RIP Pavarotti (warning: music and LP content) [Archive]

Jenn

September 6th 07, 06:35 PM

In article . com>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 6, 10:13 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article om>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 6, 9:42 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article . com>,
> >
> > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 6, 9:20 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > A great, great artist. Not my favorite tenor of all time, but
> > > > > > undeniably great.
> >
> > > > > Since opera is not undeniably great, can an opera singer be undeniably
> > > > > great?
> >
> > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > Yes
> >
> > > Pavarotti aside, the idea that anyone can declare someone undeniably
> > > great is more than a bit arrogant IMO.
> >
> > Yes, I'm sure.
> >
> > So was Babe Ruth and (sic) undeniably great home run hitter?
>
> No, he was fat man who faced relatively poor pitching
> by todays (sic) standard.
> Barry is not undeniably great either.
> Claims of undeniability on a subjective matter is to claim
> supremacy of opinion.
>
> ScottW

I see. Well, thanks for your opinion. I believe that there are
undeniably great performers, events, etc.

Jenn

September 6th 07, 06:42 PM

In article m>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 6, 10:35 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 6, 10:13 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article om>,
> >
> > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 6, 9:42 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article . com>,
> >
> > > > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 6, 9:20 am, Jenn >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > A great, great artist. Not my favorite tenor of all time, but
> > > > > > > > undeniably great.
> >
> > > > > > > Since opera is not undeniably great, can an opera singer be
> > > > > > > undeniably
> > > > > > > great?
> >
> > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > Yes
> >
> > > > > Pavarotti aside, the idea that anyone can declare someone undeniably
> > > > > great is more than a bit arrogant IMO.
> >
> > > > Yes, I'm sure.
> >
> > > > So was Babe Ruth and (sic) undeniably great home run hitter?
> >
> > > No, he was fat man who faced relatively poor pitching
> > > by todays (sic) standard.
> > > Barry is not undeniably great either.
> > > Claims of undeniability on a subjective matter is to claim
> > > supremacy of opinion.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > I see. Well, thanks for your opinion. I believe that there are
> > undeniably great performers, events, etc.
>
> And you get to select them? How arrogant!
>
> ScottW

Feel free to look up the definitions of "great".

And yes, we ALL get to select them. Most of us feel that the fall of
Hitler was a great event, for example. Pavarotti's ability to sing in
tune, with amazing technique, range, and expressivity is widely
considered to be "great" whether you like the music he sang or not.

Bill Riel

September 6th 07, 06:53 PM

In article . com>,
says...
> On Sep 6, 9:20 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > A great, great artist. Not my favorite tenor of all time, but
> > undeniably great.
>
> Since opera is not undeniably great, can an opera singer be undeniably
> great?

So, what are you saying - are you denying that Pavarotti was a great
tenor?

--
Bill

Jenn

September 6th 07, 06:57 PM

In article . com>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 6, 10:42 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article m>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 6, 10:35 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article . com>,
> >
> > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 6, 10:13 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article om>,
> >
> > > > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 6, 9:42 am, Jenn >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > . com>,
> >
> > > > > > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sep 6, 9:20 am, Jenn >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > A great, great artist. Not my favorite tenor of all time,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > undeniably great.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Since opera is not undeniably great, can an opera singer be
> > > > > > > > > undeniably
> > > > > > > > > great?
> >
> > > > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > > > Yes
> >
> > > > > > > Pavarotti aside, the idea that anyone can declare someone
> > > > > > > undeniably
> > > > > > > great is more than a bit arrogant IMO.
> >
> > > > > > Yes, I'm sure.
> >
> > > > > > So was Babe Ruth and (sic) undeniably great home run hitter?
> >
> > > > > No, he was fat man who faced relatively poor pitching
> > > > > by todays (sic) standard.
> > > > > Barry is not undeniably great either.
> > > > > Claims of undeniability on a subjective matter is to claim
> > > > > supremacy of opinion.
> >
> > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > I see. Well, thanks for your opinion. I believe that there are
> > > > undeniably great performers, events, etc.
> >
> > > And you get to select them? How arrogant!
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > Feel free to look up the definitions of "great".
>
> I guess he was "notably large in size".
>
> >
> > And yes, we ALL get to select them.
>
> Don't spin. I grant your right to believe he's great.
> I object to your claim through undeniability that
> a differing opinion has no merit.
>
> > Most of us feel that the fall of
> > Hitler was a great event, for example.
>
> Brett challenges the undeniability of that.
>
> > Pavarotti's ability to sing in
> > tune, with amazing technique, range, and expressivity is widely
> > considered to be "great" whether you like the music he sang or not.
>
> Widely considered is very different from undeniable.
> You're drifting.
>
> ScottW

Whatever. OK, from now on it's "undeniably great for a wide part of the
populace in both subjective and objective aspects of his art."

George M. Middius

September 6th 07, 07:24 PM

Terrierdork howls in anguish.

> Pavarotti aside, the idea that anyone can declare someone undeniably
> great is more than a bit arrogant IMO.

Yet another word Witlessmongrel doesn't comprehend -- "opinion".

George M. Middius

September 6th 07, 07:26 PM

Bill Riel said to Witlessmongrel:

> > Since opera is not undeniably great, can an opera singer be undeniably
> > great?

> So, what are you saying - are you denying that Pavarotti was a great
> tenor?

Scottie is always the last dog to realize the mailman has left his block.

George M. Middius

September 6th 07, 07:40 PM

Witlessmongrel has a different "opinion".

> > > > A great, great artist. Not my favorite tenor of all time, but
> > > > undeniably great.

> I am denying that it is undeniable.

According to ScottieLogic, all opinions are of equal value. Education,
talent, proficiency, and knowledge are all irrelevant. In a democracy, the
vote of a stupid person cancels out the vote of the best-informed, most
erudite mavens and experts. Scottie "denies" that Pavarottie was great, and
thus it is "proven" that he was not great.

vlad

September 6th 07, 07:54 PM

On Sep 6, 9:57 am, Jenn > wrote:
> In article . com>,
>
>
>
> ScottW > wrote:
> > On Sep 6, 10:42 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article m>,
>
> > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 6, 10:35 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > In article . com>,
>
> > > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 6, 10:13 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > In article om>,
>
> > > > > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sep 6, 9:42 am, Jenn >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > . com>,
>
> > > > > > > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sep 6, 9:20 am, Jenn >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > A great, great artist. Not my favorite tenor of all time,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > undeniably great.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Since opera is not undeniably great, can an opera singer be
> > > > > > > > > > undeniably
> > > > > > > > > > great?
>
> > > > > > > > > > ScottW
>
> > > > > > > > > Yes
>
> > > > > > > > Pavarotti aside, the idea that anyone can declare someone
> > > > > > > > undeniably
> > > > > > > > great is more than a bit arrogant IMO.
>
> > > > > > > Yes, I'm sure.
>
> > > > > > > So was Babe Ruth and (sic) undeniably great home run hitter?
>
> > > > > > No, he was fat man who faced relatively poor pitching
> > > > > > by todays (sic) standard.
> > > > > > Barry is not undeniably great either.
> > > > > > Claims of undeniability on a subjective matter is to claim
> > > > > > supremacy of opinion.
>
> > > > > > ScottW
>
> > > > > I see. Well, thanks for your opinion. I believe that there are
> > > > > undeniably great performers, events, etc.
>
> > > > And you get to select them? How arrogant!
>
> > > > ScottW
>
> > > Feel free to look up the definitions of "great".
>
> > I guess he was "notably large in size".
>
> > > And yes, we ALL get to select them.
>
> > Don't spin. I grant your right to believe he's great.
> > I object to your claim through undeniability that
> > a differing opinion has no merit.
>
> > > Most of us feel that the fall of
> > > Hitler was a great event, for example.
>
> > Brett challenges the undeniability of that.
>
> > > Pavarotti's ability to sing in
> > > tune, with amazing technique, range, and expressivity is widely
> > > considered to be "great" whether you like the music he sang or not.
>
> > Widely considered is very different from undeniable.
> > You're drifting.
>
> > ScottW
>
> Whatever. OK, from now on it's "undeniably great for a wide part of the
> populace in both subjective and objective aspects of his art."

It is a great loss for the world.

In my opinion he was a real genius, one of the few of our times. Not
only he was a great tenor,
but he was also a great actor - the quality that many superb singers
of today
do not have or neglect.

I'm going to spend quiet evening today watching DVD of "L'Elisir
D'Amore" with him and Judith Blegen.
His recording with Kathleen Battle has better video, but I prefer this
one.

The Vienna State Opera and the Salzburg Festival Hall flew black flags
in mourning.

London's Royal Opera House issued a statement saying,

"He was one of those rare artists who affected the lives of people
across the globe, in all walks of life.
Through his countless broadcasts, recordings and concerts, he
introduced the extraordinary power of opera
to people who perhaps would never have encountered opera and classical
singing.
In doing so, he enriched their lives. That will be his legacy."

vova

Arny Krueger

September 6th 07, 08:49 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Sep 6, 10:13 am, Jenn > wrote:
>> In article om>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ScottW > wrote:
>> > On Sep 6, 9:42 am, Jenn > wrote:
>> > > In article . com>,
>>
>> > > ScottW > wrote:
>> > > > On Sep 6, 9:20 am, Jenn > wrote:
>> > > > > A great, great artist. Not my favorite tenor of all time, but
>> > > > > undeniably great.
>>
>> > > > Since opera is not undeniably great, can an opera singer be
>> > > > undeniably
>> > > > great?
>>
>> > > > ScottW
>>
>> > > Yes
>>
>> > Pavarotti aside, the idea that anyone can declare someone undeniably
>> > great is more than a bit arrogant IMO.

Agreed, if someone is really serious about it. OTOH, the phrase "undeniably
great" is often hype, and not intended as a statement of generally agreed
upon fact.

>> So was Babe Ruth and (sic) undeniably great home run hitter?

> No, he was fat man who faced relatively poor pitching
> by todays standard.

That may be true. But in his day, for his day...

> Barry is not undeniably great either.

> Claims of undeniability on a subjective matter is to claim
> supremacy of opinion.

A common failing of your correspondent, Scott. She's a world-class
authority in her own eyes.

George M. Middius

September 6th 07, 09:04 PM

MiNe 109 said:

> > Pavarotti aside, the idea that anyone can declare someone undeniably
> > great is more than a bit arrogant IMO.

> All you have to do is stomp your little feet and deny it. Ta-da! You win!

Typical of dunderheaded Scottie to pick a fight over an issue he doesn't
care about. "Opera is for pussies," says Witlessmongrel.

Jenn

September 6th 07, 10:21 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > On Sep 6, 10:13 am, Jenn > wrote:
> >> In article om>,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ScottW > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 6, 9:42 am, Jenn > wrote:
> >> > > In article . com>,
> >>
> >> > > ScottW > wrote:
> >> > > > On Sep 6, 9:20 am, Jenn > wrote:
> >> > > > > A great, great artist. Not my favorite tenor of all time, but
> >> > > > > undeniably great.
> >>
> >> > > > Since opera is not undeniably great, can an opera singer be
> >> > > > undeniably
> >> > > > great?
> >>
> >> > > > ScottW
> >>
> >> > > Yes
> >>
> >> > Pavarotti aside, the idea that anyone can declare someone undeniably
> >> > great is more than a bit arrogant IMO.
>
> Agreed, if someone is really serious about it. OTOH, the phrase "undeniably
> great" is often hype, and not intended as a statement of generally agreed
> upon fact.
>
> >> So was Babe Ruth and (sic) undeniably great home run hitter?
>
> > No, he was fat man who faced relatively poor pitching
> > by todays standard.
>
> That may be true. But in his day, for his day...
>
> > Barry is not undeniably great either.
>
> > Claims of undeniability on a subjective matter is to claim
> > supremacy of opinion.
>
> A common failing of your correspondent, Scott. She's a world-class
> authority in her own eyes.

My God, what are the chances? Two of the most intelligent people on
Usenet agreeing about little 'ol me. Arny, you should take your newest
straw man and place it in some cavity or another.

Jenn

September 6th 07, 10:26 PM

In article
>,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article
>
> et>,
> Jenn > wrote:
>
> > A great, great artist. Not my favorite tenor of all time, but
> > undeniably great.
> >
> > A few of my favorite recordings:
> >
> > London LP ffrr OS 26404 - Highlights from Rigoletto, with Sutherland and
> > Milnes. Wonderful performance, fine sound from London
> >
> > Decca CD O Sole Mio: Neopolitan Songs
> >
> > Decca CD Nessun dorma, Arias and Duets
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VATmgtmR5o4
> >
> > RIP
>
> For me, he was at his best in Tosca. "E lucevan le stelle":
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mX7ugJ5NM8

Yeah, I love his Tosca as well. Less well recorded though, IMO.

>
> Less reverent, but kinda amusing:
>
> http://www.rathergood.com/elephants/
>
> The better you hear Italian, the less funny it is, but I like it
> nonetheless.

LOL
>
> Stephen

Jenn

September 6th 07, 10:27 PM

In article . com>,
vlad > wrote:

> On Sep 6, 9:57 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 6, 10:42 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article m>,
> >
> > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 6, 10:35 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article . com>,
> >
> > > > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 6, 10:13 am, Jenn >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > om>,
> >
> > > > > > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sep 6, 9:42 am, Jenn >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > . com>,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 6, 9:20 am, Jenn
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > A great, great artist. Not my favorite tenor of all
> > > > > > > > > > > > time,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > undeniably great.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Since opera is not undeniably great, can an opera singer
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > undeniably
> > > > > > > > > > > great?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes
> >
> > > > > > > > > Pavarotti aside, the idea that anyone can declare someone
> > > > > > > > > undeniably
> > > > > > > > > great is more than a bit arrogant IMO.
> >
> > > > > > > > Yes, I'm sure.
> >
> > > > > > > > So was Babe Ruth and (sic) undeniably great home run hitter?
> >
> > > > > > > No, he was fat man who faced relatively poor pitching
> > > > > > > by todays (sic) standard.
> > > > > > > Barry is not undeniably great either.
> > > > > > > Claims of undeniability on a subjective matter is to claim
> > > > > > > supremacy of opinion.
> >
> > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > I see. Well, thanks for your opinion. I believe that there are
> > > > > > undeniably great performers, events, etc.
> >
> > > > > And you get to select them? How arrogant!
> >
> > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > Feel free to look up the definitions of "great".
> >
> > > I guess he was "notably large in size".
> >
> > > > And yes, we ALL get to select them.
> >
> > > Don't spin. I grant your right to believe he's great.
> > > I object to your claim through undeniability that
> > > a differing opinion has no merit.
> >
> > > > Most of us feel that the fall of
> > > > Hitler was a great event, for example.
> >
> > > Brett challenges the undeniability of that.
> >
> > > > Pavarotti's ability to sing in
> > > > tune, with amazing technique, range, and expressivity is widely
> > > > considered to be "great" whether you like the music he sang or not.
> >
> > > Widely considered is very different from undeniable.
> > > You're drifting.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > Whatever. OK, from now on it's "undeniably great for a wide part of the
> > populace in both subjective and objective aspects of his art."
>
>
> It is a great loss for the world.
>
> In my opinion he was a real genius, one of the few of our times. Not
> only he was a great tenor,
> but he was also a great actor - the quality that many superb singers
> of today
> do not have or neglect.
>
> I'm going to spend quiet evening today watching DVD of "L'Elisir
> D'Amore" with him and Judith Blegen.
> His recording with Kathleen Battle has better video, but I prefer this
> one.
>
>
> The Vienna State Opera and the Salzburg Festival Hall flew black flags
> in mourning.
>
> London's Royal Opera House issued a statement saying,
>
> "He was one of those rare artists who affected the lives of people
> across the globe, in all walks of life.
> Through his countless broadcasts, recordings and concerts, he
> introduced the extraordinary power of opera
> to people who perhaps would never have encountered opera and classical
> singing.
> In doing so, he enriched their lives. That will be his legacy."
>
> vova

Agreed, thanks.

Jenn

September 6th 07, 10:30 PM

In article om>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 6, 10:57 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 6, 10:42 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article m>,
> >
> > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 6, 10:35 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article . com>,
> >
> > > > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 6, 10:13 am, Jenn >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > om>,
> >
> > > > > > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sep 6, 9:42 am, Jenn >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > . com>,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 6, 9:20 am, Jenn
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > A great, great artist. Not my favorite tenor of all
> > > > > > > > > > > > time,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > undeniably great.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Since opera is not undeniably great, can an opera singer
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > undeniably
> > > > > > > > > > > great?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes
> >
> > > > > > > > > Pavarotti aside, the idea that anyone can declare someone
> > > > > > > > > undeniably
> > > > > > > > > great is more than a bit arrogant IMO.
> >
> > > > > > > > Yes, I'm sure.
> >
> > > > > > > > So was Babe Ruth and (sic) undeniably great home run hitter?
> >
> > > > > > > No, he was fat man who faced relatively poor pitching
> > > > > > > by todays (sic) standard.
> > > > > > > Barry is not undeniably great either.
> > > > > > > Claims of undeniability on a subjective matter is to claim
> > > > > > > supremacy of opinion.
> >
> > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > I see. Well, thanks for your opinion. I believe that there are
> > > > > > undeniably great performers, events, etc.
> >
> > > > > And you get to select them? How arrogant!
> >
> > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > Feel free to look up the definitions of "great".
> >
> > > I guess he was "notably large in size".
> >
> > > > And yes, we ALL get to select them.
> >
> > > Don't spin. I grant your right to believe he's great.
> > > I object to your claim through undeniability that
> > > a differing opinion has no merit.
> >
> > > > Most of us feel that the fall of
> > > > Hitler was a great event, for example.
> >
> > > Brett challenges the undeniability of that.
> >
> > > > Pavarotti's ability to sing in
> > > > tune, with amazing technique, range, and expressivity is widely
> > > > considered to be "great" whether you like the music he sang or not.
> >
> > > Widely considered is very different from undeniable.
> > > You're drifting.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > Whatever.
>
> It is undeniable.
>
> > OK, from now on it's "undeniably great for a wide part of the
> > populace
>
> Wanna bet? I doubt that a wide part of the populace gives a crap
> about opera.
> You're just mad that the pedestal you wish to ascend is eroding.

You're right, I'm just wanting to ascend a pedestal. Very clever of you
to notice.

>
> > in both subjective and objective aspects of his art."
>
> What are the "objective" aspects of his art?

Before I bother to answer I just wish to know: is this a troll or do
you really not know?

George M. Middius

September 6th 07, 11:12 PM

Jenn said:

> > What are the "objective" aspects of his art?

> Before I bother to answer I just wish to know: is this a troll or do
> you really not know?

It's well known that the length of his beard is a subjective matter.

dizzy

September 6th 07, 11:44 PM

ScottW wrote:

>> So was Babe Ruth and (sic) undeniably great home run hitter?
>
> No, he was fat man who faced relatively poor pitching
>by todays standard.

All athletes were "relatively poor" by today's standards, including
hitters.

Athletes should be judged by what humans were like at that time, not
what they are like today.

Was Jesse Owens not fast?

George M. Middius

September 7th 07, 02:48 AM

Bratzi tries to shake off the stink of the swastika.

> Very few opera buffs and authorities-who are the
> only ones that count-will say he was not a great opera singer.

I can name one "opera authority" who said Pavarotti was not a great singer
-- Pavarotti himself.

Now see if you can teach Terrierdork to fetch one of Krooger's turds.

Clyde Slick

September 7th 07, 09:15 AM

On 6 Sep, 19:42, Jenn > wrote:
> In article . com>,
>
> ScottW > wrote:
> > On Sep 6, 9:20 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > A great, great artist. Not my favorite tenor of all time, but
> > > undeniably great.
>
> > Since opera is not undeniably great, can an opera singer be undeniably
> > great?
>
> > ScottW
>
> Yes

there are even a few gems to be found in hip hop, songs and artists.

Clyde Slick

September 7th 07, 09:16 AM

On 6 Sep, 20:33, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 6, 10:13 am, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article om>,
>
> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 6, 9:42 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article . com>,
>
> > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 6, 9:20 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > A great, great artist. Not my favorite tenor of all time, but
> > > > > > undeniably great.
>
> > > > > Since opera is not undeniably great, can an opera singer be undeniably
> > > > > great?
>
> > > > > ScottW
>
> > > > Yes
>
> > > Pavarotti aside, the idea that anyone can declare someone undeniably
> > > great is more than a bit arrogant IMO.
>
> > Yes, I'm sure.
>
> > So was Babe Ruth and (sic) undeniably great home run hitter?
>
> No, he was fat man who faced relatively poor pitching
> by todays standard.
> Barry is not undeniably great either.
> Claims of undeniability on a subjective matter is to claim
> supremacy of opinion.
>
> ScottW

no other 'fat man' of his era even came close.
much less any 'fit man'.

Clyde Slick

September 7th 07, 09:21 AM

On 6 Sep, 21:26, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:

>
> Scottie is always the last dog to realize the mailman has left his block.

LOL!!!!

make no mistake about it, Scott is my friend, and i like him a lot,
but, that was a
really witty line, George, even though i disagree with it.

Clyde Slick

September 7th 07, 09:22 AM

On 6 Sep, 21:36, ScottW > wrote:

> I am denying that it is undeniable.

and your denial is undeniable

Arny Krueger

September 7th 07, 12:24 PM

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Sep 6, 2:49 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 6, 10:13 am, Jenn > wrote:
>> >> In article om>,
>>
>> >> ScottW > wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 6, 9:42 am, Jenn > wrote:
>> >> > > In article
>> >> > > . com>,
>>
>> >> > > ScottW > wrote:
>> >> > > > On Sep 6, 9:20 am, Jenn >
>> >> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > A great, great artist. Not my favorite tenor of all time, but
>> >> > > > > undeniably great.
>>
>> >> > > > Since opera is not undeniably great, can an opera singer be
>> >> > > > undeniably
>> >> > > > great?
>>
>> >> > > > ScottW
>>
>> >> > > Yes
>>
>> >> > Pavarotti aside, the idea that anyone can declare someone undeniably
>> >> > great is more than a bit arrogant IMO.
>>
>> Agreed, if someone is really serious about it. OTOH, the phrase
>> "undeniably
>> great" is often hype, and not intended as a statement of generally agreed
>> upon fact.
>
> Oh, there certainly those who are "undeniably great" in the sense
> it's undeniable a great number of knowledgeable people think they are
> significant and of the highest caliber. Always there are people who
> will prefer someone to someone else. But it's certain that Wayne
> Gretzky and Gordie Howe were great hockey players, that Alan
> Blumlein and Edwin Armstrong were great electronic engineers, that
> John von Neumann was a great computer scientist, etc. In that sense
> it's undeniable.
>
>>
>> >> So was Babe Ruth and (sic) undeniably great home run hitter?
>> > No, he was fat man who faced relatively poor pitching
>> > by todays standard.
>>
>> That may be true. But in his day, for his day...
>>
>> > Barry is not undeniably great either.
>> > Claims of undeniability on a subjective matter is to claim
>> > supremacy of opinion.
>>
>> A common failing of your correspondent, Scott. She's a world-class
>> authority in her own eyes.
>
> Pot. Kettle. Kroo.

You need to get out more, Bret. Get out more and find out what world-class
authorities are *really* like.

Clyde Slick

September 7th 07, 03:58 PM

On 7 Sep, 14:24, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 6, 2:49 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> >> > On Sep 6, 10:13 am, Jenn > wrote:
> >> >> In article om>,
>
> >> >> ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> > On Sep 6, 9:42 am, Jenn > wrote:
> >> >> > > In article
> >> >> > > . com>,
>
> >> >> > > ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> > > > On Sep 6, 9:20 am, Jenn >
> >> >> > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > A great, great artist. Not my favorite tenor of all time, but
> >> >> > > > > undeniably great.
>
> >> >> > > > Since opera is not undeniably great, can an opera singer be
> >> >> > > > undeniably
> >> >> > > > great?
>
> >> >> > > > ScottW
>
> >> >> > > Yes
>
> >> >> > Pavarotti aside, the idea that anyone can declare someone undeniably
> >> >> > great is more than a bit arrogant IMO.
>
> >> Agreed, if someone is really serious about it. OTOH, the phrase
> >> "undeniably
> >> great" is often hype, and not intended as a statement of generally agreed
> >> upon fact.
>
> > Oh, there certainly those who are "undeniably great" in the sense
> > it's undeniable a great number of knowledgeable people think they are
> > significant and of the highest caliber. Always there are people who
> > will prefer someone to someone else. But it's certain that Wayne
> > Gretzky and Gordie Howe were great hockey players, that Alan
> > Blumlein and Edwin Armstrong were great electronic engineers, that
> > John von Neumann was a great computer scientist, etc. In that sense
> > it's undeniable.
>
> >> >> So was Babe Ruth and (sic) undeniably great home run hitter?
> >> > No, he was fat man who faced relatively poor pitching
> >> > by todays standard.
>
> >> That may be true. But in his day, for his day...
>
> >> > Barry is not undeniably great either.
> >> > Claims of undeniability on a subjective matter is to claim
> >> > supremacy of opinion.
>
> >> A common failing of your correspondent, Scott. She's a world-class
> >> authority in her own eyes.
>
> > Pot. Kettle. Kroo.
>
> You need to get out more, Bret. Get out more and find out what world-class
> authorities are *really* like.

You can tell them apart by the brown stains at the rear of their
pants.

Jenn

September 7th 07, 09:01 PM

In article . com>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 6, 2:30 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > in both subjective and objective aspects of his art."
> >
> > > What are the "objective" aspects of his art?
> >
> > Before I bother to answer I just wish to know: is this a troll or do
> > you really not know?
>
> No troll. I'm curious how art is objectively evaluated.
>
> ScottW

Many aspects of technique are measurable objectively. Pitch accuracy,
volume, length of phrase, for example.

Jenn

September 7th 07, 09:40 PM

In article . com>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 7, 1:01 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 6, 2:30 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > in both subjective and objective aspects of his art."
> >
> > > > > What are the "objective" aspects of his art?
> >
> > > > Before I bother to answer I just wish to know: is this a troll or do
> > > > you really not know?
> >
> > > No troll. I'm curious how art is objectively evaluated.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > Many aspects of technique are measurable objectively. Pitch accuracy,
> > volume, length of phrase, for example.
>
> Has it ever been done?

Sure. One can take samples of recordings from, say, Audacity, and see
how close pitch is matched. Or once can consult someone with really
really good pitch sense. One can also time length of phrases and volume
in the normal ways.

> I found an interesting brief discussion here
> of a method of analysis of singers voice including an example of
> Paverotti, but I find no reference indicating that an objective
> analysis has ever been done that statistically shows Pavsrottis voice
> is exceptional.
> Can you point to such a reference?

Don't know if they are available on the web. I see such things in
scholarly books and journals, but I'll look around.

George M. Middius

September 8th 07, 02:59 AM

Clyde Slick said:

> > Scottie is always the last dog to realize the mailman has left his block.

> make no mistake about it, Scott is my friend, and i like him a lot,

I can't believe you admit such a thing in public.

Clyde Slick

September 8th 07, 04:31 PM

On 8 Sep, 04:59, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > Scottie is always the last dog to realize the mailman has left his block.
> > make no mistake about it, Scott is my friend, and i like him a lot,
>
> I can't believe you admit such a thing in public.

i can't speak for Boon, but i would imagine he would say the same
thing as I.
difference is, we both know Scott personally, and you don't.

George M. Middius

September 8th 07, 06:08 PM

Clyde Slick said:

> > > > Scottie is always the last dog to realize the mailman has left his block.
> > > make no mistake about it, Scott is my friend, and i like him a lot,

> > I can't believe you admit such a thing in public.

> difference is, we both know Scott personally, and you don't.

If he's so sweet in person, why is he such a schmuck on Usenet? Don't tell
us he's jealous of all the "attention" Krooger gets.

Clyde Slick

September 8th 07, 06:50 PM

On 8 Sep, 20:08, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > Scottie is always the last dog to realize the mailman has left his block.
> > > > make no mistake about it, Scott is my friend, and i like him a lot,
> > > I can't believe you admit such a thing in public.
> > difference is, we both know Scott personally, and you don't.
>
> If he's so sweet in person, why is he such a schmuck on Usenet? Don't tell
> us he's jealous of all the "attention" Krooger gets.

If jealous of anyone, it would be JA.
Scott is a subjectivist, he thinks its alright for
hobbyists like him, but he thinks that reviewers
need to be objectivists.
I don't understand why he holds reviewers to a LOWER standard.

George M. Middius

September 8th 07, 09:02 PM

Clyde Slick said:

> > > > > > Scottie is always the last dog to realize the mailman has left his block.

> > > > > make no mistake about it, Scott is my friend, and i like him a lot,

> > > > I can't believe you admit such a thing in public.

> > > difference is, we both know Scott personally, and you don't.

> > If he's so sweet in person, why is he such a schmuck on Usenet? Don't tell
> > us he's jealous of all the "attention" Krooger gets.

> If jealous of anyone, it would be JA.
> Scott is a subjectivist, he thinks its alright for
> hobbyists like him, but he thinks that reviewers
> need to be objectivists.
> I don't understand why he holds reviewers to a LOWER standard.

I'm not going to try to parse that.

Why is he such a schmuck on Usenet?

George M. Middius

September 8th 07, 10:04 PM

Witless lied:

> > If he's so sweet in person, why is he such a schmuck on Usenet?

> I am a cordial hospitable person.

You're a petulant, neurotic, tiny-minded baby. Ask anybody.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 9th 07, 12:40 AM

On Sep 6, 12:53 pm, ScottW > wrote:

> Widely considered is very different from undeniable.
> You're drifting.

You're an imbecile.

So where does that leave us?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 9th 07, 12:43 AM

On Sep 8, 2:35 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in messagenews:5nl5e35eugvunv5t41iaahtechd9evu3nd@4ax .com...
>
>
>
> > Clyde Slick said:
>
> >> > > > Scottie is always the last dog to realize the mailman has left his
> >> > > > block.
> >> > > make no mistake about it, Scott is my friend, and i like him a lot,
>
> >> > I can't believe you admit such a thing in public.
>
> >> difference is, we both know Scott personally, and you don't.
>
> > If he's so sweet in person, why is he such a schmuck on Usenet?
>
> I am a cordial hospitable person. But I don't have to always agree
> with my friends to remain friends.
> For instance, Art and I don't agree at all on an acceptable noise
> floor of tube preamps :). Boon and I aren't going to agree on the Shunyata
> or even using subwoofers.
> But I always have fun visiting his place checking out the awesome
> variety of gear he has and I hope he and Art had fun
> visiting mine. Too bad both moved away but that's life.

So both met you and moved away.

Does this not tell you something?

<using 2pid 'logic' here...>

George M. Middius

September 9th 07, 12:45 AM

Shhhh! said:

> > Widely considered is very different from undeniable.
> > You're drifting.

> You're an imbecile.

Scottie needs a clear and unambiguous definition of imbecile so that he can
argue it's "very different" from retard.

> So where does that leave us?

We Normals are looking down toward the bottom of the gene pool. Scottie is
looking up for some encouragement from Krooger.

Sander deWaal

September 9th 07, 11:03 AM

"ScottW" > said:

>Atkinson ****ed me off as he intentionally misrepresented
>what I've said in Sanderlike leftist nutterism.

???

--

- Maggies are an addiction for life. -

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 9th 07, 07:23 PM

On Sep 8, 2:49 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:

> I simply think a reviewer who subjects himself to little objective validation
> would be helpful to sorting the signal from the noise.
>
> One of these days I'll embark on a quest for the last speaker
> I'll ever own. Sadly, I'm not looking forward to the smoke
> inhalation I'll have to endure.

That's because you're an imbecile.

Objective reviews of speakers are nearly worthless. What sounds great
in one room may sound like crap in another.

Don't you trust your ears, 2pid? I wouldn't either, if I was you. The
processor they're connected to isn't functioning very well.

Arny Krueger

September 9th 07, 09:40 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...

>
> Objective reviews of speakers are nearly worthless. What sounds great
> in one room may sound like crap in another.

If you had two active brain cells 2 rub 2gther 2pid**2, you'd know that
makes all subjective reviews at least as invalid.

Jenn

September 10th 07, 04:34 AM

In article . com>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 7, 1:40 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 7, 1:01 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article . com>,
> >
> > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 6, 2:30 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > in both subjective and objective aspects of his art."
> >
> > > > > > > What are the "objective" aspects of his art?
> >
> > > > > > Before I bother to answer I just wish to know: is this a troll or
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > you really not know?
> >
> > > > > No troll. I'm curious how art is objectively evaluated.
> >
> > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > Many aspects of technique are measurable objectively. Pitch accuracy,
> > > > volume, length of phrase, for example.
> >
> > > Has it ever been done?
> >
> > Sure. One can take samples of recordings from, say, Audacity, and see
> > how close pitch is matched.
>
> A little more complicated than that according this.
> (sorry if I forgot the link the first time)
>
> http://www.med.rug.nl/pas/Conf_contrib/Miller/Miller-3tekstenmetaudioenbmp-voo
> r-PAS/for%20PAS%20oral/millesoral.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/29o4jk
>
> > Or once can consult someone with really
> > really good pitch sense. One can also time length of phrases and volume
> > in the normal ways.
> >
> > > I found an interesting brief discussion here
> > > of a method of analysis of singers voice including an example of
> > > Paverotti, but I find no reference indicating that an objective
> > > analysis has ever been done that statistically shows Pavsrottis voice
> > > is exceptional.
> > > Can you point to such a reference?
> >
> > Don't know if they are available on the web. I see such things in
> > scholarly books and journals, but I'll look around.
>
> I see the measurements in the above voice characterization aren't
> easily quantified making statistical comparisons more difficult.
> As different singers have different harmonic amplitude of the same
> fundamental, it makes objective comparison difficult.

It does make objective comparisons difficult, to be sure. And of
course, the debate about the quality of voices (or any other musical
sound) is largely subjective; no argument from me there. Still, there
ARE objective criteria, as I mentioned above.
>
> ScottW
>
> - Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 10th 07, 05:04 AM

On Sep 9, 3:40 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...

> > Objective reviews of speakers are nearly worthless. What sounds great
> > in one room may sound like crap in another.
>
> If you had two active brain cells 2 rub 2gther 2pid**2, you'd know that
> makes all subjective reviews at least as invalid.

Not at all. Things like "I had to do this to get them to perform
properly in my room" or "The fit and finish was substandard at this
level..." and so on can be helpful. With objective measurements in
this arena, you'd have to have a huge speaker database for that
particular room for it to mean anything relevant. Readings from a
chamber are not realistic. So subjective reviews would be more helpful
to me than onjective measurements.

However, I do not use reviews to base decisions on for most of my
purchases as you apparently do, so I don't particularly care about
your brain cell comment. It's just more insane babbling from The
Master.

Further, good old insane Arns, as I've said many times before, I'm
actually in your camp regarding the differences between wires, cables,
or most electronics. We simply disagree on how hard we should shove
those beliefs down someone else's throat. But we're not talking about
that, are we.

Speakers are where the biggest potential sound differences are, and
room interaction is one of the biggest variables with speakers. So
even if the speaker measures DC to daylight +/- 1 dB in a chamber or
in another room, it doesn't really tell you squat about how they'll
sound in your room, now does it.

Or did you mean something else?