Alfred Brendel playing Rachmaninoff
Soun Tran
concerto #2. Of course he dropped it (along with Prokofiev's 5th
concerto). Has anybody heard any pirates of him doing it..?? Brendel &
Rach are strange bedfellows...!
thanks Soun
deac...@yahoo.com
I think you misrepresent his comments slightly.
Brendel was persuaded by a conductor to learn the Rachmaninoff Second
Concerto against his own judgment. He played it a few times because he
thought it would do no harm to learn the world and listen to
Rachmaninoff's own recording of it.
"I then saw that he did many things that are not marked in the score
or were different to the indications that he had given. It was perhaps
a useful exercise, but I never came to like the piece.
Q. It aroused no enthusiasm in you?
A. None, I am not a Rachmaninoff fan. The piano repertoire is vast,
and Rachmaninoff to me seems a waste of time.".
Tom Deacon
Dan Koren
news:0078ivg6uuolb2621...@4ax.com...
>
> "I then saw that he did many things that are
> not marked in the score or were different to
> the indications that he had given. It was
> perhaps a useful exercise, but I never
> came to like the piece.
>
> Q. It aroused no enthusiasm in you?
>
> A. None, I am not a Rachmaninoff fan. The piano
> repertoire is vast, and Rachmaninoff to me seems
> a waste of time.".
What a pompous, fucking idiot. The piano repertoire
without Rachmaninov would be like paiting without
Tizian.
People like Brendull should have never been allowed
within 300 miles of a piano.
dk
shre...@sbcglobal.net
>> A. None, I am not a Rachmaninoff fan. The piano
>> repertoire is vast, and Rachmaninoff to me seems
>> a waste of time.".
>
>
>What a pompous, fucking idiot. The piano repertoire
>without Rachmaninov would be like paiting without
>Tizian.
>
>People like Brendull should have never been allowed
>within 300 miles of a piano.
>
Rachmaninov. Let him continue boring the shit out us with his Mozart
and Schubert--leave the big guns to others more deserving.
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
He has a point, of course, Dan. It is just that we do not agree with
him.
By the way. I suppose you meant Titian?
Tizian is a brilliant computer nerd who lives in Silicone Valley and
does finger painting in his spare time.
Tom Deacon
David Hurwitz
>People like Brendull should have never been allowed
>within 300 miles of a piano.
>
Dan:
What is wrong with Brendel deciding that he should not play music he doesn't
like, or that Rachmaninov would be a waste of time for HIM? Particularly when
there are so many other pianists who play him so well? That sounds to me like
simple self-knowledge--a quality too often lacking in many artists today.
You may dislike Brendel, but how can you dispute any artist's decision to limit
themselves to the repertoire they care about most and feel that they play best?
Of course, you may feel (and I guess you do) that Brendel is a disaster from any
point of view--I disagree there--but surely there's nothing wrong with his
asserting his right to perform what he chooses!
Dave Hurwitz
Richard Schultz
: What a pompous, fucking idiot. The piano repertoire
: without Rachmaninov would be like paiting without Tizian.
Actually, the piano repertoire without Rachmaninov would be more
like painting without Sassoferatto.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"That's *genius*!"
"Really? I thought it was Rachmaninov."
Akiralx
Barenboim also avoids Rachmaninov's piano music - I think he regards it as
like the stuff Clayderman plays.
--
Alex
-----
HenryFogel
>From: "Akiralx" aki...@blueyonder.co.uk
>Date: 7/28/2003 6:34 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <bg31p0$ogb$1...@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net>
I can think of many pianists who have avoided playing Rachmaninoff (some of
these may have played Rachmaninoff's music at some point in their careers, but
certainly it was not an important part of their repertoire) -- Serkin (both
Serkins, actually), Arrau, Gould, Lupu, Moravec -- I'm sure this is only the
beginining of a comprehensive list (but not Liszt!).
Henry Fogel
Richard Schultz
: I can think of many pianists who have avoided playing Rachmaninoff (some of
: these may have played Rachmaninoff's music at some point in their careers,
: but certainly it was not an important part of their repertoire) -- Serkin
: (both Serkins, actually), Arrau, Gould, Lupu, Moravec -- I'm sure this is
: only the beginining of a comprehensive list (but not Liszt!).
Liszt was good, but I don't think that he was *that* good.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska
Steve Molino
news:bg31p0$ogb$1...@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
>
> Barenboim also avoids Rachmaninov's piano music - I think he regards it as
> like the stuff Clayderman plays.
>
It all depends on who plays him. I wonder if he has ever heard Ricther or
Sofronitsky play Rachmaninov. They certainly are not lacking in the
intimate side but they more than most bring a strength and purpose to this
music.
John Gavin
> >
> >People like Brendull should have never been allowed
> >within 300 miles of a piano.
> >
>
> Dan:
>
> What is wrong with Brendel deciding that he should not play music he doesn't
> like, or that Rachmaninov would be a waste of time for HIM? >
What's wrong with it is Brendel's CONDESCENDING ATTITUDE. He could
have said Rachmaninoff's music is not for me or I'm not that type of
pianist. Clearly by saying "it would be a waste of time" he's
condemning the music as inferior. IMO Brendel's pianism would benefit
from playing Rachmaninoff well. He lacks fluidity IMO which is why
his playing has never really been appealing to me.
This reminds me of a story of Schnabel hearing a broadcast of
Beethoven's Piano Concerto #1, not knowing who the soloist was. He
declared the best performance of a Beethoven PC he had ever heard -
and the soloist was announced as Rachmaninoff. I have no doubt that
had Rachmaninoff recorded more German repertoire he would have
surpassed Brendel in spades.
Dave Hurwitz
Owen Hartnett
Gavin <dag...@comcast.net> wrote:
> David Hurwitz <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:<69352835.0...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > >
> > >People like Brendull should have never been allowed
> > >within 300 miles of a piano.
> > >
> >
> > Dan:
> >
> > What is wrong with Brendel deciding that he should not play music he doesn't
> > like, or that Rachmaninov would be a waste of time for HIM? >
>
> What's wrong with it is Brendel's CONDESCENDING ATTITUDE. He could
> have said Rachmaninoff's music is not for me or I'm not that type of
> pianist. Clearly by saying "it would be a waste of time" he's
> condemning the music as inferior.
Rachmaninoff's music was regularly disabused by many musicians until
very recently. There was a lot of grousing about how he was a romantic
composer out of place in the modern 20th century of Stravinsky, etc.
It was all cheap shots. Rachmaninoff was a finer composer than
Tchaikovsky, IMO. I don't know if it was motivated by envy at his being
able to both compose and be a concert pianist, or just by piling on -
someone to pick on.
I've even heard a pianist at a master class gently disparage one of his
pieces, ("remember, this is Rachmaninoff, not Beethoven, we're trying
to play here" when describing a bridge section between two themes). He
still has that "third class composer"/slightly better than a film
background scorer perception in many people.
> This reminds me of a story of Schnabel hearing a broadcast of
> Beethoven's Piano Concerto #1, not knowing who the soloist was. He
> declared the best performance of a Beethoven PC he had ever heard -
> and the soloist was announced as Rachmaninoff. I have no doubt that
> had Rachmaninoff recorded more German repertoire he would have
> surpassed Brendel in spades.
IMO, Rachmaninoff has already surpassed Brendel in spades, and will be
remembered far longer.
-Owen
Alain Dagher
> In article <3f245250$1...@news.meer.net>, Dan Koren <dank...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : What a pompous, fucking idiot. The piano repertoire
> : without Rachmaninov would be like paiting without Tizian.
>
> Actually, the piano repertoire without Rachmaninov would be more
> like painting without Sassoferatto.
>
> -----
Good one. Although if I was asked I'd split the difference and say Guido
Reni.
ad
Paul Goldstein
>
>In article <77a67936.03072...@posting.google.com>, John
>Gavin <dag...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> David Hurwitz <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> news:<69352835.0...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> > >
>> > >People like Brendull should have never been allowed
>> > >within 300 miles of a piano.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Dan:
>> >
>>> What is wrong with Brendel deciding that he should not play music he doesn't
>> > like, or that Rachmaninov would be a waste of time for HIM? >
>>
>> What's wrong with it is Brendel's CONDESCENDING ATTITUDE. He could
>> have said Rachmaninoff's music is not for me or I'm not that type of
>> pianist. Clearly by saying "it would be a waste of time" he's
>> condemning the music as inferior.
>
>Rachmaninoff's music was regularly disabused by many musicians until
>very recently. There was a lot of grousing about how he was a romantic
>composer out of place in the modern 20th century of Stravinsky, etc.
>It was all cheap shots.
In this regard, it is interesting to note that neither Karajan nor Bernstein nor
Solti, probably the three most prominent and successful conductors of the stereo
LP era, recorded any of Rachmaninoff's orchestral music. AFAIK. Regrettable,
given the excellence of Bernstein's support of Entremont in the P.C. No. 2.
Paul Goldstein
deac...@yahoo.com
he would have surpassed Brendel in spades.
>
>
> Dave Hurwitz
A totally unverifiable hypothesis!
Tom Deacon
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
And Bernstein in Rachmaninoff 3 with Weissenberg, and Solti and
Rachmaninoff 2 with Katchen, and Karajan in Rachmaninoff 2 with
Katchen. There may be other examples, of course.
Obviously you treat the concertos as non-orchestral music. I find that
a bit curious, Paul. In my opinion it counts.
Tom Deacon
David Hurwitz
says...
And not one promulgated by me, despite Gavin's leaving my name at the bottom of
his post.
I really don't understand the hostility to Brendel at all. He's a serious artist
who has made some marvellous recordings, and some less so, but his recent Mozart
discs for Philips in particular have been outstanding.
Dave Hurwitz
Paul Goldstein
says...
So you mean I shouldn't take it seriously when Philips or some other label
directs me to file a concerto CD under "concertos"?
;-)
I sure wish there were a Bernstein recording of the Rachmaninoff 2nd Symphony,
uncut.
Paul Goldstein
deac...@yahoo.com
<David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
What a sloppy thing for Hon Gavin to do.
Brendel doesn't adhere to the beautiful sound school of piano
playing. Hofmann et al. And so, he is forever damned. And was so,
continually, by the late Harold C Schoenberg. Another of his many
blind sides, however much one enjoyed his books.
Moreover he treats Liszt as a serious composer, instead of a high wire
artist of the piano. Music for Brendel is more than entertainment, you
see. And then he plays all that dull music by Schubert, Mozart and
Beethoven.
Tom Deacon
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
letters to be typed in
news:77a67936.03072...@posting.google.com:
> This reminds me of a story of Schnabel hearing a broadcast of Beethoven's
> Piano Concerto #1, not knowing who the soloist was. He declared the best
> performance of a Beethoven PC he had ever heard - and the soloist was
> announced as Rachmaninoff. I have no doubt that had Rachmaninoff
> recorded more German repertoire he would have surpassed Brendel in
> spades.
I was under the impression that Rachmaninoff never broadcast, so this never
could have happened. Makes a nice story, though.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Mark Coy tossed off eBay? http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2B734C02
RMCR's most pointless, dumb and laughable chowderhead: Mark Coy.
Dan Koren
news:0puaivke4ifg7lvrj...@4ax.com...
>
> Brendel doesn't adhere to the beautiful sound
> school of piano playing.
>
Doesn't "adhere to" -- or is he merely incapable
of producing good quality sound? Big difference.
Methinks it's more of the latter than the former.
> Hofmann et al. And so, he is forever damned.
Bullshit. Quality sound has been an important
goal of every pianist/composer since Liszt and
Chopin. This wasn't invented by Hofmann in
particular.
> And was so, continually, by the late Harold C
> Schoenberg. Another of his many blind sides,
> however much one enjoyed his books.
Yes indeed, but this is far from being the most
egregious of Schoenberg's flaws. How about no
mentions of Levy, Edwin Fischer or Sofronitsky?
> Moreover he treats Liszt as a serious composer,
And so do/did Richter, Gilels, Berman, Ginzburg,
Michelangeli, Levy, Bolet, Rubackyte, Horowitz
and others. Brendel has no claim over them.
> instead of a high wire artist of the piano.
How convenient for someone incapable of high
wire acts.
> Music for Brendel is more than entertainment,
As opposed to whom?
> And then he plays all that dull music by Schubert,
> Mozart and Beethoven.
And he makes everything he touches sound even duller.
dk
Samir Golescu
> Brendel doesn't adhere to the beautiful sound school of piano
> playing. Hofmann et al.
Hofmann didn't invent "beautiful" sound and he didn't have *one*
"beautiful" sound. His was the ability to project kaleidoscopic bouquets
of innumerable colors, articulations and balances. Not only vocal
intonation-evoking. In the live recording of the E Flat Minor Polonaise,
he uses various quasi-pictorial perspectives on the same text to save the
5 (five) times repeated theme from irreparable repetitiousness. I have
never heard a *subtle* rather than noisy (Hofmann could do that too)
timpani-like effect realized by the pianist in the way Hofmann did it in
the same piece, middle section, on a "timpani-tremolo" on low B.
> Moreover he treats Liszt as a serious composer, instead of a high wire
> artist of the piano.
Liszt has been treated by many greater pianists as a serious composer,
long before Brendel ever broke his teeth in the compositions he never had
the technique for. (I heard on a collector's tape a live Liszt Sonata from
Brendel which was so full of wrong notes and so torturously deficient
technically as to make for wondrous party material.)
> Music for Brendel is more than entertainment, you see.
Music-making can be more than entertainment, one it is entertaining to
begin with. Predictably monotonous playing can never be redeemed by the
alleged intention of the performer to be "more than entertaining". The
spiritual quality is not obtained through the annihilation of the
hedonistic raison d'etre of the objet d'art, but -- and only at best --
through its sublimation. The communication of "higher layers of meaning",
however well supported by Brendel in his good and pleasant to read
essays (but hardly noticeable in the immediateness, in the concreteness
of his music-making) is not facilitated in the least by a lack of direct
attractiveness. Au contraire.
> And then he plays all that dull music by Schubert, Mozart and Beethoven.
Schubert, Mozart and Beethoven wrote no dull music. Given the right
"qualities", the pianist can make it seem so effortlessly, though.
In fact pianists who *specialize* in Schubert, Mozart and Beethoven and
manifest disdain for other compositional styles as "music which can be
played better than it is" (while they could never play it at least as good
as it is) are the most likely to perform precisely Schubert, Mozart, and
Beethoven in woefully pauper ways (exceptions such as Schnabel
notwithstanding).
regards,
SG
akiralx
<deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:30paivcb1c67nfjrv...@4ax.com...
> >
> >In this regard, it is interesting to note that neither Karajan nor
Bernstein nor
> >Solti, probably the three most prominent and successful conductors of the
stereo
> >LP era, recorded any of Rachmaninoff's orchestral music. AFAIK.
Regrettable,
> >given the excellence of Bernstein's support of Entremont in the P.C. No.
2.
> >
> >Paul Goldstein
>
> And Bernstein in Rachmaninoff 3 with Weissenberg, and Solti and
> Rachmaninoff 2 with Katchen, and Karajan in Rachmaninoff 2 with
> Katchen. There may be other examples, of course.
In fact Karajan was also with Weissenberg, not Katchen, I believe. Their
video collaboration in the Rach 2 is notable for part of the piano evidently
disappearing when the camera shot is of the soloist full in the face.
HvK was an admirer of Rachmaninov's music and his recordings - although his
favourite recording was Weissenberg's LP of the preludes. Not sure why he
didn't conduct his music, though.
David Hurwitz
>Moreover he treats Liszt as a serious composer, instead of a high wire
>artist of the piano. Music for Brendel is more than entertainment, you
>see. And then he plays all that dull music by Schubert, Mozart and
>Beethoven.
>
>Tom Deacon
And how is Brendel at all unique in this respect? Plenty of pianists treat Liszt
as a serious composer (whether they should or not is a subject for another day),
and I can't think of many artists on any instrument who do NOT believe that
music is "more than entertainment". And plenty of rather more important and
interesting artists than Brendel have also played Mozart, Schubert, and
Beethoven in addition to Rachmaninov, Liszt, and others. So aside from a few
well-worn clichés, is there anything here that tells us something meaningful
about Brendel? I think not.
The problem here is that I think few would take great exception to Brendel's
right not to play Rachmaninov. That's his business. And I also think we need to
make a distinction between what Brendel actually thinks and feels (which we do
not really know), and what Deacon (who knows all, just ask him) SAYS that
Brendel thinks and feels. That, with the typical Deaconesque need to exaggerate
the importance of Brendel while simultaneously putting down other artists or
points of view, strikes me as no more than "projecting" his own feelings onto an
artist who he admires. And we shouldn't hold Brendel responsible for the
infortunate fact that with friends like Tom, he certainly doesn't need enemies.
Dave Hurwitz
Joshua Kaufman
>
>
> I sure wish there were a Bernstein recording of the Rachmaninoff 2nd Symphony,
> uncut.
That for sure falls under that "fantasy recordings" thread a few months
back!
-Joshua
--
AOL-IM: TerraEpon
deac...@yahoo.com
<aki...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
><deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:30paivcb1c67nfjrv...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >In this regard, it is interesting to note that neither Karajan nor
>Bernstein nor
>> >Solti, probably the three most prominent and successful conductors of the
>stereo
>> >LP era, recorded any of Rachmaninoff's orchestral music. AFAIK.
>Regrettable,
>> >given the excellence of Bernstein's support of Entremont in the P.C. No.
>2.
>> >
>> >Paul Goldstein
>>
>> And Bernstein in Rachmaninoff 3 with Weissenberg, and Solti and
>> Rachmaninoff 2 with Katchen, and Karajan in Rachmaninoff 2 with
>> Katchen. There may be other examples, of course.
>
>In fact Karajan was also with Weissenberg, not Katchen, I believe.
It was Solti who led Katchen in the Rachmaninoff 2. But Karajan led
Weissenberg in that concerto and Bernstein in the Rachmaninoff 3, both
for EM
>
Thomas Heilman
> >
>
> Dan:
>
> What is wrong with Brendel deciding that he should not play music he doesn't
> like, or that Rachmaninov would be a waste of time for HIM? Particularly when
> there are so many other pianists who play him so well? That sounds to me like
> simple self-knowledge--a quality too often lacking in many artists today.
I agree completely. How many of us spend the comparatively little
time it takes to listen to composers we dislike? I cannot imagine
investing the enormous amount of time it must take to bring a piece of
music you do not like up to performance level. What would be the
point? Who would profit? Not the pianist, not the listener. A
complete waste of time and energy.
>
> You may dislike Brendel, but how can you dispute any artist's decision to limit
> themselves to the repertoire they care about most and feel that they play best?
You can't. You shouldn't. Performance artists should be treated like
creative artists. They are not jukeboxes.
Best,
Tom Heilman
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
><deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:0puaivke4ifg7lvrj...@4ax.com...
>>
>
>> Moreover he treats Liszt as a serious composer,
>
>
>And so do/did Richter, Gilels, Berman, Ginzburg,
>Michelangeli, Levy, Bolet, Rubackyte, Horowitz
>and others. Brendel has no claim over them.
Excuse me. You have just named most of the pianists who do NOT take
Liszt seriously as a composer. Richter did, of course, as did Gilels.
But Ginzburg? Horowitz? You jest!
>
>> instead of a high wire artist of the piano.
>
>
>How convenient for someone incapable of high
>wire acts.
We were not talking about convenience, Dan. Just thought. You CAN
think, can't you?
>
>
>> Music for Brendel is more than entertainment,
>
>
>As opposed to whom?
As opposed to Horowitz, whose real "fach" was encapsulated in his
famous Carmen Variations.
Tom Deacon
Thomas Heilman
> >In this regard, it is interesting to note that neither Karajan nor Bernstein nor
> >Solti, probably the three most prominent and successful conductors of the stereo
> >LP era, recorded any of Rachmaninoff's orchestral music. AFAIK. Regrettable,
> >given the excellence of Bernstein's support of Entremont in the P.C. No. 2.
> >
> >Paul Goldstein
>
> And Bernstein in Rachmaninoff 3 with Weissenberg, and Solti and
> Rachmaninoff 2 with Katchen, and Karajan in Rachmaninoff 2 with
> Katchen. There may be other examples, of course.
>
> Obviously you treat the concertos as non-orchestral music. I find that
> a bit curious, Paul. In my opinion it counts.
>
> Tom Deacon
And among the live performances floating around the underground is a
Bernstein\Kapell\NYP Rachmaninoff 2 that's pretty damned nice.
Best,
Tom Heilman
deac...@yahoo.com
about Josef Hofmann. Of course I knew it would happen. As someone once
remarked, anyone who needs so much defending.....
Really, Samir, this is a broken record.
But I shall respond nonetheless.
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:11:14 -0500, Samir Golescu <gol...@uiuc.edu>
wrote:
>
>
>> Brendel doesn't adhere to the beautiful sound school of piano
>> playing. Hofmann et al.
>
>Hofmann didn't invent "beautiful" sound and he didn't have *one*
>"beautiful" sound.
Right. He didn't invent it. And his "beautiful sound" is not the only
one which can be regarded as legitimate. Some people actually believe
- you don't of course - that Brendel has a beautiful sound.
>
>> Moreover he treats Liszt as a serious composer, instead of a high wire
>> artist of the piano.
>
>Liszt has been treated by many greater pianists as a serious composer,
>long before Brendel ever broke his teeth in the compositions he never had
>the technique for.
A complicated way of saying that you don't think Brendel could play
the Liszt Sonata, which is just a garbage thought. Stow it!
(I heard on a collector's tape a live Liszt Sonata from
>Brendel which was so full of wrong notes and so torturously deficient
>technically as to make for wondrous party material.)
Do you think it might have been as full of wrong notes as Horowitz's
from the 1930s? I listened to that the other day with utter horror!
>
>> Music for Brendel is more than entertainment, you see.
>
>Music-making can be more than entertainment, one it is entertaining to
>begin with. Predictably monotonous playing can never be redeemed by the
>alleged intention of the performer to be "more than entertaining". The
>spiritual quality is not obtained through the annihilation of the
>hedonistic raison d'etre of the objet d'art, but -- and only at best --
>through its sublimation.
I will have to ask what the "hedonistic raison d'etre" of the Art of
Fugue, Op. 111, Schubert's Quintet, etc. are.
I really am not at all sure what you listen to or for in certain
pieces of music. It completely escapes me.
Is the Liszt Sonata all about octaves? If so Martha is your man
(sorry, woman). If it is about something more spiritual, then you have
to leave the octaves out of the equation escept insofar as they work
towards that spiritual message.
But all of this is just a matter of opinion, Samir. We differ, of
course.
>
>
>> And then he plays all that dull music by Schubert, Mozart and Beethoven.
>
>Schubert, Mozart and Beethoven wrote no dull music.
It was an ironic comment, Samir. I know that. But the critics of
Brendel are always hurling abuse at him because he plays all that dull
Schubert, Mozart and Beethoven, when what they really want are the
musical trinkets that Hofmann dispensed regularly.
Lighten up!
Given the right
Tom Deacon
Steve Emerson
Owen Hartnett <ow...@xids.xnet> wrote:
> Rachmaninoff's music was regularly disabused by many musicians until
> very recently.
Then they gave up.
SE.
deac...@yahoo.com
<David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>Moreover he treats Liszt as a serious composer, instead of a high wire
>>artist of the piano. Music for Brendel is more than entertainment, you
>>see. And then he plays all that dull music by Schubert, Mozart and
>>Beethoven.
>>
>>Tom Deacon
>
>And how is Brendel at all unique in this respect? Plenty of pianists treat Liszt
>as a serious composer (whether they should or not is a subject for another day),
>and I can't think of many artists on any instrument who do NOT believe that
>music is "more than entertainment".
Then you never heard Horowitz!
And plenty of rather more important and
>interesting artists than Brendel have also played Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven
Nobody said they didn't. But Somehow the fact that Brendel chooses to
play them almost exclusively rubs certain people the wrong way.
and
in addition to Rachmaninov, Liszt, and others. So aside from a few
>well-worn clichés,
I agree. They are cliches. And they simply do not describe one of the
most interesting musicians of our day.
is there anything here that tells us something meaningful
>about Brendel? I think not.
I agree. Brendel is MUCH MORE than he is made out to be by his
detractors, some of whom hold him up to ridicule on this newsgroup
with alarming regularity.
>
>The problem here is that I think few would take great exception to Brendel's
>right not to play Rachmaninov.
Ah, but it isn't you see. Check the posts, Dave. You will see that
people feel he should be playing that stuff, otherwise it probably
means he can't!
An absurd notion, of course.
That's his business. And I also think we need to
>make a distinction between what Brendel actually thinks and feels (which we do
>not really know), and what Deacon (who knows all, just ask him) SAYS that
>Brendel thinks and feels.
I have not quoted Alfred Brendel or even represented his thoughts,
only what I think of him as a musician and as a pianist. You can read
his books to find out more from him directly, as you know full well.
That, with the typical Deaconesque need to exaggerate the importance
of Brendel
My point, rather, was to right the balance after Dan Koren's typical
putdowns.
while simultaneously putting down other artists or points of view,
Har not to "put down" other points of view when you are trying to
reestablish some semblance of balance.
strikes me as no more than "projecting" his own feelings onto an
>artist
What "feelings" was I projecting on Brendel? I seem to remember that I
only "quoted" from him directly. Perhaps you haven't read his book.
Interesting reading.
who he admires. And we shouldn't hold Brendel responsible for the
>infortunate fact that with friends like Tom, he certainly doesn't need enemies.
A kind of sideways comment. Brendel is NOT responsible for me! Only I
am and quite able to stand up for my own opinions. Thanks all the
same. As for enemies, I think we all know whose Brendel's are in this
newsgroup.
You, it would seem, are not among that number. But who knows? I am not
really sure what you think about anything.
Tom Deacon
Samir Golescu
> And now, as night follows the day, come all of the defensive remarks
> about Josef Hofmann. Of course I knew it would happen. As someone once
> remarked, anyone who needs so much defending.....
You do mean Alfred Brendel, right -- that was the subject of this?
> Really, Samir, this is a broken record.
Well, dear Mr Deacon, as the apostle Paul used to say, it takes some
chutzpah to talk about "broken record" in a glass house. . . (speak of
mixed[-up] metaphors). . .
> >> Brendel doesn't adhere to the beautiful sound school of piano
> >> playing. Hofmann et al.
> >
> >Hofmann didn't invent "beautiful" sound and he didn't have *one*
> >"beautiful" sound.
>
> Right. He didn't invent it. And his "beautiful sound" is not the only
> one which can be regarded as legitimate. Some people actually believe
> - you don't of course - that Brendel has a beautiful sound.
That's always possible. There's no accounting for taste. Chacun a son
(de)gout.
> >> Moreover he treats Liszt as a serious composer, instead of a high wire
> >> artist of the piano.
> >
> >Liszt has been treated by many greater pianists as a serious composer,
> >long before Brendel ever broke his teeth in the compositions he never had
> >the technique for.
>
> A complicated way of saying that you don't think Brendel could play
> the Liszt Sonata, which is just a garbage thought. Stow it!
"Garbage thought"? Watch that language, Mr Deacon! Arri and DK are taking
notes now, and they make for good disciples! Of course I think that Alfred
Brendel is a pianist who can hardly play Liszt Sonata. (For the record, I
don't think he has the technique to play Beethoven at a truly great level
either, but there he can hide better technical limitations behind supposed
"depths" of interpretation.)
> (I heard on a collector's tape a live Liszt Sonata from
> >Brendel which was so full of wrong notes and so torturously deficient
> >technically as to make for wondrous party material.)
>
> Do you think it might have been as full of wrong notes as Horowitz's
> from the 1930s?
Are you kidding me?? The Horowitz 1930s version (which by the way I don't
like very much, on musical grounds) is the work of a fantastic virtuoso
who gets a couple of wrong notes. The other gentleman played it as a
technical dilettante who attempts things well beyond potence and stumbles
in every difficult passage. I heard countless conservatory students
playing it better technically (while, granted, every bit as dull
musically).
> >> Music for Brendel is more than entertainment, you see.
> >
> >Music-making can be more than entertainment, one it is entertaining to
> >begin with. Predictably monotonous playing can never be redeemed by the
> >alleged intention of the performer to be "more than entertaining". The
> >spiritual quality is not obtained through the annihilation of the
> >hedonistic raison d'etre of the objet d'art, but -- and only at best --
> >through its sublimation.
>
> I will have to ask what the "hedonistic raison d'etre" of the Art of
> Fugue, Op. 111, Schubert's Quintet, etc. are.
Well, while you're asking, the very musical language (tonal at least) is
based, among others, on our hearing's capacity of appreciating sensorially
intervals, *tone*, chords, rhythms etc. Nobody is saying that the Art of
the Fugue stops at that level, but it surely starts out from there. Nobody
enjoys opus 111 like a kind of austere exercise in masochism, but perhaps
as an extraordinarily beautiful sound-based structure the resonances of
which ultimately transcends, without being separated from, the materiality
of the sounds themselves. The genuine work of art is not an idea floating,
devoid of corporeality in the realm of abstractions, not more than it
would be a sensuous reality addressing senses alone. It is a *whole*
incorporating "body", soul and spirit together in almost indiscernible
ways.
> I really am not at all sure what you listen to or for in certain
> pieces of music. It completely escapes me.
I apologize for that. It surely must be my fault that what I listen for
in music completely escapes you.
> Is the Liszt Sonata all about octaves?
In rmcr language, this is called a strawman. Nowhere did I say (or does
anyone have the right to imply that I said) that Liszt's Sonata is "ALL
about octaves". Actually I think that the ideal pianist for Liszt's Sonata
needs to have such a good technique as to be able to play it well and
easily, while *forgetting* about technique. Which doesn't mean that one
needs to feel awed when an archimediocre pianist overhyped by the
recording industry is simply unable to play octaves at a decent technical
level -- probably that sticky band around the fingertips, which explains
the beauty of sound and sensitivity of touch, gets stuck between the keys
-- such occurrence can raise my sympathy but does little for Liszt. (By the
way, the good Liszt got awfully angry when some potential student tried to
impress him by playing one of his compositions badly -- once he told a
prospective female student with, we can safely assume, less than secure
technique: "Mademoiselle, these are not the "jeux d'eau" from Villa
d'Este, but the noise water is making in the smallest room of my house!!"
I shudder to think of what Liszt would have told some pianists of our
days who tackled with works they are unprepared to tackle with.)
> If so Martha is your man (sorry, woman).
Martha's Liszt sonata is virtuosically superb while, again, is not a
favorite on musical grounds. I find her interpretation relatively shallow,
while brilliant and quite passionate in a way. In a completely different
league, even if I happen not to like it.
> If it is about something more spiritual, then you have
> to leave the octaves out of the equation escept insofar as they work
> towards that spiritual message.
You must be kidding me. Let me say it again, in a simple set of
propositions:
-- fabulous technique is not enough to play Liszt's Sonata.
-- technique is necessary to play Liszt's Sonata
-- insufficient technique is not of a nature to make an anyway dull
performance of Liszt more "spiritual".
> >> And then he plays all that dull music by Schubert, Mozart and Beethoven.
> >
> >Schubert, Mozart and Beethoven wrote no dull music.
>
> It was an ironic comment, Samir. I know that. But the critics of
> Brendel are always hurling abuse at him because he plays all that dull
> Schubert, Mozart and Beethoven,
What gives you that idea? Perhaps some of them criticize ("hurling abuse"
is perhaps somewhat inadequate an expression) a certain pianist because,
in their opinion, he plays dull Schubert, Mozart and Beethoven, not
because he plays Schubert, Mozart and Beethoven. No choice of repertoire
is a matter of merit or disgrace in itself. It's what one does with one's
repertoire.
> when what they really want are the musical trinkets that Hofmann
> dispensed regularly.
Well, well, well -- did I read something about a "broken record" in the
beginning of this? This should bring us back -- I'd say Cesar Frank-like,
but modesty forbids -- at the beginning of the cycle.
regards,
SG
David Hurwitz
>My point, rather, was to right the balance after Dan Koren's typical
>putdowns.
Why do you feel the need? Do you honestly believe that everyone here believes
everything Koren says, or what you say, or what I say? You don't need to address
every point for fear that something incorrect might be left hanging in
cyberspace. People here are quite good at knowing what they like and why.
>As for enemies, I think we all know whose Brendel's are in this
>newsgroup.
>
>You, it would seem, are not among that number. But who knows? I am not
>really sure what you think about anything.
>
>Tom Deacon
>
One of the few truly honest comments I've seen from you. What I think about
Brendel is what I have said in this thread; he has his strengths and weaknesses;
he's recorded too much; but I respect him as a musician and see no reason why
others should not as well, and I have found his recent work to be very
impressive. I also think his Liszt Totentanz with Haitink is unbeatable, for
example, and there's lots of other things he's done that I enjoy very much.
I don't think he deserves much of the crap he gets here, much of which strikes
me as deriving from the fact that he was lucky enough to earn the whole-hearted
support of a major label, and I find it hypocritical that those who deride the
majors for NOT supporting their artists are often the first to castigate them
when they DO.
You wouldn't know because you haven't been here long, but I am by no means an
"enemy" of major artists or major labels, and have fought long battles here
justifying such things as the price of new release CDs, and have even spoken up
in print on behalf of your Great Pianists series, which I believe was very well
done and which brought very many classic performances by great artists to
countless people who might otherwise never have encountered them, even if it was
not supported by Philips the way it should have been and some see fit to grumble
about who was "in" and who was not.
So I have no problem with Brendel at all. Like every artist, his work stands or
falls on its own merits, and each release needs to be listened to without
prejudice or preconceptions. And I agree with you completely that to the extent
anyone here believes that Brendel MUST play Rachmaninov, or that he was wrong
not to do so--that's ridiculous. But I also believe that you're not helping the
cause in "defending" him in such a fashion because you're not going the change
any minds by denigrating either other pianists or the opinions of those who
dislike Brendel, though of course you are perfectly free to do so if you wish.
Dave Hurwitz
Owen Hartnett
Emerson <eme...@nospamsonic.net> wrote:
Not quite. They just became less regular.
-Owen
Samir Golescu
> I also think his Liszt Totentanz with Haitink is unbeatable, for example
It is very good, yes. Relatively passionate, as difficult as it is to
associate this notion with Brendel. Totentanz, by the way, is the
technically least demanding among Liszt's "concertante" works (not to
mention much of Liszt's solo output is much harder than the concertos
even -- imagine a Mazeppa with Brendel, oy-vey!!). But unbeatable? Even
compared to Bolet, Lewenthal, Cziffra, Brailowsky. . .? My personal
favorite is Jose Viana da Motta, a historical recording not recommendable
without caveat, for reasons of sound, but rather well transferred
by the defunct Dante (it had been one of their successes).
> So I have no problem with Brendel at all. Like every artist, his work
> stands or falls on its own merits, and each release needs to be listened
> to without prejudice or preconceptions.
Indeed. The first time I *listened* to a complete Beethoven Sonatas cycle
(the first time I owned one was when I got Maria Grunberg's) has been to
one of Brendel's, on the radio. I was a teenager still and the incredibly
bland music-making, sonata after sonata with almost no differentiation
between the pastoral, the humorous and the tragic, kept me far away from
Beethoven's music for a good while. . . until I got to hear single sonatas
played by Fischer, Kempff, Richter and Gilels. . .
> to the extent anyone here believes that Brendel MUST play Rachmaninov,
> or that he was wrong not to do so--that's ridiculous.
Believe it or not I agree with you. Had I felt a pianist played *only*
Schubert in an absolutely wonderful way, I'd have no troubles with his not
playing other composers. Had Haskil played only Mozart and nothing else,
I'd still cherish her uniquely masterful (as opposed to anemic, as some
perceive them) filigree Mozart recordings as precious possessions. After
all playing Rachmaninoff also has to do with handsize and it is ridiculous
to accuse a pianist of not having bigger or more elastic hands. What rubs
some of us in the wrong way though is this (perhaps unfair, but this is
how it comes through) "Priest of Music" flavor of "I am not playing that
because I am a superior spirit", rather than "I am not playing that
because I think I can't do enough justice to the music", which, for the
ones in the know(<:, it may actually be the case.
regards,
SG
Dan Koren
news:3c5bivglmkptmeg09...@4ax.com...
>
> Is the Liszt Sonata all about octaves?
>
Yes. Here:
"The Liszt Sonata is *ALL* about octaves.
*ONLY* octaves, *ALL* the octaves, and
*NOTHING* *BUT* the octaves!"
Happy now?
dk
Stephen McElroy
Samir Golescu <gol...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> Indeed. The first time I *listened* to a complete Beethoven Sonatas cycle
> (the first time I owned one was when I got Maria Grunberg's) has been to
> one of Brendel's, on the radio. I was a teenager still and the incredibly
> bland music-making, sonata after sonata with almost no differentiation
> between the pastoral, the humorous and the tragic, kept me far away from
> Beethoven's music for a good while. . . until I got to hear single sonatas
> played by Fischer, Kempff, Richter and Gilels. . .
The Brendel digital set was the only compact disc set available at the
UT Fine Arts Library for some years. It has been replaced by those of
Bernard Roberts and Richard Goode.
Stephen
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
It's better than that. It's "to die"!!!
Tom Deacon
Dan Koren
news:fpgbiv4ra73q3lg6u...@4ax.com...
>
Isn't that what Kapell did?
dk
Owen Hartnett
wrote:
Either you're with the octaves, or you're against the octaves.
-Owen
Simon Roberts
>
>
>
>> I also think his Liszt Totentanz with Haitink is unbeatable, for example
>
>It is very good, yes. Relatively passionate, as difficult as it is to
>associate this notion with Brendel.
Yes, it is - but he can show passion of sorts when the music or whatever it is
moves him. Many of his Haydn recordings (especially sonatas 58 and 60) are
superbly characterized. Too bad he plays Beethoven the way so many pianists
play Haydn....
[snip]
What rubs
>some of us in the wrong way though is this (perhaps unfair, but this is
>how it comes through) "Priest of Music" flavor of "I am not playing that
>because I am a superior spirit", rather than "I am not playing that
>because I think I can't do enough justice to the music", which, for the
>ones in the know(<:, it may actually be the case.
I'm not sure to what extent he or his fans are responsible for that impression.
Either way, I suspect that for every person who sneers at Brendel for his
limited repertoire (I didn't realize people did until I read this thread) there
are three who hold him in esteem for it, perhaps because of the "high priest"
thing (or perhaps just because they like how he plays it). Or perhaps because
that's what the critical establishment tells them to like. I sometimes get the
impression that the London-based press (are they flattered because, like
Perahia, he chose to live in London?) praise him reflexively; mere mention of
his name seems to induce an automitic praise-response (would the reactions have
been the same had they reviewed his set of the Beethoven concertos with Rattle
blind?). I'll never forget a Winterreise in Usher Hall at midnight at an
Edinburgh Festival a few years ago with Matthias Goerne accompanied by Brendel,
the former providing an extrovert, dramatic performance of considerable power
and imagination, Brendel utterly bland except when making finger slips in the
simplest passages (much to my surprise; I had not heard him live before).
Someone I mentioned this to provided the excuse that he was ill at the time,
which may well have been true. That didn't stop his fans, though; the applause
he received was deafening. As I was leaving, a couple of young twits on the
stairs behind me provided what sounded like a parody of British review-speak.
Goerne, one of them proclaimed, was no match for Ian Partridge - "such a
*natural* singer." "As for Brendel," replied the other with a pleased sigh,
"what *can* one say?" I bit my tongue....
Simon
>
>regards,
>SG
>
David Hurwitz
>stairs behind me provided what sounded like a parody of British review-speak.
>Goerne, one of them proclaimed, was no match for Ian Partridge - "such a
>*natural* singer." "As for Brendel," replied the other with a pleased sigh,
>"what *can* one say?" I bit my tongue....
>
>Simon
>
No argument from me on any counts, from either Samir or Simon. I was not aware,
though, before Deacon posted his Rachmaninov thing that Brendel "looked down" on
the music he does not play more than any other artist. I confess also that my
enjoyment of his Totentanz has as much to do with Haitink's unusually vivid
accompaniment as it does his piano playing, but together they pack quite a
punch.
We used to joke that Brendel played Liszt like Haydn, and Haydn like Liszt, and
like all gross generalizations there's a core of truth in it. I've never cared
for his Beethoven, but I think some of his Schubert is very good, and Mozart
too. I love his Weber Konzertstuck, and wish he'd explored much more of Weber's
seriously underrated piano music. I think it would suit him.
But that's not the point. It's fine to dislike him, or adore him, but it's not
exactly fair to single him out for his "attitude" when, not knowing him
personally, you can't really say what that attitude is (and I wouldn't take
Deacon as presenting it as Brendel himself would). Similarly, you may castigate
the British public and press as much as you please, but is that Brendel's fault,
and is that reason to attack HIM?
I know, Simon, you base your dislike on what you hear musically, and I know this
is true for Samir also. I'm not saying otherwise, but it seems to me that he
does come in for a tremendous amount of adverse criticism that is not entirely
the direct result of a recent experience of hearing him play, and often stems
rather from what others say, his perceived "reputation" in certain circles, and
other extra-musical phenomena. Certainly, he's done enough good work to deserve
to be taken seriously. Beyond that, to each his own!
Dave Hurwitz
Richard Schultz
: Rachmaninoff's music was regularly disabused by many musicians until
: very recently.
Then they realized that an entertaining lie truly is the highest form
of truth?
(Hint: this word "disabuse." I don't think it means what you think it means.)
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Dan Koren
news:280720032243021069%ow...@xids.xnet...
One should always follow the octaves! ;-)
dk
Ray Hall
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.03072...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu...
|
|
| "Garbage thought"? Watch that language, Mr Deacon! Arri and DK are taking
| notes now, and they make for good disciples! Of course I think that Alfred
| Brendel is a pianist who can hardly play Liszt Sonata. (For the record, I
| don't think he has the technique to play Beethoven at a truly great level
| either, but there he can hide better technical limitations behind supposed
| "depths" of interpretation.)
As opposed to Schnabel's well established technical deficiencies, and *his*
different (naturally) "depths" of interpretation?
Really Samir, there are times (most of them) when you just so transparent,
and biased, it is a wonder you haven't been blown away by the slightest
breeze, or by the murmuring of butterflies in an adjacent field.
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
See You Tamara (Ozzy Osbourne)
Ray, Taree, NSW
Ray Hall
news:3f25fd1c$1...@news.meer.net...
Especially in playing Scott Joplin's rags.
<g>
Ray Hall
It has always been "fashionable" in this newsgroup to knock Brendel. In
addition, I detect a nasty trend that seems to be creeping up on Bernstein
lately. I hope it doesn't become fashionable for Lenny to become the group's
newest whipping boy.
For some here, it is a question of remaining somewhat "in vogue" a la the
latest tenets of rmcr. Mustn't rock the boat, or many of the Elders will
become displeased.
Samir Golescu
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Dan Koren wrote:
> > > "The Liszt Sonata is *ALL* about octaves.
> > > *ONLY* octaves, *ALL* the octaves, and
> > > *NOTHING* *BUT* the octaves!"
> > >
> > > Happy now?
> >
> > Either you're with the octaves, or you're
> > against the octaves.
>
>
> One should always follow the octaves! ;-)
Especially when "on the double"! ( :
(Otherwise one could become too "transparent" even for the thickest of
skulls!)
regards,
SG
Samir Golescu
On 28 Jul 2003, David Hurwitz wrote:
> As I was leaving, a couple of young twits on the
> >stairs behind me provided what sounded like a parody of British review-speak.
> >Goerne, one of them proclaimed, was no match for Ian Partridge - "such a
> >*natural* singer." "As for Brendel," replied the other with a pleased sigh,
> >"what *can* one say?" I bit my tongue....
> >
> >Simon
> >
>
> No argument from me on any counts, from either Samir or Simon. I was not aware,
> though, before Deacon posted his Rachmaninov thing that Brendel "looked down" on
> the music he does not play more than any other artist. I confess also that my
> enjoyment of his Totentanz has as much to do with Haitink's unusually vivid
> accompaniment as it does his piano playing, but together they pack quite a
> punch.
True. It may also be that the importance of the Berliozian
orchestration makes the good recording, as well as the orchestral
brilliance and colorfulness, count as much as the piano playing itself.
> I know, Simon, you base your dislike on what you hear musically, and I know this
> is true for Samir also.
Thank you -- that is indeed the case. Incidentally, I like other less than
immaculate pianists a lot, when there is -- granted, subjective when it
comes to being appreciated -- some sweeping epical power which would make
one listener's concern with wrong notes seem petty-minded (such as Cortot
at his best). There's no one single standard artists are being held to, as
if they would apply for admittance in the Moscow Conservatory and play
scales for the jury. Reportedly Anton Rubinstein was playing with many
wrong notes, "dirty" (on purpose) pedalling etc. When the young Hofmann
tried to imitate him, an irritated Rubinstein told him to play all the
notes clearly. In short, imho there's nothing to be admired about bad
technique, ever. There are instances in which technical flaws can be
overlooked more easily because there are other parameters which, in more
or less subjective listener's estimations, make up for those.
> Certainly, he's done enough good work to deserve to be taken seriously.
Certainly yes. Also, while I think his attempts to poetry are little
short of atrocious, I found Brendel's essays -- e.g., his thoughts on
Fischer and Cortot -- clever, well-written and penetrating. This "priest
of music" business might not have originated with Brendel himself, but his
protesting some of the admirative cliches he's been impugned upon with
could have helped a bit. . . This nonsense with "priests of music" 'n'
stuff originated in piano history with, perhaps, Artur Schnabel,
continued with Claudio Arrau and others. I like their playing (more than
Brendel's, anyway) in spite of that, not because of that (disasters such
as Schnabel's opus 106 (i) notwithstanding). I also thought, for the little
that's worth, Schnabel's disdain for Chopin and others rather silly and
self-serving. I do not think any interpreter, ranging from consummate if
often bland professionals to people many music lovers consider geniuses,
is worth as much as or more than a great composer, be him Bach, Brahms or
even that so-called "waste of time" (provided the quote was correct),
Rachmaninoff-the-composer.
regards,
SG
Henk van Tuijl
<deac...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:u55biv8a981ie1ejs...@4ax.com...
> >> Music for Brendel is more than entertainment,
> >
> >As opposed to whom?
>
> As opposed to Horowitz, whose real "fach" was
encapsulated in his
> famous Carmen Variations.
Hmm, ... I have always believed that a
performance was entertaining or not. I
have never yet heard one that was MORE
than entertaining.
Nevertheless, it is interesting to hear
that you prefer Brendel to Horowitz and
to Ginsburg because of this MORE.
Not the Urtext but the MORE has now
become the touchstone.
In spite of the presence of this MORE
I cannot help NOT being a great admirer
of Brendel. There is no interpretation
known to me that I like.
On the other hand, in spite of the
absence of this MORE I cannot help
being a great admirer of Horowitz and
Ginsburg. I cannot stand Horowitz'
encores but there are very few more
entertaining interpretations of
Debussy, Faure, Poulenc, Barber,
Kabalevsky, etc. etc.
In art criteria like Urtext and MORE
make only sense to their creators, so
it seems.
Henk
Juergen Sack
> >
> >Moreover he treats Liszt as a serious composer, instead of a high wire
> >see. And then he plays all that dull music by Schubert, Mozart and
> >Beethoven.
> >
> >Tom Deacon
>
> And how is Brendel at all unique in this respect? Plenty of pianists treat Liszt
> as a serious composer (whether they should or not is a subject for another day),
> and I can't think of many artists on any instrument who do NOT believe that
> interesting artists than Brendel have also played Mozart, Schubert, and
> Beethoven in addition to Rachmaninov, Liszt, and others. So aside from a few
> well-worn clichés, is there anything here that tells us something meaningful
> about Brendel? I think not.
>
> make a distinction between what Brendel actually thinks and feels (which we do
> not really know), and what Deacon (who knows all, just ask him) SAYS that
> the importance of Brendel while simultaneously putting down other artists or
> points of view, strikes me as no more than "projecting" his own feelings onto an
> artist who he admires. And we shouldn't hold Brendel responsible for the
> infortunate fact that with friends like Tom, he certainly doesn't need enemies.>
I do agree to everything above.
In my article (dated Febr. 2000) I let Brendel play Chopin and Rach and
let him demonstrate that the C sharp minor prelude is no masterwork at
all... (unfortunately I did not get the English translation of this article
made by a British magazin, it is avlb in German and French only).
The most important fact is what Brendel was (and still is) feeling about
music and its composers.
And you may trust me when saying that Brendel will only play the music, HE
"is in need of". From his point of view he is conviced that the development
of classical piano music is not coming from Chopin and Schumann but from
Liszt and Schubert into the 20th/21st century (and therefore he may disregard
composers like Rachmaninov although he has played his works and/or knows
the scores).
That is his own opinion and I will have to allow it even if I may not agree
to him.
I do like Brendel very much but I do not like his latest recordings, that
he is only playing Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn and some Schumann works (again
and again, for years now) and that he is not prepared to change his programs
neither in the studio nor on stage.
Nobody can make me to buy his records if I don't like what I hear but I
do always accept an artist's considered opinion.
Rgds,
Juergen
article in German: http://www.jpsa.de/AB01.htm
article in French: http://www.jpsa.de/AB01fr.htm
Owen Hartnett
<hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> It has always been "fashionable" in this newsgroup to knock Brendel. In
> addition, I detect a nasty trend that seems to be creeping up on Bernstein
> lately. I hope it doesn't become fashionable for Lenny to become the group's
> newest whipping boy.
Lenny's been a regular whipping boy on here for years, along with Ozawa
and a few others.
-Owen
Simon Roberts
[snip]
>But that's not the point. It's fine to dislike him, or adore him, but it's not
>exactly fair to single him out for his "attitude" when, not knowing him
>personally, you can't really say what that attitude is (and I wouldn't take
>Deacon as presenting it as Brendel himself would).
Actually, if that is his attitude, I respect him for expressing it - it's not
fashionable these days to claim that some music is better than others.
Similarly, you may castigate
>the British public and press as much as you please, but is that Brendel's fault,
>and is that reason to attack HIM?
Of course not.
>
>I know, Simon, you base your dislike on what you hear musically,
I also base my admiration (limited though it may be) on what I hear; as I
mentioned, I love most of his Haydn recordings (I also like some of his Mozart
concerto recordings, should anyone care).
and I know this
>is true for Samir also. I'm not saying otherwise, but it seems to me that he
>does come in for a tremendous amount of adverse criticism that is not entirely
>the direct result of a recent experience of hearing him play, and often stems
>rather from what others say, his perceived "reputation" in certain circles, and
>other extra-musical phenomena.
I'm sure that's right. Much of the negative reaction to him and Perahia is in
part a reaction to what is perceived to be excessive praise from some quarters.
If they were not held in such extraordinarily high esteem by so many "opinion
makers", I suspect reactions to them would be different.
Simon
deac...@yahoo.com
It would be nice if all the statements made on a forum like this were
purely logical conclusions, Henk. They are, alas, not.
The problem I have with many posters here is the one of "exclusion". I
hate Brendel; he's a boob. I love Horowitz; he's a genius. Or, in fact
the opposite. If you take sides, you are on one or the other.
I prefer not to take sides.
Of course I love Horowitz. But not always and not in everything. Seems
to me he is a miniaturist and is best there.
I also love Brendel, a kind of opposite to Horowitz, you might say.
But I don't like him in everything. He, too, has music for which he
seems naturally gifted.
I don't, or wouldn't if I could, turn to Schnabel for Chopin and
Liszt.
Similarly, I don't turn to Horowitz for the Hammerklavier Sonata, or
works which require a real intellectual grasp. This failing in
Horowitz was something even Harold C Schoenberg was forced to admit.
To me it is obvious. But perhaps not to others. I don't know.
So, please allow for a modicum of "illogical" statements, and some
"overstatement" in the making of a point. There are, in fact shades of
grey, Henk. But in making a point, grey doesn't really work.
Tom Deacon
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
>
>> And now, as night follows the day, come all of the defensive remarks
>> about Josef Hofmann. Of course I knew it would happen. As someone once
>> remarked, anyone who needs so much defending.....
>
>You do mean Alfred Brendel, right -- that was the subject of this?
>
>
>> Really, Samir, this is a broken record.
>
>Well, dear Mr Deacon, as the apostle Paul used to say, it takes some
>chutzpah to talk about "broken record" in a glass house. . . (speak of
>mixed[-up] metaphors). .
Well, I have never lacked that quality, despite my obviously limited
background.
The very MOMENT the name of JH is mentioned, out come his defenders,
an shirty, strident, self-righteous bunch of well-meaning fans, full
of outrage that their hero's name has been taken in vain. .
>
>
>> >> Brendel doesn't adhere to the beautiful sound school of piano
>> >> playing. Hofmann et al.
>> >
>> >Hofmann didn't invent "beautiful" sound and he didn't have *one*
>> >"beautiful" sound.
>>
>> Right. He didn't invent it. And his "beautiful sound" is not the only
>> one which can be regarded as legitimate. Some people actually believe
>> - you don't of course - that Brendel has a beautiful sound.
>
>That's always possible. There's no accounting for taste. Chacun a son
>(de)gout.
I am so glad you have allowed for that.
Now, if only you would - and calmly and quietly - admit that some find
Josef Hofmann sadly lacking in musical abilities. (we do not question
his ability to play the piano, of course, just the music he makes with
those ten little magic fingers)
>
>
>> >> Moreover he treats Liszt as a serious composer, instead of a high wire
>> >> artist of the piano.
>> >
>> >Liszt has been treated by many greater pianists as a serious composer,
>> >long before Brendel ever broke his teeth in the compositions he never had
>> >the technique for.
>>
>> A complicated way of saying that you don't think Brendel could play
>> the Liszt Sonata, which is just a garbage thought. Stow it!
>
>"Garbage thought"? Watch that language, Mr Deacon! Arri and DK are taking
>notes now, and they make for good disciples!
A garbage thought is one that is worthless. Deserving of throwing
away. Which is precisely what I did with your remark and called it
that.
Of course I think that Alfred Brendel is a pianist who can hardly
play Liszt Sonata.
As I said, a garbage thought.
>
>
>> (I heard on a collector's tape a live Liszt Sonata from
>> >Brendel which was so full of wrong notes and so torturously deficient
>> >technically as to make for wondrous party material.)
>>
>> Do you think it might have been as full of wrong notes as Horowitz's
>> from the 1930s?
>
>
>Are you kidding me?? The Horowitz 1930s version (which by the way I don't
>like very much, on musical grounds) is the work of a fantastic virtuoso
>who gets a couple of wrong notes.
A couple! Are you joking? He rivals Cortot in wrong notes. It is just
embarrassing to listen to. Sloppy would be my word for it. I had
forgotten just how many notes he drops. Couple, indeed!
And musically sloppy as well, of course.
>> I will have to ask what the "hedonistic raison d'etre" of the Art of
>> Fugue, Op. 111, Schubert's Quintet, etc. are.
>
>Well, while you're asking, the very musical language (tonal at least) is
>based, among others, on our hearing's capacity of appreciating sensorially
>intervals, *tone*, chords, rhythms etc. Nobody is saying that the Art of
>the Fugue stops at that level, but it surely starts out from there. Nobody
>enjoys opus 111 like a kind of austere exercise in masochism, but perhaps
>as an extraordinarily beautiful sound-based structure the resonances of
>which ultimately transcends, without being separated from, the materiality
>of the sounds themselves. The genuine work of art is not an idea floating,
>devoid of corporeality in the realm of abstractions, not more than it
>would be a sensuous reality addressing senses alone. It is a *whole*
>incorporating "body", soul and spirit together in almost indiscernible
>ways.
Hmmmmmmm.
Does that mean there IS or IS NOT hedonistic value in Op. 111, that
it IS or IS NOT a "fun piece" like the Carmen Variations? Don';t
hedge on this one, Samir!
>> I really am not at all sure what you listen to or for in certain
>> pieces of music. It completely escapes me.
>
>I apologize for that. It surely must be my fault that what I listen for
>in music completely escapes you.
No reason to apologize. The fault is clearly mine. My imagination is
just not sufficient to understand your point of view, I think.
>
>> Is the Liszt Sonata all about octaves?
>
>In rmcr language, this is called a strawman. Nowhere did I say (or does
>anyone have the right to imply that I said) that Liszt's Sonata is "ALL
>about octaves".
Sorry, I was not aware that mcr had its own language. Are you saying
that I have to learn yet another language, Samir. Please not.
Of course I never said you said that. I am only taking your problems
with Brendel's "lack of technique" (HA!!!) in the Liszt Sonata one
step further. Since you only make vague assignations about Brendel's
"lack of technique", the reader is simply forced to expostulate some
possible reason. Personally I cannot imagine the technical weakness.
But I took a guess at what you MAY have been referring to.
But only YOU can articulate Brendel's technical weaknesses, which, so
far, you have not done. Except to say that some live performance you
heard somewhere on tape, seemed inadequate. Not good enough, Samir. He
has recorded the music many times, all available for scrutiny, and
many of us have heard him play it - without error, I seem to remember
- on more than one occasion. But go ahead, please point to the
purported weaknesses.
>
>> >> And then he plays all that dull music by Schubert, Mozart and Beethoven.
>> >
>> >Schubert, Mozart and Beethoven wrote no dull music.
>>
>> It was an ironic comment, Samir. I know that. But the critics of
>> Brendel are always hurling abuse at him because he plays all that dull
>> Schubert, Mozart and Beethoven, when what they really want are the musical trinkets that Hofmann
>> dispensed regularly.
>
>Well, well, well -- did I read something about a "broken record" in the
>beginning of this? This should bring us back -- I'd say Cesar Frank-like,
>but modesty forbids -- at the beginning of the cycle.
Well, you see, I was trying for a Liszt ian version of sonata form.
Cesar Franck (check your spelling, please) didn't really innovate that
idea.
Tom Deacon
deac...@yahoo.com
<David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
But I also believe that you're not helping the
>cause in "defending" him in such a fashion because you're not going the change
>any minds by denigrating either other pianists or the opinions of those who
>dislike Brendel, though of course you are perfectly free to do so if you wish.
>
>Dave Hurwitz
Taken on its own, this statement might well mean that nobody should
never have made any comments at all, in this or other cases. It is all
so pointless.
Of course, no minds will be changed. We are all stuck in our own
ideas. Too old to change. Or too unwilling. Whatever.
Tom Deacon
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>It has always been "fashionable" in this newsgroup to knock Brendel. In
>addition, I detect a nasty trend that seems to be creeping up on Bernstein
>lately. I hope it doesn't become fashionable for Lenny to become the group's
>newest whipping boy.
>
>For some here, it is a question of remaining somewhat "in vogue" a la the
>latest tenets of rmcr. Mustn't rock the boat, or many of the Elders will
>become displeased.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ray, Taree, NSW
I am happy you point this out, Ray. It is what I have called "group
think".
It applies to Brendel - or as DK so famously refers to him as, Brendul
- but also to others, maybe even to Josef Hofmann or Vladimir
Horowitz, or Artur Rubinstein, or Heifetz, or Toscanini, or
Furtwangler.
many in this group were not alive when Toscanini was GOD on earth as a
conductor. At least in North America, and when Klemperer was GOD on
earth as conductor in the UK. Furtwangler was a largely German think.
Now the situation is slightly reversed. Righting the balance, so to
speak. Who, today, talks about Toscanini as God, except his biographer
and, perhaps, Harris Goldsmith?
So, I, like you, hope that no "group think" takes over regarding
Leonard Bernstein. But, in fact, I would prefer that such monolithic
thinking does not apply to any artist. We should, I think, allow for
shakes of grey. At the very least, that would make Henk much happier.
Tom Deacon
David Wake
[snip]
> In my article (dated Febr. 2000) I let Brendel play Chopin and Rach and
> let him demonstrate that the C sharp minor prelude is no masterwork at
> all...
Interesting concept -- a performance of a work "demonstrating" that
the work is not good... How exactly did Brendel "demonstrate" this??
David
Johannes Roehl
>
> in...@jpsa.de (Juergen Sack) writes:
> [snip]
> > In my article (dated Febr. 2000) I let Brendel play Chopin and Rach and
> > let him demonstrate that the C sharp minor prelude is no masterwork at
> > all...
>
> Interesting concept -- a performance of a work "demonstrating" that
> the work is not good...
But Gould did this long before Brendel, wasn't that the concept behind
his Mozart and some of the Beethoven recordings (appassionata)?
Johannes
David Wake
So you think, because of Gould, that Mozart and Beethoven piano
sonatas are bad compositions?
David
deac...@yahoo.com
>If they were not held in such extraordinarily high esteem by so many "opinion
>makers", I suspect reactions to them would be different.
>
>Simon
It would seem to me a rather childish attitude to criticize a musician
because a large majority of music critics and the broad public seem to
like him or her.
It smacks of "bringing the man off his pedestal", "cutting him down to
size".
And he is certainly not responsible for the favourable opinions people
have of him.
Please not that I am not accusing you, Simon, of this attitude. But if
it is true, then it is quite reprehensible.
Tom Deacon.
deac...@yahoo.com
<dwake....@alumni.stanford.org> wrote:
Gould made his points well, as usual. But you don't have to aqree with
him. I certainly would not. Others are just amused. But it does and
has stimulated discussion of Mozart's sonatas without the usual
genuflections.
Incidentally, I doubt that Brendel would ever choose to perform a work
in order to prove that it is bad. Usually, he just ignores the piece,
as he has done with, say, the Brahms F minor sonata, whose last two
movements do not "convince" him. Discretion is the better part of
valour in these instances. Gould was just being Peck's Bad Boy! Always
out to "epater le bourgeois".
Tom Deacon
David Hurwitz
says...
>
>On 28 Jul 2003 15:59:29 -0700, David Hurwitz
><David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> But I also believe that you're not helping the
>>cause in "defending" him in such a fashion because you're not going the change
>>any minds by denigrating either other pianists or the opinions of those who
>>dislike Brendel, though of course you are perfectly free to do so if you wish.
>>
>>Dave Hurwitz
>
>Taken on its own, this statement might well mean that nobody should
>never have made any comments at all, in this or other cases. It is all
>so pointless.
>
Yes, but it is not taken on its own; it has context and specific meaning, so
this observation is pointless.
Dave Hurwitz
David Hurwitz
>I am happy you point this out, Ray. It is what I have called "group
>think".
>
Hmmmm. So it is "group think" when a number of people dislike Brendel, but it is
NOT group think if a number of people agree with you and like him? Sounds like a
double standard to me.
I've been hear a long time, and while I don't approve of using any artist as a
"whipping boy" for anything, I have noticed no homogeneity in the reationale
behind the dislike of Brendel expressed by individual members of this group.
Many do not like him; beyond that, each person has his specific reasons. I do
NOT see any indication that a large number of "followers" are taking that
position because it is fashionable, or because of peer pressure, or any larger
"group" dynamic.
In this, Tom, you are simply wrong, and really have not been here long enough to
form an educated opinion (not that this has ever stopped you before, of course).
