Stravinsky in Travesty

[Herman]

I know some people are very attached to Hurwitz' youtube reviews, and I understand why. Someone whom you see on video a lot becomes a kind of imaginary friend. Some people call him 'Big Dave', I don't know why.
Recently I chanced upon Hurwitz talking about a new Simon Rattle cd, with the three early Stravinsky ballets, played by the LSO. These cds were recorded live, with Rattle conducting the three ballets in a single concert. That's pretty amazing, but it's what orchestras effortlessly do these days. Used to be orchestras had a hard time performing just one of these pieces.

The concert was in 2017 and I recall reviews saying it was a great night and, naturally, with such an hectic program, there were some ups and downs. Same with the reviews of the cd, with one exception, i.e. Hurwitz, who slaughters the cd in the most brutal terms.
One feature of this review really bugs me. Hurwitz illustrates his points with musical examples, that is, he sings (for instance) the opening of the Sacre in a funny voice with a "gotta puke" face. Of course we're intended to think this is how the record sounds, but of course it doesn't. It's a parody. Or maybe I should just say, it's a travesty.
Previously (I seem to recall a Sibelius review) Hurwitz was able to play audio bits while holding up the cd-booklet for the camera, so technically there is no reason why he would not play the Sacre opening for us, so we could hear what it really sounds like, and decide for ourselves. But I guess he thought it was more fun to do it like this.
I think it's unethical.
I also couldn't help but notice that every single Rattle review on Hurwitz channel is negative. Even a video with 'ten best recordings' by Rattle starts with an extensive prologue on some terrible new development in the recording industry which Hurwitz call the Conductor Shuffle. Go and look it up yourself, but it's a totally nonsensical setup that's only constructed in order to make Rattle look bad, because he has recorded with various orchestras, like all conductors have done since the beginning of time.
So I guess this fine Stravinsky cd was another opportunity to trot out the shoot-rattle-guns.

[Gerard]

Op 2022-12-02 om 12:59 schreef Herman:

A lot of people regard his 'slaughters' as actual recommendations, and
sometimes they are simply right; he likes to slaughter now and then, and
he has a few of usual victims.
(The opposite also happens: some of the recordings he praises to heaven
contain mediocre and forgettable music.)

Re playing audio bits, that is another story. He has permission of only
a few labels (Naxos e.g.) to use their recordings in his videos.
Nevertheless he encounters a lot of trouble by Youtube, while he can
prove that he has all required rights to use fragments from recordings
of those labels.

[Herman]

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 1:34:42 PM UTC+1, Gerard wrote:
>
>
> Re playing audio bits, that is another story. He has permission of only
> a few labels (Naxos e.g.) to use their recordings in his videos.
>

That's funny. The entire Stravinsky CD is on youtube, in Rattle's channel. However, no matter how you slice it, the singing is just no good. Obviously it bears not the slightest resemblance to what's on the CD.

I should add that I could not in any way be identified as a Simon Rattle fan. I think he's a good conductor, but not very compelling. I suspect he's very well liked by the orchestra. I have maybe two or three of his CDs. My OP was about bad criticism.

And, yes, I know writing negative reviews creates admiration in some quarters. I seem to recall, for instance, the marcsman upbraiding Mandryka for never being negative, never rejecting music or performers. It was unmanly.

[Frank Berger]

I looked through whatever other reviews of the Rattle disc I could find. A couple were unqualified raves. The others (3 or 4, I think) were qualified, but positive. These all mentioned a certain lack of excitement or blandness, and a lack of storytelling. One said the playing was too fast, one too slow. I haven't listened to Hurwitz's review, but I can imagine being incensed by a bland Rite. What would be the point of that?

[Herman]

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 5:11:32 PM UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:


> I looked through whatever other reviews of the Rattle disc I could find. A couple were unqualified raves. The others (3 or 4, I think) were qualified, but positive. These all mentioned a certain lack of excitement or blandness, and a lack of storytelling. One said the playing was too fast, one too slow. I haven't listened to Hurwitz's review, but I can imagine being incensed by a bland Rite. What would be the point of that?

From what I've seen I get the impression that there is some dissatisfaction over L'oiseau. Petrushka everybody loves, and in the Sacre Rattle would could as a specialist, or rather, a conductor who's done the Sacre a lot.
Hurwitz' problem with the Sacre is that it doesn't sound the way he's used to. The bassoon solo at the start is too plaintive. I could imagine this is how the bassoon soloist feels about it, and Rattle said okay, have at it. In Europe, woodwind soloists get a lot of leeway, and rightly so.
This is the part Hurwitz sings with a whiney voice.
The thing with Stravinsky is that orchestras / conductors don't perform his music anymore the way Bernstein did in 1960. It's not all raw and rhythm anymore. There is more focus on beauty.

[Frank Berger]

Hurwitz sings occasionally to remind the viewer of the melody he is talking about at the time. The fact that he has no voice does not prevent me from recognizing the melody. If I were to do that, you probably couldn't recognize the melody. That's how badly I sing. Though the tone of my voice is more pleasant than Hurwitz's. I don't get why you think it's such a big deal.

[Herman]

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 6:38:42 PM UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> Hurwitz sings occasionally to remind the viewer of the melody he is talking about at the time. The fact that he has no voice does not prevent me from recognizing the melody. If I were to do that, you probably couldn't recognize the melody. That's how badly I sing. Though the tone of my voice is more pleasant than Hurwitz's. I don't get why you think it's such a big deal.

Nothing is a big deal. However, the singing here was not to 'remind' viewers of the what's going on.
No, he says: 'it's really bad, 'cause they do it like this,' and sings.
Just check out the vid.

[mINE109]

On 12/2/22 10:58 AM, Herman wrote:

> Hurwitz' problem with the Sacre is that it doesn't sound the way he's
> used to. The bassoon solo at the start is too plaintive. I could
> imagine this is how the bassoon soloist feels about it, and Rattle
> said okay, have at it. In Europe, woodwind soloists get a lot of
> leeway, and rightly so.

The opening can show the relative merits of French and German bassoons.
The effect could simply reflect the choice of instruments.

"Too plaintive" fits with one description:

https://www.orchestralbassoon.com/stravinsky-rite

Of the opening, Stravinsky writes, “My idea was that the Prelude should
represent the awakening of nature, the scratching, gnawing, wiggling of
birds and beasts.”

[Herman]

I'm waiting for Arri to comment, but I'm pretty sure the opening of the Sacre is a big thing for every bassoonist and no one plays this as if they don't care, which is more or less what Hurwitz is suggesting.

[Graham]

On 2022-12-02 1:35 p.m., Herman wrote:
> I'm waiting for Arri to comment, but I'm pretty sure the opening of the Sacre is a big thing for every bassoonist and no one plays this as if they don't care, which is more or less what Hurwitz is suggesting.

And it's not as if the LSO hasn't played this many times before.

[Notsure01]

On 12/2/22 6:59 AM, Herman wrote:
> I know some people are very attached to Hurwitz' youtube reviews, and I understand why. Hurwitz, who slaughters the cd in the most brutal terms.

> One feature of this review really bugs me. Hurwitz illustrates his points with musical examples, that is, he sings (for instance) the opening of the Sacre in a funny voice with a "gotta puke" face. Of course we're intended to think this is how the record sounds, but of course it doesn't. It's a parody. Or maybe I should just say, it's a travesty.

> I think it's unethical.
> I also couldn't help but notice that every single Rattle review on Hurwitz channel is negative. Even a video with 'ten best recordings' by Rattle starts with an extensive prologue on some terrible new development in the recording industry which Hurwitz call the Conductor Shuffle. Go and look it up yourself, but it's a totally nonsensical setup that's only constructed in order to make Rattle look bad, because he has recorded with various orchestras, like all conductors have done since the beginning of time.

I've recently watched quite a few Hurwitz videos, and have found that I
agree with him more often than not. But I certainly concur that this one
is over-the-top: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjRpJaYRyqg

I get it that sometimes being outrageous makes things interesting, but
although I can see - and mostly agree with - the points he is making, he
is too negative here.

I think that as Hurwitz has achieved - rightly - acclaim for his
industry in producing so many valuable videos he has become less
inhibited. Not that I know this from personal experience (!) but after
getting constant praise (check out the YT comments) some perspective is
lost - this is fondly called the "Shit Gold" syndrome.

I just listened to the Rite LSO performance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkwqPJZe8ms

I agree with the criticism of Rattle in general. To me what is lacking
in his performances is a sense of momentum, of the music going
somewhere. It is generally episodic, there is a weak pulse, climaxes are
not achieved, etc...

That said, I also note the attention to phrasing - which is also
valuable - and although (as was pointed out in this thread) the LSO has
played this work before, I give Rattle credit for the accuracy and
balance of the playing.

But aside from the gratuitous nastiness, what bothers me about this
review is the implicit assumption that there is only one correct way of
interpreting the Rite - savage and vehement.

Sure, that is what one would want for a reference recording - something
like Markevitch or Bernstein NYP.

But there should be a case for different approaches also. One of the
things that has puzzled me over the years is the general acceptance of
reinterpretation of Opera productions.

If we can have a performance of Parsifal set among Orangutans in a
forest in Borneo, why can't we have a Rite performance that lets us
appreciate the details of scoring?

[Dan Koren]

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 4:34:42 AM UTC-8, Gerard wrote:
>
> Re playing audio bits, that is another story. He
> has permission of only a few labels (Naxos e.g.)
> to use their recordings in his videos. Nevertheless
> he encounters a lot of trouble by Youtube, while he
> can prove that he has all required rights to use
> fragments from recordings of those labels.

One can always use or refer to recordings are
already available on YouTube posted by others,
as well as by record labels themselves, so this
isn't much of a limitation.

dk

[Herman]

On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 12:34:23 AM UTC+1, Notsure01 wrote:
>
>
> I think that as Hurwitz has achieved - rightly - acclaim for his
> industry in producing so many valuable videos he has become less
> inhibited. Not that I know this from personal experience (!) but after
> getting constant praise (check out the YT comments) some perspective is
> lost - this is fondly called the "Shit Gold" syndrome.
>

Have you looked comments under classical music in general? They're always effusively positive. The admiration of youtube junkies is relentless and you can't do anything wrong.

[Notsure01]

I agree with you. Best would be a balance - and certainly we could use
less negativity here at RMCR!

I admit that I am one of the prime culprits - I just finished scoffing
at "imaginative" Opera Production after all - and have definitely been
known to be critical at times.

If I may muse philosophically (and there is no stopping me) being
critical is really a required prerequisite for RMCR. If we were all
satisfied with just any good performance -- then there would be nothing
to discuss!!

[Herman]

I wasn't suggesting youtube comments should be more negative. It's just that there seem to be a lot of inexperienced needy people on youtube.
A typical youtube response under a music video is "this is so great. the best ever. my dad died died twenty years ago, and this was his favorite music..."

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <4b5023b9-c360-4c2e...@aol.com>,

Notsure01 <docdu...@aol.com> wrote:
>If we were all satisfied with just any good performance -- then
>there would be nothing to discuss!!

There are many works where I'd be happy to have any good performance.
Maybe someday.

It's when people want to nitpick among good performances that I
sometimes feel less interested....

[Herman]

On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 3:51:02 AM UTC+1, Todd M. McComb wrote:
>
>
> It's when people want to nitpick among good performances that I
> sometimes feel less interested....

and particularly so when it concerns an Ever Shrinking Fraction of the entire repertoire. So.... endless discussions about the Best Chopin Raindrop, or the All Time Best Waldstein. A shootout among ten fifty-year old Pathetiques.

[raymond....@gmail.com]

One of the reasons I ignore YouTube comments. If you read the tennis comments on YouTube it is even more ridiculous.

I think however that is only fair to be able to criticise, because we are in the game of comparisons for a lot of music that is over-produced, over-played, and over-recorded. On its own, hearing the notes played perfectly might well be enough. But it isn't. With so much music recorded in good sound over the last 60 years, covering a whole gamut of artists, soloists and ensembles, in many recordings. then I fail to see why the new kid on the block should necessarily garner enthusiastic reviews, unless it is warranted. Invariably, from my own experience, reviews tend to be more forgiving than not. As if this means anything anymore !!

Not that Sir Rattle is a new kid, but he has never really threatened any of my favourites (mostly orchestral or small ensemble), but then I could say the same thing about some other conductors. Rattle is a good orchestral trainer, and for many this might be enough. I happen to think the Dude is more impactful, but he hasn't broken through in my collection yet, but he might/could threaten.

Ray Hall, Taree

[Herman]

On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 4:56:08 AM UTC+1, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I think however that is only fair to be able to criticise, because we are in the game of comparisons for a lot of music that is over-produced, over-played, and over-recorded.

And over-discussed?

>On its own, hearing the notes played perfectly might well be enough. But it isn't. With so much music recorded in good sound over the last 60 years, covering a whole gamut of artists, soloists and ensembles, in many recordings. then I fail to see why the new kid on the block should necessarily garner enthusiastic reviews, unless it is warranted.

It's not like anyone has ever died from listening to St Martin in the Fields. Many people will share the experience of being blissfully happy as young listeners discovering, say, Beethoven in recordings we were later told to be subpar.
Comparison listening is not nearly as happy a pursuit. It's often born of anxiety and wanting to fit in.

>
> Not that Sir Rattle is a new kid, but he has never really threatened any of my favourites

I largely agree.

[Gerard]

Op 2022-12-03 om 01:54 schreef Herman:

I don't know about Youtube in general how comments are filtered or
moderated by channel owners. But in case of "uncle Dave" I know that he
'sometimes' removes unwelcome comments on his videos and 'sometimes'
blocks people on his channel. So what rests is mainly positive.

[Andrew Clarke]

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 10:59:15 PM UTC+11, Herman wrote:
> I know some people are very attached to Hurwitz' youtube reviews, and I understand why. Someone whom you see on video a lot becomes a kind of imaginary friend. Some people call him 'Big Dave', I don't know why.

I am responsible for the 'Big D' epithet, which refers to (a) the fact that Mr Hurwitz does not appear to be dying of malnutrition (b) the epithet given to certain black American blues singers of similar or even greater girth, e.g. Big Joe Turner or Big Mama Thorton (c) the nicknames given to certain American cities, like The Big Apple or The Big Easy (d) the lyrics of the only memorable song from a mostly forgotten (I think) Broadway musical called 'The Most Happy Fella', that is:

'You're from Big D,
I can guess,
From the way you drawl and the way you dress,
You're from Big D,
My oh yes,
You're from Big D, little 'a' double 'l' 'a'
Big D, little 'a' double 'l' 'a' 's"

Of course, nobody could possibly sound less like a Texan than Dave.

I've also been known to refer to Mr Hurwitz as 'Dave the Dude' after a character in the Broadway stories of Damon Runyan, who, with The Brain, who comes to a sticky end, is the only one of Ru8nyan's petty crims and horse players who appears to have wo brains to rub together.

> Recently I chanced upon Hurwitz talking about a new Simon Rattle cd, with the three early Stravinsky ballets, played by the LSO. These cds were recorded live, with Rattle conducting the three ballets in a single concert. That's pretty amazing, but it's what orchestras effortlessly do these days. Used to be orchestras had a hard time performing just one of these pieces.
>

The moment I see the name of (a) Sir Simon Rattle or (b) any HIP ensemble in any review by Dave the Dude, I stop reading. What's the point? What amazes me is that the man is fifteen years younger than myself, when it's me that's enthusiastic about the new generation of conductors and their orchestras, like Les Siecles and the Sinfonia of London, while I get the impression that Dave still looks back to the classical music world of the 1960s and 1970s, the Golden Age of recordings. And yes, it was a golden age - I think that's beyond dispute. But the world of classical music has moved on since then.

Mr Hurwitz, like many other Americans, seems to have some kind of hang-up about 'The Gramophone' which he has said, in one of his You Tube reviews, publishes 'rave review after rave review' about Rattle. Now, I don't subscribe to The Gramophone, and probably never will. But I very much doubt that it publishes nothing but rave reviews about Rattle: indeed its 'Recordings of the Month' seem to be very generous towards the products of non-British artists produced by non-British record companies. I don't subscribe to that August journal is not because their reviews are biassed towards British products, it's because so many reviews by their port-and-cigars critics have been fatuous to say the least.

Incidentally, My Son The Trombonist* read somewhere that Stravinsky preferred the lighter, more reedy sound of the French Buffet system bassoon in the opening of Le Sacre, rather than the now universal German system instrument which has a bigger sound and is, I've read, easier to keep in tune.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

C.f. the stout middle-aged lady running up and down the beach at Coney Island shouting, "Help, help, My Son The Doctor is *drowning*!'

[Herman]

Andrew, you have every right to speak of Big Dave, for whatever reasons, haha.

Really like your post. Sorry your son took to the trombone, but I guess it's too late now...

Of course Stravinsky wrote that opening page to the Sacre in 1912 or something, when today's German style bassoons did not exist in this form. I suspect some wind players change instruments according to the music they're going to perform; it's what they do in Amsterdam. I remember Bernstein being all agog at a VPO horn player who had 22 different horns to choose from, and this was the seventies!

[Andy Evans]

On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 23:34:23 UTC, Notsure01 wrote:
> But aside from the gratuitous nastiness, what bothers me about this review is the implicit assumption that there is only one correct way of interpreting the Rite - savage and vehement. Sure, that is what one would want for a reference recording - something like Markevitch or Bernstein NYP. But there should be a case for different approaches also....

Absolutely. I'm no fan of Bernstein in Stravinsky and he'd be far from my reference. The conductor I do like in the Sacre is Seiji Ozawa. What he has is marvellous timing and a mastery of syncopation. The last pages are tremendous, and swing like the Basie band. No other recording does this. Mind, this is the Chicago SO and I'm sure a lot of the brass section can play jazz.

[sci.space]

I have a problem with audio only versions of ballets I have seen, miss the stage action that was intended to be the reason for the music to exist. At the moment my favorite L'Oiseau is the Blue ray conducted by Gergiev. Yes, I know we are not supposed to like Gergiev, but the production is stunning. It accompanies a Rite. Both use recreations of the original sets, costumes and choreography, guess it is HIP. The Joffrey Rite also uses the original production. think it was the first in a long time, but the audio and video quality is not great.

[Andrew Clarke]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 12:26:53 AM UTC+11, sci.space wrote:
> I have a problem with audio only versions of ballets I have seen, miss the stage action that was intended to be the reason for the music to exist. At the moment my favorite L'Oiseau is the Blue ray conducted by Gergiev. Yes, I know we are not supposed to like Gergiev, but the production is stunning. It accompanies a Rite. Both use recreations of the original sets, costumes and choreography, guess it is HIP. The Joffrey Rite also uses the original production. think it was the first in a long time, but the audio and video quality is not great.

I have exactly the same problem with opera. The only audio we have is to play in the car. Mind you, video of some ballets can be fairly uninspiring in my opinion unless you're a fan of endless jetees, arabesques, entre chats etc. The first act of Coppelia seems to go on forever without all that much happening. At least in the production I'm watching, we can enjoy Osbert Lancaster's wonderful set designs. On the other hand, I can enjoy totally 'abstract' ballet like this one:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCh_b8Lu20>

One of the big advantages of being Streaming Seniors, or Digital Dotards if you will, is that we can watch these works in fine performances without having to travel and pay huge ticket prices, we can spread the performance out over two or more evenings if we get fatigued, and that if we don't like it at all we can just switch off!

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

[Al Eisner]

This discussion of a Hurwitz review of the early Stravinsky ballet
music got me to rechecking his two-year-old survey of "Sacre" recordings.
I thought I had remembered this correctly: Ozawa/Chicago was one of
his top two, perhaps just a shade below Chailly/Cleveland. (He does
also like the early Bernstein, however).

--
Al Eisner

[Al Eisner]

I agree his singing does convey the melody, although it occasionally
drives me up a wall; it's best if relatively brief. He has repeatedly
mentioned he once sang in a choir, and he recognizes his voice isn't
what it once was, but still.... It would be great if he could get
permission from more labels to play excerpts, but as Gerard has
noted they have not, I presume they, or their lawyers, do not
want even full youtube videos quoted out of context, especially not
when in conjunction with criticism. That, even though in his specific
case, his illustrations/singing is almost always to illustrate the
music - this Rattle example (I have not heard it) is apparently
an exception.

DH does make clear his views (or prejudices) on certain conductors:
Mackerras (almost always yes), Neeme Jarvi (generally yes), Rattle
(generally no). and so on. Does this matter, so long as any
prejudices are far from hidden? ANd they are not absolute. Atter
recently listening to a recording of "The Bells" I was curious as to
his recommendation: at least as of a year ago, it was overwhelmingly
for Rattle/BPO, which he noted had shocked him.
--
Al Eisner

[Al Eisner]

On Fri, 2 Dec 2022, Notsure01 wrote:

> If we can have a performance of Parsifal set among Orangutans in a forest in
> Borneo, why can't we have a Rite performance that lets us appreciate the
> details of scoring?

Are you concerned that with that remark you have managed to demolish
your own case?
--
Al Eisner

[Al Eisner]

It has been suggested to me that my parenthetical "or prejudices" is
unwarranted. I agree; "taste" is probably better.
--
Al Eisner

[Notsure01]

Am I concerned - no - and I don't know why anyone would get particularly
excited about any of the goings-ons at RMCR!

But I guess I was unclear - it wouldn't be the first time - or just
being equivocal - that's why I'm NotSure - but I guess you are seeing a
contradiction between my criticisms of Rattle's performance and my
remark supporting different approaches in interpretation?

My point is that the nasty reaction of Hurwitz is not called for - and I
can say the same about his review of Rene Jacobs Schubert that I opined
about a month ago. For well known works for which we have umpteen
excellent performances already, we should be encouraging the trying of
different approaches.

Personally, I don't care for Norrington's Berlioz or Glenn Gould's
Mozart sonatas, but why don't have to buy them and the record companies
are the ones that then would suffer.

I did suffer through the early, abrasive HIP recordings, but now that
performers have matured I'm glad we had those pioneers who tried
different approaches.

As I said in the Jacobs thread:"And shouldn’t the vitriol be reserved
for those routine performances
that are so common? Those that are perfectly played - but lifeless, have
phrasing without inflection, lack dynamic contrasts, and have all the
notes - but no personality".

I know that Rattle doesn't seem like much of an original thinker or
visionary, and it would have been fine to give him a tepid review - not
the scolding that was delivered.

[Herman]

On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 10:31:21 PM UTC+1, andrewc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Mind you, video of some ballets can be fairly uninspiring in my opinion unless you're a fan of endless jetees, arabesques, entre chats etc. The first act of Coppelia seems to go on forever without all that much happening. At least in the production I'm watching, we can enjoy Osbert Lancaster's wonderful set designs.

Although Coppelia was a Paris ballet originally, I'd say the below is the best video version for both music and ballet. But of course Coppelia is, together with Sleeping Beauty the most balletsy ballet, an ode to petit allegro steps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE2fjFMag7E

[Herman]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 12:45:10 AM UTC+1, Al Eisner wrote:
>

> DH does make clear his views (or prejudices) on certain conductors:
> Mackerras (almost always yes), Neeme Jarvi (generally yes), Rattle
> (generally no). and so on. Does this matter, so long as any
> prejudices are far from hidden?

Of course it matters, especially if the carping on the British or those funny Europeans is intended to win over the viewers, 'I'm the honest guy here.'
DH is totally in Chandos' pocket as showed again by picking the Scottish National as one of the world's top orchestras - an orchestra he's never come close of hearing live and whose sound (as DH knows it) is 100% a Chandos creation.

[Dan Koren]

On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 6:01:21 PM UTC-8, Notsure01 wrote:
>
> My point is that the nasty reaction of Hurwitz is not called for -

Are you suggesting people should hold their opinions privately
and never publish them unless and until they are "called for"?

DH has the same rights as everyone else to speak about what
he likes, or dislikes, or agrees with, or doesn't agree with, as any
other person on this planet (and the rest of the galaxy as well).

And he does this honestly, openly and fairly, unlike trolls who
hide like you behind catchy pseudonyms. Agree or disagree
with what people say, but refrain from claiming anyone's
opinions are "uncalled for". This is the very essence of
cultural, social and political censorship.

ROTTEN IDIOT !!!

dk

[Herman]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 5:09:42 AM UTC+1, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> ROTTEN IDIOT !!!
>

The reality of this locale is that absolutely no one is allowed to speak his mind or voice an opinion but you.
Absolutely no one. Voicing an opinion here other than "Dick is so right" means you're going to get blasted, shouted at and vituperated.

[Herman]

Your malignant narcissicism also means that there is no topic on RMCR, no matter how dull or unpianistic, but it is eventually going to be taken over by your caps lock yelling and shouting.
Caps lock is the universal sign of online pathology.

[Dan Koren]

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 3:59:15 AM UTC-8, Herman wrote:
> I know some people are very attached to Hurwitz' youtube reviews,

> .....
> So I guess this fine Stravinsky cd was another
> opportunity to trot out the shoot-rattle-guns.

You just wasted a lot of words to accuse a
reviewer of prejudice in a way that implies
effectively that all listeners should share
the same views, listen to music the same
way, and subscribe to the same shared
belief system. This is either stupid, or
disingenuous, or both.

Music critics review recordings through
their own ears and musical taste -- just
like everyone else, so your criticism is
pointless. If one needs evaluations or
recommendations for recordings by
others, one can simply get them from
reviewers who share their taste.

You have clearly engaged in a mission
to eliminate from this ng opinions and
people who do not comply with your
own "musical morality" standards by
alleging others' opinions are "naughty",
"negative" or "prejudiced". Guess what,
so are your opinions (and Melmoth's,
Gerard's, Oscar's, and everyone else's).

R.m.c.r. is not a court of law, it is a
forum for open discussion. Please
do make an urgent appointment
with your shrink.

dk

[Dan Koren]

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 11:47:32 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
>
> The opening can show the relative
> merits of French and German bassoons.

Racist! ;-)

Aren''t all bassoons created equal? ;-)

dk

[Dan Koren]

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 3:34:23 PM UTC-8, Notsure01 wrote:
>
> I get it that sometimes being outrageous makes things
> interesting, but although I can see - and mostly agree
> with - the points he is making, he is too negative here.

By what/whose standards ?!?

dk

[Dan Koren]

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 4:54:17 PM UTC-8, Herman wrote:
> On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 12:34:23 AM UTC+1, Notsure01 wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think that as Hurwitz has achieved - rightly - acclaim for his
> > industry in producing so many valuable videos he has become less
> > inhibited. Not that I know this from personal experience (!) but after
> > getting constant praise (check out the YT comments) some perspective is
> > lost - this is fondly called the "Shit Gold" syndrome.
> >
> Have you looked comments under classical music in general?
> They're always effusively positive. The admiration of youtube
> junkies is relentless and you can't do anything wrong.

Are you sure? Have you read my comments on YouTube?

You are as always painting with a brush bugger than
the planet, and insinuating other people's opinions are
uninformed (or less informed than yours) or unfair or
prejudiced or disingenous or what not. Please do

[Dan Koren]

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 7:56:08 PM UTC-8, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Not that Sir Rattle is a new kid, but he has
> never really threatened any of my favourites

Good point. Sir Rattle only threatens audiences.

dk

[Herman]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 5:42:55 AM UTC+1, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Are you sure? Have you read my comments on YouTube?
>

OMG your narcissicism is really too big for this world.

[Herman]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 5:35:40 AM UTC+1, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 3:59:15 AM UTC-8, Herman wrote:
> > I know some people are very attached to Hurwitz' youtube reviews,
> > .....
> > So I guess this fine Stravinsky cd was another
> > opportunity to trot out the shoot-rattle-guns.
>
> You just wasted a lot of words

Is a wonderful way to start yet another wallpaper-sized post, made for skipping.

[Notsure01]

At last - now I finally really feel part of this group! I've been
insulted!! And if I stay here long enough -- do I get to "brainfuck"?
(NotSure what this means but might want try it once...)

And - by the way - and I have this right from a source I really respect
-- *NotSure* has the same rights as everyone else to speak about what he

[Herman]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 6:19:45 AM UTC+1, dan....@gmail.com wrote:

> Ignoring context and hanging topic as usual.
>
> As you already admiited, you are a dishonest,
> brainfucked imbecile woke.
>
> dk

No, I did not admit I am dishonest, and in fact I recall saying that nobody who knows me would call me woke, a point which I hereby repeat. Also, the 'woke' issue is nowhere in sight here (did you say 'context'?)
You sound as if you're very drunk or otherwise intoxicated, with no sense of logic whatsoever

[Notsure01]

On 12/3/22 11:09 PM, Dan Koren wrote:

(Sorry - with my elation from the insult my post got garbled)

At last - now I finally really feel part of this group! I've been
insulted!! And if I stay here long enough -- do I get to "brainfuck"?

(NotSure what this means but might want to try it once...)

And - by the way - and I have this directly from a source I really
respect -- *NotSure* has the same rights as everyone else to speak about

[Dan Koren]

On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 9:27:38 PM UTC-8, Notsure01 wrote:
> On 12/3/22 11:09 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 6:01:21 PM UTC-8, Notsure01 wrote:
> >>
> >> My point is that the nasty reaction of Hurwitz is not called for -
> >
> > Are you suggesting people should hold their opinions privately
> > and never publish them unless and until they are "called for"?
> >
> > DH has the same rights as everyone else to speak about what
> > he likes, or dislikes, or agrees with, or doesn't agree with, as any
> > other person on this planet (and the rest of the galaxy as well).
> >
> > And he does this honestly, openly and fairly, unlike trolls who
> > hide like you behind catchy pseudonyms. Agree or disagree
> > with what people say, but refrain from claiming anyone's
> > opinions are "uncalled for". This is the very essence of
> > cultural, social and political censorship.
> >
> > ROTTEN IDIOT !!!
> >

> At last - now I finally really feel part of this group! I've been
> insulted!! And if I stay here long enough -- do I get to "brainfuck"?
> (NotSure what this means but might want try it once...)

"Rotten Idiot" is several levels above "Brainfucked Imbecile"! ;-)

> And - by the way - and I have this right from a source I really respect
> -- *NotSure* has the same rights as everyone else to speak about what he
> likes, or dislikes, or agrees with, or doesn't agree with, as any other
> person on this planet (and the rest of the galaxy as well).

Of course you do, just like everyone else. We all have the
right to say anything we like, as well as to push back on
anything you don't like.

IMHO the case is pretty much closed. The debate is
clearly free open speech versus hypocritical politically
correct pretense promoted by a self appointed, "moral
majority" with hidden agendas and fuzzy, unspoken
criteria.

dk

[Dan Koren]

On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 8:50:05 PM UTC-8, Herman wrote:

Ignoring context and changing topic as usual.

[Herman]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 8:04:49 AM UTC+1, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> IMHO the case is pretty much closed. The debate is
> clearly free open speech versus hypocritical politically
> correct pretense promoted by a self appointed, "moral
> majority" with hidden agendas and fuzzy, unspoken
> criteria.
>

No it's not. You are not the moderator or boss of this ng.
Also this is not a political group.
Most people come here to escape the MAGA vs woke brain rot, while you're desperate to import it here.

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <e77b3f41-8455-4533...@googlegroups.com>,
Herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Most people come here to escape the MAGA vs woke brain rot, ....

Sounds nice, I guess, maybe. But to be clear, this is definitely
the stupidest stream to which I presently subject myself. It's no
escape -- more the opposite.

[Andrew Clarke]

The only French bassoons you are likely to hear these days are either the ones used by Couperin, Lully and Lalande, or the ones used by Les Siecles for Berlioz and Ravel.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

[Herman]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 9:01:46 AM UTC+1, Todd M. McComb wrote:
>
>
> Sounds nice, I guess, maybe. But to be clear, this is definitely
> the stupidest stream to which I presently subject myself. It's no
> escape -- more the opposite.

Well, Todd, you know how it works.
Most people here would love to stick to musical subjects.

[Herman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-rIWI1X1ZY

a masterclass on the bassoon opening of the Sacre, using a German-style bassoon btw.

[Andrew Clarke]

Or Berlioz:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2_eTAW3e6k>

I assume the bassoons here are Buffet system. Not sure about the ophicleide and serpent.

Incidentally, Big D published a list of the thirty best living conductors which excluded Sir John Eliot Gardiner, which is ridiculous.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

[Dan Koren]

On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 11:44:07 PM UTC-8, Herman wrote:
> On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 8:04:49 AM UTC+1, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > IMHO the case is pretty much closed. The debate is
> > clearly free open speech versus hypocritical politically
> > correct pretense promoted by a self appointed, "moral
> > majority" with hidden agendas and fuzzy, unspoken
> > criteria.
> >
> No it's not.

Your delusional denial as usual.

> You are not the moderator or boss of this ng.

I never pretended to be -- what are you talking
about ?!?

> Also this is not a political group.

ROTFL !!! Please read again Oscar's
glorifications of Trump and Nixon.
And there are plenty of other
examples.

> Most people come here to escape
> the MAGA vs woke brain rot, while
> you're desperate to import it here.

Ridiculous. I am apolitical, and even
antipolitical. I dislike politics of any
kind. You are the very definition of
WOKE.

dk

[Andrew Clarke]

I think Big D allows himself to praise the RSNO because while it is British, it has the advantage of not being English - as we all know, fascism starts south of the Tweed. He also allows himself to praise the late Sir Charles Mackerras who, though based in London and working in the UK, was an Australian citizen.

What worries me is the reasoning (or lack of it) behind the prejudices. DH on Rattle is increasingly as irrational as Goebbels on Mendelssohn.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

[Andrew Clarke]

Well, Not, you are very welcome to join the small group of posters here who are actually trying to discuss recordings - including programmes on streaming services - of classical music, with minimal reference to ideological baggage and the degree of courtesy one might expect in a discussion of this topic.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYCygItYjx0>

[Dan Koren]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 1:00:32 AM UTC-8, andrewc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> What worries me is the reasoning
> (or lack of it) behind the prejudices.

Prejudice does not require reasoning.

> DH on Rattle is increasingly
> as irrational as Goebbels on
> Mendelssohn.

DH is entitled to his taste and
his opinions. He does not have
to justify his taste or opinions.
The same also applies to you
and everyone else.

dk

[Herman]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 10:19:55 AM UTC+1, dan....@gmail.com wrote:


> DH is entitled to his taste and
> his opinions. He does not have
> to justify his taste or opinions.
> The same also applies to you
> and everyone else.
>

why dontcha just go away? You're the stuckest record on RMCR.

[Herman]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 10:00:32 AM UTC+1, andrewc...@gmail.com wrote:

> What worries me is the reasoning (or lack of it) behind the prejudices. DH on Rattle is increasingly as irrational as Goebbels on Mendelssohn.
>

That's a little over the top.
DH knows clownish hateful reviews get a lot of views.
That's why he does these flippant comedic negative reviews.
Yes, they are destructive; it drives people away from the art form, but he's only in it for the views = the money.

[Herman]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 10:00:32 AM UTC+1, andrewc...@gmail.com wrote:
>

> I think Big D allows himself to praise the RSNO because while it is British, it has the advantage of not being English
>

there's no need to overthink it. He probably just likes the Chandos people.

[Notsure01]

On 12/4/22 4:08 AM, Andrew Clarke wrote:
> On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 4:40:21 PM UTC+11, Notsure01 wrote:
>> On 12/3/22 11:09 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 6:01:21 PM UTC-8, Notsure01 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My point is that the nasty reaction of Hurwitz is not called for -

>>> Agree or disagree
>>> with what people say, but refrain from claiming anyone's
>>> opinions are "uncalled for". This is the very essence of
>>> cultural, social and political censorship.
>>>
>>> ROTTEN IDIOT !!!
>>>
>>> dk
>>>

>> At last - now I finally really feel part of this group! I've been
>> insulted!!
>

> Well, Not, you are very welcome to join the small group of posters here who are actually trying to discuss recordings - including programmes on streaming services - of classical music, with minimal reference to ideological baggage and the degree of courtesy one might expect in a discussion of this topic.
>
> Andrew Clarke

Thanks, Andrew! I really appreciate the support and encouragement. I
hope the other long time denizens here realize that if we are to keep
this group alive we need to welcome new members and make them
comfortable with actively participating.

Some squabbling is inevitable, but I'm truly puzzled by how heated the
argument gets here. Certainly it is an Internet-wide phenomenon, but it
just seems more logical that people would get exercised about religion,
or politics, or even sports than about the kind of artistic choices that
fascinate us here.

People at RMCR seem to get themselves all worked up about the littlest
things:

There were two record collectors, Joe and Jim. Joe was cleaning out his
car when he found an old cassette tape under the seat - George Szell
conducting Rhapsody in Blue with the NYP!

Then Joe realized that his car cassette player was broken - but was
still eager to listen...

No problem, he said to himself, I'll just drop by Jim's house and borrow
his tape deck...we've known each other for years so I'm sure he won't
mind lending it... I did give him that pine needle stylus to play his
Maggie Teyte 78's...and he still has all my 1970's Schwann record
catalogues.

It's true we did have that argument about the hammer blows in Mahler's
6th, although he can't possibly still be annoyed... and there was really
quite a fight about the proper instrumentation for Art of the Fugue...
and he seemed furious when I outbid him on eBay for that E. Power Biggs
LP... and there was an ugly row about the spelling of Orlando Lassus
name... and I'm still hurt that he laughed about my sorting my Josquin
des Pres CDs under "P"! After I listened for hours to his praising Guido
Cantelli..I bet that SOB won't lend me his deck!!

Joe knocks on Jim's door and bellows to Jim "you can take your tape deck
and shove it!!!".

[Herman]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 12:13:55 PM UTC+1, Notsure01 wrote:
> On 12/4/22 4:08 AM, Andrew Clarke wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, Not, you are very welcome to join the small group of posters here who are actually trying to discuss recordings - including programmes on streaming services - of classical music, with minimal reference to ideological baggage and the degree of courtesy one might expect in a discussion of this topic.
> >
>

> Some squabbling is inevitable, but I'm truly puzzled by how heated the
> argument gets here. Certainly it is an Internet-wide phenomenon, but it
> just seems more logical that people would get exercised about religion,
> or politics, or even sports than about the kind of artistic choices that
> fascinate us here.
>

Well, I'd rather address you by your last name, Sure. I believe I said it before, you're welcome here to post any ol' way you like.

The 'squabbling' is not about music. It's about ego.

[Herman]

I believe Medici is streaming the same Stravinsky triple bill (FBird / Petrushka / Sacre) from Paris with François-Xavier Roth conducting Les Siecles tonight, so one may expect a authentic French-style bassoon opening the Sacre.

[Dan Koren]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 5:25:32 AM UTC-8, Herman wrote

>
> The 'squabbling' is not about music. It's about ego.

The squabbling is not about "ego". It is about the
blatant attempt by a small group of EUs (which
according to you amount to an "ethnicity") to
control the manner of discourse in this ng by
accusing others of "racism". You really need
to have that mirror repaired.

dk

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <677f2afe-1ed6-4782...@googlegroups.com>,

Dan Koren <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:
>The squabbling is not about "ego". It is about the blatant attempt
>by a small group of EUs (which according to you amount to an
>"ethnicity") to control the manner of discourse in this ng by
>accusing others of "racism". You really need to have that mirror
>repaired.

I've had enough. You're a total egomaniac, and I will not be reading
any more of your posts.

[Dan Koren]

As stated so many times already, this group
is an open discussion forum. Anyone can
post (or not) and anyone can read (or not)
anyone else's posts.

If you or anyone else woul like to moderate
this ng, let's draft a proposal and vote on it.
Otherwise, put up or shut up. You get what
you pay for.

As one may recall, I proposed more than
once to have the group moderated, and
no one was interested.

dk

[Notsure01]

It's just not practical to moderate this group - what about those great
textbook bargains - but we could certainly moderate our own behavior!

You are certainly right that I am a... "Rotten Idiot" - but I've been
insulted before (just five minutes ago by my wife) and I'm not likely to
change. I know I'm a blowhard know-it-all pompous idiot
who-thinks-he-is-funny but is not, but pointing this out is unlikely to
result in any improvement.

As I posted here previously(*) about RMCR:

>
> “But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
> "Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad.
> You’re mad."
> "How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.
> "You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here.”
> ― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
>
> I know that I'm certainly - how does that expression go? -
> a few BWVs short of a complete set of Bach Cantatas -
> but I still realize that what we do here is not "normal"!

So please take the pledge - avoid personal insults - when insulted
certainly defend yourself - but then let the matter drop!

(*) I do realize how conceited it is to quote myself! And I considered
adding to the RMCR pledge the avoiding of tedious attempts at humour but
decided that would be too great a sacrifice!

[Dan Koren]

> It's just not practical to moderate this group -

Is is no more and no less practical than
moderating any ng. It can definitely be
done, and it does not take much time.

It seems to me you are simply looking
for pretexts to avoid moderation. Can
you elaborate on why it isn't practical?

> So please take the pledge - avoid personal
> insults - when insulted certainly defend
> yourself - but then let the matter drop!

Sorry, no unilateral concessions. If you
or anyone else wants to have an agreed
framework for discourse, we can draft
it and vote it. Anything else would be
dishonest and deceitful -- just as the
presence of anonymous posters.

You get what you pay for.

dk

[Dan Koren]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 4:24:26 PM UTC-8, Notsure01 wrote:
>

> It's just not practical to moderate
> this group - what about those great
> textbook bargains - but we could
> certainly moderate our own behavior!

No we can't. We all come from different
cultures and different nations, we all
have different notions of what is Ok
and what is not -- and so on and so
forth. Without a clearly defined and
agreed upon framework and clear
procedural rules the results of
"self-moderation" will be no
different than the pigsty we
are in.

You can be Verysure01 about it.

dk

[Al Eisner]

On Sat, 3 Dec 2022, Notsure01 wrote:

Despite the fact that you have meanwhile seem to have awakened something
in DK, I'll try to respond to this. :)

> On 12/3/22 6:52 PM, Al Eisner wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Dec 2022, Notsure01 wrote:
>>
>>> If we can have a performance of Parsifal set among Orangutans in a forest
>>> in Borneo, why can't we have a Rite performance that lets us appreciate
>>> the details of scoring?
>>
>> Are you concerned that with that remark you have managed to demolish
>> your own case?
>
> Am I concerned - no - and I don't know why anyone would get particularly
> excited about any of the goings-ons at RMCR!
>
> But I guess I was unclear - it wouldn't be the first time - or just being
> equivocal - that's why I'm NotSure - but I guess you are seeing a
> contradiction between my criticisms of Rattle's performance and my remark
> supporting different approaches in interpretation?

No, you misunderstood. It is your "If ... [then] why can't we" logic that
is the problem. An absurd premise cannot be used to justify a conclusion.
(And we assuredly cannot "have" that premise, even if it were something real,
which I would not put beyind the realm of possibility.) You are in effect
creating an analoogy between your position on the Rattle Sacre and that
absurdity. That seems to imply that your position on the Sacre is also
an absurdity. I doubt if that is what you intended. And, yes, I am Sure.

> My point is that the nasty reaction of Hurwitz is not called for - and I can
> say the same about his review of Rene Jacobs Schubert that I opined about a
> month ago. For well known works for which we have umpteen excellent
> performances already, we should be encouraging the trying of different
> approaches.

Yes, but that does not require a critic to like the results. Hurwitz has
a notion of how the Rite should go - he has said elsewhere (I think also
quoting Stravinsky - that the work doesn't leave a great deal of room
for interpretation - but he does seem open to a range of choices. If he
finds Rattle unacceptable why shouldn't he say so? It's not as if SIr
Simon is an up-and-comer trying to break into the scene; Rattle is very
well established, he can take it (should he by some chance be watching).
>
> Personally, I don't care for Norrington's Berlioz or Glenn Gould's Mozart
> sonatas, but why don't have to buy them and the record companies are the ones
> that then would suffer.
>
> I did suffer through the early, abrasive HIP recordings, but now that
> performers have matured I'm glad we had those pioneers who tried different
> approaches.
>
> As I said in the Jacobs thread:"And shouldn’t the vitriol be reserved for
> those routine performances
> that are so common? Those that are perfectly played - but lifeless, have
> phrasing without inflection, lack dynamic contrasts, and have all the
> notes - but no personality".

I don't think so. such performances (always meaning in the opinion of
a particular listener or critic) are perhaos more worthy of dismissal than
of vitriol.

> I know that Rattle doesn't seem like much of an original thinker or
> visionary, and it would have been fine to give him a tepid review - not the
> scolding that was delivered.

Maybe - I have to admit I have not yet listened to this review, probably
I should.

Despite one reaction in rmcr, please keep expressing your views. In
this context, vitriol against a participant for opinions on an
on-topic issue is not appropriate.
--
Al Eisner

[Notsure01]

On 12/4/22 7:34 PM, Dan Koren wrot

I imagine that you are not proposing moving to a web forum (like
TalkClassical) or a native Google group (such as SymphonyShare), but
instead changing RMCR to a "Moderated Usenet Newsgroup"? And would we be
able to find someone willing to filter out the periodic floods of
messages from textbook hawkers, italian pornographers, and the like?

And would those-who-break-the-rules be forced to leave - wouldn't that
result in the loss of valuable contributors who, while they may have
unfortunate mannerisms, are also generally insightful and interesting?

If there is indeed a willingness to vote on rules and then to abide by
them, wouldn't it be easier just to manage this informally? Thus, for
example, if many people here were to say "Mr Notsure, your periodic
attempts at humour are not amusing, but just irritating", then I could
(hypothetically) moderate myself and stop inflicting lame jokes on this
group.

Or as another example, if multiple members of the group would vote that
we should avoid personal insults and endless back-and-forth squabbles,
if we all complied wouldn't that achieve our goal of making RMCR a
pleasant and welcoming environment - but without all the fuss of formal
moderation?

(I'm also puzzled by the repeated characterization of "anonymous
posters" (like me and most people here) as "dishonest and deceitful"?
After all, wasn't this anonymity good enough for Voltaire and Stendhal?
But, more seriously, after my recent retirement from a distinguished
career, do you think I want my former coworkers, or my friends and
family to see the inane twaddle I spew out in my posts here? Or imagine
the humiliation if folks knew that I own 23 versions of Scheherazade)?

Le's now see what any of the other interested parties think. I'd be glad
to provide a draft of "RMCR Guidelines" if there is agreement...

[Herman]

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 3:59:31 AM UTC+1, Notsure01 wrote:
>
>
> Or as another example, if multiple members of the group would vote that
> we should avoid personal insults and endless back-and-forth squabbles,
> if we all complied wouldn't that achieve our goal of making RMCR a
> pleasant and welcoming environment - but without all the fuss of formal
> moderation?
>

Excessive ego from some lone wolves would prevent this.
The internet creates the opportunity for making yourself bigger than you are.
There are one or two of these on every internet group.
Just people without the maturity to restrain themselves and behave well.

> (I'm also puzzled by the repeated characterization of "anonymous
> posters" (like me and most people here) as "dishonest and deceitful"?
>

It's just nonsense. Ego looking for victims.
>

[Dan Koren]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 6:59:31 PM UTC-8, Notsure01 wrote:
>
> (I'm also puzzled by the repeated characterization of "anonymous
> posters" (like me and most people here) as "dishonest and deceitful"?
> After all, wasn't this anonymity good enough for Voltaire and Stendhal?

It is considered common courtesy to show one's face and to introduce
oneself when one joins a party (not in the political sense) or when one
shows up at a meeting or social function. This is very different from
publishing novels under noms de plume. What would you say if you
threw a party and some of the guests showed up fully masked and
introducade themselves as "Darth Vader" or "Batman"? I doubt you
would approve.

> But, more seriously, after my recent retirement from a distinguished
> career, do you think I want my former coworkers, or my friends and
> family to see the inane twaddle I spew out in my posts here? Or imagine
> the humiliation if folks knew that I own 23 versions of Scheherazade)?

Since we don't know who you are, one has no idea how distinguished
was your career or what you accomplished. And why would anyone
feel humiliated (especially someone into classical music) because
they own 23 Sheherazades or 72 German Requeims? Of the other
way around? Anonymous posters are trolls by definition.

dk

[Dan Koren]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 6:59:31 PM UTC-8, Notsure01 wrote:
>

> If there is indeed a willingness to vote on rules and then to abide by
> them, wouldn't it be easier just to manage this informally? Thus, for
> example, if many people here were to say "Mr Notsure, your periodic
> attempts at humour are not amusing, but just irritating", then I could
> (hypothetically) moderate myself and stop inflicting lame jokes on this
> group.
>
> Or as another example, if multiple members of the group would vote that
> we should avoid personal insults and endless back-and-forth squabbles,
> if we all complied wouldn't that achieve our goal of making RMCR a
> pleasant and welcoming environment - but without all the fuss of formal
> moderation?

There is a well established framework and process for moderating
newsgroups. What you describe amounts to unwritten rules, which
more often than not tend to be in one's mind than in anyone else's.
It just doesn't work. If you everybody to abide by the same rules,
the rules must be stated clearly and recorded, and should be
enforceable by a group of moderators.

dk

[Herman]

Apparently you don't see a contradiction between your free speech absolutism, your need to insult as many people as possible, and your call for this ng to be moderated.
I take it it's just another sample of your standard hypocrisy, since this group will never change to moderation, so why not pretend?

[Herman]

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 4:42:33 AM UTC+1, dan....@gmail.com wrote:

> It is considered common courtesy to show one's face and to introduce
> oneself when one joins a party

It is also common courtesy not to call people brainfucked idiots. Or to monopolize the conversation.
I have no idea whether "Dan Koren" is a real name, or just a pseudonym.
I'm pretty sure most of what you write about yourself is total self-aggrandizing bullshit (common courtesy?), so [philosophically, there is no difference between a "name" and a "pseudonym".

[Dan Koren]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 7:13:34 PM UTC-8, Herman wrote:
>
> There are one or two of these on every internet group.
> Just people without the maturity to
> restrain themselves and behave well.

You don't seem to "restrain" yourself at all,
and you do not "behave well" at all. There
is a well documented string of racist and
misogynist posts you penned that refutes
all your claims to "good behavior". Time
for the mirror?

dk

[Herman]

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 4:47:47 AM UTC+1, dan....@gmail.com wrote:

>What you describe amounts to unwritten rules, which
> more often than not tend to be in one's mind than in anyone else's.
> It just doesn't work.
>

The funny thing is literally everybody on this ng adheres to these unwritten rules (be a grownup, act like you would IRL), except you - and, occassionaly, your acolyte Marc S.
So the absence of written rules is not the problem; your antisocial, self-aggrandizing mindset aka free speech absolutism, is the problem,

[Herman]

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 4:58:08 AM UTC+1, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
>There
> is a well documented string of racist and
> misogynist posts you penned that refutes
> all your claims to "good behavior".
>

> dk
Yeah, we know.
You made that up, that ludicrous claim that I'm an antisemite because I don't mention Heifetz all the time, and did mention Isabelle Faust once.

[Dan Koren]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 7:53:19 PM UTC-8, Herman wrote:
>
> Apparently you don't see a contradiction between your
> free speech absolutism, your need to insult as many
> people as possible, and your call for this ng to be
> moderated.

No contradiction at all. I am happy to post within an
agreed framework. Unless and until we have one, it
is open game on anything. I would be curious to
understand why you never obejcted to Oscar's
openly political (and polarizing) worship of the
two biggest crooks to have dishonored POTUS.

> I take it it's just another sample of your standard
> hypocrisy, since this group will never change to
> moderation, so why not pretend?

Yet another fabrication. You do not speak for the
group (and neither does anyone else), so how do
you know how the group would or might vote on
a framework proposal?

You cannot have it both ways. What you are
promoting is dictatorship by a minority that
pretends to be a moral majority -- Melmoth,
Gerard and yourself, with occasional help
from John Gavin.

Stop lying. And wash your mouth.

dk

[Herman]

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 5:06:45 AM UTC+1, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> I would be curious to

> understand why you never objected to Oscar's

> openly political (and polarizing) worship of the
> two biggest crooks to have dishonored POTUS.

I have, on occasion.

[Herman]

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 5:06:45 AM UTC+1, dan....@gmail.com wrote:

> Yet another fabrication. You do not speak for the
> group (and neither does anyone else), so how do
> you know how the group would or might vote on
> a framework proposal?
>

Most grownup persons can, to use that awful expression, read the room.
Of course you immediately see this as a power issue. It's just what grownup people do.
Why don't you just go and stuff yourself with some more icecream?
This used to be a topic about Stravinsky, rather than about your various obsessions.,

[Gerard]

Op 2022-12-05 om 03:59 schreef Notsure01:

>
> Or as another example, if multiple members of the group would vote that
> we should avoid personal insults and endless back-and-forth squabbles,
> if we all complied wouldn't that achieve our goal of making RMCR a
> pleasant and welcoming environment - but without all the fuss of formal
> moderation?

Don't forget that RMCR has been such a pleasant and welcoming (and
stimulating, etc.) environment.
Domination by one or two ill-mannered guys kills every group..

>
> (I'm also puzzled by the repeated characterization of "anonymous
> posters" (like me and most people here) as "dishonest and deceitful"?
> After all, wasn't this anonymity good enough for Voltaire and Stendhal?
> But, more seriously, after my recent retirement from a distinguished
> career, do you think I want my former coworkers, or my friends and
> family to see the inane twaddle I spew out in my posts here? Or imagine
> the humiliation if folks knew that I own 23 versions of Scheherazade)?
>

You can prevent some of the humiliation with only 2 more versions. '-)

[Dan Koren]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 8:26:22 PM UTC-8, Herman wrote:
> On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 5:06:45 AM UTC+1, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> > Yet another fabrication. You do not speak for the
> > group (and neither does anyone else), so how do
> > you know how the group would or might vote on
> > a framework proposal?
>
> Most grownup persons can, to use that awful
> expression, read the room.

There is no "room". This is an internet group
without any spatial boundaries. The notion
that you (or Gerard, or Melmoth) "read" the
room is clearly delusional.

> Of course you immediately see this as a
> power issue. It's just what grownup people do.

No, I don't. I don't think about "power". Again,
a fabrication of your imagination, projecting
your thoughts and concepts (if they can be
described as all as concepts) on others. I
don't control anything or anyone, except
to a limited extent my Audi so I don't fly
off the road?

> Why don't you just go and stuff yourself
> with some more icecream?

Why don't you just go and stuff yourself

with more Gouda?

> This used to be a topic about Stravinsky,
> rather than about your various obsessions.,

It appears to be far more about your (and
Gerard's and Notsure01's) obsessions
than about mine.

I floated a proposal in good faith to have
the group moderated. Instead of taking
up and discussing the proposal, you
keep throwing insults at me. You are
a hypocrite, pure and simple.

dk

[Herman]

Zzzzzz....

[Notsure01]

Thanks, Al, for pointing out my logical fallacy - it wouldn't be the
first time I've been illogical! Parsifal was on my mind since a few
months ago I was listening to it obsessively, and trying to find a
decent video production. There was one video that began with the monks
wearing business suits on desk chairs while others reclined on astroturf
- and the flower maidens were wading in a pool of blood in Kingsor's
castle. I think that actually the Orangutan angle could make more sense!

But more to the point, I've been reflecting upon this matter and you -
and Dan - are right. It was unfortunate choice of words for me to say
"the nasty reaction of Hurwitz is not called for". This makes it sound
like I was stating that Hurwitz has no right to his opinion, that he is
forbidden to express uncomplimentary views, etc.

This interpretation also would imply that I'm a proponent of woke
censorship, as Dan pointed out.

In fact, I fully support the right of people to express ideas, even
those that are inflammatory or obnoxious. What I was trying to say about
the Rattle review is simply that - in my opinion - the tone was unduly
nasty, and that - in my opinion - Hurwitz should be more tolerant of
alternative interpretative approaches.

And I encourage you to see the review for yourself to see what set off
Herman and me...

[Herman]

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 12:16:12 PM UTC+1, Notsure01 wrote:
>
>
> And I encourage you to see the review for yourself to see what set off
> Herman and me...

Well, wouldn't that spoil the fun of discussing something one doesn't have any first-hand knowledge of?
Just kidding...

[Andrew Clarke]

Big D's latest ploy is to maintain that interpretations that he doesn't like are *stupid*. Not a re-evaluation giving possible new insights, but stupid. It's a question of intellectual, not aesthetic judgement, you see.

Meanwhile, in one of his reviews of Sibelius cycles, he picked up the Rattle/Berlin Phil set as if it was a piece of rotting human flesh, and then explained that he was thinking of consigning it to the nasty box, or some such expression. That was all the evaluation it got. And it happens all the time. I have seen and heard Rattle conducting Sibelius via the BPO streaming service, as well as the audience response.

Of course, Dave has the right to express his opinion of Rattle, or anyone else, in this fashion, but it does sound increasingly puerile. The tragedy is that the man is capable of much, much better things, without resorting to schoolyard stuff.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

[Herman]

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 1:22:11 PM UTC+1, andrewc...@gmail.com wrote:
>

> Of course, Dave has the right to express his opinion of Rattle, or anyone else, in this fashion, but it does sound increasingly puerile. The tragedy is that the man is capable of much, much better things, without resorting to schoolyard stuff.
>

Marketing.....
Clickbait....

Btw, I would not call it a tragedy, but just a farce.

[Herman]

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 1:28:04 PM UTC+1, Herman wrote:
>.
>
> Btw, I would not call it a tragedy, but just a farce.

Looking at the youtube stats and looking at the comments he has decided that the funny voices and bizarre antics are in demand, and so he's gone the comedy route.

[sci.space]

From its title I assumed that this thread was about Stravinsky, not posters' egos. I appear to be wrong, and it has devolved into useless ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately, RCMR seems to have descended to lowest common denominator. Ansermaniac provided more substance.

[Owen Hartnett]

On 2022-12-04 22:34:33 +0000, Dan Koren said:

>
>
> As one may recall, I proposed more than
> once to have the group moderated, and
> no one was interested.
>

> dk

OK, I hereby nominate Herman for our first moderator.

-Owen

[Herman]

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 4:41:19 PM UTC+1, Owen Hartnett wrote:


> OK, I hereby nominate Herman for our first moderator.
>
> -Owen

That would be kind of odd.

1 I'm for self-moderation and against a moderator (you would need three persons, btw)

2 small detail: technically this ng can't be moderated

[Andy Evans]

I nominate Herman as Honorary Moderator in that case. Kind of a Life of Brian honour, like Stan has the right to be Loretta.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

[Owen Hartnett]

It was in response for DK's desire for a moderator. More in the
Be-Careful-What-You-Wish-For.

-Owen

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <d9922335-a11c-464e...@googlegroups.com>,

Herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>1 I'm for self-moderation and against a moderator (you would need
>three persons, btw)

As long as you're criticizing DK, please refrain from one of DK's
most annoying habits, i.e. posting the same thing (perhaps in
slightly different versions) multiple times.

One issue with having the highest volume posters show no respect
for others is that their basically lazy attitudes toward posting
wear off on everyone else.... I find myself following up to myself
etc. too, and really try to tell myself to use better discipline &
e.g. to post complete thoughts.... Not easy when that isn't the
environment.

[Herman]

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 7:19:06 PM UTC+1, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <d9922335-a11c-464e...@googlegroups.com>,
> Herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >1 I'm for self-moderation and against a moderator (you would need
> >three persons, btw)
> As long as you're criticizing DK, please refrain from one of DK's
> most annoying habits, i.e. posting the same thing (perhaps in
> slightly different versions) multiple times.
>

Okay, thanks. I'm sorry. I'll try.

[Al Eisner]

First, an OT remark: in the US at least, it is almost entirely those
who accuse others of being "woke" who are the primary advocates of
censorship, and have the legislative wherewithal to impose it.
Government-ordered censorship is far ore insidious than any by private
institutions. And "woke" is such a terrible term, anyway. Actually, I
do not make political statements in this forum, so the above cannot be
one. But be careful not to sound like Elon Musk.

Now, then: after posting my earlier message, I did in fact view
the Hurwitz video. Frankly, I don't find it a big deal. Yes, he was
very critical of Rattle's Stravinsky release, but in an often huorous
fashion (making fun is Dave's occasional wont). Some may find it
distasteful, but he didn't attack Rattle's character, I did not detect
anything like "idiot" or "brainfucked" (where have I seen those?).
As I remarked earlier, Rattle is an established and establishment
figure; he can take it (should he encounter it). And while Dave too
often (IMO) makes gratuitous remarks, in this case he instead spelled it
out with musical examples (however badly sung). He is more fun than
most reviewers; I'd like to see him deal with your Parsifal examples.

This thread seems like a tempest in a teapot, already largely hijacked
by the exchanges between Dan and Herman. Let them go at it!
--
Al Eisner

[Notsure01]

On 12/6/22 6:03 PM, Al Eisner wrote:


> Now, then:  after posting my earlier message, I did in fact view
> the Hurwitz video.  Frankly, I don't find it a big deal.  Yes, he was
> very critical of Rattle's Stravinsky release, but in an often huorous
> fashion (making fun is Dave's occasional wont).  Some may find it
> distasteful, but he didn't attack Rattle's character, I did not detect
> anything like "idiot" or "brainfucked" (where have I seen those?).
> As I remarked earlier, Rattle is an established and establishment
> figure; he can take it (should he encounter it).  And while Dave too
> often (IMO) makes gratuitous remarks, in this case he instead spelled it
> out with musical examples (however badly sung).  He is more fun than
> most reviewers; I'd like to see him deal with your Parsifal examples.
>
> This thread seems like a tempest in a teapot, already largely hijacked
> by the exchanges between Dan and Herman.  Let them go at it!

Thanks for the feedback! As folks here must realize, although I affect a
nonchalant unruffled demeanor, I'm actually just as much of a hothead as
some others here. And I will say quite sincerely that I appreciate both
Dan and Herman - and regret being drawn into an acrimonious discussion.
One of the benefits of RMCR is the.. uhh...diversity. And after all,
without carrots, onions, and potatoes it wouldn't be a stew!

From now on let the only Tempest we discuss be Tchaikovsky's and the
Teapot Ravel's!