In Reply to: Penetrating Analysis of the Rudy Van Gelder Sound posted by Severius! on November 12, 2002 at 22:26:23:
Guys, I appreciate all of the points you took the trouble to make. I honestly didn't think anyone would even look at that Bluenote board post, much less take the time to comment.
But, I wish assure everyone that my intention was not to suggest that the MUSIC on BN was of inferior quality. Come on - Louis Armstrong's recordings are of rather poor fidelity, but that doesn't stop anyone interested in them from enjoying them.
So, to make a point: THE MUSIC STANDS ON ITS OWN. My focus was on the recorded sound, specifically.
Secondly, I actually enjoy most BN records (I'm amassing gobs of them). I like Gelder's clear, warm sound. My post was more in the vein of critical article examining a facet of a subject, and perhaps deconstructing commonly held beliefs or opinions.
I don't feel that I was disrespectful toward BN or RVG; a critical look at something doesn't amount to flaming abuse. Nor was I complaining. Again - NOT complaining. I was, as I said, offering a critical examination.
"Critical" as in "careful examination"; not necessarily negetive - could be positive.
When you arrogantly describe your own post as "penetrating" then people are going to go out of their ways to bring you down a notch just to teach you a little humility.
Normally critics just write "My Analysis of Joe Schmukarelli's Novel", not "My Brilliant Analysis of Joe Schukarelli's Novel."
Finally, your analysis was NOT terribly penetrating. I would describe it as a a well-organized list of criticisms that have been made many times by many other other people.
Just to compound your ignorance you state Louis Armstrongs recordings are of a "poor fidelity"
Well, being blessed with a collection of mostly excellent condition Armstrong Okeh 78's, I can say you are full of merd.
Playing those 60-70 year old records thru an EV Aristocrat, Dyna MK III and PAM pre with the correct cartridge for 78's is a treat. These discs have a sound, that is involving and dynamic. Bass content , highs that are briliant and a generally coherent sound from what were "direct to disc" recordings made 70 years ago!
It's really awful when everything one posts is received with suspision and hostility. Others, posting much the same content, are not subject to the same treatment.
Anyway, nearly everyone misunderstood my ballads post.
I did NOT say ballads are hateful, bad, unworthy, or any of the things that people THINK I said about them.
What I DID say is I - and only I - hate ballads. See the difference?
Not "ballads are bad'. NOT that.
But, I, personally; me, myself, I, only me, I don't like ballads.
Since nearly everyone here thinks that it's ok to like or dislike any music one wishes to like or dislike without being subject to disapproval, I don't see why the same courtesy isn't extended to me.
A few months ago, a bunch of guys posted that they hate Mahler and Bruckner. Many went on to ridicule both composers. I don't recall anyone taking them to task for their opinions.
Severius, since you asked about hostility you have perceived.....In my view that answer is fairly simple, when most people post their intent is to inform the reader of things the reader might find relevant. When you post, your manner of doing so suggests all you are interested in is the attention you draw to your self for your post, i.e. self aggrandizement. I think this is unfortunate for i believe you have much of value to share.
oh, severius!, you're smart enough to know better than that! "it's the singer, not the song." capice?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: