworth

Simon Roberts

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 2:54:05 PM7/18/03
to
In article <Pine.GSO.4.31.03071...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu>, Samir
says...

Or just plain funny. Unfortunately I had a mouthful of liquid when I read it.

Simon

Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 3:28:20 PM7/18/03
to
Simon Roberts <sd...@comcast.net> appears to have caused the following
letters to be typed in news:bf9fo...@drn.newsguy.com:

Billboard's Website will doubtless ignore her -- whereas all of the other
musicians, in fields other than classical, will have their deaths reported
at least once each. (The big rock/pop/R&B stars generally get a couple of
follow-up articles on how their deaths affect their friends, and how many
people showed up at the funeral, and generally that they're still dead,
like Francisco Franco.)

--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Mark Coy tossed off eBay? http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2B734C02
RMCR's most pointless, dumb and laughable chowderhead: Mark Coy.

Clovis Lark

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 3:53:53 PM7/18/03
to

Come on Terry, it was funny. And the slight can't possibly hurt her. It
would have been different had he said this to her face when she was alive.

> Terry Ellsworth

Matthew Silverstein

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 4:36:16 PM7/18/03
to
TE wrote:

> That kind of comment is beneath contempt as the first and only reaction to
the
> death of an artist.

Terry, meet Sense of Humor. Sense of Humor, Terry . . .

Matty


Yes

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 4:40:09 PM7/18/03
to
Terrymelin <terry...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030718145407...@mb-m22.aol.com...

> >>"Rosalyn Tureck died at approximately 10:40 PM on July 17, 2003, at
> >>her home in Riverdale, Bronx, New York, at the age of 88."
> >>
> >>pgaron
> >
> >...and the average worldwide tempo of Bach keyboard performances just
> >increased
> >by at least 10%.
> >
> >Dave Hurwitz
> >
>
> That kind of comment is beneath contempt

I think you meant to type "I find that kind of comment beneath contempt...". So far, no-one agrees
with you.


Bob Lombard

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 5:20:53 PM7/18/03
to

Dunno about 'beneath contempt'. Has about the same quality of 'humor'
as seeing an elderly shopper stumble and dump a load of groceries in
the parking lot. That's funny ain't it?

bl

deac...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 5:13:35 PM7/18/03
to
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:40:09 +0100, "Yes" <n...@may.be> wrote:

I knew Rosalyn Tureck very well and count her among the most
stimulating musicians I have ever met. Her energy, drive,
intelligence, pianistic ability (a Horowitz pupil once declared to me
that she had the most complete keyboard technique of any contemporary
pianist), and charm, yes, charm, remain indelibly etched on my memory.
I personally caused the DG Goldbergs to happen in the face of
incredible opposition from within that company and it stands as a
landmark, just like all her recordings of this music. An incredible
achievement for a woman of her, or any age. You don't know this, but
the DG producer never had to make a single edit in the whole
recording. Each variation is a complete "take".

I was also responsible for bringing the tapes of her Decca WTC to
Hannover to have them remastered by the DG engineers.

Her 1956 Partitas included in the GPE are, for me, extraordinary:
personal communications of a kind rarely encountered.

So, when confronted with Mr. Hurwitz's little witticism I remain not
only unamused, but unsurprised also. One only has to examine the
source of the remark.

Today will be a very sad day for this listener, and many others, I
imagine.

Tom Deacon

Samir Golescu

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 5:32:20 PM7/18/03
to

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Bob Lombard wrote:

> Dunno about 'beneath contempt'. Has about the same quality of 'humor'
> as seeing an elderly shopper stumble and dump a load of groceries in
> the parking lot. That's funny ain't it?

It was "risque" humor, but not that bad, com'on. . . Yours reminds me
of that Arli$$ episode in which the guy hits lightly with his car an old
lady, actually her shopping cart, drives her home remorsefully, she shows
him some old autographed sport photos, he recognizes them as being
collector items worth $50,000, then tries to buy them for $10,000. . . in
the end he buys them (obviously trying to defraud the old lady), finds out
that the precious photos were forgeries worth nothing, while the old lady
already disappeared. Now I forgot where we started and why I tell you
that. . . age kicks in here too. . . do watch my cart, will you, dear?

regards,
SG

P.S. Perhaps Ms. Tureck's admirers could offer some -- very much unlike
this -- relevant tribute?

ulvi

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 5:43:56 PM7/18/03
to
deac...@yahoo.com wrote in
news:o8oghvsrmudcfohf2...@4ax.com:

Agreed with most of the above. I should re-listen to her Sarabande from
the French Overture in memoriam (in the other GPOC volume).

Ulvi

August Helmbright

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 6:05:05 PM7/18/03
to
terry...@aol.com (Terrymelin) wrote in message news:<20030718145407...@mb-m22.aol.com>...
Quite agreed. Rosalyn Tureck was a truly first class musician of high
intelligence, scholarship and technique. Her WTC I & II recordings are
truly desert island material, IMO. I've said it before and I'll say it
again, that George Szell's famous remark about Glenn Gould - "That
nut's a genius" - was probably right on both counts, but with Tureck,
you got the genius without (at least most of) the nuttiness.

deac...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 6:12:42 PM7/18/03
to
On 18 Jul 2003 15:05:05 -0700, augusthe...@msn.com (August
Helmbright) wrote:


Samir asks for a relevant tribute from her "admirers".

The best tribute, as another poster has suggested, is to listen to her
play Bach.

Tom Deacon

The obit in Andante.com follows.

P.S> A recording exists, I believe, of that Brahms 2.

Rosalyn Tureck, a leading performer of Bach on the piano, harpsichord
and clavichord, has died, WQXR radio in New York City reports. She was
88.

According to writer Teri Noel Towe, a friend, Tureck died on Thursday
evening in the Riverdale section of the Bronx, New York.

Tureck was born in Chicago, where she made her solo recital debut at
age 9. One of her piano teachers was Sophia Brilliant-Liven, a student
of Anton Rubenstein, to whom Tureck traced her technique. She attended
the Juilliard School, where she studied with Olga Samaroff; during her
tenure there she made her Carnegie Hall debut performing on the
theremin, the electronic instrument invented by Leon Theremin, with
whom she had studied.

In 1936, at age 22, she made her New York orchestral debut, performing
Brahms' Piano Concerto No. 2 with Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia
Orchestra. A year later, she began an annual series of all-Bach
recitals at New York's Town Hall; she would eventually add similar
series in London, Copenhagen, Montreal and other cities. She made the
first of her many European tours in 1947 and would later travel to
South America, South Africa, Israel and Asia. She began to conduct in
1956, appearing with the Philharmonia Orchestra of London, the New
York Philharmonic and the National Symphony Orchestra, as well as her
own Tureck Bach Players and other groups.

Tureck was the author of many articles and several books, including
the three-volume An Introduction to the Performance of Bach. She
founded the International Bach Institute in 1966 and went on to create
the Tureck Bach Institute and its successor, the Tureck Bach Research
Foundation.

Although she was best known as a Bach specialist, Tureck was also a
passionate advocate of contemporary music, founding Composers of Today
and the Society of Contemporary Music. She gave the world premieres of
William Schumann's Piano Concerto and David Diamond's Piano Sonata No.
1, which had been written with her in mind. In 1952, she presented the
first American performance for tape and electronic music; later, she
would perform Bach on the Moog synthesizer.

Tureck taught at the Philadelphia Conservatory of Music, Juilliard and
the University of California at San Diego.


Jesica

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 7:04:08 PM7/18/03
to
pga...@my-deja.com (Phil Garon) wrote in message news:<613e3493.03071...@posting.google.com>...

> According to a message posted to Dave Lampson's music list:
>
> "Rosalyn Tureck died at approximately 10:40 PM on July 17, 2003, at
> her home in Riverdale, Bronx, New York, at the age of 88."
>
For more details on the life and work of Rosalyn Tureck see the web
site of the Tureck Bach Research Foundation:

http://www.connectedglobe.com/tbrf/

Simon Roberts

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 7:43:01 PM7/18/03
to
In article <mooghv0ha8n4tgs0d...@4ax.com>, Bob says...

No. But how is that equivalent?

Simon

deac...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 8:03:35 PM7/18/03
to

I just did! And couldn't take the CD off. What about the slow movement
of the Italian Concerto? And then the Four Duets?

What a pianist!

No wonder pianists would say: "Bitch! How does she do that?"

Tom Deacon


David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 8:18:59 PM7/18/03
to
>>
>Dunno about 'beneath contempt'. Has about the same quality of 'humor'
>as seeing an elderly shopper stumble and dump a load of groceries in
>the parking lot. That's funny ain't it?
>
>bl
>

It might be if you were the shopper...

Dave Hurwitz

David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 8:21:59 PM7/18/03
to
>
>Terry, meet Sense of Humor. Sense of Humor, Terry . . .
>
>Matty
>

See what happens now, Matty: The sanctimonious gather, they circle the wagons
around their dead icon, they hurl insults and puff themselves up with
self-righteous indignation. Sit back and enjoy the show!

Dave Hurwitz

David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 8:31:31 PM7/18/03
to
>
>No wonder pianists would say: "Bitch! How does she do that?"
>
>Tom Deacon
>

No, that's what they say about you, Tom.

Dave Hurwitz

deac...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 8:44:23 PM7/18/03
to
On 18 Jul 2003 17:31:31 -0700, David Hurwitz
<David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

Well, you might well. Lord knows you hardly know how to do anything
worthwhile..

I liked that previous post. A 4th rate reviewer for a 2 bit internet
site.

Hmmmmmmm! Just what I was thinking myself. But I would never have
wanted to confront you with what everyone is thinking.

Seems you need to take some lessons from somebody - anybody would do,
actually.

And then summon up a modicum of respect for Madame Tureck. Hard for
your type, I would guess, however. The one liners are so much easier
and play well to the gallery. WHAT a gallery!

Tom Deacon

Phil Caron

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 9:15:28 PM7/18/03
to
"Phil Garon" <pga...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:613e3493.03071...@posting.google.com...

> According to a message posted to Dave Lampson's music list:
>
> "Rosalyn Tureck died at approximately 10:40 PM on July 17, 2003, at
> her home in Riverdale, Bronx, New York, at the age of 88."
>
That's sad news. I first heard of her from buying by chance one of the
VAI's, which had the Italian Concerto. That lead to other purchases. She
was distinctive and, to my ears, profound. I especially like the DG WTC,
the Bach Partitas on Philips (which I'm listening to now,) and some of the
other VAI recordings. Perhaps I tend to prefer some other pianists'
versions of some of those works, but Tureck at her best was deeply absorbing
and rewarding - an exalted musician.

Of special interest is the "Young Firebrand" album from VAI, which shows an
unexpectedly exciting Tureck playing Liszt, Debussy, Brahms and other
repertoire not usually associated with her.

- Phil Caron

Phil Caron

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 9:18:55 PM7/18/03
to

"Simon Roberts" <sd...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bfa0m...@drn.newsguy.com...
He didn't say it was equivalent. He drew a parallel between two examples of
making a joke about someone's misfortune.

- Phil Caron

Bob Lombard

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 9:29:19 PM7/18/03
to
On 18 Jul 2003 16:43:01 -0700, Simon Roberts <sd...@comcast.net> wrote:

>In article <mooghv0ha8n4tgs0d...@4ax.com>, Bob says...
>>

>>Dunno about 'beneath contempt'. Has about the same quality of 'humor'


>>as seeing an elderly shopper stumble and dump a load of groceries in
>>the parking lot. That's funny ain't it?
>
>No. But how is that equivalent?
>
>Simon

The discomfort caused by the insensitivity is of the same order. The
elderly shopper, it may be reasonably assumed, wishes to be considered
capable of self-sufficiency - not a laughingstock. The snipe at
Tureck, if known to them, is a similar laughingstock thing taken by
those close to her. Said with a smile and salute of the glass at an
Irish wake, no problem.

There is also the possibility that, as a member of the elderly class,
I am unduly sensitive to the feelings of its members.

bl

Dan Koren

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 9:37:34 PM7/18/03
to
"Samir Golescu" <gol...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.03071...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu...

>
> On 18 Jul 2003, David Hurwitz wrote:
>
> > >"Rosalyn Tureck died at approximately 10:40 PM on
> > > July 17, 2003, at her home in Riverdale, Bronx,
> > > New York, at the age of 88."
> >
> > ...and the average worldwide tempo of Bach keyboard
> > performances just
> > increased by at least 10%.
>
> INEXCUSABLY cynical!!
>


Inexcusable because you now have to
take her seriously? Just curious...


dk


Dan Koren

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 9:43:28 PM7/18/03
to
<deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oq4hhvkbtciojcerb...@4ax.com...

>
> And then summon up a modicum of respect for Madame Tureck.
>

The only respect artists deserve is that earned through the
memories and impressions they leave on their audiences. Your
experiences with Mme Tureck's performances may have been
happier than those of others -- and that's perfectly OK.

However the people who did not enjoy Mme Tureck's playing
and/or did not agree with her artistic philosophy have as
much of a right to express their opinions as have those
who liked her.

No more and no less.

dk


Paul Penna

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 9:41:31 PM7/18/03
to
In article <8n7hhv8jomcqrihu1...@4ax.com>, Bob Lombard
<hill...@vermontel.net> wrote:

> There is also the possibility that, as a member of the elderly class,
> I am unduly sensitive to the feelings of its members.

As one on an approach vector to that status, I am thankful for a
lifetime of experience that has taught me that being "unduly sensitive"
is not a life-enhancing quality; quite the contrary.

--
Paul Penna

Dave Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 9:21:53 PM7/18/03
to
>>
>He didn't say it was equivalent. He drew a parallel between two examples of
>making a joke about someone's misfortune.
>
>- Phil Caron
>

What misfortune was that?

Dave Hurwitz

Phil Caron

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 10:01:40 PM7/18/03
to

"Dave Hurwitz" <Dave_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:68577713.0...@drn.newsguy.com...
On the one hand, someone dying (Tureck); on the other, someone dropping
groceries (hypothetical example). Your newsreader must be dropping posts.

- Phil

deac...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 9:44:51 PM7/18/03
to
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 01:43:28 GMT, "Dan Koren" <dank...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Absolutely.

I quite agree.

However, that said, perhaps the time to convey such thoughts is not on
the day her death is announced.

Or is ot "open season" all the time here in never-never-land?

When Sharon dies of a heart attack, that is the moment to jump on the
poor bastard and kick his flaccid body. Right? Wrong! The time to kick
him is when he can stand up and defend himself.

And RT would have eaten most of her critics before breakfast!

Tom Deacon

Bob Lombard

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 10:22:25 PM7/18/03
to
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:18:55 -0400, "Phil Caron"
<vlad...@vermontel.net> wrote:


>> >Dunno about 'beneath contempt'. Has about the same quality of 'humor'
>> >as seeing an elderly shopper stumble and dump a load of groceries in
>> >the parking lot. That's funny ain't it?
>>
>> No. But how is that equivalent?
>>
>He didn't say it was equivalent. He drew a parallel between two examples of
>making a joke about someone's misfortune.
>

I may have drawn it, but that wasn't my intention. "Making a joke
about someone's misfortune" is a standard facet of that essentially
indefinable thing called sense-of-humor. I do hold the notion that
humor is 'designed' (by God, the course of evolution, whatever) for
the easing of pain rather than for intensifying it.

Maybe I should admit here that I have never enjoyed Tureck's playing
of Bach much. I think that she took his keyboard music too seriously.

bl

David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 10:33:39 PM7/18/03
to
>>
>> What misfortune was that?
>>
>On the one hand, someone dying (Tureck); on the other, someone dropping
>groceries (hypothetical example). Your newsreader must be dropping posts.
>
>- Phil
>
How is dying a misfortune?

Dave

Samir Golescu

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 10:55:45 PM7/18/03
to

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Dan Koren wrote:

> Inexcusable because you now have to
> take her seriously? Just curious...

Nope. I had no idea Ms. Tureck was still alive and I still didn't ever
understand the fuss around her Bach, which strikes me as mechanical. I
would have preferred saying these and more on another occasion, though.
There are obviously people here who were quite fond of her.

