|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
4.235.203.214
a
Follow Ups:
tinear,In an era when art is minimialised- even made to appear suspect as "elite", and villified as anti-authoritarian, it seems even more important to maintain artistic integrity and support clarity of authorship. If the public ceases to care about authorship, it further degrades creativity and individuality of expression. If plagiarism is to be rewarded by complacency, it suggests an increasingly low respect for intellectual property.
There is of course, when something is copied and sold, it's stealing the bread from the artist's children and all that- the ever present economic aspect. Of course BC must have made money- and he wisely kept his costs and overhead low, low, low by stealing- but his apologist stance is that this was a loving tribute to his wife is the most interesting aspect of the scandal for me. The irony is that all his efforts will make the name "Hatto" will for eternity be synonymous with "fake", and "stolen" and on it's own it dimishes his wife legacy as Barrington-Coupecable is sort of saying to his wife, "For your legacy, we want these recordings to be really good, so we need to get a better pianist than you".
I don't however, think there is an important failure on the part of critics, but I certainly would have been suspicious of the miraculous productivity and of such diverse and difficult repetoire with a specialist's touch ovr a wide range.
Thanks to the fine line between cable news and stupid entertainment, there will be the inevitable TV movie. "Theft, Lies, Sex, Death, and Godowsky: the Joyce Hatto Story". The story line that implies Hatto was murdered with gradual poisoning by agents of Anna Nicole Smith, who was earlier thwarted by former lover Barrington Coupe to launch an operatic career by stealing Joan Sutherland recordings, will be controversial and pull in millions of viewers. I see Linda Hamilton as Hatto and Kelsey Grammer as Barrington-Coupe. Pamela Anderson Lee as Anna Nicole Smith. Cameo appearance by Milli Vanilli as Barrington-Coupe's attorney. Production accounting by Arthur Andersen. Millions will be made and Clifford Irving can write the book.
--No, artistic moral chaos must be checked at the door when the few opportunities today allow.
Cheers,
NT.
The Boston Marathon has had many famous winners whose names many of us know. But: they're all men. From the women's Boston Marathon only one name avails: Rosie Ruiz. She's the one who leaped into the race at midpoint and crossed the finish line first. In other words, a hoax.Here's a paragraph that puts this into Hatto context:
It is unfortunate that one of the most memorable events in running lore--for both runners and non-runners alike--is not a hard-fought victory in a race, or a true act of sportsmanship, but is rather Rosie Ruiz's "victory" in the 1980 Boston Marathon. In these days of on-course video cameras, elite starts, chips, and checkpoints, it is amazing to think that anyone could have perpetrated, even for a short time, such an obvious hoax, but in the relatively unsophisticated world of road racing in the early '80s, although there were those who were suspicious from the start, it actually took a few days before the truth won out.
"I certainly would have been suspicious" means what? With the writing of a single sentence you are suggesting essentially that "mistakes were made" across the entire population of gushing critics that YOU quite possibly would have avoided (if being a professional critic was what you were positioning yourself as being) -- and I can easily agree with you. If I were a professional critic, I would make it my duty to dig into the details of an artist before making judgement the same way I apply "due diligence" to what I ACTUALLY get paid to do day-to-day. In fact, I would do so DOUBLY with an unknown such as Hatto who was suddenly attracting the spotlight. 99% of the critics that chimed in did so by faith (no, this is not a real statistic!:-).So, I'm not sure I get to quite the same conclusion that you do based upon the same information. I've read some of the "defences" that discuss the idea that "no one can know it all, hear it all etc.", but THAT'S not the point: Hatto was a comet, and it's surprising that more attention wasn't cast upon the phenomenon sooner by the folks that paid to do so. Also, and this is not intended as a comment about your post, I can easily see folks that are in the business of "fast and loose facts" come to the defence of critics. One must protect one's own, eh?;-)
SE,When I wrote "I certainly would have been suspicious", I AM suggesting mistakes were made in the critical world. I had a radio programme on Los Angeles FM for six years epecifically devoted to classical keyboard and I was responsible for content and commentary, making me a demi-critic. If any pianist released over 100 CD's in two or three years and everyone was praising them to the heavens- I know I would have questioned the phenomenon- just as you say you would. When Lang Lang became an overnight sensation, I certainly looked behind that hollow shell.
And while the critical community seems proto-idiotic in not realising what was going on, it is also difficult to recognise every pianist by their playing style- could you separate Ashkenazy from Perhia, Schiff from Hewitt, Arrau from Backhaus? One element of this fraud that's interesting is that it may have succeeded because it was unprecedented in scale- so large and blatant, no one thought to question the most fundamental aspect- who was really playing- everyone took B-C at his word and focussed on the details of the playing.
It seems like the bigger the lie, the easier it is to propogate. So, I understand this kind of critical slip happening- for awhile. But, not for as long as occurred. I agree with you, ",..it's surprising that more attention wasn't cast upon the phenomenon sooner".
I'm not sure I understand who you mean who are "in the business of fast and loose facts", unless you mean Fox News, because critics should be- and often are- as careful as any journalist in striving for accuracy. No one questions success like critics. The Hatto incident is a call to renew that striving in the critical world.
Cheers,
No one in particular, but everyone in general that presents information with certitude that hasn't done their basic research -- and I believe, to your last point, that it happens a great deal (more now than ever), and that it should point towards "renewed striving" for accuracy, accountability and just plain honesty in the guidance provided by those "paid to guide". There was a time when critics critized based upon research and comparison. Much of that is now gone, and the professional critics -- as often as not -- tend to act as either cheerleaders for a recording industry in dire straits (essentially criticizing NOTHING), or as defenders of a past heritage that, however worthy, allows no newcomers. There must be something in between if there is to be a future for "serious" music. In other words, critics are supposed to have STANDARDS for their judgement and behavior. In terms of this, I believe the Hatto incident points sqarely at structural deficiencies in the profession itself. I am more concerned by this than by the actual acts of that incident by the perpetrators.
a
Good post! So, BC may also be the father of the motherless and probably better-off-for-it young Smith child. He's on the list with some 321 other contenders...Whatever BC's actual intentions were, misguided as they became and seem, the fact that Hatto's recording will forever now be "name that artist" novelties is as sad a tribute to any "artist" I can think of.
BCs punishment is his life.
"I always play jazz records backwards, they sound better that way"
-Thomas Edison
The bidding on a Hatto recording of Chopin Waltzes, after it had reached $35, was mysteriously curtailed after the seller withdrew his offer due to an "error in listing". And this with more than 3 days to go!I'm guessing that Barrington-Coupe is looking for alternative distribution channels and was traced by law enforcement officials. Any other theories?
- http://cgi.ebay.com/Joyce-Hatto-CHOPIN-WALTZES_W0QQitemZ200084230145QQihZ010QQcategoryZ307QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem (Open in New Window)
Ebay has probably been made aware that this is what amounts to a bootleg recording, and as such probably required the seller--whoever it is--to end the auction. They don't ask the seller, they just end it and send emails to the seller and bidders explaining that the listing violated eBay policy. This kind of thing happens all the time on eBay. No knockoffs allowed. Sure, lots get sold there anyway, but they do make an effort to prevent it.
dh
is its plausibility, and I'm, like, so totally unimpressed.
for both distribution as well as a convenient location for an extended hiatus abroad. If he doesn't, I think it's only a matter of time before a bunch of ripped-off blue-hairs gang up on him for bilking them of their hard-earned state incomes. God, I love the music business!;-)
Well I think there is a bit of a generational divide here. Those under 30 for whom "ripping" and plagiarism seems to be a way of life and second nature...well that crowd don't see what the big deal is.On the other hand, for those of us over 30, who grew up in the "studio" and label days of classical music...I think the whole Joyce Hatto Scandal comes as a big shock. After all, we grew up in an era when music copyrights protected artists from such flagrant abuse as we are seeing in the Hatto scandal. We grew up in a era when music product could be trusted because no one would dare risk the fines and imprisonment that might result from stealing material from other artists, but apparently technology has now made this all too easy and too frequent an occurence for anyone to care.
even when there is obvious need and simple private usage, I consider and hesitate to burn and try to buy. I guess I did make cassettes of LP's for private usage. But younger folks (those under 35 or 40) never think twice of copying everything on digital media.
d
nt
Just joking!
I note that at least one of the 'revealed as fool' Gramophone writers clearly dislikes both commonly recorded kinds of fortepiano.prejudiced whackers?
* Let alone the predominant pushers of 'laid on with a romantic trowel performances' here at Music Asylum.
Sighhhh!!!!
WarmestTimbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio ScroungerAnd gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
I think that one will get into trouble using a critic as an arbiter of what is "good", and what is not. There are some critics that clearly indicate why they find something to be a satisfying performance - those that fall back on buzzwords are the ones that are of little use.
There are quite a view grammaphone reviews hat have led me to performances that I cherish -Isn't that what the reviewer is supposed to do?
...but also to have retained the nuances of all performances in their heads.Some dunderheads have suggested that the hapless critic who preferred Hatto to Haebler (the *great* Haebler IMO) was the most egregious example of all, without realizing that two Haebler sets exist, only the lesser of which was available to that critic, the other being issued only in Japan and therefore presumably not up for review in a UK publication, although it appears (we do not know for sure) the latter was the one B-C employed.
I guess it's just a game of Get the Critic.
and have to be taken with several shovels full of salt. OR you have to find ones that you agree with, and hope this is consistent!Our nationally read newspaper has a music critic whose speakers sit almost on top of his grand piano (reflecting off them).
How he can review effectively, I just don't know.
I'm also certain, for reasons we both accept, that up to 50% of reviews may well be doubtful on their sound quality comments.
I'm not at all sure that reviews in the Gramophone are the most useful.
WarmestTimbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio ScroungerAnd gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
I regard it as self-evident that the opinions of ALL "critics", "experts", etc. are at best viewed as general suggestions, rather than any reliable indicators of what will actually meet the specific requirements for each individual...This stance is often reinforced by any personal experience of items which have received glowing reviews, which have often indicated that those performing the reporting/reviewing function are very likely to have any combination of limited hearing/poor personal taste/poor standards of personal honesty in order to have allowed their confident recommendations to have been placed before the general public...
Re our musical interest, I naturally acknowledge that there is a very wide range of individual taste, perception, and priorities between individuals that is involved, but some of the verdicts given seem to defy belief!...
Tea-break now over...
Hope you are well...
(nt)
nt
So some scam artist duplicates some CD's and puts his wife's name on them. He got caught. Let it rest.
and feel it's a case that leads to soul searching amongst folks interested in the classical music industry. I've never heard of such a wide scandal in over 40 years of classical music collecting.
.
This is a major embarrassment for the critical establishment IMO, bringing into sharp focus how much things that have nothing to do with music impact their thinking and desire to promote one performance over another. In at least one case, a reviewer compared "Hatto" favorably to Haebler, not knowing that in fact Hatto in this case WAS Haebler. Now, this kind of thing may not come as a surprise to many of us here, but I think it goes a long way to proving a point that many of us here would like to make--that the music press very often does not know what the hell it's talking about and should not be taken too seriously if at all.If only we could find a way to do the same to the illiterate rock critics out there.
Yeah, I dissed the critics in a couple of my prior posts related to this, so I'm totally with you. It's funny how my head works sometimes. I saw the actual deception (actual CRIME?) as being related to the "music business" and considered it small stuff (just a single misguided soul involved in technical/artistic plagarism). The thing about the CRITICS...well, it's LOL funny (and no surprise), but I must admit I though it more about the funky waiter than the meal itself, if you get my drift. In other words, this all is "one bad meal from an otherwise good kitchen" in terms of the plagarism/theft, but the waiters have been odd always and forever: never doubted it for a minute!:-)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: