Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #641   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default A Theory About Scott

On Oct 9, 1:07*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:22*am, Clyde Slick wrote:



On Oct 9, 12:30*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"


wrote:
On Oct 8, 11:21*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 8, 11:01*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"


wrote:
On Oct 8, 8:57*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 8, 1:53*pm, George M. Middius wrote:


Jenn said:


Verything[sic] isn't always simply mahvelous[joke]!


I agree. *But if I don't like it, why would I post it?


Are you being deliberately obtuse? ;-) *Sacky has already splained that,
before, and earlier too. Nobody can like everything. Therefore you're
sugarcoating your latent hatreds.


I like about eight different chocolates, by I like three of them
a lot more than I like the other five.


Goody for you. Write a review.


"At least" I'll rank them, after you rank those
I asked you to rank


I like (in order):


Dawn
Palmolive
Cascade
Seventh Generation
Sun and Earth


As for the YouTube links, I haven't watched them, nor do I intend to.
This one is your little obsession.


So, for the third time, **** off. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


If you haven't watched them, you have a perfect excuse!!!!
If you are telling the truth.


My, aren't we suspicious.

Why the hell would I lie about something as stupid as your obsession
with YouTube videos and Jenn's opinions about them?


LOL!!! if it is too stupidf or you to lie about it, then
it is too stupid for you to post about ti
  #642   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,415
Default A Theory About Scott

On Oct 9, 2:42*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Oct 9, 1:07*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:22*am, Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 9, 12:30*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"


wrote:
On Oct 8, 11:21*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 8, 11:01*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"


wrote:
On Oct 8, 8:57*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 8, 1:53*pm, George M. Middius wrote:


Jenn said:


Verything[sic] isn't always simply mahvelous[joke]!


I agree. *But if I don't like it, why would I post it?


Are you being deliberately obtuse? ;-) *Sacky has already splained that,
before, and earlier too. Nobody can like everything. Therefore you're
sugarcoating your latent hatreds.


I like about eight different chocolates, by I like three of them
a lot more than I like the other five.


Goody for you. Write a review.


"At least" I'll rank them, after you rank those
I asked you to rank


I like (in order):


Dawn
Palmolive
Cascade
Seventh Generation
Sun and Earth


As for the YouTube links, I haven't watched them, nor do I intend to.
This one is your little obsession.


So, for the third time, **** off. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


If you haven't watched them, you have a perfect excuse!!!!
If you are telling the truth.


My, aren't we suspicious.


Why the hell would I lie about something as stupid as your obsession
with YouTube videos and Jenn's opinions about them?


LOL!!! if it is too stupidf or you *to lie about it, then
it is too stupid for you to post about ti


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How do I know that you're not lying about this?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  #643   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default A Theory About Scott

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On Oct 9, 3:44*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On Oct 9, 12:41*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 8, 1:44*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 7, 9:12*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article

m,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 5, 11:49*am, Jenn
wrote:
In article

ps.c
om,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 5, 12:47*am, Jenn
wrote:
In article

grou
ps.c
om,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 4, 2:36*am, Jenn

wrote:
In article

gleg
roup
s.co
m,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 4, 12:20*am, Jenn

wrote:
In article
dfc3d950-9652-44d6-ae1a-71ed1e5ac...@r36g2000vb
n.go
ogle
grou
ps.c
om,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 3, 10:49*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to
Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 1, 5:46*pm, Clyde Slick

wrote:


On Oct 1, 3:59*pm, George M. Middius

wrote:


Sacky burbled:


LOL!!!! That is what being a
fawning
sycophant is
all
about!!!!


Um, no, Clyde, it isn't.


My dear SHhhh, yes it is


No, it's not.


yes it is


fawning·ly adv.
Synonyms: fawn1, apple-polish, bootlick,
kowtow,
slaver1,
toady,
truckle
These verbs mean to curry favor by
behaving
obsequiously
and
submissively: fawned on her superior;
students
apple-polishing
the
teacher; bootlicked to get a promotion;
lawyers
kowtowing
to
a
judge;
slavered over his rich uncle; toadying to
members
of
the
club;
nobles
truckling to the king.


syc·o·phant *(sk-fnt, sk-)
n.
A servile self-seeker who attempts to win
favor
by
flattering
influential people.


Very good, Clyde. You can cut-and-paste as
well
as
your
stupid
friend
can.


Um, what will Jenn "get" from these people?
That's
the
thread
you
miss. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LOL!!!
then is she has nothing to gain then she has
nothing
to
be
afraid
of
and she should comparatively
rank those players.
She is afraid that those frail ego luimnaries
will complain to the contractor that hires
her.


You are so full of bull**** that it oozes from
you.
*You've
jumped
to a
massively bad conclusion. *Here's a concept
that
you
obviously
don't
understand: *Of the 8 guitarists I posted, 4 of
them
are
very
good
friends, and 2 others I know pretty well.
*Perhaps
it's
not
true
for
you, but in my life and in my business, it's
considered
impolite to
rank
the talents of your friends and colleagues like
they
were
entrees
at a
restaurant. *If I have critical words for then,
as
I
sometimes
do,
they
are offered in private, where it is appropriate
to
do
so.


FINE!!!
Then don't give us your sugarcoated bull****
opinions
of
these
people


I've not said anything about them that I don't
believe.
*There
was
nothing 'sugarcoated'. *I hope that you can
understand
that,
but I
doubt
that.


We already know that you won't say anything that
could
be construed as the least bit critical, in fear of
offending
your thin skinnned friends and professional
acquaintances,


No, it's a matter of professionalism.


Then your "professional" opinions and evaluations,
'such as they are, are vacuous and worthless, you might
as well kepp quiet about them,
continuing your sugar coated oohs and aahs
just makes you llook bad.


As I said, I won't be any more music here.


and I hope no more oohs and aahs from you


Heck no. *Saying that you like something is obviously not a
popular
thing to do here.


I told you which of the vids I liked, and which I didn't.


Yes you did. *I liked them all. *That's why I posted them.


WHen Scott produced a vid supposedly of LJ, I
liked it and remarked that he played something I liked,
and it was different form the LJ vids you provided.
LAter, it turned out it was't LJ.


I understand that LJ has quite a good reputation.
Maybe if you tried harder, you could provide a vid of
his I would like.


lol *youtube.com
or try the audio file that I posted *http://sn.im/s8iz0-p0n


*MAybe he plays some other
pieces with more finesse and musicality.
Maybe its not LJ I don't like,
mabe it is your selection criteria.
But I don't know, I liked some of the vids
you provided of other artists.


It was a lot more enjoyable than one of the usual
'marches/ that you presented. Overall, I like dit, but ultimately i
found it marred
by a number of trite embellishments, that detracted from
the sublime simplicity of a wonderful introspective song.
Although it is a very nice melody, the charm of the song
lies strongly in its lyrics.


Interesting, because it's the same arrangement that you like played by
someone else.


i think you are talking about Scot's link
It was supposedly Juber, it was l;abelled as such, but his head
was not shown.


That's correct; it wasn't LJ. *It was his arrangement.

I gave it high marks, and I thought it was LJ
at the time, and I did saay that I liked it, even thinking'it was LJ.
. I liked it better than the real LJ, though over all
I liked LJ, too. I just think a wonderfule performance at times was
marred by
some superficial embellishments. the core playing was great, i
just didn't appreciate some of the bells an whistles that sometimes
and somewhat
detracted form the song.


I would be interested in what parts you liked better played by the
intermediate level player, referenced by clock time.


In reference to the LJ performance, most of
the parts i was least favorable towards were 1/2
to 3/4 of the way through it. THe first half
was almost flawless and the last 1/4 was.


Was the part that you didn't like the piano solo in the Beatles
recording?


I understand this other person playing his
arrangmemt, although he really was quite good,
was not as technically accomplished as LJ, but the
performance was very musical and and I enjoyed it very much.
that is waht matters to me. I think that LJ gets distracted by showing
off
his techniques and and loses sight of the essence of the song.


What is your definition of "musical"?


I really don't know what he was trying to do with Layla.
I remember at the time, I was not alone here in
criticising his whole approach to that song.But in my opinion
he butchered the sone, no matter how accomplished a
player he is.

i als remeber that once you posted a link to a short
piece, or part of a piece you conducted.
I might have been recorded at some type of
Fennell appreciation event.


Yes, it was a 7 min Wagner work, Eastman Wind Ensemble, Carnegie Hall.


I didn't attack your conducting
Nothing worng jumped out at me


I didn't comment negatively on your comments, did I?



excuse me, but i speak my mind. and it is about
'the music, not you or LJ, or any of the other
performers you linked to.


As it should be.


BTW, not be facetious, I know you don't speak
ill of the living, but how about the dead?
you can rank some dead condutors for me,


Sure, who do you have in mind?
  #644   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default A Theory About Scott

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On Oct 9, 3:44*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On Oct 9, 12:41*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 8, 1:44*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 7, 9:12*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article

m,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 5, 11:49*am, Jenn
wrote:
In article

ps.c
om,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 5, 12:47*am, Jenn
wrote:
In article

grou
ps.c
om,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 4, 2:36*am, Jenn

wrote:
In article

gleg
roup
s.co
m,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 4, 12:20*am, Jenn

wrote:
In article
dfc3d950-9652-44d6-ae1a-71ed1e5ac...@r36g2000vb
n.go
ogle
grou
ps.c
om,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 3, 10:49*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to
Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 1, 5:46*pm, Clyde Slick

wrote:


On Oct 1, 3:59*pm, George M. Middius

wrote:


Sacky burbled:


LOL!!!! That is what being a
fawning
sycophant is
all
about!!!!


Um, no, Clyde, it isn't.


My dear SHhhh, yes it is


No, it's not.


yes it is


fawning·ly adv.
Synonyms: fawn1, apple-polish, bootlick,
kowtow,
slaver1,
toady,
truckle
These verbs mean to curry favor by
behaving
obsequiously
and
submissively: fawned on her superior;
students
apple-polishing
the
teacher; bootlicked to get a promotion;
lawyers
kowtowing
to
a
judge;
slavered over his rich uncle; toadying to
members
of
the
club;
nobles
truckling to the king.


syc·o·phant *(sk-fnt, sk-)
n.
A servile self-seeker who attempts to win
favor
by
flattering
influential people.


Very good, Clyde. You can cut-and-paste as
well
as
your
stupid
friend
can.


Um, what will Jenn "get" from these people?
That's
the
thread
you
miss. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LOL!!!
then is she has nothing to gain then she has
nothing
to
be
afraid
of
and she should comparatively
rank those players.
She is afraid that those frail ego luimnaries
will complain to the contractor that hires
her.


You are so full of bull**** that it oozes from
you.
*You've
jumped
to a
massively bad conclusion. *Here's a concept
that
you
obviously
don't
understand: *Of the 8 guitarists I posted, 4 of
them
are
very
good
friends, and 2 others I know pretty well.
*Perhaps
it's
not
true
for
you, but in my life and in my business, it's
considered
impolite to
rank
the talents of your friends and colleagues like
they
were
entrees
at a
restaurant. *If I have critical words for then,
as
I
sometimes
do,
they
are offered in private, where it is appropriate
to
do
so.


FINE!!!
Then don't give us your sugarcoated bull****
opinions
of
these
people


I've not said anything about them that I don't
believe.
*There
was
nothing 'sugarcoated'. *I hope that you can
understand
that,
but I
doubt
that.


We already know that you won't say anything that
could
be construed as the least bit critical, in fear of
offending
your thin skinnned friends and professional
acquaintances,


No, it's a matter of professionalism.


Then your "professional" opinions and evaluations,
'such as they are, are vacuous and worthless, you might
as well kepp quiet about them,
continuing your sugar coated oohs and aahs
just makes you llook bad.


As I said, I won't be any more music here.


and I hope no more oohs and aahs from you


Heck no. *Saying that you like something is obviously not a
popular
thing to do here.


I told you which of the vids I liked, and which I didn't.


Yes you did. *I liked them all. *That's why I posted them.


WHen Scott produced a vid supposedly of LJ, I
liked it and remarked that he played something I liked,
and it was different form the LJ vids you provided.
LAter, it turned out it was't LJ.


I understand that LJ has quite a good reputation.
Maybe if you tried harder, you could provide a vid of
his I would like.


lol *youtube.com
or try the audio file that I posted *http://sn.im/s8iz0-p0n


*MAybe he plays some other
pieces with more finesse and musicality.
Maybe its not LJ I don't like,
mabe it is your selection criteria.
But I don't know, I liked some of the vids
you provided of other artists.


It was a lot more enjoyable than one of the usual
'marches/ that you presented. Overall, I like dit, but ultimately i
found it marred
by a number of trite embellishments, that detracted from
the sublime simplicity of a wonderful introspective song.
Although it is a very nice melody, the charm of the song
lies strongly in its lyrics.


Interesting, because it's the same arrangement that you like played by
someone else.


i think you are talking about Scot's link
It was supposedly Juber, it was l;abelled as such, but his head
was not shown.


That's correct; it wasn't LJ. *It was his arrangement.

I gave it high marks, and I thought it was LJ
at the time, and I did saay that I liked it, even thinking'it was LJ.
. I liked it better than the real LJ, though over all
I liked LJ, too. I just think a wonderfule performance at times was
marred by
some superficial embellishments. the core playing was great, i
just didn't appreciate some of the bells an whistles that sometimes
and somewhat
detracted form the song.


I would be interested in what parts you liked better played by the
intermediate level player, referenced by clock time.


I would want to reference the specific points on the
LJ performance, but what showed up onmy screen, there was
no clock time


Could you just check a watch or something and give me a time where there
is something you consider offensive? I'm really just trying to learn
here, not argue with you.
  #645   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,415
Default A Theory About Scott

On Oct 9, 7:59*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Oct 9, 3:44*am, Jenn wrote:


snip 1179 lines

I would be interested in what parts you liked better played by the
intermediate level player, referenced by clock time.


I would want to reference the specific points on the
LJ performance, but what showed up onmy screen, there was
no clock time


Um, dude? Do you know how to trim posts?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  #646   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default A Theory About Scott

On Oct 9, 3:52*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


I gave it high marks, and I thought it was LJ
at the time, and I did saay that I liked it, even thinking'it was LJ.
. I liked it better than the real LJ, though over all
I liked LJ, too. I just think a wonderfule performance at times was
marred by
some superficial embellishments. the core playing was great, i
just didn't appreciate some of the bells an whistles that sometimes
and somewhat
detracted form the song.


I would be interested in what parts you liked better played by the
intermediate level player, referenced by clock time.


In reference to the LJ performance, most of
the parts i was least favorable towards were 1/2
to 3/4 of the way through it. THe first half
was almost flawless and the last 1/4 was.


Was the part that you didn't like the piano solo in the Beatles
recording?




Yes, that is true, it seemed to be made to sound like a Hasrpsichord,
i guess it was a fashion setter back in the early/pre hippy days,
but i find it annoying, more annoying than LJ's treatment of that
part.
maybe sgtripping that part bare and slowing it abit might have worked
better.



I understand this other person playing his
arrangmemt, although he really was quite good,
was not as technically accomplished as LJ, but the
performance was very musical and and I enjoyed it very much.
that is waht matters to me. I think that LJ gets distracted by showing
off
his techniques and and loses sight of the essence of the song.


What is your definition of "musical"?


If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck, and not
musical.
It is a subjective judgement, don't become like Arny over this




I really don't know what he was trying to do with Layla.
I remember at the time, I was not alone here in
criticising his whole approach to that song.But in my opinion
he butchered the sone, no matter how accomplished a
player he is.


i als remeber that once you posted a link to a short
piece, or part of a piece you conducted.
I might have been recorded at some type of
Fennell appreciation event.


Yes, it was a 7 min Wagner work, Eastman Wind Ensemble, Carnegie Hall.



I didn't attack your conducting
Nothing worng jumped out at me


I didn't comment negatively on your comments, did I?


you would not have any reasons to.





excuse me, but i speak my mind. and it is about
'the music, not you or LJ, or any of the other
performers you linked to.


As it should be.



BTW, not be facetious, I know you don't speak
ill of the living, but how about the dead?
you can rank some dead condutors for me,


Sure, who do you have in mind?


Two separate batches
The first batch is VonKarajan, Reiner, KLemperer, Leinsdorf, and
Dorati.

the second batch is Munch, PAray, Monteux, Liebowitz,
Ansermet, Fiedler, Goosens and Bernstein.

How about some POP conducters?
Fenell (hehehe), Willams and Fiedler.
(Warning!!!!! Wlliams is alive!)


  #647   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default A Theory About Scott

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On Oct 9, 3:52*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


I gave it high marks, and I thought it was LJ
at the time, and I did saay that I liked it, even thinking'it was LJ.
. I liked it better than the real LJ, though over all
I liked LJ, too. I just think a wonderfule performance at times was
marred by
some superficial embellishments. the core playing was great, i
just didn't appreciate some of the bells an whistles that sometimes
and somewhat
detracted form the song.


I would be interested in what parts you liked better played by the
intermediate level player, referenced by clock time.


In reference to the LJ performance, most of
the parts i was least favorable towards were 1/2
to 3/4 of the way through it. THe first half
was almost flawless and the last 1/4 was.


Was the part that you didn't like the piano solo in the Beatles
recording?




Yes, that is true, it seemed to be made to sound like a Hasrpsichord,
i guess it was a fashion setter back in the early/pre hippy days,
but i find it annoying, more annoying than LJ's treatment of that
part.
maybe sgtripping that part bare and slowing it abit might have worked
better.



I understand this other person playing his
arrangmemt, although he really was quite good,
was not as technically accomplished as LJ, but the
performance was very musical and and I enjoyed it very much.
that is waht matters to me. I think that LJ gets distracted by showing
off
his techniques and and loses sight of the essence of the song.


What is your definition of "musical"?


If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck, and not
musical.
It is a subjective judgement, don't become like Arny over this


lol As I said, all I'm trying to do is learn from your opinions. Don't
accuse me of being like Krueger.





I really don't know what he was trying to do with Layla.
I remember at the time, I was not alone here in
criticising his whole approach to that song.But in my opinion
he butchered the sone, no matter how accomplished a
player he is.


i als remeber that once you posted a link to a short
piece, or part of a piece you conducted.
I might have been recorded at some type of
Fennell appreciation event.


Yes, it was a 7 min Wagner work, Eastman Wind Ensemble, Carnegie Hall.



I didn't attack your conducting
Nothing worng jumped out at me


I didn't comment negatively on your comments, did I?


you would not have any reasons to.





excuse me, but i speak my mind. and it is about
'the music, not you or LJ, or any of the other
performers you linked to.


As it should be.



BTW, not be facetious, I know you don't speak
ill of the living, but how about the dead?
you can rank some dead condutors for me,


Sure, who do you have in mind?


Two separate batches
The first batch is VonKarajan, Reiner, KLemperer, Leinsdorf, and
Dorati.


It all depends on the literature, of course. Conductors, like all
performers, have greater and lesser strengths. But taken as a whole
body of work:
Reiner
HVK
Leinsdorf
Klemperer
Dorati


the second batch is Munch, PAray, Monteux, Liebowitz,
Ansermet, Fiedler, Goosens and Bernstein.


Bernstein
Ansermet
Munch
Monteux
Liebowitz
Monteux
Paray
Goosens
Fiedler


How about some POP conducters?
Fenell (hehehe), Willams and Fiedler.
(Warning!!!!! Wlliams is alive!)


Fiedler
Fennell
Williams

Fred was so much more than a pops conductor, though. MUCH more
"serious" literature done than either of the others, especially
Williams. Factoid: Williams won the Boston Pops job after Fiedler by a
5-4 vote of the Board. The runner up? Fred Fennell. Statements of the
Board members who voted against Fred made it clear that the reasons were
age (Fred was 70) and Williams' fame for the Star Wars score. Williams
really learned to conduct on the job, but he ended up being fairly good.
Fred conducted the BP yearly from 1966 until his death.
  #648   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default A Theory About Scott

In article

,

Jenn wrote:

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On Oct 9, 3:52*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


I gave it high marks, and I thought it was LJ
at the time, and I did saay that I liked it, even thinking'it was
LJ.
. I liked it better than the real LJ, though over all
I liked LJ, too. I just think a wonderfule performance at times was
marred by
some superficial embellishments. the core playing was great, i
just didn't appreciate some of the bells an whistles that sometimes
and somewhat
detracted form the song.

I would be interested in what parts you liked better played by the
intermediate level player, referenced by clock time.

In reference to the LJ performance, most of
the parts i was least favorable towards were 1/2
to 3/4 of the way through it. THe first half
was almost flawless and the last 1/4 was.

Was the part that you didn't like the piano solo in the Beatles
recording?




Yes, that is true, it seemed to be made to sound like a Hasrpsichord,
i guess it was a fashion setter back in the early/pre hippy days,
but i find it annoying, more annoying than LJ's treatment of that
part.
maybe sgtripping that part bare and slowing it abit might have worked
better.


I forgot to answer this part earlier:
It was a piano that ended up sounding more like a clavichord because
George Martin composed that interlude and played it on piano, but he
couldn't play it up to speed, so he played it in half time and they
double the tape speed. Anyway, this is interesting. Compare the
original Beatles recording with LJ's playing. How different are they?
So maybe it's not LJ's playing (or arrangement) there that you dislike,
but rather the way the music was written?
  #649   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn[_3_] Jenn[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,034
Default A Theory About Scott

On Oct 9, 12:28*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Oct 9, 12:41*am, Jenn wrote:





In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 8, 1:44*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 7, 9:12*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 5, 11:49*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 5, 12:47*am, Jenn wrote:
In article

om,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 4, 2:36*am, Jenn
wrote:
In article

s.co
m,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 4, 12:20*am, Jenn
wrote:
In article

grou
ps.c
om,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 3, 10:49*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 1, 5:46*pm, Clyde Slick

wrote:


On Oct 1, 3:59*pm, George M. Middius

wrote:


Sacky burbled:


LOL!!!! That is what being a fawning
sycophant is
all
about!!!!


Um, no, Clyde, it isn't.


My dear SHhhh, yes it is


No, it's not.


yes it is


fawning·ly adv.
Synonyms: fawn1, apple-polish, bootlick, kowtow,
slaver1,
toady,
truckle
These verbs mean to curry favor by behaving
obsequiously
and
submissively: fawned on her superior; students
apple-polishing
the
teacher; bootlicked to get a promotion; lawyers
kowtowing
to
a
judge;
slavered over his rich uncle; toadying to members
of
the
club;
nobles
truckling to the king.


syc·o·phant *(sk-fnt, sk-)
n.
A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor
by
flattering
influential people.


Very good, Clyde. You can cut-and-paste as well as
your
stupid
friend
can.


Um, what will Jenn "get" from these people? That's
the
thread
you
miss. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LOL!!!
then is she has nothing to gain then she has nothing
to
be
afraid
of
and she should comparatively
rank those players.
She is afraid that those frail ego luimnaries
will complain to the contractor that hires her.

  #650   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default A Theory About Scott

On Oct 9, 8:07*pm, Jenn wrote:


It all depends on the literature, of course. *Conductors, like all
performers, have greater and lesser strengths. *But taken as a whole
body of work:


I understand that, that consideration was the cause for separation
into these groups

Reiner
HVK
Leinsdorf
Klemperer
Dorati



Reiner
HVK
Leinsdorf
Dorati
Klemperer




the second batch is Munch, PAray, Monteux, Liebowitz,
Ansermet, *Fiedler, Goosens and Bernstein.


Bernstein
Ansermet
Munch
Monteux
Liebowitz
Monteux
Paray
Goosens
Fiedler


Ansermet
Monteux
Liebowitz
Munch
Paray
Fiedler
Bernstein
'Goosens





How about some POP conducters?
Fenell (hehehe), Willams and Fiedler.
(Warning!!!!! Wlliams is alive!)


Fiedler
Fennell
Williams


Yes
Fiedler
'Fennel
Williams


Fred was so much more than a pops conductor, though.

*MUCH more
"serious" literature done than either of the others, especially
Williams. *


My opinion was that Fiedler was more than a pops conductor, also.

Factoid: *Williams won the Boston Pops job after Fiedler by a
5-4 vote of the Board. *The runner up? *Fred Fennell. *Statements of the
Board members who voted against Fred made it clear that the reasons were
age (Fred was 70) and Williams' fame for the Star Wars score. *Williams
really learned to conduct on the job, but he ended up being fairly good. *
Fred conducted the BP yearly from 1966 until his death.


the main difference is your extremely high opinion of Bernstein'
vs my much lower opinion of him
I admire his courage in interpreting things
differently, but he missed the boat so many times,
Every so often he came up with a gem, for me
it is his Shostakovich 5th sym


  #651   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default A Theory About Scott

On Oct 9, 8:15*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article




,

*Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 9, 3:52*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


I gave it high marks, and I thought it was LJ
at the time, and I did saay that I liked it, even thinking'it was
LJ.
. I liked it better than the real LJ, though over all
I liked LJ, too. I just think a wonderfule performance at times was
marred by
some superficial embellishments. the core playing was great, i
just didn't appreciate some of the bells an whistles that sometimes
and somewhat
detracted form the song.


I would be interested in what parts you liked better played by the
intermediate level player, referenced by clock time.


In reference to the LJ performance, most of
the parts i was least favorable towards were 1/2
to 3/4 of the way through it. THe first half
was almost flawless and the last 1/4 was.


Was the part that you didn't like the piano solo in the Beatles
recording?


Yes, that is true, it seemed to be made to sound like a *Hasrpsichord,
i guess it was a fashion setter back in the early/pre hippy days,
but i find it annoying, more annoying than LJ's treatment of that
part.
maybe sgtripping that part bare and slowing it *abit might have worked
better.


I forgot to answer this part earlier:
It was a piano that ended up sounding more like a clavichord because
George Martin composed that interlude and played it on piano, but he
couldn't play it up to speed, so he played it in half time and they
double the tape speed. *Anyway, this is interesting. *Compare the
original Beatles recording with LJ's playing. *How different are they? *
So maybe it's not LJ's playing (or arrangement) there that you dislike,
but rather the way the music was written?


it was his arrangement of a part of the song.
Bit it was also that part of the song,
the original solo was not suitable for an acoustic guitar,
it was written for another instrument, it
would have been better arranged with that in mind.
And more in keeping with the feel of the rest of the song, too.
I didn't really like the way that part of the original was done.
But, being what it was, as it was written, its not suitable
for the guitar. It was written for an instrument with a
certain sound, and that certain sound is not anywhere close to the
sound of an acoustic guitar.
I find a few faults of trite embellishments
in his playing, but mostly, the fault is in
the arranging of that part of the song.
Having said that, the other vid of another person playing
whaqt you say is that arrangement, is more pleasing.
  #652   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default A Theory About Scott

No
  #653   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default A Theory About Scott

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

No


No what?
  #654   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
George M. Middius[_4_] George M. Middius[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,817
Default A Theory About Scott



Jenn said:

No


No what?


No, we have some bananas.


  #655   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default A Theory About Scott

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On Oct 9, 8:15*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article




,

*Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 9, 3:52*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


I gave it high marks, and I thought it was LJ
at the time, and I did saay that I liked it, even thinking'it
was
LJ.
. I liked it better than the real LJ, though over all
I liked LJ, too. I just think a wonderfule performance at times
was
marred by
some superficial embellishments. the core playing was great, i
just didn't appreciate some of the bells an whistles that
sometimes
and somewhat
detracted form the song.


I would be interested in what parts you liked better played by
the
intermediate level player, referenced by clock time.


In reference to the LJ performance, most of
the parts i was least favorable towards were 1/2
to 3/4 of the way through it. THe first half
was almost flawless and the last 1/4 was.


Was the part that you didn't like the piano solo in the Beatles
recording?


Yes, that is true, it seemed to be made to sound like a *Hasrpsichord,
i guess it was a fashion setter back in the early/pre hippy days,
but i find it annoying, more annoying than LJ's treatment of that
part.
maybe sgtripping that part bare and slowing it *abit might have worked
better.


I forgot to answer this part earlier:
It was a piano that ended up sounding more like a clavichord because
George Martin composed that interlude and played it on piano, but he
couldn't play it up to speed, so he played it in half time and they
double the tape speed. *Anyway, this is interesting. *Compare the
original Beatles recording with LJ's playing. *How different are they? *
So maybe it's not LJ's playing (or arrangement) there that you dislike,
but rather the way the music was written?


it was his arrangement of a part of the song.
Bit it was also that part of the song,
the original solo was not suitable for an acoustic guitar,
it was written for another instrument, it
would have been better arranged with that in mind.
And more in keeping with the feel of the rest of the song, too.
I didn't really like the way that part of the original was done.
But, being what it was, as it was written, its not suitable
for the guitar. It was written for an instrument with a
certain sound, and that certain sound is not anywhere close to the
sound of an acoustic guitar.
I find a few faults of trite embellishments
in his playing, but mostly, the fault is in
the arranging of that part of the song.
Having said that, the other vid of another person playing
whaqt you say is that arrangement, is more pleasing.


I see, so LJ's fault at that spot is playing it TOO much like the
original piano solo, and the problem is that it's on guitar?

Can you tell me why you like the other player's job better on the piano
break?


  #656   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default A Theory About Scott

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On Oct 9, 8:07*pm, Jenn wrote:


It all depends on the literature, of course. *Conductors, like all
performers, have greater and lesser strengths. *But taken as a whole
body of work:


I understand that, that consideration was the cause for separation
into these groups

Reiner
HVK
Leinsdorf
Klemperer
Dorati



Reiner
HVK
Leinsdorf
Dorati
Klemperer




the second batch is Munch, PAray, Monteux, Liebowitz,
Ansermet, *Fiedler, Goosens and Bernstein.


Bernstein
Ansermet
Munch
Monteux
Liebowitz
Monteux
Paray
Goosens
Fiedler


Ansermet
Monteux
Liebowitz
Munch
Paray
Fiedler
Bernstein
'Goosens





How about some POP conducters?
Fenell (hehehe), Willams and Fiedler.
(Warning!!!!! Wlliams is alive!)


Fiedler
Fennell
Williams


Yes
Fiedler
'Fennel
Williams


Fred was so much more than a pops conductor, though.

*MUCH more
"serious" literature done than either of the others, especially
Williams. *


My opinion was that Fiedler was more than a pops conductor, also.


Yes he was, especially as a youngster. But virtually all of his
recording output is with the Pops.


Factoid: *Williams won the Boston Pops job after Fiedler by a
5-4 vote of the Board. *The runner up? *Fred Fennell. *Statements of the
Board members who voted against Fred made it clear that the reasons were
age (Fred was 70) and Williams' fame for the Star Wars score. *Williams
really learned to conduct on the job, but he ended up being fairly good. *
Fred conducted the BP yearly from 1966 until his death.


the main difference is your extremely high opinion of Bernstein'
vs my much lower opinion of him
I admire his courage in interpreting things
differently, but he missed the boat so many times,
Every so often he came up with a gem, for me
it is his Shostakovich 5th sym


I agree about Shosty 5, and would add his Tchaikovsky 4, all of his
Mahler, most of his Haydn Symphonies, his Copland, his Bernstein, and
his Ives. My opinion on LB is based less on his recordings (so many of
which were ruined by John McClure), but on his vast TV and video work
that I've watched so carefully, and the several times that I heard him
live. They broke the mold with him, for sure.
  #657   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default A Theory About Scott

On Oct 9, 10:14*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

No


No what?


LOL!!!!
Shh!! asked me if If know how to trim posts!
  #658   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default A Theory About Scott

On Oct 10, 12:11*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:



On Oct 9, 8:15*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article


,
*Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 9, 3:52*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


I gave it high marks, and I thought it was LJ
at the time, and I did saay that I liked it, even thinking'it
was
LJ.
. I liked it better than the real LJ, though over all
I liked LJ, too. I just think a wonderfule performance at times
was
marred by
some superficial embellishments. the core playing was great, i
just didn't appreciate some of the bells an whistles that
sometimes
and somewhat
detracted form the song.


I would be interested in what parts you liked better played by
the
intermediate level player, referenced by clock time.


In reference to the LJ performance, most of
the parts i was least favorable towards were 1/2
to 3/4 of the way through it. THe first half
was almost flawless and the last 1/4 was.


Was the part that you didn't like the piano solo in the Beatles
recording?


Yes, that is true, it seemed to be made to sound like a *Hasrpsichord,
i guess it was a fashion setter back in the early/pre hippy days,
but i find it annoying, more annoying than LJ's treatment of that
part.
maybe sgtripping that part bare and slowing it *abit might have worked
better.


I forgot to answer this part earlier:
It was a piano that ended up sounding more like a clavichord because
George Martin composed that interlude and played it on piano, but he
couldn't play it up to speed, so he played it in half time and they
double the tape speed. *Anyway, this is interesting. *Compare the
original Beatles recording with LJ's playing. *How different are they? *
So maybe it's not LJ's playing (or arrangement) there that you dislike,
but rather the way the music was written?


it was his arrangement of a part of the song.
Bit it was also that part of the song,
the original solo was not suitable for an acoustic guitar,
it was written for another instrument, it
would have been better arranged with that in mind.
And more in keeping with the feel of the rest of the song, too.
I didn't really like the way that part of the original was done.
But, being what it was, as it was written, its not suitable
for the guitar. It was written for an instrument with a
certain sound, and that certain sound is not anywhere close to the
sound of an acoustic guitar.
I find a few faults of trite embellishments
in his playing, but mostly, the fault is in
the arranging of that part of the song.
Having said that, the other vid of another person playing
whaqt you say is that arrangement, is more pleasing.


I see, so LJ's fault at that spot is playing it TOO much like the
original piano solo, and the problem is that it's on guitar?


Actually, yes!
He is responsible for the way he arranges and interprets a song.
And even in selecting to pkay a particular song, to begin with.
Nobody made hom do iot, and nobody
'made him do it in the way he elected to do it.


Can you tell me why you like the other player's job better on the piano
break?


if i can sift through all those posts and find the link,
later, i have to work today
  #659   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default A Theory About Scott

On Oct 10, 12:17*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:



On Oct 9, 8:07*pm, Jenn wrote:


It all depends on the literature, of course. *Conductors, like all
performers, have greater and lesser strengths. *But taken as a whole
body of work:


I understand that, that consideration was the cause for separation
into these groups


Reiner
HVK
Leinsdorf
Klemperer
Dorati


Reiner
HVK
Leinsdorf
Dorati
Klemperer


the second batch is Munch, PAray, Monteux, Liebowitz,
Ansermet, *Fiedler, Goosens and Bernstein.


Bernstein
Ansermet
Munch
Monteux
Liebowitz
Monteux
Paray
Goosens
Fiedler


Ansermet
Monteux
Liebowitz
Munch
Paray
Fiedler
Bernstein
'Goosens


How about some POP conducters?
Fenell (hehehe), Willams and Fiedler.
(Warning!!!!! Wlliams is alive!)


Fiedler
Fennell
Williams


Yes
Fiedler
'Fennel
Williams


Fred was so much more than a pops conductor, though.

*MUCH more
"serious" literature done than either of the others, especially
Williams. *


My opinion was that Fiedler was more than a pops conductor, also.


Yes he was, especially as a youngster. *But virtually all of his
recording output is with the Pops.



Factoid: *Williams won the Boston Pops job after Fiedler by a
5-4 vote of the Board. *The runner up? *Fred Fennell. *Statements of the
Board members who voted against Fred made it clear that the reasons were
age (Fred was 70) and Williams' fame for the Star Wars score. *Williams
really learned to conduct on the job, but he ended up being fairly good. *
Fred conducted the BP yearly from 1966 until his death.


the main difference is your extremely high opinion of Bernstein'
vs my much lower opinion of him
I admire his courage in interpreting things
differently, but he missed the boat so many times,
Every so often he came up with a gem, for me
it is his Shostakovich 5th sym


I agree about Shosty 5, and would add his Tchaikovsky 4, all of his
Mahler, most of his Haydn Symphonies, his Copland, his Bernstein, and
his Ives. *My opinion on LB is based less on his recordings (so many of
which were ruined by John McClure), but on his vast TV and video work
that I've watched so carefully, and the several times that I heard him
live. *They broke the mold with him, for sure.


I didn't hold the miserable recording quality against him.
And I didn't hold my admiration for his outreach to
and education of young people in his favor. I strictly went on
performance.
  #660   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
MiNe 109 MiNe 109 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,597
Default A Theory About Scott

In article

,

Jenn wrote:

I see, so LJ's fault at that spot is playing it TOO much like the
original piano solo, and the problem is that it's on guitar?


I remember thinking the scales were better than Martin in that they were
performed in real time!

Stephen


  #661   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default A Theory About Scott

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On Oct 10, 12:17*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:



On Oct 9, 8:07*pm, Jenn wrote:


It all depends on the literature, of course. *Conductors, like all
performers, have greater and lesser strengths. *But taken as a whole
body of work:


I understand that, that consideration was the cause for separation
into these groups


Reiner
HVK
Leinsdorf
Klemperer
Dorati


Reiner
HVK
Leinsdorf
Dorati
Klemperer


the second batch is Munch, PAray, Monteux, Liebowitz,
Ansermet, *Fiedler, Goosens and Bernstein.


Bernstein
Ansermet
Munch
Monteux
Liebowitz
Monteux
Paray
Goosens
Fiedler


Ansermet
Monteux
Liebowitz
Munch
Paray
Fiedler
Bernstein
'Goosens


How about some POP conducters?
Fenell (hehehe), Willams and Fiedler.
(Warning!!!!! Wlliams is alive!)


Fiedler
Fennell
Williams


Yes
Fiedler
'Fennel
Williams


Fred was so much more than a pops conductor, though.
*MUCH more
"serious" literature done than either of the others, especially
Williams. *


My opinion was that Fiedler was more than a pops conductor, also.


Yes he was, especially as a youngster. *But virtually all of his
recording output is with the Pops.



Factoid: *Williams won the Boston Pops job after Fiedler by a
5-4 vote of the Board. *The runner up? *Fred Fennell. *Statements of
the
Board members who voted against Fred made it clear that the reasons
were
age (Fred was 70) and Williams' fame for the Star Wars score. *Williams
really learned to conduct on the job, but he ended up being fairly
good. *
Fred conducted the BP yearly from 1966 until his death.


the main difference is your extremely high opinion of Bernstein'
vs my much lower opinion of him
I admire his courage in interpreting things
differently, but he missed the boat so many times,
Every so often he came up with a gem, for me
it is his Shostakovich 5th sym


I agree about Shosty 5, and would add his Tchaikovsky 4, all of his
Mahler, most of his Haydn Symphonies, his Copland, his Bernstein, and
his Ives. *My opinion on LB is based less on his recordings (so many of
which were ruined by John McClure), but on his vast TV and video work
that I've watched so carefully, and the several times that I heard him
live. *They broke the mold with him, for sure.


I didn't hold the miserable recording quality against him.
And I didn't hold my admiration for his outreach to
and education of young people in his favor. I strictly went on
performance.


As did I.
  #662   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default A Theory About Scott

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On Oct 10, 12:11*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:



On Oct 9, 8:15*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article


,
*Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 9, 3:52*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article

,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


I gave it high marks, and I thought it was LJ
at the time, and I did saay that I liked it, even
thinking'it
was
LJ.
. I liked it better than the real LJ, though over all
I liked LJ, too. I just think a wonderfule performance at
times
was
marred by
some superficial embellishments. the core playing was
great, i
just didn't appreciate some of the bells an whistles that
sometimes
and somewhat
detracted form the song.


I would be interested in what parts you liked better played
by
the
intermediate level player, referenced by clock time.


In reference to the LJ performance, most of
the parts i was least favorable towards were 1/2
to 3/4 of the way through it. THe first half
was almost flawless and the last 1/4 was.


Was the part that you didn't like the piano solo in the Beatles
recording?


Yes, that is true, it seemed to be made to sound like a
*Hasrpsichord,
i guess it was a fashion setter back in the early/pre hippy days,
but i find it annoying, more annoying than LJ's treatment of that
part.
maybe sgtripping that part bare and slowing it *abit might have
worked
better.


I forgot to answer this part earlier:
It was a piano that ended up sounding more like a clavichord because
George Martin composed that interlude and played it on piano, but he
couldn't play it up to speed, so he played it in half time and they
double the tape speed. *Anyway, this is interesting. *Compare the
original Beatles recording with LJ's playing. *How different are they?
*
So maybe it's not LJ's playing (or arrangement) there that you dislike,
but rather the way the music was written?


it was his arrangement of a part of the song.
Bit it was also that part of the song,
the original solo was not suitable for an acoustic guitar,
it was written for another instrument, it
would have been better arranged with that in mind.
And more in keeping with the feel of the rest of the song, too.
I didn't really like the way that part of the original was done.
But, being what it was, as it was written, its not suitable
for the guitar. It was written for an instrument with a
certain sound, and that certain sound is not anywhere close to the
sound of an acoustic guitar.
I find a few faults of trite embellishments
in his playing, but mostly, the fault is in
the arranging of that part of the song.
Having said that, the other vid of another person playing
whaqt you say is that arrangement, is more pleasing.


I see, so LJ's fault at that spot is playing it TOO much like the
original piano solo, and the problem is that it's on guitar?


Actually, yes!
He is responsible for the way he arranges and interprets a song.
And even in selecting to pkay a particular song, to begin with.
Nobody made hom do iot, and nobody
'made him do it in the way he elected to do it.


Of course.



Can you tell me why you like the other player's job better on the piano
break?


if i can sift through all those posts and find the link,
later, i have to work today

  #663   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
George M. Middius[_4_] George M. Middius[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,817
Default A Theory About Scott



Sacky the overgrown baby whined:

No


No what?


LOL!!!!
Shh!! asked me if If know how to trim posts!


My question: Do you know how to behave like an adult?


  #664   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,415
Default A Theory About Scott

On Oct 10, 7:12*am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article


,

*Jenn wrote:
I see, so LJ's fault at that spot is playing it TOO much like the
original piano solo, and the problem is that it's on guitar?


I remember thinking the scales were better than Martin in that they were
performed in real time!


Maybe that's why Clyde would consider LJ to be showing off?
  #665   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default A Theory About Scott

On Oct 9, 8:15*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article



I forgot to answer this part earlier:
It was a piano that ended up sounding more like a clavichord because
George Martin composed that interlude and played it on piano, but he
couldn't play it up to speed, so he played it in half time and they
double the tape speed. *Anyway, this is interesting. *Compare the
original Beatles recording with LJ's playing. *How different are they? *
So maybe it's not LJ's playing (or arrangement) there that you dislike,
but rather the way the music was written?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi7gDs2GpJA


Overall,
this other guy has a little bluesier feel i like, the timing
seems not as rigid, it is more fluid to me, he has softer
attacks on the strings and it sounds not so staccato,
the clavichord (as in the original ) solo section
particularly sounds better, although still, I don't
favor the arrangement keeping it it in the manner it does
(More or less mimicking the original)
this guy losses ot just a lttle at the end of that part, at about 2:10
to 2:12.

Earlier, I think it was about 2:45,, that lttle but of three notes
ringing, well I don't really like it, it sounds trite, but it sounded
much more ovnoxious on the Juber version.

So this guy is not the technical master, but musicality wins out in
the end.
I don't care that he might be "less accurate"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!
the two extras at the endd



  #666   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default A Theory About Scott

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On Oct 9, 8:15*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article



I forgot to answer this part earlier:
It was a piano that ended up sounding more like a clavichord because
George Martin composed that interlude and played it on piano, but he
couldn't play it up to speed, so he played it in half time and they
double the tape speed. *Anyway, this is interesting. *Compare the
original Beatles recording with LJ's playing. *How different are they? *
So maybe it's not LJ's playing (or arrangement) there that you dislike,
but rather the way the music was written?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi7gDs2GpJA


Overall,
this other guy has a little bluesier feel i like, the timing
seems not as rigid, it is more fluid to me, he has softer
attacks on the strings and it sounds not so staccato,
the clavichord (as in the original ) solo section
particularly sounds better, although still, I don't
favor the arrangement keeping it it in the manner it does
(More or less mimicking the original)
this guy losses ot just a lttle at the end of that part, at about 2:10
to 2:12.

Earlier, I think it was about 2:45,, that lttle but of three notes
ringing, well I don't really like it, it sounds trite, but it sounded
much more ovnoxious on the Juber version.

So this guy is not the technical master, but musicality wins out in
the end.
I don't care that he might be "less accurate"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!
the two extras at the endd


I just fired up the recording system and dashed off my version of LJ's
arrangement. I hope that you like it!
http://sn.im/sg2mq-iv5
  #667   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default A Theory About Scott

On Oct 11, 12:33*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:



On Oct 9, 8:15*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article


I forgot to answer this part earlier:
It was a piano that ended up sounding more like a clavichord because
George Martin composed that interlude and played it on piano, but he
couldn't play it up to speed, so he played it in half time and they
double the tape speed. *Anyway, this is interesting. *Compare the
original Beatles recording with LJ's playing. *How different are they? *
So maybe it's not LJ's playing (or arrangement) there that you dislike,
but rather the way the music was written?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi7gDs2GpJA


Overall,
this other guy has a little bluesier feel i like, the timing
seems not as *rigid, it is more fluid to me, he has softer
attacks on the strings and it sounds not so staccato,
the clavichord (as in the original ) solo section
particularly sounds better, although still, I don't
favor the arrangement keeping it it in the manner it does
(More or less mimicking the original)
this guy losses ot just a lttle at the end of that part, at about 2:10
to 2:12.


Earlier, I think it was about 2:45,, that lttle but of three notes
ringing, well I don't really like it, it sounds trite, but it sounded
much more ovnoxious on the Juber version.


So this guy is not the technical master, but musicality wins out in
the end.
I don't care that he might be "less accurate"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!
the two extras at the endd


I just fired up the recording system and dashed off my version of LJ's
arrangement. *I hope that you like it!http://sn.im/sg2mq-iv5


Thank you for providing that. I truly appreciate it.
I hope that my comments will not prevent you from
posting more of your playing.
First of all, I admire that you went way out of the box
form the original song, and from LJ's arrangement.
I can see that you put a lot of yourself
in it, rather than being a copyist, or someone
who must strive for 'accuracy' to some model
of ideal. I like that a lot.
I respect your playing, but as far a
for my musical enjoyment, ti
didn't hit the spot. But that is a matter of my tastes.
I will also say that in listening I got a sense that you were trying
to
portray your vision of the song, rather tham using
it as an exercise to show off your chops.
So, I would say it was not a self
indulgent ego trip, but something
you feel.
  #668   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default A Theory About Scott

On Oct 11, 11:54*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:33*am, Jenn wrote:



In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 9, 8:15*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article


I forgot to answer this part earlier:
It was a piano that ended up sounding more like a clavichord because
George Martin composed that interlude and played it on piano, but he
couldn't play it up to speed, so he played it in half time and they
double the tape speed. *Anyway, this is interesting. *Compare the
original Beatles recording with LJ's playing. *How different are they? *
So maybe it's not LJ's playing (or arrangement) there that you dislike,
but rather the way the music was written?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi7gDs2GpJA


Overall,
this other guy has a little bluesier feel i like, the timing
seems not as *rigid, it is more fluid to me, he has softer
attacks on the strings and it sounds not so staccato,
the clavichord (as in the original ) solo section
particularly sounds better, although still, I don't
favor the arrangement keeping it it in the manner it does
(More or less mimicking the original)
this guy losses ot just a lttle at the end of that part, at about 2:10
to 2:12.


Earlier, I think it was about 2:45,, that lttle but of three notes
ringing, well I don't really like it, it sounds trite, but it sounded
much more ovnoxious on the Juber version.


So this guy is not the technical master, but musicality wins out in
the end.
I don't care that he might be "less accurate"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!
the two extras at the endd


I just fired up the recording system and dashed off my version of LJ's
arrangement. *I hope that you like it!http://sn.im/sg2mq-iv5


Thank you for providing that. I truly appreciate it.
I hope that my comments will not prevent you from
posting more of your playing.
First of all, I admire that you went way out of the box
form the original song, and from LJ's arrangement.
I can see that you put a lot of yourself
in it, rather than being a copyist, or someone
who must strive for 'accuracy' to some *model
of ideal. I like that a lot.
I respect your playing, but as far a
for my musical enjoyment, ti
didn't hit the spot. But that is a matter of my tastes.
I will also say that in listening I got a sense that you were trying
to
portray your vision of the song, rather tham using
it as an exercise to show off your chops.
So, I would say it was not a self
indulgent ego trip, but something
you feel.


oh, I forgot!!!

What i really want to here is your trombone version!
  #669   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default A Theory About Scott

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On Oct 11, 12:33*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:



On Oct 9, 8:15*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article


I forgot to answer this part earlier:
It was a piano that ended up sounding more like a clavichord because
George Martin composed that interlude and played it on piano, but he
couldn't play it up to speed, so he played it in half time and they
double the tape speed. *Anyway, this is interesting. *Compare the
original Beatles recording with LJ's playing. *How different are they? *
So maybe it's not LJ's playing (or arrangement) there that you dislike,
but rather the way the music was written?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi7gDs2GpJA


Overall,
this other guy has a little bluesier feel i like, the timing
seems not as *rigid, it is more fluid to me, he has softer
attacks on the strings and it sounds not so staccato,
the clavichord (as in the original ) solo section
particularly sounds better, although still, I don't
favor the arrangement keeping it it in the manner it does
(More or less mimicking the original)
this guy losses ot just a lttle at the end of that part, at about 2:10
to 2:12.


Earlier, I think it was about 2:45,, that lttle but of three notes
ringing, well I don't really like it, it sounds trite, but it sounded
much more ovnoxious on the Juber version.


So this guy is not the technical master, but musicality wins out in
the end.
I don't care that he might be "less accurate"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!
the two extras at the endd


I just fired up the recording system and dashed off my version of LJ's
arrangement. *I hope that you like it!http://sn.im/sg2mq-iv5


Thank you for providing that. I truly appreciate it.
I hope that my comments will not prevent you from
posting more of your playing.
First of all, I admire that you went way out of the box
form the original song, and from LJ's arrangement.
I can see that you put a lot of yourself
in it, rather than being a copyist, or someone
who must strive for 'accuracy' to some model
of ideal. I like that a lot.
I respect your playing, but as far a
for my musical enjoyment, ti
didn't hit the spot. But that is a matter of my tastes.
I will also say that in listening I got a sense that you were trying
to
portray your vision of the song, rather tham using
it as an exercise to show off your chops.
So, I would say it was not a self
indulgent ego trip, but something
you feel.


Thanks for your reply. It tells me a great deal about what you consider
to be important in performance. I might post a slightly different
performance of it later today.
  #670   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default A Theory About Scott

On Oct 11, 2:30*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:



On Oct 11, 12:33*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 9, 8:15*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article


I forgot to answer this part earlier:
It was a piano that ended up sounding more like a clavichord because
George Martin composed that interlude and played it on piano, but he
couldn't play it up to speed, so he played it in half time and they
double the tape speed. *Anyway, this is interesting. *Compare the
original Beatles recording with LJ's playing. *How different are they? *
So maybe it's not LJ's playing (or arrangement) there that you dislike,
but rather the way the music was written?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi7gDs2GpJA


Overall,
this other guy has a little bluesier feel i like, the timing
seems not as *rigid, it is more fluid to me, he has softer
attacks on the strings and it sounds not so staccato,
the clavichord (as in the original ) solo section
particularly sounds better, although still, I don't
favor the arrangement keeping it it in the manner it does
(More or less mimicking the original)
this guy losses ot just a lttle at the end of that part, at about 2:10
to 2:12.


Earlier, I think it was about 2:45,, that lttle but of three notes
ringing, well I don't really like it, it sounds trite, but it sounded
much more ovnoxious on the Juber version.


So this guy is not the technical master, but musicality wins out in
the end.
I don't care that he might be "less accurate"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!
the two extras at the endd


I just fired up the recording system and dashed off my version of LJ's
arrangement. *I hope that you like it!http://sn.im/sg2mq-iv5


Thank you for providing that. I truly appreciate it.
I hope that my comments will not prevent you from
posting more of your playing.
First of all, I admire that you went way out of the box
form the original song, and from LJ's arrangement.
I can see that you put a lot of yourself
in it, rather than being a copyist, or someone
who must strive for 'accuracy' to some *model
of ideal. I like that a lot.
I respect your playing, but as far a
for my musical enjoyment, ti
didn't hit the spot. But that is a matter of my tastes.
I will also say that in listening I got a sense that you were trying
to
portray your vision of the song, rather tham using
it as an exercise to show off your chops.
So, I would say it was not a self
indulgent ego trip, but something
you feel.


Thanks for your reply. *It tells me a great deal about what you consider
to be important in performance. *I might post a slightly different
performance of it later today.


Let me hear it after you dumb it down
for the musically uneducated like me, who just want to hear
a sweet tune in its pure simplicity, with TLC


  #671   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default A Theory About Scott

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On Oct 11, 2:30*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:



On Oct 11, 12:33*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


On Oct 9, 8:15*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article


I forgot to answer this part earlier:
It was a piano that ended up sounding more like a clavichord
because
George Martin composed that interlude and played it on piano, but
he
couldn't play it up to speed, so he played it in half time and they
double the tape speed. *Anyway, this is interesting. *Compare the
original Beatles recording with LJ's playing. *How different are
they? *
So maybe it's not LJ's playing (or arrangement) there that you
dislike,
but rather the way the music was written?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi7gDs2GpJA


Overall,
this other guy has a little bluesier feel i like, the timing
seems not as *rigid, it is more fluid to me, he has softer
attacks on the strings and it sounds not so staccato,
the clavichord (as in the original ) solo section
particularly sounds better, although still, I don't
favor the arrangement keeping it it in the manner it does
(More or less mimicking the original)
this guy losses ot just a lttle at the end of that part, at about
2:10
to 2:12.


Earlier, I think it was about 2:45,, that lttle but of three notes
ringing, well I don't really like it, it sounds trite, but it sounded
much more ovnoxious on the Juber version.


So this guy is not the technical master, but musicality wins out in
the end.
I don't care that he might be "less accurate"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!
the two extras at the endd


I just fired up the recording system and dashed off my version of LJ's
arrangement. *I hope that you like it!http://sn.im/sg2mq-iv5


Thank you for providing that. I truly appreciate it.
I hope that my comments will not prevent you from
posting more of your playing.
First of all, I admire that you went way out of the box
form the original song, and from LJ's arrangement.
I can see that you put a lot of yourself
in it, rather than being a copyist, or someone
who must strive for 'accuracy' to some *model
of ideal. I like that a lot.
I respect your playing, but as far a
for my musical enjoyment, ti
didn't hit the spot. But that is a matter of my tastes.
I will also say that in listening I got a sense that you were trying
to
portray your vision of the song, rather tham using
it as an exercise to show off your chops.
So, I would say it was not a self
indulgent ego trip, but something
you feel.


Thanks for your reply. *It tells me a great deal about what you consider
to be important in performance. *I might post a slightly different
performance of it later today.


Let me hear it after you dumb it down
for the musically uneducated like me, who just want to hear
a sweet tune in its pure simplicity, with TLC


Oh, it won't be "dumbed down", just a little different.
  #672   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,415
Default A Theory About Scott

On Oct 11, 11:21*pm, Jenn wrote:

Oh, it won't be "dumbed down", just a little different.


Therefore Clyde won't like it.
  #673   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
James Smith James Smith is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default A Theory About Scott

"Jenn" wrote :

I just fired up the recording system and dashed off my version of LJ's
arrangement. I hope that you like it!http://sn.im/sg2mq-iv5


Tune your ****ing guitar, for **** sake.

Amateurs!


--


Jim Smith



  #674   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default A Theory About Scott

In article ,
"James Smith" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote :

I just fired up the recording system and dashed off my version of LJ's
arrangement. I hope that you like it!http://sn.im/sg2mq-iv5


Tune your ****ing guitar, for **** sake.

Amateurs!


It was perfectly in tune.
  #675   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
James Smith James Smith is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default A Theory About Scott

"Jenn" wrote :

I just fired up the recording system and dashed off my version of
LJ's
arrangement. I hope that you like it!http://sn.im/sg2mq-iv5


Tune your ****ing guitar, for **** sake.

Amateurs!


It was perfectly in tune.


You have wax in your ears. Possibly turds.


--


Jim Smith





  #676   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default A Theory About Scott

In article ,
"James Smith" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote :

I just fired up the recording system and dashed off my version of
LJ's
arrangement. I hope that you like it!http://sn.im/sg2mq-iv5

Tune your ****ing guitar, for **** sake.

Amateurs!


It was perfectly in tune.


You have wax in your ears. Possibly turds.


Nope, the instrument was perfectly in tune. Check it, if you know how.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
the rustbucket theory [email protected] Car Audio 3 April 11th 09 11:18 PM
NAT: B-S Theory MiNe 109 Audio Opinions 0 March 7th 09 11:14 PM
Forum for mic theory? David Satz Pro Audio 2 September 7th 04 01:32 AM
Forum for mic theory? David Satz Pro Audio 0 September 6th 04 07:35 PM
Sampling Theory dan lavry Pro Audio 74 June 7th 04 11:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:14 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"