As regards the by now famous joke, I thought it was a very funny -- and
musically suggestive -- joke used perhaps at the wrong moment. On the
other hand, it was the only moment that the joke as it was could be made
at all! So I don't know. People's balance between tolerance for humor and
capacity of being outraged is never quantifiable. In defense, I have to
say four words: remember Monthy Python!

Would they have done something similar? Methinks yes.

regards,
SG

Dan Koren

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 12:07:00 AM7/19/03
to
<deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:df8hhv4qqe40sjl5i...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 01:43:28 GMT, "Dan Koren" <dank...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> ><deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:oq4hhvkbtciojcerb...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> And then summon up a modicum of respect for Madame Tureck.
> >>
> >
> >The only respect artists deserve is that earned through the
> >memories and impressions they leave on their audiences. Your
> >experiences with Mme Tureck's performances may have been
> >happier than those of others -- and that's perfectly OK.
> >
> >However the people who did not enjoy Mme Tureck's playing
> >and/or did not agree with her artistic philosophy have as
> >much of a right to express their opinions as have those
> >who liked her.
> >
> >No more and no less.
> >
> >
> >
> >dk
> >
> Absolutely.
>
> I quite agree.


Thanks. The first time you and I have agreed on anything.


> However, that said, perhaps the time to convey such
> thoughts is not on the day her death is announced.


You may have noticed that I did not say anything else.

The passing away of an artist -- no matter how insig-
nificant -- is always a sad event.


> Or is it "open season" all the time here in never-
> never-land?


No more and no less than in Rideau Corridor land.


> When Sharon dies of a heart attack, that is the moment
> to jump on the poor bastard and kick his flaccid body.
> Right? Wrong! The time to kick him is when he can stand
> up and defend himself.


And how is that related to Mme Tureck's final visit to
JSB?


> And RT would have eaten most of her critics before
> breakfast!


Well, that probably explains the feeling of indigestion
in her performances.

dk


Dan Koren

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 12:20:45 AM7/19/03
to
"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:68582019.0...@drn.newsguy.com...

> >>
> >> What misfortune was that?
> >>
> > On the one hand, someone dying (Tureck); on the other,
> > someone dropping groceries (hypothetical example).
> > Your newsreader must be dropping posts.
> >
>
> How is dying a misfortune?
>


It depends on one's religion.


dk


Thomas Wood

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 3:12:17 AM7/19/03
to

Phil Garon <pga...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:613e3493.03071...@posting.google.com...
> According to a message posted to Dave Lampson's music list:
>
> "Rosalyn Tureck died at approximately 10:40 PM on July 17, 2003, at
> her home in Riverdale, Bronx, New York, at the age of 88."

This is sad fom a human point of view. However, from an artistic point point
of view, she was the nakedess of unclothed Empresses. Now, in Elysium, Bach
can whack her leaden knuckles.

Tom Wood


David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 8:11:38 AM7/19/03
to
In article <3f18c710$1...@news.meer.net>, "Dan says...

That, and the circumstances. Dying itself is not a misfortune; it's perfectly
normal. Had she suffered somehow, or had her life been cut short, that might
have been sad, but dying at 88 after a fulfilling career is hardly a misfortune.
Actually, from an artistic point of view, death is something to be welcomed. It
makes room for new talent, new ideas, and new perspectives on old ideas. No mere
performer is so important that art itself suffers from their passing
(particularly when their career has been well documented in recordings), and the
pious sentiments of the self righteous and sanctimonious always make amusing
reading considering the viciousness with which the same people feel free to
treat these same artists when they are alive. It's OK to plaster them when they
are living, as long as we spare a moment for a twinge of sentiment when they
croak. It's pure hypocrisy, a laughable self-indulgence, and nothing more.

Dave Hurwitz

John Gavin

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 9:29:37 AM7/19/03
to
"Yes" <n...@may.be> wrote in message news:<bf9ltq$e63$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...

> Terrymelin <terry...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030718145407...@mb-m22.aol.com...
> > >>"Rosalyn Tureck died at approximately 10:40 PM on July 17, 2003, at
> > >>her home in Riverdale, Bronx, New York, at the age of 88."
> > >>
> > >>pgaron

> > >
> > >...and the average worldwide tempo of Bach keyboard performances just
> > >increased
> > >by at least 10%.
> > >
> > >Dave Hurwitz
> > >
> >
> > That kind of comment is beneath contempt
>
> I think you meant to type "I find that kind of comment beneath contempt...". So far, no-one agrees
> with you.

I remember attending a series of lectures she gave at NYC's Lincoln
Center Library during my high school years. I've got to admit that I
always found something personally unsettling about Ms. Tureck. On the
plus side I would say she had an iron will, and was an extremely hard
worker - but I always found her very full of herself in a way that
bordered on disturbing. Her oft-repeated story about Bach coming to
her in a dream and revealing the true way to interpret his works,
combined with the label "High-priestess of Bach" all had a ring of BS
to me. Her frequent appearances on her friend William Buckley's
program, "Firing Line" only served to re-enforce the image of a
peculiarly rigid woman.

By the way, that DG Goldberg Variations are border-line catatonic -
perhaps that explains why it went out-of-print rather quickly. Sorry
to give so critical a eulogy, but in her case I can't help myself.

deac...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 9:53:35 AM7/19/03
to


I have no idea where you live, John, but the Tureck GVs are still in
print.

Never caught her on Buckley's programme. He fairly worshipped her, of
course. One of his only unmitigated feelings.

She could come across as "rigid", specially in public. In private you
had a very different sense of the woman, warm, friendly, interested
(in everything, not just music), as well as supremely intelligent. I
once did a series of interviews with her at the keyboard, with her
demonstrating her ideas, which has, alas, never been aired. Probably
still in some archives. What a pity!

But I suggest, John, that you listen to her B flat Partita from the
GPE and then tell me she sounds "rigid".

Tom Deacon

deac...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 9:56:06 AM7/19/03
to

Two things:

First: You boviously believe in an afterlife. Fool!

Second: you believe in God! Fool!

Third: You believe that Bach would strike someone. Fool again!

You're batting 1000 so far, Tom. Why not go for the jackpot?

Tom Deacon

Simon Roberts

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 10:42:42 AM7/19/03
to

"Phil Caron" <vlad...@vermontel.net> wrote in message
news:10585781...@websense.vermontel.net...

>
> "Simon Roberts" <sd...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:bfa0m...@drn.newsguy.com...
> > In article <mooghv0ha8n4tgs0d...@4ax.com>, Bob says...
> > >
> > >>
> > >Dunno about 'beneath contempt'. Has about the same quality of
'humor'
> > >as seeing an elderly shopper stumble and dump a load of groceries
in
> > >the parking lot. That's funny ain't it?
> >
> > No. But how is that equivalent?
> >
> He didn't say it was equivalent. He drew a parallel between two
examples of
> making a joke about someone's misfortune.

Sigh. OK, so what's the parallel? He was making fun of her death?
Making a joke out of her dying? Hardly. He made a comment on what she
did while she was alive. True, her abysmal Bach recordings were a
misfortune, but not hers and anyway I somehow don't think that's what
you have in mind....

Simon


Terrymelin

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 10:58:24 AM7/19/03
to
>Come on Terry, it was funny. And the slight can't possibly hurt her. It
>would have been different had he said this to her face when she was alive.

No, at least that would have been honest but to say it when the person just
died is rather cruel.

And, yes, it was funny. But a lot of really mean things are.

Terry Ellsworth

Terrymelin

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 10:58:53 AM7/19/03
to
>Terry, meet Sense of Humor. Sense of Humor, Terry . . .
>
>Matty

Yes, I wonder if you would feel the same way if she had been your mother or
your sister?

Terry Ellsworth

Terrymelin

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 10:59:23 AM7/19/03
to
>See what happens now, Matty: The sanctimonious gather, they circle the wagons
>around their dead icon, they hurl insults and puff themselves up with
>self-righteous indignation. Sit back and enjoy the show!
>
>Dave Hurwitz

I had no idea anyone other than Mr. Gable could be quite this full of
themselves!

Terry Ellsworth

Terrymelin

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 10:59:49 AM7/19/03
to
>Has about the same quality of 'humor'
>as seeing an elderly shopper stumble and dump a load of groceries in
>the parking lot. That's funny ain't it?
>
>bl
>

Exactly!

Terry Ellsworth

Terrymelin

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 11:00:50 AM7/19/03
to
>What misfortune was that?
>
>Dave Hurwitz

Some would find death a misfortune and making fun of someone's death rather
sick.

Terry Ellsworth

Phil Caron

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 11:36:55 AM7/19/03
to
David Hurwitz <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<68582019.0...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> >>
Personally, I don't feel dying necessarily is a misfortune; the timing
might be awkward, and the circumstances could be painful, but hey, we
all do it.

Ms. Tureck may have strongly wished to continue living, so from her
perspective her dying would be a misfortune. More importantly, she
may have people emotionally close to her who feel very badly about her
death, and who see it as a great misfortune. Some may be readers of
this group.

- Phil Caron

deac...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 11:55:59 AM7/19/03
to
On 19 Jul 2003 08:36:55 -0700, vlad...@vermontel.net (Phil Caron)
wrote:

Since she was dying of a virulent form of cancer, I doubt very much
Madame Tureck wanted to prolong her life.

You are right, Phil, we all die, a point hardly worth making, and not
much of a consolation, either to her, or her friends and family.

In fact, stated as above, it is hardly less callous, if a bit more
philosophical, than Mr. Hurwitz's little "humorous" comment.

In any event, I do regret one thing: not being able to remark after
Richter's death: "well, the upside of this death is that endure his
ponderous Schubert B flat any more", and watch the reaction from
Richter's fans on this newsgroup. And I am one who actually likes that
performance, wacky and outrageous as it is.

Tom Deacon

Bob Lombard

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 1:02:56 PM7/19/03
to
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:55:59 -0400, deac...@yahoo.com wrote:


>>> How is dying a misfortune?
>>>
>>Personally, I don't feel dying necessarily is a misfortune; the timing
>>might be awkward, and the circumstances could be painful, but hey, we
>>all do it.
>>
>>Ms. Tureck may have strongly wished to continue living, so from her
>>perspective her dying would be a misfortune. More importantly, she
>>may have people emotionally close to her who feel very badly about her
>>death, and who see it as a great misfortune. Some may be readers of
>>this group.
>>
>>- Phil Caron
>
>Since she was dying of a virulent form of cancer, I doubt very much
>Madame Tureck wanted to prolong her life.
>
>You are right, Phil, we all die, a point hardly worth making, and not
>much of a consolation, either to her, or her friends and family.
>
>In fact, stated as above, it is hardly less callous, if a bit more
>philosophical, than Mr. Hurwitz's little "humorous" comment.
>
>In any event, I do regret one thing: not being able to remark after
>Richter's death: "well, the upside of this death is that endure his
>ponderous Schubert B flat any more", and watch the reaction from
>Richter's fans on this newsgroup. And I am one who actually likes that
>performance, wacky and outrageous as it is.
>
>Tom Deacon

Thank you for this post, Tom. In it you have clarified for me several
facets of your character that I was unsure about based on previous
posts.

BTW, were you ever forced to listen to that Schubert? if so, I really
don't need details.

bl

na...@uiuc.edu

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 1:10:53 PM7/19/03
to
The recordings of hers that I've heard are wonderful. If you can get
past the didactic manner her perceptions are amazing and, to me,
utterly compelling. I had not realized that she had returned to the
United States and was still performing, or I may have looked for
opportunities to hear her play.

Irrespective of my views about Tureck's playing, I have to agree with
Terry on the other matter under discussion here.

Naun.

David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 1:57:21 PM7/19/03
to
>
>In any event, I do regret one thing: not being able to remark after
>Richter's death: "well, the upside of this death is that endure his
>ponderous Schubert B flat any more", and watch the reaction from
>Richter's fans on this newsgroup. >
>Tom Deacon

Thank you for making my point, Tom.

Dave Hurwitz

Clovis Lark

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 2:27:22 PM7/19/03
to

I met Turreck while in grad school. She gave a quite knowedgeable seminar
and backed it up with fine playing. That said, I don't consider the
"raost" she just received as so awful. I think it was clearly a jest,
showed a certain aspect of her legacy with some humor. Perhaps the
curious will now go buy her work to see what this fuss is.

> Terry Ellsworth

Clovis Lark

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 2:28:34 PM7/19/03
to

For me, yes. I am quite comfortable with this. Were someone to assault
my living mother or sister, that would be quite different.

> Terry Ellsworth

David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 2:11:50 PM7/19/03
to
>>
>Personally, I don't feel dying necessarily is a misfortune; the timing
>might be awkward, and the circumstances could be painful, but hey, we
>all do it.

Exactly.

>
>Ms. Tureck may have strongly wished to continue living, so from her
>perspective her dying would be a misfortune. More importantly, she
>may have people emotionally close to her who feel very badly about her
>death, and who see it as a great misfortune. Some may be readers of
>this group.
>
>- Phil Caron

So why does the fact the some may feel her death was a misfortune mean that ALL
must do so, or that the occasion of her death is not an appropriate time for a
discussion of her career or artistic significance (pro and con), humorous or
not, or simply an opportunity to express an opinion? Why is it that only the
people who loved her have feelings that need to be respected by everyone else?
It's a double standard, plain and simple.

You will note, by the way, that I said nothing at all derogatory about her. I
merely stated a fact--that she prefered slow tempos--in a humorous way. I did
not say that I was happy that she was dead, that I wished her ill, or that she
was not a fine artist (though many else here have). In fact, I expressed no
opinion about her at all, and I find it fascinating to see what people ASSUME my
attitude must be, with nary a shred of evidence to back it up other than the
utterly ridiculous suggestion that a little gentle humor at the time of
someone's death is somehow invariably indicative of disdain or disrespect.

As usual in these cases, the reactions reveal more about those reacting than
they do about anything inherent in the comment itself. I'm glad, though, that at
least some here enjoyed the joke--I've enjoyed seeing this response, much of
which is a far bigger joke than my little initial quip.

Dave Hurwitz

Phil Caron

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 3:52:02 PM7/19/03
to
"Simon Roberts" <sd...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<NYqdnTRqEtp...@comcast.com>...
The "he" of my post was Bob Lombard. I'll guess that the "he" in your
post is David Hurwitz. David immediately greeted the announcement of
Rosalyn Tureck's death with a joke, so yes, I think he was joking
about her dying. I think I can be excused for assuming from that
conjunction that David really wanted to say "I'm so glad Tureck died
because I didn't like her playing", but even he felt compunctions
about that. So instead we got the transparent bon mot.

Well, some people, like you, found that clever. To me it was
mean-spirited and unnecessarily cruel to any of Tureck's family who
might happen to read it. Oh, I forgot, this is RMCR, bastion of free
expression, where anyone who enters deserves anything they get. Sort
of like strolling by the chimp cage at the zoo, right, Simon?

I've been enjoying Tureck's Bach recordings all morning. I find them
serious, sensitive, committed, and technically impressive.

- Phil Caron

Dan Koren

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 3:59:55 PM7/19/03
to
<deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:72jihvor7fnehj2cf...@4ax.com...

>
> She could come across as "rigid", specially in public.
> In private you had a very different sense of the woman,
> warm, friendly, interested (in everything, not just music),
> as well as supremely intelligent. I once did a series of
> interviews with her at the keyboard, with her demonstrating
> her ideas, which has, alas, never been aired. Probably
> still in some archives. What a pity!
>
> But I suggest, John, that you listen to her B flat Partita
> from the GPE and then tell me she sounds "rigid".


It does sound flat.

dk


Dan Koren

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 4:02:23 PM7/19/03
to
<deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mbjihvkrbvgfngl92...@4ax.com...

>
> First: You boviously believe in an afterlife. Fool!

Isn't that precisely what recordings are for?

> Second: you believe in God! Fool!
>
> Third: You believe that Bach would strike someone. Fool again!
>
> You're batting 1000 so far, Tom. Why not go for the jackpot?
>


Fourth: You believe in yourself, Tom!

Damn fool!!!

dk


deac...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 3:53:33 PM7/19/03
to

Nor will details be offered. But the answer is "yes", both in concert
and on records. Better in the former than the latter because of the
intensity of the concert situation. But still clearly outrageous and
wacky.

But I doubt his interpretation will ever give way to imitators. Sui
generis was invented for such acts of musical willfulness.

Tom Deacon

deac...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 3:55:34 PM7/19/03
to
On 19 Jul 2003 11:11:50 -0700, David Hurwitz
<David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:


And this from the "editor" of a so-called internet review service!

A great deal is explained here.

Tom Deacon

deac...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 4:06:22 PM7/19/03
to

I think she was not really performing much in the last three years.
She had a major date in Paris in the last century which she had to
back out of and during her time in Spain - late 1990s - she was just
writing.

For all intents and purposes her performing career had come to a close
by the time of the DG Goldbergs.

Incidentally, I have yet to hear the BBC WTC. They have received very
favourable reviews in France and the UK. At the time of the reissue of
the old American Decca WTC she wondered why we did not use the BBC
recordings, but of course we didn't own those, so the 1952 recordings
were used.

While mentioning the DG recording, the producer of these recordings -
in fact the engineer, who doubled as producer - the producer assigned
to the task was having a Lesbian self-awareness crisis, I seem to
recall and had gone to a spa to find herself - reported to me that he
had never in all his time in the business ever encountered an artist
so well prepared, so professional in her work. He came away amazed at
this old lady just sitting down at the keyboard and delivering the
goods day after day. Those that don't know much about recordings will
probably not realize that most artists come to recording sessions
acting as though the sessions planned will allow them to repeat and
repeat a work endlessly until they get it right. A famous, or infamous
session for La Campanella (no, I will NOT reveal the name of the
pianist) included 256 edits, for example. So, for old RT to sit down
and record the GVs in her eighties without so much as an edit,
anywhere, is just unheard of. Whatever one thinks of her playing - and
it has always been controversial, as controversial as Gould's in the
same music - one has to admire her professionalism.

Tom Deacon

David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 4:28:08 PM7/19/03
to
>The "he" of my post was Bob Lombard. I'll guess that the "he" in your
>post is David Hurwitz. David immediately greeted the announcement of
>Rosalyn Tureck's death with a joke, so yes, I think he was joking
>about her dying.

You are wrong. And I should know. I was joking about the fact that she played
Bach slowly, but then I'm something of a literalist. I tend to mean what I say.
But of course you won't believe that because it serves your holier-than-thou
purpose not to believe it.

>I think I can be excused for assuming from that
>conjunction that David really wanted to say "I'm so glad Tureck died
>because I didn't like her playing", but even he felt compunctions
>about that. So instead we got the transparent bon mot.

Think again. I note how quickly you excuse yourself while assuming whatever you
please about others. Perhaps you should give others the same indulgence you
permit yourself.

>
>Well, some people, like you, found that clever. To me it was
>mean-spirited and unnecessarily cruel to any of Tureck's family who
>might happen to read it.

Oh, please! I'm sure they're delighted to have you to defend their feelings
against any (by your definition) adverse comment that might pop up in an
internet discussion group. That you might actually be serious about such
pretentious twaddle is truly amazing.

>Oh, I forgot, this is RMCR, bastion of free
>expression, where anyone who enters deserves anything they get. Sort
>of like strolling by the chimp cage at the zoo, right, Simon?
>

Perhaps so, but if you think that your pious sanctimony and two-faced hypocrisy
"improve" the level of discourse, I'd think again.

Dave Hurwitz

David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 4:29:10 PM7/19/03
to

>
>And this from the "editor" of a so-called internet review service!
>
>A great deal is explained here.
>
>Tom Deacon

That you can say so little but sound like such a pompous ass saying it is really
kind of amazing, in its pathetic sort of way.

Dave Hurwitz

deac...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 6:36:11 PM7/19/03
to
On 19 Jul 2003 13:29:10 -0700, David Hurwitz
<David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

As you please.

TD

deac...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 6:43:36 PM7/19/03
to
On 19 Jul 2003 13:28:08 -0700, David Hurwitz
<David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

Naturally, anyone who takes offense with the callous "humour" in David
Hurwitz's remarks is now accused of "pious sancimoniousness" and
"two-faced hypocrisy". What a lod of self-defensive crap!

All of us speak and read the English language. Moreover, we all have
sufficient brains, even those of us who have been qualified by Mr.
Hurwitz as "asses", to understand not only the words but what is
behind the words.

Mr. Hurwitz would have us all take him literally. A nice enough
request but one which falls on deaf ears where I am concerned at
least. Nasty is one way of qualifying this person, mean-spirited is
another, humourless is a third. I could go on, but that is enough for
the time being.

If the shoe fits - and here it would appear to habe been benchmade -
then there is little choice but for Mr. Hurwitz to wear it.

Tom Deacon


deac...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 6:44:52 PM7/19/03
to
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 19:59:55 GMT, "Dan Koren" <dank...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Could be. It is VERY small scaled. On purpose, of course. But rigid
was the word, Dan, not flat. And rigid it definitely is not.

Tom Deacon

deac...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 6:45:59 PM7/19/03
to
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:02:23 GMT, "Dan Koren" <dank...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

><deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:mbjihvkrbvgfngl92...@4ax.com...

>


>Fourth: You believe in yourself, Tom!
>
>Damn fool!!!
>
>
>
>dk
>

You would rather I believe in YOU?

My goodness. Even a fool can see that would be doubly foolish!

Tom Deacon

Dana Hill

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 7:24:03 PM7/19/03
to
This is sad news. I will be doing an on-air tribute to her tomorrow
morning. I am thinking I will play her Goldberg Variations.

Dana Hill
Gainesville, Florida
http://www.danajohhill.com

"Phil Garon" <pga...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:613e3493.03071...@posting.google.com...
> According to a message posted to Dave Lampson's music list:
>
> "Rosalyn Tureck died at approximately 10:40 PM on July 17, 2003, at
> her home in Riverdale, Bronx, New York, at the age of 88."
>
> pgaron


Phil Caron

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 7:34:37 PM7/19/03
to
David Hurwitz <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> >
> >Ms. Tureck may have strongly wished to continue living, so from her
> >perspective her dying would be a misfortune. More importantly, she
> >may have people emotionally close to her who feel very badly about her
> >death, and who see it as a great misfortune. Some may be readers of
> >this group.
> >

> So why does the fact the some may feel her death was a misfortune mean that ALL


> must do so, or that the occasion of her death is not an appropriate time for a
> discussion of her career or artistic significance (pro and con), humorous or
> not, or simply an opportunity to express an opinion?

Others have been doing that. Not you.

> Why is it that only the
> people who loved her have feelings that need to be respected by everyone else?
> It's a double standard, plain and simple.

The fact that the bereaved may be suffering merits no consideration
from you at all.



> You will note, by the way, that I said nothing at all derogatory about her.

I note that you used the opportunity of Tureck's death to make sport
of her.

>I
> merely stated a fact--that she prefered slow tempos--in a humorous way. I did
> not say that I was happy that she was dead, that I wished her ill, or that she
> was not a fine artist (though many else here have). In fact, I expressed no
> opinion about her at all, and I find it fascinating to see what people ASSUME my
> attitude must be, with nary a shred of evidence to back it up other than the
> utterly ridiculous suggestion that a little gentle humor at the time of
> someone's death is somehow invariably indicative of disdain or disrespect.
>

Given the timing of your "humor" the assumption stands. Unless you'd
care to deny it?

> As usual in these cases, the reactions reveal more about those reacting than
> they do about anything inherent in the comment itself.

Oh no, I'm revealed.

>I'm glad, though, that at
> least some here enjoyed the joke--I've enjoyed seeing this response, much of
> which is a far bigger joke than my little initial quip.
>

The joke is that I turned to your original post assuming that it would
contain something of value, you supposedly being a music critic and
privy to knowlege and insights about the music business. Instead I
found a little piece of shit with a peacock strutting proudly around
it. Not good, Mr. Hurwitz.

- Phil Caron

David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 7:15:13 PM7/19/03
to
>
>All of us speak and read the English language. Moreover, we all have
>sufficient brains, even those of us who have been qualified by Mr.
>Hurwitz as "asses", to understand not only the words but what is
>behind the words.

You've just proven that wrong.

>
>Mr. Hurwitz would have us all take him literally. A nice enough
>request but one which falls on deaf ears where I am concerned at
>least.

That you have deaf ears has never been in dispute, Tom. And that you refuse to
accept reality when it doesn't suit you is also quite obvious.

>Nasty is one way of qualifying this person, mean-spirited is
>another, humourless is a third. I could go on, but that is enough for
>the time being.

Nasty is as nasty writes, Tom. Why not compare my single sentence about Turek to
your rant about Sanchez, and let's see which of us deserves the label more?
Haven't you had enough of your own hypocrisy? No, don't answer that. Your
remarks speak for themselves.

Dave Hurwitz

Phil Caron

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 7:46:01 PM7/19/03
to
Samir Golescu <gol...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> As regards the by now famous joke, I thought it was a very funny -- and
> musically suggestive -- joke used perhaps at the wrong moment. On the
> other hand, it was the only moment that the joke as it was could be made
> at all! So I don't know. People's balance between tolerance for humor and
> capacity of being outraged is never quantifiable.

Partly because their tolerance & capacity vary according to
circumstances. Take you for example, Samir. You are terribly strict
about people using your name, even neutrally, in posting headers. But
let someone else two days earlier get called a "fucking moron" in a
header, and you're silent as a mouse.

- Phil Caron

David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 7:31:59 PM7/19/03
to
Whatever one thinks of her playing - and
>it has always been controversial, as controversial as Gould's in the
>same music - one has to admire her professionalism.
>

Indeed. Moravec is another artist similarly prepared. His new Chopin disc for
Vox took one day less than planned, and the producer remarked to me that it was
amazing that he could simply sit down, play the music in complete takes, touch
up a spot or two, and be done with it.

Dave Hurwitz

Phil Caron

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 7:52:09 PM7/19/03
to
deac...@yahoo.com wrote in message
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 07:12:17 GMT, "Thomas Wood"
>
> >This is sad fom a human point of view. However, from an artistic point point
> >of view, she was the nakedess of unclothed Empresses. Now, in Elysium, Bach
> >can whack her leaden knuckles.
> >
> Two things:

>
> First: You boviously believe in an afterlife. Fool!
>
> Second: you believe in God! Fool!
>
> Third: You believe that Bach would strike someone. Fool again!
>
> You're batting 1000 so far, Tom. Why not go for the jackpot?
>
That's three things, so Tom's 3 for 2. Therefore he's batting 1.500.

- Phil Caron

MarkZimmerman

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 8:38:42 PM7/19/03
to
>> First: You boviously believe in an afterlife. Fool!
>> Second: you believe in God! Fool!

Gee, I believe in an afterlife. Hell, I created it as well as everything else
in the universe (that's this universe and all the others I created as well).

Best,

Mark Allen Zimmerman * Chicago

David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 8:31:40 PM7/19/03
to
>
>>So why does the fact the some may feel her death was a misfortune mean that ALL
>>must do so, or that the occasion of her death is not an appropriate time for a
>> discussion of her career or artistic significance (pro and con), humorous or
>> not, or simply an opportunity to express an opinion?
>
>Others have been doing that. Not you.

Not true; I began this discussion. You should thank me. I knew the "moral
minority" and Turek's fans would likely chime in as shrilly as they have--I've
been around here a while, you may recall, and know what I'm getting into. But I
also knew that most would simply take my comment at face value, and have a
little laugh. That's all. The remainder of this geschrei is simply entertainment
for the other participants. You, for example, seem to be enjoying yourself
thoroughly at the opportunity to posture and carry on that I have given you. So
knock yourself out while it lasts. Opportunities like this don't come along
every day.

>
>> Why is it that only the
>>people who loved her have feelings that need to be respected by everyone else?
>> It's a double standard, plain and simple.
>
>The fact that the bereaved may be suffering merits no consideration
>from you at all.

No, it does not. When someone dies, the bereaved always suffer, but they do so
for personal reasons on the basis of their personal relationship to the
deceased. Frankly, their suffering (or not) is none of your business, or mine.
It's a private thing, and they certainly don't need you to stick up for them.
Any public figure's public persona is fair game for discussion at any
time--indeed, particularly when they die; performers know this when they offer
the fruits of their labors to the public for public comment, and your concern
for the "bereaved," which would be touching were it not so opportune, is
misplaced.

>
>> You will note, by the way, that I said nothing at all derogatory about her.
>
>I note that you used the opportunity of Tureck's death to make sport
>of her.

Indeed, but there is sport well or gently meant, and sport which is malicious.
Your decision to place my remark in the second category reveals your own
decision to see the worst, and nothing more. It has nothing to do with me, since
you refuse to accept what I have clearly said regarding my intentions. The
ugliness, if such it is, lies solely within you and others like you.

>
>>I
>> merely stated a fact--that she prefered slow tempos--in a humorous way. I did
>>not say that I was happy that she was dead, that I wished her ill, or that she
>> was not a fine artist (though many else here have). In fact, I expressed no
>>opinion about her at all, and I find it fascinating to see what people ASSUME my
>> attitude must be, with nary a shred of evidence to back it up other than the
>> utterly ridiculous suggestion that a little gentle humor at the time of
>> someone's death is somehow invariably indicative of disdain or disrespect.
>>

>Given the timing of your "humor" the assumption stands. Unless you'd
>care to deny it?

I already have denied it. It's you who refuse to believe it. As Samir has
pointed out, my "timing" could not have been otherwise, since had Turek not died
I would not have had the opportunity to make the remark in the first place,
unless of course she were to come up in another thread for some reason while
still alive. We take what opportunities fate alots.

>
>> As usual in these cases, the reactions reveal more about those reacting than
>> they do about anything inherent in the comment itself.
>
>Oh no, I'm revealed.
>
>>I'm glad, though, that at
>> least some here enjoyed the joke--I've enjoyed seeing this response, much of
>> which is a far bigger joke than my little initial quip.
>>
>The joke is that I turned to your original post assuming that it would
>contain something of value, you supposedly being a music critic and
>privy to knowlege and insights about the music business. Instead I
>found a little piece of shit with a peacock strutting proudly around
>it. Not good, Mr. Hurwitz.
>
>- Phil Caron

When I first starting posting here, people complained that I had no business
participating in this group because I was a "professional." So I have made it
clear ever since that I participate here as a private citizen, just like anyone
else, and my professional work speaks for itself in its proper place. And yet
whenever someone decides to attack me, up comes the "critic" business. I expect
this of course, and couldn't care less, but only further proves my point, which
is that you see what you want to see irrespective of anything that I may say or
do.

But no matter, for now you reveal your true colors; once again we see that a
harmless joke at the expense of a public figure, a mere performer, justifies any
amount of name calling, cursing, and vitriol. You have become what you most
claim to despise, Phil--but then, you always have been, haven't you? At least
now you can't hypocritically whine about the nastiness of others and the low
level of discourse in the ng. I do believe that of all the posts in this thread
thus far, yours has been the crudest, and you might want to ask yourself if my
original remark justifies your reaction, particularly when you are confronted
with what I presume will be the ex post facto self-loathing and disgust you will
feel at having descended from your pristine pedestal of virtue in order to vent
your spleen.

Dave Hurwitz

David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 8:50:03 PM7/19/03
to
In article <20030719203842...@mb-m23.aol.com>, markzi...@aol.com
says...

Thank you. You did an excellent job.

Dave Hurwitz, Createe

deac...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 9:22:23 PM7/19/03
to
On 19 Jul 2003 16:15:13 -0700, David Hurwitz
<David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:


>>Nasty is one way of qualifying this person, mean-spirited is
>>another, humourless is a third. I could go on, but that is enough for
>>the time being.
>
>Nasty is as nasty writes, Tom. Why not compare my single sentence about Turek to
>your rant about Sanchez, and let's see which of us deserves the label more?
>Haven't you had enough of your own hypocrisy? No, don't answer that. Your
>remarks speak for themselves.
>
>Dave Hurwitz

What a silly response!

I suppose you think my declaration that Sahcnez plays a bad piano and
is badly recorded is now classified as "nasty"

In addition to being nasty, mean-spirited, and humourless, you are
also a trifle desperate.

