MusicWeb
Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT
latest reviews.
The suggestion that its reviewers are prejudiced against what Mr
Tepper calls "foreigners" is patently ludicrous. Yes, they do
recommend CDs of works by minor British composers, but then why
shouldn't they? They're pretty generous towards Australian recordings
of Australian composers for that matter, as I'm sure Mr Roberts would
appreciate.
There certainly is a glowing review of the EMI GROC reissue of the
celebrated Du Pre/Barbirolli recording, written by someone who may or
may not reside in the UK, but who has a Scandinavian name - Goran
Forsling
See http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2006/Dec06/Elgar_DuPre_5628862.htm
But there is also this, from a review by David Wright of Carol
Easton's famous tell-it all biography:
"The author gives us many quotes from reviews of du Pré's playing. It
was self-indulgent and emotional and therefore not always in control;
she would attack the cello as if wanting to saw it in half with
hormonal intensity. I saw her play the Elgar (which at 28 minutes is
far too long); she made it into 34 minutes which was agony. My
companion, Alan Rawsthorne, left before it was halfway through, to
'fortify himself at the bar'.
The book omits salient facts. Jacqueline played the Cello Concerto by
Priaulx Rainier at a 1964 Promenade Concert. She hated every moment of
it simply because it was technically beyond her. In addition, it was a
clever, intellectual piece that gave no room for emotional
extravagance."
See http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/nov99/dupre.htm
So much for MusicWeb International as some kind of Society of St
Jacqueline Du Pre.
I would recommend to Mr Tepper and Mr Roberts that in future they
examine the evidence before proceeding to give their verdict.
I would also suggest that given the parlous state of the classical
music recording industry this kind of schoolyard sneering at an
organisation dedicated to its promotion is to put it mildly,
counterproductive.
Kindest regards,
CBC
her...@yahoo.com
<a...@cts.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> I would also suggest that given the parlous state of the classical
> music recording industry this kind of schoolyard sneering at an
> organisation dedicated to its promotion is to put it mildly,
> counterproductive.
>
Well, their 150% support for the Hatto hoax mayhave been a tad
"counterproductive", too, to put it mildly.
The whole idea that a more or less journalistic medium should be
"dedicated" to promoting the industry's goals is of course terribly
wrong in any case, and the Hatto debacle was the obvious result of
this fallacy.
it would have been better had MusicWeb taken some months time out to
figure out how to correct its inherent flaws.
Herman
Len of MusicWeb
"Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT" <a...@cts.canberra.edu.au> wrote in
message news:1175130498.7...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
I've just revisited Musicweb International and looked at some of their
latest reviews.
cut................
There certainly is a glowing review of the EMI GROC reissue of the
celebrated Du Pre/Barbirolli recording, written by someone who may or
may not reside in the UK, but who has a Scandinavian name - Goran
Forsling
See
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2006/Dec06/Elgar_DuPre_5628862.htm
cut............
At the foot of the home page and on the monthly index pages there is a red
list of current reviewers which shows the country in which they live. This
clearly shows the basis for our claim to be a truly 'International' site and
effectively refutes any allegation of UK or any other bias. From this you
will see that Goran lives in Sweden.
We are currently seeking additional reviewers from the UK and Europe.
MusicWeb is not able to pay their reviewers. All you get is the disc.
Regards
Len
--
......................................................................
Len Mullenger
Founder: MusicWeb-International
The Internet CD review site
32,000 reviews read every day
www.musicweb-international.com
mobile: 07913 999009
You click with us and you may find we'll click with you.
-------------------------o0o--------------------------
Tony Duggan
<a...@cts.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> I've just revisited Musicweb International and looked at some of their
> latest reviews.
>
> The suggestion that its reviewers are prejudiced against what Mr
> Tepper calls "foreigners" is patently ludicrous. Yes, they do
> recommend CDs of works by minor British composers, but then why
> shouldn't they? They're pretty generous towards Australian recordings
> of Australian composers for that matter, as I'm sure Mr Roberts would
> appreciate.
Yes, of course it's ludicrous. As a long-time Music Web contributor
myself (since 1995 - though currently in day-to-day reviewing
sabbatical) AND British I have many times had to refute this canard on
this forum. I have lost count of the times I have had to read remarks
about my admiration for Jascha Horenstein, for example, in my Mahler
reviews and surveys. He was not British !!!!!! I am sure I speak for
all the Music Web reviewers who stand by what we write, the praise we
give (or not) and, as always on these occasions, ask for evidence to
back up the claims made. (You may also care to check out my reviews
of Simon Rattle's Mahler 5 and 8 and note too that Rattle's inclusion
in my survey of Mahler 6, currently under revision, is in serious
doubt. Sorry about the delay on this revision, for those who are
wondering, there are reasons, some of which will become obvious quite
soon.)
Believe me, when you are in the business of reviewing recordings that
come your way you are not in the least bit concerned to promote the
"homers", as I believe the expression is stateside.
The implication for those who imply national bias is that those
reviewers who are British are effectively lying to promote talent they
know is inferior. That is a very serious slur on our integrity and
one that we reject absolutely.
Tony Duggan
Mahler CD recordings survey at:
http://www.musicweb-international.com//Mahler/index.html
Tony Duggan
> MusicWeb is not able to pay their reviewers. All you get is the disc.
My Webmaster speaks only the truth. However, there have even been a
few times when I have reviewed a disc I have bought myself and I bet I
am not the only one who has done this.
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in
news:1175156335.5...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> On 29 Mar, 04:21, "Len of MusicWeb" <zen22...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> MusicWeb is not able to pay their reviewers. All you get is the disc.
>
> My Webmaster speaks only the truth. However, there have even been a
> few times when I have reviewed a disc I have bought myself and I bet I
> am not the only one who has done this.
That was certainly the case when I was reviewing CDs for American Record
Guide back in 1984-5.
--
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
Harrington/Coy is a gay wrestler who won't come out of the closet
aleksios
<a...@cts.canberra.edu.au> said:
> The suggestion that its reviewers are prejudiced against what Mr
> Tepper calls "foreigners" is patently ludicrous. [...]
I took Matthew's comment as a joke. Maybe I was wrong, but surely too
many people here take themselves altogether far too seriously, as if
talking about one of the most joyous experiences outside sex (and
skiing) can only be done with furrowed brows, clenched fists, and a
dyspeptic stomach.
Like all good jokes, it had a grain of truth (or perhaps just an
immediately recognisable stereotype). After all, there is something
about British reactions to "furriners", something which Orstrylians
(who are not really foreigners -- just the kind of poor relation that
eats in the kitchen with cook and the parlour maids) may not
understand.
And there is a sliver of that in MusicWeb (and Gramophone, etc). After
all, does anyone really think that 119 CDs of pianist Yordanka
Zhivkova, released by her husband Vassil Bogomilsky-Chiflik on the
Balkan Artist label from Tarnovo, Bulgaria, would have caused quite
the same stir as the recent unmentionable? But we needn't make a five-
act dramma per musica out of it -- a three-act opera buffa is quite
enough.
> I would also suggest that given the parlous state of the
> classical music recording industry
Maybe the classical music recording industry (as opposed to actual
classical music) deserves to be in a parlous state.
> this kind of schoolyard sneering at an organisation dedicated to
> its promotion
Is that what MusicWeb is? An organisation dedicated to the promotion
of the "classical music recording industry"? If so, they seem
remarkably coy about stating it plainly and clearly; and I, for one,
will subito pronto remove their URL from my Favourites. I'm not
particularly interested to find out what promoters of an industry have
to say -- I know already: "Buy our products!"
> is to put it mildly, counterproductive.
I don't buy it. The notion that a word dropped on r.m.c.r. has any
impact outside the tiny coterie herein assembled may be flattering to
a poster's ego -- but it's utterly unrealistic. The vast majority of
the buying public haven't even heard of Usenet -- let alone this
group.
--Alex
Simon Roberts
Barrington-Clarke, LMCT says...
>
>I've just revisited Musicweb International and looked at some of their
>latest reviews.
>
>The suggestion that its reviewers are prejudiced against what Mr
>Tepper calls "foreigners" is patently ludicrous. Yes, they do
>recommend CDs of works by minor British composers, but then why
>shouldn't they? They're pretty generous towards Australian recordings
>of Australian composers for that matter, as I'm sure Mr Roberts would
>appreciate.
I'm pathetically grateful.
[snip]
>So much for MusicWeb International as some kind of Society of St
>Jacqueline Du Pre.
Who said it was?
>I would recommend to Mr Tepper and Mr Roberts that in future they
>examine the evidence before proceeding to give their verdict.
I suppose it's reassuring that your capacity for misreading both the letter and
the spirit of posts continues undiminished.
>I would also suggest that given the parlous state of the classical
>music recording industry this kind of schoolyard sneering at an
>organisation dedicated to its promotion is to put it mildly,
>counterproductive.
A conclusion doubtless reached after "examin[ing] the evidence."
Simon
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:1175180052....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> On 2007-03-28 21:08:18 -0400, "Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT"
><a...@cts.canberra.edu.au> said:
>
>> I would also suggest that given the parlous state of the classical music
>> recording industry
>
> Maybe the classical music recording industry (as opposed to actual
> classical music) deserves to be in a parlous state.
I quite agree.
her...@yahoo.com
You may want to reject it, but how do you explain the egregious case
of Joyce Hatto? Just check the wording of many of these rave reviews,
and you'll find that the perception that Hatto was British factored
big time.
And of course the British bias has been pretty evident all along, it's
just that the Hatto Hoax was an unique case of an experiment WITH a
control group. MusicWeb and the few other media who fell for the Hoax
(remember, it was just a minority, and the Britishness of these medio
was a big factor) have signally proved the existence, nay, prevalence
of the bias towards British performers.
So what if you're starting to get your doubts about Rattle. Most
people have had these doubt for a long long time. Critcs are supposed
to be ahead of the population, rather than lagging behind.
MusicWeb would do best by shutting down the place for a couple of
months and go Journalism 101 first, and Criticism Does Not Equal
Promoting Products 101 next.
Herman
aleksios
<tony....@ukgateway.net> said:
> The implication for those who imply national bias is that those
> reviewers who are British are effectively lying to promote
> talent they know is inferior. That is a very serious slur on
> our integrity and one that we reject absolutely.
This is a straw man. Bias doesn't mean lying.
But what about it? Is there any bias at all?
I went to MusicWeb International's (*International*) list of
contributors
<http://www.musicweb-international.com/contributors.html>
This list has 247 names (one is repeated). Of these, only 37 (15%)
have non-Anglo-Saxon names or surnames. The percentage of non-
Anglophones is, obviously, even less than that. Further, of the 247
names, only 43 (17.5%) have female or gender-indeterminate first names
(e.g., "Chris" or "Alex" could be either gender, so the percentage of
female reviewers is smaller, perhaps much smaller).
Bias?
--Alex (the philistine with a spreadsheet)
Tony Duggan
> On 29 mar, 10:08, "Tony Duggan" <tony.dug...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
>
> > On 29 Mar, 02:08, "Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT"
>
> > <a...@cts.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
I wrote:
> > Believe me, when you are in the business of reviewing recordings that
> > come your way you are not in the least bit concerned to promote the
> > "homers", as I believe the expression is stateside.
>
> > The implication for those who imply national bias is that those
> > reviewers who are British are effectively lying to promote talent they
> > know is inferior. That is a very serious slur on our integrity and
> > one that we reject absolutely.
Herman replied:
>
> You may want to reject it, but how do you explain the egregious case
> of Joyce Hatto? Just check the wording of many of these rave reviews,
> and you'll find that the perception that Hatto was British factored
> big time.
I had not even HEARD the name Joyce Hatto until a few weeks ago. Work
that one out.
> And of course the British bias has been pretty evident all along, it's
> just that the Hatto Hoax was an unique case of an experiment WITH a
> control group. MusicWeb and the few other media who fell for the Hoax
> (remember, it was just a minority, and the Britishness of these medio
> was a big factor) have signally proved the existence, nay, prevalence
> of the bias towards British performers.
As I said before I have answered this absurd canard too many times on
this board over too many years to need to repeat the denial again.
The facts are there for all to see (for those with eyes to see, of
course.) and any suggestion otherwise is a slur on the integrity of
reviewers. The fact that you still cannot come up with one concrete
example of your fantasies speaks more than I can.
> So what if you're starting to get your doubts about Rattle.
Starting ????? What are you talling about ? I was referring to some
reviews of mine about some of Rattle's Mahler recordings some of which
go back years. Hardly starting. There are other Mahler recording of
Rattle that I regard as some of the finest in the catalogue and have
no hesitation doing so. Why ? Because I thinki they are and I have
no intention of having accusations of bias prevent me from saying so.
> Most
> people have had these doubt for a long long time. Critcs are supposed
> to be ahead of the population, rather than lagging behind.
NO NO NOI !!!!! Critics are supposed to write what they sincerely
believe - publish it and be damned. I am a huge admirer of Simon
Rattle, as a matter of fact and remain so. The CBSO is my local
orchestra and the effect his leadership had on the musical life of
this region was extraordinary and remains so to this day even though
he has gone to Berlin. That is what I believe, so I say so. You
will, no doubt, call it bias. I will quote the words of Catherine
Tate: "Face......bothered ?"
her...@yahoo.com
The fact that you still cannot come up with one concrete
> example of your fantasies speaks more than I can.
>
> I am a huge admirer of Simon
> Rattle, as a matter of fact and remain so. The CBSO is my local
> orchestra and the effect his leadership had on the musical life of
> this region was extraordinary and remains so to this day even though
> he has gone to Berlin. That is what I believe, so I say so. You
> will, no doubt, call it bias. I will quote the words of Catherine
> Tate: "Face......bothered ?"
Catherine who?
I applaud your candor, but it is rather self-defeating. To anyone but
yourself it would be completely obvious you are extremely biased. You
live in the Birmingham area, you admire what Rattle did for
Birmingham's music life.
OK. So why does that make Rattle a world conductor?
You write on the web, alas. Why should people in New York, Hong Kong
or Siberia be told Simon Rattle is humongously good, just because of
his impact on the Birmingham area, and some guy who happens to live
there?
I suggest, if you cannot keep yourself from writing 'reviews' you
preface them with a disclaimer as to your specific biases.
Herman
TareeDawg
news:1175180052....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 2007-03-28 21:08:18 -0400, "Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT"
> <a...@cts.canberra.edu.au> said:
>
>> The suggestion that its reviewers are prejudiced against what Mr
>> Tepper calls "foreigners" is patently ludicrous. [...]
>
> I took Matthew's comment as a joke. Maybe I was wrong, but surely too
> many people here take themselves altogether far too seriously, as if
> talking about one of the most joyous experiences outside sex (and
> skiing)
Like soccer, snooker and golf?
> After all, there is something
> about British reactions to "furriners", something which Orstrylians
> (who are not really foreigners -- just the kind of poor relation that
> eats in the kitchen with cook and the parlour maids) may not
> understand.
And the parlour maids are quite pretty actually. Best room in the house.
Ray H
Taree, NSW
Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT
> On 2007-03-28 21:08:18 -0400, "Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT"
> <a...@cts.canberra.edu.au> said:
>
> > The suggestion that its reviewers are prejudiced against what Mr
> > Tepper calls "foreigners" is patently ludicrous. [...]
>
> I took Matthew's comment as a joke.
If so, a very stale one. I await with interest similar jokes about
Jews, gays and black people.
> Maybe I was wrong, but surely too
> many people here take themselves altogether far too seriously, as if
> talking about one of the most joyous experiences outside sex (and
> skiing) can only be done with furrowed brows, clenched fists, and a
> dyspeptic stomach.
Not in my case. I just resent the mindless repetition of stupid
prejudices ...
> Like all good jokes, it had a grain of truth (or perhaps just an
> immediately recognisable stereotype).
I see so it wasn't *just* a joke. So maybe those Jews, gays and
African Americans *are* up to something? After all, there's no smoke
without fire ... [Note for Southern Californians: I'm being ironic
here]
> After all, there is something
> about British reactions to "furriners",
According to prejudice and silly stereotypes, yes. Unfortunately for
your theory, rather a lot of people in the UK *are* "foreigners". Why
do you think French presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy held one of
his first campaign rallies in London?
> something which Orstrylians
> (who are not really foreigners -- just the kind of poor relation that
> eats in the kitchen with cook and the parlour maids) may not
> understand.
This is *unbelievable*. There are thousands of Australians *resident*
in Britain. Do you really think Simon Roberts is treated as "the kind
of poor relation that eats in the kitchen with cook and the parlour
maids" when he makes his annual visit to the UK? Of course this is yet
another cheap stereotype -- all Britons are huge snobs who keep
servants and won't mingle with the lower orders, etc., etc. Where are
you getting all this stuff from? Comic books?
> And there is a sliver of that in MusicWeb (and Gramophone, etc).
I knew this would happen. Here we go again ...
>After
> all, does anyone really think that 119 CDs of pianist Yordanka
> Zhivkova, released by her husband Vassil Bogomilsky-Chiflik on the
> Balkan Artist label from Tarnovo, Bulgaria, would have caused quite
> the same stir as the recent unmentionable?
Maybe. If she was said to be a neglected virtuoso, trained in the
great tradition of the Russian piano school, the daughter of a ancient
noble family reduced to poverty by the Wehrmacht, racked by
tuberculosis, but still honing her skills on an ancient piano in an
isolated dacha, until her recent rediscovery ...
> But we needn't make a five-
> act dramma per musica out of it -- a three-act opera buffa is quite
> enough.
I see -- so people can go on making these ridiculous accusations, but
anybody who objects to the said accusations should keep quiet stop
making a mountain out of a molehill ...
> > I would also suggest that given the parlous state of the
> > classical music recording industry
>
> Maybe the classical music recording industry (as opposed to actual
> classical music) deserves to be in a parlous state.
[Insert conspiracy theory here.] And, by the way, if there is no
classical recording industry, how are people going to hear classical
music in areas where there are very few live performances, or none at
all?
> > this kind of schoolyard sneering at an organisation dedicated to
> > its promotion
>
> Is that what MusicWeb is? An organisation dedicated to the promotion
> of the "classical music recording industry"?
Yes. By showing the record buying public what is available. Just like
Fanfare, Classics Today, International Record Review and their
European counterparts. As the days of the big record shop -- where
you could browse -- are now over, these reviewing publications/sites
are becoming more and more important to let the public know what's
available.
> If so, they seem
> remarkably coy about stating it plainly and clearly; and I, for one,
> will subito pronto remove their URL from my Favourites.
Oh dear. What did you think I meant? Did you think I meant that
MusicWeb were some kind of paid advertising agency? Of course it isn't
-- and of course I didn't.
> I'm not
> particularly interested to find out what promoters of an industry have
> to say -- I know already: "Buy our products!"
God God, man, you talk as if promoting *anything* was some kind of
crime against humanity. There are lot of food companies out there that
hire marketing firms to promote their products. What are you going to
do -- stop eating?
