Bruckner's original 4th Symphony / Sibelius' 5th
Rugby
Linz Orchestra, who have apparently have also recorded this version so
I dont think this post OT :
www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/arts/music/11bruckner.html?ref=arts
Did Bruckner need "help" composing all his major works ?
And I was not aware there was an original version of Sibelius Sym. 5 ?
Recording ? I was aware of an earlier Violin Concerto which may have
been recorded (?).
No original thoughts here, just FYI FWW.
Rugby
Gerard
> Here is a review of a recent performance by Davies and the Bruckner
> Linz Orchestra, who have apparently have also recorded this version so
> I dont think this post OT :
>
> www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/arts/music/11bruckner.html?ref=arts
>
> Did Bruckner need "help" composing all his major works ?
"Need" is a big word. He "accepted" help.
The original version of #4 has been recorded a few times I think (Tintner is one
of them).
>
> And I was not aware there was an original version of Sibelius Sym. 5 ?
> Recording ? I was aware of an earlier Violin Concerto which may have
> been recorded (?).
>
Both original versions have been recorded several years ago by V�nsk�, on BIS.
V�nsk� and BIS have recorded also original versions of other works as far as
available.
All this can be found in the curent Sibelius Edition by BIS.
See http://www.bis.se/bis_pages/bis_sibelius-edition.php
Bob Lombard
Jeez, Steve, you're making posts without original thoughts?
bl
OW
>
> > Did Bruckner need "help" composing all his major works ?
>
> "Need" is a big word. He "accepted" help.
> The original version of #4 has been recorded a few times I think (Tintner is one
> of them).
>
It's an interesting question. Robert Simpson made a case in his book
THE ESSENCE OF BRUCKNER for the superiority of the original version of
Bruckner's 3rd which is a compelling read, but his argument falls
apart when you actually listen to both versions. The revision is
vastly superior, no matter who else had a hand in it. That's even more
true for the Bruckner 4th and 8th, although the original scherzo of
the 4th is a nice little oddity which could be played (by itself) in
concerts occasionally, especially since Bruckner wrote no short
works.
Rugby
>
> Jeez, Steve, you're making posts without original thoughts?
>
Nice change of pace here.
Rugby
Matthew�B.�Tepper
typed in
news:8fd86d37-859f-4ada...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:
> It's an interesting question. Robert Simpson made a case in his book THE
> ESSENCE OF BRUCKNER for the superiority of the original version of
> Bruckner's 3rd which is a compelling read, but his argument falls apart
> when you actually listen to both versions. The revision is vastly superior,
> no matter who else had a hand in it. That's even more true for the Bruckner
> 4th and 8th, although the original scherzo of the 4th is a nice little
> oddity which could be played (by itself) in concerts occasionally,
> especially since Bruckner wrote no short works.
Overture in G Minor.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Matthew�B.�Tepper
be typed in news:e55f1647-07fc-4d93-a857-
4e6160...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
Original version of Sibelius' 5th: Osmo V�nsk�/Lahti Symphony Orchestra on
BIS, available coupled a couple of different ways, I think.
Johannes Roehl
> Here is a review of a recent performance by Davies and the Bruckner
> Linz Orchestra, who have apparently have also recorded this version so
> I dont think this post OT :
>
> www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/arts/music/11bruckner.html?ref=arts
>
> Did Bruckner need "help" composing all his major works?
For all I know the article's suggestion that Schalk et al. "helped"
Bruckner is not correct. He was himself responsible for the re-working
of, for instance, the 1874 version of the 4th into the version usually
played today (the scherzo, as the article points out, is a completely
different piece of music, it certainly wasn't composed by Schalk). To
may knowledge, what Schalk and others did do, was to abridge Bruckner's
"final versions" and maybe also change the scoring.
I have never heard that his student's actually took part in the
re-workings during Bruckner's lifetime (like Suessmayr's composing of
the recitatives for "La Clemenza di Tito" or whoever scored the
orchestral parts for the Rhapsody in Blue)
Haas and Nowak than tried to get back from Schalk's bowdlerizations to
"original versions". But I am not sure at all about the details,
certainly some of the Brucknerians like Lionel or Ramon can cast more
light on this difficult issue.
Johannes
Johannes Roehl
> Rugby <steve...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters to
> be typed in news:e55f1647-07fc-4d93-a857-
> 4e6160...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Here is a review of a recent performance by Davies and the Bruckner
>> Linz Orchestra, who have apparently have also recorded this version so
>> I dont think this post OT :
>>
>> www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/arts/music/11bruckner.html?ref=arts
>>
>> Did Bruckner need "help" composing all his major works ?
>>
>> And I was not aware there was an original version of Sibelius Sym. 5 ?
>> Recording ? I was aware of an earlier Violin Concerto which may have
>> been recorded (?).
>>
>> No original thoughts here, just FYI FWW.
>>
>> Rugby
>
What are the differences between the versions? Anything substantial or,
put differently, should anyone with only a moderate interest in
Sibelius' music care?
(With "substantial" I mean something like the difference between the
first version of Bruckner's 4th and the last which contains a completely
different movement. Slight differences in scoring etc. that are only
detectable with a score and/or intimate knowledge of the piece are not
substantial.)
Johannes
Bob Harper
Other posters have spoken to the case of Bruckner, but with respect to
Sibelius, I doubt that anyone who has heard the original versions of
either work has any doubt that the final versions are infinitely
superior, and that the originals deserve to return to the obscurity from
whence they were dragged by...whom?
Bob Harper
Matthew�B.�Tepper
letters to be typed in news:7m04d8F...@mid.individual.net:
> Matthew B. Tepper schrieb:
>> Rugby <steve...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following
>> letters to be typed in news:e55f1647-07fc-4d93-a857-
>> 4e6160...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Here is a review of a recent performance by Davies and the Bruckner
>>> Linz Orchestra, who have apparently have also recorded this version so
>>> I dont think this post OT :
>>>
>>> www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/arts/music/11bruckner.html?ref=arts
>>>
>>> Did Bruckner need "help" composing all his major works ?
>>>
>>> And I was not aware there was an original version of Sibelius Sym. 5 ?
>>> Recording ? I was aware of an earlier Violin Concerto which may have
>>> been recorded (?).
>>>
>>> No original thoughts here, just FYI FWW.
>>>
>>> Rugby
>>
>> Original version of Sibelius' 5th: Osmo V�nsk�/Lahti Symphony
>> Orchestra on BIS, available coupled a couple of different ways, I think.
>
> What are the differences between the versions? Anything substantial or,
> put differently, should anyone with only a moderate interest in
> Sibelius' music care?
> (With "substantial" I mean something like the difference between the
> first version of Bruckner's 4th and the last which contains a completely
> different movement. Slight differences in scoring etc. that are only
> detectable with a score and/or intimate knowledge of the piece are not
> substantial.)
Substantial and structural:
http://www.amazon.com/Sibelius-Symphony-Original-Final-Versions/product-
reviews/B0000016PJ
El Klauso
hashed over in the biographical literature many times. He was
seemingly pathologically unsure of himself once his hands were not on
the organ keyboard or his work on the composition table. He would
edit, re-write, re-compose or even allow others to do so 'on his
behalf' if he felt that such actions would secure him a performance.
Bruckner was a man of extremely limited means from a very small
Austrian town trying to make it in the musical center of the universe,
and his multiple mental break-downs show the tremendous stress he
suffered in trying to so.
Lionel Tacchini
> Rugby wrote:
> > Here is a review of a recent performance by Davies and the Bruckner
> > Linz Orchestra, who have apparently have also recorded this version so
> > I dont think this post OT :
>
> >www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/arts/music/11bruckner.html?ref=arts
>
> > Did Bruckner need "help" composing all his major works ?
>
> "Need" is a big word. He "accepted" help.
He didn't get much anyway. The modern opinion on this is that the
various versions of his works follow his own evolution as a composer
and that the structural changes applied to some movements (like the
Finale of the 3rd symphony) point back to forms he had attempted
earlier (in this case the first Finale of the 4th).
He probably got help from Ferdinand Löwe, whom he called "his
Berlioz", with the orchestration of the 1888 version of the 4th, which
is now acknowledged as authentic. By the time Franz Schalk was
revising the 5th, Bruckner was busy writing the 9th and in poor
health.
Lionel Tacchini
rkhalona
> Rugby schrieb:
>
> > Here is a review of a recent performance by Davies and theBruckner
> > Linz Orchestra, who have apparently have also recorded this version so
> > I dont think this post OT :
>
> >www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/arts/music/11bruckner.html?ref=arts
>
>
> For all I know the article's suggestion that Schalk et al. "helped"Bruckneris not correct. He was himself responsible for the re-working
> of, for instance, the 1874 version of the 4th into the version usually
> played today (the scherzo, as the article points out, is a completely
> different piece of music, it certainly wasn't composed by Schalk). To
> "final versions" and maybe also change the scoring.
> I have never heard that his student's actually took part in the
> the recitatives for "La Clemenza di Tito" or whoever scored the
> orchestral parts for the Rhapsody in Blue)
> Haas and Nowak than tried to get back from Schalk's bowdlerizations to
> "original versions". But I am not sure at all about the details,
> certainly some of the Brucknerians like Lionel or Ramon can cast more
> light on this difficult issue.
>
> Johannes
Hi Johannes,
Our good friend Dave Griegel has done a great job in summarizing the
differences in the available versions of Bruckner's symphonies and you
can find his summary here
http://bruckner.webs.com/versions.html
(note the new URL for those of you who used to see this at Geocities)
I totally agree with Simpson regarding the first version of the Third,
which I find superior to the revisions (especially in Tintner's hands;
his slow approach only emphasizes the magnificence and grand scale
that Bruckner envisioned -- one must remember that he did have the
courage to show Wagner the score of this and of the Second symphony
and let Wagner choose between them for a dedication).
The early Fourth, again IMO, doesn't quite measure up to the
revisions, but it's still very interesting and a bold statement from
Bruckner (Tintner did not record the 1874 version, but he did record
the early version of the 8th). Romanticized versions of Bruckner's
life have a tendency to point out that he was insecure and easily
persuaded to make changes, but modern research shows that he could be
stubborn and held on to his thoughts more often than not. The case of
the 1888 4th, which is now considered authentic, is a case in point.
RK
rkhalona
> The peculiar mental make-up ofBruckneris something that has been
> hashed over in the biographical literature many times. He was
> seemingly pathologically unsure of himself once his hands were not on
> the organ keyboard or his work on the composition table. He would
> edit, re-write, re-compose or even allow others to do so 'on his
> Austrian town trying to make it in the musical center of the universe,
> and his multiple mental break-downs show the tremendous stress he
> suffered in trying to so.
The 'pathologically unsure' part has at least a grain of truth; he was
fond of getting certificates that proved he had done that or the
other, that certified he had had the training or that he was capable
of something artful, but he could also be quite sure of certain
things, which makes him a fascinating character. Perhaps his most
insightful remark was that his music could only be fairly appreciated
'in later times'. He was quite right about that.
RK
Peter Greenstein
"rkhalona" <rkha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e93e9b42-a08c-4cc0...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I totally agree with Simpson regarding the first version of the Third,
which I find superior to the revisions (especially in Tintner's hands;
his slow approach only emphasizes the magnificence and grand scale
that Bruckner envisioned -- one must remember that he did have the
courage to show Wagner the score of this and of the Second symphony
and let Wagner choose between them for a dedication).
RK
Sol L. Siegel
news:8228d$4afac204$5ed13b3d$27...@cache2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl:
>> Did Bruckner need "help" composing all his major works ?
> The original version of #4 has been recorded a few times I think
> (Tintner is one of them).
Wrong. It's the only symphony in his entire Bruckner cycle in which he
didn't go back to the earliest available edition. He did plan to record
the other editions, and the masses as well, but didn't last long enough.
For the 4th, he used the Haas of the standard 1878/80 revision. (This
according to www.abruckner.com.)
--
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
rkhalona
> At the time that I read Simpson's analysis of the Bruckner 3rd I was pretty convinced by his arguments. Years later I forgot most of the details and now enjoy the 1890 version just as much.
>
> There is one moment, somewhere in the first movement where a passage was recomposed and sounds like it comes straight from the 8th Symphony. I must admit that impressive as that passage is, it does sound a little odd in the context of Bruckner's earlier style. I think you probably know the passage. Is it in the development?
>
Hello Peter,
I really cannot answer your question without more specific
information. Are you referring to the last or earliest version of the
Third? The thing is that he revisited constantly and he retained what
he thought were good ideas from the earlier versions and discarded the
duds (he totally rejected the Scherzo from the 1874 4th, for example).
At the Brucknerthons we have every year I love to point a passage from
the Third where he anticipated Dvorak's New World symphony! Can you
guess where it is? :-) :-)
RK
M forever
That's not the point here. I don't think anyone proposes the original
version of the 5th symphony as an alternative or even better choice
than the well known revision.
But the original version of the 5th is highly interesting to listen to
because it gives us a few insights into Sibelius' creation process. It
is a pity the intermediate version isn't preserved, too.
At the risk of sounding kitschy, I think that Sibelius' 5th is one of
the most amazing and profound musical creations ever. It's not just
highly inspired and original musical nicely and competently crafted
into symphonic form. It is music which only someone who can listen
deeper into himself and the world around him than most people can is
able to produce, and music in which an undercurrent of inherent forces
is barely apparent but it can be strongly felt, like natural forces
whose presence can be just as much felt as observed, or maybe even
more.
On the original version, the material which makes up the symphony can
be heard in a maybe "rawer" and more hinted at than spelled out state
than in the revised version. It is not as organic and to the point,
the musical ideas are more floating around and the ways in which they
are developed and contrasted are quite different. Among many examples
is how the material which appears in its fully formed shape near the
beginning of the slow movement (III in the OV) and which is then
overshadowed and subdued by some strikingly dissonant material
actually appears at the end of the movement in the revised version, as
a resolution rather than a starting point.
Another interesting moment is how the first movement develops towards
and ends with a pre-echo of the beginning of the second. So the idea
to "telescope" them together is not just a cute formal idea, but
something that came to Sibelius as a necessity of developing the
material further out of itself. And the way he did is not a simple
glue job either. There is no "seam" in the material as he develops it
into great climax which wasn't there before at all, but which is also
developed out of the material that's already there, and formally
rounded off in the way it is again "pre-echoed" at the very beginning
with the horn call that is also missing in that form in the OV.
The form of the final version of the first movement in itself is
highly interesting which can be seen from the fact that there are
actually several different possible ways in which the form can be
analyzed. Comparing the OV and the final version gives us a better
understanding for how Sibelius arrived at that form, and actually a
better appreciation for it.
Another good example is the very end which shows how Sibelius was
reluctant to just bring the music to a conclusion and round it off
with a standard closing gesture. What he tries to do in the OV with
the music "receding" for a few moments is much better expressed in the
silence between the monolithic 6 chords of the final version, but it
also shows that that is not just an isolated idea but developed from
within the material.
Also, while the 5th symphony as we know it is quite different from the
4th, the OV is much closer to it in many respects, and it shows us how
Sibelius transitioned from one musical world to the next. It also
makes it easier to understand what he meant when he said that he
revised the symphony to give it "another - more human - form".
Gerard
You're right.
OTOH he recorded the second version of the Finale ("Volksfest Finale") on
another disc.
I suppose Inbal did record the original version.
Well, that page says 'yes' - and there are more than 10 other recordings of it.
Rugby
> At the risk of sounding kitschy, I think that Sibelius' 5th is one of
> the most amazing and profound musical creations ever.
>
FWW, I agree. along with the Violin Concerto.
> music in which an undercurrent of inherent forces
> is barely apparent but it can be strongly felt, like natural forces
> whose presence can be just as much felt as observed, or maybe even
> more.
Well said.
And I would not want to miss the climax at the end of the 1st mov
apparently lacking in the earlier versions ?
Regards, Rugby
Christopher Webber
>It's an interesting question. Robert Simpson made a case in his book
>THE ESSENCE OF BRUCKNER for the superiority of the original version of
>Bruckner's 3rd which is a compelling read, but his argument falls apart
>when you actually listen to both versions. The revision is vastly
>superior, no matter who else had a hand in it.
I could not agree less. Since I first heard the original version, with
its Wagnerian extensions, I have been disappointed by the truncated
revision, more chaste and "classical" though it may be formally. I read
Simpson only later, but would accord with your point about the soundness
of his case.
It boils down to one's sense of what's important about the piece: for me
it is Bruckner's ambitious dramatic amplitude and obsessive sense of
contrasts (especially with the polka theme in the last movement set
repeatedly against the "funeral" material) which is so muted in the
revision.
Luckily we have both, but I cannot buy your "vastly superior", at any
price! The earlier version is for me the more striking act of musical
imagination.
--
___________________________
Christopher Webber, Blackheath, London, UK.
http://www.zarzuela.net
M forever
> On Nov 12, 2:18 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > At the risk of sounding kitschy, I think that Sibelius' 5th is one of
> > the most amazing and profound musical creations ever.
>
> FWW, I agree. along with the Violin Concerto.
The violin concerto is highly interesting, too, because it contains
both "sides" of Sibelius in equal measure. Sibelius created his very
own unique sound world and musical style, but he wasn't just the
deeply introspect and somewhat mystic "voice from the Finnish forests"
who created the symphonies and the tone poems based on Finnish
mythology. He also had a very extrovert, flamboyant, very "worldly"
side. He wanted to become a violin virtuoso as a young man, and he was
very good at creating very tasteful and finely crafted compositions in
all sorts of forms which may appear less "deep", including lighter and
incidental music. The violin concerto contains elements from all parts
of his stylistic spectrum.
> > music in which an undercurrent of inherent forces
> > is barely apparent but it can be strongly felt, like natural forces
> > whose presence can be just as much felt as observed, or maybe even
> > more.
>
> Well said.
>
> And I would not want to miss the climax at the end of the 1st mov
> apparently lacking in the earlier versions ?
The 2nd version is mostly lost, so we don't know (if I am correctly
informed), but the OV does not contain the big climax 2/3 into the
first movement (which is the end of the first of the two movements
telescoped into each other here), and the end of the whole movement
(in the OV the end of the second movement) is much "lighter", too,
although hints of the later ending can be detected.
Like I said, it's not an "alternative" to the final version, but a
highly interesting listening experience.It's well worth getting the
recording. AFAIK, there is only the recording with Vänskä and the
LahtiSO, and that is available in two different couplings, with the
final version of the symphony, and with the first version of "En
Saga". I have the latter coupling but haven't listened to that version
of "En Saga" yet.
Bob Harper
I don't disagree, and I find your comments quite informative. Thanks. I
simply think the final version so superior that it is unnecessary to
hear the original except as a matter of curiosity. The final version, on
the other hand, is, one of the great monuments of human artistic
achievement.
Bob Harper
Peter Greenstein
"rkhalona" <rkha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:6bf42ba7-93e7-49d3...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 11, 4:59 pm, "Peter Greenstein" <pgree...@comcast.net> wrote:
> At the time that I read Simpson's analysis of the Bruckner 3rd I was pretty convinced by his arguments. Years later I forgot most of the details and now enjoy the 1890 version just as much.
>
> There is one moment, somewhere in the first movement where a passage was recomposed and sounds like it comes straight from the 8th Symphony. I must admit that impressive as that passage is, it does sound a little odd in the context of Bruckner's earlier style. I think you probably know the passage. Is it in the development?
>
Hello Peter,
I really cannot answer your question without more specific
information. Are you referring to the last or earliest version of the
Third? The thing is that he revisited constantly and he retained what
he thought were good ideas from the earlier versions and discarded
OW
>
> It boils down to one's sense of what's important about the piece: for me
> it is Bruckner's ambitious dramatic amplitude and obsessive sense of
> contrasts (especially with the polka theme in the last movement set
> repeatedly against the "funeral" material) which is so muted in the
> revision.
>
> Luckily we have both, but I cannot buy your "vastly superior", at any
> price! The earlier version is for me the more striking act of musical
> imagination.
> --
Yes, everyone has a different idea of what's important in a piece. For
me it is the dramatic climaxes that one remembers in Bruckner, and I
guess what I'm saying is that the dramatic climaxes in the revised
version are vastly superior to the ones in the original. I'm thinking
of the ending of the 4th movement of course, far more satisfying a
conclusion then the OV's, but also of the tremendous tutti chorale
halfway through the first movement (I think you probably know which
part I'm talking about), which is also in the OV, but in a different
form that doesn't have nearly the same impact. For me, this 2-minute
section alone justifies the RV over the OV.
Christopher Webber
>but also of the tremendous tutti chorale halfway through the first
>movement (I think you probably know which part I'm talking about),
>which is also in the OV, but in a different form that doesn't have
>nearly the same impact. For me, this 2-minute section alone justifies
>the RV over the OV.
Indeed - fully appreciated, and certainly more impact in the later
version. Luckily, of course, we can have our OV cake and eat the RV too!
rkhalona
> Hi RK,
>
> Well you got me to o back and listen!
>
> It is the 1889 vers (not really 1890 like I stated) that has one passage that kind of sounds like the Bruckner 8th. I listened to the first movement again, and the very advanced sounding music I war referring to comes near the end of the development. The music hammers away at Theme 1 in a big climax and then introduces an even greater climatic sound right out of the 8th Symphony, music (bars 385ff, letter Q in Nowak Score, 12:21 in Jochum recording) that, glorious as it is, I think is way beyond the style of anything in the 1878 version. After the music breaks off there is something that sounds like part of Theme 2 again, and here the 1878 version quoted Walkure. After that the Recapitulation starts.
>
> There's another passage, earlier in the first movement (in the 1889 score) that strikes me as odd, at bar 159. After the beautiful Theme 2 is introduced, the music builds up the rhythm of the quarter-note triplets + two quarters into a climax and in the 1889 version it ends this by elongating the figure to two bars, with half-note triplets which does sound a little weak/odd and not really an improvement.
>
> As far as Dvorak goes, is it the opening of the 2nd movement?
>
Hello again Peter,
I got the Jochum/BRSO DG recording of the Third off the shelves here
and checked the passage near 12:21 in the first movement and there is
no climax there; the climax happens a bit earlier and at 12:21 you do
hear a drum passage that is somewhat reminiscent of a passage in the
8th, but it is not very obvious; is that what you meant?
The "Dvorak New World" passage happens near the end of the Adagio,
right after the end of the climax. Again, with reference to the above
recording, start listening at 13:00 and the climax occurs between
13:30 and 13:45, then a quiet passage follows with a recapitulation of
the opening theme from this movement on a beautiful passage for the
horns, and then a transposition of the same theme follows from 14:30
to 14:40 that is reminiscent of the main theme from the "Largo" of the
New World. Enjoy!
Ramón Khalona
M forever
That's total coincidence. The gesture is so generic, a third up and
then two steps to the tonic.
rkhalona
> On Nov 12, 10:15 pm, rkhalona <rkhal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 8:52 am, "Peter Greenstein" <pgree...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Hi RK,
>
> > > Well you got me to o back and listen!
>
>
> > > There's another passage, earlier in the first movement (in the 1889 score) that strikes me as odd, at bar 159. After the beautiful Theme 2 is introduced, the music builds up the rhythm of the quarter-note triplets + two quarters into a climax and in the 1889 version it ends this by elongating the figure to two bars, with half-note triplets which does sound a little weak/odd and not really an improvement.
>
> > > As far as Dvorak goes, is it the opening of the 2nd movement?
>
> > Hello again Peter,
>
> > I got the Jochum/BRSO DG recording of the Third off the shelves here
> > and checked the passage near 12:21 in the first movement and there is
> > no climax there; the climax happens a bit earlier and at 12:21 you do
> > hear a drum passage that is somewhat reminiscent of a passage in the
> > 8th, but it is not very obvious; is that what you meant?
>
> > The "Dvorak New World" passage happens near the end of the Adagio,
> > right after the end of the climax. Again, with reference to the above
> > recording, start listening at 13:00 and the climax occurs between
> > 13:30 and 13:45, then a quiet passage follows with a recapitulation of
> > the opening theme from this movement on a beautiful passage for the
> > horns, and then a transposition of the same theme follows from 14:30
> > to 14:40 that is reminiscent of the main theme from the "Largo" of the
> > New World. Enjoy!
>
> That's total coincidence. The gesture is so generic, a third up and
> then two steps to the tonic.
Oh, I never claimed otherwise, but it is somewhat funny, considering
the Bruckner Third (in its original version) was composed some twenty
years before Dvorak's New World (this passage is in the original
version as well).
But then, Bruckner anticipated many modern themes in transposition,
such as the great "Flintstones" theme in the Fifth and "Give my
regards to Broadway" in the Sixth.
RK
Peter Greenstein
www.wakefieldjazz.com
----- Original Message -----
"rkhalona" <rkha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:26a724d4-6855-4513...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Gerard
------=_NextPart_000_0086_01CA63E6.B057C350
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META name=3DGENERATOR content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.6001.18852">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>If we both have the Jochum/DG =
recording, I erred on=20
the digital readout. The climatic music I'm talking about has just ended =
by=20
12:21. Listen to the buildup from about 11:40 to 12:21. I checked Robert =
Simpson's book as that is were I must have got this, and =
he mentions it at=20
the bottom of page 70. Listen again and let me know what you =
think.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>The main theme of the 2nd movement is =
not far from=20
etcetera.
Could you please switch off the HTML mode (and post in "plain text")?
Peter Greenstein
that setting on.
--
peter in oakland,ca.
www.wakefieldjazz.com
"Gerard" <ghen_nosp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e6b64$4afd3e26$5ed13b3d$65...@cache5.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
Bob Lombard
> Sorry, is this better? I never noticed but what a mess! Not sure why I
> had that setting on.
>
Possibly in the knowledge that only purists, minimalists and cheapskates
use newsreaders that can't handle html?
bl
Gerard
> Sorry, is this better? I never noticed but what a mess! Not sure why
> I had that setting on.
This is absolutely better.
Thanks.
Gerard
Nope.
HTML messages are handled, but are shown in a very different (and much smaller)
font than the one I've selected for reading text-only newsgroups.
I don't think that your "qualifications" are appropriate.
Bob Lombard
They work for me.
bl
rkhalona
> If we both have the Jochum/DG recording, I erred on the digital readout. The climatic music I'm talking about has just ended by 12:21. Listen to the buildup from about 11:40 to 12:21. I checked Robert Simpson's book as that is were I must have got this, and he mentions it at the bottom of page 70. Listen again and let me know what you think.
>
Hi Peter,
You and Simpson may be on to something here. I hear echoes of the
many buildups in the first movement of the 1887 8th. I will have to
listen carefully and keep this crescendo in mind to make a better
connection.
Many thanks for pointing this out. I have also heard a connection
between the 2nd and 9th symphonies, but I will have to get back to you
and specifics. I bet someone could write at least a master's thesis
on these things, esp. if related within the framework of Bruckner's
symphonic development.
RK
M forever
I think the OV is more than just a "curiosity". Anyone who knows the
final version is probably puzzled and disappointed by the OV at first
since it appears so much less coherent and compelling. But all that
makes the music in the final version so great is already there, even
though it may be in a much "rawer" state. Listen to the beginning of
the second movement of the OV. Where does that music come from? In the
final version, it may make more "sense" that it appears at some point
in the piece. But here we can hear the same material just floating in,
like in a dream. And even though it is only a fairly simple musical
idea, its potential is already obvious and while it floats along
simple and quietly, it shows some of that potential in the way it just
naturally unfolds. How did Sibelius come up with that? How did he
recognize the enormous musical potential in that material? I find that
immensely fascinating.
Bob Harper
I won't disagree that it's interesting, even fascinating, to see (hear)
what Sibelius did with his original material that made it what it is
today. It's just that what he did with it is so superior to the original
idea(s) that I have nod esire to hear the earlier iteration again.
Bob Harper
M forever
I would still recommend you try one more time, keeping the things in
mind I talked about. It may give you some really interesting new
insights, trust me. Obviously, you didn't really "get" any of the
things I said above when you listened to it before, that's pretty
clear from your original statement. You listened to it and completely
dismissed it without giving it any more thought. There is no "shame"
in that BTW - it took me a while and about 2 or 3 more listenings
before I "saw" all these connections (including the ones which closer
link the music to the world of the 4th symphony).
Gerard
> trust me.
Of course.
Can you please trim your posts (by not reposting everything that has been said
already)?
Thank you.
M forever
Why would I want to trim my posts for you when I don't give a shit
about whether you read them or not? Or whether you reply to them or
not - your obsessive replies are just wasting bandwidth but not
contributing anything that interests me.
I think my "dogshit" analogy was aptly chosen for you. Coming into
contact with you here is like stepping into a pile of dogshit which
then clings to one's shoes for a long time, no matter how much one
tries to clean them off.
It also sums up about how much substance there is in your
contributions. So from now on, I will refer to you as "dogshit".
Now, why don't you keep out of this, Harper and me are discussing
Sibelius, and I have no interest at all to what nonsense you have to
say about that, dogshit.
Bob Harper
(snip)
>
> I would still recommend you try one more time, keeping the things in
> mind I talked about. It may give you some really interesting new
> insights, trust me. Obviously, you didn't really "get" any of the
> things I said above when you listened to it before, that's pretty
> clear from your original statement. You listened to it and completely
> dismissed it without giving it any more thought. There is no "shame"
> in that BTW - it took me a while and about 2 or 3 more listenings
> before I "saw" all these connections (including the ones which closer
> link the music to the world of the 4th symphony).
Michael, had I intended to do so, the condescension you--seemingly
unwittingly--display in this reply would put me off. You assume things
you don't know, then proceed to lecture based on that (lack of)
knowledge. I do wish you'd stop; it does you no credit and only
irritates people. And don't worry, I feel no shame in this matter, and
don't need your permission not to.
Bob Harper
M forever
> M forever wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
>
> > I would still recommend you try one more time, keeping the things in
> > mind I talked about. It may give you some really interesting new
> > insights, trust me. Obviously, you didn't really "get" any of the
> > things I said above when you listened to it before, that's pretty
> > clear from your original statement. You listened to it and completely
> > dismissed it without giving it any more thought. There is no "shame"
> > in that BTW - it took me a while and about 2 or 3 more listenings
> > before I "saw" all these connections (including the ones which closer
> > link the music to the world of the 4th symphony).
>
> Michael, had I intended to do so, the condescension you--seemingly
> unwittingly--display in this reply would put me off.
There is no "condescension" displayed in what I said. I said it took
myself a while to get into the music and "get" it, and I was friendly
enough to write up in detail what I found - remember you thanked me
for that -, as a motivation and a guide for discovering some very
interesting aspects of the music you obviously didn't get - otherwise,
you wouldn't have dismissed it as harshly as you did.
I guess for you it is a big insult and "condescension" to hint that
you may not have grasped the music, even though I said that I didn't
grasp it at first either.
The difference is apparently that I am a little more self-critical,
while you completely freak out if someone even hints that you may not
have understood something properly.
I know that you think you understand absolutely everything, and that
is why you also need to subscribe to your childish belief in
omnipotent and omniscient forces, but you really don't have to take
any hint that there may be things you haen't absolutely completely
understood yet as a mean personal attack.
Really...you need to grow up a little.
> You assume things
> you don't know, then proceed to lecture based on that (lack of)
> knowledge.
I know what you said. That is enough. It is obvious that - just like
myself - you listened to the OV once, didn't "get" it which is why you
said, and I quote, the originals deserve to return to the obscurity
from whence they were dragged".
Bob Harper
Well, for a textbook example of condescension, this will do admirably.
>
> Really...you need to grow up a little.
Funny; I was thinking the same thing about you.
>
>> You assume things
>> you don't know, then proceed to lecture based on that (lack of)
>> knowledge.
>
> I know what you said. That is enough. It is obvious that - just like
> myself - you listened to the OV once, didn't "get" it which is why you
> said, and I quote, the originals deserve to return to the obscurity
> from whence they were dragged".
'Obvious', perhaps, but not true. *Repeated* listening led to the
conclusion I voiced. I see no reason to waste time revisiting that
conclusion to humor you.
Bob Harper
Gerard
> On Nov 14, 3:47 pm, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > M forever wrote:
> > > trust me.
> >
> > Of course.
> >
> > Can you please trim your posts (by not reposting everything that
> > has been said already)?
> > Thank you.
>
> Why would I want to trim my posts for you
Did I ask "for me"?
>
> when I don't give a shit
> about whether you read them or not? Or whether you reply to them or
> not - your obsessive replies are just wasting bandwidth but not
> contributing anything that interests me.
Your replies without trimming - *those* are just wasting bandwidth, and you know
it.
That's why I asked: don't waste bandwidth. If you are so concerned about wasting
bandwidth, you can start with your own replies.
And yes, you give a shit whether I reply or not. If only because you are so
concerned about wasting bandwidth.
>
> I think my "dogshit" analogy was aptly chosen for you.
I did not see that dogshit analogy. Do you mean your shit?
>
> Coming into
> contact with you here is like stepping into a pile of dogshit which
> then clings to one's shoes for a long time, no matter how much one
> tries to clean them off.
If I have caused some discomfort to you, I'm very glad about that.
>
> It also sums up about how much substance there is in your
> contributions. So from now on, I will refer to you as "dogshit".
What you like. In that case I will refer to you as "nazi".
>
> Now, why don't you keep out of this, Harper and me are discussing
> Sibelius, and I have no interest at all to what nonsense you have to
> say about that, dogshit.
I simply asked something about trimming posts, nazi. I've never said that
discussing with Harper should not be done.
M forever
Why? Because you think that you really understand everything? And
hinting that that may not be the case is "condescension"?
> > Really...you need to grow up a little.
>
> Funny; I was thinking the same thing about you.
>
>
>
> >> You assume things
> >> you don't know, then proceed to lecture based on that (lack of)
> >> knowledge.
>
> > I know what you said. That is enough. It is obvious that - just like
> > myself - you listened to the OV once, didn't "get" it which is why you
> > said, and I quote, the originals deserve to return to the obscurity
> > from whence they were dragged".
>
> 'Obvious', perhaps, but not true. *Repeated* listening led to the
> conclusion I voiced. I see no reason to waste time revisiting that
> conclusion to humor you.
Now *that* is as childish as it gets. I didn't recommend you revisit
this for my sake. I don't gain anything from that. I don't believe
you, BTW, that your earlier "conclusion" was based on "repeated
listening" and certainly not on reflection and understanding of what
you heard.
M forever
Like I said, you stick like dogshit. How did you come up with that
"Nazi" thing, BTW? That is soooo original. I envy you. You are so
smart and original, second to none (except for Ansermetniac and Deacon
maybe).
Gerard
Why should I explain something to a nazi who already knows everything, and
better than everybody else?
Bob Harper
(snip)
>
> Now *that* is as childish as it gets. I didn't recommend you revisit
> this for my sake. I don't gain anything from that. I don't believe
> you, BTW, that your earlier "conclusion" was based on "repeated
> listening" and certainly not on reflection and understanding of what
> you heard.
You may, of course, think whatever you wish. However, your thinking it
so does not make it so. You need to learn the difference.
Bob Harper
Rugby
> You may, of course, think whatever you wish. However, your thinking it
> so does not make it so. You need to learn the difference.
But,I think, therefore I am ?
Rugby
Bob Lombard
No, that's a truncation. It's 'I think it, therefor I am right' that BH
is concerned about. That phrase is correct when I say it, but not for
most people.
bl
M forever
I already know the difference. The above is neither what I just
somehow randomly happen to think, nor wish to think. It is based on
***what you said yourself***:
"...that the originals deserve to return to the obscurity from whence
they were dragged by...whom?"
...which makes it very, very unmistakeably clear that you did *not*
"see" the things I pointed out about the OV.
Which is OK, like I said, it took me while to "get" that myself, so
there is aboslutely nothing "condescending" in me saying so. It would
be "condescending" if I said something like "what, you did not get
that? I understood that immediately" which is, however, not what I
said at all.
Seriously man, don't make such a drama out of this. It may hurt you
that people suggest you are not as infallible and omniscient as you
fancy yourself to be, but there is really nothing wrong with not
knowing everything. I noticed before that you think you know
everything about everything, and you also think you know everything
about far away places you don't really know much about and whose
culture you don't understand either, but again, there is no shame in
not knowing everything.
I realize that is a hard concept for you to grasp as someone who
blindly follows a cult which sees itself as omniscient and infallible,
but to normal, mature grown up people, it's not such a big deal at all
to admit that we simply don't know everything.
M forever
Could be, but in this case it's not "I think, therefore..." it is
simply "you said, therefore..." as my statements were not at all based
on my assumptions, but on actual quotes from Harper
O
<e29a8688-0336-41cb...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, M
forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think,
Therefore,
I see,
A Puddytat.
-Owen
Bob Harper
you think *about*?
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
Where to begin? I suppose "Pot, meet kettle" would be as good a place as
any. The degree of arrogance/ignorance you display here is truly
breathtaking. Essentially, *nothing* that you say here has the slightest
connection with reality. I don't pretend to omniscience; too bad you
don't imitate me in that regard. I live in hope that you will someday
become the sort of normal, mature grown up person you purport to admire.
You've a ways to go.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
Except that they aren't. I said I found the original version of the 5th
Symphony a mess, that I believe it deserves to rest in obscurity, and
that the final version is so superior as to render the original
superfluous, to use a term that's been bandied about here recently. I
stand by that conviction.
Bob Harper
M forever
What, a "normal, grown up person" *like you* who is a racist, a
religious bigot and a plain liar? Somebody who subscribes to childish
belief systems based on doctored scriptures? Somebody like you who
condones an institution of assfucking priests because they took care
of you by assigning you your subservient bitch?
Are you kidding me? Somebody like you who can;t even stand by the
things he said himself in public and who feels slighted by just the
slightest suggestion that there may be things you don't understand?
Somebody like you who completely falls apart when confronted with
rational arguments?
M forever
See? So you didn't get any of the stuff I said before. I completely
wasted my time on you. I thought for a moment, you may have gotten
some of the stuff I said, for your benefit. But then your childish
nature got the better of you again, and all you can do now is going
"naaaaah".
Gerard
But it would be a clich� like there are so many.
> The degree of arrogance/ignorance you display here is truly
> breathtaking.
I agree completely.
It's beyond belief how blind someone can be.
Gerard
>
> What, a "normal, grown up person" *like you* who is a racist, a
> religious bigot and a plain liar? Somebody who subscribes to childish
> belief systems based on doctored scriptures? Somebody like you who
> condones an institution of assfucking priests because they took care
> of you by assigning you your subservient bitch?
> Are you kidding me? Somebody like you who can;t even stand by the
> things he said himself in public and who feels slighted by just the
> slightest suggestion that there may be things you don't understand?
> Somebody like you who completely falls apart when confronted with
> rational arguments?
Declaration of nazification of Michael Schaffer aka 'nazi forever'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Several people here have called you a 'Nazi'. Historically this may not be
correct (well, historically it IS correct, because several people have called
you so indeed, but maybe they did not use the correct term), but you obviously
have the "right spirit" for it.
To sum it up:
1.
You act like you are something 'superior' to other people. Someone who knows
everything about everything, someone who sees himself as omniscient and
infallible.
2.
You endlessly continue calling other people inferior and "idiots", "racists",
"religious bigots". To you they seem some kind of animal. You don't only handle
other people as dogshit, you also call them "dogshit".
(1. and 2. together 'define' you as an "�bermensch" - a kind of Superman; and
that is how you behave.)
3.
Not only individuals are inferior to you, but also nations and (people living
in) other countries.
Your posts are full of a "Bei Uns Ist Alles Besser" mentality, and you look down
on other nations and countries.
4.
You obviously have extremely much fun by insulting, humiliating and disparaging
those "inferior" people, and you spend many hours on it daily.
It is obvious that you like humiliating other people because you are enjoying
that very much. All night and all day you like to spend many hours on writing
messages of incredible length, to express your hate against people.
5.
What you actually want to do, is to stamp those "inferior" people into the
ground and to eliminate them.
You seem not to like racists, nationalists, fascists, etcetera. But your ideas
about your own 'superiority' and your behaviour and attitude regarding other
people place you in that same category.
So calling you a "Nazi" is not really wrong. It looks like a very accurate
description of your character, so the use of this term is completely justified.
Of course we know nothing about your character for sure. Maybe you are just
posing some "superior species". But it is your behaviour we can see, and that is
not really different from Nazi behaviour.
Of course we don't know everything about Nazis; you are the expert after all.
But possibly they were or are not as arrogant as you are. So you could see the
designation "Nazi" as a compliment, in your case. But as you don't deserve a too
big compliment, it's better to call you a "nazi".
(November 15, 2009)
Bob Harper
(snip)
>
> What, a "normal, grown up person" *like you* who is a racist, a
> religious bigot and a plain liar? Somebody who subscribes to childish
> belief systems based on doctored scriptures? Somebody like you who
> condones an institution of assfucking priests because they took care
> of you by assigning you your subservient bitch?
> Are you kidding me? Somebody like you who can;t even stand by the
> things he said himself in public and who feels slighted by just the
> slightest suggestion that there may be things you don't understand?
> Somebody like you who completely falls apart when confronted with
> rational arguments?
Gone off your meds again, eh? That's the only rational (?) explanation
for this tirade.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
(it's too loaded, IMO), the description of the multiple pathologies
displayed by MS is spot on.
Bob Harper
Gerard
> Bob Harper <bob.h...@comcast.net> - Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:59:58 -0800:
>
> > I regret to have to say that though I would not use the word Gerard
> > uses (it's too loaded, IMO), the description of the multiple
> > pathologies displayed by MS is spot on.
>
> eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?", I would
> say.
>
> EM
Ah, the splinter-in-the-eye-expert, showing that he's blind.
The Historian
> Symphony a mess, that I believe it deserves to rest in obscurity, and
> that the final version is so superior as to render the original
> superfluous, to use a term that's been bandied about here recently. I
> stand by that conviction.
>
> Bob Harper
Do you think the same of the original version of the Mendelssohn 4th?
The Historian
I've snipped the post of Der Flammende Hollander and changed the
subject line. While Mr. Schaffer's arguments are flawed, repetitive,
predictable, long-winded, frothing, and unpleasant, he's not stated he
subscribes to the beliefs of National Socialism, so calling him a
"Nazi" is a false statement. Also, it's a slur against Germans and
people of Germanic descent to use the word "Nazi" so loosely (would
you call Beethoven one?), and it diminishes the enormity of Nazi
crimes when its applied to something so petty as a RMCR squabble.
M forever
...it's also a form of racism to do that, and while I never made any
racist comments here at all, it seems OK to dogshit Gerard to just
invent that, after all, I am German, so I must be a Nazi and all that,
that goes without saying and is self-evident.
And his friend Harper, who has made repeated racist statements and who
does actually fancy himself a member of a morally and spiritually
superior organization, stands by and applauds that because it
distracts from his own often displayed racism and religious self-
righteousness.
Gerard
I suppose that you have never seen that documentary in which Jews (in Israel)
call each other "nazi", "zionist" and all what is ugly.
The word stands for a mentality - or attitude - that Schaffer shows here again
and again.
Don't blow it up. Your question about Beethoven is ... well, nonsense.
BTW I see you don't object to how he is calling other people.
Gerard
>
> ...it's also a form of racism to do that, and while I never made any
> racist comments here at all, it seems OK to dogshit Gerard to just
> invent that, after all, I am German, so I must be a Nazi and all that,
> that goes without saying and is self-evident.
That's *your own clich�* .
I did not say that you are German, and I didn't make such a connection. It's
just what you /want/ to read .. not what you read (well, you seem to have
reading problems anyway).
>
> And his friend Harper, who has made repeated racist statements and who
> does actually fancy himself a member of a morally and spiritually
> superior organization, stands by and applauds that because it
> distracts from his own often displayed racism and religious self-
> righteousness.
Thanks. Good stuff again.
Johannes Roehl
About himself and his thoughts, in particular the one, that whenever he
thinks "I exist" he cannot doubt that this particular thought is true.
So he has one indubitably true thought (or content of thought). To get
further he needs a God who can be trusted and is not a deceiving
powerful demon (genius malignus), so after that proof he can trust that
his "clear and distinct" ideas and perceptions are not completely of the
mark (because God would not allow that, although mistakes are always
possible for imperfect beings like Descartes and the rest of us).
(One problem is that in one of his proofs of God's existence he uses the
principle that conceiving something clear and distinct (in this case the
idea of God) is a mark of truth.)
For a very entertaining take on the Cartesian inquiry read Asimiv's
story "Reason" (with a Cartesian robot ;))
Johannes
M forever
Pretty amazing what can develop here from my well-meant and friendly
attempt to bring a piece of music nearer to you. I sit down and write
a long and detailed post in which I try to give you some food for
thought, and that's all OK, except I made this
ONE HORRIBLE MISTAKE
I had the nerve to suggest that
MAYBE YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND SOMETHING THERE
even though I stated that I didn't understand the same thing first.
What a horrible, horrible thing of me to do. How can I be so mean and
aggressive? How can I even hint that there may be things you do not
completely understand? After all, you know everything about heaven and
earth and hell, so of course, you understand all these really trivial
matters.
Same thing with your friend Gerard here who became my "mortal enemy"
just because I corrected him on a few historically incorrect
statements. That of course can not and must not happen. Small people
like you and Gerard can not admit mistakes, and they have to
completely demonize everybody who has the nerve of pointing out their
mistakes.
Interesting though how both you and Gerard hide behind or build up
whole belief systems and "official world views" (see above) in order
to fortify your small characters and protect your small minds.
Gerard
>
> Pretty amazing what can develop here from my well-meant and friendly
> attempt
We've seen more of those "well-meant" and "friendly" posts and advices.
You seem to think that leaving out your usual hostilities makes you post
"friendly". Since your hostilities started people read *all* your posts in a
different way.
> to bring a piece of music nearer to you. I sit down and write
> a long and detailed post in which I try to give you some food for
> thought, and that's all OK, except I made this
>
> ONE HORRIBLE MISTAKE
>
> I had the nerve to suggest that
>
> MAYBE YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND SOMETHING THERE
>
> even though I stated that I didn't understand the same thing first.
>
> What a horrible, horrible thing of me to do. How can I be so mean and
> aggressive? How can I even hint that there may be things you do not
> completely understand? After all, you know everything about heaven and
> earth and hell, so of course, you understand all these really trivial
> matters.
>
> Same thing with your friend Gerard here who became my "mortal enemy"
> just because I corrected him on a few historically incorrect
> statements. That of course can not and must not happen. *Small people*
> like you and Gerard can not admit mistakes, and they have to
> completely demonize everybody who has the nerve of pointing out their
> mistakes.
Are you now already *everybody* ?
Haven't you "demonized" yourself enough yet? Without your excellent help it
could not have happened.
>
> Interesting though how both you and Gerard hide behind or build up
> whole belief systems and "official world views" (see above) in order
> to fortify your *small* characters and protect your *small* minds.
Read "inferior" for "small".
M forever
Small people have inferiority complexes. You are a great example for
that. Small people feel threatened by other people and lots of things
that make them feel small. That's why they have to build up small
belief systems to demonize the people and things that make them feel
small.
Again, you are a great example for that. But it's all in your small
mind. If it wasn't so small, you would simply not be bothered by what
I say. But it bothers you a lot because you are so imprisoned by your
inferiority complex.
Bob Harper
To tell the truth, I don't know that I've ever heard it. Can you
recommend a recording?
Bob Harper
ansermetniac
wrote:
>The Historian <neil.the...@gmail.com> - Sun, 15 Nov 2009
>10:27:49 -0800 (PST):
>
>> I've snipped the post of Der Flammende Hollander and changed the
>> subject line. While Mr. Schaffer's arguments are flawed, repetitive,
>> predictable, long-winded, frothing, and unpleasant, he's not stated he
>> subscribes to the beliefs of National Socialism, so calling him a
>> "Nazi" is a false statement. Also, it's a slur against Germans and
>> people of Germanic descent to use the word "Nazi" so loosely (would
>> you call Beethoven one?), and it diminishes the enormity of Nazi
>> crimes when its applied to something so petty as a RMCR squabble.
>
>I agree.
>
>EM
Back from invading Poland?
Abbedd
The Historian
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 6:02 am, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've snipped the post of Der Flammende Hollander and changed the
> > subject line. While Mr. Schaffer's arguments are flawed, repetitive,
> > predictable, long-winded, frothing, and unpleasant, he's not stated he
> > subscribes to the beliefs of National Socialism, so calling him a
> > "Nazi" is a false statement. Also, it's a slur against Germans and
> > people of Germanic descent to use the word "Nazi" so loosely (would
> > you call Beethoven one?), and it diminishes the enormity of Nazi
> > crimes when its applied to something so petty as a RMCR squabble.
>
> I suppose that you have never seen that documentary in which Jews (in Israel)
> call each other "nazi", "zionist" and all what is ugly.
> The word stands for a mentality - or attitude - that Schaffer shows here again
> and again.
The word "Nazi" has a specific meaning, like that of "hate" and
"racist", that we water-down at our peril. "Racist" is an almost
useless word now thanks to its overuse and misuse in political
discussions, and "hate", thanks to its slang use as "hate on" for
"disagree with", is in serious trouble.
> Don't blow it up. Your question about Beethoven is ... well, nonsense.
> BTW I see you don't object to how he is calling other people.
I've done so before. How often do I have to do it to gain your seal of
approval? Incidentally I don't reply to all Abbedd's posts either.
The Historian
> On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 6:02 am, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've snipped the post of Der Flammende Hollander and changed the
> > subject line. While Mr. Schaffer's arguments are flawed, repetitive,
> > predictable, long-winded, frothing, and unpleasant, he's not stated he
> > subscribes to the beliefs of National Socialism, so calling him a
> > "Nazi" is a false statement. Also, it's a slur against Germans and
> > people of Germanic descent to use the word "Nazi" so loosely (would
> > you call Beethoven one?), and it diminishes the enormity of Nazi
> > crimes when its applied to something so petty as a RMCR squabble.
>
> ...it's also a form of racism to do that, and while I never made any
> racist comments here at all, it seems OK to dogshit Gerard to just
> invent that, after all, I am German, so I must be a Nazi and all that,
> that goes without saying and is self-evident.
(Snip)
I've seen no more of Mr. Harper's alleged "racism" than of your
alleged "Nazi" beliefs. It seems you are doing to Mr. Mr Harper just
what Der Flammende Hollander has done to you.
M forever
Oh, Harper has more than just "hinted" on many occasions that I have
to hold whatever views I happen to hold because I happen to come from
Germany, and on many occasions, he has more than just "hinted" that
there must be hidden nationalist agendas behind everything I say. On
many occasions. He is pretty good at doing that in a passive-
aggressive way, more suggesting that there must be things going on
than actually naming them - but of course not meant as "insults" -
after all, as he pointed out, we all know what Germans are all really
like, and what they are all up to. So he was just pointing out the
obvious.
number_six
wrote:
> snip < it diminishes the enormity of Nazi
> crimes when its applied to something so petty as a RMCR squabble.
Yes. Nazis and suchlike are not to be thrown around like penny candy.
O
<e8665ad8-6300-43d4...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
The Historian <neil.the...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The word "Nazi" has a specific meaning, like that of "hate" and
> "racist", that we water-down at our peril. "Racist" is an almost
> useless word now thanks to its overuse and misuse in political
> discussions, and "hate", thanks to its slang use as "hate on" for
> "disagree with", is in serious trouble.
Aren't these really "hate" words? Isn't it the equivalent of calling
someone a Nazi as saying "I hate you!" along with an attempt to use
hated ideology to defend your hate? As in, let me malign him with
something hateful so that others will hate him too?
There's no one in this group that has unveiled his or her prejudice to
the point that we could unequivocally announce him a Nazi or racist.
We barely can communicate about the music we all love, never mind
attempt to categorize other posters from their off-the-cuff posts.
>
> > Don't blow it up. Your question about Beethoven is ... well, nonsense.
> > BTW I see you don't object to how he is calling other people.
>
> I've done so before. How often do I have to do it to gain your seal of
> approval? Incidentally I don't reply to all Abbedd's posts either.
If people are going to spend time "objecting" to others posts as a
matter of course, then the group will be even more angst-ridden (and
clogged).
-Owen
Gerard
I only know about Gardiner's recording (VPO, on DG).
I've heard it only once, so a recommendation is ... well, if you want to hear
it: recommended.
Gerard
You're turning everything upside down.
*You* are the one who says to others that they are small and inferior. And that
they should feel small and inferior.
>
> Again, you are a great example for that. But it's all in your small
> mind. If it wasn't so small, you would simply not be bothered by what
> I say. But it bothers you a lot because you are so imprisoned by your
> inferiority complex.
I give no shit about what you say. For me you're a nazi. You have a problem with
being and acting so superior.
Bob Harper
(snip)
>> I've seen no more of Mr. Harper's alleged "racism" than of your
>> alleged "Nazi" beliefs. It seems you are doing to Mr. Mr Harper just
>> what Der Flammende Hollander has done to you.
>
> Oh, Harper has more than just "hinted" on many occasions that I have
> to hold whatever views I happen to hold because I happen to come from
> Germany, and on many occasions, he has more than just "hinted" that
> there must be hidden nationalist agendas behind everything I say. On
> many occasions. He is pretty good at doing that in a passive-
> aggressive way, more suggesting that there must be things going on
> than actually naming them - but of course not meant as "insults" -
> after all, as he pointed out, we all know what Germans are all really
> like, and what they are all up to. So he was just pointing out the
> obvious.
The Historian is of course correct, and your characterization of what I
have supposedly 'hinted' if stuff and nonsense, but such is your
determination to attack anyone, anywhere, anytime for the crime of
disagreeing with you that it doesn't matter. Why let facts stand in the
way of your inchoate rage?
Bob Harper
M forever
No, I am not saying that at all. You are making yourself "small and
inferior". I would prefer it if you weren't such a little idiot. If
you weren't, I could have some interesting discussions with you, like
with a number of other posters here.
But you are a little idiot and every single of your posts makes that
clearer and clearer, so all you are here is that virtual pile of
dogshit that one steps in from time to time.
But you don't have to be such a pointless little idiot. You can try to
get a grip on your inferiority complexes. Only you can. I have nothing
to do with that.
Good luck.
> > Again, you are a great example for that. But it's all in your small
> > mind. If it wasn't so small, you would simply not be bothered by what
> > I say. But it bothers you a lot because you are so imprisoned by your
> > inferiority complex.
>
> I give no shit about what you say. For me you're a nazi. You have a problem with
> being and acting so superior.
Exactly what I said. It doesn't actually matter what I actually say. I
have no "problem" with being "superior" to you. You are just an idiot.
*Anybody* who isn't just a small idiot with inferiority complexes is
"superior" to you. That doesn't make me anything special. It just
makes you a little idiot, that's it. I am sure you have experienced
that often in your shitty life, that's what your reactions here
clearly show. If you weren't such a small idiot with such big
complexes, it wouldn't affect you what I say here on this chit-chat
forum as much as it obviously does.
M forever
You have often said stuff like "that opinion is hardly surprising,
coming from somebody of your provenance" and you have more than on one
occasion made it clear that for you, all Germans are at least latent
Nazis.
Why don't you stand by what you said? Why are you such a hypocrite and
coward?
And - did you not say that everyone who doesn't believe in your
religion - unfortunately, of course - "chooses" to go to hell for all
eternity?
The Historian
Thank you. Now I wish someone would compliment me on Gerard's new
nickname, Der Flammende Hollander, AKA "The Flaming Dutchman."
Bob Harper
Oh, for crying out loud. *NOTHING* I have said resembles such a
sentiment in the slightest. I'd call you a liar, but I really do believe
you are too out of control to be culpable.
> Why don't you stand by what you said? Why are you such a hypocrite and
> coward?
Umm, I'm not.
>
> And - did you not say that everyone who doesn't believe in your
> religion - unfortunately, of course - "chooses" to go to hell for all
> eternity?
Absolutely not. If you got that out of what I said, then you got it
utterly and completely wrong. For someone of intelligence you can be
incredibly dense. Letting your prejudices get in the way of your reason
is an unfortunate habit you have.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
(snip)
> Pretty amazing what can develop here from my well-meant and friendly
> attempt to bring a piece of music nearer to you. I sit down and write
> a long and detailed post in which I try to give you some food for
> thought, and that's all OK, except I made this
>
> ONE HORRIBLE MISTAKE
No. It was I who made the horrible mistake (in your eyes) of having my
own opinion about the value of the original version of the Sibelius 5th.
I thought, and think, that it is of value only as a curiosity. Yes, it
may give us insights into Sibelius' compositional methods, etc., etc.,
but *as* *music* it fails, while the final version succeeds brilliantly.
Now, my having the temerity to voice such an opinion set you off on a
familiar track:
1. You 'knew' that I hadn't listened to the OV, at least not more than
cursorily.
2. You 'recommended' that I should--with you as instructor--'try one
more time, keeping the things in mind I (MS) talked about.
3. When I declined to do so, and suggested that your approach was a bit
off-putting, you flew into your trademark rage and accusation.
This has long since gotten old, and while I do appreciate what you had
to say about the OV of the Sibelius, that appreciation places me under
no obligation to do anything beyond saying 'thank you'. That you cannot
understand that says a great deal more about you than it does about me.
I'm going to snip the rest of your post so as to spare you, and others,
the embarrassment of reading again your whining about how
under-appreciated you are, and how Gerard and I pick on poor little
Mikey so terribly.
Grow up.
Bob Harper
Bob Lombard
>
> Thank you. Now I wish someone would compliment me on Gerard's new
> nickname, Der Flammende Hollander, AKA "The Flaming Dutchman."
Ah. I was hampered by being a monoglot. I translated 'Flammende' as
'Flemmish' or Flemming', and figured you had inside knowledge.
bl
The Historian
My German is horrible. Perhaps there is a native-German speaker in
this thread who could check my translation.
wagnerfan
"The Historian" <neil.the...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:71ab7592-e5f0-43c1...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
It depends on exactly what you mean by "flaming" Wagner fan
Matthew�B.�Tepper
letters to be typed in news:abe46a31-b582-4bc3-9e5f-
bec20c...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
Thrown into a wood chipper, now, that would be something else.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Matthew�B.�Tepper
letters to be typed in news:7mb0vqF...@mid.individual.net:
> Bob Harper schrieb:
> About himself and his thoughts, in particular the one, that whenever he
> thinks "I exist" he cannot doubt that this particular thought is true.
> So he has one indubitably true thought (or content of thought). To get
> further he needs a God who can be trusted and is not a deceiving powerful
> demon (genius malignus), so after that proof he can trust that his "clear
> and distinct" ideas and perceptions are not completely of the mark
> (because God would not allow that, although mistakes are always possible
> for imperfect beings like Descartes and the rest of us). (One problem is
> that in one of his proofs of God's existence he uses the principle that
> conceiving something clear and distinct (in this case the idea of God) is
> a mark of truth.)
>
> For a very entertaining take on the Cartesian inquiry read Asimiv's
> story "Reason" (with a Cartesian robot ;))
You've just moved Asimov's place of birth from Russia to the Ukraine! ;--)
In that story, the robot Cutie is said to be a Cartesian, but I have a
suspicion that he's a Thomist as well.