Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
Qobuz comes through.
It's been available and in the catalog, put for purchase only since jdaniel mentioned it a couple weeks ago.
Finally available for streaming and I get to hear what all of the fuss was about.
So far quite enjoyable.
Those 2 pieces aren't the best Beethoven - by a long shot.
Jerry Dubins even said so in a recent "Fanfare", altho he was subsequently shot down and flamed to a crisp for it [sho' know how that feels].
But, it's just not that great. Am I missing something? Is there something you can point out that I should have another listen to?
OTOH - I agree with your enthusiasm about Sudbin. I've got his little known Rach Son #1 CD - now that's a piece!
Severius! Supremus Invictus
Every review of the Tchaikovsky trio had to put the music down. Finally he's stopped reviewing new recordings of it.
And much early Beethoven is delightful, even the light stuff like the septet and the string quintets.
Why would you want to deprive yourself of enjoying these concertos? A work can be less than Beethoven's best and still be an excellent piece of music.
When it comes to a few of B's late works, including--I'm ashamed to admit--much of Missa Solemnis, I applaud myself for making it through to the end.
The piece looks good on paper but is a bit Reger-esque, IMHO. An example of Beethoven trying too hard. I like the Sanctus, though.
...in comparison with Beethoven.
the 1st is unusually lovely. Chopin and Saint Saens (of the 5PC) were surely listening.
Ivan's "finally" had more to do with the release appearing on his streaming site.
QOBUZ used to release a lot of European stuff for Lossless FLAC streaming long before it became readily available here in the US.
Lately, even though the new release is 'announced' on the streaming service, you can only stream a 30 second mp3 with the option to purchase a Hi-Rez download.
Sometimes, if one is patient, the new releases will eventually be in the regular lossless FLAC streaming catalog.
Sometimes, but not always.
These guys don't seem to get it...
Ever wondered why there are no female participation in these discussion forums?
. . . ready to come to their aid here! -because, obviously, these knights in shining armor think that women would be too weak to defend themselves in the fun discussions about fashion and concert etiquette we sometimes have on this board! ;-)
You heap scorn and derision on someone just for pointing out that women almost never participate here? That's just a factual observation, and a pretty accurate one, as far as I can tell.
I guess Analog Scott's explanation for these posts of yours is accurate.
It's all in good fun - the "knights in shining armor" phrase is way too mild to be characterized as "scornful and derisive". In any case, if the shoe fits. . .
It seems to me there are precious few women here, but that's just an impression I had.
I'm a big fan of freedom of expression, and don't think women need me to argue on their behalf in casual discussion group on the internet, so I won't get my pants in a bunch over your babe posts from that point of view.
But if heaping scorn and ridicule on those who dislike the babe posts is the real motive, as Analog Scott suggests, I'm not so thrilled about it. As it is, much of the internet is devoted to beautiful babes. The WSJ, NY Times and other major media have written about the porn industry on the internet and the numbers are amazing. And in the non-porn context, beauty is one of the main tools in the internet's and our society's entertainment and relentless sales pitch.
This forum is a bit of an internet refuge for those who have a serious interest in music. Nothing wrong with beautiful women writing or playing that music, but many here feel this is one place on the internet where music can be the central topic, rather than hot babes. No need to ridicule or deride those who feel that way.
Why don't you keep posting about the babe musicians, but focusing on the music with fewer pictures and without pet names or implied or actual references to their hotness? Trust me, I can figure out when a musician (or any woman) is hot without your help. Those who want to look at the hot babes can do that, while those who want to focus on the music without distraction can do that. ;-)
"But if heaping scorn and ridicule on those who dislike the babe posts is the real motive, as Analog Scott suggests"
Not what I intended to suggest. Poking fun is what I was suggesting. Parody was what I literally said. I see a pretty wide chasm between poking fun/ parody and Heaping scorn and ridicule
on whether one is the teller of the joke or the butt of the joke, pardon my idiom.
one's ability to take a joke and have fun at their own expense. IMO the reaction to Chris's "babe" posts are far more telling than the posts themselves. Why do those posts touch such a nerve and yet so many genuinely mysogynistic posts get a free pass and even worse, majority agreement?
I see a substantial amount of mysogynistic assertions about young attractive classical musicians that in many cases fester into absurd conspiracy theories about art and business that have no basis in reality. I think the mysogyny has to run pretty deep for that to happen. And it happens quite often and even worse, I see these absurd ideas being accepted as fact by a pretty broad group of classical music fans.
As I mentioned before, a number of these musicians are friends of mine and one is very close friend. So yeah, I do take a particular pleasure in watching Chris call this stuff out without folks even realizing they have been called out.
I suppose it's the folks that don't get all that and really think Chris is being demeaning to women with his "babe" posts that are the ones that are perhaps innocent vicitims of Chris's pokes. But I really can't see how one can mistake the content of Chris's "babe" posts with actual mysogynistic content.
I'm tempted to call BS on that charge. BTW, who was the supreme court justice who said he couldn't define porn, but he knew it when he saw it? I like to think that I know it when I see it too. And my posts ain't it - not by a long shot.
Otherwise, I'm not so much in disagreement with your post, except to note that my posts about babe musicians usually include only one pic per post. (I know, there are exceptions from time to time.) And these pics usually originate from either the artists' own websites, or from various arts organizations (as in my OP in this thread about Alexandra [Soumm]). So the artists themselves are obviously comfortable with these photos - and if they're comfortable, then why is there such a fuss among our holier-than-thou contingent on this topic? And if, as you suggest, hot babes are the real topics of my posts, then why don't I bring in pics of non-musician babes? No. Even with the babe musician posts, my discussion is primarily about their music making - except when the pious partisans of women's rights arise to wreak havoc on my threads, and then I spend my time fending off their sanctimonious charges. Yeah, I'm tired of it too, but I'm not going to allow it to limit my freedom to post about what I want.
p.s.: And I would remind you that YOU defended the Charlotte Moorman picture posted below, which easily falls into more conventional notions of pornography. And if I understand your defense correctly, that was OK because Charlotte was doing conceptual performance art and she had gone to Julliard (which made her superior to the babe musicians I post about?) Pretty weak stuff there. Furthermore, to blame my posts for the fact there that are few women here is disingenuous in the extreme. So let me get this straight: there were lots of women here before I joined up, and now they've all disappeared because of my posts? Maybe I should try to find Christine Tham and Teresa and ask them why they left! ;-)
Another Alexandra Soumm pic from (where else?) a legitimate arts organization!
That would be exactly the kind of silly insult hurling that I think should be avoided. I'm not even sure why you're arguing with me. I like beautiful women. I like pictures of beautiful women. You are more than entitled to post them all over the internet, as far as I'm concerned. But here, I'm looking more for discussions about music, that's all. No big deal.
As for Charlotte Moorman, well, I said I'm not such a big fan. I do think she was legit, part of the 1960s multimedia avant-garde movement that led to a lot of the multimedia work we take for granted today. And a much better musician than Yoko Ono, also part of that movement and vastly more famous. I might argue that her performing topless and nude so much was a mistake, as it ends up being the main thing she's remembered for. She might reply that I'm a prudish, mysogynist old white man, and full of sh#t.
Oh well, we won't resolve that. But I have to respect her for participating in the development of what was essentially a new art form, rather than just recording Rachmaninoff and Chopin cello sonatas, which she could probably have done very well, but which many others had already done, and continue to do today. People like that play a crucial role in the art world, imo.
But, all the same, you bring in your reference to the porn industry, and then it becomes guilt by association.
Boys-Club Humor may have outlived its uselessness.
Try it for awhile, why not?
I mentioned knights in shining armor defending women!
The Babe/Nickname thing has wornout its welcome to most here.
It's not a question of defending Women.
If some Female Pianist wants to show 90% of her Thighs, that's sad, right up there with the Kardashians, IMO.
The Younger Generations have a more than a little touch of the exibitionist in them.
It's what Celebrities do, why not them to?
The sexy-profile may sell CDs, but it doesn't merit constant comment.
And you brush-off criticism like an experienced Politician.
Stick to the Music, and favorite Artists, not Favorite Pouty Babes.
You're better than that.
For all of Chris's babe posts that get the forum all riled up *THIS,* your post, is actually a fine example of part of the real issue of sexism amongst classical music fans. Your post is the one that should get the forum riled up. But watch... just about everyone will agree with you.
More power to Chris!
Sorry dude but you just demeaned a whole generation of young talented artists. Do you even begin to get that though?
Man, that's veering towards old geezer type comments. ("In my day, we wouldn't have shown so much as an ankle!")
The reason the babe/nickname comments seem constant to you is because more and more new recordings are, in fact, by babe musicians. And the reason for that is that these musicians are often the best (or among the best) current exponents of the given repertoire. Thus, you (and others here) ought to be able to understand why my favorite artists are, quite often, my favorite pouty babes. If someone here doesn't like a particular babe musician recording, I'm certainly willing to listen to that. But when people go ballistic and get on the war path just because they see the b-word or a nickname or a first-name reference, that shouldn't be my problem (although frequently it is my problem, because I'm not going to let this kind of irrationality go unanswered).
EDIT: BTW, who set this current thread (which was supposed to be about Sudbin's recording of the Beethoven Concertos) off in this direction? I can assure you it was not me! ;-)
I'm not sure it comes across as as funny as you might think anymore.
See my post above about established inmates who now fear to comment here because of all the flak that gets fired towards any post about babe musicians.
There's a growing list of people who think you are off-base.
I wish you would just give it up.
Actually, they look like they may like to don the kilt.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: