C
choro
Nothing of the sort. Study his life, his childhood, the sort of home heMusical genius combined with total deafness can do that to you.On 17/11/2011 18:52, Ed Cryer wrote:
On 17/11/2011 13:59, choro wrote:
On 17/11/2011 12:47, Ed Cryer wrote:
On 17/11/2011 00:42, choro wrote:
On 16/11/2011 22:17, Mack A. Damia wrote:
On 15/11/2011 18:58, Mack A. Damia wrote:
On 15/11/2011 13:12, Ed Cryer wrote:
On 14/11/2011 23:09, choro wrote:
On 14/11/2011 19:21, Ed Cryer wrote:
On 14/11/2011 15:39, choro wrote:
On 14/11/2011 12:17, Ed Cryer wrote:
On 14/11/2011 11:56, choro wrote:
On 14/11/2011 09:28, John M Ward wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:43:39 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver
(John)"
In message<[email protected]>, John M Ward
[]
I am in the USA.
Well, no-one's perfect)
As for the pronunciation of "route", here in the
language's
country
of origin in rhymes with root rather than rout,
though it
is hard
to say which is better or whether one is right and the
other
wrong.
I'm in England too, but we shouldn't be smug: just
because
it came
from here, no reason to assume pronunciation - or
grammar, or
anything else - has remained unchanged here but
changed in
USA,
rather than vice versa! (Compare "gotten".)
[I tend to think our "root" pronunciation is correct
as it
matches
the French which I think is the origin. BICBW.]
The pronunciation of "route" is discussed from time to
time in
alt.usage.english. Both the "oo" and "ow" pronunciations
are used
for
"route" in the US.
Yes, I've noticed that, and with the letter zed (or zee).
I think it was the last time we discussed it there that I
had just
watched an American movie on TV and had noticed in a scene
in which
two characters were discussing how to get somewhere that
one used
the
"ow" sound and the other the "oo".
I've spotted this too, including in Stargate Atlantis where
UK-born
actor David Hewlett plays a Canadian: apparently the
Canadians have
pronunciations more like ours than the USians so this was a
kind of
get-out for Dr McKay's "Zep Pee Em" (Zero Point Module).
Since you two have gone way off the subject, how about
changing it
yet
again and going into the definition of the words "eroticism"
and
"pornography" and the merits and/or demerits of both.
Is or rather was Anais Nin a writer of erotography or
pornography?
Forget about "route" vs "rout" and "Zet" versus "Zee"!
And what do I see? This conversation is also being
carried on
in the
group "alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe"!
My God, what is the world coming to? I learned English as a
foreign
language in my teens and I never thought that I'd see a
Usenet group
dedicated to "Its" vs "It's". Don't they teach you that the
apostrophe
is there to indicate a contraction of the full expression?
They
didn't
teach me either but I just added two and two together to
arrive at
the
following logical conclusion.
Let's see... "It's" is the shortened version of "It is" or
"It
has" or
some such other expression and "didn't" is a shortened
version of
"did
not", while in, for example, "The boy's thingie" is a
contraction for
"The thingie of the boy"... ;-)
But bear all this in mind with the *caveat* that "its" has
*no*
apostrophe if it can simply be replaced by any of the words
in the
set
*my/your/his/her/its/our/your/their*. An example would be:
"Its size
is..." where "Its" can be replaced with "His/Her size
is...".
Get
it?!
Though I never saw this subject explained so succinctly
and so
clearly
in any textbook, I am afraid! But talking to an English
language
teacher
who was himself English, the foremost authority on the
English
language
is a Dutchman! There we have it in a nutshell! No,
unfortunately I am
not that Dutchman. Not even Dutch!
Oh, I never told you that in my younger days I was a
teacher of
English
as a foreign language to teenagers for a couple of years
until I
gave up
teaching over poor pay. That was over half a century ago,
but
what
is it
they say. "Once a teacher, always a teacher"!
And once the boys and girls I used to teach got this concept
of the
apostrophe being there to stand for an abbreviation, they
didn't make
any such stupid mistakes any more.
-- choro
If only it were that simple and straight-forward!! But it
isn't.
Look at the apostrophies in these two sentences;
It's the boy's book.
It isn't the boys' book.
You'll see where an apostrophy doesn't signify a contraction
but a
possessive genitive derived from Germanic genitive case.
Ed's very own contribution to "its" and "it's".
You are right, you b****rd! ;-)
I knew I had boo-booed somewhere! But still what did I say?...
"But bear all this in mind with the *caveat* that "its" has
*no*
apostrophe if it can simply be replaced by any of the words in
the set
*my/your/his/her/its/our/your/their*. An example would be:
"Its
size
is..." where "Its" can be replaced with "His/Her size is...".
Get it?!"
I am talking only about "Its" here and in your example the
word
"boy/s"
(not Its or Their) in "The boy's thingie..." and "The boys'
thingie..."
fall outside this *"Its Caveat"*!
And besides using such terms as "possessive genitive" only
confuses the
average person or student. Keep it simple, as says my old
classmate who
has made a billion! Why complicate things?
Do you have to understand the laws of chemistry to fry an egg
or indeed
to boil one?
Ah, but boiling an egg is an art in itself!!! Or do you
want to
approach
the problem through understanding exactly what happens when
you
boil an
egg? Just boil the bloody thing!
I remember my ex jumping into the garden when she tried frying
an egg
for the very first time for me! Apparently she used to get the
oil so
hot that the egg spluttered wildly when she broke it into the
frying
pan! Stupid bitch!
-- choro
No no, you shouldn't investigate things too deeply. It drives
some nuts
and it brings little benefit to humanity. We should all go back
to an
agrarian economy, believe in a flat earth and the geocentric
map
of the
solar system. We certainly shouldn't go running through the
streets of a
city in the nude crying "Eureka" like Archimedes.
Let sleeping dogs lie. Draco dormiens non est titillandus.
Some nutters even discuss the plural of acronyms; whether they
should
have an apostrophe or not.
Is it "CDs" or "CD's"?
I think these plagues of the earth should be hanged, drawn and
quartered, as was William Wallace for trying to liberate them
there
Celtic Scots.
Ed the stepping-stone (Nemo me impune lacessit)
Well said. But the plural of CD is surely CDs and not CD's. ;-)
I try to stick to this rule wherever possible but one day I was
dealing
with another acronym and felt that I had no option but to use
the
damned
apostrophe! I'll be damned if I can now recall which acronym it
was.
Such is life! I am right at this moment listening to and partly
watching
the New Year Day's Concert of 1989 with the VPO under Carlos
Kleiber! An
unbeatable combination. Absolutely *bootiful*; all 1 hour and 42
minutes
of it, courtesy of some nutter who has got nothing better to do
than to
make available the video of the full concert on YouTube! Bloody
good
sound as well as fairly good cinematic definition, actually.
-- choro
It is quite staggering just how much you can get on youtube.
There's a
famous 1975 recording of the Vienna Phil under Carlos K playing
Beethoven's 5th symphony. There are tens and tens of rips from
the
vinyl
original on youtube.
I take it all in good part. I look at it this way; it's not so
much
people with nothing better to do, but people wanting to share
with
the
world the things that have helped and inspired them; and that
is a
filip
to philanthropy and loving thy neighbour.
Ed
You are right again both about the staggering amount of
material on
YouTube as well about people wanting to share with other
like-minded
people the things that give them joy. For we get the greatest
joy in
life by giving and by sharing. I'll never forget the joy I got
when I
gave a girl I know a watch I had foolishly bought on eBay. I
didn't
need
a watch, in any case. It was a nice two tone unisex watch and at
first
she didn't want to accept it. But I could see that she liked it
and
I'll
never forget the joy in her eyes when she finally decided to
accept it
as a no strings attached present from me. I could understand
why at
first she did not want to accept it considering the yawning age
gap
between us, and the fact that I had given her nice presents
before. We
were both aware of the attraction between us and I guess she
wanted to
keep some distance due to the age gap between us, which is
perfectly
understandable. But seeing the joy in her eyes when she finally
accepted
it when I stressed that it was a no strings attached present,
made my
day. I was over the moon with the joy of giving, or sharing. We
have
been good friends for several years now and our relationship is
going to
remain like that.
And that recording of Beethoven's 5th that you mention is probably
the
very best rendition of that oeuvre ever. I first listened to
that CD
years ago when it came to my notice at the local library.
Listening to
it on some decent speakers at home was an eye (and ear) opener for
me.
Mind you, the VPO is definitely one of the finest, if not the
finest,
orchestras in the world. And under a conductor like Carlos Kleiber
they
are simply out of this world.
-- choro
I do have to say, though, that I think it takes an extremely
well-tuned ear to hear the subtle differences among the greats.
I guess you are right. It is the same with being a restaurant
critic,
for example. Interest, experience all come in. I remember
listening to
some piano work played by a famous player who shall remain
nameless. As
it happened, I had a friend who is a world class classical guitarist
whose wife happened to be quite a good professional pianist. And my
guitarist friend recommended that I listen to the George Bolet
version
of the same work and of course I took his advice and bought the
George
Bolet version. And as soon as I put the disc in the CD player, I
could
hear the difference. And because I was familiar with the work the
difference was glaring. I guess I have the benefit of an
education in
music even though I did not become a professional musician but I
still
have the benefit of a pair of trained ears.
-- choro
Well, I may be lying to myself, because I can tell the difference
between an orchestra just playing the notes (going through the
motions) as opposed to an orchestra actually playing and feeling the
musical work. - but among the "greats", it can be difficult. I can
tell the difference between, say, E. Power Biggs who, I believe
captured the soul of Bach and somebody such as Virgil Fox (was he
more
of a "pop-organist?).
But I envy you with your education in music, and you probably play an
instrument. I am in constant awe of those composers who think in
terms of beautiful music. I just can't imagine how it is done. I
think heard somebody (it may have been McCartney) say that it's like
an earworm you wake up with - except it's a new work of art.
Since you obviously like organ music and Bach, have a listen to
this...
Amazing for a boy his age!
Also listen to the following...
...and here is a truly great artist playing the same Bach Toccata and
Fugue...
E. Power Biggs on the Pedal Harpsichord...absolutely amazing... not
only
the playing but also the quality of the sound and the quality of the
recording...
And the other chap you mention? Virgil Fox? Did a YouTube search and
tried to listen to some of his stuff... well, I tried! Honestly I did
and you know what went through my mind: Oh, God!!! How awful!!!!
For a moment I thought I was having a nightmare as I recalled the
"pianist" Liberace!
But you know, these, I won't even call them second rate artists, *do*
serve a useful purpose if only to make us appreciate truly great
artists
when we hear them! But one thing we mustn't do is not to get
confused by
expressions such as "popular" or so-called "famous" artists as opposed
to truly great masters.
Composing of course is a great art. I doubt that works are just
inspired
in a jiffy. It doesn't work out like that. If you read about Beethoven
you will note that he used to have a book in which he would scribble
tunes as they came to his head. Tunes are the building blocks of any
musical work. But they are only the start. The edifice is constructed
around such inspired tunes. Not everything that passes for music these
days is music. Good sound track material may be, but not music.
-- choro
That kid's good and no doubt will get better, but I can certainly tell
the difference between him and Richter.
Richter's more than technically good; he puts far more feeling into the
piece. It has a drama about it and a more cut and clipped feel than the
kid's.
Talking of musical prodigies (no, not Mozart, who I understand used to
produce whole scores for symphonies with hardly any crossings-out,
as if
they came finished out of his head) look at this Greek boy on a
bouzouki. He looks not long out of a pram.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TMGARku0iA
Ed
The kid playing Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor is of course only 13
years old. Or was at the time which was in 2010, I believe. Of course he
is going to mature. As for Richter, he is one of the all time greats.
But do listen to E. Power Biggs playing the same work on the harpsichord
and listen very carefully. I am thankful to you for bringing me this
great keyboard player to my attention for I was not aware of his name
even. He is incredibly good. And the recording is also superb.
But I have come across another great musician; a singer this time. Here
watch this... Great stuff!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usql_VSXn_0
You are right about Mozart, though I am sure there is some PR behind all
those stories about him. But that he was a prodigy, there is no doubt.
Also do not forget that most of his music is a bit formulaic, if you ask
me, and I have heard music by other composers of the time that was
somewhat indistinguishable from Mozart's music. This of course doesn't
detract one bit from the greatness of Mozart's music.
As for Beethoven, he broke new ground and we can safely say that he was
a revolutionary. He was also, at least to my opinion, the greatest
Romantic -- witness his piano sonatas! And therein lies his greatness.
The little Greek boy on the bouzouki shows what kids can accomplish but
he is not playing great music and he is still very immature which is
natural considering his age. I know I am being a bit tough on him but...
-- choro
I guess that's how Beethoven started, as a kid made to practise hours a
day on the piano. But just what turned him into the great genius who
would sit by a piano for ages just bashing out patterns to perfection,
well, that's beyond me.
There's something extremely manly and energetic about Beethoven's music;
whereas Mozart's has a lightness and beauty about it. But Mozart could
do the Beethovian minor key thing, though, when he tried. Have a listen
to the first movement of Piano Concerto 20; written in 1785 when B was
about 15, but it has the feel of Beethoven middle period about it.
Ed
Mozart was basically a court musician composing mostly pleasant music
for the courtiers to listen to, to while away their time. Of course, by
saying this I am not at all intimating that he wrote nothing else. Of
course he did. After all he was one of the all time greatest composers.
OTOH, Beethoven was a free spirit even though the aristocracy still
provided patronage for him but he wasn't in their employ. And that is a
fundamental difference. What you say about Beethoven's music being
"energetic" to me sounds "rebellious" and "revolutionary". He was a
rebel before his time!
-- choro
You're confusing Mozart with Haydn. Mozart was quite a rebel.
As for Beethoven, he didn't know the line between rebellion and
self-important, overweaning arrogance. He seems to have been utterly
unbearable as a human being, for all that I just adore his music.
grew up in and you will begin to understand Beethoven a bit better.
Fact of the matter is that most geniuses are not much good with personal
relationships. That is the price one pays for the strict training
required to become a superb musician especially those driven hard as
children.
Mozart was no exception. He was quite, quite crude. Beethoven was a
rebel for different reasons. He even dedicated a symphony to Napoleon.
Rightly or wrongly, that can be debated but still...he did. And why?
That is the question we have to ask ourselves. Let us not forget that
Beethoven was the first of the great composers who was not an employee
at some court.
-- choro