"Fanfare" vs. "American Record Guide"
Peter
How would you rate the two subject magazines? Do you think one is
better in some categories than the other, and if so, which ones and for
what reason?
Matthew B. Tepper
In article <35512E...@ix.netcom.com>, p_ul...@ix.netcom.com spake
unto the unwashed masses:
>
>How would you rate the two subject magazines? Do you think one is
>better in some categories than the other, and if so, which ones and
>for what reason?
I'll just say one thing: _Fanfare_ editor Joel Flegler shows no
evidence of being a raving racist lunatic.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/index.htm
My main music page --- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/berlioz.htm
And my science fiction club's home page --- http://www.lasfs.org/
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GMU/CS d+ s+:+ a44 C+ U !P !L !E W++ N++ !O K- w+(++)$ !O M- !V PS+(++)
PE- Y+ PGP- t(+) 5+++ X-- R- tv+ b+++ DI+++ !D G e+++ h(+) r>++ y+>++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Dan Kritchevsky
>I'll just say one thing: _Fanfare_ editor Joel Flegler shows no
>evidence of being a raving racist lunatic.
Racist? (note selectivity)
Jon Bell
In article <35512E...@ix.netcom.com>,
Frankly, I wouldn't want to be without either of them. I think they
complement each other in some ways. If I really had to choose between
them, I'd probably go with ARG by a small margin, although I've
subscribed to Fanfare for a much longer time.
Pluses for ARG:
Monthly "overviews" of specific composers or types of music
Reviews of recent concerts and opera performances
Minuses for ARG:
Editor Don Vroon's strong and controversial opinions (which are
nevertheless confined mostly to his editorials and those reviews that he
personally writes)
Pluses for Fanfare:
I think reviews tend to be a little longer and have more comparisions
with other recordings (although I could be mistaken here; the two
magazines use different layouts and type sizes, which may give me a
mistaken impression)
Stronger coverage of "historical" recordings and "pirate" recordings
of operas in particular
Minuses for Fanfare:
Apparent refusal to review certain labels that don't advertise in the
magazine (at least someone here claimed that that was the case; don't
know personally how true it is/was)
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu>
steve
On the other hand, Flegler has never shown any evidence of being an
editor.
Steve Wolk
Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
>
> In article <35512E...@ix.netcom.com>, p_ul...@ix.netcom.com spake
> unto the unwashed masses:
> >
> >How would you rate the two subject magazines? Do you think one is
> >better in some categories than the other, and if so, which ones and
> >for what reason?
>
> I'll just say one thing: _Fanfare_ editor Joel Flegler shows no
> evidence of being a raving racist lunatic.
>
Mario Taboada
Fanfare has a large coverage of recordings of modern music, all written
by acknowledged experts. As a collector of this century's music, I find
these invaluable. I would say that, for me, this is what really
distinguishes Fanfare from other publications.
I notice that there have been quite a few changes of personnel; I can't
say I like seeing Bernard Jacobson occupy so much space in the magazine.
He is a veteran critic with experience and knowledge, but his taste is
completely orthogonal to mine. For example, he is a fan of Daniel
Barenboim and considers The Lindsays to be the ne plus ultra of quartet
playing...
On the other hand, there's a new guy called Martin Anderson who writes
with a good sense of humor and tends to review stuff off the beaten
track. I like his style.
But what Fanfare really needs is to have John Wiser back - the quality
of chamber music reviews has suffered a lot since he left. Both North
and McColley tend to write neutrally (even impersonally, in the case of
North, as if he wanted to be done with it fast), not a good thing in my
opinion.
In the latest issue, I notice that Leslie Gerber has been given a column
to discuss historical reissues - this is a nice idea, and Gerber seems
to be the right person to write it. His writing doesn't have an ounce of
extra fat in it: it's all straight and to the point.
Regards,
Mario Taboada
Matthew B. Tepper
Mario Taboada wrote:
>
> Fanfare has a large coverage of recordings of modern music, all
> written by acknowledged experts. As a collector of this century's
> music, I find these invaluable. I would say that, for me, this is what
> really distinguishes Fanfare from other publications.
>
> I notice that there have been quite a few changes of personnel; I
> can't say I like seeing Bernard Jacobson occupy so much space in the
> magazine. He is a veteran critic with experience and knowledge, but
> his taste is completely orthogonal to mine. For example, he is a fan
> of Daniel Barenboim and considers The Lindsays to be the ne plus ultra
> of quartet playing...
But it can be useful to have a critic whose taste is, as you put it,
orthogonal. For example, I've long since figured out that I needn't
trouble myself over anything that Mike Silverton likes.
> On the other hand, there's a new guy called Martin Anderson who writes
> with a good sense of humor and tends to review stuff off the beaten
> track. I like his style.
Is he that new? I thought I'd read him somewhere for a while, here or
elsewhere.
> But what Fanfare really needs is to have John Wiser back - the quality
> of chamber music reviews has suffered a lot since he left.
Hey, I'd settle for having *Candace* Wiser review for the magazine!
> Both North and McColley tend to write neutrally (even impersonally, in
> the case of North, as if he wanted to be done with it fast), not a
> good thing in my opinion.
>
> In the latest issue, I notice that Leslie Gerber has been given a
> column to discuss historical reissues - this is a nice idea, and
> Gerber seems to be the right person to write it. His writing doesn't
> have an ounce of extra fat in it: it's all straight and to the point.
Certain reviewers ought to "own" certain composers -- I know that I'd
want to see William Youngren's take on any Wagner (especially historical
reissues!), and giving any Shostakovich item to anybody other than Royal
S. Brown is blind folly.
All of this, of course, IMAO.
> Regards,
>
> Mario Taboada
Paul Goldstein
Mario Taboada wrote:
>
> Fanfare has a large coverage of recordings of modern music, all written
> by acknowledged experts. As a collector of this century's music, I find
> these invaluable. I would say that, for me, this is what really
> distinguishes Fanfare from other publications.
>
> I notice that there have been quite a few changes of personnel; I can't
> say I like seeing Bernard Jacobson occupy so much space in the magazine.
> He is a veteran critic with experience and knowledge, but his taste is
> completely orthogonal to mine. For example, he is a fan of Daniel
> Barenboim and considers The Lindsays to be the ne plus ultra of quartet
> playing...
>
> with a good sense of humor and tends to review stuff off the beaten
> track. I like his style.
>
> and McColley tend to write neutrally (even impersonally, in the case of
> North, as if he wanted to be done with it fast), not a good thing in my
> opinion.
>
> In the latest issue, I notice that Leslie Gerber has been given a column
> to discuss historical reissues - this is a nice idea, and Gerber seems
> to be the right person to write it. His writing doesn't have an ounce of
> extra fat in it: it's all straight and to the point.
I fully agree with all of the above, except regarding North, who I find
about the best of all Fanfare critics, and deserving of exactly the same
praise you correctly bestow on Gerber.
Bernard Jacobson has rapidly become an anti-critic for me: his ringing
endorsements send off loud warning bells.
Unfortunately, I don't think ARG has a single critic of the caliber of
Gerber, North, Frank, Anderson, Weber, Nelson, or any of the other
Fanfare regulars.
Also, I have to say that I don't think anyone has ever substantiated the
claim that Fanfare does not review releases by non-advertisers. Exactly
what labels have been shunned? No one can say.
If only Fanfare paid some sustained attention to reissues - including
"mundane" ones such as Sony Essential Classics, EMI Seraphim, and the
like.
KWJ
Peter wrote in message <35512E...@ix.netcom.com>...
>How would you rate the two subject magazines? Do you think one is
>better in some categories than the other, and if so, which ones and for
>what reason?
For me, one of the big plusses with FANFARE are the amazingly erudite
reviews written by Adrian Corleonis, with his admittedly limited speciality
in the French "Decadents" (for lack -- mine -- of a better term) and
associated composers such as Delius.
Mike Silverton has more of a taste for Cage than I care for, but his take on
Feldman and lesser-knowns such as Alvin Lucier is always interesting.
I disagree with a number of Royal S. Brown's opinions, but his film music
column is one of the first things I read in a new issue of FANFARE.
KWJ
rkha...@adnc.com
In article <355192...@sprintmail.com>,
Mario Taboada <matr...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> I notice that there have been quite a few changes of [Fanfare] personnel;
> I can't
> say I like seeing Bernard Jacobson occupy so much space in the magazine.
> He is a veteran critic with experience and knowledge, but his taste is
> completely orthogonal to mine. For example, he is a fan of Daniel
^^^^^^^^^^
> Barenboim ...
That makes his taste antipodal to mine. :-)
Ramon Khalona
Carlsbad, California
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
rkha...@adnc.com
In article <3551DD...@deltanet.com>,
"Matthew B. Tepper" <duckyþ@deltanet.com> wrote [responding to Mario
Taboada's idea of "orthogonal" music critics]:
> But it can be useful to have a critic whose taste is, as you put it,
> orthogonal. For example, I've long since figured out that I needn't
> trouble myself over anything that Mike Silverton likes.
I don't know what qualifies Silverton as a Piazzolla reviewer, but his review
of Rene Marino Rivero's and Wolfgang Leske's "Hommage a Piazzolla" CD (on
Intercord) was way off the mark. He describes the playing as exhibiting
"tsunami sentimentality," not seeming to realize that NOSTALGIA is one of the
key elements in tango music. To his credit, he did predict that Piazzolla
fans would love the CD. He was right about that.
Simon Roberts
Mario Taboada (matr...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
: Fanfare has a large coverage of recordings of modern music, all written
: by acknowledged experts. As a collector of this century's music, I find
: these invaluable. I would say that, for me, this is what really
: distinguishes Fanfare from other publications.
: I notice that there have been quite a few changes of personnel; I can't
: say I like seeing Bernard Jacobson occupy so much space in the magazine.
: He is a veteran critic with experience and knowledge, but his taste is
: completely orthogonal to mine. For example, he is a fan of Daniel
: Barenboim and considers The Lindsays to be the ne plus ultra of quartet
: playing...
Worse, if an interpreter displays the slightest trace of personality, of
flair, of excitement, there's much British huffing and puffing about
letting the music speak for itself dressed up in the guise of musicology
-- see, for instance, his recent reviews of Il Giardino Armonico's
Brandenburgs and McCreesh's vs Suzuki's Messiah's (where he even picks
nits over pronunciation), waxing ecstatic over Suzuki's, which must be one
of the dullest Messiahs ever recorded. Odd, then, that he likes Shepkin's
Bach so much; I'm grateful to him for alerting me to these wonderful
recordings.
: But what Fanfare really needs is to have John Wiser back
Yes; either that, or have him pipe up here more often....
Simon
Simon Roberts
Paul Goldstein (paulgo...@hotmail.com) wrote:
[snip]
: Unfortunately, I don't think ARG has a single critic of the caliber of
: Gerber, North, Frank, Anderson, Weber, Nelson, or any of the other
: Fanfare regulars.
Right. ARG has an annoying habit of including reviews (Vroon's are the
worst) which include no more than subjective responses to the disc at hand
with little, if anything, in the way of comparisons to other recordings
or, worse, some sort of objective description of the performance at hand.
I also get the impression, based in part on the paucity of comparative
references, that many of ARG's reviewers aren't as familiar with
alternatives.
Simon
Matthew B. Tepper
Or for another point of reference, possibly amusing to this newsgroup:
I was good enough to review for _ARG_ (when Doris Chalfin was editor),
but Joel Flegler couldn't use me for _Fanfare_!
steve
Also sprach Matthew B. Tepper:
(snip)
> orthogonal. For example, I've long since figured out that I needn't
> trouble myself over anything that Mike Silverton likes.
Me too. But can you remember Silverton ever reviewing anything that he
didn't rave about?
Steve Wolk
Curtis Croulet
Peter wrote:
>
> How would you rate the two subject magazines? Do you think one is
> better in some categories than the other, and if so, which ones and for
> what reason?
I subscribe to both, but forced to choose, I would go with Fanfare.
There just seems to be more depth. Also (and this may only be important
to me), I don't think I've ever been as out-of-step with an entire panel
of critics as I am with ARG's bunch. I think this reflects the editor's
tastes, since he features reviewers who have the same general musical
outlook as himself.
Jicotea
Mario Taboada <matr...@sprintmail.com> wrote in article
<355192...@sprintmail.com>...
> Fanfare has a large coverage of recordings of modern music, all written
> by acknowledged experts. As a collector of this century's music, I find
> these invaluable. I would say that, for me, this is what really
> distinguishes Fanfare from other publications.
>
> I notice that there have been quite a few changes of personnel; I can't
> say I like seeing Bernard Jacobson occupy so much space in the magazine.
> He is a veteran critic with experience and knowledge, but his taste is
> completely orthogonal to mine. For example, he is a fan of Daniel
> Barenboim and considers The Lindsays to be the ne plus ultra of quartet
> playing...
>
> On the other hand, there's a new guy called Martin Anderson who writes
> with a good sense of humor and tends to review stuff off the beaten
> track. I like his style.
>
> But what Fanfare really needs is to have John Wiser back - the quality
> of chamber music reviews has suffered a lot since he left.
Until very recently, I would have said
jamais de la vie
but the old firehorse
is bursting with opinions
that have
no place to go
my return wouldn't please
Henry Fogel
Mort Frank
Susan Kagan
and that sterling
representative of
the Tom Robbins
school of modern rococo writing
Mike Silverton
among others
> Both North
> and McColley tend to write neutrally (even impersonally, in the case of
> North, as if he wanted to be done with it fast), not a good thing in my
> opinion.
Speaking of opinions: I don't think that either of these people takes a
blind
bit of notice of performance quality. Nor does Paul Snook. And I'm as
distressed
as Mario at Jacobson's prominence, with his direly anglophile tastes.
> In the latest issue, I notice that Leslie Gerber has been given a column
> to discuss historical reissues - this is a nice idea, and Gerber seems
> to be the right person to write it. His writing doesn't have an ounce of
> extra fat in it: it's all straight and to the point.
Les has only one fault, in my book: overreliance on first person pronouns,
a case judged chronic & incurable. We have to live with it, not too
difficult.
He also knows whereof he speaks: no bullshit, as in certain historical
record
specialists I could name.
Hm. This post probably forecloses any
possibility of my return. But we'll see.
bad-tempered john
HenryFogel
>"Fanfare" vs. "American Record Guide"
>From: "Jicotea" <jic...@frontiernet.com>
>Date: Thu, May 7, 1998 22:50 EDT
>Message-id: <01bd7a2c$74193280$e98e82d1@candacew>
I can't speak for others, and wish John Wiser wouldn't presume to speak for me.
Although I have disagreed with Mr. Wiser on a number of issues, I would be
very happy indeed to see him return to the pages of "Fanfare." I think he
wrote with flair, color, imagination, and musical knowledge -- and one can
never have enough of that in a record review magazine. If I feel that John's
opinions have a tendency to be "in extremis" most of the time (I find most
recordings are neither great nor terrible, but tend to be somewhere in the
middle; John, it seemed to me, found little 'in the middle') that is much
better than having boring writers whose thoughts and views are obfuscated by a
tendency to shy away from the appearance of being opinionated. So don't be so
techy, John, just because I occasionally objected to something you wrote. You
enlivened "Fanfare's" pages significantly, and I would hope you would do so
again.
Henry Fogel
Jon Bell
In article <355266...@pe.net>, Curtis Croulet <curt...@pe.net> wrote:
> [...] I don't think I've ever been as out-of-step with an entire panel
>of critics as I am with ARG's bunch. I think this reflects the editor's
>tastes, since he features reviewers who have the same general musical
>outlook as himself.
Not completely... editor Vroon is rabidly anti-HIP (a.k.a.) "authentic
instruments" performances, but I'm sure I've seen some favorable reviews
of HIP performances in ARG.
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu>
Jicotea
HenryFogel <henry...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199805080348...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> >"Fanfare" vs. "American Record Guide"
> >From: "Jicotea" <jic...@frontiernet.com>
> >Date: Thu, May 7, 1998 22:50 EDT
> >Message-id: <01bd7a2c$74193280$e98e82d1@candacew>
> >
> >Mario Taboada <matr...@sprintmail.com> wrote in article
> ><355192...@sprintmail.com>...
<extensive snip>
> >> But what Fanfare really needs is to have John Wiser back - the quality
> >> of chamber music reviews has suffered a lot since he left.
> >
> >Until very recently, I would have said
> >jamais de la vie
> >but the old firehorse
> >is bursting with opinions
> >that have
> >no place to go
> >
> >my return wouldn't please
> >Henry Fogel
> >Mort Frank
> >Susan Kagan
> >and that sterling
> >representative of
> >the Tom Robbins
> >school of modern rococo writing
> >Mike Silverton
> >among others
> >
> >
>
> I can't speak for others, and wish John Wiser wouldn't presume to speak
for me.
It _was_ presumptious. Why did I head up that list with you? Botheration!
> Although I have disagreed with Mr. Wiser on a number of issues, I would
be
> very happy indeed to see him return to the pages of "Fanfare." I think
he
> wrote with flair, color, imagination, and musical knowledge -- and one
can
> never have enough of that in a record review magazine. If I feel that
John's
> opinions have a tendency to be "in extremis" most of the time (I find
most
> recordings are neither great nor terrible, but tend to be somewhere in
the
> middle; John, it seemed to me, found little 'in the middle')
There's a reason for the skewed opinions. You might be interested. It might
even be of general interest. Many Fanfare writers passively take what
editor Joel
Flegler dishes out. Others make requests for review materials
based on their tastes and interests.
I was among the latter, acting upon educated guesses
about new CDs which seemed promising. I think it is quite natural to take
a pro forma interest in the work of some performers and ensembles.
I was always pleased when guesses panned out; and by the same token
tended to get excessively bent out of shape when they didn't. I think I
wrote
more than once "this notice is colored by disappointment."
> that is much
> better than having boring writers whose thoughts and views are obfuscated
by a
> tendency to shy away from the appearance of being opinionated. So don't
be so
> techy, John, just because I occasionally objected to something you wrote.
You
> enlivened "Fanfare's" pages significantly, and I would hope you would do
so
> again.
Very kind of you, I'm sure (add thinnish tone of voice).
No, seriously, our paths have crossed seldom, because our interests
and tastes differ so vastly. I suspect the only thing we are of one mind on
is the value of the music of Franz Schmidt. And I think it is fair to say
that you have done as much to promote it as anyone alive.
On the two recalled occasions when we butted heads,
it seems at this distance that both times I was substantially
out of line.
So, please accept my apologies
for putting you on
my enemies list,
obviously without
the slightest justification.
John Wiser
Matthew Silverstein
Jon Bell wrote in message ...
>Not completely... editor Vroon is rabidly anti-HIP (a.k.a.) "authentic
>instruments" performances, but I'm sure I've seen some favorable reviews
>of HIP performances in ARG.
This is going back a ways, but Gardiner's HIP cycle of Beethoven symphonies
received an *extremely* favorable review in ARG.
Matty
Matthew B. Tepper
In article <EsMF3...@presby.edu>, jtb...@presby.edu spake unto the
unwashed masses:
>
>In article <355266...@pe.net>, Curtis Croulet <curt...@pe.net>
>>wrote: [...] I don't think I've ever been as out-of-step with an
>>entire panel of critics as I am with ARG's bunch. I think this
>>reflects the editor's tastes, since he features reviewers who have
>>the same general musical outlook as himself.
>
>instruments" performances, but I'm sure I've seen some favorable
>reviews of HIP performances in ARG.
More damagingly (in my opinion, anyway), Vroon doesn't see much use for
historical recordings; he seems to think an Abbado or a Tilson Thomas
can equal or surpass a Koussevitzky or a Toscanini; and that being the
case (in his reasoning), the one in modern sound is obviously the more
recommendable.
Ratwood19
>How would you rate the two subject magazines? Do you think one is
>better in some categories than the other, and if so, which ones and for
>what reason?
I subscribe to both. Based on my comparative level of excitement when one or
the other arrives, I'd say I like Fanfare better. It just seems less provincial
and cranky -- more classy, if you will. But ARG has also turned me on to some
good stuff, so I would not want to go without it.
David M. Cook
On 8 May 1998 06:58:37 GMT, Matthew B. Tepper <ducky兀deltanet.com> wrote:
>In article <EsMF3...@presby.edu>, jtb...@presby.edu spake unto the
>>Not completely... editor Vroon is rabidly anti-HIP (a.k.a.) "authentic
>More damagingly (in my opinion, anyway), Vroon doesn't see much use for
>historical recordings;
So what? ARG covers substantial numbers of historical recordings as well as
HIP recordings. I've been turned on to a lot of historical recordings by
ARG.
Dave Cook
Mtconcape
I wouldn't want to take away the fun of your despising Vroon and his jeremaiads
but I think you miss the focus of his critques of historical recordings. I've
always observed he rather prefers recordings of some of the podium masters from
the early days of good (minmally miked) stereo and emphatically not those of
todays jet-setting routiniers. Historical perfomances in bad sound, and many
are, are what he objects to.
Incidnetally, for anyone who wnats to read an extended and reasoned critique of
the 'authentic' instrument performance practice should look at Richard
Taruskin's recnet book, Text and Act.
Mike Corgan
Tony Movshon
Curtis Croulet <curt...@pe.net> writes:
> Peter wrote:
> >
> > How would you rate the two subject magazines? Do you think one is
> > better in some categories than the other, and if so, which ones and for
> > what reason?
>
> I subscribe to both, but forced to choose, I would go with Fanfare.
> There just seems to be more depth. Also (and this may only be important
> to me), I don't think I've ever been as out-of-step with an entire panel
> of critics as I am with ARG's bunch. I think this reflects the editor's
> tastes, since he features reviewers who have the same general musical
> outlook as himself.
I've never been able to discern a "musical outlook" in Vroon's writings.
Tony Movshon
Center for Neural Science New York University
http://www.cns.nyu.edu mov...@nyu.edu
Tony Movshon
"Jicotea" <jic...@frontiernet.com> writes:
> HenryFogel <henry...@aol.com> wrote in article
>> You enlivened "Fanfare's" pages significantly, and I would hope you would do
>> so again.
>
> On the two recalled occasions when we butted heads,
> it seems at this distance that both times I was substantially
> out of line.
>
> So, please accept my apologies
> for putting you on
> my enemies list,
> obviously without
> the slightest justification.
>
> John Wiser
Ooh, yuck. This sappy exchange suggests to me that Jicotea couldn't
*possibly* be the *real* John Wiser ... or perhaps it's just age. To
warp a phrase: there are old reviewers, and bold reviewers, but there
are no old, bold reviewers.
John Harkness
John Harkness writes:
Mtconcape wrote:
> Incidnetally, for anyone who wnats to read an extended and reasoned critique of
> the 'authentic' instrument performance practice should look at Richard
> Taruskin's recnet book, Text and Act.
> Mike Corgan
Is this a new book, or a collection of his essays? I have most of his
essays in various magazines.
John
Matthew Silverstein
John Harkness wrote in message <355331...@netcom.ca>...
>Is this a new book, or a collection of his essays? I have most of his
>essays in various magazines.
It's just a collection of articles.
Matty
Paul Goldstein
True, but I believe Taruskin says in the preface that he rewrote the
original articles significantly for the book. I agree that these are
seminal pieces bristling with insight. I particularly like his vigorous
advoacy of Norrington's Beethoven, which I continue to regard very
highly.
Phoenix
On Fri, 08 May 1998 12:22:14 -0400, John Harkness <j...@netcom.ca>
wrote:
>John Harkness writes:
>
>Mtconcape wrote:
>
>> Incidnetally, for anyone who wnats to read an extended and reasoned critique of
>> the 'authentic' instrument performance practice should look at Richard
>> Taruskin's recnet book, Text and Act.
>
>> Mike Corgan
>
>Is this a new book, or a collection of his essays? I have most of his
>essays in various magazines.
>
>John
It was published in 1995 by Oxford University Press. It's a collection
of his essays, most of which have appeared separately. More variations
on his thesis that period performance (oops, I mean HIP) practice is a
mercenary scheme to make old music sound new and interesting -- an
oversimplification, but it he makes for stimulating, intelligent
reading on the subject.
Personally, I prefer his writings on Russian music that focus on
Mussorgsky and Stravinksy. They're absolutely brilliant.
Phoenix
Phoenix
>Matthew Silverstein wrote:
>>
>> John Harkness wrote in message <355331...@netcom.ca>...
>> >Is this a new book, or a collection of his essays? I have most of his
>> >essays in various magazines.
>>
>> It's just a collection of articles.
>>
>> Matty
>
>True, but I believe Taruskin says in the preface that he rewrote the
>original articles significantly for the book. I agree that these are
>seminal pieces bristling with insight. I particularly like his vigorous
>advoacy of Norrington's Beethoven, which I continue to regard very
>highly.
His advocacy appears to be an interesting concession to _some_ HIP
practices (to which he is generally opposed) on the premise that
Norrington and his LCP bring fresh insight to the symphonies because
they observe Beethoven's original metronome markings with a "selfless"
devotion lacking in ego. As if they're the only performing ensemble
who do so? Still a very refreshing read, though.
Phoenix
Eric Schissel
This has been a most interesting thread to read.
As to Silverton, whose writing was one reason I did not renew my
subscription (though I still read it regularly as I can)- .yes., Silverton
is as annoying to some as Royal S. Brown is to others (though I don't
consider Royal S. Brown especially appealing either...)- anyhow! as to
Silverton, there were several recordings he did not praise, though this
usually took the form of a regretful demurral. (See e.g. - in the issue I
have read and reread nearly to the point of memorizing, July/Aug 1995 (I
think)- his review of a CD of works by Tanguy.)
-Eric Schissel
--
schi...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/schissel ICQ#7279016
standard disclaimer
Eric Schissel
Matthew B. Tepper (ducky兀deltanet.com) wrote:
>> On the other hand, there's a new guy called Martin Anderson who writes
>> with a good sense of humor and tends to review stuff off the beaten
>> track. I like his style.
>Is he that new? I thought I'd read him somewhere for a while, here or
>elsewhere.
Well, he's been writing for Fanfare since '95 or thereabouts (perhaps
earlier). Before that he wrote for many places, including Tempo.
-Eric Schissel
>Certain reviewers ought to "own" certain composers -- I know that I'd
>want to see William Youngren's take on any Wagner (especially historical
>reissues!), and giving any Shostakovich item to anybody other than Royal
>S. Brown is blind folly.
and contrariwise, letting Joanne Forman review any serial music whatever
is just silly (except, apparently, for Toch)- she has no desire to rate
the content but settles for rating the style (serialism), which makes for
a waste of good review space in my opinion. (See her Spies review.)
I wish David Johnson still wrote for Fanfare, as I've said before...
-Eric Schissel (who adds his voice to the chorus wishing John Wiser back.)
Eric Schissel
For a really horrid magazine I would nominate not ARG (which I despise)
but Classic CD (which I .cannot stand.)... few comparisons, apparent
reliance on Schwann to locate alternatives (to a truly ridiculous extent),
reviews of Soviet-era music more political than musical (consistently; if
you can't get enough of Ian McDonald's excuses for music reviews, this is
the magazine for you!- I'm surprised he didn't blame Pettersson's music on
the Swedish government), fairly consistently too-brief reviews (as against
the expansive style I enjoy so in Fanfare), and too-ready acceptance of
first recording claims by companies and/or distributors (though they share
this shame with any number of other magazines, unfortunately- viz. the
ridiculous claim by Olympia that their Milhaud sym. 3 was a first
recording.)
-Eric Schissel
Todd Michel McComb
In article <3553471b...@enews.newsguy.com>,
Phoenix <pho...@spamx.eudora.com> wrote:
>[Taruskin's] advocacy [of Norrington's Beethoven] appears to be
>an interesting concession to _some_ HIP practices (to which he is
You're aware of Taruskin's own conducting (all HIP) I assume? And
that many American HIP musicologists consider him one of their
greatest mentors? Saying that Taruskin is opposed to HIP is about
like saying that Wagner is opposed to opera, IMO.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Rob Holzel
Phoenix (pho...@spamx.eudora.com) wrote:
: It was published in 1995 by Oxford University Press. It's a collection
: of his essays, most of which have appeared separately. More variations
: on his thesis that period performance (oops, I mean HIP) practice is a
: mercenary scheme to make old music sound new and interesting -- an
: oversimplification, but it he makes for stimulating, intelligent
: reading on the subject.
If I remember correctly, Taruskin was the author of an article on
Horowitz entitled "Why They Hate Horowitz" or something along those
lines. The Sunday New York Times featured it a few years back. It made
outrageous statements about those of us who feel we have valid reasons
to dislike Horowitz's playing. I thought it made some very unfair
generalizations. I wrote what I thought was a very balanced letter to
the editor in reply, which alas was not published. I guess I didn't
really think it would be, but it would've been cool if it was!
Is this guy a friend of Lebrecht's?
Rob
Rob Holzel
Eric Schissel (schi...@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
: For a really horrid magazine I would nominate not ARG (which I despise)
: but Classic CD (which I .cannot stand.)...
: first recording claims by companies and/or distributors (though they share
: this shame with any number of other magazines, unfortunately- viz. the
: ridiculous claim by Olympia that their Milhaud sym. 3 was a first
: recording.)
Any CD company that relies on the record companies to fill their "free
discs" each month is immediately suspect to me. And this would include
Gramophone I suppose.
As for Fanfare, I wonder if they sell the rights to their cover before
or after the content of that month's issue is known. When an item
advertised on the cover is reviewed, has it ever been panned? I think
I will start to take data on this question with my back issues... :-)
Rob
Phoenix
On 8 May 1998 12:15:27 -0700, mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb)
wrote:
Umm, some people might agree with that last statement.