> > is to put it mildly, counterproductive.
>
> I don't buy it. The notion that a word dropped on r.m.c.r. has any
> impact outside the tiny coterie herein assembled
I couldn't have put it better myself.
> may be flattering to
> a poster's ego -- but it's utterly unrealistic. The vast majority of
> the buying public haven't even heard of Usenet -- let alone this
> group.
The vast majority of people have heard of Usenet but not perhaps under
that name. Google groups, for instance.
Kindest regards,
CBC
Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT
> In article <1175130498.715537.141...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Sir Charles
> Barrington-Clarke, LMCT says...
>
>
>
> >I've just revisited Musicweb International and looked at some of their
> >latest reviews.
>
> >The suggestion that its reviewers are prejudiced against what Mr
> >Tepper calls "foreigners" is patently ludicrous. Yes, they do
> >recommend CDs of works by minor British composers, but then why
> >shouldn't they? They're pretty generous towards Australian recordings
> >of Australian composers for that matter, as I'm sure Mr Roberts would
> >appreciate.
>
> I'm pathetically grateful.
Pathetic is the word. Absolutely.
>
> >So much for MusicWeb International as some kind of Society of St
> >Jacqueline Du Pre.
>
> Who said it was?
You did.
CBC
Richard Loeb
"Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT" <a...@cts.canberra.edu.au> wrote in
message news:1175213858.2...@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Well then Tommy Deacon's your man!!!!!!!! Richard
aleksios
<a...@cts.canberra.edu.au> said:
> I await with interest similar jokes about Jews, gays and black
> people. [...]
Is that how you address a Native black Jewish Wiccan gay lesbian
feminist? How dare you, you patriarchal fallocratic eurocentric
hegemonistic male chauvinist plumeless quadruped?!
> [...] This is *unbelievable*. There are thousands of Australians
> *resident* in Britain. Do you really think Simon Roberts is
> treated as "the kind of poor relation that eats in the kitchen
> with cook and the parlour maids" when he makes his annual visit
> to the UK? [...]
Only in an annus mirabilis. Otherwise, in daytime he shines shoes and
cleans crappers at the Pickwick Club; nights, he shares an old water
tank on a rubbish tip with four Yorkshiremen.
> > After all, does anyone really think that 119 CDs of pianist
> > Yordanka Zhivkova, released by her husband Vassil
> > Bogomilsky-Chiflik on the Balkan Artist label from Tarnovo,
> > Bulgaria, would have caused quite the same stir as the recent
> > unmentionable?
>
> Maybe. If she was said to be a neglected virtuoso, trained in
> the great tradition of the Russian piano school, the daughter of
> a ancient noble family reduced to poverty by the Wehrmacht,
> racked by tuberculosis, but still honing her skills on an
> ancient piano in an isolated dacha, until her recent rediscovery
> ... [...]
Uncanny. How did you know all this? You must have obtained an advance
copy of "The Greatest Pianist That Almost No One Has Ever Heard Of"!
It's a biography of Yordanka, co-authored by Jonathan Woolf, Richard
Dyer, Jed Distler, and Bryce Morrison, with an introduction by
Christopher Howell and Tom Deacon, published by the Indiana University
Press. It should've been out already, except that there's a little
problem with a guy called Imre Thokoly-Nopcsa von Nagy-Ferencsics-es-
Kis-Matacsics (you know, the P word...).
But you've got one or two things wrong. It was the great Austrian
piano school, not Russian; the noble family (the famous Petkoffs, you
know, descended from Major Petkoff of Dragoman Pass fame) was ruined
by the Red Army, not the Wehrmacht; and she was racked by acute PF
(pseudologia fantastica), not TB.
> > I'm not particularly interested to find out what promoters of an
> > industry have to say -- I know already: "Buy our products!"
>
> God God, man, you talk as if promoting *anything* was some kind
> of crime against humanity. [...]
Am I? Where were you when I was sermonising against atonality? Now
that's a crime against humanity!
> There are lot of food companies out there that hire marketing
> firms to promote their products. What are you going to do --
> stop eating? [...]
Mm, possibly not; but are you saying that MusicWeb has been *hired* to
promote someone's product? If yes, does MusicWeb confirm it? If not,
what on earth are you smoking, and where can I get some of it for
myself?!!
> Kindest regards
Likewise, I'm sure. Your ever humble and ob'd't servant,
--Alex (the orthopolitical philistine)
Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT
> This list has 247 names (one is repeated). Of these, only 37 (15%)
> have non-Anglo-Saxon names or surnames. The percentage of non-
> Anglophones is, obviously, even less than that. Further, of the 247
> names, only 43 (17.5%) have female or gender-indeterminate first names
> (e.g., "Chris" or "Alex" could be either gender, so the percentage of
> female reviewers is smaller, perhaps much smaller).
>
> Bias?
Ah! That explains why MusicWeb International published that naughty
review that said that Jacqueline du Pre was a self-indulgent and
technically limited cellist. They're *gynophobes*!!!!
Now get your spreadsheet out and do the same for Fanfare, Classics
Today, etc. etc.
CBC
Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT
> MusicWeb would do best by shutting down the place for a couple of
> months and go Journalism 101 first, and Criticism Does Not Equal
> Promoting Products 101 next.
Anybody who publishes an appreciative review of something is
automatically promoting it. This goes for any product in any
publication. And record companies have to stay in business like
anybody else.
CBC
Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT
> I suggest, if you cannot keep yourself from writing 'reviews' you
> preface them with a disclaimer as to your specific biases.
>
> Herman
Your other name isn't Goering is it?
CBC
Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT
> Mm, possibly not; but are you saying that MusicWeb has been *hired* to
> promote someone's product?
No.
CBC
Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT
> You may want to reject it, but how do you explain the egregious case
> of Joyce Hatto? Just check the wording of many of these rave reviews,
> and you'll find that the perception that Hatto was British factored
> big time.
Well, OK, here are two Hatto reviews in MusicWeb International
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classRev/2005/Nov05/Debussy_preludes_Hatto_CACD9130.htm
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2005/May05/Godowsky_Chopin_CACD9147_9148.htm
I have checked the wording of these rave reviews and the fact that she
was British isn't mentioned or implied in anyway whatsoever.
CBC
Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT
> "aleksios" <alex0...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters
> > Maybe the classical music recording industry (as opposed to actual
> > classical music) deserves to be in a parlous state.
>
> I quite agree.
I'm sure Mr Bahr would be shocked to hear that at least two people who
subscribe to a newsgroup about classical music recordings actually
think that BIS to be on the skids. I'm sure that the proprietors of
Hyperion and Harmonia Mundi and the HNH group would feel exactly the
same way about their companies deserving to be in a parlous
state,although I imagine Mr Heymann has given this newsgroup a wide
berth since reading a more than usually appalling thread about his
wife!
Or is it assumed that the independents are somehow not part of the
classical music recording industry? If so, time for a reality check.
As for the state of classical music, nothing really exciting has
happened to it since the HIP movement. Isn't why there was such a
furore about J. Hatto? It was sad, funny but exciting? Where, in the
recent classical tradition, is the equivalent of Coltrane's "Giant
Steps"?
Kindest regards,
CBC
sorabji...@lineone.net
> You may want to reject it, but how do you explain the egregious case
> of Joyce Hatto? Just check the wording of many of these rave reviews,
> and you'll find that the perception that Hatto was British factored
> big time.
>
> And of course the British bias has been pretty evident all along, it's
> just that the Hatto Hoax was an unique case of an experiment WITH a
> control group. MusicWeb and the few other media who fell for the Hoax
> (remember, it was just a minority, and the Britishness of these medio
> was a big factor) have signally proved the existence, nay, prevalence
> of the bias towards British performers.
herself British, as was her husband, whose company was also UK based.
The fact that all this was of itself Britocentric is no more than that
- just a fact. The hoax could have been perpetrated by anyone of any
nationality anywhere; the fact that it all happened within UK has no
material bearing on anyone's perception of the biased or otherwise
stance of MusicWeb or anyone else.
Best,
Alistair
sorabji...@lineone.net
> On 29 mar, 22:07, "Tony Duggan" <tony.dug...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> The fact that you still cannot come up with one concrete> example of your fantasies speaks more than I can.
>
> Fact: Joyce Hatto.
>
> > I am a huge admirer of Simon
> > Rattle, as a matter of fact and remain so. The CBSO is my local
> > orchestra and the effect his leadership had on the musical life of
> > this region was extraordinary and remains so to this day even though
> > he has gone to Berlin. That is what I believe, so I say so. You
> > will, no doubt, call it bias. I will quote the words of Catherine
> > Tate: "Face......bothered ?"
>
> Catherine who?
>
> I applaud your candor, but it is rather self-defeating. To anyone but
> yourself it would be completely obvious you are extremely biased. You
> live in the Birmingham area, you admire what Rattle did for
> Birmingham's music life.
opinion is an indicator of bias. I get it now. All arts critics should
have no opinions - or if they do, they should keep all aspects of them
to themselves at all times.
> OK. So why does that make Rattle a world conductor?
It doesn't - but did he say that it did?
> You write on the web, alas. Why should people in New York, Hong Kong
> or Siberia be told Simon Rattle is humongously good, just because of
> his impact on the Birmingham area, and some guy who happens to live
> there?
In mentioning Simon Rattle's contribution to the musical life of
Birmingham, Mr Duggan did not say that this was the reason why he
thinks highly of him as a conductor; it is clear, however, that this
is the way in which, for whatever reasons of your own, you choose to
interpret it. Furthermore, why should those in NY, HK, Siberia or
anywhere else NOT be told anything about Simon Rattle?
> I suggest, if you cannot keep yourself from writing 'reviews' you
> preface them with a disclaimer as to your specific biases.
I should evidently have remembered that salutary piece of advice when
I published a review of Vol. I of Carlo Grante's recorded cycle of the
complete Chopin/Godowsky Studies some 12 or 13 years ago (I think it
was in the UK Tempo magazine but cannot now recall); I am the literary
executor of Sorabji and curator of an archive of his work and, since
Sorabji the critic was known to be "biased" towards Godowsky in
general and this series of studies in particular, I should obviously
have either declined to write the review or begun it with an
appropriate "disclaimer".
Ahem...
Best,
Alistair
sorabji...@lineone.net
I'm sure it isn't, for he seems to have rather more than just an "n"
missing...
Best,
Alistair
sorabji...@lineone.net
> Well, their 150% support for the Hatto hoax mayhave been a tad
> "counterproductive", too, to put it mildly.
By "support" do you mean or are you seeking to imply that MusicWeb
might in any way have been implicated in the hoax?
> The whole idea that a more or less journalistic medium should be
> "dedicated" to promoting the industry's goals is of course terribly
> wrong in any case, and the Hatto debacle was the obvious result of
> this fallacy.
The first part of this is true. Whilst a "journalistic medium" is one
thing, a critical one is another, that's not, of course, to suggest
that the two are mutually exclusive, for that is patently not the
case. What I am saying here is that, when a "journalistic medium"
reports on most news items, it is rarely seeking to "promote" the
"goals" of any particular industry, whereas when it incorporates arts
criticism, it cannot help but draw attention to - a.k.a. "promote" -
the subject matter of that criticism, be it a public performance, art
exhibition, recording or whatever else; that, however, is not of
itself directly synonymous with the arts critical part of that medium
being "dedicated" to "promoting" the "goals" of this or that arts
industry for the sake of so doing. Put simply, you can't, for example,
publish record reviews without "promoting" the recorded material.
It is not, however, correct to suggest that the Hatto débâcle was the
obvious result of
this fallacy; whilst that issue obviously revolved around recordings,
the published reviews of those were one issue but the later reportage
of their fraudulent presentation was quite another. In other words,
published music criticism and published exposure of criminal activity
within the recorded music industry are independent issues, even though
they each centre on recordings.
> it would have been better had MusicWeb taken some months time out to
> figure out how to correct its inherent flaws.
Meaning what, exactly?
Best,
Alistair
Ian Pace
<sorabji...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:1175252868.6...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
obviously cases of vested interests (if one was employed by the company
whose CD one is reviewing, for example, but that's not the case fo Alistair,
I know, nor was he recorded by them at the time of that review), but every
reviewer brings bias of some type.
Ian
sorabji...@lineone.net
> On 2007-03-28 21:08:18 -0400, "Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT"
> <a...@cts.canberra.edu.au> said:
>
> > The suggestion that its reviewers are prejudiced against what Mr
> > Tepper calls "foreigners" is patently ludicrous. [...]
>
> I took Matthew's comment as a joke. Maybe I was wrong, but surely too
> many people here take themselves altogether far too seriously, as if
> talking about one of the most joyous experiences outside sex (and
> skiing) can only be done with furrowed brows, clenched fists, and a
> dyspeptic stomach.
the slopes with brows, fists and stomach in such states - and I cannot
quite imagine that sex in such circumstances would even be possible...
> Like all good jokes, it had a grain of truth (or perhaps just an
> immediately recognisable stereotype). After all, there is something
> about British reactions to "furriners", something which Orstrylians
> (who are not really foreigners -- just the kind of poor relation that
> eats in the kitchen with cook and the parlour maids) may not
> understand.
Hmm - so how would you describe New Zealanders?...
> And there is a sliver of that in MusicWeb (and Gramophone, etc). After
> all, does anyone really think that 119 CDs of pianist Yordanka
> Zhivkova, released by her husband Vassil Bogomilsky-Chiflik on the
> Balkan Artist label from Tarnovo, Bulgaria, would have caused quite
> the same stir as the recent unmentionable? But we needn't make a five-
> act dramma per musica out of it -- a three-act opera buffa is quite
> enough.
Presumably you don't think so; personally, I'd guess that if such a
story were put about with sufficient skill, some people anywhere might
well buy it - and then buy the "products" following therefrom.
> > I would also suggest that given the parlous state of the
> > classical music recording industry
>
> Maybe the classical music recording industry (as opposed to actual
> classical music) deserves to be in a parlous state.
Maybe you've been reading too much Norman Lebrecht.
> > this kind of schoolyard sneering at an organisation dedicated to
> > its promotion
>
> Is that what MusicWeb is? An organisation dedicated to the promotion
> of the "classical music recording industry"? If so, they seem
> remarkably coy about stating it plainly and clearly; and I, for one,
> will subito pronto remove their URL from my Favourites. I'm not
> particularly interested to find out what promoters of an industry have
> to say -- I know already: "Buy our products!"
Any journal (whether on paper or online) that reviews classical music
recordings must in some sense be "promoting the classical music
recording industry" but, except when publishing actual advertisements,
it does so only by drawing attention to those of its products on which
it publishes reviews
Best,
Alistair
sorabji...@lineone.net
> <sorabji-arch...@lineone.net> wrote in message
recorded at least one piece of mine before I wrote that review, but in
any case it is certainly true that I have never been in the employ of
any record company, nor, for that matter, in anyone else's employ at
any time; I have always been self-employed and I am quite sure that no
one would be daft enough actually to employ me other than myself. Ian
is correct to pose the (rhetorical) question in his first sentence;
the very fact that a reviewer even agrees to review a particular CD as
distinct from another CD is perhaps the beginning of such bias as may
be perceived in what he/she then writes - and that's only the
beginning. The entire notion that any critic should be expected to
accomplish all of his/her work in some kind of permanent opinion
vacuum seems to me to be patently absurd.
Best,
Alistair
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:256dneg6aezfwZHb...@comcast.com:
> "If so, a very stale one. I await with interest similar jokes about
> Jews, gays and black people"
>
> Well then Tommy Deacon's your man!!!!!!!! Richard
Do you realize that you just quoted the entirety of a 135-line post so that
you could append three lines of response?
aleksios
<a...@cts.canberra.edu.au> said:
> On Mar 30, 3:18 am, "aleksios" <alex0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This list has 247 names (one is repeated). Of these, only 37
> > (15%) have non-Anglo-Saxon names or surnames. [...]
>
> Ah! That explains why MusicWeb International published that
> naughty review [....]
One review does not an absence of bias make.
We can argue whether it is possible to discuss any art without bias,
but when more than 85% of contributors come from the Anglo-Saxon world
the bias is impossible to avoid. It's not a question of lying or
intentionally favouring one particular performer or other (these are
straw men). It's an issue of the cultural atmosphere you breathe from
the time you are born. (For instance, although I'm something of an
Anglophile, prior to my emigrating to Canada I rarely -- if ever --
had occasion to listen to a piece by Elgar or Vaughn-Williams, let
alone lesser lights like Bax or Walton. As far as I knew, Purcell was
the "last" British composer of any note.)
You noted yourself some time ago the following regarding French
culture:
[...] According to the great French film
director Eric Rohmer, this is part of the
national culture. An educated man or woman
cannot get by socially without some knowledge of
contemporary literature or contemporary
painting, but they can unblushingly admit to
complete ignorance of Mahler or Stravinsky.
[...]
Such an attitude could not fail to influence a site where almost all
contributors were from French-speaking countries; do you think
something equivalent is somehow magically absent from MusicWeb
"International"?
--Alex (the anglophile philistine)
aleksios
arc...@lineone.net> said:
> [...] when a "journalistic medium" reports on most news items,
> it is rarely seeking to "promote" the "goals" of any particular
> industry, whereas when it incorporates arts criticism, it cannot
> help but draw attention to - a.k.a. "promote" - the subject
> matter of that criticism [...]
You may wish to consult a dictionary regarding the meaning of
"promote". "Draw attention" is hardly a synonym. Were Woodward and
Bernstein Nixon's promoters?
> [...] Put simply, you can't, for example, publish record reviews
> without "promoting" the recorded material. [...]
Aha. So, in the following juicy tidbit published by Jacques Drillon
under the title "Mozart au bordel"
[...] On ne sait pas ce qui est le plus
répugnant dans ce qu'on entend: qu'une flûte en
roseau se mette à déféquer sur un air d'opéra,
ou qu'un violon gerbe sur un rythme de derbouka.
[...] Quand l'oud lance son solo sur fond de
piano, rien à faire, on crie. C'est sexuel, tout
ça. C'est le père qui viole son fils ou le fils
qui viole sa mère: ce n'est plus de la musique,
c'est un bordel. La maquerelle s'appelle Courson
et le taulier a le culot de se nommer Virgin. En
prison, tous ! [Arts - Spectacles,
Nouvel Observateur, n°2134, 2005/09/29]
the critic was actually *promoting* Hughes de Courson. I see, I see.
--Alex (the coursophobic philistine)
aleksios
arc...@lineone.net> said:
> [...] THe Hatto hoax was perpetrated in UK, Hatto was herself British,
> as was her husband, whose company was also UK based. The fact
> that all this was of itself Britocentric is no more than that -
> just a fact. The hoax could have been perpetrated by anyone of
> any nationality anywhere [...]
Come off it. If it had been perpetrated in Siberia, MusicWeb
*International* wouldn't have even heard of it.
CDuniverse lists several releases with Novosibirsk orchestras,
including 3 SACDs. How many were reviewed on MusicWeb?
--Alex (the realistic philistine)
aleksios
arc...@lineone.net> said:
> [...] I'd not fancy my chances on the slopes with brows, fists
> and stomach in such states [...]
You may wish to re-read the OP.
> how would you describe New Zealanders?...
Politically correct, because they're All Blacks.
> [...] I'd guess that if such a story were put about with
> sufficient skill, some people anywhere might well buy it - and
> then buy the "products" following therefrom.
How many Hatto CDs were sold outside Britain? Or, forget about that --
how many Hatto stories were published in non-Anglophone media before
it became a cause celebre? Or even in Anglophone media outside Britain
and the US East Coast?
> > I'm not particularly interested to find out what promoters of an
> > industry have to say -- I know already: "Buy our products!"
>
> Any journal (whether on paper or online) that reviews classical
> music recordings must in some sense be "promoting the classical
> music recording industry" [...]
What industry was Corno di Bassetto (Bernard Shaw for the young'uns)
promoting?
An honest critic may -- nay, must -- have his biases, but in no sense
whatever can it be said that he is promoting an industry.
--Alex (the antipromotor philistine)
Simon Roberts
Barrington-Clarke, LMCT says...
>
>On Mar 30, 1:13 am, Simon Roberts <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>In article <1175130498.715537.141...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Sir Charles
>> Barrington-Clarke, LMCT says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >I've just revisited Musicweb International and looked at some of their
>> >latest reviews.
>>
>> >The suggestion that its reviewers are prejudiced against what Mr
>> >Tepper calls "foreigners" is patently ludicrous. Yes, they do
>> >recommend CDs of works by minor British composers, but then why
>> >shouldn't they? They're pretty generous towards Australian recordings
>> >of Australian composers for that matter, as I'm sure Mr Roberts would
>> >appreciate.
>>
>> I'm pathetically grateful.
>
>Pathetic is the word. Absolutely.
>
>>
>> >So much for MusicWeb International as some kind of Society of St
>> >Jacqueline Du Pre.
>>
>> Who said it was?
>
>You did.
Do you never tire of being wrong?
Simon
Bob Lombard
"Simon Roberts" <sd...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eujq4...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <1175214048.5...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Sir Charles
> Barrington-Clarke, LMCT says...
>>
>>> >Jacqueline Du Pre.
>>>
>>> Who said it was?
>>
>>You did.
>
> Do you never tire of being wrong?
>
> Simon
>
--------
There's a possible clue to sorting out this prejudice thing! Do Brits as
well as Aussies use the formation "Do you never tire of ..."?
(Amerenglish speakers usually use the formation "Do you ever tire of
...". So Simon's third country of domicile is not involved in this
weighty controversy.)
bl
Simon Roberts
>
>
>(Amerenglish speakers usually use the formation "Do you ever tire of
>...". So Simon's third country of domicile is not involved in this
>weighty controversy.)
At least that makes sense, albeit a slightly different one. What I don't get is
why Americans say "I could care less" where an Ango/Australian would say "I
couldn't care less."
Simon
Richard Loeb
I think when the Americans say it so there is a sense of irony behind it -
when Brits say it its more straightforward Richard
sorabji...@lineone.net
> On 2007-03-30 08:56:24 -0400, "sorabji-arch...@lineone.net" <sorabji-
> arch...@lineone.net> said:
>
> > [...] when a "journalistic medium" reports on most news items,
> > it is rarely seeking to "promote" the "goals" of any particular
> > industry, whereas when it incorporates arts criticism, it cannot
> > help but draw attention to - a.k.a. "promote" - the subject
> > matter of that criticism [...]
>
> You may wish to consult a dictionary regarding the meaning of
> "promote". "Draw attention" is hardly a synonym. Were Woodward and
> Bernstein Nixon's promoters?
drawing attention to something and promoting it are one and the same
thing in some people's eyes and ears, even if they ain't necessarily
so in truth. A negative review may be siad to have the opposite effect
of "promoting" the subject matter but, as we know, the only thing
worse than bad publicity is none...
> > [...] Put simply, you can't, for example, publish record reviews
> > without "promoting" the recorded material. [...]
>
> Aha. So, in the following juicy tidbit published by Jacques Drillon
> under the title "Mozart au bordel"
>
> [...] On ne sait pas ce qui est le plus
> répugnant dans ce qu'on entend: qu'une flûte en
> roseau se mette à déféquer sur un air d'opéra,
> ou qu'un violon gerbe sur un rythme de derbouka.
> [...] Quand l'oud lance son solo sur fond de
> piano, rien à faire, on crie. C'est sexuel, tout
> ça. C'est le père qui viole son fils ou le fils
> qui viole sa mère: ce n'est plus de la musique,
> c'est un bordel. La maquerelle s'appelle Courson
> et le taulier a le culot de se nommer Virgin. En
> prison, tous ! [Arts - Spectacles,
> Nouvel Observateur, n°2134, 2005/09/29]
>
> the critic was actually *promoting* Hughes de Courson. I see, I see.
Again, in the sense that a reference is made and the reader's
attention thereby drawn, yes, a "promotion" has occurred, at least to
the extent that it would not have done had the write not written and/
or the reader not read - a "promotion" of thoughts, at least, if
nothing else...
Best,
Alistair
Alan Cooper
You mean illiterate Americans, not Americans generally. The same ones who say "coo de grah"
and think that it's fancy to sound the /t/ in "often". Their kids have names like Emma and
Amanda.
"Ango/Australian" is new to me. An Australian who lives in Angola? :-)
AC
Tony Duggan
> On 29 mar, 22:07, "Tony Duggan" <tony.dug...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> The fact that you still cannot come up with one concrete> example of your fantasies speaks more than I can.
>
> Fact: Joyce Hatto.
REPLY:
I think Sir Charles has admirably answered that one further down. And
is the Joyce Hatto business your best shot at British bias ? You'll
have to do better than that.
> > I am a huge admirer of Simon
> > Rattle, as a matter of fact and remain so. The CBSO is my local
> > orchestra and the effect his leadership had on the musical life of
> > this region was extraordinary and remains so to this day even though
> > he has gone to Berlin. That is what I believe, so I say so. You
> > will, no doubt, call it bias. I will quote the words of Catherine
> > Tate: "Face......bothered ?"
>
> Catherine who?
Google her, dear boy, google her.
> I applaud your candor, but it is rather self-defeating. To anyone but
> yourself it would be completely obvious you are extremely biased. You
> live in the Birmingham area, you admire what Rattle did for
> Birmingham's music life.
> OK. So why does that make Rattle a world conductor?
It doesn't, as will be be obvious to any normal person. It was, as I
think you well know, a statement of ONE on the reasons why *I* admire
him. *I* am not "the world" and would not presume for tell the world
who is and who is not a "world conductor", whatever the hell that is.
As I said, the job of a critic is to say what they believe, publish it
and be damned. NOT have to keep looking over their shoulder in case
anyone is going to accuse them of being telling porkies. (Google that
as well.)
> You write on the web, alas.
Oooh get you !!!! Straight out the knife box. You'll cut yourself
one of these days, young man.
> Why should people in New York, Hong Kong
> or Siberia be told Simon Rattle is humongously good, just because of
> his impact on the Birmingham area, and some guy who happens to live
> there?
They read me in Siberia ????? Blimey.
> I suggest, if you cannot keep yourself from writing 'reviews' you
> preface them with a disclaimer as to your specific biases.
Nice try, dear boy, but I've been on the web for far too long not to
recognize a Troll when I see one. Which I have now.
Tony Duggan
Steady on, Sir Charles. Godwin's Law and all that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Tony Duggan
bisr...@compuserve.com
<a...@cts.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> I've just revisited Musicweb International and looked at some of their
> latest reviews.
>
> The suggestion that its reviewers are prejudiced against what Mr
> Tepper calls "foreigners" is patently ludicrous. Yes, they do
> recommend CDs of works by minor British composers, but then why
> shouldn't they? They're pretty generous towards Australian recordings
> of Australian composers for that matter, as I'm sure Mr Roberts would
> appreciate.
>
> celebrated Du Pre/Barbirolli recording, written by someone who may or
> may not reside in the UK, but who has a Scandinavian name - Goran
> Forsling
>
> Seehttp://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2006/Dec06/Elgar_DuPre...
>
> But there is also this, from a review by David Wright of Carol
> Easton's famous tell-it all biography:
>
> "The author gives us many quotes from reviews of du Pré's playing. It
> was self-indulgent and emotional and therefore not always in control;
> she would attack the cello as if wanting to saw it in half with
> hormonal intensity. I saw her play the Elgar (which at 28 minutes is
> far too long); she made it into 34 minutes which was agony. My
> companion, Alan Rawsthorne, left before it was halfway through, to
> 'fortify himself at the bar'.
>
> The book omits salient facts. Jacqueline played the Cello Concerto by
> Priaulx Rainier at a 1964 Promenade Concert. She hated every moment of
> it simply because it was technically beyond her. In addition, it was a
> clever, intellectual piece that gave no room for emotional
> extravagance."
>
> Seehttp://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/nov99/dupre.htm
>
> So much for MusicWeb International as some kind of Society of St
> Jacqueline Du Pre.
>
> examine the evidence before proceeding to give their verdict.
