32 GB memory stick

[John M Ward]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:14:49 +0000 (GMT), John M Ward

Don't know your age, but I am 64. "Will you still need me, willl you
still feed me?" (etc).

I am 62, and am starting to have the kind of mechanical failures that
are typical of this age range.

It didn't hit me when I turned 60; I think it was 62 when I first came
to the realization that I wasn't a young man any longer. And I
wondered where all the time had gone to; yet, when I think about it, I
have led a very interesting life full of twists and turns.

When you look back, you find it was much better than it at first seemed;
but there is always more to do while one is able...

But the spectre of my mortality is always there; my two best friends
in high scxhool have passed away, and I have to hope that I'll have
more time to accomplish that which I presently have no knowledge of.

You'll probably get as long as you need to do what you were always
destined to do -- and no doubt some other stuff along the way.

I still think I'll know it when I see it, but I always have had that
strange feeling that I'm being saved for "something". That may
qualify me as a paranoid loon in some books.

No: many of us feel the same way, and some of us have already been
guided at important times in our lives. Opportunities will be placed
alongside our path, offered not imposed, so that we can take them if we
so choose.

 

[John M Ward]

It's just not fair on women. Men develop character as the older they
get while while women just rot!

That's what is known as symettry...

 

[choro]

On 18/11/2011 00:56, Peter Jason wrote:

[ S N I P ! ! ! ]


If by Shakespeare, you mean over-hyped by a mafia ... (-:

(In the case of Shakespeare, the mafia has been in place for so long now
- about a century in practical terms - that it is now _impossible_ to be
objective.)

Mozart had more natural inborn talent than most other musicians. That
is undebatable. But his music is mostly pleasant, graceful music to
listen to. Fit for the courts of the royalty.

Beethoven's music has got more substance. If you have to compare
composers to playwrights, I'd say Beethoven was more the Shakespeare
of music. The heavyweight. Mozart more Moliere than Shakespeare.

I tend to agree with both those views (though I know next to nothing of
Moliere); however, more with what follows:

But anyway, I find it silly to debate whether Mozart or Beethoven was

Indeed. That's the nub of the matter. Like the "Young musician of the
year" contest (UK - does it still occur?), where you're comparing a
flautist, a pianist, a cellist ... and playing different pieces too.

the greatest composer. In that era, Schubert was probably a greater
composer than either Mozart or Beethoven. And let's not forget for one
moment how young he was when he died.

I can't forget, as I don't think I ever knew!

I also remember a nice line from Tom Lehrer: "When Mozart was my age ...
he'd been dead three years."

And when Schubert was Lehrer's age, he had been dead not three but
*seven* years. Schubert was only 31 when he died, the poor sod! And to
my mind he wrote some of the greatest music while still breaking new
ground. Witness his song cycles and his hundreds of songs (lieder), in
addition to his symphonies and other musical works.

Do make sure you listen to his song cycles sung by a deserving vocalist
with good piano accompaniment. These works are simply out of this world.

See the DeadHeads!

You are right about Shakespeare and the PR mafia, of course. But it
makes sense to get your snout in the trough when the gravy train is
passing through!

Moliere I have known since I was around 7. My uncle had sent me some
plays by Moliere. In translation, of course. And I learned to appreciate
the bastard who used to take the mickey out of the aristocracy while
still retaining their support.
-- choro

 

[choro]

I'll try to remember your recommendation.

Ooops! There I go top-posting this time. Another cardinal sin!
-- choro

PS. I believe I have taught myself to read what I edit once over before
posting the message. I'd advise you to do the same.

Lesson Number Uno: In edited passages what you *think* you see is not
what is actually there!

On 18/11/2011 04:32, Gil wrote:
[chop, chop suey]

 

[choro]

This thread is about the worst example I've ever seen of non-snippery


I finally had to have recourse to Ctrl-end.

Wot do you mean *finally*? It is the simplest thing in the world to do!
-- choro

 

[choro]

Yes, thirded!
It wouldn't quite work anyway: it's useful to see the point that is
being replied to (as I hope is the case from my posts). One should snip
all the material from which the thread has drifted, and most of the post
to which one is replying (which I know I haven't done in this one, but I
thought what I've left _is_ relevant), leaving just the bits one is
responding to.

(And interpost - i. e. intersperse responses after relevant quoting -
rather than _either_ top-posting or bottom-posting.)

Always take the easiest way out depending on circumstances, is what *I* say.
-- choro

 

[choro]

On 17/11/2011 23:28, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [snip]

Can we _please_ learn to snip a bit (-:?
[] []
(I like Jane Parker-Smith on the Westminster Cathedral one.) []
would have approved ...

(sorry about the sound quality, this was the best I could find). Listen
with an open mind: I think the essence of the piece is definitely there.

As with the original pipe organ version - listen to it loud! (And do
stick with it.)

Oh, come off it! But first things first. You say Bach would probably
have approved of this and he probably would had he been living now.

One imagines that most of the great composers, if alive now, would have
taken to the new technologies available. (Even Mozart, for example -
even avoiding the electric guitar: given a modern piano, capable of the
volume a modern one is capable of and with a sustain pedal, might have
produced something different from what many think of as Mozart.)

(Though I recommend his Rondo alla Turca played with vigour on a
"Turkish" piano, like the one at the Finchcocks collection near
Goudhurst in southern England:

is the instrument and
performer I have in mind, though I don't know why the still there is
chosen. This is actually a rather restrained rendering: if you get the
chance to hear him live while he still lives, do - as, sadly, his
deafness and frailness increase, the performances have become more,
shall we say, individual, and certainly lively.)

Just listened to your recommended version of the Alla Turca by Mozart.
But I am afraid that even though the Turkish percussion had become all
the rage in central Europe at the time, the pianist is NOT bringing out
the spirit of the piece which Mozart wrote in regular 4/4 time in a very
good effort to bring out the actual 9/8 time in Turkish marches which go
1& 2& 3& *4*&a with the accent on the *longer* beat 4. Only one pianist
manages to bring out the spirit of the actual Yenicheri (Janisssary)
marching rhythm. I am sorry but I forget which pianist it was and I can
tell you that he did it in the following manner. After playing the 1st
set of 4 1/16th notes he cut short the quaver or the 1/8th note that
follows which created the impression of the *a* in *4*&a of the batuta
or bar. I've got it down somewhere. I know I mentioned this in detail in
my correspondence with one of the classical music radio presenters when
I referred to this very point but I believe I lost that correspondence
when my Outlook Express crashed years ago taking all my correspondence
down with it never to be recovered again. Could have been Ashkenazi or
could it? Sorry, I can't remember now but all I can tell you is that
most versions fail miserably in creating that atmosphere either making
it too smooth or too choppy.

Some of those old fortepianos are quite interesting actually in the
range of tone colors they produce as opposed to modern concert grands.

It is you who ascribed negative value to it. But yes, I meant as
performed, I suppose.

Let's skip this. I like to refer to a realistic volume rather than loud,
which to me has negative connotations. And an orchestra can be very
loud. Have you ever played in an orchestra in front of or facing the
brass section?

But, let us now concentrate on what went on at the time. The inclusion
of John Williams, the guitarist, in the band was nothing more than a
PR exercise but if I remember rightly John Williams didn't contribute
much to the band's sound as evidenced in this video. But he did play a
few classical guitar solos in the TV shows by this band which provided
variety on the programs broadcast on UK TV at the time.

OK, forget John Williams; I just find the piece cheering, in the same
way I do Bohemian Rhapsody. It is a great piece of rock, that stands on
its own anyway - and you never know, might have prompted some rock fans
to seek out the original. (Though I was a bit surprised to find that, on
the label of the single I bought at about the time, it was ascribed to
"Traditional" rather than JSB, so maybe fewer seekers would have been
guided than we might wish!)

Despite running a business at the time, I managed to find time to
maintain my interest in the classical guitar scene in London and I can
tell you that John Williams' playing suffered by playing with this
band. I remember going to another concert where he played with yet

I did not think so at the time, but it was a Long Time Ago.
[]

It was around this time that John Williams married a very pretty TV
presenter who I also met and remember wondering whether John Williams
had done the right thing marrying this dolly bird. Needless to say,
the marriage didn't last long. They were just ill suited for one
another. I've got nothing against her but she was the wrong choice of
partner for him and probably he for her.

Sounds to me like you've taken against him for going to the Dark Side
with all that entails. But I'm probably being unfair.

But to cut a story short, John Williams' classical guitar playing took
a nose dive at the time and no surprise.

Though your "no surprise" supports my suspicion (-:.

SKY were a fine band for the sort of music that they played and as far

Agreed, though this is the only piece I actually remember well. There
was a tuba solo too, but I can't remember anything about it other than
quite liking it.

as I am concerned the producers used John Williams' name to make sure
that the show would be watched by more people.

Hmm. Possibly a few, but I think the two areas of interest are
sufficiently far apart that there'd be not much of that sort of
crossover audience.

Anyway, I don't think it was commercial from John Williams' point of
view - sure, he'll have made money from it, but I think he genuinely
liked playing in a different style (and instrument) to his usual, just
for a change.

Music is a business after all just like any other. Marketing is all
important. And what better than the inclusion of a well known name
like John Williams to make the production a success?
-- choro

It can't have hurt, but I think "Toccata" at least would remain a good
piece whoever was doing the picking.

 

[choro]

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:

etc.

Can we _please_ learn to snip a bit (-:?
[]

...and here is a truly great artist playing the same Bach Toccata and
Fugue...

Funny how most people know this as the "haunted house music". Any

It's been used as atmospheric music so much that it's a hackneyed cliché
- even come out the other side now such that it's now used ironically
...

word on the organ played? Biggs favored the D.A. Flentrop in Harvard
University's Busch-Reisinger Museum. Do you have an inkling how Bach,
himself, played the piece? Were organs pretty much the same in the
17th Century as they are now?

(I like Jane Parker-Smith on the Westminster Cathedral one.)

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...

Very nice. Somewhat different. I do prefer the pipe organ. Another

[]
For something else different ... you may know John Williams (the
classical guitarist, not the Star Wars composer). This is one of the
things he does on his days off (or did in 1980). I like to think Bach
would have approved ...

(sorry about the sound quality, this was the best I could find). Listen
with an open mind: I think the essence of the piece is definitely there.

As with the original pipe organ version - listen to it loud! (And do
stick with it.)

(BTW, thanks for trimming!)

For me the best part of that was that it was only half as long as the
others

It was good rock, but IMO, it wasn't Bach.

As an aside, I was thinking of buying some cheap speakers for the
computer to cut down on the mess of wires here, but this morning, before
I went out, I happened to listen to a number of this thread's YouTube
links to the Bach.

Just hook up your computer sound output to your hi-fi using any unused
input on the hi-fi such as your AUX input.

Me?, I've set up a dedicated hi-fi system for my computer sounds. Money
well spent, I'd say. But the above option of hooking up your computer to
your hi-fi system should be quite satisfactory.

The advantage of a separate system is that you could be listening to
something on your main hi-fi system while still being able to hear the
system sounds on the system dedicated for your computer.
-- choro

 

[Ed Cryer]

On 18/11/2011 00:56, Peter Jason wrote:

[ S N I P ! ! ! ]


If by Shakespeare, you mean over-hyped by a mafia ... (-:

(In the case of Shakespeare, the mafia has been in place for so long now
- about a century in practical terms - that it is now _impossible_ to be
objective.)

Mozart had more natural inborn talent than most other musicians. That
is undebatable. But his music is mostly pleasant, graceful music to
listen to. Fit for the courts of the royalty.

Beethoven's music has got more substance. If you have to compare
composers to playwrights, I'd say Beethoven was more the Shakespeare
of music. The heavyweight. Mozart more Moliere than Shakespeare.

I tend to agree with both those views (though I know next to nothing of
Moliere); however, more with what follows:

But anyway, I find it silly to debate whether Mozart or Beethoven was

Indeed. That's the nub of the matter. Like the "Young musician of the
year" contest (UK - does it still occur?),

It sure does;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/youngmusician/

Ed

 

[Ed Cryer]

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.

Ed

No, sir I am not confusing Mozart with Haydn. Mozart too was an
employee. Not as much as Haydn was but still an employee. He could not
have survived without aristocratic patronage.

Beethoven was the first to break that tradition. And sir, Beethoven
*was* a rebel. And sir, what does Beethoven's social graces or the lack
of them have to do with his music?

I think you are indoctrinated! Learn to be a free thinker!
-- choro

You would have got on well with those early Romantics, choro. You even
use the terminology of the era; "free thinker". Beethoven, Byron and
others like Coleridge were heroes to some, hate-figures to others. Even
Wordsworth wrote of the outbreak of the French Revolution; "bliss was it
in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven".

The times have changed; the battle is long won. The very idea of the
solitary genius, the socially alienated artist starving in an attic
while portraying society's ills through art has disappeared off the
scene. As I say, the battle was won long ago.

Ed

 

[choro]

On 18/11/2011 15:07, Ed Cryer wrote:
[....]

You would have got on well with those early Romantics, choro. You even
use the terminology of the era; "free thinker". Beethoven, Byron and
others like Coleridge were heroes to some, hate-figures to others. Even
Wordsworth wrote of the outbreak of the French Revolution; "bliss was it
in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven".

The times have changed; the battle is long won. The very idea of the
solitary genius, the socially alienated artist starving in an attic
while portraying society's ills through art has disappeared off the
scene. As I say, the battle was won long ago.

Ed

More's the pity! But it might, just might, be coming back!
-- choro

 

[Mack A. Damia]

Always take the easiest way out depending on circumstances, is what *I* say.
-- choro

One could say that up until the complaints about non-snipping, it was
a conversation between thee and me. Therefore it was up to us to snip
- if that's what we wanted.

If somebody else wanted to add something, he/she could have snipped
and started their own sub-thread, no?

 

[Ed Cryer]

On 18/11/2011 15:07, Ed Cryer wrote:
[....]

You would have got on well with those early Romantics, choro. You even
use the terminology of the era; "free thinker". Beethoven, Byron and
others like Coleridge were heroes to some, hate-figures to others. Even
Wordsworth wrote of the outbreak of the French Revolution; "bliss was it
in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven".

The times have changed; the battle is long won. The very idea of the
solitary genius, the socially alienated artist starving in an attic
while portraying society's ills through art has disappeared off the
scene. As I say, the battle was won long ago.

Ed

More's the pity! But it might, just might, be coming back!
-- choro

The battle has been won but "art" has been degraded in the process; made
accessible to the masses. A pile of bricks, neon tubes on a wall, a
rotting sheep, an unmade bed, a big crack in a floor.

Back to the times when "art" still encompassed a reaching out to
something higher.
In my humble opinion the greatest of all the great "starving in a
garret" composers was Schubert. Shy, tubby little Schubert. Schubert who
saw Beethoven striding through Vienna, never got introduced to him but
helped carry his coffin. Schubert who wouldn't have known what to do
with fame and public recognition if it had blocked his doorway.

I could make a serious case that the "Unfinished" is just about the
greatest symphony ever written; and it wasn't composed while striding
along country lanes and conducting trees; no, it was composed in a
humble little room in between doses of mercury to cure syphilis, then
posted to a Music Society, lost for almost 40 years, and then discovered
(only 2 movements by then) and performed.

If I think of Beethoven dining and drinking in cafe back rooms, where
he'd throw bowls of soup into waiters' faces, I think of Schubert hiding
outside in the bushes and staring in at his great hero.

Ed

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

The battle has been won but "art" has been degraded in the process;
made accessible to the masses. A pile of bricks, neon tubes on a wall,
a rotting sheep, an unmade bed, a big crack in a floor.

I'm not clear whether you mean by art has been made accessible to the
masses: do you mean the masses now have access to art, or now have the
right to make it (with a resultant decline in its quality)?

I suspect you mean the latter, as it sounds as if the bricks, neons,
sheep, bed, and crack are not to your taste.

I don't think they're to mine either (except the neon - I'm unfamiliar
with what you're referring to there), but I don't feel qualified to say
they're definitely not art, only that they don't do much for me.

Back to the times when "art" still encompassed a reaching out to
something higher.
In my humble opinion the greatest of all the great "starving in a
garret" composers was Schubert. Shy, tubby little Schubert. Schubert
who saw Beethoven striding through Vienna, never got introduced to him
but helped carry his coffin. Schubert who wouldn't have known what to
do with fame and public recognition if it had blocked his doorway.

I could make a serious case that the "Unfinished" is just about the
greatest symphony ever written; and it wasn't composed while striding
along country lanes and conducting trees; no, it was composed in a

(That image sounds familiar, but I can't place it.)

I like the unfinished.
[]

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On 18/11/2011 08:05, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: []

(And interpost - i. e. intersperse responses after relevant quoting -
rather than _either_ top-posting or bottom-posting.)

Always take the easiest way out depending on circumstances, is what *I* say.
-- choro

One could say that up until the complaints about non-snipping, it was
a conversation between thee and me. Therefore it was up to us to snip
- if that's what we wanted.

You chose to continue it in a public newsgroup, though - which anyone
can read it in, and contribute to. I must say - and this must have
bemused others taking the newsgroups, especially the Windows 7 one
(APIHNAites might enjoy it) - this has been one of the most entertaining
thread wanders I've seen for a very long time!

If somebody else wanted to add something, he/she could have snipped
and started their own sub-thread, no?

I think several sub-threads have now evolved - mostly snipped, though I
think one of them still has the long posts.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

I'll try to remember your recommendation.

Ooops! There I go top-posting this time. Another cardinal sin!
-- choro (-:

PS. I believe I have taught myself to read what I edit once over before
posting the message. I'd advise you to do the same.

Lesson Number Uno: In edited passages what you *think* you see is not
what is actually there!

Yes, good snippage should still make it clear who said what and when;
hacking other people's text to make them appear to say what they did not
is definitely bad.
[snip]

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

(Though I recommend his Rondo alla Turca played with vigour on a
"Turkish" piano, like the one at the Finchcocks collection near
Goudhurst in southern England:

is the instrument and
performer I have in mind, though I don't know why the still there is
chosen. This is actually a rather restrained rendering: if you get the
chance to hear him live while he still lives, do - as, sadly, his
deafness and frailness increase, the performances have become more,
shall we say, individual, and certainly lively.)

Just listened to your recommended version of the Alla Turca by Mozart.
But I am afraid that even though the Turkish percussion had become all
the rage in central Europe at the time, the pianist is NOT bringing out
the spirit of the piece which Mozart wrote in regular 4/4 time in a[/QUOTE]

I agree: as I said above, that seems to be a rather restrained rendering
(bordering on the boring). I can only assume it was done that way to be
part of an album illustrating several of the instruments in their
collection, and some years ago. I have seen this particular pianist
perform it two or three times more recently. He is, sadly, very frail -
walks, just about, with _two_ walking sticks - and very deaf; however,
when he sits at that piano and plays that piece, he comes alive, and
certainly brings the piece to life, generally getting considerable
applause. Possibly no longer with the accuracy of that recording, but
definitely with much more feeling.
[]

Some of those old fortepianos are quite interesting actually in the
range of tone colors they produce as opposed to modern concert grands.

http://www.finchcocks.co.uk/pages/instruments.html is well worth a visit
if in Kent: unusually among such collections, most of the instruments
are _not_ roped off from the public! Best visited at a quiet time, when
you might get personal guidance, though if visited on one of their
events (not all musical), the admission price is lower.
[]

Let's skip this. I like to refer to a realistic volume rather than
loud, which to me has negative connotations. And an orchestra can be

OK, I'm with you, I think.

very loud. Have you ever played in an orchestra in front of or facing
the brass section?

No, I'm afraid that though I like to think I have a musical ear, I don't
have much actual playing ability: I reached grade 3 piano achieving just
the pass mark (100 out of 150 IIRR), at which point I could see I'd
reached my limit. (Didn't help that my brother father and mother all had
considerable ability, though in very different ways.) I can hear when a
chord is just not quite right (thinking mostly of melodic popular music,
i. e. the tunes that everyone knows but few can play the chords really
well), but that doesn't mean I can necessarily find it myself.

About the brass: I remember once reading something like "there are two
sides to a trumpeter. There is the side that likes to play with vigour,
tattering all the other instruments into shreds in his wake; and then
there is the dark side." (I like a good bit of brass - Sibelius wrote a
few ...)
[]

 

[Ed Cryer]

The battle has been won but "art" has been degraded in the process;
made accessible to the masses. A pile of bricks, neon tubes on a wall,
a rotting sheep, an unmade bed, a big crack in a floor.

I'm not clear whether you mean by art has been made accessible to the
masses: do you mean the masses now have access to art, or now have the
right to make it (with a resultant decline in its quality)?

I suspect you mean the latter, as it sounds as if the bricks, neons,
sheep, bed, and crack are not to your taste.

I don't think they're to mine either (except the neon - I'm unfamiliar
with what you're referring to there), but I don't feel qualified to say
they're definitely not art, only that they don't do much for me.

Back to the times when "art" still encompassed a reaching out to
something higher.
In my humble opinion the greatest of all the great "starving in a
garret" composers was Schubert. Shy, tubby little Schubert. Schubert
who saw Beethoven striding through Vienna, never got introduced to him
but helped carry his coffin. Schubert who wouldn't have known what to
do with fame and public recognition if it had blocked his doorway.

I could make a serious case that the "Unfinished" is just about the
greatest symphony ever written; and it wasn't composed while striding
along country lanes and conducting trees; no, it was composed in a

(That image sounds familiar, but I can't place it.)

I like the unfinished.
[]

I've just read your comment elsewhere about the length of this thread.
It shows promise of beating the all-time record for Usenet thread length
(biggest since records began!!), so I'd better not start any new subject
on "art" itself. That would surely lead us into a lot of controversy.
One thing I will say, though, is this.
Liverpool Tate about 20 years ago. Enter Ed and a group of friends; turn
into "Minimalist Room"; on the floor a pile of building bricks (was it
12?) and on the wall lots of lit neon lights; exit Ed at the double.

Ed

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

In my humble opinion the greatest of all the great "starving in a
garret" composers was Schubert. Shy, tubby little Schubert. Schubert who
saw Beethoven striding through Vienna, never got introduced to him but
helped carry his coffin. Schubert who wouldn't have known what to do
with fame and public recognition if it had blocked his doorway.

Yet there are people who just don't like Schubert's music...

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Yes, thirded!
It wouldn't quite work anyway: it's useful to see the point that is
being replied to (as I hope is the case from my posts). One should snip
all the material from which the thread has drifted, and most of the post
to which one is replying (which I know I haven't done in this one, but I
thought what I've left _is_ relevant), leaving just the bits one is
responding to.

It works fine when properly done, i.e, just unhide the comments when
trying to interpret a remark of non-obvious provenience.

(And interpost - i. e. intersperse responses after relevant quoting -
rather than _either_ top-posting or bottom-posting.)

Unfortunately, interposts get lost when posts are as long as has become
standard in this thread

Especially when one uses Ctrl-end, as I've been doing.

Oh well, it's a challenge. Keeps one alert...