|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.222.105.47
"Had we but world enough and time. . . " as Andrew Marvell used to say.
OTOH, she doesn't look bad for an older woman (Ouch! She's only four years older than my kids):
Hi-rez (24/96) downloads are already available - I'll probably check it out, even though I'm not a fan of Pappano.
Follow Ups:
nt
. . . with questions or comments, such as their own favorite performances of the Brahms Concerto (or even the Bartok for that matter). But somehow, I think they don't really want to talk about the music. They'd rather play the role of Reverend ("Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God") Edwards. ;-)
.
.
I have an interesting question.
I own and enjoy most every babe recording that's ever been mentioned on this forum. I have everything by Hilary Hahn, JJ, Helene Grimaud and Yuja. I have most everything by JFi, Nicola Benedetti and many others. They are only a portion of my extensive CM collection.
How many of you anti-babers put your money where your mouth is and support the poor oppressed women you so vociferously defend by actually buying their CDs?
Don't have anything to say on this subject. I just wanted to add to this ridiculously long thread about a pretty innocent post.
. . . although I see I've contributed over 30 posts to this thread myself. Oops! But that happens sometimes when you're fighting for truth and justice! ;-)
(It's also a factor in the "over 100 babe posts" which so horrify the offendees - many of these are multiple posts within a single thread, just like this one. Also, these "over 100 posts" have been dredged up going back to 2007. So what is that - about one per month? No, not even that, because most threads are like this one, with multiple responses and fascinating interchanges of ideas and concepts. So the number of snowflake (formerly known as "babe") musician threads I've started is even lower - probably MUCH lower.)
And, sure enough, the conveyor belt keeps on moving along, just as I predicted below. I'm going to be playing the Moszkowski Suite for Two Violins and Piano next month, and I was looking for recordings of it - and what should pop out of the listings but. . .
I swear, no matter how hard you try, there's just no escaping these snowflake (formerly known as "babe") violinists! And, at the risk of dispassionately observing with a bit of excess, what should be featured today on the listings of hi-rez downloads, but:
As I said further down in the post, don't talk to me about this. Talk to DG! ;-)
It is one thing to make positive comments about young, pretty musicians. Your stong focus on babes was always iffy but this time you let the sneer show through. Bad mouthing a performer for looks makes you real attitudes clear. Calling these women "snowflakes" isn't an improvement.
my blog: http://carsmusicandnature.blogspot.com/
Well now, that's a matter of perspective. From my advanced age she looks pretty durn young. Even younger than my kids. Course, she might have looked younger in her teens I expect.
But that is a weird photograph. She kind looks like a body-less head.
. . . although one of those booklet photos shows JJ arm-wrestling (I kid you not!) with Pappano, so perhaps that wouldn't have been a good cover photo either! ;-)
No doubt she will soon be appearing in the octagon with Holly Holm. :-)
Chris piqued my interest in this recording by bringing it up in his usual manner :)
I gave the Brahms portion a casual listen on Tidal, and from that I decided to download the 24/96 offering at HDTracks.com.
I'll start with the Bartok, which I am quite unfamiliar with. I know I've heard it before (couple of versions in my collection), but I don't think I ever really listened to it in a serious manner. So, just going with this performance, I liked the piece. It was very exciting and demanding and engaging and well-recorded. Since I have to comparisons to go on, that'll have to be it for my comments on the Bartok.
I have heard many Brahms Violin Concerto performances, and this one rises to the top 25% or so. The recording is very good. The violin sounds natural. Ms. Jansen has an excellent sound, and the music flows easily. I found the performance compelling and passionate. I did notice some different orchestral phrasing in the early part of the first movement, but I don't know if it was indeed different or if it stood out because of the very good detailed recording.
All-in-all, I enjoyed it a lot. For modern recordings I usually turn to Repin, Barton, Znaider, or Szeryng. I can add this one to the mix.
. . . and no one here except for me will engage with you regarding the MUSICAL values of JJ's new release! I can't help but sense that there's a bit of hypocrisy at work: on one hand, we have certain offendees in this thread who are ready to leave us and saunter off to new pastures "where one can talk about music" without the terrible distractions and suffering they endure from reading babe musician posts. On the other hand, here you've posted a very fine summary of the musical highlights of the album - but do they want to discuss this at all? NOOOO! They'd rather continue to play the role of the TRUE defenders of women and public morality. Frankly, I think this speaks volumes about many of the offendees in this thread.Anyway. . .
I downloaded the 24/96 file from Pro-Studio Masters. It took only 5 minutes - incredible. The main things that struck me on first hearing were:
BTW, I listened through headphones (Stax 4004) rather than through speakers.
- JJ gets incredible articulation in both works, but a big factor in that impression is that she's recorded so closely.
- The London Symphony (in the Bartok Concerto) plays with way more brilliance and precision that the Santa Cecilia Orchestra does (in the Brahms), and moreover. . .
- the engineering of the LSO Bartok is miles beyond that in the OSC Brahms, especially in terms of depth of image. The Brahms engineering seems flat and two-dimensional in comparison (at least to me).
- It's also nice to hear a modern recording of the LSO from Walthamstow Assembly Hall, rather than from the Barbie. Although I don't mind many of the LSO Live Barbican recordings, this new release from a better hall is certainly a nice breath of fresh air!
- I compared JJ's Bartok Concerto to the James Ehnes recording on Chandos, and I think I like the Ehnes recording even better. I may need to live with JJ's recording a bit longer to be sure, but it seems that she pushes the first movement just a bit (compared to Ehnes) - maybe that's not a bad thing however. In terms of engineering, I think I like the Ehnes recording even better too.
- Among babe recordings of the Brahms concerto, I think I like Lisa's (on DG with the SkD) the best, but I know some folks don't like the Busoni cadenza she uses. (It was a very brave choice, actually!)
- I checked both concertos with spectrograph software and the high frequencies do extend beyond 22kHz, but not by much - they seem to die out just beyond 25kHz, and this is true for both concertos with their slightly different engineering teams
- I may have mentioned this before, but I've actually seen two performances of the First Bartok Concerto - one with Kyung Wha Chung (and de Waart) and another with Lisa (and Slatkin). I feel I don't know the concerto that well and I ordered the piano score a few days ago. I feel I could really get to like this work - moreso even than the famous Second Violin Concerto.
Edits: 11/16/15
Yes, I really know how to kill a thread, don't I? I was going to make a snarky comment a couple of days ago, but I wimped out.
Just to show you how perceptions affect reality, I thought the Brahms was the LSO and the Bartok was the Santa Cecilia Orchestra. That made me think the Brahms was the better accompaniment! I have always argued that reviewers should not know the performers while they are writing their review to keep biases in check.
Anyway, thanks for the comments. I've listened both on my home system and also my portable system (for playing digitized files) which currently consists of a Samsung Galaxy Tab A, an Oppo HA-2, and a pair of Oppo PM-3 headphones (the most I've ever spent on a pair of headphones--and I love them). I personally don't think the violin is too close, but I've always preferred a close-in recording.
. . . I hadn't realized that the Brahms is a live performance while the Bartok is a studio performance. I think that could explain why I was hearing a comparative lack of depth in the Brahms - probably zillions of spot mikes in order to exclude audience noises.
Looking old or refined?
Not Las Vegas showgirl 20, but if that's the standard, then you'd better be Fabio.
And, as with any red blooded hetero male, I surely wouldn't, you know, kick out of bed. Besides, I'm sure the conversation would be infinately superior to the usual female patter.
N. Thelman, SSI
Chris,
Above is diversity for the masses :)
I find it amazing that folks who don't like your posts think you should stop. Why are their opinions stronger than yours? An example of the heckler's veto?
One: no one held a gun to any of these performers' heads to pose the way they did. It's all about the entire package: performance and publicity.
Second: I'm glad you didn't post a picture with one of these artists wearing a Halloween costume, or all Hell would've broken loose instead of a mere 60+ posts!!
Also, welcome to the new puritanism.
kawaii! :D
I don't own any of his records ( his debut CD sounded so so on YouTube ) but enjoyed his live concert/recital very much.
Edits: 11/10/15
Reviewing this thread over the past couple of days, I think it's almost like the old days when likes of Teresa and tinear were with us! In any case, I appreciate it when people are passionate about their beliefs (references to kiddie porn excepted), but I guess what this shows is that irony and humor are still sometimes hard (and misunderstood) on the internet.EDIT: And I'm sure I'll have more posts about snowflake (formerly known as "babe") violinists in the future, I just don't see the conveyor belt easing up. ;-)
Edits: 11/10/15
Ha, thought of Teresa several times this month, when KUSC plays their endless
Cincinnati Pops collection cond. Kunzel. Teresa swore by them, and she listened to them LOUD. Actually, I think she was close to the truth--most of the selected CDs are very pleasant or better. Very robust playing and good sound on FM stereo in my HK equipped car.
Teresa disavowed classical music years ago saying (and I paraphrase) "I just realized I don't like classical music." :-)
Uh, oh, forgot that part. Still, her whole persona humored me. Stubborn.
Almost all of those CDs are Telarc CDS and well engineered as well as fun to listen too
Alan
..
Funny how the anti-babe contingent are attracted to these threads like bears to honey, and are somehow compelled to read through and then comment on things that are hateful to them. Surely they have better things to do. They get so tiresome.
You think everybody is commenting?
Dave
. . . although I have the feeling that, if you did comment, your comments would be more formidable than what we've seen so far on this thread! ;-)
I've commented on the topic before. I realize such comments are falling on deaf ears so I don't bother anymore, and I suspect there are many others in the same boat.
Dave
Including your own
Alan
I see I should have been more explicit, and the comment should have read:
. . . although I have the feeling that, if you did comment, your comments would be more formidable than what we've seen so far from the offendees on this thread! ;-)
Speaking only for myself, I'm somewhat torn betwixt positions here.
One the one hand, I really feel the record labels are focusing on the WRONG issue when promoting their musicians, ie. youth and beauty.
Particularly with young women but even in the case of some of the guys.
But it's been going on for as long as I can remember and that's a long time.
On the other side, if that's indeed what is being sold and promoted by the labels, I guess I can't get too offended when someone dares to comment on the trend.
Commenting on Yuja Wang's style of dress and choice of 4 inch heels is hardly rude.
As the picture above reminds us and I often am forced to remind Chris, they were all young and beautiful once upon a time.
There's a pretty significant difference between "commenting on the trend" and a hundred-plus posts of fawning.
Dave
I know you're tryin' to learn me, but, dang-it, sometimes I'm just not an apt student. ;-)
From the Daily Mail.com
TOP 20 HATED PET NAMES FOR WOMEN.
1. Babe
2. Sweet cheeks
3. Snookums
4. Baby doll
5. Baby girl
6. Muffin
7. Ducky
8. Baby cakes
9. Sexy pants
10. Pudding
11. Muffin
12. Angel pie
13. Pumpkin
14. Puppy
15. Sugar lips
16. Treacle
17. Baby
18. Pickle
19. Honeybun
20. Sugar pie
TOP 20 ACCEPTABLE PET NAMES FOR WOMEN1.
1. Gorgeous
2. Beautiful
3. Lovely
4. Love
5. Darling
6. Honey
7. Sexy
8. Angel
9. Dearest
10. Precious
11. Treasure
12. Snowflake
13. Blossom
14. Sweetie Pie
15. Sexy legs
16. Lover
17. Buttercup
18. Flower
19. Princess
20. Sweetness
Alan
I gotta tell you 'precious' gives me a chill. That was Buffalo Bill's dog's name in the Silence of the Lambs.
Maybe it's a Brit thing?
All I know is, my wife is most offended when someone in public calls her "Honey". So my anecdotal experience doesn't square with the Daily Mail's careful research. ;-)
OTOH, maybe they're right and I should be referring to Snowflake violinists?
Just thinking how much better off I'd be today if you had just shared that list with me 50 or so years ago when it would have done me some good!
Someone averages fewer than 10 posts per year since initial registration on the site, and yet this subject must hit a nerve in such forceful way that the respondent is seized with an uncontrollable compulsion to advertise his boredom with the subject. So for that same poster, there was a response once in September about this subject and now again in November: those two posts represent 20% of his average number of posts for a whole year!
As I mentioned before, usually when I post about babe musicians, the post consists of a graphic plus a short text which can be read in five seconds. If the folks who are offended feel that these posts are a five-second waste of their lives each time, I'd encourage them to skip reading as soon as they see the subject line. Otherwise, their responses become predictable and. . .
Very tiresome. ;-)
Almost every one (of the kind) has a comment about their appearance (not to mention the photo) preceeding discussion of their playing, you clearly make it a qualifier. That's why your denials ring hollow.
Dave
I don't mean to speak for Chris but I am pretty sure the point of the "babe" slant is two fold. 1. To counter balance what he (and I) perceive to be a bias on this and other forums against the current crop of young good looking women in classical music who would be give far more credit for their musical excellence if they were middle aged or older dudes. 2.To either hold a mirror to the faces of those other forum members who are afflicted by this prejudice but are in denial or to have fun at their expense right in front of their faces without them seeing it.
Chris's opinions on their playing is about as independent as it gets from what I have observed.
Of course we are all biased. But it is this one painfully obvious bias that Chris is poking with a sharp stick. So it's no wonder the guilty parties are the one's feeling the jabs.
Chris, if you read this please feel free to correct me if I have misrepresented your intents and purposes. Any or all of them.
I know that's how he likes to couch it, it's all really a joke, but he's trying a bit too hard in that regard for it to be credible. I know, he says good things about their playing so that makes preceeding that with focusing on their appearance/age/babeness ok! He calls it a joke so that also makes focusing on their appearance/age/babeness ok!The truth is, he wouldn't treat women this way in personj because he knows they would object to it for the same reasons that I do and others here do (and no doubt others who aren't bothering to spend their time). If he wants to state here that any interactions he has with women he accompanies begin with comments about how old they look and how attractive they are (but then it's followed with real talk about music!), and that he laughs it off and tells them its his "shtick" I'm all ears.
"But it is this one painfully obvious bias that Chris is poking with a sharp stick. So it's no wonder the guilty parties are the one's feeling the jabs."
To whatever extent he is attempting to "poke" through blantant objectification which is then justified as his "joke", he is merely contributing to the same issues, and really any humor is nowhere to be found. As for the second sentence - that's a convenient yet absurd premise that is also rather tired.
Dave
Edits: 11/15/15
I don't see him "couching it" as a joke. Jokes are just one form of humor. Chris's humor in these threads is not joky. It's there to ruffle the feathers of the people on these and other forums who clearly are suffering from a bias that seems to see any current day classical musician that is also a good looking young woman as popular because of their looks not their talent. The humor lies the effect of the posts. He's not telling jokes with punchlines.
Another point. Chris isn't "treating women" one way or the other with his posts here on this forum. Posting on forums about musicians is simply not connected to how one treats them in person. It's apples and oranges.
I am quite sure that what people say about musicians on audio and music forums is always quite different than what one would say to those musicians in face to face meetings. I am sure that goes for you too.
Personally, I have never had any woman object to me making positive comments on their looks. It usually goes over very well. Maybe my status gives me more latitude than other men in that regard.
And as for the humor in Chris's posts being "nowhere to be found," I have no trouble finding it. It's there. But clearly not everyone is finding it. Ironically that is part of the humor. not just part of it but much of the point of it. Anyway explaining humor pretty much kills it so there is no point in doing so. Especially since I already did it once and Chris seems to think I was on point.
. . . once told my wife that he liked his lessons with me, but, often, he couldn't tell whether I was being serious in what I told him! ;-)
One of my favorite types of humor is the kind found in the film, "Being There", one of the greatest comedies ever captured on film, with Peter Sellers as "Chauncey Gardiner".
nt
. . . particularly so when you're a self-appointed guardian of women's rights and have all the "objectification" jargon at your disposal. What was Timbo's acronym for this? - SNAG (Sensitive New Age Guy). And the ironic thing was that Timbo once described ME as being a SNAG! ;-)Despite what you perceive as my "trying too hard", I assure you that my babe posts arise from a lighthearted attitude about the whole babe phenomenon in the classical music business. For someone to equate this with the cat-calls of construction workers clearly shows that that person doesn't have a clue about the relative direction from which these behaviors originate.
Finally, I guess I'm fortunate in that almost all the girls I accompany are college age and below, so I've never had to tell them that they look old. And even older women can look good too - it seems as if you've forgotten my OP on this thread already! ;-)
Edits: 11/16/15
as you seemed to find out with bald2's mention of "kiddie porn". Whatever your intentions are, it doesn't change the content of your posts.
And suggesting women performers wish to be called "hotties" most definitely equates to cat calls.
"And even older women can look good too - it seems as if you've forgotten my OP on this thread already! ;-)"
It's always about how they look for you, one way or the other.
Dave
Not Chris's. That being they prefer to be called hot or hotties. And it is based on first hand experience with said classical musicians. Ironically even they get the humor in it and are at the same time quite flattered.
And yes, for the record, I personally have called a few classical musician "babes" hot and hottie to their face. No one has been offended so far. No humor has been lost on anyone so far either. Well...no humor has been lost on any of the actual musicians that is.
did you read the post or just the header?
Did you read mine and the post it was responding to? Once again your excitement to argue is causing you to misread and/or imagine things.
If you're going to make a claim about something I said, use a quote.
Dave
It's no wonder you don't see the humor in Chris's posts. Clearly you are missing the humor in mine.
Are you saying that your suggestion that I wasn't being fair and factual was an attempt at humor?
Dave
First layer. Parody. Posts are structured and delivered as to mimic typical argumentative forum posts so i am making fun of that sort of thing on these forums in general.
second layer. Shock humor/absurdist humor silly humor. The content itself was absurd and silly. And was presented to emphasize that.
third layer. Irony. The posts are also ironic because along with being silly, shocking/offensive if taken at face value and absurd....they are also factual.
Hope that helps. But i hate explaining humor since it kills all the funny.
Fair and factual.
You said to Chris..."Whatever your intentions are, it doesn't change the content of your posts.
And suggesting women performers wish to be called "hotties" most definitely equates to cat calls."
Fact. **I** was the one who asserted that young classical musicians prefer to be called hotties and hot instead of babes. Not Chris.
Fairness. It is technically unfair to criticize someone for saying something they did not say
The layer of humor...Parody
Me structuring a response to that mistake on your part in the typical fashion of audio asylum forum arguments. It was not a serious critic of your misattribution of my assertion that young classical musicians prefer to be called hot or hotties rather than babes.
Same thing goes for me criticizing you for your anti construction worker comments. That was pure parody. I'm not really worried that you may have offended the "many" construction workers following this thread. Nor am I worried about sexist attitudes towards construction workers.
Hope that helps.
Hope you can see the humor injected into this post as well.
Thank you for using the quote. You'll notice that it doesn't include words that suggest I was claiming that Chris said that, because I didn't. You read that into it all by yourself because you are so anxious to argue.
Dave
"Thank you for using the quote. You'll notice that it doesn't include words that suggest I was claiming that Chris said that, because I didn't."
Gosh, you did say that in a direct response to one of Chris's posts. If you weren't saying it to Chris who did you think you were saying to? By the way, that question is directed at you Dave Smith. apparently that level of specificity is needed for your understanding even when directly responding to your posts.
"You read that into it all by yourself because you are so anxious to argue."
Anxious to argue? I have already explained to you twice that those posts were parodies of typical audio asylum forum arguments and not actual arguments.
I just have to ask though (and for the record this question is for you, David Smith, just for the sake of clarity {and humor that you probably won't get [again (that includes these multiple brackets of sub explanations)]}) Who were you addressing this comment to if it wasn't Chris?
Your words directly posted to Chris's previous post.
"as you seemed to find out with bald2's mention of "kiddie porn". Whatever your intentions are, it doesn't change the content of your posts.
And suggesting women performers wish to be called "hotties" most definitely equates to cat calls."
Who is the "you" in that comment if it isn't Chris? Why mention that "And suggesting women performers wish to be called "hotties" most definitely equates to cat calls." if you were not attributing that comment to Chris?
For the record the above questions are for you, David Smith. Just for the sake of clarity. (for the record this statement of clarity is for the sake of sarcasm {a form of humor})
Like I said, I knew trying to explain these things to you would be a waste of time.
This comment is for Chris if he happens to be reading these posts.
Are you counting the layers?
If you lost track of that I can't imagine what it must be like to follow the layers of bizarre rationalizations David is laying down in trying to somehow deny that he appeared to have mis-attributed the use of the word "hotties" to you.
All that over a joke he didn't even get....
If you lost track of that I can't imagine what it must be like to follow the layers of Bullshit David is laying down in trying to somehow deny that he appeared to have mis-attributed the use of the word "hotties" to you
If you read the below post, written by Chris, you will find the following words that he wrote;
"For someone to equate this with the cat-calls of construction workers clearly shows that that person doesn't have a clue about the relative direction from which these behaviors originate."
to which I responded in my post by saying
"And suggesting women performers wish to be called "hotties" most definitely equates to cat calls."
Nowhere did I suggest he said it.
Get it now?
Dave
why did you bring that specific word, "hottie" up to Chris in a direct response to *his* post if you didn't think *he* said it?
Here is the entire exchange on the subject of "cat calls" between you and Chris
Chris: "Despite what you perceive as my "trying too hard", I assure you that my babe posts arise from a lighthearted attitude about the whole babe phenomenon in the classical music business. For someone to equate **this** with the **cat-calls** of construction workers clearly shows that that person doesn't have a clue about the relative direction from which these behaviors originate."
David: "as **you** (Chris) seemed to find out with bald2's mention of "kiddie porn". Whatever **your** (Chris's) intentions are, it doesn't change the content of **your** (Chris's) posts.
And suggesting women performers wish to be called "hotties" most definitely equates to cat calls.
"And even older women can look good too - it seems as if **you've** (Chris) forgotten my OP on this thread already! ;-)"
It's always about how they look for **you,**(Chris) one way or the other."
Seriously (And for the record I am not joking here), you are now trying to say that you arbitrarily slipped in the "hotties" subject in the dead middle of making very specific criticisms of things **Chris** says about "classical music babes" despite knowing that Chris never said that? Why would you do that? Do you really really believe that your response to Chris as quoted above does not look clearly like you were attributing the hotties comment to Chris?
This is starting to remind me of the "John Marks is a fraud" incident.
"why did you bring that specific word, "hottie" up to Chris in a direct response to *his* post if you didn't think *he* said it?"
Because HE brought up "catcalls", an obvious reference to my post to you.
"Seriously (And for the record I am not joking here), you are now trying to say that you arbitrarily slipped in the "hotties" subject in the dead middle of making very specific criticisms of things **Chris** says about "classical music babes" despite knowing that Chris never said that?"
There was no "slipping in", let's review - HE brought up my construction workers comment (arbitrarily..). He tried to suggest that it was in response to him, which it wasn't. He said, "for someone to equate *THIS* with catcalls...", "this" being his own comments, and I hadn't said that. So I reiterated what I HAD said because of his attempted distortion. I did leave a space on both sides of that comment to show it was separate from the others. You then come along and attempt the same distortion. NOWHERE did I suggest that he made that comment, despite both his attempt and yours to distort what I did say.
Dave
"Because HE brought up "catcalls", an obvious reference to my post to you."
How is it in ANY way an "obvious" reference to your post to me regarding the word hotties? Here is what Chris said when *he* brought up "Cat calls"
Chris: "Despite what you perceive as **my**(Chris) "trying too hard", I assure you that ***my babe posts***(Chris's BABE POSTS) arise from a lighthearted attitude about the whole babe phenomenon in the classical music business. For someone to equate ***this*** ("THIS" clearly, clearly a pronoun used for the established noun "BABE POSTS") with the cat-calls"
So what should actually be obvious to anyone with a reasonable grasp of the English language is that Chris is clearly talking about *his Babe posts* being equated with "Cat-calls." No mention whatsoever of "hotties" in Chris's post. A post that is clearly and unambiguously talking about *his babe posts* being equated with "cat-calls."
Soooo the question stands, why did *you* bring up "hotties" in your response to Chris if you were not attributing that to him? Clearly your explanation that Chris was referencing me talking about hotties is plainly wrong.
Is John Marks a fraud? ;-)
"So what should actually be obvious to anyone with a reasonable grasp of the English language is that Chris is clearly talking about *his Babe posts* being equated with "Cat-calls."
No shit!!!
As I said in the post directly above, that is exactly how I read it and because I DIDN'T say that I restated what I DID say (in reference to "hotties as opposed to his posts), because I objected to him attempting to put words in my mouth.
Dave
Here is the current argument you are having with yourself
David Smith version 1: "Because HE brought up "catcalls", an obvious reference to my post to you."
David Smith version 2: "No shit!!!" (aparent agreement with the following)"So what should actually be obvious to anyone with a reasonable grasp of the English language is that Chris is clearly talking about *his Babe posts* being equated with "Cat-calls."
just to help mediate this argument you are having with yourself and to make sure you understand you.... If Chris is specifically and clearly talking about **his babe posts** being equated with "cat-calls" he clearly is NOT referencing your post to me. That post makes no reference whatsoever to "hotties" and in fact my post about "hotties" actually was made about 3 hours **after** your post to me. There is no connection.
So which David are you going with? Version 1 or version 2? At this point this is kind of like a rubix cube and I feel compelled to solve it.
I enjoy puzzles.
"That post makes no reference whatsoever to "hotties" and in fact my post about "hotties" actually was made about 3 hours **after** your post to me."
The post to you that I have been referring to all along was in response to your post mentioning "hotties", where I asked if you work in construction. Chris's post about catcalls was made after that one. So I have no idea what post you're talking about 3 hours before your "hotties" post, it has no relevance here whatever it is.
Dave
Why do you think he used the term "catcalls", which otherwise doesn't previously appear anywhere in this thread?
As I said, again...., I read that term in a post to me as a clear reference to my post to you, but with a distortion as my comment was not directed at him.
This is all such a stupid exercise, as I said a million posts ago I don't, wouldn't and didn't attribute "hotties" to him. That is my position and always has been. You'd like to argue in the hopes of suggesting that in one post I did actually do that, though none of my words suggest it, for who knows what satisfaction you get out of it. And you'll argue at least another 30 posts I'm sure. I will not stand for people distorting what I said whether it's you or Chris. I don't know how I could possibly be more clear, Chris seemed to accept that at the first post. If Chris's "catcalls" comment wasn't in reference to my post to you, I'd love to hear why he used that term, but I'd happily accept that he was telling me about someone ELSE equating his posts with catcalls, as odd as that would seem. In any case, I have no need for distorting anyone's words.
Such silliness.
Dave
That may very well be the way you meant it. It was hardly obvious to those of us who reside outside of your head.
Either way it was meant as a joke about who brought the word hotties into the conversation.
Sooooo much of this thread has been about making fun of the subject. If you are taking it all seriously I am genuinely sorry for the misunderstanding. I assure you that all of my comments have been meant to be fun, funny and in a few cases informative but none of them have been meant to be malicious towards you, other posters or women in general. I guess it is the nature of internet forums that such humor often falls between the cracks and posts are taken way too literally and waaaaaay too seriously.
I have no doubt that you are nice and decent guy who loves music as much as the rest of us and would be a cool dude to hang around with. I think maybe you and I and you and Chris just don't get each other in this format of communication.
Now as for my comment that the young good looking women I personally know who are classical musicians preferring to be called hotties or hot rather than babes I'd like to address a few points.
1. It was meant to be funny and ironic on it's face. Of course one might find it offensive if one is not getting that intention. I thought *that* was obvious. I guess it wasn't.
2. It is particularly ironic because it is also actually true. This is actually how they talk. It is current jargon among young folks these days. I assure you that telling a young attractive women that she is hot or calling her a hottie when done in the right context with the right level of personal familiarity is not degrading or objectifying. And most importantly it isn't taken that way by these young ladies. It's banter that actually happens without anyone being offended or feeling objectified. It is actually a compliment.
Believe me, the banter gets an awful lot more risque and downright offensive were it taken seriously. Calling one another hot or hottie is just scratching the surface compared to other things said in fun.
Regarding your "hotties" post I did not see previous use of that on this thread so yes, missed the reference/humor and my apologies for that.I think you are right about this form of communication.
As for part 2 I am familiar with women, including a number who are notable performers. I am also quite familiar with how they feel about discussions of their looks accompanying discussions of their playing, particularly those that are considered more attractive. Of course the context matters a great deal and a compliment is worlds different than repeated experiences of their looks being mentioned and attached to any comments about their playing or career, a la "babe thread". While they probably wouldn't take offense to playful use of the term "hottie" from a personal friend, guys on an internet forum, not so much.
I appreciate the post, as in most cases I think we could get along fine in person, it's odd that it's so much different on the internet.
Dave
Edits: 11/17/15 11/17/15 11/17/15
As explained by Key and Peele and the very talented writer Rich Talerico.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naleynXS7yo
Bling Binzy and D Struggle agree on one thing
. . . I have become ANCIENT in comparison! ;-)
And, BTW, keep that "objectification" language going strong - I'm sure that women need you to tell the rest of the world what equates to cat calls. I get the impression from your posts that women must be too weak to speak up for themselves - so that makes me wonder. . . who is really putting down women?
"I get the impression from your posts that women must be too weak to speak up for themselves."
If you have to put words in my mouth to make a point, you have no point to make.
I strongly suggest you put your money where your mouth is and talk about how attractive all of the women you accompany are before you discuss music with them, and be sure that anytime you are mentioning a woman musician to another woman you don't fail to bring up how attractive or not they are, perhaps keeping some photos handy on your phone or something to show what you're talking about. And let us know how that works out for you, or why you might choose to do things differently.
Dave
David Smith posted: "I strongly suggest you put your money where your mouth is and talk about how attractive all of the women you accompany are before you discuss music with them, and be sure that anytime you are mentioning a woman musician to another woman you don't fail to bring up how attractive or not they are, perhaps keeping some photos handy on your phone or something to show what you're talking about."
I strongly suggest you get a life and stop threadcrapping on the babe threads. This goes for all the rest of the anti-babeists (spelling?) as well.
What have you got to say about JJs recordings? How do you like them?
I'll post as I like, thanks.
Dave
Of course you will.
You completely rejected my "I strongly suggest..." post to you.
And yet you posted an "I strongly suggest..." post to someone else.
Maybe you're a little bit inconsistent in thinking through your interactions with people? You definitely can't accept feedback.
So how do you like JJs recordings?
nt
Nice try, but your words speak for themselves.
It might surprise you to learn that I've occasionally discussed the phenomenon of babe violinists (using that very term) with some of the girls I play for AND their teachers. Unlike your shoot-from-the-hip, insecure reactions, theirs are mature and insightful.
And, BTW, you can suggest to me any behavior you want, but, frankly, I don't need to prove anything to you.
That makes no sense.
.
You have a small number of comments that you posted here on AA over the years. A significant percentage of those posts is devoted to being outraged at my babe musician posts, while just over 1% of my total posts are devoted to babe musicians. So. . . yes, I think that's odd. Does it make sense now?
I'm tired of your "babe" posts because you have posted over 100 of them to this forum. This has nothing to do with how many times you or I have posted on other topics.
But you can't stay away from them.
Very tiresome.
The way the music labels promote women as classical musicians is indeed...
Very tiresome.
Anne Sophie Mutter knows exactly what she's doing, and what she's doing is all business and economic self-promotion. Most women in business today know better than to let themselves be exploited and then tossed aside when they pass 30. She in particular has done a good job handling her professional career.
That said, DG is the worst offender when it comes to 'babe' musicians on the cover.
And yes, Ann-Sophie Mutter pulled every string available, including playing HvK like a mandolin and so on, to make it to the top.
But her Sibelius VC is as good as anyone's, so there is that.
By the way, what's Andre Previn got that I ain't got?
Here's something to make the anti-babe folks ecstatic....
I guess it's OK for her to hold the violin as long as she doesn't try to play it!
But he was married to some beauties over the years.
. . . a big part of the classical recording business and marketing strategy these days, particularly for the major labels, is concerned with how photogenic their artists are. I'm merely a dispassionate observer who finds a bit of humor in it all. So don't complain to me - complain to DG and Decca instead. But somehow, I doubt that they'll listen to you - after all, they don't want to jeopardize sales. ;-)
Granted my experience is limited to Yuja Wang but that experience runs completely contrary to the idea that " a big part of the classical recording business and marketing strategy these days, particularly for the major labels, is concerned with how photogenic their artists are."
With Yuja very little effort or expense goes into her album covers. DG hardly even did anything for her Rach/Prok cover art. It was barely an after thought and in the end Yuja had them use (as per her request) from some other unrelated photo shoot she had done months earlier.
Hardly the MO of a business strategy as you describe.
I'm sure I've seen a couple with Yuja. Lisa too. The artist formerly known as Yundi Li too. And that's just DG. Also, there seems to be a series of special photo shoots and publicity shots that becomes available with certain new releases. For instance, consider Lisa's "Echos of Time" release:
(The booklet cover)
Other photos in the shoot:
Again I can only speak for Yuja on this subject but then again she is certainly the most obvious suspect is she not?
I did her makeup for her photoshoot for The Rach/Prok CD. Yeah...it was more or less organized by DG. The photographer was the wife of somebody already connected to the Simon Bolivar Orchestra. Not an actual fashion photographer. Just somebody's wife who did local sports photography. We shot in and around the concert hall.
Compared to the many publicity photoshoots I have done for film and TV this was beyond low budget and clearly was not given much thought at all. If that is in anyway representative of DG's focus on marketing I'd say they should fold tent now and cut their losses. And of course Yuja decided at the last minute not to use the photos for the CD cover and had them use photos from a non DG sponsered photoshoot.
So, yeah, they do photoshooots. Barely.....
This is quite clear from Lisa's "Echoes of Time" photo shoot (posted above), with its edgy surroundings and duotone processing. And regardless of whether the shoot was low-budget or not, these pictorial style booklets for classical releases seem to have come of age during the advent of babe (and boy-babe) musicians during the early to mid-2000's. The booklets differ in a fundamental way from what we used to get with the tired, stale, text-only CD booklets for classical (which had been the norm previously). I can't help but feel that this must have been a deliberate marketing decision on the part of executives at some level, but of course I don't know for sure.
It probably is as you say. But I think there is a misconception (not necessarily yours but in general) as to the mechanisms behind such things. It seems to me that there is this idea that there is a massive "industrial marketing complex" behind these artists. Having seen a bit of it I would have to say it is anything but that. I'd say it's much closer to college student art project than researched targeted marketing. Again only speaking from my experience with Yuja. This stuff is very shoot from the hip. You don't see a team of marketing specialists sitting in on the recordings or photoshoots. In fact the absence of any such presence was quite surprising to me.
I'd say your "dispassionate observer" status expired after the first dozen.
Not to mention that those "over 100" babe musician posts are out of a sum of over 7,000 posts, and thus represent barely over 1% of my total. Also consider that some of those "over 100" posts are defenses of babe musicians against the slings and arrows of responding posters who would disparage them. ;-)
Illegitimi non carborundum.
. . . seem awfully passionate about the subject, and I respect that. ;-)
Not everyone sees all the layers of humor in your posts
You don't respect that because if you did you would stop. Maybe you were brought up to disrespect women and that is what you continue to do.
Alan
As far as respect goes, I've seen a number of posts on these babe musician threads where posters exhibit a shoot from the hip attitude to the effect that if the performers are photogenic, then their interpretations can't possibly be any good - that somehow, they must have gotten their recording contracts just by virtue of their physical attractiveness. As a listener here who has ACTUALLY HEARD these babe-musician recordings, I'm often in a position to point out the scurrilous nature of these anti-babe posts - which I'm proud to do. Respect indeed!
I didn't complain about your "babe" posts, and I'm still not. But if you keep making them, you've got to accept the inevitable responses like a mensch (pardon the colloquialism). Comes with the territory.
One poster above was pointing out the number of your copiously illustrated babe posts, which he apparently feels is unduly large, and a second was saying you weren't being sufficiently respectful of women. Neither was saying the babes themselves weren't worthy musicians. I don't necessarily agree with them, but it seems like you're getting your nose out of joint over nothing. As you just said, "talk about irony!" It runs both ways.
Edits: 11/10/15
. . . with the somewhat hysterical responses of the offendees (confederate flag, kiddie porn, etc.), and then determine who is getting their noses out of joint. There might be some irony that runs both ways, but to say that it's equivalent on both sides is clearly unfair.
Really, anyone who is willing and able to perform the piano reduction of the Nielsen flute concerto, on short notice no less, has my respect and admiration. But I'll have to pass on your suggestion that I reread the posts in this thread. I'm not sure what I gained by reading them the first time. ;)
You really believe you are on the correct side of this issue. What is stopping you from simply saying I see the point of view that I am insulting women and not wanting to do that I will stop the babe posts. Even some southerners have seen how hurtful the confederate flag is and are taking it down. Do the same
Alan
What world do you live in?What is stopping you from simply saying I see the point of view that I am insulting women and not wanting to do that I will stop the babe posts.
I do see your point of view and I see that it's political correctness run amok! But perhaps as a temporary expedient (so as not to offend delicate sensibilities), I 'll use the term "snowflake violinist" (formerly known as babe violinist).
You have a degree of arrogance in flattering yourself that you speak for all women.
Edits: 11/10/15
I speak for myself
Alan
That's no excuse for your comments. Stop already.
Alan
Please take my posts in the ironic spirit in which they were intended. ;-)
I won't and nobody should
Alan
You do realize that you are among the butts of this on going joke do you not? Of course not.
The "major label" defense seems more than a bit disingenuous to me. Are there threads here about pictures on Decca and DG covers of, say, Joshua Bell, Pierre Boulez, Joseph Calleja, Rolando Villazon, Gustavo Dudamel, Misha Maisky (complete with open shirt and hairy chest:) and so forth...? I think not.
I'm not passing judgment at all. Lord knows that I also like attractive and sexy women and have been known to do my share of objectifying them. And this is definitely what is going on-- let's be honest. If the shoes fit, we should all be ready to man up, as they say, and wear them.
Harry
"That's Mischa Maisky, M I S C H A!"
"And that's not chest hair. That's a SOLID GOLD necklace I wear under my open shirt collar when I'm not playing my Cello in a 'wife beater' T-shirt!"
Really? Hard to believe.
This whole objectification discussion certainly has its place in society as a whole, but it's hard for me to take it seriously in an enterprise as dependent on its "show business" aspects as music (even classical music) is. But for those who are seriously offended by the "objectification" of musical performers, the answer is obvious: don't look at them! Meanwhile, those of us in the real world will continue to feel free to comment on the visual aspects of the music biz too. And, BTW, I can't listen to Misha Maisky's recordings - I keep thinking about his hairy chest and it distracts me from my concentration on the music! ;-)
One last thing: I think your mention of Dudamel doesn't further your argument, since DG markets him as a kind of matinee idol, just as Sony did with Esa-Pekka Salonen before The Dude (at least in LA). And as I've posted before, DG's marketing of Yundi Li (oops! I mean Yundi!) is every bit as obvious in its of promotion of sex appeal (including full color "pictorials" in the CD booklets) as their marketing of any of their female artists.
With all due respect, I think you miss my point. Perhaps I was not clear. To argue that the major labels use sex to sell CDs is what I meant as disingenuous; the threads here have only been about "babes" but never about men on CD covers. This is certainly because the overwhelming majority of us who post here are men. And still, to scapegoat the record labels because they objectify artists is not much of an excuse, it seems to me. I don't think this is just a matter of pointing out what the labels are doing; we all have eyes. The threads are a relatively constant flow of "babe alert" photos, followed by posts about the relative talent of the musicians. The argument that, in essence, "they all do it so we're just following their lead" is just more obfuscation. I'm not a puritan at all, and that's not the point. This isn't quite like using sexy women to sell cars or cigarettes, but close enough to my mind to qualify as starfucking or kiddie porn:)
Wow!. . . just. . . Wow!So my OP on this thread makes an observation that JJ is looking a bit older on her new booklet cover than her 37 years. And from this, you get kiddie porn?
As I say, Wow!. . . just. . . Wow!
Edits: 11/10/15
Wow, indeed My comments weren't related to your original post but to your responses in the thread and the general discussion. i presume that you get this.
Yet speaking of which, I have yet to see a thread about a male musician looking older. This is what sensible women seem to object to, and I cant say I blame them. I have had my comeuppance on those grounds...
Although you're doubling down with generalities, it's clear you are hoist with your own petard, and it's also clear that the porn is in your own mind.
I guess that dozens of babe alert posts are not specific enough to point out, so I am the one hoist by my petard? That is pure projection if I have ever seen it. This is hilarious:) Stick with defending Liszt. You're far better at that.
And bt the way, if digging babe photos on CD covers are your thing, go for it! There are worse habits out there....
In the nineteenth century they used to market superficial pretty boys with great technical chops.
Indeed!
Maybe I'm delusional, but I hear such depth to so much of Liszt's music, and it's hard for me to reconcile comments from the peanut gallery about him. Some of it is pure ignorance, such as Ezra Pound's amateurish assertion that Liszt didn't know much about chords {!}. I swear, if anybody knew about chords, it was Liszt!
(Not that I don't like Chopin too!)
I couldn't agree more. I love Liszt. The Annees de Pilgrimages, Piano Sonata, Consolations, tone poems and great songs and choral music. Much of it sublime...
And good enough for Lenny, who (following Stravinsky's famous quip about great composers stealing) took the late Bagatelle without Tonality and used it, Note for Note, as one of the main themes of West Side Story. The majority of trained musicians don't know this, I suspect, let alone enthusiasts...
Harry Z
. . . I'd be surprised if this were really true. Could have been unconscious, I suppose. You say it appears in one of the main themes of WSS note for note, but exactly which theme did you have in mind? (Or if it's not in one of the songs, then what action is it associated with?)
But Bernstein did make some snarky comments about Liszt - one I remember is that the Faust Symphony is the one work that saves Liszt from being a forgettable composer.
there's no point in arguing with you about all the babe posts. The funny thing is, when I post pictures of a competent but unspectacular Italian soprano who happens to be stacked, you listen to some of her recordings and report that you find her to be a competent but unspectacular soprano. I guess when it comes to irony, you have a transmitter but not a receiver. ;-)
The irony is passing right over my head.
I love that the anti-babe contingent considers itself to be on the 'respect for women' side of things. Right. In the same sense that the 'let's keep our women shrouded' population of the world claims to be protecting them.
Let's get real here.
The anti-babe folks here hate women. They are unable to celebrate in a female musician's beauty. They resent that someone blessed with musical talent could also be blessed with physical beauty. They are intimidated by female flesh. A bare shoulder is too much for them. They cannot emotionally handle an image of an attractive female and rather than admit how much it excites them they rail against it so no one will know the truth.
Why the grudge against beautiful female musicians? Has being physically repulsive to women over the course of their lives caused a deep resentment that they suffer from? If any of you anti-babe folks are beautiful then please post a pic to prove it.
Are you kidding. Who has said I don't appreciate a women's beauty? I don't appreciate referring to women as babe. By the way I need to ask Chris since you are in the musical world, when you meet some of these female violinists do you say, " Hey Babe, how are you doing." or would you feel it was inappropriate?
Alan
I always use their names or nicknames, just as I did in the OP of this thread. A very high percentage of the high-school and college girls I work with are in fact babes however!Many years ago, I did run in to a cellist who told me that one of her other acquaintances always greeted her with the words, "Hey, babe!". Far from being offended by this, she was rather amused by it and found it rather endearing - part of the other person's charm.
It's presumptuous to think that one can speak for all women and lay down laws of political correctness by forbidding the use of a harmless descriptor. If a girl told me she didn't like the use of the word, babe, then of course I wouldn't use it (not that I do anyway). When some guy on a discussion board tells me not to use that word, I start to wonder how this kind of arrogance originated.
Edits: 11/11/15
Babe is very 20-30 years ago. IME the musicians you speak of prefer to be called hot or hotties.
Yes, no doubt they LOVE it when people call them that. Particularly accompanying and preferably preceeding any discussion of their playing.
Do you work in construction?
Dave
So eager to be the defender of womanhood and yet so arrogant to cast aspersions on an entire class of workers.
Guilty of the same sort of thing you're whining about.
Why are you stereotyping construction workers? Seems kind like a sexist objectification of a group of people who do very important work.
You're trying a bit too hard
It felt effortless. What is it you think I was "trying?"
Nope, I am a makeup artist.
CFL said "When some guy on a discussion board tells me not to use that word, I start to wonder how this kind of arrogance originated."
I'm always suspicious of males who adopt the roles of protectors of womanhood.
All of the shrouded women in the world are the beneficiaries of such protection.
There are the fortunate women made to hide behind sheets at public gatherings by the males who care for them so very much.
And then there are the fathers who are so protective and obsessed with their daughter's sexuality that they hold public 'purity balls' at which the daughter pledges her virginity to her father until she marries.
Last but not least, the female musicians of the world are protected and defended by the Music Lane anti-babers.
Imagine if the anti-babers took over the music world. There would be a chaperone at every concert to be sure female musicians dressed modestly before appearing in public. A censor would be present at each photo shoot to ensure not too much of that titillating skin showed up on album covers. And the anti-babe contingent would be content and at peace.
Not to mention operas such as "Salome". ;-)
I was (gently and in the spirit of good-natured fun) poking fun at your propensity for posting photos of women musicians and commenting on their looks, dress, etc. Which you often do. The soprano I posted about, Maria Luigia Borsi, is good enough, imo, but is hardly the next Maria Callas. What really stands out, particularly in the publicity photos she no doubt approved of, are her very large breasts, which her low cut dresses can barely contain. So, here is a golden opportunity for you to talk about appearance and attire. Get it?
My playfully ironic jibe passed you by completely unnoticed, and you responded something to the effect that you listened to her and didn't hear anything very special. Of course you didn't, she isn't, and that wasn't the point. But I think I'm done with this too-humorless thread.
Can't sayI blame you for being done. Even my playful references to starfucking and kiddie porn were taken seriously:)
Nevertheless, I'd suggest that you take care with your "playful" references to kiddie porn.
And of course you will take care of your babe references
Alan
They've come out in droves. They're swarming.
Really, bluemooze? You compare me with an annoying insect? I'm not one of those piling on Chris here. But if he posts about the nude violinist in Playboy (which he has done), or complains that Julia Fischer appeared on stage in an unsexy outfit because she was pregnant (which he has also done), or that a 37-year old female violinist is no longer hot (which he did here), then he is going to have to gracefully accept a certain amount of indignant backlash (not from me, that's just too boring).
So Chris's righteous indignation at the righteous indignation of his critics is all a bit amusing. Everyone should just chill, imho.
[edited to remove good-natured attempt at humor, which doesn't seem to be appreciated at the moment.]
Edits: 11/10/15
Playboy is pretty mainstream, and I didn't force the violist to pose for the magazine. I just reported about it.
J-Fi in a pregnancy gown - guilty as charged.
If you'll check, I don't believe I used the word "hot" with respect to JJ.
On the righteous indignation side, we've got comparisons to the Confederate flag and references to kiddie porn.
Equivalent? Not by a long shot.
The first step to s admitting you have a problem. There is no need to be ashamed or to feel judged. The photos of hot young violinists can be pretty damned exciting, after all....
I'm not sure why I even got in to any of this. I enjoy your posts, and if one comes along that doesn't interest me, I don't have to read it, right? I just think things should be kept good-natured, fun and friendly by everyone. No need to get into humorless slugfests or name calling (did someone just call me a bug?), I sure regret it when I succumb to the temptation. And I'm sorry if my kidding around offended you. That wasn't intended. Peace and love, I'm outta here.
That makes two of us. I rarely come here anymore, and I couldn't rsist this time. Kind of like watching a train wreck.. I suppose that I made it worse, which I regret. Time to find a real forum for conversations about classical music recordings and performers.
Harry
But I think you're still playing the role of the offended innocent. You couldn't resist WATCHING a train wreck? I think you were one of the main switchmen! ;-)
And, BTW, if you have truth and justice on your side, you should not regret what you posted. I know I don't. ;-)
I don't regret what I wrote. I do regret wasting time and energy on negativity, and participating in the thread was not a positive choice. I don't find the topic particularly uplifting. By contrast, I completely endorse your advocacy of and views on Liszt!
Go well-
Harry
Thanks for posting! It's on Tidal, and I expect to give it a listen tonight.
Another unnecessary sexist comment. If it was a man you would never make that comment.
Alan
I think it is a stunning picture.
Maybe she's over thirty.
It's a real shame.
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
I'll handle things, from here on...
. . . I had to get an objective opinion, and Madeline says that even with all the presumable Photoshop enhancements in the cover photo, she thinks Janine looks about 40-45 in that pic, not her actual age of 37. She's probably been grabbing for a lot of gusto in life, and she's burning out fast!Think I'll wait and see what the babe violinist conveyor belt brings us in the next few months! ;-)
Edits: 11/09/15
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: