Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#641
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A Theory About Scott
No
|
#653
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A Theory About Scott
In article
, Clyde Slick wrote: No No what? |
#654
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A Theory About Scott
Jenn said: No No what? No, we have some bananas. |
#655
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
the rustbucket theory | Car Audio | |||
NAT: B-S Theory | Audio Opinions | |||
Forum for mic theory? | Pro Audio | |||
Forum for mic theory? | Pro Audio | |||
Sampling Theory | Pro Audio |