A simple apology for a tasteless remark would have sufficed. But no,
here you go trudging through the mud.

It is not, I think, you who should dare to refer to anyone as an ass.

Tom Deacon

deac...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 9:26:01 PM7/19/03
to
On 19 Jul 2003 16:31:59 -0700, David Hurwitz
<David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:


No surprise!

Now, perhaps if you were an equally professional "journalist", instead
of a low-life Internet drudge, you might find something better to do
than to trash a dedicated artist who has just died of cancer.

Tom Deacon

deac...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 9:27:01 PM7/19/03
to
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 19:24:03 -0400, "Dana Hill"
<da...@danajohnhill.com> wrote:

>This is sad news. I will be doing an on-air tribute to her tomorrow
>morning. I am thinking I will play her Goldberg Variations.
>
>Dana Hill
>Gainesville, Florida
>http://www.danajohhill.com
>

Go for it, Dana! Nothing would make Rosalyn Tureck more pleased, I
assure you.

Tom Deacon

Phil Caron

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 9:57:46 PM7/19/03
to
David Hurwitz <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<68646488.0...@drn.newsguy.com>...

> >The "he" of my post was Bob Lombard. I'll guess that the "he" in your
> >post is David Hurwitz. David immediately greeted the announcement of
> >Rosalyn Tureck's death with a joke, so yes, I think he was joking
> >about her dying.
>
> You are wrong. And I should know. I was joking about the fact that she played
> Bach slowly, but then I'm something of a literalist. I tend to mean what I say.
> But of course you won't believe that because it serves your holier-than-thou
> purpose not to believe it.
>
What's not to believe? But as Samir points out, Rosalyn's death was
necessary for the joke to be made. Why didn't you say, "She played
Bach slowly?"

> >To me it was
> >mean-spirited and unnecessarily cruel to any of Tureck's family who
> >might happen to read it.
>
> Oh, please! I'm sure they're delighted to have you to defend their feelings
> against any (by your definition) adverse comment that might pop up in an
> internet discussion group.

And if it happens that I am myself one of Rosalyn's relatives?

- Phil Caron

David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 9:46:00 PM7/19/03
to
>
>It is not, I think, you who should dare to refer to anyone as an ass.
>
>Tom Deacon

If the shoe fits...

Dave Hurwitz

Phil Caron

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 10:18:44 PM7/19/03
to
deac...@yahoo.com wrote in message

(interesting info about Tureck snipped)

Thanks for the descriptive post. I haven't heard her DG Goldbergs; I
have an earlier recording of that by Tureck, and haven't warmed to it.

I listened to part of her "Young Firebrand" album again today.
Virtuosic playing in the Liszt Paganinis, very dynamic with
exagerrated sforzandos and inner voices coming to the fore, and tempos
reasonably quick. She had fine technique, though the sailing gets
pretty rough in #3, enough so that one suspects it was again in one
unedited take. In her DG WTC set I would readily believe her somewhat
slowish tempos were chosen for interpretive reasons, not technical
ones.

- Phil Caron

David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 9:53:04 PM7/19/03
to
>
>Now, perhaps if you were an equally professional "journalist", instead
>of a low-life Internet drudge, you might find something better to do
>than to trash a dedicated artist who has just died of cancer.
>
>Tom Deacon

I think you're running out of epithets to hurl. It's delightful to see how a
simple observation, that Turek played slowly, has become "trashing" a dedicated
artist. The shrillness of your vitriol stands in stark contrast to the offending
remark itself. And there, I think, I will leave the matter. As always, readers
will decide for themselves what to think and believe.

As I noted before, those who appreciated and enjoyed the humor understood my
intent accordingly. I couldn't care less about the rest of you, though it has
been fun watching you all carry on so. I look forward to the next opportunity.

Dave Hurwitz

Alan Watkins

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 10:32:20 PM7/19/03
to
>
> ...and the average worldwide tempo of Bach keyboard performances just increased
> by at least 10%.
>
> Dave Hurwitz

Yes, almost certainly true but despite slow tempi she's probably going
to get a longer obituary than anyone on this discussion group.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins

Bob Lombard

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 10:47:18 PM7/19/03
to
On 19 Jul 2003 18:53:04 -0700, David Hurwitz
<David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

Hah. Fascinating dialog. I'm pretty sure it isn't substantiated often
enough to be a useful theory, but "Opposites attract, likes repel"
seems to apply to these two personalities. You guys even profess the
same intent: Make the rmcr fools dance.

Diddity bop - bop - bop.

bl

David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 10:37:25 PM7/19/03
to
In article <46eb3807.03071...@posting.google.com>,
vlad...@vermontel.net says...

Then I'm sorry for your loss personally, but artistically speaking and with
regard to her public persona as a performer, I have to point out that you have
no business objecting to anyone's opinion of her artistic legacy--this is who
she was, and if she courted controversy in offering her work to the public, then
it was her choice to make and not yours to question or dispute simply because
you dislike what some might say about her musical achievements posthumously. It
does scant justice to her memory for you to carry on so. Meanwhile, you might
better spend your time asking those who plan various broadcast and discographic
tributes to her now that she is dead where these same people were when she was
dying of cancer and otherwise alive to appreciate them. You see, I can play the
pity card too.

Dave Hurwitz

David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 10:50:32 PM7/19/03
to
>
>Yes, almost certainly true but despite slow tempi she's probably going
>to get a longer obituary than anyone on this discussion group.
>
>Kind regards,
>Alan M. Watkins

Don't be so sure. One of the big myths about classical performers generally,
desperately promoted by publicists, fans, and the artists themselves, is that
they are far more important than they really are. Love her or hate her, Turek
didn't matter terribly in any especially significant way beyond the pleasure she
gave her audiences. Neither Western civilization nor Bach performance would have
been significantly altered had she never existed.

The records will survive her, and they speak for themselves, but given the
popularity and frequency of Bach performance historically, I doubt that without
the force of her own unique personality her legacy will amount to much more than
a gradually diminishing cult of fans. We shall see. The gods survive. It's the
high priests and priestesses that come and go, Few remember their passing, which
of course is only just. Composers matter; works matter; performers are
ephemeral. That's essential to what classical music is.

Dave Hurwitz

David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 19, 2003, 10:53:59 PM7/19/03
to
>
>Hah. Fascinating dialog. I'm pretty sure it isn't substantiated often
>enough to be a useful theory, but "Opposites attract, likes repel"
>seems to apply to these two personalities. You guys even profess the
>same intent: Make the rmcr fools dance.
>

Interesting theory, and quite possibly true. What's up next, fools? How about a
samba?

Dave Hurwitz

Samir Golescu

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 12:20:05 AM7/20/03
to

On 19 Jul 2003, Phil Caron wrote:

> Samir Golescu <gol...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> > As regards the by now famous joke, I thought it was a very funny -- and
> > musically suggestive -- joke used perhaps at the wrong moment. On the
> > other hand, it was the only moment that the joke as it was could be made
> > at all! So I don't know. People's balance between tolerance for humor and
> > capacity of being outraged is never quantifiable.
>
> Partly because their tolerance & capacity vary according to

> circumstances etc.

Mr. Caron, you've already said I "disgusted" you. I understood that, I
didn't answer that, mostly due to the many occasions in the past I
appreciated your manners/kindness/opinion. Many thanks for your frankness,
the point doesn't need to be driven home more. I am sorry to have
disappointed you. I think there is little else left to be said.

regards,
SG

Simon Roberts

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 12:36:38 AM7/20/03
to

"Phil Caron" <vlad...@vermontel.net> wrote in message
news:46eb3807.0307...@posting.google.com...
> "Simon Roberts" <sd...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<NYqdnTRqEtp...@comcast.com>...
> > "Phil Caron" <vlad...@vermontel.net> wrote in message
> > news:10585781...@websense.vermontel.net...
> > >
> > > "Simon Roberts" <sd...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >
> > Sigh. OK, so what's the parallel? He was making fun of her death?
> > Making a joke out of her dying? Hardly. He made a comment on what
she
> > did while she was alive. True, her abysmal Bach recordings were a
> > misfortune, but not hers and anyway I somehow don't think that's
what
> > you have in mind....

> >
> The "he" of my post was Bob Lombard. I'll guess that the "he" in your
> post is David Hurwitz.

Correct.

David immediately greeted the announcement of
> Rosalyn Tureck's death with a joke, so yes, I think he was joking
> about her dying.

Don't be silly. It's a joke occasioned by her death.

I think I can be excused for assuming from that
> conjunction that David really wanted to say "I'm so glad Tureck died
> because I didn't like her playing", but even he felt compunctions
> about that.

That assumption may say more about you than it does about him.

So instead we got the transparent bon mot.
>

> Well, some people, like you, found that clever.

What makes you think I found it "clever"? I found it funny.

To me it was
> mean-spirited and unnecessarily cruel to any of Tureck's family who
> might happen to read it.

Doesn't look cruel to me. Why assume that someone who makes a joke
about her slow tempi is a foe? (You may have noticed - or perhaps not -
that those who make the most fun of Celibidache and his slow tempi are
Celibidache fans.) Why assume that a Tureck family member reading this
comment would share your interpretation of it or find it, of all things,
"cruel"?

Oh, I forgot, this is RMCR, bastion of free
> expression, where anyone who enters deserves anything they get. Sort
> of like strolling by the chimp cage at the zoo, right, Simon?

The quality of reasoning found in this newsgroup often fares badly by
the comparison.

Simon


Simon Roberts

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 12:39:31 AM7/20/03
to

"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:68638310.0...@drn.newsguy.com...

>
> You will note, by the way, that I said nothing at all derogatory about
her.

[snip]

That fact will not be noted (and, indeed, has evidently not been noted)
because it would be inconvenient to do so.

Simon


Dan Koren

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 1:16:09 AM7/20/03
to
deac...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<ndijhvs2a7u8s886v...@4ax.com>...
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 19:59:55 GMT, "Dan Koren" <dank...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
>
> ><deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:72jihvor7fnehj2cf...@4ax.com...

> >> But I suggest, John, that you listen to her B flat Partita
> >> from the GPE and then tell me she sounds "rigid".
> >
> > It does sound flat.
>
> Could be. It is VERY small scaled.

It is scaled so small that it does not matter.

> On purpose, of course. But rigid was the word, Dan, not flat.

And rigid was the writer, too.

> And rigid it definitely is not.

Flat, rigid, who cares? You got my
meaning, didn't you? You're wasting
your time (and everybody else's)
trying to wiggle your way out by
splitting hairs and pretending
not to have noticed the main
theme....

dk

Wayne Reimer

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 3:37:16 AM7/20/03
to
> In article <68616698.0...@drn.newsguy.com>, David_...@newsguy.com says...
<...>
> It's OK to plaster them when they
> are living, as long as we spare a moment for a twinge of sentiment when they
> croak. It's pure hypocrisy, a laughable self-indulgence, and nothing more.
>
> Dave Hurwitz
>
>
Having some consideration for the feelings of those who might be having some
stong emotional reaction to the death and therefore restraining impulses for
cheap jokes at the expense of the deceased is not hypocrisy, even if you have
no respect for the dead person. It's civility.

wr

Dan Koren

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 6:09:21 AM7/20/03
to
"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:68656513.0...@drn.newsguy.com...

> >
> >All of us speak and read the English language. Moreover, we all have
> >sufficient brains, even those of us who have been qualified by Mr.
> >Hurwitz as "asses", to understand not only the words but what is
> >behind the words.
>
> You've just proven that wrong.
>
> >
> >Mr. Hurwitz would have us all take him literally. A nice enough
> >request but one which falls on deaf ears where I am concerned at
> >least.
>
> That you have deaf ears has never been in dispute, Tom.
>


That shouldn't matter as long as one
follows the urtext in every one of
its minutiae...

dk


Dan Koren

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 6:13:35 AM7/20/03
to
"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:68669432.0...@drn.newsguy.com...


... and reviewers are even more ephemeral...


... which seems to beg the question ...


... how can anyone so ephemeral be so
essential to what classical music is ...


... what is the meaning of is ... ?


dk


Steve Molino

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 7:04:51 AM7/20/03
to
"Dana Hill" <da...@danajohnhill.com> wrote in message
news:bfcjuk$ume$1...@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...

> This is sad news. I will be doing an on-air tribute to her tomorrow
> morning. I am thinking I will play her Goldberg Variations.
>

That sounds about right. Too bad your show doesn't run all day. Maybe you
would be able to play something in addition to the GV.


David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 8:21:36 AM7/20/03
to
In article <MPG.1983e65b2...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, Wayne says...

In music and the arts people are always having strong reactions to something or
another; one type is not more important than any other. It's simply in the
nature of things. People having strong emotional reactions who can't handle
those who are NOT having such reactions, or who cannot bear to see contrary
opinions in a time of difficulty, should nurse their feelings elsewhere. Once
again you confuse a joke concerning an artist's legacy with having "no respect"
for the person, and "civility," also encompasses tolerance for differing
opinions, remarks made in (perceived) questionable taste, differences in one's
definition of humor, and everything in between--and if such tolerance flies out
the window in every moment of emotional distress, then the term has no meaning
whatsoever.

Of all of the comments in this thread, my original one remains the least
"uncivil" coming from those who claim to dislike Ms. Turek (because I never
claim to dislike her at all--I have been assigned that role by those with an
interest in seeing it that way), and certainly it is far more civil than the
comments of those who object to it. So your concern for "civility" is misplaced
in this context.

Dave Hurwitz

Phil Caron

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 9:06:09 AM7/20/03
to
David Hurwitz <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<68573939.0...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> >>
> >Dunno about 'beneath contempt'. Has about the same quality of 'humor'
> >as seeing an elderly shopper stumble and dump a load of groceries in
> >the parking lot. That's funny ain't it?
> >
> >bl
> >
>
> It might be if you were the shopper...
>
> Dave Hurwitz

The literalist.

- Phil Caron

Richard Schultz

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 9:18:07 AM7/20/03
to
In article <68703696.0...@drn.newsguy.com>, David Hurwitz <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

: People having strong emotional reactions who can't handle


: those who are NOT having such reactions, or who cannot bear to see contrary
: opinions in a time of difficulty, should nurse their feelings elsewhere.

Perhaps you should keep this statement in mind the next time that someone
makes a joke at *your* expense.

-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"

David Hurwitz

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 8:54:57 AM7/20/03
to
>
>
>... and reviewers are even more ephemeral...

Obviously, but it doesn't change the validity of the point. Why do you assume
that it's necessary to remind me that critics are even LESS important? Of course
they are. What difference does that make? This isn't a comparison for the
purpose of exalting one group at the expense of another in terms of their
relative significance--it's simply an observation based on the historical
reality of our classical music tradition. Any critic writing for posterity can't
possibly be doing his job, which is to be relevant to his audience today--and if
he achieves some measure of posthumous fame, it's because what he said about his
own day has some relevance to a future audience. No one can predict or plan for
that eventuality other than to note that the chances of it happening are
extremely small.

>
>
>... how can anyone so ephemeral be so
> essential to what classical music is ...

Not a difficult question, Dan. They are essential because they perform, and
without them the music would not exist. The act of performance is necessary in
general, just as a factory cannot produce goods without workers; and while some
workers may be better at what they do than others, ultimately the importance of
individual, SPECIFIC performance is not significant in the long term. Perhaps
this anomaly accounts for the hysteria and exaggerated claims made by partisans
of particular performers; they think that the louder they scream and the purer
and more selfless their love, the greater the chances that their idols will
achieve the "permanence" of value that validates their own personal artistic
preferences and loyalty to the cause.

Still, it's a tenuous position at best. Old workers die and new ones are ready
to take their place in the same job, producing the same goods, and on the whole
since they are trained by the previous generation and work from the same
blueprints, knowledge and quality are maintained. One's personal feelings about
specific performers, however intense, have no bearing on the historical process.
And criticism, which is the discussion of the quantitative and qualitative
differences between these performers, has even less significance beyond the
moment, being at one further remove from even the ephemeral act of performance
itself. Music which has little or no existence beyond a specific performance is
called "popular" in general--music of its day, of a particular fasion, and no
other.

>
>... what is the meaning of is ... ?
>

Ask Bill.

Dave Hurwitz

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages