Stradivarius violin talks to you

[La Folia]

39 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

Sometimes, and sometimes not. Not all lending programs revolve around the personal selection of the player. If one is offered a Strad, and doesn't take it (notice that nearly all of Yang's CV's and reviews mention that he is playing a Stradivari), promotion might suffer. Playing on a Stradivari, in the eyes of the average person, will be considered a pretty powerful affirmation of the player, if they have nothing better to go on.
 

Strange.  That's like going to the violin store and asking to buy a violin.  They hand you one and you buy it.

(But it can work that way, sometimes.  )

[David Burgess]

18 minutes ago, PhilipKT said:

I think she plays on a Vuilluame, And she bought it herself.

Yup, despite her ability to probably afford a few Strads, or the currency to have many more lent to her.

[PhilipKT]

42 minutes ago, Eugen Modri said:

By the way where did you learn GBS was "the greatest music critic of all time" ?

First of all, I can read. Secondly, I do read.

Shaw stopped regularly writing about music around World War One. He died in 1950, And yet, 70 years after his death, 100 Years after he stopped writing about music, his writings on music remain pertinent, valid, and to a large extent correct. Even  his negative opinion of Brahms(with which I completely agree) is well stated and easily defended.

 Music criticism is ephemeral. It doesn’t last beyond the object of its discussion. And yet we still read Shaw.

Alfred Einstein wrote a fantastic book called “greatness in music” in which he discusses what makes some composers great and others not great. The Characteristics that he lists could be applied to many things in addition to music, and if they are applied to Shaw’s writings, he passes the test.

In asking the question, you Implied that you Have grounds to disagree. In order to disagree, one must be able to say where the claim fails, and also have an alternate candidate.

After all, you cannot say, “he is not the greatest,” without being able to say why not, and also being able to suggest someone else who comes closer to deserving the claim, Because even if no one is perfect, it is certainly possible for someone to be the greatest.

If Shaw is not, someone else is, And I am not the only person who would love to know whom you propose for the pedestal.

[Eugen Modri]

13 minutes ago, PhilipKT said:

1. First of all, I can read. Secondly, I do read.

2. Shaw stopped regularly writing about music around World War One. He died in 1950, And yet, 70 years after his death, 100 Years after he stopped writing about music, his writings on music remain pertinent, valid, and to a large extent correct. Even  his negative opinion of Brahms(with which I completely agree) is well stated and easily defended.

3. Music criticism is ephemeral. It doesn’t last beyond the object of its discussion. And yet we still read Shaw.

4. Alfred Einstein wrote a fantastic book called “greatness in music” in which he discusses what makes some composers great and others not great. The Characteristics that he lists could be applied to many things in addition to music, and if they are applied to Shaw’s writings, he passes the test.

5. In asking the question, you Implied that you Have grounds to disagree. In order to disagree, one must be able to say where the claim fails, and also have an alternate candidate.

6. After all, you cannot say, “he is not the greatest,” without being able to say why not, and also being able to suggest someone else who comes closer to deserving the claim, Because even if no one is perfect, it is certainly possible for someone to be the greatest.

7. If Shaw is not, someone else is, And I am not the only person who would love to know whom you propose for the pedestal.

1. Maybe you can but not attentively. You made a complete mess from Mr. Strelnikov's post where you replaced what he actually wrote with whatever beliefs you had. Sure, his English might not be the finest but it isn't completely incomprehensible either. To paraphrase you, I suggest you apologize. 

2. Not what I asked

3. You read Shaw. I could not care. I'm not interested in cute sentence turns. I do not think he had any musical education. Not being able to read an orchestral score meant his exposure to music was very limited.

4. Passes what test ? The test of being the greatest music critic of all time ? You think Liszt who could transcribe Wagner's scores at the piano a prima vista was a moron ?

5. Not at all. What kind of logic is that ? I simply invited you ( in a nice way )  to bring supporting arguments to your statement. Nothing yet...

6. Of course I can. And anyway, what's that got to do with what I asked ?

7. Well, you said is Shaw. And after all , you can not say "he is the greatest" without being able to blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....

[David Burgess]

5 minutes ago, Eugen Modri said:

I'm not interested in cute sentence turns.

I rather enjoy them, except when they are effectively used against me.

[Violadamore]

2 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

I rather enjoy them, except when they are effectively used against me.

So stop being such an easy target. 

[PhilipKT]

1 hour ago, Eugen Modri said:

1. Maybe you can but not attentively. You made a complete mess from Mr. Strelnikov's post where you replaced what he actually wrote with whatever beliefs you had. Sure, his English might not be the finest but it isn't completely incomprehensible either. To paraphrase you, I suggest you apologize. 

2. Not what I asked

3. You read Shaw. I could not care. I'm not interested in cute sentence turns. I do not think he had any musical education. Not being able to read an orchestral score meant his exposure to music was very limited.

4. Passes what test ? The test of being the greatest music critic of all time ? You think Liszt who could transcribe Wagner's scores at the piano a prima vista was a moron ?

5. Not at all. What kind of logic is that ? I simply invited you ( in a nice way )  to bring supporting arguments to your statement. Nothing yet...

6. Of course I can. And anyway, what's that got to do with what I asked ?

7. Well, you said is Shaw. And after all , you can not say "he is the greatest" without being able to blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....

This is ridiculous. I stated my points well and clearly, and defended them.

Your comment about Liszt has nothing to do with anything. Liszt certainly was no critic, nor even tried to be, and therefore his piano playing is completely irrelevant.It is curious why you even mentioned him.

Very little of what you said was relevant. I would recommend that you read some Shaw and also pick up Einstein’s book. 

Meanwhile, I am minded of Twain’s comment about pig wrestling.

Edited June 30, 2020 by PhilipKT

[martin swan]

35 minutes ago, Eugen Modri said:

1. Maybe you can but not attentively. You made a complete mess from Mr. Strelnikov's post where you replaced what he actually wrote with whatever beliefs you had. Sure, his English might not be the finest but it isn't completely incomprehensible either. To paraphrase you, I suggest you apologize. 

You and Mr. Strelnikov have a strange gift for patronizing people - I wonder if this is a direct consequence of being trained in the Russian school?

[Violadamore]

9 minutes ago, PhilipKT said:

This is ridiculous. I stated my points well and clearly, and defended them.

Your comment about Liszt has nothing to do with anything. Liszt certainly was no critic, nor even tried to be, and therefore his piano playing is completely irrelevant.It is curious why you even mentioned him.

Be nice, Philip.  Some posters might have a limited quiver of names to use. 

[jacobsaunders]

1 hour ago, PhilipKT said:

 Even  his negative opinion of Brahms(with which I completely agree) is well stated and easily defended.

 

What do you have against Brahms? Almost every cellist who comes to try a cello out invariably plays his E minor cello sonata with varying degrees of success

[Rue]

23 hours ago, Carl Stross said:

1. Well, that's what the talk was about.    He feels he gets out of it more than he puts in and in the end it's not us placing our careers on the line week after week, often in pretty tough conditions. 

2. Strads ( and some DG's ) have an intrinsic sound i.e. would make one sound real "good" as long as one is not in the way. For most purposes that's "good" enough. 

I suppose it's all like anything else - you have an idea of where you want to go, what to do when you get there...and make the most of what you have along the way!  

[PhilipKT]

3 hours ago, jacobsaunders said:

What do you have against Brahms? Almost every cellist who comes to try a cello out invariably plays his E minor cello sonata with varying degrees of success

I’ve had this chat with many a musician, and some agree wholeheartedly, others insist I am a Philistine.

Shaw actually reviewed the Brahms E minor sonata(when it was still quite young), humorously and negatively, but the quote escapes me at the moment

Brahms had an amazing gift, but when we listen to his music, we are too often struck with the workmanship rather than the music.

many years ago, I attended a quartet concert that included the Barber Quartet, one of the Mozart Russian quartets, and a Brahms quartet. I knew the Barber well, but was unfamiliar with both the Mozart and the Brahms, and was eager to hear them( and with a very open mind)because I wanted to give them a chance to influence my feelings about Brahms.

The Mozart was a complete delight, joyful and engrossing. Mozart doubtless showed off his skill, but I was never conscious of that skill: I was only enjoying the result.

The Brahms was full of interesting devices and quite complicated rhythmically, but I found it a terrible bore. I got a strong impression of a young and talented child tugging my sleeve and saying,” look what I can do with counterpoint” and then proceeding to show off all the gimmicks in his repertoire. It was an odd sensation. Skill, yes, creativity in abundance, but  no music interest at all. 

We don’t care how the painter mixes his paint or trims his brushes, we care about the finished artwork. Brahms seems bent on demonstrating how much he knows about composition,  instead of letting us just enjoy the music. That’s possible with Mozart, and even with Haydn, who strove to cater to the connoisseurs who wanted erudition in their music. But with Brahms, we get the erudition and naught else.

Interestingly, my favorite Brahms pieces are among his earliest: the Haydn Variations and the first Orchestral Serenade. As he got older, he became more ponderous.

Now, having said that, I am perfectly willing to admit that the fault is mine. Brahms was a genius, but he doesn’t speak to me at all.

There’s a story about Brahms and Joachim playing a Bach A minor sonata, after which Brahms threw his own sonata, in the same key, on the floor, and lamented,” After Bach, how can one play such stuff as this?”

I quite agree.

[Bill Merkel]

12 hours ago, Rue said:

I have a Moldovan coworker - she had a rough time growing up in Moldova, it shows.

Crooked nose?

[Bill Merkel]

10 hours ago, David Burgess said:

the currency to have many more lent to her.

enough genuine american federal reserve greenbacks with that big eagle grinning on it currency to buy them

[jacobsaunders]

7 hours ago, PhilipKT said:

I’ve had this chat with many a musician, and some agree wholeheartedly, others insist I am a Philistine.

Shaw actually reviewed the Brahms E minor sonata(when it was still quite young), humorously and negatively, but the quote escapes me at the moment

Brahms had an amazing gift, but when we listen to his music, we are too often struck with the workmanship rather than the music.

many years ago, I attended a quartet concert that included the Barber Quartet, one of the Mozart Russian quartets, and a Brahms quartet. I knew the Barber well, but was unfamiliar with both the Mozart and the Brahms, and was eager to hear them( and with a very open mind)because I wanted to give them a chance to influence my feelings about Brahms.

The Mozart was a complete delight, joyful and engrossing. Mozart doubtless showed off his skill, but I was never conscious of that skill: I was only enjoying the result.

The Brahms was full of interesting devices and quite complicated rhythmically, but I found it a terrible bore. I got a strong impression of a young and talented child tugging my sleeve and saying,” look what I can do with counterpoint” and then proceeding to show off all the gimmicks in his repertoire. It was an odd sensation. Skill, yes, creativity in abundance, but  no music interest at all. 

We don’t care how the painter mixes his paint or trims his brushes, we care about the finished artwork. Brahms seems bent on demonstrating how much he knows about composition,  instead of letting us just enjoy the music. That’s possible with Mozart, and even with Haydn, who strove to cater to the connoisseurs who wanted erudition in their music. But with Brahms, we get the erudition and naught else.

Interestingly, my favorite Brahms pieces are among his earliest: the Haydn Variations and the first Orchestral Serenade. As he got older, he became more ponderous.

Now, having said that, I am perfectly willing to admit that the fault is mine. Brahms was a genius, but he doesn’t speak to me at all.

There’s a story about Brahms and Joachim playing a Bach A minor sonata, after which Brahms threw his own sonata, in the same key, on the floor, and lamented,” After Bach, how can one play such stuff as this?”

I quite agree.

I suppose you could be right. Mind you, since almost every cellist plays the E minor sonata when trying out a cello (at least the first few bars, until I infuriate them by humming along) that would mean that everybody else was wrong.

I fondly remember back in pre-history when I was a cello student at the Royal Academy, going to a summer chamber music course with my brother, where we spent a week studying his 2^nd. Quartet, which I certainly enjoyed, and didn’t get bored at all.

I was told that Brahms was a pensive perfectionist sort of bloke, who threw much of his oeuvre in the bin, because it “wasn’t good enough”. Also that he infuriated publishers by “improving” his work ad infinitum, a bit like making a nice violin, then sanding the shit out of it. Perhaps that is the reason for your impression.

Had you have said “Bernstein is shit!”, I would have shrugged my shoulders, and thought fair enough, but Brahms?

[Eugen Modri]

13 hours ago, martin swan said:

You and Mr. Strelnikov have a strange gift for patronizing people - I wonder if this is a direct consequence of being trained in the Russian school?

1. Not my intention Mr. Swan. My intention was to be condescending, not patronizing. I seem to have missed it by miles.

2. I am not a Russian school product. I trained in Romania and was one of the first generations to go through the whole system ( 19 years ) from kindergarten to Conservatory. Later, Romanian school borrowed from Russian school but during my time and including Conservatory it was decidedly French based and for political reasons Russian influences were not received well. It is here that you and I have something in common : Mr. Stross believes I play ineffectively, too.

Anyway, I am sure in time we will find some common understandings. I wish you the best in your business.

[martin swan]

1 minute ago, Eugen Modri said:

1. Not my intention Mr. Swan. My intention was to be condescending, not patronizing. I seem to have missed it by miles.

 

No - don't worry, you were close enough ... finally some humour. I'm liking you more already!

[Herman West]

Probably the Brahms e-minor (the opening) is just a very good way to assess the abilities and weaknesses of an instrument one's unfamiliar with.

GBS was a writer who could write entertainingly about music, and pose as a 'personality' by indulging his prejudices. That doesn't really make him a music critic (unless one has a very low bar). He played into the British prejudices rather massively, and had a big impact on the appreciation of Brahms and a couple other German style composers in the English speaking world. This notion that Brahms is just mathematically sorting out themes or motivs and never writes pleasing lilting music (as if that's what one's required to do) is largely coming from that place. The funny thing of course is that this description would fit Beethoven to a T, but somehow Beethoven was okay with the British. The other funny thing is Brahms is one of the most prolific song / Lieder writers and wrote tons of lilting melodies, including the opening of the e-minor cello sonata.

Apart from professional writers writing concert reviews (or records reviews) just to get free records / tickets, there is the aforementioned "music reviewer" who likes to go to ballet performances for free and thus becomes a ballet critic. Both these types have been a blight on the business, just by writing a lot of stupid stuff and being very influential by virtue of writing well.

Music criticism in popular media has progressed enormously since GBS's time, though obviously those days are gone now, with good music critics (who have gone to Music School and can sightread scores etc) having been fired to accomodate the owners of the newspapers and magazines.

All that doesn't mean that GBS's music pieces aren't fun to read, as a window into a time long gone.

PS Brahms wrote just three (3) string quartets, so it's not like it's a Herculean effort to tell them apart  -  and they are each quite different. What you were doing here is a time-honored British "gentleman critic" thing: acting as if ignorance is a virtue. Most quartets by any composer feature contrapuntal activity, it's part of the genre. Mozart's Prussians do it all the time, too.

 

[Eugen Modri]

1 hour ago, martin swan said:

No - don't worry, you were close enough ... finally some humour. I'm liking you more already!

Feeling is mutual.

[Eugen Modri]

1 hour ago, Herman West said:

Probably the Brahms e-minor (the opening) is just a very good way to assess the abilities and weaknesses of an instrument one's unfamiliar with.

GBS was a writer who could write entertainingly about music, and pose as a 'personality' by indulging his prejudices. That doesn't really make him a music critic (unless one has a very low bar). He played into the British prejudices rather massively, and had a big impact on the appreciation of Brahms and a couple other German style composers in the English speaking world. This notion that Brahms is just mathematically sorting out themes or motivs and never writes pleasing lilting music (as if that's what one's required to do) is largely coming from that place. The funny thing of course is that this description would fit Beethoven to a T, but somehow Beethoven was okay with the British.

Apart from professional writers writing concert reviews (or records reviews) just to get free records / tickets, there is the aforementioned "music reviewer" who likes to go to ballet performances for free and thus becomes a ballet critic. Both these types have been a blight on the business, just by writing a lot of stupid stuff persuasively.

Music criticism in popular media has progressed enormously since GBS's, though obviously those days are gone now, with good music critics (who have gone to Music School and can sightread scores etc) having been fired to accomodate the owners of the newspapers and magazines.

All that doesn't mean that GBS's music pieces aren't fun to read, as a window into a time long gone.

PS Brahms wrote just three (3) string quartets, so it's not like it's a Herculean effort to tell them apart  -  and they are each quite different. What you were doing here is a time-honored British "gentleman critic" thing: acting as if ignorance is a virtue. Most quartets by any composer feature contrapuntal activity, it's part of the genre. Mozart's Prussians do it all the time, too.

 

Wonderful post, absolutely wonderful !

[matesic]

I know so many people who just don't "get" Brahms. Benjamin Britten was one (OK, I only got to "know" him at the length of a stick and a desk of second violins). 

Ernest Newman was probably the best British critic of his age. GBS unfortunately tried to persuade Elgar to write a third symphony when he was well past it.

[GeorgeH]

Well, Brahms has probably put more babies to sleep than any other western composer. So there's that.

[violinsRus]

And Brahms Requiem?  Does that not connect with anyone anymore?  Sure speaks to me...

[PhilipKT]

1 hour ago, matesic said:

I know so many people who just don't "get" Brahms. Benjamin Britten was one (OK, I only got to "know" him at the length of a stick and a desk of second violins). 

Ernest Newman was probably the best British critic of his age. GBS unfortunately tried to persuade Elgar to write a third symphony when he was well past it.

There is a terrific commentary by Shaw regarding a review Newman wrote of Elektra: actually a series of three letters to the editor in response to Newman’s review. You should look it up.

@Herman West Shaw was actually a music critic, and paid as such for many years. It is inaccurate by any definition to say he was not. He certainly wasn’t a dilettante who just happened to write a lot.

He was actually quite un-English in much of his thought, and his disdain with Brahms was well explained. He also didn’t care for some other notables, like Mendelssohn or Liszt. The notion you mention is incorrect. it’s best you go read him yourself.  

[PhilipKT]

50 minutes ago, violinsRus said:

And Brahms Requiem?  Does that not connect with anyone anymore?  Sure speaks to me...

I’ve played it once and that was enough.

A friend who plays bass and adores Brahms loathes Dvorak, who is one of my favorites, and we have spent years going round and round about the two.