BasqueViolinist Posted November 7, 2016 Report Posted November 7, 2016 Stern was terribly powerful. He used his power to build careers and to break them. Aaron Rosand's story is particularly troubling: http://slippedisc.com/2014/07/high-explosive-aaron-rosand-accuses-isaac-stern-of-sabotaging-his-career/ So someone was very powerful, therefore he must be a bad person? All you have come up with are rumors and, at best, hearsay. I had already addressed Rosand by name in the last paragrapgh of my post on the issue. Your posts deserve no further comment. Good moniker.
BasqueViolinist Posted November 7, 2016 Report Posted November 7, 2016 I seem to remember Rosand was scheduled to record the Barber but Stern somehow took it over and recorded it himself. … Oh, you "seem to remember", do you? In any event, it was a very good thing that it was Stern who recorded the Barber and not someone else. The rest of your post is laughable. You should be asking the sour grapes people. I would be totally delusional to believe that the memory of Isaac Stern needs me to address his detractors. Get a grip on reality, sir.
crazy jane Posted November 7, 2016 Report Posted November 7, 2016 So someone was very powerful, therefore he must be a bad person? All you have come up with are rumors and, at best, hearsay. I had already addressed Rosand by name in the last paragrapgh of my post on the issue. Your posts deserve no further comment. Good moniker. 1. I did not say he was a "bad person." 2. Power is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. Abuse of power is.
Pluto Vermin Posted November 7, 2016 Report Posted November 7, 2016 Oh, you "seem to remember", do you? In any event, it was a very good thing that it was Stern who recorded the Barber and not someone else. The rest of your post is laughable. You should be asking the sour grapes people. I would be totally delusional to believe that the memory of Isaac Stern needs me to address his detractors. Get a grip on reality, sir. Well, I'll look it up to be sure if you think it would benefit your case I was hoping since you were bffs you would exonerate him, with something like well, this is how that story got started you see... But you kinda sound like the stories yourself.
Carl Stross Posted November 7, 2016 Report Posted November 7, 2016 Well, I'll look it up to be sure if you think it would benefit your case I was hoping since you were bffs you would exonerate him, with something like well, this is how that story got started you see... But you kinda sound like the stories yourself. If I may ( respectfully ! ) suggest , we should stick with the playin'. Once out of that area, almost none of them is blameless. Plenty skeletons behind each of them. I'm really trying hard to name a blameless one and I'm drawing a blank***. Stern did irritate a lot of people and to some extent payed for it with it's own carer. He was at least for a while a talented, competent and somehow original violin player. Has a superb Brahms. *** Whomever imagines Oistrakh was a "nice guy" is horribly mistaken.
Addie Posted November 7, 2016 Report Posted November 7, 2016 1. Kreisler I just enjoy him so much 2. Milstein 3. Heifetz Precision isn't EVERYTHING 4. Oistrakh 5. Menuhin I love Menuhin, but I don't really "get" him all of the time. 6. Elman can be great, can be dreadful (Auer warned you about too much portamento!) I think 6 is enough...
BasqueViolinist Posted November 7, 2016 Report Posted November 7, 2016 1. I did not say he was a "bad person." 2. Power is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. Abuse of power is. No, you did not. The poster ("funnyope"?) who started the badmouthing of Isaac Stern here did, and your post seemed to support it.
BasqueViolinist Posted November 7, 2016 Report Posted November 7, 2016 … *** Whomever imagines Oistrakh was a "nice guy" is horribly mistaken. Your poor command of the English language betrays your level of education, your culture or lack thereof and your IQ, not much above room temperature, possibly even in degrees Celsius. "Whomever" as the subject of a sentence? Really? Your absolutely libelous remark about David Oistrakh is so far off the mark that it's laughable. I realize that it was made to provoke me, and you have succeeded. You come across as the archetypal, bitter, little man trying to appear bigger by bringing down a truly great figure. You are pathetic. The image contains Gingold's hand-written remarks on the death of David F. Oistrakh.
Carl Stross Posted November 7, 2016 Report Posted November 7, 2016 Your poor command of the English language betrays your level of education, your culture or lack thereof and your IQ, not much above room temperature, possibly even in degrees Celsius. "Whomever" as the subject of a sentence? Really? Your absolutely libelous remark about David Oistrakh is so far off the mark that it's laughable. I realize that it was made to provoke me, and you have succeeded. You come across as the archetypal, bitter, little man trying to appear bigger by bringing down a truly great figure. You are pathetic. The image contains Gingold's hand-written remarks on the death of David F. Oistrakh. You're talking crap. English is my 4th language and inherently, I make mistakes. (That's no reflection of my IQ which is however pretty low) . Lots of people here do, some because English is not their first language. Correcting people's grammar on Internet Forums qualifies you as an asshole. Oistrakh was a great violin player but not a "nice guy". Too involved in politics. Stern was a great violin player but again, not a nice guy. Get over it. And what Gingold might've wrote is irrelevant. I have no idea who's Gingold. In general, you seem to me overly opinionated and insufficiently informed.
LeMaster Posted November 8, 2016 Report Posted November 8, 2016 Your poor command of the English language betrays your level of education, your culture or lack thereof and your IQ, not much above room temperature, possibly even in degrees Celsius. "Whomever" as the subject of a sentence? Really? Your absolutely libelous remark about David Oistrakh is so far off the mark that it's laughable. I realize that it was made to provoke me, and you have succeeded. You come across as the archetypal, bitter, little man trying to appear bigger by bringing down a truly great figure. You are pathetic. MODERATOR?
Rue Posted November 8, 2016 Author Report Posted November 8, 2016 Please play nice everyone! I did a lot of tallying to get to this point! I love all the real life stories...but there is no need to get cranky if your story is at odds with someone else's. Just tell your stories - and let it go...we are all learned and discerning readers (I hope).
BasqueViolinist Posted November 8, 2016 Report Posted November 8, 2016 Nice weather we're having, isn't it? Seems to be the norm here, doesn't it?
BasqueViolinist Posted November 8, 2016 Report Posted November 8, 2016 …I have no idea who's Gingold. Then you are unaware of one of the greatest and most influential soloists and violin teachers of the 20th century. I imagine that, if all you do is carve away violins, you don't necessarily have to have that information. Still, that's very revealing as to your attitude and intentions; the least you could have done is Google him. Perhaps you are a performing musician and you happened to play with or under David F. Oistrakh, messed up and ended up being the target of one of his legendary simultaneously icy and fiery stares. He was as merciless with incompetent players as he was as a teacher. However, those who have had an opportunity to converse with a good number of his students knows that he evoked a deep love and admiration as a human being as he did as a musician and as a teacher. In my experience, anyone who knew him as a human being—and I fortunately did, from a worshiping and respectful distance, since my youth in the early 1950s—will jump to his defense whenever and wherever he is baselessly maligned by anyone. I'm not disturbed by the fact that you are not a native English-speaker, I am not one either. If I were to go by your last name, I would assume you are a German-native-speaker, in which case your use of "whomever" as the subject of a sentence is even more incomprehensible, as knowledge of the German language would have instilled a healthy respect and awe for grammatical case, the grammatical function of a noun or pronoun, to wit subjective (he), objective (him) and possessive (his). You may recognize them in their old English form - nominative, accusative and genitive (grammatische Beugung oder Deklination, Werfall, Wenfall, Wesfall) and your glaring error would have jumped out at you right away. In any event, I did not intend to offend you personally in any way, but only to attack the baseness of your attitude and defamation of David F Oistrakh. You have no clue as to whether I'm misinformed or not, and I really don't care what you think of me or of anyone else. Command of at least four languages, as you announce to the world, is a milestone I surpassed almost half a century ago myself. Fortunately, I find no need to stoop to the insults and foul language you use, in any of the eight working languages I read and write. I wish you well in your continued cultural growth.
funnyope Posted November 8, 2016 Report Posted November 8, 2016 BasqueViolinist and others, I apologize for the unnecessary argument my little comment inevitably brought. I thought the consensus on verdict had been reached, so I brought it up. However, may I perhaps be so bold as to advise you that your view of an individual has nothing to do others' view of that same individual? I am sure Oistrakh and Stern did act nicely to some, but only insofar as they were 'harmless' to their agendas and motives. What Oistrakh did to EF is quite well documented in EF's own words. What Stern did to Rosand and others is not JUST formless gossip.
Pluto Vermin Posted November 8, 2016 Report Posted November 8, 2016 I noticed there are no women on the historical list, like Morini, Powell, others come to mind. But today it's a predominance of women. Do you think the historical women "paved the way" in some sense or did the inevitable happen "to" them? Does that imply anything about common general sociological concepts of "paving the way"? Are they just political exploitation?
Carl Stross Posted November 8, 2016 Report Posted November 8, 2016 I noticed there are no women on the historical list, like Morini, Powell, others come to mind. But today it's a predominance of women. Do you think the historical women "paved the way" in some sense or did the inevitable happen "to" them? Does that imply anything about common general sociological concepts of "paving the way"? Are they just political exploitation? Good point - I was thinking about Morini, too. I suppose Sarasate and Ysaye should be there , too. Then what to do with Ferras, Neveau and a couple of others who started pre ww2 and died soon after ?
Pluto Vermin Posted November 8, 2016 Report Posted November 8, 2016 ^Another possibility is that history does not record women. Harder now in days where history is video Ok, I'm surprised Kreisler is at the top and Rosand isn't mentioned at all. I think they are similar in a lot of ways. Except Rosand tries real hard to be less romantic sometimes and Kreisler doesn't.
Jeffrey Holmes Posted November 8, 2016 Report Posted November 8, 2016 I can't believe I needed to lock a thread concerning soloists... really... disappointing.
Recommended Posts