41Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksAnyone seen the young & the restless thread? Oh,...this is a different soap opera?
Anyone seen the young & the restless thread? Oh,...this is a different soap opera?
TLDR
When someone resorts to lne by line contradictions without bothering to express any points of their own, it makes me feel like I'm in Monty Python's argument clinic sketch. Make a post with a couple of paragraphs and a point or two and I'll read it and perhaps even reply to it. But I don't have the patience for pointless contrariness and irrelevant references to current pop stars.
Last edited by bigshot; Feb-28-2012 at 01:45.
I thought it would not be long before the insults started , you are incorrigible and frankly I can't understand why you are not picked up more often by the moderators.
Perhaps because I bring something more to the site than yourself with your sanctimonious air of superiority puffed up to disguise a lack of any real substance.
I was interested in Brian's "facts" that was the whole point of this thread.
There is no "point" to the thread. The thread is but a dialog which like any number of forum discussions often slip into digressions more interesting than the initial question raised.
Your comment about Sid amazed me by the the way, you could have been desribing yourself.
We'll I'll not go into my comments again concerning another member as I am not engaging in a debate with him. Suffice it to say we have differing opinions concerning Wagner, Karajan, Richard Strauss, J.S. Bach, Schoenberg, and a few others.
I have over the short time (as you were so keen to remind everyone recently) that I have been part of TC come to the conclusion that your musical knowledge is fairly limited.
Congratulations. In a like manner I too have come to a similar conclusion... that being that your knowledge in general is severely lacking. My conclusion, undoubtedly, is a valid as yours.
You cannot be taken seriously in the field of operatic recordings and knowledge after your comment "recordings sound like crap".
I am sorry, but while a have any number of recordings of operas and operatic recitals recorded live or prior to the early 1950s, there is no way that I would hold these up as examples of rich full orchestral sound. I am ready to sacrifice some sound quality for the voice of Flagstad or Melchior... but in nearly every instance I will also have purchased a second more "modern" recording. If you cannot hear a difference in sound quality between a recording c. 1940 and one made c. 1980 or 2000... well then I cannot help you. It may simply be hearing loss on your part.
That has already been dealt with by another member and it is so basic that you know these "Golden Age" singers before claiming knowledge of the subject. Were you listening to them on youTube, do you actually have a substantial record collection?
I am aware of any number of "golden age" singers. I do question recognizing them as representing some imagined "golden age" vs singers of the 1950s, 60s... 90s... present. As for claiming knowledge of opera... I make no pretense to being an "expert". It certainly is not my field of professional study. I have, however, been listening to opera and "classical" vocal music for some couple decades now and have more than a few recordings. Currently my CD collection must be approaching some 3000 discs, if you must know. On the other hand, I don't know that the size of my personal music collection proves anything. If I recall correctly, Dante's personal library numbered a couple hundred books at best and yet I have little doubt he had a greater grasp of more university academics with private libraries numbering in the thousands.
You don't deal with my rejoinder to your comments on limited numbers of Stokowski modern recordings being available. I mentioned that my supplier, Presto Classical had 512 available. Incidentally, I didn't know that Amazon was seriously considered as a classical dealer, it certainly is not in the UK.
Browsing through Presto's catalog I must admit that Stokowski's reputation seems more secure in Britain than it does in the US. Few of these discs show up in a search on Amazon... and yes, Amazon is taken seriously as a classical dealer in the US. They probably have the largest database of music in print available and through secondary dealers (Amazon Marketplace Dealers) one can purchase a great deal of music at the lowest prices available. I know that the Naxos Historical series, for whatever reason (probably something having to do with copyright law) has many discs unavailable in the US. Of course this is equally true of Dutton, Everest, BBC, and even EMI. Many of the EMI releases of British composers are unavailable through US dealers. This obviously has something to do with demand. Considering Brian's statement:
"His popularity has been slowly sinking into oblivion, and his reputation is far lower than that of Furtwangler and Knappertsbusch despite the fact that he outlived them by decades and produced many more recordings in stereo as well as mono, with the best studio (DECCA) no less."
May in all likelihood explain why there is limited availability to Stokowski recordings through the US dealers I employ.
You comment that the majority of Stokowski's recordings were made in the early days of recording technology. Now you don't have to be Hercule Poirot to work out that as he started conducting in 1904 and recording in 1917, there would be quite a number of recordings from the early days. But hundreds made in modern conditions are still available.
Yes... If I go through Presto or Arviv I can find a larger number of discs by Stokowski still in print. There are even some that may be of interest to me. Of course considering that many of the pieces in recording by Stokowski are within that oeuvre by which I already have more than one recording by another conductor, I'd need to be convinced by more than a single voice that such a recording was something "essential". That is even more true at present when the focus of my purchases at present are upon the Baroque and the "Classical Era".
The quotation that you comment on at the end was by Harold C. Schonberg, do you actually know who he was?
Yes... I commented on your quote from Schonberg which you followed with the comment: "I am not interested in individual views, just the facts." This would seem to suggest that you confuse Schonberg's critical comments with "facts" when they are nothing more than opinions. Yes... they are "informed opinion"... and certainly some opinions are better than others... but it is still opinion. Indeed, Schoenberg himself admits as much, having written, "Criticism is only informed opinion. I write a piece that is a personal reaction based, hopefully, on a lot of years of study, background, scholarship and whatever intuition I have. It's not a critic's job to be right or wrong; it's his job to express an opinion in readable English.''
You accused me of not addressing your claims, so I did exactly that. I have presented posts with a couple of paragraphs. You summarily ignored them.Originally Posted by bigshot
None of this refutes the observations that 1. he was a showman and 2. he's ultimately a passing fad. His popularity has been slowly sinking into oblivion, and his reputation is far lower than that of Furtwangler and Knappertsbusch despite the fact that he outlived them by decades and produced many more recordings in stereo as well as mono, with the best studio (DECCA) no less.
Knappertsbusch's and Furtwangler's mono recordings on second rate labels with second rate orchestras get great reviews, while Stokowski's DECCA stereo recordings with world class orchestras languish in obscurity. Your move.
You can rest assured that not everyone feels the same about Stokowski as you do. There are plenty of people (myself included) who consider that "antique showman" as the greatest conductor who ever lived.
And you can rest assured that the future does not feel the same way about Stokowski as you do.
I haven't listened to his mono recordings, or his recordings on EMI, RCA, etc, but as I've said before, if his DECCA recordings are in any way at all representative, I don't need to bother. One remains the same human being, and conductors, while they may change moderately in style (early Karajan vs. late Karajan) they don't change fundamentally, and you could see the traces of the late Karajan even in the early Karajan.
No one has spoken of Stokowski's changes, so I need not bother. Nothing less than the most portentous, most legendary superiority in his early mono recordings to his own stereo recordings and other stereo recordings can justify those recordings "keeping" me busy for a while.
don't think that's why I have problems with Stokowski. There's a difference between distortion and a loose tempo (of course where one draws the line means everything), and for me, and I'm sure for all the listeners who never saw Stokowski perform live, for those who "weren't there", and have only his recordings and nothing else, he's antique and a showman. Knappertsbusch was known for his slow tempo, but his tempo for determined by the occasion, and he never gratuitously slowed things down or sped things up that you could sense was intentional and for the purposes of showmanship and audience-appeasement. This is a common complain laid out against late Karajan records, and more people would say so if they listened to Stokowski at all.
Stokowski's sound sounds formulaic, even more formulaic than Karajan's. The difference is that Stokowski never gained the stature that Karajan did, the reputation and rank, and so no one calls him "overrated" because he, for one, does not appear in the BBC top twenty conductor's list, despite having a career lasting 6 decades and numerous recordings across the repertoire.
If Stokowski's "best represented" by his Bach transcriptions, then his reputation will continue to shrivel up. He did something quirky and personal "outside" of the system, but writing your own transcriptions is not the way to secure eternal glory.
Toscanini was not always rigid; his Parsifal at Bayreuth was the lengthiest ever.
Knappertsbusch took liberties with the tempo, but those were spontaneous and inspirational-spur-of-the-moment decisions; see: 20 minute difference between his 1962 and 1951 Parsifal.
If the cornerstone of Stokowski's reputation is comprised of his Bach transcriptions, then his reputation will continue to fall, which is the definition of "overrated" - one whose reputation was artificially high during one's lifetime for extra-artistic reasons, one whose reputation will fall with the passage of time.
I said he distorted music to a greater degree than anyone else that I know , and was noticeably worse than late Karajan at his worst.
We're posting parallel assertions.
My contention is that Stokowski is a piss-poor Wagner conductor who conducts in a most vulgar manner, and if that record (I provided a link) is representative of his conducting at all, then he is, for better or worse, for the most part a vulgar showman. I also hate his Scheherazade. I'm not sure if going into detail about how conducting will do anything (see the Karajan thread).
Of course no one defended him in the manner that would be legitimate e.g. "that's late Stokowski" (as in, that's 80s Karajan, early Karajan was better, less indulgent, fewer distortions, etc). Instead I get swarmed with facts that has very little to do with my own points or even "a lot of people find his conducting style vulgar, but he has his fans, different taste, etc".
If a conductor is truly great he would have made indispensable recordings IN SPITE of recording conditions (of course there's a limit to this), but Stokowski lived to 1977; he made numerous stereo recordings with DECCA. Furtwangler bit the dust in 1954, Knappertsbusch in 1965.
http://www.amazon.com/Transcriptions...292616&sr=1-34
First Review Title: Stokowski, the forgotten master of this century.
How many times does Stokowski's name come up when discussing the best recording of Work X? Despite dying decades earlier, Furtwangler's name comes up many times all over the place, for Beethoven, Schubert, Wagner, Haydn, Bruckner, Brahms, etc, and the same is true for Knappertsbusch in Wagner and Bruckner circles.
Posterity does not judge by sentimental memories. They add flavor to the legend, nothing more. Klemperer said that Mahler was the greatest conductor he's ever heard, towering even above Toscanini. Ultimately, a legend.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/11/ar...tsbusch&st=nyt
The conductor Hans Knappertsbusch had an unmatched way with Wagner's "Parsifal."
When has Stokowski been described as "unmatched" by anyone on the basis of his recordings? For any work at all?
I'll grant you that his Scheherazade is among the best in reputation, undoubtedly, even today, but how many great maestros bothered with Scheherazade multiple times? (Karajan, Bernstein recorded them once, but they both recorded everything.) Even then, Reiner's RCA accounts appears definitive for those not in the Stokowski cult.
Bigshot- those who know classical music know Stoki...
Those who have some knowledge of the history of classical music performance and recording in the 20th century certainly will have heard of Stokowski. The reality is that "classical music" is far too broad to suggest that those who are not aware of a single given conductor do not really know classical music.
there are Stokowski societies, youtube videos, bargain box sets, historical reissues, his autographs sell for a small fortune, and his film appearances show up on TCM regularly. A google search turns up all kinds of stuff.
And the same exists for Furtwangler, Knappertsbusch, Karajan, etc... as well as Elvis and Lady Gaga. The existence of fan clubs is no proof of artistic merit. Note that I have not called Stokowski's abilities into question. I have heard so little by him that I would not think to offer an opinion.
Perhaps the 20-something Autistic kids whose collections consist of a dozen recordings of each Mahler symphony, never listen to anything that isn't DDD, and stick their nose up at anything they don't know much about... perhaps they don't know much about Stokowski. They seem to be the majority on the internet, but they really aren't representative of classical music lovers as a group. (thankfully!)
So only you and those who recognize the brilliance of Stokowski... or perhaps the brilliance of the singers of the "golden age" recorded on wax cylinders represent "classical music lovers" as a group? Those whose collections are predominantly made up of recordings made within the last 40 years (Yes... the CD... and digital recording is nearly 40 years old) are not true classical music lovers? Those whose interest lies with Modern and Contemporary music... or with the Baroque or Renaissance or Medieval music... a repertoire rarely touched by Stokowski... none of these are true classical music lovers?
Not "true" necessarily... They're the informed classical music lovers. Informed people tend to have more worthwhile opinions. I always try to stick to subjects I know something about online. Not everyone is careful about that.
Dangling...
What constitutes "informed"? Let's take this thread for example. The subject of my post was Stokowski's Wagner recordings. Have you listened to those recordings?They're the informed classical music lovers.
Why thank you.Informed people tend to have more worthwhile opinions.
If this thread is representative of your behavior online that statement is a lie.I always try to stick to subjects I know something about online.
People who live in glass houses, etc..Not everyone is careful about that.
Not much point repeating that I don't pay any attention to one line snappy argumentative replies, is there? I'm here to talk about things related to musicmaking, not engage in autistic banter.
Well this thread was a smash.
There's a long, avant-garde radio programme that Glenn Gould made about Stokowski. I've listened to it a couple of times on Youtube. It's funny, but quite good.
Thanks for this. I've bookmarked it, after listening to the 1st segment.
I wonder if anyone has made available an in-depth comparison of the technological interests of Stokowski and Karajan, including their relationships with the technicians/engineers they must have worked with.
We have nothing to fear
but hearing loss.
Not "true" necessarily... They're the informed classical music lovers. Informed people tend to have more worthwhile opinions. I always try to stick to subjects I know something about online. Not everyone is careful about that.
How much is enough to be considered "informed"? To have an opinion of merit? Do I need to check my shelves and count the number of CDs I have by a particular composer before I'm permitted to comment upon them? I have little doubt that some here have a far more recordings by a single composer. I tend to go for breadth (an inclusive collection with examples of music ranging from Medieval chants through contemporary music as opposed to 15 copies of Wagner's Tristan und Isolde including several made before the advent of electronic recording.)
I read a biography of Stoki that said that he often complained about balances, wanting them to sound the way he heard it from the podium. He asked to have volume pots put on his podium so he could adjust it on the fly. One of the engineers played a joke and built a glass booth with a bunch of dummy dials and meters, hooked up to nothing. They wheeled the booth out as a surprise at a recording session. Stoki was delighted and hopped in and did a short rehearsal from inside the booth. As he conducted, he would occasionally adjust something and go back and have the orchestra repeat the passage with the new setting. After a half hour he called a coffee break and thanked everyone and marched off the stage. When he came back, he called out "Let's do a take." and walked right past the booth to his regular podium and never looked at the booth again.
The introduction Glenn Gould makes there is great at distilling why Stokowski is unique. I tried to search up part 2 but couldn't find it. Is the whole radio show online? How many parts?
It's in 7 parts. Here's the playlist.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