>
> I would also suggest that given the parlous state of the classical
> music recording industry this kind of schoolyard sneering at an
> organisation dedicated to its promotion is to put it mildly,
> counterproductive.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> CBC
As a foreign company, perhaps it is valuable if I tell you that
MusicWeb has been extraordinarily supportive to my products, hopefully
because they're good (it must be, since I still haven't spent my first
penny on advertiwing with them). I have seen absolutely no bias
towards anything British and I find any notion to that effect quite
ludicrous.
Best - Robert (von Bahr), BIS Records
Simon Roberts
says...
>
>Simon Roberts <sd...@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:eujsi...@drn.newsguy.com:
>
>> In article <130qs6m...@corp.supernews.com>, Bob Lombard says...
>>>
>>>
>>>(Amerenglish speakers usually use the formation "Do you ever tire of
>>>...". So Simon's third country of domicile is not involved in this
>>>weighty controversy.)
>>
>> At least that makes sense, albeit a slightly different one. What I
>> don't get is why Americans say "I could care less" where an
>> Ango/Australian would say "I couldn't care less."
>
>You mean illiterate Americans, not Americans generally.
Perhaps I move in the wrong circles, but I don't recall ever hearing one say
"couldn't care less". It's so common I assumed it was deemed correct but for
reasons I couldn't quite figure out.
>"Ango/Australian" is new to me. An Australian who lives in Angola? :-)
Why yes!
Simon
sorabji...@lineone.net
> >"Ango/Australian" is new to me. An Australian who lives in Angola? :-)
>
> Why yes!
An Australian that I know once said to me that Tasmania is a condition
whose effective treatment has so far eluded the most distinguished
Antipodean psychotherapists for the simple reason that none has yet
discovered exactly what "Tas" is...
Oh, what a MusicWeb we weave...
Best,
Alistair
Simon Roberts
sorabji...@lineone.net says...
>
>On Mar 30, 11:29 pm, Simon Roberts <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> >"Ango/Australian" is new to me. An Australian who lives in Angola? :-)
>>
>> Why yes!
>An Australian that I know once said to me that Tasmania is a condition
>whose effective treatment has so far eluded the most distinguished
>Antipodean psychotherapists for the simple reason that none has yet
>discovered exactly what "Tas" is...
The Absolute Sound, perhaps, heavy use of which might well require extensive
psychotherapy....
Simon
Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT
> >> I'm pathetically grateful.
>
> >Pathetic is the word. Absolutely.
>
> >> >So much for MusicWeb International as some kind of Society of St
> >> >Jacqueline Du Pre.
>
> >> Who said it was?
>
> >You did.
>
> Do you never tire of being wrong?
Allow me to refresh your conveniently selective memory, Here is part
of your contribution to the thread about the MusicWeb International
Daniel Shafran review and the use of the word "rhetorical":
"To that extent, by "rhetorical" he's probably referring to that
"dramatic
oratory." His use of "though" implies that this description is meant
negatively. He presumably meant to say that Shafran's playing is
more
impassioned than he (the reviewer) thinks benefits the music. (Had
the
cellist's name been DuPre and the playing less well tuned to boot, the
review
might have been more positive.) "
I can see no way in American English, British English or Australian
English that the final sentence of that paragraph can be construed as
anything other than an accusation of bias. Not even to a Philadelphia
lawyer.
Incidentally I find your characteristically sneering dismissal of
MusicWeb International's attention to Australian music absolutely
beneath contempt.
CBC
fromgoogle....@spamgourmet.com
Actually all he says is that what is viewed as a defect in Shafran's
playing might have been viewed as a merit in a Du Pré performance. No
charge is made against Music Web in particular. He could perfectly
well mean that Du Pré fans would react in that way, or that this
reviewer would, or that most music lovers would, or ... There is no
reason without further evidence to see this as directed at Music Web.
I would have hoped this was obvious.
Norman M. Schwartz
"Simon Roberts" <sd...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:euk30...@drn.newsguy.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/g09.html
Bob Lombard
"Norman M. Schwartz" <nm...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:aeuPh.413$Hg1...@newsfe12.lga...
This article was written by a simple person.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/g09.html
This article suggests the correct conclusion, but it is presented
awkwardly. The sentiment is best described in this illumination: 'I
could care less, but only if there is no limit to indifference.'
GTBOH
bl
Simon Roberts
Barrington-Clarke, LMCT says...
>
>On Mar 31, 5:58 am, Simon Roberts <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> >> I'm pathetically grateful.
>>
>> >Pathetic is the word. Absolutely.
>>
>> >> >So much for MusicWeb International as some kind of Society of St
>> >> >Jacqueline Du Pre.
>>
>> >> Who said it was?
>>
>> >You did.
>>
>> Do you never tire of being wrong?
>
>Allow me to refresh your conveniently selective memory, Here is part
>of your contribution to the thread about the MusicWeb International
>Daniel Shafran review and the use of the word "rhetorical":
>
>"To that extent, by "rhetorical" he's probably referring to that
>"dramatic
>oratory." His use of "though" implies that this description is meant
>negatively. He presumably meant to say that Shafran's playing is
>more
>impassioned than he (the reviewer) thinks benefits the music. (Had
>the
>cellist's name been DuPre and the playing less well tuned to boot, the
>review
>might have been more positive.) "
>
>I can see no way in American English, British English or Australian
>English that the final sentence of that paragraph can be construed as
>anything other than an accusation of bias.
Assuming it was that, rather than what it was - semi-flippant semi-speculation
that what he sees as flaws in Shafran he may see as virtues in DuPre (based on
his description they seem to have similar styles) - it takes a special sort of
vicarious collectivist paranoia to read it as swipe at *musicweb*. It was
nothing of the sort.
>Incidentally I find your characteristically sneering dismissal of
>MusicWeb International's attention to Australian music absolutely
>beneath contempt.
My "sneering" was directed at you, not musicweb's attention to Australian music.
I have no opinion of, or interst in, musicweb, aside from being very pleased by
the excellent service they provided when I ordered a couple of Hatto CDs last
year. That you should, once again, have entirely missed the point is not the
least bit surprising.
Simon
Kirk McElhearn
<a...@cts.canberra.edu.au> said:
> As for the state of classical music, nothing really exciting has
> happened to it since the HIP movement. Isn't why there was such a
> furore about J. Hatto? It was sad, funny but exciting? Where, in the
> recent classical tradition, is the equivalent of Coltrane's "Giant
> Steps"?
That's an interesting comment... What could happen that would be as
"exciting" as the HIP movement (which is certainly not exciting to all)?
Kirk
--
Read my blog, Kirkville
http://www.mcelhearn.com
Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT
> In article <1175313562.442019.215...@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Sir Charles
> Barrington-Clarke, LMCT says...
>(Had
> the
> cellist's name been DuPre and the playing less well tuned to boot, the
> review
> might have been more positive.) "
>
> >I can see no way in American English, British English or Australian
> >English that the final sentence of that paragraph can be construed as
> >anything other than an accusation of bias.
>
> Assuming it was that, rather than what it was - semi-flippant semi-speculation
Or looking at it another way, half-serious, half-insinuation ...
> that what he sees as flaws in Shafran he may see as virtues in DuPre (based on
> his description they seem to have similar styles) - it takes a special sort of
> vicarious collectivist paranoia to read it as swipe at *musicweb*. It was
> nothing of the sort.
Well I'm afraid I don't know what "vicarious collectivist paranoia"
means in this (or any) context, and I don't think you do either. It
looks suspiciously like an attempted smokescreen, or as we say Down
Under, "bullshit baffles brains".
I could only assume what you meant from what you actually wrote,
especially when it chimed in with Big Duckie's contribution to the
same Shafran thread, viz:
">> Is this [ie the word rhetorical] perhaps intended to mean "not
requiring (or not worthy of)
>> comment?"
>> Just wondering.
> It means, "He's just another deuced foreigner, not like our Jackie."
Perhaps you should be more careful of the company you keep.
> >Incidentally I find your characteristically sneering dismissal of
> >MusicWeb International's attention to Australian music absolutely
> >beneath contempt.
>
> My "sneering" was directed at you,
But why on earth would you be sneering at me for drawing your
attention to sympathetic reviews of Australian music, Simon? Don't you
like Australian music, Simon? I do hope you haven't caught the
Cultural Cringe ...
> not musicweb's attention to Australian music.
Well Simon, you hardly sprang to MusicWeb International's defence, did
you, even when I gave you the opportunity so to do. Not when there was
an opportunity for a clever little putdown, the target of which was,
to say the least, far from clear.
> I have no opinion of, or interest in, musicweb, aside from being very pleased by
> the excellent service they provided when I ordered a couple of Hatto CDs last
> year.
Now that's damning with faint praise isn't it? I'm sure MusicWeb
International will survive without you.
> That you should, once again, have entirely missed the point is not the
> least bit surprising.
Well there seem to have been so many points I'm not quite sure which
one I've apparently missed. What I *do* know is that whenever Simon
Roberts is contradicted, he turns remarkably nasty.
CBC
Bob Lombard
"Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT" <a...@cts.canberra.edu.au> wrote in
message news:1175431215.9...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Well there seem to have been so many points I'm not quite sure which
> one I've apparently missed. What I *do* know is that whenever Simon
> Roberts is contradicted, he turns remarkably nasty.
>
> CBC
>
Hah. So speaks the Ponderous Pot to the kettle. A happy April Fool's Day
to you, CBC.
bl
Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT
> You noted yourself some time ago the following regarding French
> culture:
>
> [...] According to the great French film
> director Eric Rohmer, this is part of the
> national culture. An educated man or woman
> cannot get by socially without some knowledge of
> contemporary literature or contemporary
> painting, but they can unblushingly admit to
> complete ignorance of Mahler or Stravinsky.
> [...]
>
> Such an attitude could not fail to influence a site where almost all
> contributors were from French-speaking countries; do you think
> something equivalent is somehow magically absent from MusicWeb
> "International"?
I think we're talking about two different things, Alexios.
1) What is constantly being levelled at The Gramophone (and apparently
MusicWeb) is that they deliberately produce rave reviews of British
musicians while unjustly denigrating or neglecting those from other
countries. In this context we would have to assume that there was a
French magazine called Le Pickup, founded by Anatole France, which was
biassed in favour of French musicians at the expence of les rosbifs,
les ricains, les boches etc. And of course there is no such journal,
although perhaps Christophe Huss should declare an interest when
reviewing Dvorak overtures `0{:-{)=
2) What M. Rohmer was discussing was a perceived difference in
cultural priorities, and there is of course the paradox that Rohmer,
very much a Frenchman, is himself passionately interested in classical
music, but at a very deep and characteristically French way. I can now
add to the above quote a comment that ER made during a TV interview,
that the Nouvelle Vague was strongly influenced by classical music.
Superficially this seems odd -- unless 'Jules et Jim' was influenced
by Julian Slade and Jimmy Durante -- but I think that ER was looking
at underlying patterns of thought and feeling in a way I still can't
fathom. It would be nice to know what that Mozart sonata is doing in
"Ma nuit chez Maude" or the Schumann Symphonic Etudes in "Conte du
Printemps". (The fact that ER's book De Mozart en Beethoven isn't
available in a language I can read doesn't help.) So yes, the French
really are different, and we might expect this difference in national
culture to be reflected in the way they perceive (and review) music as
well as in the way they make films. So -- to cut a long story short --
we're talking about cultural differences rather than deliberate
biasses here, and of course we're talking at a very, very general
level.
Are there similar cultural differences between the way that Britons
and Americans --famously divided by a common language -- perceive and
review musical recordings? Maybe, maybe not.
Kindest regards,
CBC
Simon Roberts
Barrington-Clarke, LMCT says...
>Well there seem to have been so many points I'm not quite sure which
>one I've apparently missed. What I *do* know is that whenever Simon
>Roberts is contradicted, he turns remarkably nasty.
You didn't "contradict," you misread what I wrote and then used your misreading
to throw around false accusations. And of course, your "whenever" is wrong,
too.
Either way, one does have to wonder why you keep reading the posts of someone
whose utterances are "beneath contempt" and "remarkably nasty." Surely even in
Canberra there are better things to do.
Simon
Len of MusicWeb
"Bob Lombard" <thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote in message
news:130vbqn...@corp.supernews.com...
bl
and there are plenty of those on MusicWeb International today - one of which
has already been nicked with no attribution
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/Stokowski_Fans/message/1123
Len of MusicWeb
Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT
Simon Roberts wrote:
> Either way, one does have to wonder why you keep reading the posts of someone
> whose utterances are "beneath contempt" and "remarkably nasty." Surely even in
> Canberra there are better things to do.
Not all your posts are "beneath contempt" and "remarkably nasty"
although we haven't had much in depth from you recently except for a
slightly snobbish post about London record shops. Perhaps you might do
some reviewing for MusicWeb International where you could have room
for more extensive reviews which would reach a rather wider audience?
In rmcr you're preaching to the choir.
As for my misreading your contribution to the Shafran thread, given
the barrage of anti-Music Web stuff that was being posted, your
suggestion that Mr Woolf would have produced a more enthusiastic
response if the cellist had been (a) less in tune and (b) called
Jacqueline Du Pre would suggest to a lot of people that Mr Woolf was
displaying unprofessional bias in favour of a British musician. Might
I suggest that you might have made your intentions a little clearer if
you had omitted all the succeeding bumf about vicarious collective
paranoia and pathetic gratitude and penned something on the lines of:
"Dear Sir Charles,
Whilst I can see that in the context of the Shafran thread my comments
about Woolf's review might have been seen as implying unprofessional
bias, such was not my intention at all. I was merely suggesting that
du Pre and Shafran share a common attitude to performance which might
not always be appropriate for the work being performed.
I agree that MusicWeb International's attention to recent recordings
of neglected Australian composers is to be applauded, and it is high
time these works were brought to the attention to a wider public.
I have the honour, Sir to remain,
Your most obedient &c. ... "
Now that would have been the gentlemanly thing to do, wouldn't it?
Kindest regards,
CBC
Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT
Something as stimulating and controversial as Stravinsky's work for
the Ballets Russes? Something which makes people rethink the
possibilities of the medium, as Giant Steps did for jazz. I think it
was Noel Streatfeild, the authoress, who described in her
autobiography the sea change she felt in her life after an enlightened
schoolmistress had taken a group of young girls to see the Ballets
Russes in London just before the Great War.
I found the HIP movement fascinating and exciting because it explored
new ways of hearing Mozart and Beethoven etc, and restored a great
swathes of music a lot of people hadn't heard before except in modern
orchestral versions, e.g. Raymond Leppard's Incoronazione di Poppea.
On the other hand it may have diverted resources away from new
music(s).
Of course there's been minimalism ...
Kindest regards,
CBC
aleksios
<a...@cts.canberra.edu.au> said:
> [...] What is constantly being levelled at The Gramophone (and
> apparently MusicWeb) is that they deliberately produce rave
> reviews of British musicians while unjustly denigrating or
> neglecting those from other countries. [...]
Perhaps, but -- and I mean no disrespect -- where exactly did I say
that?
> [...] we're talking about cultural differences rather than
> deliberate biasses here, and of course we're talking at a very,
> very general level.
Cultural difference *is* bias. As I said earlier, the notion of
"deliberate bias" is a straw man. The indisputable fact that the
overwhelming majority of MusicWeb *International* are native English-
speaking would create a bias even if all of them were angels of
impartiality and not mere mortals like the rest of us. A Swede here
and a Dutch there doesn't do much to correct it -- how about a few
actual French from France and actual Italians from Italy, and a few
Germans, and surely -- given the number and talent of Russian
musicians -- a few Russians? How about that for *International*?
And as to Joyce Hatto and the part her "Britishness" played, I'd
strongly advise anyone interested to read up just a little bit on the
history of the Piltdown fraud. They might find the comparison
informative.
--Alex (the internationalist philistine)
Simon Roberts
Barrington-Clarke, LMCT says...
>
>
>Simon Roberts wrote:
>
>> Either way, one does have to wonder why you keep reading the posts of someone
>>whose utterances are "beneath contempt" and "remarkably nasty." Surely even in
>> Canberra there are better things to do.
>
>Not all your posts are "beneath contempt" and "remarkably nasty"
I must plainly try harder.
>although we haven't had much in depth from you recently
May we look forward to your complaints about every other poster who hasn't
provided "depth" on rmcr?
I have, however, been urging people to buy various discs both in the past few
weeks (and during the decade or so I've been scribbling here; not to mention
spending too much money on the things). None of that matters, of course,
because as your extensive research has revealed, my flippant remark about a
musicweb reviewer has done damage to the CD marketing world.
So it goes.
except for a
>slightly snobbish post about London record shops.
Oh dear, here we go again. My post wasn't snobbish at all, though I'm not at
all surprised that you read it that way - you saw what you wanted to see. It
was directed at a question from someone who lives in the U.S., someone I happen
to know. Used CD shops in Paris are more interesting than used CD shops in
London to someone arriving from the U.S. because in shops in London you find
much the same stuff as shows up in the U.S. The French record market is quite
different, containing labels they and we don't see and, on familiar labels,
releases they and we don't see. Or were you referring to my suggestion that in
used CD shops in Soho he wear gloves? If so, it's a simple fact that those
stores are filthy and their stock is filthy. It's merely a practical suggestion
for those who prefer to keep the tips of their stock-flipping fingers from
turning the colour of lead, not snobbery.
Perhaps you might do
>some reviewing for MusicWeb International where you could have room
>for more extensive reviews which would reach a rather wider audience?
Why? I'm not a record reviewer and don't have time (even if I had the ability)
to be one. There are more than enough professional reviews which seem to have
been written by people without time to write proper reviews as it is.
>As for my misreading your contribution to the Shafran thread, given
>the barrage of anti-Music Web stuff that was being posted,
None of it by me.
your
>suggestion that Mr Woolf would have produced a more enthusiastic
>response if the cellist had been (a) less in tune and (b) called
>Jacqueline Du Pre would suggest to a lot of people that Mr Woolf was
>displaying unprofessional bias in favour of a British musician.
It suggested it to *you* because that's what you wanted me to say so you could
do one of your knight-in-shining-armour defenses of British review publications.
Have "a lot of people" written to you to concur? Did "a lot of people" even
take my remark seriously? (And it couldn't have suggested that he *was
displaying* bias in favour of *a British musician*, since I don't think he
mentioned one. At most it might have suggested that he might have a bias in
favor of *DuPre*. I mentioned her, not because she's British, but because his
description of Shafran's playing sounds more-or-less like many descriptions of
hers.)
Might
>I suggest that you might have made your intentions a little clearer if
>you had omitted all the succeeding bumf about vicarious collective
>paranoia and pathetic gratitude and penned something on the lines of:
>
>"Dear Sir Charles,
>
>Whilst I can see that in the context of the Shafran thread my comments
>about Woolf's review might have been seen as implying unprofessional
>bias, such was not my intention at all. I was merely suggesting that
>du Pre and Shafran share a common attitude to performance which might
>not always be appropriate for the work being performed.
>
>I agree that MusicWeb International's attention to recent recordings
>of neglected Australian composers is to be applauded, and it is high
>time these works were brought to the attention to a wider public.
>
>I have the honour, Sir to remain,
>
>Your most obedient &c. ... "
>
>Now that would have been the gentlemanly thing to do, wouldn't it?
As gentlemen aren't "remarkably nasty," I don't know.
It's not still April 1 in Australia, is it?
Simon
Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT
aleksios wrote:
> On 2007-04-01 09:19:59 -0400, "Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT"
> <a...@cts.canberra.edu.au> said:
>
> > [...] What is constantly being levelled at The Gramophone (and
> > apparently MusicWeb) is that they deliberately produce rave
> > reviews of British musicians while unjustly denigrating or
> > neglecting those from other countries. [...]
>
> Perhaps, but -- and I mean no disrespect -- where exactly did I say
> that?
I don't know if you ever did, Alexios, but it's been a kind of running
gag on rmcr for more years than I can remember.
> --Alex (the internationalist philistine)
"Mon coeur est francais, mais mon cul est international" -- actress
Arletty, defending her more intimate collaborations with the more
athletic members of the German occupying forces, 1940-1944.
Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT
Simon Roberts wrote:
> In article <1175475684.7...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Sir Charles
> Barrington-Clarke, LMCT says...
> Perhaps you might do
> >some reviewing for MusicWeb International where you could have room
> >for more extensive reviews which would reach a rather wider audience?
>
> Why? I'm not a record reviewer and don't have time (even if I had the ability)
> to be one. There are more than enough professional reviews which seem to have
> been written by people without time to write proper reviews as it is.
Simon, you are a "record reviewer" to the extent that you suggest
people buy certain recordings rather than others and in that your
opinion of a recording is considered vital by a number of people.
I agree that writing about music without descending into prose-poetry
is difficult. Much more difficult than reviewing a play or a film, for
instance. (The record reviewer does have the advantage of being able
to repeatedly hear the performance more than once in a short time, but
that's about it I think. It never did anyone any harm to attempt a
piece of criticism: it gives one perhaps a greater insight into the
formidable difficulties involved.
> your
> >suggestion that Mr Woolf would have produced a more enthusiastic
> >response if the cellist had been (a) less in tune and (b) called
> >Jacqueline Du Pre would suggest to a lot of people that Mr Woolf was
> >displaying unprofessional bias in favour of a British musician.
>
> It suggested it to *you* because that's what you wanted me to say so you could
> do one of your knight-in-shining-armour defenses of British review publications.
Now we're getting hysterical, Simon. What has happened in the past,
and will undoubtedly happen in the future, is that somebody here will
make an exaggerated claim about "the Brighton Festival Chorus of
British critics" as Big Dave Hurwitz has been known to call it. I then
go to the published Gram(m)ophone in my local library or to the online
edition and find that the mag contains inter alia warm appreciations
of Pierre Monteux, William Christie, Eugene Ormandy, Renee Fleming and
Stephen Gunzenhauser, as well as many younger "foreign" musicians. It
isn't a question of long-distance paranoia or shining armour: it's a
question of fairness.
> At most it might have suggested that he might have a bias in
> favor of *DuPre*. I mentioned her, not because she's British, but because his
> description of Shafran's playing sounds more-or-less like many descriptions of
> hers.)
It is doubly unfortunate then that the Sage of LA chose the same lady
cellist to argue that there *was* national bias involved. Let's call
it an unfortunate coincidence.
> >Now that would have been the gentlemanly thing to do, wouldn't it?
>
> As gentlemen aren't "remarkably nasty," I don't know.
Never too late to learn,
> It's not still April 1 in Australia, is it?
No. That was yesterday. Many happy returns!
CBC
Kirk McElhearn
<a...@cts.canberra.edu.au> said:
> 1) What is constantly being levelled at The Gramophone (and apparently
> MusicWeb) is that they deliberately produce rave reviews of British
> musicians while unjustly denigrating or neglecting those from other
> countries.
Well, do labels from other countries send discs to Gramphone for
review? Obviously, lots of British labels do. Here in France, Diapason,
the French "equivalent" features far more French labels, and relatively
few of the "minor" British labels you see in Gramphone. It's probably
normal, given the ability of small labels to send out review copies.
Kirk McElhearn
<a...@cts.canberra.edu.au> said:
So two possibilities: performance practice, and "new" music. Since most
new music is ignored, I can't see that changing soon. As for
performance practice, I can't see a lot of possibilites there either...
Kiri
Simon Roberts
Barrington-Clarke, LMCT says...
>
>
>Simon Roberts wrote:
>>In article <1175475684.7...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Sir Charles
>> Barrington-Clarke, LMCT says...
>
>> Perhaps you might do
>> >some reviewing for MusicWeb International where you could have room
>> >for more extensive reviews which would reach a rather wider audience?
>>
>>Why? I'm not a record reviewer and don't have time (even if I had the ability)
>>to be one. There are more than enough professional reviews which seem to have
>> been written by people without time to write proper reviews as it is.
>
>Simon, you are a "record reviewer" to the extent that you suggest
>people buy certain recordings
Yes, but that's not real reviewing.
rather than others and in that your
>opinion of a recording is considered vital by a number of people.
Oh, don't be silly. But even if that were true, it wouldn't make me a reviewer.
>I agree that writing about music without descending into prose-poetry
>is difficult.
I don't mind that so much, at least if I'm reading a review to see how others
react to something I've heard. Richard Osborne's descents in Gramophone, while
entirely useless for someone who merely wants to try to figure out whether he
should buy the disc in question, can seem entertaining and even perceptive for
other purposes. Then again, what with all the various ways the internet allows
sampling, the review-as-guide-to-what-to-buy is perhaps becoming obsolete.
>
>> your
>> >suggestion that Mr Woolf would have produced a more enthusiastic
>> >response if the cellist had been (a) less in tune and (b) called
>> >Jacqueline Du Pre would suggest to a lot of people that Mr Woolf was
>> >displaying unprofessional bias in favour of a British musician.
>>
>>It suggested it to *you* because that's what you wanted me to say so you could
>>do one of your knight-in-shining-armour defenses of British review publications.
>
>Now we're getting hysterical, Simon. What has happened in the past,
>and will undoubtedly happen in the future, is that somebody here will
>make an exaggerated claim about "the Brighton Festival Chorus of
>British critics" as Big Dave Hurwitz has been known to call it. I then
>go to the published Gram(m)ophone in my local library or to the online
>edition and find that the mag contains inter alia warm appreciations
>of Pierre Monteux, William Christie, Eugene Ormandy, Renee Fleming and
>Stephen Gunzenhauser, as well as many younger "foreign" musicians. It
>isn't a question of long-distance paranoia or shining armour: it's a
>question of fairness.
Um, perhaps you would care to try to apply that when reading and interpreting
posts?
>
>> At most it might have suggested that he might have a bias in
>>favor of *DuPre*. I mentioned her, not because she's British, but because his
>>description of Shafran's playing sounds more-or-less like many descriptions of
>> hers.)
>
>It is doubly unfortunate then that the Sage of LA chose the same lady
>cellist to argue that there *was* national bias involved.
I don't recall an *argument* on his part, but I may be wrong and am too lazy to
check.
Let's call
>it an unfortunate coincidence.
>
>> >Now that would have been the gentlemanly thing to do, wouldn't it?
>>
>> As gentlemen aren't "remarkably nasty," I don't know.
>
>Never too late to learn,
>
>> It's not still April 1 in Australia, is it?
>
>No. That was yesterday. Many happy returns!
Many returns are expected!
Simon
Lord Crikey
Sipow...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Well it was exciting 20 years ago but like all things you can only
> hold the excitement for so long and then it becomes blah. After all,
> though Mr Andrew Clarke of Crikey, Down Under might disagree, Giant Steps
> isn't that exciting after you've heard it 20 times either.
I think you're missing the point. I'm not suggesting that either HIP
or Coltrane are currently le dernier cri. What I *am* suggesting is
that we lack anything as stimulating *now*.
As for "Giant Steps" I heard it for the first time about a week ago. I
think in my case it'll survive the 20th playing. But somewhere at my
back I hear Mr Zappa's mot, "Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny."
As for Hatto, it's time to move on.
Andrew, Lord Crikey
Sir Charles Barrington-Clarke, LMCT
Bob Lombard wrote:
> Hah. So speaks the Ponderous Pot to the kettle. A happy April Fool's Day
> to you, CBC.
Dear Mr Lombard,
Your point is well taken, and I do regret losing my temper on certain
occasions, particularly when confronted with some of the more grossly
bigotted postings that have appeared in these columns recently -
substitute "Jewish" for "British" in some of 'em and you'll appreciate
my sentiments -- or from people who cannot or will not distinguish
between a philosophy of religion and a religious philosophy, to cite
another recent instance. But after a tincture or two I find I am
restored to my usual equinamity, and I think I can claim that I am not
a man to bear grudges. Too many more important things to do, for one
thing. Like singing for example. Ever tried the Britten *French*
folksong settings? Wonderful stuff.
Mr Roberts assures us that no discourtesy was intended towards those
splendid fellows at MusicWeb, and I am prepared to accept his
explanation.
You see, given the present state of classical music recording
industry, we need all the MusicWebs we can get.
Meanwhile my gardener, a person of radical sentiment, has shown me
this article:
http://music.guardian.co.uk/classical/story/0,,2048916,00.html
If we go on biffing each other over questions of nationality, etc.,
I'm afraid the person who wrote this may be right.
I have the honour to remain, Sir,
Your most obedient & humble servant,
CBC