Larry Kart

They're not losing it, just an approach in search for a different one. The music always is more than the notes, it also encompasses the sound, and that is linked to instruments. Cellos or violins in Bach's time sounded different, that's a fact. The introduction of steel strings and higher tension and modern tunings changes the sound a lot. Like Skip Sempé stated: "In most fine music written before the 1950s, the sound and the composition were linked by the composer. Some performers do not care about this, and some listeners don't care either, but that was clearly the method behind the tradition in question. Without any doubt, this is the manner in which harpsichord music was conceived." I appreciate the approach of a lot of these players, but I just can't get around to like their sound. Yes, but you're assuming, as is Sempe, that the specific sonic means/resources (number of performers, nature of instruments, etc.) available to the composers of Bach's era, or earlier or later on, were always a good match (i.e. were satisfying linked in their own minds) to their musical thinking. In the case of Bach, for one, there is abundant evidence that this was not always the case. Also, what the heck does Sempe mean by "In most fine music written before the 1950s" etc." Is "1950s" a typo? If not, what happened then to change things? In any case, my point is that there is no one size fits all HIP answer to this stuff.

Elsewhere, yes, but in the Bach Suites, as Moms says, he hasn't a clue. But if Schiff screws up (IMO) the first two movements of Suite 1, why should I persist? I used to like Fournier, but after Gaillard he sounded quite stiff and stodgy.

Robert Simpson speaks in some detail of Dvorak's passing influence on early Nielsen in his book on the latter.

Can't stand Schiff in these works. The way he hustles through the Prelude in Suite 1 strikes me as absurd, after which he moons about/pulls limb from limb in the Allemande. Tortelier's first EMI recording is a gem, don't know the second. Gaillard says she admires Tortelier, and it shows.

Yes, I got Gaillard II. Am now digging her disc of the Britten Cello Sonata and his Cello Suites 2 &3.

Yes

Got the Gaillard the other day after doing a lot of listening on Spotify. Here's what I wrote to a friend: 'That Ophelie Gaillard recording of the Bach cello suites arrived; one of the best pieces of music-making I've heard in a good while. Every phrase seems to almost literally speak. Her approach is probably more lower-register oriented than most any other; notes seem to vibrate from down there. Also, a tremendous sense of "grain" and angle as phrases ascend or descend, as though each note were being carved into a stick.'

Why not just say "On the one hand"...or, OTOH, say "On the other hand"?. Say it, yes, write it out, no -- not in an informal setting. YMMV.

Actually, it's both "on the one hand" and "on the other hand."

The somewhat paradoxical difference (at least in part) comes down to OTOH coloring between the lines versus just playing and OTOH simply/even understanding certain key aspects of the language one is trying to imitate/emulate/re-create.

I was thinking of Bill Vukovich's death in the 1955 Indianapolis 500, but I'm not sure I saw that on live TV. In any case, it affected me strongly because it was quite gruesome (I recall images of Vucovich's arm writhing beneath his flaming car) and because he not only was THE star of Indy racing (having already won the 500 twice, he was kind of the Mickey Mantle of the sport) and was leading the race by a huge margin, 17 seconds.

Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald. Joseph Welch's "Have you no shame, sir?" to Joe McCarthy during the Army-McCarthy hearings. (That dates me.)

IIRC, the original Jubilee LP issue sounded like crap, too. Fresh Sound, however, says that the original issue was on Bel Canto stereo tape, without of course saying if that was the source for their crappy sounding CD. What are the odds that the Toshiba or EMI Japan were working with original tapes? If not, I would guess that there's only so much you can do with filtering/etc. what came out on Jubilee.

Just began to listen to the Benedetti-Bird material after many years of hesitation. Don't hesitate! Fabulous playing, different from much other Bird in (the LA material at least) its relaxed aura, and the ear (or my ear) immediately adjusts to variations in sound quality and the Bird-only excerpts. Kind of scares me to think that I sat on the sidelines here for all these years.

Not at all convinced by these columns. One of the more interesting sidebars (elsewhere) said that PSU completely accepted the punishment and would not sue and/or appeal. Furthermore, if a third party tried to sue the NCAA, PSU would join them in an effort to toss the lawsuit as being without merit (no standing) and recover legal costs on behalf of NCAA from any third-party claimant. Bam! As others have said, the PSU/NCAA agreement sounds like a a plea-bargain deal -- i.e. better this (for us, mutually) than other options we can envision. The no third-party lawsuit business seems rather fishy on the face of it, certainly not something one would cite as a sign of how fair/logical/you name it this agreement was.

Perhaps interesting (they were to me) arguments that the NCAA action against Penn State was wrong: http://www.thenation.com/blog/169002/why-ncaas-sanctions-penn-state-are-just-dead-wrong# http://www.thenation.com/blog/168891/against-abolishing-football-penn-state

I buy a good deal of stuff after test-driving it on Spotify and tend to listen there only for that purpose.

Dipping my toe into poisoned waters again, but Sandusky arguably was nuts to some significant degree, while Paterno and the other enablers didn't have that excuse (if excuse it is). They were -- seemingly cold-bloodly, rationally -- playing the game to their own personal and institutional advantage, probably thinking, "Don't bother me with this s---t, I've got a good thing going here." If I were Dante, they'd be in a lower circle of Hell than Sandusky. Where I completely understand the disgust with those who chose to turn a blind eye, there is nothing on this or any other planet worse than a Sandusky who victimizes innocent children. The enablers are one thing, but the actual act is far worse and more damaging to a kid who endures it day after endless day. Hell would be too good a place for the likes of Sandusky. I take your point about the direct damage done, but what about my point about the difference between deeds done as a result, arguably, of madness of some sort and deeds done coldbloodedy, in the service of "rational" self-interest? The former deeds, again arguably, the perpetrator could not really check himself because he did not see them as reprehensible but through some cracked lens that either turned black into white or because he took twisted satisfaction in the blackness. The latter deeds, however, could have been checked as readily as, say, a particular investment strategy could be, but the perpertators chose consciously and (so it would seem) coolly not to do that. They knew right from wrong and chose to do wrong, having carefully weighed the consequences (see some of the memos in the Freeh report). The Sanduskys of this world, I think, weigh only means of seduction/assault and means of evading detection; they are as little moral actors as rats would be.

Dipping my toe into poisoned waters again, but Sandusky arguably was nuts to some significant degree, while Paterno and the other enablers didn't have that excuse (if excuse it is). They were -- seemingly cold-bloodly, rationally -- playing the game to their own personal and institutional advantage, probably thinking, "Don't bother me with this s---t, I've got a good thing going here." If I were Dante, they'd be in a lower circle of Hell than Sandusky.

Of the making of books there is no end -- Ecclesiastes 12:12 Mr. Friedwald himself gave us a whole tome on "Stardust" alone. I'd like to tie him and Goia up in a sack, throw it off the Tallahatchee Bridge and see who or what climbs out.

I don't get why this was published in Haaretz on 7/12/12 when the dateline on the story says it was published in The Forward on 6/10/09. Unless I misunderstand something, that's one heck of a recycling job. What next, the Declaration of Independence?

No blame here, Jim, but on second thought I'm struck by your "my own world"/"any of my worlds"/"as long as I can have my world." It may be just a habit of speech, but it occurred to me that (unless I'm fooling myself here) I don't think in "my worlds'/their worlds" terms, that it all seems and feels like one world to me -- not at all in any sappy "Kumbayah" sense but simply because most everything seems to me to be connected to most everything else, even Scriabin and that perfectly shaped and contoured ass you encountered at a Playboy Club. Or to put it another say, whenever I've tried to wall off one world where I felt especially comfortable or safe from another world or worlds where I didn't, I realized that this wasn't going to work.

I recently picked up a couple of lovely old Suk/Ancerl LPs -- his Mendelssohn/Bruch and his Dvorak. What a pussycat he was, as Mel Brooks might have put it.

This is where we part ways. For instance, I think of Scriabin, a composer whose music (pace Michael Weiss) I instinctually don't much like. Do I then just "stay out of the room"? Well, yes, I don't listen to a lot of Scriabin, but I have thought about him/tried to figure out what makes his music tick, for several reasons. First because, like Bill Evans, his music is not nonsensical or cheap; second, because it it has deeply fascinated/moved many people over the years; and third, because it affected other significant makers of music for a good while and may still be doing so right now, in part because (again like Evans' music) it seemed to be a "path" down which those music-makers both could and needed to travel. Thus, we have, both in the case of Scriabin and Evans, what might be called a "reception" event and an evolution-of-the-music event. And my interest in music in general (both in terms of how it's made and works [or doesn't work]; in terms of how it affects people, etc.) means that up to a point I'm interested in paying some close attention to Scriabin, and to Bill Evans as well. Not like I would pay attention to Mozart or Monk or Roscoe Mitchell, but life isn't exactly like a restaurant.

Sounds lovely, Moms -- thanks. I've heard this recording praised to the skies before.