Martha Argerich: An Enigmatic Pianist Reclaims Her Stardom
Premise Checker
editions of the NYT for the Sunday or the Monday following the concert.
The concert came too late for the review to appear in the DC edition. I
forgot to logon to the site on Monday.
--------
She doesn't play the music I like very much, but her recordings of the
Beethoven Violin Sonatas with Gidon Kremer are very fine, and perhaps the
best version in stereo. I also have her Beethoven Concerti 1 and 2. They
have plenty of fine fingering, but I'll have to listen to them more to get
a better fix on her interpretations.
I don't like her Tchaikovsky Concerto 1 very much, as I can't hear all the
notes. But there are only two versions that meet this requirement: Vassily
Sappelnikov's acoustic recording. He knew the composer. And Conrad Hansen
with the great Willem Mengelberg.
NYT, March 25, 2000
Martha Argerich: An Enigmatic Pianist Reclaims Her Stardom
By ANTHONY TOMMASINI
Few people who have heard the tempestuous Argentine-born pianist
Martha Argerich play ever forget it. She is a colossal technician,
a powerfully intuitive musician and an electrifying performer. Just
last week at Carnegie Hall, as soloist with the Philadelphia
Orchestra in a concert conducted by Charles Dutoit, Ms. Argerich
vanquished the formidable challenges of Prokofiev's Piano Concerto
No. 3. Her fiery, ecstatic performance elicited a frenzied ovation,
including 10 curtain calls, from a sold-out house.
Though she inspires cultlike devotion among ordinary concertgoers,
her admirers include many of the world's most respected musicians.
Mstislav Rostropovich, the great cellist and conductor, recently
called her "a pianist with no limits at all, none whatsoever."
But Ms. Argerich, who will perform again tonight at Carnegie Hall,
is the most enigmatic figure in classical music today, by turns
passionate, disarming and chaotic. Beset with inner demons and
insecurities, she can be an erratic performer and has been famously
prone to canceling concerts precipitously. "Martha is an unguided
missile," as one close friend of hers has memorably put it.
For years the reclusive pianist assiduously avoided giving
interviews, even as adoring fans worried about her and flocked to
her concerts, hoping that she was well, hoping she would play. Ms.
Argerich kept her silence even as rumors spread that she was
fatally ill.
But on one recent night, close to 11 o'clock, Ms. Argerich
(pronounced AHR-gur-itch) sat in the lounge of a midtown hotel for
the first extended one-on-one interview she has given in nearly 20
years and talked openly about her work and her health.
Some weeks earlier she had allowed a statement to be released
confirming that she had been treated for melanoma, cancer of the
skin, at the John Wayne Cancer Institute in Santa Monica, Calif.
But now she revealed the extent of the problem: the melanoma had
spread to her lymph nodes and lungs. "I was afraid of my own body,"
she said of the trauma she faced. "I was afraid of myself for the
first time; afraid to be me."
So far the treatments appear to have been successful. She is in
remission. Indeed, out of gratitude Ms. Argerich's concert is to
benefit the institute. All tickets were scooped up weeks ago. Her
program tonight is also significant because, for the first time in
19 years, she is performing solo repertory in a major American
concert venue.
During the wide-ranging 90-minute interview, Ms. Argerich, who is
58, also spoke of musical matters and her tumultuous career: her
beginnings as a pint-size prodigy; her early triumphs; her crisis
of confidence when she felt "out of order," as she put it, "like an
elevator or a telephone;" her practice habits, which can be "not
very systematic and not very disciplined;" and her "contradictory
type of relationship" to the piano. "I can be obsessive" when there
is music to be learned, she said; but at other times "I don't touch
the piano at all."
Pinning the unpredictable Ms. Argerich down to a time and place for
the interview proved difficult. When she finally arrived as
promised, she had just finished practicing in an upstairs studio at
Carnegie Hall and was in work mode: dressed in slacks and a long
sweater, her sleek mane of black hair a bit disheveled. Ms.
Argerich, barely 5-foot-4, is a striking woman with bright brown
eyes and a sturdy build. Her hands are surprisingly small, and on
this night a few finger tips were protected by band-aids. In 1981,
Ms. Argerich announced that she was giving up solo recitals
entirely, and, with occasional exceptions for special, usually
hush-hush events, she has kept to her word. Why?
"It's really a very obsessive situation, when you are alone onstage
playing on your own," she said. "I have a tendency to be a very
obsessive person. It makes me very . . . I don't know." Of course,
the solo repertory is wonderful, she added. But she prefers playing
chamber music and concertos, which is more stimulating and less
lonely.
Her insecurities as a performer long predate her health crisis. The
daughter of two university-based
economists in Buenos Aires, she began piano lessons at 5. When she
was 8 she played a difficult Beethoven piano sonata (Op. 31, No. 3)
for the renowned pianist Walter Gieseking, who proclaimed her a
phenomenon. At 16, within the space of three weeks, she won both
the Busoni and the Geneva International Piano Competitions.
When she was 21 she suffered a crippling bout of depression that
lasted over two years. After studying in Europe, she moved to New
York and "didn't do anything," she said. "I just sat in an
apartment watching the late late show." Even getting married and
having the first of her three daughters, each by a different man,
did not lift her from the depression.
"I felt I could not play any more," she said. "Since I spoke
several languages, I thought I would just become a secretary." She
credits a former teacher, the Polish-born pianist Stefan Askenase,
and his strong-willed wife with helping to lift her out of this
hole and back into music. Their intervention clearly worked, for in
1965, at 24, Ms. Argerich won first prize in the Chopin
International Competition in Warsaw, and her career took off. Among
the colleagues who helped was Mr. Dutoit, to whom she was married
from 1969 until 1973 and with whom she remains good friends.
Usually Something New
In the recording studio and in a growing series of live recordings,
Martha Argerich has explored not only the great works of the recital
and concerto literature but a copious amount of chamber music as well.
She has recorded some of the centerpieces of her repertory several
times, but even when she repeats a work, she rarely repeats an
interpretive idea. Here are some of the recordings, including chamber
collaborations, that best capture her artistry:
o Beethoven: Piano Concerto No. 1 and No. 2, with the Philharmonia
Orchestra, Giuseppe Sinopoli, cond. (Deutsche Grammophon)
o Beethoven: Sonatas for Violin and Piano, with Gidon Kremer,
violinist. (Deutsche Grammophon)
o Brahms: Works for 2 Pianos, with Alexandre Rabonovitch, piano.
(Teldec)
o Chopin: Concerto No. 1 and Liszt: Concerto No. 1, with the London
Symphony Orchestra, Claudio Abbado, cond. (Deutsche Grammophon)
o Chopin: Preludes (complete), Mazurkas (Op. 59, 1-3), Scherzo No. 3.
(Deutsche Grammophon)
o Liszt: Piano Sonata, with works of Brahms, Chopin, Prokofiev and
Ravel. (Deutsche Grammophon)
o Prokofiev: Concerto No. 3, with the Berlin Philharmonic, Claudio
Abbado, cond. (Deutsche Grammophon)
o Ravel: Concerto in G, with the Berlin Philharmonic, Claudio Abbado,
cond. (Deutsche Grammophon)
o Schubert: "Arpeggione" Sonata and works of Schumann, with Mischa
Maisky, cellist. (Philips)
o Schumann: Piano Concerto in A minor, with the Chamber Orchestra of
Europe, Nikolaus Harnoncourt, cond. (Teldec)
o Shostakovich, Tchaikovsky and Peter Kiesewetter Piano Trios, with
Gidon Kremer, violinist, and Mischa Maisky, cellist. (Deutsche
Grammophon)
o Tchaikovsky: Piano Concerto No. 1, with the Royal Philharmonic
Orchestra, Charles Dutoit, cond. (Deutsche Grammophon)
ALLAN KOZINN
She was quickly acclaimed for her rhapsodic playing, particularly
of the Romantic repertory.
But as her career developed, she began missing concerts, quite
often. "I don't know why I had this very scandalistic reputation,"
she said, coyly. "I played more concerts than what I canceled." In
early 1968 she was scheduled to play Beethoven's First Piano
Concerto for her debut with the New York Philharmonic, conducted by
Leonard Bernstein. She withdrew on short notice.
"It was terrible I did this," she said. "It was not for health
reasons. It was some other problems I had. So Bernstein played the
concerto himself. The manager at the time was very funny. He said:
'Lennie played. He had a great success, so he loves you!' " Ms.
Argerich burst into hearty laughter and grabbed a handful of the
sesame crackers she had just discovered on the snack tray.
Of course, some real crises compelled her to miss performances in
some cases, like two recitals scheduled in Tokyo early last month.
Ms. Argerich had been hoping to try out there the solo works she
will play tonight.
But a former teacher, the pianist Friedrich Gulda, a deeply
spiritual musician ("my most important influence"), died, plunging
her into distress. After attending his funeral in Vienna, Ms.
Argerich flew that same day to Tokyo, and within two hours of
landing performed, as scheduled, the Chopin Piano Concerto No. 1
with Vladimir Ashkenazy conducting. "It was the best Chopin E Minor
I ever played," she said. "I don't know why." But she developed a
fever and had to cancel two eagerly anticipated solo recitals.
Not getting this trial run has added pressure to tonight's concert.
Half of her program will be solo repertory, works by Bach, Chopin
and Prokofiev's daunting Seventh Sonata. Ms. Argerich is looking
forward much more to the concert's second half, when she will have
some company onstage: the Juilliard String Quartet for a
performance of Schumann's Piano Quintet, and an old friend, the
pianist Nelson Freire, for a performance of Ravel's "Valse" in its
arrangement for two pianos.
She has been practicing hard. A night owl, she prefers to work
late. When not availing herself of Carnegie Hall's studios she has
been at the Metropolitan Opera House, where a young friend, the
tenor Kamel Boutros, arranged for access to a studio.
"Once I start practicing I can stay," she explained. "But I don't
start," she added, laughing again. "O.K, if I am in trouble, I need
to practice. But that kind of obsessive practicing is not good.
Ideally, I would like to practice very little, just two hours and
then not more."
Obviously, health concerns have contributed to her anxiety.
Though enormously relieved by her medical progress, Ms. Argerich
delayed the appointment for her annual checkup until after
tonight's concert. "I was too nervous," she said. "Let's hope for
good news," she added, tapping on the cocktail table.
Her first melanoma appeared 10 years ago, at a very difficult time.
"One year before, my mother had died of cancer," she said. "Then,
the same day I was diagnosed, my best friend died from another type
of cancer. She was 49. It was like a nightmare."
Ms. Argerich underwent treatment in Europe, but five years later
another melanoma appeared. Within a year it had spread. The
condition was now life-threatening.
Through friends Ms. Argerich learned of a surgical oncologist, Dr.
Donald L. Morton, the medical director of the John Wayne Cancer
Institute, a nonprofit organization in Santa Monica, Calif.,
supported by the National Cancer Institute and private funds. Since
1960 Dr. Morton had led a research team seeking to develop a
vaccine that could be used to fight melanoma by simulating the
body's immune system. In addition to recommending the experimental
vaccine, which Ms. Argerich is taking, Dr. Morton explained that
she would have to undergo surgery to remove cancerous tissue from
her lungs.
"This was March 1997," Ms. Argerich said. "Just before the surgery,
I felt, 'This is dangerous.' You see, to play the piano you use
these muscles here." She pointing to the areas below her arm, on
her side and back.
Dr. Morton, speaking by telephone from California, said he had not
realized until then how important those muscles were to a pianist.
"Thank God we were able to accomplish the procedure without doing
damage to the muscles," he said.
The recovery was grueling for her, said Dr. Morton, who is in New
York to attend the benefit. "But the same characteristics that make
her a world-class pianist also make her a survivor," he said. "She
is a very brave lady."
While leaving her practice room at Carnegie Hall on the way to the
interview the other night, Ms. Argerich was approached by a young
usher who is a big fan. She wound up confiding her nervousness to
him. "So, he told me, 'You must learn the wisdom of uncertainty,' "
she recalled. "That's nice, no?"
Uncertainty is something Ms. Argerich has learned to live with.
Peter T. Daniels
for each of today's two copyright violations).
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Steve Emerson
>
> Premise Checker owes the New York Times $200 (or faces a $30,000 fine
> for each of today's two copyright violations).
How pleasant to have a cop on board.
SE.
schi...@lightlink.com
shutdown when copyrighted articles have been posted there
with the moderator's let-through (or whatever the expression is.)
I should hardly think this lets unmoderated newsgroups off the hook-
if the New York Times wants to defend its "intellectual property"
(a concept with which I do not have a problem in principle, but
whose boundaries are continually extended in interesting and disturbing
ways, which is not - necessarily - germane to my current comment) it
might well find another, broader, range of targets. I could even, off
the top of my head, construct an argument for them, although, given my
lack of legal training, not a legal argument, and given my views, I have no
real desire to do so. I do not, however, like seeing this group put
so cavalierly at risk. Remind me again what is so (with apologies to
CJ Cherryh!) god-rotted .wrong. with just providing a date and a link
to the NY Times site? Or, if this material is not at their site, a
.summary.? It's been done before. It can be done again.
Moreover, I find merely replicating someone else's work, instead of
contributing words of your own (contributing .thoughts. of your own
may be a bit much to ask- goodness knows I don't ask it of myself,
or I'd never post) - to be a barely forgivable waste of bandwidth.
There, I've said it. Those are my views, and only my views; they do not
have force of law, nor should they; they are only my opinion, and I am
quite satisfied both that they remain so and that I have had this
occasion to remain so. I do not like this newsgroup to become
misc.droppings.photocopiers, pardon my French.
-Eric Schissel
Brian Cantin
> I think moderated newsgroups have in the past been threatened with
> shutdown when copyrighted articles have been posted there
> with the moderator's let-through (or whatever the expression is.)
> I should hardly think this lets unmoderated newsgroups off the hook-
> if the New York Times wants to defend its "intellectual property"
Since rmcr is not moderated, there is no one to be on the hook.
The poster could, presumably, be sued. The ISPs that carry the
article could be sued if they knew about the article and did
nothing about removing it. But rmcr has no legal standing to
be sued. Nobody controls rmcr, as has been demonstrated by
repeated attempts to de-troll the group.
The above is the understanding of someone who is definitely
not a lawyer.
--
Brian Cantin
An advocate of poisonous individualism.
To reply via email, replace "dcantin" with "bcantin".
schi...@lightlink.com
not a lawyer (though I have lawyers in the family.) However,
consider a few things that .might. be considered relevant, if you really
want to continue this:
1) we show our attitude towards particular posters as a group all the time.
Yes, I am not a lawyer; but if, say, the New York Times .did. wish to
bring an action against certain people who have made no bones about how they
feel about spammers (people who, like ducky, I respect highly and without
reservation) on the grounds that they have failed to disapprove of
"Premise Checker's" actions, and that since rmcr is not a singly-held
or chartered entity the least that can be expected of its members regarded
as "in good standing" is that they "disapprove" publicly of illegal
behavior, there might be a court or two that might be willing to consider
such a case, against individual people, not against "rmcr". Or, as you say,
as with (thankfully so far held unconstitutional) "Decency Acts", ISPs
can be frightened out of allowing their subscribers to carry,
distribute, or even be considered middlemen for anything that might
possibly be considered obscene under any of the 50 states'
jurisdictions, under threat of lawsuit- against the ISP; this principle
might be extended. I can hope it is not only extended, but fails to take
hold in the first place . I am not sanguine. Are you?
No, I am not a lawyer. You have failed, however, Mr. Cantin, to
grant that I might have any the slightest trace of imagination, and
have read me far, far too literally. Many thanks.
-Eric Schissel
Brian Cantin
First, when I said the above is the opinion of a non-lawyer, I was
referring to myself. It was a disclaimer.
As for being sanguine, yes I am. The idea that the New York Times (or
anybody else) is going to take action against third parties in a open
forum for not criticizing copyrite violators is absurd. We have no
responsibility for enforcing NYT copyrights nor any capability of
doing so.
piper
performances I've ever heard, a wonderful bargain at $38 for
partial-view seats.
But I don't remember all her encores. Her first encore was a 2-piano
piece by Rachmaninoff. Her last was a piano 4-hands version of the
Princess of the Pagodas from _Ma mere l'oye_ by Ravel. But what was in
the middle?
Michael
To reply by email, please eliminate "NOSPAM" from my address. Personal messages only!
Premise Checker
and post articles from the New York Times and, presumably, other
sources. The staff at the NYT can use deja.com just as well as I
can. Either they don't bother or don't care. To *them* my copyright
violations are a trivial matter.
Don't cross Playboy, Disney, the Scientologists, or the followers of
Dr. Pea Cough of the Ayn Rand Society, though. They do care.
I take Teddy Kennedy's attitude to someone at the Times finding out and
complaining. Meanwhile, why don't we discuss Martha?
Carl Tait
piper <piper...@interport.net> wrote:
>
>But I don't remember all her encores. Her first encore was a 2-piano
>piece by Rachmaninoff. Her last was a piano 4-hands version of the
>Princess of the Pagodas from _Ma mere l'oye_ by Ravel. But what was in
>the middle?
A lot of cheering. Really, there were only two encores,
despite the belief of several people that there were three.
(BTW, the first encore was the Waltz from the Second Suite.)
--
Carl Tait IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
cdt...@us.ibm.com Hawthorne, NY 10532
piper
Tait) wrote:
>In article <39036713...@news.rcn.com>,
>piper <piper...@interport.net> wrote:
>>
>>But I don't remember all her encores. Her first encore was a 2-piano
>>piece by Rachmaninoff. Her last was a piano 4-hands version of the
>>Princess of the Pagodas from _Ma mere l'oye_ by Ravel. But what was in
>>the middle?
>
>A lot of cheering. Really, there were only two encores,
>despite the belief of several people that there were three.
>
>(BTW, the first encore was the Waltz from the Second Suite.)
Thanks, Carl.
You, too, were present for the final encore which took place after the
lights had been dimmed onstage? Were you there through the booing by
much of the remnant of the crowd when they realized Argerich would
play no more encores? I thought that was deplorable. She clearly was
not at full strength (though one couldn't tell that from the playing!)
and deserved to rest.
By the way, my mother, and everyone else in the elevator including the
one operating it insisted that there were 3 encores. Are you dead sure
there weren't?
piper
<che...@shell.clark.net> wrote:
>If you check out deja.com, you'll find that lots of people every day copy
>and post articles from the New York Times and, presumably, other
>sources.
[snip]
The thing that I find questionable is for you to post and _OLD_ NY
Times article. I have a subscription to the nytimes site, and they
give free access to _CURRENT_ stories. Most stories expire at
midnight, and the archives require payment.
samir ghiocel golescu
Thanks for posting that--I would have missed it otherwise.
regards,
SG
Dimitri Dover
>
> By the way, my mother, and everyone else in the elevator including the
> one operating it insisted that there were 3 encores. Are you dead sure
> there weren't?
Yes, there were only two encores (though there were a total of 3 pieces
played by Argerich and Friere).
Dimitri
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> The thing that I find questionable is for you to post and _OLD_ NY
> Times article. I have a subscription to the nytimes site, and they
> give free access to _CURRENT_ stories. Most stories expire at
> midnight, and the archives require payment.
What we need is to develop some sort of "secret code" whereby one person
archives the article on his hard-drive, and publicly states, "As we all
know, it would be a violation of copyright to post the article here.
The URL for it is such-and-such. If you are reading this too late, and
the article is no longer available, drop me an e-mail and I'll see if I
can, er, remember some salient passages."
Then the clever person can reply, "Would you like me to e-mail it to
you?" The writer would have to specifically respond "Yes," in order to
get the text of the original article. Thus, no public exhibition of
copyright-violation is perceived, and best of all NO MORE GRIPING AND
BITCHING AND MOANING AND ENDLESS WHINING.
There. I have solved the problem completely and for all time. All
praise to me.
--
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?"
krazy kat
> There. I have solved the problem completely and for all time. All
> praise to me.
>
--
Frank Lekens
operamail.com is where it's really @
Mike Painter
(piper) wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:19:23 GMT, Premise Checker
> <che...@shell.clark.net> wrote:
>
> >If you check out deja.com, you'll find that lots of people every day copy
> >and post articles from the New York Times and, presumably, other
> >sources.
> [snip]
>
> The thing that I find questionable is for you to post and _OLD_ NY
> Times article. I have a subscription to the nytimes site, and they
> give free access to _CURRENT_ stories. Most stories expire at
> midnight, and the archives require payment.
>
> Michael
The "one-day-only" nature of the site is something that drives me nuts and
I've complained frequently to them. They have assured me that is supposed
to change sometime soon, although no firm date has been set.
As to the general question of copyright violation, I would argue that
posting an article in this forum is a fair use of it. 17 USC 107 states:
Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom
use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In
determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a
fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar
a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all
the above factors.
The articles posted here are generally for comment or criticism. As for
the 4-prong test: 1) It's a not for profit undertaking; 2) It's a publicly
available newspaper, available at no cost on the Internet (registration
doesn't cost anything). The only prong of the test that fails is 3) The
whole article is printed rather than just part of it. 4) It has negligible
impact on the finances of the NY Times.
Given the "totality of the circumstances" as we lawyers say, I think this
is a "fair use" of the article.
Mike Painter
Attorneys R Us
To respond via e-mail, remove * from address.
Andrys D Basten
>The "one-day-only" nature of the site is something that drives me nuts and
>I've complained frequently to them. They have assured me that is supposed
>to change sometime soon, although no firm date has been set.
About time. Most newspapers have a 7-day period at least.
>As to the general question of copyright violation, I would argue that
>posting an article in this forum is a fair use of it. 17 USC 107 states:
I agree. This has been going on for years. Writers normally
don't like to do a lot of work, of which they might be proud,
only to have it totally buried and forgotten after one day.
The newspaper publishers are most concerned about people using
THEIR content for Money. The only time newspapers have taken on
forum posting of articles is the blatant use of it at
freerepublic.com where they do stipulate they're quoting the
articles for comment/discussion BUT also are operating a
discussion site =for profit= ... In other words, they're
making money off the work of newspaper publishers and writers.
In the case of RMCR that's not so. People are just giving
(not selling) wider distribution to articles, to people in
cities who don't get those newspapers for one thing. The
smartest and fairest thing to do is post the URL of the
newspaper to encourage people to go to the newspaper's site.
That's a trade. NYTimes definitely benefits from it as they
would be paid by member-counts - the number of eyes for the ads.
In other words, those who quote full articles usually give the
urls and are, in effect, advertising for the online papers.
Deja.com now has 5 years of quotes from newspaper articles
online and there has never been a problem with it. I think the
newspaper types who are resourceful use deja.com and any other
online data sorce they can.
- A
--
Andrys Basten, CNE http://www.andrys.com/ PC Network Support
http://www.andrys.com/indox.html - Machu Picchu PhotoDiary w/Canon Elph
http://www.andrys.com/books.html
Search VIDEOS, SHEET MUSIC, CDs, Gramophone reviews
http://www.andrys.com/freddyk.html - Freddy Kempf on CD
Andrys D Basten
Premise Checker <che...@clark.net> wrote:
>Unfortunately, I didn't see the review of the concert in the print
>editions of the NYT for the Sunday or the Monday following the concert.
>The concert came too late for the review to appear in the DC edition. I
>forgot to logon to the site on Monday.
For anyone interested in that event, I've made a
recitals-reports page for this very unusual concert. This
includes a link to the interview that still exists on NYTimes
free of charge and a link to the review of the concert itself,
by NY Times and also still online there, though not included in
search results.
http://andrys.com/argchrev.html
Also has links to Jeff's life-sized photos of RMCR and other
forum types as well as two I took plus other photos at the end
of the recital.
I included a link to an interesting online tour of Carnegie
Hall I'd never seen before. The lead-in photo I use is of the
stage and a piano as seen from the wings. The picture and audio
for that is remarkably apropos (except for the last sentence)
for this occasion which saw seven-minute ovations between
numbers.
That interview was on the front page of the times, very
unusual for classical music events. Remarkably candid, I
thought.
Another reviewer in an article on Nelson Freire mentioned
that she refused to take solo bows at the end, always pulling
Nelson Freire along with her. Not the usual soloist type.
- A
--
Andrys Basten, CNE http://www.andrys.com/ PC Network Support
http://www.andrys.com/indox.html - Machu Picchu PhotoDiary w/Canon Elph
http://www.andrys.com/books.html
Search VIDEOS, SHEET MUSIC, CDs, Gramophone reviews
http://www.andrys.com/freddyk.html - Freddy Kempf on CD
http://www.andrys.com/argerich.html - available Argerich recordings
Simon Roberts
[snip]
: Given the "totality of the circumstances" as we lawyers say, I think this
: is a "fair use" of the article.
Aside from all that, would so much fuss have been made if the original
poster saved copies of the NYTimes Sunday Arts section (there are such
people, I believe) and copied the article from that?
Simon
Peter T. Daniels
>
> piper wrote:
> >
> > The thing that I find questionable is for you to post and _OLD_ NY
> > Times article. I have a subscription to the nytimes site, and they
> > give free access to _CURRENT_ stories. Most stories expire at
> > midnight, and the archives require payment.
>
> archives the article on his hard-drive, and publicly states, "As we all
> know, it would be a violation of copyright to post the article here.
> The URL for it is such-and-such. If you are reading this too late, and
> the article is no longer available, drop me an e-mail and I'll see if I
> can, er, remember some salient passages."
>
> Then the clever person can reply, "Would you like me to e-mail it to
> you?" The writer would have to specifically respond "Yes," in order to
> get the text of the original article. Thus, no public exhibition of
> copyright-violation is perceived, and best of all NO MORE GRIPING AND
> BITCHING AND MOANING AND ENDLESS WHINING.
>
> praise to me.
That's actually too complicated. There's no reason you can't keep a copy of
the article for your private use and share it individually with your friends.
You just can't publish it to the public, as in a newsgroup or on a website.
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> Andreas S. wrote:
> > hope....
>
> No, here they generally shoot them.
And here they generally frame them.
Peter T. Daniels
Wotan99
>copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
>phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
>such as criticism,
>comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom
>use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In
>determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a
>fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
>
>(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
>a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
>
>(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
>
>(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
>copyrighted work as a whole; and
>
>(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
>copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar
>a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all
>the above factors.
>
>
>
>The articles posted here are generally for comment or criticism. As for
>the 4-prong test: 1) It's a not for profit undertaking; 2) It's a publicly
>available newspaper, available at no cost on the Internet (registration
>doesn't cost anything). The only prong of the test that fails is 3) The
>whole article is printed rather than just part of it. 4) It has negligible
>impact on the finances of the NY Times.
>
>is a "fair use" of the article.
>
>
>Attorneys R Us
>
Thanks for the legal viewpoint. These are essentially the same points I made a
while back during the same discussion, with the same person who seems obsessed
with the issue. No one is profiting, the writers are getting better known, a
useful, intellectual purpose is served, and all glory is going to the great
NYT.
Yes, I agree, the day long dead line is a pain-and all the more reason to post
the article. I hope it continues, and it has brought to my attention
interesting reviews, features, that I would have otherwise missed .
Peter T. Daniels
> Thanks for the legal viewpoint. These are essentially the same points I made a
> while back during the same discussion, with the same person who seems obsessed
> with the issue. No one is profiting, the writers are getting better known, a
> useful, intellectual purpose is served, and all glory is going to the great
> NYT.
>
> Yes, I agree, the day long dead line is a pain-and all the more reason to post
> the article. I hope it continues, and it has brought to my attention
> interesting reviews, features, that I would have otherwise missed .
You can *subscribe* to the New York Times for a few dollars a week and have it
delivered to your door. Then you even get the news, too!
Brian Cantin
> And here they generally frame them.
The Los Angeles police are very versatile; they beat, shoot, and frame
with equal facility. It's enough to make you proud to be an Angeleno.
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> "Matthew B. Tepper" <o...@earthlink.net> writes:
> > And here they generally frame them.
>
> The Los Angeles police are very versatile; they beat, shoot, and frame
> with equal facility. It's enough to make you proud to be an Angeleno.
Plus, they have the perfect match in the Los Angeles District Attorney's
office, which couldn't convict Brutus if they had found him holding the
knife and with Caesar's blood all over his tunic.
M-T
<<Plus, they have the perfect match in the Los Angeles District
Attorney's office, which couldn't convict Brutus if they had found him
holding the knife and with Caesar's blood all over his tunic.>>
They would manage to lose the knife and Brutus would turn out to have
been having a couple burgers with Catullus Caelin. If they didn't manage
to lose the knife, defense attorneys would successfully argue that, in
fact, the knife was a razor and, further, that Brutus had just come in
to shave Caesar and the Emperor, who was very sensitive to unannounced
approaches from the rear, turned around too fast and inflicted the wound
on himself. Meanwhile, Brutus would post a handsome reward to anyone
coming forth with information about the Real Killer. The Roman press
would make much of this.
Regards, and to make this less than 100% off-topic, let me recommend the
Magnard symphony set on Hyperion. Magnificent music, performances and
sound.
mt
Matthew B. Tepper
[much which caused me to cackle with glee]
>
> Regards, and to make this less than 100% off-topic, let me recommend
> the Magnard symphony set on Hyperion. Magnificent music, performances
> and sound.
I'm curious about Magnard, but have no frame of reference. Is he like
Chausson or Franck, only with even more modulations? Or am I missing
something entirely?
Paul Goldstein
Tepper" <o...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I'm curious about Magnard, but have no frame of reference. Is
he like
>Chausson or Franck, only with even more modulations? Or am I
missing
>something entirely?
More like Chausson than Franck, but really I find Magnard quite
original, and more like some of his successors (Roussel,
Koechlin, Ropartz) than his contemporaries. There is an
ecstatic quality to his best music that is a far cry from most
of what was going on around him.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
schi...@lightlink.com
5th symphony, or his 3rd and 6th string quartets, the comparison
between him and Magnard would be easier to make than it is now.
The scherzo of Ropartz' 6th quartet brings to mind at one moment
Magnard's 3rd symphony and at another d'Indy's op. 24 suite...
-Eric Schissel