RT is _generally_ (see my quoted post above) opposed to HIP as the
cult of authenticity a number of its proponents and practitioners
(Hanover Band and Hogwood being prime targets) have been promoting. He
opines that historical performances constitute "creative guesswork"
rather than authentic representations of the composers' intentions. He
critically views the movement historically valid, as long as the
research is done in an attempt to understand as much as we can --
instead of commercial hype at the cost of musicological integrity.
Yes, I know he's conducted (even recorded) historically informed
performances. It's nice to see a theorist put his baton where his
mouth is for a change......
Phoenix
rkha...@adnc.com
Does anyone know the story behind Ron MacDonald's departure from Fanfare?
Just curious.
Ramon Khalona
Carlsbad, California
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Todd Michel McComb
In article <35535b9a...@enews.newsguy.com>,
Phoenix <pho...@spamx.eudora.com> wrote:
>He opines that historical performances constitute "creative
>guesswork" rather than authentic representations of the composers'
>intentions.
That is only mundane & obvious reality. Translating it into "opposed
to HIP" is quite a leap. Taruskin is addressing the rhetoric
surrounding HIP. Anyway, I'll let the many Taruskin students reading
this carry on... I just thought your remark a curious one.
(Yes, the Wagner quip was chosen intentionally.)
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
John Harkness
John Harkness writes:
Phoenix wrote:
> On Fri, 08 May 1998 12:22:14 -0400, John Harkness <j...@netcom.ca>
> wrote:
> >John Harkness writes:
> >Mtconcape wrote:
> >> Incidnetally, for anyone who wnats to read an extended and reasoned critique of
> >> the 'authentic' instrument performance practice should look at Richard
> >> Taruskin's recnet book, Text and Act.
> >> Mike Corgan
> >Is this a new book, or a collection of his essays? I have most of his
> >essays in various magazines.
> >John
> It was published in 1995 by Oxford University Press. It's a collection
> of his essays, most of which have appeared separately. More variations
> on his thesis that period performance (oops, I mean HIP) practice is a
> mercenary scheme to make old music sound new and interesting -- an
> oversimplification, but it he makes for stimulating, intelligent
> reading on the subject.
Actually, since I've read several of his essays on HIP practices, I'd
say that this goes way beyond a simplification into the realm of
outright distortion.
John
Matthew B. Tepper
rkha...@adnc.com wrote:
>
> Does anyone know the story behind Ron MacDonald's departure from Fanfare?
>
> Just curious.
I think he was compromised by a conspiracy between the Hamburglar and
Mayor McCheese.
Curtis Croulet
> ...he seems to think an Abbado or a Tilson Thomas
> can equal or surpass a Koussevitzky or a Toscanini...
Well, of course, Vroon despises Toscanini.
Charles K. Moss
Todd Michel McComb wrote in message <6ivlkf$fj$1...@machaut.medieval.org>...
>Saying that Taruskin is opposed to HIP is about
>like saying that Wagner is opposed to opera....<
Actually, Wagner WAS opposed to "opera." At least he did not like that word
applied to HIS works.
Wagner preferred the term "music dramas."
Charles K. Moss
http://www.sumter.net/~ckmoss/index.html
Matthew B. Tepper
In article <slrn6l5u2o....@mozart.escnd1.sdca.home.com>,
dave...@home.com spake unto the unwashed masses:
Nevertheless, _ARG_ used to do a much better job covering historicals,
particularly when Peter J. Rabinowitz had his column, "The Monophile."
Piotr Kaminski
Phoenix a écrit:
> It was published in 1995 by Oxford University Press. It's a collection
> of his essays, most of which have appeared separately. More variations
> on his thesis that period performance (oops, I mean HIP) practice is a
> mercenary scheme to make old music sound new and interesting -- an
> oversimplification, but it he makes for stimulating, intelligent
> reading on the subject.
I'm sorry, but I have just read some of it again, and this is oversimplification - on
your part. The 'mercenary scheme' is at most a peripheral aspect of his opinions on
the subject, which are much more profound, intellectually sound and honest. To draw
one, synthetic 'idea' from the book : there's nothing 'historical' about these
performances, they're absolutely 'contemporary', they represent not the (hypothetical
in any case) past but the present. Historically 'informed' for some, sloppy and
thoughtless and musicologically suspect (plus financially interested) for some others,
but in general they're Ours, not Bach's, or Mozart's. As for the 'stimulating,
intelligent' part, I couldn't agree more heartily.
> Personally, I prefer his writings on Russian music that focus on
> Mussorgsky and Stravinksy. They're absolutely brilliant.
I'm in the middle of the Mussorgsky book, and a delight to the mind it is.
PK
Simon Roberts
Piotr Kaminski (wapi...@imaginet.fr) wrote:
: I'm sorry, but I have just read some of it again, and this is oversimplification - on
: your part. The 'mercenary scheme' is at most a peripheral aspect of his opinions on
: the subject, which are much more profound, intellectually sound and honest. To draw
: one, synthetic 'idea' from the book : there's nothing 'historical' about these
: performances, they're absolutely 'contemporary', they represent not the (hypothetical
: in any case) past but the present. Historically 'informed' for some, sloppy and
: thoughtless and musicologically suspect (plus financially interested) for some others,
: but in general they're Ours, not Bach's, or Mozart's. As for the 'stimulating,
: intelligent' part, I couldn't agree more heartily.
Excellent summary of excellent arguments; if there's a better mind out
there addressing questions of authenticity either in the context of music
or anything else (such as law, which, as Taruskin notes, is similarly
plagued with talk of original intent, etc.), I would like to encounter it.
Simon
Piotr Kaminski
John Harkness a écrit:
> John Harkness writes:
>
> Phoenix wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 08 May 1998 12:22:14 -0400, John Harkness <j...@netcom.ca>
> > wrote:
>
> > >John Harkness writes:
>
> > >Mtconcape wrote:
>
> > >> Incidnetally, for anyone who wnats to read an extended and reasoned critique of
> > >> the 'authentic' instrument performance practice should look at Richard
> > >> Taruskin's recnet book, Text and Act.
>
> > >> Mike Corgan
>
> > >Is this a new book, or a collection of his essays? I have most of his
> > >essays in various magazines.
>
> > >John
>
> > It was published in 1995 by Oxford University Press. It's a collection
> > of his essays, most of which have appeared separately. More variations
> > on his thesis that period performance (oops, I mean HIP) practice is a
> > mercenary scheme to make old music sound new and interesting -- an
> > oversimplification, but it he makes for stimulating, intelligent
> > reading on the subject.
>
> Actually, since I've read several of his essays on HIP practices, I'd
> say that this goes way beyond a simplification into the realm of
> outright distortion.
Sorry, but this isn't clear : what goes 'way beyond', Taruskin or Phoenix's appreciation
of him?
PK
Michael A. Abelson
Rob Holzel wrote:
> As for Fanfare, I wonder if they sell the rights to their cover before
> or after the content of that month's issue is known. When an item
> advertised on the cover is reviewed, has it ever been panned?
Hard to believe, but I recall at least one instance: The Duo Krommelynk
(Cromelnick? Kromelnyk?) received a rather negative review in the same issue
that they were the cover art. They did themselves in soon after the issue
appeared.
--
======================
Mike Abelson
Jicotea
Tony Movshon <to...@cns.nyu.edu> wrote in article
<6iuvsb$n44$1...@news.nyu.edu>...
>
> "Jicotea" <jic...@frontiernet.com> writes:
> > HenryFogel <henry...@aol.com> wrote in article
> >> You enlivened "Fanfare's" pages significantly, and I would hope you
would do
> >> so again.
> >
> > On the two recalled occasions when we butted heads,
> > it seems at this distance that both times I was substantially
> > out of line.
> >
> > So, please accept my apologies
> > for putting you on
> > my enemies list,
> > obviously without
> > the slightest justification.
> >
> > John Wiser
>
> Ooh, yuck. This sappy exchange suggests to me that Jicotea couldn't
> *possibly* be the *real* John Wiser ... or perhaps it's just age. To
> warp a phrase: there are old reviewers, and bold reviewers, but there
> are no old, bold reviewers.
Listen up, sofronitzky-lover.
I made a public gaffe
which called for a public correction.
I don't need to have Henry Fogel
pissed off at me over nothing at all
worth having a go-round over
What that exchange suggests to you
is nonsense
possibly
brain damage
from the toxic ambient air of downtown
Manhattan
whch wd also explain
satisfactorily to me
yr attachment to
direly wayward performances
by a boozy woozy Soviet pianist
alcohol & heavy-metals-laced carbon monoxide
both do their work well
FYI
_this_ reviewer hasn't gotten picked off.
But in recent yrs has gotten effing sick
of putting up with the pervasive compromises
of a comprehensively inadequate
substitute for real music.
A given on this ng is that one
accepts sound recordings
for the conveyance of musical information
and
improbable as it may seem
enjoyment
When I post here
I accept the consensus too
but its always
against my better judgement
bad-tempered john
John Harkness
Piotr Kaminski wrote:
> John Harkness a écrit:
> > Phoenix wrote:
> > > It was published in 1995 by Oxford University Press. It's a collection
> > > of his essays, most of which have appeared separately. More variations
> > > on his thesis that period performance (oops, I mean HIP) practice is a
> > > mercenary scheme to make old music sound new and interesting -- an
> > > oversimplification, but it he makes for stimulating, intelligent
> > > reading on the subject.
> > Actually, since I've read several of his essays on HIP practices, I'd
> > say that this goes way beyond a simplification into the realm of
> > outright distortion.
> Sorry, but this isn't clear : what goes 'way beyond', Taruskin or Phoenix's appreciation of him?
>
> PK
Phoenix's description of Taruskin's argument.
John
Mtconcape
As a point of information onTaruskin's Text and Act, while most of the book is
a re-write of his earlier articles on the subject of performance practice, the
first forty-five or so pages is an introductory essay that summarizes many of
his viewpoints and puts his articles in some context. That is helpful if you
missed any the first time around.
Mike Corgan
Piotr Kaminski
John Harkness a écrit:
> Phoenix's description of Taruskin's argument.
No objection!
PK
Piotr Kaminski
Michael A. Abelson a écrit:
> Rob Holzel wrote:
>
> > As for Fanfare, I wonder if they sell the rights to their cover before
> > or after the content of that month's issue is known. When an item
> > advertised on the cover is reviewed, has it ever been panned?
>
> Hard to believe, but I recall at least one instance: The Duo Krommelynk
> (Cromelnick? Kromelnyk?) received a rather negative review in the same issue
> that they were the cover art. They did themselves in soon after the issue
> appeared.
It's Crommelynck. Or rather - it was. What they have done had nothing to do with
the review, of course - serious, personal problems were the cause.
PK
kun...@hilltop.ic.edu
I'd recommend this collection to anyone interested in "historically-informed
performance" music. Taruskin's "Author's Note" says "Every piece in this
collection has been thoroughly reeedited--to expunge redundancies, to correct
the style, to refine or enrich the argument. If I am asking my readers to
reread me, the least I can do is to offer them an improved text...". Once
you've read Taruskin, it will be clear why early-music groups talk about "HIP"
rather than "authentic" performance.
Robert
>
> Matthew Silverstein wrote:
> True, but I believe Taruskin says in the preface that he rewrote the
> original articles significantly for the book. I agree that these are
> seminal pieces bristling with insight. I particularly like his vigorous
> advoacy of Norrington's Beethoven, which I continue to regard very
> highly.
A S Graham
BTJ (more bad-tempered than usual?) wrote:
>
>What that exchange suggests to you
>is nonsense
>possibly
>brain damage
>from the toxic ambient air of downtown
>Manhattan
>whch wd also explain
>satisfactorily to me
>yr attachment to
>direly wayward performances
>by a boozy woozy Soviet pianist
Doesn't explain much IMO, since I've been similarly obsessed while living in
the smog-free air of Mississippi, Minnesota and now the Monterey peninsula.
IIRC, Richter was known to knock back a few as well. Maybe that's the Russian
secret for turning out the best pianists on the planet?
_________________________________________________
Scott Graham
Monterey, CA
Jicotea
A S Graham <asgr...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199805091949...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> BTJ (more bad-tempered than usual?) wrote:
<selbstverschneiden>
>
> Doesn't explain much IMO, since I've been similarly obsessed while living
in
> the smog-free air of Mississippi, Minnesota and now the Monterey
peninsula.
> IIRC, Richter was known to knock back a few as well. Maybe that's the
Russian
> secret for turning out the best pianists on the planet?
>
Scott, your hypothesis is as good as -- no, better than -- mine.
But while we're brandishing Os at each other,
IMO Sofronitzky usually _sounds_ well soused
except in Scriabin
whose music (IMO)
he plays on record better
than anyone else living
or dead
Richter by contrast hardly ever
sounds the slightest bit tiddly.
IMHO.
BTJ (really no more than
ordinarily)
Peter
Maybe they should merge? After all it's in vogue now, if Daimler and
Chrysler can do it, why not "Fanfare" and the "American Record Guide."
Then we could get the best of both magazines in one sweep.
The "Fanfare American Record Guide" doesn't sound so bad!
Curtis Croulet
> Not completely... editor Vroon is rabidly anti-HIP (a.k.a.) "authentic
> of HIP performances in ARG.
...but not many.
David
> Excellent summary of excellent arguments; if there's a better mind out
> there addressing questions of authenticity either in the context of music
There is: Rosen's magisterial essay a few years ago in the NY Review of
Books (although privately he is less polite and more scathing of the HIP
movement than in this essay).
-david gable
Adam Dubin
In article <355530...@ix.netcom.com>,
Yes, but at least Chrysler and Mercedes have the good sense to expect to keep
their products and dealers separate, so they say. I couldn't imagine what a
real merger of Fanfare and ARG would look like!
BTW, in the forward to the new coffee table book "Gramophone: The First 75
Years" (this is actually quite an interesting book, only partially a
Gramophone fluff piece), Harold Schonberg, who had a long association with the
magazine as the author of its "Letter from America" in the '50s, says that he
started his reviewing career at "American Music Lover" in the early '40s. At
the time it was a two-man operation (himself and Peter Hugh Reed; a one-man
operation after he entered the Service in 1943). This was the precursor to
"American Record Guide," and the only record review journal in the US at the
time.
Adam
Piotr Kaminski
David a écrit:
Rosen's a great writer, but could we not open another war of tenors here? Who's
mind is better, Rosen's or Taruskin's? Thank God for both, and if ever they
disagree, thanks again : this can only stimulate our, sleeping minds. Alleluia.
PK
Simon Roberts
Peter (p_ul...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Maybe they should merge? After all it's in vogue now, if Daimler and
: Chrysler can do it, why not "Fanfare" and the "American Record Guide."
: Then we could get the best of both magazines in one sweep.
Or the worst....
Simon
John Harkness
John Harkness writes:
But it would give us the ugliest acronym.... FARG?
John
Jicotea
John Harkness <j...@netcom.ca> wrote in article <3555AC...@netcom.ca>...
But think of the possibilities for promotional phrases: um,
"If you can't find a review of it anywhere, FARG IT.
Or alternatively, FARGET IT.
bad tempered john
>
> John
>
jason and jill
:
: But think of the possibilities for promotional phrases: um,
: "If you can't find a review of it anywhere, FARG IT.
: Or alternatively, FARGET IT.
:
: bad tempered john
Wouldn't work. Vroon doesn't seem like he'd be comfortable with FARGS or
FARGITs.
Jason
Jicotea
jason and jill <jgre...@netaxs.com> wrote in article
<6j4m2i$n...@netaxs.com>...
Vroon, my dears, would be the first thing to go.
Joel Flegler looks kind of small and harmless,
but take my word for it, he's one tough cookie. (\:-|=
>
btj
Peter Wilton
Phoenix <pho...@spamx.eudora.com> writes
>RT is _generally_ (see my quoted post above) opposed to HIP as the
>cult of authenticity a number of its proponents and practitioners
>(Hanover Band and Hogwood being prime targets) have been promoting. He
>opines that historical performances constitute "creative guesswork"
>rather than authentic representations of the composers' intentions. He
>critically views the movement historically valid, as long as the
>research is done in an attempt to understand as much as we can --
>instead of commercial hype at the cost of musicological integrity.
My understanding of Taruskin's arguments is that there is no reason at all
why each age should not re-interpret music of the past in its own way.
There was a 19th century way of performing Bach, and a 20th century
one. The difference is, according to Taruskin, that the 20th century calls
its preferred method "historically informed", rather than what it is, a 20th
century way. Taruskin, a Stravinksy expert, sees so-called HIP as
derivative of 20th century arguments about the performance of 20th
century music, particularly those of Stravinsky. Since Taruskin is a
Stravinksy expert, he presumably values Stravinsky's ideas on 20th
century performance styles. Therefore, I would assume that he would
approve of so-called HIP as a valid 20th century interpretation of the
music of the past. His disapproval would be for the idea that it is the
"authentic" way of performing the music of the past, the way it was
performed when it was composed. He has specifically stated that he is
sceptical of the idea that certain aspects of 20th century performance
would have obtained in the 18th century. He thinks, for example, that it is
unlikely that those familiar with the doctrine of the Affects would have
produced the "geometric" performances of early music current in the
post-Stravinksy age. He might nonetheless approve of such
performances as "authentic" to the 20th century.
--
Peter Wilton
The Gregorian Association Web Page:
http://www.beaufort.demon.co.uk/chant.htm
Simon Roberts
Peter Wilton (pj...@beaufort.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: My understanding of Taruskin's arguments is that there is no reason at all
: why each age should not re-interpret music of the past in its own way.
: There was a 19th century way of performing Bach, and a 20th century
: one. The difference is, according to Taruskin, that the 20th century calls
: its preferred method "historically informed", rather than what it is, a 20th
: century way. Taruskin, a Stravinksy expert, sees so-called HIP as
: derivative of 20th century arguments about the performance of 20th
: century music, particularly those of Stravinsky. Since Taruskin is a
: Stravinksy expert, he presumably values Stravinsky's ideas on 20th
: century performance styles. Therefore, I would assume that he would
: approve of so-called HIP as a valid 20th century interpretation of the
: music of the past. His disapproval would be for the idea that it is the
: "authentic" way of performing the music of the past, the way it was
: performed when it was composed. He has specifically stated that he is
: sceptical of the idea that certain aspects of 20th century performance
: would have obtained in the 18th century. He thinks, for example, that it is
: unlikely that those familiar with the doctrine of the Affects would have
: produced the "geometric" performances of early music current in the
: post-Stravinksy age. He might nonetheless approve of such
: performances as "authentic" to the 20th century.
He may "approve" of them in some sense (not sure what you mean) but he
clearly prefers other, more adventurous, HIP and other musicians to the
literalists. See, e.g., chapter 15 of the book.
Simon
Peter Wilton
Simon Roberts <si...@dept.english.upenn.edu> writes
>He may "approve" of them in some sense (not sure what you mean) but he
>clearly prefers other, more adventurous, HIP and other musicians to the
>literalists. See, e.g., chapter 15 of the book.
Yes, I suspect he likes something a bit more adventurous in a "visceral"
way, and doesn't like treatises being used to "hamper" people, from what
I can gather.
James Chapman
the best of both magazines would be fanfare by itself...
Peter <p_ul...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:Maybe they should merge? After all it's in vogue now, if Daimler and
:Chrysler can do it, why not "Fanfare" and the "American Record Guide."
:Then we could get the best of both magazines in one sweep.
:
:The "Fanfare American Record Guide" doesn't sound so bad!
MRPERMAN
>the best of both magazines would be fanfare by itself...
Nuh uh...I like Fanfare better as well but I really like ARG's composer
overviews, even if I vehemently disagree with their choices.
Marc Perman
Posnerh
In article <6ivlkf$fj$1...@machaut.medieval.org>, mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel
McComb) writes:
> Saying that Taruskin is opposed to HIP is about
>like saying that Wagner is opposed to opera, IMO.
And yet it gets said a lot.
I get the impression that Taruskin is much misunderstood, for which he can
blame no one but himself, except perhaps his eighth-grade English teacher for
not teaching him that you have to organize your thoughts when you write.
Howard Posner
Simon Roberts
Phoenix (pho...@spamx.eudora.com) wrote:
: The same could (and is) said of Hegel or Wittgenstein [insert wry
: grin,] but even Taruskin's proponents and groupies can't agree or
: articulate with any degree of logical explication his positions on
: what he regards as 'correct' HIP-ness. In his more lucid moments, he
: can be quite engaging and make for a few lively discussions regarding
: the issue. But at his most turgid, he makes Hegel read like Ann
: Landers by comparison. To wit, I've lifted a quote of Truskin's from
: his review of Matthew Brown's tome "Adrift on Neurath's Boat: The Case
: for a Naturalized Music Theory":
: "...if similarity is evidence of influence, but dissimilarity can be
: evidence of a stronger influence; if a poet's direct allusion, not to
: mention his open assent or avowal, can be evidence of his
: susceptibility, but the absence of an allusion and his denial can be
: evidence of stronger susceptibility--then just what can disprove the
: theory? Nothing can: as a theory it is breezily "verificationist," and
: if it pretended to scientific status it would be laughed right out of
: court."
: Yeah, right...visions of Matthew Arnold spinning in his grave.
Perhaps I've hung around academic and legal circles too long, but I fail
to see how the passage you quoted is difficult to read, let
alone understand.
Simon
Matthew Silverstein
Simon Roberts wrote in message <6jd791$htf$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>Perhaps I've hung around academic and legal circles too long, but I fail
>to see how the passage you quoted is difficult to read, let
>alone understand.
I'm afraid I agree with Simon here. Taruskin's writing has never struck me as
particularly difficult.
Matty
Michelle K. Dulak
Howard Posner writes:
> I get the impression that Taruskin is much misunderstood, for which
> he can blame no one but himself, except perhaps his eighth-grade
> English teacher for not teaching him that you have to organize your
> thoughts when you write.
Well...horsepucky. RT's position on HIP is perfectly clear to anyone who
reads carefully. The trouble is that there are many people who assume
that anyone attacking the rhetorical pretensions of HIP (as RT does)
must hate HIP, period. Unless you think that Gardiner's Brahms (say)
really "gets closer to the *true* Brahms," you must hate the
performance--or so the "thought" goes. It never occurs to these people
that one might like a performance--even a HIP performance--without
believing it to be a plausible historical reconstruction. RT's whole
point is that the two issues are separable.
RT's praise of some of the major monuments of HIP (e.g., Norrington's
Beethoven 2 & 8, the Bilson/Gardiner Mozart concerto cycle, Goebel/MAK's
Bach trio sonatas, Christie's French Baroque recordings) are a matter of
public record; so are his own HIP recordings as gambist and conductor.
Any critic who concludes that RT hates HIP would do well to consider
organizing his own thoughts.
Michelle Dulak
Michelle K. Dulak
"Phoenix" quotes Taruskin:
> : "...if similarity is evidence of influence, but dissimilarity can be
> : evidence of a stronger influence; if a poet's direct allusion, not
> : to mention his open assent or avowal, can be evidence of his
> : susceptibility, but the absence of an allusion and his denial can be
> : evidence of stronger susceptibility--then just what can disprove the
> : theory? Nothing can: as a theory it is breezily "verificationist,"
> : and if it pretended to scientific status it would be laughed right
> : out of court."
> : Yeah, right...visions of Matthew Arnold spinning in his grave.
OK, I give up...where's the difficult bit? Seems to me all he's saying
is that "heads I win, tails you lose" is a poor formula for literary
criticism. You may agree or disagree, but is the point really so hard to
understand?
Michelle Dulak
Eric Schissel
Simon Roberts (si...@dept.english.upenn.edu) wrote:
>Phoenix (pho...@spamx.eudora.com) wrote:
>: "...if similarity is evidence of influence, but dissimilarity can be
>: evidence of a stronger influence; if a poet's direct allusion, not to
>: mention his open assent or avowal, can be evidence of his
>: susceptibility, but the absence of an allusion and his denial can be
>: evidence of stronger susceptibility--then just what can disprove the
>: theory? Nothing can: as a theory it is breezily "verificationist," and
>: if it pretended to scientific status it would be laughed right out of
>: court."
>: Yeah, right...visions of Matthew Arnold spinning in his grave.
>Perhaps I've hung around academic and legal circles too long, but I fail
>to see how the passage you quoted is difficult to read, let
>alone understand.
Same here... it seems to me to be saying, simply enough, that the theory
he's describing is impervious to evidence and, so, can't even conceivably
be disproven- which means that it's completely contentless.
(Or mathematically obvious/provable but that seems unlikely, just to
guess)
-Eric Schissel
--
schi...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/schissel ICQ#7279016
standard disclaimer
Piotr Kaminski
Michelle K. Dulak a écrit:
> "Phoenix" quotes Taruskin:
>
> > : "...if similarity is evidence of influence, but dissimilarity can be
> > : evidence of a stronger influence; if a poet's direct allusion, not
> > : to mention his open assent or avowal, can be evidence of his
> > : susceptibility, but the absence of an allusion and his denial can be
> > : evidence of stronger susceptibility--then just what can disprove the
> > : theory? Nothing can: as a theory it is breezily "verificationist,"
> > : and if it pretended to scientific status it would be laughed right
> > : out of court."
>
> > : Yeah, right...visions of Matthew Arnold spinning in his grave.
>
> OK, I give up...where's the difficult bit? Seems to me all he's saying
> is that "heads I win, tails you lose" is a poor formula for literary
> criticism. You may agree or disagree, but is the point really so hard to
> understand?
I agree with Michelle. BTW, it sounds curiously like the famous child
psychologists' argument in some recent trials : if the child denies having
been molested, it's the best proof it has.
PK
Piotr Kaminski
Michelle K. Dulak a écrit:
> Howard Posner writes:
After having agreed with Michelle again, I should add that Taruskin can also
change his mind (as he has concerning some of the mentioned), and admit it.
This is probably the highest virtue of a critic.
PK
Piotr Kaminski
Simon Roberts a écrit:
> Phoenix (pho...@spamx.eudora.com) wrote:
>
> : The same could (and is) said of Hegel or Wittgenstein [insert wry
> : grin,] but even Taruskin's proponents and groupies can't agree or
> : articulate with any degree of logical explication his positions on
> : what he regards as 'correct' HIP-ness. In his more lucid moments, he
> : can be quite engaging and make for a few lively discussions regarding
> : the issue. But at his most turgid, he makes Hegel read like Ann
> : Landers by comparison. To wit, I've lifted a quote of Truskin's from
> : his review of Matthew Brown's tome "Adrift on Neurath's Boat: The Case
> : for a Naturalized Music Theory":
>
> : "...if similarity is evidence of influence, but dissimilarity can be
> : evidence of a stronger influence; if a poet's direct allusion, not to
> : mention his open assent or avowal, can be evidence of his
> : susceptibility, but the absence of an allusion and his denial can be
> : evidence of stronger susceptibility--then just what can disprove the
> : theory? Nothing can: as a theory it is breezily "verificationist," and
> : if it pretended to scientific status it would be laughed right out of
> : court."
>
> : Yeah, right...visions of Matthew Arnold spinning in his grave.
>
> Perhaps I've hung around academic and legal circles too long, but I fail
> to see how the passage you quoted is difficult to read, let
> alone understand.
Neither do I - must be the French 'nouvelle critique' which makes just about
anything sound simple. I have read this once, haven't stopped to re-read any
of it, and find it crystal clear. In fact, I suspect him to reproduce parts
of the adversary's argumentation (I don't know the original), as a
refutation unfortunately must. It's extremely difficult sometimes to refute
a very complex and absurd statement in a fast, clear and simple way, since
you have to address every bit of nonsense you find in the original
(otherwise the author shoots back at you, and there you go again). This is
guessing on my part, but I have encountered it often in my own, modest
activities.
PK
Piotr Kaminski
Phoenix a écrit:
> Excellent observation. However, Rosen has a manifest, well-stated POV,
> while Taruskin seems to waver between advocacy and obscurity. There's
> a point at which stimulation becomes obfuscation...
I'm sorry to disagree with my agreer, but I have never had any problem in
understanding Taruskin's writing and/or argumentation in the HIP field (or in
anything else). I find his writing extremely attractive and to the point; you feel a
real humanist mind there, a rarity nowadays (a humanist being, according to my
favourite definition, 'someone who knows everything about something, and something
about everything'). The problem with the Text and Axt stuff is, it has been so often
intentionally misunderstood and misinterpreted on purely ideological grounds, he has
to over-and-over-explain it until it becomes much more complex than it should be,
and was in the first place. But it's not his fault.
PK
Jon A Conrad
One more voice of support here for Taruskin's clear, stimulating, and
convincing writing. That he has been so misunderstood (despite having
been perfectly clear in the first place) says more about people's reading
ability, or willingness to entertain complex attitudes. For instance, the
idea that one can be in favor of HIP and still be dissatisfied with many
of the performances bearing its banner; or that one can like or dislike
performances without regard to their HIPness; or that one can enjoy
everything about a performance except for its misguided and misinformed PR
proclaiming superior moral virtue because of some pseudo-hip detail; and
so on.
Even Andrew Porter got it wrong when he tried to pay tribute to Taruskin's
writing in one of his later NEW YORKER columns: something like "Or are we
merely going along with trendy sounds, as Richard Taruskin writes?" If
one truly reads what Taruskin writes, there is no "merely" about it;
creating a new performance practice (which is the only thing, really, that
can be done with it) is the best use to which HIP research can be put. Or
as Taruskin put it in a headline that the NY TIMES unfortunately replaced:
"It's Not Historical -- It's Much Better Than That." Exactly so.
And I too found the quoted paragraph perfectly clear.
Jon
Mario Taboada
Taruskin writes as if he had a giant chip on his shoulder, and always
seems to be making (or about to make) striking announcements to the
unwashed. He has no class and no sass - as a writer, he is dull,
arrogant, disorganized, and his pretension of cleverness falls flat
every time.
I like to imagine that if the insufferably mediocre and pompous Joyce
Carol Oates (another well known shoulder-chip carrier) wrote musical
criticism, she would sound like Taruskin.
I am sure that Michelle has very direct knowledge of the man and his
ideas, and I respect her opinions. But as a reader and music fan, I find
Taruskin's articles appallingly bad, full of aggressivity, and not at
all illuminating or even minimally convincing.
His unprovoked viperine attack on Donald Martino in the New York Times
makes Virgil Thomson's criticism seem like the work a benign, avuncular
commentator. Taruskin seems to have set out to deliberatly destroy this
composer's reputation. Why? He should keep his neuroses to himself
instead of inflicting them on the reader.
Regards,
Mario Taboada
kun...@hilltop.ic.edu
I must agree with Simon--the quote from Taruskin seems to me to be unusually
comprehensible for academese (always relative, I would concede) and even--dare
I say--sensible. It also looks to me as though it is an attack on the liteary
interpretive school of Leo Strauss, but, not having read the essay (where is
it by the way? Not in "Text and Act") I'd better stop here.
Robert
In article <6jd791$htf$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
si...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Simon Roberts) wrote:
>
> Phoenix (pho...@spamx.eudora.com) wrote:
>
> : The same could (and is) said of Hegel or Wittgenstein [insert wry
> : grin,] but even Taruskin's proponents and groupies can't agree or
> : articulate with any degree of logical explication his positions on
> : what he regards as 'correct' HIP-ness. In his more lucid moments, he
> : can be quite engaging and make for a few lively discussions regarding
> : the issue. But at his most turgid, he makes Hegel read like Ann
> : Landers by comparison. To wit, I've lifted a quote of Truskin's from
> : his review of Matthew Brown's tome "Adrift on Neurath's Boat: The Case
> : for a Naturalized Music Theory":
>
> : "...if similarity is evidence of influence, but dissimilarity can be
> : evidence of a stronger influence; if a poet's direct allusion, not to
> : mention his open assent or avowal, can be evidence of his
> : susceptibility, but the absence of an allusion and his denial can be
> : evidence of stronger susceptibility--then just what can disprove the
> : theory? Nothing can: as a theory it is breezily "verificationist," and
> : if it pretended to scientific status it would be laughed right out of
> : court."
>
> : Yeah, right...visions of Matthew Arnold spinning in his grave.
>
> Perhaps I've hung around academic and legal circles too long, but I fail
> to see how the passage you quoted is difficult to read, let
> alone understand.
>
> Simon
kun...@hilltop.ic.edu
Quite right, and Freudian psychology has provided the ultimate exemplar of the
critical methodology that miraculously transforms negative evidence into even
more decisive confirmation. The scathing Viennese critic Karl Kraus
recognized this when he wrote of the Freudian school: "The trained
psychologist unfailingly recognizes the incurable neurotic by his agitated
behavior upon being committed to an asylum" (or words to that effect)...
Robert
In article <355AAB10...@imaginet.fr>,
wapi...@imaginet.fr wrote:
>
> Michelle K. Dulak a écrit:
>
> > "Phoenix" quotes Taruskin:
> >
> > > : "...if similarity is evidence of influence, but dissimilarity can be
> > > : evidence of a stronger influence; if a poet's direct allusion, not
> > > : to mention his open assent or avowal, can be evidence of his
> > > : susceptibility, but the absence of an allusion and his denial can be
> > > : evidence of stronger susceptibility--then just what can disprove the
> > > : theory? Nothing can: as a theory it is breezily "verificationist,"
> > > : and if it pretended to scientific status it would be laughed right
> > > : out of court."
> >
> > > : Yeah, right...visions of Matthew Arnold spinning in his grave.
> >
> > OK, I give up...where's the difficult bit? Seems to me all he's saying
> > is that "heads I win, tails you lose" is a poor formula for literary
> > criticism. You may agree or disagree, but is the point really so hard to
> > understand?
>
> I agree with Michelle. BTW, it sounds curiously like the famous child
> psychologists' argument in some recent trials : if the child denies having
> been molested, it's the best proof it has.
>
> PK
>
>
cat...@usa.net
On Thu, 14 May 1998 16:22:31 GMT, pho...@spamx.eudora.com (Phoenix) wrote:
>On Thu, 14 May 1998 10:27:35 +0000, Mario Taboada
><matr...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Taruskin writes as if he had a giant chip on his shoulder, and always
>>seems to be making (or about to make) striking announcements to the
>>unwashed. He has no class and no sass - as a writer, he is dull,
>>arrogant, disorganized, and his pretension of cleverness falls flat
>>every time.
>>
>>I like to imagine that if the insufferably mediocre and pompous Joyce
>>Carol Oates (another well known shoulder-chip carrier) wrote musical
>>criticism, she would sound like Taruskin.
>>
>...a pity Camille Paglia doesn't write musical crit...what a breath of
>fresh and sassy air that would be!
>>
>>I am sure that Michelle has very direct knowledge of the man and his
>>ideas, and I respect her opinions. But as a reader and music fan, I find
>>Taruskin's articles appallingly bad, full of aggressivity, and not at
>>all illuminating or even minimally convincing.
>>
>Duh...
>>
>>His unprovoked viperine attack on Donald Martino in the New York Times
>>makes Virgil Thomson's criticism seem like the work a benign, avuncular
>>commentator. Taruskin seems to have set out to deliberatly destroy this
>>composer's reputation. Why? He should keep his neuroses to himself
>>instead of inflicting them on the reader.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Mario Taboada
>
>Well, RT seems to have quite a following, judging from the potty posts
>elicited by my random comments concerning his indistinct POV and
>distended style. So I'll merely grin and wait for you to reap your
>share of heat from the cognoscenti of muddle. Who said the emperor
>ain't got no clothes?
>
>Phoenix
I *must* smile at this thread, if for no other reason than I admire your
dogged uphill battle with Professor Taruskin's supporters. As a music major at
Northwestern, I didn't find he was quite as revered -- if that's the right
word -- as he seems to be on the "Coasts". Just being "stimulating" didn't cut
it all that well :)
Anyway, my only contribution to this tempest in a teapot is an article
of his, filled with Taruskinisms, where he pontificated that "Pablo Casals did
for Bach's Cello Suites what Chaliapin did for the role of Boris Godunov in
Mussorgsky's opera: revived them from the dead, made them a classic, created
their performance practice, and, as interpretations of consummate authority
inevitably will, ruined them for generations to come."
I remember my music professor commenting that this is like saying anything
that's good ruins it for somebody else. Or that Hank Aaron spoiled home runs
for everybody else. Just plain stupid! Casals wasn't responsible for abuses of
Bach that occured because of untalented imitations of his playing. You can't
blame Heifetz for abuses of the violin literature that are untalented
imitations of his way either. We're all richer for great art and great
artists, we're not poorer because they did something wonderfully. What I
hear from that quote is that "Casals spoiled Bach." How can he say that? Some
lesser musicians may have spoiled it because they were so enamored with
Casals' way of playing and rightly so. I don't think you can blame somebody
for doing something beautiful. That's putting the wrong spin on it. You can
certainly blame people for doing something ugly that is a rather poor
imitation of an influential artist. I don't claim to be a Taruskin scholar --
hardly! But what a pompous, opinionated ass he sounds like, regardless of how
"stimulating" others find him to be.
Just my **very** humble .02 worth :+)
Cathi Hoffman
"A Sucker for Brahms"
Simon Roberts
sguy.com>Distribution:
Phoenix (pho...@spamx.eudora.com) wrote:
: Well, RT seems to have quite a following, judging from the potty posts
: elicited by my random comments concerning his indistinct POV and
: distended style. So I'll merely grin and wait for you to reap your
: share of heat from the cognoscenti of muddle. Who said the emperor
: ain't got no clothes?
We potty posters are patiently awaiting your removal of his clothes.
Simon
Simon Roberts
cat...@usa.net wrote:
[snip]
: Anyway, my only contribution to this tempest in a teapot is an article
: of his, filled with Taruskinisms, where he pontificated that "Pablo Casals did
: for Bach's Cello Suites what Chaliapin did for the role of Boris Godunov in
: Mussorgsky's opera: revived them from the dead, made them a classic, created
: their performance practice, and, as interpretations of consummate authority
: inevitably will, ruined them for generations to come."
: I remember my music professor commenting that this is like saying anything
: that's good ruins it for somebody else. Or that Hank Aaron spoiled home runs
: for everybody else. Just plain stupid! Casals wasn't responsible for abuses of
: Bach that occured because of untalented imitations of his playing. You can't
: blame Heifetz for abuses of the violin literature that are untalented
: imitations of his way either. We're all richer for great art and great
: artists, we're not poorer because they did something wonderfully. What I
: hear from that quote is that "Casals spoiled Bach." How can he say that? Some
: lesser musicians may have spoiled it because they were so enamored with
: Casals' way of playing and rightly so. I don't think you can blame somebody
: for doing something beautiful. That's putting the wrong spin on it. You can
: certainly blame people for doing something ugly that is a rather poor
: imitation of an influential artist. I don't claim to be a Taruskin scholar --
: hardly! But what a pompous, opinionated ass he sounds like, regardless of how
: "stimulating" others find him to be.
I haven't read the article you quote at the top, and thus don't know the
context of this passage. He may of course be talking gibberish, but I
suspect not: you might want to consider possible alternative meanings of
"ruined them for generations to come"; your reading -- "Casals spoiled
Bach" -- hardly seems the most plausible (consider, for instance, the
preceding phrase in the passage you quote, "consummate authority"). I
would also question your professor's sport analogy (I sometimes wonder if
it's ever possible to discuss anything in the U.S. without some damned
analogy to baseball or football being made).
Simon
Ryan Hare
I agree with Mario. Taruskin is a perfect example of the "bad" kind of
critic. His assault on Donald Martino was illogical, misinformed, and
completely tactless.
Ryan Hare
rh...@u.washington.edu
Piotr Kaminski
Simon Roberts a écrit:
And in case Simon's remark is too subtle (it's so much like him!), I shall
brutally add this : give me some 'indistinct POV' taken straight from T's
writing, show me it's indistinct; give me some 'distended style', etc. Since
we're not on 'rec.music.opera' here, and not talking about Mario del Monaco
versus Andrea Bocelli, but about one of the foremost scholars and music
critics of the day, let's be a little more specific, could we?
PK
Piotr Kaminski
cat...@usa.net a écrit:
> Anyway, my only contribution to this tempest in a teapot is an article
> of his, filled with Taruskinisms, where he pontificated that "Pablo Casals did
> for Bach's Cello Suites what Chaliapin did for the role of Boris Godunov in
> Mussorgsky's opera: revived them from the dead, made them a classic, created
> their performance practice, and, as interpretations of consummate authority
> inevitably will, ruined them for generations to come."
>
> I remember my music professor commenting that this is like saying anything
> that's good ruins it for somebody else. Or that Hank Aaron spoiled home runs
> for everybody else. Just plain stupid! Casals wasn't responsible for abuses of
> Bach that occured because of untalented imitations of his playing. You can't
> blame Heifetz for abuses of the violin literature that are untalented
> imitations of his way either. We're all richer for great art and great
> artists, we're not poorer because they did something wonderfully. What I
> hear from that quote is that "Casals spoiled Bach." How can he say that? Some
> lesser musicians may have spoiled it because they were so enamored with
> Casals' way of playing and rightly so. I don't think you can blame somebody
> for doing something beautiful. That's putting the wrong spin on it. You can
> certainly blame people for doing something ugly that is a rather poor
> imitation of an influential artist. I don't claim to be a Taruskin scholar --
> hardly! But what a pompous, opinionated ass he sounds like, regardless of how
> "stimulating" others find him to be.
Taruskin's remark is bathed in two-faced irony - his personal mark, if ever there
was one - and deeply true. T doesn't 'accuse' Shalapin or Casals of having spoiled
anything intentionally, he doesn't blame Casals for doing something beautiful (my
God, what gave you THAT idea?), or to be responsible for all those who imitated
him badly afterwards. But the fact remains that a huge personality leaves such a
mark on the music it plays or sings, that the music is indeed 'spoiled' for the
generations to come, all the next performers remaining prisoners of the older
man's vision. There are only two issues left for them : the easy one (fake Fyodor
or Pablo, or Maria C), or the hard one which is to set free from their
overwhelming example and try 'something completely different', if you have the
mental and musical equipment to do it. The 'spoiling' works even there, because
the 'something else' sometimes shocks and provokes disapproval. Example : Mark
Reizen's Boris, which is the exact opposite of Shalapin's, the only real and
complete alternative I know, and which still provokes adverse criticism as being
'stodgy' and literal - because it doesn't imitate Shalapin at all. Taruskin is
absolutely right in his statement, and I really cannot see anything there that
could have provoked such a reaction from you.
PK
Piotr Kaminski
kun...@hilltop.ic.edu a écrit:
> Quite right, and Freudian psychology has provided the ultimate exemplar of the
> critical methodology that miraculously transforms negative evidence into even
> more decisive confirmation. The scathing Viennese critic Karl Kraus
> recognized this when he wrote of the Freudian school: "The trained
> psychologist unfailingly recognizes the incurable neurotic by his agitated
> behavior upon being committed to an asylum" (or words to that effect)...
They cannot be proven wrong, can they? Another proof psychoanalysis has nothing
scentific about it, as dear old Popper said.
PK
Piotr Kaminski
Mario Taboada a écrit:
> Taruskin writes as if he had a giant chip on his shoulder, and always
> seems to be making (or about to make) striking announcements to the
> unwashed. He has no class and no sass - as a writer, he is dull,
> arrogant, disorganized, and his pretension of cleverness falls flat
> every time.
One or two examples, maybe?
> I am sure that Michelle has very direct knowledge of the man and his
> ideas, and I respect her opinions. But as a reader and music fan, I find
> Taruskin's articles appallingly bad, full of aggressivity, and not at
> all illuminating or even minimally convincing.
One or two, or three examples, just to make us laugh at his expense?
> His unprovoked viperine attack on Donald Martino in the New York Times
> makes Virgil Thomson's criticism seem like the work a benign, avuncular
> commentator. Taruskin seems to have set out to deliberatly destroy this
> composer's reputation. Why? He should keep his neuroses to himself
> instead of inflicting them on the reader.
Ah! You seem to like Donald Martino very much.
PK
Piotr Kaminski
Jon A Conrad a écrit:
Where do I sign? Both hands AND feet?
PK
kun...@hilltop.ic.edu
I've found the discussion of Taruskin's work quite interesting, and the
intensity of the opposed views is interesting as well. I have no musical
expertise, and so I cannot judge the quality of his musicological analysis.
But, speaking as a rank layman, I find his writing engaging, and I am always
pleased to see an article by him in the Sunday NY Times. He seems to me to
have a gift rare for an academic (and I am one myself) of communicating to a
broader audience. That said, I am sure that his pungent style steps on many
toes in the world of professional musicians and musicologists, and I can well
understand that they would be put off by quite a bit of what he says. Piotr
has asked for examples of Taruskin's sins, and--though I share his admiration
for Taruskin's writings in many ways--I would like to provide one example.
Has anyone else read his essay on Shostakovich's 5th Symphony in the
recently-published volume *Shostakovich Studies*, edited by David Fanning
(Cambridge Univ. Press)? I found the essay fascinating(and what I enjoy most
in Taruskin is his attentiveness to placing music in a broader cultural and
intellectual context), but I was troubled by his extraordinarily brutal attack
on another Shostakovich scholar, an attack so sharp that Fanning had to
explain his decision to let it stand in his introduction to the volume.
Taruskin reminds me of the literary critic George Steiner. On occasion
maddening, but erudite and passionate, and able to communicate that passion to
his readers. I recall Taruskin's article some years ago for the *Atlantic*,
"Who Was Shostakovich?" I was already into my DSCH phase, but that article
made me burn with a desire to hear more and think more about it, and I'm
grateful to Taruskin for work like that.
Robert
In article <355BF768...@imaginet.fr>,
Piotr Kaminski
kun...@hilltop.ic.edu a écrit:
> [snip]I am sure that his pungent style steps on many
> toes in the world of professional musicians and musicologists, and I can well
> understand that they would be put off by quite a bit of what he says. Piotr
> has asked for examples of Taruskin's sins, and--though I share his admiration
> for Taruskin's writings in many ways--I would like to provide one example.
> Has anyone else read his essay on Shostakovich's 5th Symphony in the
> recently-published volume *Shostakovich Studies*, edited by David Fanning
> (Cambridge Univ. Press)? I found the essay fascinating(and what I enjoy most
> in Taruskin is his attentiveness to placing music in a broader cultural and
> intellectual context), but I was troubled by his extraordinarily brutal attack
> on another Shostakovich scholar, an attack so sharp that Fanning had to
> explain his decision to let it stand in his introduction to the volume.
Taruskin has temperament, that's sure, and he has this shocking way of saying that
2+2=4 that certainly shuffles feathers. I don't know the essay, and would love to
read it.
> Taruskin reminds me of the literary critic George Steiner. On occasion
> maddening, but erudite and passionate, and able to communicate that passion to
> his readers. I recall Taruskin's article some years ago for the *Atlantic*,
> "Who Was Shostakovich?" I was already into my DSCH phase, but that article
> made me burn with a desire to hear more and think more about it, and I'm
> grateful to Taruskin for work like that.
The association with Steiner is an interesting one. I don't know this article
either - I know his writing from books only, having no permanent access to all of
the American press. But will look it up somehow. Thanks a lot.
PK
Todd Michel McComb
In article <355CB0D3...@imaginet.fr>,
Piotr Kaminski <wapi...@imaginet.fr> wrote:
>he has this shocking way of saying that 2+2=4 that certainly
>shuffles feathers
From this point, it is very easy to explain... Taruskin stands up
with full regalia & fanfare, and shouts "2+2=4" and we are supposed
to applaud? I think not.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Bruce Bennett
<kun...@hilltop.ic.edu> wrote, amidst the snippage:
> speaking as a rank layman, I find [Taruskin's] writing engaging, and I am
> always pleased to see an article by him in the Sunday NY Times. He seems
> to me to have a gift rare for an academic (and I am one myself) of
> communicating to a broader audience. That said, I am sure that his
> pungent style steps on many toes in the world of professional musicians
> and musicologists, and I can well understand that they would be put off by
> quite a bit of what he says.
He's evidently capable of going completely over the top simply as an
attention-getting device. Last summer a militant Steve Reich cultist of
my acquaintance forwarded me Taruskin's NY Times review of Nonesuch's
recent Reich retrospective boxed set, so wildly approving as to be a
serviceable parody of even the most serenely exclusive Reichomania. Can
one trivialize through overestimation? This review is the most competent
attempt I've so far encounted.
In his review Taruskin solemnly proposes Reich, alone among 20th-century
composers, as sole legitimate testator to the "serious" music of the
21st century. Something to the effect that "serious" musicians of the
future (the irreproachable "seriousness" of Reich is continually
affirmed) will, of all 20th century composers, admire only Reich.
(Later, growing more generous, he allows the "possible" addition of
"very few others", perhaps Nancarrow and Ligeti...)
The dottiest bit is his triumphant peroratory comparison of the work he
considers Reich's masterpiece, "Different Trains", to Schoenberg's "A
Survivor from Warsaw".
Reich's piece is much better (much less self-indulgently histrionic), he
concludes, evidently failing to note, among other things, the relative
critical stature of "A Survivor" in Schoenberg's opus and the relative
distance of their dates of composition from the events these works are
commenting on.
This bizarre and absurdly superficial comparison is offered as the apex
of an argument affirming that Reich, the brightest and best "accessible"
avantgardist, has effectively consigned what Taruskin calls the
"traditional avant garde" (represented by Schoenberg and, tangentially,
Adorno -- you know, all that pretentious, elitist, furrin stuff) to the
dustbin of musical history. (His notion of a "traditional avant garde"
is a piquant one, happily obviating, at least nominally, the necessity
of wading into the faux battle of Moderns and Postmoderns.)
Energetically, unforgettably silly, and highly recommendable to both
Reich lovers and Reich underappreciators.
--
Bruce Bennett