Dave Hurwitz
Neil
>What's wrong with it is Brendel's CONDESCENDING ATTITUDE. He could
>have said Rachmaninoff's music is not for me or I'm not that type of
>pianist. Clearly by saying "it would be a waste of time" he's
>condemning the music as inferior. IMO Brendel's pianism would benefit
>from playing Rachmaninoff well. He lacks fluidity IMO which is why
>his playing has never really been appealing to me.
Maybe he believes Rachmaninov is a pile of sentimental junk ? Why not. I feel
much the same about many baroque composers.
John Gavin
> "Akiralx" <aki...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bg31p0$ogb$1...@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
> >
> > Barenboim also avoids Rachmaninov's piano music - I think he regards it as
> > like the stuff Clayderman plays.
> >
>
> It all depends on who plays him. I wonder if he has ever heard Ricther or
> Sofronitsky play Rachmaninov. They certainly are not lacking in the
> intimate side but they more than most bring a strength and purpose to this
> music.
I saw a telecast years ago of Barenboim playing the Tchaikovsky PC#1.
Based on that, we can count our blessings that he stays away from
Rachmaninov.
By the way, didn't he come out with a recording of part of Iberia
fairly recently? Interestingly, with all the recent discussion of
Iberia here, his name barely came up at all.
I just don't buy the ANGLE - Barenboim regards Rachmaninov's music as
classical Clayderman - Brendel doesn't "waste his time" with
Rachmaninov - I think the unflattering translation is that neither
pianist has the right kind of chops for it so by condescending to it
they create a cover for their deficiencies.
What is Brendel implying? That Horowitz, Rubinstein, Ashkenazy,
Gilels, Richter etc. wasted their time, but he simply can't.?
How often you hear terms like "he plays Liszt as a SERIOUS composer" -
he is a "musician FIRST and a pianist SECOND". "He brings out the
LYRICAL elements in the Tchaikovsky 1st". At least half the time
those are code phrases for "TECHNICALLY DEFICIENT". Rachmaninov
himself made a comment to that effect regarding these descriptions of
pianists.
Henk van Tuijl
"John Gavin" <dag...@comcast.net> schreef in
bericht
news:77a67936.03072...@posting.google.c
om...
> How often you hear terms like "he plays Liszt as
a SERIOUS composer" -
> he is a "musician FIRST and a pianist SECOND".
"He brings out the
> LYRICAL elements in the Tchaikovsky 1st". At
least half the time
> those are code phrases for "TECHNICALLY
DEFICIENT". Rachmaninov
> himself made a comment to that effect regarding
these descriptions of
> pianists.
Indeed, in relation to Cortot's Chopin
Etudes. IIRC he told Horowitz that
Cortot's interpretation was "very
musical".
Henk
Steve Emerson
wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2003 05:29:41 -0700, Simon Roberts <sd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> >If they were not held in such extraordinarily high esteem by so many "opinion
> >makers", I suspect reactions to them would be different.
Very much so. And BTW I don't object to this gambit at all.
> It would seem to me a rather childish attitude to criticize a musician
> because a large majority of music critics and the broad public seem to
> like him or her.
I don't think it *is* childish. It comes from a desire to provide a sort of
corrective; never mind that the audience for this corrective is limited so
that pragmatically it serves little purpose. As long as no actual falsehoods
are claimed, it seems to me perfectly legitimate. Beyond that, I think it's
disingenuous to claim there's anything childish or novel here -- it goes on
constantly, as much in mass-media criticism as anywhere else.
> It smacks of "bringing the man off his pedestal", "cutting him down to
> size".
It really doesn't have anything to do with "the man." It has to do with his
currency.
> And he is certainly not responsible for the favourable opinions people
> have of him.
Not at all. But if the press elevates a musician to a high pantheon wherein,
in this case, Brendel would sit alongside the likes of Schnabel, Rachmaninoff
the pianist, and Richter -- then the rest of the world is right to evaluate B.
according to extremely exacting standards.
Incidentally, I like a fair number of Brendel's recordings. But I don't see
his stature being akin to Schnabel's etc. Nor would I (sorry to bring it up)
accord him three volumes' worth of a 100-volume Great Pianists of the Century
series.
> Please not that I am not accusing you, Simon, of this attitude. But if
> it is true, then it is quite reprehensible.
That's absurd.
SE.
deac...@yahoo.com
<David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>I am happy you point this out, Ray. It is what I have called "group
>>think".
>>
>
>Hmmmm. So it is "group think" when a number of people dislike Brendel, but it is
>NOT group think if a number of people agree with you and like him? Sounds like a
>double standard to me.
Not at all, Dave.
No point in driving a valid observation to an absurdity.
Since I rarely find anyone agrees with me anyway, I might even say
that everyone is part of the "group think". Not so.
However, when I detect a general 'trend" of opinion, supported and
fuelled by ridicule by DK as well as lengthy rationalization of same
by Samir, I am confronted with what I call "group think".
Interesting also is the silence from the supporters of Brendel, most
of whom have either been chased away, or are simply afraid to be
subjected to endless ridicule by other members of this group.
It could also be called "bully think", if you prefer.
But remember, it is simply my opinion, Dave, however much you would
perhaps prefer me not to state it and it may quite possibly not be
yours. Which all makes no never mind, of course, one way or the other.
I have noticed it in other groups as well. Maybe from some of the
same posters. Almost fashionable.
Seems not to have infected his audience at large, however, which is a
good sign.
Tom Deacon
deac...@yahoo.com
>
>I just don't buy the ANGLE - Barenboim regards Rachmaninov's music as
>classical Clayderman - Brendel doesn't "waste his time" with
>Rachmaninov - I think the unflattering translation is that neither
>pianist has the right kind of chops for it so by condescending to it
>they create a cover for their deficiencies.
The conclusion is not at all logixal, John. It may be what YOU would
like to think. But there is no substance for making the comment.
Horowitz once told Schnabel: "You should play Liszt, you know. You
really COULD!!!"
Imagine Schnabel's reaction! Imagine Horowitz's arrogance.
Tom Deacon
Samir Golescu
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 deac...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> Brendel doesn't adhere to the beautiful sound school of piano
> >> >> playing. Hofmann et al.
> >> >
> >> >Hofmann didn't invent "beautiful" sound and he didn't have *one*
> >> >"beautiful" sound.
> >>
> >> Right. He didn't invent it. And his "beautiful sound" is not the only
> >> one which can be regarded as legitimate. Some people actually believe
> >> - you don't of course - that Brendel has a beautiful sound.
> >
> >That's always possible. There's no accounting for taste. Chacun a son
> >(de)gout.
>
> I am so glad you have allowed for that.
>
> Now, if only you would - and calmly and quietly - admit that some find
> Josef Hofmann sadly lacking in musical abilities. (we do not question
> his ability to play the piano, of course, just the music he makes with
> those ten little magic fingers)
Well, one's ability to change the subject is second only to one's ability
to childishly use the "if you beat my pianist I'll beat yours" gambit, which
is, intellectually speaking, verrry clever indeed. Nothing said about
Hofmann or Horowitz (who might have had their limits or not) could be of a
nature to make Brendel seem less of a mediocrity to anybody who's been
exposed to some truly great pianism, who has not been Brendel's producer,
and who has not been married to Brendel.
> >> I will have to ask what the "hedonistic raison d'etre" of the Art of
> >> Fugue, Op. 111, Schubert's Quintet, etc. are.
> >
> >Well, while you're asking, the very musical language (tonal at least) is
> >based, among others, on our hearing's capacity of appreciating sensorially
> >intervals, *tone*, chords, rhythms etc. Nobody is saying that the Art of
> >the Fugue stops at that level, but it surely starts out from there. Nobody
> >enjoys opus 111 like a kind of austere exercise in masochism, but perhaps
> >as an extraordinarily beautiful sound-based structure the resonance of
> >which ultimately transcends, without being separated from, the materiality
> >of the sounds themselves. The genuine work of art is not an idea floating,
> >devoid of corporeality in the realm of abstractions, not more than it
> >would be a sensuous reality addressing senses alone. It is a *whole*
> >incorporating "body", soul and spirit together in almost indiscernible
> >ways.
>
> Hmmmmmmm.
>
> Does that mean there IS or IS NOT hedonistic value in Op. 111, that
> it IS or IS NOT a "fun piece" like the Carmen Variations? Don't
> hedge on this one, Samir!
It is not about "hedging", Mr Deacon. If all one understands through
hedonism is "fun" and if one is unwilling or incapable to understand a
simple high art-respecting concept such as "sublimation of the instinct of
pleasure", in which concept neither the "sublimation" nor the "pleasure"
can stand on their own, there's little left for me to do, really.
By the way, any attempt to compare Brendel's technical shortcomings --
which many of us who heard him live have painfully experienced (see Mr
Roberts' posting in which he testifies to Brendel being unable to play,
with a score in front of him, the technically simplest accompaniment to a
Schubert lied) -- to the occasional slip of a technical magician such as
Horowitz, who could, when on, play with his left hand better than Brendel
with all four feet, surely qualifies for the best attempt to musical
comedy since the dear Victor Borge departed to make the angels laugh.
This is all quite fascinating. Fun and entertaining too. Little
"sublimation" in it though, but who's counting?
regards,
SG
Samir Golescu
On 29 Jul 2003, John Gavin wrote:
> I just don't buy the ANGLE - Barenboim regards Rachmaninov's music as
> classical Clayderman - Brendel doesn't "waste his time" with
> Rachmaninov - I think the unflattering translation is that neither
> pianist has the right kind of chops for it so by condescending to it
> they create a cover for their deficiencies.
>
> What is Brendel implying? That Horowitz, Rubinstein, Ashkenazy,
> Gilels, Richter etc. wasted their time, but he simply can't?
That is what bothered me too. It wasn't "I don't feel close to
Rachmaninoff's [Chopin's, Tchaikovsky's etc.] music" but (impliedly) "*I*
live in the ethereal spheres of the Greatest and Most Spiritual Music". It
is as if just spending time with Mozart, for better or for worse, and
keeping away from "lesser" musical cultures would make one the spiritual
equal or heir of Mozart. Not really, I fear. Playing Beethoven
(mediocrely, methinks) doesn't make one a new Beethoven.
One can feel that the Great Past Germans are central to the repertoire and
to the higher spiritual meaning music can bear, without thinking that
Polish, Russian, French or Spanish music was a "waste of time". More often
than not, somebody who avoids them is not someone who could play them
easily and extraordinarily well while chooses not to do so, but rather
someone who lacks the stylistic, emotional, color and temperamental
resources necessary to play them at a high level. No big deal, nobody has
to do it all well, but don't pontificate on those who can do it well.
Incidentally, I think that from less less comes -- in translation, keeping
oneself "pure" for the "purest" music is of a nature to lead to an
impoverished interpretation of that very High German Music itself! The
Great Germans didn't claim for themselves "purrrity" and isolation --
intercultural exchanges may have not been as easy and broad as they are
now, but the Great Germans *were* at least episodically interested in
"foreign", "exotic" rhythms, harmonies and melos.
regards,
SG
David Hurwitz
>However, when I detect a general 'trend" of opinion, supported and
>fuelled by ridicule by DK as well as lengthy rationalization of same
>by Samir, I am confronted with what I call "group think".
Since when do DK and Samir constitute a "trend", and to what extent can you
demonstrate that they are "trend-setters?" They seem merely to be speaking for
themselves, as they have every right to do. As I noted previously, you have no
idea what the "trend" is, not having been here long enough to judge. But you can
of course define "group think" however you please, as long as we understand that
this definition is yours alone and has no basis in reality.
>
>Interesting also is the silence from the supporters of Brendel, most
>of whom have either been chased away, or are simply afraid to be
>subjected to endless ridicule by other members of this group.
I have noted no such silence. I am often a "supporter" of Brendel, at least
selectively, and several others have posted in this thread supporting him, his
right to play what he wants, treating him quite respectfully. Haven't you been
reading this thread? Or do you only follow the bits that concern you directly?
Why should anyone be afraid of anyone or anything that is said here pro or con?
How are DK or Samir browbeating anyone who expresses a contrary opinion? The
fact that many here do not like Brendel is simply that--a fact. It is not
indicative of any more significant application of psychological pressure or
intolerance to those with contrary views, and I think your view of this matter
once again only reveals something about you: notably your unwillingness to grant
others the same independence of thought that you seem to take such pride in
yourself.
>
>But remember, it is simply my opinion, Dave, however much you would
>perhaps prefer me not to state it and it may quite possibly not be
>yours.
That it is your opinion is beyond question; it's just nice sometimes when
opinions are supported by facts, or even by knowledge and experience. Of coure
they don't have to be, but then don't be suprised that others suggest that your
"opinion" has little value as a contribution to the discussion at hand.
Dave Hurwitz
Simon Roberts
says...
>
>However, when I detect a general 'trend" of opinion, supported and
>fuelled by ridicule by DK as well as lengthy rationalization of same
>by Samir, I am confronted with what I call "group think".
A "general trend of opinion" plus ridicule from A plus a "lengthy
rationalization" from B = "group think"? Some group. If you had been around
this ng for more than a couple of weeks and witnessed the disagreements over
pianists between DK and Samir.....
>
>Interesting also is the silence from the supporters of Brendel, most
>of whom have either been chased away, or are simply afraid to be
>subjected to endless ridicule by other members of this group.
>
>It could also be called "bully think", if you prefer.
It *could* be, but there's no reason to support use of the phrase. How could
you possibly know what the reasons are why more Brendel supporters don't chime
in? Do you know how many Brendel supporters read this ng? How many, like me,
have mixed opinions? Anyway, if you think no-one stands up to those you think
are bullies, you're mistaken.
>But remember, it is simply my opinion, Dave, however much you would
>perhaps prefer me not to state it and it may quite possibly not be
>yours. Which all makes no never mind, of course, one way or the other.
>I have noticed it in other groups as well. Maybe from some of the
>same posters. Almost fashionable.
>
>Seems not to have infected his audience at large, however, which is a
>good sign.
Good sign of what?
Simon
Dan Koren
news:hvqcivk3pmm3vep78...@4ax.com...
>
> I also love Brendel, a kind of opposite to
> Horowitz, you might say. But I don't like
> him in everything. He, too, has music for
> which he seems naturally gifted.
>
The only problem being he isn't gifted for
the keyboard.
dk
Samir Golescu
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Dan Koren wrote:
> > I also love Brendel, a kind of opposite to
> > Horowitz, you might say. But I don't like
> > him in everything. He, too, has music for
> > which he seems naturally gifted.
>
> The only problem being he isn't gifted for
> the keyboard.
Now I can't let that one pass -- that's patently unfair! When young at
least, AB definitely was more gifted for the keyboard than for music!!
regards,
SG
Samir Golescu
> > > I also love Brendel, a kind of opposite to
> > > Horowitz, you might say. But I don't like
> > > him in everything. He, too, has music for
> > > which he seems naturally gifted.
> >
> > The only problem being he isn't gifted for
> > the keyboard.
>
> Now I can't let that one pass -- that's patently unfair! When young at
> least, AB definitely was more gifted for the keyboard than for music!!
. . . It was only later on that the technique started to blissfully
catch up with the musicianship.
regards,
SG
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
No I can't let that one pass, either, That's patently unfair (in
addition to being untrue). When old, AB was more gifted for music than
for the keyboard. HE IS OVER 70! By which time I expect you to be
pushing up daisies, or clipping coupons, or playing bingo!
Just joking. But you get my point.
Tom Deacib
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
- you don't of course - that Brendel has a beautiful sound.
>> >
>> >That's always possible. There's no accounting for taste. Chacun a son
>> >(de)gout.
>>
>> I am so glad you have allowed for that.
>>
>> Now, if only you would - and calmly and quietly - admit that some find
>> Josef Hofmann sadly lacking in musical abilities. (we do not question
>> his ability to play the piano, of course, just the music he makes with
>> those ten little magic fingers)
>
>Well, one's ability to change the subject is second only to one's ability
>to childishly use the "if you beat my pianist I'll beat yours" gambit, which
>is, intellectually speaking, verrry clever indeed.
I'll make you a deal, Samir. I won't change the subject, if you
refrain from taking back a compliment once offered, as in the prior
eqregious examples of damning with faint praise regarding Mr. Brendel
and his age and his technique and his musicianship.
Deal?
Tom Deacon
deac...@yahoo.com
<David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>However, when I detect a general 'trend" of opinion, supported and
>>fuelled by ridicule by DK as well as lengthy rationalization of same
>>by Samir, I am confronted with what I call "group think".
>
>Since when do DK and Samir constitute a "trend", and to what extent can you
>demonstrate that they are "trend-setters?" They seem merely to be speaking for
>themselves, as they have every right to do. As I noted previously, you have no
>idea what the "trend" is, not having been here long enough to judge. But you can
>of course define "group think" however you please, as long as we understand that
>this definition is yours alone and has no basis in reality.
All thought is opinion, Dave, as is yours, and has little if any
"basis in reality".
>
>
>>
>>But remember, it is simply my opinion, Dave, however much you would
>>perhaps prefer me not to state it and it may quite possibly not be
>>yours.
>
>That it is your opinion is beyond question; it's just nice sometimes when
>opinions are supported by facts, or even by knowledge and experience.
Oh, but why bother with those. You never have? At least not that I can
discern.
Tom Deacon
deac...@yahoo.com
>In article <5pcdivg4rn07d993q...@4ax.com>, deac...@yahoo.com
>says...
>>
>>However, when I detect a general 'trend" of opinion, supported and
>>fuelled by ridicule by DK as well as lengthy rationalization of same
>>by Samir, I am confronted with what I call "group think".
>
>A "general trend of opinion" plus ridicule from A plus a "lengthy
>rationalization" from B = "group think"? Some group. If you had been around
>this ng for more than a couple of weeks and witnessed the disagreements over
>pianists between DK and Samir....
Indeed. Strange bedfellows. One can, I think, actually play the piano.
The other, only in his dreams..
Tom Deacon
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Now, I think we are getting at what is really sticking in the craw of
some members of this group.
Brendel looks down his nose at Rachmaninoff and his ilk. He doesn't
play the Grieg Concerto. Neither does Uchida. Or Ashkenazy. Neither
does Richard Goode. or a host of others.
I, personally, find that rather silly, and limiting. Particularly as
they all want to play the Schumann Concerto and pairing it with the
Grieg is just a no brainer. But always impossible for them.But more
than that, I like the Grieg Concerto (I am trying to stay away from
Rachmaninoff for a moment, as his music is of a particular nature,
which some musicians find off-putting) and find that it needs no
defense at all, but obviously these otherwise normal, respected
musicians have different views. They just won't touch the piece.
Part of me says: Fine. Better that they not play something they don't
like.
The problem comes when they express their reasons for their avoidance
of music they don't like.
And here is what is rubbing people the wrong way.
Brendel says Rachmaninoff would be a "waste of time" for him.
The imeediate reaction is a defensive one. "Oh, but he is putting down
something I like. So he is putting down MY taste in music. What an
arrogant snob!"
Or, even worse: " Well, you can tell from his comments that he can't
PLAY Rachmaninoff; hasn't got the chops. What an incompetent boob! To
hell with him and his blessed Schubert, Beethoven and Mozart. What a
limited musician"
Perhaps Brendel meant something like the following - I don't know, of
course, only guessing: "I don't play Rachmaninoff, because learning
all that music - and all those notes - would not give me the same
satisfaction I get from learning this little Schubert Sonata.
I would find no problem with that attitude. I don't read James Joyce.
It would be a waste of my time to read it; I have tried it and don't
care for it. So, I read Proust instead. Anything wrong with Joyce in
my statement. No. Just that for me, I would be wasting my time and
energy on something I don't like. And there is SO much literature our
there I WOULD enjoy.
As for technique: any pianist who can play the Busoni Fantasia
Contrapuntistica, Beethoven's Hammerklavier, the Liszt Sonata,
Islamey, Petroushka, Moussorgsky's Pictures, etc. etc. can play
anything written for the instrument IF HE WANTS TO BOTHER TO LEARN IT!
But, he doesn't want to learn Rachmaninoff. He will not waste his time
with it. Instead he wastes his time with Schubert, Beethoven and
Mozart, or, in his opinion, he spends his time more valuably with
those composers.
All of this would seem fairly easy to understand, providing one had a
generally charitable attitude towards the musician in the first place,
taking him at his word, giving him credit for intelligence and
honesty, as well as technical ability and musicianship. Samir, of
course, doesn't even give AB the last two, so his comments are doubly
suspicious.
Tom Deacon
David Hurwitz
>All thought is opinion, Dave, as is yours, and has little if any
>"basis in reality".
>>
A nice evasion of the simple fact that you have not been here long enough to
observe anything substantial, let alone a "trend" such as you describe it.
>
>>
>>That it is your opinion is beyond question; it's just nice sometimes when
>>opinions are supported by facts, or even by knowledge and experience.
>
>Oh, but why bother with those. You never have? At least not that I can
>discern.
>
That, Tom, is hardly an answer to the salient points, first, that you have no
evidence for a "trend" in this ng as you describe it; second, that you refuse to
recognize the "pro" or at least "tolerant" of Brendel comments in this very
thread since their existence threatens the validity of your contention; and
third, that there's a genuine double standard inherent in the accusation that
the group of Brendel detractors are witless lemmings being bullied into "group
think," while Brendel supporters are happily "unifected" or uninfluenced by any
such thing.
I understand that as you believe all thought has "little if any basis in
reality" you probably think that these points need not be addressed or even
acknowledged at all. That's OK. Just keep on as you are; I'm very happy to let
people draw their own conclusions on that basis or even join you in your
alternate universe.
David Hurwitz
David Hurwitz
>Indeed. Strange bedfellows. One can, I think, actually play the piano.
>The other, only in his dreams..
>
>Tom Deacon
Note the complete avoidance of any direct answer to the points that Simon
raises. Typical.
In fact, I think I see a trend here, in this very ng. Tom says something. Others
attempt to respond. Tom then tries to change the subject or at all events avoid
answering in any logical, rational, or meaningful way. Is he a victim of a
particularly virulent case of "group think?"
Dave Hurwitz
Ray Hall
news:pa7divo390m7h2nf9...@4ax.com...
Indeed (although you obviously need edjukating about them Baroque fellas). I
cannot for the life of me see why Brendel should have to entertain playing
Rachmaninov, when he is so obviously endeared of Beethoven, Schubert,
Mozart, and Haydn. There is a world of difference between these composers
and Rachmaninov, and Brendel wouldn't be the first to say, (couched in as
many words), that he thought Rachmaninov junk.
Rachmaninov belonged to a completely different world as a composer. As
listeners, we can range far and wide in our tastes, but often a top
performer just cannot. That is one of the big differences between Brendel
and ourselves.
Curiously, for me, I do sometimes wonder why Brendel didn't record and play
more Bach. A fact I would be interested in hearing why, from the man
himself. Besides, who doesn't get a warm fuzzy sense of fun, with Brendel's
mug and spectacles, assuming odd poses on the covers of CDs.
<g>
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
See You Tamara (Ozzy Osbourne)
Ray, Taree, NSW
Ray Hall
news:j8qdivcl1vmpds1r8...@4ax.com...
Only doubly? Not troubly? Your words are wasted on Samir, who is at this
moment constructing a Brendel doll, in which to stick infected pins into,
whilst embracing his only truly worthwhile doll. Ann Coulter.
Nothing like a reformed communist, is there?
Samir Golescu
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 deac...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>However, when I detect a general 'trend" of opinion, supported and
> >>fuelled by ridicule by DK as well as lengthy rationalization of same
> >>by Samir, I am confronted with what I call "group think".
> >
> >A "general trend of opinion" plus ridicule from A plus a "lengthy
> >rationalization" from B = "group think"? Some group. If you had been around
> >this ng for more than a couple of weeks and witnessed the disagreements over
> >pianists between DK and Samir....
>
> Indeed. Strange bedfellows.
Well, speaking of strange bedfellows, I notice that you made fresh
admirers in the lunatics from the antipodes whom the baby-kangaroos have
a great time laughing at. . . I wish I could envy this "accomplishment"
but I can't.
> One can, I think, actually play the piano.
> The other, only in his dreams..
The one who can actually plays the piano must be Dan for all I know. . .
however, this is besides the point. We express ourselves as music
listeners here anyway, not in the way of "I can do it better".
regards,
SG
deac...@yahoo.com
<David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>I understand that as you believe all thought has "little if any basis in
>reality" you probably think that these points need not be addressed or even
>acknowledged at all. That's OK. Just keep on as you are; I'm very happy to let
>people draw their own conclusions on that basis or even join you in your
>alternate universe.
>
As they wish, Dave. It matters not to me.
For someone like you, it must seem natural to care what others think
of you. It may, in fact, be paramount among your concerns, given that
your livelihood depends upon people reading the pearls of wisdom that
you dispense. Hence the endless treatises on "what it takes to be a
critic". Yeah, sure! Tell us, Dave. Please give us another pearl. And
shall we all applaud together. Now, a-one, a-two, a-three. Sounds like
Lawrence Welk without the kitsch.
Fine.
Personally, I am not here for people to "evaluate" my opinions. I
don't know them. They don't know me. And that includes yourself. So
why should I need my opinions "validated". And by whom? Dan Koren?
PUHLEEZE! Spare me.
So, I prefer to treat a place like this in a more abstract way, Dave.
What we write is all just words. They may, or may not, represent what
I, Tom Deacon, think about anything. That is of no matter to me. They
are just words in the ether. It may be to you, in view of your
position. But it is not a concern for me. In fact, I don't think it
ever has been, Dave. I am perhaps the most unself-conscious person I
know! LOL!
What you write here, what I write here, is not going to change the
meaning of life. It is not going to end world hunger or poverty among
black Americans. Or advance the cause of women in society. (Ever
notice how few women post here, Dave? Significant, in my opinion. They
wouldn't put up with the childish one liners or the pompous
pseudo-psychological mumbojumbo that is common fare here.)
You are right. I have not been here long. What a relief! I see that it
has not made you a better person, nor has it improved Mr. Koren's
manners, not to speak of his "taste" in music, such as it is. So,
please don't throw up the "You haven't been here long enough to know
what is going on" routine.
You know, one month in prison would pretty much give one a clear idea
of the lay of the land. Check out OZ. I don't think this place is any
different, actually. Very similar.It doesn't take long to figure out
who are the "bad guys" and who are the "good guys" and who are the
ones hanging back to see the way the wind blows.
Tom Deacon
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
>> One can, I think, actually play the piano.
>> The other, only in his dreams..
>
>The one who can actually plays the piano must be Dan for all I know. . .
>however, this is besides the point. We express ourselves as music
>listeners here anyway, not in the way of "I can do it better".
Did I suggest that you were "rivals"?
Tom Deacon
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Well I am not sure Samir was a real Communist. Anyone who likes Benno
Moiseiwitsch needs to be cut a little slack, in my opinion. Perhaps he
just wisely kept his head down during that terrible period.
Tom Deacon
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>Curiously, for me, I do sometimes wonder why Brendel didn't record and play
>more Bach. A fact I would be interested in hearing why, from the man
>himself. Besides, who doesn't get a warm fuzzy sense of fun, with Brendel's
>mug and spectacles, assuming odd poses on the covers of CDs.
><g>
>
>Regards,
)
>
>Ray, Taree, NSW
There is not a single person I know at Philips who would not have
liked to ahve more Bach from AB. I am sure it came up in discussions
more than once. And there was even, according to my sources, talk of
the Goldberg Variations. But it never came to anything, so far as I
know.
AB picks and chooses what he records and plays. And why not, I say?
Incidentlaly, someone suggested that AB was embarking on another
'complete" Mozart concerto cycle. I am not sure that is the case.
Initially, he only wanted to redo the ones he had altered his views
on. And so far, I think we have had about 6 or so new versions. But i
am not sure that ALL of the rest will follow.
But things may change, or may have already changed. But he alone will
know for sure.
Tom Deacon
Samir Golescu
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 deac...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Nothing like a reformed communist, is there?
>
> Well I am not sure Samir was a real Communist.
That's very generous of you!. . .
However, it would be even more generous to not even dignify silly blather
with responses. The very suggestion that I had anything to do with that
murderous ideology (other than being born in a country confiscated by it
and learning of its consequences first-hand) would be irresponsibly
slanderous, if not for considering the source, case in which one can't
help but be overwhelmed by an earnestly felt pity.
> Anyone who likes Benno Moiseiwitsch needs to be cut a little slack, in
> my opinion.
Well, I wait for you to cut me that slack in an instance I will actually
need it, such as my criticisms of Brendy. ( :
This "defense" reminds me of the tabloid journalism which offers
politicians the "opportunity" to defend themselves: "tell us, Senator,
what do you have to say about the allegations regarding your having
murdered your wife and beaten your dog?" "what allegations, Mister, I have
never heard of any!" "well, you might not have heard of them, but we are
going to press tomorrow and still have a blank page!"
regards,
SG
Samir Golescu
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 deac...@yahoo.com wrote:
[reasonable -- why can't they always be?. . . -- thoughts snipped]
> All of this would seem fairly easy to understand, providing one had a
> generally charitable attitude towards the musician in the first place,
> taking him at his word, giving him credit for intelligence and
> honesty, as well as technical ability and musicianship.
Yeah, I've been somewhat exceedingly mean, while not untrue to how I
basically feel about the pianist. To be honest, I'd love to hear more of
the qualities Brendel the thinker/the man etc. seems to have in the
immediateness of his playing. I'd like to hear a phrase that would evoke
-- without imitating -- Edwin Fischer's universe, in the way Conrad Hansen
could. Perhaps others do hear this and others. However, we've spent
enough or too much virtual ink on all this.
regards,
SG
David Hurwitz
says...
>
>On 29 Jul 2003 14:59:03 -0700, David Hurwitz
><David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I understand that as you believe all thought has "little if any basis in
>>reality" you probably think that these points need not be addressed or even
>>acknowledged at all. That's OK. Just keep on as you are; I'm very happy to let
>>people draw their own conclusions on that basis or even join you in your
>>alternate universe.
>>
Tom wrote:
>As they wish, Dave. It matters not to me.
Boy is that a lie. You can tell by the inverted phraseology and pseudo-Handelian
syntax. It's a dead giveaway. You behave towards people here like J. Edgar
Hoover did towards his supposed list of enemies and subversives. But of course,
you have better taste in lingerie.
>
>For someone like you, it must seem natural to care what others think
>of you. It may, in fact, be paramount among your concerns, given that
>your livelihood depends upon people reading the pearls of wisdom that
>you dispense. Hence the endless treatises on "what it takes to be a
>critic". Yeah, sure! Tell us, Dave. Please give us another pearl. And
>shall we all applaud together. Now, a-one, a-two, a-three. Sounds like
>Lawrence Welk without the kitsch.
If it "matters not" to you what others think, why are you here? After all, by
your own logic it should also "matter not" to us what you think, and that being
the case, what do you gain, or we gain, by sharing your non-reality based
opinions? Of course, the very idea is complete nonsense. If everyone here
greeted you with the reverence that you seem to feel is your due (based on you
chronic complaints about the way your feel that you are treated) you'd be
lapping it up like a thirsty man lost in the Sahara stumbling across a water
hole. Goodness, you are so transparent!
>
>Personally, I am not here for people to "evaluate" my opinions. I
>don't know them. They don't know me. And that includes yourself. So
>why should I need my opinions "validated". And by whom? Dan Koren?
>PUHLEEZE! Spare me.
That's a question you need to answer for yourself. Personally, I believe you
derive your "validation" from feeling that you are misunderstood and attacked by
those whose intelligence you need to believe is inferior to your own--you
flatter yourself in thinking that you are a lone voice shouting in the wind,
defending your contrary "opinions" from whatever enemies you have imagined
oppose you. Actually, it's rather sick, but really fairly obvious.
>
>So, I prefer to treat a place like this in a more abstract way, Dave.
>What we write is all just words. They may, or may not, represent what
>I, Tom Deacon, think about anything. That is of no matter to me. They
>are just words in the ether. It may be to you, in view of your
>position. But it is not a concern for me. In fact, I don't think it
>ever has been, Dave. I am perhaps the most unself-conscious person I
>know! LOL!
Um, I think I'll let the above speak for itself.
>
>What you write here, what I write here, is not going to change the
>meaning of life. It is not going to end world hunger or poverty among
>black Americans. Or advance the cause of women in society. (Ever
>notice how few women post here, Dave? Significant, in my opinion. They
>wouldn't put up with the childish one liners or the pompous
>pseudo-psychological mumbojumbo that is common fare here.)
Why, then, do you? Or are you really trying to tell us that you are actually a
new, hardier breed of woman?
>
>You are right. I have not been here long. What a relief! I see that it
>has not made you a better person, nor has it improved Mr. Koren's
>manners, not to speak of his "taste" in music, such as it is.
Actually, we all have excellent taste in music; we love the classics. The rest
is merely a matter of detail. That's the one thing about which I think everyone
here would agree, and it's what makes comments like that so utterly stupid.
>So,
>please don't throw up the "You haven't been here long enough to know
>what is going on" routine.
I will use it as appropriate. People have a right to tell you when you are
simply wrong, when you pretend to knowledge you don't have, or when you make
claims that you can't substantiate for lack of experience, knowledge, wisdom, or
any combination of the three. You will of course ignore these observations.
Bully for you. You keep ignoring them, and some here will keep on pointing them
out because they are true and all of the BS you spout about the meaninglessness
of it all won't change that reality.
>
>You know, one month in prison would pretty much give one a clear idea
>of the lay of the land. Check out OZ. I don't think this place is any
>different, actually. Very similar.
And lucky for you, given your well-known fondness for rough trade. Good grief
Tom! For someone who doesn't care about anyone else's opinion, you're taking
this to the extremes of hyperbole that make you sound seriously disturbed, or
wounded, or both. The hysterial tone of your prose speaks far more eloquently
its rather confused substance.
>It doesn't take long to figure out
>who are the "bad guys" and who are the "good guys" and who are the
>ones hanging back to see the way the wind blows.
>
And this from a person who for whom the opinion of others is irrelevant! I think
the above exercise in twisted logic, panorama (oops--I mean "paranoia"), and
well, pathetic bravado, makes your position as clear as it can be. I'm glad you
decided to come clean and let everyone here know how important they are to you,
why you are here, and what you hope to achieve by sharing your opinions with the
rest of us.
Dave Hurwitz
Ray Hall
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.03072...@ux13.cso.uiuc.edu...
|
| On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 deac...@yahoo.com wrote:
|
| > >>However, when I detect a general 'trend" of opinion, supported and
| > >>fuelled by ridicule by DK as well as lengthy rationalization of same
| > >>by Samir, I am confronted with what I call "group think".
| > >
| > >A "general trend of opinion" plus ridicule from A plus a "lengthy
| > >rationalization" from B = "group think"? Some group. If you had been
around
| > >this ng for more than a couple of weeks and witnessed the disagreements
over
| > >pianists between DK and Samir....
| >
| > Indeed. Strange bedfellows.
|
| Well, speaking of strange bedfellows, I notice that you made fresh
| admirers in the lunatics from the antipodes whom the baby-kangaroos have
| a great time laughing at. . . I wish I could envy this "accomplishment"
| but I can't.
I presume you mean all the baby kangaroos who had the misfortune to read
that garbage post of yours, about THE GREAT GERMAN ARTIST, and the rest of
that ludicrous load of codswallop, that you trot out and play on your
virtual 78 rpm blathering machine.
Sorry Samir, but your GREAT POST gave me my morning giggle for the day too,
as well as the baby kangaroos you seem so endeared to all of a sudden
(actually called "joeys" to be precise), and in memory of a well known
comedian who recently passed away, I am assured that you have restored the
humour quotient for this sad world in which you obviously live in.
We await with enormous delectation the posts which refer to THE GREAT
FRENCH, ENGLISH, AMERICAN, AUSTRIAN, ITALIAN, FINNISH, DUTCH [substitute
NATIONALITY] ARTIST. But we won't hold our breath. Will we?
Dan Koren
news:p04eivovc8gctpdg3...@4ax.com...
I think it is high time for Brendull to retire.
He has polluted the world of music more than
anyone has a right to.
Let him go to Nepal and become a Buddhist monk.
The taste of yak butter will remind him of his
own performances and make him atone for them.
dk
Samir Golescu
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 deac...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >One can feel that the Great Past Germans are central to the repertoire and
> >to the higher spiritual meaning music can bear, without thinking that
> >Polish, Russian, French or Spanish music was a "waste of time". More often
> >than not, somebody who avoids them is not someone who could play them
> >easily and extraordinarily well while chooses not to do so, but rather
> >someone who lacks the stylistic, emotional, color and temperamental
> >resources necessary to play them at a high level. No big deal, nobody has
> >to do it all well, but don't pontificate on those who can do it well.
> >Incidentally, I think that from less less comes -- in translation, keeping
> >oneself "pure" for the "purest" music is of a nature to lead to an
> >impoverished interpretation of that very High German Music itself! The
> >Great Germans didn't claim for themselves "purrrity" and isolation --
> >intercultural exchanges may have not been as easy and broad as they are
> >now, but the Great Germans *were* at least episodically interested in
> >"foreign", "exotic" rhythms, harmonies and melos.
>
> Now, I think we are getting at what is really sticking in the craw of
> some members of this group.
>
> Brendel looks down his nose at Rachmaninoff and his ilk. He doesn't
> play the Grieg Concerto. Neither does Uchida. Or Ashkenazy. Neither
> does Richard Goode. or a host of others.
>
> I, personally, find that rather silly, and limiting.
Well, as I said, as long as one plays really outstandingly well the music
one plays, there's no reason to force any repertoire on one's throat. If I
liked Alfred's Beethoven more than I do, I would certainly not look for
his Rachmaninoff or Debussy or Albeniz.
Anyway, not to prolong this more than it's been prolonged already, thanks
for at least having easily understood the ironic tone of my "Great
Germans" post, which post of course, when read by anybody who made it to
high school, was making fun of the phony idea that playing only the "Great
Germans" would bring some kind of metaphysical aura on the head of the
performer, by default. You got my meaning and I appreciated that.
In other instances, it gets truly boring when one has to explain the
obvious to the underaverage. Even if a good Christian should be patient
with the needy.
regards,
SG