Hurwitz rampant
Paul Goldstein
which show him in frontal attack mode: the Barbirolli/Halle
Sibelius set and Mark Obert-Thorn's new Naxos transfers of
Heifetz's Beethoven (w/Toscanini) and Brahms (w/Koussevitsky)
concerti. Even more amusing is Jed Distler grading some new
Knappertsbusch issue with a 2/1.
I haven't heard the Naxos Heifetz disc, but I'd be *very*
surprised if I agreed with DH's assessment of its sound quality.
Paul Goldstein
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> David Hurwitz has posted two new reviews you-know-where, both of
> which show him in frontal attack mode: the Barbirolli/Halle
> Sibelius set and Mark Obert-Thorn's new Naxos transfers of
> Heifetz's Beethoven (w/Toscanini) and Brahms (w/Koussevitsky)
> concerti. Even more amusing is Jed Distler grading some new
> Knappertsbusch issue with a 2/1.
>
> I haven't heard the Naxos Heifetz disc, but I'd be *very*
> surprised if I agreed with DH's assessment of its sound quality.
<TONE MODE="sarcastic">Oh, no! Somebody dares to have an opinion that
differs from the Revealed Truth! Break out the tar and feathers!</TONE>
--
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
"Compassionate Conservatism?" * "Tight Slacks?" * "Jumbo Shrimp?"
vaneyes
Paul Goldstein <phgoldste...@mofo.com.invalid> wrote:
> David Hurwitz has posted two new reviews you-know-where, both of
> which show him in frontal attack mode: the Barbirolli/Halle
> Sibelius set and Mark Obert-Thorn's new Naxos transfers of
> Heifetz's Beethoven (w/Toscanini) and Brahms (w/Koussevitsky)
> concerti. Even more amusing is Jed Distler grading some new
> Knappertsbusch issue with a 2/1.
>
> I haven't heard the Naxos Heifetz disc, but I'd be *very*
> surprised if I agreed with DH's assessment of its sound quality.
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
The Barbirolli review was harsh.
Although this Halle/Barbirolli Sibelius set has not received the
consistently good reviews that I thought it would receive, it (or any
other serious recording) doesn't deserve to be described as "drooling
and slobbering". Only a _________ reviewer would write something like
that.
Regards
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Alain
Paul Goldstein wrote:
> David Hurwitz has posted two new reviews you-know-where, both of
> which show him in frontal attack mode: the Barbirolli/Halle
> Sibelius set and Mark Obert-Thorn's new Naxos transfers of
> Heifetz's Beethoven (w/Toscanini) and Brahms (w/Koussevitsky)
> concerti.
Thanks to this review I found a great website I would like to share with you
all.
Of course, Mr Hurwitz is being his usual nasty self, although I think one might
very well agree with his musical judgements of Barbirolli and the Halle
orchestra. But it is the lame literary style (who calls the Atlantic ocean the
"big pond"?) that lets him down. He attacks, but can't harm his target. If
Barbirolli is a slobbering bulldog, David H. is an edentulous pitbull.
Anyhow, I was fairly sure that his use of "curate's egg" as a synonym for "mixed
bag" was incorrect, but I wasn't sure exactly what the expression meant. So I
looked it up and found said wonderful website:
http://www.word-detective.com/backidx.html
(As expected, David was wrong.)
regards,
Alain
Ehrlich606
<al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> writes:
>
>Paul Goldstein wrote:
>
>> David Hurwitz has posted two new reviews you-know-where, both of
>> which show him in frontal attack mode: the Barbirolli/Halle
>> Sibelius set and Mark Obert-Thorn's new Naxos transfers of
>> Heifetz's Beethoven (w/Toscanini) and Brahms (w/Koussevitsky)
>> concerti.
>
To be a critic you have to hold an audience. That means, usually, that you
have to be outrageous and negative. Nobody makes a reputation with balanced
criticism, or even with gushing praise. People are always attracted to the
funny putdowns. Thinking of film criticism, think of Judith Crist, Gene
Shalit, Schickel at Time magazine, Siskel & Ebert -- when those folks became
_famous_ it was always by virtue of their deprecating wisecracks.
Same with music critics. We, here, can gush all we want to about our faves.
But if we were critics no one would read us.
Of course, one could say that a really good critic could manage to be
insightful, entertaining, and even _funny_ without having to go for the
negative put-downs. (Thinking of Tovey, here) True, but that would require
real writing talent, which most critics don't have.
Generally, I regard a negative review on Hurwitz' site as a kind of commercial
for the site. Unfortunately, metaphors -- as in the case of the
Barbirolli/Sibelius review -- are not all equal. That review's repeated
references to drooling, slobbering, and dog excrement on the floor are not very
appealing, nor are they particularly amusing. But you need an ear for music as
well as an ear for writing ....
I think Hurwitz would have a better deal of it if instead of writing nasty
reviews on his site he would post in the trenches. He'd get more hits that
way, for sure.
By the way, anent the Heifetz review, is that site sponsored by BMG, or what?
Paul Goldstein
>
>
>Paul Goldstein wrote:
>
>> David Hurwitz has posted two new reviews you-know-where, both
of
>> which show him in frontal attack mode: the Barbirolli/Halle
>> Sibelius set and Mark Obert-Thorn's new Naxos transfers of
>> Heifetz's Beethoven (w/Toscanini) and Brahms (w/Koussevitsky)
>> concerti.
>
share with you
>all.
>
>Of course, Mr Hurwitz is being his usual nasty self, although I
think one might
>very well agree with his musical judgements of Barbirolli and
the Halle
>orchestra. But it is the lame literary style (who calls the
Atlantic ocean the
>"big pond"?) that lets him down. He attacks, but can't harm his
target. If
>Barbirolli is a slobbering bulldog, David H. is an edentulous
pitbull.
>
>Anyhow, I was fairly sure that his use of "curate's egg" as a
synonym for "mixed
>bag" was incorrect, but I wasn't sure exactly what the
expression meant. So I
>looked it up and found said wonderful website:
>
>http://www.word-detective.com/backidx.html
Hurwitz used the term "curate's egg" in exactly the same way
that the Gramophone crew uses it - so they are all wrong, at
least according to the well-argued article you cite.
Steve Emerson
FWIW, said article presents the same case cited by the definitive
Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, to wit:
"Among the catch-phrases that Punch (see 'Mr. Punch' under 'Punch') has
introduced into the language, 'Good in parts, like the curate's egg' is
proverbial. The illustration shows a nervous young curate at his
bishop's breakfast table. Asked by his lordship whether the egg is to
his liking, he is terrified to say that it is bad and stammers out that,
'Parts of it are excellent!'"
To agree with you both -- it seems to me that, applied to a musical
performance, "good in parts, like the curate's egg" might be perfectly
a-propos, but would be considerably harsher than "mixed bag" -- since
the performance would be rotten.
Brewer's doesn't find "mixed bag" itself interesting enough to treat.
Webster's Third International offers the innocuous "a miscellaneous
collection: assortment."
SE.
thebarnman
"Paul Goldstein" <phgoldste...@mofo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0121d108...@usw-ex0106-047.remarq.com...
> David Hurwitz has posted two new reviews you-know-where, both of
> which show him in frontal attack mode: the Barbirolli/Halle
> Sibelius set and Mark Obert-Thorn's new Naxos transfers of
> Heifetz's Beethoven (w/Toscanini) and Brahms (w/Koussevitsky)
> Knappertsbusch issue with a 2/1.
>
> I haven't heard the Naxos Heifetz disc, but I'd be *very*
> surprised if I agreed with DH's assessment of its sound quality.
>
>
I'm a big fan of the Barbirolli set, and anyone here who has read my posts
for the past 5 years will know.
If Hurwitz has a comment that points to a performance that has superior
moments, or whatever, that's his, or anybody's right.
BUT...
from what i've read here in these posts, he says things like
dog excrement?
drooling?
it's no wonder that samir is so raged by the guy.
I think the verdict is in. hurwitz just doesn't understand music. all he
understands is how he can USE music and art as a soapbox to make his own
untalented, ignorant life appear significant and full of status.
i don't blame samir for hating the mother-fucker at all.
i know my love for this set is a sentimental one, and that can't be counted
as a fair and objective evaluation. i accept that.
and i'm not offended by other people's opinions if they like their sibelius
quick (rushed through because they don't understand it), brisk (miss all the
colours and nuances in the phrasing because their imagination is limited to
3 chord pop songs to begin with) or whatever... HONEST!! lol.
BUT to say that sir john's set is dog shit, IF indeed that is what he said,
is a lie.
it's just another impish attempt to provoke some martyr status for another
in the long list of foneys that people who love art and music have to put up
with. them and the asswhipes who "analyze" great works of art and do thesis
eeze on them..
"Here look at me, i'm as important as Sibelius... I KNOW more than everybody
else... I'M a CRITIC... I'M an ACADEMIC!!!!! I'M more important than all
you little people!!!"
I personally look forward to pissing on Hurwitz's name every time it's
mentioned, if the above is true... I'll make Samir look like a dimplomat by
the time i'm down with the dumass.
M-T
<<Brewer's doesn't find "mixed bag" itself interesting enough to treat.
Webster's Third International offers the innocuous "a miscellaneous
collection: assortment.">>
In US usage, "mixed bag" *does* have a pejorative meaning, suggesting
good and bad in the same item (e.g., a compact disk). It may be worth
e-mailing Bill Safire, who keeps religious track of these idioms. I bet
he can trace this pejorative to its source (my bet: the sixties).
Regards,
mt
Simon Roberts
: To be a critic you have to hold an audience. That means, usually, that you
: have to be outrageous and negative. Nobody makes a reputation with balanced
: criticism, or even with gushing praise. People are always attracted to the
: funny putdowns.
True; on the other hand it must be noted that Hurwitz gushes as much as he
trashes (e.g. Koroliov's Bach), and sometimes goes as far over the top
when gushing (e.g. his wildly enthusiastic review of Barenboim's Beethoven
symphonies).
Simon
Paul Goldstein
Richie Havens titled an album "Mixed Bag" in 1966, presumably
with no self-deprecating intent.
Jeremy Cook
seme...@dnai.com wrote:
[snip]
> To agree with you both -- it seems to me that, applied to a musical
> performance, "good in parts, like the curate's egg" might be perfectly
> a-propos, but would be considerably harsher than "mixed bag" -- since
> the performance would be rotten.
I'm not sure it would be appropriate to apply the term "curate's egg"
to a performance, since implicit in the expression is the thought of
going to extreme effort to find redeeming qualities in that which is
utterly without merit. So it would more correctly be used in reference
to _undeserved praise_ for a bad performance.
Hypothetical example:
Gushing pro-CC poster: "While Charlotte Church is certainly not a
seasoned and fully-developed soprano in the class of, say, Renee
Fleming, her live concert DVD captures her ease of delivery and natural
sense of phrasing. What's more, she is a rare beauty."
Matthew Tepper's response: "Another mindless idiot has swallowed the
Sony hype surrounding the giftless Welsh tart, supplying us with yet
another pathetic curate's egg."
An even better example:
Supermodel who adores CC, on your first date: "Do you like Charlotte
Church?"
Response from meek yet honest guy on his first date with a supermodel,
desperately hoping she doesn't know who FFJ is: "Well, her intonation
is superior even to that of Florence Foster Jenkins."
samir ghiocel golescu
On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Paul Goldstein wrote:
> David Hurwitz has posted two new reviews you-know-where, both of
> which show him in frontal attack mode: the Barbirolli/Halle
> Sibelius set
He seems to have been so delighted with his great (hethinks) trouvaille
(of comparing Barbirolli's conducting to dogs' excrement) that he repeats
it no less than three times... Messers. Dagher or (Andy) Evans could
psychoanalyze this scatologic propensities... I am not a specialist in
psychoanalysis nor in Sibelius (I mean I have not listened to the
symphonies in more than three or four performances, except for the Fifth
and Seventh) but Barbirolli's recordings, as less-than-impeccable
as they may be, are (most times) at least expressive, warm and decently
played. They surely present absolutely nothing to deserve this
vulgarly deprecatory treatment from a deaf man that continues to claim,
contrary to all evidence, being an expert.
> and Mark Obert-Thorn's new Naxos transfers of
> Heifetz's Beethoven (w/Toscanini) and Brahms (w/Koussevitsky) concerti.
Here the story seems to be less complicated. I'll suspend my judgment on
the merits of the two Heifetz transfers until I'll "A/B" them. However,
the most significant paragraph is the one that attempts a
generalization--the very last one. Its conclusion is nothing but a LIE,
yes, not a "different" opinion but a (deliberate?) lie:
<<The current flood of historical reissues is motivated by the fact that
most pre-1950 recordings are now public domain. Anyone who owns the
performance as originally issued can, at least theoretically, release
their own CD of it without paying a nickel in royalties. This is perfectly
legal, and often highly desirable, especially given how the major labels
have treated the priceless legacy that their catalogs represent. However,
if the original source material has been carefully preserved and restored,
its owner (usually a major label) may still retain a sonic advantage over
competing reissues. So it proves here. As ever-increasing quantities of
historical material become available from non-original sources, it's
going to be very much a case of caveat emptor: let the buyer beware.>>
So ALL people that preferred Schnabel's Beethoven on Pearl and not on EMI,
Busch Q.'s Beethoven on Preiser and not on EMI, Rachmaninov on Naxos and
not on RCA, Koussevitzky's Tchaikovsky on Biddulph and not on RCA, Rosa
Ponselle on Romophone and not on RCA, etc etc etc etc etc are implicitly
designated as idiots.
You do not have to be an academician to understand what stands behind this
rant, the unfairness of which is not even covered by subtlety. He
accumulated hatred against historic recordings and, more, against their
supporters, not "fools that hounded" a(n anyway) rotten effigy, but
music lovers that repeatedly exposed the personage's illiteracy (at least)
in what regards historic recordings and history of interpretation... Mark
Obert-Thorn (twice misspelled in the article as "Thorne") is one of these
music lovers' friends, not trough his sporadic presence in r.c.m.r. as
trough the quality of his transfers--quality that speaks for itself, in
*and outside* r.c.m.r. With bassly motivated disregard for truth--and for
the possible competence of his site's visitors--D.H. tries to asperse,
with objectively untrue imputations, M. O.-T.'s reputation.
What did you say, Mr. Goldstein, in your posting on the Naxos--Erich
Kleiber (Dvorak-Smetana) CD? <<Anyone who professes not to hear the music
in these restorations is, I suspect, being driven by a non-musical agenda
(assuming that he has functioning ears).>> Nihil nove sub sole.
regards,
SG
Steve Emerson
>
> In article <393BF1...@nospam.com>, M-T <m...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >Steve:
> >
> ><<Brewer's doesn't find "mixed bag" itself interesting enough
> to treat.
> >Webster's Third International offers the innocuous "a
> miscellaneous
> >collection: assortment.">>
> >
> >In US usage, "mixed bag" *does* have a pejorative meaning,
> suggesting
> >good and bad in the same item (e.g., a compact disk). It may be
> worth
> >e-mailing Bill Safire, who keeps religious track of these
> idioms. I bet
> >he can trace this pejorative to its source (my bet: the
> sixties).
>
> Richie Havens titled an album "Mixed Bag" in 1966, presumably
> with no self-deprecating intent.
Right. And in the Third International, the citations are both fairly
unprejudiced as to bag-content quality: "a mixed bag of stocks and
bonds"; "a prissy individual... and a mixed bag of other characters."
Though my sense is we generally mean some good, some bad.
I'd have said '60s too, but the current Webster's Collegiate lists 1926
as the "earliest recorded use in English."
SE.
Matthew B. Tepper
where Inspector Kemp says, "A rrrrrriot is a terrrrible thing. UNDTTTTT
-- it is chust about time zat ve HAD vun!"
thebarnman wrote:
>
> I think the verdict is in. hurwitz just doesn't understand music. all
> he understands is how he can USE music and art as a soapbox to make his
> own untalented, ignorant life appear significant and full of status.
--
Steve Emerson
Astutely noted. But I do think the phrase cited by Brewer's, "good in
parts, like the curate's egg" really might be used for a performance --
and would be savagely ironic. I.e., it's good in parts in the same way
as something so contaminated as to be inedible. And the critic's
"extreme effort to find redeeming qualities in that which is utterly
without merit" would be made in sort-of leering bad faith.
Of course this isn't how it winds up getting used. So it probably is a
case along the lines of "cannon fodder," where the phrase mutates thanks
to the efforts of those who don't understand it. In that instance, of
course, a term that began by meaning first-world-war infantrymen has
turned into one meaning ammunition.
SE.
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> They surely present absolutely nothing to deserve this vulgarly
> deprecatory treatment from a deaf man that continues to claim,
> contrary to all evidence, being an expert.
I take it you're the one who runs the rope concession?
Jeremy Cook
Jeremy Cook <jerem...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <393BEF...@dnai.com>,
> seme...@dnai.com wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > To agree with you both -- it seems to me that, applied to a musical
> > performance, "good in parts, like the curate's egg" might be
> > perfectly a-propos, but would be considerably harsher than "mixed
> > bag" -- since the performance would be rotten.
>
> I'm not sure it would be appropriate to apply the term "curate's egg"
> to a performance, since implicit in the expression is the thought of
> going to extreme effort to find redeeming qualities in that which is
> utterly without merit. So it would more correctly be used in
> reference to _undeserved praise_ for a bad performance.
After some additional thinking, I got to wondering if perhaps a bad
performance _becomes_ a curate's egg by virtue of the undeserved praise
heaped upon it. Hmmmmm..... now I've gotten to wondering if I've got
too much time on my hands today... :-)
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> The Barnman:
>
> <<I think the verdict is in. hurwitz just doesn't understand music.
> all he understands is how he can USE music and art as a soapbox to make
> his own untalented, ignorant life appear significant and full of
> status>>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> mrt
Yes, but does he weigh the same as a duck? If so, he's a witch.
BURN ALL WITCHES!!!!!
samir ghiocel golescu
> I take it you're the one who runs the rope concession?
Not by myself.
regards,
SG
Matthew B. Tepper
suggests contemplating her in a sexual fashion, which I do not. I would
instead call her a "minor child," which is what she is.
Jeremy Cook wrote:
>
> In article <393BEF...@dnai.com>,
> seme...@dnai.com wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > To agree with you both -- it seems to me that, applied to a musical
> > performance, "good in parts, like the curate's egg" might be perfectly
> > a-propos, but would be considerably harsher than "mixed bag" -- since
> > the performance would be rotten.
>
> I'm not sure it would be appropriate to apply the term "curate's egg"
> to a performance, since implicit in the expression is the thought of
> going to extreme effort to find redeeming qualities in that which is
> utterly without merit. So it would more correctly be used in reference
> to _undeserved praise_ for a bad performance.
>
> Hypothetical example:
>
> Gushing pro-CC poster: "While Charlotte Church is certainly not a
> seasoned and fully-developed soprano in the class of, say, Renee
> Fleming, her live concert DVD captures her ease of delivery and natural
> sense of phrasing. What's more, she is a rare beauty."
>
> Matthew Tepper's response: "Another mindless idiot has swallowed the
> Sony hype surrounding the giftless Welsh tart, supplying us with yet
> another pathetic curate's egg."
>
> An even better example:
>
> Supermodel who adores CC, on your first date: "Do you like Charlotte
> Church?"
>
> Response from meek yet honest guy on his first date with a supermodel,
> desperately hoping she doesn't know who FFJ is: "Well, her intonation
> is superior even to that of Florence Foster Jenkins."
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
M-T
<<Yes, but does he weigh the same as a duck? If so, he's a witch.>>
Nah, this guy burns/hangs himself without any help. My problem is not
that he comes accross as a pompous asshole but that his musical
discernment is so poor. If he expressed wrong ideas modestly, I would
have no quarrel with him. His modus operandi seems to be to harp on the
superficial and miss the essence of a musical performance. As to his
flair for language, others have already said enough.
This man makes Bernard Jacobson look like a sterling and unbiased
reviewer.
Rgs,
mrt
M-T
Lothian
news:8hgrjl$808$1...@news.gov.on.ca...
>
> I'm a big fan of the Barbirolli set, and anyone here who has read my posts
> for the past 5 years will know.
>
> If Hurwitz has a comment that points to a performance that has superior
> moments, or whatever, that's his, or anybody's right.
>
> BUT...
[Extended rant of personal invective and vitriol snipped]
I am reminded of an editorial I once read in a college newspaper that
stated, "THIS INTOLERANCE...CANNOT BE TOLERATED."
-Lothian
Chicago, IL
samir ghiocel golescu
Believe it or not, in an interval of an hour or two, the
"Mark Obert-*Thorne*" spelling was corrected on you-know-which site...(-:
Jan Winter
wrote:
>David H. is an edentulous pitbull.
I'll sure remember that one.
"P*** off you edentulous pitbull! Go bite your tail!!"
--
Regards, Jan Winter, Amsterdam
(j.wi...@xs4all.nl)
vaneyes
"thebarnman" <mynewsg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Paul Goldstein" <phgoldste...@mofo.com.invalid> wrote in
message
> news:0121d108...@usw-ex0106-047.remarq.com...
> > which show him in frontal attack mode: the Barbirolli/Halle
> > Heifetz's Beethoven (w/Toscanini) and Brahms (w/Koussevitsky)
> > Knappertsbusch issue with a 2/1.
> >
> > I haven't heard the Naxos Heifetz disc, but I'd be *very*
> > surprised if I agreed with DH's assessment of its sound quality.
> >
> >
>
posts
> for the past 5 years will know.
>
> If Hurwitz has a comment that points to a performance that has
superior
> moments, or whatever, that's his, or anybody's right.
>
> BUT...
>
>
> dog excrement?
>
> drooling?
>
> it's no wonder that samir is so raged by the guy.
>
all he
> understands is how he can USE music and art as a soapbox to make his
own
And that's the name of that tune.
Regards
Dimitri Dover
>
> I think the verdict is in. hurwitz just doesn't understand music. all he
> understands is how he can USE music and art as a soapbox to make his own
> untalented, ignorant life appear significant and full of status.
IMO, the "verdict" was in a long time ago.
Dimitri
samir ghiocel golescu
> I am aghast at the spectacle of so many members of this ng -- at least
> some normally quite rational -- publically foaming at the mouth.
... or drooling and slobbering? Unhappy metaphorical vicinity ...
Jeremy Cook
M-T <m...@nospam.com> wrote:
> The Barnman:
>
> <<I think the verdict is in. hurwitz just doesn't understand music.
> all he understands is how he can USE music and art as a soapbox to
> make his own untalented, ignorant life appear significant and full of
>
> I'm afraid you're right. At the very least, his ears are defective.
*public address system mode on*
"Paging Dr. Koren... paging Dr. Koren..."
thebarnman
set is based on a deep love for the performance of the third and the
sentimental value it has for me. it was this performance, over 20 years
ago, that taught me to love sibelius.
you didn't see me get mad when someone came in here about 3 weeks ago and
complained that sir john was too slow and that they missed the crisp, faster
tempo of whoever else.
i understand that for those of us that learn the music, as listeners, we
tend to develop a deeply sentimental sense of "home" when we hear the
recording in which we first "learned" the music .
i have no objection to hurwitz saying that, after review, he prefers the
bernstein/vpo recording. it's a glorious recording! and i don't blame him
a bit.
this isn't about me hating hurwitz because he doesn't like what i like.
this is about a man, who is in a position he doesn't deserve to be in (that
is, being paid to listen to music and say what you think about it, what a
joke to begin with)- due to his inability to understand music.. at all,
using the english language and the works of great artists to exhalt himself
for the sake of status.
anyone who refers to ANYTHING sir john did, as dog shit, knows absolutely
nothing about music, at all. nothing. they know nothing about art.
nothing. the only thing they know, is their own conceited, narcisstic self
image they think they have in the minds of others.
chaff for the fire they are.
weeds, pulling the nutrients out of the soil where beautiful plants try to
thrive.
if someone here is offended by my "irish side" using insideous language, i
apologize... but i still mutter it to myself, nonetheless.
you know, one of the most opposite interpretation on record is the berglund.
it's fast, not really that romantic, or sentimental, but... it has superb
orchestral supervision on the part of the conductor. and yes, for me with
my sentimental approach to sibelius, i find berglund emotionally satisfying
quite frequently, so it's a must for any sibelius lover.
but for me, no one touches sir john's third. it's the tempo, the
atmosphere, the engineering.. it all works beautifully.
ya, the coda to the first movement of the 5th has a terrible edit in that
they suddenly are not going as fast as they were a second ago.. hurwitz said
it was the timps.. i can't hear that, just the edit got screwed up. it's
too bad, but it happened. musically it stretches to recover, but it does.
perhaps that's because me, in my sentimentality wants it to. that's a fair
criticism. calling it dog shit is not funny, not true, not fair and an
utter failure on the part of hurwitz to recognize anything at all.
it's narrow minded.
ignorant.
pretentious.
it's so below contempt, it makes people who are angry at samir wonder if
they were wrong!!
i even wonder if it's true. perhaps a troll started all this and hurwitz
said nothing of the sort... you can only hope.
ahh, i've got a headache now.
Marc Perman
>I'm a big fan of the Barbirolli set, and anyone here who has read my posts
>for the past 5 years will know.
[snip]
>it's no wonder that samir is so raged by the guy.
>
>I think the verdict is in. hurwitz just doesn't understand music. all he
>understands is how he can USE music and art as a soapbox to make his own
>untalented, ignorant life appear significant and full of status.
>
>i don't blame samir for hating the mother-fucker at all.
Knowing your love of the Barbirolli Sibelius, I was hoping you would
somehow miss this thread and Hurwitz's review.
Marc Perman
Ehrlich606
<mynewsg...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>you know, i'm the first one to admit that my affection for the barbirolli
>set is based on a deep love for the performance of the third and the
>sentimental value it has for me. it was this performance, over 20 years
>ago, that taught me to love sibelius.
>
Well, first, he didn't say "dog shit", he said something about the dog making a
mess on the living room rug. Several times. I think he was trying to be
witty.
Anyway, I have two dogs. One of them is 110 pound golden retriever. He likes
to raid the catbox. _He_ thinks it's funny. It makes me want to vomit just to
think about it. Sometimes he'll overindulge and .... I can't stand to think
about it, but, again, he's a dog, he thinks it's a big joke, he "found" some
food in the catbox or the backyard and he's so _proud_ of himself.
The point I am trying to make is that when you refer to a dog making a mess on
the rug you don't mean that they forgot to put the crayons away. The second
point is that the imagery of dogs and excrement is not a funny one, and
literally makes me retch. So I would have to say that Hurwitz' trope was in
bad taste.
For all that, relax. It was just a review. I am not paying Hurwitz. You
aren't paying Hurwitz. I hope Hurwitz makes a decent living, enough money to
put a roof over his head, feed the wife and kids and put a dogproof hood over
the catbox. Other than that, so what? No, I am not particularly impressed by
his reviewers' chops, but obviously someone is, otherwise he'd be doing
something else.
I still feel that when a reviewer writes a nasty review he's doing it to get
attention. So, he got attention. Maybe head said to his boss, "Hey, boss, I
know how to get a zillion hits on the site today! I'll call Sir John's
Sibelius slobbering drooling dogshit!"
I wouldn't pay it any mind. Today he'll get a zillion hits. Tomorrow, he'll be
lucky to find my dog sniffing around. Then he'll have to come up with
something else outrageous. With practice, he might even come up with a
metaphor that doesn't stink.
Brian Cantin
> Richie Havens titled an album "Mixed Bag" in 1966, presumably
> with no self-deprecating intent.
Pretty good album too, if you can stand Havens' notion of tuning.
--
Brian Cantin
An advocate of poisonous individualism.
To reply via email, replace "dcantin" with "bcantin".
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> "thebarnman" <mynewsg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8hgrjl$808$1...@news.gov.on.ca...
> >
> > posts for the past 5 years will know.
> >
> > superior moments, or whatever, that's his, or anybody's right.
> >
> > BUT...
>
>
> I am reminded of an editorial I once read in a college newspaper that
> stated, "THIS INTOLERANCE...CANNOT BE TOLERATED."
>
> -Lothian
> Chicago, IL
It's like a lynch mob, isn't it? Incredible.
--
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
Matthew B. Tepper
this looks?
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> In article <393C07...@nospam.com>,
> M-T <m...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > The Barnman:
> >
> > all he understands is how he can USE music and art as a soapbox to
> > make his own untalented, ignorant life appear significant and full of
> >
> > I'm afraid you're right. At the very least, his ears are defective.
>
> *public address system mode on*
>
> "Paging Dr. Koren... paging Dr. Koren..."
No. More like "Give him the ... sedagive?"
jason and jill
: You are behaving like an intolerant buffoon. Do you know how stupid
: this looks?
Think of it this way, though. Hurwitz is a bit of an obnoxious ass, so he
isn't absorbing a lot of personal suffering in these threads. And his
sight is gettin' plugged like a mother each time one of these dumb
bitchfests get going. I'm sure Dave is just sitting back, smiling, and
saying over and over, "Just spell the URL right, dipshits."
Jason
Tony Movshon
> David Hurwitz has posted two new reviews you-know-where, both of
> which show him in frontal attack mode: the Barbirolli/Halle
> Sibelius set and Mark Obert-Thorn's new Naxos transfers of
> Heifetz's Beethoven (w/Toscanini) and Brahms (w/Koussevitsky)
> concerti. Even more amusing is Jed Distler grading some new
> Knappertsbusch issue with a 2/1.
>
> I haven't heard the Naxos Heifetz disc, but I'd be *very*
> surprised if I agreed with DH's assessment of its sound quality.
I probably won't agree with the reviews either, BUT ... I am aghast at the
spectacle of so many members of this ng -- at least some normally quite
rational -- publically foaming at the mouth.
Get hold of yourselves, people -- it's just a couple of record reviews,
for chrissake ...
--
Tony Movshon Center for Neural Science
mov...@nyu.edu New York University
Brendan R. Wehrung
with it? I'm sure sombody could come up with a surplus victrola horn for
his prize.
Brendan
Paul Goldstein (phgoldste...@mofo.com.invalid) writes:
> David Hurwitz has posted two new reviews you-know-where, both of
> which show him in frontal attack mode: the Barbirolli/Halle
> Sibelius set and Mark Obert-Thorn's new Naxos transfers of
> Heifetz's Beethoven (w/Toscanini) and Brahms (w/Koussevitsky)
> concerti. Even more amusing is Jed Distler grading some new
> Knappertsbusch issue with a 2/1.
>
> I haven't heard the Naxos Heifetz disc, but I'd be *very*
> surprised if I agreed with DH's assessment of its sound quality.
>
>
> Paul Goldstein
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
Tony Movshon
>
> > I am aghast at the spectacle of so many members of this ng -- at least
> > some normally quite rational -- publically foaming at the mouth.
>
As you wish; feel free to drool and slobber. But in private, please.
Andrys D Basten
Matthew B. Tepper <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:
>Lothian wrote:
>> [Extended rant of personal invective and vitriol snipped]
>>
>> I am reminded of an editorial I once read in a college newspaper that
>> stated, "THIS INTOLERANCE...CANNOT BE TOLERATED."
>>
>> -Lothian
>> Chicago, IL
>
>It's like a lynch mob, isn't it? Incredible.
>
>--
>Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Yes. Same names too. Hurwitz gets to do his thing on his
own site. The anti-Hurwitzs get to do their own thing here, in
reaction. No real surprises. Just more emotion each time.
Sounds like a newsgroup to me :-)
- A
--
Andrys Basten, CNE http://www.andrys.com/ PC Network Support
http://www.andrys.com/indox.html - Machu Picchu PhotoDiary w/Canon Elph
http://www.andrys.com/books.html - Search several stores on one page
Search VIDEOS, SHEET MUSIC, CDs, Gramophone reviews
http://www.andrys.com/freddyk.html - Freddy Kempf on CD
http://www.andrys.com/argerich.html - available Argerich recordings
HenryFogel
>I probably won't agree with the reviews either, BUT ... I am aghast at the
>spectacle of so many members of this ng -- at least some normally quite
>rational -- publically foaming at the mouth.
>
>for chrissake ...
Thanks, Tony -- you are, as usual, a voice of (and for) sanity around these
parts.
Henry Fogel
thebarnman
"Marc Perman" <per...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:393c4986...@news.mindspring.com...
> "thebarnman" <mynewsg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm a big fan of the Barbirolli set, and anyone here who has read my
posts
> >for the past 5 years will know.
>
>
> >it's no wonder that samir is so raged by the guy.
> >
he
> >understands is how he can USE music and art as a soapbox to make his own
> >
> >i don't blame samir for hating the mother-fucker at all.
>
> Knowing your love of the Barbirolli Sibelius, I was hoping you would
> somehow miss this thread and Hurwitz's review.
>
> Marc Perman
as do I !
Please note, though, that someone posted about a month ago... "what's the
fuss about this set". they felt it was too slow, etc.
that's fine. I almost expected it. if you get used to Sibelius at the
usual tempo, it's natural to feel off-kilter with sir john's approach. i
stayed out of it because it could've been me, just as easily.
that's not your point though.
i can't tame my "irish side". and it is to my own woe.
....sir john's performance of the slow movement of the third tames it!!....
had to get that in.
thebarnman
"Brendan R. Wehrung" <ck...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8hhu3q$e1b$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Why don't we just award Hurwitz the Millennial Tin Ear Award and get on
> with it? I'm sure sombody could come up with a surplus victrola horn for
> his prize.
>
> Brendan
>
> Paul Goldstein (phgoldste...@mofo.com.invalid) writes:
> > David Hurwitz has posted two new reviews you-know-where, both of
> > which show him in frontal attack mode: the Barbirolli/Halle
> > Sibelius set and Mark Obert-Thorn's new Naxos transfers of
> > Heifetz's Beethoven (w/Toscanini) and Brahms (w/Koussevitsky)
> > concerti. Even more amusing is Jed Distler grading some new
> > Knappertsbusch issue with a 2/1.
> >
> > I haven't heard the Naxos Heifetz disc, but I'd be *very*
> > surprised if I agreed with DH's assessment of its sound quality.
> >
> >
I want first dibs on where it gets inserted.
samir ghiocel golescu
> Here you go again with yet another of your idiotic anti-Hurwitz rants.
I am not surprised by this definition from a proved Hurwitz Homunculus.
Paul Goldstein
<dca...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Paul Goldstein <phgoldste...@mofo.com.invalid> writes:
>> Richie Havens titled an album "Mixed Bag" in 1966, presumably
>> with no self-deprecating intent.
>
>Pretty good album too, if you can stand Havens' notion of
tuning.
You mean tuning the guitar to a C chord and banging away? I
agree, this is a fine album though perhaps a bit of a "mixed
bag"!
samir ghiocel golescu
> > > I am aghast at the spectacle of so many members of this ng -- at least
> > > some normally quite rational -- publically foaming at the mouth.
> >
> > ... or drooling and slobbering? Unhappy metaphorical vicinity ...
>
> As you wish; feel free to drool and slobber. But in private, please.
Why? To quote from one you seemingly consider *normal" and "rational",
"Barbirolli was most of the time" "in drool and slobber mode". And he
was, as a famous musician, a public person. You appeal to the "normally
rational members of this ng" (as they would be uncontrolled children),
including some "less-than-normally-rational" members that have never
offended you in the ways you find proper to insult them, simply obscuring
what--now and past--provoked such reactions from the people you appeal to.
"Badly housetrained English bulldog" is fine. Just a record review.
"Edentulous pitbull" is disgusting "foaming at the mouth". One could say
about Barbirolli "the mess on the living room floor takes the form of
[the] first movement" (just a record review) but noone could say "that
review isn't worth even a mess on the living room floor". So be it.
regards,
SG
samir ghiocel golescu
> You know, Samir, you really ought to get out more.
> Tony Movshon Center for Neural Science
Apres vous, Monsieur! (-:
Richard Schultz
: One could say
: about Barbirolli "the mess on the living room floor takes the form of
: [the] first movement"
Is this supposed to be an allusion to a rather sophomoric and
tasteless joke?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"What I do object to is uninformed malicious pandering to low level
uncouthness, even if it comes from the holiest of lands, Israel!"
-- Kenneth Lane, Wagnerian Romantischer Heldenspammer
samir ghiocel golescu
On 6 Jun 2000, Richard Schultz wrote:
> samir ghiocel golescu (gol...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>
> : One could say
> : about Barbirolli "the mess on the living room floor takes the form of
> : [the] first movement"
>
> Is this supposed to be an allusion to a rather sophomoric and
> tasteless joke?
I am not sure what you are talking about (is it something idiomatic in
English?) -- but it was a quote, anyway.
regards,
Samir
Tony Movshon
> > > > I am aghast at the spectacle of so many members of this ng -- at least
> > > > some normally quite rational -- publically foaming at the mouth.
> > >
> > > ... or drooling and slobbering? Unhappy metaphorical vicinity ...
> >
> > As you wish; feel free to drool and slobber. But in private, please.
>
> Why? To quote from one you seemingly consider *normal" and "rational",
> "Barbirolli was most of the time" "in drool and slobber mode". And he
> was, as a famous musician, a public person. You appeal to the "normally
> rational members of this ng" (as they would be uncontrolled children),
> including some "less-than-normally-rational" members that have never
> offended you in the ways you find proper to insult them, simply obscuring
> what--now and past--provoked such reactions from the people you appeal to.
> "Badly housetrained English bulldog" is fine. Just a record review.
> about Barbirolli "the mess on the living room floor takes the form of
You know, Samir, you really ought to get out more.
--
Tony Movshon Center for Neural Science
mov...@nyu.edu New York University
samir ghiocel golescu
> >You know, Samir, you really ought to get out more.
>
> Are you concerned about your living room rug?
Nope, my dog (a ferocious chihuahua) is well-educated.
And, yes, it is time to change subject.
This thread reminds me another one: "was Wagner's dog gay"?
regards,
SG
John Grabowski
>
> Steve:
>
> <<Brewer's doesn't find "mixed bag" itself interesting enough to treat.
> Webster's Third International offers the innocuous "a miscellaneous
> collection: assortment.">>
>
> In US usage, "mixed bag" *does* have a pejorative meaning, suggesting
> good and bad in the same item (e.g., a compact disk).
It does? Whoops! For years when I did a jazz radion show on WRTI, I'd
often start off by saying we had a mixed bag in store for the next
several hours!
No wonder everyone turned me off! :-D (j/k!)
John
--
I see so many musicians asking all the time, "Please, how do you play
this?" or "Do you think this is right?" They all do that. They all
live in cliques now, and play for each other. That's something I can't
understand at all. It's dangerous to yield to the taste of a group of
people. -Claudio Arrau
Spammers: I don't need Viagra, a work-at-home business or a ground-floor
investment opportunity, thank you.
John Grabowski
Ehrlich606
>> : about Barbirolli "the mess on the living room floor takes the form of
>> : [the] first movement"
>>
>> tasteless joke?
>
>I am not sure what you are talking about (is it something idiomatic in
>English?) -- but it was a quote, anyway.
The idiom he is referring to is the "form" of the "first movement" as in "bowel
movement."
Let's change the subject, pronto.
>
>regards,
>Samir
>
Ehrlich606
John Grabowski
>
> The Barnman:
>
> <<I think the verdict is in. hurwitz just doesn't understand music.
> all he understands is how he can USE music and art as a soapbox to make
> his own untalented, ignorant life appear significant and full of
>
> I'm afraid you're right. At the very least, his ears are defective.
>
>
> mrt
I said from the beginning he reminds me spot-on of Max Mercy, the
sportswriter in the Bernard Malimud novel "The Natural" (later made into
a bad movie). There are lots of those type out there, I'm sure.
John Grabowski
> I personally look forward to pissing on Hurwitz's name every time it's
> mentioned, if the above is true... I'll make Samir look like a dimplomat by
> the time i'm down with the dumass.
Whew! Somebody hide the cutlery.
John Grabowski
>
> Don Matteo:
>
> <<Yes, but does he weigh the same as a duck? If so, he's a witch.>>
>
> Nah, this guy burns/hangs himself without any help. My problem is not
> that he comes accross as a pompous asshole but that his musical
> discernment is so poor. If he expressed wrong ideas modestly, I would
> have no quarrel with him. His modus operandi seems to be to harp on the
> superficial and miss the essence of a musical performance. As to his
> flair for language, others have already said enough.
>
> This man makes Bernard Jacobson look like a sterling and unbiased
> reviewer.
>
> Rgs,
>
> mrt
What I don't get about Hurwitz is after he left this ng he emailed me
privately, apparently thinking me some sort of confidant as I never
really flamed him here and indeed spent a long time trying to understand
him and find common ground (some of which I admittedly did), because I
have nothing against an unconventional opinion and always welcome
them--at first, at least. Anyway, in his email he called all of you
pompous assholes (or some equivalent) and then made a statement I cannot
make sense of to this day: he said you were all pathetic because you
really thought what you said could possibly make a difference. (!)
....So what's he doing for a living? That's what I don't get. If our
opinions are of no concern, what are his? Why does he do what he does?
The guy's just weird. Best ignored. The sad thing is, people just
getting into classical music will think he's Important because he's A
Critic, and will listen to what he says, and maybe even be moulded by
it. Scary.
Todd Michel McComb
Matthew B. Tepper <=?iso-8859-1?Q?oy=FE=40earthlink=2Enet?=> wrote:
>Oh, no! Somebody dares to have an opinion
I don't understand why this guy generates so much discussion here.
He isn't even posting any more! He wasn't writing anything that
appealed to me, but frankly, neither do many of you. It's no big
deal.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Matthew Silverstein
> So ALL people that preferred Schnabel's Beethoven on Pearl and not on EMI,
> Busch Q.'s Beethoven on Preiser and not on EMI, Rachmaninov on Naxos and
> not on RCA, Koussevitzky's Tchaikovsky on Biddulph and not on RCA, Rosa
> Ponselle on Romophone and not on RCA, etc etc etc etc etc are implicitly
> designated as idiots.
Wait a minute, Samir. While agree that both of the reviews currently under
discussion were a trite ridiculous, he did not even imply that those who
prefer, say, Pearl's Schabel transfers to EMI are idiots. He said that when
the original label has taken efforts to produce a good transfer, it *may*
retain an advantage over competing reissues. That's *all* he said, at least in
the paragraph you quoted.
Incidentally, when you hear the CD in question, will you post a sonic
comparison of the two releases? I'm hesitant to take Hurwitz at his word, and
am interested in a second opinion.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> I probably won't agree with the reviews either, BUT ... I am aghast at the
> spectacle of so many members of this ng -- at least some normally quite
> rational -- publically foaming at the mouth.
>
> Get hold of yourselves, people -- it's just a couple of record reviews,
> for chrissake ...
Hear, hear.
Matty
Jeremy Dimmick
> case along the lines of "cannon fodder," where the phrase mutates thanks
> to the efforts of those who don't understand it. In that instance, of
> course, a term that began by meaning first-world-war infantrymen has
> turned into one meaning ammunition.
>
> SE.
Has it, indeed? I've only ever heard it used in the former sense.
jd
Matthew Silverstein
> them--at first, at least. Anyway, in his email he called all of you
> pompous assholes (or some equivalent) and then made a statement I cannot
> make sense of to this day: he said you were all pathetic because you
> really thought what you said could possibly make a difference. (!)
I don't suppose you could reproduce said e-mail, so that we all can enjoy its
insights into the newsgroup . . .
Matty
samir ghiocel golescu
> He said that when
> the original label has taken efforts to produce a good transfer, it *may*
> retain an advantage over competing reissues. That's *all* he said, at least in
> the paragraph you quoted.
Yes, you are right, the word "idiots" was not uttered. However, I was not
paranoid noting that no distinction was made between labels like
Gramophono/Magic Talent and Biddulph/Testament etc. etc.
From discussions around here, you may have noted that the later category
proposes, more often than not, transfers superior to EMI and RCA. At least
until now. I am not paid in any form--salary, sponsorship or ads--by any
label and when EMI and RCA will give us (as, *sporadically*, they started
doing it) transfer work superior to that of the small labels, and at lower
prices, be sure I will be the first to salute that. However, if you read
the article in question (article which I didn't quote in its entirety),
the global judgment on a supposed (untrue) superiority of the labels that
retain original matrixes over small labels was clearly affirmed. Following
a passage in which a Naxos transfer was commented unfavorably upon, the
generalizing line of "logic" was clear to me. That, again, betrays a lack
of knowledge in what regards the specific problems related to historic
recordings transfers. Was the old EMI [single] Mengelberg CD made using
original matrixes? I don't care, the final result was awful, not only in
what regards overfiltering but also, paradoxically, in the superior number
of cracks and pops, not to be heard on the Pearl edition! Not *always*
metal masters are superior to mint discs as the ones used for instance by
Pearl (more or less) after 1991 (*before* that they did use a great number
of worn out "78"s in their production)... If Naxos will continue to give
us Pearl-quality transfers, also broadening the range of their historic
transcriptions, for 5$, they will become my best friends!
However, here is my proposal: read the entire article in question and
decide for yourself if the paragraphs discussing the Naxos transfer, and
the matter of historic recordings transfers in general, seem biased or
not. Our opinions are more often than not different in many matters, but I
will not contest a certain sangue froid -- rational approach -- with
which you approach certain matters I approach more passionally. Let me know
what you think.
> Incidentally, when you hear the CD in question, will you post a sonic
> comparison of the two releases? I'm hesitant to take Hurwitz at his word, and
> am interested in a second opinion.
I will--I wanted the Heifetz especially for Koussevitzky--I do not have
the Naxos yet--is it out in the stores? I know the recording from the RCA
edition and from a Lys CD.
regards,
SG
Ehrlich606
ghiocel golescu <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:
>
>> He said that when
>> the original label has taken efforts to produce a good transfer, it *may*
>> retain an advantage over competing reissues. That's *all* he said, at least
>in
>> the paragraph you quoted.
>
>Yes, you are right, the word "idiots" was not uttered. However, I was not
>paranoid noting that no distinction was made between labels like
>Gramophono/Magic Talent and Biddulph/Testament etc. etc.
I agree with Samir about this one. The thrust of Hurwitz' remarks was that the
Big Guys did better restorations than the little guys. Maybe sometimes they
do, but there's an element of practicality here. I am not going to wait 10 or
20 years and pay $20 for a copy of a recording from EMI or Sony when I can get
it right now from a Mom and Pop outfit for half the price. That's all there is
to it. The Testament recordings are particularly overblown and overpriced.
I will also say that I have many historical recordings from Pearl, Biddulph,
and also Dutton, Koch, Lys, and other historical labels and I have rarely been
seriously disappointed (the exceptions are too complicated to get into).
Biddulph and Pearl in particular are my favorite labels.
Ehrlich606
>
>In general usage, I'm afraid so. About 15 years ago, a researcher I'd
>hired asked me how I planned to use her material. She said to me:
>"Fodder for your cannon?"
And I said, "Your place or mine?"
Steve Emerson
In general usage, I'm afraid so. About 15 years ago, a researcher I'd
hired asked me how I planned to use her material. She said to me:
"Fodder for your cannon?" (And she knew I wasn't look for... straw men.)
Have heard it repeatedly since.
SE.
Ehrlich606
(Ehrlich606) writes:
>
>>
>>In general usage, I'm afraid so. About 15 years ago, a researcher I'd
>>hired asked me how I planned to use her material. She said to me:
>>"Fodder for your cannon?"
>
>And I said, "Your place or mine?"
>
>
And then she said, "Does your cannon have a breech block?"
And I said, "Sorry, it's a muzzle loader"
So she offered to pull my lanyard.
Matthew B. Tepper
And Matty Silverstein complains about ME!
--
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
"Compassionate Conservatism?" * "Tight Slacks?" * "Jumbo Shrimp?"
Simon Roberts
: I will--I wanted the Heifetz especially for Koussevitzky--I do not have
: the Naxos yet--is it out in the stores? I know the recording from the RCA
: edition and from a Lys CD.
I haven't seen the Naxos. It's also on Biddulph, which is what I have.
Simon
Matthew Silverstein
> From discussions around here, you may have noted that the later category
> proposes, more often than not, transfers superior to EMI and RCA. At least
> until now. I am not paid in any form--salary, sponsorship or ads--by any
> label and when EMI and RCA will give us (as, *sporadically*, they started
> doing it) transfer work superior to that of the small labels, and at lower
> prices, be sure I will be the first to salute that. However, if you read
> the article in question (article which I didn't quote in its entirety),
> the global judgment on a supposed (untrue) superiority of the labels that
> retain original matrixes over small labels was clearly affirmed.
After re-reading the entire review, I just do not agree. At no point does
Hurwitz seem to impart any global judgment as to the "supposed superiority of
the labels that retain original matrixis [sic] over small labels." In fact, he
suggests the opposite when he writes:
"Anyone who owns the performance as originally issued can, at least
theoretically, release their own CD of it without paying a nickel in
royalties. This is perfectly legal, and often highly desirable, especially
given how the major labels have treated the priceless legacy that their
catalogs represent."
What is more, Hurwitz does not seem to be strongly anti-small-label, and he
certainly is not anti-Naxos: witness his praises for the Tintner Bruckner
cycle, for example. So, while I find Hurwitz often off the mark, his comments
in this particular review do not seem problematic at all.
Matty
John Grabowski
> >> : about Barbirolli "the mess on the living room floor takes the form of
> >> : [the] first movement"
> >>
> >> Is this supposed to be an allusion to a rather sophomoric and
> >> tasteless joke?
> >
> >I am not sure what you are talking about (is it something idiomatic in
> >English?) -- but it was a quote, anyway.
>
> The idiom he is referring to is the "form" of the "first movement" as in "bowel
> movement."
>
> Let's change the subject, pronto.
Before it starts to stink, yes... ;-)
John Grabowski
>
> In article <8hjget$c0t$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
> Matthew Silverstein <matthew.s...@corpus-christi.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
> # John Grabowski wrote:
> #
> # > them--at first, at least. Anyway, in his email he
> [snip]
> # I don't suppose you could reproduce said e-mail, so that we all can enjoy its
> # insights into the newsgroup . . .
>
> Don't you think he's sinned against netiquette quite enough already?
>
> S.
Forgive me, father, for I have sinned.
Actually, it was little more than an elaboration of things he said here
in his bye-bye posting. He just went into a little more detail with me
privately.
Matthew Westphal
Jeremy Cook <jerem...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> After some additional thinking, I got to wondering if perhaps a bad
> performance _becomes_ a curate's egg by virtue of the undeserved
praise
> heaped upon it. Hmmmmm.....
>
That would make sense. After all, even the original curate's egg
didn't become a curate's egg until the curate claimed that parts of it
were excellent.
There would seem to be an implication, however, that those praising a
curate's egg of a performance know that it's bad but are trying
desperately to cover for it and for themselves. The fans of Charlotte
Church seem to be sincere on the whole, so she would probably not
qualify. Andrea Bocelli, possibly. What strikes me as a curate's egg
is the series of Gardiner Bach Pilgrimage discs (at least for as long
as DG bothers trying to promote them). That first volume with BWVs 6
and 66 is *dreadful*.
Matthew Westphal
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Brendan R. Wehrung
> "Brendan R. Wehrung" <ck...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:8hhu3q$e1b$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> Why don't we just award Hurwitz the Millennial Tin Ear Award and get on
>> with it? I'm sure sombody could come up with a surplus victrola horn for
>> his prize.
>>
>> Brendan
>>
>> Paul Goldstein (phgoldste...@mofo.com.invalid) writes:
>> > David Hurwitz has posted two new reviews you-know-where, both of
>> > which show him in frontal attack mode: the Barbirolli/Halle
>> > Sibelius set and Mark Obert-Thorn's new Naxos transfers of
>> > Heifetz's Beethoven (w/Toscanini) and Brahms (w/Koussevitsky)
>> > concerti. Even more amusing is Jed Distler grading some new
>> > Knappertsbusch issue with a 2/1.
>> >
>> > I haven't heard the Naxos Heifetz disc, but I'd be *very*
>> > surprised if I agreed with DH's assessment of its sound quality.
>> >
>> >
>
> I want first dibs on where it gets inserted.
>
>
No, no, NO! That would only make it louder!
Brendan
thebarnman
"Brendan R. Wehrung" <ck...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8hkjev$2fa$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
lol
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> lol
Now I know why you're called "the barnman," and it has nothing to do
with your being named Barney O'Hara. It's because you were raised in a
barn.
Margaret Mikulska
I recall that when we had a thread about what people from r.m.c.* do for
a living, he said he was selling real estate.
-Margaret
John Grabowski wrote:
[...]
> What I don't get about Hurwitz is after he left this ng he emailed me
> privately, apparently thinking me some sort of confidant as I never
> really flamed him here and indeed spent a long time trying to understand
> him and find common ground (some of which I admittedly did), because I
> have nothing against an unconventional opinion and always welcome
> them--at first, at least. Anyway, in his email he called all of you
> pompous assholes (or some equivalent) and then made a statement I cannot
> make sense of to this day: he said you were all pathetic because you
> really thought what you said could possibly make a difference. (!)
>
frank.d...@dal.frb.org
samir ghiocel golescu <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Paul Goldstein wrote:
>
> > David Hurwitz has posted two new reviews you-know-where, both of
> > which show him in frontal attack mode: the Barbirolli/Halle
> > Sibelius set
>
trouvaille
> (of comparing Barbirolli's conducting to dogs' excrement) that he
repeats
> it no less than three times... Messers. Dagher or (Andy) Evans could
> psychoanalyze this scatologic propensities... I am not a specialist in
> psychoanalysis nor in Sibelius (I mean I have not listened to the
> symphonies in more than three or four performances, except for the
Fifth
> and Seventh) but Barbirolli's recordings, as less-than-impeccable
> as they may be, are (most times) at least expressive, warm and
decently
> played. They surely present absolutely nothing to deserve this
> vulgarly deprecatory treatment from a deaf man that continues to
claim,
> contrary to all evidence, being an expert.
>
> > and Mark Obert-Thorn's new Naxos transfers of
> > Heifetz's Beethoven (w/Toscanini) and Brahms (w/Koussevitsky)
concerti.
>
on
> the merits of the two Heifetz transfers until I'll "A/B" them.
However,
> the most significant paragraph is the one that attempts a
> generalization--the very last one. Its conclusion is nothing but a
LIE,
> yes, not a "different" opinion but a (deliberate?) lie:
>
> <<The current flood of historical reissues is motivated by the fact
that
> most pre-1950 recordings are now public domain. Anyone who owns the
> performance as originally issued can, at least theoretically, release
> their own CD of it without paying a nickel in royalties. This is
perfectly
> legal, and often highly desirable, especially given how the major
labels
> have treated the priceless legacy that their catalogs represent.
> if the original source material has been carefully preserved and
restored,
> its owner (usually a major label) may still retain a sonic advantage
over
> competing reissues. So it proves here. As ever-increasing quantities
of
> historical material become available from non-original sources, it's
> going to be very much a case of caveat emptor: let the buyer beware.>>
>
> So ALL people that preferred Schnabel's Beethoven on Pearl and not on
EMI,
> Busch Q.'s Beethoven on Preiser and not on EMI, Rachmaninov on Naxos
and
> not on RCA, Koussevitzky's Tchaikovsky on Biddulph and not on RCA,
Rosa
> Ponselle on Romophone and not on RCA, etc etc etc etc etc are
implicitly
> designated as idiots.
>
this
> rant, the unfairness of which is not even covered by subtlety. He
> accumulated hatred against historic recordings and, more, against
their
> supporters, not "fools that hounded" a(n anyway) rotten effigy, but
> music lovers that repeatedly exposed the personage's illiteracy (at
least)
> in what regards historic recordings and history of interpretation...
Mark
> Obert-Thorn (twice misspelled in the article as "Thorne") is one of
these
> music lovers' friends, not trough his sporadic presence in r.c.m.r. as
> trough the quality of his transfers--quality that speaks for itself,
in
> *and outside* r.c.m.r. With bassly motivated disregard for truth--and
for
> the possible competence of his site's visitors--D.H. tries to asperse,
> with objectively untrue imputations, M. O.-T.'s reputation.
>
> What did you say, Mr. Goldstein, in your posting on the Naxos--Erich
> Kleiber (Dvorak-Smetana) CD? <<Anyone who professes not to hear the
music
> in these restorations is, I suspect, being driven by a non-musical
agenda
> (assuming that he has functioning ears).>> Nihil nove sub sole.
>
> regards,
> SG
>
>
With all due respect (and I mean that), you seem to have misunderstand
the quoted paragraph. When Hurwitz refers to an advantage retained by
the original issuer of the material, he doesn't mean that their original
release IS better or even probably IS LIKELY TO BE better than the
releases of pirates. I believe he is saying that if (and only if) they
retain the source material, they may have the POTENTIAL to produce
superior transfers. In fact, he castigated them for not doing so,
doesn't he? Mr. Hurwitz may be an asshole and have an odd taste in
music and performances, but I don't believe he can be labeled a liar.
There is some evidence that he is not reliable, however - I wonder what
happened to his offer to provide the Gernsheim symphionies and the
Furtwangler 3rd on Arte Nova. His failure to come through on that has
delayed by acquiring same.
Paul Goldstein
frank.d...@dal.frb.org wrote:
>There is some evidence that he is not reliable, however - I
wonder what
>happened to his offer to provide the Gernsheim symphionies and
the
>Furtwangler 3rd on Arte Nova. His failure to come through on
that has
>delayed by acquiring same.
Having recently tried again and dismally failed to digest
Furtwangler's supposed magnum opus second symphony, it's OK with
me if the Arte Nova 3rds never come at all. I would like to
hear those Gernsheims, though. The last time I checked, even
most of the obvious European sources weren't offering that set.
Nor is it available in Canada, it seems.
Paul Goldstein
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Paul Goldstein
<frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>They are listed at jpc. I've never ordered from them but based
on an e-mail
>exchange I had with them, you can order from them from the U.S.
via e-mail, but
>not through the web site. Prices seem reasonable, though I
don't know what
>shipping comes to. Eventually, I'll e-mail them with a
"proposed" order and
>have them quote me a price. They list the Gernsheim set at
under $10 at current
>exchange rates and the Furtwangler is about $5. Other items
listed as available
>include the Tilson Thomas Tchaikovsky 1st (due out here June
13, I believe),
>Jochum's Haydn symphonies with the Stattaskapelle Dresden on
Berlin Classics
>(long unavailable here).
>
>It would be interesting to hear a report from someone who has
actually ordered
>from jpc.
Thanks for the info. I had an email exchange with jpc a few
months ago in which they very nicely pointed out that they would
have to charge some enormous fee for shipping. I don't know
what its current fees for USA shipping are.
Frank Berger
exchange I had with them, you can order from them from the U.S. via e-mail, but
not through the web site. Prices seem reasonable, though I don't know what
shipping comes to. Eventually, I'll e-mail them with a "proposed" order and
have them quote me a price. They list the Gernsheim set at under $10 at current
exchange rates and the Furtwangler is about $5. Other items listed as available
include the Tilson Thomas Tchaikovsky 1st (due out here June 13, I believe),
Jochum's Haydn symphonies with the Stattaskapelle Dresden on Berlin Classics
(long unavailable here).
It would be interesting to hear a report from someone who has actually ordered
from jpc.
Paul Goldstein wrote:
> In article <8hoefn$37s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> frank.d...@dal.frb.org wrote:
> >There is some evidence that he is not reliable, however - I
> wonder what
> >happened to his offer to provide the Gernsheim symphionies and
> the
> >Furtwangler 3rd on Arte Nova. His failure to come through on
> that has
> >delayed by acquiring same.
>
> Having recently tried again and dismally failed to digest
> Furtwangler's supposed magnum opus second symphony, it's OK with
> me if the Arte Nova 3rds never come at all. I would like to
> hear those Gernsheims, though. The last time I checked, even
> most of the obvious European sources weren't offering that set.
> Nor is it available in Canada, it seems.
>
Ehrlich606
<phgoldste...@mofo.com.invalid> writes:
>
>Having recently tried again and dismally failed to digest
>Furtwangler's supposed magnum opus second symphony, it's OK with
>me if the Arte Nova 3rds never come at all. I would like to
>hear those Gernsheims, though. The last time I checked, even
>most of the obvious European sources weren't offering that set.
>Nor is it available in Canada, it seems.
>
The scherzo to the Furtwangler First is pretty good.
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> Having recently tried again and dismally failed to digest
> Furtwangler's supposed magnum opus second symphony, it's OK with
> me if the Arte Nova 3rds never come at all. I would like to
> hear those Gernsheims, though. The last time I checked, even
> most of the obvious European sources weren't offering that set.
> Nor is it available in Canada, it seems.
>
I got the Gernsheim symphonies through Yalplay; I think MDT might be
able to supply them too.
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> They are listed at jpc. I've never ordered from them but based on an
> e-mail exchange I had with them, you can order from them from the U.S.
> via e-mail, but not through the web site. Prices seem reasonable,
> though I don't know what shipping comes to. Eventually, I'll e-mail
> them with a "proposed" order and have them quote me a price. They list
> the Gernsheim set at under $10 at current exchange rates and the
> Furtwangler is about $5. Other items listed as available include the
> Tilson Thomas Tchaikovsky 1st (due out here June 13, I believe),
> Jochum's Haydn symphonies with the Stattaskapelle Dresden on Berlin
> Classics (long unavailable here).
>
> It would be interesting to hear a report from someone who has actually
> ordered from jpc.
Be careful to check their shipping charges -- they were among the
vendors I considered for supplying me the Gielen Brahms-Schoenberg (see
my recent post "An Orgy of Commerce"), but the cost was just too
freakin' high.
thebarnman
"Matthew B. Tepper" <o...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:393EEC3A...@earthlink.net...
> thebarnman wrote:
> >
> > lol
>
> Now I know why you're called "the barnman," and it has nothing to do
> with your being named Barney O'Hara. It's because you were raised in a
> barn.
i've erased my much more original, much funnier response, outta the fact
that i can't, in good conscience, bring myself to shoot at a lame duck.
that totally unoriginal, lame comment is sadly the result of an imagination
that simply can't function past 1 on a scale of 10.
DO... mr tepper, DO try to at least insult me with something that is
original, and is worth some kind of retort.
what you've typed above, is hardly.. any fun at all.
now, besides the fact that you don't like my reaction to what appears to be
hurwitz's stratospheric ignorance of music, (and that i resent his use of
insulting imagery, the soul purpose of which was to perahaps provoke anger
and wrath on the part of those who enjoy the set.. if indeed not to steer
those looking to learn for one of the few best places to start [which almost
*implies* hurwitz's intent to harmfully mislead those who are entering
classical music, perhaps because out of jealousy, he can't understand music
himself to begin with, but in no way is an *implication* that i personally
believe is MY intent to claim or purport in this post, keeping in mind that
certainly any critic of good conscience would avoid such irresponsible
imagery by using more responsible and suitable language in his/her
writings)], just what is it that prompts you to respond to my "lol" post by
saying i was raised in a barn?
if you hate my guts mr. tepper, wouldn't that be somewhat of a waste of
time?
wouldn't you look much less stupid if you were to simply reply by saying
something like..
"that comment is ignorant"
or..
"please don't swear like that"
or whatever.
why in the world would you go to such lengths to entertain yourself with a
post as lame and unoriginal as
"barnman raised in a barn"... and the like.
if YOU don't like the barbirolli set, that's just fine by me
if YOU like hurwitz, that's just fine by me too.
if YOU happen to think that hurwitz's freedom of speach is somehow over and
above MY freedom of speach... then you're a hypocrite.
you say it has turned into a witch hunt, yet you put on your armour and just
as quickly take swipes (albeit lame as a broken-winged duck) at those YOU
disagree with... so... let me see if i've got this straight...
YOU can say what ever stupid, rude and ignorant things your imagination....
(ahem)... comes up with, BUT, when others do it... it's a witch hunt???
i don't think so.
no i don't.
welcome to, what certainly looks to be, a very very lengthy flame war mr.
tepper.
Marc Perman
>Having recently tried again and dismally failed to digest
>Furtwangler's supposed magnum opus second symphony, it's OK with
>me if the Arte Nova 3rds never come at all. I would like to
>hear those Gernsheims, though. The last time I checked, even
>most of the obvious European sources weren't offering that set.
>Nor is it available in Canada, it seems.
Tower in NY has the Gernsheim set for $15.99. I was quite lucky to
find the set used at Concerto in Amsterdam. The four symphonies are
pleasant enough, but Gernsheim was no Brahms.
Marc Perman
Alain
Marc Perman wrote:
Was he at least a Schmitt? a Berwald?
Alain
Frank Berger
speculation as to where you were raised. If you try to engage in some sort of
public intellectual debate with Mr. Tepper, you will look silly. Is that what
you want? You will not out-think him, nor will you even be able to out-endure
him. Please give it up, for the sake of everyone.
Alain
I'd like to say however that the "barnman", in his defense, has come up with a
psychoanalytical gem, in my opinion: the notion that Hurwitz deliberately (or
subconsciously) misleads newcomers to classical music out of his own frustration
at being incapable of enjoying music. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it is
not an unsophisticated assessment of the man.
ciao,
Alain
TD
"Frank Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote in message
news:3940125D...@dal.frb.org...
> Your failure to capitalize appropriately might lend support to Mr.
Tepper's
> speculation as to where you were raised.
How?
Lothian
news:394016AC...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca...
> I'm unfortunately going away for 10 days and so I will have to miss this
clash.
> I'd like to say however that the "barnman", in his defense, has come up
with a
> psychoanalytical gem, in my opinion: the notion that Hurwitz deliberately
(or
> subconsciously) misleads newcomers to classical music out of his own
frustration
> at being incapable of enjoying music. I'm not saying I agree with it, but
it is
> not an unsophisticated assessment of the man.
....which I might take more seriously if it was not the same argument he
uses in his blanket condemnation of all academics.
It would also help if "the barnman" did not openly insult anyone who does
not subscribe to his "truth" of Sibelius as handed down by Sir John, or (not
to reopen a can of worms) anyone who thinks that Beethoven might have had
some off-days. We all have our "sacred cows", but not all of us feel the
need to put all those who disagree to the sword.
Lothian
Chicago, IL
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> welcome to, what certainly looks to be, a very very lengthy flame war
> mr. tepper.
I don't think so, Tim. Welcome to my killfile. *plonk*
--
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
Marc Perman
>> Tower in NY has the Gernsheim set for $15.99. I was quite lucky to
>> find the set used at Concerto in Amsterdam. The four symphonies are
>> pleasant enough, but Gernsheim was no Brahms.
>
>Was he at least a Schmitt? a Berwald?
Perhaps somewhat of a Schmidt, if not a Schmitt, not quite a Berwald.
Marc Perman
thebarnman
> thebarnman wrote:
> >
> > welcome to, what certainly looks to be, a very very lengthy flame war
> > mr. tepper.
>
> I don't think so, Tim. Welcome to my killfile. *plonk*
>
> --
lmao
tim?? who the heck is tim
i just knew that would be your response.
no consequence anyway
thebarnman
sort of
> public intellectual debate with Mr. Tepper, you will look silly. Is that
what
> you want? You will not out-think him, nor will you even be able to
out-endure
> him. Please give it up, for the sake of everyone.
>
look, i've read mr tepper's posts for a few years now, and have sided with
him consistently on a range of topics from ebay arsewits to his witty
retiring of nuisance trolls. i've also, on two occaisions if i recall,
sought his wise advice on some berlioz recordings.
the fact is, in this issue, calling me someone who was raised in a barn,
because of the nick-name my brother and a few ladies at work call me, is
lame. it's been said a hundred times to me before and i'm bored with it.
if you can't see the fact that mr tepper's accusation of this being a witch
hunt, (perhaps a worthy opinion in its own right to which i never responded
with a dispute, is just as applicable to his own comment on my being raised
in a barn, this based on the fact that all he need to do is reply, or not
reply that my coarse responses belittle something, onething or another, then
fine!) is just as applicable to him calling someone the product of something
resulting from farm life ie: hillbilly, inbred toothless moron, then you're
missing the point of it all.
i just find it a little hypocritical that he gets to point a finger... at
people he's accusing of pointing a finger!
and my rant was solely based on his comment to ME. i didn't start it.
i mean, okay, gee, if you like him more than you like me, that's just dandy.
but don't release your objectivity in the grand scheme of things.
thebarnman
Alain <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote in message
news:394016AC...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca...
> I'm unfortunately going away for 10 days and so I will have to miss this
clash.
> I'd like to say however that the "barnman", in his defense, has come up
with a
> psychoanalytical gem, in my opinion: the notion that Hurwitz deliberately
(or
> subconsciously) misleads newcomers to classical music out of his own
frustration
> at being incapable of enjoying music. I'm not saying I agree with it, but
it is
> not an unsophisticated assessment of the man.
>
>
> Alain
>
thank you for at least being objective. i too, don't even want to agree
with it. deep down i would like to believe that hurl-witz wouldn't be
guilty of such a thing. but the irresponsibility of his use of the image of
dog shit certainly leans ones opinion, or at least tempts one to think such,
in that way.
noone
have a flame war over *Hurwitz*? Please! Matthew and Barney, the group
supports you both. Now take cold showers and have a virtual beer
together (Irish, of course).
H. Noone