Charlotte Church Rocks my World!
Paul Penna
<cand...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote:
> I recently had the pleasure of buying and viewing the Charlotte Church DVD of
> "Voice of an Angel" which was simply brilliant. The concert and interview
> footage of young Charlotte were simply delightful! This child is really gifted
> and I do hope she stays grounded.
Straight line alert!
--
Paul Penna
Capel Cleggs
> I might be posting in the wrong forum...
[Jeremy Irons voice, a la REVERSAL OF FORTUNE]: You have *no* idea...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Candy1966
"Voice of an Angel" which was simply brilliant. The concert and interview
footage of young Charlotte were simply delightful! This child is really gifted
DVD player. I also bought the Sarah Brightman "One night in Eden" DVD and
thought it was fantastic too! I might be posting in the wrong forum...ermm
sorry but I had just to post this! :-)
Candice
God put me on earth to accomplish a certain number of things, right now
I'm so far behind I will never die
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/DreamcastWorld
Ward Hardman
: I recently had the pleasure of buying and viewing the Charlotte Church DVD of
: "Voice of an Angel" which was simply brilliant. The concert and interview
: footage of young Charlotte were simply delightful! This child is really gifted
: and I do hope she stays grounded. I would recommend this to anyone who has a
: DVD player. I also bought the Sarah Brightman "One night in Eden" DVD and
: thought it was fantastic too! I might be posting in the wrong forum...ermm
: sorry but I had just to post this! :-)
If either one of them ever does a CLASSICAL album, feel free to post again!
--Ward Hardman
Greg
--
Later and 73
Greg to reply, change NOT to net
-------------------------------------
Candy1966 <cand...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote in message
news:19991119215526...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> I recently had the pleasure of buying and viewing the Charlotte Church DVD
of
> DVD player. I also bought the Sarah Brightman "One night in Eden" DVD and
> thought it was fantastic too! I might be posting in the wrong forum...ermm
> sorry but I had just to post this! :-)
No, you *didn't!*
Matthew B. Tepper
cand...@aol.comNoSpam is reputed to have iterated as follows...
>
>I recently had the pleasure of buying and viewing the Charlotte Church
>is really gifted and I do hope she stays grounded. I would recommend this
>in the wrong forum...ermm sorry but I had just to post this! :-)
>
>God put me on earth to accomplish a certain number of things, right now
>I'm so far behind I will never die
>http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/DreamcastWorld
1. You *are* posting in the wrong group.
2. Charlotte Church has a fairly ordinary voice, in transition from that
of a child to that of an adult, which is pretty normal for somebody going
through puberty.
3. Sony has ammassed an *enormous* publicity campaign to publicize this
perfectly ordinary and harmless person, in order to fool, trick, hoodwink,
and otherwise bamboozle large masses of people into thinking that her
voice is anything other than ordinary.
4. You fell for it. BIGTIME!
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
"Compassionate Conservatism?" * "Tight Slacks?" * "Jumbo Shrimp?"
mik...@freewwweb.com
cand...@aol.comNoSpam (Candy1966) wrote:
> I recently had the pleasure of buying and viewing the Charlotte Church
DVD of
> "Voice of an Angel" which was simply brilliant. The concert and
interview
> footage of young Charlotte were simply delightful! This child is
really gifted
> and I do hope she stays grounded. I would recommend this to anyone who
has a
> DVD player. I also bought the Sarah Brightman "One night in Eden" DVD
and
> thought it was fantastic too! I might be posting in the wrong
forum...ermm
> sorry but I had just to post this! :-)
>
> Candice
I thought she was good too until I started wondering why she sings in an
opera vocal manner? The blame must go to her vocal coaches. Now, I
wish I could hear her voice as a 'normal' child might sing. What child
(or even teenager) would sing in an opera style?
But there is a very talented girl who does sing normal. She is 10 years
old and her name is Elizabeth Stefanko and thankfully she sings normal!
No extra effort to sound like anyone and certainly not in an opera
vocal style. Her voice is incredible. She does not try to sound louder
than she should and there is no artificial vibrato, etc. Ironically,
she really does have the 'voice of an angel'.
She has no recording I know of. I saw her on the Crystal Cathedral
'Hour of Power' TV show a few weeks ago. She will appear again in the
Glory of Christmas, part of which may be broadcast on TV during
Christmas (don't know):
http://www.crystalcathedral.org/glory/gocindex_enh.html
Mike
Jeffrey Smith
full of Charlotte Churches, many of them more talented than the
original.
Please do not make the mistake of confusing talent with popularity -
ne'er the twain shall meet. In my opinion she has no talent at all and
never will, unlike Sarah Brightman who has it in spades.
Jeffrey Smith.
On 20 Nov 1999 02:55:26 GMT, cand...@aol.comNoSpam (Candy1966)
wrote:
>I recently had the pleasure of buying and viewing the Charlotte Church DVD of
>"Voice of an Angel" which was simply brilliant. The concert and interview
>footage of young Charlotte were simply delightful! This child is really gifted
>and I do hope she stays grounded. I would recommend this to anyone who has a
>DVD player. I also bought the Sarah Brightman "One night in Eden" DVD and
>thought it was fantastic too! I might be posting in the wrong forum...ermm
>sorry but I had just to post this! :-)
>
>Candice
Don Drewecki
Candice:
You ARE posting to the wrong newsgroup. You should post to the Church of Church
website.
--
Don Drewecki
<dre...@rpi.edu>
Candy1966
don't like Charlotte and Sarah cuz I do and that's what counts..not your
opinions only my own. have a bloody nice day. Any flames will be laughed at,
thrown in the garbage, you get the idea darlings.
Candice
Thomas Deas
"Candy1966" <cand...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote in message
> Sorry for posting to the wrong newsgroup
The third word of your subject line might have provided a clue.
Ernest Jones
instance! There at least 3 young ladies in the Florida Phil. Choir with
better voices!
Ernest Jones
Retired Music & Cruise Crazy Brit.
On Sunny Isles Beach
Life is an Opera
David M. Cook
>Sorry for posting to the wrong newsgroup LOL! I don't care about you people
>who don't like Charlotte and Sarah
If you don't care what other people think, why read usenet at all?
Dave Cook
Matthew B. Tepper
mon...@webtv.net is reputed to have iterated as follows...
>
>Candice, if thats the way you feel why did you post in the first
>instance! There at least 3 young ladies in the Florida Phil. Choir with
>better voices!
Because she's proud of being "one of the sheep"?
Matthew B. Tepper
dave...@home.com is reputed to have iterated as follows...
Because she just felt like boasting about how she obeys marketers?
Philip Peters
"Matthew B. Tepper" wrote:
> In article <19991119215526...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
> cand...@aol.comNoSpam is reputed to have iterated as follows...
> >
> >I recently had the pleasure of buying and viewing the Charlotte Church
> >DVD of "Voice of an Angel" which was simply brilliant. The concert and
> >interview footage of young Charlotte were simply delightful! This child
> >is really gifted and I do hope she stays grounded. I would recommend this
> >to anyone who has a DVD player. I also bought the Sarah Brightman "One
> >night in Eden" DVD and thought it was fantastic too! I might be posting
> >in the wrong forum...ermm sorry but I had just to post this! :-)
> >
>
> 1. You *are* posting in the wrong group.
> 2. Charlotte Church has a fairly ordinary voice, in transition from that
> of a child to that of an adult, which is pretty normal for somebody going
> through puberty.
> 3. Sony has ammassed an *enormous* publicity campaign to publicize this
> perfectly ordinary and harmless person, in order to fool, trick, hoodwink,
> and otherwise bamboozle large masses of people into thinking that her
> voice is anything other than ordinary.
> 4. You fell for it. BIGTIME!
I don't think so. I think the poster is trolling and *you* fell for it big
time ;))
Philip
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> "Matthew B. Tepper" wrote:
>
> > In article <19991119215526...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
> > cand...@aol.comNoSpam is reputed to have iterated as follows...
> > >
> > >I recently had the pleasure of buying and viewing the Charlotte Church
> > >DVD of "Voice of an Angel" which was simply brilliant. The concert and
> > >interview footage of young Charlotte were simply delightful! This child
> > >is really gifted and I do hope she stays grounded. I would recommend this
> > >to anyone who has a DVD player. I also bought the Sarah Brightman "One
> > >night in Eden" DVD and thought it was fantastic too! I might be posting
> > >in the wrong forum...ermm sorry but I had just to post this! :-)
> > >
> >
> > 1. You *are* posting in the wrong group.
> > 2. Charlotte Church has a fairly ordinary voice, in transition from that
> > of a child to that of an adult, which is pretty normal for somebody going
> > through puberty.
> > 3. Sony has ammassed an *enormous* publicity campaign to publicize this
> > perfectly ordinary and harmless person, in order to fool, trick, hoodwink,
> > and otherwise bamboozle large masses of people into thinking that her
> > voice is anything other than ordinary.
> > 4. You fell for it. BIGTIME!
>
> I don't think so. I think the poster is trolling and *you* fell for it big
> time ;))
Maybe so, but I wouldn't want any of the lurkers to think I'd let down
my guard! ;--)
EM
wrote:
>I recently had the pleasure of buying and viewing the Charlotte Church DVD of
>"Voice of an Angel" which was simply brilliant. The concert and interview
>footage of young Charlotte were simply delightful! This child is really gifted
>and I do hope she stays grounded. I would recommend this to anyone who has a
>DVD player. I also bought the Sarah Brightman "One night in Eden" DVD and
>thought it was fantastic too! I might be posting in the wrong forum...ermm
>sorry but I had just to post this! :-)
>
Oh yes, she's so cute! I am looking forward to her recordings of
Wagner arias with Sir Walter Ramsbottom due to come out two weeks
before Christmas on the new Universal label Popera!
EM
Thomas Deas
"EM" <emREei...@stMEad.dsl.nl> wrote in message
news:383a918e...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> >
> Oh yes, she's so cute! I am looking forward to her recordings of
> Wagner arias with Sir Walter Ramsbottom due to come out two weeks
> before Christmas on the new Universal label Popera!
I hear she has signed up to do a hundred nights of Turandot followed by a
hundred nights of assorted Wagner, in the trunk of a car wrapped in a mile
of sea water. This will certainly improve her voice.
Deryk Barker
:
: "EM" <emREei...@stMEad.dsl.nl> wrote in message
Well I, for one, think Jimmy Saville has gone too far this time...
--
|Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept. | Music does not have to be understood|
|Camosun College, Victoria, BC, Canada| It has to be listened to. |
|email: dba...@camosun.bc.ca | |
|phone: +1 250 370 4452 | Hermann Scherchen. |
Edward Jasiewicz
EM <emREei...@stMEad.dsl.nl> wrote in message
news:383a918e...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> Oh yes, she's so cute! I am looking forward to her recordings of
> Wagner arias with Sir Walter Ramsbottom due to come out two weeks
> before Christmas on the new Universal label Popera!
Is this the same genre that supposedly produces the blue-skinned opera/pop
singer who stars in a few scene of the futuristic Film "The Fifth Element"
(Bruce Willis flick...)? If this is really what we have to look forward to
in the vocal arts...
-ed
RICHARD PROBTS
"Matthew B. Tepper" wrote:
>
> In article <19991119215526...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
> cand...@aol.comNoSpam is reputed to have iterated as follows...
> >
> >I recently had the pleasure of buying and viewing the Charlotte Church
> >DVD of "Voice of an Angel" which was simply brilliant. The concert and
> >interview footage of young Charlotte were simply delightful! This child
> >is really gifted and I do hope she stays grounded. I would recommend this
> >to anyone who has a DVD player. I also bought the Sarah Brightman "One
> >night in Eden" DVD and thought it was fantastic too! I might be posting
> >in the wrong forum...ermm sorry but I had just to post this! :-)
> >
> >Candice
> >God put me on earth to accomplish a certain number of things, right now
> >I'm so far behind I will never die
> >http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/DreamcastWorld
>
> 1. You *are* posting in the wrong group.
> 2. Charlotte Church has a fairly ordinary voice, in transition from that
> of a child to that of an adult, which is pretty normal for somebody going
> through puberty.
> 3. Sony has ammassed an *enormous* publicity campaign to publicize this
> perfectly ordinary and harmless person, in order to fool, trick, hoodwink,
> and otherwise bamboozle large masses of people into thinking that her
> voice is anything other than ordinary.
> 4. You fell for it. BIGTIME!
>
Ah - its good to hear an intelligent response to the corporate mind-fry
that has shoved Church upon the pre-paved minds of the world.
thanks Matthew - as always!
Sacqueboutier
secondary school and came in contact with enough very fine
high school choral programs to know that I've not heard many other
voices quite like Miss Church's at her age. Does this make
her the vocal equivalent of Midori, Sarah Chang, Yo Yo Ma,
and Yavgeny Kissin? Not really. It's a nice voice, nothing
spectacular except that the owner happens to be 14 and pretty.
I think that she has been exploited by all of the adults in
her life.
BTW, I've not bought any of her discs but I did listen to a
few numbers on her PBS special to see what all the hubbub
was about.
--
Don Patterson
DCP Music Press
Expert Music Notation and Setting
Custom Musical Arrangements
don...@dclink.com
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Matthew B. Tepper
weeks ago? Incredible! What some people will do for attention!
Tony Vella wrote:
>
> James M. Cate <jim...@pdq.net> wrote in message
> news:387404AD...@pdq.net...
> >
> > Richard, why would you conclude that Candice "fell for it," as
> > Matthew states in his usual cynical, supercilious style? Isn't it
> > just possible that she has a modicum of <snip, snip, snip>
>
> james-whatever-cate, doesn't your effin' phylum hibernate or
> something?
> --
> tony....@sympatico.ca
James M. Cate
RICHARD PROBTS wrote:
> ____________________________
Richard, why would you conclude that Candice "fell for it," as Matthew states in
his usual cynical, supercilious style? Isn't it just possible that she has a
modicum of sense and taste and that she listened to the disc because she had
heard CC sing and liked her singing, and that she liked the performance on the
DVD because she listened to it and found that she liked it? Do you think that
everyone who buys a CC disc does so only because he or she has been brainwashed
by Sony propaganda? [If so, you are the one who is naive and out of it]
And did it ever occur to you to question whether Matthew has actually seen or
heard the DVD in question? [Did you, or didn't you, Matt?]. The last comment I
saw from him about his exposure to CC was his story about going into the Tower
music store and listening to a few selections from her CD on their earphones,
since he had found a copy of her CD opened and therefore didn't have to pay for
it. In other words, he was bragging to his buddies that, though he heard her, he
didn't actually contribute to the CC bandwagon by buying the CD.. -- Now does
that sound like an objective, unbiased listener to her music, much less her
performance on DVD?
Jim
Tony Vella
states in
> his usual cynical, supercilious style? Isn't it just possible that she
has a
Jeremy Cook
"James M. Cate" <jim...@pdq.net> wrote:
[pro and con postings re: Charlotte Church snipped]
> RICHARD PROBTS wrote:
[snip]
> > Ah - its good to hear an intelligent response to the corporate
> > mind-fry that has shoved Church upon the pre-paved minds of the
> > world.
> And did it ever occur to you to question whether Matthew has actually
> seen or heard the DVD in question? [Did you, or didn't you, Matt?].
> The last comment I saw from him about his exposure to CC was his
> story about going into the Tower music store and listening to a few
> selections from her CD on their earphones, since he had found a copy
> of her CD opened and therefore didn't have to pay for it. In other
> words, he was bragging to his buddies that, though he heard her, he
> didn't actually contribute to the CC bandwagon by buying the CD..
> -- Now does that sound like an objective, unbiased listener to her
> music, much less her performance on DVD?
Well, Matthew *did* take the time to listen to a few tracks and formed
his opinion. Should he have to listen to everything CC has ever
recorded before his opinion is considered informed and objective?
I'm reminded of the story regarding the aspiring writer who sent one of
his manuscripts to George Bernard Shaw to review, having pasted some of
the pages together to find out how far into the manuscript Shaw had
actually read. GBS returned the manuscript, accompanied by a note in
which he lambasted the author for utter lack of literary talent. The
writer, noting that some of the pages were still pasted together, wrote
back and scornfully derided Shaw for rendering an opinion without
having read the *entire* manuscript. Shaw fired back the reply: "I
don't need to eat an entire egg if the first bite tells me it's rotten."
I've never heard CC and therefore have no opinion. But I *have* heard
enough of Devid Helfgott, for example, to have formed the opinion that
he is, at least in his present condition, a second-rate pianist. I
would object if anyone told me I had to listen to every track he has
ever recorded before that opinion could be considered "objective and
unbiased."
Donald Rice
from the depths. Who knew he was truly a Cate repellent.
Don
"Matthew B. Tepper" wrote:
>
> Is this monkey-man STILL going on about a thread that (mercifully) died
> weeks ago? Incredible! What some people will do for attention!
>
> Tony Vella wrote:
> >
> --
> Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
> My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
> My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
> To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
> "Compassionate Conservatism?" * "Tight Slacks?" * "Jumbo Shrimp?"
--
Put a "1" between don and rice to email me. (don1...@excite.com)
the @home.com works just fine without the "1"
Orhan Yenen
I am not sure why you try to sell Miss Church to this newsgroup. Yes
many of us are snobs, and no (may be I should write it with capitals:
NO) there is not much chance to change the opinions of the hardcore
contributers of this newsgroup. The mistake of insisting on this
subject actually hurts your cause. Think about it for a second. For
every positive posting you write about Miss Church (for that matter
for Sony) you are receiving several negatives ones. What would be the
effect of this on the casual reader of this newsgroup? Do you really
think that you are being wise?
Orhan Yenen
PS. By the way since I am pissed off to Sony's treatment of the
classical music, I just bought a JVC 32" TV today.
James M. Cate <jim...@pdq.net> wrote in article
<387404AD...@pdq.net>...
> > Ah - its good to hear an intelligent response to the corporate
mind-fry
> > that has shoved Church upon the pre-paved minds of the world.
> >
> > ____________________________
>
> Richard, why would you conclude that Candice "fell for it," as
Matthew states in
> his usual cynical, supercilious style? Isn't it just possible that
she has a
> modicum of sense and taste and that she listened to the disc
because she had
> heard CC sing and liked her singing, and that she liked the
performance on the
> DVD because she listened to it and found that she liked it? Do you
think that
> everyone who buys a CC disc does so only because he or she has been
brainwashed
> by Sony propaganda? [If so, you are the one who is naive and out
of it]
>
> And did it ever occur to you to question whether Matthew has
actually seen or
> heard the DVD in question? [Did you, or didn't you, Matt?]. The
last comment I
> saw from him about his exposure to CC was his story about going
into the Tower
> music store and listening to a few selections from her CD on their
earphones,
> since he had found a copy of her CD opened and therefore didn't
have to pay for
> it. In other words, he was bragging to his buddies that, though he
heard her, he
> didn't actually contribute to the CC bandwagon by buying the CD..
-- Now does
> that sound like an objective, unbiased listener to her music, much
less her
> performance on DVD?
>
> Jim
>
>
van...@my-deja.com
of deja.com recordings' "inner sanctum's" thought-twisters. Amazing how
the perception of a "newsgroup" (that's just a chatroom) can elevate
some people's intelligence.
'Tis not about Charlotte Church, or any other chatroom-proclaimed
sub-standard performer. Rather it's about so-many-yet-so-few here
choosing to continually piss against the wind. No, there's not as much
news here as there should be.
A word to the not-so-wise. Let people enjoy what they enjoy and discuss
what they enjoy with minimal interference. And allow some of the lurkers
to participate...those that now cringe at the thought of, because of the
frequent antics here. It's not about dumbing down. It's about smarting
up.
Regards
In article <01bf5817$dd320c40$0f0a...@dialin.inetnebr.com>,
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> 'Tis not about Charlotte Church, or any other chatroom-proclaimed
> sub-standard performer. Rather it's about so-many-yet-so-few here
> choosing to continually piss against the wind.
No, it's about a troll who has long been consigned to my killfile.
James M. Cate
"Matthew B. Tepper" wrote:
> Is this monkey-man STILL going on about a thread that (mercifully) died
> weeks ago? Incredible! What some people will do for attention!
>
_____________________
After all the notes you have posted about how insignificant my comments
are, Matthew, and how insignificant Charlotte Church is, why are you STILL
constrained to jump on us and post your knee-jerk, childish put downs
whenever I or anyone else dares to say something positive about CC? What's
your problem? Why did YOU feel so compulsive about jumping down Candice's
throat merely because she had the gall to say that she listened to CC and
liked her? Why is putting down CC admirers so very, very important to you?
Why don't you just ignore us and go on to the many other subjects which you
claim to be so very much more important in your world? Why spend so much of
your valuable time putting down two admirers of CC?
Jim
James M. Cate
Orhan Yenen wrote:
> Mr. Cate,
>
> I am not sure why you try to sell Miss Church to this newsgroup. Yes
> many of us are snobs, and no (may be I should write it with capitals:
> NO) there is not much chance to change the opinions of the hardcore
> contributers of this newsgroup. The mistake of insisting on this
> subject actually hurts your cause. Think about it for a second. For
> every positive posting you write about Miss Church (for that matter
> for Sony) you are receiving several negatives ones. What would be the
> effect of this on the casual reader of this newsgroup? Do you really
> think that you are being wise?
>
> Orhan Yenen
> PS. By the way since I am pissed off to Sony's treatment of the
> classical music, I just bought a JVC 32" TV today.
>
____________________________
Orhan, the problem is that there is no one else who is willing to stick
up against "hasbeen-wannabe" musicologists" like Matthew. -- If a few
others were willing to put up with negative comments posted by such
pitiful people, then I would no longer feel the need to continue my
regular contributions. -- But most people don't want to put up with that
crap, or even worse, are actually intimidated by such bullies.
And although Matthew and a few of his cohorts try to gang up against me,
note that most of the contributors to the ng do NOT participate in such
sicko discussions and putdowns of those with differing tastes. -- I have
received a number of e-mails complementing me for my contributions and my
willingness to persist despite the slanderous remarks thrown at me by the
very small minority, e.g., those participating in this little string.
Your suggestion that I go away because my notes generate negative
responses is in effect telling the world that bullies and failures such
as Matthew should be permitted to slander and walk over at will those of
us who wish to see some degree of balance and perspective in these
discussions. The bottom line is that I simply don't like bullies, Orhan.
Regarding your purchase of a JVC TV, consider that Sony has invested
heavily in the new SACD high end audio system which, if they are able to
sell them, will provide a significant improvement in recorded sound for
high-end music reproduction. The expectation of many is that they will
use this system to put out some tremendous classical recordings. -- They
may or may not be able to pull it off, of course, but the reviews are
fantastic.
Jim
James M. Cate
"Matthew B. Tepper" wrote:
> van...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > 'Tis not about Charlotte Church, or any other chatroom-proclaimed
> > sub-standard performer. Rather it's about so-many-yet-so-few here
> > choosing to continually piss against the wind.
>
> No, it's about a troll who has long been consigned to my killfile.
>
_____________________________________
Really, Matthew? You seem to be able to detect and pounce on my notes
within a few nanoseconds. Again, if what I say is that insignificant,
why bother?
Jim
James M. Cate
Jeremy Cook wrote:
In article <387404AD...@pdq.net>,
"James M. Cate" <jim...@pdq.net> wrote:
[pro and con postings re: Charlotte Church snipped]
> RICHARD PROBTS wrote:
[snip]
> >
[snip]
> And did it ever occur to you to question whether Matthew has actually
> seen or heard the DVD in question? [Did you, or didn't you, Matt?].
> The last comment I saw from him about his exposure to CC was his
> story about going into the Tower music store and listening to a few
> selections from her CD on their earphones, since he had found a copy
> of her CD opened and therefore didn't have to pay for it. In other
> words, he was bragging to his buddies that, though he heard her, he
> didn't actually contribute to the CC bandwagon by buying the CD..
> -- Now does that sound like an objective, unbiased listener to her
> music, much less her performance on DVD?
Well, Matthew *did* take the time to listen to a few tracks and formed
his opinion. Should he have to listen to everything CC has ever
recorded before his opinion is considered informed and objective?
You may have missed my point, Jeremy.
I stated:
> ...In other words, he was bragging to his buddies that, though he heard her, he
> didn't actually contribute to the CC bandwagon by buying the CD..
> -- Now does that sound like an objective, unbiased listener to her
> music, much less her performance on DVD?
Shaw fired back the reply: "I
don't need to eat an entire egg if the first bite tells me it's rotten."
--- But Matthew not only condemned the egg to the trash bin, he condemned everyone who gathered the egg, cooked the egg, shipped the egg, marketed the egg, along with everyone who ate one of the eggs. He condemned the 3,000,000 who ate the egg without getting sick, and who liked it. Although he thought the egg was rotton, many others didn't, and lots of classical music was sold which probably would not have been otherwise. (Yes, it would have been better with Southerland, Fleming, etc., but that's not the issue, is it?) -- His attitude apparently is that, somehow, for some strange reason, it is very, very important that any Church supporter or admirer must be immediately and decisively quashed, ridiculed, and intimidated. Although he continues to claim that the whole matter is of little importance or significance, he continues his compulsive attacks against people such as poor Candice, who dared to express her appreciation for CC on this ng and was immediately attacked and put in her place. The quote: "Thou doth protest too much" was never more appropriate.
Regarding David Helfgott, I share your opinions on his playing, and I would give my opinion to anyone who asks. But I wouldn't jump down the throat of someone who came on the ng and told us enthusiastically that they listened to Helfgott's Rach Third and discovered for the first time how great classical music can be. -- Instead, I would share their enthusiasm on making such an exciting discovery, tell them how much I enjoy the Third also, and suggest some other recordings for them to consider. I would also tell them to go on listening to Helfgott as long as his music gave them such excitement and pleasure. And I wouldn't post cynical, sicko comments about the motivations of his wife unless I had some solid evidence supporting such damning accusations, and unless I had carefully considered her interpretation of the story, and considered whether or not Helfgott was enjoying the experience and getting some needed compensation.
Jim
Orhan Yenen
<38755FC2...@pdq.net>...
I do not understand what difference that makes. There are hundreds of
postings every month which disagrees with my taste but I do not feel
obligated to defend to anyone my taste in music. What I am trying to
assess is why is it so important for you to feel obligated to defend
Ms Church and Co. Did I miss some of you postings who defended (for
the sake of fairness) let's say Naxos recordings and/or artists?
> received a number of e-mails complementing me for my contributions
and my
> willingness to persist despite the slanderous remarks thrown at me
by the
> very small minority, e.g., those participating in this little
string.
>
> Your suggestion that I go away because my notes generate negative
> responses is in effect telling the world that bullies and failures
such
> as Matthew should be permitted to slander and walk over at will
those of
> us who wish to see some degree of balance and perspective in these
> discussions. The bottom line is that I simply don't like bullies,
Orhan.
I have yet to meet one person who likes bullies. So the problem is
not there. And believe me there are some of us who are not easily
intimidated.
I can only speak for myself and I am not really happy with the way
Sony produces and markets its classical music products. I think that
the people who are directing the classical music division of Sony are
not passionate about the products that their company produces and
markets. I have no idea about their background but they do not seem
to understand the nich market they address to. Of course this is my
perception but in the business world perception is reality. Having
said that I understand that as a business they have every right to
produce and market (within laws obviously) their products and look
after their business interests. On the other hand I, as a consumer,
have every right to spend my hard earned money the way I see fit and
make my voice heard by criticising the business I disagree with.
Now for my JVC purchase, I wrote it to see who will react to it.
Because, I thought that someone who is not attached to Sony through
his/hers stomac would completely ignore it. It is really irrelevant
to the current discussion. ( I was going to write: "So can you
cathegorically deny you have no ties with Sony and its subsidiaries?"
Then I realized that unless it can be independently verified no
statement has any logical value. So forget it,)
>
> Regarding your purchase of a JVC TV, consider that Sony has
invested
> heavily in the new SACD high end audio system which, if they are
able to
This is really irrelevant for my criticism of Sony's treatment of the
classical music. A high end audio system can be used for any sound or
video purpose. In other words it is not done to promote classical
music, it is developed so that Sony continues to be competitive in
the sound and video business. Therefore I am not sure why you
mentioned, except as a public relation/commercial statement?
Orhan Yenen
Jeremy Cook
> You may have missed my point, Jeremy.
[another enormous snip by the Save the Bandwidth Foundation]
I don't *think* I missed your point; it's just that I don't care to
insert myself into a debate about the merits or shortcomings of a
singer I've never heard. No do I care to speculate about the motives
of the parties involved in the debate.
I was simply limiting my comments to the point about what constitutes
an "unbiased" listener when it comes to forming an opinion about the
artistic merit of a given performer. Dan Koren says that he can tell
the quality of a pianist from listening to a half of bar of playing!
While that may be at the extreme end of the critical spectrum, I think
that listening to several tracks of a CD is enough for Matthew - or
nearly anyone, for that matter - to form a fundamental opinion of CC's
abilities.
As far as the rest of the argument about Sony, CC's parents, CC's fans
and detractors, the listening public in general, their motivations,
etc., I really don't give a rip. But next time I'm at the record
store, I'll pop on the headphones and listen a few selections of this
young lady's singing, and I'll post my opinion. Fair enough?
atrb
Church is, listen to the "Men of Harlech" track. Especially where
she fails to get within spitting distance of the high notes.
Tom Barkes
Nottingham
UK
Jeremy Cook wrote in message <852114$m4c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I'm reminded of the story regarding the aspiring writer who sent one of
>his manuscripts to George Bernard Shaw to review, having pasted some of
>the pages together to find out how far into the manuscript Shaw had
>actually read. GBS returned the manuscript, accompanied by a note in
>which he lambasted the author for utter lack of literary talent. The
>writer, noting that some of the pages were still pasted together, wrote
>back and scornfully derided Shaw for rendering an opinion without
>having read the *entire* manuscript. Shaw fired back the reply: "I
>don't need to eat an entire egg if the first bite tells me it's rotten."
>
>I've never heard CC and therefore have no opinion. But I *have* heard
>enough of Devid Helfgott, for example, to have formed the opinion that
>he is, at least in his present condition, a second-rate pianist. I
>would object if anyone told me I had to listen to every track he has
>ever recorded before that opinion could be considered "objective and
>unbiased."
>
>
Paul mastr
criteria when applied to music. Stateing that, Church is a very good
representation of pop background music. But now of serious classical music. I
am reminded of Brahms who fulminated against some of the more popular composers
of his time, who's music seemed to aquire popularity, Brahms's words were in
effect, its liked for all the wrong reasons,not for logic, taste, knowlege of
and skill in musical forms. I think of Brahms often when this new pop classical
stuff is marketed. But if one likes it, well thats they'r life.
James M. Cate
Jeremy Cook wrote:
> In article <38756DF3...@pdq.net>,
> "James M. Cate" <jim...@pdq.net> wrote:
> [massive sniperoo - read the thread if you need the context! :-) ]
>
> > You may have missed my point, Jeremy.
>
> [another enormous snip by the Save the Bandwidth Foundation]
>
> I don't *think* I missed your point; it's just that I don't care to
> insert myself into a debate about the merits or shortcomings of a
> singer I've never heard. No do I care to speculate about the motives
> of the parties involved in the debate.
>
> I was simply limiting my comments to the point about what constitutes
> an "unbiased" listener when it comes to forming an opinion about the
> artistic merit of a given performer. Dan Koren says that he can tell
> the quality of a pianist from listening to a half of bar of playing!
> While that may be at the extreme end of the critical spectrum, I think
> that listening to several tracks of a CD is enough for Matthew - or
> nearly anyone, for that matter - to form a fundamental opinion of CC's
> abilities.
>
> As far as the rest of the argument about Sony, CC's parents, CC's fans
> and detractors, the listening public in general, their motivations,
> etc., I really don't give a rip.
That's a sensible approach to the matter, Jeremy. But for the record,
those are the issues which seem to be of great interest (or at least,
professed interest) to the Church bashers.
> But next time I'm at the record
> store, I'll pop on the headphones and listen a few selections of this
> young lady's singing, and I'll post my opinion. Fair enough?
I would suggest instead that you watch the VHS tape or DVD disc of her
London concert, which includes some of her better selections and is an
example of her stage presence and interaction with an audience, one and a
half years ago. It was her first live concert, and she was obviously
unpolished, and has matured since, but the performance reveals a rather
impressive presence. Consider, for example, that she introduces herself,
jokes with the audience extemperaneously, mc's the whole event,
introduces and comments on her selections, and gives appropriate
concluding remarks in addition to singing the program. The audience
reaction was certainly positive. (In some of the selections she exhibited
a form of vibrato and accompanying vibration of her mouth which has been
mocked over and over again in some of the discussion as a major disaster.
I hardly noticed it, since I was enjoying the music instead. - But you can
watch for it.)
I certainly acknowledge that she isn't the equivalent of a mature, fully
trained classical soprano, and that there are no doubt a number of better
soloists in various music schools, yet she does have a lovely voice and
brings a fresh approach to the music scene which appeals to lots of
listeners who don't normally listen to serious music. (Incidentally, very
few of the comments I have seen from CC enthusiasts suggest that they
don't know the difference between CC and a mature, accomplished classical
soloist. It's those who use this caricature, rather than the CC fans, who
are naive.) And I would certainly acknowledge that it would be *better* if
Sony, or some other studio, could have promoted some of these more
talented, performers, and had similar results. It would also be *better*
if all young people could have good training and exposure to classical
music in their formative years, and if Sony, etc., would invest greater
resources in recording and promoting more recordings of new classical
artists, etc., etc. But it doesn't seem likely, and it doesn't seem likely
that sales of classical music will ever be an easy sell or ever equal the
sales of pop, blues, rap, etc. Just as it doesn't seem likely that the
earth will ever start turning in the opposite direction.
What am I getting at? My point is that, though we don't always get what we
want, CC's music obviously appeals to lots of listeners who don't normally
listen to serious music. She's clearly not another Fleming or Callas, but
her success and her appeal to so many listeners, including many young
people who normally buy rap, rock, etc., is on the whole a good, rather
than a bad development in the music scene IMO. Accordingly, it doesn't
seem appropriate for musicologists on RCMC to jump down the throat of
people who come on the ng with their enthusiastic reactions to CC's music.
It would be more appropriate to at least empathize with them in their
enthusiasm for the music, and to suggest other artists and recordings for
them to consider if they ask for such suggestions.
Jim
James M. Cate
Paul mastr wrote:
Brahms is one of my favorites. I enjoy CC also.
Jim
James M. Cate
Orhan Yenen wrote:
> Ja
> > > Mr. Cate,
> > >
> > > I am not sure why you try to sell Miss Church to this newsgroup.
> Yes
> > > many of us are snobs, and no (may be I should write it with
> capitals:
> > > NO) there is not much chance to change the opinions of the
> hardcore
> > > contributers of this newsgroup. The mistake of insisting on this
> > > subject actually hurts your cause. Think about it for a second.
> For
> > > every positive posting you write about Miss Church (for that
> matter
> > > for Sony) you are receiving several negatives ones.
______________________________________________
Actually, I have received a number of e-mails complementing me for my
coontributions and telling me that, though they don't want to participate
and become the subject of the ongoing flames and personal attacks, they
appreciate my willingness to continue posting the notes I do. -- Also,
note that the anti-Church jokes and flames continue unabaited whether I
am participating or not, as illustrated during several periods when I was
away from this and the rmo newsgroups for several weeks. -- I seldom
initiate such strings, yet they keep on popping up, over and over again.
- I merely provide some balance and perspective and point out the gross
deficiencies in logic of some of the participants.
>
> > > Orhan Yenen
> > > PS. By the way since I am pissed off to Sony's treatment of the
> > > classical music, I just bought a JVC 32" TV today.
> > >
> >
> > ____________________________
> >
> > Orhan, the problem is that there is no one else who is willing to
> stick
> > up against "hasbeen-wannabe" musicologists" like Matthew. -- If a
> few
> > others were willing to put up with negative comments posted by such
> > pitiful people, then I would no longer feel the need to continue my
> > regular contributions. -- But most people don't want to put up with
> that
> > crap, or even worse, are actually intimidated by such bullies.
> >
> > And although Matthew and a few of his cohorts try to gang up
> against me,
> > note that most of the contributors to the ng do NOT participate in
> such
> > sicko discussions and putdowns of those with differing tastes. -- I
> have
>
> I do not understand what difference that makes. There are hundreds of
> postings every month which disagrees with my taste but I do not feel
> obligated to defend to anyone my taste in music.What I am trying to
> assess is why is it so important for you to feel obligated to defend
> Ms Church and Co. Did I miss some of you postings who defended (for
> the sake of fairness) let's say Naxos recordings and/or artists?
The attacks against CC and her parents and her managers and her fans are
not simply an expression of personal taste. They exhibit a peculiarly
vindictive, compulsive, almost lynch-mob campaign to immediately quash
and put down anyone who says anything favorable about any aspect of the
CC matter. Of the millions of CC fans, there are few who are willing to
put up with the cynical, vicious personal insults and attacks from this
(small minority) of mocking cynics.-- I'm not saying for a minute that we
all shouldn't be permitted to express our own personal opinions. I'm just
saying that the attacks on CC supporters have been of a very bitter,
vicous, personally mocking nature. -- So until a few others from those
millions of fans come along, you have me. -- As to other artists, I have
been more active on the rmo ng recently, where I have expressed
appreciation for performances by Maria Ewing, Fleming, and Bo Skovhus,
and regarding several DVD opera recordings. I have purchased some Naxos
discs recently, but thought that the recording quality wasn't quite as
good as that on some other labels. -- Also, my schedule doesn't permit me
to participate on the ng's as often as some of those who are active
throughout the day and evening .
>
> I have yet to meet one person who likes bullies. So the problem is
> not there. And believe me there are some of us who are not easily
> intimidated.
I would disagree with you on this. -- The small but vocal minority who
seem so compelled to jump down the throat of anyone who expresses
anything positive about CC tend to band together to form a solid front
against the CC admirers (note the "attaboy" note to Matthew after he
soundly put down poor Candice for daring to express enthusiasm for CC.),
and they tend invariably to support everyting eachother say, no matter
how outrageious or in what poor taste. Moreover, the attacks quickly
become viciously personal against any poor CC admirer who dares to
challenge them. In these circumstances, most who express independent
views of the matter which don't fit the official anti-CC line are indeed
intimidated, and, understandably, most of them don't want to continue to
put up with the crap thrown at them.
>
>
> I can only speak for myself and I am not really happy with the way
> Sony produces and markets its classical music products. I think that
> the people who are directing the classical music division of Sony are
> not passionate about the products that their company produces and
> markets. I have no idea about their background but they do not seem
> to understand the nich market they address to. Of course this is my
> perception but in the business world perception is reality.
I can't disagree with you on that, and it would be a better world if Sony
would use more effort and resources in introducing new recordings of
serious music, new accomplished artists and orchestras, etc.
But I don't think that if they hadn't promoted CC, they would have
recorded and promoted some serious artist or group instead. -- They
merely concluded, correctly, that CC was a promising new artist, and that
they could sell her recordings.
> Having
> said that I understand that as a business they have every right to
> produce and market (within laws obviously) their products and look
> after their business interests.
I suspect that classical music isn't an easy sell for any of the labels,
no matter how much they promote it. I noted that Sony did try to push
some mid priced recordings (their Royal Philharmonic Collection) at some
of the discount and electronics stores for the last few years, but
recently noticed that those displays seem to have been removed.
Obviously, there are business considerations in such choices, and if they
don't sell, they are going to try something else.
> On the other hand I, as a consumer,
> have every right to spend my hard earned money the way I see fit and
> make my voice heard by criticising the business I disagree with.
As does everyone. But that probably won't convince them to change all
that much if they can't make a profit at it.
>
>
> Now for my JVC purchase, I wrote it to see who will react to it.
> Because, I thought that someone who is not attached to Sony through
> his/hers stomac would completely ignore it. It is really irrelevant
> to the current discussion. ( I was going to write: "So can you
> cathegorically deny you have no ties with Sony and its subsidiaries?"
> Then I realized that unless it can be independently verified no
> statement has any logical value. So forget it,)
>
Well, I don't have any association with Sony, or any other label. And I
have only a few Sony recordings.
> >
> > Regarding your purchase of a JVC TV, consider that Sony has
> invested
> > heavily in the new SACD high end audio system which, if they are
> able to
>
> This is really irrelevant for my criticism of Sony's treatment of the
> classical music. A high end audio system can be used for any sound or
> video purpose. In other words it is not done to promote classical
> music, it is developed so that Sony continues to be competitive in
> the sound and video business. Therefore I am not sure why you
> mentioned, except as a public relation/commercial statement?
The general view on this new format seems to be that it's probably going
to remain a high-end, expensive format which appeals largely to a small
sector of the public who will remain interested in two channel audio
recordings, and that DVD-A, with surround sound, may eventually
supplement or replace the CD format at popular prices. -- The SACD
players now sell for $3,500 and higher, though hopefully they will come
down. If such predictions turn out to be true, it is considered likely
that a greater percentage of purchasers of SACDs will be interested in
classical music than in rock, rap, blues, etc.. Although you are correct
that a high-end audio system can be used to listen to any type of music,
most listeners to rap and rock don't usually invest in high-end audio
systems. Some may, but most don't. -- My point in bringing it up was that
Sony seems to be exploring various new music options, including
engineering and marketing this high-end, two channel system to serious
listeners, who frequently are are listeners who have an interest in
classical music. I could be wrong, obviously, but there have been
suggestions that if the new format is successful, Sony and others will
complement and support it by bringing out new classical recordings. - In
answer to your question, that's why I introduced the subject and thought
it was somewhat relevant to the points you were making.
Jim
>
DavidDGable
>criteria when applied to music.
That's not the definition of a snob! A snob is somebody who only pretends to
share the taste of his social superiors. A snob doesn't apply critical
standards. A snob wants to appear to be part of some elite social or
intellectual group, and feigns a taste for the things he or she perceives to be
shared by the members of that group. Snobbery and elitism are not the same
thing, although American anti-elitism leads to a hatred of snobbery: "Why
would you pretend to like THAT?"
But American anti-elitism is selective. We admire cut-throat Wall Street
elitism and elitism on the basketball court. Nobody is offended when Sacred
Cow Michael Jordan allows his smiling face to be plastered all over every
conceivable commercial product for large sums of money, because he is a member
of the two acceptable elites: athletes and people who make lots of money. If
you're really an anti-elitist, then you should insist that I be allowed to play
basketball with the Chicago Bulls. After all, we don't want only the elite to
be allowed to play.
It is now fashionable in some politically correct corners of academia to claim
that all enthusiasm for high culture (e.g., classical music) is mere snobbery,
that is, that it is all feigned for the sake of appearances. This snobbery,
this feigned love of high culture, is supposedly just a ploy to preserve the
power structure. (What a way to preserve the power structure! To pretend to
like classical music.) At the same time, given the debased versions of
Romanticism that govern pop culture and popular notions of what art is,
"learned" art and the people who produce and consume it are viewed with
suspicion. Elites at the mastery of artistic skills are viewed with suspicion.
I've already related a little anecdote I found in the New Yorker on rmcr, but
it's worth repeating. In a New Yorker profile of Philippe de Montebello, the
curator of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, de Montebello tells of a group of
school children coming to visit the museum one Saturday morning. One earnest
little African-American boy raised his hand and said, "What are you doing to
combat elitism?" Not missing a beat, de Montebello responded, "Why you're an
elitist! You're not hanging out on some street corner. You're here because
you want to learn something, and I'd say that makes you an elitist."
Of course, you see a lot of Romantic/subjectivist nonsense on this newsgroup, a
preference for "feeling" over "thought," a view that the subjective response
of the listener's little ego is all that counts, that the composer had little
to do with it. On the contrary, the composer's technical mastery enabled him
to create the effects that we all respond to pretty much in the same way. Of
course, we share the composer's language. It's like sharing a mastery of
English. People only think Boulez's music is a wall of noise because they
haven't internalized the language of his music. E.T.A. Hoffman, the great
Romantic critic of Mozart and Beethoven, pointed out that you could explain the
technical effect that caused a shudder to run up and down the spine of
everybody in the audience at precisely the point when the Statue nods his head
and agrees to come to dinner in the graveyard scene from Don Giovanni, because
there is no difference between the effect and the technical means for producing
it. And we all experience the shudder at the exact same point, thanks to
Mozart. It's not so much our subjectivity as our shared competence that comes
into play. Of course, confusion does occur fairly frequently in the course of
normal everyday speech, but the instant understanding that goes on all day
without our giving a thought to it is infinitely more common than the
exceptional moments of confusion.
No, I am not a Republican.
-david gable
Alain
doesn't refer to the pursuit (or attainment) of excellence, but to the maintainance
of power by people who give the impression of excellence. So the boy in the museum
wasn't being elitist. But you're certainly right that the notion that classical
music is part of an elitist power structure is a quaint atavism. Most snobbery
nowadays is of the anti-intellectual kind.
Second, music, more than any other art form, targets the emotions. This is not to
say that the musical experience is only intuitive, or that learning and thinking
play no role in music appreciation, but the primary effect is one of pleasure.
ciao,
Alain
van...@my-deja.com
Alain <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
> Good points David, but can I disagree with a couple of things? First,
elitism
> doesn't refer to the pursuit (or attainment) of excellence, but to the
maintainance
> of power by people who give the impression of excellence. So the boy
in the museum
> wasn't being elitist. But you're certainly right that the notion that
classical
> music is part of an elitist power structure is a quaint atavism. Most
snobbery
> nowadays is of the anti-intellectual kind.
>
> Second, music, more than any other art form, targets the emotions.
This is not to
> say that the musical experience is only intuitive, or that learning
and thinking
> play no role in music appreciation, but the primary effect is one of
pleasure.
> ciao,
>
> Alain
Although the meanings are different, there can be considerable
cross-over applied in this case, by people who are not well-meaning, and
not necessarily stupid or intelligent.
<<Second, music, more than any other art form, targets the emotions.
This is not to say that the musical experience is only intuitive, or
that learning and thinking play no role in music appreciation, but the
primary effect is one of pleasure>>
I have great respect and love for music's capabilities, but I think we
must judge the results on a person by person basis.
In a quantitative result you are probably correct in using, "more than
any other art form." Music being so easily accessed.
I suspect the qualitative strength of emotion though, increases with the
number of art forms used. Of course this is in proportion to the number
of senses the target has at his/her disposal.
Regards
Wayne Reimer
>
<snip>
> Of course, you see a lot of Romantic/subjectivist nonsense on this newsgroup, a
> preference for "feeling" over "thought," a view that the subjective response
> of the listener's little ego is all that counts, that the composer had little
> to do with it. On the contrary, the composer's technical mastery enabled him
> to create the effects that we all respond to pretty much in the same way. Of
> course, we share the composer's language. It's like sharing a mastery of
> English. People only think Boulez's music is a wall of noise because they
> haven't internalized the language of his music. E.T.A. Hoffman, the great
> Romantic critic of Mozart and Beethoven, pointed out that you could explain the
> technical effect that caused a shudder to run up and down the spine of
> everybody in the audience at precisely the point when the Statue nods his head
> and agrees to come to dinner in the graveyard scene from Don Giovanni, because
> there is no difference between the effect and the technical means for producing
> it. And we all experience the shudder at the exact same point, thanks to
> Mozart. It's not so much our subjectivity as our shared competence that comes
> into play. Of course, confusion does occur fairly frequently in the course of
> normal everyday speech, but the instant understanding that goes on all day
> without our giving a thought to it is infinitely more common than the
> exceptional moments of confusion.
>
> No, I am not a Republican.
>
> -david gable
Of course, you see a lot of Classicist/objectivist nonsense on this
newsgroup, a
preference for "thought" over "feeling," a view that the objective
understanding
of the listener's little egotistical brain is all that counts, that the
composer's
technique is all that matters. On the contrary, the composer's intense
awareness of
feelings enabled him to create the effects that we all respond to pretty
much in the
same way. Of course, we share the composer's emotional states. It's a
sharing of
a commonality we have as humans. People only think Boulez's music is
music because they
have internalized his wall of mental noise. E.T.A. Hoffman, the great
Romantic critic of Mozart and Beethoven, pointed out that you could
explain the
technical effect that caused a shudder to run up and down the spine of
everybody in the audience at precisely the point when the Statue nods
his head
and agrees to come to dinner in the graveyard scene from Don Giovanni,
because
there is no difference between the effect and the technical means for
producing
it. And we all experience the shudder at the exact same point, thanks
to
Mozart's great understanding of our feelings and his ability to
intuitively
find the means necessary to exactly transmit to performers in written
music
what effect he wished to have the listener feel when they play the
pattern of notes.
It's not so much our shared competence as our subjectivity that comes
into play.
Of course, understanding does occur fairly frequently in the course of
normal everyday speech, but
the instant confusion that goes on all day without our giving
a thought to it is infinitely more common than the
exceptional moments of understanding.
No, I am not a Democrat.
(Sorry, David, I just couldn't resist...I'm not trying to be malicious.)
wr
DavidDGable
wr wrote:
>No, I am not a Democrat.
And you most emphatically aren't a radically skeptical (radically skeptical
that there are anything other than arbitrary, culturally conditioned,
subjective responses, all masking a struggle for power, of course), politically
correct, post-modernist, either! But why you would recast the final paragraph
of my rant as "classicist/objectivist" I'm not entirely certain.
>Of course, we share the composer's emotional states. It's a
>sharing of
>a commonality we have as human
I obviously agree. But this is not necessarily the side of the equation that
is much emphasized anymore.
-david gable
Jeremy Cook
Jeremy Cook <jerem...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <38756DF3...@pdq.net>,
>
>
>
> I don't *think* I missed your point; it's just that I don't care to
> insert myself into a debate about the merits or shortcomings of a
> singer I've never heard. No do I care to speculate about the motives
> of the parties involved in the debate.
>
> I was simply limiting my comments to the point about what constitutes
> an "unbiased" listener when it comes to forming an opinion about the
> artistic merit of a given performer. Dan Koren says that he can tell
> the quality of a pianist from listening to a half of bar of playing!
> While that may be at the extreme end of the critical spectrum, I think
> that listening to several tracks of a CD is enough for Matthew - or
> nearly anyone, for that matter - to form a fundamental opinion of CC's
> abilities.
>
> As far as the rest of the argument about Sony, CC's parents, CC's fans
> and detractors, the listening public in general, their motivations,
> store, I'll pop on the headphones and listen a few selections of this
> young lady's singing, and I'll post my opinion. Fair enough?
As promised, I've had a listen to some tracks of Charlotte Church. I'll
preface my remarks by saying that I have no intention of criticizing
her or entering the debate about the motives of her parents, promoters,
etc.
I was quite surprised at how unremarkable I found her singing. I
didn't expect her to be a fully-mature and trained soprano, but I
expected more than what I heard. I think her most serious flaw is her
intonation, and I'm afraid that's a shortcoming that is difficult to
train out of someone. Your typical child phenom may need an awful lot
of work on technique and interpretive maturity, but a good ear is
almost always present, even at an extremely early age (I'm talking
about three and four year olds, not thirteen). It's not unlike color-
blindness, I suppose - how do you "train" someone to recognize colors
(or out-of-tune notes) that they are unable to perceive?
Anyway, I don't look down at anyone for enjoying her music, but it's
definitely not for me. It's nice that she is already financially set
for life and will be able to take care of her parents in their old
age. But I sincerely hope that the impact of her fame at such an early
age does not damage or even ruin her life, as it has so many others of
greater and lesser talent.
Jeremy Cook
Jeremy Cook <jerem...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[snip]
> As promised, I've had a listen to some tracks of Charlotte Church.
> I'll preface my remarks by saying that I have no intention of
> criticizing her or entering the debate about the motives of her
> parents, promoters, etc.
Somehow I dropped a word in between typing and posting. What I intended
to post was: "I have not intention of criticizing her *success* or
entering the debate" blah blah blah. Obviously, I *did* intend to give
a critical assessment, as I had promised in advance.
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> In article <85nm7p$5ql$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Jeremy Cook <jerem...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >didn't expect her to be a fully-mature and trained soprano, but I
> >expected more than what I heard. I think her most serious flaw is her
> >intonation, and I'm afraid that's a shortcoming that is difficult to
> >train out of someone.
>
> she sings high, long notes quite under pitch, too often, which
> is rather painful for some of us.
>
> However, regarding training (in this case, probably mainly a
> case of listening and paying attention to the orchestra), she
> was on Oprah yesterday and didn't sing flat at all.
>
> However, she is forcing her voice out in a way that's a little
> disconcerting and the heavily forced throat-mouth induced
> vibrato is unnatural and may be harmful. But, pitch-wise, her
> voice is actually naturally 'true' and I think this is what many
> like (when she is not singing flat) ...
>
> Popular music artists rarely sing out of tune in the way that
> you hear on her album, so it's a curiosity why more buyers don't
> seem to care. But it could be that in concerts, like the entire
> 'Requiem' "Pie Jesu" she sang yet again yesterday, she really
> can sing on pitch. She's at least handling her high notes much
> better than on the album.
>
> Where she does show talent is in the old Irish song she sang
> at the end, which was very charmingly and well sung. I think
> they're forcing her too much, re the operatic stuff, and the
> resultant sound (in songs in which listeners usualy expect a lot
> of vibrato) is not very pleasant.
>
> As for having an 'ear' - I have perfect pitch but was startled
> to hear myself singing almost pitch below once when I was too
> busy listening to myself and not paying attention to the
> supporting instruments. I will bet this is not uncommon,
> witness a lot of adult singers you hear in live opera (or even
> recorded).
>
> A more interesting question might be what it is that the
> audience finds as appealing as they do. Maybe they hear a
> certain purity of sound (in the simpler stuff) that they like,
> in the way so many enjoyed Leonhardt's boy-sopranos in his
> Cantata series (and many of them sang rather badly). Maybe in a
> time of Rap music, some people find this quite a relief.
I suggest as well that the audience appreciate her because they are
told, repeatedly and very fervently, that this is what they are supposed
to do.
Andrys D Basten
- A
--
Andrys Basten, CNE http://www.andrys.com/ PC Network Support
http://www.andrys.com/books.html - Classical-Music Searches on one page
Search VIDEOS, SHEET MUSIC (good), CDs, Gramophone reviews
http://www.andrys.com/indox.html - Machu Picchu PhotoDiary w/Canon Elph
http://www.andrys.com/freddyk.html - Freddy Kempf on CD
http://www.andrys.com/argerich.html - available Argerich recordings
Richard Schultz
: Popular music artists rarely sing out of tune in the way that
: you hear on her album, so it's a curiosity why more buyers don't
: seem to care.
I have never heard the album in question, so I don't know exactly how
she sang out of tune, but one reason that I could never stand
Frank Sinatra was that he tended (even in his best years) to sing
flat all the time and it would drive me up the wall.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"Life is a blur of Republicans and meat." -- Zippy
James M. Cate
"Matthew B. Tepper" wrote:
> Andrys D Basten wrote:
> >
> > In article <85nm7p$5ql$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Jeremy Cook <jerem...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I was quite surprised at how unremarkable I found her singing. I
> > >didn't expect her to be a fully-mature and trained soprano, but I
> > >expected more than what I heard. I think her most serious flaw is her
> > >intonation, and I'm afraid that's a shortcoming that is difficult to
> > >train out of someone.
> >
> > On this album, from the cuts I heard online at the CD shops,
> > she sings high, long notes quite under pitch, too often, which
> > is rather painful for some of us.
> >
> > However, regarding training (in this case, probably mainly a
> > case of listening and paying attention to the orchestra), she
> > was on Oprah yesterday and didn't sing flat at all.
> >
> > However, she is forcing her voice out in a way that's a little
> > disconcerting and the heavily forced throat-mouth induced
> > vibrato is unnatural and may be harmful. But, pitch-wise, her
> > voice is actually naturally 'true' and I think this is what many
> > like (when she is not singing flat) ...
> >
> > Popular music artists rarely sing out of tune in the way that
> > you hear on her album, so it's a curiosity why more buyers don't
> > seem to care. But it could be that in concerts, like the entire
> > 'Requiem' "Pie Jesu" she sang yet again yesterday, she really
> > can sing on pitch. She's at least handling her high notes much
> > better than on the album.
> >
> > Where she does show talent is in the old Irish song she sang
> > at the end, which was very charmingly and well sung. I think
> > they're forcing her too much, re the operatic stuff, and the
> > resultant sound (in songs in which listeners usualy expect a lot
> > of vibrato) is not very pleasant.
> >
> > As for having an 'ear' - I have perfect pitch but was startled
> > to hear myself singing almost pitch below once when I was too
> > busy listening to myself and not paying attention to the
> > supporting instruments. I will bet this is not uncommon,
> > witness a lot of adult singers you hear in live opera (or even
> > recorded).
> >
> > A more interesting question might be what it is that the
> > audience finds as appealing as they do. Maybe they hear a
> > certain purity of sound (in the simpler stuff) that they like,
> > in the way so many enjoyed Leonhardt's boy-sopranos in his
> > Cantata series (and many of them sang rather badly). Maybe in a
> > time of Rap music, some people find this quite a relief.
>
> I suggest as well that the audience appreciate her because they are
> told, repeatedly and very fervently, that this is what they are supposed
> to do.
>
> -_______________________
Matthew,
I suggest that this is another example of your rabid, knee-jerk attacks on
ANYONE who says ANYTHING favorable (no matter how qualified) about ANY aspect
of Miss Church's performances. Your compulsion to quash and ridicule
immediately any and all comments about Miss Church which are not totally
negative is very, very strange, to say the least. -- What he said was that
though he didn't care for her album, and questioned her abilities, he did
notice that she didn't seem to be singing off key during her appearance on
the Opra show, and, apparently, that there may still be some hope that she
will eventually improve further. - Somewhat. Not a tremendous endorsement. --
But even that limited, qualified comment was enough to set you off, Matt.
Jim
mif...@my-deja.com
> : you hear on her album, so it's a curiosity why more buyers don't
> : seem to care.
>
> she sang out of tune, but one reason that I could never stand
> Frank Sinatra was that he tended (even in his best years) to sing
> flat all the time and it would drive me up the wall.
>
> -----
> Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
> Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
> Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
> -----
> "Life is a blur of Republicans and meat." -- Zippy
>
during the LP days. But I thought I was the only person in the world
who thought he often sang flat. Just a bit. I never heard it mentioned
by anyone else so I just assumed I was listening flat. Thinking back on
it, I think his being slightly off-tune gave his singing a certain
charm, if that makes any sense.
Richard Schultz
: In article <85rlfj$iss$4...@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>,
: correct address in .sigfile wrote:
: > I have never heard the album in question, so I don't know exactly how
: > she sang out of tune, but one reason that I could never stand
: > Frank Sinatra was that he tended (even in his best years) to sing
: > flat all the time and it would drive me up the wall.
: I have long been a Sinatra fan, having collected many of his records
: during the LP days. But I thought I was the only person in the world
: who thought he often sang flat. Just a bit. I never heard it mentioned
: by anyone else so I just assumed I was listening flat. Thinking back on
: it, I think his being slightly off-tune gave his singing a certain
: charm, if that makes any sense.
When I was in college, I was in the dorm room of a friend who was a
big Sinatra fan and we were listening to the latest Sinatra record
he'd bought. I said something to the effect of "how can you stand his
singing flat like that," and his response was "it's *supposed* to be
that way -- that's part of the style." To which I said, "oh."
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska
Andrys D Basten
>In article <85rlfj$iss$4...@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>,
>I have long been a Sinatra fan, having collected many of his records
>during the LP days. But I thought I was the only person in the world
>who thought he often sang flat. Just a bit. I never heard it mentioned
>by anyone else so I just assumed I was listening flat. Thinking back on
>it, I think his being slightly off-tune gave his singing a certain
>charm, if that makes any sense.
Yes. It was so slight. And others found just as charming,
Elvis Presley who was notorious for singing long notes quite
flat. More like falling energy. Fans would forgive him
anything. They were listening for other things.
At a high school dance, I was asked who my favorite singer was
(this was in the late 50s) and I said "It's a tie between Frank
Sinatra and Elvis Presley" and my socially-inept dance partner
said, "But you have to be a hypocrite to mean that... you can't
possibly like both."
It does show that a having what they call perfect-pitch
doesn't necessarily mean you can't abide a certain
out-of-tuneness.
Richard Schultz
: It does show that a having what they call perfect-pitch
: doesn't necessarily mean you can't abide a certain
: out-of-tuneness.
I hope you won't be offended by what is sort of a personal question,
but to what frequency is your perfect pitch set? I knew someone who
had perfect pitch who was bothered if the piano he was playing was
set to anything other than A = 440. I was thinking that given the
multiplicity of possible middle A's (doesn't the Berlin Philharmonic
use some absurd frequency like A = 456? -- and of course the HIP
crowd prefers A = 415), it must be a little irritating for someone
with perfect pitch -- "if the symphony is in C major, why are they
playing it in C#?" Or can you put that out of your mind while your
listening to "mistuned" performances?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Thomas Deas
it was suggested that he sang on pitch, but in such a way that the overtones
made it sound flat. I make no comment.
Andrys D Basten
Richard Schultz <correct address in .sigfile> wrote:
>Andrys D Basten (and...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: It does show that a having what they call perfect-pitch
>: doesn't necessarily mean you can't abide a certain
>: out-of-tuneness.
>
>I hope you won't be offended by what is sort of a personal question,
>but to what frequency is your perfect pitch set?
I feel like Dan Rather. ("What's the fequency, Kenneth?") ;)
> I knew someone who
>had perfect pitch who was bothered if the piano he was playing was
>set to anything other than A = 440.
People vary in their flexibility around any sense of a note.
I learned to match notes with the radio via a baby-grand which I
assume was in pitch since my memory of notes matches what those
notes are today, and my sense of pitch was in absolute
terms but even then I was more interested in context of a note
being in tune with other notes around it, though one teacher
actually used to stop me on the street and ask me to sing an
'A'... and I usually crossed the street if I saw her coming.
Strangely enough, it's that piano's G above middle C that I
remember most accurately even when surrounded by noise. But I
don't care about pitch being off as long as it's no more than 2
notes, as long as all other notes change along with it.
So, I can fool myself that a B or even Bflat or D is a C - and
then deal with the notes in absolute-terms around that idea of
C.
This came in handy when I spent about 12 years doing early
music in A=415 and then changing back and forth with piano and
singing.
In sight singing, as long as the notes are no more than 2
away from the actual pitch (using our A=440), I can sing them
with 100% accuracy no matter how modern the piece. But if it's
more than that, there is no way I can sing it with any accuracy.
I have never developed relative pitch in which people learn
the sound of intervals. Same with piano - if I hear a
non-overly complex piece I can play it back (repeating it) with
no real thinking because it's obvious to me where the sounds are
on the piano.
Or if I know a piece well, then I can play it in any key because
I hear in absolute notes, meaning I hear a C9th chord (or something
passing for a C) and then the notes fall into place.
But I can't sight-read a 4th up or down. That takes real
musical training, whereas the other thing was just learned by
hearing and matching from early age (3).
I've found that the types of 'perfect' pitch really vary. A
lot has to do with how much you used it in doing music. Another
thing that's useful is that in chamber groups, if I'm watching
the score there's no question about which instrument is playing
wrong notes. That comes in handy.
>I was thinking that given the
>multiplicity of possible middle A's (doesn't the Berlin Philharmonic
>use some absurd frequency like A = 456? -- and of course the HIP
>crowd prefers A = 415), it must be a little irritating for someone
>with perfect pitch
It irritates some people, but usually people who don't do
music that much. I think they concentrate on the absolute
frequency and don't think as much about notes relative to other
notes. People in the 17th and 18th century traveled to do their
music and usually found themselves in regions with A=MANY
different things. They had to be able to adjust. While A=415
is standard in early music today, it was about A=392 in France
and about 460 in Italy where recorders were involved.
> -- "if the symphony is in C major, why are they
>playing it in C#?" Or can you put that out of your mind while your
>listening to "mistuned" performances?
Doesn't bother me. Others are driven to distraction by the
most minute differences though. So, the concept seems to
include all kinds of responses.
Don Drewecki
Jim Cate:
I asked a question last week that you never bothered to answer, so forget about
answering Matthew Tepper for the moment and answer me instead:
Did YOU watch Anne-Sophie Mutter perform the Berg Violin Concerto on Live from
Lincoln Center last week? If not, did you videotape it and watch it later? And if
you did, can you tell me why you spend so much time defending young Ms Church instead
of singing the praises of Miss Mutter, who is a fully developed adult talent? And if
you didn't like what you heard, can you clearly draw a distinction between between
Church and Mutter, and why you persist on predicting a phenomenal future for Miss
Church when your benchmark should be fully formed talents like Ms. Mutter (despite
their different "instruments").
I want your answers to these questions now.
--
Don Drewecki
<dre...@rpi.edu>
Richard Schultz
[most of a most interesting post on what it's like having perfect
pitch deleted]
: > -- "if the symphony is in C major, why are they
: >playing it in C#?" Or can you put that out of your mind while your
: >listening to "mistuned" performances?
: Doesn't bother me. Others are driven to distraction by the
: most minute differences though. So, the concept seems to
: include all kinds of responses.
Thank you for a most informative and interesting post. I feel like
I've learned something today, and it's only 7:30 am!
Andrys D Basten
This is incredible. Why should any of us answer to anyone
insisting we have the same interests anyone else has. Why can't
you accept he likes/defends a performer you have no use for.
This is unreal. What's going on with this place?
Andrys D Basten
Richard Schultz <correct address in .sigfile> wrote:
>
>Thank you for a most informative and interesting post. I feel like
>I've learned something today, and it's only 7:30 am!
And thanks for not Zzzzzz'g back into the sack from all that.
I tend to overdo the detail because I've read on other forums
some generalities about this whole thing that just aren't so in
any fixed form...
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> In article <86010f$3d...@cortez.sss.rpi.edu>,
> Don Drewecki <dre...@rpi.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Jim Cate:
> >
> >I asked a question last week that you never bothered to answer, so forget
> >about answering Matthew Tepper for the moment and answer me instead:
> >
> >Did YOU watch Anne-Sophie Mutter perform the Berg Violin Concerto on Live
> >from Lincoln Center last week? If not, did you videotape it and watch it
> >later? And if you did, can you tell me why you spend so much time
> >defending young Ms Church instead of singing the praises of Miss Mutter,
> >who is a fully developed adult talent? And if you didn't like what you
> >heard, can you clearly draw a distinction between between Church and
> >Mutter, and why you persist on predicting a phenomenal future for Miss
> >Church when your benchmark should be fully formed talents like Ms. Mutter
> >(despite their different "instruments").
> >
> >I want your answers to these questions now.
>
> This is incredible. Why should any of us answer to anyone
> insisting we have the same interests anyone else has. Why can't
> you accept he likes/defends a performer you have no use for.
> This is unreal. What's going on with this place?
You've missed the earlier posts and so have not seen the point, which is
that of having identified a troll (both in this newsgroup and
rec.music.opera) who is here only to stir things up and insult people.
This particular troll affects a knowledge of opera and/or classical
music, sometimes with ludicrous results -- i.e. confusing the place
settings of _Aida_ and _Die Zauberflöte_, claiming that I leave my
workplace in Los Angeles at the end of the day and visit record stores
in New York in the evening, etc.
In reality, he appears to have but one agenda, and that is to promote
the phoney "artiste" that the Sony "Classical" label has decided to push
into unready stardom. Anybody who gets in his way gets sneering
comments, their names reduced to diminutives, their motives called into
question for daring to oppose him, their sexual preferences speculated
about. Considering that he *has* nothing else to offer this newsgroup,
no knowledge, no opinions, no questions save for the self-serving, it's
no surprise to me that there are people like Don who would like to keep
exposing him for what he is, so that he can't be taken seriously.
Jeffrey Smith
wrote:
>There was a thread about Sinatra, either here or in Compuserve, years ago;
>it was suggested that he sang on pitch, but in such a way that the overtones
>made it sound flat. I make no comment.
>
The only possible reason for Frank Sinatra to be mentioned in a thread
about Charlotte Church, is that while he represented what was best,
she represents what is worst.
Jeffrey Smith.
Don Drewecki
Matthew, you stated my viewpoint beautifully. Thanks, my electronic friend!
--
Don Drewecki
<dre...@rpi.edu>
Matthew B. Tepper
Also, keep in mind that the young Sinatra made big bucks for Columbia
Records, and then (to his point of view) they screwed him over. Whether
Sony Music has a similar mind-set today is an apt topic of discussion.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
Matthew B. Tepper
Glad to help out. It's only because this newsgroup *is* self-policing
that we're able to remain relatively free from the junk, ads, crap
posts, and other unpleasantries which seem to infest many other groups.
John Grabowski
Maybe and maybe not, but I think Matthew has made a good point, not just
pertaining to Charlotte Church but to how most people perceive music and
musicians (and other types of art) in general. Do you really think
*most* people at a concert could tell Annie Sophie Mutter's violin
playing from a talented but not remarkable student? Probably not. Most
people don't have an idea of a great musician in their heads before
they're pointed to someone and told "This person is a genius." They
then listen, absorb that sound, and decide, this, indeed, is what genius
sounds like, can't you hear it?
John
--
What are you doing?!? --Vicho DeSusa
Spammers: I don't need Viagra, a work-at-home business or a ground-floor
investment opportunity, thank you.
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> Maybe and maybe not, but I think Matthew has made a good point, not
> just pertaining to Charlotte Church but to how most people perceive
> music and musicians (and other types of art) in general. Do you
> really think *most* people at a concert could tell Annie Sophie
> Mutter's violin playing from a talented but not remarkable student?
> Probably not. Most people don't have an idea of a great musician in
> their heads before they're pointed to someone and told "This person is
> a genius." They then listen, absorb that sound, and decide, this,
> indeed, is what genius sounds like, can't you hear it?
Yup, you see what I'm getting at. One of the problems in the classical
music recording industry today is the way the pop producers (who have no
sympathy for the classical music world, other than in ways they can use
and abuse it in order to make a quick buck) are bringing in "ringers,"
i.e. persons with flash and dazzle and charisma and promotion, albeit
SEVERELY lacking in technique and seasoning and mature musicianship.
This is certainly the case with David Helfgott, Vanessa-Mae Nicholson,
and Charlotte Church.
It has occasionally transpired that members of the press read this (and
other) newsgroups in order to get an idea of what attitudes are floating
out there in hyperspace. Therefore, I'd say it's not a bad idea for us
to make sure that OUR opinions are readily available, so that it can be
seen that not everybody is convinced by the gushing words of those great
opera experts Rosie O'Donnell and Oprah Winfrey. I suggest that those
ladies ought to stick to what they know best -- razzle-dazzle showbiz.
James M. Cate
Don Drewecki wrote:
> Matthew, you stated my viewpoint beautifully. Thanks, my electronic friend!
> --
> Don Drewecki
> <dre...@rpi.edu>
_____________________
Glad you were so pleased with Matthew's phasing of your particular viewpoint,
Don. But I also have to tell you that Matthew is dead wrong. I have loved
classical music for many years, have an extensive collection of classical discs,
have attended many, many symphony and opera performances, and currently have
season tickets. Matthew's characterization of me as a troll who has no interest
in the music is simply ridiculous. If anything, Matt is the one who doesn't
exhibit any interest in the music. -- He does exhibit lots of interest in
criticizing and correcting people who express an interest in a particular
performance or artist, and he does get lots of enjoyment about pointing out
errors in others' tastes, and he does delight in bragging about his music
education (though he can't seem to support himself as a musicologist), he very
seldom posts notes on this ng or on rmo about a performer or performance that
deeply moved him, or that he considered emotionally satisfying. Oh, he will be
glad to give you all the reasons his favorites are "better" than your favorites,
but he very seldom has anything to say about enjoying the music.-- He enjoys
knowing more than you or I, but he has lots of criticism of others' who enjoy
the music, but he himself seems to have forgotten how.
As to his remark about the Zauberflote/Aida issue, several contributors on the
rao newsgroup have patiently explained to him why he was wrong, in infinite
detail. - I KNOW he was wrong because I was the one who posted the notes about
Aida, and though I love both operas, I was NOT referring to anything in
Zauberflote. Quite frankly, Matthew is so wrapped up in himself that he no
longer seems to have the capability of receiving any information which might
affect his self-image negatively. And with respect to Charlotte Church, his
compulsive attacks on anyone who expresses anything positive whatsoever is
indeed very troublesome. He obviously has a serious personality problem.
Jim
James M. Cate
Don Drewecki wrote:
> Jim Cate:
>
> I asked a question last week that you never bothered to answer, so forget about
> answering Matthew Tepper for the moment and answer me instead:
>
> Did YOU watch Anne-Sophie Mutter perform the Berg Violin Concerto on Live from
> Lincoln Center last week? If not, did you videotape it and watch it later? And if
> you did, can you tell me why you spend so much time defending young Ms Church instead
> of singing the praises of Miss Mutter, who is a fully developed adult talent? And if
> you didn't like what you heard, can you clearly draw a distinction between between
> Church and Mutter, and why you persist on predicting a phenomenal future for Miss
> Church when your benchmark should be fully formed talents like Ms. Mutter (despite
> their different "instruments").
>
> I want your answers to these questions now.
> --
____________________________________________
Don,
I'm sorry I didn't give you the answers to your questions NOW, as you had requested.
But I will give you some answers. No, I didn't happen to hear Ms. Mutter,. -- I did,
however, listen and view a number of other classical concerts on PBS, including the
recent PBS broadcast of the Met's Figaro, with Rene Fleming, etc., and loved it. I
usually enjoy live opera more than TV broadcasts, and have season tickets to the HGO.
I don't particularly care for Berg, and I prefer Brahms, Sibelius, and several others for
the violin. Perhaps your tastes are better than mine. Or perhaps not. But I wouldn't
think that my viewing of the Mutter broadcast should be the test as to whether or not I
appreciate classical music or not. - A better test would be to add up the hundreds of
concerts and operas I have attended, and to consider that 90% of my music collection is
classical, etc.
Jim
James M. Cate
atrb wrote:
> Quite. If you need any proof of what a godawful product Charlotte
> Church is, listen to the "Men of Harlech" track. Especially where
> she fails to get within spitting distance of the high notes.
>
> Tom Barkes
> Nottingham
> UK
________________________________
Listen to "Men of Harlech" on her DVD, and you will change your mind.
Jim
>
>
Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)
at all can spot utter incompetence, very few of us, unless
we have trained ourselves to do so, can really distinguish
between "competent" and "outstanding". One may like the
performance of a truly great artist more than that of a
mediocre one, but without any real knowledge, might find it
difficult to say why.
John Grabowski wrote:
>
> Maybe and maybe not, but I think Matthew has made a good point, not just
> pertaining to Charlotte Church but to how most people perceive music and
> musicians (and other types of art) in general. Do you really think
> *most* people at a concert could tell Annie Sophie Mutter's violin
> playing from a talented but not remarkable student? Probably not. Most
> people don't have an idea of a great musician in their heads before
> they're pointed to someone and told "This person is a genius." They
> then listen, absorb that sound, and decide, this, indeed, is what genius
> sounds like, can't you hear it?
>
David R L Porter
from "Matthew B. Tepper" <o...@earthlink.net> contains these words:
> i.e. persons with flash and dazzle and charisma and promotion, albeit
> SEVERELY lacking in technique and seasoning and mature musicianship.
> This is certainly the case with David Helfgott, Vanessa-Mae Nicholson,
> and Charlotte Church.
Could we not make a distinction between Helfgott and the others?
If you take away the hype, with David Helfgott you are left with the
ruins of a talent that at one time seems to have been very fine: it's
said that the staff at the Royal College maintain that before his
illness he performed the most distinguished Rachmaninov 3 that had
ever been performed there. The fact that he can still give pleasure
to others is a bonus, and I think those who enjoy him should be
allowed to do so.
With Charlotte Church, if you take away the hype you're left with a
youngster with bags of personality and perhaps a lot of promise,
performing repertoire that may not be most helpful to the development
of her voice but in some cases suits it very well (the folk songs and
hymns, for instance).
With Helfgott, the enjoyment he gives to those who enjoy him is the
tail end of what seems by many accounts to have been a major talent.
With Ms Church, the enjoyment she gives is all there is, so far. It's
too late for superlatives for Helfgott, and far too early for
superlatives for Ms Church. The hype messes up both situations
terribly, but though both seem likeable people, I don't think they
should be bracketed together.
--
Best wishes,
David R L Porter
from "James M. Cate" <jim...@pdq.net> contains these words:
> Matthew's characterization of me as a troll who has no interest
> in the music is simply ridiculous. If anything, Matt is the one who doesn't
> exhibit any interest in the music.
Out of interest, has anybody ever addressed Matthew Tepper before as
'Matt' in this newsgroup? In the context, it seems downright rude to
me, not to mention patronising.
Best wishes,
David R. L. Porter Esq.
Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)
his friends! (And has told the ubiquitous troll so,
repeatedly.)
Jeffrey Smith
Sorry to disagree with you but the difference between David Helfgott
and Charlotte Church, IMHO, is more basic than you suggest.
To put it very crudely, David Helfgott once had it but no longer has.
Charlotte Church never had it, doesn't have it now, and never will
have it. Take away the hype and you're left with a vacuum.
There are enough singers in the world who can really sing, for us not
to have to listen to the endless crud churned out by a silly little
girl who can't.
Jeffrey Smith.
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> The message <3887C4BC...@pdq.net>
> from "James M. Cate" <jim...@pdq.net> contains these words:
>
> > Matthew's characterization of me as a troll who has no interest in the
> > music is simply ridiculous. If anything, Matt is the one who doesn't
> > exhibit any interest in the music.
>
> Out of interest, has anybody ever addressed Matthew Tepper before as
> 'Matt' in this newsgroup? In the context, it seems downright rude to
> me, not to mention patronising.
James Cate appears to have severe problems with politeness and forms of
address. His "method" seems to be that of dropping into a newsgroup and
insulting several people (for example, by joining an ongoing argument
with ad hominem remarks), and then belittling the people he doesn't like
via the use of diminutive versions of their names.
He did this in rec.music.opera back in June 1999, and before long it was
pretty obvious that his own knowledge of, and interest in, opera was
meager at best. (It seems to stem from his intense interest in
Charlotte Church, as the subject line of this thread shows.) When this
happens, sometimes he will "backtrack" and begin a thread on some
harmless topic so that he can pretend that he's "one of us."
The problem is, with him it keeps backfiring. In rec.music.opera, he
began a thread on "Great Moments in Opera," and made a vague remark
about a certain scene and setting in _Aida_. Well and good, but that
scene wasn't by any means one of the showier or more dramatic ones, and
that setting did not appear in the opera at all!
He is still posting to rec.music.opera, and though I have long since
plonked him into my killfile, sometimes I see quotes from his posts in
the posts of others. His problem with people's first names has gotten
worse; not only has he confused me with an East-coast contributor named
Matthew Westphal, but now he has confused his only defender, somebody
named Charles Bollman, with Bollman's arch-enemy Charlie Handelman. It
would be funny if it weren't sad.
As for my interest in music (which I shouldn't have to "defend" to
anybody in this newsgroup, least of all a know-nothing such as Cate), I
leave it to any of the regular contributors here to assess my
contributions here over the past five years. For that matter, Edward A.
Cowan might also be able to give his opinion of my contributions to the
Music and Arts Forum on CompuServe, where I was a member from 1992-1998.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
James M. Cate
David R L Porter wrote:
> The message <3887C4BC...@pdq.net>
> from "James M. Cate" <jim...@pdq.net> contains these words:
>
> > Matthew's characterization of me as a troll who has no interest
> > in the music is simply ridiculous. If anything, Matt is the one who doesn't
> > exhibit any interest in the music.
>
> Out of interest, has anybody ever addressed Matthew Tepper before as
> 'Matt' in this newsgroup? In the context, it seems downright rude to
> me, not to mention patronising.
>
_______________________
If Matthew ever decides to address me with normal standards of courtesy, I will
be GLAD to address him as Matthew, Mr. Tepper,or whatever. Until then, however...
Jim
James M. Cate
"Matthew B. Tepper" wrote:
> As for my interest in music (which I shouldn't have to "defend" to
> anybody in this newsgroup, least of all a know-nothing such as Cate), I
> leave it to any of the regular contributors here to assess my
> contributions here over the past five years.
_______________________________________________
My comments about Matthew's interest in music relate to the fact that,
although he posts numerous notes critical of various performers and
performances, and critical about the tastes of other posters, he seldom has
any comments about any performances about the technical aspects of various
performances which he truly enjoyed, which deeply moved him, which he was
enthusiastic enough to recommend to the group. In general, he is deeply
interested in the details, and the technicalities of the performances, and he
gets great pleasure in correcting others regarding such technicalities, but he
seldom has anything to say about the beauty of the music, and how it affected
him. This is not always the case, of course, but is certainly characteristic
of most of his discussions. -- His "interest in music" is an interest in using
his music education as a means for building up his own ego by correcting,
mocking and criticizing others. If you doubt this, when is the last time you
saw him posting anything related to music which deeply affected or moved him??
Jim
Orhan Yenen
others'?
Orhan Yenen
James M. Cate <jim...@pdq.net> wrote in article
<388A014D...@pdq.net>...
James M. Cate
John Grabowski wrote:
Maybe and maybe not, but I think Matthew has made a good point, not just
pertaining to Charlotte Church but to how most people perceive music and
musicians (and other types of art) in general. Do you really think
*most* people at a concert could tell Annie Sophie Mutter's violin
playing from a talented but not remarkable student? Probably not. Most
people don't have an idea of a great musician in their heads before
they're pointed to someone and told "This person is a genius." They
then listen, absorb that sound, and decide, this, indeed, is what genius
sounds like, can't you hear it?John
_______________________________
Well, I agree that you may be right in some cases. But I don't think
that is the case with most of CC enthusiasts. -- Most of them are well
aware of the critical comments of people like Matthew and Evelyn, and most
of them buy her music simply because they have heard her sing and liked
the music. I think folks like Matthew tend to characterize the general
public as tasteless, naive boors who accept everything promoting CC as
gospel truth. Actually, I think Matthew and his ilk are the ones who are
naive in this respect, and mocking the public's taste is an important ego
booster, of course. -- Here is a representative note from one of the CC
fans:
Gifted beyond measure! Reviewer: Steven from Valparaiso January 19, 2000 Now that it's been out for a while, Voice Of An Angel has been critiqued by hundreds of people in this forum. The majority have found it delightful. Truly, there is something magical going on when a 12-year-old singer (now 13, soon to be 14) can captivate millions around the world. Even the negative reviews in here - and you kids keep trying to outdo yourselves - won't budge the smile on my face when I listen to "Pie Jesu" or "Amazing Grace" in Charlotte's strikingly beautiful voice. Her gift is one of a kind. The felicity, heart-melting and wonder she's brought on with this album will never go away.
This happens to be one of the recent customer comments, and though the writer may not know
anything about classical music, the comments are representative in that they
indicate that the Church fans are well aware of the criticism of CC by some,
and they know that she isn't an accomplished opera singer, etc, yet they
buy the CD's simply because they like the music. You and I might suggest
that some of the music is sung much more proficiently by a number of mature
performers. -- But the facts are that CC is able to appeal to many listeners
who aren't into classical music, including lots of young people, and who are buying classical music for
the first time, and enjoying it. To me, that seems to be a good thing, rather than
a bad thing. We both might think it better if they bought something by
Rene Fleming. But CC is better than the crap young people usually buy.
Jim
Donald Rice
today, Saturday. Anyone who frequents these precincts is aware of
Matthew's passion, (I hesitate to use the word but it fits) obsession
with Berlioz Requiem and indeed all of Berlioz' music.
The problem, Mr. Cate is that you follow only posts related to your
obsession with Charlotte Church.
The last person needing defense is Matthew Tepper but such wrongheaded
criticism from a person who has posted nothing about music except in
relation to Charlotte Church is offensive to me. If you are going to
criticise Matthew Tepper don't accuse him of a lack of positive
commentary about music. Such criticism only reflects your ignorance.
Donald Rice
Subject: Re: your favourite documentary classical music video
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:07:43 -0800
From: "Matthew B. Tepper" <o...@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: oyž@earthlink.net
Organization: The Chinese Ducked Press
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical.recordings
References: 1
My choice would be the "Great Conductors" video, this in spite of the
fact that virtually all of the selections are snips and clips. However,
the one and only which *is* complete is the one I had never dared to
hope that I would ever see, let alone possess on LaserDisc: Felix
Weingartner conducting Weber's "Freischütz" Overture.
Subject: Re: Smetana Polkas by Schiff
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:35:16 -0800
From: "Matthew B. Tepper" <o...@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: oyž@earthlink.net
Organization: The Chinese Ducked Press
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical.recordings
References: 1 , 2
DavidDGable wrote:
>
> More to the point, and since few of us are likely ever to have heard
> Smetana's polkas, what are THEY like?
Quite charming; not up to the level of the Viennese Strauss family, or
of Lumbye, but rather enjoyable in themselves.
"James M. Cate" wrote:
>
> "Matthew B. Tepper" wrote:
>
James M. Cate
Jeffrey Smith wrote:
Apparently, you are gifted with prophetic powers. -- Would you mind telling
us how you received
this amazing gift?
>
>
> There are enough singers in the world who can really sing, for us not
> to have to listen to the endless crud churned out by a silly little
> girl who can't.
Actually, Jeffrey, you don't have to listen to her. In fact, you don't even
have to read or respond
to comments on this newsgroup about her. But there are millions of people who
do
enjoy listening to her, and who are thereby being introduced to classical
music for the first time.
We all recognize that there are many performers with greater talent and
technique,
and most of us might agree that it would be *better* if they listened to
performances by
Rene Fleming, Sutherland, Ewing, etc., but they aren't selling 3 million
classical CD's
a year, or generating enthusiasm for classical music among thousands of young
people,
are they now?
Jim
Matthew B. Tepper
> > I will be GLAD to address him as Matthew, Mr. Tepper, or whatever. Until
> > then, however...
> >
> > Jim
--
Matthew B. Tepper
but the most cursory glance through DejaNews will show), and don't
believe that the small amount of time I spend pulling the Cate-weed can
do more than slightly reduce the amount of time I spend pursuing the
*real* aim of this newsgroup, which is to discuss classical music
recordings.
It's too bad, though, that *any* bandwidth available to this newsgroup
has to be wasted dismissing a much-promoted, but still musically
worthless performer in poorly-done repertoire.
Donald Rice wrote:
>
> Below are two posts by Matthew advocating music he admires, one from
> today, Saturday. Anyone who frequents these precincts is aware of
> Matthew's passion, (I hesitate to use the word but it fits) obsession
> with Berlioz Requiem and indeed all of Berlioz' music.
> The problem, Mr. Cate is that you follow only posts related to your
> obsession with Charlotte Church.
> The last person needing defense is Matthew Tepper but such wrongheaded
> criticism from a person who has posted nothing about music except in
> relation to Charlotte Church is offensive to me. If you are going to
> criticise Matthew Tepper don't accuse him of a lack of positive
> commentary about music. Such criticism only reflects your ignorance.
> Donald Rice
>
> Subject: Re: your favourite documentary classical music video
> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:07:43 -0800
> From: "Matthew B. Tepper" <o...@earthlink.net>
> Reply-To: oyţ@earthlink.net
> Organization: The Chinese Ducked Press
> Newsgroups: rec.music.classical.recordings
> References: 1
>
> My choice would be the "Great Conductors" video, this in spite of the
> fact that virtually all of the selections are snips and clips. However,
> the one and only which *is* complete is the one I had never dared to
> hope that I would ever see, let alone possess on LaserDisc: Felix
> Weingartner conducting Weber's "Freischütz" Overture.
>
> Subject: Re: Smetana Polkas by Schiff
> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:35:16 -0800
> From: "Matthew B. Tepper" <o...@earthlink.net>
> Reply-To: oyţ@earthlink.net
DavidDGable
Alain
I just looked up elite in the dictionary. There an elite is described as "the
best practitioners within some field of activity, those distinguished in some
field, a choice part or segment, a socially superior group." Power is not
intrinsic to the concept of "elite," although the Chicago Bulls are more apt to
hire a Michael Jordan than a David Gable, and that is power.
>Second, music, more than any other art form, targets the emotions.
IMO, this is highly debatable. I certainly have an emotional response to music
but mostly I have musical responses to music. Composers became interested in
"expression" of "emotion" rather late . . . in the late 1500's actually.
Monteverdi rode on the crest of that first great wave of "expressive" music.
(Not that earlier music was "inexpressive" or "anti-expressive"; it's just
that "expression" isn't quite the right term for the debate.) Composers like
Haydn and Mozart wrote both "expressive" music and music that is not,
conventionally, very expressive at all. Wagner's music encompasses both the
Liebestod and vivid programmatic descriptions of nature like the storm that
opens Die Walku"re. Like Oprah, Puccini, Mahler, Berg, and Richard Strauss
invariably wept on their sleeves, but Debussy and Boulez long for a very
different kind of impersonal expressivity. (There is a big difference between
Van Gogh's investment of intense emotion in a landscape painting where each
thick glob of paint is a personal expressive gesture and a classic
impressionist landscape made up of light and air and painted with quick light
brush strokes.) From about 1920 on Stravinsky felt that music was "powerless
to express anything at all" and, while that fascinating and elegant ballet,
Agon, is an enthralling experience, "expression" in the Puccini sense of the
word doesn't have much to do with it.
You are getting at a signal point, though: music is the most immediately and
directly sensual art. People can live in the same building with an abstract
painting they don't understand without giving it much thought, but to be
trapped in a concert hall and forced to listen to Schoenberg's Erwartung
uncomprehending would be a kind of hell.
-david gable
Jeremy Cook
"James M. Cate" <jim...@pdq.net> wrote:
>
>
> Jeffrey Smith wrote:
[snip]
> > There are enough singers in the world who can really sing, for us
> > not to have to listen to the endless crud churned out by a silly
> > little girl who can't.
>
> Actually, Jeffrey, you don't have to listen to her. In fact, you
> don't even have to read or respond to comments on this newsgroup
> about her. But there are millions of people who do enjoy listening to
> her, and who are thereby being introduced to classical music for the
> first time. We all recognize that there are many performers with
> greater talent and technique, and most of us might agree that it
> would be *better* if they listened to performances by Rene Fleming,
> Sutherland, Ewing, etc., but they aren't selling 3 million classical
> CD's a year, or generating enthusiasm for classical music among
> thousands of young people, are they now?
For what it's worth, when I went looking for an online shopping site
where I could sample Charlotte Church's singing, my searches returned
no results. The I realized that all of my music search bookmarks
(Amazon, CD Now, etc.) are set to classical music searches; when I did
a popular music search I found the albums. I don't know whether the
record label or the retailer decides how to classify the genre of a
given recording, but my limited experience shows that Church is being
marketed as a popular, not classical, singer.
How much this affects her ability to "generate enthusiasm for classical
music" among young people, I really don't know. It seems more likely
that their next purchase will be another Church recording, or perhaps
Bocelli. However, if Sony's marketing outlay means even one less car
full of pimply, pierced, baggy-pantsed teenagers ba-doomping down the
street thundering and quivering to the ear-splitting and mind-numbing
decibalage of rap or heavy metal, I will consider it money well spent
on their part. My optimism, however, has not yet crested.
I am compelled to add that this thread is like a virtual car accident.
I know I should look away and keep going, but I just *have* to have a
peek at what's happened. I guess I've made the inevitable transition
from rubber-necker to cyber-necker. :-)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michael Subotin
DavidDGable wrote:
<...> Composers became interested in
> "expression" of "emotion" rather late . . . in the late 1500's actually.
> Monteverdi rode on the crest of that first great wave of "expressive" music.
> (Not that earlier music was "inexpressive" or "anti-expressive"; it's just
> that "expression" isn't quite the right term for the debate.) <...>
Coincidentally, reading More's Utopia I was struck by the passage on
music: "But in one respect [Utopians are] undoubtedly far ahead of us.
All their music, both vocal and instrumental, is wonderfully expressive
of natural feelings. The sound is so well adapted to the sense that
whether the theme is prayer or rejoicing, agitation or calm, sorrow or
anger, the melodic line exactly represents the appropriate emotion. It
therefore enters deeply into the hearer's consciousness, and has an
extraordinarily stimulating effect."
I didn't expect it to be a commonplace in 1510's. Maybe the notion was
more accepted popularly than by the musical elite, as is the case now.
Is there a good study tracing this topic through Western music?
Michael
--
mvsst3+@pitt{DOT}edu Replace {DOT} with a dot
Alain
> Alain
>
> I just looked up elite in the dictionary. There an elite is described as "the
> best practitioners within some field of activity, those distinguished in some
> field, a choice part or segment, a socially superior group." Power is not
> intrinsic to the concept of "elite," although the Chicago Bulls are more apt to
> hire a Michael Jordan than a David Gable, and that is power.
Yes, but elitism is different. It is not the pursuit of excellence. It implies the
choosing of leaders based on *apparent* belonging to an elite. For example, in
England, picking only Oxford or Cambridge graduates for important jobs in industry
or government is elitism. (i.e. assuming that anyone who isn't from these top
schools is second-rate).
Therefore, studying hard in school for example is not elitist, and neither is
listening to classical music, or practicing your jump shot.
If the Bulls said we'll hire this player because he went to University of **,
rather than because he's the best, that might be elitism.
> >Second, music, more than any other art form, targets the emotions.
>
> IMO, this is highly debatable. I certainly have an emotional response to music
> but mostly I have musical responses to music. Composers became interested in
> "expression" of "emotion" rather late . . . in the late 1500's actually.
I meant "emotion" rather than "sentiment". In everyday speech we confuse the two.
For example someone who is hysterical is said to be "emotional". But this isn't
what I meant. It is hard to find emotionally neutral music. All music tends to be
either pleasant or unpleasant. I'd say that the classification of sensations or
experiences into pleasant or unpleasant is what I mean by "emotions".
Here's an example of what I mean: a statement can be true or false ("it's raining")
and can be pleasant or unpleasant ("it's raining" - heard on your wedding day when
you planned an outdoor reception). Similarly "I love you" can be evaluated for
accuracy (non-emotional) and for significance (emotional).
> You are getting at a signal point, though: music is the most immediately and
> directly sensual art. People can live in the same building with an abstract
> painting they don't understand without giving it much thought, but to be
> trapped in a concert hall and forced to listen to Schoenberg's Erwartung
> uncomprehending would be a kind of hell.
But this is quite different and has to do with our ability to switch attention on
and off. I don't have to look at a painting, but if I'm in a concert hall it is
essentially impossible not to hear the music.
Actually, the sensory modality that has the most direct link to the emotional brain
is taste. Compare eating spoiled food to listening to music you don't like. Also,
it is almost impossible not to pay attention to the taste of the food that is in
your mouth, and there is no such thing as neutral tasting tastes (of course there
is tasteless food). There's a good evolutionary justification for that. Stuff you
put in your mouth can kill you faster than what you see or hear.
Alain
Don Drewecki
Jim Cate:
By the most exquisite irony, Mutter did the Sibelius concerto on "Live from Lincoln
Center" just after she did the Berg concerto. So, obviously, you're not really aware
of what's going on unless it has to do with young Ms. Church.
My main point is this: You claim you find in Charlotte Church flashes, and perhaps
even more than flashes, of genius and uniqueness so astounding and overwhelming that
you are, in effect, poisoned, and cannot listen to anything else. I took you up on
your challenges and found in CC a Jon Benet-type with a lot of self-confidence
(maybe: we learned about the young Patty Duke many years later and it wasn't
pleasant), no astounding talent, but a lot of back-lighting, star filters,
descending crane shots, distressing wobbles, strident high notes, and nothing else
that conveys real talent bordering on unduplicatable genius to the point of obscuring
adult musicians of REAL talent who should be heard (and paid) before considering the
teenager with the hit records.
That's the point, Jim: there are plenty of adults with fully developed talent, great
gifts, etc. who should be patronized first. Not Ms Church. Now that she's made all
of her money (how much did Ford Motor Company pay her, Jim?), let's leave her alone
for ten years and see if she if she develops into something authentic. No more
Charlotte Church, puh-leeze!
--
Don Drewecki
<dre...@rpi.edu>
Don Drewecki
Jim:
If CC's albums have introduced a generation of youngsters to classical music, I doubt
it very much. After all, millions of disco dancers were introduced to classical
music through Walter Murphy's "A Fifth of Beethoven", and they didn't suddenly flock
to the concert hall in droves, did they? I have no facts to back me up, but neither
do you. All I know is that I hear people talk about how wonderful CC and Bocelli are,
buy their CDs, and then listen to them over and over instead of branch out into real
classical music -- at least, that's what I have heard and seen from visits to record
stores and talking with people who work in them.
Enough of Charlotte Church, puh-leeze.
--
Don Drewecki
<dre...@rpi.edu>
Don Drewecki
Jim Cate:
Matthew's, mine and others' critiques of your defense of CC is based on the fact that
when you are asked to produce analyses of adult musicians, you don't do it, at least
in any articulate way. Actually, it's even worse than that, but let me say one more
thing: When classical music on radio and TV in the United States means needing a
bizarre gimmick in order to get through the gatekeepers -- being blind, being a Jon
Benet-type, being a bearded ham with other hams in stadia events -- then REAL
classical music, performed by trained, studious adults called musicians becomes an
alien culture, and "the masses" don't see it. After all, YOU didn't see Mutter
perform the Sibelius concerto on "Live from Lincoln Center" two weeks ago, and yet
you claim you love the Sibelius. That's what I mean.
Enough of Charlotte Church, puh-leeze!
--
Don Drewecki
<dre...@rpi.edu>
Alain
>
> Coincidentally, reading More's Utopia I was struck by the passage on
> music: "But in one respect [Utopians are] undoubtedly far ahead of us.
> All their music, both vocal and instrumental, is wonderfully expressive
> of natural feelings. The sound is so well adapted to the sense that
> whether the theme is prayer or rejoicing, agitation or calm, sorrow or
> anger, the melodic line exactly represents the appropriate emotion. It
> therefore enters deeply into the hearer's consciousness, and has an
> extraordinarily stimulating effect."
>
> I didn't expect it to be a commonplace in 1510's. Maybe the notion was
> more accepted popularly than by the musical elite, as is the case now.
> Is there a good study tracing this topic through Western music?
Thanks for the interesting quote. But what seems "emotional" to one generation may
not seem that way to others. There's a progressive increase in the importance of
human emotion and psychology to art throughout the Renaissance and Baroque.
ad
DavidDGable
Alain,
In the history or their usage, words typically exhibit a range of related
meanings. That is why it is possible to have an etymological dictionary such
as the Oxford English Dictionary which lists meanings in chronological order
starting with what words meant when they first entered common usage and
continuing down to their current meaning. But the existence of the OED does
not mean that words have only a single meaning at any given point in history.
A certain flexibility in usage allows us to communicate. You might (or might
not) find it interesting to read Walter Benjamin on "names" and "ideas" and
"words": a name is a word for an idea, and an idea is not a single fixed thing
but a range. For example, "sonata form" is an "idea" with a range of meanings
both within a given time period and across time as the form evolved.
"Elitism" is very often used in precisely the manner you insist on using it.
But the word elitism is derived from the word elite, which used to have a
meaning distinct from but related to your meaning, MY meaning, and it still can
be and is used with that meaning. Your argument boils down to insisting on a
single usage. If there were an article in People Magazine about "The Elite of
Basketball" and Michael Jordan was included among the figures discussed, that
would not be an incorrect use of the term "elite." Nor would you balk at it.
Your usage evolved (as usages will) only as egalitarian objections to the
concept that you intend by the word elitism became widespread. In the process
the old usage (mine) is gradually disappearing. Meanwhile, a blurring of the
distinctions between the two meanings leads to the kinds of confusions and
anti-elitism (my sense) that lead me to post in the first place: "That's not
really better and it's snobbery to pretend that it is." With the confusion of
your usage and my usage, elitism in my sense is dismissed as snobbery.
Egalitarianism can be taken to mean that everybody and everything is equal. I
believe some people (Bach, for example) are more equal than others. That is, I
believe that some people can do certain things better than other people. When
one of those things that some people do better than others is playing
basketball, the culture rises up and applauds and has no objection to billions
of dollars being made in a quite inegalitarian fashion. When one of those
things that some people can do better than others is in the realm of thought,
there is much less applause and many vociferous objections.
Moreover, even in your example of elitism, there are probably better odds of
choosing the best and avoiding the second rate by going to Oxford and Cambridge
rather than to certain other schools, despite all of the inevitable individual
exceptions to this rule. Whether or not I think every candidate deserves to be
considered on a case by case basis is irrelevant. A friend of mine who used to
own a small computer graphics firm in Chicago used to hire graduates from
various local colleges. At a certain point, though, she stopped looking at
candidates from any other school in the area except the University of Chicago,
because she got sick and tired of hiring people only to discover that they
could not spell. It's not clear in this case where the line of demarcation
between my use of the term elites and your use of the term elitism is.
As for sentiment and emotion, I think it is entirely possible for there to be
music that is like your sentence "It's raining" with no emotional or
sentimental strings of any kind attached. Bach was one of the most deeply
expressive composers in history. But I don't believe all of his music is
expressive in any meaningful sense of the term. Exciting yes. Interesting
yes. But expressive of emotion? I personally don't think so. Music is
exciting for some of us in the way that a soccer match is for others. One is
fully engaged in an interesting process unfolding over time. You might find a
soccer play beautiful or exciting, but is it expressive of emotion? This isn't
to say that the listener is not emotional "about" the music, but then fans get
emotional about soccer, too.
I find it more useful not to apply the blanket term expression in the sense of
emotional expression to all artworks in all genres in all cultures at all
times. I believe that Van Gogh's use of visible thick individual globs of
paint, while derived from the visible individual brushstrokes characteristic of
classical impressionist painting, had an expressive function entirely absent
from impressionism. Indeed, Monet's use of the term "impression" to describe a
picture was a way of indicating that the picture was not an "expression."
(Express, of course, originally meant stepping on the grapes to press the juice
out of them in order to make wine: the liquid was expressed from the grapes.)
Glad to see you supporting my argument that music is the most directly and
immediately sensual of the arts. ("If I'm in a concert hall it is essentially
impossible not to hear the music.")
-david gable
Jeffrey Smith
many people it upsets. I was once told that I should be in the
Guinness Book of Records for having upset the largest number of people
in the shortest possible time.
Predicting that Charlotte Church will never be any good does not
require a goldfish bowl or Tarot cards or any other party trick. It
just requires an ear for music, which I hope I have. If you have
painted yourself into a corner by trying to defend the indefencible, I
would suggest that you follow the old adage 'when you are in a hole -
stop digging'. Popularity and quality are rarely complementary to each
other. Remember, Ringo Starr is no better a drummer now than he was
when George Martin refused to let him play on his first recording. A
child prodigy can only get worse, never better. Even Yehudi Menuhin
never surpassed his youthful playing. But when you start with someone
who has no talent ......
Jeffrey Smith.
On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 19:54:01 GMT, "James M. Cate" <jim...@pdq.net>
wrote:
>> There are enough singers in the world who can really sing, for us not
>> to have to listen to the endless crud churned out by a silly little
>> girl who can't.
>
>Actually, Jeffrey, you don't have to listen to her. In fact, you don't even
>have to read or respond
>to comments on this newsgroup about her. But there are millions of people who
>do
>enjoy listening to her, and who are thereby being introduced to classical
>music for the first time.
>We all recognize that there are many performers with greater talent and
>technique,
>and most of us might agree that it would be *better* if they listened to
>performances by
>Rene Fleming, Sutherland, Ewing, etc., but they aren't selling 3 million
>classical CD's
>a year, or generating enthusiasm for classical music among thousands of young
>people,
>are they now?
>
>Jim
Andrys D Basten
Don Drewecki <dre...@rpi.edu> wrote:
>Enough of Charlotte Church, puh-leeze.
For you or for me etc. But why is it so preferable for us to
be called to censor the postings of people who like performers
we may not?
What's the big deal? We can post to say why we don't think
she is worth the $30 million or whatever she's earned so far,
but tell people not to talk about her if she's singing operatic
tunes on one of her CDs?
It's as if we would let only people post whose tastes are 'up
to' ours. I think this is counter-productive and even increases
the threads to give ever more publicity to performers you don't
like. And the level of vitriol may turn off newbies who see
their interest is laughable here or worthy of nothing but scorn.
Mainly I don't like the censorship or even harrassment.
- A
--
Andrys Basten, CNE http://www.andrys.com/ PC Network Support
http://www.andrys.com/books.html - Classical-Music Searches on one page
Search VIDEOS, SHEET MUSIC (good), CDs, Gramophone reviews
http://www.andrys.com/indox.html - Machu Picchu PhotoDiary w/Canon Elph
http://www.andrys.com/freddyk.html - Freddy Kempf on CD
http://www.andrys.com/argerich.html - available Argerich recordings
Alain
DavidDGable wrote:
>
> "Elitism" is very often used in precisely the manner you insist on using it.
David,
Elitism and Elite have the same root but different meanings. It isn't even a matter
of opinion. Elitism means rule by an elite, and is disapproving. Period. There are
numerous web-based dictionaries if you want to check. "Elitism" simply does not
mean "the pursuit of excellence". One might think that based on its derivation from
"elite" I agree, it just doesn't happen to be the case. It isn't me who insists on
giving it a certain meaning. It's Messrs Webster, Oxford, et al.
I could list hundreds of words that share an etymology but have different meanings.
Truculent comes to mind ... (it has quite a different meaning in French than in
English.)
> Glad to see you supporting my argument that music is the most directly and
> immediately sensual of the arts. ("If I'm in a concert hall it is essentially
> impossible not to hear the music.")
I said cuisine was even more sensual. Actually, tickling, if it is an art, would be
even harder to resist ...
ciao,
Alain
DavidDGable
>matter
>of opinion. Elitism means rule by an elite, and is disapproving. Period.
I essentially conceded this in my post! (Although if you look in the greatest
dictionary of the English language ever compiled, the Oxford English
Dictionary, you will discover "the pursuit of excellence" or something similar
as a meaning of elitism. This usage has virtually disappeared as I conceded.)
I carefully distinguished my use of the word elite from your use of the word
elitism. And I tried to show the problems that result from there close
relation but ultimate distinction from one another. What you're denying is the
flexibility of usage that would enable Philippe de Montebello to say to the
schoolboy in my story "Why you're an elistist!" It is as a matter of practical
fact soon going to be impossible for M. de Montebello to make use of this
usage, and that is what I am decrying.
To want used to mean "to lack." (He was found wanting; I want for nothing.)
Now it means "to desire." (I want an ice cream cone.) The relationship
between the two meanings is interesting, too. You can only lack what you
desire. If you didn't want (desire) something, you wouldn't notice that it was
wanting (lacking).
-david gable